The context of the demolition of the Church of the Forty Martyrs in Bucharest: previously unpublished documents

The Central National Historical Archives hold several files, containing original documents and copies, which provide us with important information about the final years in the history of the Church of the Forty Martyrs in Bucharest. Drawing on these sources, which have not been published to date, although they have been partially referenced in some specialist works, we aim to outline the final period in the existence of this place of worship, which no longer stands today.

Several studies have been devoted to the church, focusing primarily on its early history, its foundation by the great boyar Mihail Cantacuzino 1, its dedication by the founder as a metochion of the Diocese of Râmnic, and the privileges it had obtained over time from the rulers of Wallachia 2. Alternatively, in passing, whilst discussing other buildings, the authors would mention a few details from the history of this holy place 3. Nicolae Stoicescu provides more detailed information through his bibliography on Bucharest’s churches 4, but particularly through a 1971 study 5 dedicated to the monastery on Mogoșoaia Bridge. Quite recently, a work has been published which refers to the church’s architecture and to a plan for its reconstruction in the mid-19th century, drawn up by the architect J. Schlatter 6.

Historical accounts provide details about the origins of the place of worship. It was built7 by Mihail Cantacuzino on land that had been part of his wife Ilinca Văcărescu’s dowry. After the founder’s return from Russia, where he had taken refuge following the Russo-Turkish War of 1768–1774, he continued the construction, dedicated it as a metochion of the Diocese of Râmnic in 1775, and established a school 8. Through purchases and land exchanges, initiated by the founder Mihai Cantacuzino himself, the monastery’s land holdings were expanded 9. This measure was also followed by other Bishops of Râmnic, who were in charge of the place of worship following the founder’s permanent departure for St Petersburg 10. The dedication of his foundation to the Diocese of Râmnic, led at that time by Bishop Chesarie, can also be explained by the fact that Mihai Cantacuzino was acquainted with the bishop, as both had been part of the Wallachian delegation that travelled to Russia, to negotiate the placing of the Romanian Principalities under Russian protection, with a view to gaining independence from the Ottoman Empire, against the backdrop of the Russo-Turkish War of 1768–1774 11.

The church enjoyed princely privileges, including a monopoly on the manufacture and sale of white wax candles in Bucharest and the right to employ four liude 12 to look after the metoh; their number increased, eventually reaching 60 scutelnici 13. On 29 March 1813, Ioan Gheorghe Caragea reaffirmed the church’s privileges: the monopoly on the production of white wax, tax exemption for two craftsmen, the scutelnici, and the right to have vineyards in certain locations, yielding one ban per vadră. These rights were intended to assist the church, which had no other sources of income, as it possessed no estates, outbuildings 14, vineyards or Gypsies 15.

The charter of Grigorie Dimitrie Ghica, dated 12 March 1825, confirms the church’s monopoly: ‘that it alone may maintain the workshop in which white wax candles are made throughout Bucharest… in addition to which this privilege of manufacture is granted to this monastery by the Lord Brothers of yore, through charters, to maintain and employ sixty candle-makers, men exempt from taxation, for the work and support of this Holy House, as well as alms from the winegrowers of Valea Mieilor, Valea Nigovanilor, Valea Lungă, Sârbenii, Valea Pietrii and Delicelul, south of Saac, each contributing one ban per vadră… We have shown mercy and have renewed and confirmed all these acts of mercy set out above, so that they may be upheld without fail16.

The learned hierarch of Râmnic, Chesarie, who died on 9 January 1780 17 whilst in Bucharest, was buried at the Church of the Forty Martyrs. It is possible that Bishop Galaction, who died on 20 April 1838 18, was also buried here, although the Andronești Chronicles, the source on which historiographical works are based, merely state that he was buried at the diocese’s metochion, without specifying the town.

Several events that took place at the Church of the Forty Martyrs are recounted by D. Papazoglu in his work on the founding of Bucharest. The author notes that during the Russo-Austro-Turkish War (1787–1792), the Austrian Field Marshal Colburg, together with his General Staff, stayed in the houses of that metochion; in 1821, Grigorie Ghica lived there, and on 6 December 1830, the first flag of the Romanian army 19 was consecrated in the churchyard. Papazoglu recalls that: ‘on the site where the Bishop’s Garden and the Athenaeum stand today, there used to be a large church, a metochion of the Diocese of Râmnicu Vâlcei, with a large courtyard, episcopal palaces, surrounded by several houses and enclosed by a wall’20.

Other events in the church’s modern history are recounted by Gh. Crutzescu, who states that, by the mid-19th century, the church lay in ruins and, in the square surrounding it, “in 1861, the American Circus set up on this open space, with 27 performers, including 7 Persians”21 The deterioration of the church and its grounds is also reflected, the author points out, in a comparison of the two town plans: the one from 1790, drawn up by Purcel, and the later one by Major Borroczyn. Whereas in Baron Purcel’s plan, the monastery was depicted as follows: ‘with the church in the centre of a surrounding wall, its long side facing Mogoșoaiei Bridge, where the gate also opened, then extending along what is now C. A. Rosetti, extending into N. Golescu and returning to the Mogoșoaia Bridge along Episcopiei Street, with a perimeter of over 500 m’22; in Borroczyn’s plan, the church stood isolated, its wall destroyed, the monastery grounds having become a square, with a large church in ruins at its centre 23. The same author, Crutzescu, notes that, following the demolition of the church, on the site where it once stood, the Romanian Equestrian Society, which had purchased the site from the City Council, began construction of a ‘large amphitheatre to house a circus, a riding arena, a casino and a hall for balls and equestrian celebrations… The amphitheatre was indeed built up to human height, but then work was halted due to a lack of funds. The walls were left to fall into disrepair and grass grew on the paths of the deserted garden’24

The foundations of the circular amphitheatre, intended to house a circus, were subsequently used as the foundations for the Romanian Athenaeum, thus explaining, as A. Odobescu pointed out 25, the current shape of the Athenaeum building.

The ruin of the church in the mid-19th century, as mentioned by Crutzescu, was caused by the earthquake of 1838. The church and the monastery’s buildings, like many other buildings in Bucharest, were damaged by the earthquake that year, with the architect Xavier Villacrosse 26 proposing the demolition of the spire and the upper wall.

In 1844, a contract was signed with the architect Iosif Hartel for the restoration of the church, which was carried out to a certain extent; however, the Gothic style was adopted, and the costs exceeded the amount originally agreed. An investigation into the church’s records, commissioned by the Minister of the Interior in 1866 and carried out by a committee comprising Fr. Gr. Musceleanu, Caragea and Cornescu, revealed that only related documents were found, but the contract concluded by the Diocese of Râmnic with the architect Hartel in 1844 had not been found. Nevertheless, this information is significant because it reveals the Diocese’s intention, as early as 1844, to rebuild the church in Bucharest, as well as an episcopal palace; however, whilst the sum initially agreed in the contract was 215,000 lei, the actual expenditure was much higher, namely 522,668 lei 27. Furthermore, from a letter from the Minister of Agriculture, Trade and Public Works to the Minister of Religious Affairs, dated 10 September 1866, it appears that the documents were no longer there; they had been returned to the Ministry and were to be handed over to Slater, ‘with whom they remain to this day’28.

The old buildings were demolished in 1851 29, and several tenders were held and proposals received for the completion of the church, beginning in 1850 and continuing in 1855 30 and 1860 31; Of particular note is the proposal by the architect Menander von Montbach, dated 1853, who favoured an Anglo-Gothic style church 32, and those by Schlatter, of whom plans 33 and construction estimates have been preserved; however, in the end, these were never carried out.

Consequently, following some repair work, it was decided to build a new church, but this adopted a new, Gothic style, which was not favoured by the Diocese of Râmnic nor by the Metropolis of Bucharest 34. This style favoured large buildings, which, apart from requiring significant expenditure, were not even characteristic of the local architectural tradition. Schlatter, a Swiss architect who had studied and worked in Germany and Greece, and who worked in the classical, neo-Gothic and Rundbogenstil styles 35, also arrived in Wallachia, where he became involved in the construction of several buildings. Similarly, between 1859 and 1863, Schlatter was involved in altering the style of the church at the Radu-Vodă Monastery in Bucharest, to which he also imparted a neo-Gothic character 36.

Referring to the original plan of the Church of the Forty Martyrs, H. Moldovan, on the basis of cartographic research, but in the absence of other iconographic representations, believes that it was similar to the one built at the end of the 17th century at the church of the Sinaia Monastery by Spătar Mihai Cantacuzino. The 1853 design retained the old foundations, but, in a neo-Gothic style, “the volumetry, the organisation of the interior space and the decorative elements were part of a new vision, unrelated to local architectural traditions”37.

The National Archives also hold a Programme for the new buildings of the Holy Diocese of Râmnic in Bucharest 38, signed by the architect Schlatter, which describes the rooms of the episcopal palace that was to be built. We learn that it was designed on two levels. The upper floor housed the rooms of the bishop, the archimandrite, the priests and the sacristan, whilst the ground floor contained the steward’s quarters, the singers’ quarters, the chancellery, the archive and the servants’ quarters. A passageway connected the building to the steward’s quarters, and another led to the garden. Also included in the plans were the kitchen, the ironing room, the laundry, a carriage shed, a stable for 10 horses, a room for the coachman, a promenade ‘39’, the garden, the surrounding wall and the new lane.

In 1863, it was proposed to convert the ruined church into a museum of sacred artefacts. In this regard, the Journal of the Council of Ministers, dated 21 October 1863, preserved at the Central National Historical Archives, analysed both the proposal of the Minister of Religious Affairs and the condition of the building, ‘considering that this building, by virtue of its central location, contributes greatly to the beautification of the town, and considering that the state possesses a significant number of ancient ecclesiastical artefacts of great value due to their historical significance, which are to be housed in a special location, decides: The church in the Râmnic Bishops’ Square shall be converted into a Museum of Sacred Artefacts’40”. On 31 December 1863, a commission was appointed to examine the building designated for conversion into a museum; it comprised inspectors from various ministries and the architects Thillay and Burelli 40.

***

In the archives of the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Public Instruction (MCIP), file 678/1866 contains documents, both originals and copies, relating to: ‘the demolition of the church belonging to the metochion of the Diocese of Râmnic and the creation of a garden’41.

