“DEDICATED TO THE WELFARE OF THE ROMANIAN NATION AS A WHOLE…”
Part I
…and I, the unworthy work of God’s hands, the Lord glorified in the Trinity, awakening to the knowledge of His Holiness’s many acts of kindness, which He has done and continues to do for me, knowing that I do nothing of my own merit, but whatever I begin for His praise is His will, and whatever I accomplish is His work; therefore I bow down, my body and soul together with all my senses, and I worship Him, and I glorify His name, and I give thanks to Him for all His good deeds. For it was their good pleasure to make me His servant and labourer in His spiritual life…
Damascene the Teacher, Bishop of Râmnic
But what is more fitting for an Orthodox lord than to adorn those under his care, first and foremost, with piety?”1
Like no other, the holy voivode Constantin Brâncoveanu knew how to find, amongst the men of the Church, those chosen ones capable of supporting the efforts which, as a ‘New Constantine’—as he was called at the time—he was making to strengthen Orthodoxy. The entire seventeenth century had been marked by attacks launched by other Churches, particularly by the Jesuits and the Calvinists, against the Orthodox Church, using every possible means, ranging from subtle dogmatic polemics to propaganda through printed matter, and to financial and even military pressure. The schism within the Church and the ‘troubled times’ led Christians to ponder the end of the world, but for the voivode and his close associates, the recent and painful case of Transylvania, in which the Austrian occupying authorities had forced the Orthodox Romanians to unite with Rome, represented an imminent danger – one which, moreover, was soon to materialise through the occupation of Oltenia (1718–1739).
The Romanian people identified so deeply with the Orthodox faith that attacks on Orthodoxy were seen as threatening the very existence of the country. However, in the words of Șerban Greceanu,
‘…His Majesty, the most enlightened Lord, being a zealous adherent of the Orthodox faith (…) and even though His Majesty finds himself, as never before, beset by many and successive political concerns (…), leaving all worldly matters to one side, he has placed this holy matter above all else, trusting that, for the greater honour given to divine matters, God will also look after His Majesty’s Orthodox subjects…”2
For this reason, the enlightened voivode, as one who was “by nature inclined towards spiritual and ecclesiastical matters”3, deemed it necessary to surround himself with bishops chosen solely from among the great scholars: Mitrofan, “the consummate printer and scholar”4 – former Bishop of Huși, who had taken refuge in Wallachia, where he oversaw the printing of Șerban Cantacuzino’s Bible and the first Brâncoveanu prints, and who was installed in Buzău in 1691 to continue the printing work there; then the great Antim Ivireanul, elevated by the voivode to the highest episcopal office in the country; and, finally, “the teacher Kyr Damaschin”, elected bishop of Buzău in 1702 following the death of Bishop Mitrofan, and then in 1708 to Râmnic, succeeding Antim.
For his election to the episcopal see of Buzău, ‘Master Kyr Damaschin’ had to face competition from two abbots, probably Greek, from Bucharest, namely Ignatie of the Mihai Vodă Monastery and Athanasie of the Radu Vodă Monastery, two monasteries dedicated to the Holy Mountain (5). As he was not an abbot, but merely a scholar, he therefore lacked experience in church leadership; we can thus see, in this unusual honour bestowed upon him, the will of Voivode Brâncoveanu, who wished him to be a bishop so that he might carry out and establish his scholarly work of translating and printing the religious texts the country needed – or, according to the concise note in the Holy Register:
‘they proved to be of greater use to this holy Diocese.’6
That he owed his election to Brâncoveanu’s will, he himself confessed in warm words:
“…we know that we also have the commandment of Christ the Saviour to give, following the Creator’s example, to earthly rulers what is due to them (…). Having taken this commandment of the Lord Christ to heart, and with the God-inspired teaching of the blessed Paul enlightening the eyes of my foolish mind, I, the humble supplicant for the health of Your Holiness, look to the great and, from the natural goodness of Your Holiness, to the favours bestowed upon me, who am so unworthy; for by the will of the Lord Christ, Youyou have called me and raised me up to this office of shepherding His flock of the speaking ones, not because of any worthiness of my own – for I know of nothing in myself worthy of honour – but through the great mercy of Your Majesty. What, then, shall I give in return to the Lord and my Master, Your Greatness, O Most High Lord, for all that You have done and continue to do for one as unworthy as I? I know that my freedom has been bought at a high price by Your Greatness’s goodness, as a philosopher once said: he who does good sells his freedom. And this is what it means: that no one can ever do enough for God, nor for one’s parents or benefactors, nor reward them as is fitting. And what worthy reward can I, the humble one, offer to Your Highness, save only the gratitude and devotion of my heart…’7
All these bishops of Brâncoveanu’s time set themselves the task, as their principal work, of providing the Romanian Church with the necessary liturgical books; however, Bishop Mitrofan and St Antim were more printers than translators. Although the beginnings of translation and printing in the native language were considerably earlier, it was only during Brâncoveanu’s reign and in the decades that followed did they reach their full potential and fulfil their purpose, though not without serious reservations, sometimes coming even from the country’s bishops. Thus, Metropolitan Theodosie himself, when printing a Slavonic-Romanian edition of the Liturgy in 1680 – that is, with the prayers in Church Slavonic and the liturgical instructions in Romanian – justified his action as follows:
Although the beginnings of translations and printing in the local language were considerably older, it was only during the reign of Brâncoveanu and in the decades that followed did they reach their full potential and fulfil their purpose, though not without serious reservations, sometimes expressed even by the country’s bishops.
