Bishop Theophilus of Râmnic, a distinguished hierarch of the Church of Vâlcea (I)

: “profesoul” (p. 57, probably “profesorul”); “Râmniculului” (pp. 63, 68, probably “Râmnicului”); “din diavan” (p. 66, probably “din divan”); ‘au s-au adunat’ (p. 66, a typo, probably ‘s-au adunat’); ‘Efem’ (p. 68, probably ‘Efrem’); ‘20 apriliei’ (p. 67, probably ‘20 April’). - Transcriber’s editorial marks retained: [...] for omissions; 163<4> (714<2>) for reconstructed figures (note 55). - On pages 55, 63 and 70, decorative elements/vignettes appear (frontispiece, floral border, coloured vignette); these are NOT incorporated into the text. -->

This year, declared by the Romanian Patriarchate as the Commemorative Year of Unity in Faith and Nation and the Commemorative Year of the Architects of the Great Union of 1918, represents for us, us today, a privilege to reflect upon one of the eminent hierarchs of our ancestral Church, to whom we owe the credit of having distinguished himself amongst the foremost founders of ancient Romanian culture. We are referring to Bishop Teofil II of Râmnic, ‘a leading figure of Romanian Orthodox monasticism’1 who worthily shepherded the diocese on the right bank of the Olt, and subsequently the Metropolis of Wallachia, advocating for the introduction of the Romanian language into church services, much like other great contemporary hierarchs, such as Varlaam of Moldavia and Simion Ștefan of Transylvania. On the occasion of this commemoration, we take the liberty of dedicating a few pages to him, in which we outline his complex personality, life and work, devoted to the nation and the faith, in a century in which the consciousness of national unity was taking shape, particularly following the first union of the three Romanian principalities under a single sceptre. We welcome this initiative, as this period also marks the 370th anniversary of his passing.

2 was of Romanian descent, probably born in Oltenia, at the end of the 16th century 3, the future hierarch was a contemporary of the priest Teofil Rudeanu of Cozia Monastery, a fact which has led historiography to erroneously claim that he belonged to the Rudeanu boyar family. Although we do not know his surname4, he undoubtedly showed a penchant for spiritual matters from childhood, having been taken in as a novice at Bistrița Monastery, in Vâlcea County, the marvellous foundation of the boyar Barbu Craiovescu, where so many monks from Oltenia have lived over the years. Under the guidance of Abbot Veniamin, he learnt all the customs of monastic life there, through prayer, fasting and many ascetic practices, whilst having the opportunity to read the vast collection of books found in the monastery’s library. Thus,5 grew up ‘with a love of the Romanian language and literature’, acquiring a vast store of knowledge that would serve him well as he rose to the rank of ‘6’.

Highly regarded by Bishop Efrem of Râmnic and his fellow monks, he was appointed abbot of Bistrița, governing this monastery from 3 December 1611 to 11 January 1617, when, in fact, a certain Hegumen Teofil was at the head of ‘7’. Some historians maintain that he was already a hegumen in 1609, when he restored the little church of Ovidenia, in the cave of Saint Gregory the Decapolite, where he sheltered the monastery’s treasure, to save it from the soldiers of Prince Gabriel Báthory of Transylvania, who had invaded Wallachia on 29 December 1610 8. In 1611, he also hid the learned Greek Metropolitan Matthew of Mirelo, the abbot of Dealu Monastery 9, from the Hungarians; on his initiative, Matthew wrote the Life and Service of Saint Gregory the Decapolite, in verse, as well as other polemical and historical writings 10. He was to note in his Chronicle: “Fearing the appearance of Gábor Báthory [...] we came to the monastery known as Bistrița, where, finding a very large cave, which the enemies could not enter [...], and within which we found the coffin containing the most holy relics of Gregory Decapolite”. According to his account, the abbot11 was also there, “hiding in the cave out of fear”.

Contemporary sources have preserved several records of his activities as abbot. Thus, we know that on 3 December 1611, Radu Mihnea (1611–1616) confirmed to Bistrița, “to Abbot Theofil the hieromonk and the brothers of this monastery, dominion over the village of Costești, with all its boundaries, income and neighbours who were former chieftains, purchased by Mihail vv. from all the neighbouring landowners in the village: Micle, Voicu, Barbu, Popa and Oprea of Moșoaei, together with their followers, for 42,000 aspri in cash. The neighbours sold of their own free will, and Mihail vv. bequeathed the village to the monastery, for the remembrance of himself and his parents, and for the monastery’s strengthening. When Mihail vv. the village, he was about to leave the country; and being in dire straits and beset by troubles on all sides, and having no money, he bought the village with the pay of some soldiers who were in his service, with their consent, and he stayed for some time with those soldiers at the monastery. The neighbours, who had been local chieftains, asked Mihail the Venerable to exempt them from the land tax and from all other levies; having received the aforementioned grants, the neighbours paid their respects, and Mihail the Second granted the village to the monastery and exempted it from taxes and all levies: buckets, hay, oxen, sheep, pigs, the tithe of bees, and horses for the olca, with a solemn oath. The lord saw the charter of Mihail vv. and that of Radu Șerban vv., confirming the exemption of the village of Costeșii from the tax and all levies, so that it might be a memorial to the lords, beseeching all the lords to renew this act of mercy12.

Another account of him appears in a ‘letter’ from Metropolitan Luca of Wallachia, dated 13 January 1613, in which the hierarch notes that he is writing ‘this letter from the Holy Monastery of Bistrița’ due to a misunderstanding between the abbot Teofil and Pătru and Dobrin of Costești, who claimed they had not received any money from the monastery when the village was sold. However, upon examining the deeds, ‘it was confirmed that the village of Costești had been sold along with all its Romanians, and as Pătru and Dobrin remained subject to the law and the courts,agreed to become subjects of the monastery, just like the other villagers with whom they were sold, for 40,000 aspri. They handed over their deeds of land and property to the monastery, and stipulated that should any hidden deed be discovered, it should not be recognised by any court’13”.

Further information about the abbot of Bistrița is provided by a charter issued on 24 February of the same year, which states that he paid, in the presence of Jupan Panait, in Râmnicu Vâlcea, the sum of 1,000 bani to the villagers Coman and Dobrin, which they were due to receive when Prince Mihai Viteazul (1593–1601) purchased the village of Costești. For this reason, the Grand Steward issued a document to ‘Father Teofil, so that he might know that the village of Costești had been sold to Mihai Vodă’, but when they counted the sum, ‘they were short of 1,000 bani’. By way of illustration, we consider it appropriate to reproduce this document:

‘Panait, the Grand Steward, issues a document to the Bishop of Bistrița and to Theofil the Abbot, certifying that the village of Costești was sold to Mihai vv. for a price of 40,000 aspri, including the entire boundary and all the people; and when the villagers counted the money, they were 1,000 bani short. Now, during the reign of Radu the Younger, two men, Coman and Dobrin, came forward, claiming that the money for their ancestral lands had not been paid in full, and the lord sent them to the villagers to demand that they hand over that thousand bani. When the abbot arrived, with the whole village of Costești in his wake, he judged the matter together with the other boyars and told the priest to give them that thousand coins which had been missing from Mihai vv’s funds. The abbot gave the money to the villagers, and the villagers gave it to the two men, in his presence and that of all the boyars, with the whole village remaining Romanian14”.

