This is the Centenary year, a time when our thoughts naturally turn to all those involved in bringing about the Great Union, from kings to subjects, from political figures to ordinary people, from church leaders to ordinary Christians. Some time ago, I attempted to retrace the convoluted and, in places, still obscure path of the institutionalisation of the work of icon painters 1, at which point I discovered that, as signatories to various decrees and laws, the country’s monarchs, alongside cultural figures, patriarchs and metropolitans, were at the helm of the relevant ministry at that time. At the time, I was struck by the discovery of a law, issued in 1925 (when Alexandru Lapedatu was at the helm of the Ministry of Religious Affairs and the Arts), and enacted in 1926, a law which provided for ‘the preservation of ancient church paintings and the establishment of a school for painters’.
Later, whilst studying the decisions of the Synods of the Romanian Orthodox Church, I came to realise that the phrase ‘the school in the church porch’ is most fitting in this case, since the first to call for the establishment of a ‘school of Byzantine church painting’ were not men of letters, but the bishops of the 1924 Synod; their initiative constituted a significant milestone in the development of Romanian Christian art. This study aims to highlight a few rungs of this veritable ladder, which rose from the complete neglect of Byzantine-tradition painting, to its gradual rediscovery, culminating in the establishment of a genuine school; amongst these steps, a legislative proposal concerning the founding of a school of Byzantine ecclesiastical painting had a major impact despite being a minor step…
The year 1876 – the ‘restoration’ of the Metropolitan Church in Curtea de Argeș
The first step towards ‘waking up to reality’ and the beginning of the rediscovery of the Romanian painting tradition was triggered by the so-called restoration process of a valuable architectural monument, the Metropolitan Church in Curtea de Argeș – an endeavour which highlighted a major shortcoming in Romanian ecclesiastical painting at the end of the nineteenth century, namely the impossibility of finding a Romanian painter capable of creating the new pictorial ensemble.
For various reasons, a French architect, André Lecomte du Noüy, trained within an entirely different spiritual and cultural context, had been chosen to restore to its former splendour a centuries-old testament to the aesthetic excellence achieved by Romanian art in 1517. Thus, one of the most valuable artistic testaments to Romanian mural painting was entrusted to a Frenchman, trained in the school of decorative art characteristic of the luxury promoted by the empire of Napoleon III, a fact which explains why only scattered fragments 2 have survived, selected by the ‘restorer’, and catalogued ‘comme de curieux spécimens de la véritable peinture byzantine’3 It is interesting to note that, at the time, André Lecomte du Noüy was considered the person best placed to decide what should be preserved and what should be destroyed, his ideas being endorsed by the cultural figures of the day: Titu Maiorescu, Alexandru Odobescu, Dimitrie Sturdza, Mihail Kogălniceanu and Ion Ghica, who were themselves overwhelmed by the personality of Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, André Lecomte du Noüy’s mentor 4.
But the next step – namely, the creation of this new style of painting – was to bring to light the fact that, ‘towards the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th, the number of church painters in our country had fallen sharply…’5 – so much so that, at the end of the discussions, two French decorative painters, F. Nicolle and Charles Paul Renouard, were called upon. It was as though, in liturgical terms, one had called upon the services of Protestant pastors to read the order of service set out in the Orthodox liturgical books; for this reason, however well-meaning they might be, they could only remain on the surface of the letter, but without partaking of the sweetness of the Spirit.
The gulf between traditional Romanian painting and the artistic tastes of the intellectuals of that era proved to be ever wider, a fact that became evident when Mr Socec requested that the Holy Synod accept several so-called ‘icons’ from him—a synod of an autocephalous Orthodox Church seeking to assert its status.
