In June 1819, that is, 200 years ago, the work Apologia, or a word or response against the arguments of the godless 1, was published in Bucharest at the Mavrogheni’s Cișmeaua Printing House; as we read on the title page, it was produced during the reign of Alexandru Nicolae Suțu 2, Lord of Wallachia, with the blessing of Dionisie 3, Metropolitan of Ungrovlahia, and at the expense of Răducanu Clinceanul, formerly 4, steward, and Dimitrache Topliceanu, formerly a servant. The two officials mentioned in the text were, alongside Dr Constantin Carataș, the overseers of the printing press, those who had supported its establishment, and the Apologia is considered to be the first work to emerge from its presses 5.
In a ‘Note to the Faithful Reader’, signed by the overseers, we learn that the work was, in fact, a reprint of the edition published at Neamț Monastery in 1816, which had been translated from the Greek by the monk Gherontie6, and its reprinting in Bucharest was due to the fact that in Moldavia ‘few copies were printed, solely for those there; now, at the urging of His Grace the Bishop of St. Argeș, Kiriu Iosif, we have also printed it here’6 “This work proves that our God Jesus Christ is the true God, as opposed to the Volterists, the pagans, that is to say, the godless people of this age.”6 Consequently, as the Moldavian edition had been printed in insufficient numbers, the work was reprinted in Wallachia at the instigation of Bishop Iosif of Argeș, a native of Oltenia, who had taken monastic vows at Cozia Monastery, who served as Bishop of Argeș between 1793 and 1820, and who was buried at Antim Monastery in Bucharest, to whose restoration he had contributed.
The 1816 work from Moldavia, 7, tells us that ‘they had previously been translated from the Greek into our own Romanian language and now, with the blessing of His Eminence, the God-chosen Metropolitan of Moldavia, Kiriu Kiriu Veniamin, they have been sent to press, for the benefit of the nation, at the Holy Monastery of Neamț, under the guidance of the Most Reverend Archimandrite Kir Silvestru, in the year 1816, 31 January8 In 1819, Veniamin Costache 9 was Metropolitan of Moldavia, and Scarlat Callimachi 10 was Prince. From the preface, we learn that the translation was carried out by Gherontie, whom we know to have studied, alongside Grigorie Dascălul, at the Royal Academy in Bucharest, at the instigation of St Paisie Velicicovschi 11. The collaboration between scholars from Moldavia and those from Wallachia is evident, apart from the examples mentioned, in the involvement of the monk Isaia of Neamț in the printing of the books at Cișmeaua Mavrogheni 12.
Several hypotheses have been put forward in Romanian historiography regarding the author of the original Greek version of the work. Thus, Constantin C. Tomescu referred to St Demetrius of Rostov, basing his argument on the fact that the latter ‘had also composed a moral Apology, unlike this one, which deals with dogmatic principles’13. Ariadna Camariano 14 shows that the author of the Greek work is Athanasius of Paros and reaches this conclusion by comparing a 1805 reprint of the Greek text with the 1816 Romanian text. Although the author is not mentioned in either the Romanian or the Greek text, D. Z. Mamucas, the biographer and pupil of Athanasie of Paros, includes this work amongst his teacher’s writings 15.
The Greek text has undergone several editions: the first in Constantinople in 1798, the second in Leipzig in 1800, the third also in Leipzig in 1805, the work having been translated and printed in Romanian at Neamț Monastery, in 1816 and in Bucharest in 1819. The Romanian Academy Library holds the Romanian translation, as well as the Greek edition from 1800, printed in Leipzig.
The original Greek text was produced on the orders of the Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory V, who, in turn, had been entrusted with this task by the Sultan. The Romanian translation was also commissioned by the Sublime Porte, in order to prevent the outbreak of revolts against the Ottomans in the Balkans, fuelled by the ideas of the French Revolution 16.
As far as we are concerned, we rely on Mamucas’s assertion—echoed by Constantin Sathas, Ariadna Camariano and Filippos Eliou 17—namely that the Apologia is the anonymous work of Athanasie of Paros. However, we do not share Ariadna Camariano’s view that the work is of no significance today, nor do we agree with her unfavourable comments regarding the Church of Constantinople, such as: ‘But it is not only political leaders, but also fanatical monks, defenders of the faith and tradition, who are waging a fierce battle against the new spirit. These obscurantists, blinded by passion, are utterly incapable of understanding and appreciating the value of the modernist philosophical spirit, the foundation of the beneficial social and political transformations of modern states. They see in the works of the French Encyclopaedists nothing but depraved and atheistic ideas’18’.
Moreover, in recent times, both in international historiography—Greek in particular, but also Western and Romanian—studies that cast a favourable light on and appreciate the life and work of Athanasius of Paros, canonised in 1995, have multiplied and highlighted the importance of his work in the revival of spiritual life in the Orthodox world of the 18th century. Constantin Cavarnos, who in turn regards Athanasius of Paros as the author of the Christian Apology, has dedicated a monograph to him (the first of its kind in English, published by the Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies in Massachusetts) in which he demonstrates that Saints Athanasius of Paros, Macarius of Corinth and Nicodemus the Hagiorite constitute a veritable triumvirate, a group of three great spiritual leaders who supported the movement of spiritual revival that emerged in the mid-18thon Mount Athos, known as the Kolivari Movement, which emphasised adherence to the tradition of the Church, the works of the Holy Fathers and the Hesychast way of life. Cavarnos considers that the Christian Apology had a beneficial influence not only amongst the Greeks, but also amongst the Romanians, who translated and printed it in Iași and Bucharest 19. Cavarnos mentions other authors who have highlighted the value of the works of St Athanasius of Paros, namely Photios Kontoglu, Philotheu Zervakos, Nicodim Vallendras and the Romanian priest Ioan Chivu 20. In the Romanian context, we should also mention the study by Ioan I. Ică Jr. 21. Constantin Cavarnos not only highlighted the value of the writings of St Athanasius of Paros and their relevance today, but also called for further research into the works of this remarkable theologian, philosopher, professor and saint. Consequently, the school of thought that had criticised Paros for his vehemence proved to be incorrect and is no longer relevant.
In the present study, we aim to highlight the historical context in which the Christian Apology was written, to transcribe and emphasise several passages from the work, which are significant for the relationship between theology and philosophy, and between the Christian way of life and the anti-Christian Western Enlightenment ideas refuted by the author.
Returning to the work itself, we consider that its publication does indeed shed light on the cooperation between the political authorities in Constantinople and the religious authorities; however, their aims were not identical. Whilst the Sultan rejected Enlightenment ideas because they promoted revolutionary ideas—which had brought about the French Revolution in 1789 and which, in the Balkans, were fuelling the peoples’ revolt for liberation from the Ottoman yoke— the Ecumenical Patriarch’s aim was a religious one: to shield Christians from the atheistic or deistic ideas of the Encyclopédistes. We cannot accuse the Patriarchate of Constantinople, nor the Romanian hierarchs of the following century, of having taken measures to defend the faith. Even though the work contains some passages referring to submission to the hierarchy—criticised as a rejection of modern political ideas—these passages can be explained by the fact that the Church of Constantinople existed within the Ottoman Empire; it was in captivity, to use the words of Steven Runciman, who spoke of the Great Church in captivity. 22
‘the Ecumenical Patriarch’s aim was a religious one: to shield Christians from the atheistic or deistic ideas of the Encyclopaedists.’