Shortly afterwards, also in 1613, Teofil received a visit at the monastery from Radu Mihnea, accompanied by Patriarch Cyril Lucaris of Alexandria, whom he led to the cave, where the relics of Saint Gregory the Decapolite lay, “the pride and shield of the monastery”. According to surviving documents, at his insistence, the voivode ordered a reliquary to be made from cedar wood, ‘durable and costly’, for the safekeeping of the holy relics of15. Artistically crafted, it bears the following inscription engraved on the lid, in Church Slavonic and partly in Romanian, first published by Nicolae Iorga and subsequently corrected by Professor Virgil Cândea: “This reliquary was made by our lord, Io Radu Voivode, son of the late Ioan Mihnea Voivode, when he came to the Holy Monastery of Bistrița, to Saint Gregory the Decapolite, in the Cave. And the honourable and most eminent Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria himself was present. The hieromonk Theophilus, the abbot, undertook the work.” The reliquary is now kept at the Art Museum in Bucharest as an object of great historical value 16.

Another document, issued four years later on 11 January 1617, has provided us with valuable information, from which it appears that Theophilus was still at the head of the monastery in the Bistrița River valley. Now, Alexandru Iliaș (1616–1618) confirms to the holy abbey, ‘to Abbot Theofil and all the brothers, dominion over the village of Costești with all its boundaries, revenues and neighbours, who were chieftains, purchased by Mihail the Elder from all the neighbouring landowners in the village: Miclea and his group, Voicu and his group, Barbu and his group, Popa and his group, and Oprea of Moșa and his group, for 42,000 aspri in full. They sold it of their own free will, and Mihail vv. donated the village to the monastery. When Mihail vv. made the purchase, he was about to leave the country and, being in dire straits and beset by troubles on all sides, and having no money, he bought the village with the soldiers’ pay, with their consent, and they stayed for a while with those soldiers at the monastery. He donated the village to provide for and sustain the monks, and for the remembrance of his reign; he also exempted the neighbours who were local chieftains from taxes on sheep, bees and pigs, as well as on horses, oxen, hay, honey, ewes and all provisions for the year, under a solemn oath. Upon seeing the aforementioned lord’s charter issued by Mihail the Great, Radu Șerban the Great and Radu the Great, he bequeathed the village of Costeșii, with all its produce, for the monastery’s upkeep and for the support, sustenance and remembrance of his reign17”.

He remained at the head of the Oltenian settlement until 1619, when he was elevated to the See of Râmnic, where he served as bishop until 1637. Unfortunately, the exact date of his election as bishop is not known. Having examined the sources of the time, the priest Niculae Șerbănescu notes that a charter granted to Bistrița Monastery by Gavriil Movilă (1618–1620) on 8 January 1619 makes no mention of the abbot’s name; instead, a blank space is left in the text, presumably to be filled in later. As his predecessor at Râmnic, Dionisie, is last mentioned in official documents on 12 June 1617, the well-known ecclesiastical historian concludes that Teofil became bishop between that date and 8 January 1619, most likely in 1618 18.

In Râmnic, he proved himself to be a ‘pious hierarch, a good and enlightened Romanian, and a tireless worker for the advancement of his people’19. Documents first mention him on 12 May 1619, when the voivode sent him to investigate, ‘in accordance with the law’, a dispute between Voica and her husband, Oprea, and Stanciul, the son of Sarchiz of Bojoreni, in which the former were demanding 8,000 aspri or that he grant them free possession of half the estate in Bojoreni, which he had received as a gift from Constandin, the son of Stroe Carouc, with whom he had “become brothers”. Although Stanciul had given him the sum demanded by Voica and her husband—Constandin’s biological mother and stepfather—the prince sent a letter ‘to the honourable and most holy Archbishop Teofil of Râmnic, that he might take note, in all fairness, as he shall discover through his holy spirit, whether Stanciul had indeed given Constandin 8,000 aspri at the time of their brotherhood, or whether he had not”. In support of this entry, we reproduce in full the document drawn up at Târgoviște:

“Gavril Movilă the Elder, son of Simon Movilă the Elder, confirms to Stanciu, son of Sarchiz, and his sons, the ownership of the estate at Bojorani, the portion belonging to Costandin, son of Stroe Caraochea, comprising half the field, the woodland, the water, with two vineyard plots, the vineyard on the hill, the village centre and the entire boundary, the estate inherited by Costandin. In the days of Șerban the Elder, Costandin made Stanciu, son of Sarchiz, his brother, giving him his share of the estate and vineyard—half—whilst Stanciu gave Costandin 8,000 aspri in full. Costandin was left with a further two vineyard plots, which his mother, Voica, and her husband, Oprea, exchanged with Stanciu, receiving from him four vineyard plots on the boyar’s hill. During the time of the aforementioned Mr Voica, Costandin’s mother and her husband, Oprea, lodged a complaint against Stanciu, claiming that Stanciu had not given 8,000 aspri to Costandin, Voica’s son, upon their betrothal, but had kept this estate and vineyard without paying a penny, and that they had not exchanged the two vineyard plots with Stanciu. Having investigated and judged the matter in accordance with justice and the law, together with all the magistrates, the lord issued a charter to Teofil, Bishop of Rîmnic, who confirmed that Stanciu had given the 8,,000 aspri to Costandin and had exchanged the two plots of land belonging to Voica and Oprea with Stanciu; and upon reading Bishop Teofil’s document in the Grand Divan, the Prince granted legal protection to Voica and Oprea”20

Teofil’s presence is also mentioned in a legal case involving Florica, the daughter of Mihai Viteazul, and her husband Preda, on the one hand, and the abbot Ioan of Tismana, on the other, heard on 11 January 1622, in which, alongside Metropolitan Luca, two foreign bishops appear, as well as the bishops of Râmnic and Buzău: ‘namely, my lordship and, together with Brother Mathei, Metropolitan (Mireul) and Bishop Theophilus of Râmnic, Bishop Ephrem of Buzău, and Bishop Joseph of Greveno [...] and we judged the case justly, and I awardedof the year to Predea the soldier and the lords of Florica and their heirs, as many as God may grant them, that those Gypsies of the estate may remain theirs for ever, unshaken and undisputed. And Abbot Ioan and the monks of the monastery remained as witnesses to the law and the judgement before us21".

Equally telling is the document dated 26 June 1622, when Theophilus appeared before the prince and the divan in a legal case between the monks of Cotmeana Monastery and Necula, the Grand Spathar, who was ordered to compensate the holy monastery with a horse and a milking cow 22.

