Somewhere, behind the blocks of flats on Unirii Boulevard, the 1980s urban redevelopment project concealed a stately monastery, remembered by the people of Bucharest by the name of its founder, Antim, rather than by its patron saint, as is generally the custom. The artistic treasures housed here are many and marvellous, so that the soul, in its endeavour to choose which of them to linger upon and find solace in, is faced with a great dilemma. In the shade of the open porch, the traditional portal stands majestically, adorned with a wholly distinctive floral decoration—a rhythmic flow, though not applied with great rigour, which preserves the naturalness and freedom characteristic of the plant kingdom, whilst at the top it is crowned by a garland of flowers with free-flowing edges, not confined within a border.
Amidst the enchantment that captivates and intoxicates the soul of anyone who loves the beauty of this stone embroidery, the eye is drawn to a circular medallion, within which, set within a garland like a laurel wreath, stands a most distinctive form which, from a distance, appears to be akin to the sinuous curves of the surrounding vines. Only a careful glance reveals that there, at the bottom of the inscription and just above the entrance, stands a snail, but in a quite unique posture.
This study aims to draw attention to a particular feature of the snail’s structure and anatomical position – the emblem of Saint Antim of Ivire – as depicted in various stylistic interpretations.
Saint Antim of Ivire, a cultural and artistic figure
Known in history as ‘Metropolitan Antim of Ivireanul’, he arrived in Wallachia after being forced to spend a large part of his life in deprivation and hardship, in an environment hostile to the Orthodox faith and authentic values. Little is known about the precise chronological context of this event – at the time, it seemed to be a trivial matter; consequently, in the history of Wallachia, Saint Antim first appears in 1691, which is why it is surmised that he may have arrived here between 1688 and 1689–1690 1.
A little more is known about his origins, although various opinions have been put forward on this matter as well. Nicolae Iorga believed him to have been born beyond the Sea of Azov, in the ancient region of Tane, which was, at that time, under Turkish rule 2. Others believed that, having been born on the Balkan Peninsula, his name ‘Ivireanul’ might have derived from the Iviron Monastery on Mount Athos, where he is said to have taken monastic vows 3, but the fact that he came to the country as a layman, under the name Andrei, rules out this hypothesis 4.
There are, however, two types of evidence pointing to the saint’s clearly Georgian origin. One is that of Anton Maria del Chiaro, secretary to Saint Constantine Brâncoveanu, the Martyr Voivode, who knew him personally and whose admiration was justified not only by the metropolitan’s achievements but also by his nationality. The second, and perhaps the most credible, is that of the metropolitan himself, who, in his writings, indicates his Georgian origin, referring to himself as ‘Antim the Ivirian’, ‘Antim, a Georgian by birth’ or ‘Antim the hieromonk, the printer from Iviria’5
Once settled in Ungrovlahia, he demonstrated a genuine talent for the art so essential to the circulation of books, learning the craft of printing from Bishop Mitrofan of Buzău and quickly becoming ‘a master of this art’6. Thus, over the quarter of a century he spent among us, Saint Antim distinguished himself through an unprecedented output in printing, becoming virtually synonymous with this aspect of universal culture. In the printing press that travelled from the Metropolis of Bucharest to Snagov Monastery, then back to Bucharest, and on to the Dioceses of Râmnic and Târgoviște, the metropolitan printed 63 books (of which 39 were printed by him personally), 22 in Romanian, 30 in Greek, the rest bilingual and one trilingual (Greek-Slavonic-Romanian) 7. It should be noted that, although the period is strictly limited to 1691–1716, ‘the number of these books to be higher, but for statistical purposes I have included, with one exception, only those in which his contribution as a printer is expressly mentioned’8.
Above all, he was also concerned with producing a catechetical work of undoubted literary merit—his Didahii having already become legendary in the history of Romanian literature—as well as with the construction of a monastery in Bucharest, which was intended to serve as a cultural centre, complete with a printing press and a library.
His end was no gentler than the beginning of his life. Caught in the middle between the interests of the new Phanariot prince Nicolae Mavrocordat 9 and those of the Turks, on the one hand, and those of the Cantacuzinos and the Austrians, on the other, deeply disliked because he had not followed Mavrocordat in his flight, and suspected by the latter of having returned to the capital to anoint another prince in his place—which is precisely what happened—the metropolitan found himself completely alone in the face of the Phanariot. The latter returned to Bucharest shortly afterwards, victorious and, as might be expected, thirsting for revenge, whereupon he took action, removing the hierarch from his see without any consideration whatsoever and without the slightest respect for all his achievements.
According to the testimony of Anton Maria del Chiaro, Metropolitan Antim was imprisoned at Court and ‘compelled, through threats, to renounce, in writing, to the Archbishopric; and in his place, Archbishop Mitrofan, the former confessor of Saint Constantin Brâncoveanu, was elected by the Prince and his ministers. He was then stripped of his rank, accused of witchcraft and deceit, and a red cap was placed on his head in place of the metropolitan’s mitre. He was also stripped of the right to bear the name Antim, and given his lay name, Andrei. He was then sentenced to life imprisonment in the monastery on Mount Sinai and, set off in the dead of night by cart, under the guard of several Turks, he arrived at Gallipoli, near the River Dulcia, which flows through Adrianople, where he was killed and thrown into the river’10
Metropolitan Antim’s work has been studied from various perspectives, with his achievements as a ‘printer, translator, writer, architect, draughtsman, miniaturist, librarian and archivist’ being highlighted in various ways, though with the exception of those in the field of heraldry 11.
Heraldic emblems and ecclesiastical coats of arms from the time of Saint Antim Ivireanul
In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, in Wallachia and Moldavia, the seals or other types of insignia belonging to members of the high clergy or to ecclesiastical institutions featured as their representative symbol the very image of the patron saint of the respective metropolitan, episcopal or ecclesiastical church in question; consequently, this was either a scene from the Gospel or the image of a saint, chosen from the rich Christian hagiographic calendar, as the church’s patron. From the 17th century onwards, however, particularly in printed works of the period, heraldic-style representations began to appear 12.
From a study of a wealth of material on Romanian ecclesiastical heraldry dating from the 17th century to the present day, the following categories of heraldic emblems belonging to ecclesiastical authorities and high-ranking prelates—from Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania alike—have been identified:
1. Heraldic emblems bearing the coat of arms of the respective metropolitan see or diocese, or simply the attributes of the episcopate (such as the coat of arms of Metropolitan Ștefan of Ungrovlahia).