This is how Steven Runciman, the renowned Byzantinist, explains the reluctance of which the patriarchs of Constantinople were accused regarding the revolutionary movements of the modern era, and their collaboration, on a political level, with the sultans—a collaboration that had lasted since the Ottoman conquest of the Byzantine Empire: “The Patriarch was, indeed, obliged to assume a political role when he became ethnarch of the Orthodox millet, but his duty, both as a religious leader and as an official of the Ottoman Empire, was to discourage the political activity of those under his care; this made his role a difficult one during the Greek independence movement... The patriarch’s task was to ensure that the Church endured. Freedom of worship was more important to him than physical freedom… The great achievement of the Patriarchate was that, despite humiliation, poverty and contempt, the Church endured and continues to endure as a great spiritual force. The candlestick was covered and hidden… but God did not take it away from them. The light still burns, and burns even brighter. The gates of hell have not prevailed!’23
After the fall of Constantinople to the Turks, the Orthodox Church existed within the political framework of the Ottoman Empire, yet it managed to ensure the continuation of Christian life, albeit under harsh conditions, it is true, with heavy taxes, often covered by the Romanian rulers, benefactors and supporters of Christianity. Political ideas from the West brought with them political freedom—desirable, of course, and legitimate—but they also brought the philosophy of that time, which denied the divinity of Christ the Saviour. It is from this latter perspective, rather than the political one, that we can explain the Ecumenical Patriarch’s cooperation with the Sultan; not because the hierarch adopted a servile attitude towards the political ruler, but in defence of the faith. In that particular historical context, when faced with a choice between two evils, and when conditions were not favourable for a certain liberation from the Ottoman yoke, the preservation of Orthodox values was more important than an uncertain political freedom that would bring about atheism or deism, both of which lead to spiritual ruin. We also recall that the Byzantine Empire had attempted to defend itself politically against the Ottoman conquest by renouncing Orthodoxy and accepting the terms of the Union of Ferrara–Florence of 1438–1439. However, after officially accepting them, it survived for only six months, from December 1452 to May 1453!24
In our view, the publication of the book in Constantinople was one of the measures taken by the patriarch to defend the Christian faith; it was a book intended for spiritual edification, which combated Voltairean ideas, which brought about spiritual ruin. Moreover, it was not the only one of its kind, but formed part of a series of measures taken by the Greek hierarchs in the 18th century to address the various dangers arising in the spiritual lives of Christians. To illustrate other measures taken in defence of Orthodoxy, we refer to a study by Pascal Kitromilides, 25, which outlines some of the initiatives undertaken by the Great Church in the mid-18th century. Thus, the author shows that the threats of that period stemmed from the intensification of Catholic propaganda amongst the Greeks, facilitated by the Venetian occupation of the Peloponnese (1685–1718) and Chios (1694–1695), following the Venetian-Turkish wars. Another threat to the Patriarchate stemmed from the Islamisation of certain regions, particularly Kosovo, following the Austro-Turkish War of 1737–1739, which led to the exodus of the Serbian population from the area. Consequently, to counter these trends, the Great Church took several measures: it established the Athonite Academy and appointed Evghenie Vulgaris26 as a professor there, in order to create an educational system capable of meeting the new challenges. Furthermore, to stem the tide of Islamisation, it authorised the missionary work of St Cosmas of Aetolia throughout the Balkans and revoked the autocephaly of the archbishops of Ohrid and Peć, in order to exercise greater control over those regions. Thus, in Kitromilides’ view, these measures were taken to defend Orthodoxy and preserve an Orthodox Commonwealth, not for political reasons, to revive a sense of national identity (although this aspect should not be overlooked in the case of Cosmas of Aetolia) or to Hellenise the Serbian and Bulgarian churches 27.
In the second half of the 18th century, the Church of Constantinople faced other problems, namely the penetration of Enlightenment ideas into the Greek world, and took several measures to stem these influences. For the European Enlightenment did indeed bring a mixture of concepts, with consequences in the spiritual, educational and political spheres; it brought an exclusively rational spirit, characterised by a rejection of Christian revelation, hierarchy, and political and religious authority, and by an excessive reliance on science and emancipated human thought, which no longer related to God: ‘The term “Enlightenment” refers to the secularisation of ideas and values that originated in north-western Europe in the century preceding the French Revolution. The gradual spread of these ideas within Eastern Orthodox society brought about changes in the fundamental spheres of spiritual, social and, ultimately, political life… The philosophy of the Enlightenment, as formulated in its later form in eighteenth-century thought, expressed the emancipation of the European spirit from the shackles of the medieval worldview… The Enlightenment was based on the hope of liberating human thought from the darkness of error, ignorance and prejudice… The rise of contemporary science, the appeal to reason, empirical epistemology and the natural faith of free-thinkers constituted the philosophical premises of the Enlightenment. Its intellectual character was shaped by a spirit of contradiction towards all forms of dogmatism, with the result that the Enlightenment was, in essence, nothing other than a critical spirit… The rejection of authority, the recognition of the empirical foundation of human thought’s capacity for knowledge, and the universal call to knowledge had clear political consequences”28.
The condemnation of Enlightenment philosophical ideas by the Church of Constantinople took place, as P. Kitromilides pointed out, through a series of encyclicals addressed to clergy and Christians, particularly those in the Peloponnese, the Aegean islands, Crete and Smyrna, in which they were advised to guard against Western delusions: ‘Through these measures, the Church sought to stem the ideological consequences of the Enlightenment and to temper the influences of the French Revolution. At this point, the actions of the Orthodox Church once again aligned with the interests of the Sublime Porte’29. Furthermore, the condemnation of philosophical ideas, particularly those of Voltaire and Rousseau, was also carried out through the publication of two pamphlets: Dialogues of the Dead by the priest Polyzois Kontos, published in Vienna in 1793, and The Wickedness of the Arrogant, attributed to Kelestinos of Rhodes but probably the work of Athanasie of Paros, published in Trieste in 1793 30.
Also in this context of initiatives taken by the Church to strengthen Christian life, we recall that Olivier Clément regarded the compilation of the Philokalia by St Nicodemus the Hagiorite and Macarius of Corinth, and its publication in 1782 in Venice, as an initiative arising from the spread of the Enlightenment, following the writing of the French Encyclopédie 31. Patriarch Daniel, in an article from 2006, whilst he was Metropolitan of Moldavia, pointed out that through the compilation of the Philokalia, the self-sufficient reason promoted by the Enlightenment (which reduced revelation to what could be understood by the human mind) was countered by human reason, as presented by the Philokalic Fathers, as an image of Divine Reason: ‘The attitude of the philosophers of the Enlightenment towards religion in the 18th century was a shared aversion to “superstition”, regarded as everything that is not comprehensible by reason... In contrast to the spirit of the Enlightenment, where human reason is self-sufficient without communion with God, the Philokalia presents human reason as an image of Divine Reason and as a path towards communion with God, for man was created in the image of Divine Reason (Logos)’32
Returning to the Romanian translation of the Apology, it was also produced at a time when anti-Ottoman revolutions were being envisaged, which subsequently took concrete form in the Eteria movement and that of Tudor Vladimirescu. The Ottomans feared the spread of French ideas into the Principalities as well as into the Greek world, which explains the ban on the circulation of books with radical, political content and the facilitation of the publication of the Apology. Nevertheless, Enlightenment-style books were circulating in the Principalities 33. Yet here too we must understand that the reason for the publication of the Apology at Neamț Monastery and in Bucharest, as far as the Romanian hierarchs were concerned, was of a religious nature: to combat non-Christian ideas.
We also note that the intellectual and spiritual milieu in which the book was printed and translated was dominated by leading figures of the time, recognised for their cultural and religious activity, who were subsequently canonised; for Athanasius of Paros, Paisius Velichkovsky, Veniamin Costache, Gregory the Teacher and Gregory V are recognised as saints. Patriarch Gregory V was hanged on Easter Day in 1821, on the orders of Sultan Mahmud II, following the Greek uprising in the Peloponnese, having been accused of failing to prevent it.
Consequently, the printing of the book, both within the Constantinopolitan religious community and the Romanian one, had a clear purpose: namely, to instruct Christians and protect them from heretical ideas which, by denying the divinity of Christ the Saviour, clearly endangered obviously, their salvation. The reason for their writing and dissemination was, therefore, on the part of the ecclesiastical circles, a strictly religious one; however, the Ottoman Empire also considered Western ideas dangerous, albeit from a political standpoint, as they incited rebellion. For this latter reason—the political one—the circulation in the Romanian Principalities of radical books containing revolutionary ideas took place clandestinely, since, until the War of Independence, the Romanian Principalities remained tributary states of the Ottoman Empire 34. However, the Sultan permitted the tributary states to maintain the Christian faith, which was essential for the spiritual survival of the people. Freedom of worship for the Orthodox Church was also guaranteed within the Ottoman Empire, although Christians did not enjoy the same privileges as Muslims; this was one of the reasons why conversions to Islam occurred, driven by economic, political or legal advantages.
As an example of clandestine activities in the Romanian region, we may mention the case of Dr Polizu, who was arrested in 1799 and whose papers were confiscated, because ‘he was engaged in translating Kant’s philosophy and several French writings into Greek, which spoke of nothing but revolution and the overthrow of the old political system’35).