Furthermore, we must not overlook the charter dated September 1622–May 1623, which shows that the bishop witnessed an agreement between the logothete Sima and Preda, son of Oprea, logothete of Șirineasa, regarding his share of the estate in the village of Păușești de Otăsău23. On 20 August 1623, Preda and Udriște confirmed that they had sold to the logofăt Sima “the houses in Păușești, with the farmstead, 9 Romanians, the mills and the vineyard below; and he came to take possession of his purchase, in the presence of Theofil, Bishop of Râmnic, Veniamin, the abbot of Bistrița, and local boyars”24.

Of particular note is the document dated 12 January 1625, written by the ecclesiarch Efrem, whereby Luca, Metropolitan of Wallachia, together with the bishops Theofil of Râmnic, Efrem of Buzău and Iasaf of Dealu, the abbots and the entire synod of Wallachia, dedicate the Cotmeana Monastery with all its villages, neighbours, estates, Gypsies, mills, vineyards and all the income of the Cozia Monastery, because ‘these monasteries were founded and supported by the late Mircea the Great in 1388’25

Contemporary sources show that on 20 April 1625, Voivode Alexandru Coconul (1623–1627) wrote to the boyars who kept sheep in Vâlcea County “that Teofil the abbot had come and said that they had gone to the freeholds on the banks of the Bistrița River, where they had counted the sheep and collected the ‘litre’, ‘bani’, and per sheep, the ban and the plocon, ordering them to return everything they had taken, because he had exempted these settlements, just as they had been exempted by other lords’26”.

Somewhat later, on 9 January 1626, the voivode authorised the monks of Bistrița to move the boundary of their estate from the village of Stroești to the Vâlsănești estate, as it had been before the logothete Tudosie encroached upon it. After his death, Teofil “brought a complaint before my lordship concerning the village of Vâlsănești and the priest Micul regarding this boundary [...] And Abbot Teofil testified, along with many boyars, namely [...] And the village of Vâlsănești remained subject to the law and jurisdiction before my lordship as before...”27]. On 10 April 1626, the voivode ordered the logothete Oprea of Rătivoești and the Bishop of Râmnic to re-establish the boundary of the village of Stroești and to set it ‘where the old, age-old boundary used to be, as recorded in the ancient records, for that boundary had previously been encroached upon by the village of Vâlsănești...”28.

Another eloquent testimony to the character of Bishop Teofil is the document dated 15 April 1626, by which Alexandru Coconul exempts the village of Costești, which belonged to Bistrița Monastery, from all taxes and annual duties, just as Mihail Voivode had done years earlier. He took this decision after having previously ‘consulted with our father, the Archmetropolitan and Bishop Luca of Wallachia, and with all the bishops, Father Bishop Teofil of Râmnic and Father Efrem of Buzău [...] and Father Abbot Teofil of the Holy Monastery of Bistrița’29]. On the same date, the voivode confirmed the exemption from taxes and labour duties for the village of Călimănești, belonging to Cozia Monastery, and among the witnesses are listed “Chir Theophilus, Bishop of Râmnic” and “Father Abbot Theophilus of the Holy Monastery of Bistrița”30. These documents attest to the existence of two successive abbots, both named Teofil, at Bistrița Monastery: ‘Teofil, Bishop of Râmnic’ and ‘Teofil, abbot of Bistrița Monastery’ (1620–1626)31.

Deeply rooted in the realities of the time, the bishop is mentioned in the princely records on 2 April 1627, when the voivode confirmed the Râmnic Diocese’s estate at Plăviceni: “the entire portion belonging to Lady Stanca, comprising fields and forests and water and neighbouring lands and vineyards and the village centre, from all quarters, however much may be chosen”. On this occasion, he “brought forth and presented the charter of the late Lady Stanca, granting this estate in Plăviceni, before my lordship in the Grand Divan and before all the honourable officials of my lordship, in the year 7112”32).

From the contents of another charter, it appears that, on 11 October 1628, Teofil was delegated by the prince to select certain Gypsies belonging to “the logothete Paraschiva and his wife, namely Comna”, and those of Maria, “the wife of Commissioner Anghel”. Following this judgement, the logofet and his wife “agreed and came to terms of their own free will, before my bishopric. I therefore drew up a document for them through my bishopric, so that they might live in peace with one another...”33.

If we turn our attention to the charter dated 23 May 1629, we find that Alexandru Iliaș (1628–1629) exempted the village of Corbii de Piatră, in Muscel County, and Pădureți, which belonged to Argeș Monastery, from taxes and labour duties. This decree was issued with the consent of the community and confirmed by the blessing of the metropolitan and ‘the approval of the much-loved Bishop Theophilus of Râmnic and Bishop Ephrem of Buzău...’34

It should be noted that, in the same year, on 28 November 1629, Patriarch Cyril of Constantinople wrote to the Metropolitan of Wallachia, the bishops and the priests regarding the dispute between Sima the logothete and the relatives of Elisafta, his late wife, over the village of Grozăvești, near Bucharest. Among those recorded as having been present when she bequeathed the village to her husband was ‘Bishop Theophilus of Râmnec, who was acting in place of the late Bishop Luke’35).

Here, too, we consider it appropriate to mention the document dated 7 April 1630, in which Leon Tomșa (1629–1632) determined the method of electing the abbots at Cozia Monastery (from amongst the monks there, and not from outsiders who pay bribes) and their duties, in accordance with “the letters which are regarded as laws, of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremiah II”. The Bishop of Râmnic was also present at this decision, alongside the Metropolitan of the country, as mentioned in the charter written by the learned boyar Udriște Năsturel 36.

To provide further context, it is worth noting that a few days later, on 20 April 1630, the voivode ‘decided, together with our father, the arch-metropolitan, His Grace Grigorie, and with the bishops, His Grace Teofil of Râmnic and His Grace Efrem of Buzău, and with all the abbots and the entire synod, and with all the honourable magistrates’ to exempt the monasteries of the country from taxes, on condition that ‘they pray to God, day and night, without ceasing, for the health of my reign, and that they commemorate my reign and my parents at the Holy, Divine Liturgy’37 is celebrated.

‘The humble Bishop Theofil Râmniceschi’ is then mentioned in a letter dated 2 July 1630, written by his servant Tudor to his nephew Vlad, the Grand Logothete, regarding a dispute that Anghel had with some judges from Cremenari over a village mill. “And we investigated together with the Bishop and Tănasie, the cupbearer, and found that it is indeed a siliște, not a curătură”, as the judges 38 claimed.

On the same day, four boyars, accompanied by the steward Tudor, by Dionisie, the abbot of Cozia, and the monks from Cotmeana, testified that some Romanians from Ciumăgești had become free before Mihai Viteazul, whilst others after. The four sought, together with ‘the honourable Father Bishop Theofil of Râmnic’, to clarify how these Romanians ‘had left the monastery even earlier, in the days of other former rulers’39.