22 November 1889 – Meeting of the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church
Following discussions for and against the manner in which an icon should appear, Bishop Partenie asked the Holy Synod to take ‘a decision on the matter of the iconography of our Church in general’, emphasising that ‘the Romanian Church, the daughter, or so to speak, sister of the Great Church of Constantinople – has embraced the Byzantine style in painting, architecture and liturgical ornamentation since the very earliest days of the emergence of these fine arts within the Christian Church. Since then, they have been the object of veneration for the Romanian people. It is with sadness, however, that we have observed that for some time now this Byzantine style has begun to be driven out of the church and replaced with new models unknown to the Romanian people—models which, moreover, are largely at odds with our religious and national sentiment. In our times of misfortune, when the country lacked a sense of self and of what it ought to possess and preserve, it was possible for the sellers of these objects and for the painters – more or less reputable in the best sense of the word – to peddle their wares; but the country, now reawakened, wishes to reclaim all its rights, and we gladly welcome this development that is set to take place in society. It is also for this reason that the Holy Synod was established, so that it, the highest authority of the Church, may oversee the Church’s progress so that it does not stray from its former path, from the true path of the Gospel and the decisions of the Church Fathers. The Holy Synod, however, is not only entitled, but indeed duty-bound, to ensure that the Church remains steadfast in the doctrine of its Divine Founder and preserves the rulings and decisions of the Councils. To foster religious sentiment—or rather, to cement this sentiment and bind it even more closely to the figures who have been adored and venerated in the Church since time immemorial— the Church has opened its doors to the fine arts, namely: painting, architecture and ornamentation. Through these arts, it has passed on to future generations a vivid image of the Divine and of all the heroes of the Church. Having established this, I believe that the need to preserve the Byzantine style is self-evident; and the Holy Synod, which is duty-bound to preserve the sacred treasure as the Church and the Synods have enriched it, is likewise duty-bound to ensure that nothing foreign is introduced into the Church (author’s note)’6
In response to the request from those who had asked the Holy Synod to exercise, through the Bishops, control over the paintings to be introduced into the Church, Bishop Partenie put forward a proposal “concerning the icons, architecture, painting and decoration of churches throughout the country, as to how matters should be conducted in future”, which was to be adopted and published as ‘DECISION OF THE HOLY SYNOD OF OUR HOLY AUTOCEPHALOUS CHURCH OF THE EAST, Concerning the icons, architecture, painting and decoration of churches throughout the country, as to be observed in future…’, and by which it was decided that ‘the painting and decoration to be introduced from now on, whether in old churches or in new or renovated ones – shall conform to the Byzantine style already in use within our Romanian Autocephalous Church of the Eastern Tradition’ and other similar provisions 7.
Having said this and having established these matters within such a solemn setting as that of a synod, things were set to return to their proper course, except that, generally speaking, there was confusion regarding art ‘in the Byzantine style’, a point highlighted during the autumn session of the Holy Synod in 1892, in which His Grace Bishop of Argeș remarked as follows: “We must admit that we have no church painters who are fully qualified and trained in the Byzantine school (author’s note). The only ones who know a little are Grigorescu and Tattarescu; but perhaps even they have no knowledge of ancient Byzantine painting…’7
Thus, at the end of the nineteenth century, when Romanian church painting had undergone yet another stage of radical transformation—in which, turning towards the West, it had lost every shred of Byzantine tradition—an attempt was being made to return to its origins. These may well be just some of the reasons why debates concerning church painting featured in many of the sessions of the Holy Synod in 1889, 1892 and the years that followed.
1912 – The Royal Decree of Carol I
Finally, at the Holy Synod meeting of 18 May 1898, a draft regulation on the painting of churches 8 was issued, which, many years later, was to become a decree issued by King Carol I, from which I quote only Articles 21 and 22, concerning the establishment of a specialist commission: ‘Once the painting has been completed, a committee shall be appointed by the church authorities to examine whether the work has been carried out in accordance with the provisions of this regulation (author’s note). The commission conducting the examination must be guided not only by the principles and laws of art, but also by the principles and laws of the Church (author’s note) and by those set out in the present regulation. The committee shall report to the Bishop as to whether the work meets all the required conditions or whether there is anything that needs to be rectified9”. We therefore observe an initial measure to verify the provisions set out in the aforementioned text through the establishment of a commission—a welcome disciplinary measure—followed in Chapter IV (Miscellaneous Provisions, Transitional Provisions) by further clarifications regarding Romanian ecclesiastical art:
However, a review of the prohibitions and measures mentioned reveals that the decrees cited above sought to revive the old ‘of the Byzantine tradition’, to prohibit the introduction of any icons foreign to it, and to establish commissions to verify compliance with the measures taken – all of which were welcome at that critical juncture in the history of art. However, there is no mention whatsoever of any attempt to train church painters who, for generations, had lost all connection, not only with the tradition of Byzantine painting, but even with the tradition of Romanian church painting, which had retained the flavour of Brâncoveanu art until the end of the 18th century. All this remained the case until 1924.
