Surpatele Monastery in Vâlcea County, built in honour of the Holy Trinity, has a history dating back to the 16th century, having been founded by both boyars and princes 1. Romanian manuscript 5504 at the Library of the Romanian Academy in Bucharest contains a list of the monastery’s benefactors, which first names the members of the Brâncoveanu family, beginning with Saint Voivode Constantin, his wife Maria and their children, and then the earlier founders of the Holy Monastery of Surpatele 2, listing here Tudor, Stanciul 3, Constantin, Preda, Radu and Barbul. The church’s inscription, in turn, details the stages of its foundation: originally built by the Buzești family, but later ruined and rebuilt from the ground up by Lady Maria Brâncoveanu in 1706 4.
We have accounts of the monastery’s history in the first half of the 19th century, particularly from the time of Archimandrites Gherman and Hrisant, abbots of Hurezi Monastery, who were also in charge of Surpatele, during the time of the abbesses Meletina, Eftimia and Elisabeta. Abbess Meletina was involved in the restoration of the monastery, but subsequently withdrew. From 1815, on the recommendation of the founder Grigorie Brâncoveanu, Eftimia of Mamul was appointed abbess; a register from her time, the ‘5’, has been preserved. Following her death in 1831, again on the recommendation of Grigorie Brâncoveanu and Hrisant Penetis 6 from Hurezi, the Bishop of Râmnic appointed Elisabeta as abbess.
During the period of the Organic Regulations, as part of the inventory of the movable and immovable property of the monasteries, the following were listed for the Surpatele Hermitage in Vâlcea County: an estate surrounding the hermitage, a hamlet called Bărbătești, an estate at Vulpeni in Romanați County, a mill on the River Otăsău, a vineyard, livestock, Gypsies and 17 nuns residing at 7. A few years after the secularisation of the monastery’s assets, in 1871–1872, the hermitage was dissolved, and the nuns were moved, along with their belongings, to Dintr-un Lemn Monastery; on this occasion, a valuable Gospel, donated by Lady Maria Brâncoveanu in 1693 to Surpatele Monastery, also arrived there 8.
In the history of Surpatele Monastery in the 19th century, there is also a dark chapter. A recent article refers to an entry in the hermitage’s memorial register, namely that on 10 September 1839, several evildoers ransacked the hermitage and beat the abbess, Elisabeta, who died four days later 9. From documents held in the Archives of the Holy Diocese of Râmnic, transcribed by I. Popescu-Cilieni, we learn that Elisabeta (a worthy and knowledgeable woman, well-versed in matters concerning both the administration of the holy hermitage and the order of the church 10) had been abbess at Bascov Hermitage in Argeș County, where she had been heavily involved in the restoration of the place of worship. She then took the vow of parethesis and, with the blessing of the Bishop of Argeș, retired to Dintr-un Lemn Monastery, where her sister, Platonida, was abbess. Following Eftimia’s death, Hrisant of Hurezi, the trustee of Surpatele, and Grigorie Brâncoveanu, the founder, recommended Elisabeta to the Bishop of Râmnic so that she might be appointed abbess at Surpatele. She accepted the proposal and led the community from 1831 to 1839, when her life was cut short in an unexpected manner.
In this article, we present new information regarding the plundering of the hermitage and the abbess’s death, through the transcription, commentary and editing of documents written in Romanian using the Cyrillic alphabet, preserved at the Central National Historical Archives, grouped under ‘Documents relating to the case of the robbers who murdered the late Elisabeta Surpăteanca, the abbess’11.
The documents in the file contain an interesting exchange of correspondence concerning the plundering of the Surpatele Hermitage and the beating that led to the death of Abbess Elisabeta; this correspondence took place between September and December 1839, between Hrisant, the hegumen at Hurezi and trustee at Surpatele; Platonida, the abbess of Dintr-un Lemn Monastery and sister of the late Elisabeta; the Vâlcea County Administration; the Court; and the Bishop of Râmnic. From an examination of the documents, we learn the sequence of events, the perpetrators of the robbery and some of the measures taken by the authorities. Here is what the documents reveal:
Thus, on 13 September 1839, Archimandrite Chrysanthus informed the Vâlcea County Administration that ‘the day before yesterday, Monday, on the 11th of the following month, at four o’clock in the morning, nine miscreants arrived at the Surpate hermitage, according to the report given to us by the nuns, they broke into the hermitage and assaulted Mother Superior Elisabeta, leaving her in a condition where her life was in danger. They also assaulted three other nuns who were in the Mother Superior’s quarters12 At the same time, the authorities were urged to take all necessary measures to apprehend the robbers.
Consequently, the first of these documents was written before Elisabeta’s death, which occurred on 15 September as a result of the beatings she received at the hands of the thieves. Chrysanthus’s statement was based on the information (plirofia 13) provided by the nuns, who claimed to have seen nine robbers, though it was ultimately established that there had been only seven. We also learn that, alongside the abbess, three other nuns had been tortured, that is to say, tormented and beaten.
Just a few days after the first letter, on 16 September, Archimandrite Chrysanthus wrote again to the Vâlcea County Administration, informing them “that the pious Mother Superior Elisabeta of the Surpate hermitage, yesterday, on Friday night, at 11 o’clock European time, had passed away, five days after the torments she had suffered at the hands of those bandits’14”.