‘…and as for translating the entire Liturgy into our own language and introducing it, we neither wished to nor dared to do so.’8
This reluctance stemmed, on the one hand, from the fact that Romanian was not regarded as a liturgical language, and, on the other hand, because Romanian scholars were aware of the immaturity of the literary language, and of the difficulty of finding, within the Romanian lexicon of that time, terms and expressions adequate to the subtle theological notions and lofty ideas in the original text:
“…that it is difficult to translate certain things on one’s own, particularly from Greek into Romanian; for there are Greek words and phrases in certain places which are not even to be found in dictionaries; others, even if they can be found and understood, cannot be rendered due to the limitations of the Romanian language…”9
Nevertheless, the translation of liturgical books was, in the eyes of Voivode Brâncoveanu, all the more necessary given that, through this medium of print, Calvinist proselytism would sometimes find its way in, and because the liturgical books were also used to teach reading, before the first ‘Bucoavne’ became widespread. Moreover, the dissemination of Romanian liturgical books amongst the people and among our brothers beyond the mountains was, for the wise voivode, infinitely more valuable for strengthening the Orthodox roots of the nation than the publication of Greek works of intense dogmatic controversy – such as, for example, the volumes by Patriarch Dositei Nottara of Jerusalem, published by the voivode at the start of his reign – and it was in this direction that the main printing effort was channelled, whilst observing the measure of the Gospel: ‘These things ought ye to have done, and those ought ye not to have neglected’ (Luke 11:43). It was a priority of the time that preoccupied the enlightened consciences of Orthodoxy, amongst whom, for example, the pious Athonite monk Ivan Vyshensky († 1625), who, in the face of the Church’s profound crisis, gave voice to these thoughts of acute and painful relevance:
the threat of Union can only be overcome through inner effort, through the renewal and rebirth of the spiritual life; Orthodoxy will not triumph through debates, but through ascetic faith, humble wisdom and intense prayer (…), through a return to the humble and wise Octoechos. Nevertheless, Orthodox Christians must take part in debates; otherwise, it would seem as though they have no answers. 10
* * *
Damaschin Dascălul hailed from Voinești in Dâmbovița, where his family owned small estates. We have no information about his youth or upbringing, and of his family we know only of the descendants of his brothers, Stan and Eftimie ‘Captain’ Voinescu. Vlădica had several grandchildren through them: Radu, the son of Eftimie; Ghinea Stanovici Voinescu, a priest and teacher in Craiova 11; and his brother, Ștefan, who during the years of Austrian occupation served as logothete at the See of Craiova 12, and then two other grandsons, Bratul the steward and Iosif the hieromonk, who assisted him with the administrative affairs of the Diocese 13. Bratul was appointed by the Austrians as a judge in Râmnic 14, whilst Iosif the hieromonk, who had his metania at Govora, briefly served as abbot of his monastery (1725–1726)15, before being appointed abbot at Gura Motrului (1731)16.
The first mention of the name of the teacher Damaschin as a translator comes from Metropolitan Theodosie, in a letter to the apostate Metropolitan of Transylvania, Atanasie Anghel:
‘…The Octoechos [Slavonic-Romanian, printed in Buzău in 1700, n.n.] was almost entirely reworked with great labour by our teacher Damaschin…’17
The term ‘dascăl’ (Greek: scholiarcha) used here means ‘teacher’, which is why he has been identified as the tutor to the sons of the steward Constantin Cantacuzino, namely Ștefan, Brâncoveanu’s heir to the throne, and Radu. The name of their teacher is known from a note made in one of their study books, a book which belonged to their father’s library: the Slavonic Grammar by the scholar and bishop Meletie Smotrițki, in the 1648 Muscovite edition which was also circulated in the Romanian lands 18:
“† Let it be known when the teacher Damaschin taught the sons of the stolnic Costandin Cantacozinu, during the reign of our enlightened lord Io Costandin, Voivode Basarab Brâncovean. 2 May 7204 [1696].”19
This reference explains the good relations the teacher enjoyed with the great scholar, whilst also serving as a strong testament to the teacher’s exceptional training. His name also appears on one of the copies of the Slavonic edition of the same Grammar, printed by Antim Ivireanul in 1697, a copy which passed through the hands of several pupils at the princely school of St Sava in Bucharest. One of them notes:
‘The Grammar belongs to Pavel, and my teacher Damaschin from Prince Costandin [Brâncoveanu]’s Slavonic school gave it to me.’20
There is no information about his work as a teacher at the princely school other than such indirect accounts, but these confirm the establishment of the title ‘Dascălul’ (the Teacher), which all his successors among the ecclesiastical scholars have retained for him.
