Further Details on the History of a Crime (II)

They began to hurl abuse at her, saying that they wanted nothing,
but that they intended to kill Her Holiness 1

As mentioned in a previous article 2, several documents held at the Central National Historical Archives have provided us with important information about the raid on the Surpatele Hermitage in Vâlcea County, by a gang of criminals, who beat several nuns and the abbess, Elisabeta, who died as a result of the blows she received. The file ‘3’, which we presented on that occasion, contained documents from September to December 1839, that is, from the period immediately following the tragic event (which took place on 10 September 1839) until the end of that year, by which time the robbers had already been identified, apprehended, investigated and sent by the Vâlcea Court to the High Criminal Court in Craiova to receive their sentences. We were unable to ascertain the fate of the guilty parties from the file in Bucharest, which ends in December 1839.

We discovered new and valuable information about this case, as well as the sentence handed down to the criminals, by researching other archival collections at the Vâlcea County Directorate of the National Archives; and, on this basis, we were able to piece together the sequence of events, the investigations carried out by various courts and the decisions taken to punish the guilty parties. Consequently, in this article we present and publish a selection of documents from the collections of the Vâlcea Tribunal and the Vâlcea Prefecture (written in Romanian, but using Cyrillic script typical of the period), where we also found a copy of the Craiova Divan, containing the court’s decision, handed down on 27 February 1840 4. In this context, it should be noted that the Court of First Instance did not have the jurisdiction to pass sentences in criminal matters, since, as stated in Article 1 of the 1832 Draft on the Jurisdiction of Courts and Divans in Criminal and Misdemeanour Cases: ‘In criminal cases, the Courts of First Instance shall not be able to deliver any kind of judgement, but shall confine themselves to conducting the necessary inquiries and investigations to ascertain the facts and identify the true culprit; they shall then refer those cases to the criminal divisions, which alone have jurisdiction to try them and deliver a judgement 5. And Article 3 specifies: ‘Courts of first instance shall not be permitted to interfere in any way whatsoever in the adjudication of criminal cases’5.

According to the Organic Regulations in force at that time, the Judicial Divans in Wallachia are higher courts than the Courts of First Instance, which hear appeals against the judgements of the Courts of First Instance. There were to be two Divans, one in Bucharest and the other in Craiova 6, the former having jurisdiction over 13 counties, and the latter over the five counties beyond the River Olt. The courts had two divisions: civil and criminal.

Consequently, from Râmnic, the case was referred to Craiova, where 16 robbers were tried together, as they had acted as a gang, some of them having robbed not only the hermitage but also other people; all were sentenced on the same day. However, as we shall see, the Divan’s decision was overturned following the intervention of the Prince of Wallachia, Alexandru Dimitrie Ghica. The culprits were from nearby villages, all in Vâlcea County: Serbănești (a village in the commune of Păușești), Păușești (a village in the commune of Păușești, Vâlcea), Cernele (a village in the commune of Păușești), Pietrarii de Jos (a village in Vâlcea County), Bujoreni and Olteni (villages in the commune of Bujoreni, Vâlcea), whilst the Surpatele hermitage is situated in the Otăsău Valley, in the commune of Frâncești, Vâlcea County.

Details regarding the robbery of the hermitage are provided in a statement 7 by the nuns of Surpatele, dated 11 September 1839, that is, the day after the incident. The document contained the testimonies of nine nuns and that of a young girl; it is of immense value, as among them we also find that of the late Mother Superior Elisabeta, who died a few days after the attack, on 15 September. The nuns who gave evidence were: Mother Superior Elisabeta, Macsimila, Macnisia, Epifania, Iulita, Cleopatra, Singlitichia, Eufrosina and Evghenia, whilst the little girl was called Anica; they were either victims or eyewitnesses to the attack that night.

A first observation we can make is that the nuns’ testimonies contained in the document dated 11 September coincide, complement one another and can be corroborated by the account given by Sister Platonida (the sister of the deceased and abbess of the Dintr-un Lemn Monastery) in November 1839 to Hrisant, the abbot of Horezu, as well as with the robbers’ confession from November of the same year; these documents are held at the Central National Historical Archives and were presented by us in our previous study.

The information provided by the nuns confirms that there were seven criminals; that, upon reaching the monastery gate, they split up, with one standing guard on the hill, others in the courtyard, others patrolling around the church, whilst four entered the quarters of the nuns Macsimila, Macnisia and Elisabeta, where Epifania was also present. They were armed with iron clubs, rifles, pistols and yataghans, and acted with extreme violence, beating the nuns Macsimila, Macnisia, Epifania and Elisabeta. They took money and belongings and were planning to attack the church as well, but were forced to leave sooner than they had intended, because Sister Singlitichia fled from the convent and alerted the villagers, who came running; the robbers then fired their rifles at them to keep them at bay: ‘Mother Singlitichia recounted that, upon hearing the commotion and going outside, they saw two men in front of the church, keeping watch and circling around […] And escaping from there, they ran to the gate and, opening the wicket, as they stepped outside, they pulled the wicket shut behind them. And then, the man who had seized her by the hands fired his rifle at her, and lo and behold, some 30 pellets struck her. And then, having escaped, they began to shout: ‘Thieves!’ At that moment, Gypsies and Romanians from the village rushed to the gate, only to find it locked by the thieves. They then began firing their pistols incessantly to scare them off8

Of particular importance is the statement by Abbess Elisabeta, who recounts that she was roused from her sleep by Sister Epifania, who told her that there were thieves in the convent and that they were assaulting Sisters Macsimila and Macnisia. Immediately, however, three criminals burst into her cell as well, beat her and took “some 5 or 6 thousand lei, which she had in imperial gold coins, rubles, holy coins and a few funduci’; and because people from the village had arrived and were making a commotion at the gate of the hermitage, they fled at once, for otherwise they would have had to search everywhere and even break into the church itself’9 The robbers probably wanted to frighten the abbess into handing over the money, for they told her they intended to kill her and that they had not come to rob, but to murder: ‘they began to curse her, saying they wanted nothing, but intended to kill Her Holiness’9. Although they took money and belongings, and the mother superior was willing to give them the money, begging them not to kill her, they continued to beat her violently: ‘seizing the Mother Superior, they began to beat her and throw her about the house […] afterwards they shoved her under the bed and dragged her out again, telling her to give them the money and open the chest, and Her Holiness, telling them that she could not open it, as her hands had been crushed by their blows, unless they broke the chest, they began to throw her about’10 The man who beat the nun was Ion Polică, who stated that he had struck her mercilessly, deliberately, at the instigation of his companions to beat her violently, to the point of death: “When askedabout the premeditated murder, and what had compelled them to commit it, they replied that they had not expected her to die, shifting the blame onto one another, claiming that they had been told not to beat her so badly. But Ion Polică, who had been inside, testified more clearly that he had obeyed his fellow men, following the words they had exchanged (in a murmur), and so they struck her without mercy’11”. Furthermore, Ion Polică also recalls that “Dincă Cucu said that one of them would die, whilst Pătru Săceanul said that she should be killed outright”12.

How many robbers should I catch, so that they may be put to death13

The Vâlcea County Court archives also hold a copy of the judgement handed down by the High Criminal Court of Craiova, on 27 February 1840, in the case of the band of robbers who had attacked the Surpatele hermitage, as well as other individuals in Vâlcea County. We note, first of all, that this case had been referred for trial to the Court in Craiova by the Vâlcea County Court of First Instance14, which had previously conducted its own investigations, taken statements from the perpetrators and compiled a case file. Sixteen people are now being tried together, seven of whom had attacked the hermitage, others had been accomplices, and others had also committed various offences. It was, therefore, a veritable gang, which had been operating in Vâlcea County for several years before being caught, having committed numerous offences. Our text begins by naming those who were to be tried, namely: ‘Petru, son of the deacon Mihai Soceanu of Șerbănești; Dumitru Vladului; Radu Buțul; Grigorie Buțul; Ion Lăzăroiul of Cernele; Ion Polică of Pietrarii de Jos; Dincă Cucu of Păușești; Gheorghe Manul of Pietrarii de Jos; Ion Bârlogeanul; Ion, son of Tănasie Tutunarul of Șerbănești; Ilie Entea of Pietrarii de Sus; Nuțu Lăzăroiul of Cernele; Ion Manu of Pietrarii de Jos; Mihai Alecsandrescu of Cernele; Ioniță Cojocaru of Bojoreni; Deacon Nicolae Iapă of Olteni”15.