19 November 1924 – legislative proposals by the Holy Synod
At that meeting, matters were taken a step further, in that an appeal was made to the state’s legislative body, in a collaboration reminiscent of a Byzantine symphony. During the meeting, action was taken on the report drafted at the proposal of Bishop Nicolae of Cluj and Bishop Vartolomeu of Râmnic, who requested that measures be taken regarding the distribution of icons imported from abroad, advocating that the Government be urged “to prevent such icons from entering the country and to seek ways of printing and distributing icons of our own faith”10. To this end, the following decisions were taken:
“1. To urge the Ministry of Religious Affairs to cease granting authorisation for the import of icons from abroad;
2. The Biblical Institute shall immediately begin to print and sell the icons of our faith.
3. To urge the Ministry of Religious Affairs to authorise the management of the Church Books Printing House to liaise with Their Eminences SS. to find the most convenient means of distributing throughout the country the stock of icons currently stored at the printing works…”10
Subsequently, Bishop Ilarion Băcăoanu read out the report of the Commission on Liturgical Books concerning the decision taken by the Higher Ecclesiastical Consistory at its meeting on 17 October 1924 on church painting 11, announcing and approving the following conclusions:
“1. A law shall be enacted whereby no one shall be permitted to produce church or religious-ecclesiastical paintings unless they possess the qualification awarded by the specialised schools to be established (author’s note). This law shall in no way undermine the authority of the hierarch in his right to supervise and approve such paintings.
2. In order to ensure a supply of qualified painters, a school of Byzantine ecclesiastical painting (author’s note) with a department of wood and metal sculpture shall be established in one of our monasteries, or at Vălenii-de-Munte, Prahova.
3. Until we have painters and sculptors who have graduated from this school, authorisation to paint churches, religious monuments, wayside shrines, etc., should no longer be granted to anyone other than those who are properly trained and have obtained certificates of qualification from the Commission for Historical Monuments.
4. Furthermore, until then, the Commission for Historical Monuments should assist the painters we have who are authorised to work on and paint churches in obtaining models and reference albums, making available to them patterns preserved in Byzantine religious painting through the compilation of catalogues, whilst naturally allowing exceptional artistic talents the freedom of inspiration, invention and artistic creation, without straying from the bounds of the Byzantine style.
5. As regards the funerary monuments in cemeteries, the wayside shrines by wells and the crosses at crossroads, since these paintings are currently being produced without any ecclesiastical authorisation, His Grace Chiriarhi, through the archpriests and the respective priests, put a stop to such paintings by incompetent craftsmen, and ensure that they are painted, just like the churches, only with authorisation from the Chiriarhi”10.
At the meetings of the Holy Synod in 1924 and 1925, Alexandru Lapedatu (1876–1950) was always present in his capacity as Minister of Religious Affairs and the Arts, a figure whose involvement in cultural and artistic life needs no introduction. Around the same time as the Romanian Orthodox Church was elevated to the rank of Patriarchate, with the undeclared but easily surmised support of this great lover of our cultural and artistic heritage, a law was passed which marked a step forward in the promotion of traditional Romanian art and which provided for the establishment of a ‘school of painters’.
1926 – The Law for the Protection of Ancient Church Paintings and for the Establishment of a School for Painters
This law thus went beyond merely prohibiting certain offences, seeking instead to establish an initial form of education for painters, in order to safeguard them from the errors mentioned and condemned:
‘FERDINAND I,
by the Grace of God and the will of the nation, King of Romania,
To all present and future, health:
The legislative assemblies have voted and adopted, and We hereby sanction the following:
LAW
For
the Protection of Ancient Church Paintings and for
the Establishment of a School of Painters
Art. 1. – No painting, restoration or new work may be carried out except by painters who have obtained the approval of the Commission for Historical Monuments and the relevant bishop.
Art. 2. – Permission shall be granted following an examination before the members of the Commission, to which artists possessing specialised knowledge in this field may be added.
Art. 3. – In order to train skilled specialists, the Ministry of Religious Affairs shall establish, in a locality it deems appropriate, a school for painters, whose one-year course shall comprise lessons in technical iconography and ecclesiastical style (author’s note).
Regulations shall set out the conditions under which the school is to operate.
This Act was passed by the Senate at its sitting on 28 February 1925 and adopted by a majority of sixty-two votes to one.
This Act was passed by the Chamber of Deputies at its sitting on 19 March 1926 and adopted by a majority of ninety-six votes to one.
