Bishop Inochentie of Râmnic – an enlightened patriot (1727–1735)

Bishop Inochentie of Râmnic – an enlightened patriot (1727–1735)

In light of the Commemorative Year of Unity in Faith and Nation and the Commemorative Year of the architects of the Great Union of 1918, we deem it fitting to remember with honour and reverence one of those enlightened hierarchs of our Church who, over the course of time, contributed to the realisation of this national ideal. Therefore, in the following pages, we aim to present, to the best of our ability, the life and work of a great patriot of our nation who, two centuries before the realisation of this aspiration, whilst Oltenia was under Austrian occupation, knew how to defend his clergy and the faithful against any attempts to alienate them from their faith and the people to whom they belonged. We are referring to Inochentie, a worthy successor to Saint Antim Ivireanul and Damaschin Dascălul, who was appointed head of the Diocese of Râmnic between 1728 and 1735.

The most comprehensive accounts of his life and complex personality are provided by several works written by Nicolae Dobrescu, Nicolae Iorga, Atanasie Mironescu, Sterie Stinghe, Ștefan Meteș, Toma G. Bulat, the authors of the Manual of the History of the Romanian Church for Theological Institutes, Mihai Manolache, Niculae Șerbănescu, Virgil Molin, Barbu Theodorescu and Mircea Păcurariu, who portrayed him as a bishop whose life was an example to others, inspired by a deep love for his flock, a good and unrivalled steward, with a special zeal for the building of holy places and their welfare, and, last but not least, a true Romanian, who, with self-sacrifice and courage, defended the rights of his Church and cared for the faithful in Transylvania.

His life and work prior to his election as bishop

Very little, however, has been written about his family life prior to his election as bishop of Râmnic. We know nothing of his place of birth or his ancestors, let alone his childhood and youth. Nor do we have any record of the name he was given at his baptism. He was probably born in Oltenia, in the second half of the 17th century, and w1ly brought up in his parents’ home with a love for his people and country, in an atmosphere of profound spiritual life. Perhaps drawn by the life and fame of Saint Nicodim, the future bishop took monastic vows around the year 1702 at Tismana Monastery, ‘where he had spent a great deal of time’. From there, he was later elected abbot of Motru Monastery, to which he bequeathed, upon his death on 1 February 1735, “my share of the estate in Dobra and Zlașova, together with what I bought from my brother Mateiu and the vineyard there—which I myself had planted—and the small vineyard that remained to me as an inheritance”. According to this information, he had another brother, named Matei, from whom he purchased the aforementioned vineyard. Rising from among the people of Oltenia, before being called to the high office of bishop, he was elected head of the community at Brâncoveni Monastery, in Olt County. 2

With the episcopal see of Râmnic remaining vacant, following the death of Damaschin, he was nominated in September 1726 by an electoral assembly as one of three candidates for the position of hierarch, alongside the diocesan ecclesiarch, Dionisie, and Ștefan, the abbot of Govora. Of these, the Serbian Metropolitan Moise Petrovici recommended the abbot from Vâlcea to the Viennese Court, “known as a man of honourable character, with many merits and qualities, and highly capable of administering the Diocese”. However, the ordination of the newly elected bishop was repeatedly postponed by the Serbian metropolitan, who was ‘occupied with other matters’, so that ‘Ștefan Ypopsifios’, as he signed his name, died on 20 August 1727, poisoned in the church’s belfry “by some godless men”. 3

Election as bishop

Following his sudden death, the electoral assembly voted for him again in September 1727, alongside Dositei, the ecclesiarch of the Diocese, and Abbot Nicodim of Tismana Monastery. On this occasion, he was accepted by General-Commander Tige of Sibiu, the Oberdirector of Oltenia, and subsequently recommended to the Court in Vienna, which, after several delays, confirmed his appointment on 11 May 1728. His ordination was performed in Belgrade by Metropolitan Moise Petrovici, and his installation took place towards the end of 1728 by the Bishop of Timișoara, Nicolae Dimitrievici, who had been delegated for this purpose. It appears that the installation was delayed because the Serbian hierarch wished for the ceremony to be conducted by one of his delegates; and, in order for him to be ordained, the Court acceded to this request, “although it cannot be ruled out that Inocențiu may also have been installed by the temporal authority, and subsequently by the ecclesiastical one”, as stated by the church historian Nicolae Dobrescu. 4 Nevertheless, with his election and appointment as Bishop of Râmnic, the Serbian metropolitan lost the prerogatives he had held within the Church of Oltenia, his sole remaining role being to consecrate the newly elected bishop in exchange for a certain payment. 5 Later, however, the War Council in Vienna prohibited him from any interference in the affairs of the Romanian Church on the right bank of the Olt. 6 We consider it appropriate to note that, whenever the Court attempted to curtail the Serbian metropolitan’s rights over the Church of Oltenia, Inochentie did not protest, as this situation suited him, given his aspiration for the autonomy of his diocese. 7

An enlightened patriot

His ministry in Râmnic, however, took place under rather difficult circumstances, both for him and for all his flock. Installed as bishop in place of the late Ștefan, he identified with the aspirations of the faithful, fighting with great determination and courage to preserve the rights of the Church in Oltenia. Demonstrating profound patriotism and a sense of responsibility, as well as an unwavering love for the Church, he did not yield in the face of threats from the Viennese Court, which sought to increasingly curtail his rights. To better understand the work he would undertake from that point onwards, we note that on 27 April 1729, following the report by the imperial commissioner Koch regarding monastic estates, an imperial decree was issued, demanding a detailed account of the revenues of the dedicated and princely monasteries in Oltenia. The assets of the dedicated monasteries were to be seized by the tax authorities, as in the past, whilst the Administration in Craiova was to investigate the princely monasteries and report on what had been “the princes’ prerogatives in such cases and what might now be retained of them without arousing discontent or resentment in the country”.

Demonstrating profound patriotism and responsibility, as well as an unwavering love for the Church, he did not yield to the threats of the Viennese Court, which sought to restrict his rights ever further.

According to this imperial decree, the Bishop of Râmnic’s income amounted to 10,000 florins, derived from the 30 estates and villages belonging to the Diocese, from sheep and bees, or from the sums that the archpriests in the counties were obliged to pay: from 100 to 150 lei, for the various penalties imposed. In addition to these, his income was further increased by the money collected at ordinations or when excommunications, sentences and other judicial acts were pronounced. Furthermore, the bishop levied taxes on the monasteries, as well as on priests and deacons, who were required to pay the so-called ‘plocon’, which had risen to 3 talers. As a ‘premutare’, the bishop was required to give the prince 5–6 bags of money a year, a horse or 100 thalers in lieu thereof, and at Christmas a silver cup, a Turkish carpet and two leopard skins. Under this decree, the clergy were exempted from paying the customary tribute to the bishop; however, in return, priests and deacons were subject to taxation by the treasury, just like other inhabitants, in order to generate new revenue for the imperial treasury. For the bishop, the decree stipulated that he should hand over one-third of his income, in the first year of his episcopate, to the emperor, but with care, so that ‘the faithful might not be oppressed by the clergy, especially through fines’. Going even further, since ‘this might cause resentment amongst the people, who are so attached to their clergy, or might give rise to disputes between the bishop and the tax officials regarding the collection of that one-third of the income, it would be better to forbid the bishop from continuing to collect the ‘plocon’ from priests and deacons, contenting himself solely with the revenues of his diocese, which, even without the ‘plocon’, are sufficiently large, and no longer having to pay any ‘advance’”. Finally, the document instructed the chief director to ensure that the number of priests and deacons did not increase excessively, and that those ordained abroad should not be permitted to officiate at the holy services within the country. Moreover, the Court’s intention was to maintain 2–3 Catholic monks in Craiova, funded by money collected from the Romanian clergy, to teach the ‘humanities’ to young people. 8

Naturally, these violations and abuses aroused Inochentie’s indignation; he protested vigorously, together with the abbots of the monasteries, writing to the high officials of Oltenia. Thus, at the end of 1729 or the beginning of 1730, together with 14 other abbots and several priests, he drafted a memorandum of protest addressed to the emperor, in response to the aforementioned decree, in which he requested that the emperor cease interfering in church administration.

It should be noted that his dissatisfaction also stemmed from the appointment of abbots to vacant posts, who were to be proposed to the Oberdirector by the Craiova Administration. From a document dated 8 November 1728, we learn that, during his first year as bishop, Inochentie had enjoyed the right to propose abbots to the Oberdirector for the monastic settlements. At that time, the Oltenian hierarch presented ‘his episcopal letter to the pious abbot Kir Partenie, who was at the Holy Monastery of Strehaia, whom, with the knowledge of His Highness the Commander-in-Chief, our chief governor Baron de Tiș, we installed him as abbot at the Holy Monastery of Brâncoveni, in our stead, so that he might govern and administer all that pertains to the holy monastery, both within and without”. The Bishop then commands all the monks (priests, monks, deacons and other servants) and the stewards, the villagers and the monastery’s Roma, to show due respect and obedience to the appointed abbot in all matters concerning the Oltenian settlement. 9 Thus, we can see that he did not so readily relinquish his right, protesting against the Administration’s recommendation of abbots, as he knew the monks better than those in civil office and, as such, did not wish to recognise those recommended, objecting to the procedure. Consequently, his protest resulted in the Administration’s nominees not being appointed permanently, but only provisionally, ‘because the bishop insisted that only those recommended by him should be appointed’. 10

On the occasion of the appointment of an abbot at Tismana and another at Cozia, Inochentie pointed out that these monasteries had the privilege, ab antiquo, of choosing their own abbots from within their ranks and from among those of Romanian descent, not foreigners. Thus, on 4 September 1730, he wrote to Wallis about the privilege enjoyed by Tismana Monastery, confirmed by a patriarchal decree, to choose its abbot from within its own ranks, or, in the event of illness, from Cozia or Bistrița. The letter suggests that he knew all the monks of the Gorj monastery, “since he too had been brought up there from his youth, and 28 years earlier (i.e. around 1702) he had been ordained a monk in this monastery, of which he says he takes great care”. 11

