The official appointment of the hieromonk Antim Ivireanul as head of the princely printing press in Bucharest in the summer of 1691 has raised a number of legitimate questions for researchers:
1. Where, when and from whom did Antim learn the art of printing?
2. Did Saint Constantin Brâncoveanu bring Antim to Bucharest?
3. How did Antim commit himself to the path of Christian witness through the art of printing?
We shall also provide answers to these questions, but first we shall present the most well-founded opinions of the researchers who came before us.
Bishop Melchisedec Ștefănescu put forward the hypothesis that ‘around the year 1690, Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu, wishing to perfect the art of printing in his capital, Bucharest, and to facilitate the printing of necessary books in both Romanian and Greek, summoned Antim from Constantinople and entrusted him with the Metropolitanate’s printing press’1”. This view was subsequently adopted by the majority of historians.
Thus, the idea became officially established that when ‘Saint Constantine Brâncoveanu brought him to Bucharest, he knew him to be skilled in the art of printing, a talented draughtsman and an unrivalled calligrapher, and he thought that a man who possessed so many gifts might be of use to him in the work of raising the cultural standing of the nation and strengthening the Orthodox faith through the printed word, something he longed for as a man of letters and an Orthodox voivode’2
Mihail Gabriel Popescu stated that Brâncoveanu welcomed him to Bucharest, primarily as a printer, “most likely in 1690”, a view “supported, we believe, by the fact that in that year Brâncoveanu established the new princely printing press in Bucharest”3, on the recommendation of Patriarch Dosithei and the Greek professors “brought by Brâncoveanu for the Princely School”4 (Sevastos Kyminitis and Gheorghe Hrisogon Trapezundiul), the purpose of Antim’s arrival being “to bring about an even greater flourishing of the art of printing”5, a fact confirmed by the secretary Anton Maria Del Chiaro (“he had perfected the art of printing and equipped the printing presses”6).
Like many other researchers, the academician Gabriel Ștrempel maintained that, around 1689–1690, Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu brought the Georgian Andrei (then a layman) from Constantinople to Bucharest 7, where he became an apprentice printer to Bishop Mitrofan of Huși, and then, around 1690, Antim took the monastic vows and was ordained a hieromonk 8.
Precise details regarding the arrival of the hieromonk Antim Ivireanul in Wallachia (when and how) are not recorded in the documents of the time. There are, however, several accounts that partially shed light on these mysteries: 1. Hrisant Notara’s letter to the counsellor Ianache Văcărescu (recently discovered by us) dated December 1709, 2. Metropolitan Antim’s first letter of defence to Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu dated 13 January 1712; and 3. The preface to the 1706 Evhologhion written by Mihail Iștvanovici.
1. Patriarch Hrisant Notara writes the following to the counsellor Ianache: ‘…I took him from there [from Iași, where he was abbot] at that time and brought him there [to Bucharest – ed.]9’. And, seeing that he was skilled, and again by the will of the late lord, I spoke to Kyr Mitrofan, the Bishop of Buzău, to teach him the art of printing, agreeing to pay him two hundred groschen (and thus, thanks to us, he came there and became well-known and went on to become the man who is now known as ‘10’). – … we took him from there at that time and brought him with us. And seeing that he was suitable, once again, at the behest of the late reverend priest, we met Mr Mitrofan, Bishop of Bozeu, to teach him the art of printing, haggling over the price so that we might pay him two hundred grosia; (and so, for our own good, he came here, was recognised, and arrived at the place where he is now).”11 Thus, at the urging of Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem, the hieromonk Antim Ivireanul was brought from Iași to Bucharest by Hrisant Notara, who paid Bishop Mitrofan 200 groschen 12 to teach Antim the art of printing 13. Antim’s arrival in Bucharest probably took place in 1689, between August and December, as mastering the art of printing required time and experience.
Although he is not mentioned in any of the books, it is possible that Antim worked with Bishop Mitrofan on the printing of the Greek books Manual against the Schism of the Papists (Ἐγχειρίδιον κατὰ τοῦ σχίματος τῶν παπιστῶν) by Maximus of the Peloponnese (January 1690), and Refutation of the Calvinist Principles and the Arguments of Cyril Loukaris (Κατὰ τῶν καλβινικῶν κεφαλαίων, and a Refutation of the Questions of Cyril Loukaris) by Meletius of Sirigou, and the Manual Against Calvinist Heresy, compiled by Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem (Ἐγχειρίδιον κατὰ τῆς καλβινικῆς φρενοβλαβείας, September 1690) and the Romanian book The Spiritual Pearls of Saint John Chrysostom (in 1691)14.