The influence of the Enlightenment in the Romanian Principalities was particularly evident in the second half of the Phanariot period, after 1774, when a secularisation of culture became apparent, with French ideas being assimilated indirectly, via the Greeks and Russians, but also directly, through contacts with France 36. The fact that institutional modernisation also took place at this time – evident in legislative, judicial, social and economic life – and that this was beneficial, has led to a false equivalence between the process of modernisation and that of the secularisation of society, when, in reality, they are two distinct phenomena, with only modernisation being beneficial, not secularisation. However, in Romania, the Enlightenment did not have an anticlerical or atheistic character, as in the West, but it did result in the secularisation of culture and the publication in Romanian of translations of works by Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot and d’Alambert. From this perspective—namely, the spiritual danger posed by Christians’ engagement with these writings—one must understand the circular letter sent by Patriarch Gregory V in 1798, to Jacob Stamate, Metropolitan of Moldavia, in which he urged Christians to guard against the deceptions of the French 37.
We should also note that the Church did not reject secular books, nor those with philosophical content 38 that edify the soul, but only those containing non-Christian, even atheistic, ideas. In this regard, we recall that in Râmnic, in 1783, the work Philosophical Proverbs was reprinted; as the text states, it had been compiled in the days of Nicolae Constantin Caragea, at the expense of Bishop Filaret of Râmnic 39. The first edition dates from 1713 and consists of a translation from Greek into Romanian of 946 maxims, based on Antoine Galland’s work, Les bons mots et les Maximes des Orientaux, published in Paris in 1694 40. It follows from this that the ‘philosophical maxims’, as they were termed in the title, did not imply atheism; thus, the philosophy was not atheistic – quite the contrary. Here are a few of the maxims: ‘The fear of God is man’s greatest virtue, and fearlessness his greatest error; the fear of God purifies the heart; Whoever forsakes his Christian faith for the vanities of the world is foolishly mistaken; whoever submits his mind to evil desires perishes; the less sense a man has, the more pride he possesses’41”.
The fact that not all Enlightenment ideas were rejected outright, but only the radical and unchristian ones, is also confirmed by Bishop Chesarie of Râmnic’s use of certain Western articles 42 and even the Encyclopaedia, a work he went to some lengths to acquire. The historian Alexandru Duțu, who has studied 18th-century Romanian culture, is of the opinion that: ‘Chesarie uses the Encyclopaedia solely to lend complete authority to his arguments concerning the Roman customs preserved by the Romanians’43; which is why he also quotes the work in the preface to the December Minaion, printed in 1779. From this perspective—that of a concern for Romanian culture, civilisation and history—Chesarie “carries forward the concerns of the humanists”44. Chesarie even translates from the Encyclopédie and other Western authors, proving that he did not reject everything that was new, Western or Enlightenment in nature, but rather selected what was useful from the trends in vogue at the time.
Furthermore, as an example of theology’s non-rejection of philosophy, we may also recall the depiction of ancient philosophers (and of some sibyls) on the exterior of certain churches, such as the Church of the Sibyls (also known as the Church of the Saints or Popa Fierea’s Church) in Bucharest, dating from the late 17th century. The exterior decoration, comprising two registers separated by a frieze, features paintings of 10 ancient philosophers, including Aristotle and Plato, as well as 9 sibyls from Greco-Roman antiquity 45. In Moldavia too, for example at Sucevița Monastery, ancient philosophers are depicted, just as in Greece, at the Great Meteoron, the exterior features philosophers and scholars of the ancient world, painted without halos, of course, but depicted nonetheless, as evidence that philosophy too had led towards Christianity, that science is a gift from the Lord, and also to establish a link with Greek history 46.
So, the work we are presenting is not about a rejection of philosophy as such, but about the removal of those ideas that lead the soul astray, which, by separating man from God, have been improperly called enlightened or wisdom-loving—that is, philosophical! As the author of the Apology insists in several places, ignorance and the proud reading of Holy Scripture lead to separation from God, whereas learning—even that which comes from without—and the reading of the holy books with humility and prayer, kindles in the soul a love of God! We emphasise in this context that St Athanasius of Paros outlined, through this work (though not exclusively), the correct relationship between external philosophy (human, from without) and internal philosophy, received as a gift from God. St Athanasius, as a teacher, particularly at the School of Chios, taught not only theology but also secular disciplines, namely rhetoric and logic; thus, he did not reject learning as such, but rather its improper use.
The printing of useful devotional books took place both in the Romanian lands and in Constantinople; it was merely one of the ways in which the hierarchs instructed the faithful under their care, though it was not the only one 47. For the 18th and 19th centuries, we note that other activities undertaken by the clergy included canonical visits (such as those of Neofit the Cretan, for example, in 1746–1747), the issuing of pastoral letters (such as, for example, those of the bishops of Râmnic in the 18th century: Climent in 1743 and 1747, and Filaret in 1781 and 1783–1785), letters to archpriests (Filaret of Râmnic, Neofit the Cretan) advising the princes on the issuance of decrees, having the force of law, to strengthen Christian life in the country (Mihai Racoviță’s edict of 1742, though at the instigation of Neofit the Cretan), the decrees of Mihai Constantin Suțu to the inhabitants of Gorj, issued at the instigation of Filaret, etc. All these measures formed part of the Church’s endeavour to improve the lives of Christians, evident in the first half of the 18th century under the influence of Neofit Cretanul, but also in the second half of the century, with the emergence of the movement for the renewal of religious life brought about by St Paisie Velicicovschi, continued in the first half of the 19th century by St Grigorie Dascălul and Veniamin Costache. We also recall that St Paisius Velichkovsky translated the Philokalia, ‘lover of beauty / virtue’, from Greek into Church Slavonic.
Consequently, the Church, through its hierarchs, watched over the proper conduct of Christians, not only within the Romanian realm but also in the territories under Ottoman political control, correcting—through pastoral letters, books, commands, whether moral issues or influences coming via so-called intellectual channels, for both resulted in spiritual ruin. The measures taken were, therefore, responses to deviations from the Christian way of life. We emphasise that, in these lines, we in no way consider the aspirations towards political independence of states under the yoke of Ottoman domination or that of other empires to be illegitimate, within the process of forging modern nation-states. We wish, however, to show that the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Romanian hierarchs of that time, in that historical context, faced with a choice between two evils, chose the lesser evil—that is, the one which did not have harmful consequences for the soul. They therefore rejected the atheistic, deistic and non-Christian ideas of the Enlightenment, which promoted a false emancipation of humankind through science and learning, without a proper relationship with God, thereby endangering people’s salvation. Moreover, collaboration with the Ottoman political authorities, who permitted the practice of Christianity, was, for the time being, preferable to embracing a mixture of ideas which, whilst granting certain political rights, also brought with them atheism. Speaking of tolerance, a concept favoured by Enlightenment writings, let us recall, as Mihai Maxim pointed out 48, that the reform policy of the Enlightened Absolutism of the Habsburg Empire, a Christian state, promoted the demolition by cannon of Orthodox monasteries in Transylvania in 1761, under General Adolf Bucow, and imprisoned those who opposed Catholicisation. And all this was taking place during the Age of Enlightenment! Meanwhile, the non-Christian Ottomans guaranteed, in return for a tribute, full freedom of worship to their tributary states and permitted, with certain restrictions, Christian life within the Ottoman Empire 49. Furthermore, although the Ottoman state was in decline, it had repeatedly quelled uprisings in the Greek world; thus, rebellion—even if legitimate in that it sought to remove the Ottoman yoke—also entailed uncertainty and risk.
“…The Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Romanian hierarchs of that time, in that historical context, faced with a choice between two evils, chose the lesser evil—that is, the one which did not have harmful consequences for the soul. They therefore rejected the atheistic, deistic and non-Christian ideas of the Enlightenment, which promoted a false emancipation of humankind.”
These were the historical circumstances in which the hierarchs of Constantinople and the Romanian hierarchs had to ensure the salvation of the souls of their flocks!
We shall now turn to the text of the Apology and note that, from the author’s words, it is clear that the purpose of the work was a practical one: to urge Christians to remain within the Church and to uphold its teachings, shunning contemporary ideas that are harmful to the soul. He regarded the instruction of the brethren as a necessity, as a divine commandment, following the exhortation of St Paul the Apostle, quoted by the author, who says: ‘Comfort one another and build one another up!’50 Thus, the author pointed out that: ‘Above all, the present time demands that each of us do what we can to safeguard our brothers, the Christians. Those who are able to write books should do so without delay, for the common good. And those who cannot, let them at least, with humble words—51, in church or elsewhere—use every means to help their neighbour, just as the divine apostle commands’52.