Nor should we overlook the letter sent to the Oberdirector of Oltenia by the Orthodox councillors in the Administration—Vlasto, Băleanu and Pârșcoveanu—on 6 September 1730, concerning the appointment of an abbot at Tismana. The three assert, as does the bishop, that within the Oltenian community there can be found a monk capable of leading the monastery, and they implore Wallis not to abolish the ancient privilege whereby ‘under dreadful curses it was forbidden to elect a stranger as abbot at Tismana’. 12

On 11 September 1730, the new Oberdirector of Oltenia, General Wallis, and Chamber Councillor Andler stated in a report to the Viennese Court that, in the past, whenever a monastery’s abbotship became vacant, the Romanian rulers would ask the metropolitan who would be worthy of such a responsibility, and they themselves would carry out the election and confirmation. For this reason, they proposed that the bishop be granted – so as not to lose the respect of the faithful, who were bound to the clergy to the point of superstition – the right to put forward three candidates, from whom the Oberdirector would choose one and install him, and then to inform the Court. The rapporteurs noted that at Tismana there was a privilege, reinforced by a curse, whereby the abbot was to be chosen from within the monastery, and when there was no suitable and capable monk available, another could be brought in from Cozia or Bistrița. Whilst in the princely monasteries the abbots were appointed by the princes at their discretion, but with the bishop’s knowledge, then by the emperor, as prince of the realm, in the other monasteries it was left to the discretion of the competent authorities to grant the hierarch the right to nominate the abbot or not. As for the state-endowed monasteries, they were led by abbots appointed by the patriarchs, with the consent of the princes; the private ones, by those chosen and confirmed by the founders or their successors, whilst in the case of hermitages, appointments were the responsibility either of the larger monasteries or of the founders. 13

The conflict between the bishop and the Administration deepened following the appointment of an abbot at Cozia, where there was already a privilege—reinforced by excommunication—that the abbot should be chosen only from within the monastery. As the abbot had died, Wallis ordered an inventory to be drawn up at the ancient princely foundation, which he was to send to the Court. To avoid major disagreements, he would sometimes appoint those recommended by the Administration on a provisional basis; at other times, he would accept the bishop’s recommendation, appointing them as interim vicars without issuing any decree. Among the interim vicars we may mention the monk Iosif, the nephew of Bishop Damaschin, appointed to Motru Monastery on Inochentie’s initiative. The Administration protested against this on several occasions, levelling “accusations against the late Bishop of Râmnic, Ștefan”, for which reason General Wallis requested a report from Bishop Inochentie.

To clarify the appointment of abbots to the princely monasteries, the Viennese Court issued a rescript on 11 April 1731, stipulating that the Administration should propose the candidates, whilst the selection was to be made, on behalf of the Emperor, by the Oberdirector. In the case of the royal monasteries, the nomination was to be made by the Serbian Metropolitan, who would select a candidate whilst taking into account the Administration’s recommendations. As for private monasteries, the procedure remained as before, whilst at Tismana, account was also to be taken ‘of the privileges it enjoys, as well as the method of appointment followed hitherto’. Consequently, Inochentie was completely excluded from the process of recommending and appointing abbots. 14

A strong and tenacious character, he was not discouraged and, on 4 September 1730, he approached General Wallis regarding the exemption of priests and deacons from taxes, as was the case in Serbia. On this occasion, he undertook to ensure that there would be no more than two priests and one deacon per church, and that in future priests would only be ordained where there was a shortage and where the inhabitants would come forward and undertake to pay the ordination tax themselves. Following the report submitted to the Court by Wallis on 10 October 1730, the exemption of the clergy was approved, ‘but on condition that the inhabitants pay in their stead’. Thus, the provisions issued by the Court of Vienna up to that point had dissatisfied the bishop, the abbots and the faithful alike. 15

After returning in May 1731 from Carloviț, where, accompanied by two abbots, he had taken part in the election of Metropolitan Vichentie Ioanovici to succeed the late Moise Petrovici, on 20 June 1731, he wrote to General Wallis that he had observed how, in the dioceses of Timișoara, Arad, Caransebeș, Buda, etc., bishops, abbots, priests and deacons were living in peace, enjoying the ancient privileges granted to them, ‘whilst in Oltenia the clergy are upset and troubled’. As such, he would request that the faithful in Oltenia be treated on an equal footing with the other Orthodox Christians in the lands of the House of Austria, “and no more than has been granted to them”.

On the same day, 12 abbots sent a memorandum to the Oberdirector on behalf of all the abbots, in which they requested that no one from the civil authorities should interfere in the affairs of the Church or cause unrest, and that the abbots’ accounts and their appointment should be handled by the bishop, as had been the custom from time immemorial, and “that they should return to the ancient customs of their rite, guaranteed by His Majesty”. 16

On 14 July 1731, Inochentie intervened once more, informing the general that, in Craiova, the Court of Vienna had issued an order that the bishop should no longer have authority over the monasteries and should no longer be consulted on the appointment of abbots, but that this right should fall to the Administration. Asking “why he had been made a bishop at all, if these powers were being taken from him and given to the Administration”, he then requested, on behalf of the abbots, that the “previous practice” be maintained. 17

In response to this letter, Wallis sent the bishop the Court’s rescript of 11 April 1731 concerning the monasteries. In turn, in a letter of thanks sent in early August of the same year, Inochentie informed ‘His Excellency’ that ‘in the time of the Princes, the arrangement regarding monasteries was entirely different from that set out in the rescript’. Thus, if a princely monastery became vacant, the diocesan bishop would choose from among the monks the one he deemed capable, then present him to the prince, who would confirm the appointment by decree. On the other hand, in the case of monasteries under the Patriarchate, the Patriarch was first notified; he would then authorise the metropolitan or bishop to appoint a monk to the vacant post, or appoint someone himself, and the prince would confirm the nominated abbot by decree. In monasteries founded by boyars or other believers, the hierarch, with the metropolitan’s knowledge, would choose a suitable monk, who was subsequently confirmed by the prince.

Following this letter, Wallis and Rebentisch sent another report to the Emperor on 20 August 1731, advising him not to uproot the clergy and bishops from their long-standing customs, especially now that the metropolitan was no longer in the country, but rather to grant the bishop, to some extent, the right to participate in the election of abbots and the administration of monasteries as in the past. It is worth noting that, before sending the document, the general had visited Oltenia, where he was met by Inochentie and the abbots, who presented him with various requests on behalf of the Diocese and the monasteries. Among other things, he asked for assistance regarding the tithe of wine due to him from the Drăgășani hill, which some people were refusing to hand over, compensation for the Diocese’s hay, which had been forcibly taken by the militia, exemption for 24 people and, last but not least, that the commander in Râmnic be prevented from fishing in the River Olt and in the neighbouring lake, which belonged to the Church. All these complaints, together with the petitions of the abbots, were submitted to the emperor by Generals Wallis and Rebentisch, who requested “that the Administration be removed from church affairs, and that supervision of the election of abbots and the auditing of accounts be entrusted – for greater trustworthiness – to the Oberdirector, not to a member of the Administration”. 18

As he received no reply, on 27 December 1731, Inochentie sent another letter to Wallis, on behalf of the entire clergy and the nobility, in which he stated that: “it had been everyone’s wish to be freed from the pagan yoke and to come under the Christian rule of the House of Austria, in which they had all placed their hopes […] But for some time now they have begun to see – contrary to their expectations – that the affairs of the province and the nobility are taking a turn for the worse; they do not know the source of such evil and fear that it may grow even further, taking ever deeper root…".

Following the intervention of the two rapporteurs, the Neo-Aquist Commission deliberated on the various requests made by Inochentie and the abbots during its sessions at the end of 1731 and the beginning of 1732, without, however, reaching a final resolution on the requests. As a result of these efforts, on 31 July 1732, the Court sent a rescript to Wallis concerning all the complaints of the Bishop of Râmnic, in which some of his requests were refused, as Austria was unwilling to lose any of the monastic treasury. Thus, it was decided that the election of abbots in the monastic and princely monasteries should take place in the presence of a government commissioner and the bishop, “so that the bishop might not derive from this a perpetual right, and so that, in the bishop’s name, one abbot might participate on one occasion and another on another’.” In the case of private monasteries, the founders were to retain their rights. The supervisory role previously held by the princes is now assumed by the emperor, who delegates it to the local government, thereby excluding the bishop’s participation. As regards privileges, the clergy were to present them one by one before the authorised officials for confirmation, whilst donations to monasteries “must not be regarded as formal privileges, but merely as temporal donations made by the Princes”, on the grounds that the Princes, as provisional administrators of the province, could neither make donations nor grant perpetual privileges”. 19 Those complaints by the hierarch regarding the tithe in Drăgășani, as well as those by the abbots – that the militia had taken their hay, were using their mills, had seized the revenues from their estates, and that the properties of some monasteries had been alienated — were sent to the Administration for a ruling. Ultimately, the rescript permitted exemptions to be granted to those working at the monastery, but only to those coming from Turkey and only for the first year, whilst, for the supervision of the clergy, the Viennese Court deemed it necessary to ‘establish a court of first instance (the Administration), serving primarily an advisory role regarding the election of the abbot and the management of the monasteries’. 20

In particular, it must be noted that Inochentie did not content himself merely with writing and protesting against the violations of his episcopal prerogatives and the rights of the monasteries in his diocese; but also raised complaints at church congresses about the abuses Austria was inflicting upon his Church. Thus, in 1730, he took part in the Belgrade Congress as a member of the Orthodox hierarchy from the lands subject to the House of Austria, being referred to as ‘Innocentius Basilievici’, as he had presumably signed the meeting’s records. At another congress, also held in Belgrade in November 1732, he protested against the injustices being committed against his diocese, complaining against the Administration, ‘which interferes in his ecclesiastical jurisdiction’. On this occasion, the Romanian clergy also complained about Wallis, “who allowed himself to commit impieties in the administration of the Church”, but to no avail. For this reason, he requested that Romanian priests too should enjoy the privileges held by other clergy under the jurisdiction of the Serbian metropolitan.