2. Heraldic emblems bearing the personal or family coat of arms of the prelate in question (for example, the coats of arms of Metropolitan Petru Movilă and those of Metropolitan Antim).
3. Heraldic insignia bearing the metropolitan or episcopal coat of arms accoladed (or included within the same shield) with that of the respective prelate’s family.
4. Heraldic emblems bearing the episcopal or family coat of arms combined with the initials of the prelate in question.
5. Heraldic emblems featuring only the initials of the prelate in question within the shield.
6. Ecclesiastical heraldic insignia featuring the coats of arms of the counties within the respective metropolitan see or diocese 13.
For example, the coat of arms of Metropolitan Stephen of Ungrovlahia on the reverse of the title page of the work Îndreptarea legii (The Rectification of the Law), printed in Târgoviște in 1652, 3f in which, having omitted the patron saints of the Wallachian Metropolis (Saints Constantine and Helena) and in the absence of a personal or family coat of arms for the said prelate, the shield (featuring notches on the sides) incorporated the attributes of the episcopate, namely the mitre suspended by a chain from the ecclesiastical cap derived from Catholic ecclesiastical heraldry, (depicted, however, in the Orthodox version, with a cord ending at each end in a single tassel) as well as, on the dextra, the handle of the staff, placed in a band, and on the senestra, the handle of the cross, placed in a bar 14.
The series of coats of arms of Saint Metropolitan Petru Movilă, printed both during his time as archimandrite and abbot of Pecerska Monastery, and later as Metropolitan of Kiev, depicts, in a shield divided into six fields, the arms of the branch of Simeon Vodă Movilă to which the bearer of the coat of arms belonged, the shield being surmounted either by the ecclesiastical cap or the bishop’s mitre, flanked on the right by a helmet surmounted by princely attributes and on the left by another crowned helmet, bearing an eagle on its crest, on the left, either just the ecclesiastical cap accompanied by a cross and a crozier, arranged crosswise; the cartouche shield is flanked by supporters (two busts and two angel heads) as well as by rich, plant-15-style mantling.
As for the printed works of Saint Antim, they are not richly decorated, but the coats of arms of the Principality of Wallachia appear in all of them, and in most of those printed in Bucharest or Râmnic, the emblems of the principality appear on the reverse of the title page. An analysis of the heraldic structure has led to the identification of the following variants:
An oval coat of arms, featuring an eagle holding a cross in its beak, flanked by the sun and the moon and perched on a tree with lush foliage. The emblem is borne by two figures, depicted in bust form, and surrounded by plant motifs.
Another variant features the eagle holding the cross in its beak, perched on a small tree situated on a mountain ridge.
In some engravings, the eagle, bearing the cross, perches on a branch and is flanked on either side at the top by two six-pointed stars. The outer frame is decorated with plant motifs, in a somewhat simpler design.
In another type of heraldic representation, the Wallachian eagle is depicted on a meadow, with the sun and moon at the top of the coat of arms.
A final variant is characterised by the arrangement of the outer ornaments of the emblem, which is marked at the top by a floral ornament serving as a helmet.
It is clear that these variants were specific to the coats of arms of Wallachia during the reign of Saint Constantine Brâncoveanu, whilst the printed works from the time of Stephen Cantacuzino bear his own heraldic emblems, those specific to the Cantacuzino family 16.
In two documents, dated some years apart – one dated 1 May 1709 and the other 25 March 1714 – Saint Antim used the large metropolitan seal (57 mm in diameter), depicting the Holy Emperors Constantine and Helena holding up the Cross, with the walls of a fortress in the background. All around it appears the text: ‘By the grace of God, Antim, Metropolitan of Ungrovlahia’17s.
Aurelian Sacerdoțeanu points out that, on the one dated 1714, the metropolitan used the term ‘hrisov’, an ‘episcopal charter bearing the seal (printed) in the top left-hand corner, in the patriarchal style’18 and in which the prelate introduced the innovation of the seal printed on the paper of his charters 19, thereby adopting the patriarchal practice of affixing the seal in the top left-hand corner of the document 20.
Documents issued upon the foundation of Antim Monastery
In the spring of 1713, when, a few months earlier, the serious disagreement with the ruler of the country over dangerous accusations and suspicions—which Antim had been forced ‘to counter with plausible justifications’—had been resolved, in such a tense climate he established the Foundation of the Monastery of All Saints (24 April 1713), and also began “the preliminary work for the construction of the building”21. This beginning was marked by a divine revelation, which took place on the feast day of Saint Agatha the Martyr (5 February), and on 24 April 1713 the first documents were issued, namely the ‘Statement of All Matters’, drawn up by the holy founder himself, as well as a letter from the treasurer Drăgușin Merișanu concerning the land on which the monastery was to be built 22.
The following have been preserved from Saint Antim: His will, preserved at the Library of the Romanian Academy; the ‘Establishment of Antim Monastery’ with its ‘Rules and Regulations’, begun on 24 April 1713 with the start of the monastery’s construction and completed on 15 March 1716 23.
The latter is held by the Romanian Academy (manuscript with inventory number 3342), written and illustrated in 1713, in all likelihood by Nicolae the Scribe, and which remains ‘a unique work in our ancient culture in terms of both content and the art of miniature painting’ 24. On folio 4v we find ‘Instructions for the Establishment of the Venerable Monastery of All Saints’, that is to say, 32 chapters, covering the entire administration of the monastery and the order of alms whichwere resolved to be carried out annually for the poor and needy from the monastery’s income, now established in this manner during the days of the most enlightened and exalted Lord Io Constantin B(Râncoveanu) Basarab Voivode, by us, the humble Metropolitan of Ungrovlahia, Anthim Ivireanul, the founder, in the year 7221 (=1713), on 24 April, in which year the construction of the Church of the ‘25’ began. Also here is a splendid pen-and-watercolour drawing depicting the coat of arms of Metropolitan Antim26: a silver snail, head upwards, bearing a six-pointed star between its horns. Above it is a cardinal’s hat, from beneath which emerge the ends of a cord, along which are the initials ‘A‹ntim› I‹vireanul› M‹itropolitul› U‹ngrovlahiei›26’.