As we learn from a letter dated 6 January 1866, sent by the Minister of the Interior, Agriculture and Public Works to the Minister of Religious Affairs, public works were to be carried out in the Diocese Square, in accordance with a contract previously concluded by the Capital’s Municipality with Alexis Godillot; however, these plans were hindered by the presence of the church, which the City Council and the French contractor wished to demolish: ‘In order to carry out the works provided for in the agreement concluded between the Capital Municipality and Mr Al. Godillot, to be carried out in the Bishop’s Square in Râmnicu‹lui‹, arrangements are now to be made to demolish the church situated in that square. The undersigned, in view of the matters set out herein and in accordance with the request made by Mr Mayor of the Municipality in letter No. 673, I respectfully request, Minister, that you kindly appoint a delegate on your behalf to assist in drawing up an inventory of the nature and number of items within the building42

The Bishop of Râmnic, however, holds a different view; Saint Calinic of Cernica, who, on 26 March 1866, sent a letter to the Minister of Religious Affairs, requesting that the demolition of the church be halted and that it be restored, so that it might once again be reinstated as a place of worship. On that occasion, the bishop referred to the extensive correspondence exchanged in previous years with the Ministry regarding the church’s reconstruction, as well as the favourable response received from the Ministry in this regard in 1857. In these circumstances, the decision to demolish the church and establish a public garden in its place was considered demeaning both to the diocese and to the founder, as it contravened the founder’s instructions. Consequently, the bishop requested the revocation of the decision to create the garden and the reconstruction of the place of worship: ‘Following the extensive correspondence I have maintained with that Honourable Ministry in previous years regarding the completion of the reconstruction of the Metochion Church of this Holy Diocese, from the Capital, it was not until the year 1857 that we were able to obtain Reply No. 1124, by which we were informed that arrangements had been made to commence the aforementioned works. Now, however, just as we were expecting to see our wish for the completion of this work finally realised, we have, on the contrary, received the sad news that the former government has awarded a contract for the demolition of the existing building and for a public garden to be built in its place. This sad and disgraceful news, which is an affront both to the honour of the Bishop’s House and to the purpose of the Founder and benefactors of the said building, compels me, on the one hand, to appeal to Your Excellency’s authority, inviting you, Minister, on the one hand, to halt and revoke the measure taken to establish that garden on the site of the Holy Place, and, on the other hand, to make arrangements for the aforementioned Church to be restored to the condition and dignity befitting a house of God. Please accept, Mr Minister, our episcopal blessing43”. The letter bears the handwritten signature of Bishop Calinic of Râmnic.

The file contains, on the following page, namely page 10r, the reply given to the hierarch on 18 April 1866, via letter No. 2465: “With regard to letter No. 304, I have the honour to inform His Grace that the site on which the church of the Diocese’s metochion in the capital is being built was, through the work carried out by the previous government, contracted out to a contractor named Godillot. That contract is now on the verge of possibly being brought before the courts, and His Grace will understand that until this matter, which has become very serious, is resolved in some way, it is beyond the undersigned’s power to take any action whatsoever’44”. Moreover, the resolution is also written on the letter sent by the hierarch to the Minister, on the left-hand side, with the instruction that a reply be sent to His Eminence. The text refers, as we shall see, to the contract concluded by the Cuza Government on 2/14 December 1865 with the Frenchman Alexis Godillot for the execution of public works and beautification projects, which also covered that site, where a garden was planned.

Despite the intervention of the Bishop of Râmnic, the authorities, alarmed by the Frenchman’s complaints—to which we shall refer shortly—decided to demolish the church. To this end, on 10 April 1866, a report was drawn up listing the items in the church by a commission comprising the prosecutor of the Ilfov Court, Section III, and the Director-General of the Ministry of Public Instruction and Religious Affairs, which states that: ‘Upon arriving at the church situated in the Râmnic Bishop’s Square to take an inventory of the objects within it, in accordance with the instructions we had each received from the respective Ministries, and as we were unable to enter through the church door—which we found bricked up, with a hole in the middle—we were forced to climb onto the door of the church altar, on which we found a platform 45, boarded up, but in reality those boards were not nailed down and one of them had been pushed aside; likewise, we found three windows in the sanctuary46”. The authorities’ representatives went on to record what they found inside the church, namely: “three wooden chests from Brașov, two of which were open, containing several books and other objects, and one of which was closed; one open suitcase, containing several papers; one closed iron chest; three open chests, without lids, containing several books and other papers. The four books and the suitcase were sealed by the prosecutors, to be taken to the Ministry of Education, where, once the dust had settled, a proper inventory could be drawn up, whilst the other objects found in the church are as follows’46 The objects from the altar are listed, amongst which we note: ‘A stone altar table, on a stone base, with a carved and gilded wooden cover… a wooden iconostasis without icons, gilded’47; and from the church, of which we list here: ‘two gilded wooden thrones… two bells, one larger and the other smaller… four hundred and twenty-five marble slabs, some of which are damaged’47. Also mentioned are books and registers, which are in sealed chests and are to be handed over to the Ministry of Religious Affairs for a full inventory 48.

On 26 April 1866, a new official report was drawn up on the occasion of the unsealing of the chests, which had by that date already been transported to the Ministry of Education. We learn that seven crates and a carriage chest had been opened, containing documents, books and religious objects: ‘bound ledgers of the Bishop’s House’s income and expenditure… pewter chalices… a broken brass censer… files and bundles of chancery papers… correspondence and various documents, sealed… volumes of Church History… volumes of the Paterikon, in Greek’49

According to letter 3504, dated 9 May 1866, a copy of which is reproduced on f. 14r of file 678/1866, the papers and registers found in the chests unsealed at the Ministry were sent for processing and safekeeping to the General Directorate of State Archives. The books were sent to the National Library, in accordance with letter 3505, reproduced on f. 14 v.

On 9 May 1866, the librarian Ion C. Gârleanu, of the Central Library in Bucharest, wrote to the Minister of Religious Affairs stating that he had received, under Order 3505: “two crates of books sent to this Library for safekeeping, namely: 75 volumes of The Customs of the Israelites and Christians, 21 volumes of Church History, 208 volumes of the Patericon in Greek, 28 booklets of Thesaurus Graecae linguae ab Henrico Stefano / 332 in total, three hundred and thirty-two volumes”50”. The librarian recalled that the documents sent by the Ministry specified that there were 23 volumes of Church History and 209 volumes of Patericon, but when the library counted the books upon acquisition, only 21 volumes of the first title and 208 of the second were found.

The marble slabs were given to the Academy for the completion of the lower vestibule, as indicated by the marginal note added inside the Minutes of 10 April 1866 46, as well as letter No. 11639 sent by the Minister of Religious Affairs to Architect Burelli on 31 October 1867, in which he was invited to go to the church and hand over the stones to the commission responsible for the construction of the Academy’s premises: ‘The committee tasked with completing the construction of the Academy in Bucharest, by letter registered under No. 6235, requests that the marble located inside the unfinished church here, a dependency of the Diocese of Râmnic, so that it may be used in the lower vestibule of the Academy. The undersigned, bearing in mind that the said church is due to be demolished, invites you, Mr Architect, to visit the said church and hand over the aforementioned marble to the said commission; which, according to the minutes drawn up by Mr Prosecutor of the Ilfov Court, Section III, dated 10 April 1866, number four hundred and twenty-five slabs, some of which are damaged, including one large, damaged slab51”. Furthermore, by document No. 11640, the Prefect of the Capital’s Police was ordered to assist Architect Burelli in the removal of the slabs 52.

That the transport was carried out is evidenced by the document dated 22 November 1867, in which Architect Burelli informed the Minister of Religious Affairs and Public Instruction that he had complied with his request to go to the church and hand over the marble to the Academy: ‘I have the honour to inform you that, having gone to the unfinished church near the Bishop’s Square in Râmnic, in the presence of a delegate from the sub-commissioner of the respective district in the yellow uniform, we proceeded to remove the marble blocks that were in that church, which were then transported by cart to the site of the new Academy and handed over to the appointed commission for the completion of this building’53”. The handover took place on 18 November 1867, as shown in the handover report, signed by Burelli54, and the members of the commission for the construction of the Academy. The following had been taken from the church: 415 large pieces, some of which were damaged; 740 small pieces; 8 steps; 1 large, broken slab: ‘the marble stones located in the church of the metochion of the Diocese of Râmnic, which is to be demolished… have been removed and will be used in the construction of the lower vestibule of the Academy’55

Letter No. 332, dated 6/18 July 1868, sent by the Minister of Religious Affairs to the quartermaster of the same ministry, informs us that the church was to be demolished on Monday, 8 July 1868 56, at 6 o’clock in the morning, and that the artefacts were to be carefully removed by the quartermaster, assisted by Godillot’s men, and taken to Antim Church in Bucharest for safekeeping 57. On 10 July 1868, the quartermaster P. Lăpușneanul wrote to the Minister of Religious Affairs: ‘In accordance with the instructions you gave me in letter No. 7332, I respectfully report that, in accordance with the attached inventory, I have duly received and handed over to the caretaker of the Antim Church the objects found during the demolition of the Râmnic Diocesan Church’58”. And on 9 July 1868, the caretaker of the Antim Church signed to acknowledge receipt of certain items listed in the inventory, with the exception of the marble slabs and the scaffolding from the church 59.

From these two documents, we understand that, by 10 July, the order to demolish the church—dated Monday, 8 July 1868, at 6 o’clock in the morning—had already been carried out, and some of the items had been transported to Antim. On 3/15 August 1868, the globe and a cross that had been on the spire of the church at 60 were also sent to Antim. The caretaker of Antim Church, Father Vasile, confirmed on 23 October 1868 the receipt of: 59 window frames for 8 windows, of various sizes; 8 iron window grilles; 1 stone altar table with a matching base; a gilded wooden altar cover; 2 wide planks in the shape of doors; 1 gilded wooden deacon’s pulpit61.

One of the bells was given to the Bishop of Buzău, Dionisie Romano, who entrusted it to the superior of Ciolanu Monastery, Archimandrite Ioanichie, who in turn sent it to the church at Cetățuia, which was “dependent” on Ciolanu, in Buzău County, as evidenced by the document dated 26 November 1868, sent by the archimandrite to the Minister of Religious Affairs62

The shrine was also given to the Bishop of Buzău, Dionisie, who in turn gave it to Nicolae Gherase to be placed in the church on his estate, as he had paid 100 gold coins for the painting of the chapel at the bishopric 63. A lawsuit was subsequently brought in 1875 concerning this iconostasis and two pews given to Gherase, as they were worth more than the sum paid for them by the new owner 64. Later, the Ministry of Religious Affairs donated it to the White Church in Bucharest 65.