Despite all the difficulties that had arisen, on 15 August 1733, Inochentie received permission from the War Council to travel to Vienna to present his complaints against the Austrian administration, which was restricting his authority. 21 Through this vigorous campaign in defence of the rights of the Church in Oltenia, he wrote a golden page in the fierce struggle against the new rulers, against Austrian oppression and plunder, just as Damaschin had done in the past, and later Climent, during whose reign these lands were reunited with Wallachia, just as they had been 21 years earlier.

A guide to church life

At the same time, Inochentie took care to ensure the training of the clergy. Seeing the sorry state of the priests and deacons in the Oltenian diocese, he sent them, in 1731, a circular containing various guidelines regarding the proper conduct of their ministry, ‘as the holy canon commands, that they may honour the house of God, in which our Lord Jesus Christ Himself dwells and glorifies Himself as a bloodless sacrifice upon the holy altar through the hands of the priest, to offer to the Holy Father, for the remission of his sins and those of the entire Christian people, for which order and observance, behold, the reverend (so-and-so) has been appointed, with our full confidence and with the fear of God, to see to this matter, to inspect the sacred vessels with his own eyes. 1) The Holy Antiminsion shall contain holy relics and shall be placed upon the Holy Altar. 2) And the holy chalice must not be cracked, lest the holy blood spill, nor must it be of wood or clay, but must be of silver gilded with gold, or of pewter. 3) The holy disc or holy spoon must not be made of wood. 4) And the holy star must not be made of wax, but must be, as stated above, of silver or pewter. 5) The holy sponge must not be soiled. 6) The holy spear must be made of iron without any notches, and must not be a knife. 7) The holy communion bread for the coming year must be prepared, finely ground and thoroughly dried; the loaf must not be whole or mouldy, and must be kept in the holy altar (and not at home). 8) On the Holy Altar, the Holy Host, the Holy Gospel, the Holy Cross and the Liturgy shall be kept; no other books shall be placed there. 9) Nor shall the Divine Liturgy be celebrated without a candle at the Holy Altar and at the proskomedia. 10) Nor shall cold wine be placed in the Holy Chalice; it must be warm. 11) And the priest must not presume to celebrate the Holy Liturgy with a lamb that has been castrated; rather, it must be whole. 12) And the small cups of communion must not be removed from the Holy Altar. 13) Likewise, the other vessels of the holy church within shall be visible, and all shall be prepared in a manner befitting the sanctity of the place. In addition to these, we again give a solemn command to the priests and deacons: to read the Psalter in church within the hearing of all the people, and under no circumstances to read it in secret, so that the faith may not falter. 14) Nor shall the holy crosses be removed from the church. 15) And should the priest or deacon in charge of the church be found to be reading the Psalter in the church in secret, he shall be punished by us with a church penalty; likewise, the entire service of the holy church must be performed in full, and the holy canons are to be read in turn (when they are not being sung), and not two at a time; and on all Sundays and holy feasts, they must not fail to celebrate the Holy Liturgy or deliver the sermon, and on the other days, when the Holy Liturgy is not celebrated, the Hours are to be read in church every day, together with the Epistle and the Gospel; nor must the church ever be left without the Hours, (and other ecclesiastical commandments and teachings, which have been given to you in the archpriesthood books, in all counties; you must take care of all these matters and carry them out as instructed therein). 16) And the church shall be well fenced in with boulders, wattle and daub, or a fence, so that livestock may not enter and trample upon the graves of Christians. 17) And every priest shall seek out this faithful envoy of ours, to observe how he celebrates the Holy Liturgy, and the entire order of the holy church, and how he blesses the Holy Mysteries. 18) And let him examine all the books used in the service of the holy church. 19) And let every priest and deacon be required to possess a certificate of ordination from their bishop. 20) And every priest shall possess a certificate of spiritual guidance from the local bishop, and whoever does not possess a certificate of spiritual guidance and ordination shall not have the blessing to offer spiritual guidance or to celebrate the Holy Liturgy, until he comes to us to receive his certificate and blessing. 21) And every priest and deacon shall shave a little at the crown of his head, symbolising the crown of thorns of the Lord Christ, and let him not dare to celebrate the Holy Liturgy whilst the top of his head remains unshaven, as commanded by the Holy Rule, Chapter 53, Article 44. And we further command that every priest and deacon, for the honour of his gift and of the priesthood, shall have garments made of broadcloth, and shall wear white robes and sandals, so that the dignity of priestly attire may be distinguished from that of the common folk, so that the dignity of the priestly office may not be diminished by peasant attire. And once again we command every priest and deacon to have a thorough understanding of the seven holy sacraments of the Church, so that you may be able to give an answer when we question you, for there will be a great examination on this matter, and take great care with all that is set out here, for we have shown you these things for your benefit and instruction; do not be heedless, so that you may obtain a good gift and reward from God, and if you guard and multiply these talents which have been entrusted to you, believe that you will hear that sweet voice of Christ God: ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few things, I will set you over many things; enter into the joy of your Lord’, whose grace and mercy we pray, may be with you all in your merciful deeds, and may you be blessed.” 22 Thus, as a spiritual shepherd, he advises them, amongst other things, to ensure that: the liturgical objects are well cared for (the chalice, paten and star should be of silver gilded with gold, not of wood or clay; the copia should be of iron; the holy sponge should not be soiled, and the antimension to contain holy relics), Holy Communion for the sick to be kept in good condition, that the service should not be conducted without a lit candle on the holy table and during the proskomedia, the Holy Water must not be placed cold in the chalice, but lukewarm; priests must learn the Seven Sacraments; and the church must be fenced off with a fence, stakes or boulders, so that cattle do not trample on the graves. At the same time, he warns them that one of his envoys will inspect them to see whether they celebrate the Divine Liturgy and the other rites according to the rules, which books are used during the services, and whether they possess books of ordination. 23 With regard to the cutting of hair, it has been argued in historiography that he ordered this measure largely under the influence and pressure of the Austrian authorities, as he was a devout Orthodox Christian, as he himself states in a letter sent to the Scheia community on 10 December 1732. 24

Founder of holy places

To the same extent, Bishop Inochentie took an interest in the condition of the churches and monasteries within his diocese. As well as ordaining priests and deacons and tonsuring young men for monastic life, he also consecrated numerous places of worship. We are thinking of the churches in the parishes of Vâlcea: Vlădești-Țântulești, Teiuș, Șirineasa, Titireciu, Mlăceni, Sacoți, Biserica-Zătreni, Popești-Bălcești, Cornetu, Cireșu, Poienari, Câinenii Mici, Bodești, Vătășești, and last but not least Buda and Copăceni (Valea Răii) in Râmnicu Vâlcea, which appear in various reports and yearbooks of the Diocese of Râmnic as parish churches or as hermitages and monasteries. 25 Added to these is the episcopal residence, ‘quite dilapidated’, which, in 1731, was to be included in the repair plans drawn up by the Austrian Johann Weiss. 26 It cannot be ruled out that the cemetery church of Frăsinei Monastery, dedicated to ‘the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist’, was also built with the blessing of the Oltenian hierarch. 27 Nor should we overlook the churches in Pleșoiu, Strejeștii de Jos and Perieți, in Ot County, or Văleni-Podgoria and the “Holy Trinity” church in Pitești, Argeș County. 28 We assume that other churches built during his tenure, in the counties of Dolj, Gorj and Mehedinți, were also consecrated by him. As a tribute across the centuries, his likeness is still preserved today, painted in the narthex of the church in the village of Teiuș, Bunești commune, Vâlcea County.

A good steward

In addition to all this, he looked after the welfare of the churches in his diocese and, as an unrivalled and hard-working steward, increased the Diocese’s wealth with numerous estates, vineyards and donations from various believers. From his fruitful work, carried out over the course of seven years, we note that, on 12 January 1730, he purchased an estate within the boundaries of ‘Bărcaciului ot Cernișoara ot sud Vâlcea’ from Dumitrașcu Lădescul and his brother Lazăr; on 8 April 1730, from Danciul Fluerătoriul of Berești, also within the Bărcaci district and in ‘Modoia, south of Vâlcea’; from Ilie, son of the Pârcălab of Modoia, on 12 September 1730, within the district of ‘Bicoi, on the waters of the Cernișoara south of Vâlcea’, from Dumitrașcu Lădescu and his brother,29 on 2 September 1731, within the ‘Buzdugilor’ boundary, from ‘Iana, the widow of the late Călin, who lived at Vel Ocnă’, on 15 November 1732, in ‘Buneștii judecești’ from ‘Constantin, son of Gheorghini, daughter of Priest Vlad of Bunești’,30; and on 20 November 1732, again in ‘Buneștii judecești’, from Iana, wife of Călin.