On 10 June 1691, Mitrofan was elected Bishop of Buzău, where he subsequently published The Orthodox Confession in December at the new princely printing press at the bishopric, leaving the monk-priest – the printer Antim Ivireanul (which meant that he excelled in the art of printing more than Mitrofan’s other, more senior apprentices), who was to print the first book in Greek in October 1691.
2. In his first letter of defence, dated 13 January 1712, addressed to Constantin Vodă Brâncoveanu, Saint Antim Ivireanul writes: ‘I did not come here, to this country, of my own free will, nor because of any poverty or want’15 If he did not come of his own free will, it means that Antim was acting in obedience, being a hieromonk, and was submitting to his hierarch. As we have seen previously, Patriarch Dosithei sent Antim ‘here, to this country’, that is, to Wallachia (Ungrovlahia), with a clearly defined purpose, and he accepted willingly, not because he was poor and went about (like the Greek clergy of the East) seeking aid at the Brâncoveanu court, but solely out of spiritual obedience, to perfect himself as a printer and to be of service to the Church, for it was not translators, painters or calligraphers that Patriarch Dosithei and Prince Brâncoveanu needed, but skilled printers who would work with dedication to fulfil their project of strengthening Orthodoxy in all the lands of the Christian East.
3. Antim’s apprentice, the subdeacon Mihail Iștvanovici, clarifies the matter of the meeting between Constantin Vodă Brâncoveanu and Antim in the Preface to the Evhologhion printed at Râmnic in 1706, where he writes: ‘There, then, whilst Joseph was in prison in Egypt, and having interpreted Pharaoh’s dream, he was granted the honour and office of overseeing the fruits of the earth, to gather them and store them in his granaries, hearing also that word of joy (or rather, as we might say, of Prophecy): ‘Where shall we find a man like this, who has the Spirit of God within him?’ [Gen. XLI, 38] Here in our land, not like that Egyptian Pharaoh, but the gentle one, like David, our most enlightened and exalted sovereign and Lord Ioann Constandin B.(asarab) B.(Râncoveanu) Voivode, having found you and seen your love for God, and having examined your sharp mind, have found you worthy and skilful, not in the interpretation of dreams (as Pharaoh did in the days of as with Joseph), but in matters that are clear and readily grasped; and upon seeing these and understanding them with his mind, this marvellous Lord said (and may still say): ‘Shall we indeed find a man such as this, O wise ones? For in what kind of craft or skilful work have you not shown yourself to be consummate? If I were to say ‘in all things’, I would not be lying, for I would be speaking the truth, according to the words of the divine Paul: ‘16’. We note that Mihail Iștvanovici says, ‘Here in our country… Our Most Enlightened Lord… having met you and seen you… and having examined your sharp mind, found you worthy and skilful…’, meaning that Antim had already arrived in Wallachia when Prince Brâncoveanu first met him and appreciated him, recognising his wisdom and many talents.
The researcher Doru Bădără was the first to explore and highlight these words of Mihail Iștvanovici, arguing that “Antim Ivireanul’s integration into the cultural project sponsored by Constantin Brâncoveanu took place following a face-to-face meeting, in a working context, in Bucharest’17 – either around 1689–1690 or ‘in the summer of 1691, when the prince was seeking a new head for the princely printing press in Bucharest to replace Mitrofan’18.
