Bishop Teofil, a distinguished hierarch of the Church of Vâlcea (II)

As regards their administrative activities, whilst he was in Râmnic, Bishop Teofil and Matei Basarab built the monasteries of Arnota, Sadova and Brâncoveni 1. It was also at this time, in the year 1633, that a small church was built in the Cave of Saint Gregory the Decapolite, dedicated to the Holy Archangels, “as a holy and pious remembrance and expression of gratitude to his mother monastery, Bistrița Monastery, and above all as a token of thanks to God and to the cave, which had once saved him from death”. Having fallen into ruin, the hermitage was rebuilt in 1732 by the hieromonk Macarie. Also at Bistrița Monastery, between 1641 and 1642, he had a wooden cross made, adorned with silver and precious stones. The engraved inscription reads: ‘This cross was made by Bishop Theophilus, in the days of Prince Matei, in the year 7150’. It was erected on 21 October 1916 and is now housed in the Romanian Art Museum. It may well be that he also crafted the doors of the church at Arnota Monastery 2.

Whilst, prior to Matei Basarab’s accession to the throne, priests shared the same lot as the common people of the country, he, however, issued a charter in 1634, in which he decreed that priests ‘should have no other concern but to guard the holy churches with their services and in accordance with the prince’s laws, both by day and by night’. They were, however, also required to pay, during his reign, the customary ‘priestly tax’ and the ‘installation fees’ upon each change of bishop; these were, however, lighter than the ‘peasant tax’3.

As a true Romanian, Bishop Teofil was of great service to Romanian culture 4. With him, ‘what might be called the vocation of the book and the printing press began at the Diocese of Râmnic’, as Professor Ioan St. Lazăr of Vâlcea put it 5. Having been shaped by the spiritual and cultural atmosphere of Bistrița, he raised the Romanian school within the monastery to such a high standard that its graduates were able to compose works in the language spoken by the people. The best known of these is the hieromonk Mihail Moxalie, originally from Oltenia, near Râmnic, 6 ‘Teofil’s faithful companion and collaborator’, 7 who, at his urging, translated a Cronograph into Romanian, under the title De-nceputul lumieei de-ntâiu (On the Beginning of the First World), a Nomocanon, which was printed at Govora under the title Pravila cea mică (The Lesser Rule) or Direptătoriu de leage (Guide to the Laws) in 1640, and a Liturghier (Liturgy Book). 8

In his chronicle, written in September 1620, we find this information: ‘And thus spoke His Holiness, the most wise Father Kir Teofil, Bishop of Râbnic, here I am, your Holiness’s humble servant, the youngest and last of all, and the wretch, the monk Moxa Mihail; to the best of my knowledge (sic) and as I have understood it, I felt compelled to write this”. The book, the first universal history in the Romanian language, from the creation of the world to the year 1489, 9 (History of the World), comprises 99 chapters, in which are set out, alongside events from the ‘creation of the world’, information concerning ancient peoples (Jews, Assyrians, Egyptians, Persians) and medieval peoples (Bulgarians, Serbs, Turks), 10 as well as several references to the Romanians 11. For the first time, Romanians are presented with this account of biblical events and the lives of the Tsarigrad kings in an easy-to-read book, which was widely circulated in the Greek and Slavonic East. Translating it from various Slavonic and Byzantine texts, the humble monk added a few personal explanations, such as the notion that amongst the Slavic invaders of a distant past there were also ‘Romanians’ or ‘Romanians from Muntenia’. Another original contribution by this man from Oltenia, ‘with some knowledge of Serbian’, 12 is his account of the glorious moments in Romania’s past, in which he recounts some of the battles fought by the Romanian voivodes, Mircea the Great, Iancu of Hunedoara and Stephen the Great, against the Ottoman armies. 13 The enthusiasm with which he speaks of the expulsion of Alexandru Iliaș, ‘a Greek’, by Lupu of Mehedinți, ‘Lupul Românul, who had been Cupbearer to Șerban Voivode’, of ‘the slaughter of all his Greeks and the plundering of his treasures’, and of the appointment of Gavril Movilă, ‘to whom Wallachia was granted’, is consistent not only with the prevailing views in Oltenia at that time, but also with those held by Bishop Teofil, an enemy of foreigners and their custom of appropriating monastic property 14.

Written at Bistrița Monastery, this manuscript, much sought after throughout the Romanian lands, 15, arrived in Bucharest under unknown circumstances, was subsequently purchased by a Russian professor and donated to the Romanov Museum in Moscow 16. It is worth noting that, with this chronograph, ‘we enter the Romanian era, the era of the triumph of the Romanian book over the Slavonic one, accomplished by the command and with the blessing of a bishop’, as has been stated in historiography 17.

As regards the existence of the Liturgy Book from 1620–1630, Ion Sbiera notes the following: ‘This translation was made by Mihail Moxa of the Diocese of Râmnicu Vâlcea, and has been preserved for us in a manuscript, which is currently (1897) in the possession of the Bishop of Râmnic–Noul Severin, Ghenadie Enăceanu. This distinguished bishop, tireless in his literary endeavours, is preparing the publication of this manuscript, together with a study on it and its author”. By 1931, it had not been printed “and nothing more is known of its existence”.

Last but not least, it should be noted that from Mihail Moxalie, “the most significant chronicler of Oltenia”18, another Romanian manuscript has come down to us, comprising 137 folios, originating from Bistrița Monastery, now housed at the British Museum in London, which contains several patristic texts: St Basil the Great’s Instruction to Priests, St Gregory the Theologian’s Explanation of the Holy Liturgy, as well as several services 19.

Consequently, ‘the patron of calligraphers, the one who encouraged Moxalie to take up writing, and one of the earliest founders of the Romanian language within the Church’,20, was ‘a lover of Romanian literature’, who had the language of the country inscribed even on the gifts he bestowed, as can be seen on the cross he gave to Bistrița whilst serving as Bishop of Râmnic at a time when the Church Slavonic language was particularly cherished and displayed at every opportunity 21. It was also during his tenure that the calligrapher monk Mardarie was trained at Bistrița Monastery; we have several beautifully written Slavonic manuscripts from his hand 22.

“A pious, kind and enlightened Romanian bishop, a diligent and tireless worker, loved and esteemed by the faithful and especially by Matei Basarab, his friend”, 23 Teofil was elected at the beginning of 1637 to head the Metropolis, which he led for 11 years 24. It has been said that his departure from the Bishopric took place before 30 January 1637, as on that date he was metropolitan, as evidenced by the preface to the Slavonic Psalter, now printed at Govora 25. New documents suggest a later date. This refers to a deed dated 20 July 1636, from which we learn that he had already been installed as metropolitan, for on this date the widow of the Greek Iane of Pitești is recorded as having sworn an oath ‘before Metropolitan Teofil, in Bucharest’ concerning a mill at Eșciori, on the Argeș. His enthronement must have taken place around the last few days of June, or by 10–15 July 1636 at the latest, as some historians have suggested. To his contemporaries, the character of the new hierarch undoubtedly made his election seem a foregone conclusion 26.

On the other hand, it is also known that on 2 November 1636, Metropolitan Teofil, together with all the great and lesser boyars of Wallachia, issued a ‘letter of faith’ to Master Calotă, the chief steward, and to Marco the logothete, by which they stated that they bore no blame for the lack of funds for the ‘tribute to the empire’, as these had been embezzled by Dumitru Dudescul, the Grand Treasurer, and by Leontie, the former Grand Armourer, who were then on a mission in Constantinople. From this, it is quite clear that at that time Teofil was the Metropolitan o27e.