The author laments the state to which the people of his time have come and likens it to the early days of Christianity, when the Arians and other heretics rose up against the Church. He then points out the danger to which reference is made, namely the teachings of the philosophers, who say that: ‘souls are mortal and think of material things’53; that ‘our Lord Christ is not God and that the Gospel is a fabrication’54; and amongst these, ‘Voltaire, the utterly godless’55 is listed first. Reference is also made to those who preach liberty, that is, revolutionary ideas, but it is shown that they too are not truly free, for, through their wicked lives, they become slaves to sin. It is in vain that they pride themselves, the author continues, on being enlightened and philosophers, for their deeds show the opposite: ‘The enlightened. From whence enlightened? From philosophy. Just as they boast and pride themselves… when the part of the soul… is not enlightened and empowered from above, that is, by the light of the Gospel, all human light is darkness and vanity’56 The author points out that as long as, in the name of freedom, people have turned their backs on God and live in opposition to the Gospel, their freedom is false; it is, in fact, the freedom of clay, of the material body: They renounce Him, His divine Gospels and the whole of Holy Scripture, uttering such dreadful and deadly blasphemies 57. However, the author reminds people that ‘Jesus Christ… is the same yesterday, today and for ever. That is to say, Christ is the true God and His Word is eternal truth’58 The author shows that the truly free man is he who is not enslaved by passions.
The author points out that the danger posed by the non-Christian philosophy of that age had also been highlighted and combated in Western Europe by various scholars who had taken a stand against atheism. Thus, he quotes ‘Antony of Naples, known as Genuvez 59, who, although adhering to Western dogma, is nonetheless exceedingly wise regarding the teachings from abroad’59, and who exposed both the ancient heretics and the modern ones of his own time. In Eastern Europe, of those mentioned by Antonie, Voltaire is the best known, as the author of the Apology demonstrates, drawing on another Western author, a Frenchman, namely Clément, who had in turn refuted the deist philosopher.
It is then explained what the correct relationship between philosophy and theology is, namely that philosophy is the handmaiden of theology, for it is a human teaching which must submit to the divine teaching, sent down from on high. As long as it remains within its proper bounds, philosophy is not harmful, but when it attempts to undermine what has been given by God, it must be banished as harmful: ‘Human wisdom, I say—which is also called external wisdom and philosophy… is described by the holy Fathers as a handmaiden. But whose servant? Of the wisdom from above, the divine wisdom… a servant who knows her limits… is praised… but when, on the contrary, she forgets what she is… she is cast out!”60
The author praises certain saints who, although they studied philosophy, subordinated their secular knowledge to that which is divine. Mentioned in this context are Saints Dionysius the Areopagite, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, Justin the Martyr and the Philosopher, and Cyril of Alexandria, who ‘were most accomplished in worldly wisdom and well-versed in the sciences, yet they did not set themselves up against Scripture, nor did they presume to undermine the prophets or reject certain parts of Scripture’61). The error of the philosophers which we must guard against was, as the author pointed out, that, puffed up with their knowledge, they attempted “to judge the supernatural by the natural”62. Consequently, the author earnestly urged his contemporaries not to listen to philosophers—those philosophers who had turned their backs on God—for ‘the teachings of evil teachers are evil!’63
The author is not opposed to learning, nor to the sciences themselves, but to a misinterpretation of them, to reliance on the human mind, coupled with the pride that comes from acquiring knowledge. In this light, we can understand the rejection expressed towards the Western teachers, who called themselves philosophers and Voltaireans rather than Christians, placing the enlightenment derived from learning above divine enlightenment. From the criticism levelled at contemporary philosophers, presented in parallel with the praise paid to those saints of antiquity who, although they had studied philosophy, did not value knowledge more highly than the enlightenment that comes through faith, it is clear that the author of the Apology was not opposed to the Western world, nor to learning. He criticised, however, the error of contemporary philosophers, who had placed the human mind above faith: ‘And if anyone, having mastered Euclid’s elements and learnt the rest of mathematics—all of which bring about nothing but conceit and empty show, rather than true benefit, in the minds of those devoid of sound judgement—if anyone… in his arrogance should wish to lay down laws even for heaven… to subvert the supernatural with the natural, this sort of wisdom is not wisdom, but rather folly, ignorance and madness’64”. Another passage emphasises that, unless the mind is enlightened by God, it will not understand science correctly either. The curriculum was therefore criticised for placing the emphasis on the sciences rather than on theology, from which true enlightenment of the mind comes: ‘I see nothing else, I hear nothing else… save for numbers, lines, squares, cones, cylinders, pyramids… and nowhere is there the word of God or thought!”65
‘The author is not opposed to learning, nor to the sciences themselves, but to the misunderstanding of them, to reliance on the human mind, coupled with the pride of acquiring knowledge.’
The author points out with sorrow that the rejection of miracles and of the Christian faith, under the pretext of exclusively rationalist philosophical thought, is, in fact, a deception, since faith also entails miracles: ‘Truly, this too is a ruse of the devil. For whilst they open the soul’s ears wide to those things that bring it no spiritual benefit, but perhaps even harm, they close them entirely to divine matters and accounts of miracles, they shut the door completely, having no regard for the credibility of those who write or recount such things. For this reason, let us take heed, Christian brethren. Listen and learn, you who fear God, that if we deny the value and the working of miracles, faith cannot be established at all!’66 This refers to the error of the Enlightenment thinkers, propagated through their written works, of rejecting revelation and miracles as mere superstitions. We recall that, through the rejection of revelation, matters had reached the point where Christian faith had been replaced by autonomous human reason: ‘In the spirit of the Enlightenment, faith in God was replaced by faith in autonomous human reason to such an extent thatin 1794 Robespierre instituted the Cult of Reason in place of the Christian faith… they reduced religion to superstition and replaced the Christian faith with human reason, regarded as the complete and exclusive measure of knowledge’67”.
The author of the Apology goes further, explaining what caused their rejection of God. It was not merely arrogance—the pride of relying on their own reason and judging that which lay beyond their understanding—but also their way of life. Thus, if from their youth the Academies of Western Europe had placed the emphasis on the dry teaching of the sciences, mathematics, grammar and philosophy, but not theology, this led to pride taking root in the minds of those devoid of discernment—68—that is, those lacking judgement—and, as a result, to their rejection of Christ the Saviour. And they could not possess discernment, for they also led a sinful life, failing to observe the fasts—not even Great Lent—and living a life of debauchery. Therefore, the passions from which they did not wish to be healed were the true reason for their rejection of Christ, and not the enlightenment which they claimed to possess. For, the author continues, had they read Scripture with humility and in a pure life, flames of love for the Lord would have been kindled within them. They do not know Scripture, for it, ‘being heavenly light, does not illuminate everyone so poorly, but only those who humbly pray to the Father of Lights to open, by His divine gift, the eyes of their souls, so that they may see and understand’69
With sorrow, the author points out that passion brings darkness to the mind, driving the fear of God from the soul: ‘So how can they fail to turn away from God, when from the very beginning they are taught to live without God and thereafter live without the fear of God?’70 Consequently, the author recalls all the blessings Christ has bestowed upon people, culminating in their salvation, and concludes that people have no real, intellectual or philosophical reason to turn away from the Lord. The only reason—though a hidden one—is passion: they prefer to live in sin; that is why the author repeats very often: ‘These have… another god. Which one? Their bellies!… Whose god is their belly’71 The author points out that there are beliefs which spread and grow, yet ‘not from the truth of dogmas (for these are themselves paganism and error), but because they open the way to human desires, that is to say, to the lusts of the flesh. Such is human nature, or, to put it better, the evil use of human nature, which is contrary to the Gospel way of life’72”.
That is why the author earnestly urges Christians to flee from these philosophers and from meeting with them, even though they come ‘in the guise and pretence of brothers and friends’72 but lead a wicked life. Believers are advised not to listen to philosophers who lead sinful lives and refuse to reform, but to listen to those who lead pure lives, to ascetics, to saints, those filled with the Spirit, and to read the Gospel with humility, as well as the lives of the early Christians, from which they derive great spiritual benefit. The author emphasises that, although the philosophers and teachers of the West were well-versed in the secular sciences, whilst the Levantines, for the most part, were uneducated people, nevertheless, in both cases, it was not some lofty learning that caused them to turn away from Christ, but passion—the true motive of all those who rebel against Scripture! And it became apparent that those who wrote against Scripture were, in truth, leading immoral lives and refusing to reform, preferring to justify sin by rejecting the Gospel!
