Hierarch Filaret, titular metropolitan of Myra in Lycia from 1776, bishop of Râmnic between 1780 and 1792 1 and metropolitan of Ungrovlahia from 1792 to 1793 2, is known above all for his cultural and intellectual work; he supported the printing of ecclesiastical books, was involved in the editing and writing of prefaces for some of them 3, as well as in the translation or revision of certain Minei 4, thus making a significant contribution, alongside Bishops Damaschin 5 and Chesarie, to the use of the Romanian language in worship. Regarding his life, we note that he was abbot of Căldărușani Monastery, which he rebuilt and where he would be buried, and that he studied at the Saint Sava Academy in Bucharest 6. He was also active in diplomacy, and in 1770, alongside other prominent figures of the time, including great boyars and clergymen, he formed part of the delegation sent to Catherine II in St Petersburg to secure anti-Ottoman support for the Romanian Principalities from Russia 7. It was in this context that he met Mihail Cantacuzino, the founder of several churches in the capital, including the one built (or rebuilt) in honour of the Forty Martyrs, which he would later dedicate to the Diocese of Râmnic as its dependency in Bucharest 8. Furthermore, the bishop maintained an interesting correspondence with men of letters, nobles and prelates, both at home and abroad 9.
In what follows, we wish to highlight several aspects of the pastoral work 10 of this bishop, a lover of virtue 11, based on data from a register of orders, mostly from 1780–1783, held at the Library of the Romanian Academy in Bucharest, in the Manuscripts and Rare Books Department. More specifically, we refer to the register found in the Historical Documents Collection, under reference number cmlxxix/1-180 (formerly ms. 2096), which was donated to the Library by the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Public Instruction in 1901; it originated from the library of Bishop Ghenadie Enăceanu 12, whose purple ink stamp can be found inside. The register, which is partially damaged, stained and torn, but restored (in terms of the binding and paper; the text remains illegible in places), contains 180 documents relating to church life in the Diocese of Râmnic during the time of Bishop Filaret’s ministry. The text is rendered in Romanian, in Cyrillic script, written by several hands in black ink on yellowish-white paper with a watermark; the sheet dimensions are 31 × 20.5 cm, whilst the cover measures 32 × 21.5 cm. The cover is not the original one, but is made of cloth-covered cardboard, in shades of purple and yellow. Some phrases, particularly in the title, are written in Slavonic and Greek, using their respective scripts.
In terms of document types, we find anaphoric texts 13, court records and decrees issued by the hierarch, as well as registers, such as that of Arnota Monastery from 1781 14 or that of Dintr-un Lemn Monastery 15. Some of these documents have been researched and published, particularly those relating to Bishop Filaret’s correspondence with the priests of the diocese regarding the collection of aid for the Holy Sepulchre, in the context of Patriarch Avramie of Jerusalem’s visit to Wallachia; or those concerning aid for schools. In this article, we wish to highlight other types of decrees and documents included in the register.
Some of the documents are important for the study of the history of places of worship. We shall again take as an example the Church of the Forty Martyrs in Bucharest, a dependency of the Diocese of Râmnic. On 6 February 1780, Bishop Filaret asked the Prince to order the vornics to survey and demarcate the site of this church, known as Văcărescu’s orchard. Following this intervention by the bishop, the prince asked the boyars to mark out the boundaries.
‘Your Highnesses,
† The Church of the Forty Holy Martyrs, a dependency of the Diocese of Râmnic, holds in its possession the site known as Văcărescu’s orchard, here in Bucharest; this plot, being undetermined, may be encroached upon at will by the neighbours and local residents. We therefore beseech Your Highness to issue a clear command to the appointed stewards, to go to the site and, following the testimony of the neighbours who know the extent of this land and in accordance with the former ownership, to erect boundary markers so that the Holy Church may henceforth possess it without dispute. And we pray to the Lord God that Your Highness may be granted many and happy years. 6 February 1780.
Your Highness’s intercessor before God,
† Mireon Filaret.
Your Excellencies, the court officials, are to go to the site and, having made the appropriate choice, to set up markers in the customary manner, and to present your certificate of election. 13 February 1780”16
On 4 June 1780, Alexandru Ipsilanti confirmed the boundaries of the site of the Church of the Forty Martyrs.
