The wooden Church of St Nicholas in the hamlet of Cărpinișu, Anghelești village, Pietrari commune, Vâlcea County (II)

The History of the Wooden Church of Saint Nicholas in Anghelești-Cărpinișu

Like other monuments of this kind in the northern part of Oltenia, the small wooden church in the hamlet of Cărpinișu, in the village of Anghelești, Pietrari commune 1, had an obscure history until 2009. The confusion and inconsistencies were compounded by the inaccurate or contradictory information found in the few registers, catalogues or studies that mention it. Due to its shape and layout, which are rarely seen today, the church has, over time, attracted the attention of several historians, as will be seen below.

Nowadays, following restoration work which has led to the discovery of the original inscriptions and certain morphological and structural details of the monument, most aspects relating to the stages of its construction have been clarified. In the absence of further documents from the early 17th century, the provenance of the church—which was relocated for a second time to the hamlet of Cărpinișu in the village of Pietrari—remains uncertain.

Before presenting the results of our research, we shall now attempt to provide an overview of the studies and documents published to date in which the wooden church at Anghelești-Cărpinișu is mentioned. On the one hand, this is a mark of appreciation for the historians who have not overlooked this monument; on the other hand, it is intended to clarify its history as far as possible.

A very thorough study dedicated to the wooden churches in the centre of the Getic Piedmont, by Ioana Cristache-Panait and already mentioned in the first chapter of the monograph, focuses quite extensively on the church dedicated to ‘Saint Nicholas’ in Cărpinișu. With remarkable scholarly insight, the author dates the monument to the 17th century: “In 17th-century churches with an oversized narthex (Grămești, Cărpiniș-Pietrari, Cotmeana-Popârtești), in order to achieve the same span for the single vault of the nave, multiple beams were used for the floor structure of the narthex’2”. Undoubtedly, the researcher takes into account for this dating the church’s planimetric typology of archaic origin: a nave with an altar and a pentagonal narthex, as well as the absence of a porch 3. At the same time, the study in question points out the inaccuracy of the dating of the wooden church in Cărpinișu to 1810: “for Vâlcea, we first mention the church at Cărpiniș-Pietrari, whose origins are unclear; the year 1810 refers to a later renovation, as the traces of an 18th-century inscription, weathered by time, can still be made out on a beam in the nave’4”.

A second study, explicitly devoted to the church in question and already cited, is by Andrei Pănoiu. The historian considers the church to be “one of the most interesting examples of Vâlcea architecture”, attributes it to the founder “Popa Matei of Genuneni” and dates it to 1810, based on the misread year5, carved on the south-west side of the narthex (to the right of the church entrance). The correct year inscribed on that beam is (7306)1797–1798.

Furthermore, his study mentions a relocation of the church to Pietrari from the area of the villages of Tomșani, Folești or Genuneni, although no precise date for this move is known. Andrei Pănoiu nevertheless estimates that the relocation took place before 1845, “judging by the style of the fragment of the painting depicting the Death scene on the west façade”. We assume he is referring to the plastering and painting of the church in the mid-19th century, possibly after and not before the relocation. The author praises the meticulous quality of the church’s construction and notes the ‘ship-shaped’ plan, with a hexagonal altar apse, symmetrically set back on either side, without a proskomidia or diaconicon, and an apsidal narthex, also hexagonal, but with a wider opening than that of the nave”. He goes on to say that the church is “unusually” designed without a porch, concluding that it is a “unique example of its kind preserved in the area south of the Carpathians”6

As regards the dating of the church at Pietrari – Anghelești, Radu Crețeanu includes it in his list of wooden churches in Vâlcea under Zone C monuments, Type III–IV (with a polygonal, oversized narthex), as having been built in 1810 7. We suspect that I. Popescu Cilieni’s catalogue contributed to the establishment of this date as the year of foundation; Radu Crețeanu states that he frequently drew upon this work 8. On page 32 of his work, Father Cilieni records two wooden churches in Pietrarii de Jos, both dedicated to ‘Saint Nicholas’ and consecrated on 6 December; however, one was built by “Priest Matei of Genunenii in the year 1810” and is situated in the Cărpinișu neighbourhood, whilst the other was founded by “Anghel, Pătru and Stan Moghină and the other parishioners, in the year 1737”. The village monograph, as I noted in the chapter dedicated to the priests and churches of Pietrari, turns the situation on its head, giving the year 1737 as the date of the foundation of the Church of Saint Nicholas in Cărpinișu.

The Diocese of Râmnic and Argeș also notes the existence of a “branch church dedicated to Saint Nicholas” in Pietrarii de Jos, in the commune of Pietrari, built in 1810 9.

Nicolae Stoicescu’s catalogue, in turn, records two wooden churches in Pietrarii de Jos, both dedicated to ‘St Nicholas’, one dating from 1810 and the other from 1737 10.

We assume that the source for the more recent dating to 1737, is the inscription—which is, incidentally, quite damaged—found on the southern exterior wall of the nave, where the year 7245 (1736–1737) can be roughly deciphered. This date is also included in the ‘Catalogue of Churches in Vâlcea County’, held by the County Directorate for Culture, Religious Affairs and National Cultural Heritage, and appears identically on the List of Historic Monuments of the National Institute of Historic Monuments (INMI).

As we noted in the chapter on the history of the Pietrari, there is an archival document from 1781 (document no. 854, published in Archival Treasures of Vâlcea) which suggests the existence of the wooden Church of Saint Nicholas in the hamlet of Cărpinișu: a deed drawn up by Father Pătru of Pietrari, whereby Ion, son of Father Gheorghe of Pietrari de Jos, bequeaths, amongst other things, to his daughter Maria, “10 stânjeni from the woodland at Cărpiniș (author’s note), the Zăpozii orchard, a strip of vineyard by the hillside, the fruit trees and two fathoms from the church meadow (author’s note)”.

It is precisely the scarcity of written sources and the brevity of the information they contain that have led to confusion regarding the dating of most wooden churches, of which our subject is no exception. Details regarding the history of this village church over time are few and extremely sketchy. Probably the oldest record in which it is explicitly mentioned is that from 1815–1816, presented in the chapter on the priests and churches of Pietrari, from which we learn the name of the priest Ioan Cazacu, who was serving the church at that time.

However, the best and most convincing account of St Nicholas’s Church in the hamlet of Cărpinișu, Anghelești village, Pietrari commune, was provided by the church itself when it was unveiled from its layer of paint, stripped and transported to the Vâlcea Village Museum to be brought back to life.

An endeavour just as important as the restoration itself was the deciphering of the seven inscriptions 11 found inside and outside the church, of which the most spectacular are, without a doubt, the two inscriptions ‘unearthed’ from beneath the layer of paint that adorned the tympanum between the narthex and the nave.

The first inscription to be deciphered is the one carved into the centre of the massive beam separating the two worship spaces. It reads as follows: “† S5 S5 4IE C5 SAU F5CU(T) V5 DNI IWN COSTANDIN5 VOIVOD5 // SAU SOVR53IT M(S)(})K DECEMBER I DNI 3I A W F5CU POPA VASILIE // SU SATU(L) V5 LE5T -ZRXD PI(S) DAVI(D) ME4E(R) WGNK IONU" († let it be known that it was made for you, Lord Ion Kostandina Voivode // or on the 8th day of December, and it was done by Priest Vasilie // with Satu(l) V5 Le5T 7164 by David (David) Master Ognea Ionu), translated as: “† Let it be known that this was done in the days of Ion (sic) Constantin Voivode, completed on the 8th day of December, and that Priest Vasilie had it made with the village in the year 7164 (1655). Written by David. Master Ognea Ionu".