The presence of this type of coat of arms is noted in almost all works relating to the Settlement, and it is described in various ways: ‘Within a cartouche-shaped shield with notches at the sides, there appears a snail positioned in the centre, surmounted by a six-pointed star. The shield, surmounted by a mitre flanked by a cross and a crozier and topped by an Orthodox-style ecclesiastical cap (with a tassel at each end), is surrounded on three sides by two palm branches intersecting at their bases (CXIV, 5)’15. In the centre is a “Baroque shield with a border, bearing a silver snail with its head raised, holding between its horns a six-pointed star, also in silver”27. On the reverse of the title page is “the coat of arms of Metropolitan Antim, drawn in pen, as follows: Within a shield with a red background and black edges there is a snail. It stands on a green field with its shell facing the shield and in an upright position. Its horns point upwards and a six-pointed star is formed between them. From the upper sides of the shield extend a staff – on the left – and a crutch – on the right. The shield is ‘crested’ with a bishop’s mitre, above which a hat with wide brims is visible. From beneath the hat, two cords extend to the right and left of the shield, each ending in a tassel. Next to the coat of arms are the letters: ‘A(ntim) I(vireanul) M(etropolitan) U(ngro-Vlahiei)’28’. In addition to this coat of arms, the manuscript also contains, on folio 6v, “a beautiful drawing, also in pen, depicting Antim Monastery in its original form, with two spires”26.
Upon completion of the works, the metropolitan reinforced his provisions through the Archiepiscopal Charter of Saint Antim, Metropolitan of Wallachia, issued on 20 July 1715, in which he states that, since even the prophet David commands us to ‘speak well of God in churches and to love the adornment of His house. Therefore, in our humility, since by God’s mercy we have been raised to the high office of the episcopate and have been entrusted with the care of shepherding the flock that speaks the truth, being mindful of these two duties that rest upon us, we have not, to the best of our ability, failed to teach the flock of the faithful what is useful and salvific, and to nourish them with the sweet milk of the Word. Likewise, for the uplift, enhancement and adornment of the holy places, we have had great zeal and divine fervour; and this zeal, with the guidance and assistance of God, the Giver of Good, has borne fruit and come to a successful conclusion’29
This archiepiscopal charter, preserved in the State Archives and printed for the first time as part of the complete works of Saint Antim, provides us with a comprehensive picture of how the metropolitan conceived his spiritual testament, placing this text in relation to the Charter of Antim Monastery and the ‘Capetele de poruncă’ 30. The question was raised as to whether the archiepiscopal charter of 1715 might have been ratified by a golden bull, a fact which led the eminent scholar to refer to it as a ‘charter’, ‘a term usually attributed to solemn princely acts’31.
Returning to the presence of the snail, an analysis of Romanian heraldry has concluded that, in terms of species distribution, mammals, birds and reptiles (especially snakes) are adequately represented, whilst insects are less common, whilst the snail featured in the ‘symbolic coat of arms’ of the scholar-metropolitan Antim Ivireanul 32 is among the rare species. However, in establishing the snail as the metropolitan’s coat of arms, the process began with cautious assumptions and ultimately led to definitive conclusions.
The personal coat of arms of Saint Antim Ivireanul
In his study published in 1885, Ghenadie Craioveanu emphasised that, in the sculptures created by Metropolitan Antim, ‘his snail’ can be seen at every turn, including on the ironwork of the door latch at the main entrance to the church, which was, at that time, in the National Museum ‘33’, a fact which led him to consider that the snail was, for Antim, ‘a sort of emblem’34.
In the volume Opere of the metropolitan, edited by Gabriel Ștrempel, “Metropolitan Antim’s coat of arms” is mentioned35. Dan Cernovodeanu, in a paper presented at the ‘N. Iorga’ Institute of History, within the Commission for Heraldry, Genealogy and Sigillography, considered that the depiction in the manuscript issued on 20 July 1715 36 constitutes “the coat of arms (author’s note) of Metropolitan Antim Ivireanul, one of the examples of ecclesiastical heraldry”37, whilst elsewhere he states that “this is considered to be the personal coat of arms (author’s note) of Metropolitan Antim Ivireanul”15. In describing the Antim Monastery Charter of 1713, he noted that, “within a shield-cartouche with notches at the sides, the personal or family coat of arms (author’s note) of the high prelate appears, namely a snail positioned in the centre and surmounted by a six-pointed star. The shield, surmounted by a mitre-crown flanked by a cross and a crozier and topped by an Orthodox-style ecclesiastical cap (with a tassel at each end), is surrounded on three sides by two palm branches that intersect at their bases”38).
A year later, Maria Dogaru devoted a special study to the heraldry found in the printed works and manuscripts of Saint Antim, whose interest in the art of heraldry is also evident in his own heraldic insignia, the metropolitan’s personal coat of arms (author’s note) being a snail in pale, with a six-pointed star between its horns, the whole flanked by two crossed olive branches. It formed part of the evolution of Romanian ecclesiastical heraldry, resembling, in a way, the model found in the Pravila of Govora, 1640, these insignia being intended for their most reverend metropolitans of Wallachia39
In Gabriel Ștrempel’s volume, it is mentioned that, above the doors, beneath the inscription, there is the ‘Gherbul’, ‘Antim’s emblem, represented by a snail and a star, framed by stylised leaves, all carved in stone. The same snail is also found in the monastery’s charter, preserved at the Academy Library, a symbol of the tombs from which the dead will emerge at the Last Judgement, or rather of the monk, who must stand guard at the entrance to a monastery church’40
As for the Archiepiscopal Charter of 1715, considered to be one of the most precious monuments of the art of miniature painting, which flourished on the soil of our homeland”41, Aurelian Sacerdoțeanu considers that Nicola Ierei is not only the scribe but also the artist who adorned them, since, if Saint Antim were their author, the Baroque influences and echoes of the Italian Renaissance would be difficult to explain 42: “We wish to point out that the author of the Foundation Charter and the Archiepiscopal Charter is not Metropolitan Antim, but Father Nicola, scribe of the archdiocese and, more recently, priest of the Church of All Saints, now known as Antim”, and that, although the text has been attributed to the martyred metropolitan, it “does not bear his hallmarks”43. It is not the aim of the present study to ascertain the veracity of such claims, but merely to gain an insight, as far as possible, into the world of the Metropolitan of Iveria, who chose the snail as his coat of arms, for reasons known only to him and which we can only surmise.