“This is why, we believe,” wrote Academician Alexandru Lăpedatu in 1906, “it is right that we too, today, should preserve it in the ancient and pure sense of the word as it was in days of old, but [Greek didáskalos, master, teacher, n. n.] and by no means in the degenerate sense it has taken on since then and today.”21
It has been suggested that ‘kyr Damaschin’ might also be identified with the woodcut artist who, in 1683, signed the illustrations in the Apostle printed in Bucharest as ‘Damaschin Gherbest’, but this is unlikely. Nor can anything definite be said about his possible involvement in the team of translators of the Bucharest Bible, as has been speculated. Furthermore, his apprenticeship in the craft of printing under Bishop Mitrofan of Buzău remains an unlikely hypothesis, since, unlike Mitrofan, Damaschin the teacher is known only as a translator and proofreader, not as a master printer 22.
His figure only begins to emerge from the shadows following his unusual election, on 3 October 1702, as Bishop of Buzău. He attempted to establish a school in Focșani, but this project does not appear to have come to fruition 23. Like all the country’s bishops of that time, who were vested with judicial powers, he had endless concerns regarding complaints and disputes over church estates within the diocese, as evidenced by the episcopal court records preserved in the archives of the Diocese 24.
Shortly after taking up his post in Buzău, the new bishop had the Vespers and Matins prayers (1703–1704) and a Psalter (1703)25 sent to press, both books in the format used at the time, with the text of the prayers in Church Slavonic and the liturgical instructions in Romanian. The Psalter had been revised by him, evidently a work completed some time earlier:
‘…I took it upon myself to print this soul-nourishing Psalter of the prophet and king David, in the language commonly read in Romanian churches, namely Slovenian, revising and correcting it with the utmost diligence…”26
27 printed the Romanian translation of the Psalter—on which, it is also evident, he had previously worked—in the same year, 1703. At the same time, he printed the Catavasierul, a book that has not survived, but of which we know he was to present several copies to Metropolitan Theodosie 28.
In 1704, at the request of the same metropolitan, he translated a text which enjoyed wide circulation in the Romanian lands, although it was not printed: the Commentary on the Apocalypse by Archbishop Andrew of Caesarea in Cappadocia 29.
But the most important printed work from the time of his ministry in Buzău was The Apostle (1704) – although a fully Romanian edition had already appeared during the time of Șerban Cantacuzino (1683) 30.
A period of obscurity followed in the life of the bishop and teacher Damaschin, with no printed books and no other information; the activities of the Buzău printing press appear to have ceased, for unknown reasons. We know only that, at the beginning of 170831, was consecrated as bishop of Râmnic – for the elderly Metropolitan Theodosie had died, having designated Bishop Antim of Râmnic as his successor. However, when he left Râmnic, St Antim Ivireanul took the printing press with him – which he himself had brought there – so that for 16 years, the new bishop was unable to print anything. Instead, he devoted himself to his fundamental work: the translation of liturgical books.
* *
A particularly heavy cross awaited him in the bishop’s see at Râmnic; it was then, however, that the true measure of the man became apparent. He enjoyed only six years of relative tranquillity, until the martyrdom of Voivode Constantin Brâncoveanu. But with the turbulent reigns that followed, and especially from the summer of 1716, when the Austrian armies occupied Oltenia, not to leave it again until 23 years later, the final and most painful period of his life began.
From the Diocese’s records, we know that he was a capable steward, taking care to preserve and even increase the Diocese’s wealth through the purchase of vineyards, estates, houses, etc. 23. He, together with several priests, was also the patron of the frescoes in the Church of the Dormition of the Mother of God at the Sărăcinești-Vâlcea hermitage (1717–1718), which had previously remained unpainted. His portrait is on the west wall of the narthex, alongside that of Bishop Ștefan, who had helped to build the church 32.
It is likely that he provided significant support to the Jgheaburi-Vâlcea hermitage, as his name is listed in the painted memorial register at the proskomidia table, alongside those of the founders and his predecessors in the see of Râmnic, Bishops Ilarion and Antim 33. Also in the sanctuary, at the Iezer hermitage, he is mentioned in the wall-painted memorial list, together with Bishop Ilarion and St Anthony the Monk; however, this memorial list was rewritten in the 19th century and its authenticity can no longer be verified 34. In any case, the restoration of the old hermitage was completed with the painting of the church during the time of Bishop Damaschin, as mentioned in the inscription, but it is highly likely that the bishop was actually involved in this work, a fact which could indeed have prompted St Anthony to include his name amongst the benefactors in the memorial list.
In keeping with the custom of the time, when the narthex of churches would display, alongside the portraits of the founders, the image of the prince or the bishop seated on his throne, portraits of Bishop Damaschin were painted in the Chapel of All Saints at Cozia Monastery (1710), founded by the Blessed Archimandrite Ioan, abbot of Hurezi, and in the narthex of the church at Govora Monastery (1711), painted under the supervision of the same great abbot, Ioan ‘35’. Unfortunately, all the portraits mentioned have been heavily retouched during restoration or completely redrawn, so that his true likeness remains, just as his entire personality has remained, largely a mystery.
