“DEDICATED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE ROMANIAN NATION AS A WHOLE...”
Even over a period of some 25 years – taking the year 1700 as a conventional benchmark – the complete translation into Romanian of the ritual books, totalling thousands of pages, is an endeavour that seems incredible, given the enormous volume of work and the difficulty of the texts: for a single man, this is an overwhelming task. And yet, Bishop Damaschin achieved this superhuman feat whilst overseeing a large diocese – the whole of Oltenia, where there were 40 monasteries and hermitages alone 1, to which were added the subordinate areas beyond the mountains – whilst the war and the Austrian military occupation had brought him endless worries 2. Moreover, his main ‘working tool’ was far from perfect: the ‘simple Romanian’ language into which he translated was not yet flexible enough to convey all the theological subtlety and poetic charm of Greek hymnography. The liturgical vocabulary was still heavily reliant on forced borrowings from Greek and Church Slavonic; the literal renderings also made the text difficult to read. It is hard to imagine today how this difficulty was overcome; nevertheless, the beauty and clarity of Teacher Damaschin’s translations impressed his contemporaries and successors so much that one of the editors of his manuscripts – in other words, a ‘professional’ of the Romanian language – namely Lavrentie, the hieromonk of Hureze, was able to say in 1747:
‘…and moreover, following his teaching, it seems to me that this will enable you to grasp very easily what is spoken in the Romanian language’3
More than half a century after his death, Romanian scholars were still captivated by the beauty of the Romanian language in Bishop Damaschin’s translations. The great Bishop Chesarie of Râmnic – “the radiant sun (…), the great teacher”, as he was called4 – who had the privilege of studying his writings closely when he edited and printed several of the translations in the Minee, regarded him as superior to all the great translators who illuminated the era of Constantin Brâncoveanu:
“…and the translation [of books into Romanian, ed.] began in the days of Prince Matei Basarab and was continued in the days of Prince Șerban Basarab [Cantacuzino, ed.]. And they reached their full splendour in the days of Prince Constantin Basarab Brâncoveanu, through the diligence of Kir Damaschin, Bishop of Râmnic.”5
Radu Tempea of Transylvania, the priest and great scholar – himself a master of the Romanian language – who was familiar with the Râmnic liturgical translations circulated in Transylvania, stated in 1797, in the ‘Preface’ to his work, Romanian Grammar:
‘…and the greater part of the ecclesiastical books were translated by Damaschin, Bishop of Râmnic (…), with a most enlightened style and language…’6
‘Enlightened language’, indeed: for to this day the Romanian Church uses his translations. Although the texts have been revised on several occasions over time, no new translations have been produced for the major liturgical books (the Triodion, the Pentecostarion, the Octoechos, the Menaion). For example, the hymns from the Anthologion printed at Râmnic in 1737 – which faithfully reproduce the translations of the Mineas from the bishop’s manuscripts, preserved at that time at the Bishop’s See, as indicated in the book’s afterword – were reproduced as they stood in the Synodal edition of the Mineas of 1894, such was the clarity of Damaschin’s handwriting, even after more than a century and a half 7. It was only when the literary and liturgical language had reached maturity that Romanian scholars, through the voice of the Hellenist and theologian Constantin Erbiceanu, were finally able to define the bishop’s great merit:
‘[Damaschin’s] Romanian language is admirable, beautiful and dignified. Damaschin is one of the founders and architects of the national language...’8
Through Damaschin’s translations, the dialect spoken in Muntenia—more flexible and less marked by regionalisms and archaisms than those of Moldova, Oltenia, Transylvania or Banat—became established in literary and liturgical Romanian 9. These features also facilitated dialectal unification within the literary language, a unification largely supported by the widespread circulation, throughout all the Romanian provinces, of the translations by the teacher Damaschin.
A comparative analysis of Bishop Damaschin’s translations—as undertaken by another enlightened bishop, Ghenadie Enăceanu of Râmnic, regarding the ancient versions of the Gospel—might reveal the subtlety of the Romanian language’s articulation. Through Damaschin the Teacher, for example, the distinctly Romanian and metaphysical ‘întru’ became established in our ancient liturgical literature, in place of other prepositions (‘în’, ‘cu’):
‘…and Jesus returned with the power of the Spirit…’ (Antim Ivireanul);
‘…and Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit…’ (Damaschin Dascălul)10
The greater the effort involved in the translation, the more it matched his meticulousness: Bishop Damaschin worked by cross-referencing different editions of the same text: Greek, Slavonic, contemporary Russian and earlier Romanian versions, even consulting – as Bishop Climent of Râmnic states in the preface to the 1742 Pentecostarion – Latin sources 11. Although at first he seems to have translated more closely from the Slavonic versions of the liturgical books (the Octoechos), over time he worked more closely from the Greek versions, without, however, disregarding the other versions – for, as Lavrentie the reviser considered, the translation could be more coherent by opting for a single source language 12:
‘…but know this too, O Christ-loving reader, that if you take the trouble to examine the translation of this holy book in detail, and if you compare it with other sources translated by other teachers of the present day 13, and should find that they do not agree, do not be quick to blaspheme, for we have followed the text of the late Father Damaschin, Bishop of Râmnic, word for word, changing nothing, nor straying towards other translations, relying on the words of his holiness, who writes and testifies thus at the beginning of the Tripesneț: that, setting aside other sources in Latin and Slovenian, he followed, translated and corrected the Greek Pentecostarion more closely, so that the Greek order might not be distorted and the Romanian language corrupted, so that it might be of benefit to those who strive to bear fruit through learning, as grateful and wise men”.