On 16 July 1868, the Metropolis of Bucharest requested the Minister of Religious Affairs that, in place of the altar of the demolished church, a monument bearing a cross be erected to signify that this was a holy place, in accordance with the canons of the Orthodox Church: ‘Having received the report from the reverend archpriest of the Upper District of Bucharest, No. 87, in which he informs us that the Church of the Metochion of the Diocese of Râmnic in the capital, on Calea Mogoșoaiei, which had been closed for some time, is now completely falling into ruin, I ask you, Minister, to kindly intercede with the appropriate authorities, so that on the site of the holy Throne or the holy Altar, which were recently rebuilt on the site of the onepreviously consecrated, a monument with a cross on top may be erected in memory of the fact that a holy place exists there, without which the Canons of our Orthodox Church would themselves be violated’66 The City Council erected a marble column, designed by Karl Storck, which was subsequently moved to Maria Boulevard Square (Coșbuc) and was damaged by the 1977 earthquake 67.

**

Details of the contract concluded by Godillot with the Mayor of Bucharest can be found in another file, namely 105/1865, also held at the Central National Historical Archives, in the Râmnic Diocese collection – Monastic Files.

Thus, the then mayor of the capital, C. I. Iliescu, wrote to the Minister of Finance on 13 December 1865 that he was awaiting a reply to his previous request for the land in the Râmnic Diocese square to be ceded to the Capital’s Municipality, and he took this opportunity to renew his petition. It was explained that this land was needed because: ‘The Municipality had contracted with a public works contractor, Mr Alexis Godillot, to transform the Bishop’s Square into a public garden, complete with two basins, monumental fountains and a chapel, as part of the various improvement and beautification works he had been commissioned to carry out in the capital”68 The agreement had also been approved by Cuza, but the church had to be demolished. The previous request, referred to in the document, dated 5 November 1865, set out the City Council’s intention to transform Episcopiei Square—which was in a state unfit for a central location—into a public square; however, knowing that the site belonged to the State Estates, C. Iliescu requested that it be transferred to the City Council: ‘However, as on the said land there are some walls of the church that was to be established there, as a branch of the Diocese of Râmnic, according to a plan that was subsequently abandoned, and since the material from which those walls were built, as well as the land on which the square stands, is now the property of the State, I, the undersigned, have the honour to ask you to kindly inform me 1 – whether the Government intends to complete the church that has been started or wishes to demolish the walls, which are now partly in ruins, 2 – whether it intends to build anything on the said site and, if so, in which specific part and over what area, 3 – whether it consents to the Municipality turning it into a square, as I mentioned above, which would then remain the property of the Municipality69”.

However, a report dated 28 February 1866 from the Minister of Finance to the Minister for Foreign Affairs shows that the Bishop’s Square was part of the state’s estates and that the Ministry of Finance, as the owner, had not ceded that site to anyone, and consequently the work that had begun had been halted. The document bears No. 6840, though the version in the file appears to be a draft, not signed in the minister’s own hand70. The suspension of the works, ordered by the Minister of Finance through the involvement of the ‘Yellow Commission’ in Bucharest, is confirmed by the document dated 31 December 1865, in which the Intendant of the Minister of Finance informed the latter that he had carried out the order received: ‘In accordance with your Order No. 52 663, regarding the suspension of the demolition of the Diocese of Râmnic, the demolition of which was suspended by the ‘Yellow Colour’ Commission, in accordance with your order, of which the undersigned hereby informs you”71.

In our file we cannot find the reply given by the Minister of Finance to the Town Hall; however, from the instructions issued, we can see that he did not agree with the demolition of the church, even though it was not yet completed, nor with the works that had already begun, as subsequent documents make clear. The Town Hall, however, without receiving approval from the State Property Office, concluded the contract with Godillot, which it then used as a means of pressuring the authorities to cede the land to it and to accept the carrying out of the works.

On 24 February 1866, the Minister for Foreign Affairs wrote to the Minister for Finance, attaching the note from the French Consul and from J. Villacrose 72, Godillot’s representative, requesting information regarding the facts reported by the claimants. Indeed, the file also contains a translation of the note from the French Consul, addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 21 February/5 March 1886, which reiterated Godillot’s petition and stated that: ‘Mr Godillot concluded a contract with the Government of Prince Cuza on 2/14 December 1865 for the execution of various works of public utility and for the beautification of the capital, works which are to be carried out during the current year’73 The day after the contract was signed, Godillot began the works, procured a considerable quantity of materials and hired craftsmen and labourers for the site in Episcopiei Square, which had been clearly demarcated and handed over to him, and which he had also fenced off, “to be transformed into a square”73. However, on 21 February/5 March, agents of the armed forces ordered the workers to cease work and leave, whereupon Godillot, through his representative, J. Villacrose, protested and called upon both the French Consul and the Romanian Government to take action: ‘I therefore protest against this unlawful act, which constitutes a violation, and hold the Government responsible for any resulting losses, damages and interests’74.

On 3/15 March 1866, the French Consul wrote again to the Romanian Minister for Foreign Affairs, reminding him that he had received the latter’s notes, which stated that: “The Minister of Finance was entitled to suspend the works currently being carried out on the Bishop’s Square, because this Ministry had not concluded any contract with Mr Godillot for these works and because this site forms part of the State’s domains”75. The Consul stated that he supported the Frenchman Godillot and drew attention to the international nature of these contracts, which had also been signed by the Romanian Head of State; consequently, if they are not honoured, the French government, under Emperor76, will have to take measures to defend the interests of its nationals. The site is therefore requested to be vacated, so that the contract may be honoured.

Alexis Godillot (1816–1893), in whose defence the French Consul intervened so promptly, was not merely a French citizen, but a well-known manufacturer and entrepreneur, a close associate of Emperor Napoleon III and who, although he had held various positions, had distinguished himself particularly through the supply of equipment to the imperial army, as well as through the decoration and development of French cities. On 2/14 December 1865, he had concluded an agreement 77 with Bucharest City Council for the development of a public garden in the Râmnic Bishopric Square and for the construction of several buildings in the city, including market halls and a slaughterhouse. Godillot also signed a contract to supply the Romanian army 78, an agreement which sparked a corruption scandal at the time, known as the ‘Godillot affair’79. In 1864, Cuza had commissioned Godillot to create, in Paris, the model for the Order of the Union decoration 80.

The contract concluded by the City Council with Godillot in 1865 stipulated that the works were to be completed by 26 October 1870; however, by that date, only the abattoir had been completed, whilst the Bishop’s Square remained unfinished 81.

The so-called Godillot affair was to the detriment of the Romanian state, which did not benefit from the services and quality of the products promised by the Frenchman. These issues were highlighted even by foreigners, for example by Émile Picot, King Carol I’s secretary at the time. In a letter dated 2/14 November sent to Mrs Hortense Cornu, a relative of Emperor Napoleon III, he mentioned that Godillot had concluded two contracts in Romania: one with the state, for the supply of military equipment, and another with Bucharest City Council, for various public works. The military supplies brought in by Godillot were of poor quality, whilst the construction projects in Bucharest had been designed without plans or cost estimates and were ultimately only partially completed. Picot was outraged by the behaviour of this contractor, who was bringing shame upon France and causing harm to both French trade and the Romanian state.

Here are Picot’82’s words:

‘The first thing that struck me on my arrival in Romania was the deplorable consequences of the unfortunate G83 venture. A case of this sort is not only disastrous for the country, it is a disgrace for France […] and this single affair alone is enough to bring French trade in this part of Europe into complete disrepute […] I have closely examined the cloth from which the soldiers’ uniforms are made. I find it hard to believe that there are factories in France where such coarse fabrics are produced, and I am rather inclined to think that Mr G. has sourced all of it from some barbaric region. There are two quite distinct contracts involving Mr G.: one with the State for military supplies, the other with the city of Bucharest for various works. It is indisputable that, under the first contract, supplies were delivered. Whether or not the goods were of good quality is irrelevant; it is sufficient that they were accepted by the government for Mr G.’s claim to be valid. Therefore, as regards the sums to be paid, the government cannot even think of contesting his claim […] G. undertakes to build a market on Saint-Antoine Square, comprising covered iron stalls for the sale of fruit and flowers and a chapel, the works being valued at 300,000 francs. Another market on Place Hamza, to be built of iron, with shops and ancillary facilities, at a cost of 350,000 francs. Thus, there are no plans or specifications regarding dimensions. Everything is left to the contractor’s discretion. And what are we to make of this other clause in the contract: G. undertakes to establish a square on Place de l’Episcopia with a most beautiful chapel in the Greek style, featuring pools and a fountain, the works estimated at 250,000 francs. Is this, I ask, the form of a serious contract? Or is it not rather the case that an agreement of this nature constitutes what is known as an obligation without cause? And, consequently, is it not radically void?”84

After the demolition of the church

Even after the demolition of the church, the status of the territory of the former metochion of the Diocese was not respected. An important report dated 9 August 1881, bearing the stamp of the Registry of the State Domains and Forests Administration and numbered 23072, signed by the Director of the Administration and other officials, reveals the fate that befell, at that time: ‘Behind the garden known as Episcopia, between Franklin Street, Poșta Veche Street, the street behind the garden (unnamed), the Giani family’s house and the Zosima house85—there stands, as you know, a building that was started and left derelict for several years, which was intended to be a circus and riding arena. This building was started by the Romanian Equestrian Society, founded in Bucharest in 1871 and authorised to operate that same year by a royal decree, and has now become a breeding ground for disease, thereby posing a threat to public health, particularly during periods of rain and heat. The undersigned, being aware that all the land situated between the aforementioned neighbourhoods, and indeed other surrounding plots which are today unlawfully occupied by various parties, were the property of the Diocese of Râmnic, I was curious to examine the files and documents relating to the capital’s properties of the said Diocese to see how the land on which that building stands—now left to fall into disrepair—was transferred to the Equestrian Society. The result of this research is that the transfer of that land, which belonged to the Diocese of Râmnic, into the possession of the Equestrian Society was carried out in a highly irregular manner, such that we may still consider that land to be the property of the Diocese of Râmnic today”86

The report, which also included copies of old title deeds belonging to the Diocese of Râmnic dating from the 18th century, specified that the Ministry of Public Lands could bring legal proceedings to reclaim the land, both against the Commune—claiming the revenue accrued since it took possession of the land—and against the purchasers; however, in both cases the Commune would have to pay damages, either to the Ministry or to the purchasers: ‘But as the Municipality is also part of the State and, in reality, the State as a whole would be affected’87; it was therefore proposed to the Town Hall, which ‘had unlawfully disposed of state property’88, that the situation be resolved in another way, namely by rescinding the sale of the site to the Equestrian Society, on the grounds that the latter had failed to honour its commitment: “The City Council, on the grounds that the Equestrian Society had failed to honour its commitment to construct the building for which the site was sold to it by the City Council on behalf of the State, and, as a result of the building being left derelict, it has become a breeding ground for disease, endangering public health, shall request the termination of the contract of sale, reclaiming the site, which shall be returned to the State, to whom it belongs’88”. Furthermore, the termination of the contract was also based on the Equestrian Society’s failure to pay the instalments on time.