Along with the guilty parties, several pieces of evidence had been sent to Craiova: the robbers’ confession, taken by the Craiova Magistrates’ Court, and the letter from the prosecutor of the Criminal Court, by which the guilty parties were sent to stand trial before the Court, but which did not contain: ‘any proposal on his part’16.

From the text we learn that the first seven guilty parties, in the order in which they are listed at the beginning, “confessed during all the investigations that they had raided the Surpatele hermitage, that they had assaulted the abbess there and two other nuns, of whom, after a few days’ illness, the abbess died, and that they had robbed them of the money and belongings found in their possession after their capture, which were seized by the authorities”17. They had also agreed with Gheorghe Manul of Pietrari and Ion Bârlogeanul to go together to attack the hermitage, but the latter two did not take part in the robbery, turning back on the way, as they had been seen by several women and feared they might be unmasked—information which we also find, incidentally, in the confessions of the robbers from December 1839, recorded at the Vâlcea County Court.

Furthermore, other robberies were tried at the High Divan, with sentences handed down on the same day, namely: the break-in (that is, the robbery) of the house of Nicolae Dogaru in Mănăilești, resulting in the theft of a necklace worth 32 sfanți from his wife and the wounding of Nicolae Dogaru’s son, who was left disabled as a result of his injuries. Dumitru Vladului, Radu Buțul, Ion Lăzăroiul and Nuțu Lăzăroiul took part in this robbery.

Four other individuals, namely: Dumitru Vladului, Radu Buțul, Grigorie Buțul and Ion sin Tănase Tutunaru, had attacked the house of village headman Ion Mâțul in Pietrari “from where they took the boxes containing the village’s money, following the prior discussion and agreement they had had with the latter”18, that is, with Gheorghe Manul and Ilie Entea. In addition to stealing the money, they had also shot a watchman, Vasile Moghică, “without, however, killing him, but merely wounding him”18.

Another case brought to trial concerned the robbery of Father Andrei of Zmeurât in 1832 by Ion Bârlogeanul, Radu Buțul, Grigorie Buțul, Ion Lăzăroiul, Ioniță Cojocaru and Deacon Nicolae Iapă, but the accused denied the charges, which had been admitted only by Ion Bârlogeanul at the start of the investigation.

Until the robbers were apprehended, it had been agreed that the victims would be compensated by the villagers – that is, the inhabitants of the villages of Pietrari and Zmeurât – who would subsequently recover their money from the criminals’ assets.

The High Criminal Court had asked the victims, as well as the villagers who had paid them compensation, to send representatives to Craiova to set out their financial claims against the robbers who had now been caught, after several years of carrying out attacks in the area. They were required to produce “a written statement from the entire village, certified in accordance with the regulations”19.

Consequently, in accordance with the requirements of the Craiova court, the Surpatele hermitage was represented by “Mother Macsimila as representative, one of the two nuns who had served alongside the late abbess, holding two letters of authorisation in her hand, one from the Reverend Archimandrite Hrisant Horezeanul, the trustee of the aforementioned hermitage, and the other from the current abbess’s20, though her name is not mentioned in the text. She stated, as we also recall from Chrysant’s report of December 1839 to the Vâlcea County Administration, that, regarding the abbess’s losses, she accepted the robbers’ own confession, as she could not know “whether the robbers had taken more items from her than they claimed”21. From the abbess’s statement of 11 September 1839, we learn how much money had been taken from her. At the same time, Macsimila testified that money and belongings had also been taken from her: 10 imperial gold coins, 60 pieces of cloth, 1 Russian scatulcă, purchased for three gold coins, and a receipt for five hundred lei, signed by the Bishop of Argeș.

Consequently, the claims made by the Surpatele hermitage were for the return of the money and the stolen items that had been found in the robbers’ possession, the return of the goods taken from Sister Macsimila, compensation for the costs incurred in providing medical care for the beaten nuns (payment for doctors and treatment—the application of leeches) and compensation for legal costs.

After hearing the guilty parties and the representatives of the victims, the Divan decided to sentence the robbers to death, invoking Chapter 2, Article 2, Part 5 of the Pravilă, the reference being made, as we can identify, to the Caragea Code, for our text states: ‘However many robbers are caught, they shall be put to death 22!’ Indeed, in the Caragea Code, in Part 5 entitled ‘On Offences’, in Chapter 2 entitled ‘On Robbers’, Article 2 specifies: ‘However many robbers I catch, they shall be put to death! 23’ And Article 1 defined who the robbers were: “Robbers are those who, armed, confront people or lie in wait for them on the roads or break into their homes and plunder and strip them”23 This explains the insistence with which, in the statements of the nuns, in the Divan’s judgement and in the confessions of the guilty parties—probably in response to an explicit question from the authorities—it is mentioned that they were armed, and the types of weapons used are even listed: rifles, pistols, iatagans, iron clubs. For example, in the Divan’s judgement we read that the robbers from Surpatele acted ‘carrying weapons with them whilst committing these offences’14 The same is specified for each of the other attacks individually. And in the statements of the monks, we read that the criminals were armed “with some iron clubs […] pistols and rifles […], a yatagan or large knife […] with a rifle on their backs […] they fired the rifle’24”.

Chapter 3 of the Caragea Statute states: ‘Whatever stolen goods are found on the robbers, they are to be investigated to determine whose they are and returned to their rightful owners’23). In accordance with this provision, the Divan of Craiova ordered the return of the money and goods stolen by the robbers to the monastery, whilst, in the case of compensation for the other victims, the money was to be recovered from the auction of the offenders’ property, actions undertaken by the authorities, as we learn from the other documents in the file.

In the case of the robbery at Surpatele, ‘seven of those found guilty were ordered to pay only the costs of the trial and the medical treatment of the injured nuns, which costs were set by the Divan at five hundred lei. As for the money and the stolen goods, since it is shown that these have been recovered from the aforementioned robbers and are currently held in safekeeping by the Honourable Administration of Vâlcea County, the hermitage there shall receive them’25 As for Gheorghe Manul and Ion Bârlogeanul, the Divan ruled that they should receive ‘the same corporal punishment as that imposed on the others, being exempt only from compensation, since they themselves did not take part in the robberies’26

Thus, the robbers were sentenced to death, the stolen goods and money were returned to the victims, and the sums collected by the villagers of those who had been robbed were paid from the assets sold at auction. The robbers also had to pay court costs, with amounts varying from case to case, as well as medical expenses for the treatment of the injured.

As for Ioniță Cârciumarul, Deacon Nicolae Iapă, Ion Manul and Mihai Alecsandrescu, ‘no grounds for blame arise in respect of any of the offences described above’25; therefore, the Divan acquitted them, “each to be set free on bail”25, invoking “Article 12 of the draft law on criminal and correctional matters”27.

The Divan read out the sentence in the presence of the convicted men and gave them the opportunity to lodge an appeal within six days: “we were also informed of the statutory six-day period for appeal”28; it appears that some of the convicted men waived this right, as they signed to indicate their satisfaction, and according to the Caragea Statute, Part 6, Chapter 4, Article 6: “Those of the defendants who sign the judgement to confirm their satisfaction may not lodge an appeal”29. Only Ion Bârlogeanul, Ion son of Tănase Tutunarul and Ilie Entea signed to state that they were not satisfied.

The commutation of the death sentence of the aforementioned ten guilty parties to life imprisonment in a penal colony 30

A document dated 3 February 1841 issued by Lord Alecsandru Dimitrie Ghica 31 “regarding the criminal trial of the arrested individuals […] for the acts of robbery and plunder which, whilst armed, committed by breaking into houses and causing injuries through gunfire’32 analyses several documents and judgements from various courts 33, handed down in the case of this gang of robbers, and, finally, decides the fate of the guilty parties. The Lord, invoking Article 298 of the Organic Regulations, decides: ‘Your Lordship, on the basis of the provisions of the aforementioned <laws>, we uphold the aforementioned judgement of the High Divan, with the death sentence of the aforementioned ten guilty parties being commuted to life imprisonment’34.