Endless administrative concerns, day-to-day spiritual matters 36, or diocesan issues must have preoccupied him more than the documents alone can tell us 37. For example, in 1711, the monks at Cozia Monastery complained to the voivode – regarded as the successor to the ancient founders, and therefore entitled to be involved in resolving the issues that had arisen – about a series of irregularities committed by their abbot, who had come from outside the monastery. As Cozia Monastery was, it seems, one of the very few – at that time – monasteries practising communal life in Wallachia and throughout the Orthodox East, and since the wise voivode was, like his predecessor Matei Basarab, a staunch supporter of communal living, he advised the Cozia monks to choose an abbot from among the community,
“so that the communal custom you have had hitherto may not be disrupted.”38
At the same time, the voivode instructed Bishop Damaschin, together with a ‘princely official’, to ensure that the matter was resolved.
Neither Metropolitan Theodosius nor St. Antim Ivireanul supported the voivode on the issue of the return of the monasteries of Wallachia to communal life – perhaps because the model of the Holy Mountain, where at that time there was no monastic community, was considered decisive. We do not know Bishop Damaschin’s stance on this matter, but we do know that he remained on very good terms until the end with the blessed abbot Ioan of Hurezi, the man entrusted by Constantin Brâncoveanu with organising the great monastery of Hurezi according to the monastic model of the Câmpulung monastery.
But in the summer of 1716, during the Austro-Turkish War which had then begun, Oltenia was occupied by Austrian detachments. Although initially viewed by the boyars with a degree of hope – due to the harshness of the Phanariot regime established by the Turks through Voivode Nicolae Mavrocordat – the Austrian occupation soon proved to be increasingly harsh, particularly from a fiscal perspective, as the Austrians initiated a programme of reforms designed to alter the very structures and customs of traditional Romanian society. Furthermore, the Habsburg monarchy 39, an absolutist state with – already – Enlightenment leanings, sought the strictest possible secular control over the Church, whilst also encouraging Catholic proselytism in favour of the Union.
The conditions of war and occupation forced the Bishop of Râmnic to step out of his hitherto pastoral and scholarly reserve: in February 1717, before the peace treaty was concluded, he travelled to Vienna with a delegation of boyars to attempt to negotiate the status of Oltenia 40. This was his only known political act, and it was, of course, motivated by the hope of securing rights for his Church.
Both the boyars and the bishop had demanded autonomy for the province and the diocese, the former on political grounds, the latter by proposing that it be elevated to the rank of a metropolis—a status it was entitled to as the successor to the ancient Metropolis of Severin—which would have entailed ordination in Constantinople. But this increase in power and prestige was in complete contradiction to Vienna’s efforts to restrict the autonomy of the province o41e. Having been occupied by military force, Oltenia was unable to attain the status of an ally—and thus the autonomy envisaged by the Romanians—but became a province of the empire, and was thus severed not only from the princely seat in Bucharest but also from the Metropolis of Ungrovlahia, and, despite the firm and repeated protests of Bishop Damaschin, placed under the authority of the Serbian Metropolis of Belgrade, which was under Austrian control. Bishop Damaschin put forward, in opposition to this decision, every possible canonical argument (the much greater antiquity of the see of Râmnic compared to that of Belgrade; the honorary title of Metropolitan of Amasya to which he was entitled, as heir to the ancient diocese of Severin, and which could not be inferior to that of the Metropolitan of Belgrade 42), but the new authorities viewed this matter purely in political terms.
Vienna’s intention was to sever the Church of Oltenia’s ties with the Eastern Orthodox Church – including the traditional links between the monasteries and the Eastern patriarchates and monasteries 43 – and to subject it as much as possible to government control. To sever the long-standing ties between the Orthodox Romanians in the Brașov area and Wallachia, the Austrian authorities placed them under the jurisdiction of the bishop of Râmnic 44 – without realising, however, the immense support that would come to them from this source, through the now easier dissemination of Romanian Orthodox liturgical texts. In addition to these, the bishop had also translated a Catechism, which, however, was never actually printed 45. Instead, one of the few books he managed to print on the new press he had established in Râmnic during the final years of his life, Instruction on the Seven Sacraments (1724), spread rapidly throughout Transylvania and proved so useful to Orthodox Christians that it was very soon banned by the synod of the United Diocese (1725) 46.