Further on, other documents relating to the Church of the Forty Martyrs are listed. On 13 July 1780, Alexandru Ipsilanti exempted this place of worship from various duties: the payment of the church tax, the herb tax and customs duties 17. In August 1780, Stroe Dărbacă of Poenari, Ilfov, entered into an agreement with Filaret to serve as a lay minister at the metochion in Bucharest, in order to be exempt from the ‘dajdie’ tax 18. On 21 July 1780, Dumitru Măcelaru of Bucharest informed Bishop Filaret that he had agreed to provide the Church of the Forty Martyrs with 5½ measures of meat daily, except on days of fasting, in order to be exempted from taxes and other levies 19. Indeed, by the deed of 14 July 1780, also copied into the register, Alexandru Ipsilanti had decreed that the Church of the Forty Martyrs, ‘which is a metochion of the Holy Bishopric of Râmneț, for the residence and accommodation of the God-loving bishop-fathers’20—should hold a seat of benefice, exempt from the smoke tax, the herb tax and other levies.
As an aside, from another source also preserved at the Academy Library (formerly ms. 2767, now in the Historical Documents collection, reference number mxxxix/1-181, there is an old register detailing the immovable property of the former Bishop of Râmnic, later Metropolitan Filaret, including estates in the counties of Dolj, Vâlcea and Ilfov, as well as properties in Bucharest, vineyards in the county of Saac and Gypsies 21), we learn that Filaret had taken care to preserve and expand the properties of the Church of the Forty Martyrs in Bucharest. Thus, in September 1786, the hierarch purchased, near the monastery’s garden, a number of houses in the Bradului (Boteanu) neighbourhood sold by Grigorie Hrisoscoleu, the deed being authenticated by Metropolitan Grigorie of Wallachia:
‘I hereby entrust, by this deed of mine, to the honourable, blessed and righteous hand of His Grace, Father Bishop Kiriu Kir Filaret of Râmnic, that it may be known that, near the garden of the metochion of the Holy Diocese, there are some houses, purchased in the Brad neighbourhood, and now wishing to sell them, as I am in need of money to repurchase other ancestral houses, and His Grace having granted his consent to the neighbourhood, I came to an agreement with His Holiness and sold these houses, together with the land they stand on—as far as the lanes extend—and all the appurtenances22, and the surrounding area, for 1,100 talers, that is, one thousand one hundred, the full sum of which I have received in my own hands. And may His Grace hold these houses in peaceful possession from my entire family, having been given both my deed of sale and other old deeds.
And for the sake of greater certainty, they have signed other documents of honour, as witnesses, as set out below, to attest to this. September 1786.
Grigorie Hrisoscoleu, former chamberlain, attest/ Cozma, Bishop of Buzău, witness/ Ianache Văcărescu, former court official, witness/ Grigorie Băleanu, former scribe, witness/ Alexandru, cupbearer, witness/ Toma [...]23, witness”24.
The document is significant not only because it reveals the date of the acquisition, but also because it mentions the metochion of the Diocese of Râmnic in Bucharest, namely the Church of the Forty Martyrs, with its garden and properties, now expanded through Bishop Filaret’s purchase of these houses and their plots in the Bradului neighbourhood. The right of pre-emption is also mentioned – in its Greek form, protimisis – an ancient right of preferential purchase and repurchase, for relatives and neighbours of the estate, the disregard of which led to the cancellation of the sale; the limitation period remained, even after the mid-18th century, in accordance with the Byzantine model, at 10 years 25. Also mentioned are boyars from renowned families, such as Hrisoscoleu, Văcărescu (who owned property in the area, in the Văcărescu orchard), as well as Bishop Cozma Popescu of Buzău (1763–1787), who witnessed the sale and was therefore in Bucharest at that time. We also learn the sale price, expressed in thalers, as well as the reason: the need for money to repurchase other properties inherited from his parents. Mihail Cantacuzino, the founder of the Church of the Forty Martyrs, had dedicated it to the Diocese of Râmnic in 1775, and the hierarchs had set about expanding the estate’s holdings; Bishop Filaret had purchased in 1784 from Gheorghe the tailor a plot of land adjoining the monastery’s garden, and we see that now, in September 1786, he was expanding its holdings. Bishop Filaret had, at his own expense, brought water to the Râmnic monastery from Bucharest, also supplying the town with water from the communal wells, as we read in the charter dated 1 July 1786 issued by Nicolae Petru Mavrogheni, which states that ‘his grace’s zeal for the common good and for the adornment of the town’26 was known to all. The same register also records the deed by which Grigorie Hrisoscoleu acquired the houses, for, as the text tells us, the seller had given Filaret the title deeds as well. And by reading through the deeds one by one, we also learn the names of the previous owners of the property27
From the example above, we can see that Bishop Filaret took care to preserve, manage and increase church property; the case discussed here concerning the metochion in Bucharest is by no means an isolated one. For instance, the Registers of the Diocese of Râmnic, covering estates and metochions – which were also analysed by Athanasie Mironescu for his monograph on this diocese – note that during Bishop Filaret’s time, the diocese acquired the Recica Hermitage (consecrated in 1784), the fishpond and grounds of Obedencii in Craiova (1787), an estate in Balș (1784) and the Church of the Madonna Dudu in Craiova (1784)28).