Also on 16 September, Hrisant, in his capacity as administrator of Surpate, wrote to the Bishop of Râmnic about the tragic events: “The pious Abbess Elizabeth of the Surpate hermitage, on Sunday evening at 10 o’clock, at about 5 o’clock in the morning, as thieves broke into the hermitage and made their way to her cell, they tormented her so severely that yesterday, at about 5 o’clock in the morning, she passed away, here at the Dintr-un Lemn Monastery, where I was also present. For, being utterly worn out by the torture, she was taken in by her sister in holiness, the pious Abbess Platonida, to be cared for; however, as she was so badly battered, nothing helped her, not even medical treatment, and today, on the sixteenth, preparations for her burial are being made15
Thus, the attack by the robbers took place on 10–11 September 1839, from Sunday into Monday, at 4–5 o’clock in the morning. The abbess died as a result of the beatings, even though she had been taken by her sister Platonida to the Dintr-un Lemn Monastery to receive medical care. Archimandrite Chrysanthos was also present at the time of her death. We also learn that the other three nuns, who had also been beaten along with Elizabeth, were not in a very serious condition, as they were younger and in better health.
On 2 November, Platonida wrote to Archimandrite Hrisant about what she had heard from the villagers regarding the robbers. Their identity had been revealed following a conversation between Ion Păciul and Dumitru Tăcutu, the former telling his interlocutor that he knew who the robbers were, as he had seen them, both on their way there and on their way back, when they had passed through his garden, and had heard them recounting their deeds. Ion Păciu also mentioned a few names: Dumitru Vladul from Șerbănești, Gligorie Buțu, and Radu Buțu, his brother. The following day, Dumitru Tăcutu appealed to other villagers and the local authorities with a view to their arrest, but the investigation, in the abbess’s opinion, was delayed. The same letter also recounted the cruelty with which the nuns were beaten: “They threw her down; they beat her (that is, the nun). And another one they <threw> into the trough of the well”16
On 8 November, Platonida, following Hrisant’s advice, recounted at length what she had learnt from Dimitrie Țecunanul, a resident of Șerbănești, who, at the nun’s request, had enquired about the matter in the village. Platonida recounted once more that Ion Păciul of Șerbănești, whilst drunk, had confessed to Dumitru Tăcutul, a local leader from the same village, that he knew who the thieves were, but had subsequently denied these claims during questioning by the authorities. However, through the testimony of one of the robbers mentioned by Păciul—namely Pătru, the village candidate—the other six wrongdoers were identified, namely: Ion Polică from Pietrarii de Sus, in the Cozia region; Ion, son of Lazăr, from Cernele; Dincă Cucu from Păușești (these three being soldiers); Dumitru Vladul from Șerbănești; Gligorie Buțu, the village juror of Șerbăneștii-Moșteni; Radu Buțu, his brother. The attackers lived in the vicinity of the monastery, situated in the village of Surpatele, in the commune of Frâncești, Vâlcea County. The village of Șerbănești is currently in the commune of Păușești, whilst the village of Pietrari is in the same commune 17.
Platonida went on to report that the robbery had been premeditated: “they had been preparing to attack the nun for some time, in fact for half a year now”18. The robbers changed their clothes so as not to be recognised and to cast suspicion on the Serbs, as they had dressed like them: ‘That is to say, some were dressed in women’s dresses, in the form of crinkled shirts and with red sashes tied round their heads, again in the style of the fezzes worn by the Serbs, so as to resemble them (as the suspicions had been)”19.
“And so, dressed in this manner, they entered the hermitage through the small gate. And having chosen from among themselves, namely Ion Polică, Ion son of Lazăr, and Dincă Cucul, they were the first to enter the cells of those two nuns, finding the door open, following the urging and advice of one of their companions, namely Gligorie Buțu, the jurat, who remained on guard with the following: Radu Buțu, Petru the candidate, and Dumitru Vladul20.
Thus, some of the thieves remained on guard, whilst three others (Ion Polică, Ion, son of Lazăr, and Dincă Cucul) first entered the two nuns’ quarters, then the Mother Superior’s, whose door, being locked, they kicked in. “Ion Polică grabbed the nun by the hair, threw her to the ground and began beating her with a wooden club. But it is more likely that they struck her with an axe they had with them, the same one they used to smash open the chest”19.
During questioning, the robbers stated that they had not intended to kill the abbess. Nevertheless, Ion Polică, the man who beat the nun, stated that he had followed the others’ instructions to strike her mercilessly, as he had heard the code signalling that she was to be beaten to death: ‘When questioned further about the premeditated murder, and asked what had compelled them to commit it, they replied that they had not expected her to die, passing the <blame> from one to another, claiming that they had been told not to beat her so badly. But Ion Polică, who had been inside, testified more clearly that he had obeyed his fellow men, following the words they had exchanged (in whispers), and thus they struck him without mercy”19 Apart from money, they also took other items: fabrics, clothes, a pair of inkwells, the most valuable of which was a clock. They hurried to leave, for the villagers had arrived, and the thieves fired their rifles to keep them at bay. The return journey was the same as the outward one: ‘and they took the same path they had come by, until they had gone some way into the forest known as Surpăteanca, and then they sat down to divide the money’.
Therefore, from what Platonida learnt and reported to Hrisant, both privately and officially, on 2 and 8 November, it appears that: the robbery had been premeditated; the robbers, villagers from the surrounding area with a certain social standing (jurors, foot soldiers), had also taken part in other thefts and murders, and were therefore acting as a gang. They were cruel, for they had beaten the nun mercilessly. They had changed their clothes, scouted the route, and arrived at night, not through the main gate but via the woods, round the back of the hermitage. They had tried, through their clothing, to suggest that the perpetrators were Serbs, a suspicion that persisted for a time during the investigation. They were armed, had some sort of code amongst themselves to know how to act, and had divided up their tasks, with some standing guard whilst others entered the house. All seven were caught within a few months, and both the money and the stolen goods were recovered.