The reasons for choosing the snail
In most printed works, beneath the engraving depicting the country’s heraldic emblems there is also a description of them in verse—44—as a caption that reinforces in writing what is presented visually. For example, the Pravila de la Govora (1640) features the coat of arms of Wallachia on the reverse of the title page, and on the second page, opposite the coat of arms, the following verses:
This face bears a raven as its coat of arms,
Above which now hangs
a crown as it soars It depicts a house most illustrious and most ancient
That of the Basarab family, the valiant
man with sceptre, who is seen upon the throne in all his glory.
His valiant victories, marvelled
at by many, reveal the throne and the loftiness of this house,
and his sceptre clearly depicts his valour.
Under it, every mortal’s life is peaceful.
Do not let their crown be scattered to ruin
, O Lord, but may it never cease,
and may the raven’s breast be forever protected.
Uriil Năsturel of Fieresci 45.
The Rectification of the Law, printed at Târgoviște, in 1652, under ‘The Sign Given by God to the Most Holy Metropolitans of the Land of Ungrovlahia’, includes some explanatory verses regarding the six figures present in the coat of arms:
The teachings of Athens do not shine
as brightly as these six numbers triumph
here; from east to west, they strike fear into
all, and not a single one shall be left unprotected.
The Cross and the staff in the fierce spiritual battle
; The High Priests were granted great power by the Lord;
With these, Christians have set
out to lead them to heaven; They have taken the great power, the Capas,
the Pletistura and the Gherdan adorn the head
, casting a shadow to shield the Spirit from the heat of the day
; the Mitre, the sign of the Tiara of the ancient Archbishops
, Worn with purity by many for deliverance from labour,
O STEPHEN, Shepherd of Orthodoxy, gifted
By Christ with a new guardianship ordained for all.
Lord Jesus, preserve our father 46 within the holy Metropolis
, both now and for evermore.
And in the Texts of the Old and New Testaments, written in 1709, we find:
The Lord God created all things out of nothing
and brought them into being with great power.
And afterwards He fashioned, taking earth and clay
, the first man, Adam, without a trace of sin.
In His own image He fashioned him
, breathing upon his face the breath of life.
Taking from his side, He wisely fashioned Eve,
giving her a helper for a suitable dwelling.
And from these two, many people were born
, as is clearly shown in the Scriptures.
Chosen and marvellous people, renowned for their good deeds,
living in piety, as the Scriptures say.
And from all of them, the Christ-lover, in firm faith,
took his likeness
: The Most Enlightened Constantine of the Basarab lineage,
Lord of Wallachia, may he live many years,
Who gathers within himself the flowers of goodness
And with his faith denounces the ways of wickedness 47.
As for the Settlement, the choice of the snail can easily be justified by the verses inscribed beneath the metropolitan’s coat of arms:
‘Let all flesh,’ says the prophet,
‘sing to the Lord in every place.’
And the snail still raises its horns,
teaching us all to praise Him. 48
Thus, right beneath the sketch of the church he wished to build, the snail appears drawn by the founder’s own hand; interpreted as a symbol of humility, it has its horns extended to perceive the light and warmth of the sun, much like the arms of a man in prayer 49.
In popular culture, the snail’s horns have been likened to the horns of a wild ox. In a brief analysis of the words ‘bour’ and ‘zimbru’, Sextil Pușcariu noted that, ‘whilst the word “nour” has become “nor” in most regions, the word “bour” has remained in this form throughout its evolution. Only in Mediaș do we find the form ‘bor’, as the word is still in common use to this day. Albeit with a different meaning. Figuratively speaking, the snail was so called because of its long horns, just like the animal that was once the terror of our forests. The researchers of the Linguistic Atlas of Romania, who travelled the length and breadth of the country to determine the geographical distribution of our words and their meanings, found a fairly extensive area, in the centre of Transylvania, along the Mureș and the two Târnava rivers, encompassing the villages of: Lăureni, Râciu, Lechința, Săuceni, Șoimuș, Biia, Ighișul-Vechiu, Mihai Viteazul, then Cimibrul in Alba and Aciliu in Sibiu, where ‘bourel’ is the common term for a snail. In other regions too, children recite the familiar verses:
‘Snail, snail,
Codobelc,
Stick out your b o u r e ș t i horns…’,
meaning horns as big as those of a bour. Naturally, as this adjective is no longer understood in most regions, it has been given a different interpretation and the verses have become:
‘Snail, snail,
Codobelc,
bring out your ox-like horns…’50
Thus, the snail’s horns, raised in prayer, constituted a powerful argument for its selection from the rich traditional Byzantine bestiary—so widespread during the Brâncoveanu period, a time when the decorative vocabulary, already rich in floral elements, diversified, welcoming zoomorphic and anthropomorphic motifs with open arms.
Architectural and symbolic features of Saint Antim Ivireanul’s snail
On the frontispiece of the charter, the snail is placed directly beneath the depiction of the church, with the episcopal emblem above it, where the vertical orientation of the snail has been noted on very rare occasions: “The episcopal emblem – the image of the Saviour – the laurel wreath held by two angels above the globe – the globe – the Church of Antim – the snail form a vertical line. This graphic line does not appear to be coincidental’51 Without delving further into this, which would have gone beyond the strict scope of the study, most of those who focused on the snail described it as straight, but the correct term is ‘in pale’, within a shield-cartouche with indentations at the sides, the personal coat of arms of the high prelate appears, namely a snail placed in pale 52 and surmounted by a six-pointed star 53.
Saint Antim’s snail occupies a special position; it has been freed from a state of bondage, from attachment to earthly and worldly things, and urged to aspire towards heavenly and spiritual matters. It has abandoned the position that afforded it stability within the Earth’s gravitational field, to settle into a position of unstable equilibrium, in a vertical orientation.
Saint Antim takes elements of the snail’s anatomy and recomposes them into a Cubist-synthetic scheme, creating a reality that transcends this world. The viscous, soft, ever-changing mass, which serves as the snail’s means of locomotion, becomes a staircase to heaven, whilst the shell, carried hither and thither, directs its cavity towards that same spiritual space.