Returning to the register of decrees, we note that it also contains other types of documents. For example, on 18 February 1781, Bishop Filaret issued a certificate of spiritual guidance for the priests in the parishes of his diocese, so that they might hear confessions; but, in the case of grave sins, he required them to inform him so that they might receive guidance. Furthermore, the bishop required them to hear the confessions of and examine, in accordance with the canons, those who wished to receive the gift of the priesthood, ensuring they had not committed sins that would prevent them from becoming priests, for otherwise they would become complicit and would have to give an account before God:
‘Filaret, by the mercy of God, Bishop of Râmnicu and Noul Severin,
the gift and power which the High Priest of high priests, our Lord Jesus Christ, bestowed upon the apostles—to bind and loose sins— the same gift and power is bestowed upon all bishops, the successors of the apostles, through the laying on of hands and the working of the Holy Spirit, and from the bishops to you, the devout priests, to be shared. Therefore, in our humility, having been deemed worthy of this gift and the power granted to us through His mercy, we grant to you, the devout priest, namely […]29 from the village of […]29, the power to bind and loose all manner of sins and passions of those who come to you to confess. But for grave sins, which you will not be able to judge, inform us, so that we may guide you on how to make them renounce them, repenting of the sins they have committed. And the penance which you impose, if carried out with all diligence and bearing the fruit of repentance, will thus secure forgiveness of sins for the penitent. As for those who wish to receive the gift of the priesthood, you must examine them thoroughly, questioning them in detail, to ensure that no sins have been committed that would pre30ly them from the priesthood; you must consult the Canon, Chapter 58, for then you will become a partaker of those sins and will have to give an account to God. Therefore, for the purpose of strengthening and confirming, this document of our humility has been issued; as is our custom, we confirm this. 18 February 1781”31
The rule to which reference was made was the ‘Rectification of the Law’ (32), drawn up during the reign of Matei Basarab in the year 1652, but still in use at the end of the 18th century. Chapter 58, section 77, stipulated that anyone wishing to become a priest had to confess sincerely, for if, after ordination, it was discovered that he had concealed anything, the grace would be withdrawn from him, for the priesthood, unlike baptism, did not wash away previous sins; the reference in the code was to Council 1, Chapter 9, commented on by Nichita of Heraclea, Theophilus of Alexandria and Balsamon. The ‘Pravilniceasca Condică’, issued in 1780 under the auspices of Alexander Ipsilanti, contained different provisions, and for this reason the two codes of law were used in parallel.
Indeed, this is not the only reference to the ‘Correction of the Law’. In the same register, we find an unsigned advisory note: ‘Regarding a deceased person found to be a ghoul, known as a werewolf, what is to be done to them, chapter 378’33, in which part of a text from the code is reproduced (referring to section 378), in which people were urged not to believe in the ‘strigoi’, since the dead can no longer walk, but rather to have prayers said by priests for the one whose body has not decayed, and thus, by the power of God, the devil—who caused apparitions and terror, even taking on human form, and deceived the unbelievers into believing in werewolves—would flee. The register specified: “And when a body such as this is found 34, which is the work of the devil, call the priests to read the Paraclisul Precestii and to perform a blessing ceremony [...] to celebrate the Liturgy [...] and to offer alms in the form of coliva. Then they shall recite the prayers of cursing [...] and, with Christ’s help, the devil will flee from there’33
The rules stipulated that those who cremate the bodies of the dead, believing in werewolves, should, if they are laypeople, be denied Holy Communion for six years, and if they are clergy, be defrocked 35. Indeed, Bishop Filaret strove to eradicate these pagan customs from the region and, to this end, in 1785, he ordered the archpriest of Gorj to urge the people to repent for these erroneous ideas and practices—of exhuming the dead and burning them—lest God’s wrath should fall upon them whilst they remained unrepentant 36.