Further details about the robbery itself can be found in the same case file, in the robbers’ own statements given during the investigation; a copy of the officials’ report was also sent to the monastery. The document, dated 6 November and signed by the deputy governor of the Otăsău district, contains “the accounts of what they did when they raided the Surpatele hermitage […] the above accounts being set out exactly as each one confessed”21
It contains, in turn, the statements of all seven robbers, namely: Dumitru Vladului, a soldier from Șerbănești; Radu Buțu from Șerbănești; Grigorie Buțu; Ion Lăzăroiu, a soldier from Cernelele; Petru Săceanul from Șerbănești; Ion Polică from Pietrarii de Jos; Dincă Cucul, a soldier from Păușești. Also listed are the stolen goods found in their possession, as well as the recovered money, which, as we learn from Mother Platonida’s letter of 8 November, was sent to the authorities.
From the robbers’ own statements, we learn that the robbery had been premeditated (half a year beforehand) and orchestrated by Grigorie Buțu, who had worked there and had seen that the abbess had money, as she was involved at that time in the restoration of the monastery. He also acted as a guide for the thieves, as he knew the location. Dumitru Vladului stated during questioning that: “Grigorie Buțu, one of his companions, had been urging him, Ion Lăzăroiu and Radu Buțu since last July to go and rob the abbess, because he knew the layout of the place there, having worked in the monastery, adding that he had seen the abbess when she arrived from Bucharest with a bag of money’22”.
They arrived armed with rifles, pistols, a yatagan, a truncheon, a club and an axe. They chose to go at night, taking a side road, not entering through the main gate but through the small gate at the back, which led into the forest. Grigorie Buțu claims not that he instigated the robbery, but, on the contrary, that the others asked him to join the raid because he knew the place. We note, therefore, that the robbers are blaming one another, refusing to admit who instigated the attack, with each claiming that he took part in the robbery because he was asked – or even threatened – by the others to do so. Otherwise, the statements coincide on the key points, specifying which of them remained outside in the courtyard on the lookout and which carried out the robbery and the violence. Ion Polică, Dincă Cucu and Ion Lăzăroiu entered the house: ‘Then, again in groups of three, they went to the Mother Superior’s room and, kicking the first door three times each, openedit, and then did the same with the second door, where, upon entering and finding the Mother Superior standing there with another nun, they began to beat them with those wooden clubs and then shoved her under the bed and demanded money from her. At first she said she had none, but then, pulling her out from under the bed and striking her twice more, they told her to look in the chest, and she told them to unlock it. Then the Mother Superior told the nun to unlock it; she took some keys from the cupboard but, being unable to unlock it, they struck her several times with those sticks, and she told them to break it open, as she could not unlock it. Then Lăzăroiu and Cucu, using that axe to break open the chest, took money and other items”23
Their departure was hastened by the intervention of the villagers, who had been alerted by a nun who had managed to escape. In this regard, Dumitru Vladului states: “And whilst wandering near the church, seeing a nun who had run to get out through the gate, they fired their rifle at her, but did not hit her, because the gate closed behind her. Then, afterwards, because of the commotion caused by the nun who had escaped—as Gypsies or Romanians had begun to arrive, though he does not know which—and they had reached the gate which the nun had opened, they fired two rifles at them, and Radu Buțu, from behind the church, fired a rifle; then, as those who had been in the abbess’s house came out with the things they had taken from there, they all left”24
Ion Polică states that Petre Săceanul is said to have remarked, on their return, that it would have been better to have killed the abbess, presumably so as not to be recognised. After the robbery, they returned, “climbing to the top of the hill towards the forest; they took the ridge and walked to a spot in a clearing. There they sat down and divided up the stolen goods”25.
On 9 December, the Local Administration wrote to the Board of Trustees requesting that a representative from the hermitage be sent to Râmnic to act as a witness during the investigation into the thieves: “The Honourable Local Court, by letter 26 No. 9941, informs the Administration that, in the investigation being conducted into the robbers who raided the Surpatele Hermitage, it is necessary to appoint a designated steward27, on behalf of that hermitage, to be present at the hearings to be held for those robbers’28”.
The letter was received by Hrisant on 15 December, and he immediately complied with the request, for we see that, the following day, on 16 December, the Board of Trustees of the Surpatele Hermitage, through Archimandrite Hrisant of Hurezi, wrote to the Vâlcea County Administration stating that, following the recommendations received, it had chosen as the hermitage’s representative in court one of the nuns who had been tormented by the robbers, who knew full well how the events had unfolded: “29, the steward, has specifically appointed one of the two nuns who suffered alongside the late abbess—namely, Macsimina—as the one who has a clearer understanding of these circumstances than others”30 On the same day, a further letter from the Epitropia to the Administration indicated that the request to appoint a representative for the hermitage had been fulfilled: “The Epitropia, having made the necessary arrangements, appoints as steward on behalf of this hermitage of Surpatele Mother Macsimina, one of the two nuns who served alongside the late abbess, who has a clear understanding of these circumstances”31 However, this document stated that, with regard to the stolen items, Macsimina would testify only concerning her own loss, whilst, regarding the abbess’s loss, Chrysanthus recommended that the authorities accept the robbers’ testimonies, so as not to burden the late abbess’s soul with any uncertain statement.
On 25 December, Platonida wrote to Hrisant stating that, in accordance with his instructions, she had sent Sister Macsimina, as a representative of the Surpatele Hermitage, to the Court in Râmnic, as he had requested, to be present during the investigation of the thieves, but it was too late, as the authorities had already sent the culprits to Craiova, to the Criminal Court, on the grounds that the nun had not arrived in time.