We hereby promulgate this Act and order that it be affixed with the State Seal and published in the Official Gazette.
Given at Bucharest, on 27 March 1926”12.
So, a majority vote, but one whose consequences we have heard nothing more about, so I do not know whether it was carried out in accordance with the stated aims. Coincidence or not, it was promulgated on the very day that Alexandru Lapedatu concluded his first term as Minister of Religious Affairs in the I. C. Brătianu Government 13. However, the initiative to establish a school to train church painters did not depend on the vagaries of politics, but was a long-standing aspiration of the Romanian Orthodox Church, which is why it was to be brought up for discussion once again.
14 October 1926 – The National Church Congress
The Church Congress that autumn was the second National Congress of the Romanian Orthodox Church, convened in accordance with the new law on the Church’s autonomy, following its elevation to the rank of Patriarchate (February 1925). During the Congress, the issue of establishing a School of Ecclesiastical Painting was raised once again, this time the proposal coming from the great historian and man of letters Nicolae Iorga, who requested that, ‘in connection with the Church Book Printing House, a school of ecclesiastical painting be established. The way churches are painted today, he said, is a disgrace to our Byzantine style. He called upon the Ministry of Religious Affairs to find the means to establish such a school at one of our monasteries around Bucharest, since a place such as our capital is not suitable for the proper functioning and success of such a school’14
For the time being, we have heard nothing further about this school; however, ten years later, the Ministry of Religious Affairs and the Arts was to issue a new law concerning the establishment of a special commission for the qualification of authorised church painters.
1937 and 1938 – The Commission of the Ministry of Religious Affairs and the Arts
This law sought to bring some order to the visual arts in 15, stipulating that, alongside the Ministry of Religious Affairs and the Arts, a “Permanent Commission (author’s note), which shall advise on the acquisition and commissioning of any work of visual art by the State and the institutions specified above”. Furthermore, Article 4 states that a “Special Commission for the Qualification of Authorised Church Painters (n.n.)” is to be established, comprising: “a clergyman – a delegate of the Holy Patriarchate – a person with a predominantly ecclesiastical artistic background, a specialist in church painting, a delegate from the Ministry, and a painter-delegate from the Society of Romanian Painters and Sculptors. This Commission operates under the chairmanship of the Secretary-General of the Ministry of Religious Affairs and the Arts. “The roles of the members of this Commission are honorary”, and the members of the Commission are appointed by the Ministry of Religious Affairs and the Arts for a period of four years by ministerial decision. Subsequently, a “REGULATION on the qualification of authorised church painters and authorised church decorators (author’s note)”16 was also approved.
A year later, perhaps not coincidentally whilst the Minister of Religious Affairs and the Arts was Metropolitan Nicolae Colan and the President of the Council of Ministers, Miron, the Patriarch of Romania, a Decree-Law was issued amending certain provisions of the Law on the Promotion of the Visual Arts of 3 June 1938, which amended the provisions relating to church painting in the Act of 6 March 1937 and comprised a single article, amending Article 4 of the Act for the Promotion of the Visual Arts of 6 March 1937 17, providing for the establishment of a ‘Special Commission for the qualification of authorised church painters and authorised decorators (n.n.)…
Issued in Bucharest on 28 May 1938.
Signed:
CAROL,
President of the Council of Ministers;
Miron, Patriarch of Romania18
Nicolae Colan, Minister of Religious Affairs and the Arts…”19
Thus, this represented a step forward, through the direct involvement of the state’s legislative bodies, but it offered nothing new in terms of the training of church painters and decorators, in that it did not provide for the establishment of specialised courses. This shortcoming was to be remedied shortly afterwards, again on the initiative of the Orthodox Church.
1940 – ‘The Higher School of Ecclesiastical Art’
To meet the needs of those wishing to study church painting, on the initiative of Patriarch Nicodim, the the “Higher School of Ecclesiastical Art” attached to the Archdiocese of Bucharest, a school which set out to “train painters who are well-versed in monumental painting, from a technical and practical point of view, and well-versed in the complex issues of Orthodox iconography’20.