It is also worth noting the charter dated 25 July 1630, by which the steward Dobromir and his wife Maria sold a plot of land in Bereni to the Grand Treasurer Dumitrașco, in the presence of ‘Teofil, Bishop of Râmnic’40.

Of particular interest is the charter dated October 1630, which shows that the Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lucaris, had sanctioned the village of Poieni—which belonged to the Monastery of St George in Bucharest—to pay homage to the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, exempting it from services and taxes by Leon Tomșa. This document was confirmed by the signatures of the country’s hierarchs, including Teofil of Râmnic, ‘with the general consent of the synod’41

We also note here another document, issued on 27 January 1631, in which Stanciu of Izbiceni attests to the agreement between himself and the monasteries of Bistrița and Cozia concerning an exchange of Gypsy women, in the presence of “the Bishop of Râmnic, Theophilus”42. Also in his presence, on 1 March 1632, the megiași from Câineni sold themselves as Romanians to the logofăt Sima 43.

From the details set out in the document of 12 April 1632, it appears that Metropolitan Grigorie, Bishop Teofil and other clergy and officials testified regarding the will of the vornic Dumitru of Mogoșești, who had bequeathed his estate to Lady Maria and her son Bunea, as they had cared for him for seven years after he lost his sight 44.

The document dated 24 April 1632 also provides some brief details about Teofil; in it, the hierarch, together with Metropolitan Grigorie and other church dignitaries, was to ratify the will stipulating that Mușat, the second treasurer, bequeathed his share of the villages of Mușetești and Nucșoara to Argeș Monastery upon his death 45.

It is also worth noting the charter dated 15 August 1632, which states that the cupbearer Stoica, son of the logothete Teodosie Rudeanu, sold some of his wife’s estates, in order to pay off a debt and secure the release of his children from Leon Tomșa, whose wrath had fallen upon him and his brother Vlad following their father’s death. He specifies that the sale was not made “for wine to drink, or for debauchery, or for princely tax”, but to settle a debt owed by his father. Among the witnesses to this deed were Archbishop Teofil, alongside their uncle, Teofil Cozianu, “and Uncle Tănase the cupbearer, my brother, and my nephew Andrei, and my cousins Chisar the cupbearer, Teodosie the chamberlain, Chirca, the spătar, and Mitrea, the cupbearer’46”.

Following a petition from the nuns of Slătioarele Monastery in Vâlcea County, Matei Basarab (1632–1654) confirmed, on 6 May 1633, the settlement of the village of Stolniceni, “a fourth part of the fields, the pastures, the water and the land; a mill ford with its pond and everything else that might be found on that land, since this portion had belonged to Ecaterina, the wife of Alexandru the Elder, who had given it to the monastery for her remembrance”. Later, during the reign of Simion Movilă, the logothete Pârvu made an exchange with the monastery, taking Stolniceni in exchange for the village of Bunești; subsequently, during the reign of Leon, the logothete Vlad took the village from Slătioarele. For this reason, Bishop Grigorie, Bishop Teofil and other monks went to the prince and pleaded with him to return the village to them. Here is what the document written in Bucharest states in greater detail:

“Matei the Great, grandson of Basarab the Great, grants to the nuns of Slătăneace (Slătioare) the village of Stolniceani, a quarter of the estate, with the mill ford and all the peasants, purchased by Lady Catrina, wife of Alexandru the Elder, and when she founded the monastery, she endowed it with this estate. The monastery retained the estate in peace until the days of Simion the Elder, when Pârvul the logothete made an exchange, taking Stolniceani and giving the monastery the village of Bunești, and in the days of Leon the Venerable, Vlad the Logothete took the village of Bunești, leaving the monastery without either Bunești or Stolniceani. The nuns complained to Matei the Venerable, and the lord judged their case according to justice and the law, together with all the magistrates, Metropolitan Gregory and Bishop Theophilus of Râmnic, the monk Theophilus himself—brother of the logothete Pârv—testified that the people of Stolniceani had been granted to the monastery by Lady Catherine47”.

From other records that have come down to us concerning Bishop Theophilus’s activities, we know that on 8 May 1633, the prince confirmed the Diocese’s ownership of some vineyards in Drăgășani, following a legal case with Spătar Andrei Rudeanu. As the vineyards had been sold without the bishop’s knowledge for 6,000 bani, Matei Basarab decided that “the bishop should be free to return these 6,000 bani to Andrei the spătar for those vineyards, and that they should belong to the holy diocese, just as other estates do [...] for no one had any business buying in the villages and on the estates of the holy bishopric’48

As the sources of the time indicate, a few days later, on 20 May 1633, the prince granted the logothete Bunea an estate inhabited by Romanians at Grădiștea de Jos, in the county of Vlașca. This decision was based on earlier documents, including that “of Bishop Teofil of Râmnic”49. But let us allow the charter itself to speak:

“Matei the Great, grandson of Basarab the Great, confirms to Bunea the logofăt an estate in the village of Grădiștea de Jos, in the county of Vlașca, as long as Dumitru Zemțea served as vornic, comprising meadows, vineyards and the following Romanian families: Dragomir the vineyard keeper, Vălsul and his brothers – Petica, Socol and Tatul –, Dobre Cătăramă and others, purchased by Dumitru, the vornic, during the reign of Mihai the Great, and whilst he was alive he stated that after his death the Romanians should be forgiven, so that they might care for him and feed him for as long as he lived. Then, whilst he was ill, having lost his sight seven years earlier, his son, Bunea the logothete, looked after him, together with his mother, Maria, and seeing that the Romanians had provided him with no care whatsoever, he sold his estate to Bunea the logofăt, for [...] aspri in cash. Subsequently, the Romanians lodged a complaint against Dumitru, the vornic, before the divan during the reign of Leon V, claiming that he had not forgiven them, as he had promised, and he confessed that he had not pardoned them because he had received no support from them, the Romanians remaining under Bunea’s authority. During the reign of Matei II, following the death of Dumitru Vornic, the Romanians lodged a complaint once more before the Grand Divan, with Bunea as logofăt, claiming that they had not sold themselves to Dumitru Vornic nor had they been his subjects, but had merely sold a portion of their inheritance; and the Prince had issued a decree to 12 megiași, by means of princely decrees, ordering them to swear that they had not sold themselves as Romanians, nor had they been his subjects; and on that day they appeared before the court to take the oath. The good logothete, seeing that they had sworn falsely, summoned 24 boyars to the council, by the prince’s decree, as is the custom of the land, and on that very day he fully enacted the law in the Grand Divan and produced the ledgers of Dumitru, the Vornic, concerning purchases from Mihai the Late, those of Șerban the Late, the deed of Dumitru the Vornic, drawn up before the Divan, the book of Teofan, Patriarch of Jerusalem, and the book of Grigorie, Metropolitan of Wallachia, and of the bishops Theofil of Râmnic and Efrim of Buzău, with great condemnation and curses. Calciul the Great Gatekeeper acted as steward at the swearing-in, whilst the Romanians remained in charge of law and justice. The prince ordered that the 12 sworn neighbours be plundered, taking six oxen from each, as is the law of the land50”.