The report is significant because it provides a historical account of the land’s disposal and highlights the missteps taken by the City Council in managing that site. Thus, on 6 March 1871, the Romanian Equestrian Society had asked the City Council to transfer the land behind the square to it free of charge, as it believed that the land belonged to the Capital’s Municipality. The Bucharest City Council, knowing that the site formed part of the State Estates, should have referred the proposal to the Ministry of Estates or the Ministry of Finance. Instead, it sent the proposal to the Ministry of the Interior for approval. This Ministry initially refused, pointing out that a tender process had to be organised. However, the 1872 Journal of the Council of Ministers approved the Municipal Council’s decision, whereby the Council ceded the site in perpetuity to the Ecvestre Society for 2,500 lei, to be paid in five instalments. On 15 December 1872, the Ministry of the Interior notified the Town Hall of the Prince’s approval.

The 1881 report emphasises that the Ministry and His Majesty had approved the sale of the site, believing it to belong to the Town Hall, as the Town Hall had presented the situation as follows: “As you can see from this correspondence, the Ministry and His Highness approved the sale of the plot in question as property of the Municipality, because that is how the matter was presented to them by the Town Hall. In reality, as you have seen above, that land was and is State property, and the State Estates Administration possesses documents and title deeds for it’89”.

Having learnt of the situation in 1873, the State Estates Administration took several measures, addressing the Town Hall, the Court and the Police to prevent that plot from being sold and taken over by the Equestrian Society.

It follows, therefore, that the land in question, formerly belonging to the Diocese of Râmnic, had become, following Secularisation, the property of the State, administered by the Ministry of State Property/Finance, and the Bucharest City Council could not dispose of it without the Ministry’s approval; consequently, the City Council had no right either to enter into agreements with the contractor Godillot for the beautification of that site, nor to sell it subsequently to the Equestrian Society. However, this categorical stance taken by the State Property Office towards the City Council came too late, in 1881, for, as we know, the church had been demolished in 1868, under pressure from the Commune, on the pretext of settling an international dispute threatened by the French Consul, who supported Alexis Godillot, a close associate of Emperor Napoleon III and also an acquaintance of Cuza. Although it had taken steps to acquire the land, the City Council rushed to sign the contract, which subsequently, as I have said, became a means of blackmail to seize the land.

After securing a grace period through the courts, during which the Society attempted to build the circus in 1875—since it had not yet been completed—the City Council requested the termination of the contract, and the Court annulled the sale and rejected the Ecvestre Society’s claim for compensation for the value of the materials used in the building’s foundations, but recognised its right to remove them 90.

The construction of the Romanian Athenaeum

Subsequently, the City Council, which had not obtained title to the land, transferred the site reclaimed from the Ecvestre Society to the Atheneul Român Cultural Society, and it was now necessary for the State to transfer all its rights over the land to the same society, so that it could build a new headquarters91 To this end, a draft bill was drawn up whereby the State transferred to the Romanian Athenaeum all its rights over the land in Bucharest, behind the Bishop’s Square. This Bill was passed by the Chamber of Deputies at its sitting on 19 March and amended by the Senate on 28 March 1886. The Chamber of Deputies adopted it on 7 April 1886, and King Carol I signed and enacted the law by Royal Decree No. 1366 of 17 April 1886, published in the Official Gazette No. 17 of 22 April 1886. At that time, the mayor of Bucharest was Nicolae Fleva (February 1884–May 1886)92

A. I. Odobescu, in a speech delivered in 1888 dedicated to the Atheneum building and ancient monuments with circular domes, emphasised that the circular shape of the Athenaeum was due to the fact that the building had been erected on existing circular foundations, which had originally been designed for a circus 93.

Thus, the Romanian Athenaeum Cultural Society, founded on 31 October 1865 94 as a scientific, literary and artistic society with the aim of promoting culture through lectures and publications, and which had originally been based near Cișmigiu, now received, in 1886, the land that had formerly belonged to the Diocese of Râmnic, for the construction of a building, the foundation stone of which was laid on 26 October 1886.

The society’s initial fund for this purpose amounted to 200,000 lei, which was insufficient for the construction, so a lottery was organised, issuing 500,000 tickets worth 1 leu each and putting them on sale, so that the public could support the construction of the building; the slogan ‘Give a leu for the Atheneum!’ became famous. However, there was still not enough money to complete the building, despite the enormous sums spent; by 1890, 1,200,000 gold lei had been spent. From 1895, the Ministry of Education was approached and agreed to take responsibility for completing the building, based on the original plans by the French architect Albert Galleron, which were subsequently finalised and supervised by Leonida Negrescu 95.

*

This enthusiasm amongst the people of Bucharest, evident in the purchase of lottery tickets for the construction of the Athenaeum building, as well as the financial involvement of the state, in this case through the Ministry of Education, were most welcome, thereby supporting the Athenaeum Society, which aimed to promote cultural, literary and artistic activities and which subsequently achieved significant successes.

We note, however, with sadness that the petitions written by Saint Calinic of Cernica, whilst he was Bishop of Râmnic (1850–1868), to restore the church dedicated to the Holy 40 Martyrs, the only church in the capital with this patronage, and to prevent its demolition, were ignored by the authorities. They did not contribute funds to complete the church’s construction, nor did they organise a campaign at the time to mobilise the population to support the church’s restoration. On the contrary, without verifying the validity of the contract concluded by Bucharest City Council with the Frenchman Godillot, fearing a conflict with the French, the Romanian authorities put pressure on the Ministry of Public Works to hand over the land to the Frenchman, who, hindered by the church, was insistently demanding its demolition.

On the other hand, the failure to complete the work on the church, due to a lack of funds which the State did not have, as stated in the documents, was also attributable to the choice of a costly architectural style that was entirely at odds with local tradition, imposed by foreign architects who had begun to arrive in Wallachia during the reigns of Gheorghe Bibescu (1843–1848) and Barbu Știrbei (1849–1853, 1854–1856). Regarding these Western architects, Nicolae Iorga remarked that, failing to understand local tradition, they trampled upon it, ‘spoiling the character of the old churches, which the Commission for Historical Monuments can sometimes restore only with great difficulty’96 Under these circumstances, with fanciful and expensive plans being adopted, it is no wonder that the church could not be completed and that it was falling into ruin before everyone’s eyes.

*

This is not the only instance in the nineteenth century where petitions to save a Bucharest church, to spare it from demolition, were ignored by the authorities. In this regard, we recall the appeals of Saint Iosif Naniescu to restore Sărindar Monastery, where he had once served as abbot. The hierarch delivered a speech in the Senate in 1897, advocating for the reconstruction of Sărindar following its demolition, given the monument’s age and significance: “My plea is to ask both the government and all benevolent and devout Romanians that the church at Sărindar be rebuilt on the very spot where it stood until yesterday… Let the church of Sărindar Monastery be rebuilt!”97 The President of the Council of Ministers, D. A. Sturdza, shared this view, citing as an example the large cathedral in Iași, which had also been damaged by earthquakes but had been restored.

Nor did the Romanian state find the funds for the restoration and subsequent rebuilding of Sărindar; it preferred to demolish the church and erect, on the very same site, the future Military Centre—a large building which required substantial funds and expenditure, for which the state did find the resources. The steps taken to transfer the land for the new secular building were somewhat similar to what had happened at the Church of the Forty Holy Martyrs, with the Ministry of Public Lands being asked to transfer the land to the Military Club.

Another example of a secular building erected in Bucharest during the same period at the end of the 19th century, on the site of a church, is the CEC-ul Mare, on what is now Cale a Victoriei, formerly known as Podul Mogoșoaiei. Construction began in 1897 on the site where, until 1875—when it was demolished—the Monastery of Saint John the Great (Saint John the Greek), dating from the 16th century, had stood. During the reign of Saint Constantine Brâncoveanu, the church required repair work, which the prince began, but the church subsequently collapsed. Under these circumstances, the prince rebuilt it from the ground up.

The construction of the Athenaeum, the Military Club and the Grand CEC are, without doubt, important for the cultural and administrative life of Romanians in the modern and contemporary periods. Nevertheless, even if the state could not find the funds for the church, despite having found them for other large-scale constructions, other sites could have been chosen for their construction, not necessarily the very plots where churches had once stood, with altars upon which the Divine Liturgy had been celebrated—a service that helps the world not only in the modern and contemporary eras, but for all eternity! For those were places that had been sanctified, both through the celebration of the Divine Liturgy and, prior to that, through the consecration of the sites of the future buildings.

Imagine

Appendix 1 – 10 August 1850

Tender for the demolition of the buildings of the Holy Bishopric’s metochion – Official Gazette of the Principality of Wallachia, Bucharest, No. 68, 10 August 1850, pp. 270–271.

Department of Religious Affairs

With regard to the works to be carried out at the monastery here belonging to the Holy Diocese of Râmnic, it has been decided to put the following out to tender first, namely:

All the old buildings currently standing on the site of this dependency are to be demolished down to their foundations, so that the entire area—both the square and the site on which the new walls are to be built—is left clear; the rubble resulting from the demolition of the buildings is to be transported immediately to the area behind the church, which lies lower than the level of Mogoșoaiei Street; the excess earth from the area in front of the church, up to the required level for water drainage, shall be transported once more to the area at the rear, where, in addition to this, a further 500 cubic fathoms of sound earth must be added, so that this area too may be brought level with the ground in front of the church; once levelled in this manner, the entire area is to be immediately paved with stone, from the front of the square right up to the church façade.

Therefore, the public is hereby informed that the auction dates have been set: the first auction will take place on the 12th, the second on the 17th and the third on the 22nd of the current month of August, so that those wishing to undertake this work may present themselves on the days specified above at the office of this Department, in order to follow the auctions in due course, with the contract being awarded to the bidder who offers the price most beneficial to this institution. Interested parties may visit the Department’s office even before the appointed dates to read the terms and conditions and gain a better understanding of the work to be carried out; at any time between 8.00 am and 3.00 pm.

For the Head of the Department, C. Costescu
No. 5366, 7 August 1850.

Appendix 2 – 16 January 1853

Architect Menander von Montbach’s plan for the reconstruction of the church in the Anglo-Gothic style, 16 January 1853 – ANIC, MCIP, 304/1850, ff. 100–101.