In 1943, A. G. Verona published a textbook designed specifically for this course, Painting: A Technical Study with Twenty Inset Plates 21, structured into four chapters: the first dealing with Mural Painting (techniques and materials), the second on ‘easel’ painting, the third on the consolidation, restoration and renovation of works of art, and the last on the technical processes of artists of the past. In the preface to that manual, I. D. Ștefănescu mentioned that the School had no entrance examination and that, just a few years after its establishment, it had been observed that ‘owing to the high standard at which teaching was maintained during the early years of operation—a standard that was necessary—it boasts a number of graduates from our own School of Fine Arts and from foreign institutions. Members of the school do not pay any fees whatsoever (author’s note). All study and work materials are provided free of charge by the Archdiocese. The teaching is practical in nature. The school is, in fact, a workshop22 – one that sought to compensate, at least in part, for the shortcomings of art education in the past. Unfortunately, political adversity prevented it from operating for very long.
1950 and 1958 – The Commission for Church Painting
The communist juggernaut swept away everything in its path that was linked to a past rich in authentic Christian traditions and which might have borne fruit in the same spirit, which is why it could be said that, ‘by the end of 1947, the Romanian communists knew more about what they had to destroy than what they had to build’23). In such adverse circumstances, in which art and culture were sinking into the quagmire of slavishly copying an art and culture that had long since abandoned not only the Christian tradition but also any remnant of common sense, the late Patriarch Justinian found a way to enable the teaching of Romanian ecclesiastical painting to move forward.
Thus, a new section was added to the Workshops Department, namely the School of Church Painting 24, which is also mentioned in the Statutes of the Romanian Orthodox Church of 1950 and where, in Article 172, the responsibilities of the Technical Service are set out. 25 Furthermore, by Decision No. 157 of 24 July 1950, the Commission for Church Painting was established, with the aim of “assessing the technique and artistic creativity of painters and church decorators, for the purposes of their qualification as well as for all matters relating to church painting”, and to “examine church painters and decorators in both practical and theoretical terms, with a view to authorising them to execute church paintings”26. In the midst of the communist regime, and during the even darker Stalinist period, the Commission for Church Painting continued to carry out its work. By ‘Decision No. 633/195827’ of Patriarch Justinian, it became ‘the Commission for Church Painting of the Romanian Patriarchate under the coordination of the Patriarchal Administration’28 and the rules governing its organisation and operation were established.
In the decades following its establishment, this Commission was the sole educational body, given that at art universities in a communist country, no one expected to be able to learn the craft of church painting, but only aesthetic principles and secular technical skills – necessary but not sufficient. Although there was a recognised need to institutionalise the art of church painting, the first steps could only be taken after December 1989.
1993 and 1996 – The first steps towards the institutionalisation of art education
A key moment in this process was the establishment, on the initiative of the then Metropolitan of Moldavia and Suceava, His Eminence Daniel – now the Patriarch of Romania – of the first specialisation in the Conservation– restoration of icons and old manuscripts within the Faculty of Orthodox Theology in Iași, in the autumn of 1993 29 – thus marking the beginning of this journey. Subsequently, at the meeting of the Holy Synod on 13–14 July 1994, approval was given for “the dissolution of the former Commission for Church Painting in order to establish a new Commission, comprising church painters and clergy with knowledge of painting”, to be approved by Patriarch Teoctist through a Patriarchal Decision, and on 15 September 1994, by Patriarchal Decision No. 62, the Patriarch approved the establishment and composition of the new Commission for Ecclesiastical Painting, which began its work on 14 November 1994 30. In parallel with this reorganisation, the realisation that the institutionalisation of ecclesiastical art education was necessary led to the establishment of a new academic specialisation in the country’s capital, Bucharest.
To this end, in the autumn of 1995, at the ‘Justinian the Patriarch’ Faculty of Orthodox Theology, full-time courses began for the ‘Cultural Heritage’ specialisation, 31 over a four-year period, and subsequently, pursuant to Decree No. 30/1996, the ‘Painting’ specialisation was also introduced. Thus, on the initiative of Patriarch Teoctist and at the proposal of the Education Commission for the Training of Church Personnel, the Holy Synod decided “to establish the Academy of Ecclesiastical Painting at Plumbuita Monastery, as a Department of Theology and Religious Painting within the Faculty of Theology in Bucharest, commencing in the 1996–1997 academic year, with 25 places available in the first year of study; the curriculum is to be drawn up by the Faculty of Theology and the Education Department. The necessary steps will be taken with the National Council for Academic Evaluation and Accreditation and the Ministry of Education, by submitting the self-evaluation dossier “32”.