The main demand of the Church of Oltenia, formulated by the bishop and the delegations of boyars even before the end of the war—namely, full respect for the Orthodox faith—recurred in all the memoranda addressed to the Court in Vienna and was readily accepted, since, in the short term, bringing this overwhelmingly Orthodox province closer to Rome was considered an unrealistic aspiration 47 – a fact which spared Oltenia the tragedies and martyrdoms that took place in Transylvania. However, relations between the Church and the government remained tense throughout, due to the policy of curtailing the province’s rights and exercising ever-tighter control over ecclesiastical life. Bishop Damaschin’s requests generally went unheeded, although, personally, the bishop enjoyed the respect of the authorities, as is evident from these memoirs, recorded more than half a century after his death:
“…Bishop Damaschin, who, by virtue of the profundity of his learning and his mastery of Latin and other languages,was deemed worthy of being summoned to the imperial capital and honoured by the emperor who reigned there at the time with gifts…”48
The preserved correspondence between Bishop Damaschin and the boyars who had once again set out for Vienna in 1718 for negotiations reveals him to be particularly vigilant regarding all attempts by the occupiers to curtail the rights of the Church and the boyars. He advises them to demand the removal of foreigners (particularly the Greeks) from all secular and ecclesiastical offices, from all important positions of authority (“let not foreigners mingle amongst us”49); the Church’s ancient privileges should be preserved (exemption from tithes, internal customs duties, etc.) and, above all, that Austrian soldiers should vacate their quarters in the monasteries 50 – since, in a country where the Turks had banned fortifications, the only fortified sites suitable for setting up barracks or mounting a defence were the monasteries.
It was not until February 1719 that the imperial decree setting out the province’s new ‘constitution’ – namely, the measures for the organisation and administration of Oltenia 51 – was published; these measures proved to be very severe. The government now made clear its intention to exercise direct control over the Church as well – through the appointment or dismissal of abbots by the local administration and the commanding general, rather than by the bishop; through the confirmation of the bishop by the Court of Vienna, from a list of three names proposed by mixed elective assemblies comprising lay and ecclesiastical members 52; through the review of the title deeds to monastic estates; through the control of the monasteries’ financial management, not by the bishop, but by the civil-military administration. Faced with this prospect, Bishop Damaschin attempted to resist, proposing a plan for ecclesiastical reorganisation of his own. Together with four elected abbots (Archimandrite Ioan of Hurezi, Ștefan of Bistrița, Ștefan of Arnotea and Pahomie of Govora 53), who gathered in November 1719 in the cells of Hurezi Monastery, he drew up a plan which, in effect, aimed to emancipate the Church of Oltenia from the secular authority of the government: the Diocese of Râmnic would not be subordinate to the Metropolis of Belgrade, but to the Patriarchate of Constantinople; the bishop was to be the sole authority empowered to appoint or dismiss the abbots of the monasteries, to represent the monasteries before the government, to oversee, together with the synod, their administration, and to approve the construction of new churches and monasteries. The Small Synod also called for the restoration of the monasteries’ former rights (exemptions from various taxes) and their former internal regulations 54. In response to the administration’s intention to organise a Latin school in Craiova for the Catholic Bulgarians from Chiprovăț, who had been brought there, the Small Synod of Hureș countered with a proposal to establish a Romanian school in Râmnic:
‘We have decided, together with the whole assembly, that it is pleasing to God and beneficial to the country to establish two schools here in the country, one Romanian and the other Latin. However, the Romanian school is to be in Râmnic, under the responsibility of the Bishop, the monasteries and the priests; and whatever expenses arise for the teachers and the serac children are to be borne by them. As for the Latin school, it is to be in Craiova, the responsibility of the prince, the boyars and the country, and they are to bear the cost of all expenses.”55
None of these requests were fulfilled, with the exception of the Latin school; in 1725, the final decree was issued placing the Diocese of Râmnic under the jurisdiction of the See of Belgrade 56; the government interfered increasingly in the life of the Church 57, including monastic life and the relationship between abbots and the monastic community; administrators appointed by the imperial administration frequently intervened in the organisation of the monasteries; the secular clergy also came under the scrutiny of the new authorities for fiscal reasons 58.
A second synod, held by the bishop in 1725 with the abbots of Bistrița, Hurezi, Segarcea, Arnota, Govora and Căluiu, protested against certain taxes imposed on the monasteries 59. To demonstrate the justice of preserving the old monastic privileges, the bishop and the abbots were compelled to present the documents and deeds of ownership to the authorities: Bishop Damaschin’s signature appears on almost all the registers of the 18 monasteries of monks, 5 of nuns and 17 hermitages 60. The elderly bishop must have viewed with sorrow the influx of Catholics (Bulgarians, Germans, Hungarians) into the very see of Râmnic, where a Franciscan monastery, subsidised by the government, was operating 61. Even if an isolated case, the situation of the abbot of Segarcea, who in 1724 had embraced the Union 62, would further embitter the last years of the bishop’s life.