Gianina Picioruș, drawing on the same text by Mihail Iștvanovici, argues that Antim was summoned by Șerban Vodă Cantacuzino (since he did not come of his own accord), probably at the same time as Mitrofan in 1686, and the meeting between Brâncoveanu and Antim may well have taken place just before Brâncoveanu assumed the rule of Wallachia, probably whilst Șerban’s Bible was being compiled, in 1688 19. At the same time, the researcher states that, in Antim’s words addressed to Saint Constantin Brâncoveanu, ‘I did not come here, to this country, of my own free will, nor because of any poverty or want’, Metropolitan Antim is saying, in other words, that “it was not he, Antim, who sought help in Wallachia, but rather he was the one who was called upon to contribute to the country’s spiritual and cultural prosperity. That is why he subtly reminded the voivode that not only did the voivode owe him gratitude for the support he had received, but the ruler of the country must also be grateful for the efforts hehad made for the good of his adopted country”20—without seeking personal gain or praise, which, incidentally, he deserved. We must make an important observation: the fact that many of the books printed by Antim “responded to a movement in line with ecumenical aspirations and the personal writings of Greek activists in defence of Orthodoxy”21 confirms that the initiative for Antim’s arrival and establishment as a printer in Bucharest originated from abroad 22 (primarily from Dosithei of Jerusalem, as we have shown), but was perfectly aligned with the wishes and financial resources of Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu.
We put forward the hypothesis that, although Antim arrived in Bucharest in the autumn of 1689 – spring of 1690, Saint Constantin Brâncoveanu met the hieromonk Antim Ivireanul only after the latter had mastered the art of printing sufficiently well to arouse the prince’s admiration (who wondered ‘Shall we ever find a man like this, who has the Spirit of God within him?’), as a possible worthy successor to Mitrofan at the helm of the printing press in Bucharest. This is said to have taken place in the spring of 1691, whilst Mitrofan was gathering materials for the new printing press in Buzău, where he was to take up his post as bishop in June 1691. In any case, this meeting proved decisive for Antim in winning the trust and support of Prince Brâncoveanu, which he was to confirm time and again over the course of more than 20 years of joint missionary and cultural work.
As for the spiritual and monastic life of Saint Antim Ivireanul in the Ottoman Empire (Jerusalem, Constantinople) or in the Romanian Principalities (Iași, Bucharest), we know nothing precise—neither from his own accounts, nor from those of his disciples, nor from the chronicles or documents of the time—as to exactly when or where he lived. We know only that he became abbot of Cetățuia Monastery in Iași, from where he then came to Bucharest.
We can now assume that, whilst working as a printer’s apprentice for Mitrofan, the hieromonk Antim lived at the Metropolitan See (where the princely printing workshops were also located)23 or at the Monastery of Saint Sava (dedicated to the Holy Sepulchre)24 and honed his knowledge of Greek theology and Romanian culture at the Princely Academy 25.
A monk of the aghiotaphite order, quick-witted and skilled in the fine arts, the hieromonk Antim Ivireanul was thus brought therefore, by Archimandrite Hrisant Notara from Iași (where he had also been abbot of Cetățuia Monastery, dedicated to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem) to Bucharest (at the behest of Patriarch Dosithei Notara) to learn the craft of printing, but also to put his talents to use for the benefit of the ecclesiastical community of the Holy Sepulchre. His presence was by no means inconspicuous 26, and the wisdom, theological and philological learning, as well as the arts he had acquired through hard work and obedience (under the abbot, the hieromonk Macarie) at Cetățuia Monastery and at Bishop Mitrofan’s printing press, not only confirmed but also raised the expectations of his hierarch – Patriarch Dosithei Notara (as well as his nephew, Hrisant). Thus, being a man in whom they placed great trust, Antim was, as might be expected, assigned as a monk to the Monastery of Saint Sava, where the Royal Academy was also in operation. Moreover, we believe (daring to put forward an original view 27), the hieromonk Antim Ivireanul also became abbot of this famous monastery dedicated to the Holy Sepulchre, probably at the same time as he took over the management of the printing press, in the summer of 1691, following Mitrofan’s departure for Buzău.