Some of the ordination certificates issued by Bishop Filaret and copied into the register are particularly fine; they contain not only the recipient’s name, lineage and family, but also a physical description of him, so that he might be recognised and not mistaken for another. They are as follows: ‘The ordination records issued by His Grace Bishop Filaret of Râmnicu Kiriu Kir, with their names and likenesses, as shown below, namely: 16 September 1780: Deacon Șărban, son of Archpriest Gheorghe Copăceanu; his appearance: a young man, with a ruddy complexion 37, black hair, black eyebrows, brown eyes, a dark moustache 38, a dark, sprouting beard; born in the village of Copăceni, raised in this village; his wife, named Preda, from the village of Oteșani, the daughter of Cincă [...]23 the church dedicated to the Holy Mother of God 39 Parascheva, south of Vâlcea. 16 September 1780”40.
The bishop was meticulous about the confessional records; we recall that in the encyclical of 1781, the hierarch asked the archpriests to ensure that the confessional records of priests who had died were collected, so that they might not be misused by others who had not been ordained. He also required that a physical description of the person be recorded in the register for proper identification: ‘As for priests and deacons who should happen to die, their ordination certificates are to be taken from them, so that they do not fall into the hands of another, and claim to be ordained without having received the gift; and the custom they have followed until now of being buried with them must be prohibited by your command. As for the clerks who are to be sent to us for ordination, keep a register of the examination you will conduct, recording their names and descriptions... enter them in the register so that it may not happen that any of those who have not been ordained should perform the duties of a priest or deacon by deception, misleading people into believing that they have been ordained”41. We can see from this that the custom of burying the deceased with their ordination certificate had no legal basis or encouragement from the Church, and the reported cases were more of a custom, according to some researchers of Russian origin 42.
In the same vein, to avoid deception, the hierarch was vigilant towards those coming from other dioceses or from across the Danube, giving clear instructions for their vetting in the same encyclical of 1781: ‘As for foreign priests, whether from the Turkish lands or from Hungary, or even from the diocese of His Eminence the Metropolitan, whether monks or laymen, such persons must under no circumstances be permitted to minister or even to put on the epitrachelion, until we ourselves have investigated both whether they have truly been ordained and the reason for which they have fled from their place’43”. We can see that these provisions from the encyclical were put into practice, as the register to which we refer also contained a physical description of the person, for precise identification.
Investigation of divorce petitions: The register also records other types of rulings by the hierarch, for example concerning cases of divorce. Thus, on 3 February 1781, Bishop Filaret issued a ruling on the petition for separation between Bălașa – née Socoteanu – and the logofăt Vasile Golumbeanul. The logofăt Vasile had come to the bishop with a petition in which he accused his wife of taking things from the house and requested a separation, as they were unable to get along; the bishop had investigated the matter and had even sent a priest to the scene to ascertain whether the allegations were true; in the end, Bishop Filaret stated that, according to canon law, he had found no grounds for separation, and so he attempted to reconcile them, advising them to live their lives in union:
‘Filaret, by the grace of God, Bishop of Râmnic,
Following the petition submitted to us by Vasile Golumbeanul, formerly treasurer 44, on behalf of his wife, Bălașa, stating that she reviles him <because> she dishonours him and that there has always been discord and a wretched life between them, on account of which he is said to have suffered great losses during the time of the uprising. For she herself was plundering his house and would not agree to live with him, but was wandering about from place to place like a fugitive. Just as now, last month he claims she had again taken many items from the house. And on the grounds of this misconduct, which he claimed his wife was guilty of, he sought a separation45”.
The document goes on to state that Bălașa was not seeking a separation, but claimed that her husband was speaking ill of her and driving her out of the house, and that the items had been taken because she too had found some of her dowry missing and had gone to her mother’s house.
Bishop Filaret investigated the case, then advised them to reconcile: Bălașa had given a written undertaking that from that moment on “with obedience and a heavy heart she would be [...] for his household But he, the logothete Vasile, must also honour her and treat her as a true wife, and not as a concubine 46 and show her compassion, providing her with the necessities of food and clothing, in keeping with the standing and honour of his household; and that he must not strike her for any trivial matter without just cause, but that they should live in harmony according to God’s will.