As for the books of the New Testament, however, his meticulousness led Bishop Damaschin not merely to collate the various editions in circulation at that time, but to draw upon the most authoritative sources, namely the inspired commentaries of the Holy Fathers. This explains the reworking of the Epistle, as noted above, merely 21 years after the first translation. In the preface dedicated to Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu, Bishop Damaschin reveals the reason for revisiting the same text:
‘…I bring and dedicate to Your Highness this small labour of ours, namely this holy book, the Epistle, which has come forth from Your Highness’s Printing House; which, by the will of God and with the sound counsel, will and blessing of his saints, our Most Holy Archbishop and Metropolitan Kir Theodosie, just as it had previously been arranged according to the Greek version, dating back to the days of the late, most enlightened Lord Io Șărban Cantacozino Voivode, I was moved to have it sent to press (…). Although our efforts in this matter were meagre and modest, for we have contributed nothing of our own, but having been guided by the most accomplished and enlightened minds, who had previously established and arranged these matters, so I have set out this arrangement; yet, placing the commentaries of the holy and universally praised John Chrysostom as a guiding light, I have followed them with all the zeal of my soul, and as best I could, I have clarified I have further illuminated the meaning of the text through my commentary, and have condensed it into short passages, as you shall see, whilst carefully preserving the connection between the words…”14
Such was his piety and rigour, therefore, the teacher and bishop Damaschin displayed towards the text of Holy Scripture, that, although he was so learned, he did not dare to tackle the text of the Epistles without the guidance of the spiritual wisdom of St John Chrysostom. In this way, he minimised the risk of personal interpretation of the text—a risk inherent in any translation—a risk all the greater at that time, as the ‘limitations’ of the Romanian language might have left room for imprecision. But by holding up St John’s inspired interpretations ‘as a light’, he ensured the accuracy of both understanding and translation, as well as grounding them in the reading tradition of the Holy Fathers (“taking as our guide those most perfect in wisdom…”) – thereby setting an example of prudence for us today in our approach to these precious texts.
He proceeded in the same way with the Gospels, translating not only their text strictly, but also the Commentaries of St. Theophylact of Bulgaria and Ohrid on the Four Gospels, one of the foundational works of Orthodoxy, in which each Gospel verse is followed by commentaries of great accuracy in patristic interpretation 15. Of course, Romanian translations of the Gospels had also been printed previously (Bucharest, 1682, 1688, 1693, 1697 16). The reviser Lavrentie Hurezeanul reverently followed his example when, in 1746, he prepared the text of the Gospel for printing, based on the bishop’s ‘manuscript’:
‘And know this, O Christ-loving reader, that if you compare this holy Gospel with certain Greek or Romanian manuscripts, printed previously, you must realise that in many places the wording will not match, for I have followed the translation of the manuscript by Father Damaschin the Bishop, the great teacher, compiled according to Theophylact’s commentary, and until I had read and understood the commentary, I did not set down a single word’17
Finally, regarding the Book of Revelation, even though this text also had a printed translation in the Bucharest Bible (1688), the bishop resorted, as we have seen, to the commentary by Archbishop Andrew of Caesarea, which he translated in full into Romanian in 1704.