Believers were urged to live an authentic Christian life, so as not to give cause for scandal to those deceived by philosophy, so that, upon seeing the Christians, they might come to repentance. The author emphasised the proclamation of the faith not only in word but also in deed, through a pure life, like that of the believers of the early centuries: ‘Thus, when the Gentiles saw this way of life among the Christians of that time… they regarded it as a miracle. For this reason, and out of necessity, they confessed that the God of this new faith is indeed the true God… For this reason, like a divine magnet, it drew even the utterly unbelieving and the heretics of poor faith to the most holy faith of Christ… But there is no doubt that, when they see us—we who boast of holding to the most holy faith—living just like them, the unbelievers, that is to say, with the greedy, the envious, the hostile, the fornicators, the most depraved, and those insatiable in their appetites… there is, I say, no doubt that they will laugh at us and say that we confirm through our actions very much 73 what they preach with their words, namely that Christ is not the true God, nor is there any judgement, nor any reward! For they will go on to say that if you had truly believed what you profess with your lips, you would certainly not have lived as you do now! And so the unbelievers take offence at our wicked way of life, to utter much slander and blasphemy against the Holy Gospel and against Jesus Christ; and the words of the prophet Isaiah are truly fulfilled, who says: ‘My Name is blasphemed among the nations because of you’ (Isaiah 52:5). And again, on the contrary, when they see that we live in the manner of true Christians and that our ways 74 are blameless and praiseworthy… at least their open mouths will be silenced and they will fall silent, having nothing to criticise. Therefore, O Christian brethren, let us all strive to live in accordance with the precepts of the Christian faith75”.
It is clear, therefore, that the work does not incite hatred or the rejection of people, but rather love for our misguided brothers and sisters and repentance, for the salvation of souls, which is possible only through Christ the Saviour, whom the book has declared to be the True God.
APPENDIX
76’s Apology,
That is to say, a discourse or reply against the arguments of the godless, and a defence of our holy father John Chrysostom against the ‘77’ of the Jews and Greeks, and now also of the Volterians, asserting that our Lord Jesus Christ is the True God, which have now been printed here for the first time, during the reign of our most exalted lord, Voivode Alexander Nicholas Suțu, with the blessing of the most holy and God-chosen Archbishop and Metropolitan of all Ungrovlahia, Kiriu Kir Dionysius. And at the expense of Răducan Clencean, former chamberlain, and Dimitrache Toplicean, former steward. At the newly established printing house in Bucharest, in the year 1819, June. By the monk Isaia, printer at Neamț Monastery.
To the faithful reader
In the year 1816, this little book, entitled Apologia, was printed in Moldavia, at the Holy Monastery of Neamț, translated from the Greek by the blessed memory of the monk Gherontie, which proves that our Lord Jesus Christ is truly God, against the Volterians, the pagans, that is to say, the godless of this age. But since only a few copies were printed, intended solely for those there, now, at the urging of His Grace the Bishop of the Holy Diocese <a> of Argeș, Kiriu Iosif, we have also had it printed here. To which His Grace has added another sermon by Saint John Chrysostom, also for the same 78 purpose, comprehensively 79 and translated into our language by the same translator 80, so that this too may be for the glory of the Lord’s Name and to silence the unrestrained tongues, first of all those of the Jews, and afterwards those of the godless. Seeing their folly, the Prophet David said: ‘The fool hath said in his heart, “There is no God!”’ And so, as for the benefit that both these—namely, the Apology and the Word—will bring, we say nothing; but we are confident that those who read them will understand, and having understood, will glorify God for having willed that they should now be printed here, for His glory and the benefit of our Christian brethren.
The Overseers of the Printing House.
p. 8
However, seeing the extent of wickedness and how it is advancing and drawing nearer to us—and indeed, having long since reached our great cities and dwelling there without fear—moved by divine zealto bring some benefit to my Christian brethren, I have compiled this little book against the godless, as a sort of preventative remedy for those who, by God’s mercy, have not yet drunk the poison of Voltaireanism. And since my message is for Christians and to Christians (for to those who have rebelled against God, every word is in vain) it is evident that I can 81 draw my evidence from the Holy Scriptures and from the teachings and doctrines of the Church’s God-bearing teachers, which are deemed worthy of faith, and which you, as Christians, accept.
p. 115
Human wisdom (I address these words to you, O blessed 82 readers of mine), human wisdom, I say—which is also called ‘external wisdom’ and, more commonly, ‘philosophy’—is, as the holy Fathers say, a servant. But whose servant? Of the wisdom from on high, the divine wisdom, which descends upon mankind through revelation, and which truly is and is called lady and mistress. Now, when a handmaid knows her place and humbles herself to her mistress’s will, and without complaint performs the duties befitting her as a servant, then that handmaid is truly praised, as one who acts with full understanding, and is loved as a good servant. But when, on the contrary, she forgets who she is and disregards her mistress’s orders, and becomes arrogant towards her mistress and disobeys her commands, then truly, she is quite rightly disgraced, beaten and, finally, utterly cast out, just like the barbarous Hagar, who rebelled against Sarah, her mistress (Gen. 16:7). Now this kind of parallel also applies to human wisdom in relation to divine wisdom, which is its mistress.
Undoubtedly, when philosophy submits to divine wisdom—which is the Holy Scriptures—and serves its commands and requirements, it proves useful. Then indeed it is praised, loved and honoured as a good and knowledgeable servant. Do you wish to see it serving with such humble devotion and bringing great benefit to its mistress, Theology? See it in Dionysius the Areopagite, in Clement of Alexandria, in Basil of Caesarea. See her in Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus. See it in Cyril of Alexandria, in Justin the Philosopher and Martyr, in Augustine of Hippo, in Ambrose of Milan; see it in the councils 83 and in the struggles against heretics. All these divine teachers, and besides them countless others—84, who were most perfect in their worldly wisdom and well-versed in the sciences— yet they did not set themselves up against Scripture, nor did they presume to undermine the prophets or to reject certain parts of Scripture as if they were untrue. They did not sink to such arrogance and madness as to measure the divine words against their own foolish and timid reasoning, and then to condemn them and brand them as false and groundless. Far be it from them!
They restrained the boldness and arrogance of worldly wisdom. They submitted their words to the Maker and Giver of the Word. And like David, they spoke to God regarding matters that were unfathomable and difficult to understand: ‘I have become a fool before You’ (Psalm 72:22). For this reason, they are praised and blessed by all, and first and foremost by the Lord of all Himself, Who has promised to make them worthy of their rewards when He returns—that is, at His Second Coming—for this additional expenditure they have made in the Church, drawing upon wisdom from outside, in addition to the two denarii which He gave them, which we truly understand to be His two Holy Scriptures, the Old and the New. And whatever else you spend, when I return I shall give it to you (Luke 10:35).
And in this way the handmaid, that is, philosophy, boasts, when she remains within her own bounds, as we have seen above. But if anyone, having mastered Euclid’s elements and learnt the other branches of mathematics—all of which are mere conceit and smoke, and bring no true benefit to minds devoid of reason—if anyone, I say, puffing themselves up with these and similar things, wishes to lay down rules even for the heavens and to judge that which is supernatural by natural means—or, to put it more accurately, to grasp that which is supernatural with natural means— such wisdom is not wisdom but, rather, folly, ignorance and madness—worse and more harmful than all other madness.
The human mind has learnt to understand, judge and reason from beginnings and causes, which the mind itself has discovered and come to know, but not to judge and investigate those things which are higher and beyond its calculations!
p. 142
Know for certain and be assured that all the teachers of the Academies of Europe are godless. And they are so godless, as a trustworthy man has confirmed to us, that they are deeply ashamed to show themselves to be Christians. But what? Philosophers! This is their pride and their glory. Therefore, beware of those who come from there, appearing to be brothers and friends, for the reality is quite the opposite. The teachings of evil teachers are evil!