Indeed, Article 298 of the Organic Regulations stipulated: “Punishments involving the cutting off of hands or death, as well as torture or hard labour, are hereby abolished and rendered null and void, and may no longer be imposed from now on”35.

As for the accomplices Gheorghe Manu and Ilie Entea, the judge accepted the ruling of the High Divan of 7 September 1840: “as for the other two, Gheorghe Manu and Ilie Entea, he sentences them to be sent to the salt mines for five years, as accomplices of robbers”34. In their case, the punishment was based on the Caragea Code, which, in Chapter 5, stipulated: “As for those found to be harbouring robbers, they shall be investigated; and if, driven by fear, they took in the robbers and concealed them, they shall be pardoned; but if not, they shall be sentenced to five years’ hard labour”23.

The amendment to the sentence was therefore based on an article of the Organic Regulations which abolished the death penalty. Although Caragea’s Code was applied in Wallachia from 1 September 1818 until 1 December 1865, when Cuza’s Civil Code came into force, it was supplemented or amended in certain respects by several subsequent laws and provisions; and from May 1841, the entire Part V of the Code, which dealt with criminal offences—murder, robbery, etc.—36—was repealed. Moreover, the Prince’s intervention is also justified by the Caragea Act: ‘An appeal is defined as a petition lodged by the parties to the proceedings, requesting that the judgement of a lower court be reviewed by a higher court. The appeal shall be lodged by the parties to the proceedings by means of a written petition to His Highness, within a period of sixty days from the date on which the judgement was issued’37.

Furthermore, Article 14 of the 1832 Draft permitted the Prince to commute the sentence: ‘…the condemned person is worthy of being commended to the Prince’s mercy, for he alone has the authority to commute sentences’38

The file from the Vâlcea Court also contains documents relating to the details of the organisation of the auction of the robbers’ property, which are in turn important for understanding the stages and procedures involved. The inhabitants of the villages of Zmeurât and Pietrari were to be compensated from this money, as they had paid the victims (namely Popa Andrei and the village headman Ion Mâțul) the money stolen by the robbers. It is clear from the documents presented so far that the money and items stolen from the Surpatele hermitage had been found in the robbers’ possession, had been held in safekeeping by the authorities, and were to be returned to the monastery. In addition to this, the guilty parties were also to pay the legal costs and the medical expenses of the injured nuns.

The documents transcribed and presented in this article supplement the information regarding the tragic attack on the Surpatele hermitage on 11 September 1839, which resulted in the death of Abbess Elisabeta, but also present glimpses into the lives of the inhabitants of Vâlcea County at that time, traumatised by the raids organised by bands of robbers. At the same time, the stages involved in the apprehension and trial of the culprits, as well as the court proceedings, are highlighted. We also note the Craiova Divan’s attention to the fulfilment of formalities and trial procedures, for when it detected procedural irregularities, it requested further clarifying documents (it had not seen the formal documents drawn up in accordance with the regulations and requested the Court, i.e. the court of first instance, to rectify the omissions). As regards the trial procedure, we note that the Divan first examined the documents received, then questioned the accused, as well as the victims, and the representatives of the villages that had compensated those who had been robbed, until the robbers were apprehended. Following the investigations, the involvement of each of the 16 accused in the robberies under consideration was established, after which the sentence was handed down in accordance with the laws, citing the relevant articles. The Divan’s procedure complied with Article 14 of the Draft, which states: ‘In every case in which the defendant’s guilt is proven, the judges are obliged first to determine the nature of the offence, then to impose the sentence prescribed by the Code, without the slightest alteration’39 In February 1841, Alexandru Dimitrie Ghica ordered that those who had previously been sentenced to death be sent to hard labour for life, this time invoking the provisions of the Organic Regulations 40. From correspondence between the Prison Authority in Bucharest and the Department of Justice, we learn that the prisoners Ion Bârlogeanu and Ilie Entea fell ill and died in 1841. In 1844, Ion Polică complained of rheumatic pains, and in 1845 he was in the mental hospital 41.

APPENDIX 1

DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea Prefecture, 28/1839, ff. 6 r–7 v; 11 September 1839.

1. Mother Macsimila, one of those beaten, states that at around 5 or 6 [o’clock]42 at night, on the 10th of the current month, towards Monday, from […]42 she found four men in her house and was woken […]42 by two of them with some iron clubs, and of the […]42, two of them—one stood guard at the door, whilst the others, seizing the stool 43, threw it to the floor and smashed it, breaking the cups and other items inside.

Then, opening the chest, they took [...]44 made of cloth and as many as two macaturi 45 as well as a pair of brass inkwells, after the meal. And from there they went straight to the Mother Abbess, in groups of four. Their attire, he says, as far as he could see, was Serbian: with black trousers 46, short boots 47, and on their heads they wore fezzes with large tufts, some of them tied to their heads with red sashes. In addition to beating her with clubs, they also stabbed her lightly with a yatagan or a large knife. They were armed with pistols and rifles.

2. Mother Macnisia was in a similar state; she too was lying on her back, and one of the two men—the same one who had first beaten Mother Macsimila—beaten her in the same way.

3. Mother Stariță of the Surpatele hermitage also testified that, whilst she was asleep, one of the nuns, namely Epifania, woke her, telling her that there were thieves in the monastery and that they were attacking the nuns Macsimila and Macnisia. And so, upon waking, she did not dare to hide, fearing that she might suffer even worse. Whilst she was lost in such thoughts, and with the lamp still burning, she found herself face to face at the door with three of them; and as the door was locked, they kicked at it, and the child 48 leapt out and 42 chis. They did the same in the second room 49, where their holy relics were kept; upon entering, they first kicked the door and extinguished the candle, then, seizing the Mother Superior, they began to beat her and throw her about the house.

Then they told her not to kill her and, if they were asking for money or anything else, to look in the chest, for that is where it was. But they began to curse her, saying they wanted nothing, but only to kill her. After that, they shoved her under the bed and dragged her out again, telling her to give them the money and open the chest; but she told them she could not open it, as her hands were crushed by their blows, unless they broke the chest open, they began to thrash her again; and seeing this, they called out to that nun, Epiphania, mentioned earlier, to open it for them. Then, leaving her alone, they began to beat the latter, striking her with those iron clubs; and then, because she was too frightened to unlock the chest, they threw her down and struck her on the head as well.

And they broke open the chest and took from it some 5 or 6 thousand lei, which consisted of imperial gold coins, rubiele 50, sfanți 51 and a few funduci 52. And, because people from the village had arrived and there was a commotion at the gate of the hermitage, they fled immediately, for otherwise they would have had to search everywhere and even break into the church itself. They could not make out their appearance, due to the confusion, except that it seemed to them that one was tall, wearing trousers and a waistcoat 53 or something else short, reaching only to the waist.

4. Mother Epifania gave a similar account.

5. Mother Iulita also appeared; having heard the commotion and the screams of the nuns who were being beaten, she went outside to see what was happening. And, walking up to the porch 54 of the church, from there they saw two men standing at the top of the stairs, passing items from inside the house to one another. They were dressed in tight-fitting clothes—it is said they were German—and, thinking them to be the nuns who were screaming, they asked why they were screaming and frightening the Mother Superior, when, as they moved, they saw the brim of one of their caps glinting in the moonlight. And then, realising they were not nuns, she ran off screaming, whilst one of them gave chase until they had ushered her into her cell, from where, out of fear, they did not venture out again.

6. Mother Cleopatra also came out, for, having heard the cries from above, she went out to ask why she was screaming. When, suddenly, they came face to face with a man standing guard, constantly patrolling near the church, dressed in traditional Albanian attire, with a skirt and a cap, and a rifle slung over his back. And, seeing him, they rushed back into the cell. And just as he was about to break down the church door, one of them said to the other in Serbian, telling him to flee because a crowd had gathered at the gate. They might well have been soldiers, and so they gave up.