As regards the title he bore, we can state that Teofil sometimes styled himself archbishop and metropolitan, for he refers to himself in the preface to the Pravila printed in 1640 at Govora as: “Theofilu, by the grace of God, archbishop and metropolitan of all Wallachia”, whilst its epilogue states that it was printed with the blessing of “His Eminence Archbishop Theophilus, metropolitan of all Ungrovlahia”. In the title page of the ‘Evanghelia învățătoare’ (Instructive Gospel), printed at Dealu Monastery in 1644, the bishop is titled: ‘His Holiness Teofil, Metropolitan of the whole of Wallachia’, whilst in the preface to the Slavonic Liturgy Book, printed in the same press two years later, the term ‘Lord’ appears in his title, for he is referred to as: ‘His Most Holy Metropolitan Lord Theophilus, Archbishop (of Transalpine Ungrovlahia)’28.

As metropolitan, he carried out extensive pastoral, diplomatic and cultural work, being mentioned in various internal documents. For example, in 1637, he was commissioned by Matei Basarab to select the dowry for Lady ‘Coamna’ from the estates of ‘Paraschiv Logofătul ot Bunești’, her late husband. Following this royal commission, ‘Chir Teofil Vlădica, Metropolitan of Zemle Vlașcoi’ presented her with his ‘deed’ on 3 May 1637, ‘by which her dowry is determined, separate from the estate of her late husband’. He assumed this responsibility because the bishop’s see would have been vacant upon his ascension to the metropolitan see, thereby also fulfilling his duties as ‘29’.

The document dated 12 June 1637 provides us with some brief details, in which the prince draws up a register of the Romanians from the village of Muereasca, who had come years earlier before Father Theofil and the ‘faithful and chosen’ boyar Dumtrașco, the treasurer, to sell themselves to the Diocese of Râmnic. At the end of the document, Bishop Ignatie, his successor to the see south of the Carpathians, is also mentioned: ‘a record of the money handed over to Father Ignatie, from the funds provided by the spătar <Preda>, 50 ughi’30

Another charter reveals that on 10 August 1638, six boyars presented a document to the logofăt Radu Dudescu, “stating that Radu the logofăt had received it together with his mother-in-law Despina, the wife of Vlad the logofăt (Rudeanu), by the prince’s decree, before Matei Basarab in the divan, to be judged together with Metropolitan Teofil, regarding the dowries of Lady Catalina, daughter of Radu the logofăt, the daughter of Vlad the Logothete, which had not been taken earlier upon her father’s death, as they had been promised to her by Father Teofil Rudeanu. They therefore gathered before Father Vlădică. They all, together with him, prayed to Radu log. that he might forgive them all (the promised dowries), whilst as for the other items that would be left behind and what Vlad log. previously to Father Teofil Rudeanu, and upon his (Vlad’s) death, all of these were to be given to them by Lady Despina, the wife of Radu the Logothete”31.

On 25 February 1639, the name ‘Theofil the Bishop’ is mentioned in another charter, by which Matei Basarab confirmed to Sima, the second treasurer, half of the village of Grozăvești de Sus, in Ilfov County, the portion belonging to Lady Safta, with mill fords, Romanians and Gypsies32. In the same year, on 20 October, he is mentioned in another charter issued by the prince, in which he confirms to Bunea, the second treasurer, son of Vâlcului the logothete, the village of Gabrovul, in Teleorman County, which his father had purchased from Lady Maria, the daughter of Dan the Vornic, and from her husband, Hrizan, the bed-maker of Bărbătești, and from others 33.

Undoubtedly, the document issued at Târgoviște on 19 May 1640 is also significant, whereby the prince confirmed to Bistrița Monastery and ‘the abbot Vasilie certain Romanians from Vaideei, in Vâlcea County, namely: Bulcea, Stan, Florea, Mija and others, for the village had belonged to boyars and, during the prince’s reign, a part of its inhabitants—who had not been dispossessed and had not fled—sold themselves to the monastery of their own free will, whilst the aforementioned had fled beforehand to the Kingdom of Hungary, leaving their taxes to be borne by the villagers; and the prince paid them from the princely treasury until the sum of 120 unghi per year was reached, and he granted them the status of serfs to the monastery, just like the other villagers. Upon learning this, they lodged a complaint with the Grand Council against Abbot Vasilie, claiming they were being wronged, and the prince, judging according to justice and the law, together with Metropolitan Theophilus and all the boyars, decreed from the council that they should be subject to the monastery, in accordance with the law and the judgement”34.

Here too we must take into account the charter issued on the same day, whereby “Matei Basarab, together with Bishop Theofil, Hrizea the Grand Vornic, Radu the Treasurer, Buzinca the Clucer, Socol the Grand Stolnic, Vucina, cupbearer, sent Mitrea, the baker, to Brașov as an envoy to Rakoczy’35.

We shall now quote the charter of 4 May 1641, by which the prince ‘confirms the Brâncoveni Monastery, built from the ground up by his ancestors and parents, and to Abbot Gavril, the village of Păpălari, in the county of Romanați, free of Romanians, which had belonged to Chirca the cupbearer and his wife Voica, who had purchased it in the days of Serban the Great, and, following their deaths, as they left behind neither children nor other relatives and the estate lay deserted, the Prince, together with Metropolitan Teofil and the Bishops of Râmnic and Buzău, together with all the abbots and officials and the entire council, that it was fitting for the estate, purchased by Chirca the cupbearer and his sister, Sima the steward’s wife, to be given to the monastery where his father-in-law, his wife Voica and his son […] and other relatives, all of whom died a violent death, struck by lightning in their home, be redeemed by the Romanians whilst Chirca was still alive’36

We also reproduce another document, issued on 23 November 1642, intended to shed light on his ecclesiastical activity: ‘Teofil, Metropolitan of Wallachia, issues a letter of excommunication against the 24 border boyars, priests and men, both old and young, to bear true witness in the dispute between Bistrița Monastery and the boyars of Văleni—the sons-in-law of Mihăilă the bed-maker – Ghinea the steward and Pană the bed-maker – concerning the monastery’s pastures and marshes, and Gojdibrod, belonging to the boyars of Văleni, over which they had many disputes; and now, in the days of Matei Basarab, ten years after he assumed the principality from the empire, Ghinea the steward caused great harm to the monastery’s village, beating the monks and plundering the Romanians, whereupon the abbot rose up and lodged a complaint with the prince. Matei Basarab appointed 24 boyars, by royal decree, who, together with the metropolitan and the royal steward, Diicul the Grand Aga, were to demarcate the monastery’s estate within the boundaries set by the ancient founders: Barbul Ban of Craiova, together with his brothers, Pârvul, the vornic, and Danciul, who purchased the estate from Stănciulea, son of Durduca, for 1,000 gold unghi’37”.

Another eloquent account is provided by the charter of 1642, which states that “Teofil, archbishop and metropolitan of Ungrovlahia”, confirms the ownership of Lord Radu vel Comis over the estates of Tătărani and Giurmănești in the counties of Ialomița, Râmnicu Vâlcea and Brăila 38.