Our hypothesis is confirmed by a document 28 dated 12 December 7202 (1693), which attests that Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu donated “to our honourable and most holy father Kyr Dosoftăio, Patriarch of Holy Jerusalem” a stone church in Călinești, Prahova, “a house with a cellar and a vineyard on the hillside, with 2 stânjeni of land”. The custodian (administrator) of these properties “was to be Antim, the abbot of the Monastery of Saint Sava29 in Bucharest. Father Antim would collect the income ‘on his behalf’ and on behalf of the Holy Sepulchre”30
We can imagine that during these years, except perhaps in the spring and summer of 1694 (when Antim’s dissatisfaction probably reached a critical point and he wished to leave), the hieromonk Antim proved himself to be a good abbot, a good spiritual father and a good steward, who collaborated with Patriarch Dosithei Notara and with his ‘right-hand man (τὸ δεξί του χέρι)’31, Hrisant Notara. That Antim carried out his duties conscientiously is evidenced by the fact that in the Letter to the counsellor Ianache Văcărescu dated December 1709, after recalling Antim’s appointment as an apprentice to Bishop Mitrofan of Huși and his progress in the art of printing (until around the summer of 1694), Hrisant Notara, with obvious indignation, states that Antim ‘departed from his vassalage’, causing great distress to Patriarch Dosithei (or so Hrisant claims), who allegedly wished ‘to defrock him and excommunicate him’, but Chrysanthus is said to have intervened decisively in his favour: “He, however, as an instrument of a cunning and ungrateful soul and a slave to a mind devoid of reason, did what he did in secret and departed from his metania32. Consequently, the late master [Dosithei] was greatly scandalised and wished, in accordance with the canons of the holy ecumenical councils and ecclesiastical law, to defrock him and excommunicate him, just as has been done with others of this sort; and God, who is without falsehood, is witness that we prevented this from running its course to the end, for many reasons 33, which need not be explained at present. (He himself, however, as a wicked and ungrateful man, a slave to a depraved mind and a perverted intellect, secretly did whatever he did and fled from his repentance. Whereupon the blessed bishop was greatly scandalised, and wished, in accordance with the canons of the holy Ecumenical Councils, and in accordance with ecclesiastical justice, to depose him and excommunicate him, as has been done to others like him, and the truthful God is witness that we prevented him from carrying out his plan to the end formany reasons, which need not be explained at present.)”34
We do, however, ask the legitimate question: what exactly led Antim ‘to do what he did in secret’ and to withdraw from obedience to the Patriarch of Jerusalem? The answer is not easy to give, but for a man like Antim, who had endured physical and spiritual hardships and could not tolerate hypocrisy and injustice, we believe his decision was justified. He probably witnessed some abuses there that disgusted him; he probably grew weary of the total obedience demanded of him, although he never spoke of these injustices. Hrisant himself makes no mention of any moral or financial misconduct, but accuses him of having behaved at the time like a cunning, boorish and ungrateful man35…
We must also note that Antim never signed himself ‘Antim Aghiotafitul’, not even on the first Greek books he had printed, but only as ‘Ivireanul’, thereby demonstrating that his spiritual identity did not resonate with the Greek ethos of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Aghiotafite Brotherhoods.
In conclusion, we wish to emphasise two important points:
1. during this period, whilst he was in Bucharest (1690–1694), Saint Antim also understood the importance of the presence and missionary activity of the city monasteries;
2. from these learned men—Dosithei and Hrisant Notara—as well as from the professors of the Princely Academy, the hieromonk Antim gained a great deal of experience (both spiritual and intellectual, as well as administrative 36 and missionary-philanthropic), which he was to use later in the construction and organisation of the Monastery of All Saints some 20 years later.
Royal charter 37 of a donation by Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, represented by Abbot Antim of the Monastery of Saint Sava in Bucharest, 12 December 1693
‘To the holy and noble City of Jerusalem, where lies the Tomb of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and to our honourable and most holy father, Patriarch Dosoftăiu of the Holy City of Jerusalem, that there may be for Holy Jerusalem a stone church in the village of Călinești, dedicated to the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos, and a house with a cellar and a vineyard on the hill with 2 stânjăni of land, but the care of these shall be entrusted to Father Antim, the abbot of the holy and noble monastery known as Saint Sava in my lord’s city, Bucharest, which is also dedicated to the Holy City of Jerusalem. And the income derived from this little church, the house, the cellar and the vineyard shall be collected in full by Father Antim, the abbot, on his own behalf, for this little church, as mentioned above, was built from the foundations up by‹i› Iorga, the chamberlain, whilst the vineyard, the house and the cellar were purchased by Gheorghie, the son of Necula, the brother of Iorga the steward.
Thus, when they had all passed away and no other close relatives remained, save for the monk Teofan—who was known by the lay name Tudorașco the steward, son of Iorga the chamberlain, the nephew of Iorga the bed-maker on his mother’s side, and first cousin of Gheorghie, son of Neculea; and seeing that the church was to be neglected and the vineyards left to fall into ruin, he resolved that this legacy should not go to waste. Therefore, he gave them and dedicated them to the Holy City of Jerusalem, that they might serve as a help and a source of strength, and that he, his uncles and his parents might have eternal remembrance, as we have seen in my lords’and the will of the monk Theophanes, drawn up by Father Antim, the abbot of the Monastery of Saint Sava, and confirmed with a solemn oath.