7. Mother Singlitichia testified that, upon hearing the commotion and going outside, they saw two men in front of the church, keeping watch and patrolling the area. They went to inform the abbess, where, as they stood by the door, they encountered three others, two of whom kicked the door open, entered and went to the abbess. One of them, who was wearing a cap, trousers and a jacket, with a rifle slung over his shoulder, grabbed her by the hands; she bit his hand, so they let her go, striking her only with the butt of the rifle. And escaping from there, she ran to the gate and, opening the wicket, as she stepped outside, the wicket shut behind her. Then the man who had grabbed her by the hands let go of the rifle and struck her with it, leaving what looked like about 30 bruises. And then, having escaped, they began to shout: ‘Thieves!’ And then, Gypsies and Romanians from the village rushed to the gate, only to find it locked by them. And they then began to fire their pistols incessantly, to scare them off. Then, one of them—who had been stationed at the top of the hill, in the woods on the lookout—fired a rifle, and at that, 55 they all got up and left.

8. Mother Eufrosina also recounts that, having heard the screams from the abbess’s quarters, where she was sleeping, she went outside and saw two men standing by the church. Then she cast off her monastic habit 56 and her headdress 57 and, wearing only her nightgown, she rushed out through the gate, where they were met by a man wearing black trousers, a red jacket, a fez on his head and a red sash tied round his head. And, seizing her by the hands, they began to ask her where the abbess was, and she said she did not know, for she was a Gypsy. And she bit him on the hand, and they let her go and fled through the gate.

9. Anica, a little girl of about 7 or 8, also says that two of them chased after her and she saw one dressed in blue clothes, a jacket and trousers, with his head completely bare, whilst the other was dressed in red clothes with a red fez, tied with a white headscarf, and carrying a rifle on his back.

10. Mother Evghenia also stated that, whilst standing at the window, she saw them as they got up and left, after a crowd had gathered at the gate; that there were seven men, one of whom wore a cap and a sheepskin coat—who was, it is understood, their guide—and that those seven were dressed as described by the other nuns: some with headscarves, others wearing fezzes with large plumes, and one wearing a cap; apart from these, there were others outside, standing guard; they heard one of them speaking Serbian, whilst others spoke Romanian.

11 September 1839

All this, according to the nuns’ accounts.

Deputy Governor N. Pleșoianu 58.

APPENDIX 2

DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea Court, 636/1839, ff. 160r–165v; copy, February 1840.

The Criminal Divan of Craiova

From the Court of First Instance of Vâlcea County, the following cases have been referred to this Court for judgement, namely:

1. Petru, son of59, the sub-deacon Mihai Soceanul of Șerbănești60
2. Dumitru Vladului
3. Radu Buțul
4. Grigorie Buțul
5. Ion Lăzăroiu of Cernele61
6. Ion Polică of Pietrarii de Jos62
7. Dincă Cucu of Păușești63
8. Gheorghe Manul of Pietrarii de Jos
9. Ion Bârlogeanul
10. Ion, son of Tănasie Tutunarul, from Șerbănești
11. Ilie Entea from Pietrarii de Sus64
12. Nuțu Lăzăroiul from Cernele
13. Ion Manu from Pietrarii de Jos
14. Mihai Alecsandrescu from Cernele
15. Ioniță Cojocaru from Bojoreni65
16. Deacon Nicolae Iapă from Olteni 66, all from Vâlcea County

Of whom some were accused of offences and acts of robbery, whilst others were merely suspected; the chief constable67 brought them before the Divan, where the following documents were read out in their presence:

– 18 December 1839, No. 28, the record of the aforementioned Court, together with the full report by 68 on the investigations conducted in this matter, from which it appeared that of the aforementioned sixteen people69, the first seven confessed during all the investigations that they had broken into the Surpatele Hermitage, that they had assaulted the abbess there and two other nuns, whereupon, after lying ill for several days, the abbess died, and that they had robbed them of their money and the belongings found in their possession following their arrest, which were seized by the authorities; they were also in possession of weapons whilst carrying out this raid, and the eighth defendant, as did the ninth, that they too had been persuaded to go with the other seven to raid the hermitage and that they had both set off in the evening to meet up with the others, carrying weapons with them, but, by chance, having come across some women in the forest, they fired a pistol at them and then, fearing they might be discovered, they returned to their homes, without even sharing the spoils amongst themselves, for the robbers caught up with us before they had a chance to divide the loot amongst themselves.

The second, third, fifth and twelfth also testified to this during all the investigations, for in groups of four they broke into the house of Nicolae Dogaru of Mănăilești70 whilst he was away, robbing his wife and one of his sons, who were at home, with a necklace of thirty-two saints; during this raid, whilst all were armed, they also shot Nicolae Dogaru’s son, who was left maimed.

Similarly, during all the subsequent investigations, the second, third, fourth, tenth, eighth and eleventh witnesses testified that the first four of them also raided the house of the village headman 71 Ion Mâțul of Pietrari, from where they took the boxes containing the village’s money in accordance with the prior agreement they had made with the latter two, who, although they were not present during the raid, but took their share of the loot along with the others; the four had weapons with them during the raid, and they shot a watchman who was on guard at the house of the village headman Vasile Moghică, though they did not kill him, but merely wounded him.

Furthermore, the ninth man specifically confessed, during three interrogations—namely at the Sub-Magistrate’s Office, at the Magistrate’s Office and before the District Court Prosecutor—that he, together with the third, the fourth, the fifth, the fifteenth, the sixteenth and others from the villages of Olteni and Bujoreni—whom they did not name—had also attacked the priest Popa Andrei from Zmeurât72 And all those named by him, defending themselves with denials that none of them had been present at that assault, ultimately, during the court’s investigation, he also retracted his statement, saying that neither he nor the others knew of having been present at the attack on the priest. As for the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth defendants, no grounds for indictment were found.

– 2 January 1840, No. 1 73 – a letter addressed to the Public Prosecutor of this Divan, by which he submits the documents pertaining to this case and the sixteen aforementioned individuals to the judgement of the Divan, without any proposal on his part.

Thereafter, the Divan also carried out the necessary investigations into all those named above, and each confirmed the statements they had made before the Magistrates’ Court, without any additions or alterations. Thereafter, the Divan noted that the Court had not made a clear assessment of the damages caused by the looting, nor had it referred to the Divan those entitled to compensation, but had merely referred to the aforementioned record of the Magistrates’ Court concerning the assault on the priest Popa Andrei of Zmeurât, stating that he had been pursued by robbers in the year 1832; and, as the robbers could not be identified in accordance with the rulings that had been issued, the villagers undertook to compensate the robbed priest for the damage caused. And the village was then to seek compensation from the robbers, once they were identified. The same procedure was followed in the case of the break-in at the house of Ion Mâțul, the village headman of Pietrari, and the theft of the boxes containing the village’s money; having given due consideration to these circumstances, the Divan instructed Mr the President of the County Court to send to the Divan Father Andrei of Zmeurât and three of the inhabitants of that village, with a written authorisation from the entire village, certified in accordance with the regulations; Ion Mâțul, the village headman from Pietrari, with similar representatives on behalf of all the inhabitants of the village of Pietrari, and Nicolae Dogaru from Mănăilești, and one representative from the Surpatele hermitage, so that each might set out their claims regarding the robberies committed by the aforementioned bandits.

And the replies from those chairmen were received, with which the undersigned are sent to the Divan, namely:

Priest Andrei of Zmeurât
, Ion ‘Ceaușul’ Mâțul of Pietrari
, Ion, son of Nicolae Dogaru of Mănăilești, in place of his father, who he states is very ill
; Deacon Ghorghe Mojoacă and
Andrei Coman, village elders representing the village of Zmeurât; as well as Gheorghe son of Grigore Stroiescul, the village elder representing the village of Pietrarii de Sus,

the aforementioned village elders having received recommendations and certificates from their fellow villagers, certified solely by the seals of the villages. And on behalf of the Surpatele hermitage, Mother Macsimila, one of the two nuns who had served alongside the late abbess, appeared as the representative, holding two letters of authorisation in her hand, one on behalf of the pious Archimandrite Hrisant Horezeanul, the trustee of the aforementioned hermitage, and the other on behalf of the current abbess. And all of them, appearing before the Divan with the robbers, were each examined regarding the damages and expenses they were entitled to claim from the robbers, and they stated:

1. The village elders of Zmeurât stated that they had compensated the priest, Popa Andrei, through the local sub-administration, with two thousand four hundred lei, which was the amount that Popa Andrei had stated had been taken from him by the robbers when theywere robbed, the said priest also testifying before the Divan that he had received the aforementioned sum of money from his fellow villagers. However, the aforementioned village elders were unable to produce any evidence from the authorities in the Divan to show that this money had been paid, nor did they provide any proof that they had paid it after the matter had been settled.