Teofil is also mentioned in a document dated 1 May 1644, which shows that Matei, a logofăt from Cacova, sold to Matei Basarab the entire portion of the estate for 1,200 bani, excluding the Romanian inhabitants, in Bărbătești, Vâlcea County, which had been purchased from the neighbouring villagers. On this occasion, the prince sent Metropolitan Teofil, together with the logofăt Goran and others, to select the estate, as recorded by the logofăt Matei of Cacova39

The document dated 31 December 1644, written at Târgoviște, also provides us with valuable records, in which ‘Metropolitan Theofil attests that Matei Basarab vv. and Preda, the Grand Spătar, took six boyars, on the prince’s orders, into the divan, before the great and lesser boyars, and with his book of curses, to confirm in which part of Răzvad lies the portion of the estate belonging to Datco the armourer. Gathering at the Metropolitan See, in his presence, with Socol the Grand Clucer of Răzvadul de Sus and the boyars of Răzvadul de Jos also present, they read all the documents brought, confirming that the estate is in Upper Răzvad and is held by the Grand Clucer, for in none of these or any other documents did he ‘take the curse upon himself’ before the Metropolitan, claiming that he had no others for this village40”.

Finally, we add the charter dated 10 July 1646, which attests that Metropolitan Theophilus and Patriarch Ioanichie of Antioch were adjudicating a case concerning the estates of a monastery 41.

During his reign, Matei Basarab issued several charters by which he restored most of the monasteries dedicated to Mount Athos and other Greek monasteries to the local monks. Thus, a document issued in 1639 states that the Greeks, ‘having defiled their hands with shameful bribes, in cunning secrecy began to sell off and squander the holy monasteries of the land and the princely lavras, and to subject them to the tax-paying dependencies of other monasteries throughout Greece and Sveta-Gora (Athos), drawing up deeds without the knowledge of the council and without the consent of the synod”. The monasteries which he is returning to the country are: Tismana, Cozia, Cotmeana, Bistrița, Valea, Râncăciovul, Mistea, Bolintinul, Govora, Dealu, Glavaciocul, Brâncoveni, Snagovul, Câmpulung, Căldărușani, Sadova, Gura Motrului, Arnota, Potocul, Nucetul and Tănganul, five of which were founded by the prince himself. These were henceforth to live ‘in the freedom they had enjoyed previously’ and ‘to be under the jurisdiction of the state as they had been for centuries’. The document also specifies that the princely or boyar monasteries, dedicated by their founders, were to remain under the authority of the Greek monks, such as Enache-Ialomița’s Slobozia, which had been dedicated by Matei himself at the start of his reign, at Dohiariu Monastery. A year later, on 20 November 1640, Matei convened a “national assembly” and issued a charter which added, in addition to the monasteries already listed, a further eight: Brădetul, Menedecul, Ezerul, Dintr-un lemn, Măxineni, Drăgănești, Brebul and Plătăreștii, four of which were his own foundations. On 8 December 1641, the number of these places of worship rose to 39. Dated 9 April 1641, there is a document issued by Partenie, Patriarch of Constantinople, confirming the measures taken by the Prince of Wallachia regarding the monasteries dedicated t42us.

We must not overlook the fact that Matei Basarab was rightly regarded as ‘the greatest founder in the medieval history of the Romanian people’43, during whose reign some 120 new constructions and restorations are known to have taken place – an impressive figure not seen in other periods 44. Here is a brief list of the monasteries built on his initiative, many of which were consecrated during the tenure of his friend, Metropolitan Teofil, who was his “supporter and, perhaps, at times, his inspiration”45: Negru Vodă in Câmpulung (1635–1636), Căldărușani (Ilfov County, 1637–1638), Brâncoveni (Olt County, 1640), Curtea Veche in Bucharest, rebuilt after 1640, Plătărești (Călărași County, 1640), Strehaia (Mehedinți County, 1645), Plumbuita (Bucharest, before 1647), Drăgănești (Teleorman County, 1647) and Cornățelu (Călărași County, 1648). To these one might add the Bărbătești Hermitage (Dâmbovița, 1645–1646) or the churches in Ploiești (1637), Caracal (Olt County), rebuilt after 1640, and Gherghița (1641).

Various repairs were carried out during this period at the following monasteries: Govora (Vâlcea County), where a printing press was installed; Curtea de Argeș (before 1643); Tismana (Gorj County); the Slătioarele Hermitage in Ocnele Mari (Vâlcea County, before 1646), the Diocese of Râmnic and the Metropolis of Târgoviște46). We may also mention Vasile Lupu’s endowment, the Stelea Monastery in Târgoviște, built as a gesture of reconciliation with Matei Basarab in 1645, and consecrated by Metropolitan Teofil, as well as the numerous foundations of the boyars of Wallachia, who, following their prince’s example, built approximately 50 monasteries and churches, many of them by 1648: Crasna (Gorj County, 1636), Dintru-un Lemn (Vâlcea County, 1640), Jghiaburi (Vâlcea County, c. 1640), Robaia (Argeș County, before 1644), Clocociov (Olt County, 1645), Vieroș (Argeș County, 1645), Topolnița (Mehedinți County, 1646), Râncăciov (Dâmbovița County, 1647–1648), Polovragi (Gorj County, before 1648) and47).

Following the example of his predecessors, the prince founded numerous places of worship beyond the country’s borders, either south of the Danube (the churches of Saint Paraskevi and Saint Panteleimon in Vidin and the Holy Apostles in Svishtov), or in Moldavia (Soveja or Dobromirna Monastery) and Transylvania (the church in Porcești), thereby strengthening the age-old ties between the Romanian lands 48. On Mount Athos, he restored the church of the Xenophon Monastery, the Church of Saint Michael of the Synod at the Great Lavra, the katholikon and narthex of the church at Dionysius (1647) and the refectory of the Hilandar Monastery (1645). Using his own funds, the Church of Saint Michael at the Great Lavra and at the Monastery of Simonopetra (1640–1650) were repainted, the church and refectory at Xenophon, and the frescoes in the katholikon at Kutlumush were restored (1640). Furthermore, on his initiative, the cells at Pantocrator were rebuilt (1637–1641) and the paintings in the Chapel of the Mother of God at Rusikon were executed (1645). These comprise ten major works carried out at the monasteries of Mount Athos. 49 It cannot be ruled out that the impetus came from the metropolitan himself, who would also have taken part in the consecration services.

Several liturgical objects date from this period: chalices, bread plates, myrrh vessels, censers, candlesticks and bindings for liturgical books, crafted both domestically and in foreign workshops, such as those in Augsburg, Nuremberg and Brașov 50. According to surviving records, in 1643 the devout prince donated a Tetraevangel to Căldărușani Monastery 51 and an icon of the Mother of God, in silver and gold, to the Hilandar Monastery on Mount Athos, and in 1644 a silver ark to the Great Lavra. Apart from these, the following items from Teofil’s time are known today: the censer gifted to Căldărușani Monastery, the chalice donated to Câmpulung Monastery and the paten from Brâncoveni Monastery (1636), all of Transylvanian origin 52. In 1640, the Catholic missionary P. Baksic noted in Wallachia ‘large stone and wooden crosses on public roads, beautifully carved and inscribed from top to bottom; and they (the Romanians) make these crosses just as chapels and painted figures are made along the roads in Italy’53”.

Enjoying the trust of Matei Basarab, Teofil was at that time “the voivode’s right-hand man, whom he placed at the head of all the envoys, consulted on matters of state, and seated beside him above all the other advisers”54. After taking part, in 1639, together with his suffragans, Ignatie of Râmnic and Ștefan of Buzău, in the ecclesiastical and lay council which decreed that no monastic settlement should henceforth be dedicated to another monastery within the country or abroad, 55 the prince also employed him on a diplomatic mission, sending him at the head of a delegation of Wallachian boyars to the King of Transylvania, Gheorghe Rákóczi I, at Alba Iulia, in the spring of 1640 56. To renew relations with Transylvania, he sent a ‘solemn delegation’ there, the like of which, according to the prince’s account, ‘had never been seen since the dawn of humanity’. On 7 May, the Archbishop of Wallachia arrived in Alba, together with Hrizea and eight of the leading boyars, accompanied by a grand procession; two days later, they were received by the prince in the presence of the estates of the realm. The outcome of the negotiations was a ‘solid alliance’, sealed by an oath, ‘not only with the Prince of Transylvania, but also with the country and its estates’. Among other things, they pledged “to defend and support one another against the attacks of Lupu and the Turks, by joining forces”, as stated a month later by an envoy from Matei to the Palatine of Hungary,57 On 19 May, the delegation was in Brașov, on its way back to Wallachia 58.