Apart from this record, on 20 May 1633, the prince confirmed “to the mayor of Strâmbul the Romanians Neagul and his brother, […], the sons of Oanca of Prodilești, an inheritance from its founders, for in the days of Alexandru the Great, son of Radu the Great, they had bought their freedom from the abbot Mardarie, without the founders’ knowledge; and in the prince’s reign, the founders – Constandin the Chief Chamberlain (son-in-law of the late Lady Elina, daughter of Șerban the Elder) and Socol the clucer (the second from Cornățeani)—discovered that they had been ransomed from Mardarie and, with his money, had purchased some land for the monastery. The Lord did not believe Neagul and sent for Mardarie to come before him, and he testified that he had taken no more than 6,000 aspri from them, without the founders’ knowledge, and had spent it on his own affairs, in the presence, at the council, of Metropolitan Gregory, Bishop Theophilus of Râmnic and Bishop Ephraim of Buzău. The prince, together with all the officials, confirmed that the abbot is not at liberty to redeem the Romanians and the monastery’s estates without the knowledge of the founders, ‘Neag’ remaining in accordance with the law and judgement51”.

On the other hand, we cannot overlook the document dated 26 July 1633, in which the prince confirms the release from serfdom of the villagers from the village of Dobriceanii Măglași, in Vâlcea County, punishing the cupbearer Chisar, who had attempted to enslave them. Although Commissioner Chirca, Chisar’s father, had agreed with the villagers to free them from the galleys at Ocna Mare, he did not do so, but merely gave them 125 ughi, ‘in the presence of Father Theofil of Râmnic and in the presence of my lord Gherghie, formerly Grand Logothete’, steward and chamberlain at Ocna Mare. Consequently, “he brought 40 men from the surrounding area to Ocna Mare on behalf of the village of Dobricenii, who testified to the above. Chisar the cupbearer did not wish to take his money back, but fled and returned with a complaint for the third time, and after the lord had judged the case and read the documents of Theofil and Gherghie, the logofăt, the law and judgement were passed against Chisar for having taken the 125 ughi from the village of Dobricenii, and the lord confiscated all his documents. Since he had disobeyed the Lord’s decree and had attacked Dumitru the prod, he was beaten in the council ‘very severely’, with 300 lashes, and he was driven from the council chamber in great disgrace; his horse was also confiscated and he was imprisoned, whilst the village was issued with a new charter superseding the previous one; should Chisar issue any further charters for Dobriceani, they are not to be trusted52.

Another entry concerning Teofil appears on 6 January 1634, when Matei Basarab confirmed “to the village of Govora, across the Olt, and to Abbot Meletie Machidoneanul, the printer, the village of Govora, which lies near the monastery, free from taxes, honey and wax […], because it was built by the lord’s forefathers and ancestors. When times of turmoil came, all the villages were thrown into confusion and their inhabitants fled to foreign lands; and when Matei, the future The Prince, having been granted the sceptre of Wallachia by the Emperor, recognising Meletius’s worth, entrusted the monastery to him to restore it. He laboured hard and gathered together some of the people who had fled—Romanians from the monastery’s villages, from Glodul, Bârsești, Ivănești, Mihăești, Nănești, Stoiceni, and other strangers from elsewhere—in this village. The lord drew up this document on the day of Epiphany, in the presence of the entire assembly, of Metropolitan Gregory, of the bishops—Theophilus of Râmnic, Ephrem of Buzău and others, and all the abbots of all the monasteries, all the Prince’s officials, and that Meletius should remain abbot until his death’53.

We also recall the act of 19 April 1634, when the prince, granting the monasteries of Tutana and Cotmeana half each of the village of Mogoșești, on the Argeșel, with its Romanian inhabitants, following a series of legal proceedings, Bishop Teofil, Metropolitan Grigorie and Abbot Vasile of Bistrița testified before him that “they have always held the holy monasteries of Tutana and Codmeana, together with half of the village of Mogoșești”54.

In the wake of these records, Bishop Teofil is subsequently mentioned in a charter dated 10 July 1634, signed in Bucharest, in which, alongside Grigorie, the Metropolitan of Wallachia, Bishop Efrem of Buzău and all the abbots, they dedicate as a metochion “to the Ivera Monastery at Sfeta Gora, the Stelea Monastery in the city of Bucharest, together with the land, estates and shops in Bucharest, purchased by Stelea the Spatar [...] In the days of Mihail the Great, when Sinan Pasha arrived with a multitude of Turks who enslaved and ravaged the country, burning all the churches and monasteries throughout the land; he also burnt Stelea Monastery, which lay desolate for 30 years, until the days of Leon the Great. When Grigorie, who was a layman born at Ivera, took over as abbot, and seeing it desolate, ruined and burnt, with only the walls and the royal chapel remaining, he raised funds through charity from merchants and Christians, and through hard work and teaching, for not a single coin was spent by the Metropolis, nor did he work with the Romanians of the Metropolis, but solely through the alms mentioned above and the patrahir, he restored it to its former state, complete with houses, cellars (and mills and gardens), and vineyards, handing it all back to the monks of the Ivera metochion, as had been the case since the days of Mihnea the Great. Likewise, Leon the Great and Matei Basarab the Great did the same, with deeds dated 1630 (7138) and 163<4> (714<2>). ‘Curse’55’.

Further valuable records are provided by the document dated 20 July 1634, when the metropolitan, the bishops and six boyars from the Divan settled the dispute between Dumitrașco and Ivașco, the sons of Stanciul of Cepari, and Maria of Albești, who, having killed two Gypsies, had accused him of taking ‘1,000 gold galbeni belonging to Lady Marghita, the mother of Gavril vv. and other items, in order to save her life from destruction’56

Also etched into the memory of the time is the charter dated 1 November 1634, which states that Bishop Teofil, together with the prince and Metropolitan Grigorie, adjudicated a dispute between Lady Maria, daughter of Staico, chamberlain in Bucov, her son-in-law Nedelco, a former grand armourer, and her daughter Frujina, concerning certain villages and estates. Lady Maria stipulated in the divan that, after her death, all should pass to Elina, her daughter, and her son-in-law Iane the spătar, ‘for they have shown her mercy and care for her in her old age’57

Furthermore, on 15 April 1635, ‘the Most Reverend Archbishop Teofil Râbniceschi’ issued a charter to Govora Monastery, which states that Radu, ‘the gatekeeper of Râmnic’ and his wife Apostola had donated to the monastery “a plot of land with a cellar and a garden, together with everything up to the lane. And this is the plot mentioned above, near the Govora mill, in the town of Râmnicu”58.