Above all, the present time demands that each and every one of us do what we can to protect our brothers, the Christians. Those who are able to write books should do so without delay, for the common good. And those who cannot, let them at least, with humble words—51, whether in church or elsewhere—use whatever they can to help their neighbour, just as the divine Apostle commands, saying: ‘Comfort one another and build one another up’ (2 Thess. 5:11).
p. 155
Therefore, O Christian brethren, let us all strive to live according to the precepts of the Christian faith. If we wish to be true Christians (as we ought, without fail, to desire), we ought to immerse ourselves in the understanding and knowledge of the Holy Gospel.
Oh, how holy, oh, how noble, oh, how heavenly and comforting it is! Oh, Christians, this book in which we believe and which is the beginning and foundation of our faith! It is known to those who do not read it as mere ordinary paper, but read it with the utmost attention and reverence. They know it, for, being heavenly light, it does not shine so indiscriminately upon everyone, but only upon those who humbly pray to the Father of Lights to open, by His divine gift, the eyes of their souls, so that they may see and understand its goodness and beauty! And here I affirm what I have read in the writings of an ancient teacher, that it is impossible for anyone who reads the Holy Gospel in this manner—85, that is, dispassionately, with piety and understanding, to fail to be set ablaze within by the fire of love for Jesus Christ. Likewise, as urged by the supreme Teacher, we ought to read diligently about the lives and conduct of the early Christians. For therein we find, in practice, the fulfilment of the Gospel; and together with this, O brothers, let us not turn away from the writings of the Holy Fathers and the Teachers of the Church, for they kindle our souls to read the divine Scriptures. I can say with certainty that many scholars, through long-standing habit of reading Greek books—and especially the despicable and foul Lucian— ultimately find themselves loath to take a Church book into their hands.
And indeed, I have seen with my own eyes how this has been the cause for many of a deadly indifference towards divine matters, and ultimately of utter ruin—that is, the cause of their turning away from God. For even the wise men of Europe, if we examine the matter closely, take their first steps towards turning away from God right here! From the very beginning of their education—which is grammar—right through to its final stage, philosophy, there is no thought or reflection on God or His Word to be found or heard anywhere. I see nothing else, I hear nothing else, nor is there anything else in their minds, save for numbers, lines, diagrams 86, cones, cylinders, pyramids, spheres, planets, bodies, parts, matter, elements; but the Word of God or any thought of Him—nowhere to be found! So what comes next? No sooner have they reached adolescence and begun their youth than they immediately enter the school of the lecherous Aphrodite—that is, of debauchery.
Passion, which alone is enough to bring about all darkness in the mind and to drive the fear of God from the soul at once. So how can they fail to end up rejecting God, when from the very beginning they are taught without God and thereafter live without the fear of God? For this reason, therefore, O brothers, I advise and urge our young scholars all the more to accustom themselves to reading the divine Scriptures with pious reflections, and likewise to reading the divine Fathers. For these are the ones whom Moses commands us to consult regarding our doubts, so that we may not dare to speak against them with slander, or worse still, with blasphemy, regarding those things we do not understand, as godless critics do.
And last of all, I, the humble and unworthy one, advise and urge everyone—the little ones and the great, the young and the old, men and women, laypeople and monks, the common folk and the priests, and all alike— I advise and implore you, for the Lord’s sake, to flee as from a fire from gatherings and socialising with blasphemers, to shut your ears with firm abhorrence and aversion to those godless blasphemies which the dogs spew forth from their filthy mouths.
Do not listen to the philosophers, and certainly not to the so-called ‘philosophers’ (that is, the lovers of darkness), but to the godly apostles! Not those who lead wicked lives and are lost, but those who live in purity, the ascetics, the saints! Not those untaught in divine matters, but those made wise by God and filled with the Spirit! Not those who say that souls are mortal and dwell on material things, but the preachers of immortality and those who contemplate heavenly matters! Not Voltaire, that godless and depraved man, but Jesus, who is both God and man, whose divinity youhave been confirmed by the prophets, by miracles, by the prophecies of His divine mouth, by the most glorious scope of His preaching, and by many other irrefutable proofs.
But alas, O Christians, what has become of My word? It has come to such a pass that I must liken 87 that dog (I know not how else, in a manner befitting their worth, to describe those who have raged against the divine majesty of Jesus)—I say, a likeness to that dog, compared with the Son of God, the Most Praised and Most Glorified Lord. Alas! Woe to such unheard-of rebellion! Moses, as we have seen above, demanded of his people such faith and such love for God that, even if you were to witness a great miracle, he says, you must guard against obeying
Then you, O Christian, who are so enriched and enlightened, at the mere hiss of a serpent, without seeing any miracle, great or small, you immediately set off, immediately submit, immediately flee from the Church, from your spiritual fathers, and from the Sacraments. And straightaway, after all else, you renounce your Christ, your Saviour. Instead of saying, like the divine Paul: ‘I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor principalities, neither powers nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us 88 from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord’ (Rom. 8:38–39).
But alas! Not only do these people refuse to say such things and the like, but I believe it even fills them with revulsion when they hear them. On the contrary, they boast all the more that they are Voltaireans, and not Christians! O Lord! O my Jesus, most sweet and most loving towards mankind. Where does such rebellion come from in these people? Where does such discontent come from towards You, their God? Their Creator! Their Saviour! You, being God, full of glory and lacking nothing, became man and were born as a babe in a most humble cave, for their sake. You lived on earth in the utmost poverty, for their sake. You lived in complete holiness, gathered disciples, and bestowed the heavenly Mysteries, for their sake. You died, last of all, and shed all Your Most Holy Blood for them, to renew them—that is, to deliver them from the tyranny of Satan—andprepare for them the heavenly Kingdom, unfading glory, and eternal life; and yet they slander such a great Benefactor and Saviour, renounce Him, and turn away. Have they perhaps found another, better God? And who is He? For apart from You there is no other: ‘I am God, the First; I am He, and there is no God apart from Me!’ (Isaiah, XLIV, 6). Truly, Lord, this is what You say through the mouth of the prophet Isaiah, and so it is, and this is what the whole Word demands!
But these people do not wish to acknowledge You. They have, as far as they are concerned, another god! Which one? Their own bellies! Indeed, for these who call themselves men, who have no righteous reason to renounce You, their bellies are their god! And this is not my own saying, but Your apostle Paul has shown us the whole truth, that these people wish to know no other god save their own bellies. Nor do they wish to take pride or boast in any other good and honourable thing, but only in their filthy and unclean deeds. Their god is their belly, and their glory is in their shame (Philippians 3:19). Behold the very true reason for their rejection of God: the belly!
If only You, Son of God, had become poor, so that You might enrich them! If only You, the Most High, had humbled Yourself, so that You might exalt them! If only You had been bound, You who are by nature free, so that You might loose them from the eternal bonds of death and hell! If only You, O God of Glory, had been reviled and dishonoured, so that You might glorify them who were condemned! Even if You had died, last of all, condemned and nailed to a cross, so that You might grant them eternal life, they, nevertheless, do not wish to know You, they do not wish to know You! They wish to know only their bellies. Whose god is their belly! Thus, truly, You fasted for forty days and forty nights, to set an example for us, yet they do not wish to grieve their god. Whose god is their belly! So, be it Great Lent, be it Holy Week, or even Good Friday, the belly must be honoured above all; it must, as far as possible, be sought after and allowed to rest well. Even though Christ, the founder of the Christian feast, fasted, and even though all the apostles observed fasting, yet the slaves of the belly and those who regard the belly as their god revile all things, turn their backs on everything, and give up all things—just like the accursed Esau—so long as their belly remains well satisfied! For their god is the belly!
Here, O beloved reader, I do not speak of the godless people of Europe—though truly these words apply to them as well, for they too regard their belly as god and indulge it greatly— but I do not speak of them, for they have fallen into the abyss of godlessness, not only through their stomachs, but also through the delusion and pride of Eosphorus 89, as I have said above. But I am speaking and writing here specifically for our Levantine brethren, who, as the saying goes, many of them renounce the Church, the Sacraments, the prescribed fasts and, to put it briefly, the Scriptures, the Gospels and all the rest. And these people do not, in truth, fall into this rebellion out of any profound understanding, for most of them are uneducated and can barely write their names. And how did someone such as this come to understand that our Lord Christ is not God, and that the Gospel is a fabrication, and why did he angrily renounce everything, as if he had been deceived until now? It is clear that this came from nowhere—that is, not from any thought of his own—but they heard that Voltaire was spreading these rumours and decided for themselves that this was indeed the case, that Voltaire was right. But why? Because this philosophy is of great help to them in satisfying their appetites and the pleasures below the belt. So, these utterly uneducated folk, in order to stuff into their bellies without a second thought, like some senseless beasts, everything that gives them pleasure—for this they flee from the Church and the Sacraments, and may even renounce Christ Himself!