The file presented in this article does not contain any information from the subsequent period, which would allow us to see what sentence the authorities— those with jurisdiction to try criminal offences, including the robbery and the assault that led to the abbess’s death – details which we may be able to find in other archival collections. Nevertheless, our file is significant as it reveals the number and identity of the robbers, their place of origin and their occupations. It also describes their route, modus operandi, the premeditation of the crime—planned half a year in advance—their disguise by changing clothes, and the weapons used. The robbers’ case is aggravated by the fact that they arrived in large numbers, acted as a gang, and carried out the robbery with violence and unjustified cruelty towards the abbess, who, we learn, was unable to defend herself. Furthermore, some of them had worked at the convent, and so had enjoyed the abbess’s trust and abused that trust. Also, some were soldiers, and thus persons charged with protecting the inhabitants, whilst others were sworn officials; and the theft took place within the convent, whilst the violence was directed at consecrated persons, for alongside the abbess, other nuns were also beaten. This was not the defendants’ first offence; they had committed other robberies as well.
We also note the cooperation between various state institutions in apprehending the perpetrators, as well as the villagers’ involvement in aiding the monastery. In this regard, we recall not only Dumitru Tăcutu, who, as soon as he heard of the robbers, went to report them, but also the villagers’ entry into the convent courtyard on the night of the robbery, which hastened the robbers’ departure; the robbers used rifles to keep at bay the villagers who had come to the nuns’ aid.
This case reveals a dark chapter in the history of Surpatele Monastery, as well as that of the local inhabitants, who were attacked by a gang of robbers. We hope that research into other archival collections will shed further light on the events, particularly on the trial and the punishments meted out to these evildoers, in accordance with the legislation in force at the time.
APPENDICES – ANIC, Ministry of Agriculture and Estates. Minor Assets, 10/1839: Testimony regarding the robbers who murdered the late Elisabeta Surpăteanca, the abbess
ANNEX 1
To the Honourable Administration of Vâlcea County,
With all due respect, I hereby inform the Honourable Administration that the day before yesterday, Monday, the 11th of the following month, at four o’clock in the morning, some evildoers arrived at the Surpate hermitage, numbering nine, according to the report given to us by the nuns, they broke into the hermitage and assaulted Mother Abbess Elisabeta, leaving her in such a state of health that her life was in danger.
Three other nuns who were in the Mother Superior’s quarters also fell victim to the attack.
As for the damages caused by these evildoers, the Board of Trustees has no clear information to provide to the Honourable Government 32. However, it respectfully requests that the Honourable Administration deign to employ all police resources to bring such wrongdoers to justice. At the same time, the Honourable Administration is again requested to inform the Board of Trustees of the outcome of their reception and of the measures it intends to take.
13
September 1839 Signed: Hrisant <from> Horezu
No. 13 No. 59
ANNEX 2
Also to the Honourable Administration of Vâlcea:
By this letter, it is made known to the Honourable Administration that the pious abbess Elisabeta of the Surpate Hermitage, yesterday, on Friday night at 11 o’clock European time, passed away, five days after the torments she suffered at the hands of those bandits. Accordingly, the Board of Trustees has reported this violation and the torture in its document No. 59 dated the 13th of the following month.
Signed: Hrisant <from> Horezu
, 16
September 1839, No. 15 No. 60
ANNEX 3
To His Grace the Bishop of Râmnic,
the Board of Trustees of the Dintr-un Lemn and Surpate Hermitages respectfully informs Your Grace that the venerable abbess Elisabeta of the Surpate Hermitage, on Sunday evening, at 10 o’clock on the following day, at 5 o’clock in the morning, whilst the hermitage was being raided by thieves and she was making her way to her cell, they tormented her so severely that yesterday at 5 o’clock in the morning she breathed her last, here at the Dintr-un Lemn Monastery, where I myself was present.
For, utterly exhausted by the torture, she was taken in by her sister in holiness, the pious Abbess Platonida, to be cared for; however, as she was so badly beaten, no medical treatment proved of any use to her.
And today, at four o’clock, the funeral preparations are to be made.
Along with the deceased, three other nuns suffered the same fate; as they are somewhat stronger and not yet advanced in years, perhaps their lives will not be in danger.
The Board of Trustees, however, will appoint a warden to manage the convent until an election is held.
And in accordance with duty, I have taken care to inform Your Graces.
Signed: Hrisant <from> Horezu
, 16
September 1839 No. 14 No. 61
APPENDIX 4
No. 17, received 4 November 1839
With the deepest respect, I bow and kiss Your Holiness’s honourable hand.
Following extensive investigations carried out by Mr the Administrator and Mr the Deputy Governor of the district, regarding the matter of tracking down the perpetrators of evil, who, by the offence they committed against my sister on the 10th of last September, also caused her death, as is known to you. And since it was deemed possible to uncover them, a few days ago rumours began to circulate to the same effect, namely that a certain Ion Păciul, an elderly man from the village of Șărbănești, went one evening to a certain Dumitru Tăcutu, a serf and the village headman, and amongst other things they spoke of, they also broached the subject of the murder of the mother, adding the following to him:
‘I know these thieves well; when they were getting ready to leave, they were all in my garden with the pigeons, and I saw them as they got dressed and set off.’ And a few hours later, I heard one of my neighbours speaking to his wife, saying: ‘As soon as I knocked her down, she was in agony’ (meaning the mother). And on another occasion, I <threw> her into the well’s trough, pointing out to her certain people33:
1. Dumitru Vladul from 34 Sărbăneștii Moșneni
2. Gligore Buțu
3. Radu, brother of 35 Gligore Buțu
4. Costandin, son of […]36 Mihai Săcean, the village’s candidate, who is his neighbour, along with other unknown companions of his.