On 5 May 1635, the prince granted his servant Mitrea, son of Ițtfan, the logothete of Mihăiești in Vâlcea County, a plot of land in this village, “except for the portion belonging to Stoian, the brother of Iarciul, as this had been purchased by Ițtfan from Stoian’s nephews”. Since Meletie the Macedonian, the abbot of Govora Monastery, stated that this estate belonged to the holy monastery, six boyars gathered before Bishop Teofil, “examined the old records and confirmed this with all their hearts”. Consequently, it was decided that the steward should receive the portion belonging to Stoian’s grandsons, whilst Govora should receive the other half—the portion belonging to Iarciu, Stoian’s brother59

‘Chir Teofil Râmniceschi’ is next mentioned on 10 May 1635, when Metropolitan Grigorie issued a charter to the steward Ianiu and his wife Elina, the daughter of Lady Maria of Bucov, ‘so that they may live in peace and be free from this day forward from his brother-in-law Nedelco the cupbearer and from his wife, Frujina, regarding a complaint and dispute they had during the reign of Prince Leon and now during the reign of our lord Io Matei Băsăraba, Prince, concerning some dowry...”60

New details are provided by the deed dated 23 May 1635, in which the monk Rafail and his brother, Leul, donated to Brâncoveni Monastery, in Olt County, their share “of the estate in the village of Robănești and a small hermitage which we had there at Vlașca”. Among the witnesses to this donation was the “most honourable Father Bishop Teofil Râbniceschi”61. Nor should we overlook the deed drawn up a day later, on 24 May, which states that Badea and Danciul from the village of Brătășanii donated 40 păși of land to the Brâncoveanu foundation, with “our father, Bishop Teofil Râmneceschi” also acting as a witness62

To all this we add a deed, signed by Metropolitan Grigorie and Bishops Teofil and Efrem, dated 1 September 1635 – 31 August 1636, by which several mills and gardens belonging to Stelea Monastery, a former dependency of Ivir Monastery, “deserted for so long”, were confirmed, and it was stipulated that “the metropolitan see should have no business with the mills”63.

Increasingly concerned with providing the Diocese of Râmnic with new estates, on 25 February 1636, Bishop Teofil purchased an estate and a mill site on the River Râmnic from Stanciul and Voico, the sons of “Popa Ghin, from Bojorani”, for “8,000 bani and an ox”. Following this sale, they requested that their father, ‘Priest Ghin’, also be included in the list of the dead, ‘as we had agreed’64

In order to paint as accurate a picture as possible of his character, we consider it necessary to also record the document dated 20 April 1636, by which the prince confirmed to Govora Monastery, “poor and without any income from any source”, the nearby village of Glodul, in the presence of Patriarch Theophanes of Jerusalem, Metropolitan Gregory and Bishops Theophilus and Ephrem, “so that this act of mercy may be enduring and a source of strength, and provide the monks with food and necessities”65. On the very same day, Theophilus issued a charter “so that this village belonging to the monastery, Glodul, may enjoy peace from all, provided it pays the tithe, the gorștină and the vinăriciul to Govorii Monastery, the princely share, as is also written in the charter of his reign”66.

Also noteworthy is the document, dated the same day, by which the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Theophanes, together with the prince, the metropolitan of the land, the bishops Theophilus and Ephrem, and the abbots of the monasteries, “on Easter Day, issued a document of excommunication regarding the exemption granted by the prince to the village of Glodul, belonging to Govora Monastery, from all annual levies: the tithe, the gorștină and the vinăriciul; the princely share from that village was to belong to Govora Monastery, and that the abbot and the monks shall not receive any other sheep, beehives or honeycombs from abroad, amongst the village’s produce, so as to exempt them’67

His particular care for those under his care is also evident on 29 April 1636, when Matei Basarab exempted the village of ‘Muereasca, south of Vâlcea’ from taxes, because ‘I have shown mercy andI have granted, at the behest of the Most Holy Father Theophilus, Bishop and Metropolitan of Râmnic, that from now on it may be a freehold of the holy monastery, to be of assistance to the holy monastery, as an act of charity on my part”68. On 20 May 1636, Theophilus received a charter for the Diocese confirming his ownership of the village of Muereasca, in Vâlcea County, which he had received from Preda Brâncoveanu in exchange for the village of Hrastul, in Dolj County, which he had previously owned. As the Diocese could not hold the village on the Danube, ‘by the marsh’, because it was too far away, it came to an agreement with the Grand Spătar to purchase the village of Muereasca, which it would then receive in exchange. He purchased it from the inhabitants, “who were people of the county” and who agreed to be recognised as Romanians, together with their entire clan and their estate, in exchange for 250 galbeni, plus 60 galbeni as tax. In turn, the Diocese took possession of this village, with the consent of the sold freeholders, who rejoiced, ‘young and old alike’, that they had been given ‘to the holy monastery at the Diocese of Râmnic, to Father Teofil’, as this was ‘closer’ to them. The deed of consent is dated 10 May 1636, and the deed of sale 18 May 1636. Just two days later, this transaction was ratified by Prince Matei Basarab, who granted ownership of the village of Muereasca to ‘the holy diocese of Râmnic’ and ‘Father Chir Teofil, Bishop of Râmnic’, whilst Hrastul was granted to ‘the honourable magistrate’ Mr Preda69

Last but not least, we note that, on 29 July 1636, Teofil was still a bishop, as he issued a charter to Tismana Monastery, “for certain Romanians of the holy monastery, concerning a complaint lodged by the abbot Theodosie against certain boyars, namely Stoica of the village of Șomănești”. By this, they were forgiven, if “it should fall to the Romanians of the holy monastery to act justly”, and cursed and excommunicated, “should anyone commit any deceit or treachery”70

In his capacity as bishop, Teofil also undertook a number of diplomatic missions. For example, in 1630, he was part of the delegation sent by the boyars of the country to Transylvania to inform Aga Matei of Brâncoveni of his election as prince 71. It should be noted here that Leon Vodă, the Ottoman Porte’s chosen candidate from 1629, had arrived in Wallachia in 1630, accompanied by a large number of Greeks from Phanar who had supported him. Setting aside all the ‘customs of the land’ and ‘good order’, they introduced ‘bad and oppressive laws, raising certain taxes beyond measure’, which drove the inhabitants to flee across the Danube, to Turkey, or to Transylvania, or ‘wandered through the Transylvanian Carpathians like wild animals’. Thus, towards the end of October 1630, many of the prominent boyars, who had once held civil and military offices, fled to Transylvania via the Vulcan Pass, where they were received warmly and with honours by Gheorghe Rákóczy, Prince of Transylvania. Among the most prominent of the fugitives was Aga Matei, prefect of the district of Romanați, where his estates were located. Although the Prince of Wallachia sent them envoys and letters, promising them amnesty and an end to the abuses, it was only the third delegation, comprising Bishop Teofil and the steward Hrizea of Bălteni, that returned with the conditions the fugitives were setting for their return to the country.