In this context, Bishop Damaschin’s request, addressed in the autumn of 1725 to the Austrian commander Karl Tige, the Oberdirektor of Oltenia, and to the Imperial War Council, to print liturgical books in Romanian at Râmnic. Invited by the authorities to specify which book he wished to publish – so that it might be “thoroughly examined”63 – the bishop replied on 22 November, a few days before his death, with a letter explaining his project 64:
‘The books, however, which I was thinking of printing are not figments of my imagination, but are ancient ecclesiastical books, commonly used in our Eastern rite, for reading and singing, which are also printed in Venice in Greek and then sold wherever Greeks are to be found; such printed books also exist in Church Slavonic, [being] printed throughout Serbia and Bulgaria, and in Poland, and in Great and Little Russia, and even in Oltenia, Muntenia, Moldova and Transylvania, in all the Romanian churches. As these books are in Slavonic, and seeing that our Romanians sit in churches, due to their ignorance, like oxen, without understanding what they read and what they sing, and leave the churches without any benefit, I took it upon myself, by divine prompting and with great labour, ten years ago, to translate from Greek and Slavonic into our simple Romanian language, and I intended to have such books printed for the reasons stated, for the glory of God and the undying remembrance of His Holy, Imperial and Catholic Majesty; but so far this endeavour has been in vain and will remain so, for at present we have neither a skilled printer nor any money, for a great deal of money is required when such books are printed. When the Lord grants us such strength, and should we be able to find a benefactor who can assist us financially with this divine undertaking, then it will be possible to begin this work; and, before this comes to pass, I shall send, in accordance with Your Excellency’s instructions, a copy to the Illustrious Secretary of the Court Council of War, for without the knowledge of Your Excellency and the Illustrious Secretary, I shall not commence this in any way.
The first book I wish to print is called Minologion in Greek and contains the feasts celebrated on Sundays, those of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of Christ, and of all the saints throughout the year, from September until the last [day] of August; from this book I shall send you, whenever necessary for clarification, one month’s worth in Romanian; it is impossible to send the entire book, even though we read from it and chant from it daily in our church, for one month’s worth is sufficient to serve as an example; after this, with joy and without any fear, we shall send the printed work in its entirety, and not just one, but several [copies], and then our truth will be seen, as will the services held in our church.
I humbly ask Your Excellency to deem it useful to mention the books referred to above at the August Court, so that I may not be suspected in any way, as I know myself to be faithful in all things to His Catholic Majesty the Emperor…”
The Austrian administration added, in the covering letter accompanying the petition, that
“Bishop Damaschin of Râmnic requests the granting of an authorisation to distribute, without any hindrance, in Transylvania, the Banat of Timișoara and the district of Arad, the prayer books printed in Râmnic, [which are] in Romanian and intended for the instruction of the Romanian people.”65
For a long time, the bishop and teacher Damaschin had been unable to have the translated books printed. But from his own income, saved up over many years, he managed, probably during the year 1723, to purchase a printing press with all the necessary woodcut materials, to hire a skilled craftsman (Ilie Cernăvodeanul) and to buy the paper for the first books 66. It was the first printing press south of the Carpathians that the principality had not acquired itself. Printing actually began a year before the aforementioned correspondence, with the Romanian Book of Hours (26 August 1724),
For a long time, Bishop and teacher Damaschin had been unable to have the translated books printed. But from his own income, accumulated over many years, he managed… to purchase a printing press along with all the necessary woodcut material, to employ a skilled craftsman and to buy the paper for the first books.
‘…thus arranged and printed in the Holy Diocese of Râmnic, by the command and at the entire expense of His Grace, the God-lovingKir Damaschin, Bishop of Râmnic…”67
This was followed by The Catechism on the Seven Sacraments (1724) and The Romanian Psalter* (1725). It is clear, however, that the circulation of the ‘Instruction’ amongst the Romanians of Transylvania displeased the authorities so much that they not only banned it (1725), but also decided to censor the bishop’s printing activities, a fact which explains the tension evident in the aforementioned correspondence from late autumn 1725: the authorities claimed to ‘examine thoroughly’ the books proposed for printing, whilst the bishop defends them, stating that ‘then our truth will be seen’. Consequently, he was unable to publish that Catechism which he had intended primarily for the Transylvanian Romanians.
The motivation behind his immense ‘publishing project’ was as clear as could be: ‘by divine inspiration’ he wished for all Romanians to be able to derive spiritual benefit from services conducted in their own language, and he saw in this an invaluable support for the Orthodox Christians of Transylvania, to ensure the unaltered preservation of their faith. This was, of course, in conflict with the ban, issued in December 1725 by the Imperial War Council, on the distribution of books beyond the mountains68; nevertheless, the books from Damaschin’s printing press in Râmnic, published in very large print runs, enjoyed wide circulation throughout all the Romanian provinces – even in Moldavia, where they competed with publications from Iași – but above all, as he had wished, ‘in Transylvania, the Banat of Timișoara and the district of Arad’, including in Maramureș. Their clandestine circulation across the mountains did not cease after 1739, when Oltenia returned to the borders of Wallachia, so that Damaschin’s translations, reprinted in numerous editions throughout the 18th century and the following one, fulfilled their purpose despite opposition from the imperial authorities 23. Bearing in mind that, at that time, even with large print runs, the costs of printing could not be covered solely by the sale of books 69, we can see that the Diocese made considerable efforts to finance its highly active printing press; the steadfastness with which the bishops of Râmnic supported this spiritual, national and educational investment throughout the eighteenth century and into the early nineteenth truly places them amongst the nation’s founding fathers.