According to other documents in the Register of the Diocese of Râmnic, on 6 March 1732, the bishop purchased from “Nicola Potoica the Merchant of Râmnic” a vineyard, “together with the surrounding estate”, in Bogdănești, on 1 August 1732, a plot in Râmnic, ‘behind the bishop’s residence’, from ‘Ecaterina Monahia, whom they called Creața out of respect’, on 28 February 1732, ‘a small homestead behind the bishop’s courtyard’ from ‘Popa Ștefan’ and, finally, on 24 April 1734, ‘a small estate called Bicoiu in the hamlet of the holy bishopric of Modoia’ from ‘Mărin Bicoiul, together with my sons, namely Dragomir, Vladul, Neacșul and Gherghie’. Furthermore, on 8 November 1729, he received as a gift from Șărban Căpitan, son of Dumitru Logofăt Grozav of Balși, “the house and the mill ford on the Olteț and the church”, “together with his entire share of the estate”, and later, on 26 June 1734, he obtained for the benefit of the Diocese an administrative document which confirmed his authority over the Gypsies donated by “Marta Monahia”, who in lay life had been known as ‘Mihalcea, wife of Tănasie Comisul Sărăcinescul’, and whom ‘Dionisie, the abbot of Hurez’ was now laying claim to. 31 Although we do not know further details, the hierarch also received a house and a plot of land in Craiova from the priest’s wife Ilinca. 32

We find the document in which David, Pârvul, Ioan, Vasile and Gheorghe of Bunești complained to the Administration that a man from Ocnă had sold an estate, which did not belong to him, to Inochentie, measuring “30 sloți by 60 stânjeni”. Consequently, on 22 June 1734, the Administration ordered the Bishop of Râmnic to return the estate to its rightful owners: “Most honourable and God-loving Your Holiness, Bishop of Râmnic. If it is as the complainant alleges, that the man who sold that part of the estate to Your Holiness had no right to do so and that it belongs to the complainant, leave the estate in peace so that he may take possession of it, and seek payment from the man who sold it wrongfully, for he is not in debt; may Your Holiness grant him peace so that he may no longer have cause to lament.” 33

Taking into account all these purchases and donations, as well as the fact that he had inherited the diocese from his predecessors with many debts and shortcomings, it was considered that his merit, as a good steward of the diocese’s assets, was beyond dispute. 32

Cultural activity

Although he served as bishop in difficult times, ‘being an enterprising man’, Inochentie paid due attention to publishing activities. Since in Râmnic, ‘the printing press was a relatively rudimentary makeshift arrangement’, he set about establishing it on ‘new and more sophisticated foundations’. To this end, he turned his attention to the printing centre in Sibiu, seeking the support of the Saxon craftsman Peter Barth, the founder of a veritable dynasty of printers. After repeated summonses, Barth came to Râmnic in the spring of 1730 to carry out a general overhaul of the printing press and to make proposals for its improvement. Unfortunately, Barth proved incapable of producing ‘typefaces that would please’ and of carrying out the work to a satisfactory standard, leading to a lengthy legal case before the court in Sibiu. Neither he nor his collaborator, the armourer Christian Witsch, “managed to live up to the noble intentions of a bishop who spared no expense or effort, solely to achieve a fine result”. In addition to the loss suffered regarding the deposit of 30 florins paid to Barth, the bishop saw his fine plan to renovate the printing house go to ruin. Nevertheless, until his death, he managed to produce, from “the old, worn Cyrillic items left as a legacy by Damaschin”, 34 several books, including some translations by his predecessor, which were needed by the Romanian churches in all the provinces.

As a worthy successor to Damaschin, this ‘learned and culturally zealous cleric’, as Nicolae Iorga described him—35—has his own undeniable merit, having overseen the publication of the books and borne all the printing costs. As he himself was to admit, throughout his scholarly career, he was concerned with printing ‘in our native Romanian language’, which was necessary for all the Romanian provinces, ‘even though for some time now there has been a little more enlightenment through translations into our language […] whereas previously people had to make do with the Greek and Slovenian languages’. 36 He also set out the aim of translating these works in the preface to one of them: “seeing this diocese of our homeland deprived of such a treasure, which is most necessary to the Holy Church of the East, I therefore considered how, through my own efforts, I might multiply the talent my master has entrusted to me’. 37 From the accounts of an Austrian officer who visited Oltenia at that time, we learn that “the entire teaching of the priests consists of nothing other than reading and writing a little, namely in Romanian letters in the Church Slavonic language, of which they often, indeed almost always, do not understand a single word”. 38 Thus, making full use of his predecessor’s translations from Church Slavonic and Greek, Inochentie made a valuable contribution to the unity and development of our literary language.

Thanks to his diligence, the first book, a prayer book, was published in Romanian in 1730. The title indicates that it was printed, ‘through the efforts and at the entire expense of the Most Reverend and God-loving Inochentie, Bishop of Râmnic’, on 1 February, by Ieremia Atanasievici. In the preface, signed by himself and addressed to Metropolitan Moise Petrovici, he states that he has guided his flock “across the sea, through the wilderness, through turbulent times and upheavals”, until “each one may find rest in his own land and homeland”, taking care “that each one may remain within his own Orthodox order and customs”. In order to come to the aid of my flock, ‘first I set my mind on the care of the holy Churches in my humble diocese, and seeing that they were sorely lacking the necessary books in our native language […] I resolved to enrich the holy churches by increasing the number of holy books in our native Romanian language; and, considering what would be most useful and necessary, I first noted a greater shortage of the Euchologion, that is, the Book of Prayers, and not only in our diocese but also in other remote places which have become accustomed to making do with this language, even though books of this kind have been printed before, yet they are few and not sufficient.” The book contains several illustrations and engravings, including scenes of baptism, marriage and the anointing. 39

Thanks to his diligence, the first book, a prayer book in Romanian, was published in 1730.

The series of liturgical books continued on 1 July 1731 with a Ceaslov, in Old Church Slavonic and Romanian, “which contains the day and night services, now printed in this form in the Holy Diocese of Râmnic, through the efforts and at the full expense of His Grace, the God-loving Bishop Inochentie of Râmnic”. The printer of this work, Ieremia Athanasievici, printed the text in Church Slavonic and the liturgical order in Romanian. 40 The 196 unnumbered pages feature a title framed by typographical ornamentation. On the reverse is an engraving depicting Jesus Christ as the ruler of the world, with the Mother of God on his right and Saint John on his left. Opposite the Precistia Chapel, that is, on fol. 147v., there is another engraving depicting the Virgin Mary with Jesus in her arms. Regarding this Book of Hours, Daniela Bratu, who described it, states that “it is a reprint of the one from Bucharest”, published in the same year or even earlier, bearing in mind that ‘in Wallachia, two identical books did not appear in the same year, but in successive years’. 41

On 20 July 1731, the same skilled printer produced a ‘Triodion, now printed for the first time in this form in the Holy Diocese of Râmnic and perfectly rendered in the Romanian language’. From the preface to the 425 folios, addressed to Metropolitan Vichentie Ioanovici, we learn the reason for the printing of this work: “now for the first time, that is to say, we have printed it in the Romanian language […] seeing that this diocese of our homeland lacked such a treasure, which is most necessary for the Holy Church of the East […] for whilst other books in our language have been printed, yet this book, until now, had never been brought to light in our Romanian language from the printing press, nor had it been printed in other parts, where the Romanian homeland is situated; until now, the Greek and Slavonic languages have sufficed for this Romanian language as well". Also significant are the statements at the end, which show 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 set out in verses and words, as interpreted in the Lord by the late Bishop Damaschin of Râmnic, without altering the words in any way. As for the liturgical order, with all its teachings, we have arranged it and followed the Moschite Triodion, just as we found it there, which was printed during the reign of Emperor John Alexievich in the year 7191”. Following these words, the printer asks for forgiveness for any misprints, saying: “For just as it is impossible to see the sky without clouds, so too is it impossible to have a print without errors.” 42

It is also worth noting that another edition of the Triodion is recorded as having been published in 1735. Dumitru Șandru doubts its existence, whilst Aurelian Sacerdoțeanu points out that “it is more likely to be the one from 1731”. He goes on to say: “It is uncertain whether it ever existed, as the 1761 edition states that it was printed ‘for the second time’.” 43

What is certain is that, on 1 December 1733, another book emerged from the printing presses in Râmnic, entitled: ‘The Holy and Divine Liturgies of our Holy Fathers, John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and the Pre-announced One’. The two sheets plus 270 pages, printed in Romanian by Vladul Gherghievici, “through the efforts and at the entire expense of His Grace, the God-loving Bishop Inochentie of Râmnic”, were edited by the priest Ivan Făgărășanul”. 44 Referring to this Liturgy, Nicolae Iorga states that “it certainly reproduces the book of the same kind that was published in Bucharest in 1728”, naturally with many linguistic enhancements. 45

Also attributed to Inochentie is a Catavasier comprising over 320 unnumbered pages, printed in Romanian in 1734. On the reverse of the title page is a woodcut depicting the Nativity of Jesus, signed by (Mihail). 46 In the preface, the primate is titled ‘Bishop of Râmnic and Exarch of Severin and of all Mehadia and other regions’. 47

The last book published under Inochentie, in September 1734, was entitled ‘The First Instruction for Young People, Comprising Letters and Syllables. Also, a Brief Explanation of the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed and the Nine Beatitudes’. The title indicates that it was printed in Church Slavonic “by the command and blessing of, and at the entire expense of, His Most Holy Lord Vichentie Ioanovici, Orthodox Archbishop and Metropolitan of Belgrade and counsellor to the Emperor. 43 The book, comprising 8+78 folios, was thus intended to be made available to Serbian Orthodox Christians and, with the approval of the authorities, was distributed in Transylvania and the Banat. 48

Last but not least, we note that the authors of the 1957 Manual of the History of the Romanian Church claimed that Inochentie also printed an Apostle in 1731. This claim remains merely a hypothesis, as no copy is known to exist to this day. 49

Thanks to his use of correct, fluid language that remained faithful to the original, Bishop Inochentie contributed to the development of literary Romanian through his printed works. The books were printed with great care and artistic taste. Published in the living, vernacular language understood by Romanians everywhere, they spread in considerable numbers even beyond the borders of the Diocese of Râmnic. He personally oversaw their form and style. Beneficial to church life and Romanian literature, they made a significant contribution to the enrichment of our literary and linguistic heritage. 50 In Nicolae Iorga’s view, ‘these printed works mark the beginning of a whole series of ecclesiastical books, essential for the five counties at a time when imports from Buzău and Bucharest were being blocked by the Turks’. 51 It is interesting to note that Valeriu Literat found the Triodion of 1731 in Cârșa, Dejani, Hurezi, Iași, Râușor, Vaida-Rece, Săscioși, Toderița and Sibiu, in the Metropolitan Library, wherethe 1730 Prayer Book and the 1733 Liturgy Book were also discovered. 52 The Triodion was also found by Nicolae Iorga in churches in Craiova, Râmnicu Vâlcea and Moldova, alongside other liturgical books. 53

Thanks to the correct, fluid language that remained faithful to the original, Bishop Inochentie contributed to the development of literary Romanian through his printed works. The books were printed with great care and artistic taste.