And in this same manner, with both parties having come to an agreement, we have issued this judgement, so that there may be no further cause for discord between them’45
Following the bishop’s intervention, Vasile Golumbeanu, the complainant, agreed to take his wife back. Subsequently, he even bequeathed part of his estate to her by will, whilst he donated another portion of his estates and properties to the Diocese of Râmnic on 12 March 1781: “Since, having transgressed God’s commandment, the human race has been cut off from the inheritance of heaven, so that it might not remain <ul> immortal, God has ordained death and the passing from this transient world to eternal life and to the inheritance of paradise once more, which had been lost. Since this is therefore an undeniable duty, common to all [...] and its time is unknown to all, it is our Christian duty, whatever our station, to take care that we are ready for that journey and to arrange, with due order, the affairs of this world, both for the salvation of the soul and for those things which remain in the world. Therefore, I too, the servant of God, Vasile Golumbean, formerly treasury clerk, having considered these things and seeing myself in the frailty of old age, before my time comes, I have drawn up this will, whilst in my right mind, with my tongue speaking and my hand strengthening me’47.
This was followed by a list of the distribution of his assets: he bequeathed to the Diocese of Râmnic a portion of his estate at Fărcaș, property he had received as a dowry from his first wife, Marica, comprising orchards, arable land, woodland, wells and a mill he had built himself. He also bequeathed property (within the boundaries of Bărbești) to Polovragi Monastery, where his father-in-law, the steward Badea Pârâianul48, and his late wife, Marica, were founders. Other property was left to his relatives, to be used for memorial services after his death, for the repose of his soul, that of his parents and that of Bălașa; the churches to which these offerings were to be made were also specified. To Bălașei, his second wife, with whom he had had a dispute before Bishop Filaret, he bequeathed more movable property: oxen, cows, sheep, beehives47.
On 17 March 1781, Bishop Filaret appointed Manea as the steward 49 of Craiova, who was “a God-fearing man and devout in matters of the church”50, trustee of part of the estate in Câinești 51, bequeathed in the will of Matei Pleșoianu, who had taken monastic vows under the name of Methodie. From the income generated by this estate, Manea was required to repair the church in Pleșoiu, and to ensure proper stewardship, he was to submit an annual account to the Diocese. Matei Pleșoianu had wished that part of the money obtained from the sale of the properties be given in his memory, whilst another part be used for the restoration of his family’s church. From the document we learn that, subsequently, a grandson of the late Methodie, namely Captain Ilie Pleșoianu, in his capacity as founder of the church, had lodged a complaint with Bishop Filaret that the holy place had been left to fall into disrepair, that the former trustees had failed to look after it (as they had been unable to reach an agreement amongst themselves), and he requested that the bishop appoint an administrator for the estate so that the church might be repaired using its income. And Bishop Filaret, having considered the request and seeing that it was valid, issued this order, after first ensuring that the new trustee would be well received by the relatives/founders and by the successors of the former stewards, so as to put an end to the dispute, which was to the detriment of the place of worship.
We also note from the text several elements of the right of endowment: the descendants of the founders (since the rights and duties of the founders were transferable to their successors) had the opportunity to participate, to a certain extent, in the administration of the property (for example, by appointing or requesting trustees), but without bypassing the blessing of the hierarch (whose approval they were also required to obtain at the outset, before the church was built). The descendants also took on the responsibility of maintaining the place of worship, in this case the endowment of the Pleșoianu boyar family. The status of founder, inherited in the Romanian-speaking regions of the Byzantine Empire, entailed rights and obligations for the person erecting a place of worship, but was also conditional upon the fulfilment of certain requirements: to have the prior blessing of the religious authority; to possess the necessary financial means for the foundation, without, however, wronging one’s relatives; and to be a true believer, exercising one’s ecclesiastical and civil rights 52.
‘Filaret, by the Grace of God, Bishop of Râmnicu,
Since the late Matei Pleșoianu, who took the monastic name Methodius, having had no children whilst living with his wife, at the time of his passing, whatever little or much he possessed, he bequeathed by will to be sold so that a memorial service might be held for his soul. And amongst the other things he left to be sold, he also left 210, that is, two hundred and ten stânjeni in the Câinești district, to be sold for money, to be used for charitable works for his soul; and sixty fathoms, also in Câinești, were to be sold, the proceeds to be used to repair the church at Pleșoiu, which was in a state of disrepair. And for all these matters, he appointed as trustee a certain Marin Măricescu, his godson, also from Pleșoiu.