A concise formulation which includes, in addition to the surprising date of the church’s foundation (8 December 1655, during the brief reign of Constantin Șerban), the name of a priest (who, together with the village, founded the church, Father Vasilie), the name of the scribe (David) and, something extremely rare for the time, the name of a master church builder: Ognea Ion. In the absence of further information, we might assume that Ognea Ion is the oldest name of a church builder attested to date in Vâlcea County 12.

Given that few people knew how to write at that time, literacy being the preserve of the clergy, we may assume that David (as his name itself suggests) was a monk skilled in carving inscriptions into wood, probably living in a neighbouring monastery. We also note that the inscription is written in Romanian, using Cyrillic characters, whilst retaining a few Slavonic expressions, as the Romanian language did not at that time have equivalents for expressions such as: ‘vă dni’ (“in the days”), “mesețea” (“the month”) and “pis” (“wrote”).

The second foundation of the wooden church in Cărpinișu-Anghelești—as we shall see later, it was brought to the village where Father Vasilie and the congregation were rebuilding it— took place during the second term of office of Metropolitan Ștefan I of Ungrovlahia (1655–1668)13 and during the episcopate of Dionisie III at Râmnic (1653–1657). Given the antiquity of the second foundation of the wooden church at Cărpinișu-Anghelești, we consider it useful to place the church within the context of the patronage practices of that era.

In the period immediately following the death of Matei Basarab, who was succeeded on the throne of Wallachia by Constantin Șerban (Cârnul), the construction of places of worship continued. The year 1655 saw the laying of the foundation stone and the start of construction of the Metropolitan Cathedral in Bucharest, which was consecrated in 1658 during the tenure of Metropolitan Ștefan I. The consecration of the Metropolitan Church, built on the initiative and through the efforts of Prince Constantin Șerban and Princess Bălașa, was attended by the bishops of Râmnic and Buzău, as well as Patriarch Macarius of Antioch 14, who was present at the time in northern Oltenia, specifically in the Hurezi area, as attested by several documents (the deed dated 30 June 1657 15 and the charter of 22 May 1658 16). Metropolitan Ștefan was, in turn, the founder of the historic wooden church at Grămești–Costești (Vâlcea) in 1664. It is all the more surprising to see that this place of worship, considered to be the oldest wooden church attested in northern Oltenia, is now surpassed by nine years by the wooden church at Cărpinișu-Anghelești. The period in question, as reflected in several documents held at the State Archives in Râmnicu-Vâlcea, attests to the prince’s interest in the monasteries’ estates and their prosperity. A document dated 25 June 1654 (7162) shows how Constantin Șerban granted the village of Costești in Vâlcea (17) to Bistrița Monastery and its abbot, Vasile. Another document, dated 18 September 1655, shows that the same prince confirmed the ownership of the village of Călinești 18 to Cozia Monastery and its abbot, Ioan.

The spiritual emulation and enthusiasm for building in the era and region in question were therefore, despite the unstable political climate 19, conducive to the emergence, within a community of free peasants, of a representative wooden church.

Returning to the inscription found in the centre of the beam of the wooden church at Cărpinișu-Anghelești, we note that, unfortunately, it contains no information regarding the name of the village where it was founded, nor about its patron saint.

The discovery of this indisputable documentary evidence was not, however, the only surprise brought about by the removal of the layer of paint from the tympanum between the narthex and the nave. A second one followed. On the same beam, at its southern end, a second inscription emerged from beneath the plaster; it was more faded, written in a cruder and more disorderly hand, mixing cursive letters with capital letters20. It reads as follows: “†S5 S<5> (4)IK C5(N)<D>U A(U) FOSTU M(I)LT(U)M BOJIE6 TR(U)I} I DINTIU F<5SUT5> // A2EST5 S(N)T5 BI(S)E5RIC5 S4N(I) H(R)AMU VE(L) }A(R)(I) COS(T)DIN <I> ELIN5" (†let it be known that there were many blessings bestowed upon the three teeth made // this c(n)tă bi(s)earică sștn(i) h(r)amu ve(l) ța(r)(i) cos(t)(d)in <i> elina), translated as: “†Let it be known when the first of the three ways of God’s mercy were <f>made> // this holy church, consecrated in honour of the Great Emperors Constantine and Helena”.

This inscription contains certain Slavonic phrases found in the educated circles of the time (monasteries, princely chancelleries, the courts of the great boyars). In this regard, we note the use of an expression that seems to have been taken directly from official documents: “M(I)LT(U)M BOJIE6 TR(U)I}I” (milostium bojeiu truiți), which translates as: “by the mercy of the Holy Trinity”. A second such formula is: “S4N(I) H(R)AMU VE(L) }A(R)(I) COS(T)DIN <I> ELIN5” (sașteni hramu velikii țării costandin i elina), which translates as: “consecrated <in> the patronal feast of the Great Emperors Constantine <and> Helena”.

Both in terms of its ‘21’ positioning and its linguistic features, the second inscription appears to be considerably older than the first, suggesting that the church’s initial foundation took place before 1655, in a different location, most likely within the grounds of a monastery, a hermitage or a boyar’s estate. Given that, with moderate maintenance, an oak church such as this one could last, without major repairs, for between 60 and 80 years, we can assume that the church at Cărpinișu-Anghelești, in its original form, dates from the last quarter of the 16th century. It is known that the churches of several monasteries or hermitages in the Horezu area were rebuilt in stone, having originally been wooden churches (notable examples include: the church of Arnota Monastery dating from 1634, the church of Surpatele Monastery, founded by the Drăgoești boyars around 1520 22, the church dedicated to the Nativity of the Lord at the Jgheaburi Hermitage, built of timber in 1610 and then rebuilt in 1640 23). Could this present church be one of them, donated at the time of the construction of a new one to a nearby village community to serve as a village church? It is well known that, in accordance with ancient customs, the components or furnishings of a wooden church were never destroyed, nor used for a secular building, but were reused and incorporated into another church. An intriguing hypothesis!

Upon removing the plaster, it was observed that the original panelling of the tympanum—which currently separates the narthex from the nave—on the side facing the narthex, showed a series of erosions and splintering characteristic of prolonged exposure, at some point in the past, to the elements. This suggests that, originally, this wall—on which the beam bearing the ancient inscription is also located—formed the outer part of the church, which initially comprised only the nave and the altar. This structure corresponded to the religious needs of 16th-century monasteries or hermitages, or to the private worship of leading boyar families.

Unfortunately, whilst the 1655 inscription omits the name of the village where the wooden church was restored by Father Vasilie together with the local community, the older inscription omits the year of foundation, the names of any founders, and also the place of origin. These gaps have hampered research. The only clear information concerns the original patron saints of the church at its initial location: Saints Constantine and Helena.

Until recently, it was believed that the wooden Church of Saint Nicholas was founded in Pietrari at the beginning of the 19th century (1810). Subsequently, the year 1737 was put forward as the date of its construction on the Moșneni estate at Cărpinișu-Anghelești, without taking into account the evidence suggesting that it had been moved from another village. This evidence is clear. They concern the numbering, carved with a chisel (I, II, III, IIII, IIIIII etc.), of most of the building’s components. When the building was dismantled, it was observed that it had in fact been moved twice. We shall return to this point in detail in the following chapter.