Links with Transylvania

During his tenure, Bishop Inochentie also provided spiritual care for the faithful in Brașov and Țara Bârsei, who refused to recognise the Uniate bishops of Transylvania. We know that from 1701, the Orthodox clergy of Transylvania were under the canonical jurisdiction of the Metropolitans of Ungrovlahia, and following the Austrian occupation of Oltenia, they came under the spiritual guidance of the hierarchs of Râmnic, although it had repeatedly expressed a desire to remain under the jurisdiction of the Metropolis, as they feared Uniate propaganda south of the Carpathians, and the distance to Râmnic was greater than that to Bucharest. 54 A document dated 20 May 1724 states that General Kenihzeh of Sibiu ordered the Orthodox priests of Brașov “to no longer commemorate any bishop from those in the land of the Turks, but to commemorate only our emperor, nor to heed them or their accursed teachings”. Even though they received this order, the priests resisted, replying to General Tige of Brașov as follows: “By our enlightened and mighty Emperor, whom we have as a merciful ruler after God, and whom we have commemorated until now and shall continue to commemorate. And we commemorate the bishop of Wallachia and shall continue to do so, for it is from him that we received the gift of the priesthood and the blessing we have received and shall continue to receive, and we shall obey the commandments of the spiritual law just as we have done until now. We cannot help but fear the bonds and the anathema of the bishops by whom we were ordained.” To calm the spirits, Tige summoned the priests from Scheia to Brașov shortly afterwards, saying to them: “Since you do not wish to unite and have the united Bishop of Transylvania as your bishop, as in times past, you must seek to go to the bishop of Râmnic to submit yourselves and be obedient to him there, since there is a law governing you, and this law also applies in our emperor’s realm, and you will have peace in keeping with the law, but if you do not do so, we shall order you to be once more under the authority of the bishop of John the United of Transylvania.” The priests agreed, and, ‘having nothing further to say’, they ‘promised to do so, provided we might have peace with the bishop of the United Church’. 55 It should be noted that this suited the Emperor better, as Râmnic was also under Austrian rule.

In such circumstances, the people of Brașov began to maintain ties with the bishops of Râmnic. However, it was not until 20 January 1728 that General Tige issued a ‘letter’ to the priests of Brașov, stating that, in spiritual matters, they would be subject to the bishop of Râmnic. Following this, the priests of Șchei sent the priest Radu Tempea to Inochentie “to see how things stood there”. Realising “that they were adhering entirely to the old order of the Greek law”, on 1 January 1729, Archpriest Florea Băran and the village elders Tănase and Radu Duma travelled to Sibiu, where they met Inochentie “and, in the presence of all, addressed His Excellency the General, stating that from now on we should have His Holiness the Bishop of Râmnic as our bishop, and that His Holiness should take care of us”. 56

During his brief tenure as archbishop, Inochentie had a great deal of work to do with the Romanians of Șcheii-Brașov, from whom he did not forget to collect the customary bishop’s tribute. Thus, on 15 July 1729, the bishop sent the priest Gheorghe to collect the tribute from the priests in Brașov and from the 10 parishes in Țara Bârsei. Each priest paid one imperial thaler, whilst those who paid a village-wide tribute (as in Zărnești and Tohan, where there were several priests) paid only half a thaler. In addition, each village also contributed a vadră of wine, a bucket of oats and a caș (for which they paid two florins). This was a new tax, as until then, each priest had been required to pay the archpriest one Hungarian florin and an ‘ocriv’ (a kind of levy) annually. 57

Meanwhile, the bishop of Râmnic had several disagreements with certain priests, such as Teodor Băran, who wished to become archpriest. Thus, on 18 November 1731, he wrote to the people of Șcheia saying: ‘Many times I have wished that we too might come to visit you […] This year we also went to see Count Wallis and thought we might call on you as well. Archpriest Florea is sending some of the customary bishop’s tribute collected from the priests, but he has written nothing to us regarding the affairs and matters of the church in the villages, and I ask you to inform me of everything, as sons would inform their father.” 58

Since the archpriest was denounced to Inochentie by the faithful of Brașov, “that many unseemly acts had been committed by him, contrary to the canons, that he had permitted a fourth marriage, and had allowed a Gypsy to marry a Romanian woman and a Romanian woman to marry a Gypsy, and had drawn up several letters of command in which he had signed the bishop’s name”, 59 on 24 February 1732, he appointed the priest Eustatie Grid as ‘steward’ for ecclesiastical courts and archpriestly affairs. Radu Tempea’s Chronicle reveals that the bishop had summoned the priest Statie, via a hieromonk named Vartolomeu, under the pretext of giving him some ritual books, when he probably proposed appointing him steward to assist the elderly archpriest Florea. His appointment caused discontent amongst the priests and parishioners of Șchei, who wrote him a letter, asking him not to remove Florea from the archpriesthood, but rather, to appoint one of the older priests as his assistant. 60 Outraged by their protest, the bishop of Râmnic replied a few months later, on 16 July 1732, as follows: ‘Since you state that it is customary for none of the priests there to rise higher in rank, nor to take precedence over the most senior in honour—as we see you say— that this order should have been and ought to be granted first to Father Radul, you should know that, having understood that the merciful Father Radul is perpetually ill and infirm, we have judged that he will neither receive nor be able to bear this responsibility, since the infirmity of his illness stands in his way. However, now that you too have written to us in this manner, and the Reverend Statie himself has requested it, the Reverend Radu may remain in this position.” Thus, in accordance with their wishes, he agreed that the honour of steward should be bestowed upon Father Radu Tempea, a request which Statie Grid himself had made. He went on to request that these two priests, together with one or two gocimani, should go to Sibiu, where he himself would also go to consult, in the presence of General Wallis, “for the better organisation of the churches, and thus, with that visit, we shall arrange matters as best as possible, in good order”. Furthermore, pointing out the sins of Archpriest Florea, Inochentie states that one of the forged letters “has also fallen into our hands, and we shall speak of it in person in Sibiu when you arrive. As for a copy containing several notes regarding the connection with Priest Stație, which had been drawn up, and having taken that into our own hands, we have seen all of them—of which we knew nothing beforehand— and now that we have seen this, we say that it is fitting that all these things should be kept, and may you be blessed.” 61

In such circumstances, on 29 October 1732, Priest Teodor Băran, son of Archpriest Florea, declared before the priests, deacons and lay assessors that the Bishop of Râmnic “is united and it is no longer fitting to commemorate him, but rather to commemorate the Metropolitan of Ungrovlahia”. 62 Upon hearing this, General Schram of Brașov ordered the priest to cease commemorating the Metropolitan of Bucharest and to commemorate the hierarch of Râmnic instead, failing which he would be sent across the border into the country. Persisting in his stance and causing much unrest amongst the priests and the faithful, the people of Brașov wasted no time in writing to Metropolitan Stephen of Ungrovlahia, on 7 November 1732, explaining to him “that Priest Teodor has caused a great commotion, saying that we commemorate bishops unlawfully; and as we did not know that the Bishop of Râmnic was such, we had a great quarrel. Teodor has cursed us, as if we were united, for we commemorate the Bishop of Râmnic, even though we do not forget Your Holiness either […] perhaps they received unkind words from Your Holiness and you did not write to us so that we might know […] that if we were to find out for certain that Râmnic is indeed moving towards union, we would truly part ways with you for good. We pray that Your Holiness, as our spiritual father, will give us guidance.” 63

Although they were no longer under his jurisdiction, the metropolitan replied to them on 1 December 1733, saying: “A merchant from here came to us and told us that there is some discord and strife amongst your Holinesses; we are saddened by this, for wherever strife and envy take root, they never bring any good or benefit, but are always found to be destructive wherever they may be. Behold, then, we too have not failed to write to you, all the more so as we were ordained here and have known you from long before; and we urge you, as beloved children of God, to live in love and to love one another, just as the whole Holy Scripture and the Holy Church proclaim and teach us, saying: ‘For love is God, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him’…”. 64

Because of this turmoil, the faithful of Brașov sent a delegation, consisting of Father Statie, Radu Duma and Enache Stama, to the Bishop of Râmnic and to Ban Gheorghe Cantacuzino of Craiova, son of Șerban Vodă, to recount what had happened. Upon hearing of this, Inochentie wrote to them, filled with sorrow, on 10 December 1732, telling them that: ‘As for Father Todor, certain rumours have been concocted about him—as his empty head would have it—which never even crossed our minds, and which have caused such turmoil amongst the people, showing such opposition towards us, since his wicked mind led him to such actions, he has now been permanently stripped of his priestly office, as you will see in greater detail from the letter sent to him.” At the same time, he begged them not to believe that he had joined them: ‘As for the things he has concocted, let no one regard them as true; but, God mercifully preserve us from such things, for we, for the Orthodox faith of the Holy Church of the East, are ready even to shed our blood, as you will understand from our Archbishop and Metropolitan of Belgrade and from others, and as for what took place at the council recently held in Belgrade, you will learn all of this in greater detail from the aforementioned envoys, based on what has been confirmed to them by us, and you may also learn more from others’. He goes on to urge them to uphold the Orthodox faith, “and to live together in love, the younger obeying the older, with no envy or strife amongst you, for these things are not pleasing to God. And whoever, from whatever state, should rise up again, inventing words and deeds such as these, let them not think that they will go unpunished under ecclesiastical canon law. May you be blessed.” 65