Of course, on this occasion, Teofil also visited Metropolitan Ghenadie (?1640), at his residence in Alba Iulia, to whom he presented a staff adorned with shells and a printing press, whilst also sending him skilled craftsmen, such as the priest Dobre and the hieromonk Silvestru. Furthermore, the books on canon law printed in Wallachia were in such demand from the Metropolitan of Transylvania that the Pravila of Govora, dated 1640, was published in two editions, one of which was intended for Transylvania. On the other hand, it is known that the Orthodox Metropolis here received 6,000 dinars annually from Matei Basarab, whilst certain churches were granted gifts of sacred vessels, vestments and books necessary for divine worship. Furthermore, at the court of the Wallachian ruler we also find Transylvanian priests, such as Father Vasile, who came here on several occasions to discuss the donations that Matei was making to the Church of Saint Nicholas in Șchei. His generosity was also emulated by the hierarch of Wallachia, who offered various liturgical vestments 59 to the sister church beyond the Carpathians.

Ilie Iorest and Simion Ștefan also turned their attention to Metropolitan Teofil; due to Calvinist propaganda, they had been ordained as hierarchs in Târgoviște in the years 1640 and 1643 60. Moreover, ties with the Metropolis of Transylvania sometimes became so close that even the Transylvanian metropolitans, who had not been consecrated in Wallachia, would retreat here in times of trouble. Thus, for example, Longhin (Lazăr) Brancovici (1628–1643), a Serb by birth and consecrated in 1628 by Patriarch Chiril Lucaris, Metropolitan of Ineu, was at Comana Monastery in 1643, where he died after 1656 61.

Throughout his ministry, Teofil maintained close ties with Metropolitan Varlaam of Moldavia, particularly regarding matters of concern to the Orthodox Church in the two Romanian provinces, despite the disagreements between Matei Basarab and Vasile Lupu. Thus, in 1644, he received the Moldavian hierarch in Târgoviște, who had come to Wallachia to mediate between the two rulers 62. On this occasion, it was agreed that Matei Basarab would found the Soveja (Dobromira) Monastery in the county of Vrancea, whilst Vasile Lupu would restore the Stelea Church in Târgoviște, as I have already mentioned. At the same time, Varlaam discovered in Udriște Năsturel’s library a copy of the Calvinist Catechism, published in the village of Prisaca, near Alba Iulia, in 1642. Realising that it was ‘full of poison leading to the death of the soul’, he convened a synod of the hierarchs of Wallachia and Moldavia to take a stand against this pamphlet. The council, in which Bishop Teofil also took part, met in February 1645 in Iași, approving the well-known work by the Moldavian metropolitan, Response to the Calvinist Catechism (63). Speaking of the Calvinist books that appeared in the sixteenth century without any ‘objection from the Orthodox clergy in the principalities’, Nicolae Iorga states that ‘there were now scholars capable of repelling the attack. Not in Wallachia, however. Here, the gentle Teofil lacked the necessary knowledge for a discussion of dogma, and the other hierarchs were no more learned than he was: in Râmnic, Ignatie was the priest—that ‘Serbian’ priest from Nicopol who had carried letters of intrigue on behalf of Matei-Vodă when he was in exile in Transylvania and had assisted him with the powerful Danubian pasha Abaza, whilst Ștefan, son of Dimitrie and Dimitria, the peasants from Costești, who held the bishop’s crozier of Buzău, had neither pursued higher education nor delved deeply into the ancient books of theological debate”64.

Highly regarded by Vasile Lupu, Metropolitan Teofil was present on 5 February 1645, at the wedding of Maria, the voivode’s daughter, to the Lithuanian prince Janusz Radziwiłł, which was officiated at the Church of the Three Hierarchs in Iași, a fact also recorded in Miron Costin’s Chronicle. Here he would have officiated alongside the Metropolitan of Kiev, Petru Movilă (of Romanian descent), Varlaam of Moldavia, perhaps even some of the Moldavian bishops, as well as the former Metropolitan of Transylvania, Ilie Iorest, who had returned to his monastery of penance, Putna, founded and serving as the burial ground of Stephen the Great. It was regrettable that Teofil was not invited to the Synod of Iași in 1642, which approved Petru Movilă’s Orthodox Confession, due to the tense relations at that time between the two rulers65

It should be noted that in 1636 the Patriarch of Alexandria, Mitrofan Critopoulos, visited the lands of Wallachia, having come in search of aid. The Church in Wallachia subsequently received a visit from a delegation of Patriarch Gherasim of Alexandria, led by the priest Ioanichie, which had also come seeking aid; and in 1639, Mitrofan Critopoulos’s successor, Patriarch Nichifor, came to Muntenia to ‘take Critopoulos’s belongings from Muntenia and collect alms to pay off the debts burdening the Patriarchate of Egypt’.

The Patriarchate of Antioch also sent various hierarchs to Wallachia to collect aid ‘to pay the taxes and debts of the patriarchal church in Antioch’. Thus, in 1646, we find Patriarch Ioanichie here, and later, during the reign of Theophilus’s successor, we find Patriarch Macarius III Saim.

Perhaps on the initiative of Metropolitan Theophilus, the prince, like his predecessors, provided generous support to ‘all the Orthodox communities of the Balkan lands’, as well as to the Athonite monasteries, to which he granted, through numerous charters, various villages and estates in Wallachia. Furthermore, he did not forbid the boyars from dedicating monasteries to the Holy Places. The princely gifts, bestowed upon Serbian and Bosnian monasteries, led various hierarchs, such as the Patriarch of Peć, Gavril, and Metropolitan Arsenius of Trebinje, to become guests of the Church in Wallachia. But the Church of Bulgaria also received ‘gifts in the form of money, books and manuscripts’, and ‘when Slavonic printing became established at Câmpulung and Dealu, Metropolitan Stephen of Ohrid and other bishops came to Wallachia and, in 1640, took part in the publication of the Pravila of Govora and the Anthologion of Câmpulung, dated 1645’66 Thus, during the time of Metropolitan Teofil and Matei Basarab, the Church in Wallachia reached ‘unprecedented heights, from which it extended its generous and selfless hand to the other sister Orthodox Churches under Ottoman rule, serving both the good and interests of its own people and the love, understanding and mutual aid amongst the Orthodox Churches and peoples south of the Danube’67

In addition to the diplomatic services rendered to the prince and his close ties with the Churches throughout the Orthodox world, Teofil, whether as a bishop, a metropolitan, or simply as a good and enlightened Romanian, was a prominent supporter and indeed a mentor of the translation of books—particularly religious texts—into the language of the people 62. A fervent supporter of the cultural movement, ‘a lover of Romanian books, a graduate of the school in Bistrița, Oltenia, he imprinted the stamp of his soul upon the scholarly life of his country, the fruit of the efforts made in the previous century by those close to the deacon who had moved from Târgoviște to Brașov’68. His exceptional achievements are linked to the revival of the tradition of printing in the Romanian language, following in the footsteps of the 16th-century founder Coresi: “as the good and enlightened Romanian that he was, he was a great supporter and indeed a mentor of the translation of books, particularly religious ones, into the language of the people”69. He would only have known Deacon Coresi during the early years of his childhood, yet he continued his work, under its direct influence. At a time when the Old Slavonic language still enjoyed full authority and respect, the gifts he bestowed bore Romanian inscriptions, as researchers have observed 70.