In Bishop Damaschin’s different attitude towards the books of the New Testament, we find the same mistrust displayed by some learned theologians of the time, towards the printed versions of liturgical and, above all, scriptural texts circulating at the time. The Greek versions originated from either Protestant (Dutch or German printing houses) or Catholic (Venice or Paris) circles. The Slavonic or Ukrainian editions from Kiev or Lviv were also suspected, particularly by Russian theologians, of containing interpolations or distortions of the original text. The concern for correcting ecclesiastical texts and seeking out their original versions—which had become almost an obsession in Russia as far back as the time of St Maximus the Greek—was also evident among some of the enlightened theologians of Wallachia, such as Metropolitan Stephen, who in 1652 wrote in the preface to The Correction of the Law:
‘…and I have made a selection from the many and rich Pravils, even sending as far as the imperial capital to our Most Holy Patriarch and Patriarch of the Whole World (for I did not wish to write about the printed ones, being afraid; for ever since the books of Orthodoxy fell into the hands of heretics, they have never failed to introduce some heretical notions), until I learnt of it from our honourable spiritual son Kyr George Karidi of Trichis (…), written in his own hand, the entire archiepiscopal judgement and, alongside it, the imperial one, containing all the canons of the Holy Councils (…), compiled and arranged by the command and instruction of the most pious Emperor Kyr Ioannu Komnenos, with great and careful consideration…’18
Awareness of this danger led Bishop Damascene to collate the various editions of the texts he wished to translate; yet even this caution seemed to him, apparently insufficient, and he preferred, ‘with all the zeal of his soul’, as he himself put it, to turn directly to the fountainhead of wisdom: the patristic tradition inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Bishop Damascene undertook all this immense, superhuman labour single-handedly, without assistance from other scholars or disciples. Pending a comparative analysis of the translations, which might demonstrate their stylistic unity, the testimony of his disciples themselves stands as proof. After the bishop’s death, his grandsons claimed the remaining assets from the Bishopric: the money found was handed over to them – although Bishop Damaschin had set it aside from his own income to cover the costs of printing – but the priceless manuscripts of the translations, unpublished at that time, were retained by the Diocese. To prevent them from being disposed of – the translations of the Minee, Triodion and Pentecostarion were being claimed – Bishop Inochentie put forward, at the trial brought by his relatives in 1731, an unfortunate argument:
‘those sources have been translated and corrected by other teachers, and not only by Bishop Damaschin’19
But this statement aroused the indignation of his disciples: for the sake of the truth and out of respect for their teacher, no fewer than 14 disciples, including 6 priests, testify in writing, ‘with upright souls and pure hearts’, that:
‘…we who shall sign below (…) have undertaken, as we know and declare, that those sources have been interpreted by Bishop Damaschin of Râmnic himself, beginning them all in turn from the days of the most honoured and most holy Elder Metropolitan of Ungrovlahia, the Reverend Theodosius, and from the days of the most enlightened Christian lord, Voivode Constantin Basarabă Brâncoveanu, through the labours of His Holiness’s teaching and at His Holiness’s own expense, and not from the Diocese of Râmnic, as I have heard from the mouth of His Holiness himself, considering that, since they had a flock under His Holiness’s care, they should lead it well-guarded, well-instructed and enlightened before Christ the Saviour, so that an everlasting remembrance of His Holiness and the light of Christ’s Church might remain, through those sources (…). Moreover, some of us who are still alive today, having been deemed worthy to receive the gift of the priesthood, are disciples of His Holiness Bishop Damaschin, and we have devoted ourselves solely to the benefit of learning, and have put much effort into compiling these sources. But some might say otherwise, that they should be interpreted by other teachers; but such people speak wrongly and are mistaken, for it was His Holiness alone who acted as interpreter, labourer and spender of his own resources, so that a good and grateful name might remain after him…”20
We understand, therefore, that the disciples assisted him, ‘solely for the sake of teaching’, only in the (trans)scription of the texts, but not in the translation. Their testimony is also valuable in that it proves that the initiative to systematically translate all the liturgical books had already taken shape “in the days of the elderly Metropolitan Chir Theodosius” († 1708), that is to say, at least from the beginning of the century, when he printed the Octoechos and began the translations ‘one by one’. Thus, emerging from the mists of conjecture, is the vision of Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu, who had desired andimposed him as bishop in 1702 precisely so that he might fulfil the lofty mission of translator which the Romanian Church required at that time.
The intention to translate all the liturgical books is also evident from the aforementioned letter to Tige. It is likely that this project was, to a very large extent, actually carried out; in any case, a long-standing tradition has attributed to him the authorship of all the translations of the liturgical books. At the beginning of the following century, the Greek Catholic scholar Samuil Micu wrote:
‘Damascenus Episcopus Rimniciensis in Valachia, a man thoroughly versed in the Greek, Latin, Slavonic and Wallachian languages, translated almost all [s. n.] ecclesiastical books into the Wallachian language…’21
Owing to that conflict with his relatives, the first books printed in Râmnic after Damaschin’s death did not bear the translator’s name. But the tension soon seems to have subsided, and the bishop’s name is remembered with great reverence. Thus, the 1730 edition of the Molitvelnic, printed by Bishop Inochentie, does not mention him, but in the 1747 edition, the editor Lavrentie states:
‘…in the rendering of the words and the arrangement of the Romanian text, I have followed the translations of Father Damaschin, bishop and teacher…’22
* *