Shortly afterwards, the Bishop of Râmnic took part in the public assembly of July 1631, at which Leon took measures to expel the Greeks from the country. He summoned “the whole country, the great and small boyars, the roșii and mazilii, and all the servants’’, to investigate together the cause of ‘such poverty and desolation in the land’, the assembly resolved to repeal the ‘evil laws’ and to expel their authors72 Through a “great covenant and oath”, following the ceremony of excommunication performed by the new metropolitan, Grigorie—a Romanian appointed by Leon himself—and by the bishops Teofil and Efrem of Buzău, it was decided to remove the guilty parties and restore the ‘good laws and customs’ of the ‘old lords, whose lives are blessed’. Whereas the ‘reds’, exempt from any tithe, were to pay only 40 ughi of lei each, in two instalments, on the feast days of Saints George and Demetrius, for each ‘cal’—that is, a cavalry unit comprising several men—the tax payable by the ‘priests’ was set at 60 ughi per year. This rather substantial sum helps us to understand just how heavily burdened they were during the period of abuse, when, in addition to the taxes paid by the common man—‘a monthly tax, a bucket of hay, an ox, a barren ewe, a horse, honey, wax’— as well as special levies, the ‘loan’ and ‘wedding money’. At the same time, a decision was taken that foreign monks, “who bought the monasteries and turned them into dependencies, so as to take their income, remove it from the country, as well as the silver and the estates”, should be removed, and in their place “Romanian monks, as had been the custom for centuries”, should be brought in to administer the entrusted assets properly. At the same time, simony in the appointment of dioceses was also abolished: “The Metropolitan See, bishoprics and abbotships shall not be changed for a bribe, but shall be decided by the synod.” The Patriarch would no longer be able to “send either a bishop or an abbot here to the country”, but would merely take note of the choice in order to confirm the person elected: ‘Whoever the country and the Council choose as bishop or abbot shall be appointed, but they must send word to the Patriarch to give his blessing, as has been the custom for centuries’73 “After the oath,” Leon concludes his charter, dated 23 July 1631 and signed by himself and eight of his officials, as follows: “I have put an end to those evil customs and, during my reign, have abolished them all, and I have driven those foreign Greeks out of the country, as they were enemies of the land”74 Eight days earlier, Leon Tomșa had signed another charter, in which he set out the measures he was taking to rectify the wrongs caused by the Greeks who had come into the country, decreeing, amongst other things: “Greeks who own estates here in the country, and whose wives and homes are in another country, if they are registered in the country’s military rolls and are required to serve the country, they shall reside here in the country, whilst those who do not register shall be deprived of their land, and their estates and property shall be confiscated for the sovereign’s account’75”.

In the winter of 1632, Teofil, together with Metropolitan Grigorie and other “priests”, formed part of the delegation that travelled to Constantinople to seek the Sublime Porte’s confirmation of Matei Vodă as ruler of Wallachia 76. In the same year, an imposing delegation had taken him to Abaza Pasha in Nicopolis, who, acting on his own authority, confirmed the chosen candidate as ruler of Wallachia, dressing him in a caftan 77.

On 14 October 1632, his letters and a grand embassy, comprising “many boyars and clergymen”, had arrived in Constantinople; they issued a declaration opposing the recognition of Radu, the son of Leon Tomșa, as their voivode, as he was said to be ‘too young, inexperienced and inept’, and therefore incapable of governing the country 78. In 1640, in a note written in a Gospel presented to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, Matei Basarab ordered it to be written that ‘he was elected ruler of the Land of Ungrovlahia by the whole people, clergy and laity, by the archons and strategists, in the year 1632’79. Moreover, in an oath of allegiance to the prince, drafted in Hungarian, we find this sequence: ‘We, the bishops of Wallachia, together with all the bishops and boyars, great and small, and with all the nobility together with all its troops, etc.’80.

Imagine

• 1

  Archimandrite Veniamin MICLE, The Bistrița Monastery in Oltenia, The Holy Monastery of Bistrița, 1996, p. 81.

• 2

  Nicolae IORGA, A History of Romanian Literature, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Bucharest, 1925, p. 235.

• 3

  DIOCESE OF RÂMNICU NOU SEVERIN, Yearbook for the years 1921–1925, Bucharest, 1924, p. 297 (hereinafter cited as Yearbook); I. C. FILITTI, ‘On the Metropolitan of Ungro-Wallachia, Theophilus (1637–1648)’

• 4

  I. C. FILITTI, ‘On…’, p. 449.

• 5

  Al. PROCOPOVICI, ‘From Coresi the Deacon to Teofil, Metropolitan of Mateiu Basarab’

• 6

  D. GEORGESCU, History of the Church..., p. 88.

• 7

  Fr. Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Romanian Orthodox Church from the earliest Christian settlements on Romanian soil, published by the Patriarchate, Bucharest, 2015, p. 527.

• 8

  Veniamin MICLE, The Monastery..., p. 81.

• 9

  Nicolae IORGA, A History of Romanian Literature..., p. 235.

• 10

  †Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese of Râmnicu-Noul-Severin: Past and Present, Bucharest, 1906, p. 34.

• 11

  Veniamin MICLE, The Monastery..., pp. 81, 193.

• 12

  GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF STATE ARCHIVES OF THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ROMANIA, Catalogue of Documents from Wallachia in the State Archives. 1601–1620, vol. II, compiled by Maria SOVEJA, Doina Duca-TINCULESCU and Reghina DRAGOMIR, Bucharest, 1974, p. 213 (hereinafter cited as the Catalogue).

• 13

  The Catalogue, Vol. II, p. 259.

• 14

  The Catalogue, vol. II, pp. 263–264.

• 15

  Nicolae IORGA, A History of Romanian Literature..., p. 281; Veniamin MICLE, The Monastery..., pp. 81–82.

• 16

  Veniamin MICLE, The Monastery..., p. 232.

• 17

  The Catalogue, vol. II, pp. 395–396; Veniamin MICLE, The Monastery..., pp. 81–82.

• 18

  Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Romanian Orthodox Church..., p. 527; The church yearbooks mention him as a bishop in 1619, see Yearbook, p. 297; THE HOLY METROPOLIS OF OLTENIA, Church Life in Oltenia. Yearbook of the Metropolis of Oltenia for the year 1940, Craiova, 1941, p. 98.

• 19

  Yearbook, p. 297.

• 20

  Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese..., p. 35; Dan PLEȘIA, ‘When Metropolitan Teofil of Ungrovlahia was enthroned’

• 21

  Mircea PĂCURARIU, MA student, ‘The Dicastery and Consistory of the Metropolis of Ungrovlahia’

• 22

  The Catalogue, vol. III, p. 90.

• 23

  The Catalogue, vol. III, pp. 99–100.

• 24

  The Catalogue, Vol. III, p. 143.

• 25

  Catalogue, vol. III, p. 209; GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF STATE ARCHIVES OF THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ROMANIA, Medieval Collection from Vâlcea. Catalogue of Documents from the State Archives in Râmnicu Vâlcea (1388–1715), vol. I, Bucharest, 1983, p. 111 (hereinafter cited as ‘Medieval Collection’).