And when the village elder heard these things from him, at first he thought he was joking, but as he was about to leave, he asked him earnestly whether what he was saying was indeed true or not. And he answered them with an oath, saying that the seven souls in his house would be lost to him.
Then the village headman, having received this news, as it was night, kept silent until daybreak and then went straight to a certain Matei Netedu, one of the serf jurors, to whom, having explained the circumstances, he in turn rushed to another juror and friend of his, namely Ștefan, and, having explained everything in detail, they brought Ion Păciul, an old man from37, to him; when they questioned him, he denied everything, saying that he had been drunk and did not know what he had said, and begged them to keep quiet. And as the aforementioned jurors were convinced by the account given to them by the village headman, to whom he had confessed of his own accord, they then took both Ion Păciul and the village headman, handing them over to the Deputy Governor. And as they could not find the Deputy Governor, they reported the matter to Colonel Nae Pleșoianu38, who, upon entering a house with him, it is not known what sort of questioning they subjected him to, for they released him, telling the jurors only that he was to remain in their care. And from then until now, a fair amount of time has passed, during which I have seen no signs of any plot being hatched; on the contrary, there is a complete lethargy and silence, and I cannot understand the reason that compels Mr. Deputy Governor to cover for him and defend him to such an extent.
I am bringing all this to Your Holinesses’ attention based on what I have heard from all the inhabitants of the surrounding villages. And if a proper investigation is carried out, I believe the perpetrators will be found. Finally, they must absolutely confess the truth.
Wherefore I humbly entreat Your Holiness, after due consideration, to take such measures as you deem fit to bring this matter to light, and for no other <purpose> than solely to root them out, so that we too may continue to live here without fear.
And with all humility,
I remain Your Holiness’s humble <servant>,
Platonida, Abbess
, 2
November 1839, Holy Monastery of Dintr-un Lemn
APPENDIX 5
On the 2nd of the following month, Mr Dimitrie Țecuneanul came here, whilst passing through his estate at Șerbănești; amongst other things we discussed, I also informed him of a few conclusions I had drawn regarding those evildoers, based solely on the rumours I had heard. As he himself was already somewhat aware of the matter, I took the liberty of inviting him, on my behalf, to go to the aforementioned estate and kindly investigate the matter. And, should the circumstances prove as such, to let me know. And having accepted my invitation willingly, without delay and after conducting a thorough investigation, they established the following facts:
Ion Păciul of Șerbăneștii Moșneni, whilst walking one Saturday in the late afternoon, to visit Dumitru Tăcutul, the village elder of Șerbăneștii Clăcași, whilst they were talking about their affairs, they saw a woman, namely Stana, the wife of Radu Morângă, also from the Moșneni. And Ioan Păciul asked her where her husband was. When she replied that he was at home, they began to say that on Friday evening they had been on guard duty. And going to his house, they found the door locked and a great fire burning inside; and knocking on the door, they called out to him, but as he gave no answer, they left. But Dumitru the Silent testified to the contrary, stating that on that day, Friday evening, they had both been out – that is, together with Radu Morângă – taking some barley to Suptocârmuire. And to verify this, they should ask the village candidate, whom he had met on the way.
But Ion Păciul, as soon as he heard the candidate’s name, began to say that they should not mention the candidate to him, for hehad seen him getting ready, putting on his wife’s short coat, tying a 39 scarf round his head, and, mounting his horse, setting off for the monastery or somewhere else. And towards morning, having woken up, he heard the hens clucking and ran to see them; he went to have a look at some piglets as well, and then theysaw them coming and dismounting from their horse; they went into the house, pulled their hair over their eyes, and asked his wife: ‘Do you recognise me, woman?’ His wife replied: ‘I don’t recognise you.’ But he said: ‘See, that’s how I was, wherever I was.’
And Dumitru the shepherd, having heard all this from Ion Păciul, said: ‘Come now, Ion, I can see you’re a bit drunk! But show me whether you’re telling the truth or not!’ And in response, he answered with an oath, saying: ‘Although I am a bit drunk, if it is not as I show you, may the seven souls he has in his house be cursed, and he pointed out even more emphatically these companions of his, namely:
1 Dumitru the foot soldier, son of Vlad of Șerbănești Moșneni
; 2 Grigorie Buțu, the village
juror; 3 Radu the brother, a villager.
And after this revelation, they went home. But the next day, Sunday, Dumitru Tăcut went to a chosen one of the serfs, namely Matei Gh. Netedu, and showed him that the thieves who had killed the abbess at Surpate had been identified, telling him the whole story as he had heard it from Ion Păciul. And the aforementioned representative, a native o40, went to another of his companions, namely Ștefan Sâncul, to whom he recounted what Dumitru had told him about Ion Păciul; they then brought Dumitru before both representatives, and once again explained 41 how Ion Păciul had come to him and in what manner they had broached the subject. And the elected representatives, alarmed at hearing of such a deed, immediately sent a lad named Pătru to summon Ion Păciul; and when he arrived, they questioned him closely, but he denied it, saying that as for what they had spoken, or had not spoken, he did not know, for they had been drunk!