1. Thus, Bishop Damaschin’s first known translation is the Octoechos (1700), mentioned during the tenure of Metropolitan Theodosius. It would be difficult to specify what the Metropolitan is referring to when he states that that edition of the Octoechos was produced ‘almost anew [author’s note], with much labour, by the teacher Damaschin’. It is likely that, in addition to the complete revision of the book, he also undertook the translation of at least part of the text. The 1700 edition reproduced only the typikon in Romanian, in keeping with the custom of the time; by contrast, the edition published in 1742 at Râmnic, as part of the series of major Damaschinian translations printed by Bishop Climent, was entirely in Romanian 23. Yet neither Bishop Climent nor, in particular, the reviser Lavrentie—who was usually so prompt and attentive in acknowledging the merits of the great teacher—specifies the name of the translator. A possible explanation is offered, years later, by the first Bishop of Argeș, Iosif, in the preface to the edition of the Octoechos published by him in 1811 at the same historic printing house in Râmnic:
‘This book was first translated from the Slavonic by Kyr Damaschin, Bishop of Râmnic, who had previously been transferred to the neighbouring dioceses. However, only the services for Sundays, as I see in the Small Octoechos, whilst the services for the other six days of the week, each with eight tones, were found to have a note stating that they had been translated once more from the Slovenian manuscript by the late Archimandrite Ghenadie, who served as Abbot at the Holy Monastery of Coziia…”24
It would therefore appear that the teacher Damaschin produced a translation of the Octoechos, from which only the typikon was adopted in 1700. For the services of the tones, his manuscripts were used in 1742, at least for Sundays. But Bishop Joseph’s successor in the See of Argeș, Grigorie Râmniceanu, speaking in 1826 about the beginnings of translations into Romanian, attributed the complete translation of the Octoechos to Bishop Damaschin:
‘…and when the faithful lords [n.n.] had their hands full with the incursions of those peoples [the Tatars, Hungarians and Poles, n.n.], they did not fail to translate the Holy Scriptures into the Romanian language, just as the Bible had been translated and printed through the diligence and zeal of the faithful and ever-memorable Lord Constantin Vodă Brâncoveanu, along with several other theological works by others, such as the Paraclitiki [Pentecostarion] and the Anthologion [Mineya] and the Orologion [Book of Hours] and the Eichologion [Octoechos] by the late, blessed Father Damaschin, Bishop of Râmnic…”25
Lavrentie’s silence suggests that at that time the contributions appeared to be mixed – even though it would seem hard for us today to accept that precisely the great work attributed to St John of Damascus, the patron and inspiration of the bishop, should have remained without a complete translation, all the more so as it is also one of the principal liturgical books. At present, only a careful comparative analysis of the texts of the Sunday services, in relation to those of other days, as well as to other authentic translations by Bishop Damascene and Archimandrite Ghenadie, could distinguish the contributions of the two, all the more so as Saint Metropolitan Antim had also printed a Romanian version in 1712 – attributed by Nicolae Iorga to Damaschin as well 26 – whilst manuscripts containing other translations from the Octoechos were also in circulation at the time 27.
2. The Catavasier he printed in 1703 is unknown; so it is not known in which language it was written; however, the book was reprinted at the Râmnic press in 1734 in a fully Romanian edition attributed to him 28.
3. Nor is the translation of the Psalter definitively documented, as the Romanian edition he printed in 1703 does not mention the translator’s name. Yet it was precisely this edition that the bishop reprinted in 1725, among the first books he wished to print in Râmnic 29, and not, for example, the Romanian version already printed by St. Antim Ivireanul in 1694 in Bucharest 30. It has been attributed to him by researchers 31, but only a lexical and stylistic analysis can confirm this hypothesis – all the more so as, at that time, the Bishopric also held the manuscript of another translation: the one with a Slavonic-Romanian parallel text from 1697, produced by ‘the teacher Alexandru’ and written in ‘the town of Râmnicu-Olt’ at the request of Bishop Ilarion of Râmnic 32.
4. The Apostles of Buzău, dated 1704, was the last book to be printed before a long hiatus of 20 years, until the establishment of the printing press at Râmnic.
5. On the title page of the Book of Hours that inaugurated the new printing press (1724), the bishop is mentioned only as a donor, not as the author of the translation. Subsequent editions do not mention him either, but the translation has been attributed to him by tradition, for a century later, as we have seen, Bishop Grigore Râmniceanu of Argeș regarded him as the author of this translation as well 33.
6. The Teaching on the Seven Sacraments*, a Romanian translation of Gabriel of Philadelphia’s work 34, preceded other, more extensive works, having been published in 1724. Whilst the small volume managed to slip past the censors unnoticed at the time of printing, the same could not be said of its distribution in Transylvania. In the preface addressed to the priests, the bishop insisted on a thorough grasp of the relevant rites:
‘We command you not to be lazy in studying these teachings, but to learn them thoroughly; you must be able to give an answer for each of the Sacraments, for there will be great scrutiny regarding these Sacraments…’35
7. Following the death of Bishop Damaschin, the series of his translations published in Râmnic begins with the Prayer Book of 1730, mentioned above, reprinted in 1747 and now prefaced by Lavrentie Hurezeanul, in which he reveals the translator’s name. Lavrentie also points out certain differences in the typikon arising from the adoption, probably in the new edition, of the Muscovite typikon:
‘…if you examine in detail the regulations of this Prayer Book’s typikon, you will find that in many places it does not correspond to the Greek version, for in matters of typikon, due to the ignorance [lack of education, ed.] of the priests and to make them even simpler, we have followed the Moscow Ustav; whilst in the translation of the words and the phrasing of the Romanian language, we have followed the translations of Father Damaschin, Bishop and Teacher…”36
8. Next came the Triodion of 1731, in which the reviser Ieremia Athanasievici stated:
‘Let it be known that this Triodion, which we have now printed for the first time in the Romanian language here in the Holy Diocese of Râmnic, we have arranged in verses and words, as interpreted in the name of God by the late Kyr Damaschin, Bishop of Râmnic, without altering the words in any way...”37
9. Nor does the Romanian Liturgy Book of 1733, published by Bishop Inochentie, bear the translator’s name—perhaps due to the aforementioned legal dispute—but it has been attributed by scholars to Bishop Damaschin 38.