Through his entire career in the service of literature, he established himself as one of the founders of church culture in the Romanian language, 11 as one of the “driving forces behind the reformist movement, which was relentlessly making its way through all strata of society”71. A close adviser to the prince, he was consulted by the latter on all major undertakings. Thus, at his urging, Matei Basarab brought into the country “printing presses, which he set up in Târgoviște and Govora” and sent printing equipment, books and master printers to the Romanians in Transylvania 72. The measures taken by the prince – in collaboration with him – ensured the Church’s independence from the dominance of Greek elements for nearly three decades 73. Enjoying his generous support, ‘the elderly Bishop Teofil was among those eager to read who required the assistance of translators of Church Slavonic’74.

To illustrate his prodigious cultural output, it suffices to note that, during his tenure as metropolitan, six Romanian books and four Slavonic ones were published, whilst in the following four years, whilst Matei Basarab’s printing press remained in operation, only one Romanian book, three Slavonic-Romanian works and three Slavonic works were published75. It should also be noted, however, that the printing presses where these works were produced – in Câmpulung, Govora and Dealu – were established with the assistance of Metropolitan Petru Movilă of Kiev, at the request of the Wallachian prince76

We shall now list the main liturgical books printed during his tenure. Thus, through the efforts of the abbot Meletie Macedoneanul, the printing press at Govora Monastery was established in 1637; from its presses emerged several books in Church Slavonic, but above all in Romanian. To begin with, we shall mention those in Church Slavonic: the Psalter (1637), the first book in our country to be paginated folio by folio; the Psalter with the Book of Hours (1638); the Book of Hours (1638) and the Paraclisul Precistei, with a Slavonic-Romanian text (1639)77. In the first book, printed in the year of his election as metropolitan, the preface pays him the due tribute, ‘to His Most Holy Archbishop Theophilus, by the grace of God Metropolitan of the whole land of Ungrovlahia’, as well as to the bishops of Râmnic and Buzău, Ignatius and Ephrem. This also highlights the significance of the printing press for the Romanian people and their spiritual life, as well as its value to the country, with the ruler urging his successors to preserve it with the utmost honour: ‘I beg you, therefore, fellow inhabitants of our country, and especially you, my brothers, who will come after us and, by God’s will, will rule this country, to preserve this gift with care—I mean this printing press… for it is a treasure more precious than all earthly treasures; for gold, silver and precious stones are material treasures, which adorn the body only temporarily, whilst this treasure adorns the human soul. Therefore, having received this gift from us, give thanks to God with all your might and preserve it in all its richness and with all that is necessary, and do not dishonour it after our death’. The Psalter of 1637 was to be distributed as a gift to the peoples south of the Danube, with the ruler addressing: “to theto the faithful and devout people of our homeland and to other peoples kindred to us in faith and speaking the same renowned Slovene dialect, and in particular to the Bulgarians, Serbs, Ungrovlachs, Moldovlachs and others’78

In 1640, however, a Romanian edition of the Ceaslov appeared – the first religious book printed in Romanian in Muntenia – along with the Pravila de la Govora, completed in 1641 79. Known as the ‘Lesser One’, or the Nomocanon, which ‘is a guide to the law, the decrees of the holy Apostles, established by the Seven Councils, by them and by the most reverend fathers, the teachers of the world’80. The Pravila was translated from Church Slavonic into Romanian by the monk Mihail Moxa of Bistrița, as indicated by a note in Church Slavonic: ‘By the will of the Father, with the help of the Son, and through the working of the Holy Spirit, this book was translated from Church Slavonic into Romanian by Mihail Moxalie and, subsequently, by the order and at the expense of the most enlightened Lord Io Mateiu Basarab Voivode, and with the blessing of the most holy archbishop, Kir Teofil, Metropolitan of the whole Land of Ungrovlahia, I, the hieromonk Ștefan Ohrideanul, undertook this task, and we have printed this book81”. The publication of a work of a canonical-legal nature, based on a Slavonic translation of a Byzantine nomocanon, was prompted by the need for clear guidance for confessors in imposing penances in the confessional, but also to provide them with guidance regarding the penalties to be imposed on the faithful in the event of deviations from the order of communal life, for in those days the priest also acted as judge over his flock. It was, in effect, the first ‘official law’ promulgated by both the state and ecclesiastical authorities, the first collection of civil and ecclesiastical laws of the medieval state of Wallachia and of the entire Romanian Orthodox Church 82. Its purpose was emphasised by Metropolitan Teofil himself in the preface: ‘I have considered that almost all languages have a book in their own tongue, so that they (sic) might reflect upon it, and I, the servant of my Lord Jesus, Hs., I should publish this book, namely the rules in the Romanian language, for your holy Romanian spiritual fathers, who are shepherds of the speaking sheep of the flock of Hs. It contains within itself many forms of healing for Christian souls, for those wounded by sin, but above all a path to the Kingdom of Heaven83

It should be noted that the Pravila appeared in two editions, one for Wallachia and the other for Transylvania. The difference between the two editions lies in the fact that the name of ‘Teofilu, by the grace of God Archbishop, and Metropolitan of the whole Romanian land’ was replaced by that of ‘Ghenadie, by the grace of God Archbishop and Metropolitan of the whole land of Transylvania’. The publication of the Transylvanian edition could be linked to Teofil’s title of ‘exarch of the Plaiuri’, but it may also have been commissioned by Metropolitan Ghenadie, who felt the need for such a book, either to counterbalance Calvinist proselytising activities, or to have a new edition of the laws to replace Coresi’s, which would have been out of print. He is said to have made this request to Metropolitan Teofil when the latter came as an envoy to Alba Iulia to see Gheorghe Rákóczy 84. The great merit of the Pravila ‘is that, for the first time in our country’s history, a legislative unification of the entire territory of the country is taking shape and, at the same time, it demonstrates the Transylvanian prince’s desire to come to the aid of the Transylvanian Romanians in this way too’85 Consequently, this collaboration in the field of printing demonstrates that there was a spiritual unity amongst Romanians, despite the borders that separated them 82.

In 1642, work began on printing the book The Instructive Gospel, ‘Sermons for the Sundays of the Year, for the Feast of the Household and for Other Great Saints’, which was subsequently reprinted at Dealu Monastery, in 1644, where it appears that the entire printing equipment was transported from Govora. Spanning over 600 pages, it contained sermons for the Sundays of the year, for imperial feasts and those of the saints, having been “translated and adapted from the Russian language into the Romanian language with the permission and at the expense of the Christian lord Matheiu Basarab, Voivode, and through the labour and editing of Silvestru the monk”. Udriște Năsturel signed the preface, in which he states that “I have adapted it from the Russian into the Romanian language”. It follows that the translation was carried out by the hieromonk Silvestru, assisted by the learned logofăt Udriște Năsturel, who signed the preface. Written with “the blessing of His Holiness Metropolitan Kyr Theofil, together with the saints and lovers of His Holiness Archbishop Kyr Ignatie Rävniceskii, Kyr Ștefan Buzevski, and with the counsel of the honourable boyars of the Romanian land’, the book comprised 32 Sunday sermons, translated from the 1619 work of the same title by Chiril Trankivilion Starovețki, a well-known Ukrainian preacher who had converted to the Union. Unfortunately, the reasons why the Govora Sermons ended with All Saints’ Sunday are unknown. 86 What is certain is that it gained prominence in Vasile Lupu’s Moldova, as well as beyond the Carpathians, with the prince dedicating it to ‘the most glorious and pious people of our land and to all the other Christians around us’. Naturally, these Christian neighbours could only be the Romanians of Moldova and Transylvania in particular, for it was to them alone that a book written in Romanian 68 could be addressed.