2. The village steward of Pietrari stated that this village had paid four thousand one hundred and forty-six lei and twenty parale, as compensation for the money taken by the robbers from the village chests, from the house of the village headman Ion Mâțul, which both the village and the said headman confirmed in the Divan, though <a> they too were unable to produce any evidence that they had accounted for the said sum of money, nor did they account for it after the investigation.

3. Ion, son of Nicolae Dogarul, stated that the robbers had actually attacked him and his mother whilst his father was away from home 74; at that time, one of the robbers shot him, leaving him with a scratched hand, as was also observed by the Divan, and that the robbers had taken from them thirty-two sfanți and a block of wax; the said man also produced a statement of the expenses he had incurred in this trial, as well as the treatment for the gunshot wounds and the examination by Dr75, amounting to two hundred and twenty-nine lei and twenty parale.

4. Mother Macsimila, the warden of the Surpatele hermitage, testified regarding the damages suffered by the late abbess, that she had claimed no more than the money and goods which the robbers themselves had admitted to taking; and as this money and these goods had been recovered from the robbers76 and are now in the custody of the county administration, as per a document which the aforementioned woman also presented to the Divan, since the abbess died following the torments inflicted upon her by the aforementioned robbers, and it cannot be known whether the robbers took more belongings from her than they themselves admitted.

And she herself has suffered a loss of:
– 10
imperial gold coins– 60 cubits of cloth
– 1 Russian chest, purchased for three gold coins, and–
1 receipt for five hundred lei, signed by Bishop Argeșu; this money and these items were also taken from her by the aforementioned robbers, when they assaulted her and her reverence, as well as her sister, who is still suffering to this day, presenting to the Divan a statement of the expenses incurred in this matter for doctors’ fees and payments to the doctor, the application of leeches to treat their reverend ones’ ailments and the journey to the County Court and here, amounting to six hundred and sixty-two lei and twenty parale.

– Ion Bârlogeanul, one of the robbers, who confessed during three interrogations that he had been present with others when the priest Popa Andrei of Zmeurât was attacked, defended himself with denials, as he had done at the first hearing, stating that he himself had not been present, nor did he know of anyone else who had been present at the time of the assault on the said priest.

– The robbers who confessed to being guilty of breaking into the house of Ion Mâțul, the village headman from Pietrari, stated that they would be liable only for the actual loss which would be duly established as having resulted from their taking the village chests at that time.

– The robbers who pleaded guilty to breaking into the house of Nicolae Dogarul of Mănăilești stated that they were aware of only twenty sfanți taken in a string of coins from the aforementioned break-in, but since Ion, Nicolae’s son, says that thirty-two sfinți were taken from them, they will pay thirty-two; as for the block of wax, they denied any knowledge of it whatsoever.

– The robbers who pleaded guilty to the raid on the Surpatele hermitage stated that they took nothing more from this raid than the money and goods which they had already handed over after being apprehended by the county authorities, and they denied all responsibility for the items still in the possession of Mother Macsimila.

Thereafter, the Divan, having considered all this, ruled that in the matter of the raid on the home of the priest Popa Andrei of Zmeurât and the house of the village headman Ion Mâțu of Pietrari, the village eldershad to present to the Divan the requisite evidence of the compensation to be paid by the villages, so that the Divan might know what liability for compensation to impose upon the guilty robbers who had committed these offences. Furthermore, the village elders’ statements were not formalised in accordance with the regulations; for this reason, the aforementioned elders returned to the County Court, writing to the President of that Court to first arrange for an investigation into the amount of money paid by each of the two aforementioned villages as compensation to those plundered by the robbers, and, once this investigation has been carried out, they have paid, and to report this to the Divan with all due clarity. And then, through the local Sub-Governor’s Office, to instruct both of the aforementioned villages to send to the Divan at least three village elders from each village, with their status as village elders set out in writing and certified by the Sub-Governor’s Office, in accordance with the regulations.

And a reply was first received from that Presidency, under No. 1212 of the 14th of the following month, by which it sent to the Divan two copies of the regulations 77 of the Honourable Prison Administration, but also one under No. 592 dated 7 March 1838, whereby, pursuant to the enlightened decree 78 of His Majesty, our Most High Lord 79, dated 14 February of the same year, under No. 46, it is ordered that the Court shall determine how many of the inhabitants of the village of Zmeurât can prove that they were in the village, at their homes, on the night when the priest Popa Andrei was attacked by robbers, and that they shall pay the priest compensation in the amount caused to him by those robbers, and that the village elders be punished with twenty-five lashes each in public, as those who had failed to fulfil the duties entrusted to them.

And the second copy, No. 1468, dated 6 June of the same year, in which the Court is informed that, in accordance with the decision of that Divan, No. 28, of the same year, as set out in the letter to the Honourable Department of Justice, No. 148, in addition to fulfilling the other provisions contained in that decision, it was to collect from the inhabitants of the village of Pietrari, by analogy, the amount of money that would have been in the chest when it was taken by the robbers from the house of the village headman Ion Mâțul, with the sole exception amongst all the villagers being Vasile Moghină, the watchman, who is not to be held liable for any payment, as he has suffered sufficiently from the wounds inflicted by the robbers’ gunfire; nevertheless, all the villagers shall pay, by analogy, one hundred and fifty lei to cover the expenses incurred. And when the true robbers are identified, they shall be required to compensate those concerned, both the villagers for the money they were then obliged to pay, and the village headman Ion Mâțul, for the money taken from him and for the expenses incurred. At the same time, a copy of a document from the priest Popa Andrei, for two thousand three hundred lei, was sent to the Divan, stating that this sum had been received from the inhabitants of the village of Zmeurât, and another document from the inhabitants of the village of Pietrari, for four thousand one hundred and forty-six lei, which they themselves had deposited in the box as the money plundered by the robbers, a fact also attested to by the current treasurers80 who received the money for safekeeping.

And with the second letter from the same Presidency, under No. 1354 of the 20th, also dated <Monday>, the following were received at the Divan, as recorded, namely:

– Deacon Gheorghe Mozoacă
– Vlad son of Dima Mănescu
and– Andrei Coman, representatives of the villagers of Zmeurât, their appointment endorsed by all the villagers of that village and certified on the reverse by the Sub-Governor’s Office of the Coziei region
– Gheorghe, son of Grigorie
Stroescul– Pavel, son of Costandin Mereș,
and– Ion, son of Grigore Motea, village representatives, with a similar mandate on behalf of the inhabitants of the village of Pietrari, also appearing before the Divan, and
– Ion, son of Nicolae Dogarul of Mănăilești, in place of his father, who is still ill –
the priest Popa Andrei of Zmeurât
and – the village headman Ion Mâțul of Pietrari.

And on behalf of the Surpatele hermitage, following two letters from the pious abbess, one dated the 8th and the other the 18th of this month, Mr Pitarul Băcănoiul of this village appeared as steward in place of Mother Macsimilia, all these stewards—who were in fact persecutors81— appeared with the robbers before the Divan; at the same time, Vasile Moghică, the watchman who had been shot by the robbers at the house of the village headman Ion Mâțul of Pietrari, also appeared, and the following were read out once more 82, in the presence of all83—all the documents proving the guilt of the accused and the loss suffered by those robbed, none of the others made any further proposals, except for Vasile Moghică the watchman, who stated that the villagers had not paid him the one hundred and fifty lei which they had been ordered to pay under the first ruling of this Divan, for his expenses, and he requested that this be settled now, testifying before the Divan, as did the aforementioned village elders of Pietrari, that, indeed, the said 150 lei, as determined by the Divan, had not been paid to the said watchman.