10. The Anthologion published in 1737 comprises the most important services throughout the year, and is therefore an extract from the Minee, for which the reviser Lavrentie used the bishop’s manuscripts containing the translations of the Minee – translations made, of course, in their entirety, since the bishop wrote to Karl Tige in 1725 stating that he intended to publish them. Having edited this volume as well, Lavrentie noted in the afterword:
‘They have now been reprinted in our Romanian language (…), based on the edition of the Romanian Minei…’39
The later, complete edition of the 12 Minei was also printed from the same ‘manuscript’ between 1776 and 1780 by the learned bishops Chesarie and Grigorie (Socoteanu). Here, the texts from the Anthologion were reproduced in full and unaltered, but for the other services of the year, Damaschin’s translation was slightly adapted by the two scholars and several revisers. Apparently, for the synaxarion, use was made of Metropolitan Dosoftei’s Lives of the Saints and the synaxaria translated into Romanian by Radu Greceanu from Bishop Mitrofan’s Slavonic-Romanian edition (1698) from Buzău 40.
11. This was followed by the Pentecostarion in 1742, printed under the supervision of Bishop Climent:
‘…having been fully translated from the Greek, Slavonic and Latin into our own Romanian language, through the toil, diligence and devotion of our late father, the Bishop and Teacher, and our brother in the Holy Spirit, Kyr Damaschin, who heeded the words of the angel spoken to Ezra: ‘Open for me what is shut, and let the winds come out from there’…”41
12. One translation which, as such, has never been published is the Exposition of the Four Gospels by St Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, mentioned above. The manuscript was, however, used by Lavrentie Hurezeanul to extract from it only those Gospel passages which he included in the edition of the Gospel Book published in 1746 at Râmnic. The translation appears to predate 1702, but its source has been a matter of debate amongst scholars: either a Church Slavonic text (or one of the Muscovite editions printed in 1648 or 1698), or a Greek one, or both. The full text of Teacher Damaschin’s translation had been prepared for printing around 1779, at the request of Bishop Chesarie of Râmnic, but his death prevented him from completing this project; Bishop Joseph of Argeș had the same intention in the early years of the 19th century. Ultimately, it was the version by the monks Gherontie and Grigorie of Neamț that went to press, published in Iași in 1805 by Metropolitan Veniamin Costachi, and which forms the basis of modern editions. Although Bishop Damaschin’s translation was not printed in its entirety, it enjoyed very wide circulation throughout the 18th century, circulating in numerous manuscript copies as one of the most beloved church readings 42.
13. The Akathist published in Râmnic around 1746 was in fact a book of liturgical rules, comprising, in addition to the service of the Akathist of the Annunciation, the Paraclis of the Mother of God, the Canon of Humility, the Akathist of St Nicholas, the Canon of Prayer to the Guardian Angel, prayers for those going to sleep, morning prayers, various other prayers – including one to the Lord of Hosts, translated from Greek by the chamberlain Constantin Cantacuzino – and the Synaxarion. However, the translation of the book’s contents was the work of Bishop Damaschin, as the editor Lavrentie 43 attests in the afterword.
14. Nor was the Commentary on the Apocalypse by Archbishop Andrew of Caesarea in Cappadocia, translated in 1704, ever printed. For this, the Archbishop used a Ukrainian printed edition from 1625, with the text translated from the Greek by the learned scholar and teacher from Kyiv, Lavrentie Zizaniia († after 1627). The Romanian manuscript preserved at the Library of the Romanian Academy is one of the rare works bearing the following inscription:
‘And by me, the humble Damaschin, Bishop of Buzău, it was translated into Romanian’44).
The numerous handwritten copies of the Tâlcuire, held at the Academy Library, attest to the interest the text enjoyed in those ‘times of strife’, when wars and schisms within the Church seemed to herald the end of the world.
15–16. Other shorter texts have been lost or remain unpublished and unknown: such are the two ‘treatises’, in fact a sermon by St. Ephrem the Syrian on the Transfiguration and a homily by St John Chrysostom, which he appended to the text of the Commentary on the Apocalypse 45 and which have likewise been preserved only in manuscript form.
17. The Catechism ‘of Unquestionable Orthodoxy’ 34, which he had intended primarily for the Transylvanian Romanians, was not printed until 1897 by Bishop Gherasim Timuș of Argeș, based on a copy prepared by Lavrentie Hurezeanul himself 46.
The sheer volume of his translations, particularly given the exceptionally difficult conditions under which he worked, appears almost inconceivable, superhuman. It is clear, however, that Bishop Damaschin was so deeply rooted in the spirit of the Holy Fathers that their inspired thought seemed to have become his own; only the rich streams of praise that must have flowed from his heart could have given rise to similar streams of words flowing from his pen. Only spiritual intuition, discernment and inner freedom could have helped him to avoid the pitfalls of erudition when approaching profound texts formulated in a language of great richness and expressiveness, such as Greek. Only true inspiration could have bestowed upon him that ‘enlightened speech’, so natural and fluent that it often seems to spring rather from the spontaneity of experience than from the scholarly elaboration of a given text. The power that sustained him in this extraordinary work proves to be beyond any limit of human scholarship.