As the act of defrocking was read out in the church itself on 15 December 1732, Priest Teodor fled over the mountains to Wallachia, followed by his wife and three children, aided by Priest Mateiu Turchiș, who in turn, fearing the consequences, took refuge in ‘the country’. A few months later, however, through the mediation of Grigorie II Ghica, Prince of Wallachia, Inochentie pardoned him, issuing on 1 July 1733 a ‘decree of the utmost severity to the priests and townspeople, stating that he would no longer rise up against anyone in any dispute, and that should he fail to keep this promise, he should be barred from the church’. 66

News reports of the time show that during this period of unrest, as well as in the years that followed, Inochentie sent further letters to the priests of Șchei. Thus, on 18 November 1732, he wrote to the representatives of the church in Șchei, asking them to inform him of the fate of his spiritual sons in the villages: ‘Honourable and, in our humility, most beloved spiritual sons, to you, the parishioners of the Holy Church of Brașov, and to all the townspeople there, may God grant you life, peace, health and the salvation of your souls; and from our humble self we send prayers and blessings to the whole community. We also wish to inform you that we have often longed to come there ourselves to honour you, as it is our duty to visit and bestow blessings upon the souls of the Christians, who are the speaking flocks of the Holy Church of the East, within our humble diocese there; yet we have been unable to do so, owing to the nature of the region, we resolved last year to send a representative on our behalf to visit you and to set church matters in order, and this past year, as we too had travelled to Sibiu on necessary business with His Excellency the Grand Director Count Vales, we ourselves resolved to come before you, only because the Archpriest, the Reverend Flore, without our instruction, had sent us prematurely part of the customary gift from the bishopric; he writes to us that it had been collected from the priests there, within our humble diocese, but as for other matters concerning ecclesiastical affairs and reforms, and even the customary ones, which are of an episcopal nature from the villages, nothing has been written; for this reason we ask you, as our beloved spiritual sons, to consult with one another and inform us, regarding what is fitting for sons to have from their father, for whom our humility, with a father’s arms, has the duty to care for your souls; and having accomplished this, may you be blessed.” 67

A few months later, on 9 February 1733, the bishop wrote to Archpriest Florea urging him to encourage the faithful to go to confession, receive Holy Communion and pay any outstanding amounts of the bishop’s tithe by St George’s Day: ‘It is time for all to cast off the chill of winter, and for man, being of good will, to cast off winter as a dreadful thing—that is, the old man full of sin—and to clothe himself in Christ in the garment of joy; therefore, your brotherhood, having received this command of ours, shall, according to the ancient and holy custom, instruct and command all the priests and laity who are under our jurisdiction within the parish of your brotherhood, so that anyone aged seven years or older during this holy fast may confess their sins and be deemed worthy to partake of the precious Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and whoever fails to do so shall be regarded as excommunicated from the Church, for now is the time of salvation. You shall know that whatever expenses and debts are outstanding; for these, you must collect all arrears by St George’s Day, as well as the outstanding payments and our share of the taxes, and by St Gheorghi or at the great assembly, when you are to meet with them; do not make any objections and be blessed, written in Sâmbăta de Jos, 9 February 1733”. 68

Contemporary sources show that on 12 March 1733, Inochentie informed the priests, churchwardens and jurors that Prince Grigorie Ghica had written to the Grand Director, Count de Vales, regarding their issues, urging them to present themselves to him without delay, and to convey to him the reply they would receive: ‘Reverend Archpriest Flor, treasurer of the Holy Church in Brașov, and to you, the priests and our humble spiritual sons, to you, the magistrates and jurors, and to all the townspeople there, we pray that God may grant you mercy, help and comfort, whilst we send you our humble prayers and blessings. Having learnt of the mercy and aid which, through God’s ineffable providence,bestowed upon the enlightened and righteous Orthodox Christian, His Highness Grigorie Voivode, and that they have also written to His Highness the Grand Director, Count Vales, we have felt no small joy, giving thanks to God’s mercy, that He may not forsake his Orthodox faith. Wherefore, you, taking the shield of the Orthodox faith as your aid, should go without delay to His Highness the Grand Director and present a letter to His Highness Grigorie Vodă, together with the other just claims you hold, choosing a person of honour to present your petition to His Highness in person, for His Highness is wise, I have no doubt, but rather great hope, that he will grant you aid, and we shall receive joy from God; and whatever reply you receive from His Highness, please inform us all without delay, so that we may know what else is required, and may you all be blessed in the Orthodox faith.” 69

A few days later, on 28 March 1733, he wrote to him again, instructing him to attend the great council of archpriests, convened for 17 May in Gherla, and to bring all outstanding payments, and to collect one florin each for the Holy Chrism: “With this brief letter we inform your brotherhood that, having finished and laid before the country our affairs and hardships, with which our adversaries oppressed us and deprived us of our rights, we have decided to hold a great assembly, according to the ancient custom, with all the honourable Greek archpriests after Pentecost in Gherla, that is to say on the 17th day of May, therefore, your brotherhood is to be present on the aforementioned day and at the aforementioned place with all outstanding sums of money, which will be under the control of your brotherhood, and other revenues from tolls and fruit taxes, as we have also written to you in the other commission, you are to be present with them, likewise with this year’s taxes; however, you must collect them without any delay and bring them to the assembly, for we now need the money at once so that we too may make some headway; after this, see also to this: collect one German florin for the holy chrism of the diocese, so that it may then be distributed amongst all the dioceses; and wherever there is a shortage of antimins, instruct the priests to send money; the price for one is 2 florins; for more, this will be decided at the council. We command these things; do not forget them.” 70

From another document, we learn that on 3 April 1734, the bishop granted permission to Archpriest Florea to consecrate, together with the priests from the Church of ‘St Nicholas’, the new chapel dedicated to the ‘Annunciation’ – in response to their invitation to consecrate it. Sending them only the antimension with the holy relics, he wrote to them that he would have wished to go to Brașov, ‘having a duty towards the souls of the Christians, but as we have not yet been able to attend to many matters here, and as we are still greatly weakened by illness – which befell us last winter and from which we remain incapacitated even now – for this reason we were unable to come; but should God grant us life in good health and the opportunity, we shall be glad to come to fulfil our duty towards the Christian community there. With this, may you be blessed.” 71 He also donated an antimension, consecrated by Damaschin, to the monastery in Valea Șincăi (Făgăraș), in 1732, and another to the church in Voivodenii Mici, in the Făgăraș region. 72

At the same time, Bishop Inochentie also performed several ordinations of priests for Transylvania. It is worth noting in this regard that, on 13 June 1733, Ion the teacher, son of the priest Ion Leu of Tărlungeni, was ordained in Râmnic for the Church of ‘St Nicholas’ in Șchei, and on 5 August 1734, Vasile the teacher, son of Archpriest Florea, was ordained for the church in Făgăraș. Having been ordained as a priest, he attempted, with the help of the Saxons of Brașov, to remain at the Church of ‘St Nicholas’. The priests and churchwardens then complained to the bishop, who replied on 21 September 1734, from Drăgășani, that he had suspended Priest Vasile from the sacred duties until he went to the parish entrusted to him: “At the church in Brașov, he is not to be given the epitrachelion, nor is he to celebrate the Holy Liturgy, nor is he to be permitted in any way to perform any other priestly duties; nor shall he receive any share of the church’s income in any way whatsoever, but he is to go to the church where I have appointed him, as he requested when I ordained him, together with the merchants of Făgăraș, and let him not be tempted to act deceitfully, for wherever he may fall, he will not rise again easily. Likewise, regarding other matters concerning your community and the holy churches there in Brașov, we shall always be zealous to ensure that you may live in peace and tranquillity. With this, may you be blessed.” 73 A few months later, however, in December, Father Vasile, who was also the son-in-law of the “United notary”, Archpriest Ionașcu of Vineția de Jos, fell ill and left for Făgăraș. 74

We should also note that on 26 January 1733, Bishop Inochentie Micu arrived in Brașov, wishing to win over the faithful to the Union, but he was not permitted to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in the Church of ‘St Nicholas’, nor even to sit in the bishop’s pew. 75 Speaking to the priests and a few believers, he informed them that General Wallis had given orders that the hierarch of Râmnic should no longer be allowed to extend his jurisdiction over Țara Bârsei, which would henceforth fall under his own jurisdiction. As the people of Șcheia objected, the matter remained unresolved, and it was left pending until after Easter, when the bishop was summoned to Sibiu, together with Inochentie Micu and the delegates from Șcheia, to take action. The faithful then complained to Grigorie II Ghica, Prince of Moldavia, and to Constantin Mavrocordat of Wallachia – to whom they sent a letter via Metropolitan Ștefan – begging them to intervene with Wallis so that no one would interfere in their ecclesiastical affairs any longer. Following the letters sent by the two to the general, he instructed Inochentie Micu to concern himself in future only with the United Church faithful, and to leave the Orthodox alone. 76

During this same period, Inochentie also attached due importance to the cultural level of the priests and faithful in Transylvania. Continuing “the scholarly tradition of his predecessor Damaschin”, he had several ecclesiastical books printed, which were needed in all the Romanian provinces and especially in Transylvania, where, following the union with Rome, “nothing but sorrow and cruel persecution” had taken hold. 77 Carefully printed, with Orthodox dogmatic and liturgical content and services in Romanian, his books from Râmnic crossed the mountains, spreading quite rapidly to churches beyond the Carpathians. Thus, the Molitvelnic of 1730 was found in the churches of Hârșăști (Bihor) and Râușorul Făgărașului, the Ceaslov of 1731 in Bucovăț (Timișoara), the Triodion of 1731 in Argeșul de Sus, Petroman (Ciacova), Ramna (Bocșa Montana), Rudăria (Mehadia), Oradea Mare, Măderat, Mușteni, Sibiu, Pâncota (Arad), Făgăraș78, and Dejani, 79, and the Liturgy Book from 1733 in Zervești, Cheimac (Lipova), Hebei (Ciacova), Săveni (Bocșa Montana), and Sibiu. 80 On the Triodion of 1731, preserved in the church at Ocna, Archpriest Tatomir wrote in 1734: ‘This book, namely the Triodion, belongs to the town of Vizogna. May whoever steals it be damned.’