Conclusions, or on the ‘School in the Church Porch’
The phrase ‘the school in the church porch’ did not fall into disuse following the educational reform initiated by Cuza, as the Church continued to watch over, as best it could and understood, over the smooth running of education, not merely within the confines of the textbook. From the above, it is evident how the Fathers of the Romanian Orthodox Synod of 1889 took ‘a decision on the matter of the painting of our Church in general’, so that, at the Holy Synod meeting of 18 May 1898, a draft regulation for the painting of churches was issued, which was subsequently enshrined in a decree issued by King Carol I in 1912.
In order to ensure a supply of qualified painters, at the meeting of the Holy Synod on 19 November 1924 it was proposed that ‘a law be enacted whereby no one would be permitted to produce ecclesiastical and religious-ecclesiastical paintings without the qualification awarded by the specialised schools to be established; furthermore, that ‘a school of Byzantine ecclesiastical painting’ be established”. In 1926, the Law for the Protection of Ancient Church Paintings and for the Establishment of a School for Painters was enacted, and at the National Ecclesiastical Congress of 1926, Nicolae Iorga called for “a school of ecclesiastical painting to be established in conjunction with the Church Book Printing House”. The Ministry of Religious Affairs and the Arts, through the laws it enacted, gradually moved from the creation of a Special Commission for the qualification of authorised church painters, with the drafting and approval of Regulations for the qualification of church painters, and authorised church decorators (1937), to the establishment of a Special Commission for the certification of authorised church painters and authorised church decorators (1938).
However, the first Christian-oriented art school was also established on the initiative of the Church, through the efforts of Patriarch Nicodim, who, in November 1940, opened the ‘Higher School of Church Art’ attached to the Archdiocese of Bucharest. The Communist artistic vision was unable to put an end to the desire to train church painters, with Patriarch Justinian establishing the Commission for Church Painting by the Decision of 24 July 1950 – a commission which continued to operate throughout the communist period.
After December 1989, on the initiative of the then Metropolitan of Moldavia and Suceava, His Eminence Daniel, the current Patriarch of Romania, the first specialisation course in the Conservation and Restoration of Icons and Old Manuscripts was launched in the autumn of 1993 at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology in Iași, followed by Bucharest and other university centres.
In conclusion, the entire process of institutionalising the craft of church painting—a long and convoluted one—began within the Church itself; for this reason, we can affirm that, in this case, we have not merely the ‘school in the church porch’, but above all that ‘in the porch of the Church’, of the institution which not only preached the icon and ecclesiastical art through the word, but also set about restoring it to its former splendour, through forms of education suited to achieving this aim.
*
We cannot imagine a Christian space, be it public or private, without icons—eloquent manifestations of the Gospel message and heralds of the Kingdom of Heaven. The recognition of their role in Christian life was not merely a historical event, which took place long ago on the first Sunday of Great Lent in that distant year of 843. It takes place every Sunday which, ever since then, has remained a bearer and herald of Orthodoxy, with the fact that the icon is ‘a permanent presence in the history of the Christian Church’ always being emphasised, as we learn from the sermon delivered on Orthodoxy Sunday by His Eminence VARSANUFIE 33.
But the icon cannot exist on its own; but is painted by someone gifted and qualified for this purpose who, if not educated in the spirit of an authentic pictorial tradition, risks corrupting souls through a distorted and misrepresented portrayal of iconographic and iconological truth. However, the opportunity to acquire a theological, aesthetic and artistic education within an environment accredited by both the State and the Church was not easily attained, which is why we may regard the legislative proposal of the Holy Synod of 19 November 1924 as a small step with a major impact – one which gradually led to the institutionalisation of the teaching of Byzantine ecclesiastical painting, within prestigious academic centres.
- 1
Mihaela PALADE, ‘A Time for Celebration: A Multisecular Assessment within the Romanian Patriarchate – Stages in the Institutionalisation of Icon-Painters’ Work’, in Lumini de centenar, A volume of academic papers, published to mark the year 2018, University of Bucharest Press, 2018, pp. 127–160.
- 2
In the report drawn up on 24 June/7 July 1876 and addressed to the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Public Instruction, the architect set out the reasons why he had chosen to repaint the church. He considered the decorative effect of the existing old paintings to be negligible, and they were of no artistic value; he regarded the portraits of the founders and the figures occupying the lower parts of the two apses as conventional and rigid, so that, although he valued their decorative quality to some extent, he considered that they represented nothing more than curious specimens of Byzantine art that deserved to be preserved only as such; the restoration of the frescoes constituted an operation far too complicated and delicate for him to accept for the entire interior painting, but only for certain parts indicated by him, the painting was to be carried out in such a way as to eliminate the ‘too stark’ contrast between the richness of the exterior decoration and the interior painting, characterised as lacking in decorative effect (Gheorghe P. NEDELCU, ‘On the repainting of the Episcopal Church in Curtea de Argeș’, in Studies and Research in Art History, vol. 20, no. 1/1973, p. 58).