Seven years later, the printing press established in 1635 at Câmpulung published Daily Teachings, “a brief selection from many divine books, useful to all Christians, rendered from Greek into Romanian”, translated from the Greek with “great care and expense” by the hieromonk Melchisedec, the abbot of the monastery. He signs the preface, in which he invites readers to reimburse the monastery for the expenses incurred in producing these 60 pages: ‘For, suppose a merchant were to acquire a very precious stone, for which he paid a thousand gold pieces, and then sold it for only 10 gold pieces, therefore, if every wise man were not to buy that stone, that merchant would have been deceived, and he alone would greatly regret it afterwards; the same will befall him who, upon discovering this book, does not buy it, for whose honour is small, whilst his greed is very great indeed’87 The book contained teachings on the ‘seven spiritual virtues’: love, malice, charity, etc., and was addressed ‘not only to those who know, but also to the foolish who do not know’88

Also appearing here, during the time of Metropolitan Theophilus, was an Anthologion (abbreviated Minei), “that is to say, Civetoslov or Trifologion”, printed in 1643 ‘with the blessing of His Eminence Chir Teofil, by the grace of God Metropolitan of the whole Land of Ungro-Wallachia’89. It comprises two prefaces, one addressed to the prince, and another addressed to the readers, both attributed to the abbot Melchisedec of the Peloponnese and drafted by the logothete ‘Orest Năsturel’, with Ivan Kunotovici and Ștefan the hieromonk of Ohrid 90 serving as master printers. The title is framed by a woodcut depicting Christ the Saviour, the Mother of God and 127 saints. On the reverse of the title page is the Basarab coat of arms and a few verses, under the same title as that of the Pravila of Govora 91.

In 1644, a new printing press was established at Dealu Monastery, near Târgoviște, where the ‘Evanghelia învățătoare’ of 1644 and a Slavonic Liturgy Book in 1646 were first printed. The former, with the full title The Instructive Gospel, for Sundays throughout the year and for princely feasts and chosen great saints, printed ‘through the efforts of the holy Chir Teofil, Metropolitan of all Wallachia’, is nothing more than a continuation of the one from Govora, begun by Meletius the Macedonian. For the first 385 pages, out of over a thousand, the printing blocks from the Govora Sermon Collection were used. A final note identifies the ‘ispravnic’ (supervisor) for the printing of the Govora edition as ‘the much-erring monk Meletius the Macedonian, proegumen of Govora’, whilst another final note specifies: ‘And the printing of this book, called the Gospel with Teachings, began at Govora Monastery and was completed at Deal Monastery […] with Varlaam the Arab as abbot’. From page 404, the text by Metropolitan Varlaam was taken from the Cazania printed in Iași in 1643, although his name is not mentioned. The work of printing was carried out by “Ivan Kunotovici, the Russian printer, with his apprentices”92

Also at Dealu, a Slavonic Liturgy Book (Slujebnic) was printed, “with the advice and blessing of His Eminence Metropolitan Theophilus, Archbishop”, ‘in the year 7154 since the creation of the world, and 1646 since the salvation of the world’93. This was richly adorned with images of Christ the Saviour, the Mother of God, the prince, his consort and various saints. It is also worth noting that in the same year, 1644, a Slavonic Service Book appeared in Târgoviște, printed by Procop Stanciovici and Radu Stoicovici 94.

Printing activity continued in 1644 as well, when, on 15 April, the well-known work The Imitation of Christ by the theologian Thomas à Kempis was published, translated from Latin into Slavonic by Udriște Năsturel, who dedicated it to Metropolitan Varlaam of Moldavia. Thus, we now encounter this characteristic of the Wallachian cultural movement: to include within its sphere the Romanian brethren of Transylvania and Moldavia 95. The book enjoyed wide circulation, particularly amongst Slavic-speaking believers. It was also Udriște Năsturel who translated from Church Slavonic the novel The Lives of Saints Varlaam and Ioasaf, which survives in manuscript form 96.

Thus, under Bishop Teofil, the first legal, theological and liturgical books ‘printed in the Principalities’ appeared in Muntenia: 97 The Book of Hours, the Rule, the Gospel with Explanations (in two editions), and Daily Teachings, to which is added the Paraclis of the Mother of God, in Church Slavonic and Romanian. Thus, the Romanian movement, promoted by monks as well as by the faithful, triumphed over the Slavonic one, supported by the ruling family, as well as the Greek one, fuelled by certain Greek hierarchs and teachers settled in the country 98. Through his support for their translation and printing, Teofil was regarded as ‘one of the foremost founders of the Romanian language in the Church’99 His work was continued by his successor, Metropolitan Ștefan of Rămeștii Vâlcii, formerly Bishop of Buzău. Thanks to them, ‘a close symbiosis developed during this period between the Orthodox Church and the Romanian language and culture, through the printed works now brought to light’67.

It is worth noting that, during the reign of Matei Basarab, we also witness the organisation of Romanian chanting at the choir stalls. To this end, in addition to the efforts of Metropolitans Teofil and Ștefan, who also printed books necessary for the choir, Lady Elena, the voivode’s wife, commissioned the publication in 1635 of a book of church hymns in Romanian, and in 1640 she sponsored the printing of the Romanian Triodion. It was also during this period that Filotei the Monk’s Pripeale (from Cozia100) were printed for the first time in the Romanian lands.

On the other hand, it should not be overlooked that during Teofil’s tenure, the logothete Udriște Năsturel established a Slavonic school attached to the Metropolis in Târgoviște, modelled on the Movilene Academy in Kyiv, which endured until the end of Matei Basarab’s reign. Upon graduating, young men from Wallachia would travel mainly to Transylvania to attend Reformed colleges. Wishing to prevent the infiltration of Protestant ideas, in 1646, Pantelimon Ligaridis and Ignatie Petrițis, Greeks from the island of Chios, with the support of the prince and the chamberlain Constantin Cantacuzino, founded a humanist college in Târgoviște modelled on those in the West, known in the records of the time as the ‘Schola graeca et latina’. This was the first higher education institution in Wallachia, which probably lasted until the end of Matei Basarab’s reign. Similarly, the prince organised the monastic schools in Câmpulung, Dealu and Govora, as well as in101, where a ‘higher school’ of a religious and cultural nature operated, which also trained printers; its patron was Metropolitan Teofil 102. Reinforcing the annual endowment of 1,000 florins made to the monastery by Matei Basarab, Theophanes, Patriarch of Jerusalem, noted in 1636 that the Prince had wished ‘to appoint within it teachers and printers to print and embellish holy books, and not only should the teachers, whom heentrusted with its administration, but also to bring children to the school and teach them the holy scriptures, and to do their utmost to train them to understand the inner and outer wisdom of mankind’103

In view of all these cultural achievements, it may rightly be concluded that Metropolitan Teofil laid a brick in the foundation of our ancient Romanian culture 104. His work, first as bishop of Râmnic and later as metropolitan of Wallachia, led Nicolae Iorga to regard him as “the pioneer of printed works in this language on Romanian Orthodox soil”105. It is not without reason that it has been noted that the Church and ecclesiastical culture of the first half of the 17th century owe a great deal to this patriotic bishop, a distinguished scholar and supporter of printing in the language of the people, so much so that he must be “ranked amongst the great metropolitans of the 17th century alongside Varlaam and Dosoftei of Moldavia, who too had before them the example of Coresi’s Romanian book”106. His merit and that of his successor, Ștefan, was recognised by Virgil Cândea, who emphasises that their work “contributes, with a boldness that should not be underestimated, to the introduction of the Romanian language into religious texts but, at the same time, with determination, to the initiation of an ethical literature. Now Coresi’s programme of educational writings is being revived, which will remain the central concern of Romanian culture for two centuries’107. Through all that he achieved, “the gateway through which the new Romanian movement was penetrating the eternal edifice of the Church, throughout the whole of the Romanian world, was opening ever wider, to the detriment of the old Orthodoxy with its Hellenic canons and hierarchy”108.