It is not for nothing that it has been said that Transylvania is a veritable treasure trove of books from Râmnic. 81 Among the books printed in Râmnic and found in Transylvania in 1905 by Nicolae Iorga, the Triod of 1731 ranked third. In addition to the localities listed above, it was also discovered in the churches of: Arpațul de Jos, Câmpeni, Deva, Dobra, Dobârca, Făgăraș, Feleac, Geoagiul de Sus, Hârseni, Ibașfalău, Inidioara, Maieri, Lisa, Ludișor, Ocna, Porcești, Sas-Sebeș, Sibiu, Sinca Veche, Stremț, Vișta de Jos and Zlatna. 82 In Ludișor, the Catavasier from 1734 was found. 52 There was even talk of a large collection, “a sort of bookshop, of church books”, in the home of Dimitrie Moldovan, a merchant from Sibiu, intended to be purchased and distributed to all the Romanian churches in Transylvania. After his death, the books were confiscated by the Transylvanian Chamber (the tax authorities), which sold them for 6,000 florins. 83

The Bishop’s Final Days

After a ministry spanning nearly eight years, this enlightened bishop passed away whilst in office on 1 February 1735. 84 As previously mentioned, he bequeathed the greater part of his life’s earnings as a ‘bequest’ to Motru Monastery: “my share of the estate in Dobra and Zlașova, together with what I bought from my brother Mateiu and the vineyard there—which I myself planted—and the small vineyard that I inherited”. In addition, he bequeathed to the monastery two Gypsy families, eight oxen, ten mares with foals, 100 beehives, 20 beehive frames, 100 sheep, two stallions, 6 tin pots from Colorad, a tin kettle and 40 cubits of cloth – a sign that here he perhaps felt most drawn to a life of profound spirituality, like the great ascetics of the country’s monasteries. 85 Unfortunately, it is not known where he was buried. After his death, the Austrians seized his estate, appointing Ghenadie, the abbot of Cozia and a descendant of the Glogoveni boyars, as administrator of the Diocese. However, it was Climent, from Pietrarii de Jos in Vâlcea County—another disciple of Damaschin—who continued Inochentie’s work; he was confirmed on 1 October 1735 and was not ordained until the spring of 1737. 86

*

Looking at the life and achievements of Bishop Inochentie, we see that his archpastoral ministry was a fruitful period in the history of the Church in Oltenia, although he did not lead it for a long time. Whilst shepherding the Diocese of Râmnic under the most difficult of circumstances, he nevertheless knew how to defend the faith of his forefathers, just like the holy hierarchs and confessors of Transylvania, Ilie Iorest and Sava Brancovici. His extensive correspondence with the faithful of Brașov and the works discovered in churches across the mountains show just how much he contributed to raising cultural standards and preserving the spirit of Orthodoxy in Transylvania. Through his efforts, his life of self-sacrifice and his zeal for what is good and beneficial to those entrusted to his care, this ‘diligent and learned prelate’, 87 ‘a worthy defender of the rights of his Church’ in the face of foreign authorities, 88 may serve as a worthy role model for people today, who can draw inspiration from his achievements of every kind, but above all from his spirit of self-sacrifice in defence of the fatherland and the Romanian land. This explains why, as a mark of appreciation across the centuries, he is honoured with admiration as holding “the same place of honour amongst the great bishops of Râmnic, alongside Saint Antim Ivireanul, Damaschin, Chesarie and Filaret”. 89 As a further mark of honour and esteem, a street in Râmnicu Vâlcea bears his name to this day.

All these are eloquent testimonies showing us that his work deserves recognition and that his name deserves to be honoured, especially today, as we pay tribute to all those who fought for unity in faith and nation, identifying fully with their flock in the pursuit of these national ideals. We consider it fitting to conclude this brief account of the life of this worthy hierarch from Oltenia, in the hope that other researchers and scholars will also highlight his endeavours, which are certainly far more numerous than what we have presented in these few pages, on the occasion of the 283rd anniversary of his passing.

Imagine

• 1

  Rev. Prof. Dr Mircea PĂCURARIU, Dictionary of Romanian Theologians, 3rd ed., Andreiana Publishing House, Sibiu, 2014, p. 303.

• 2

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, The History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia during the Austrian Occupation (1716–1739), Bucharest, 1906, p. 109; Rev. Mihai MANOLACHE, PhD candidate, ‘The Life and Work of Bishop Inochentie of Râmnic (1727–1735)’, in Mitropolia Olteniei, vol. XIX (1967), nos. 9–10, p. 744, note 14 (hereafter cited as MO); N. IORGA, A History of the Romanian Church and the Religious Life of the Romanians, vol. II, Saeculum I. O. Publishers, Bucharest, 2012, p. 108 (He is the only one among the researchers who adds the name ‘Tismăneanul’ to his own).

• 3

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, The History of the Church…, pp. 66–70; Rev. Nicolae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Romanian Orthodox Church: from the earliest Christian settlements on Romanian soil to the Patriarchate, Bucharest, 2015, p. 542.

• 4

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, History of the Church…, pp. 77–78.

• 5

  † Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese of Râmnicu Noul Severin: Past and Present, ‘Gutenberg’ Press, Joseph Gobl, Bucharest, 1906, p. 128; In 1730, Moise Petrovici requested, largely as compensation for the restriction of his jurisdiction, the Oltenian villages of Oreavița and Balboșani, which had been donated to the Metropolis of Wallachia by Constantin Brâncoveanu. As these had been seized by the tax authorities following the occupation of Oltenia, the request was taken up again by his successor, Vichentie Ioanovici, in 1732, but the Council in Vienna refused on 30 March 1733. See Nicolae DOBRESCU, Istoria Bisericii…, pp. 80, 113–114.

• 6

  Mihai MANOLACHE, Life and Work…, p. 745.

• 7

  Mihai MANOLACHE, Life and Work…, p. 745, note 23.

• 8

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, History of the Church…, pp. 82–85; Rev. Prof. Gheorghe MOISESCU, Rev. Ștefan LUPȘA, Rev. Alexandru FILIPAȘCU, History of the Romanian Church. A Textbook for Theological Institutes, vol. II (1632–1949), Bucharest, 1957, p. 190.

• 9

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, History of the Church…, p. 86, note 3.

• 10

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, History of the Church…, pp. 86–87.

• 11

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, History of the Church…, p. 88.

• 12

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, History of the Church…, p. 89.

• 13

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, History of the Church…, pp. 87–88.

• 14

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, The History of the Church…, pp. 90–91.

• 15

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, History of the Church…, pp. 92–94.

• 16

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, History of the Church…, p. 95.

• 17

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, History of the Church…, p. 96.

• 18

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, History of the Church…, pp. 97–100.

• 19

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, History of the Church…, pp. 101–103, 114–115 (Since, in 1734, a missionary from the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Paisie, or another Greek monk of the same name, died in Craiova, it was decreed that no Orthodox monk from Wallachia or Turkey should be permitted to remain in Oltenia. However, Greek monks, seeking alms and seeking to recoup their losses, continued to arrive even later, despite the ban, as in the case of Dionisie Protosinghelul in 1735).

• 20

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, History of the Church…, p. 104.

• 21

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, History of the Church…, p. 109.

• 22

  Sterie STINGHE, The History of the Church of Șcheii in Brașov (manuscript from Radu Tempe), Ciurcu & Comp. Publishers, Brașov, 1899, pp. 105–108.

• 23

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, History of the Church…, p. 110.

• 24

  Mihai MANOLACHE, Life and Work…, p. 748, note 44; The authors of the Handbook of the History of the Romanian Church maintain that: ‘From the time of Vichentie Ioanovici, elected metropolitan in 1731, orders were issued that priests should wear the tonsure, woollen robes and boots’. See Gheorghe MOISESCU et al., History…, p. 190.

• 25

  Rev. Dr Laurențiu RĂDOI, Vâlcea, a cradle of Romanian culture and spirituality, Alma Mater Publishers, Sibiu, 2012, pp. 151–450 (with bibliography).

• 26

  Alexandru A. VASILESCU, ‘Description and fortification plans for the most important monasteries and strategic locations in Oltenia, drawn up in 1731 by Major Johann C. Weiss, engineer’, in Arhivele Olteniei, vol. VII (1928), nos. 37–38, p. 251.

• 27

  The History of the Holy Monastery of Frăsinei, 2009, p. 5; Teodor DĂNĂLACHE, The Old Hermitage in Frăsinei, https://www.crestinortodox.ro/biserici-manastiri/schitul-vechi-frasinei-128401.html, accessed on 24 July 2018.

• 28

  Fr. Dumitru SANDU, The Diocese of Râmnic and Argeș. A Monograph, Râmnicu Vâlcea, 1976, pp. 391, 499, 577, 596, 733.