- 3
G. P. NEDELCU, ‘In connection with…’, p. 60.
- 4
G. P. NEDELCU, ‘Regarding…’, p. 60.
- 5
G. P. NEDELCU, ‘In connection with…’, p. 62.
- 6
‘Proceedings of the Holy Synod, Session of 22 November 1889’, published in the Romanian Orthodox Church journal, vol. XIII, No. 10, 1890, ‘Church Books’ Press, Bucharest, 1890, pp. 127–128.
- 7a7b
‘Proceedings of the Holy Synod, Session of 22 October 1892’, published in the journal The Romanian Orthodox Church, Romanian Orthodox Church, 16th year, no. 10, January 1892, ‘Church Books’ Printing House, Bucharest, 1893, pp. 41–44.
- 8
Regulations approved by Royal Decree No. 4316/1912 and published in the Official Gazette, No. 160, 17 October 1912, in Chiru COSTESCU, Collection of Laws, Regulations, Acts, Decisions, Circulars, Instructions, Forms and Programmes, published by the Institute of Graphic Arts, Bucharest, 1919, pp. 386–389; the quotations in this study are taken from ‘Proceedings of the Holy Synod, Spring Session’, in the BOR journal, vol. XXII, no. 5, August 1898, ‘Church Books’ Printing and Lithography, Bucharest, 1898, pp. 121–145.
- 9
Published in BOR, vol. XXXVI, no. 7, October 1912, ‘Cărților bisericești’ Printing House, Bucharest, 1912, pp. 703–708.
- 10a10b10c
BOR, Series II, Year XLIII, No. 9, (534), September 1925, p. 548.
- 11
During the autumn session, at the meeting of 17 November 1924, the Higher Ecclesiastical Consistory, under No. 32 of the current year, issued the opinion adopted at the meeting of 17 October, concerning church painting and sculpture, BOR, Series II, Year 43, No. 7, July 1925, p. 425.
- 12
Official Gazette, No. 75, Wednesday, 31 March 1926, pp. 4780–4781.
- 13
In the biographical volume dedicated to the Lapedatu brothers, we learn that their first term in office was ‘30 October 1923–27 March 1926’ (Andreas WILD, The Lapedatu Brothers – Architects of Modern Romania in the Generation of the Great Union, Lapedatu Foundation, 2017, p. 65).
- 14
BOR, Series II, Year XLIV, No. 10 (547), October 1926, p. 604; the minutes of the meeting of 14 October 1926 mention Nicolae Iorga’s proposal to establish a “school for church painters, which cannot be established in Bucharest due to the unsuitable influences that this centre would exert on the souls of future church painters, nor in monasteries, where the necessary cultural atmosphere is lacking. To this end, a location must be found that is better suited to the requirements of this school’ (BOR, Series II, Year XLIV, No. 10 (547), October 1926, p. 654).
- 15
The Act was passed by the Assembly of Deputies and Senators at its sittings on 17 and 25 February 1937, was promulgated by Royal Decree No. 914/937 and was published in the Official Gazette, Part I, No. 54, Saturday 6 March 1937, pp. 2009–2011.
- 16
Approved by the Minister of State for the Department of Religious Affairs and the Arts, upon the recommendations of the Special Commission for the Qualification of Church Painters, established by Decisions No. 7,583 of 1937 and No. 9,187 of 1937, in accordance with Article 4 of the Law on the Promotion of the Visual Arts.
- 17
“Regarding the report by the President of the Council of Ministers, our Ministers and Secretaries of State at the Departments of Religious Affairs, the Arts, Finance and Justice, No. 13,641 of 1938; Having regard to the Minutes of the Council of Ministers No. 1,052 of the sitting of 28 March 1938, as well as the legislative opinion No. 60 of 19 April 1938, Pursuant to Article 98 of the Constitution, We have decreed and hereby decree the Amendment of certain provisions of the Law on the Promotion of the Fine Arts…’ published in the General Code of Romania (Codes, Laws and Regulations in Force) 1856–1937, vol. XXVI, part I, Official Gazette and State Printing Offices, Central Printing Office, Bucharest, 1938, pp. 859–861.