Most Serene Prince!98

In accordance with the orders of Your Most Serene Highness, I have the honour of submitting herewith the plans for the alterations to be carried out on the church of the Diocese of Râmnik, together with the following remarks:

As the German-Gothic style entails excessive expenditure, I have opted for the Anglo-Gothic style, which is based on the octagon—a form that predominates throughout this church and extends right to the spire.

According to the attached design, the church will feature a spacious portico (vestibule) and two smaller side vestibules, one on the right, the the other on the left. In one of these two side vestibules there will be a staircase leading to the gallery, where there will be a very large round window, which will serve to embellish the church.

The entire building, as it stands, will be constructed using local materials, and the work of stonemasons will be required and employed only at very key points.

The sculptural work will be made of a material that is impervious to bad weather.

The bell tower will be 23 toises high, and the dome will be constructed in such a way that it blends with the other parts, the aim being for them to rise as a single structure.

As I am not familiar with the construction of the current bell tower, I am of the opinion that the masonry should end at the middle gallery; if necessary, the upper part should be built of timber, but in such a way that anyone seeing it will believe that it were made of stone, a task which I undertake to carry out myself.

If Your Most Serene Highness were to deign to have it built according to the attached plan, I would certainly draw up the plans that are still missing. Given the volume of work I am currently undertaking on the government’s behalf, and as someone else must already have been appointed for this project, I have not yet drawn up the other plans; I am first presenting the main façade.

Having no other desire than to prove myself worthy of the trust with which I have been honoured, I have the honour to remain, with the deepest respect,

Your Most Serene Highness’s
most humble and most obedient servant

Menander von Montbach99,
Architect
, Bucharest, 16 January 1853

Appendix 3 – 24 May 1853

Tender for the completion of the church – Official Gazette, Bucharest, No. 30, 24 May 1853, p. 117.

Ministerial publications. Ministry of the Interior

On the 10th, 13th and 16th of the coming month of June, it has been decided that a tender shall be held at the Ministry of the Interior for the works to be carried out at the church of the Metochion of St. Râmnic Metoh here, as set out in the description below, in accordance with the plans and estimate drawn up recently, this is hereby made known to those who wish to undertake this work.

Those wishing to bid must submit guarantees at the tender, in accordance with the decree of His Majesty, our Most High Lord, No. 1660, published in Bulletin No. 110 of the year 1850.

The plans and conditions may be viewed on any day at the registry of the Public Works Directorate, at the Internal Department.

On behalf of the Head of the Department, Mr Ioanid.
No. 2137, 11 May 1853.

Description

Concerning all the works and additions to be carried out on the exterior of the Metoh Church of St. the Bishops of Râmnic, here, as well as those still required for its completion on the interior and which are to be put out to tender.

A. Works to be carried out outside the church

I. Earthworks
1. The foundations of the towers at the corners of the façade are to be dug, as well as for the small pillars at the other corners of the church, and the earth is to be transported to the vacant land situated behind the church; this work comprises a total of approximately 16 cubic fathoms of excavation.

II Masonry
work 1 The two towers at the corners of the façade are to be built, to a height of 11 fathoms from ground level upwards, using brick, then pillars are to be added to all the corners of the façade on the sides, as well as at the rear, which shall rise up to the church’s dome. Likewise, the church’s dome is to be raised slightly. All the works described above comprise some 78½ cubic fathoms of masonry, together with the plasterwork, which must be neatly finished and the spires well-formed and straight, without flaw.

III Stonework
1 The plinth around the spires is to be constructed from stone slabs (approximately 12½ running fathoms in length and 0.65 in height), then all the horizontal corbels and the tops of the stone turrets are to be made of stone.
2 The plinths of the six pillars at the corners of the façade, on the sides and at the rear of the church, as well as all the horizontal corbels and the tops above them, are to be made of carved stone.
3 The horizontal corbels 100 and the finials on the small pillars of the gallery above the front portal are to be made of stone, in the same manner as those above.
4 The frontispieces of the church’s dome are to be remodelled and raised and re-erected in their proper places, in accordance with the plans.
5 The stones required for the work described above are to be brought from Ciuta and partly from Rușciuc.

IV Carpentry
work 1 All the timber for the two new towers is to be prepared, followed by the flooring, the ceilings, the roof covering of the belfry, the bell platform (for 4 bells) and the other elements, as well as the two staircases of the towers, all to be made of oak.
2 All the timber for the gallery above the front portal is to be worked, followed by the roof covering and the clock room, made of oak.
3 The existing roof of the bell chamber (101) is to be removed and replaced with a much higher roof, in the shape indicated on the plan, with a lantern above it.
4 The church’s current roof is to be removed and the roofing replaced in such a way that rainwater and snow have a sufficient means of drainage.
5 Solid scaffolding is to be erected so that stones may be hoisted onto it without endangering the workers.

V Joinery
work 1 All existing windows and doors of the church are to be repaired.
2 The doors and windows of the two new towers, as well as the shutters of the gallery above the porch, are to be made of sound, dry oak timber.

VI Locksmith’s and Blacksmith’s Work102
1 The remaining iron fittings for the church’s doors and windows are to be supplied, forged and refitted in their proper places.
2 All the fittings for the church’s new windows and doors are to be made, solidly constructed and fitted where required.
3 Some 1,000 oca of iron clamps, screws and other fittings are to be made.
4 Four simple crosses, gilded with gold, are to be made to be placed atop the spires and the portal.

VII Tinsmith’s
work 1 The church’s roofing is to be repaired where necessary, and the white tin required for this is to be supplied.
2 The large dome of the church is to be clad, and the brass required for this work is to be supplied.
3 The front spires are to be clad, as well as the gallery, all with brass, covering a surface area of approximately 45 square fathoms.
4 All the pipes and gutters of the roofing are to be secured and repaired.

VIII Special works
1 Eight lion’s heads are to be placed on the church’s large dome, through which the water collected from the roof will drain (made of cast metal).
2 A clock is to be installed on the front of the church, above the portal.
3 The entire façade of the church is to be painted with water-based paint, whilst the doors and windows of the church are to be painted with oil-based paint (dark green or walnut brown).
4 A row of hewn stone, approximately 65 fathoms in length, is to be laid along the pavement surrounding the church, together with stone pillars fitted with iron chains.
5 A simple cobbled path, some 70 fathoms long, is to be laid around the church.

B. The works to be carried out inside the church

1 The marble slabs for the church floor are to be worked and laid.
2 Two pillars, an architrave 103 and the beams, the floor and ceiling of the catechumenum, as well as the repair and installation of the sculptural works prepared for the church’s needs.
3 Two staircases are to be built, leading to the right and left, up to the catechumen’s gallery.
4 The church’s pews are to be made.
5 The pulpit staircase and the installation of the sculptural elements.
6 Glass panes are to be fitted to all the side windows, front windows and white windows.
7 Two large candlesticks, 1½ stânjin high, are to be made, in the style of the chandelier brought from Vienna.
8 The altar, as well as all the other sculptural works brought from Vienna, are to be repaired, and their gilding restored wherever it is damaged.
9 A new bell weighing some 900 oca is to be cast.

The deadline set for the completion of this work is two years, calculated from the date on which the contract is concluded.

Appendix 4 – 13 December 1865

Correspondence between the Mayor of Bucharest and the Ministry of Finance, 13 December 1865 – ANIC, Diocese of Râmnic – Monastic Files, 105/1865, ff. 3–4 r.

United Romanian Principalities,
Mayor – Municipality of Bucharest, No. 13049
Year 1865, 13
December Administrative Department, Office I
– Urgent
Ministry of Finance, Date: 13 December; No. 59065 104

Minister,

By letter No. 11480 dated 5 November last, I had the honour of requesting that you kindly transfer to the Municipality the land of the Bishop’s Market on Calea Mogoșoaia, so that it might be transformed into a square. If you have not yet replied to the aforementioned letter, I believe the reason can be none other than the multitude of duties you have had to attend to, particularly in recent days.

I would have waited a little longer, Minister, for this reply, but the interests of the Municipality and a commitment it recently undertook, with high-level authorisation, compel me to renew the request I addressed to you. The Commune has contracted with a public works contractor, Mr Alexis Godillot, to transform the Bishop’s Square into a public garden, complete with two basins, monumental fountains105 and a Gothic-style chapel, as part of the various improvement and beautification works he has been commissioned to carry out in the capital.

The agreement concluded with Mr Godillot has already been approved by His Majesty, our Most High Lord, and in accordance with its provisions, the aforementioned concessionaire must commence planting works on the said square immediately, after first demolishing the building situated there, which was constructed to serve as a church.

However, the demolition of this building cannot be carried out solely by the decision of the municipal authority: 1 – because Your Lordship has not yet communicated to us the Ministry’s formal consent regarding the transfer of the land in question and the materials thereon to the Municipality; 2 – because individuals sent by the Town Hall to the site, upon looking inside the said building, observed within it works of art and ecclesiastical artefacts, which ought to be removed from there by a ministerial delegate, accompanied by a properly drawn up inventory.

As for the removal of the objects located in this building, I believe, Minister, that the Minister for Religious Affairs should also be notified, so that he may send a delegate on his behalf to assist in drawing up the inventory and to collect the objects for use by the said Ministry in another of the State’s churches.

I would also ask you, Minister, to kindly take urgent steps to fulfil my request, so that the matter is not delayed and the contractor for the public works to be carried out in the Capital is not given cause to claim that he has suffered damages or other losses.

Please accept, Minister, the assurance of my highest regard.

Mayor C. I. Iliescu 106.
Secretary-General […]107
To the Minister of Finance

Appendix 5 – 19 January 1866

Correspondence between the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Finance, concerning the demolition of the church – ANIC, Diocese of Râmnic – Monastic files, 105/1865, f. 6 r.

Bucharest, 19
January 1866, United Romanian Principalities, Ministry of the Interior, Agriculture and Public Works, General Directorate of Agriculture and Public Works, No. 440
Ministry of Finance, Date: 20 January 108, No. 2636. Urgent

Minister,

The Mayor of the Capital Municipality, in his letter No. 679, states: that in the agreement concluded with Mr Alexis Godillot for the concession of various works of beautification and public utility in the Capital, it was stipulated, amongst other things, that the Episcopiei Square should be free of any obstacles (by 1 March at the latest) that might delay the works to be carried out in that square.

Furthermore, as the greatest obstacle currently facing us is the demolition of the unfinished church situated there, I respectfully request that Your Excellency intervene to appoint a delegate to assist the municipal committee in its demolition.