Furthermore, a certain Petru, nephew of the late Methodius, would not have allowed Marin to be the churchwarden, but he made himself the churchwarden, on the pretext that he was the late Methodius’s nephew. For this reason, on two occasions, he was ordered by the late Brother Chesarie, Bishop of Râmnic, not to interfere, but to let Marin attend to the affairs, as the late bishop had stipulated in his will; yet they still did not comply, until both he and, later, Marin met their deaths. And the church remained in a state of disrepair. Of the total number of stânjeni mentioned above, sixty were sold, whilst two hundred and ten were not.
And now Captain Ilie Pleșoianu, who is the nephew of the late Methodie and a founder of the church, has complained that the church has fallen into a state of great disrepair, for that Pătru and Marin, in the three years they have been collecting the estate’s revenue, have taken no care to repair the church, as the late Methodie had instructed, and he demands that, since this church estate has not been sold to date, it should not be sold, but that a trustee be appointed to manage the estate’s revenue—whatever it may yield, whether much or little—so that it may be used for the repair of the church.
Having seen Captain Ilie’s request and considering it to be sound, we first sought a written deed from him and from the trustees of Pătru and Marin. And so Captain Ilie himself, along with Stan—the brother of the late Marin—and Mihai, Petru’s trustee, provided a written undertaking stating that, of their own free will, they wished to appoint a trustee and that there would be no further cause for dispute or quarrel amongst them. Therefore, by this document, we appoint as trustee Kir Manea, the wealthy man from Craiova, who has been shown to be a God-fearing man and devout in matters of the Church, so that he may take care to collect the income from this small estate of 210 stânjeni and, with the proceeds, repair the Holy Church and render an account each year to the Holy Bishopric.
And let there be no further causes of dispute or quarrels between Captain Ilie and his trustees, Pătru and Marin.
Thus we write. 17 March 178150
The Diocese of Râmnic was also gifted a vineyard at Sutești by Cozma Flămânzeanu. By a deed dated 6 June 1783, Bishop Filaret informed Samuil, the archimandrite of the diocese, that he was entrusting the vineyard to his care:
‘Filaret, by the Grace of God, Bishop of Râmnic,
to the Reverend Archimandrite Kir Samuil, blessings. Regarding the vineyard at Sutești 53, which was dedicated to the Holy Diocese by the late Cozma Flămânzeanu, in response to the request you made of us, hereby we bestow it upon Your Reverence, so that from now on, whatever is required for it, Your Reverence shall endeavour to see to its upkeep [...] That is all; and may you be blessed. From your spiritual father, Filaret, Bishop of Râmnic. 6 June 178354”.
And on 6 July 1783, Bishop Filaret informed Archimandrite Samuil and Logothete Gheorghe that the deposition of the prince (Nicolae Caragea) had arrived, and that a new prince had been appointed, Mihail Constantin Suțu55, who was to be commemorated at services in place of his predecessor. Bishop Filaret informed them so that they might see to it that the change of rule was announced to the monasteries and hermitages:
‘Reverend Archimandrites of the Holy Diocese, Kir Samuile and you, Logofăt Gheorghe, we hereby inform you that today, at the eighth hour, the decree of His Highness the Prince’s abdication arrived, by which the Almighty Empire has appointed as our ruler His Highness, I, Michael Costandin Șuțul, Prince, Lady Sevastia and their children.
We do not fail to write to you, so that you may spread the news both to the holy monasteries and hermitages within this county of Vâlcea, and to the archpriests, that from now on they may commemorate His Majesty’s name during church services, as we have indicated above.
And may you be blessed. 6 July 1783.
Your spiritual father,
Filaret, Bishop of Râmnicu56”.
Fundraising to aid the Holy Sepulchre: On 23 March 1781, Bishop Filaret informed the abbot of Tismana Monastery, Archimandrite Mihail, that he was to contribute 158 thalers and 40 bani to assist the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, as their patriarch was in Wallachia at that time. The text refers to the journey of Patriarch Avramie II of Jerusalem to the Romanian Principalities between 1780 and 1784, to collect alms for the Holy Sepulchre, which had monasteries dedicated to it in Wallachia and Moldavia 57. Patriarch Avramie also travelled to Oltenia, where he visited several monasteries and met with Bishop Filaret at Călui Monastery in Romanați County, which was dedicated to the Holy Sepulchre 58.
“Most Reverend Archimandrites and Abbesses of the Holy Monastery of Tismana, Kir Mihail, we send you our prayers and paternal blessings, reverend ones. We hereby inform you that regarding the blessed Patriarch of Jerusalem, whom, by God’s grace, we have been deemed worthy to welcome to our land, His Holiness writes to us that, following a communal decision and with the knowledge of His Highness the Prince, it has been decided that both the ecclesiastical and lay communities should provide some assistance to the Holy and Life-giving Tomb of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as an act of charity for the salvation of our souls.