Now advanced in years, Bishop Teofil—who was sometimes referred to as Filotei in official documents—died in the early months of 1648, having served in Wallachia as bishop and metropolitan for nearly three decades 104. Although we do not know where he is buried, through this study we have sought to pay a pious tribute to this hierarch of exemplary life, who understood the need to support the Romanian language at a time when the secular and monastic clergy, as well as the vast majority of the faithful, felt the need for it. Perhaps we have not succeeded in presenting every aspect of his work – something which other researchers will, of course, do – but we have endeavoured, in these pages, to bring him back into the consciousness of Romanians everywhere and, above all, of the people of Vâlcea, on the occasion of the 370th anniversary of his passing into God’s Kingdom.

• 1

  Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese…, pp. 37–39; Meletie RĂUȚU, Ecclesiastical Monograph of Vâlcea County, Rm. Vâlcea, 1908, p. 25; Nicolae STOICESCU, Bibliography of Localities and Feudal Monuments in Romania. I: Wallachia (Muntenia, Oltenia and Dobrogea), Bucharest, 1970, pp. 101, 564.

• 2

  Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese…, pp. 37–38; Veniamin MICLE, The Monastery…, pp. 83, 194, 236.

• 3

  Ioan V. DURĂ, The Church…, p. 582.

• 4

  Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese…, p. 37.

• 5

  Ioan St. LAZĂR, ‘Spirituality, Culture and Art in Medieval and Pre-modern Râmnic – An Attempt at a Synthesis’, in Buridava. Studies and Materials, IX, Râmnicu Vâlcea, 2011, p. 188.

• 6

  Lucian PREDESCU, ‘An Oltenian chronicler: Mihail Moxa (Mocsalie) (?–?)’, in AO, vol. X (1931), no. 53, pp. 12–13.

• 7

  Al. PROCOPOVICI, From Coresi…, p. 299.

• 8

  Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese…, p. 37; Lucian PREDESCU, A Chronicler from Oltenia…, p. 12; Rev. Prof. Dr Mircea PĂCURARIU, Romanian Theological Culture: A Brief Historical Overview, Bucharest, 2011, p. 95.

• 9

  Lucian PREDESCU, A Chronicler from Oltenia…, p. 13.

• 10

  Mircea PĂCURARIU, Theological Culture…, p. 95; Rev. Prof. Dr Mircea PĂCURARIU, Dictionary of Romanian Theologians, Sibiu, 2014, p. 429.

• 11a11b

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

• 12

  Nicolae IORGA, A History of Romanian Literature…, p. 236.

• 13

  † Dr Nestor VORNICESCU, Studies in Historical Theology – an anthology, Craiova, 1998, p. 103.

• 14

  Nicolae IORGA, A History of Romanian Literature…, p. 281.

• 15

  N. IORGA, ‘The Role of Oltenia in Romanian Literature’, in AO, vol. I, 1922, no. 1, p. 14.

• 16

  Barbu TEODORESCU, ‘Scholars, printers, libraries, schools’, in BOR, vol. LXXVII (1959), nos. 7–10, p. 831.

• 17

  Al. PROCOPOVICI, From Coresi…, p. 298.

• 18

  Lucian PREDESCU, A Chronicler from Oltenia…, p. 18

• 19

  Mircea PĂCURARIU, Theological Culture…, p. 96.

• 20

  Nestor VORNICESCU, Studies…, p. 103; N. IORGA, History of the Romanian Church…, p. 329.

• 21

  Nicolae IORGA, A History of Romanian Literature…, p. 281; D. GEORGESCU, A History of the Church…, p. 88.

• 22

  Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese…, p. 37; Nicolae IORGA, A History of Romanian Literature…, p. 235.

• 23

  Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese…, p. 39.

• 24

  Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese…, p. 39; Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, ‘Clarifications regarding the chronology of the metropolitans of Ungrovlahia’, in BOR, vol. LXXIX (1961), nos. 3–4, p. 377; Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Romanian Orthodox Church…, p. 277.

• 25

  Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Romanian Orthodox Church…, p. 277.

• 26

  Dan PLEȘIA, When…, pp. 1104–1105.

• 27

  DRH, vol. XXV, pp. 445–446; Șerban RĂZEȘUL, ‘Once again on Metropolitan Ignatie Sârbu’, in BOR, LXXXII (1964), nos. 11–12, pp. 1085, 1090–1091.

• 28

  Fr. N. I. ȘERBĂNESCU, ‘The Titles of the Metropolitans of Ungrovlahia’, in BOR, vol. LXXVII (1959), nos. 7–10, p. 703; Dan PLEȘIA, When…, pp. 1103–1106; Ioan V. DURĂ, The Church…, p. 582.

• 29

  Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese…, pp. 35–36; Medieval Treasury…, p. 143.

• 30

  The Catalogue, Vol. IV, p. 458.

• 31

  I. C. FILITTI, On…, p. 449.

• 32

  The Catalogue, vol. IV, pp. 609–610.

• 33

  The Catalogue, vol. IV, p. 678.

• 34

  GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF STATE ARCHIVES OF THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ROMANIA, Catalogue of Documents from Wallachia in the State Archives. 1640–1644, vol. V, compiled by Marcel Dumitru CIUCĂ, Doina Duca-TINCULESCU and Silvia Vătafu-GĂITAN, Bucharest, 1985, p. 55.

• 35

  The Catalogue, vol. V, p. 55.

• 36

  The Catalogue, vol. V, p. 183.

• 37

  The Catalogue, Vol. V, p. 372.

• 38

  Dumitru STĂNESCU, ‘Documents’, in ȘB, X (1907), 9–10, pp. 269–272, see https://www.centrulstefancelmare.ro/ro/wp-content/uploads/dyn_doc/Istoria-monahismului-1.pdf, accessed on 10 April 2018.

• 39

  Medieval Treasury, p. 165.

• 40

  The Catalogue, vol. V, p. 629.

• 41

  Mircea PĂCURARIU, Dicasteria…, p. 962.

• 42

  Ioan V. DURĂ, The Church…, p. 583; Nicolae STOICESCU, Matei Basarab…, p. 61.

• 43

  Nicolae STOICESCU, Matei Basarab…, p. 125.

• 44

  Nicolae STOICESCU, Matei Basarab…, p. 108.

• 45

  I. St. LAZĂR, ‘Written Culture’, in Encyclopaedia of Vâlcea County, Vol. I, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 2010, p. 482.

• 46

  I. BARNEA, ‘Culture within the Metropolis of Ungrovlahia: The Arts’, in BOR, vol. LXXVII (1959), nos. 7–10, pp. 873–874; Nicolae VENIAMIN, The Foundations of Matei Basarab, Bucharest, 1982, pp. 23–223; Nicolae STOICESCU, Matei Basarab…, pp. 98–101.