- 18
Patriarch Miron Cristea (1868–1939) led three governments between 11 February 1938 and 6 March 1939; during his tenure as President of the Council of Ministers (11 February–29 March 1938), Romania’s new Constitution was drafted. The post of Prime Minister of Romania, which Carol II had granted him, was largely symbolic; through this manoeuvre, the King succeeded in ‘establishing his authoritarian regime and assuming increased executive and legislative powers, to the detriment of the other state institutions. The Council of Ministers consisted solely of the King’s close associates and supporters of the new regime” (http://enciclopediaromaniei.ro/wiki/Miron_Cristea). The new regime was institutionalised through the Constitution which came into force on 27 February 1939 and through the decree dissolving political parties of 30 March 1938, the date on which Patriarch Miron had passed away. Significant for understanding the patriarch’s aesthetic outlook is the fact that he was the first to champion the cause of building a Cathedral of the Salvation of the Nation and that, in the turbulent and stifling political atmosphere of 1938, he found the time to enact the law mentioned in the text.
- 19
Official Gazette, No. 125, Part 1, 3 June 1938, pp. 2689–2690; The General Code of Romania (Codes, Laws and Regulations in Force) 1856–1937, vol. XXVI, 1938, Part I, Official Gazette and State Printing Office, Central Printing Office, Bucharest, 1938, pp. 859–861.
- 20
I. D. Ștefănescu, preface to A. G. VERONA, Painting, a technical study with twenty hors-texte plates, published and printed by the Holy Monastery of Neamțu, 1943, p. XVII.
- 21
A. G. VERONA, Painting: A Technical Study with Twenty Inset Plates, Published and Printed by the Holy Monastery of Neamțu, 1943.
- 22
I. D. Ștefănescu, preface to A. G. VERONA, Painting: A Technical Study…, p. XVII.
- 23
C. STANCIU, ‘Constitutions of the Communist Era’, p. 65.
- 24
Proceedings of the National Church Assembly at its ordinary session of 26 February 1950, BOR, March–June, 3–6/1950, vol. LXVIII, p. 194.
- 25
“Regulations for determining the duties of the Patriarch and the functioning of the central deliberative, administrative and executive bodies of the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchate: The Holy Synod, the Permanent Synod, the National Ecclesiastical Assembly, the National Ecclesiastical Council, the Patriarchal Administration, the Patriarchal Chancery and affiliated institutions”, in BOR, vol. LXVIII, nos. 7–9, July–September 1950, p. 434.
- 26
Legiuirile, p. 433 and BOR, 7–9/1950, pp. 488–489.
- 27
Perhaps it is no coincidence that it was issued in the year marking the tenth anniversary of Patriarch Justinian’s tenure.
- 28
His Beatitude Father Daniel, Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church, Church painting – a visual symbol of faith.
- 29
Nicoleta MELNICIUC PUICĂ, ‘The Sacred Art Specialisation – History and Prospects’, in Vocational University Education on its Anniversary – 2010: Studies and Research (eds. V. Sava, D. Sandu, E.I. Roman), Doxologia Publishers, Iași, 2010, p. 158.
- 30
Document No. 444/1995 – Report by Sector II of the Patriarchal Administration on certain current issues concerning the Commission on Church Painting, Romanian Orthodox Church, 1995, p. 302.
- 31
Government Decision No. 568 of 28 July 1995, concerning the granting of provisional operating authorisation, in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 88/1993 on the accreditation of higher education institutions and the recognition of diplomas, Published in the Official Gazette No. 185 of 16 August 1995, http://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/7089.
- 32
“Temei No. 30/1996 – The issue of establishing the Academy of Religious Painting as a department of the Faculty of Theology in Bucharest, with effect from the 1996–1997 academic year”, in BOR, vol. CXIV, 1–6, Jan–June 1996, pp. 345–346; Government Decision No. 294 of 16 June 1997 on the operation of higher education institutions, in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 88/1993 on the accreditation of higher education institutions and the recognition of qualifications, Published in the Official Gazette No. 130 of 25 June 1997, http://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/12356.
- 33
St Nicholas Archiepiscopal Cathedral, http://arhiepiscopiaramnicului.ro/ips-varsanufie?page=4.