Then, having confronted him with Dumitru as well – for in a certain way they had revealed this to us – and seeing his denial, the councillors42 was placed under house arrest in a house, together with Dumitru, and one of the constables36 stood guard at the door, on the grounds that <only then> would he confess the truth. And they could prove nothing. As for Dumitru, having confessed the same as the first time, the officials took them both and set off to take them to the Sub-Governor’s office. But whilst questioning them further on the way, they could find out nothing; he merely begged them not to sin against him, but to set him free, for he would give them a penny 43. And without his plea being heeded,took the man 44 to the Sub-Governor’s office and, finding only the constable 45 Nae Pleșoianul there, explained the situation to him; he first ascertained the facts of the matter from Dumitru the Silent, then they brought Ion Păciul into the house as well; and as to what sort of inquiry was conducted into him, I do not know, for they released him, instructing the elected representatives to keep him under guard until further orders were sent to them.
And so, having obtained that thorough report from the scene through the elected representatives, Mr Țecuneanu informed us of it as well. 46, we took this to be true, as indeed it was!
In the same way, however, lies the beginning of the exposure of these evildoers. And then, following this, on the 4th of the following month, having reported the matter from here, the Governor sent the aforementioned Dorobant in advance, to apprehend the aforementioned thieves. And the Governor also arrived, and the constable first brought the following individuals in for questioning, namely:
1 Pătru, a villager from 47 […]36, a peasant from Șerbănești Moșneni, one of them
; 2 Ion Păciul, a peasant
; 3 Dumitru Tăcutul, a farmhand from Șerbănești Clăcași.
The facts were established through the testimony of the aforementioned individuals, following the investigation conducted by the Governor; however:
When Dumitru Tăcutul was first brought before him, he gave a detailed account 48 as set out above, having gained full knowledge from him, they also brought forward Ion Păciul; but as he denied everything, he could prove nothing. But their denials were in vain, for the thieves were indeed the very same as those confessed by Dumitru the Silent. For, upon subsequently interrogating Pătru the suspect, the thief, both by threatening him with torture and by promising to spare him and other inducements, he began first to name all his accomplices, six in number, making seven including him, confessing that they had been present at the murder of the mother alongside these men, namely:
1. Ion Polică, a villager from Pietrarii de Sus, in the Cozie
region; 2. Ion, son of Lazăr […]36 from Cernele
; 3 Dincă Cucul from Păușești – soldiers of the Otsău
district administration; 4 Dumitru Vladul from Șerbăneștii Moșneni
; 5 Ghigorie Buțu, the juror of the village of Șerbăneștii Moșneni in Otsău
6 Radu Buțu, a villager from Moșneni in Otsău
And although they were all apprehended and brought in, without a single one escaping, yet during the interrogation conducted by the Governor, they did not deny the charges; rather, as their statements contradicted one another in every respect, the following were ultimately selected as the basis and deemed true:
Their plot to violate the Mother had been prepared in advance, some half a year ago, and due to the opportunities that presented themselves, they had been keeping it secret 49 until the 10th of last September, when, driven by unbridled malice and seizing the opportunity presented by the riot at the Răureni fair, the aforementioned group gathered; having come as far as the ravine on the hillside behind the monastery, where they sat and changed their clothes; that is to say, some were dressed in their wives’ dresses, in the form of ruffled shirts and with red sashes tied round their heads, and also wearing <the> fezzes worn by the Serbs, so as to <resemble> them (as had been suspected). Others wore chebe 50 and striped headscarves, and over their trousers they wrapped belts, so that it might appear they were wearing trousers, having agreed amongst themselves: That when one of them says ‘burbre’ 51, they are to kill whoever stands in their way. And so, dressed in this manner, they entered the hermitage through the small gate. And the following were chosen from among them, namely:
1 Ion Polică
2 Ion, son of Lazăr
3 Dincă Cucul
. They were the first to enter the quarters of those two nuns, finding the door open, following the urging and advice of one of their companions, namely Gligorie Buțul, the sworn witness, who remained on guard with the following:
1 Radu Buțu
, 2 Petre the candidate
, 3 Dumitru Vladul
. And those inside the house, seeing that they could find no money on the two nuns, as their companions had assured them, then went to the mother superior’s room and, in groups of three, kicked the doors, breaking them down, and entered the house. And one of them, namely Dincă Cucul, said: ‘Come on, let’s get this over with.’ At that, Ion Polică, knowing what was required, grabbed the Mother Superior by the hair and, throwing her to the ground, began to beat her with a wooden club. But it is more likely that they struck her with an axe they had with them, with which they also smashed the chest. When questioned further about the premeditated murder, and asked what had compelled them to commit it, they replied that they had not expected her to die, passing the ‘blame’ from one to another, claiming that they had said not to beat him so badly. But Ion Polică, who had been inside, testified more clearly that he had obeyed his fellow men, following the words they had exchanged (in whispers), and so they struck him without mercy, then taking both money and other items from the house: a tablecloth, stockings, a coat, a watch and whatever else they could find, they left, for the village was closing in on them. To keep the villagers at bay, they fired a few shots.