For this reason, and by my own will,I have also given this document of mine to Father Antim, the abbot, so that he may maintain this church, the house, the cellar and the vineyard for the sake of Holy Jerusalem in peace, that it may be to his help and strength for ever.
And I, Stanciul the Logothete, wrote this in Bucharest.
On the 12th day of December, in the year 7202 [1693].
Toma C‹antacuzino›, second logothete, procit + ‹m.p.›”
- 1
“Biographical notes on Antim Ivireanul, Metropolitan of Ungrovlahia”, in the introduction to the volume Sermons Delivered on Major Feasts by Antim Ivireanul, edited by I. Bianu, Bucharest, 1886, p. V.
- 2
“The Sermon of His Beatitude Justinian at the memorial service for Metropolitan Antim, held in Târgoviște”, in Glasul Bisericii, no. 9–10 / 1966, p. 914.
- 3
Mihail-Gabriel POPESCU, Antim Ivireanul, Metropolitan of Ungrovlahia: Church Leader and Preacher of the Gospel. Doctoral thesis, Bucharest, 1969, p. 12.
- 4
Mihail-Gabriel POPESCU, Antim Ivireanul, Metropolitan of Ungrovlahia…, pp. 13–14.
- 5
Mihail-Gabriel POPESCU, Antim Ivireanul, Metropolitan of Ungrovlahia…, p. 13.
- 6
Anton Maria Del Chiaro, Istoria Delle Moderne Rivoluzioni Della Valachia (The Revolutions of Wallachia), translated into Romanian by S. Cris-Cristian, with an introduction by N. Iorga, Viața Românească Publishing House, Iași, 1929, p. 142.
- 7
Gabriel ȘTREMPEL, Antim Ivireanul, Romanian Academy Press, Bucharest, 1997, p. 65.
- 8
See the chronology in the volume Saint Antim of Ivire, Didache, edited by Mihail Stanciu and Gabriel Ștrempel, Basilica Publishing House, Bucharest, 2010, p. 43.
- 9
We maintain that Antim was sent to Bucharest, not because of any scandal (as Hrisant claimed), but rather to learn the craft of printing and to assist in the missionary and cultural work of Patriarch Dosithei and Metropolitan Teodosie, supported by Saint Voivode Constantin Brâncoveanu.
- 10
By 1709, Antim was already known as the most prolific printer in the Orthodox Christian world. In addition to the many books he printed, Antim had sent a printing press to Transylvania (1699), one to Syria (1705) and one to Iviria (1708).
- 11
Saint Antim of Ivire, Letters, Basilica Publishing House, Bucharest, 2014, pp. 53–54.
- 12
The fact that Mitrofan was paid to teach Antim the art of printing might lead one to conclude that Mitrofan was not doing this out of generosity and joy, but rather out of envy and fear that the new apprentice (whom he had assessed highly, noting his sharp mind, perseverance and artistic qualities) might surpass him and take his place (which, in fact, did happen). It was probably for this reason that the relationship between Mitrofan and Antim was not particularly close.
- 13
Once again, Patriarch Chrysanthus highlights the role played by himself and his uncle, Dositheus, (‘thanks to us’ – ‘ἀπὸ αἰτίαν ἐδικὴν μας’) in Antim’s development as a hierarch and printer.
- 14
See also Gabriel ȘTREMPEL, Antim Ivireanul, pp. 67–68.
- 15
Saint Antim of Ivire, Didahii, p. 214.
- 16
Evhologhion, that is to say, Molitvenic, vols. I and II, Râmnic, 1706, f. 3.
- 17
Romanian Printing in the Late 17th and Early 18th Centuries, Istros Publishing House, Brăila, 1998, p. 113.
- 18
Romanian Printing at the End of the 17th Century…, p. 113.
- 19
Gianina PICIORUȘ, Antim Ivireanul, The Literary Vanguard of Paradise, Teologie pentru azi Publishing House, Bucharest, 2010, p. 32.