The attribution of the foundation of this church, whether to ‘Priest Matei of Genuneni’ or to ‘Anghel, Pătru and Stan Moghină’, proves to be unfounded. Archival research has shown us that in 1810 the name Moghină did indeed exist, but in Pietrarii de Sus. A document held at the Vâlcea County Court refers to a transaction involving brandy between the freeholders of Pietrarii, amongst whom the Moghină family appears to form a veritable clan 24. A document from 1729 (7237) even mentions a Stan Moghilă (not Moghină) listed as a witness in a land grant case 25. It would therefore not be impossible for someone from this family, who were evidently wealthy, to have been the founder of a church dedicated to Saint Nicholas in Pietrarii de Sus, which is, incidentally, mentioned in the censuses and registers already cited. However, this is not the Church of Saint Nicholas in the hamlet of Cărpinișu. The best evidence we currently have is the third deciphered inscription, found on an external beam of the south wall of the nave. Its text reads as follows: “†E(U) GER(G) S5 S5 4IE C A<(M)> F5C(U)T C(U) M+NA M8 SIN(U) POPI VA(L)C(U)L(U)I // V5 LKT(U) -ZSM[E?]” (“†I, Gher(ghe), so that it may be known that I<(m)> have made this with my own hand, the five priests’ va(l)c(u)l(u)i // in the year 724[5?]”), translated as: “†I, Gherghe, let it be known that I made this with my own hand, the son of the priest of Vâlcului, in the year 7240 (or 7245) (1730–1731 or 1736–1737). And following on from this inscription, another, written in a different hand, notes: “31 A2I(A) MA(U) +GRO(P)<A>T(U)... that is to say: ‘and here ma(u) was bur(i)<a>t(u) ...’.”

As I pointed out in the chapter on the church and the priests of Pietrari, the priesthood in that village was passed down from father to son. Here we have clear evidence of this 18th-century practice. Ghe(o)rghe, son of the priest Vâlcu, is, as recorded very succinctly, the founder of the Church of Saint Nicholas in the hamlet of Cărpinișu, around the year 1730. The year of the church’s second relocation is unclear due to the laconic style of the inscription and, in particular, the letters forming the date ‘26’. It could be either 1730–1731 or 1736–1737, as the inscription does not specify the month; an omission which, in the case of the Byzantine calendar, results in an error of plus or minus one year. It is likely that this inscription formed the basis for dating the church to 1737 in some reference works. Although it is not specified, it is highly probable that this Gherghe or Gheorghe was himself a priest. A compelling argument for this is the discovery made during the archaeological excavation carried out at Cărpinișu-Anghelești, on the site where the wooden Church of St Nicholas stood until the autumn of 2009. Archaeologist Mariana Iosifaru found, next to the south wall of the church, directly beneath the inscription ‘și aici(a) ma(u) îngro(p)<a>t(u) un mormânt de preot’27’, a priest’s grave. The second argument that Ghe(o)rghe, mentioned in the inscription, was a priest is supported by the well-known fact that village churches were founded by the community and the local priest. And the third argument, the ‘strongest’ one, could be the two wills (diate) dated 1781, already mentioned, which are signed by ‘Priest Ion, son of Priest Gheorghe of Pietrarii de Jos’. In the first will, this Priest Ion bequeaths to his daughter Maria, amongst other assets, “10 stânjeni of woodland at Cărpiniș, the Zăpozii orchard, a strip of vineyard by the hillside, the fruit trees and two stânjeni of the meadow by the church”. It is now clear that at least part of the estate belonging to the family of priests from which Priest Ion, son of Priest Gheorghe, originated was located at Cărpinișu, since, at the urging of Bishop Climent, the priests of Pietrari, including Gheorghe, built on their ancestral estate. The year in which the two wills were drawn up—28 and 1781—suggests it is highly likely that Father Ion was a descendant of Father Gheorghe, the founder of the wooden church in the hamlet of Cărpinișu, part of their estate, around the year 1730. Furthermore, we can thus reconstruct an entire priestly genealogy in the Pietrari region. If Priest Gheorghe was the son of ‘Priest Vâlcu’, and Ion is the son of Priest Gheorghe, the founder, then we already have three generations of priests in a landowning family from Pietrarii de Jos, known as the Vâlcu family. The name Vâlcu appears in documents relating to village life in Pietrari as early as the second half of the 17th century 29. Once again, this refers to a well-to-do family. Given that the church was consecrated in the hamlet of Cărpinișu, part of Pietrarii de Jos, in the year 1737, this means the event took place during the tenure of Metropolitan Ștefan II (1731–1738) and Bishop Climent (1735–1739), which is likely, given the way in which the latter bishop particularly encouraged the building of churches on his ancestral estate. If this is the case, we might hypothesise that Ghe(o)rghe is none other than Father Gheorghie, the iconographer at the Pietrari hermitage, who embellished the church founded by Climent, together with his brother Andrei and Danciu Filip 30. The same priest Gheorghie the painter is also mentioned as a painter at Titireciu Monastery in Ocnele Mari, at the Diocesan infirmary in Râmnicu-Vâlcea, as well as at other churches in the county. He is, therefore, an important figure of the era and the region, a close associate of Bishop Climent. Moreover, he is certainly one of those skilled in writing. We hope that other documents, to be discovered in the future, will shed further light on this history.

If, on the other hand, the church was rebuilt between 1730 and 1731—a scenario that is already less likely, given the reasoning set out above—then the event took place during the episcopate of Bishop Inochentie (1728–1735).

A fifth inscription was discovered beneath the plaster on a beam of the narthex’s semi-dome. It reads as follows: “V<5> <LE5T> -ZTND // S<5> T<E>NCUIE4E", (v<ă leat> 7354 // s<ă> t<e>ncuiește), translated as: in the year 1845–1846 // it is being plastered. We thus learn the year in which new alterations to the church began, this time of a less beneficial nature. During this ‘renovation’, the passageway between the narthex and the nave was widened and raised, as was the opening for the royal and deacon’s doors, by cutting and trimming some crown beams and the corresponding sills, an operation which seriously compromised the building’s structural integrity. The original entrance door to the church—probably hewn from a single log—was also widened and raised, and replaced with a plain fir-wood door. The windows in the nave and the chancel have also been excessively enlarged by the complete removal of two or three beams, a modification which destroys the cohesion of the walls and contributes to compromising the structure of the church. A large window has also been oddly cut into the north wall of the altar apse, immediately above the proskomidia shelf.

At the same time, the narthex was covered with a semi-dome-shaped ceiling made of poplar planks, constructed in a rudimentary and structurally precarious manner. It appears that the southern and northern floor slabs of the nave were also replaced between 1845 and 1846, having been constructed and fitted in an unskilled manner. This work, in turn, damaged the structure of the church. Another alteration carried out during those years involved changing the floor, the level of which was adjusted; the old stone and brick floor was replaced with one made of fir planks. The replacement of significant sections of the roof truss also appears to date from this period. Of the original structure, only the south-west, east and south-east sides of the building have been preserved. Due to the use of beams of unsuitable dimensions when replacing these elements of the eaves, the roof cornice was reduced in size, which led to poorer protection of the church’s walls and foundations, as well as altering the building’s overall appearance, with the roof coming to resemble a ‘cap slipped over the eyes’. This alteration also resulted in the chopping off of the pairs of ‘horses’ at the ends of the crown beams.

It appears that immediately after the plastering work, the tympanum of the apse and the tympanum between the narthex and the nave were decorated with frescoes; these paintings were subsequently washed away and have been retouched on several occasions.

The first plastering, carried out in 1845–1846, involved chiselling the entire interior with a chisel. It did not last very long and was later followed by a second application, this time using a lath framework, which served as a bonding substrate for the second layer of plaster; this did last, with numerous patches (some made more recently with ‘Portland’ cement mortar) until 2009, the year the building was dismantled and relocated.