Any house whose owner wishes to withstand the ages and the vicissitudes of life must be built on solid rock, following the model set out at the end of the Sermon on the Mount: ‘Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, yet it did not fall, for it was built on the rock’ (Matthew 7:24–25). But the snail’s house, its shell, has no such foundation at all; on the contrary, it has a soft, unstable foundation, subject to decay and perishability—a changeable one that moulds itself to the shape of the surface upon which it crawls. In contrast, the material from which the snail’s ‘house’ is formed—though created by the Creator—is a solid one; curved surfaces are often found in nature ‘to ensure the structural integrity of three-dimensional forms. Herein lies the secret of the solidity of snail shells or seashells…’54
Thus, the snail is a combination of two opposing substances: one soft, limp, fragile and vulnerable, and the other hard, stable and capable of withstanding attacks. Saint Antim transformed the fragile and viscous structure—the objective cause of interpretations with negative connotations—into a stable, firm one, steadfastly oriented towards the heavens, in a vertical line determined to reach the sky. Thus, the roles were reversed. The shell, the house, the shelter, the refuge has become a strange support for the vulnerable, unstable part—yet a support that cannot sustain it, since its convex side rests on the ground. Thus, a convex curve that touches the horizontal plane of the earth at a single point, a curve tangent to a straight line but situated in a precarious state of equilibrium, a sort of ‘hoppa Mitică’ lacking the weight at the bottom intended to give it stability.
Saint Antim’s snail no longer relates to the gravitational coordinates of the earth, of this world, but reaches towards the heavens, in a long-awaited and well-deserved rest. There is no question of imbalance, since it is not the shell upon which the mollusc’s structure rests (derived from the Latin molluscus, where mollis means ‘soft’), but rather the latter which drags the shell—its home—behind it, but not in a crawl clinging to the earth and worldly things, but in an ascent up the vertical ladder of virtues.
It is true that the snail also appears in other coats of arms and in other ecclesiastical paintings, but rather insignificantly so, compared with other creatures, some of which cannot boast of honourable behaviour at all. For this reason, in encyclopaedias dedicated to heraldry, the snail occupies a more than modest place, if not a non-existent one, which is why I have had to rely on data provided by Wikipedia and other, less academically reputable sources 55. Regardless of the scientific fragility of the data provided, one thing is certain: namely, that when snails appear in European heraldry, they do not depart from their role as crawling molluscs.
Unlike the snail of Saint Antim, and despite some particularly vivid and evocative stylisations, snails remain creatures dependent on the ground or surface over which they move. And when it appears upright, as, for example, in an engraving by Albrecht Dürer (1471–1528) from 1515, commissioned for Emperor Maximilian I, in which, amongst other symbols that adorn it, there is also a land snail with a marine shell, it appears to be vertical because it is climbing up a support of this kind, using its slimy, sticky side; but this does not mean that it actually relates to verticality.
As for examples found in Romanian painting, we note that on the porch of the church at Sinaia Monastery (probably painted by Pârvu Mutu, court painter to Brâncoveanu and the Cantacuzinos) there is a snail in the Last Judgement, in the scene of the Resurrection of the Dead (on the west wall of the porch, to the right of the church’s entrance door)56. This is understandable given that ‘Spătarul was on very friendly terms with Antim, ever since his time in Râmnic (where he had a foundation), relations that proved to be close when Metropolitan Antim helped Spătarul Cantacuzino to obtain the title deed to the land on which he would build the Colțea Hospital, something which his predecessor, Metropolitan Teodosie, had stubbornly refused”57.
From the sources studied, it appears that the snail motif is found only at Antim Monastery. Although it has been stated that ‘tradition attributes to Metropolitan Antim […] the sculptures adorning the church [n.n.: the chapel of the Diocese of Râmnicu-Vâlcea], in which the frequently repeated motif—the snail—is found, which was the metropolitan’s emblem, a symbol of modesty and faith’58, on-site analysis has refuted this claim.
In conclusion, at Antim Monastery, “above the doors, beneath the inscription, is the ‘Gherbul’, Antim’s emblem, represented by a snail and a star, framed by stylised leaves, all carved in stone. We also find the same snail in the monastery’s charter, preserved at the Academy Library, a symbol of the tombs from which the dead will emerge at the Last Judgement, or rather of the monk, who must stand guard at the entrance to a monastery church’40—a place of rest par excellence, far from all the turmoil of the world.
In Your rest…
It is not without significance that the symbolic figures accompanying the letters of the name Antim form acrostics59, ΑΝΘΙΜΟΣ:
Α with an eagle (ἀετός) taking flight
Ν with a noctule bat (νυκτερίδα) in flight
Θ with a jackal (θώς)
, Ι with a bird, a hawk (ἱέραξ) walking
, Μ with a bee (μέλισσα) in flight
, Ο with a snake (ὄφις), a viper (ὄχεντρα)
Σ with a snail (σαλιγκάρι)
Historians of literature or the arts regard these animals as ‘symbolic representations of the Greek letters in Anthimos’s name’. All manner of fanciful explanations have been put forward regarding these animals. However, a simple consultation of Greek-Romanian and Romanian-Greek dictionaries was sufficient. Here is a list of words that correspond both to the initials and to the appearance of the animals: A = aetos = eagle; N = nikterida = bat; TH = thos = jackal (other possibilities include: TH = therio = animal, beast; TH = thilastikos = mammal; TH = thirion = beast, monster – yet ‘jackal’ seems to us to be the solution closest to the truth!); I = ierax = hawk; M = melissa = bee; O = ofis = snake; C = saligkaros = snail’60
From a certain point of view, we may assume that “all these elements comprising the coat of arms can be regarded as representing the life and work of the metropolitan: his liberation from bondage, as well as the profound learning acquired over years of study, a learning which he strove to enrich throughout his life”61.
‘I will not enter my house, I will not lie on my bed of rest; I will not grant sleep to my eyes, nor slumber to my eyelids, nor rest to my temples, until I have found a place for the Lord, a dwelling-place for the God of Jacob. Behold, I have heard of the ark of the covenant; I have found it in Ephrathah, in the land of Jearah. We will enter His sanctuaries; we will worship at the place where His feet have stood. Arise, O Lord, into Your rest, You and the ark of Your holiness’ (Psalm 131:3–8).
By comparing the ecclesiastical emblems with those of Saints Constantine and Helena, it can be seen that the coat of arms, featuring a snail in the centre accompanied by the episcopal insignia, was only designed towards the end of the metropolitan’s life, when he was working on the construction of the monastery that bears his name62—the only place where the snail appears in a vertical position, or in the pale.