Bishop Damaschin’s statement that he began translating liturgical books ‘ten years ago’ (i.e. around 1715) seems difficult to understand, given that his work is attested from at least 1700, through his translation of the Octoechos. It is possible that a diplomatic approximation may have crept in here, so as not to link the start of his work to the name of Saint Constantine Brâncoveanu, the great defender of Orthodoxy 70, and thus leaving the impression that his translation work served merely a church and educational purpose (“...being intended for the instruction of the Romanian people”). Indeed, the ten years to which he refers were so tumultuous that he could scarcely have found enough time for such a vast undertaking.
- 1
The preface dedicated by Șerban Greceanu to Constantin Brâncoveanu, in the Greek-Romanian Gospel printed in Bucharest in 1693. Quotations from early Romanian printed works in: Ioan Bianu, Nerva Hodoș, Dan Simonescu, Bibliografia Românească Veche (4 vols.), Bucharest, 1903–1944, hereafter BRV. Here, vol. I, p. 333.
- 2
Ibid.
- 3
The words of Bishop Damaschin, in the preface to the Slavonic-Romanian Psalter, Buzău, 1703. BRV IV, p. 30.
- 4
A note from 1689 by a scribe, on the manuscript of a copy of a translation by Bishop Mitrofan. Gabriel Ștrempel, Catalogue of Romanian Manuscripts [from the Library of the Romanian Academy], (hereinafter CMR), vol. I, Bucharest, 1978, p. 303 (ms. rom 1357).
- 5
According to the Condica Sfântă, edited by Bishop Ghenadie of Craiova (Enăceanu), Bucharest, 1886, p. 91; Nicolae Iorga, History of the Romanian Church, 2nd ed., Bucharest, 1932, vol. II, p. 65.
- 6
The Holy Register, op. cit.
- 7
In the preface to The Apostle of 1704, BRV I, p. 456.
- 8
Ibid., pp. 230–231.
- 9
Radu Greceanu, in the afterword to Mineiul pe septembrie, Buzău, 1698, fol. 132. Ibid., p. 368.
- 10
Quoted in Fr. Georges Florovsky, Les voies de la théologie russe, Lausanne, 2001, pp. 50–51.
- 11
A note from 1748 on a manuscript at the Library of the Romanian Academy: ‘I, Ghinea Stanovici Voinescu, the schoolmaster of Căpălnaș, brother of the schoolmaster Ștefan of Craiova, and nephew of the late, blessed Father Bishop Damaschin of Râmnic, have written this’
- 12
Mihail Regleanu, ‘Contributions to our understanding of Damaschin, Bishop of Râmnic’
- 13
Nicolae Dobrescu, The History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia during the Austrian Occupation (1716–1739), Bucharest, 1906, Appendix 48, p. 166.
- 14
M. Regleanu, ‘Contributions…’
- 15
Archival Treasures of Vâlcea, Catalogue of Documents, Bucharest, 1985, vol. II, no. 187 (25 September 1725); PS Gherasim Cristea, History of Govora Monastery, Râmnicu Vâlcea, 1995, p. 47.
- 16
N. Dobrescu, The History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia…, p. 90 and Appendix 125, pp. 228–229.
- 17
N. Iorga, History of the Church…, Vol. II, p. 100 and note 1 on p. 101.
- 18
Damian P. Bogdan, ‘Russian Books in Wallachia under Constantin Brâncoveanu’
- 19
Ibid. Text taken from: Ilie Corfus, Notes from Long Ago [from manuscripts and books in the BAR collection], Bucharest, 1975, p. 178. There is another note on the same copy: “† Vasile, the child from the Metropolis, learnt grammar from the teacher Damaschin (…)
- 20
Ibid., p. 556.
- 21
Alexandru Lăpedatu, ‘Damaschin, the Bishop and Teacher, Translator of Our Liturgical Books’
- 22
The hypotheses of Al. Lăpedatu (op. cit., note 1/p. 563, partly derived from His Grace Ghenadie Enăceanu) were taken up by N. Iorga (History of the Church…, p. 100) and, from there, by a large number of researchers and publicists. The counter-arguments, as set out by Barbu Teodorescu, ‘Bishop Damaschin and his contribution to the creation of the Romanian literary language’
- 23a23b23c
B. Teodorescu, ‘Bishop Damaschin…’
- 24
General Directorate of State Archives, Chronological Index No. 3. The Diocese of Buzău (compiled by Mihail Regleanu), Bucharest, 1958, cat. 1823, 1903 etc.
- 25
BRV IV, p. 29.
- 26
Ibid., p. 30.
- 27
BRV I, p. 540.
- 28
Em. Vârtosu, ‘A Commentary on Typographical Terminology in 1703’
- 29
CMR II, p. 282 (Romanian manuscript 2469); D. Bogdan, ‘Russian books…’
- 30
BRV I, p. 454 and pp. 258–262 respectively.
- 31
Al. Lăpedatu gives the period January–April (“Damaschin, the bishop and teacher…”)
- 32
Corina Popa et al., Catalogue of Brâncoveanu Murals. I. Vâlcea County, Bucharest, 2008, vol. I, p. 418 and vol. II, ill. 29, p. 273.
- 33
Constantin Bălan, Medieval and Modern Inscriptions of Romania: The Historic County of Vâlcea, Bucharest, 2005, no. 933.