But you are mistaken, O empty-minded ones! This little book is enough to bring you to your senses, if you are willing to humble your understanding and read it with humility, as well as all other books that are of benefit to the soul! For the Lord Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. Amen. And He will reward each person according to their deeds (Philippians 2:11). Yet I fear that even these words, which I speak with all love and as a brother offering you counsel, may seem like mere gossip to you. But you would act most wisely if you were to heed me. And if you will not, nor will you heed me—I, that is, do not presume to speak with divine authority, but I commit you to the unerring judgement of your own knowledge, that it may decide whether this is of any use to a baptised Christian, a true Orthodox son of the Eastern Church, who until yesterday fed on the divine Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, today turns his back on all, so that he may, without fear, satisfy his belly and thereby reap his own rewards, that is to say, the stinking pleasures. Let that knowledge be the judgement and decision in these matters!
Therefore, O Christian brethren, I turn the conclusion of my words to you, to you who are within the Ark of God, that is to say, within our Holy Church; to you, the children of God, I cry out and say, with all brotherly zeal, O brothers: if you wish to escape the deluge of paganism, remain within the Ark; do not go out of the Ark—that is to say, remain within the confines of the Church, which means that you must obey her commandments, turning away from every thought of disobedience, which has, instead of a father, self-love, and instead of a mother, pride. Flee as far as you can from Voltaire and the Voltaireans. Flee from any fellowship with them … Beware lest anyone deceive you with philosophy and vain delusion. This is the commandment of the divine Paul. Do not be misled by the honourable name of philosophy, for philosophy has rejected the true God. Philosophy has rejected Christianity. Philosophy has taught that souls are mortal!
- 1
Library of the Romanian Academy (BAR), Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 1030, fol. 1. Description of the printed work in Ioan Bianu, Nerva Hodoș, Early Romanian Bibliography 1508–1830, vol. III, Bucharest, Socec Workshops, pp. 288–289. The Apologia comprises 262 pp. The title page is framed within a border decorated with plant motifs and icons of saints in the form of medallions, whilst on the reverse, also within a border featuring flowers and saints, is depicted the icon of Christ the Saviour, and beneath it is written: Amen. ‘Amen, I say to you: whoever hears my words and believes in the One who sent me has eternal life.’ The pages containing the ‘Word to the Reader’ and the introduction feature frontispieces and ornate borders. The work comprises six chapters, a concluding word and, appended to this, the words of St John Chrysostom proving that Christ is God.
- 2
Alexandru Nicolae Suțu was Prince of Wallachia in 1806 and again between 1818 and 1821, and Prince of Moldavia between 1801 and 1802. He did not become directly involved in supporting the Eteria, nor did he hinder its activities, although, in order to prevent anti-Ottoman uprisings, he banned the carrying of weapons and their acquisition without authorisation. He is regarded as the last Phanariot prince of Wallachia, and rumours circulated at the time that he had been poisoned by members of the Eteria. For further details on him, see Mihai Țipău, The Phanariot Rulers of the Romanian Principalities 1711–1821, 2nd ed., Bucharest, Omonia Publishers, 2008, pp. 164–167.
- 3
Dionisie Lupu, Metropolitan of Ungrovlahia from 1819 to 1823.
- 4
‘Biv’ used to mean ‘big’ in the Slavic language.
- 5
For details regarding the Cișmeaua Mavrogheni Printing House and its first publication, see Daniela Lupu, Printing and Books in Wallachia during the Phanariot Reigns (1716–1821), 2nd ed., Bucharest, Bucharest Municipal Museum Press, 2014, pp. 124–129. The author is of the view that it was not Caragea’s Legiuirea that was the first printed work from Cișmeaua Mavrogheni, but rather the Apologia itself, as indicated by a document from Metropolitan Dionisie Lupu, which dates the printing press’s inception to the year 1819, and not 1818. The author notes that Constantin Carataș was a doctor in Bucharest, that Răducanu Clinceanu had been a timber merchant, and that Dumitrache Topoliceanu had been a judge at the divan.
- 6a6b6c
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 1030, p. 1.
- 7
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 897. See Ioan Bianu, Nerva Hodoș, Bibliografia românească veche…, vol. III, p. 136.
- 8
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 897, p. 1.
- 9
Metropolitan of Moldavia from 1803 to 1842.
- 10
Scarlat Callimachi was Prince of Moldavia in 1806, and from 1807 to 1810 and from 1812 to 1819. Mihai Țipău, The Phanariot Princes in the Romanian Principalities…, pp. 57–60.
- 11
Daniela Lupu, Printing and Books in Wallachia during the Phanariot Reigns…, p. 190. See also N. A. Ursu, ‘The School of Romanian Translators in the Community of Abbot Paisie at the Monasteries of Dragomirna, Secu and Neamț’, in Romanians in the Hesychast Renewal, ed. Virgil Cândea, Iași, Trinitas, 1997, pp. 78–81.
- 12
Daniela Lupu, Printing and Books in Wallachia during the Phanariot Rule…, p. 128.
- 13
Constantin C. Tomescu, Metropolitan Gregory of Ungrovlahia, Chișinău, Cartea Românească Diocesan Press, 1927, p. 118.
- 14
Ariadna Camariano, ‘The French Philosophical and Revolutionary Spirit Opposed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Sublime Porte’, in ‘Cercetări Literare’, IV, 1941, pp. 114–138. Article republished in Ariadna Camariano-Cioran, Romanian–Greek Relations: Historical and Philological Studies, ed. Leonidas Rados, Bucharest, Omonia Press, 2008, pp. 153–172. The author shows that in Constantinople, in 1798, another Greek book was published to counter French revolutionary ideas, namely Paternal Teaching, attributed to Antim, Patriarch of Jerusalem, but in fact written by Grigorie V.
- 15
Ariadna Camariano, The French Philosophical and Revolutionary Spirit…, p. 117. See also Constantin Sathas, Neoellhnikh filología, Athens, 1868, p. 639.
- 16
Ariadna Camariano, The French Philosophical and Revolutionary Spirit…, p. 136.
- 17
Filippos Eliou, Greek Bibliography of the 19th Century, Vol. I, 1801–1819, Athens, 1997, p. 129.
- 18
Ariadna Camariano, The French Philosophical and Revolutionary Spirit…, p. 116.
- 19
Constantine Cavarnos, Saint Athanasios Parios, Modern Orthodox Saints, vol. 15, Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, Belmont, Massachusetts, USA, 2006, p. 47.
- 20
Constantine Cavarnos, Saint Athanasios Parios…, pp. 9–11, 19.
- 21
Ioan I. Ică Jr., ‘The Venerable Athanasius of Paros (1721–1813) – a forgotten “Colivar” dogmatist and his liturgical-Eucharistic theology’, in Homage to Father Prof. Dr. Ioan I. Ică, on the occasion of his 75th birthday, Cluj-Napoca, Renașterea Publishing House, 2007, pp. 408–432.
- 22
Steven Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity, trans. Mihai-Silviu Chirilă, Bucharest, Sofia Publishers, 2013.
- 23
Steven Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity…, pp. 447–448.
- 24
In this context, too, we refer once again to the words of Runciman, who, speaking of another book containing similar ideas, The Paternal Exhortation, criticised by the revolutionaries, points out that the work presented the religious freedom guaranteed by the Turks to the Orthodox Christians of the Ottoman Empire as being more spiritually beneficial than the heresy officially accepted in the final days of the Byzantine Empire. Steven Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity…, p. 431: ‘Although lacking in tact, the Paternal Exhortation was not theologically wrong. It was not the Church’s business to engage in subversive nationalist activities… Nor was the Exhortation unjustified from a political point of view. Even though the Turkish Empire was in decline, it had so far managed to quell every revolt against its authority.”
- 25
Pascal Kitromilides, ‘Initiatives of the Great Church in the mid-eighteenth century’, in Ibid., An Orthodox Commonwealth, 2007, pp. 1–6.