* *
God has graced him with disciples. The witnesses who attest to his authorship of the translations call themselves ‘disciples’, and they refer to their father as
‘an honourable and learned archpriest, who devoted himself to the common good of the Romanian people’47
They were from Bucharest, clergy and laity, learned men holding positions of responsibility in the church and royal administrations.
One of his successors in the episcopate must also have been his disciple, whether from his monastic training or perhaps from his ordination: Climent, the former monk from Hureș, who became abbot at Bistrița, then Bishop of Râmnic between 1735 and 1748, and who passed away as the archieroschemonk Cosma 48. For his part, a learned man and editor of numerous manuscripts by his predecessor, he had reverently placed the name of the late Bishop Damaschin at the head of his personal prayer list 49.
He demonstrated spiritual wisdom by taking as a monk and subsequently ordaining as a deacon, at an extremely tender age, a certain Ghenadie, who was to become a prominent figure in his time: archimandrite, abbot of the great monastery of Cozia and exarch of the monasteries in the diocese, himself a scholar, composer of ecclesiastical verses and translator 50. He is the very ‘Archimandrite Ghenadie of Cozia’ whom Bishop Iosif of Argeș mentions as a collaborator of Bishop Damaschin in completing the translation of the Octoechos. In 1735, following the death of Bishop Inochentie, he was proposed by the boyars of Oltenia to occupy the episcopal see of Râmnic – which he had been administering until his election – but the imperial government did not accept him, because
‘although he had made a name for himself as one of the most learned men within the Diocese, he had too many connections with those of the Greek faith in neighbouring lands, and adopted their customs; for this reason, he was sought after by the troublemaking boyars to be their bishop’51
Having reached old age, he recorded the milestones of his life in a Paterikon which he had copied himself:
‘To know when I first began to study: my uncle, the hieromonk Gherasim, sent me to the teacher Barbu in Jiblea, where I learnt up to the Catechism, for eight months. Then I went completely blind for three years; when my sight returned, they betrothed me to a young girl, and straight away I went blind again. So I became a monk without my parents’ or my uncle’s knowledge, when I was 14 years old, in the year 7218 [1709], on 12 November; and on Orthodox Sunday [of Orthodoxy], Bishop Damaschin of Râmnic ordained me a deacon, and I served as assistant deacon for six and a half years and as deacon for twelve years (…), then I travelled to Moscow (…). Now I have succumbed to old age and death. Archimandrite Ghenadie, known as Coziianul.”52
But the most beautiful words about the great bishop are spoken by the man who, whilst preparing his manuscripts for printing, studied his writings with great care, thereby learning from him and, through his work, coming to understand his character: Lavrentie, the hieromonk of Hureze, called by Bishop Climent to be the corrector of the Diocese. Lavrentie did not consider himself a learned man, but he had taken his cue from the great teacher; for this reason, he took full responsibility for any errors:
‘…I, Lavrentie the hieromonk of the holy monastery of Hurezi, was the reformer. Not by virtue of any scholarly attainment, which I do not possess, but merely by having touched one of the little toes of the great Bishop Damaschin, I served as corrector. And I shall have made many slips and errors, not through ignorance, but through carelessness: some due to the similarity of the letters, which are not very distinguishable from one another (…), some due to the haste of reading through the proofs (for this work was carried out with great diligence and haste because of the turbulent times of war; others due to the disturbances of the night, for at times I worked by night instead of by day; others, due to great weariness, I may not have noticed, but may have overlooked them. Therefore, with all my heart, I implore all of you, Orthodox readers, not to criticise, but to correct with a spirit of gentleness, without putting us to shame. And if I have erred—for I too am a fallible man—as for my own abilities, they are like a worm writhing upon the earth. And I am more than others overcome by the weakness of human nature, which leaves no man without fault. For as far as I could, I have endeavoured to correct it word for word, changing nothing, but exactly as I found it in that manuscript. And once again, with humility, I pray that you will forgive me (…). For just as the world cannot exist without fire and water, so too can a printed work not be without error…”53
Father Lavrentie, too, had a perfectly clear understanding of the living spring that breathed life into the writings of Bishop Damaschin, ‘the God-honouring, God-loving and eloquent’—as he is described in a document 19:
‘…so knowing this, O Christ-loving reader, that all water is always clearer at the spring than in the stream, and the further the water flows from the spring, the more turbid it becomes, so too are the interpretations of the books by many teachers. Therefore, setting aside all other sources, I have followed the interpretations of Father Damascene the Bishop without straying from them.”54
That his reverence for the great teacher was genuine and profound is shown by the awe and humility that arose in his heart when he spoke of Bishop Damaschin:
‘In the interpretation of the words and the arrangement of the Romanian text, I have followed the interpretations of Father Damaschin, the Bishop and Teacher. And once again I implore people of all ages—the elderly as parents and the young as brothers— as you read this book, not to slander me, for I know nothing, and am unable to improve upon the teachings of the Father and Teacher mentioned above. And what can I, a wretch, add to his treasure? Only toil and inadequacy…”55
* *
56 passed away unexpectedly on 5 December 1725, before midday, after leaving the church. It was the day after the feast of his great patron saint, Saint John of Damascus, whose comforting words had been his sustenance throughout his life. He had fulfilled the calling of his life, received ‘by divine inspiration’ and entrusted to him by the wise voivode Constantin Brâncoveanu, by translating the liturgical books into the language of the country; he had purchased a printing press for the Diocese; he had made all the necessary preparations for the printing of the translated books; he had ensured that the faith of his flock remained unaltered, ‘considering that, since they had been entrusted to his holy care as a speaking flock, he should lead them well-guarded, well-instructed and enlightened before Christ the Saviour’. Truly, he could now say, with the Apostle: ‘I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. From now on, the crown of righteousness has been prepared for me, which the Lord will bestow upon me on that day’ (2 Timothy 7–8).