The Metropolitan chose the snail, despite the fact that it possessed all the characteristics of an unclean creature. Although current translations list the snail amongst those to be avoided, in reality it refers to a species of lizard; the text in Leviticus 11:30 lists five animals that Jews must not touch, but whose identity remains unclear. Whilst some Hebrew scholars classify these animals as reptiles, certain dictionaries indicate either two classes to which the creature designated by a particular term might belong (reptiles, birds), or a single other class (mammals). Consequently, the results of translation efforts are highly varied: μυγαλῆ καὶ χαμαιλέων καὶ καλαβώτης καὶ σαύρα καὶ ἀσπάλαξ (LXX) / migale et cameleon et stelio ac lacerta et talpa (Vulg.): The shrew and the chameleon, and the weasel, and the lizard, and the mole (B 1688 63), The shrew and the chameleon and the stellius and the lizard and the sable. (B 1795 64); the mole, the chameleon, the weasel, the lizard and the stoat. (B 1760 65), the hedgehog, the crocodile, the salamander, the snail and the chameleon (B 1997), the lizard, the little lizard, the crocodile, the salamander and the chameleon (Anania, 2001). 66 In the Hebrew Bible, the snail appears only once 67, and not at all in the Septuagint; in the Old Testament, it was considered unclean.
However, the coming of Christ abolished these prohibitions, most clearly evident when Saint Peter was prepared to baptise the household of Cornelius, a Gentile 68. Thus, if ‘nothing that God has cleansed may be called common’, then the snail, too, considered itself fortunate to be freed from the yoke of a prohibition on cohabitation and adoption, with only those projections remaining. We speak of: ‘to move like a snail, to move as a snail does, to move at a snail’s pace…’.
And Saint Antim, of all living creatures, not only chose the snail as his emblem, but also freed it from its bond with the earth, raising it up to rest in heaven. It seems strange to suggest that the snail might rest not clinging to the ground, in a stable horizontal position, but in an upright position. Any straight line, depending on its orientation, can convey—if vertical—firmness, lending the entire scene, particularly when arranged symmetrically, a sense of balance; if horizontal, a certain tranquillity and lack of tension; and if it is oblique, dynamism and vigour.
The diagonal, by definition being indecisive, always conveys a sense of a certain instability, as it can change its position at any time, tilting more or less. Whereas a vertical line, through the firmness of a clear direction, conveys stability and balance, and can be seen as a diagonal that has come to rest. At first glance, between the horizontal and the vertical, it is the former that suggests a state of stillness, having overcome all gravitational tension and now ‘resting’ completely. But a spiritual gaze does not see earthly rest, but heavenly rest, and this cannot be attained through a state of stillness, but through a detachment from the things below and an ascent towards the things above, as one in which ‘heaven and earth have today been united, Christ being born. Today God has come to earth and man has ascended to heaven…’69
If ‘the poor man carries his home, like a snail, on his back’, neither did the metropolitan enjoy many homes, but only one, ‘the house of the Lord’, which, as he testified, ‘…through my many labours, through the printing of books and through the charity of merciful Christians, we have been deemed worthy to raise from the foundations a beautiful church here in Bucharest, to the glory and thanksgiving of Him who is glorified as God in the Trinity, and to the honour and praise of all the saints together… We have also adorned and embellished the church, with God’s help, both inside and out, with many silver ornaments and costly vestments…’70
Having reached this point, it is impossible not to notice the aesthetic structure of the home with which God has endowed the poor snail—a shell whose spiral has generated lengthy and scholarly commentary, not necessarily concerning the garden creatures that scurried about at the Metropolitan’s feet, but rather those that inspired famous jewellers.
The Metropolitan wished to construct a truly special building, something that would surpass the usual achievements of other hierarchs or boyars, in that century when, alongside the buildings erected by the prince and his family, ‘there were many others commissioned by clergymen, boyars, soldiers and merchants. Never was there more built in Bucharest, nor more sumptuously, than during that Brâncoveanu era spanning the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century. One can list some twenty churches and monasteries erected in the city alone during the period in question…’71; and among the multitude of places of worship dedicated to the clergy, ‘the Antim Monastery must be placed at the forefront’. Being ‘well-proportioned, with strong walls, a portico with stone pillars and elegantly decorated bases, an impressive entrance door framed by the stone surround, carved stone mullions at the windows, and surrounded by cells built of exposed stone—all carefully restored in our time—Antim Monastery does credit to the Church and is a true gem of the capital’71
Considered to be the symbol of Saint Antim, which he himself carved into the stone of the window frame: “The snail, the ray and the star speak without words: the snail represents Antim who, like the snail, carries with him all the great gifts received, on the ray, from God, represented by the star; and through the ray he sends them as a gift back to the Same God, the Source’72
*
Coming from somewhere—it is not clear where—and finding his end, once again, in an unknown place, advancing with zeal, toil and meticulous care towards the attainment of his set goals, bestowing upon those around him priceless treasures of art and culture, which endure to this day, Saint Antim Ivireanul identified himself with the creature whose example of tenacity, prudence and perseverance he followed throughout his life: the snail. This tiny crawling creature, which, according to Old Testament criteria, possesses unclean attributes but is perhaps present in native and local folklore, was chosen to become his enduring emblem for all that was of significance: his unique and precious foundation, Antim Monastery – an emblem to which the founder conferred a wholly unique architectural and symbolic structure, characterised by a verticality that leaves behind earthly matters to rise towards the heavenly.
- 1
Gabriel ȘTREMPEL, ‘Introduction to Antim Ivireanul: Works’, Critical Edition and Introductory Study, Minerva Publishing House, Bucharest, 1972, p. VII.
- 2
Nicolae IORGA, A History of Romanian Literature, Vol. II, From 1688 to 1780, Pavel Suru Bookshop, Bucharest, 1926, p. 465.
- 3
Alexandru ODOBESCU, ‘A Few Hours at Snagov’, in Revista română, II, 1862, p. 402.
- 4
N. IORGA, A History of Romanian Literature, vol. II, p. 465.
- 5
I. BIANU and Nerva HODOȘ, Early Romanian Bibliography, Volume I, Bucharest, 1903, pp. 324–326; Nicolae ȘERBĂNESCU, ‘Antim Ivireanul the Printer’, in BOR, vol. LXXIV (1956), nos. 8–9, p. 701; G. ȘTREMPEL, Introduction, p. VI.
- 6
N. IORGA, A History of Romanian Literature, Vol. II, p. 465.
- 7
Florin ȘERBĂNESCU, ‘Saint Antim of Ivireanul’, in The Rulers and Hierarchs of Wallachia – Their Foundations and Tombs, Cuvântul vieții Publishing House, Bucharest, 2009, p. 516.