The church was entirely whitewashed on the outside with a thick lime paste, with the exception of the south-west side of the narthex, where the wood had been notched and where, in the 1970s and 1980s, painted fragments of an eschatological scene depicting ‘The Death of the World’ could still be seen.

The sixth inscription was found on a beam of the narthex’s tympanum, at the lower part of the painted surface: “·ME4ERI · GE(R)GOE D8COIU · TWM5 GEO(R)GO GEO(R)GE ·”, meaning: “artisans · Gheorghoe (sic) Diaconu · Toma Gheorgho (sic) Gheorghe ·”. Executed in cinnabar pigment, which was also used for the fresco above, the inscription can only be the signature of the painters who decorated the church.

Finally, the seventh inscription is found on a beam to the right of the entrance door: “–ZTX WB”, corresponding to the year 7306 ob, that is: 1797–1798 ob (probably a mistaken abbreviation for the month of October). This is the inscription that was misread as 1810, on the basis of which the church was erroneously dated.

It seems clear that the period of decline for the church in question began in the second half of the 19th century. A document dated 1869 informs us that the hamlet of Cărpinișu (formerly Anghelești) had 47 parishioners, and that the wooden church dedicated to Saint Nicholas had “a priest’s post vacant since 1867”31 Furthermore, from a yearbook dated 1909 32, we learn that “the branch churches in Cărpiniș and Bârlog have been closed since 1905”33.

At the time of its relocation, the church no longer contained any religious artefacts; according to information from the villagers, it had been broken into and ransacked by thieves in 2001. It is believed that the royal doors also disappeared during that unfortunate incident.

We have information from highly reliable sources that the church’s collection included icons and other valuable objects: an inscription found on the old icon of Saint Paraskevi, which belonged to the Church of Saint Nicholas in Cărpiniș, dated around 1760 and deciphered by Constantin Bălan: “Remember, O Lord, Vasili the monk of Mănăilești, aged 75; Radu Zograf”34 This icon, as well as another 16th-century icon depicting the Mother of God, are mentioned by Ioana Cristache-Panait in her study on the wooden churches of the central Getic foothills, 35. During the field research undertaken by the author in the 1980s at the wooden church of St Nicholas in Cărpinișu-Anghelești, she noted that the following artefacts were present in the church’s collection: a small icon of Saint Nicholas and another of the Virgin and Child, in the sanctuary; the latter bearing the signature of Nicolae Zugravul and the inscription ‘paid for by Tinca 1851’; the icon of Saint Paraskevi (Svet Petca), bearing the signature of Vasilie Ieromonah ot Hurezi, as already mentioned; a 19th-century icon depicting the Deisis scene (Jesus Christ between the Virgin Mary and John the Baptist); an imperial icon of the Pantocrator surrounded by the Apostles from 1851, signed “Constantin son of Drăghici” and “Nicolae Zugravul of Bunești”36. Some of these icons are also listed in the records of the Vâlcea County Directorate for Culture and National Heritage.

The architecture of the church

The wooden church in Pietrari – Anghelești (Cărpiniș) is built from massive oak beams, in the shape of a ship, with the customary layout of the worship spaces: narthex, nave and altar apse. The foundation is built of slabs of uncut stone, not bound with any mortar, using the dry-stone walling technique. The church stands on large oak pillars, joined by simple, straight mortise-and-tenon joints, the ends of which extend well beyond the walls of the building (30–50 cm). The wall beams, which are of considerable width (24–30 cm), are joined together with dovetail joints and secured with wooden pegs. The altar is set back from the nave, and the nave is in turn set back from the extended narthex. At the top, the church walls are crowned by a double cornice; the beams forming this cornice have horse-shaped corbels at their ends. The eight horses, which serve both a structural and apotropaic function and guard the altar, also greet you at the entrance to the church, outside the narthex. They are roughly hewn from massive oak beams. The horses of the altar and the narthex are imposing, formed by the intersection of the last two rows of beams. They support the massive purlins that encircle and bind the entire church together at the top.

In turn, the rafters, joined at the corners by simple mortise-and-tenon joints and wooden pegs, support the entire roof structure. The massive rafters, made of oak, whose ends, like the crown beams, are finished with carved horse’s heads, are interwoven with equally massive tie-beams, made from softer wood (ash, poplar or conifers).

The complex structure and irregular arrangement of the struts ensure that the roof truss is well braced. Before its relocation, the church was covered with low-quality fir shingles, though these were made in the traditional manner by splitting the wood and fastened with shingle nails. The eaves were covered with two layers of shingles. Beneath the fir shingles covering the entire roof, a layer of split oak shingles had also been laid, as was to be seen upon dismantling, originating from an older roof covering that the church had possessed, probably before 1800 37.

The narthex has a total area of approximately 13.40 square metres, with a length (east–west axis) of 317 cm and a width (north–south axis) of 470 cm. It is shaped like a polygon with unequal sides; in fact, it is an irregular octagon of which only five sides are utilised. It is set back from the nave, and the entrance door to the church is located on its western wall. It has no windows.

In its upper part, the narthex had a rudimentary semi-dome – certainly not the work of a skilled craftsman – made of poplar wood panels clumsily joined together with simple mortise and tenon joints, as was to be discovered when the plaster was removed prior to the church’s dismantling. On the eastern side, the panels forming the narthex’s semi-dome were unnaturally supported by a double arch, which was also made of poplar wood 38. By all accounts, this semi-dome was added after the church was moved to Cărpiniș-Anghelești. The arguments are as follows: the absence of any structural connection between the semi-dome and the semi-cylinder of the nave vault; the use of a softwood (poplar) and its rudimentary workmanship; the absence of any numbering marks, in stark contrast to the rest of the church’s structural elements, on which such markings are present. It is worth noting, in this context, that the southern and northern bases of the nave are also unnumbered, as is the western base of the narthex, which were certainly were at some point replaced following the church’s relocation to Cărpinișu–Anghelești and prior to the church being plastered.

When the semi-dome of the narthex was constructed, two beams were added to the upper part of each of the north and south walls to support the double arch and to bridge the resulting gap between the beams and the walls.

The passage between the narthex and the nave was through a wide opening (235 cm). This was achieved by shortening the beams that formed the partition wall: by cutting the corresponding base at the bottom, and at the top by cutting the first crown beam and notching the second. The disruption of the continuity of these structural elements, together with the advanced state of deterioration caused by biological attack on the timber, led to a serious threat to the integrity of the monument. This resulted in the deformation of the entire building, which was the condition in which it was found in situ at the time of its dismantling and relocation.

The nave has a total area of 17.26 square metres, measuring 421 cm in length and 410 cm in width. On both the south and north walls, centrally and symmetrically, there is a window cut into each, 55 cm high and 38 cm wide. These windows were enlarged in 1845–1846, as part of a whole series of inappropriate alterations carried out at the same time as the church was plastered and painted during that period.

In its upper part and along its entire length, the nave is vaulted; the semi-cylindrical vault is constructed from carved oak beams, with widths ranging from 25 to 30 cm and a thickness of 5 to 6 cm. The beams are supported at the western end by the tympanum between the nave and the narthex, and at the eastern end by the tympanum separating the nave from the altar apse. In the centre, the panels rest on a double arch, which in turn is supported by a pair of corbels positioned on the topmost beams of the south and north walls of the nave. These same corbels also help to support the northern and southern corbels on the exterior, thus ensuring an optimal balance between the weight of the roof structure and that of the semi-cylindrical vault.