- 1
Nicolae DOBRESCU, The History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia…, p. 32, and Șerban PAPACOSTEA, Oltenia…, no. 2/p. 291.
- 2
Even in peaceful times, Bishop Damaschin longed for a respite to devote himself to the painstaking work of printing. In a letter dated September 1703, Metropolitan Theodosius wrote to him: ‘You say that, were there peace, you would set about printing the Acts of the Apostles (...). By the mercy and protection of the merciful God, we have peace on all sides and no fear (...); but only with God’s help should you set about printing...’. The Acts of the Apostles appeared shortly afterwards, in 1704. Em VÂRTOSU, ‘Glossă’, p. 449.
- 3
The Prayer Book, Râmnic 1747, BRV II, pp. 101–102. For a profile of the illustrious Lavrentie Hurezeanul, see Fr. Nicolae POPESCU, ‘Lavrentie the Hieromonk, Reformer of Oltenia (1736–1759)’, Metropolis of Oltenia, VII (1955), no. 5–6, pp. 312–315.
- 4
By another distinguished figure of the Church of Oltenia, Rafail the monk of Hureze. CMR II, p. 323 (Romanian manuscript 2585).
- 5
‘Predoslovia’ in the Minei for November, Râmnic, 1778, BRV II, p. 227.
- 6
BRV II, p. 395 and Al. LĂPEDATU, ‘Damaschin, the bishop and teacher…’, p. 568.
- 7
Gabriel ȚEPELEA, ‘The Râmnic Manuscripts. Their Contribution to the Development of Literary Romanian and its Definitive Triumph as a Liturgical Language”, The Romanian Orthodox Church, LXXXIV (1966), nos. 3–4, pp. 380 and 382; BRV II, p. 53.
- 8
A note made by Academician C. Erbiceanu in 1908 on a manuscript he donated to the Academy Library. CMR III, p. 220 (Romanian manuscript 3721). The manuscript contains a copy from 1794 of Bishop Damaschin’s translation of the Commentary on the Apocalypse.
- 9
Alexandru ROSETTI, An Outline of the History of the Romanian Language from its Origins to the Present Day, Bucharest, 1976, pp. 63 and 82.
- 10
PS Ghenadie (Enăceanu) Craioveanul, The Gospels: Historical and Literary Studies, Bucharest, 1895, p. 119.
- 11
BRV II, p. 74.
- 12
In the preface to Penticostar, Râmnic, 1742. Ibid., p. 76.
- 13
In the same year, 1742, the Pentecostarion was also printed in Bucharest. In the book’s preface, Metropolitan Neofit Criteanul states that he requested a translation directly from the Greek, believing that Bishop Damaschin’s translation had been done indirectly, via the Church Slavonic text. Ibid., p. 72.
- 14
BRV I, p. 457.
- 15
According to St Ignatius BRIANCEANINOV, Crumbs from the Feast, Alba Iulia, 2008, pp. 28–29.
- 16
BRV I, pp. 246, 281, 328 and 343.
- 17
BRV II, p. 92.
- 18
BRV I, p. 200. That is, a manuscript containing the Pravila of Emperor John II Comnenus (1118–1143).
- 19a19b
M. REGLEANU, ‘Contributions...’, p. 447.
- 20
Ibid., Appendix, pp. 447–448.
- 21
Al. LĂPEDATU, ‘Damaschin, the bishop and teacher…’, no. 1/p. 568, after IORGA, History of Romanian Literature in the 18th Century, II, Bucharest, 1901, p. 410. ‘Damaschin had translated, as we know, all the liturgical books’ (N. IORGA, History of the Church..., II, p. 107).
- 22
BRV II, p. 101.
- 23
BRV I, p. 402 and II, p. 62.
- 24
BRV III, p. 51.
- 25
Al. LĂPEDATU, ‘Damaschin, the bishop and teacher…’, no. 6/p. 567; Grigorie Râmniceanu, Bishop of Argeș, preface to St John Damascene’s treatise, Logica, 2nd ed., Craiova, 2012, p. 24. The Bible referred to is ‘Șerban’s Bible’, published in the early days of Brâncoveanu’s reign; he himself served as steward for this project.
- 26
History of the Church, Vol. II, p. 101; BRV I, p. 485.