- 8
Doru BĂDĂRĂ, Romanian Printing at the End of the 17th Century and the Beginning of the 18th Century, Braila Museum, Istros Publishing House, Braila, 1998, p. 118. The author considers that, during the 25 years he spent in Wallachia, Saint Antim ‘personally printed 38 of the 63 books that came off the presses under his supervision’.
- 9
He was appointed to the throne of Wallachia on 5 January 1716, having previously ruled in Moldavia.
- 10
Anton-Maria Del Chiaro Fiorentino, The Revolutions of Wallachia, (based on the text re-edited by Nicolae Iorga), translated into Romanian by S. Cris-Cristian, Viața Românească, Iași, 1929, Institute of Cultural Memory – CIMEC, with an introduction by Nicolae Iorga, p. 54.
- 11
Maria DOGARU, ‘Antim Ivireanul and the heraldic art of Wallachia’, in Revue d’études sud-est européen, 1976, p. 317.
- 12
Dan CERNOVODEANU, ‘Ecclesiastical Heraldry in the Romanian Principalities’, A paper also presented at the ‘N. Iorga’ Institute of History within the Commission for Heraldry, Genealogy and Sigillography, in BOR, 7–8/1975, p. 962.
- 13
Dan CERNOVODEANU, ‘Ecclesiastical Heraldry in the Romanian Principalities’, pp. 964–966; Dan CERNOVODEANU, The Science and Art of Heraldry in Romania, Scientific and Encyclopaedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 1977, pp. 180–182.
- 14
Dan CERNOVODEANU, ‘Ecclesiastical Heraldry in the Romanian Principalities’, in BOR, 1975, pp. 962–963.
- 15a15b15c
Dan CERNOVODEANU, The Science and Art of Heraldry in Romania, p. 179.
- 16
Maria DOGARU, ‘Antim Ivireanul and the heraldic art of Wallachia’, pp. 317–318.
- 17
Aurelian SACERDOȚEANU, ‘The Seals of Metropolitan Antim Ivireanul’, in The Metropolis of Oltenia, p. 838.
- 18
Aurelian SACERDOȚEANU, ‘Antim Ivireanul, archivist, librarian and topographer’, in Glasul Bisericii, XXII, 1963, Note 48, p. 882.
- 19
Aurelian SACERDOȚEANU, ‘The Chancery of the Metropolis of Wallachia and its Clergy up to 1830’ in Glasul Bisericii, vol. XVIII, 1959, nos. 7–12, p. 574.
- 20
Aurelian SACERDOȚEANU, ‘Antim Ivireanul, archivist, librarian and topographer’, in Glasul Bisericii, XXII, 1963, nos. 9–10, p. 886, note 60.
- 21
Academician Dr Gabriel ȘTREMPEL, ‘The Beautiful Place of Worship of Saint Antim’, p. 31.
- 22
http://manastireaantim.ro/pag.php?id_int=9
- 23
Ghenadie, ‘The Testament’, BOR, 1885, p. 227; Prof. Dr Ion NANU, ‘A Historic Monument of Religious Art: The Endowment of Metropolitan Antim Ivireanul’, in BOR No. 3–4, 1961, p. 229. The study was republished in the volume Saint Hierarch and Martyr Antim Ivireanul, Vol. II, Founder of the Romanian Language and Culture, Basilica Publishing House, Bucharest, 2016, pp. 213–294.
- 24
Gabriel ȘTREMPEL, Catalogue of Romanian Manuscripts, vol. III, B.A.R. 3101–4413, Scientific and Encyclopaedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 1987, p. 7.
- 25
Antim Ivireanul, Works, critical edition by G. ȘTREMPEL, Bucharest, 1972, pp. 325–346; G. ȘTREMPEL, Catalogue of Romanian Manuscripts, vol. III, p. 93.
- 26a26b26c
Antim Ivireanul, Works, critical edition by G. Ștrempel, p. 454.
- 27
Aurelian SACERDOȚEANU, ‘Antim, printer’, in GB, 1964, p. 238.
- 28
Nicolae ȘERBĂNESCU, ‘Antim Ivireanul the Printer’, BOR, 1956, p. 756.
- 29
Ștefan DINULESCU, ‘The Life and Work of Antim Ivireanul, Metropolitan of the Romanian Lands (1708–1716)’, in Candela V (1886), 12, pp. 736–737; Archimandrite Sofian BOGHIU, Saint Antim Ivireanul and the Monastery of All Saints, Bizantină Publishing House, Bucharest, 2005, p. 166.
- 30
Saint Antim of Iviri, Writings, Basilica Publishing House, Bucharest, 2011, p. 11.
- 31
Aurelian SACERDOȚEANU, ‘Antim Ivireanul, archivist, librarian and topographer’, in Glasul Bisericii, XXII, 1963, p. 882.
- 32
Tudor-Radu TIRON, ‘The Walachian Heraldic Bestiary: An Attempt at Systematisation’, in Revista de Istorie Socială, XIII–XV, 2008–2010, p. 408.
- 33
The first key to the church door, which is said to have been carved by the founder himself, is also shaped like a snail.
- 34
Ghenadie CRAIOVENU, ‘The Will of Metropolitan Antim Iverenu’, in BOR, no. 3, March 1885, p. 229.
- 35
Antim Ivireanul, Collected Works, critical edition by G. Ștrempel, p. 454.
- 36
Held at the Library of the Academy of the Socialist Republic of Romania, original Romanian manuscript, inv. no. 3342.
- 37
Dan CERNOVODEANU, ‘Ecclesiastical Heraldry in the Romanian Principalities’, Paper also presented at the ‘N. Iorga’ Institute of History within the Commission for Heraldry, Genealogy and Sigillography, Romanian Orthodox Church, 1975, p. 963.
- 38
Dan CERNOVODEANU, ‘Ecclesiastical Heraldry in the Romanian Lands’, Paper also presented at the ‘N. Iorga’ Institute of History within the Commission for Heraldry, Genealogy and Sigillography, p. 963.
- 39
Maria DOGARU, ‘Antim Ivireanul and the heraldic art of Wallachia’, p. 320.
- 40a40b
Antim Ivireanul, Works, critical edition by G. Ștrempel, pp. 432–433.
- 41
Aurelian SACERDOȚEANU, ‘Antim Ivireanul, archivist, librarian and topographer’, in Glasul Bisericii, XXII, 1963, p. 883.