The undersigned, in view of the matters set out above and bearing in mind that last year the Minister of Religious Affairs, in letter No. 42662 dated 2 September, endorsed the proposal made to him by my predecessor, to demolish this church, on the grounds that restoring it to a condition fit for its intended purpose would require the expenditure of substantial sums of money, which the State does not currently have at its disposal, I respectfully request that Minister, to kindly appoint a representative on your behalf to oversee its demolition, so that the site may be used for the purpose designated in the agreement concluded with Mr Godillot.

Please accept, Minister, the assurance of my highest regard.

Minister General Florescu 109.
Division Commander Ioan Moscu106
To His Excellency, the Minister of Finance

Appendix 6 – 3/15 March 1866

Translation of the note from the French Consul, in which he requested compliance with the agreement concluded by the Romanian Government with the French citizen Godillot – ANIC, Diocese of Râmnic – Monastic Files, 105/1865, fol. 16 r-v.

Translation of the note from the French Consul-General, No. 165, dated 3/15 March 1866, addressed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Minister,

I have received the two notes which you did me the honour of addressing to me on 2/14 of this month, under Nos. 892 and 902, both relating to the contract concluded between the local government and Mr Alexis Godillot, a French industrialist.

In the first of these notes, you inform me that the Ministry of Finance was entitled to suspend the road works currently under way in the Bishop’s Square, because that Ministry had not concluded any contract with Mr Godillot for these works and because this site forms part of the State’s estates.

Turning to another matter, this note does not address the conclusions of the letter I had the honour of addressing to you on this subject on the 5th of this month, under No. 138.

I wish to bring to your attention, Minister, that my Government’s new instructions expressly require me to support the claims of the French concessionaires; I therefore draw your particular attention to the international nature of these contracts, which, having been debated and approved by the Council of Ministers and ratified by the Head of State in the full exercise of his rights and autonomy, possess all the characteristics of a commitment which, were it to be breached, would entitle the aggrieved parties to substantial compensation and would place the Emperor’s Government in the regrettable position of having to seek ways to safeguard the integrity of the contracts and the interests of its nationals.

I await the outcome of the communication which you inform me you have sent to the Ministry of the Interior, regarding Mr Vilacros’s petition, in which he requested that the Municipality be asked to vacate the premises specified in Articles 1 and 2 of his contract.

Yours faithfully, etc.
Signed: Tillos
Certified true
copy by the Head of Office I,
M. Mitelinescu 110.

Appendix 7 – 10 April 1866

Minutes of 10 April 1866, drawn up during the inventory of the property of the Church of the Forty Martyrs – ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, ff. 11 r-v, 27 r, 42, r.

Minister of Religious Affairs… No. 3482, received on 13 April 1866.

Minutes

10 April 1866, the undersigned Public Prosecutor of the Ilfov Court, Section III, together with the Director-General of the Ministry of Public Instruction and Religious Affairs, visited the church situated in the square of the Diocese of Râmnic to make an inventory of the objects found therein, in accordance with the instructions we had each received from our respective Ministries; and as we were unable to enter through the church door, which we found bricked up with a hole in the middle, we were forced to climb over the altar door, where we found a gap covered with planks; however, in reality, those planks were not nailed down and one of them had been pushed aside; likewise, we found three windows in the altar.

Thus, upon entering the said church, we found three wooden chests from Brașov, two of which were open, containing several books and other objects; one was closed; an open suitcase, with several papers inside; one closed iron chest; three open chests, without lids, containing several books and other papers; the four chests and the suitcase were sealed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, to be taken to the Ministry of Education, where, once the dust had been removed, a proper inventory could be drawn up; the other items found in the church are as follows:

In Altar
1, a stone altar table on a stone base, with a carved and gilded
wooden cover; 2 four column capitals, likewise of carved and gilded
wood; 3 three wooden
candlesticks; 4 eleven panels bearing old
icons; 5 one iconostasis without icons, of gilded wood

Inside the church
: 6 two wooden thrones, similarly gilded
; 7 three large wooden doors, each with two leaves, again of gilded and carved
wood; 8 two bells, one larger and the other smaller
9 eight wire grilles for the windows
10 three old window frames, with broken
panes 11 two wide
planks 12 four hundred and twenty-five marble slabs, some of which are damaged
13 one large damaged
slab 14 a wooden
canopy 15 three small
iron doors 16 one large
wooden door 17 four lime pots, two of which contain lime
18 fifty-nine iron window frameswithout glass, of various sizes
19 one wooden scaffold spanning the entire length of the church, the number of pieces it
contained could not be counted 20 several books and registers in the church’s sanctuary, unbound, which could not be inventoried as they were covered in dust. The sealed chests, as well as the other items, were left in the church under the guard of Sergeant No. 130; the sealed chests, as well as the chests without lids, are to be transported tomorrow to the Ministry of Religious Affairs, whilst, regarding those remaining in the church, the undersigned shall inform the Minister to take such measures as he deems appropriate.

Year 1866, 10
April Director of the Ministry of Religious Affairs
V. Alexandrescu-Urechia106
Prosecutor of the Ilfov Court, S III, Ionescu 106

Appendix 8 – 26 April 1866

Minutes of 26 April 1866, recording the items found in the chests discovered in the Church of the Forty Martyrs – ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, f. 13 r-v.

Minister of Religious Affairs… No. 4251, received on 26 April 1855… 111

Minutes

In accordance with the invitation issued by the Minister of Religious Affairs, by letter No. 1412, dated 22nd of this month, to take an inventory of the items found in the seven chests—five with lids and two without—which were brought from the Cathedral of the Diocese of Râmnic and which are currently held at that Ministry. Accordingly, the undersigned, having proceeded to take stock of and unseal the chests, found the following items:

Chest No. 1
: 28 bound ledgers recording the income and expenditure of the Bishop’s House, all handwritten in Greek
; 173 letters in sealed notebooks, in Greek and Romanian, idem

Chest No. 2
: 75 volumes: The Customs of the Israelites and Christians*, by Eufrosin Poteca
; 3 pewter chalices, broken
; 1 disc and a teaspoon; idem
1 brass censer, broken
33 old, unusable antimensions and other unusable items

Chest No. 3
: 17 registers and clerical
ledgers; 32 files and bundles of clerical papers

Chest No. 4
189 letters and various sealed documents

Chest No. 5
: 27 files
; 23 volumes of Church
History; 28 brochures of Thesaurus Graecae Linguae by Henrico Stefano

Chest No. 6 (without lid)
209 volumes of the Patericon, in Greek
6 files
3 registers

Crate No. 7 (without lid)
5 codices
31 bundles of account papers

In a carriage
trunk: Various miscellaneous and old papers

25
April 1866 The Commissioners: [Caragea]
112, Priest Gri‹gorie‹ Musceleanu
[Cornescu]
113, Prosecutor Ionescu 114.

Appendix 9 – circa 1853

The project for the construction of the episcopal palace – ANIC, MCIP, 304/1850, f. 8 r-v.

Programme for the new buildings of the Holy Bishops of Râmnic in Bucharest

I. Schlatter, architect 106

Imagine

• 1

  Mihai Cantacuzino, the founder of the Church of the Forty Holy Martyrs, was born in Wallachia in 1723 and died around 1793 in Russia. He was the son of Matei Cantacuzino, the ban of Craiova, and his wife Păuna. He held several offices in turn, including that of ‘great medelnicer’ (a title given to the boyar who poured water into the basin for the lord to wash his hands before a meal, and who brought the dishes and served the lord at table), Grand Treasurer, Grand Logothete and Grand Ban. He married Ilinca (Elena) Văcărescu, from whom he received, as part of her dowry, the land known as Livada Văcărescului, on which he would build his church. He was a member of several diplomatic missions to Russia: in 1769 to General Rumyantsev, and in 1770, when he travelled to St Petersburg to meet Empress Catherine II. For these diplomatic missions, during which he campaigned for Russian protection of the Romanian Principalities, in 1775 Catherine II granted him several villages in the Moghilev Governorate, as well as the rank of Major-General. Following the Peace of Kuciuk-Kainargi, under which the Romanian Principalities returned to the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire, Mihai Cantacuzino left for Russia. He is the author of the work Genealogy of the Cantacuzinos and the presumed author of History of Wallachia, published in Greek in Vienna in 1806 by the Tunusli brothers, translated by George Sion, Bucharest, National Printing House, 1863, p. 178, where it is mentioned, amongst the stone churches of Bucharest, that of the Forty Martyrs. For further information on his work, see The Boyar Families of Moldavia and Wallachia. Historical, Genealogical and Biographical Encyclopaedia. The Cantacuzino Family, vol. III, ed. Mihai Dim. STURDZA, Bucharest, Simetria Publishing House, 2014, pp. 330–336.

• 2

  G. M. IONESCU, Russian Major-General Mihai Cantacuzino, former Grand Treasurer of Wallachia: I. His Political Career, II. His Foundation, 1763–1774, Bucharest, Eminescu Institute of Graphic Arts, 1905; I. POPESCU-CILIENI, ‘Documents relating to the former estates of the Diocese of Râmnic in Craiova and Bucharest’, in Arhivele Olteniei, XX, 1941, pp. 150–164; I. CONSTANTINESCU, ‘A former dependency of the Diocese of Râmnic in Bucharest: the Church of the Holy Forty Martyrs on Mogoșoaia Bridge’, in Mitropolia Olteniei, XXIII, 1971, nos. 9–10, pp. 736–740.

• 3

  Athanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese of Râmnic, Noul Severin: Past and Present, Bucharest, Gutenberg Press, 1906; Virgil CÂNDEA, Ion ZAMFIRESCU, Vasile MOGA, The Romanian Athenaeum, Bucharest, Scientific and Encyclopaedic Publishing House, 1976.

• 4

  Nicolae STOICESCU, Bibliographical Catalogue of Feudal Monuments in Bucharest, ed. Fr. Mihail-Simion Săsăujan, Bucharest, Basilica Publishing House, 2017.

• 5

  Nicolae STOICESCU, ‘A former dependency of the Diocese of Râmnic in Bucharest: the Church of the Holy Forty Martyrs on the Mogoșoaia Bridge’, in Mitropolia Olteniei, XXIII, 1971, nos. 5–6, pp. 370–381.

• 6

  Horia MOLDOVAN, Johann Schlatter. Western Culture and Romanian Architecture (1831–1866), Bucharest, Simetria Publishing House, 2013.

• 7

  The founder’s intention to build a monastery first appears in a document dated 10 July 1763, in which Mihai Cantacuzino purchased a plot of land in the Văcărescu orchard from Pavel the cobbler for 10 thalers. Central National Historical Archives (ANIC), Diocese of Râmnic, IX/5.