Access to the altar apse is provided by three openings, corresponding to the royal door and the deacons’ doors. It was here, in 1845–1846, as part of the same series of unfortunate alterations to the church, that these openings were raised. As with the passage between the narthex and the nave, this was achieved by cutting away the corresponding base at the bottom, and at the top by completely cutting through the first crown beam and cutting into the second, in order to raise the arches. When the church was moved to Pietrari, the panels forming the tympanum between the nave and the altar apse were installed without being secured by the wooden pegs, the holes for which we found to be empty upon dismantling, a fact which led to the considerable displacement and deformation of the tympanum and to the weakening of its connection with the semi-dome of the altar apse.

The altar has a total area of approximately 8.12 square metres, with a length of 288 cm and a width of 320 cm. Externally, it is shaped like a polygon with five unequal sides. It is set back from the nave by recesses on the south and north sides.

The altar apse features three windows: two larger ones (approximately 55/37 cm) set into the south and east walls, and a smaller one (35/25 cm) on the north wall. At the top, the apse is enclosed by a semi-dome constructed from thick oak planks joined by progressively sloping dovetail joints, which ensure the structure is self-supporting, thus eliminating the need for a system of arches. The structure of the semi-dome rests on the five sides of the apse and is supported at the top by the tympanum separating the nave from the altar apse.

The Holy Table is made from a stone slab set upon a brick plinth 39. On the north wall, a vaulted proskomidia was built into the plasterwork of the church, similar to the niches found in masonry churches.

From an architectural perspective, the condition of St Nicholas’ Church in Pietrari – Anghelești is virtually unique at present, as it is one of only two wooden ecclesiastical monuments without a porch and with a polygonal narthex in the county of Vâlcea. In 1981, Radu Crețeanu noted in his study on the wooden churches of Vâlcea that only three such monuments represent the “indigenous type with a polygonal narthex”, expressly mentioning the church at Pietrari – Anghelești. The historian emphasised that “these rare examples are remnants of an ancient type once widespread throughout the country”40 The other two wooden churches with polygonal narthexes are the one at Fețeni – Goranu, founded in 1742 and destroyed by fire after 1990, and the one at Opătești – Golești (on the border between Vâlcea and Argeș counties), dating from 1767, which is still standing. The wooden church at Pietrari – Anghelești is, therefore, one of the two monuments in northern Oltenia without a porch and with a polygonal narthex. Andrei Pănoiu, in the study already cited, even argues that this church is the only surviving example in the area south of the Carpathians: ‘The apsidal shape of the narthex, as well as the absence of a porch, appears to us here, however, as a singular case. We do, however, find the apsidal porch form in churches such as those at Zătreni – Vâlcea or Bălțații de Sus – Mehedinți. (...) This plan form of the church in Cărpiniș, with its apsidal narthex, though regarded as an exception, is nevertheless found in a very similar form in the wooden churches of Moldavia or Transylvania. It must also be linked to a certain type of masonry place of worship, which developed in parallel, such as the churches in Bălinești and Dragomirna – in Moldova – or those in Olari – Curtea de Argeș and Ludești – in Wallachia 41. Andrei Pănoiu also concludes that this type of church was once very widespread and that it may have disappeared due to the limited space it offered to worshippers, as well as the lack of a porch.

From an architectural perspective, the St Nicholas Church in Pietrari – Anghelești is virtually unique at present, as it is one of only two wooden ecclesiastical monuments without a porch and with a polygonal narthex in Vâlcea County.

Ioana Cristache-Panait, for her part, noted that: ‘In Moldova, as in all parts of Transylvania, the wooden church with a polygonal narthex has been noted. This type of plan has been regarded as authentically Romanian (author’s note), with examples from the foothills of the Carpathians reinforcing this character. This is the form of the church at Valea Faurului, that at Bascov—founded in 1747 by the merchant Marin Buliga—and, modelled on it, the neighbouring church at Glâmbocu (Argeș). Examples of churches with this type of narthex in Vâlcea County, mentioned by the author, are those in Fețeni and Opătești. At the same time, Ioana Cristache-Panait emphasises the antiquity of this architectural plan: “Archaeological research at Râncaciov Monastery (Argeș) have deepened our understanding of the historical significance of the plan type featuring a narthex and a polygonal altar, thanks to the evidence brought to light regarding the first church from the 15th century, whose walls displayed this form’42”. In another study devoted to wooden churches, Ioana Cristache-Panait makes an interesting observation regarding the history of this type of plan and its distribution across Romania: “Found in all the Romanian provinces, the rectangular plan with a polygonal narthex and a polygonal, non-recessed apse represents the predominant type in Bistrița-Năsăud County, as well as in Moldavia.” The archaic form that has been preserved, of a rectangular plan with a three-sided, non-projecting apse and a polygonal narthex, is, in the historian’s view, the one that “has its roots in the polygonal termination of the western end of the churches”. Hunedoara County, for example, has the largest number of wooden churches of this type, dating from the 17th century (Bretea Mureșană – 1650, Târnăvița – 1661). In the Banat region, the church at Crivina de Jos, dated 1667, is mentioned. Finally, the discussion of this type of plan concludes with a statement emphasising both its antiquity and its importance: ‘The wooden church with a polygonal narthex influenced stone architecture’ (...) In Transylvania, this ancient Romanian form also influenced the Reformed church (the church at Țigău, Bistrița County, attested in 1503)43.

Finally, the renowned historian Vasile Vătășianu considers that the wooden church can have three types of plan, with variations. Type III, in which the nave is larger than the narthex and the chancel, is, he says, “a primordial type derived from the wooden house”, specific to Ukraine and Russia. Variant b of Type III is the one in which “the narthex is closed off to the west by a polygonal structure, with three sides, rarely with five sides”44 We find the subject of the present study within this typology. The above considerations are useful for demonstrating, through the most authoritative voices in art history, the antiquity and former widespread distribution, across the entire country, of the wooden church with a narthex and a pentagonal altar.

The church’s paintings

The dismantling of the church and the removal of the frescoes from the tympanum of the apse and from the space between the narthex and the nave (‘tâmplișoara’) have made it possible to assess the painted decoration more accurately. Thus, we can now state with certainty that the church was first plastered internally in 1845–1846, according to the inscription written in charcoal, discovered beneath the plaster of a beam in the narthex’s semi-dome. During that period—apparently some time after the fresco decoration of the main altar and that of the ‘small altar’—the two pediments were painted, and the eschatological scene of the end of the world, which has now disappeared, on the south-west exterior wall of the narthex.

According to the conservation report, the paintings on the tympanums were subsequently washed off and underwent repeated interventions which significantly altered their original appearance. During repairs, probably in the second half of the nineteenth century 45, the church was plastered once more; the plastering work and the new layer of plaster covered the edges of the tympanums, thereby obscuring the borders and parts of the painted scenes.

An inscription written in cinnabar pigment, discovered on a beam in the narthex, at the bottom of one of the painted scenes, reveals, rather clumsily, the names of the painters: Gheorghe Diaconu and Toma Gheorghe. It is almost certain that different painters, and probably at some interval, worked on the fresco of the main altar and that of the side altar. Ioana Cristache-Panait’s study identifies Nicolae Zugravul as the artist behind the fresco at the church in Pietrari-Anghelești, based on his signature discovered on the icons inside the church (the patron saint’s icon and one of the imperial icons, both now lost) at the time she was conducting her research on the monument: “The evidence of Nicolae Zugravul’s work dates from the renovation phase of the church in the middle of the last century”46 It is possible that this painter, Nicolae, is the artist behind the fresco on the tympanum of the iconostasis. Moreover, the far more elaborate style of the iconostasis painting—visible even after the repeated interventions that have marred its original appearance—suggests the work of a more experienced fresco painter, well-versed in the canons of Byzantine representation. The painting on the ‘tâmplișoară’ was clearly executed by less skilled craftsmen who essentially copied the registers and scenes depicted on the iconostasis tympanum, with the exception of the Crucifixion scene, which was replaced on the ‘tâmplișoară’ with the image of the Ancient of Days.