- 42
Aurelian SACERDOȚEANU, ‘Antim Ivireanul, archivist, librarian and topographer’, p. 883.
- 43
Aurelian SACERDOȚEANU, ‘Antim Ivireanul, archivist, librarian and topographer’, p. 890.
- 44
Maria DOGARU, ‘Antim Ivireanul and the heraldic art of Wallachia’, p. 318.
- 45
The Pravila, printed at Govora in 1640, in Ion BIANU and Nerva HODOȘ, Early Romanian Bibliography, 1508–1830, Volume I, 1508–1716, published by the Romanian Academy, Bucharest, 1903, p. 109.
- 46
Ion BIANU and Nerva HODOȘ, Early Romanian Bibliography, 1508–1830, Volume I, 1508–1716, p. 191.
- 47
Sofian BOGHIU, Saint Antim of Ivire and the Monastery of All Saints, Bizantină Publishing House, Bucharest, 2005, pp. 40–41.
- 48
Gabriel ȘTREMPEL, ‘Introduction to Antim Ivireanul’, Works, p. 454.
- 49
Archpriest Vicențiu OBOROCEANU, ‘The Holy Antim Monastery and Acts of Charitable Love’, in the volume TheHoly Monastery of Antim: History, Spirituality and Culture, 1713–2013, Basilica, 2013, p. 38.
- 50
Sextil PUȘCARIU, ‘The Aurochs and the European bison – a little philology’, Carpați, Vol. V, 15 Dec. 1937, No. 12, p. 324.
- 51
Cătălina VELCULESCU, Ileana STĂNCULESCU, ‘Animals between Numbers and Flowers’, in the volume TheWorld of Animals: Realities, Representations, Symbols, edited by Maria Magdalena Székely, “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University Press, Iași, 2012, p. 368.
- 52
A ‘pal’ (from the Latin palus) is a heraldic element consisting of vertical lines and positioned in the centre of the coat of arms, http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/pal/57301?q=pal#56971.
- 53
Dan CERNOVODEANU, Science and Art, p. 179.
- 54
Tudor OPRIȘ, Encyclopaedia of the Living World, Garamond Publishers, Bucharest, 2006, p. 580.
- 55
Hunting for snails, snails in art, https://huntingforsnails.wordpress.com/category/heraldry/.
- 56
Cătălina VELCULESCU, Ileana STĂNCULESCU, ‘Animals Among Numbers and Flowers’, p. 366.
- 57
V. Virgil MOLIN, ‘Antim Ivireanul – publisher and printer in Râmnic (1705–1708)’, in MO, XVIII, 1966, 9–10, p. 830, note 14; Cătălina VELCULESCU, Ileana STĂNCULESCU, ‘Animals among numbers and flowers’, p. 366, Note 40.
- 58
Ion NANU, ‘A Historical Monument of Religious Art’, B.O.R. no. 3–4, p. 291; Emile PICOT, ‘Biographical and Bibliographical Note on the Printer Anthime d’Ivir, Metropolitan of Wallachia’, Paris, 1886, pp. 522–523; The statement was cited by Cătălina VELCULESCU and Ileana STĂNCULESCU, ‘Animals Among Numbers and Flowers’, p. 367.
- 59
Aurelian SACERDOȚEANU, ‘Antim the Archivist’, in BG, 1964, p. 243.
- 60
Cătălina VELCULESCU, Ileana STĂNCULESCU, ‘Animals between Numbers and Flowers’, p. 371.
- 61
Maria DOGARU, ‘Antim Ivireanul and the heraldic art of Wallachia’, p. 319.
- 62
Maria DOGARU, “Antim Ivireanul and the Heraldic Art of Wallachia”, p. 320.
- 63
The Bible, 1688, vols. I–II. Text established and edited by Vasile Arvinte and Ioan Caproșu, Iași, ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’ University Press, 2001, 2002.
- 64
The Blaj Bible, 1795, Jubilee Critical Edition. Historical study by Ioan Chindriș. Philological and linguistic study by Eugen Pavel, Rome, 2000B, 1997.
- 65
The Vulgate Bible, Blaj, 1760–1761, Volumes I–V. Edited by Ioan Chindriș. Foreword by Eugen Simion, Bucharest, Romanian Academy Press, 2005.
- 66
Adina CHIRILĂ, Alexandru GAFTON, The dynamics of biblical translations in relation to the contextual ambiguity of terms. Case study: Leviticus 11:22, http://litere.univ-ovidius.ro/Anale/documente-z/articole-2016-2/14%20Chirila_Gafton_2_2016_art.pdf.
- 67
“The snail actually appears in only one place: Psalm LVII, verse 8. There, the Septuagint interprets it as referring to ‘wax’ that melts, but in the Hebrew text the snail (shabl) appears, which ‘melts’, that is to say, leaves behind a sticky trail. Neither the Hebrew nor the Greek uses the word ‘snail’ there. Similarly, Ezekiel does not refer to a snail either. It is merely an attempt to interpret an architectural term (‘winding staircases’, mot à mot in Hebrew, ‘staircases all round’) (Information provided by my colleague, Associate Professor Dr Alexandru Mihăilă).
- 68
‘And the next day, as they were walking along the road and approaching the city, Peter went up onto the roof to pray at the sixth hour. He felt hungry and wanted to eat, but whilst they were preparing his meal, he fell into a trance. And he saw the heavens opened, and something like a large sheet of cloth, tied at the four corners, descending to the earth. In it were all the four-footed animals and the creatures that crawl on the ground, and the birds of the air. And a voice came to him: ‘Get up, Peter, slaughter and eat.’ But Peter said: ‘By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unclean or impure.’ And again, for the second time, a voice came to him: ‘What God has made clean, do not call unclean.’ And this happened three times, and immediately that thing was taken up into heaven” (Acts of the Apostles 10:9–16.)
- 69
Hymns at Litie, in the Minei for December, p. 434.
- 70
Ștefan DINULESCU, ‘The Life and Work of the Metropolitan of the Romanian Lands, Antim Ivireanul (1708–1716)’, Candela V (1886), 12, pp. 736–737; Archimandrite Sofian BOGHIU, Saint Antim Ivireanul and the Monastery of All Saints, Bizantină Publishing House, Bucharest, 2005, p. 166.
- 71a71b
Constantin C. GIURESCU, The History of Bucharest, p. 86.
- 72
Sofian BOGHIU, Saint Antim…, p. 13.