And they made their way back along the very path by which they had come, until they had gone a fair way into the forest known as Surpăteanca, and then they sat down to divide the money, 63 sfanți each, for the pouch containing the gold coins had been concealed by one of them, namely Ion Lazăr, without the others’ knowledge, as well as the watch and a pair of belt-fasteners. And when questioned, they confessed everything; as these items, along with the other things, were found hidden in his house, and fearing they might be discovered, they gave them all to Ion Polică, the thief, who hid them in a vineyard […]36. And then each went home. Of these items, however, the following were found here:
From Ion son of Lazăr the infantryman: 189 rubiele 52, 27 imperial gold coins, 17 funduci 53, 63 sfanți, 1 pair of brass inkwells, 1 small broken chest latch, 3 brass door fittings, 1 clock
from Ion Polică of Pietrari: 62 sfanți, 1 green 54 chest cover, 1 small striped linen tablecloth, 1 American linen sheet, 1 Madopolon sheet 55, 1 floral-patterned hemp tablecloth 56, 2 pairs of stockings with German heels, 6 sheets of monk’s camel hair handkerchief fabric, 3 linen napkins, 1 civit headscarf 57 for the nose38
63 sfanți from Dumitru Vladul, a soldier from Șerbănești, an elderly man
63 sfanți from Dincă Cucul, a soldier from Păușești
, 55 sfanți from Radu Buțu, a villager from Șerbănești, an elderly man
, 42 sfanți from Pătru Săceanul, the candidate
, 63 sfanți from Ghigorie Buțu, the village
juror. All the items listed above, together with the money, having been found in the possession of the aforementioned robbers, were seized by the dorobanți to be taken to the Honourable Government.
And in this same manner, let the entire account of the assault and murder committed against my mother and my sister come to an end here. I also point out, in addition to these, two further offences which they confessed to during the subsequent investigation, in which other accomplices are implicated, apart from these, namely:
the house of Ion Mâțul, in the village of Pietrarii de Sus, from which they took crates of beer
; and the house of Nicolae Dogaru, in the village of Mănăilești
. And in both of these offences, they shot one man each.
The year 1839, the month of November, the 8th
. […]58
, the Holy Monastery of Dintr-un Lemn.
APPENDIX 6
No. 16, received 15 December 1839
The Governor of Vâlcea County,
9
December 1839, the town of Râmnic
To the Most Reverend Archimandrite Hrisant, administrator of the Holy Hermitage of Surpatele,
The Honourable Local Court, by letter No. 9941, informs the Administration that, during the investigation to be conducted into the robbers who raided the Surpatele Hermitage, it is necessary to appoint a special representative from that hermitage to attend the hearings to be held for those robbers.
Accordingly, having brought this to Your Reverence’s attention, you are kindly requested to arrange without delay for the appointment of such a representative, with authorisation from the Honourable Board of Trustees.
And for the information of the Administration, a reply shall be provided.
For the Honourable Administration59
ANNEX 7
From the Board of Trustees of the Holy Hermitage of Surpate to the County Administration of Vâlcea,
In fulfilment of the comprehensive instructions issued by the Honourable County Administration under No. 9185, the Board of Trustees has arranged for a steward to be sent on behalf of the Holy Hermitage of Surpate, and has specifically appointed as steward one of the two nuns who served alongside the late abbess, namely Macsimina, as she has a clearer understanding of these circumstances than others, to report directly to the Honourable Administration, for appropriate action.
16
December 1839 Signed: Hrisant <of> Horez
No. 25 No. 75
APPENDIX 8
The Board of Trustees of the Holy Hermitage of Surpate,
Given that the Honourable Administration of this county of Vâlcea, by means of the decree No. 9185, has instructed the Board to appoint a steward on behalf of this Surpate Hermitage, who is to be present at the investigations to be carried out by the Honourable Local Court into the robbers who raided the hermitage, on the basis of the aforementioned document dated 38; the Board of Trustees, having made the necessary arrangements, appoints as steward on behalf of the Surpate Hermitage Mother Macsimina, one of the two nuns who served alongside the late abbess, who has full knowledge of these circumstances and, at the forthcoming hearings, is to testify to nothing <else> but those 38, only those which the robbers themselves revealed, through their confession, concerning the late Mother Superior, since the said Mother Superior is no longer alive to testify as to whether more was taken from her than that, so as not to burden the soul of the deceased.
But as for the loss which Maximine claims they caused her when they assaulted her, she shall give her own account of this. And the judge 38 shall determine the compensation.
And so that it may be known that this has been ordered by the hermitage, this decree has been issued to her, bearing the signature and seal of the Bishopric.
Signed: Hrisant <of> Horezu
, 16
December 1839, No. 24 No. 76
* Central National Historical Archives (ANIC), Ministry of Agriculture and Estates. Minor properties, 10/1839, f. 10 r.
- 1
It was built by the Drăgoești boyars, who were related to the Buzești family, before 1512, when it was first mentioned in historical records, and was subsequently rebuilt and endowed by Constantin Brâncoveanu and his wife, Lady Maria, at the beginning of the 18th century. See Radu M. ION, ‘A family of Oltenian founders: the Drăgoești boyars’, in Revista de istorie Bisericească, X, 1943, no. 3, pp. 50–91; Aurelian SACERDOȚEANU, ‘Constantin Brâncoveanu and his foundations in Oltenia’, in Mitropolia Olteniei, XVI, 1964, nos. 9–10, pp. 708–727. See also the recent work The Fabric of the Valcea Monasteries, ed. His Eminence Varsanufie, Archbishop of Râmnic, Rev. Dr Ștefan Zară, Nun Stavroforă Theodora Videscu, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, Praxis Publishers, 2018, p. 177.
- 2
Library of the Romanian Academy (BAR), Rare Books and Manuscripts, Ms. rom. 5504, fol. 6v.
- 3
ANIC, Surpatele Monastery, III/9. The document dated 1687 lists Tudor Clucer and his brother Stanciu as founders from the 16th century.
- 4
The inscription is reproduced by Ioan POPESCU-CILIENI, ‘Documents relating to Surpatele-Vâlcea Monastery’, in Revista de Istorie Bisericească, I, 1943, no. 2, p. 95.