- 27
For example, the Muscel manuscript dating from the late 17th century, comprising the Great Octoechos and the tone patterns, CMR III, p. 206 (Romanian ms. 3676). Particularly in Transylvania, from the second half of the 17th century onwards, Romanian manuscripts of the liturgical services were in circulation, usually translated from Church Slavonic.
- 28
Em. VÂRTOSU, ‘Glossa…’, p. 451; BRV II, p. 49; B. TEODORESCU, ‘Bishop Damaschin…’, p. 635.
- 29
BRV I, pp. 540–541 and BRV II, p. 23.
- 30
BRV I, pp. 335–337.
- 31
B. TEODORESCU, ‘Bishop Damaschin...’, pp. 635–636.
- 32
BAR Romanian manuscript 2604, CMR II, p. 333. The translator signs himself sometimes as ‘preceptor polonus’ (Romanian manuscript 2452, CMR II, p. 275), sometimes as ‘dascalul Rusul’ (Romanian manuscript 3551, CMR III, p. 167), but he also knew Croatian (Romanian ms. 5026, CMR IV, p. 181). He worked at the Bishopric, but also translated for others, such as the Paterikon of the Caves Lavra, translated in 1699 for the Hurezi monks to read (Romanian manuscript 2452, CMR II, p. 275).
- 33
Al. LĂPEDATU, ‘Damaschin, the Bishop and Teacher…’, p. 575; he is credited with the 1745 Râmnic edition (BRV II, pp. 84–85).
- 34a34b
N. IORGA, History of the Church..., Vol. II, p. 107.
- 35
BRV II, p. 23.
- 36
Ibid., p. 101.
- 37
Ibid., p. 44.
- 38
B. TEODORESCU, ‘Bishop Damaschin...’, pp. 639–640. The fact that only the manuscripts containing the translations of the Triodion, Pentecostarion and Miney were claimed at the trial (M. REGLEANU, ‘Contributions…’, p. 447), it does not follow that no other translations existed (see the translation of the Molitvelnic, attested by Lavrentie), but simply that the relatives were unaware of them.
- 39
BRV II, p. 53.
- 40
G. ȚEPELEA, “Mineele...”, p. 386.
- 41
BRV II, p. 74. A complete translation from Church Slavonic had also been produced by the aforementioned teacher Alexandru as early as 1694: Romanian manuscript 5026 at the BAR. CMR IV, p. 181.
- 42
One of the oldest surviving manuscripts of the translation of the Tâlcuiri, donated to Hurezi Monastery, bears the emblem of the books belonging to the steward Cantacuzino from his library at the manor house in Mărgineni: the crowned double-headed eagle. Voivode Brâncoveanu himself had shown an interest in the translation of the text. The paragraph concerning theCommentary summarises the research in: R. P. Sineanu, L. S. Desartovici, ‘Foreword to St Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, Commentary on the Holy Gospel according to Matthew’, Bucharest, 2002, in particular pp. 60–77. The authors also cite the conclusions of Ana Calavrias from her doctoral thesis defended in 1986 at the University of Bucharest (The Hermeneutical Work of Theophylact of Ohrid in Old Romanian Literature).
- 43
BRV IV, p. 57.
- 44
D. BOGDAN, ‘Russian Books…’, pp. 551–552; Al. LĂPEDATU, ‘Damaschin the Bishop and Teacher…’, note 1/p. 572; CMR II, p. 282 (Romanian manuscript 2469).
- 45
Comment by C. Erbiceanu, CMR III, p. 220 (in Romanian manuscript 3721).
- 46
Al. LĂPEDATU, ‘Damaschin, the Bishop and Teacher…’, p. 579.
- 47
M. REGLEANU, ‘Contributions...’, p. 448.
- 48
Fr. M. PĂCURARIU, History of the Church..., Vol. II, pp. 333–336.
- 49
Included in the memorial register of Hurezi Monastery. In the copy held at the State Archives in Râmnicu Vâlcea (ms. 1), on folio 157. In: PS Gherasim Cristea, History of Hurezi Monastery, Râmnicu Vâlcea, 2003, p. 255.
- 50
In 1725, Abbot Michael of Cozia noted in an Octoechos that it had been given to him by “Ghenadie, a monk-priest from Cozia, when they went to Kiev to learn Latin...”. I. CORFUS, Notes..., p. 178.
- 51
N. DOBRESCU, The History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia…, p. 117 and Appendix 172, p. 328 (German original); note 1/p. 321.
- 52
CMR III, p. 137 (Romanian manuscript 3472).
- 53
Antologhion, Râmnic, 1737, BRV II, p. 53. ‘The turbulent times of war’ refers to the Russo-Austro-Turkish War, which began in 1736 and was fought partly on Romanian territory.
- 54
Afterword to the Akathist, Râmnic, 1746, BRV IV, p. 57.
- 55
The Prayer Book, Râmnic 1747, BRV II, p. 101.
- 56
N. DOBRESCU, The History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia..., p. 60 and note 2. Date according to the old calendar, as recorded in the chronicle of the Church in Scheii Brașovului; the Austrian administration, however, recorded dates according to the new calendar (here, 16 December).