• 26

  The Catalogue, vol. III, p. 219.

• 27

  ACADEMY OF THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ROMANIA, Documenta Romaniae Historica, B. Wallachia, (1626–1627), vol. XXI, edited by Damaschin MIOC, Bucharest, 1965, p. 5 (hereinafter cited as DRH); Catalogue, vol. III, p. 243.

• 28

  DRH, vol. XXI, p. 75; Catalogue, vol. III, p. 270; Medieval Treasury, p. 112.

• 29

  DRH, vol. XXI, p. 82; Catalogue, vol. III, p. 271; Medieval Treasury, p. 112.

• 30

  DRH, vol. XXI, p. 85.

• 31

  Veniamin MICLE, The Monastery..., p. 83.

• 32

  DRH, vol. XXI, p. 356.

• 33

  Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese..., p. 36; ACADEMY OF THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ROMANIA, Documenta Romaniae Historica, B. Wallachia, (1628–1629), vol. XXII, edited by Damaschin MIOC, Bucharest, 1969, pp. 332–333; ‘Documents’

• 34

  DRH, vol. XXII, pp. 531–532; Catalogue, vol. III, pp. 480–481.

• 35

  DRH, vol. XXII, p. 692; Catalogue, vol. III, p. 518.

• 36

  The Catalogue, vol. III, p. 348; Medieval Treasure..., p. 122.

• 37

  ACADEMY OF THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ROMANIA, Documenta Romaniae Historica, B. Wallachia, (1630–1632), vol. XXIII, edited by Damaschin MIOC, Bucharest, 1969, pp. 547–548.

• 38

  DRH, vol. XXIII, p. 227.

• 39

  DRH, vol. XXII, p. 228; Catalogue, vol. III, p. 568.

• 40

  DRH, vol. XXII, p. 236; Catalogue, vol. III, pp. 571–572.

• 41

  DRH, vol. XXII, p. 275.

• 42

  DRH, vol. XXII, p. 201; Catalogue, vol. III, p. 588.

• 43

  DRH, vol. XXII, p. 520; Catalogue, vol. III, pp. 631–632.

• 44

  DRH, vol. XXII, pp. 538–539.

• 45

  DRH, vol. XXII, p. 551.

• 46

  I. C. FILITTI, On …, p. 449.

• 47

  Medieval Treasury..., p. 128.

• 48

  ACADEMY OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCES OF THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ROMANIA, Documenta Romaniae Historica, B. Wallachia, (1633–1634), vol. XXIV, edited by Damaschin MIOC, Sașa CARACAȘ and Constantin BĂLAN, Bucharest, 1974, p. 76.

• 49

  DRH, vol. XXIV, pp. 111–112.

• 50

  GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF STATE ARCHIVES OF THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ROMANIA, Catalogue of Documents Relating to Wallachia in the State Archives. 1633–1639, vol. IV, compiled by Marcel-Dumitru CIUCĂ, Doina Duca-TINCULESCU, Silvia Vătafu-GĂITAN, Bucharest, 1981, pp. 54–55.

• 51

  The Catalogue, vol. IV, p. 55.

• 52

  DRH, vol. XXIV, pp. 170–172; Catalogue, vol. IV, pp. 77–78; Medieval Treasury..., p. 131.

• 53

  The Catalogue, vol. IV, p. 106.

• 54

  DRH, vol. XXIV, pp. 114–115.

• 55

  The Catalogue, vol. IV, p. 172.

• 56

  DRH, vol. XXIV, pp. 442–443; Catalogue, vol. IV, pp. 177–178.

• 57

  The Catalogue, vol. IV, p. 206.

• 58

  ACADEMY OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCES OF THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ROMANIA, Documenta Romaniae Historica, B. Wallachia, (1635–1636), vol. XXV, edited by Damaschin MIOC, Maria BĂLAN, Ruxandra CĂMĂRĂȘESCU and Coralia FOTINO, Bucharest, 1974, p. 68; Catalogue, vol. IV, p. 240.

• 59

  DRH, vol. XXV, pp. 85–86; Catalogue, vol. IV, p. 245; Medieval Treasure..., p. 138.

• 60

  DRH, vol. XXV, p. 89; Catalogue, vol. IV, p. 247.

• 61

  DRH, vol. XXV, p. 97; Catalogue, vol. IV, p. 250.

• 62

  DRH, vol. XXV, p. 98; Catalogue, vol. IV, p. 251.

• 63

  DRH, vol. XXV, pp. 133–134; DRH, vol. IV, p. 386; DRH, p. 131.

• 64

  Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese..., p. 36; DRH, vol. XXV, pp. 236–237; The Catalogue, vol. IV, p. 311.

• 65

  DRH, vol. XXV, pp. 266–267.

• 66

  DRH, vol. XXV, p. 268.

• 67

  The Catalogue, Vol. IV, p. 327.

• 68

  DRH, vol. XXV, p. 277; Catalogue, vol. IV, pp. 331–332.

• 69

  Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese..., pp. 36–37; Yearbook, p. 297; Dan PLEȘIA, When..., pp. 1102–1104. DRH, vol. XXV, pp. 297–298, 308–311, 314–316.

• 70

  DRH, vol. XXV, pp. 445–446.

• 71

  Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese..., p. 35; Yearbook, p. 297; Nicolae IORGA, A History of Romanian Literature..., p. 235; Ioan V. DURĂ, PhD candidate, ‘The Church in Wallachia during the reign of Matei Basarab’

• 72

  Ion SÂRBU, The Foreign Relations of Matei Vodă Basarab, Timișoara, 2005, pp. 16–17.

• 73

  N. IORGA, The History of the Romanian Church and the Religious Life of the Romanians, vol. I, Bucharest, 2012, pp. 310–311; Al. ELIAN, ‘The Links between the Metropolis of Ungrovlahia and the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Other Orthodox Churches’

• 74

  DRH, vol. XXIII, pp. 411; Ion SÂRBU, Relațiile..., p. 17.

• 75

  DRH, vol. XXV, p. 407.

• 76

  Fr. N. I. ȘERBĂNESCU, ‘The Metropolitans of Ungrovlahia’, in: BOR, vol. LXXVII (1959), nos. 7–10, p. 775; N. STOICESCU, Matei Basarab, Bucharest, 1988, p. 18.

• 77

  The History of Wallachia. 1290–1690. The Cantacuzino Chronicle, critical edition by C. GRECESCU and D. SIMONESCU, Bucharest, 1960, pp. 100–101.

• 78

  Dr Nicolae STOICESCU, Matei Basarab, Bucharest, 1982, p. 33; Ion SÂRBU, Relațiile..., pp. 21–22. Gr. POPESCU, P. GRIGORIU, Matei Basarab and Vasile Lupu, Bucharest, 1970, p. 20.

• 79

  N. STOICESCU, Matei Basarab..., p. 26, note 84.

• 80

  Ion SÂRBU, Relationships..., p. 154, note 41.