- 34
Ibid., no. 887 and doubtful entries 4. His name also appears in the monastery’s handwritten list of the dead, compiled after 1740: Aurelian Sacerdoțeanu, ‘The List of the Dead of Iezerul Monastery’
- 35
Catalogue of Paintings…, vol. II, fig. 6, p. 176 and fig. 58, p. 238.
- 36
“I, Priest Costandin [of Cucești], was born during the reign of Prince Constandin Vodă Brâncov[eanu], when the year was 7211 [1703], and I was married during the reign of Ghiorghe Cantaco[zino], Prince of Wallachia, in the year 7229 [1721], and I was ordained deacon and priest by Bishop Damaschin of Râm[nic], in the year 7231 [1723]
- 37
For bishops’ letters and matters recorded in documents, see, for example, Archival Treasures…, II, cat. 146, 148, 161.
- 38
Aurelian Sacerdoțeanu, ‘From the archives of Cozia Monastery’
- 39
Șerban Papacostea, Oltenia under Austrian Rule, 1718–1739, 2nd ed., Bucharest, 1998, p. 30.
- 40
N. Dobrescu, The History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia…, p. 10.
- 41
Ș. Papacostea, Oltenia…, p. 289.
- 42
N. Iorga, History of the Church…, pp. 102–103; N. Dobrescu, History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia…, pp. 20–21.
- 43
Ibid., p. 19.
- 44
Ibid., p. 56; Ș. Papacostea, Oltenia…, no. 2, p. 299.
- 45
Al. Lăpedatu, ‘Damaschin, the bishop and teacher…’
- 46
BRV II, pp. 22–23; Fr. M. Păcurariu, History of the Church…, II, p. 331.
- 47
Ș. Papacostea, Oltenia…, pp. 288–289.
- 48
Preface to the sixth edition of the Damaschinian Anthology (Râmnic, 1786): Daniela Poenaru, Contributions to Early Romanian Bibliography, Dâmbovița County Museum, 1973, p. 228. On the occasion of the negotiations in which he had taken part in Vienna in 1717, Emperor Charles VI had presented him with a cross. N. Dobrescu, History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia…, p. 10.
- 49
Ș. Papacostea, Oltenia…, p. 153.
- 50
N. Iorga, History of the Church…, p. 102; N. Dobrescu, History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia…, p. 10.
- 51
N. Dobrescu, The History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia…, p. 19 and Appendices 4, p. 138, and 6, p. 139.
- 52
Ș. Papacostea, Oltenia…, p. 290.
- 53
N. Dobrescu, The History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia…, p. 20.
- 54
Ibid., pp. 20–23; N. Iorga, History of the Church…, p. 103.
- 55
Ș. Papacostea, Oltenia…, no. 4/p. 299.
- 56
N. Dobrescu, The History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia…, pp. 53–54.
- 57
When, in 1723, the abbot of Căluiu was removed from the priesthood and from his position as abbot by the authorities, Bishop Damaschin was merely informed of this: N. Dobrescu, History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia…, p. 41 and Appendix 21, p. 154.
- 58
Ș. Papacostea, Oltenia…, p. 295.
- 59
N. Dobrescu, The History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia…, p. 39.
- 60
Ibid., p. 32.
- 61
Ș. Papacostea, Oltenia…, p. 297 and n. 3.
- 62
N. Dobrescu, The History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia…, p. 44 and Appendix 28, p. 158.
- 63
Ibid., p. 58 and Annex 45, p. 163.
- 64
Ibid., pp. 164–165 (the Latin original).
- 65
Ibid., p. 59 and Annex 46, pp. 163–164 (German original).
- 66
A paper mill, established by Matei Basarab around 1642 to supply the printing works at Govora, operated right in the heart of the town of Râmnic. However, records of it cease in 1708, the year in which St Antim, having been elected metropolitan, moved to Bucharest, taking the printing press from Râmnic with him. Aurelian Sacerdoțeanu, ‘The Paper Mill at Rîmnicul Vîlcii in the 17th Century’
- 67
BRV IV, p. 47.
- 68
N. Dobrescu, The History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia…, p. 59 and Appendix 50, p. 167. This is despite the fact that Commander Tige, in the report submitted on 12 December 1725 to the War Council – a report which accompanied the aforementioned letter of 22 November from the bishop – emphasised that these books ‘do not contain [theological] controversies, but are simply prayer books’
- 69
Cornelia Papacostea-Danielopolu, Lidia Demény, Books and Printing in Romanian and South-Eastern European Society (17th–19th Centuries), Bucharest, 1985, p. 120.
- 70
Although Brâncoveanu was held in high regard in Vienna for his diplomatic services, his interventions in Transylvania – which sought, discreetly, to assist the Orthodox Romanians threatened by the Union – were halted in 1702, as they were regarded as interference in the internal affairs of the empire. Paul Cernovodeanu, ‘Political Life at the End of the 17th Century and the Beginning of the 18th Century. The Era of Constantin Brâncoveanu’