Thereafter, the Divan taking note that, by the ruling issued by this Divan in the year 1838, concerning the breaking into the house of the village headman Ion Mâțul,it was deemed appropriate that the said village headman should be compensated for the money which was then shown to have been taken from him by the robbers, together with the village’s money from the actual robbers, once they were identified, as well as for the expenses incurred; the Divan then proposed to the said village headman that he should swear an oath regarding the sum of money he knew had been taken from him at that time by the robbers, and he replied that he could not take an oath on any matter, preferring instead to accept the loss of the money taken from him, submitting only a document detailing the expenses incurred during these proceedings, amounting to one thousand thirty-six lei, and requesting reimbursement for these expenses; he also submitted to the Divan and the village elder of Pietrari a statement of the expenses incurred by the village during these proceedings, amounting to two thousand two hundred and seventy-three lei; likewise, the priest Popa Andrei of Zmeurât submitted a statement of expenses to the Divan, amounting to nine hundred and thirty-seven lei, as did the village elders of Zmioritul, amounting to nine hundred and eighteen lei.

Therefore, following the findings made through all the investigations that ensued, of the sixteen men named above, some are found guilty and others are suspected, as set out below, namely:

1. Pătrul, son of the sub-deacon Mihai Săceanul, found guilty according to his own confession and the testimony of the others, solely in relation to the raid on the Surpatele hermitage.

2. Dumitru Vladului, also found guilty, according to his own confession, of the offence committed by Ion Mâțul, at Nicolae Dogarul’s and at the Surpatele hermitage.

3. Radu Buțul, likewise found guilty in connection with the case of Ion Mâțul, that of Nicolae Dogarul and that of the hermitage, and regarding the assault on Popa Andrei of Zmeurât, merely suspected, according to the testimony of Ion Bârlogeanul, but he himself denies it, claiming he was not present at that assault.

4. Grigorie Buțul, likewise guilty of the raid on the village headman Ion Mâțul’s house and on the hermitage; as for the raid on Popa Andrei’s house, he is merely suspected, according to Bârlogeanul’s testimony.

5. Ion Lăzăroiul, found guilty of the raid on Nicolae Dogarul’s house and on the hermitage; as for the raid on Priest Andrei’s house, he was again merely suspected, just like Radu and Grigorie, mentioned above.

6. Polică, found guilty only of the raid on the hermitage.

7. Dincă Cucul, likewise found guilty, again only of the raid on the hermitage.

8. Gheorghe Manul, found guilty only of having set out to join the raid on the hermitage, but they did not manage to get there; instead, they returned home because of those two women they met on the way, fearing that they might be found out by them; he did not share in the loot either, because the robbers were caught before they had a chance to divide the spoils amongst themselves.

9. Ion Bârlogeanul, solely responsible for the assault on the priest Popa Andrei of Zmeurât, according to his own confession made during the on-site investigations, at the Magistrate’s Court and before the District Court Prosecutor. Then, seeing that all those he had named as his companions in that raid appeared and denied the charges, he too retracted his statement at the Court, as well as here in the Divan, denying that they had been there, nor even at Manul’s house, for both had set off together to carry out the raid on the hermitage, in accordance with the prior agreement they had made with the robbers, and had returned home because of those women.

10. Ion son of Tănase Tutunarul, found guilty only of the break-in at Ion Mâțul’s house.

11. Ilie Entea, guilty of the raid on the house of Ceaușul Ion Mâțul, because, although he was not personally present when the raid took place, it was at his instigation that the others went and carried out the raid. Furthermore, he himself took a share of the money looted during the raid, along with the robbers.

12. Nuțul Lăzăroiu, guilty only of the assault on Nicolae Dogarul.

13. Ion Manul and

14. Mihai Alecsandrescu: neither of them has been named by any of the aforementioned robbers as having taken part in any robbery.

15. Ioniță Cârciumarul and

16. Deacon Nicolae Iapă are known only to be suspected of the robbery of Popea Andrei ot Zmeurât, based solely on the testimony of Ion Bârlogeanul, the sole confessor of that robbery, whilst they themselves deny it.

Therefore, in accordance with the charges against each and their respective roles in the commission of the offences, the Divan rules:

I.84 Regarding the offence committed against the priest, Father Andrei of Zmeurât, since, under the circumstances described, Ion Bârlogeanul alone has been proven to be the perpetrator of this offence, he alone shall compensate, out of his own wealth, the inhabitants of the village of Zmeurât, with the sum of two thousand three hundred lei, which is proven to have been paid to the priest, Popa Andrei, for the same amount that was taken from him by the robbers whoplundered him, and the said Ion shall also compensate the aforementioned villagers for the expenses incurred during this trial, which were determined by the Divan, amounting to four hundred lei, as well as the priest Popa Andrei for the costs of his prayer service (85), determined by the Divan to be three hundred lei. And furthermore, the aforementioned Ion Bârlogeanul is to be subjected to the punishment prescribed by law in Part 5, Chapter 2, Article 2, which states: ‘However many robbers are caught, they shall be put to death!’

II. For breaking into the house of the village headman Ion Mâțul of Pietrari, I hereby declare the following to be guilty, in accordance with the circumstances described:
Dumitru Vladului
, Radu Buțul
, Grigorie Buțul and
Ion, son of Tănase Tutunarul,

namely, the four of them broke into the house of village headman Ion Mâțul in accordance with the agreement they had made with:
Gheorghe Manul and
Ilie Entea, who, although they were not present at the break-in, yet admitted themselves that they too had taken a share of the stolen money alongside the four, the four perpetrators of the break-in having been armed, one of them even shooting Vasile Moghică, who was on guard at Ion Mâțul’s house.

Consequently, these six individuals, who are all equally guilty of committing the aforementioned offence, shall compensate the villagers of Pietrari with four thousand one hundred and forty-six lei, which shall be proven byhad been deposited in the box in place of the money taken by the robbers at the time of the offence, with the six named guilty parties also paying the costs incurred by the aforementioned villagers during the course of this trial, as determined by the Divan, amounting to one thousand lei, as well as the expenses of the village headman Ion Mâțul, which were again determined by the Divan to amount to five hundred lei, and those of Vasile Moghică, the watchman who was shot, amounting to one hundred and fifty lei, his expenses, which having been determined by this Divan as far back as the year 1838, are to be paid to him by the villagers until such time as the robbers prove that they have not yet paid him any of that money. And furthermore, the six named accused robbers shall be subjected to the same sentence as laid down in the Pravilă, Part 5, Chapter 2, Article 2, as was the case with Ion Bârlogeanul […]86.

III. For breaking into the house of Nicolae the Cooper, and again in accordance with the circumstances described, the following are to be declared guilty:
Dumitru Vladului
, Radu Buțul
, Nuțul Lăzăroiul and
Ion Lăzăroiul

during which, whilst all were armed, they shot a watchman, as well as Ion, the son of Nicolae Dogarul, who [is]87 and now disfigured; for which the aforementioned four guilty parties are hereby ordered to pay to Nicolae Dogarul seventy-two lei, which they themselves have confessed to having taken in a necklace, consisting of thirty-two coins, as well as two hundred and twenty-eight lei to cover the costs determined by the Divan, from the sum stated by his son Ion, the injured party. And furthermore, Nuță Lăzăroiul and Ion Lăzăroiul are to be subjected to the same corporal punishment as the others mentioned above, as prescribed by the law, in Part 5, Chapter 2, Article 2. And

IV. For the violation of the Surpatele hermitage, for which, once again, in the circumstances described, the following are found guilty:
– Pătru, son of Deacon Mihai
Soceanul– Dumitru
Vladului– Grigorie
Buțul– Radu
Buțul– Ion Lăzăroiul
– Ion, son of Grigorie Polică,
and– Dincă Cucul, for they broke into the Surpatele hermitage, where they assaulted the abbess and the other two nuns; after lying ill for several days, the abbess subsequently died. And that they robbed them of the money and belongings found in their possession, which were seized by the authorities following their arrest, as also testified by the nun Macsimila, the hermitage’s steward, during her appearance before the Divan, for which the seven named defendants are ordered to pay only the costs of the trial and the medical treatment of the aggrieved nuns, which costs were determined by the Divan to amount to five hundred lei. As for the money and goods that were plundered, since it has been established that these were taken by the aforementioned robbers and are currently held in safekeeping by the Honourable Administration of Vâlcea County, the hermitage shall receive them from there.