• 29

  Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese…, p. 132; Mihai MANOLACHE, Life and Work…, p. 748.

• 30

  T. G. BULAT, Documentary Contributions to the History of Oltenia. The 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 1925, pp. 30–31; Mihai MANOLACHE, Life and Work…, p. 748.

• 31

  Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese…, p. 133.

• 32a32b

  Mihai MANOLACHE, Life and Work…, p. 748.

• 33

  T. G. BULAT, Contributions…, pp. 32–33.

• 34

  Virgil MOLIN, ‘The Râmnic Printing Press during the Time of Bishop Ioanichie. Attempts at Renewal in the Years 1730–1732’, in MO, vol. XV (1963), no. 3–4, pp. 191–196.

• 35

  N. IORGA, A History of Romanian Literature from 1688 to 1780, vol. II, Pavel Suru Bookshop, Bucharest, 1926, p. 577; Barbu THEODORESCU, ‘The Circulation of Old Ecclesiastical Books – Contributions to a Cumulative Catalogue’, in The Romanian Orthodox Church, vol. LXXIX (1961), nos. 1–2, p. 174; Mihai MANOLACHE, Life and Work…, p. 749.

• 36

  Aurelia FLORESCU, Engravings from Râmnic (1705–1827), Craiova, 1998, p. 17.

• 37

  Ioan BIANU, Nerva HODOȘ, Early Romanian Bibliography. 1508–1830, vol. II, 1716–1808, Romanian Academy Press, Bucharest, 1910, p. 44 (to be cited as BRV).

• 38

  Barbu THEODORESCU, The Circulation of the Old Church Book…, p. 174.

• 39

  BRV, pp. 38–40; Aurelian SACERDOȚEANU, ‘The Printing House of the Diocese of Râmnic (1705–1825)’, in MO, vol. XII (1960), nos. 5–6, pp. 317–318.

• 40

  BRV, p. 41; Aurelian SACERDOȚEANU, The Diocese’s Printing House…, p. 318; Mihai MANOLACHE, Life and Work…, p. 750.

• 41

  Daniela BRATU, ‘Contributions to the Early Romanian Bibliography’, in Studii Teologice, vol. IX (1957), nos. 9–10, pp. 741–742.

• 42

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, History of the Church…, p. 112; BRV, pp. 43–45; Aurelian SACERDOȚEANU, The Diocesan Printing House…, p. 318.

• 43a43b

  Aurelian SACERDOȚEANU, The Diocese’s Printing House…, p. 319.

• 44

  BRV, p. 48; Aurelian SACERDOȚEANU, The Diocese’s Printing House…, pp. 318–319.

• 45

  Mihai MANOLACHE, Life and Work…, p. 750.

• 46

  Aurelian SACERDOȚEANU, The Diocese’s Printing House…, p. 319; Mihai MANOLACHE, Life and Work…, p. 750.

• 47

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, The History of the Church…, p. 112; BRV, p. 49; Mircea PĂCURARIU, The Links between the Orthodox Church in Transylvania and Wallachia and Moldavia in the 16th–18th Centuries, Sibiu, 1968, p. 26.

• 48

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, History of the Church…, pp. 111–112.

• 49

  Gheorghe MOISESCU et al., History…, p. 190; Mihai MANOLACHE, Life and Work…, p. 750, note 69.

• 50

  Mihai MANOLACHE, Life and Work…, p. 751.

• 51

  Nicolae IORGA, A History of Romanian Literature…, pp. 577–578.

• 52a52b

  Barbu THEODORESCU, The Circulation of the Old Church Book…, p. 189.

• 53

  Barbu THEODORESCU, The Circulation of the Old Church Book…, pp. 192–193.

• 54

  Mircea PĂCURARIU, The Church’s Ties…, p. 53.

• 55

  Sterie STINGHE, Istoriia…, pp. 79–81; Ștefan METEȘ, ‘The Relations of the Romanian Orthodox Church in Transylvania with the Romanian Principalities in the 18th Century’, in Revista teologică, vol. XV, (1925), nos. 8–9, pp. 246–247; Mircea PĂCURARIU, The Links of the Church…, p. 52.

• 56

  Sterie STINGHE, Istoriia…, pp. 85, 87–88; Ștefan METEȘ, ‘The Relations between the Romanian Orthodox Church in Transylvania and the Romanian Principalities in the 18th Century’, in Revista teologică, vol. XV, (1925), nos. 8–9, pp. 246–247; Mircea PĂCURARIU, The Church’s Ties…, pp. 52–53.

• 57

  Sterie STINGHE, History…, p. 88; Nicolae DOBRESCU, History of the Church…, pp. 110–111; Ștefan METEȘ, Relations of the Romanian Church…, p. 248.

• 58

  Ștefan METEȘ, The Relations of the Romanian Church…, pp. 248–249; Mircea PĂCURARIU, The Ties of the Church…, p. 53.

• 59

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, History of the Church…, p. 111; Ștefan METEȘ, Relations of the Romanian Church…, p. 249.

• 60

  Sterie STINGHE, Istoriia…, pp. 100–102; Mircea PĂCURARIU, Legăturile Bisericii…, p. 53.

• 61

  Sterie STINGHE, Istoriia…, pp. 103–104; Ștefan METEȘ, Relațiile bisericii românești…, p. 249; Mircea PĂCURARIU, Legăturile Bisericii…, p. 54.

• 62

  Sterie STINGHE, Istoriia…, p. 111; Mircea PĂCURARIU, Legăturile Bisericii…, p. 54.

• 63

  Ștefan METEȘ, The Relations of the Romanian Church…, p. 250.

• 64

  Dr Sterie STINGHE, Documents concerning the history of the Romanians in Șchei (1700–1783), vol. I, Ciurcu & Comp. Press, Brașov, 1901, pp. 166–167; Ștefan METEȘ, The History of the Romanian Church…, p. 250.

• 65

  Sterie STINGHE, Documents concerning…, pp. 150–151; Ștefan METEȘ, The relations of the Romanian Church…, pp. 250–251; Mircea PĂCURARIU, The Church’s ties…, p. 54.

• 66

  Sterie STINGHE, Istoriia…, p. 118; Sterie STINGHE, Documente privitoare…, pp. 152–153; Ștefan METEȘ, The Relations of the Romanian Church…, p. 251; Mircea PĂCURARIU, The Ties of the Church…, p. 54.

• 67

  Sterie STINGHE, Documents relating to…, pp. XIV, 149–150.

• 68

  Sterie STINGHE, Documents relating to…, pp. XIV–XV, 153–154.

• 69

  Sterie STINGHE, Documents relating to…, pp. 159–160.

• 70

  Sterie STINGHE, Documents relating to…, pp. XV–XVI, 160–161.

• 71

  Sterie STINGHE, Documents relating to…, pp. 168–169; Mircea PĂCURARIU, The Church’s Connections…, p. 55.

• 72

  Mircea PĂCURARIU, The Church’s Connections…, p. 67.

• 73

  Sterie STINGHE, Documents relating to…, pp. 170–171; Ștefan METEȘ, The Relations of the Romanian Orthodox Church in Transylvania with the Romanian Principalities in the 18th Century, Published by the Archdiocesan Printing House, Sibiu, 1928, p. 42; Mircea PĂCURARIU, The Ties of the Church…, p. 55.

• 74

  Ștefan METEȘ, The Ecclesiastical Life of the Romanians in the Olt Region, Asociațiunii Publishing House, Sibiu, 1930, pp. 61–62.

• 75

  Silviu DRAGOMIR, The History of the Religious Emancipation of the Romanians of Transylvania in the 18th Century, vol. I, Published by the Archdiocesan Printing House, Sibiu, 1920, p. 116.

• 76

  Mircea PĂCURARIU, The Church’s Ties…, pp. 55–56.

• 77

  Ștefan METEȘ, The Relations between the Romanian Orthodox Church in Transylvania and the Romanian Principalities…, p. 42.

• 78

  V. MOLIN, ‘The Distribution of Books from Râmnic in Banat in the 18th Century’, in MO, vol. XIV (1964), nos. 11–12, pp. 866–869; Mihai MANOLACHE, Life and Work…, p. 751.

• 79

  Mircea PĂCURARIU, The Church’s Connections…, p. 89.

• 80

  V. MOLIN, ‘Area of Distribution…’, pp. 866–869; Mihai MANOLACHE, ‘Life and Work…’, p. 752.

• 81

  Barbu THEODORESCU, The Circulation of the Old Church Book…, p. 187.

• 82

  Barbu THEODORESCU, The Circulation of the Old Church Book…, p. 188.

• 83

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, History of the Church…, p. 112; Gheorghe MOISESCU et al., History…, p. 190; Mircea PĂCURARIU, The Church’s Connections…, p. 93.

• 84

  DIOCESE OF RÂMNICU NOUL-SEVERIN, Yearbook for the years 1921–1925, Bucharest, 1924, p. 300; † Gherasim CRISTEA, History of the Diocese of Râmnic, Conphys Publishing House, Râmnicu Vâlcea, 2009, p. 188.

• 85

  Nicolae DOBRESCU, History of the Church…, pp. 112–113; Nicolae Iorga states that Inochentie died on 12 April 1730 (N. IORGA, History of Romanian Literature…, p. 482, note 5).

• 86

  Gheorghe MOISESCU et al., History…, p. 191.

• 87

  Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese…, p. 134; N. IORGA, A History of Romanian Literature…, p. 482

• 88

  Mircea PĂCURARIU, The Diocese of Râmnic. 500 Years of History 1503–2003, Decebal Publishing House, Drobeta Turnu Severin, p. 33.

• 89

  Mihai MANOLACHE, Life and Work…, p. 754.