We are further commanded that the monasteries here, within our diocese, should contribute 750 thalers, which we are to collect without delay and send to the Holy Metropolis, so that they may be given to His Beatitude the Patriarch by Holy Easter; and in accordance with the same arrangement, 158 thalers, 40 bani, the alms money and 40 thalers as a tithe for the labour of the treasurer who will collect it.
But behold, we command you, Reverend One, that as soon as you receive our letter, without any delay, you should hand over this money, so that30may hasten to deliver it to us here in Craiova, and that he cause no further delay, however slight, for we have been instructed to send it to him very quickly. And if you delay in handing over this money, we shall be compelled to send 59 by post, specifically to 60.
And may your piety be blessed. 23 March 1781.
From your pious spiritual father,
Filaret, by the grace of God Bishop of Râmnic61”.
Order for prayers and processions with the Holy Relics: On 11 May 1781, Bishop Filaret requested of the abbot of Cozia, Ilarion, to take the holy relics out of the monastery and to offer prayers in Vâlcea County, to rid the area of locusts, which had multiplied and were causing damage in the region. The document also reveals that the Prince of Wallachia, Alexandru Ipsilanti 62, had instructed the boyars to eradicate the locusts and, in parallel with their efforts, had ordered prayers to be said, so that God might have mercy and avert the damage. Thus, the political leader was aware that it is God who both punishes and heals, and it was from Him that he sought help, through the priests of the Church and with the aid of processions bearing the Holy Relics. All the inhabitants were required to gather for the prayers held in the villages and towns, to pray together with the priests. Bishop Filaret asked Ilarion to add prayers for an end to the drought to the prayer for the extermination of the locusts. In other words, in the face of serious and communal problems, the lord, the local hierarch, the priests and the inhabitants would together seek God’s help through the intercession of the saints.
‘Reverend Abbess of the Holy Monastery of Cozia, Kir Ilarion, blessings. His Highness the Prince has been informed that here in this region the locusts, which had been buried in the ground, have come to life, multiplied greatly, and have begun to cause great damage and destruction to the crops of the Christians, upon hearing this, he was overcome with no small amount of disgust and sorrow, whilst His Highness ever desires the good and welfare of his subjects and strives in every way for the ‘30’ rest and prosperity of the community. Therefore, for this reason, they have issued orders throughout the realm to the provincial governors that, by every possible means, they should endeavour to destroy and exterminate these corrupting vermin.
However, realising that it is right to seek help from on high, from the Almighty Lord, He who strikes and yet heals, His Majesty has therefore ordered that prayers be offered, together with the osfeștani and the Holy Relics, throughout the land, both in villages and in towns, so that all the people might gather together. For this reason, behold, we too write to you, Reverend Father, urging you to set out yourself and, taking whatever of the Holy Relics the holy monastery may possess, to come here to the county of Vâlcea, the district of [...]29, as you shall be informed by the district administrator, and, travelling through the villages and fields there where the inhabitants reside, to hold a blessing ceremony and prayers for all to hear, in accordance with the commands of His Highness the Prince, which order that the inhabitants there, both great and small, so that they may humble themselves before the prayers you shall offer, in the hope that, through this means, God may be appeased and lift this punishment from us. And please keep us informed of the follow-up actions you shall take. However, when the prayers against locusts are read, let the prayers against drought also be read.
May you, Reverend Father, be blessed.
11 May 1781,
From your reverend spiritual father,
Filaret, Bishop of Râmnicu63”.
Indeed, the above example is not an isolated one; it is not the only instance in which the ruler of the country himself sought the assistance of prelates to combat natural disasters. We also recall that in 1747, Constantin Mavrocordat (a distinguished intellectual, a reformist ruler with modern ideas) had asked Patriarch Silvestru of Antioch, who was in Wallachia at the time, to pray during the service for the eradication of the locusts, which had once again invaded the region 64.