And furthermore, the following shall also be:
– Pătru, son of the sub-deacon Mihai Soceanul
; – Ion, son of Grigorie Policul;
and – Dincă Cucul – shall be subject to the same sentence prescribed by law for robbers, as shall their other accomplices named above.

As for Gheorghe Manul Anghelescul, it is evident from his own confession that he too had spoken with the aforementioned seven robbers about going together with Ion Bârlădeanul to raid the hermitage, and that they both set off in the evening to meet up with the other robbersbandits; and by chance, whilst meeting some women in the forest, they fired a pistol at them; and subsequently, fearing they might be discovered, they returned to their homes, having taken no part in the plunder; as the blame for this lay equally with him and the other seven perpetrators of the raid on the hermitage, he too is subject to the same corporal punishment meted out to the others, being exempt only from compensation, since he himself took no part in the looting.

And as for:
– Ioniță
the Innkeeper– Deacon Nicolae
Iapă– Ion Manul and–
Mihai Alecsandrescu

The Divan rules that, since no grounds for incrimination have been found against them in connection with any of the offences described above, they shall each be granted four days’ leave, on bail, in accordance with Article 12 of the draft law on criminal and misdemeanour cases.

27 February 1840

[…]44 D. President K. Niculeanu,
N. Presineanul
, Registrar N. […]44

Today, the twenty-seventh of February, in the year 1840, this judgement of the honourable Divan having been read aloud, we were also informed of the statutory six-day period for appeal.

– Pătru, son of the sub-deacon Mihai Soceanul – I am
satisfied – Dumitru Vladul – likewise
satisfied – Radu Buțul –
likewise – Grigorie Buțul –
likewise – Ion Lăzăroiul – likewise
– Ion Polică –
likewise – Dincă Cucul –
likewise – Gheorghe Manul –
likewise – Ion Bârlogeanul – I am not
satisfied – Ion, son of Tănase Tutunarul –
likewise – Ilie Entea – likewise
– Nuțul Lăzăroiul – I am
satisfied – Ion Manul –
likewise – Mihai Alecsandrescu –
likewise – Ioniță Cârciumarul – likewise
– Deacon Nicolae Iapă –
likewise – Baker Băluță Băcănoiu, the steward representing the Surpatele hermitage, is satisfied –
Priest Andrei, likewise
satisfied – Ceaușul Ion Mâțul, likewise
– Deacon Gheorghe Mozoacă <and> Vlad, son of Dima Mănescul – stewards representing the village of Zmeurât, we are
satisfied – Andrei Coman, Gheorghe, son of Grigorie Stroescul, Pavel, son of Costandin Mereș, Ion, son of Grigorie Popea, village elders representing the village of Pietrari, we are satisfied
– Ion, son of Nicolae Dogarul, I am satisfied
. Treasurer Ioan, the Divan’s lawyer, witness
. For a true copy, M. Mihăescu73

The Grand Logothete of Justice – The Logothete certifies that this copy is a true copy of the judgement of the Honourable Criminal Divan of Craiova. February 1841.

Director A. Racoviță
Head of the Panel N. Brătian 73

ANNEX 3

DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea Court, 636/1839, f. 159 r-v.

We, Alexandru Dimitrie Ghica, voivode
by the grace of God, ruler of the whole of Wallachia,
of the Department of Justice,

Regarding the criminal case against the arrested men: Pătru, son of Deacon Mihai Soceanu, and Dumitru Vladului, Radu Buțul and Grigore Buțul of Șerbănești, and Ion Lăzăroiul of Cernele, Ion Polică of Pietrari, Dincă Cucul of Păușești, Gheorghe Manu, Ion Bârlogeanul of Pietrari, Ion, son of Tănase Tutunarul, of Șerbănești, and Ilie Entea of Pietrarii de Sus, and Niță Lăzăroiu of Cernele, all from Vâlcea County, for the acts of robbery, assault and plunder which they committed whilst armed, involving beatings, wounding and shootings, sometimes one group, sometimes another, as they organised themselves into bands; however:

1. Against the priest Andrei, of the village of Zmeurât, for whom his fellow villagers paid compensation of two thousand three hundred lei; for the same number of others who had been robbed by Ion Bârlogeanul, one of the aforementioned bandits, who refused to name those who had been with him during that raid.

2. Four of them raided the house of Ion Mâțul, the village headman (88) of the village of Pietrari, during which they shot and wounded one of the robbers, a certain Vasile Moghimă, who was acting as guard at the village headman’s house; from which house the robbers took the boxes containing the village’s money, a share of which was given to Gheorghe Manul and Ilie Entea, who were not present during the raidwere present, and for which <money> the villagers were obliged to repay by depositing back into the boxes four thousand one hundred and forty-six lei, in place of the money the robbers had taken at the time of the robbery.

3. Four of them attacked Nicolae Dogarul of the village of Mănăilești, robbing his wife of a necklace worth thirty-two saints, during which they shot and wounded Ion, the son of Nicolae Dogarul, and a guard, who remain maimed to this day, and

4. Seven of them attacked the Surpatele hermitage, where they assaulted the abbess and two other nuns; the abbess, after lying ill for a few days, died, whilst they plundered the hermitage of money and goods, which, upon being found in their possession, following their arrest, were taken into the custody of the Vâlcea Administration, where they remain.

Having regard to the judgement of the High Divan, Section I, dated 7 September of the year <1840>, No. 37, sentencing ten of them to death, namely: Pătru Diaconul Mihai, Dumitru Vladului, Radu Buțul, Grigorie Buțul, Ion Lăzăroiul, Ion Polică, Dincă Cucul, Ion Bârlogeanul, Ion sin Tănase and Nuțu Lăzăroiul, pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 2, Part 5 of the code; whilst the other two, Gheorghe Manul and Ilie Entea, are sentenced to five years’ hard labour, as a gang of robbers, since they were merely in league with those four who broke into the village headman’s house and shared in the spoils, but did not themselves take part in the break-in. And from the collective assets of all the accused, compensation is to be paid both to the villages of Zmiuritu and Pietrari, for the money they paid on their behalf and for their expenses, and to those who were robbed and injured, in accordance with the ruling of the Criminal Court of Craiova. As for Ion Manu of Pietrarii de Jos, Mihai Alecsandrescu of Cernele, Ioniță Cojocaru of Bojogeni and Deacon Nicolae Iapă of Olteni, suspected of having colluded with some of the aforementioned robbers, in relation to some of the aforementioned offences, are acquitted as no evidence of their guilt has been established

Having examined the report of that Department, No. 8292, dated 2 November of the year now past <1840>,

Taking into account that this decision of the aforementioned section of the High Divan is signed by […]44, is valid and has been duly executed in accordance with the law,

Having regard to Article 8 of the Act on the Judicial Divans, the High Divan and the High Court of Appeal, and Article 298 of the Organic Regulations,

I, on the basis of the provisions of the aforementioned <laws>, hereby confirm the aforesaid judgement of the High Divan, commuting the death sentence of the aforementioned ten convicts to life imprisonment.

The Head of the Department of Justice shall carry out this command of ours.

Followed by the signature of His Highness the Prince; No. 98, 3 February 1841.

Signed: Grand Logothete of Justice, Barbu Știrbei;
Certified by Nae Brătianu

The Grand Logothete of Justice – The Logothete certifies that this copy is a true copy of the original, 13 February 1841.

Signed: Director A. Racoviță; Head of the Office N. Brătianu;44
, certifying that this is a true copy [...]

* Central National Historical Archives (ANIC), Ministry of Agriculture and Estates. Minor Assets, 10/1839, f. 10 r.

Imagine

• 1

  Vâlcea County Directorate of the National Archives (DJAN), Vâlcea Prefecture, Vâlcea Prefecture, 28/1839, fol. 7v.

• 2

  Oana-Mădălina Popescu, ‘The thieves who murdered the abbess of Surpate have been identified. Further details on the history of a murder (I)’, in Martyria, 2/2018, pp. 78–90.

• 3

  Central National Historical Archives (ANIC), Ministry of Agriculture and Estates. Minor assets, 10/1839.

• 4

  DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea County Court, 636/1839, ff. 160r–165v.