- 5
The register is reproduced by Ioan POPESCU-CILIENI, ‘Documents relating to Surpatele-Vâlcea Monastery’, in Revista de Istorie Bisericească, I, 1943, no. 2, pp. 105–114.
- 6
T. G. BULAT, ‘A renowned abbot of Hurez Monastery: Hrisant Penetis (10 Oct. 1832 – 3 March 1852)’, in Mitropolia Olteniei, XIV, 1962, nos. 7–9, pp. 434–448; G. COCORA, ‘Further Information on Archimandrite Hrisant of Hurez’, in Mitropolia Olteniei, XV, 1963, nos. 9–10, pp. 791–799.
- 7
The ANIC document is referred to by T. G. BULAT, ‘The Secular Monasteries of Wallachia during the Era of the Organic Regulations (1831–1834)’, in The Romanian Orthodox Church, XCIII, 1975, no. 9–10, pp. 1165–1176, regarding Vâlcea County, p. 1167.
- 8
Al. PETRESCU, ‘A Gospel from 1693’, in The Romanian Orthodox Church, XXVI, 1902, no. 9, pp. 1040–1044.
- 9
See the article by Ion RIZEA, ‘The Venerable Platonida of Dintr-un Lemn Monastery’, in the newspaper Lumina, dated 12 October 2014, which includes the quotation from the memorial service.
- 10
The letter dated 19 August 1831 from the founder Grigorie Brâncoveanu to the Bishop of Râmnic, reproduced by Ioan POPESCU-CILIENI, ‘Documents relating to Surpatele-Vâlcea Monastery’, in the Revista de Istorie Bisericească, I, 1943, no. 2, p. 119.
- 11
ANIC, Ministry of Agriculture and Land. Minor assets, 10/1839. The file comprises 28 folios, written on one side or on both sides, including copies and originals.
- 12
ANIC, Ministry of Agriculture and Estates. Smallholdings, 10/1839, f. 1.
- 13
Plirofie – information, explanation. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language, Bucharest, Saeculum Publishers, 2013, p. 999.
- 14
ANIC, Ministry of Agriculture and Estates. Minor assets, 10/1839, f. 2.
- 15
ANIC, Ministry of Agriculture and Estates. Minor assets, 10/1839, fol. 3.
- 16
ANIC, Ministry of Agriculture and Estates. Minor assets, 10/1839, f. 4.
- 17
Melentina BÂZGAN, A Guide to Medieval Settlements in Wallachia up to 1831, Bucharest, Cartea Universitară, 2004, pp. 76, 96–97.
- 18
ANIC, Ministry of Agriculture and Estates. Minor Assets, 10/1839, f. 10.
- 19a19b19c
ANIC, Ministry of Agriculture and Estates. Minor assets, 10/1839, f. 10.
- 20
ANIC, Ministry of Agriculture and Estates. Smallholdings, 10/1839, fol. 10.
- 21
ANIC, Ministry of Agriculture and Estates. Minor Assets, 10/1839, fol. 13, 19.
- 22
ANIC, Ministry of Agriculture and Estates. Minor property, 10/1839, f. 18.
- 23
ANIC, Ministry of Agriculture and Estates. Minor assets, 10/1839, f. 18 r.
- 24
ANIC, Ministry of Agriculture and Estates. Minor assets, 10/1839, fol. 18r.
- 25
ANIC, Ministry of Agriculture and Estates. Minor Assets, 10/1839, f. 18 r.
- 26
Otnoșenie – notification, communiqué, official report. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 916.
- 27
Vechil – agent. Augustin Scriban, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 1397.
- 28
ANIC, Ministry of Agriculture and Estates. Minor assets, 10/1839, f. 21.
- 29
Vechilimea – power of attorney granted by a vechil. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 1397.
- 30
ANIC, Ministry of Agriculture and Estates. Minor properties, 10/1839, f. 22.
- 31
ANIC, Ministry of Agriculture and Estates. Minor assets, 10/1839, f. 23.
- 32
A likely lesson. In the sense that the Epitropia cannot provide the Administration with details of the damage caused.
- 33
as stated in the text.
- 34
from, in the Slavic language.
- 35
brother, in the Slavic language.
- 36a36b36c36d36e
Illegible.
- 37
With the meaning in place.
- 38a38b38c38d38e
A likely lesson.
- 39
Boccea – a piece of cloth used for wrapping, like a large headscarf. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 181.
- 40
Here, with the direction of travel.
- 41
De iznoavă – again. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 668.
- 42
Popreală – arrest. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary…, p. 1017.
- 43
Sfanț – an old Austrian silver coin. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary…, p. 1193.
- 44
Tist – commander of the Dorobanti. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary…, p. 1321.
- 45
Polcovnic – colonel. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary…, p. 1009.
- 46
Here, it means an opinion or a previous judgement that has proved to be true.
- 47
His son, in the Slavic language.
- 48
Trifle – detail. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary…, p. 92.
- 49
Postponed.
- 50
Chebe – felt coat, peasant coat. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary…, p. 263.
- 51
A likely lesson. Probably a thieves’ code.
- 52
Rubia, pl. rubiele – an old Turkish gold coin. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary…, p. 1140.
- 53
Funduc – a Turkish gold coin. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary…, p. 533.
- 54
Cutnie – a satin weave with a cotton warp. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary…, p. 385.
- 55
Madopolon – white cotton cloth. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary…, p. 764.
- 56
Meaning: cloth, haberdashery. A pedlar who sells cloth, manufactured goods and haberdashery. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary…, p. 1328.
- 57
Civit – dark blue. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary…, p. 293.
- 58
Blank space in the original.
- 59
Added later, another note.