The tympanum (the iconostasis’s central panel) is painted, in accordance with the canon, in three horizontal registers. The upper register features the scene of the Crucifixion at its centre. Jesus Christ on the cross is flanked by the Mother of God and John the Evangelist. The sorrowful faces of the sun and the moon also appear against a starry sky (the ‘cerimea’). To the right and left of the Cross of the Passion are depicted six of the Old Testament prophets. In the central register, the Saviour is depicted in the centre holding the Holy Gospel, flanked on the left and right by the Apostles.

The lower register features icons depicting the following feasts, from left to right: the Nativity of the Mother of God, the Entry of the Mother of God into the Church, the Nativity of the Lord, the Baptism of the Lord, the Presentation in the Temple, the Resurrection, the Ascension, the Transfiguration, the Holy Trinity and the Dormition of the Mother of God. With the exception of the Resurrection scene, which is based on the Western depiction of the triumphant Saviour rather than the Byzantine representation of the Descent into Hell, the other feast-day icons adhere to the guidelines of Byzantine iconography.

The ‘Tâmplișoara’ (the tympanum between the narthex and the nave), so named precisely because it reproduces, for the liturgical use of women (who at that time were not permitted into the nave), the iconography of the temple, is, as noted above, painted by less skilled artists. The only alteration is the replacement of the Crucifixion scene in the centre of the upper register with the Slavic-derived image of the Ancient of Days.

In the narthex, a small painted scene was removed from the south wall; executed in a folk style, it appears to depict the Mother of God – the Life-Giving Spring.

Conclusions

The wooden church in Pietrari–Anghelești, relocated and restored in 2009–2010 at the Vâlcea Village Museum in Bujoreni, has undergone three distinct phases of existence.

In the first phase – the late 16th century – the building belonged, according to all the data gathered to date, to a hermitage, a monastery or a boyar’s estate, as evidenced by the older inscription located at the southern end of the beam bearing the inscription dated 8 December 1655. At that time, the church was a chapel. It had only two rooms: the nave and the altar apse, this structure meeting the liturgical needs of the era. Evidence to this effect came to light during the dismantling and restoration of the monument:

1. The joints where the northern and southern bases of the narthex meet the transverse beam supporting the partition wall between the narthex and the nave.

It should be noted from the outset that adding a new space to a traditional wooden church built using the blokbau technique—namely the narthex in this case— can only be achieved in a viable manner by attaching additional beams connected to the old structure, either via a bracing system or by means of notches. However, extension using brackets is preferable to the tie-beam system, as the latter, due to the resulting length of the walls, is more fragile and thus less structurally sound.

The addition of the narthex using corbels was the method favoured by the master builder in 1655. To achieve this, it was necessary to extend the church’s foundations by attaching the transverse foundation—which supports the partition wall between the narthex and the nave—to the foundations that were to support the walls of the narthex. This connection required the use of a special type of mortise and tenon joint not found in any of the church’s other joints. It consists of a tenon-and-mortise joint with a hook-shaped mortise, which was adopted to prevent cracking and displacement of the ends of the transverse base—which were retained after this operation but were too short to provide any further structural strength. The solution chosen by the craftsman also had the advantage of preventing cracking and dislocation of the relatively short remaining material up to the adjacent joints, where the beams supporting the longitudinal walls of the nave joined at a short distance.

Another point worth highlighting is that the transverse beam supporting the wall separating the narthex from the nave and the transverse beam supporting the wall between the nave and the altar apse are almost the same length: 548 cm and 551 cm respectively 47.

It is clear that, had the church been built with a narthex from the outset, the beam supporting the partition wall between the narthex and the nave would have been left longer on the outside. This would have provided sufficient material to create simple straight joints – joints that are much easier to execute – and which the craftsman used for all the other joints in the building’s plinths.

2. The semi-dome of the narthex

At the top, the narthex is capped by a rudimentary semi-dome – certainly not the work of a skilled craftsman – made of poplar timber panels clumsily joined with simple mortise and tenon joints, as was to be discovered when the plaster was removed prior to the dismantling of the church. On the eastern side, the panels forming the narthex’s semi-dome were unnaturally supported by a double arch, also carved from poplar wood, and just as rudimentar38ly. By all accounts, this semi-dome was added after the church was relocated to Cărpiniș-Anghelești, as it has no structural connection with the semi-cylinder of the nave’s vault. It should be noted that the semi-cylinder of the nave, the semi-dome of the apse, and the tympanums on which they rest are structurally interlocked; they can only be assembled or dismantled in a circular fashion (row by row).

3. The beam with inscriptions

The oldest inscription extends over a distance of more than 6 cm below the joint where that beam meets the cabinets which, at the time of the church’s dismantling, formed the semi-dome that enclosed the narthex at the top. It follows from this that, originally, at the time the older inscription was carved, the beam was somewhat longer; it was subsequently shortened and then another dovetail joint was carved into it, probably during the church’s second relocation to the village of Pietrari. During the restoration of the beam bearing the inscriptions, it was also noted that the inscription dated 8 December 1655 had been carved after the beam had previously been partially smoothed to remove some splinters and signs of erosion. These irregularities remain visible across the rest of the beam where this work was not carried out by the engraver, including at the right-hand end where the older inscription is found, which also contains the church’s original patron saint.

4. The lintel beam of the church’s old door

It was also discovered during the dismantling and restoration of the monument that one of the panels forming the tympanum which now separates the narthex from the nave originates from a beam-crown that once supported this tympanum and which originally also served as the lintel of the entrance door to the church. During the first relocation, the ends of this beam (the joints and connections with the wall beams) were cut off, as they were probably rotten, and it was thus reused in the construction of the tympanum it had once supported. It was observed that the thickness of the beam varies between 8 and 10 cm, similar to that on which the inscriptions were carved and to another beam above it, all corresponding to the thickness of the beams used in the construction of the external walls. It was also found that, by contrast, the thickness of the other beams in that tympanum – probably replaced at a later date – as well as that of all the beams forming the tympanum separating the nave from the altar apse, varies between 4 and 5 cm. In the edge of this beam, towards its centre, two hollow-shaped recesses were found, 7.5 cm deep, spaced 63 cm apart. In all likelihood, these recesses were used to fit the door frames of the original entrance door leading from the outside into the church. It is very difficult to believe that, if the church had originally had a narthex and this beam were therefore the lintel of the passage between the narthex and the nave, access between these spaces could have been through such a narrow opening.

5. Erosion of certain elements belonging to the western part of the tympanum separating the narthex from the nave, and of certain elements of the wall beneath it

Following the removal of the plaster, the dismantling and subsequent restoration of the church’s structural components, it was observed that the original beams of the tympanum and some belonging to the wall beneath it—which currently separates the narthex from the nave— on the western side, exhibited a series of erosions and spalling characteristic of having once been exposed to the elements. This suggests that, originally, this wall of the nave—on which the beam bearing the old inscription is also located—formed the western exterior of the church, which initially consisted only of the nave and the altar.