• 8

  ANIC, Diocese of Râmnic, IX/7, text published by G. M. IONESCU, Major-General of Russia Mihai Cantacuzino…, pp. 29–30: the deed of September 1775, by which Mihai Cantacuzino dedicated his church, situated in the Văcărescu orchard, to the Diocese of Râmnic, to serve as its dependency. The church had two priests, whilst the school, for Romanian education, had one teacher and 12 pupils. It was specified that a house was also to be built to serve as a residence for the bishops of Râmnic. The founder notes that he built the church in memory of himself and his late wife, Ilinca. In May 1776, the Prince of Wallachia, Alexandru Ipsilanti, confirmed the donation of the church to the Diocese of Râmnic: ‘But since His Excellency, Major General Mihai Cantacuzino… has dedicated a church in the Văcărescu orchard, which was built entirely at His Excellency’s expense, and at which the feast of the Forty Martyrs is celebrated, so that it may forever be a dependency of the Holy Diocese of Râmnic, together with the land they have purchased, which lies there, surrounding the church and the house—which is being built at His Excellency’s expense—to serve as a residence solely for the bishops of that diocese, and not to any other persons, whether ecclesiastical or lay, nor to His Excellency’s relatives, should any arise, so that the Bishops of future generations may fulfil the zeal of his endeavours. Therefore, Your Highness, in accordance with the duty incumbent upon us as rulers, and having witnessed the good zeal and diligence of His Excellency, which he has demonstrated to Your Highness through the anaphora, we have deemed it fitting to confirm this dedication.” Document published by URECHIA, Istoria Românilor [History of the Romanians], vol. I, Bucharest, Lipo-Tipografia Carol Gobl, 1891, pp. 121–122. It is believed that the school operated until 1848.

• 9

  In 1763, Mihai Cantacuzino bought a plot of land from Paul the cobbler; in 1766, another plot on the Mogoșoaia Bridge, from Ioana; in 1776, Mihai Cantacuzino exchanged a plot at Fântâna Boului for another in Văcărescu’s orchard with Radu Văcărescu. ANIC, Diocese of Râmnic, IX/5, 6, 7. Documents published by I. CONSTANTINESCU, A former dependency of the Diocese of Râmnic in Bucharest…, pp. 736–737.

• 10

  In 1784, Bishop Filaret purchased from Gheorghe the tailor a plot of land adjoining the monastery’s garden: ‘as this plot was necessary for His Grace, so that he might join it to the garden and the courtyard, I negotiated the terms with His Grace and sold it to him of my own free will for 160 taleri, that is, one hundred and sixty, with the knowledge of my relatives”. ANIC, Diocese of Râmnic, IX/28, document dated 18 April 1784, published by I. CONSTANTINESCU, A former metoh of the Diocese of Râmnic in Bucharest…, p. 738. To make more room, in 1780–1781, some Gypsy households in the area were relocated, and they received compensation for their property, which had been fairly valued by the maimar-bașa, by order of the prince. See ANIC, Diocese of Râmnic, IX/12–15. On 25 April 1780, Prince Alexandru Ipsilanti confirmed the demarcation of the Livada Văcărescului site, owned by the Church of the Forty Holy Martyrs, and set boundary stones. The text was published by I. POPESCU-CILIENI, ‘Old properties of the Diocese of Râmnic in Craiova and Bucharest…’, pp. 150–153.

• 11

  Fr. Mircea PĂCURARIU, History of the Romanian Orthodox Church, vol. 2, Bucharest, Published by the Biblical and Missionary Institute of the Romanian Orthodox Church, 1994, p. 396.

• 12

  Liude—people. See Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language, Bucharest, Saeculum Publishing House, 2013, p. 752. On 20 July 1803, Constantin Alexandru Ipsilanti, Prince of Wallachia, exempted four peasants from taxes so that they might tend the monastery’s garden: ‘We have issued our lordly charter to Mr Filothei, who serves as caretaker at the monastery of the Holy Diocese of Râmnec, where the feast day of the Forty Holy Martyrs is honoured and celebrated, with which he is to employ four men from among the tax-payers of the neighbourhoods in my city of Bucharest, for the constant upkeep and beautification of the garden belonging to this monastery. This favour was also bestowed upon them by other noble brothers in the past.” Library of the Romanian Academy (BAR), Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents (Doc. Ist.), XCII/246. Text published by George POTRA, Documents relating to the history of the city of Bucharest (1594–1821), Bucharest, RSR Academy Press, 1961, p. 639.

• 13

  Scutelnici – a person exempt from paying taxes to the state in return for working a certain number of days for a lord, boyar or monastery. SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 1181.

• 14

  Acaret – buildings, outbuildings on an estate, barns, sheds. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 62.

• 15

  BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, XCV/40. Text published by George POTRA, Documents relating to the history of the city of Bucharest (1594–1821)…, pp. 678–680.

• 16

  ANIC, Ms. 103, ff. 312–314, document published by I. COJOCARU, Documents relating to the economy of Wallachia 1800–1850, vol. I, Bucharest, Editura Științifică, 1858, pp. 344–346. The document also notes that Alexandru Suțu had claimed the monopoly on wax from this monastery, an act described by Grigorie Dimitrie Ghica as illegal, that is, contrary to previous charters.

• 17

  Library of the Romanian Academy (BAR), Ms. rom. 603, f. 392 v. See also Athanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Bishopric of the Diocese of Râmnic…, p. 152: “Chesarie passed away whilst in Bucharest on 9 January 1780 and was buried at the Church of the Forty Holy Martyrs, the metochion of the Diocese of Bucharest”. See also N. STOICESCU, A Former Metochion of the Diocese of Râmnic in Bucharest…, p. 373.

• 18

  The Andronești Chronicles, ed. I. Corfus, Bucharest, 1947, p. 78: “20 April 1838. His Grace Galaction, Bishop of Râmnic, passed away in the Lord and was buried in the metochion of the Holy Diocese of Râmnic. May the Lord grant him rest, and may we receive his blessing.” See also N. STOICESCU, A Former Metochion of the Diocese of Râmnic in Bucharest…, p. 375.

• 19

  Dimitrie PAPAZOGLU, The History of the Founding of the City of Bucharest, ed. Marcel-Dumitru Ciucă, Bucharest, Minerva Publishing House, 2000, pp. 16, 66. Colburg’s entry into Bucharest, which the author dates to 1784, is corrected by the editor to 1789.

• 20

  Dimitrie PAPAZOGLU, The History of the Founding of the City of Bucharest…, p. 66.

• 21

  Gheorghe CRUTZESCU, The Mogoșoaia Bridge, Bucharest, Meridiane Publishing House, 1987, p. 205.

• 22

  Gheorghe CRUTZESCU, The Mogoșoaia Bridge…, p. 204.

• 23

  Gheorghe CRUTZESCU, The Mogoșoaia Bridge…, p. 204. Crutzescu dates Borroczyn’s plan to 1852, but the editors, V. Teodorescu and E. Barbu, date it to 1844–1846.

• 24

  Gheorghe CRUTZESCU, The Mogoșoaia Bridge…, pp. 206–207. The Romanian Equestrian Society had been founded in 1871, under the chairmanship of General Florescu, and was led by a committee comprising N. Racoviță, Major Filitti (a royal aide-de-camp), the future Colonel Eraclie Arion, and the French entrepreneur Berton.

• 25

  A. I. ODOBESCU, C. ESARCU, The Romanian Athenaeum and Ancient Buildings with Circular Domes, Bucharest, 1888.

• 26

  An architect of Catalan origin who was involved in the restoration of a number of buildings in Bucharest, particularly between 1840 and 1848, when he served as the city’s chief architect, assisted by the architect Alexandru Orăscu.

• 27

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, fol. 16r.

• 28

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, fol. 38r.

• 29

  Nicolae STOICESCU, A former metochion of the Diocese of Râmnic…, p. 376. This is evident from a comparison of two plans: one dated 4 August 1851, in which the buildings are marked, and another dated 28 December 1851, in which they no longer appear.

• 30

  The Official Gazette, No. 19 of 7 March 1855, published Decision No. 3128 of the Ministry of the Interior, dated 28 February 1855, concerning the tender; The Official Gazette, No. 79, of 5 September 1855, p. 1, published the tender decision, drawn up on 28 August 1855, by document No. 14377: ‘The restoration works still to be carried out to complete the church at the monastery of St. The Bishops of Râmnic, which it has been decided to put out to tender, will be the subject of a tender to be held this coming month at the Ministry of the Interior, on the 12th, 13th and 15th of next September… and at the tender, sureties drawn up in accordance with the regulations and in accordance with His Majesty’s enlightened decree No. 1660 of the year 1850 shall be required”. Decree No. 1660, dated 10 December 1850, issued by Barbu Dimitrie Știrbei, published on 20 December 1850 in the Official Gazette, No. 110, p. 437, stipulated: “guarantors shall be locals only”.

• 31

  Monitorul. The Official Gazette of the Romanian State, No. 146 of 21 June 1860, published a call for tenders for the reconstruction of the church. The Ministry of Religious Affairs organised the call for tenders for the reconstruction of the church, and the works plan was signed by Schlatter.

• 32

  ANIC, MCIP, 304/1850, ff. 100–101.

• 33

  ANIC, Plans, Ilfov, nos. 149–156.

• 34

  Horia MOLDOVAN, Johann Schlatter…, pp. 100, 105.

• 35

  Horia MOLDOVAN, Johann Schlatter…, p. 18.

• 36

  Archimandrite Policarp CHIȚULESCU, Radu Vodă Monastery, Bucharest, Basilica Publishing House, 2009, p. 19.

• 37

  Horia MOLDOVAN, Johann Schlatter…, pp. 97, 99: “At a detailed level, several new elements emerged. One of these was the pulpit, situated in the central part of the nave, an element associated with the Western rite. The cafas, now much reduced in size, also fell into the same category.”

• 38

  ANIC, MCIP, 304/1850, fol. 8 (front and back).

• 39

  Toilet.

• 40a40b

  ANIC, MCIP, 839/1863, f. 10.

• 41

  Central National Historical Archives (ANIC), Ministry of Religious Affairs and Public Education (MCIP), 678/1866.

• 42

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, fol. 1r.

• 43

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, fol. 9 (front and back).

• 44

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, fol. 10r.

• 45

  parform in the text.

• 46a46b46c

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, fol. 11r.

• 47a47b

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, fol. 11v.

• 48

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, fol. 42r.

• 49

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, fol. 13 (front and back).

• 50

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, fol. 15r.

• 51

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, fol. 43r.

• 52

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, fol. 43v.

• 53

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, fol. 45r.