- 26
Following his failure to introduce the Enlightenment-inspired curriculum into the Academies of Athos and Constantinople, Vulgaris sought refuge at the court of Catherine II. See Pashalis M. Kitromilides, The Neo-Hellenic Enlightenment, Bucharest, Omonia Publishers, 2005, p. 158.
- 27
Pascal Kitromilides, Initiatives of the Great Church…, p. 6: The activities in the fields of education, pastoral care and administration, to which we have referred, appear to be aimed at safeguarding the Orthodox community as a whole and do not seem to stem from any nationalist motives or from experiences of secular power politics.
- 28
Paschalis M. Kitromilides, The Neo-Hellenic Enlightenment, Bucharest, Omonia Publishers, 2005, pp. 11, 15.
- 29
Paschalis M. Kitromilides, The Neo-Hellenic Enlightenment, p. 234.
- 30
Paschalis M. Kitromilides, The Neo-Hellenic Enlightenment…, p. 233.
- 31
Philokalia of the Neptic Fathers, with an introduction by Olivier Clément, Paris, vol. I, 1995, p. 8, cited in Metropolitan Daniel Ciobotea, “Philosophy of the Enlightenment and the Light of the Philokalia. Self-sufficient Reason and Praying Reason in the 18th Century”, in The Enlightenment and Hesychasm, Iași, Trinitas, 2006, p. 34: “The authors of the Philokalia… sought to counter the French Encyclopédie of the Enlightenment with a sort of encyclopaedia of uncreated light.”
- 32
Metropolitan Daniel Ciobotea, ‘Philosophy of the Enlightenment and the Light of the Philokalia. ‘Self-sufficient reason and prayerful reason in the 18th century’”, in The Enlightenment and Hesychasm, Iași, Trinitas, 2006, pp. 34–54 (here pp. 35, 38).
- 33
See, for example, Ariadna Camariano-Cioran, ‘The Penetration of Western Enlightenment into the Romanian Lands through works translated or written by Epirote scholars’, in Ariadna Camariano-Cioran, Romanian–Greek Relations…, pp. 756–761.
- 34
Mihai Maxim, ‘The Romanian Principalities and the Ottoman Empire’, in The History of the Romanians, vol. VI, Bucharest, Ed. Enciclopedică, pp. 589–602, and Mihai Maxim, ‘The Romanian Principalities and the Ottoman Empire (1400–1600)”, in The History of the Romanians, ed. Ștefan Ștefănescu, Camil Mureșan, Tudor Teoteoi, vol. IV, Bucharest, Ed. Enciclopedică, 2001, p. 540. Compared with the previous period, the political and legal status of the Romanian Principalities in relation to the Ottoman Empire remained unchanged, as the principalities continued to be tributary states. Whilst, from 1716 until 1774—the year of the Treaty of Kuciuk-Kainargi—the Romanian Principalities had a single, Ottoman protectorate, from 1774 the Russian protectorate was added, meaning they now had a dual protectorate, without, however, the Turkish one being abolished. The status of a tributary state, enshrined in the so-called House of Peace (Dar al-ahd) – that is, the pact or treaty – stipulated that, in exchange for the payment of tribute, that territory would enjoy: internal autonomy, that is to say, the preservation of its institutions, the Church, the Christian ruler and the country’s lands, whilst ensuring the Sultan’s non-interference in internal affairs; it also provided for the mutual exchange of merchants, fugitives and prisoners. Its foreign policy, however, was dictated by that of the Sublime Porte, the state being a friend to the friends and an enemy to the enemies (dosta dost ve düșmana düșman olub) of the Turks.
- 35
Paul Cernovodeanu, ‘Mentalities and Solidarity’, in The History of the Romanians, vol. VI…, p. 439.
- 36
Paul Cernovodeanu, ‘Mentalities and Solidarity’, in The History of the Romanians, vol. VI…, pp. 435–442.
- 37
Mentioned by the Russian consul in Iași on 9 August 1798. See Paul Cernovodeanu, Mentalities and Solidarities…, p. 441.
- 38
Nicolae Corneanu, ‘The Holy Fathers and Ancient Philosophy’, in Ibid., Miscellanea Patristica, Timișoara, Amarcord, 2001, p. 31: ‘And it is no paradox to say that the era in which there was complete harmony between Christian thought and philosophy was the era of the flourishing of Christian literature... Consequently, the Holy Fathers did not condemn or reject ancient philosophy, but rather drew upon it and used it both to reach an understanding with the world that preceded them and to lay the foundations for a new, sound and universally valid system of thought.”
- 39
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 461.
- 40
See the description of it in Antim Ivireanul. The Printed Work, Policarp Chițulescu (ed.), Doru Bădără, Ion Marian Croitoru, Gabriela Dumitrescu, Ioana Feodorov, Bucharest, Romanian Cultural Institute, 2016, pp. 181–182.
- 41
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 461, pp. 1–3.
- 42
For example, he translates articles written by Chevalier de Jaucourt.
- 43
Alexandru Duțu, Aspects of Romanian Culture in the 18th Century (1700–1821), Bucharest, Editura pentru Literatură, 1968, p. 150.
- 44
Alexandru Duțu, Aspects of Romanian Culture in the 18th Century…, p. 151.
- 45
Nicolae Stoicescu, Bibliographic Catalogue of Feudal Monuments in Bucharest, Bucharest, Basilica Publishers, 2017, pp. 422–425.
- 46
Nicolae Corneanu, The Holy Fathers and Ancient Philosophy…, p. 23.
- 47
Vlad Georgescu also examined the reception of the Enlightenment in the Romanian Principalities in PoliticalIdeas and the Enlightenment in the Romanian Principalities, 1750–1831, Bucharest, RSR Academy Press, 1972, however, as the work was published during the Communist era, it misinterprets the Church’s role in publishing works. For example, on p. 80, the author, failing to understand the Church’s role, erroneously states that: ‘The Church blamed this situation on ideas from the West and, in particular, on French atheists; to counteract their influence, a number of religious books were printed, expressing the Church’s point of view, particularly on the relationship between man and the divine, but, in general, dogma remained unchanged, the Orthodox Church proving incapable of adapting to the new realities.”
- 48
Mihai Maxim, ‘The Romanian Principalities and the Ottoman Empire (1400–1600)’, in The History of the Romanians…, vol. IV, p. 541.
- 49
The tributary states retained full freedom of worship and Christian rule, and the construction of mosques within that territory was prohibited. In the Ottoman Empire, although Christianity was permitted, there were certain restrictions; for example, churches could not be built taller than the mosques, bells could not be rung, and public criticism of Islam was punishable. Christians did not enjoy the same economic, political and legal rights as Muslims.
- 50
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 1030, p. 142. Thes. 5, 11.
- 51a51b
meaning ‘simple’.
- 52
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 1030, p. 142.
- 53
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 1030, p. 159.
- 54
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 1030, p. 165.
- 55
BAR, Manuscripts and Rare Books, CRV 1030, p. 159.
- 56
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 1030, pp. 26–27.
- 57
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 1030, p. 42.
- 58
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 1030, p. 44.
- 59a59b
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 1030, p. 110.
- 60
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 1030, p. 115.
- 61
BAR, Manuscripts and Rare Books, CRV 1030, p. 117.
- 62
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 1030, p. 117.
- 63
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 1030, p. 143.
- 64
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 1030, p. 141.
- 65
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 1030, p. 157.
- 66
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 1030, pp. 67–68.
- 67
Metropolitan Daniel Ciobotea, Philosophie des Lumières et lumière de la Philocalie…, p. 37.
- 68
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 1030, p. 119.
- 69
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 1030, p. 155.
- 70
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 1030, p. 158.
- 71
BAR, Manuscripts and Rare Books, CRV 1030, p. 164.
- 72a72b
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 1030, p. 82.
- 73
that in the text.
- 74
meaning ‘manners, customs’.
- 75
BAR, Manuscripts and Rare Books, CRV 1030, pp. 153–155.
- 76
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, CRV 1030.
- 77
contradict in the text.
- 78
Acastași.
- 79
comprehensive.
- 80
interpreter.
- 81
Pociu.
- 82
Pious, devout. Augustin Scriban, Dictionary of the Romanian Language, Bucharest, Saeculum Publishers, 2013, p. 177.
- 83
collapses.
- 84
perfect.
- 85
sliced.
- 86
in the sense of diagrams.
- 87
in the sense of a comparison.
- 88
separate in the text.
- 89
ewsforίkoj – devilish (in Greek).