• 5a5b

  The draft law on the jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts and divans in criminal and misdemeanour cases, in the ‘Buletin. Official Gazette’, No. 3 of 22 December 1832.

• 6

  The Organic Regulations of Wallachia and Moldavia, ed. Paul Negulescu and George Alexianu, Bucharest, Întreprinderile Eminescu, 1944, p. 114, Articles 267 and 268.

• 7

  Tacrir – report, memorandum, statement. Augustin Scriban, Dictionary of the Romanian Language..., p. 1293.

• 8

  DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea Prefecture, Vâlcea Prefecture, 28/1839, f. 6.

• 9a9b

  DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea Prefecture, Vâlcea Prefecture, 28/1839, fol. 7v.

• 10

  DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea Prefecture, Vâlcea Prefecture, 28/1839, f. 7 v.

• 11

  ANIC, Ministry of Agriculture and Estates. Smallholdings, 10/1839, f. 10.

• 12

  ANIC, Ministry of Agriculture and Estates. Minor assets, 10/1839, f. 19.

• 13

  The Caragea Code, ed. Andrei Rădulescu, Bucharest, RPR Academy Press, 1955, p. 142.

• 14a14b

  DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea County Court, 636/1839, fol. 160r.

• 15

  DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea County Court, 636/1839, fol. 160 r.

• 16

  DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea County Court, 636/1839, fol. 161r.

• 17

  DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea County Court, 636/1839, fol. 161v.

• 18a18b

  DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea County Court, 636/1839, fol. 163r.

• 19

  DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea County Court, 636/1839, fol. 162r.

• 20

  DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea County Court, 636/1839, fol. 162v.

• 21

  DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea County Court, 636/1839, folio 162v.

• 22

  DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea County Court, 636/1839, fol. 164r.

• 23a23b23c23d

  Caragea’s Legislation…, p. 142.

• 24

  DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea Prefecture, 28/1839, ff. 6–7.

• 25a25b25c

  DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea County Court, 636/1839, fol. 165r.

• 26

  DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea County Court, 636/1839, fol. 165 r.

• 27

  DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea County Court, 636/1839, fol. 165r. On 23 November 1833, the 1832 Act concerning the abolition of magistrates’ courts and Divans in criminal and misdemeanour cases was ratified. See Bulletin. Official Gazette No. 3 of 22 December 1832.

• 28

  DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea County Court, 636/1839, fol. 165v.

• 29

  Caragea’s Law..., p. 180.

• 30

  DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea County Court, 636/1839, folio 159v.

• 31

  Alexandru Dimitrie Ghica, the first constitutional prince of Wallachia: April 1834–October 1842.

• 32

  DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea County Court, 636/1839, fol. 159r.

• 33

  The ruling of the High Divan of 7 September 1840, the report of the Department of Justice of 2 November 1840, and having regard to Article 298 of the Organic Regulations and Article 8 of the Legislation on the Judicial Divans. DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea Court, 636/1839, fol. 159v.

• 34a34b

  DJAN Vâlcea, Vâlcea County Court, 636/1839, fol. 159v.

• 35

  The Organic Regulations of Wallachia and Moldavia..., p. 117.

• 36

  See details of these new documents in the editors’ notes, Legiuirea Caragea…, p. 235.

• 37

  Caragea’s Legislation…, p. 180.

• 38

  The draft law on the jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts and divans in criminal and misdemeanour cases, in Buletin. Official Gazette, No. 3 of 22 December 1832.

• 39

  The draft law on the jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts and divans in criminal and misdemeanour cases, in the Bulletin. Official Gazette, No. 3 of 22 December 1832.

• 40

  The Criminal Code adopted in March 1841 – one month after the prince’s sentence – stipulated that the penalties for criminal offences were: death (by hanging or firing squad), hard labour for life or for a fixed term, imprisonment, flogging, etc., whilst the Criminal Code of 1850 reiterated these punishments but specified that the death penalty was to be carried out by beheading or by firing squad. See the Criminal Code, Bucharest, 1841, p. 1, and the Criminal Code with its Procedures, Bucharest, 2nd ed., 1852, pp. 6–7.

• 41

  ANIC, Ministry of Justice and Criminal Affairs, 215/1840, ff. 37, 39, 48, 61.

• 42a42b42c42d42e

  A gap in the text.

• 43

  Scatoalca – a small chest or box. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 1166.

• 44a44b44c44d44e

  Illegible.

• 45

  Macat – a thin bedspread. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 1028.

• 46

  Poturi – a type of baggy trousers. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 1028.

• 47

  Ghebă (cebă) – a peasant’s cloak. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 263.

• 48

  Copil – a hook, a latch on which the door is fastened. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 345.

• 49

  the second room, in the text.

• 50

  Rubia (rubiele) – an old Turkish gold coin. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 1140.

• 51

  Sfanț (Sfanți) – an old Austrian silver coin. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 1193.

• 52

  Funduc – a Turkish gold coin. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 533.

• 53

  Spencer (spențer) – (named after Lord Spencer, who introduced the fashion) – a short coat without a hem. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 1228.

• 54

  Advon, anvon – the pulpit from which sermons are preached in church. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 109.

• 55

  Aridica – to lift. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 121.

• 56

  Antereu – a long, thin coat. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 105.

• 57

  Propod (probod, brobod) – head covering, kerchief. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 197.

• 58

  Autograph signature, probably from a lecture.

• 59

  Răzdiacon – a deacon who has been dismissed. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 1102.

• 60

  Șerbănești – a village in the commune of Păușești, Vâlcea County. Melentina BÂZGAN, Index of Medieval Settlements in Wallachia up to 1831, Bucharest, Cartea Universitară, 2004, p. 97.

• 61

  Cernele (Cernelile) – a village in the commune of Păușești, Vâlcea County. Melentina BÂZGAN, Index of Localities..., p. 31.

• 62

  Pietrarii de Jos – a village in Vâlcea County. Melentina BÂZGAN, Index of Localities..., p. 76.

• 63

  Păușești – a village in the commune of Păușești, Vâlcea County. Melentina BÂZGAN, Index of Localities..., p. 75.

• 64

  Pietrarii de Sus – a village in Vâlcea County. Melentina BÂZGAN, Index of Localities..., p. 76.

• 65

  Bojoreni (Bujoreni) – a village in the commune of Bujoreni, Vâlcea County. Melentina BÂZGAN, Index of Localities..., p. 20.

• 66

  Olteni – a village in the commune of Bujoreni, Vâlcea County. Melentina BÂZGAN, Index of Localities..., p. 72.

• 67

  Aprod – an officer who brought the parties involved before the court; chief steward, commander. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, pp. 114, 1396.

• 68

  Delă – entry. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language..., p. 400.

• 69

  Lude (liude) – people. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language, p. 752.

• 70

  Mănăilești – a village in the commune of Frâncești, Vâlcea County.

• 71

  Ceauș – captain, bailiff or police officer. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 255.

• 72

  Zmeurât – a village in the commune of Stoenești, Vâlcea County. Melentina BÂZGAN, Index of Localities..., p. 111.

• 73a73b73c

  A likely lesson.

• 74

  Overwritten.

• 75

  Periciune – decay.

• 76

  Written in interlinear form.

• 77

  Otnoșenie – press release, official report. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 916.

• 78

  Ofis – princely decree. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 894.

• 79

  This refers to Alexandru Dimitrie Ghica, the first constitutional prince of Wallachia (1834–1842).

• 80

  Those who looked after the village chest.

• 81

  Meaning ‘those who are in dispute’. ‘Prigonire’ means ‘litigation’. ‘I am in dispute’ – ‘I am litigating’. ‘Prigonitoare părți’ – ‘those who are in dispute’. Legiuirea Caragea…, p. 154.

• 82

  De iznoavă – again. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 668.

• 83

  all instances in the text.

• 84

  In the text, Arabic numerals have been replaced by us with Roman numerals, so as not to cause confusion with the numbers above.

• 85

  Meaning ‘His Holiness’.

• 86

  Illegible; a blank space in the text.

• 87

  A smudge in the text.

• 88

  Preceded by Nicolae, deleted.