• 54

  Gaetan Burelli, of Italian origin, came to Wallachia and became the architect of the city of Bucharest; in the mid- and latter half of the 19th century, he was involved in the restoration and construction of several buildings in the capital and across the country.

• 55

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, fol. 46r.

• 56

  The church was demolished following the death of Saint Calinic of Cernica (11 April 1868), who had campaigned for its restoration.

• 57

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, fol. 47 r–v.

• 58

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, fol. 48r.

• 59

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, fol. 59r.

• 60

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, fol. 62r.

• 61

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, fol. 86r.

• 62

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, fol. 87r.

• 63

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, pp. 152–153.

• 64

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, folios 156r.

• 65

  Nicolae VĂTĂMANU, ‘New Information about the White Church and its Iconostasis’, in Glasul Bisericii, 1967, no. 5–6, pp. 526–531. The altarpiece was carved in Vienna in 1846–1847 by Haisler.

• 66

  ANIC, MCIP, 678/1866, fol. 60r.

• 67

  Gheorghe CRUTZESCU, The Mogoșoaia Bridge…, p. 205. The author mentions that the statue was erected in 1890, but the editors, V. Teodorescu and E. Barbu, state that it was in 1865. The text we have quoted, taken from the archives, shows that the Metropolitan See’s request for a monument to be erected dates from 1868.

• 68

  ANIC, Diocese of Râmnic – Monastic Records, 105/1865, fol. 3.

• 69

  ANIC, Diocese of Râmnic – Monastic Records, 105/1865, fol. 1 r-v.

• 70

  ANIC, Diocese of Râmnic – Monastery Records, 105/1865, fol. 8.

• 71

  ANIC, Diocese of Râmnic – Monastic Records, 105/1865, fol. 6r.

• 72

  J. Villacrosse was Alexis Godillot’s representative in Romania. He should not be confused with the architect Xavier Villacrosse (1790–1855), who had carried out some projects in Bucharest during the period of the Organic Regulation.

• 73a73b

  ANIC, Diocese of Râmnic – Monastic Records, 105/1865, fol. 12r.

• 74

  ANIC, Diocese of Râmnic – Monastic Records, 105/1865, fol. 12v.

• 75

  ANIC, Diocese of Râmnic – Monastic Records, 105/1865, fol. 16r.

• 76

  Napoleon III, Emperor of France from 1852 to 1870.

• 77

  This is also mentioned in the letter from the French Consul to the Romanian Minister for Foreign Affairs dated 21 February/5 March 1866. See ANIC, Diocese of Râmnic – Monastery Files, 105/1865, f. 12.

• 78

  During the Crimean War (1853–1856), Godillot, through his factory in Paris, supplied the French army with footwear, tents and horse tack (saddles). In fact, the name ‘Godillot’ came to be used as a common noun for sturdy shoes, originally military boots. In 1864, Cuza had called upon him to supply cannons and shells to the Romanian army. C. C. GIURESCU, The Life and Work of Cuza Vodă, Bucharest, Editura Științifică, 1966, p. 221.

• 79

  On Alexis Godillot, see Toader POPESCU, The Romanian Railway Project (1842–1916), Bucharest, Simetria, 2014, p. 172, note 579, where the author also refers to the work by Alain COINTAT, Les souliers de la gloire. Alexis Godillot (1816–1893). L’exceptionnelle réussite d’un fidèle de Napoleon III, Toulon, Les Presses du Midi, 2006.

• 80

  Constanța ȘTIRBU, ‘New information on the establishment of the Order of the Union during the reign of Al. I. Cuza’, in Muzeul Național, I, 1974, p. 95.

• 81

  Ion VITAN, Mayors of Bucharest. 1864–1949, Bucharest, Didactică și Pedagogică Publishing House, 2009, pp. 47, 88.

• 82

  “What struck me upon my arrival in Romania were the deplorable consequences of the unfortunate G (Godillot) affair. A scandal of this sort is not only disastrous for the country, but it is also a disgrace for France […] and this affair (issue) alone could completely discredit French trade in this part of Europe […] I have carefully examined the fabrics used to clothe the French soldiers. I find it hard to believe that there are factories in France producing such coarse fabrics, and I am tempted to think that Mr M.G. has derived certain advantages from this. There are two separate contracts with M.G.: one with the State for military equipment, the other with the City of Bucharest for various services. As regards the first contract, it is certain that the deliveries were made. Whether or not the goods were of good quality is irrelevant. It is sufficient that they were accepted by the Government for Mr M.G.’s claim to be well-founded. As for the sums due, the Government cannot contemplate contesting the claim […] G. undertakes to build a market in Saint Antoine Square, with covered iron stalls for the sale of fruit and flowers and a chapel, works valued at 300,000 francs. Another market in Amza Square, made of iron, with shops and fittings, at a cost of 350,000 francs. So, no plans, no measurements; everything left to the contractor’s imagination. And what can we say about another clause in the contract: G. undertakes to build an esplanade in Episcopiei Square with a Greek-style chapel, pools and fountains, valued at 250,000 francs. And this under a proper contract? Or should we not admit that this is an agreement containing obligations without a valid basis? And, therefore, partially void?”

• 83

  Godillot, as mentioned earlier: N. GEORGESCU-TISTU, Correspondence of a Princely Secretary in Romania. Émile Picot (1866–1868). Paris, Libraire J. Gamber, 1926, p. 21.

• 84

  N. GEORGESCU-TISTU, Correspondence of a princely secretary in Romania. Émile Picot (1866–1868)…, pp. 22–23.

• 85

  In the Map of Bucharest, drawn up by the Army’s Geographical Institute for the Capital City Council in 1895–1899, as well as in the 1911 Map of Bucharest, the Romanian Athenaeum appears, with the Episcopiei Garden in front of it, flanked, on the one hand, by Episcopiei Street – near which Zosima House can be seen – and on the other, by Franklin Street. Poșta Veche Street also appears, leading onto C. A. Rosetti Street. Library of the Romanian Academy (BAR), Maps, City Plans of Bucharest from 1895–1899 and 1911 respectively.

• 86

  ANIC, Diocese of Râmnic – Monastic Records, 105/1865, f. 64.

• 87

  ANIC, Diocese of Râmnic – Monastery Records, 105/1865, f. 70.

• 88a88b

  ANIC, Diocese of Râmnic – Monastic Records, 105/1865, f. 71v.

• 89

  ANIC, Diocese of Râmnic – Monastic Records, 105/1865, f. 68 r.

• 90

  ANIC, Diocese of Râmnic – Mănăstirești Files, 105/1865, fol. 95v.

• 91

  ANIC, Diocese of Râmnic – Mănăstirești Files, 105/1865, fol. 96r.

• 92

  Ion VITAN, The Mayors of Bucharest…, p. 133.

• 93

  A. I. ODOBESCU, C. ESARCU, The Romanian Athenaeum and Ancient Buildings with Circular Domes, Bucharest, 1888, p. 3.

• 94

  Among those who championed the establishment of the Atheneul Român Cultural Society were: Constantin Esarcu, His Grace Aurelian, Theodor Aman, Al. Lahovary, B. P. Hașdeu, Ulysse de Marsillac and P. P. Carp. From 1869, the president was Ion Heliade Rădulescu, who was at that time also president of the Romanian Academy, a fact which highlights the cultural collaboration between the two institutions. See V. CÂNDEA, I. ZAMFIRESCU, V. MOGA, The Romanian Athenaeum, Bucharest, Scientific and Encyclopaedic Publishing House, 1976, pp. 27, 33.

• 95

  V. CÂNDEA, I. ZAMFIRESCU, V. MOGA, The Romanian Athenaeum…, pp. 62–69.

• 96

  Nicolae IORGA, The History of Bucharest…, p. 13.

• 97

  See the address by Bishop Iosif Naniescu in Biserica Ortodoxă Română, XXI, 1897, no. 1, pp. 206–217.

• 98

  “Your Highness! In accordance with Your Highness’s orders (instructions), I have the honour to submit, as an attachment, the draft amendment to be carried out in conjunction with the Diocese of Râmnic, adding the following comments: As the German-Gothic style is too costly, we have opted for the Anglo-Gothic style, which is based on the octagon that predominates in this church and extends all the way to the top. According to the design, the church will feature a spacious vestibule and two smaller side aisles, one on the right and one on the left. In one of these there will be a staircase leading to the gallery or a large round window which will also serve as an ornament to the church. The entire project, as agreed, will be carried out using materials sourced from this country, and a specialist sculptor will only be required for very important details. The sculpture will be designed to withstand adverse weather conditions. The bell tower will be 23 metres high and the dome will be constructed in such a way as to be integrated with the other parts, giving the impression of height, as if it were a single structure. As I am unfamiliar with the construction of the current bell tower, I am of the opinion that the finishing work should stop at the central gallery; if necessary, the upper part should be built of timber, but, if necessary and if it proves feasible, it could also be made of stone, a task which I shall undertake myself. Should Your Highness accept this plan, I shall proceed with planning the other details which I have not yet envisaged. The duration of the works will depend on the Government’s instructions and the date the contract is signed; I have not produced any further sketches as yet, having merely presented the main façade. In the hope that I shall successfully live up to the trust you have placed in me, I remain at your disposal at all times, Your humble servant, Menander von Montbach, Architect, Bucharest, 16 January 1853”

• 99

  Autograph signature.

• 100

  Ciubuc – a prominent band formed on walls as an ornament. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 288.

• 101

  Cubea – dome, vaulted tower. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 372.

• 102

  Covaci – blacksmith. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 358.

• 103

  Architrave – a beam supporting a pediment or other structure resting on columns. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 118.

• 104

  The seal of the Ministry of Finance.

• 105

  monumental fountains, overwritten.

• 106a106b106c106d106e

  Autograph.

• 107

  Illegible. Handwritten signature.

• 108

  The Ministry’s stamp.

• 109

  Autograph. This is Gen. Ioan Emanoil Florescu.

• 110

  Probably a lesson, autograph.

• 111

  The Ministry of Religious Affairs’ stamp, showing the date and the document’s reference number.

• 112

  Autograph signature. Constantin Caragea, as per the entry on folio 12r.

• 113

  Illegible, handwritten signature.

• 114

  Autograph signature. Constantin Cornescu, as per the entry on folio 12r.

• 115

  Cat – row of houses, storey. Augustin SCRIBAN, Dictionary of the Romanian Language…, p. 238.

• 116

  1–8: the chambers of His Holiness, the Bishop.

• 117

  15–20 – the chambers of His Holiness, the Archimandrite.

• 118

  23–24 – the sexton’s rooms.

• 119

  42–44 – the steward’s rooms.

• 120

  50–51 for the singer.