The second phase in the church’s history (its second foundation) began in 1655, according to the inscription, in a village of freeholders which neither the inscription nor any other documents identify. The monastery or manor chapel was converted, in accordance with the alterations described above, into a village parish church by the master builder Ognea Ion, with ‘Priest Vasilie and the village’ acting as the second founders. Now, for practical and liturgical reasons, the ‘48’ narthex has been added. Consequently, the external access has also been altered, with the entrance moved to the west wall of the added narthex, where the door has also been relocated.

The third phase of the church’s history corresponds to its relocation to the hamlet of Cărpinișu in the village of Pietrari in 1736–1737, when it was rebuilt for the third time by Ghe(o)rghe, the son of Priest Vâlcu, during the episcopate of Bishop Climent. The third founder (undoubtedly associated with the village, although this is not specified) came from a priestly family in Pietrari and is buried beneath the inscription carved on one of the beams of the south wall of the nave.

The tempting hypothesis remains open to further research that, in its original form, the small wooden church at Pietrari may have belonged to one of the area’s ancient monasteries, whose history is obscure, and which are known to have been originally built of wood. The location of the second foundation also remains unclear. All we can surmise is that it was not very far from Pietrari. During the second and third phases of its existence, St Nicholas’s Church in Pietrari was founded by the communities of freeholders in the Hurezi area, led in turn by two priests: Father Vasilie and Father Gh(e)orghe.

The unexpected discovery of the monument’s inscriptions opens, in our view, a new chapter in the history of the construction of wooden places of worship in Wallachia, with many of the views held by historians who have studied this phenomenon (sometimes amounting to outright prejudices) set to be reconsidered. Radu Crețeanu, for example, maintains that, apart from churches such as the one at Marița (which, without clear evidence, is believed to date from 1556) and the one at Gușoieni, tentatively dated to 1550, “no wooden church predating the 18th century remains in Vâlcea County; most date from the second half of that century, whilst others date from the early decades of the following century”49). The Church of St Nicholas in Pietrari-Anghelești puts such assessments to rest. And it is probably not the only one. It is quite possible that the other surviving church of this type, the one at Opătești-Golești—which is also plastered and dated 1767—is just as old as the one at Pietrari. We put forward the idea that the wooden churches of Wallachia, without a porch, should be reassessed, as their age may well be much greater than that arbitrarily recorded in catalogues and registers.

In a reference work for those interested in wooden ecclesiastical architecture, Radu Crețeanu himself makes several statements which we shall quote solely to highlight the frequent errors in interpreting the founding practices of the medieval Muntenian period. The author of the book Wooden Churches of Muntenia states: ‘It is well known that, as a rule, wooden churches do not have that inscription—almost invariably found at the entrance to stone churches—which provides details regarding the founders, the date on which the building was erected, painted, repaired, etc. Of course, there are cases occasionally mentioned where a later inscription has been found, in instances where the original inscription has been destroyed. Often, however, it never existed in the first place. The explanation is simple and, in fact, encapsulates the entire history of wooden churches (author’s note): built without any spirit of ostentation, through the collective and anonymous (author’s note) efforts of the villagers, there would have been no point in recording the circumstances of the construction in writing (sic!). The few surviving original inscriptions indicate the year, the ruler, the patron saint, and sometimes the craftsmen, but in most cases not who built the church (author’s note). (...) Broadly speaking, it can be said that wooden churches were built by peasants for peasants (sic!)50.

It can now be seen, without much effort, that the history of wooden churches is quite ancient and complex, and that under no circumstances can it be reduced to the apparent absence of original inscriptions. Some inscriptions have disappeared; others may have been destroyed or may still lie hidden beneath layers of plaster. It is precisely the reality of frequent relocations or repairs—even going as far as complete renovations of the buildings—that transforms research into the history of wooden churches into a fascinating investigation requiring tenacity, intuition, imagination, a keen eye for detail and, above all, intelligence. It is hard to believe that the inscription was missing from the outset, especially since, as virtually all research undertaken over the last 20–30 years shows, the wooden church was by no means built ‘through collective and anonymous effort’. This is an explanation just as misleading and untrue as the one claiming that peasants built wooden churches because of poverty. Wooden churches were commissioned by free, wealthy peasants—prominent members of the community who did not hesitate to have their their names, nor to have themselves portrayed, sometimes along with their entire clan, in votive paintings whose clear ambition was to rival the votive representations of the princes or the great boyars who founded places of worship. Wooden churches were also founded by boyars, priests or high-ranking church officials (such as Metropolitan Ștefan). Fortunately, their names have been preserved, because these places of worship were not always built ‘by peasants for peasants’ but by figures of prestige and wealth within the respective community, for the religious needs of the entire community.

Another equally debatable assertion by Radu Crețeanu, following on from the lines quoted above, reads as follows: ‘The wooden churches were built by local craftsmen specialising in this trade, paid in cash and in kind. There were undoubtedly also churches built by some of the more skilled villagers, modelled on the wooden houses which, especially in the hilly regions, farmers would build themselves or with the help of relatives.” No one can any longer doubt that the construction of wooden churches was the work of highly skilled craftsmen, indeed, by those initiated into the mysteries of a high level of carpentry skill, who possessed secrets passed down through several generations and whose work could not be replaced by mere skilful peasants 51. Church builders belonged to a guild with a clearly defined status; they worked in craft centres and travelled to the areas where they were called upon to build. On another note, the wooden church is not modelled on the wooden house. It is true that the church is ‘the house of God’, but the liturgical ritual requires spaces with a completely different layout and significance to those of the rooms in a house. Consequently, the church’s floor plan, the layout of its spaces and the type of vaulting are entirely different from those of a dwelling. The similarities between a house and a church are relative and stem more from a superficial view of two types of architecture – sacred and secular – which are fundamentally different.

We now know for certain that the Vâlcea Village Museum in Bujoreni has added a third wooden church to its collection – this time the oldest documented in northern Oltenia and perhaps one of the oldest documented in Romania.

Imagine

• 1

  The church is included in the List of Historic Monuments under classification code VL-II-m-B-09869.

• 2

  Ioana Cristache-Panait, op. cit., p. 41.

• 3

  The presence of a porch at the wooden church in Grămești, founded by Metropolitan Ștefan in 1664, is an exception amongst 17th-century places of worship in Vâlcea County.

• 4

  Ibid., p. 40.

• 5

  Andrei Pănoiu, op. cit., p. 70.

• 6

  Ibid., pp. 70–72.

• 7

  Radu Crețeanu, ‘The Wooden Churches of Vâlcea’

• 8

  I. Popescu-Cilieni, op. cit.

• 9

  The Diocese of Râmnic and Argeș, Râmnicu Vâlcea, 1976, vol. II, p. 931.

• 10

  Nicolae Stoicescu, op. cit., p. 480.

• 11

  The transcription was carried out by Alexandru Nancu, with the assistance of the Slavicist Ion Soare.

• 12

  In a footnote to his study, Radu Crețeanu records that it was not until the 18th and 19th centuries that a few names of master church builders: Barbu, Matei and Constandin in 1774; Badea, Matei and Constandin (probably the same individuals) in Moșteni; in 1776; Ion, Gogu, Nicula and Sandu at Sutești in 1780; Radu Crucerul and Radu Simionescu at Viișoara in 1806; and Constandin at Nețești in 1824. (Radu Crețeanu, op. cit., p. 108, note 20).

• 13

  Metropolitan Stephen I’s first term in office, which was cut short by the Seimen uprising, took place between 1648 and 1653.