• 47

  Nicolae STOICESCU, Matei Basarab…, p. 105.

• 48

  Nicolae STOICESCU, Matei Basarab…, p. 102; Nicolae VENIAMIN, The Foundations…, p. 115.

• 49

  Nicolae IORGA, ‘Mount Athos in relation to our lands’, in Annals of the Romanian Academy, Series II, Volume XXXIV, Bucharest, 1914, pp. 491–495.

• 50

  Ioan V. DURĂ, The Church…, p. 589.

• 51

  Gherasim CRISTEA, The History of Căldărușani Monastery, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 1997, p. 70.

• 52

  Nicolae STOICESCU, Matei Basarab…, p. 125, note 110.

• 53

  Nicolae STOICESCU, Matei Basarab…, p. 123, note 98.

• 54

  Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese…, p. 39; Nicolae IORGA, A History of Romanian Literature…, p. 238.

• 55

  Rev. Prof. Dr Mircea PĂCURARIU, History of the Romanian Orthodox Church, Vol. II, Trinitas, 2006, p. 46.

• 56

  Mircea PĂCURARIU, The Links between the Orthodox Church in Transylvania and Wallachia and Moldavia in the 16th–18th Centuries, Sibiu, 1968, p. 129; Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Romanian Orthodox Church…, p. 278.

• 57

  Ion SÂRBU, Relations…, pp. 81–82.

• 58

  Mircea PĂCURARIU, The Church’s Connections…, p. 129; Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Romanian Orthodox Church…, p. 278; Ioan V. DURĂ, The Church…, p. 578.

• 59

  Ioan V. DURĂ, The Church…, pp. 589–590; Ștefan METEȘ, A History of the Church and the Religious Life of the Romanians in Transylvania and Hungary, Sibiu, 1935, pp. 197, 390.

• 60

  Ștefan METEȘ, History of the Church…, pp. 197, 201.

• 61

  Aurelian SACERDOȚEANU, ‘The Links between the Metropolis of Ungrovlahia and Transylvania and Moldavia’, in BOR, vol. LXXVII (1959), nos. 7–10, p. 899; Ioan V. DURĂ, The Church…, pp. 589–590.

• 62a62b

  Ioan V. DURĂ, The Church…, p. 578.

• 63

  Ioan V. DURĂ, The Church…, p. 590; Academician Rev. Prof. Dr Mircea PĂCURARIU, ‘Metropolitan Varlaam of Moldavia. 350 years since his passing’, in BOR, vol. CXXVI (2008), no. 1–2, pp. 166, 172; Mircea PĂCURARIU, History of the Romanian Orthodox Church…, p. 46.

• 64

  N. IORGA, The History of the Romanian Church…, p. 335.

• 65

  Mircea PĂCURARIU, The Metropolitan…, pp. 164, 173, 175.

• 66

  Ioan V. DURĂ, The Church…, p. 591.

• 67a67b

  Ioan V. DURĂ, The Church…, p. 592.

• 68a68b

  Al. PROCOPOVICI, From Coresi…, p. 301.

• 69

  I. St. LAZĂR, Written Culture…, p. 481.

• 70

  Al. PROCOPOVICI, De la Coresi…, p. 297.

• 71

  Dan PLEȘIA, When…, pp. 1105–1106.

• 72

  Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese…, p. 39; Ioan V. DURĂ, The Church…, p. 578.

• 73

  Dan PLEȘIA, When…, p. 1106.

• 74

  Nicolae IORGA, A History of Romanian Literature…, p. 238.

• 75

  Al. PROCOPOVICI, De la Coresi…, p. 301; Ioan V. DURĂ, Biserica…, p. 579.

• 76

  Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Romanian Orthodox Church…, p. 278; Mircea PĂCURARIU, Theological Culture…, p. 97.

• 77

  Ioan BIANU, Nerva HODOȘ, Early Romanian Bibliography. 1508–1830, vol. I (1508–1716), Bucharest, 1903, pp. 104, 106 (hereinafter cited as BRV).

• 78

  BRV, pp. 104–106; Al. PROCOPOVICI, De la Coresi…, p. 297; Ioan V. DURĂ, Biserica…, p. 586; Nicolae STOICESCU, Matei Basarab…, p. 90.

• 79

  Mircea PĂCURARIU, Theological Culture…, p. 99.

• 80

  A. D. XENOPOL, The History of the Romanians in Trajan’s Dacia, 3rd ed., vol. VII, edited by I. VLĂDESCU, Bucharest, 1929, p. 68; Nicolae IORGA, A History of Romanian Literature…, p. 247.

• 81

  BRV, p. 118; Lucian PREDESCU, A Chronicler from Oltenia…, p. 17.

• 82a82b

  Mircea PĂCURARIU, The History of the Romanian Orthodox Church…, p. 44; Mircea PĂCURARIU, Theological Culture…, p. 112.

• 83

  BRV, p. 109; Mircea PĂCURARIU, The Ties of the Orthodox Church…, p. 85.

• 84

  BRV, pp. 109, 124; Lucian PREDESCU, A Chronicler from Oltenia…, pp. 15–16; Mircea PĂCURARIU, The Ties of the Orthodox Church… p. 15.

• 85

  Gr. POPESCU, P. GRIGORIU, Matei Basarab…, p. 80.

• 86

  BRV, pp. 122–123; Mircea PĂCURARIU, History of the Romanian Orthodox Church…, p. 45; Mircea PĂCURARIU, Theological Culture…, p. 104; Nicolae IORGA, History of Romanian Literature…, p. 259.

• 87

  BRV, p. 127; A. D. XENOPOL, History…, p. 68; Nicolae IORGA, History of Romanian Literature…, p. 261.

• 88

  Nicolae STOICESCU, Matei Basarab…, p. 90.

• 89

  BRV, p. 128; Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese…, p. 39.

• 90

  Mircea PĂCURARIU, Theological Culture…, p. 98.

• 91

  BRV, p. 128.

• 92

  BRV, pp. 144–146; Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Bishopric…, p. 40; Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Romanian Orthodox Church…, p. 278; Mircea PĂCURARIU, History of the Romanian Orthodox Church…, p. 45; Mircea PĂCURARIU, Theological Culture…, p. 105.

• 93

  BRV, pp. 152–154; Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese…, pp. 39–40.

• 94

  Nicolae IORGA, A History of Romanian Literature…, p. 276, note 158.

• 95

  Barbu TEODORESCU, Cărturari…, p. 838.

• 96

  BRV, p. 159; Mircea PĂCURARIU, History of the Romanian Orthodox Church…, p. 45.

• 97

  Ioan V. DURĂ, The Church…, p. 579.

• 98

  Veniamin MICLE, The Monastery…, p. 82.

• 99

  Alexandru PROCOPOVICI, De la Coresi…, p. 297.

• 100

  Ioan V. DURĂ, The Church…, pp. 582–583.

• 101

  Ioan V. DURĂ, The Church…, p. 587; Mircea PĂCURARIU, History of the Romanian Orthodox Church…, p. 46.

• 102

  Gherasim CRISTEA, The History of Govora Monastery, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 1995, pp. 79–80.

• 103

  Nicolae STOICESCU, Matei Basarab…, p. 86, note 25.

• 104a104b

  Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Romanian Orthodox Church…, p. 278.

• 105

  Al. PROCOPOVICI, From Coresi…, p. 297.

• 106

  Al. PROCOPOVICI, De la Coresi…, p. 302; Ioan V. DURĂ, Biserica…, p. 579.

• 107

  Nicolae STOICESCU, Matei Basarab…, p. 83.

• 108

  Nicolae STOICESCU, Matei Basarab…, p. 84.