- 20
Gianina PICIORUȘ, Antim Ivireanul…, p. 28.
- 21
Virgil MOLIN, ‘Antim Ivireanul – publisher and printer in Râmnic’, in Mitropolia Olteniei, no. 9–10 / 1966, p. 826.
- 22
See Gianina PICIORUȘ, Antim Ivireanul…, p. 38.
- 23
Doru BĂDĂRĂ, The Romanian Printing Press…, pp. 62–63.
- 24
We shall confirm this hypothesis below.
- 25
See also Elena GRIGORIU, The History of the Prince’s Academy at St Sava, Didactică și Pedagogică Publishing House, Bucharest, 1978, pp. 5–53.
- 26
A quiet and gentle man, patient and wise, devout and hard-working, Antim did nothing merely for show; he was free from vanity and possessed no personal wealth, devoting himself entirely to God and His Glorifying Church. Through these virtues, which shone naturally from him, Antim was held in high esteem by those around him, even earning words of praise from the great figures of Orthodoxy of his time.
- 27
Our assertion is not mere speculation, as other historians (Nicolae Iorga, Gabriel Ștrempel) have argued, but is supported by two historical accounts.
- 28
This princely charter was given to Abbot Antim by Prince Brâncoveanu as confirmation of the endowment, which was intended ‘to be of help and strength to him for ever’ – National Archives, Manuscript 705, f. 22r (The Register of the Grand Logothete (1692–1714), edited by Melentina Bâzgan, Paralela 45 Publishing House, Pitești, 2009, p. 25, document 27). Apart from Ms Melentina Bâzgan, we are not aware of any other researcher having made use of this information to date. Although I have searched the archives and other documentary evidence for Antim’s presence at the Monastery of Saint Sava in Bucharest, I have found no further evidence.
- 29
The documents of the time (chronicles, letters, deeds) make no mention of any other Antim who may have ‘made a name for himself’ in the ecclesiastical and cultural circles of Bucharest.
- 30
Toma G. BULAT, ‘Constantin Vodă Brâncoveanu’s donations to the Orthodox East’, in BOR, no. 9–10 / 1964, p. 932.
- 31
Penelope Stathi, Chrysanthos Notaras, Patriarch of Jerusalem – Forerunner of the Modern Greek Enlightenment (Hrisant Notaras, Patriarch of Jerusalem – Forerunner of the Modern Greek Enlightenment), Athens, 1999, p. 61.
- 32
The expression ‘he left from his metania’ may also mean that the Monastery of Saint Sava was his metania monastery (which is hard to believe, especially as he was sentenced, as a foreign national, to exile outside the country), but, most likely, it refers to the fact that Antim came under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem after arriving in Wallachia, more specifically after he had completed his apprenticeship in the printing press (funded by the Patriarch of Jerusalem) under Bishop Mitrofan and after he had progressed sufficiently to be recognised for his personal qualities and his achievements in printing.
- 33
These reasons may have been their material interests and the favours they received in abundance from Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu, these impressive financial grants, liturgical objects and books helping them to enhance the prestige of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, but also to ensure their own comfortable lifestyle (including countless journeys). They stood to lose all these benefits if Antim were to escape from their ‘control’, and this was their greatest regret. Where else could they find another man so talented and devoted to serve them as Antim did?
- 34
Saint Antim of Ivire, Letters, pp. 54–55.
- 35
Without offering any further explanation, Hrisant resorts to personal attacks, ‘booing’ him for the dignified and resolute attitude he has displayed on several occasions. Unfortunately, the Patriarchs of Jerusalem were not grateful enough to Antim for all he had done for them.
- 36
We may hypothesise that he learnt the practice of keeping records in catalogues and registers of the library and the monastery’s assets from the steward Constantin Cantacuzino and Hrisant Notara. See Corneliu DIMA-DRĂGAN, ‘The Patriarch of Jerusalem, Hrisant Notara, and Romanian Culture’, in Românii și Țara Sfântă la două milenii de creștinism, published by the Pilgrimage Office of the Romanian Patriarchate, Bucharest, 2000, p. 112.
- 37
National Archives Collection, Manuscript 705, f. 22r (Register of the Grand Logothete (1692–1714), edited by Melentina BÂZGAN, Paralela 45, Pitești, 2009, p. 25, document 27).