• 14

  I.D. Trajanescu, ‘The Metropolis of Bucharest’

• 15

  The document states that Patriarch Macarius of Antioch and All the West orders the stewards at Ocnele Mari to cease employing Gypsies from Râmnic and elsewhere, but to employ only those Gypsies belonging to the monastery who live at the salt works and who will pay the due taxes to Cozia Monastery; (Medieval Treasury of Vâlcea, Ms. 102, f 421v–422, p. 194).

• 16

  Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch, Syria, Arabia, Cilicia, Euphrasia and Antioch

• 17

  Document 519, in Tezaur Medieval Vâlcean, p. 184.

• 18

  Ibid., document 524, p. 188.

• 19

  Between April 1654 and October 1688, no fewer than nine rulers succeeded one another in Wallachia.

• 20

  Deciphering this second inscription proved even more difficult, due to the fact that at the southern end of the supporting beam the carvings made to prepare the surface for plastering were much denser, and in some places even overlapped. This situation required particularly painstaking and time-consuming work to recover the detached fragments and reconstruct the inscribed surface. Another obstacle to be overcome was that the ends of the beam showed an advanced state of erosion and disintegration of the wood, particularly in the section containing the oldest inscription, where the wood was in places reduced to a powdery state, requiring special stabilisation treatment.

• 21

  The second inscription extends over a distance of more than 6 cm below the point where that beam joined the cupboards which, at the time of the church’s dismantling, formed the semi-dome of the narthex. It follows from this that, originally, at the time the older inscription was carved, the beam was considerably longer, having been shortened when another ‘dovetail’ joint was carved into it.

• 22

  “Those who have studied the history of Surpatele Monastery are unanimous in their view that the first founders of a religious building on the Câinești estate, erected at the beginning of the 16th century, were Father Frâncu of Costești, together with his sons Tudor and Stanciu, around the year 1520. They would come to be known as the Drăgoiești boyars through Tudor, a scholar who later became a high-ranking official in the country’s council during the reign of Neagoe Basarab

• 23

  To the glory of the Holy Trinity, this holy hermitage was built in ancient times, during the reign of Radu Negru the Great, built of wood and dedicated to the Dormition of the Mother of God, in the year 1610; a second one was built by Matei Logofăt during the reign of Matei the Great Basarab, in the year 1640, and now, by the grace of God, the Reverend Father Andronescu of Cacova and the Reverend Father Ioan of Cheia, being cousins, undertook to rebuild it from the foundations up and to embellish it with frescoes, as can be seen in the monastery, which had fallen into ruin. (...) And it was completed in the year 7335 (1827), on 8 May. (Meletie Răutu, Ecclesiastical Monograph of Vâlcea County, Râmnicu Vâlcea, 1908, p. 102).

• 24

  Ion Moghină, Păun Anghelescu, Ion Ivănescu, Ion the bailiff, son of Ștefan Moghină, Apostol Moghină, Constantin Gagea, Dumitru Moghină, Din Stroescu, Nicolae Ciocan, Din Dilea and Nițu Stăiculescu from the village of Pietrari de Sus undertake to supply Alecsandru Olănescu of Olănești with 240 vedre of brandy in return for 30 lei, each vedra being valued at 50 parale. (file 710/1835, f.16, summary, in ‘Documentary Records of Vâlcea – Catalogue of Documents 1404–1816’, published by Conphys, Râmnicu Vâlcea, 1999, p. 74, volume compiled by Corneliu Tamaș and Ion Constantin Vasile)

• 25

  Document 1729 (D1, I/4, in Archival Treasures of Vâlcea, p. 62)

• 26

  The letter ‘M’ forming the tens digit is crossed by another mark which could just as easily be read as an ‘E’ linked to the preceding ‘M’ or as a scribble.

• 27

  A wooden cross and the remains of a scripture were found on the skeleton’s chest. Priests are still buried in this manner today.

• 28

  The second deed, dated 10 April 1781, states: “Priest Ion, son of Priest Gheorghe of Pietrari de Jos, bequeaths to his children his ancestral estate and the land he has purchased. He divides his entire estate comprising woodland, hillside, orchards and roads. Boundaries: the Stoenești estate, the Folești estate, Valea Clăiței, Valea lui Dobre

• 29

  In a document dated 1666 (7174) and another dated 1694 (7202), the name ‘Vâlcu from Pietrari’ appears

• 30

  A memorial list on the wall of the proskomidia chamber at Pietrari Hermitage, dated 1744–1745, reads: “Remember, O Lord: / the icon-painters, / Father Gheorghie, /Andrei, his brother / and Danciu Filip; / 7253. (inscription no. I 1248, in Constantin Bălan, op. cit., p. 767).

• 31

  Diocese of Râmnic – Noul Severin, file 35/1869, page 20.

• 32

  Yearbook 1909, Bucharest, Church Books Printing House, p. 228.

• 33

  We assume that this refers to the deconsecration of the two churches mentioned.

• 34

  Document II 1251, in Constantin Bălan, op. cit., pp. 768–769.

• 35

  Ioana Cristache-Panait, op. cit., p. 56.

• 36

  The information regarding the inventory of religious artefacts discovered at the church in Anghelești-Cărpinișu, which have since disappeared, was obtained a short while ago directly from Ms Ioana Cristache-Panait, who was kind enough to locate and provide us with the observation sheets from her field research.

• 37

  The observation regarding the date is based on the finding that the oak plank, now secured with iron nails, had a series of round holes (5 mm in diameter) typical of a fastening system using wooden pegs.

• 38a38b

  Support could have been provided more effectively at the western end of the semi-cylinder of the nave vault.

• 39

  During the archaeological excavation carried out following the relocation of the church, 30 cm below the level of the current floor of the altar apse, the stone socket was discovered into which the foot of the Holy Table – itself undoubtedly made of stone – had originally been set.

• 40

  Crețeanu, Radu, ‘The wooden churches of Vâlcea’

• 41

  Andrei Pănoiu, op. cit.

• 42

  Ioana Cristache-Panait, op. cit., p. 40.

• 43

  Ioana Cristache-Panait, ‘The Wooden Church – a symbol of Romanian unity’

• 44

  Virgil Vătășianu, ‘A Contribution to the Study of the Typology of Wooden Churches in the Romanian Principalities’

• 45

  When the interior plaster was removed during the dismantling and relocation of the church, it was observed that the laths forming the circular frame had been fixed with handmade nails.

• 46

  Ioana Cristache-Panait, The Wooden Churches of the Central Getic Piedmont, p. 56.

• 47

  Both the plinth supporting the wall separating the narthex from the nave and the one supporting the wall between the nave and the altar apse appear, together with those to the east and south-east of the apse, to be among the oldest and original ones. These plinths show a very similar degree of weathering and erosion due to exposure to the elements. However, the northern and southern bases of the altar apse, the nave and the narthex show a significantly lower degree of weathering and erosion, indicating that they are of more recent origin. All the more recent bases, including those of the narthex, were constructed from logs of visibly poorer quality than the rest of the church’s bases. The floor timbers of the narthex are more knotty, thinner and shorter, their ends protruding slightly beyond the wall sills and the alignment of the walls.

• 48

  On the one hand, a village church needed more space for the congregation; on the other hand, the narthex was the part of the church to which women also had access.

• 49

  Radu Crețeanu, op. cit., p. 106.

• 50

  Radu Crețeanu, The Wooden Churches of Muntenia, Meridiane Publishing House, Bucharest, 1968, chapter: ‘Founders, Craftsmen, Antiquity’

• 51

  Only the dismantling and complete restoration of a wooden church, coupled with an in-depth study of the monument, can truly convey the complexity of the craft involved in building such places of worship.