We are not surprised by the naturalness with which the rulers of old sought God’s help, through the intercession of the Church, for all the problems that arose, as they held a Christian view of life. They were Orthodox, and at the religious enthronement ceremony they were blessed with the recitation of a special prayer by the country’s metropolitan, whom they subsequently regarded as their counsellor and honoured as befitted his office. We recall, for example, the influence—so beneficial to the spiritual as well as the social life of the Romanians—exerted by Metropolitan Neofit the Cretan 65, adviser to the princes Constantin Mavrocordat and Mihai Racoviță. We may also illustrate this with a passage from the coronation prayer for princes during the Phanariot era, preserved until the early years of the nineteenth century and recorded by a teacher at the Princely School in Bucharest (Gheorghe Papadopol), in which the Metropolitan of Wallachia prayed to God for the political ruler: ‘O Lord our God, King of kings and Lord of lords… look down from Your holy abode upon Your faithful servant (so-and-so), to whom You have seen fit, in Your abundant mercy, to entrust the helm of the realm… instil in his heart the fear of You, make him a guardian of Thy holy, catholic and apostolic Church, and a defender of Thy soul-saving commandments’66
We note that, following the Byzantine model, the lord was aware that his power came from God, the King of kings and Lord of lords, and that the metropolitan’s prayer enlightened his mind; and his counsel, if he heeded it, protected him from error. Not to mention Byzantine times, when the emperor was required to be Orthodox, not merely through Baptism, but also to be free from heretical ideas and grave sins; otherwise, he was barred from entering the church 67. Both in the Byzantine Empire and in the Romanian Principalities, which adopted the model of government and institutions from there 68, right up until the late 19th century (in the Romanian-speaking world), there was close collaboration between political and religious authority, between the basileus and the patriarch 69, and between the prince and the metropolitan 70 respectively. The prelates played an important and active role in the lives of the Orthodox faithful; in our country, the metropolitan was an ex officio member of the princely Divan 71. The honour accorded to the hierarchs was not merely formal in times past, but stemmed from the Christians’ conviction that a prelate’s prayer, blessing and counsel would aid the Christian people. There are so many examples where princes, clergymen, chroniclers, as well as the enlightened and learned scholars of the pre-modern and modern periods, bore witness that God’s wrath would befall the land because of the people’s sins, and they advised them to respect the teachings of the Church! Indeed, certain specific historical events were explained in terms of the divine plan: because of their departure from the faith, God had turned His face away from a people, and they had thus become vulnerable to attacks by their enemies. Even Bishop Filaret, in some of his decrees, urged people to turn away from sin, lest they should suffer.
An interesting source, Gheorgachi’s register from 1762, describes, this time in the Moldavian context, the religious ceremony for the enthronement of the prince: first, he would bow before the Holy Gospel held by the metropolitan and the icons in the church, and was led into the sanctuary by the hierarchs: ‘Then, with the metropolitan’s omophorion and hypogonion upon his head, the prince, kneeling before the altar, would receive the reading of the coronation prayer, after which he would kiss the metropolitan’s hand, and the metropolitan would kiss the prince on the crown of his head’72 We note that the political sovereign of the Romanians of old was anointed and entered the sanctuary. However, in order to enter the sanctuary, one had to be Orthodox and free from sins that bar entry!
Changes/Appointments of abbots: On 24 May 1782, Bishop Filaret appointed Ioan, the pro-abbot of Govora, as abbot of Dobrușa Hermitage, in place of the former abbot Isaia, who had failed to look after the monastery’s assets. Consequently, the bishop replaced him and ordered the new abbot to draw up inventories of the movable and immovable property, to keep records of income and expenditure, and to note down what had been built there. The bishop also requested that these registers, once drawn up, be sent to him as well, whilst the hierarch commanded the workers at the hermitage to obey their new superior. The Dobrușa Hermitage in Vâlcea County was a metochion of the Diocese of Râmnic 73, but even if it had not been, the local bishop had the right to replace an abbot within his diocese for improper conduct—in this case, the mismanagement of the monastery’s assets. The hierarch’s power to replace an abbot who fails to look after the monastery’s assets, as also mentioned in Justinian’s Novels, was reiterated in Mihail Racoviță’s charter of 1742, issued at the instigation of Neofit the Cretan, the Metropolitan of Wallachia at that time.
Here is Filaret’s decree for Dobrușa74:
‘Filaret, by the grace of God, Bishop of Râmnic and Noul Severin:
Since at the hermitage of the Holy See in Dobrușa, south of Vâlcea, the abbot Kir Isaiia, who has held the post until now, has managed the affairs of the house with poor stewardship, we hereby decree, by this letter of ours, that the Reverend Pro-abbot of Govorii, Kir Ioan, shall be appointed abbot of this hermitage and shall take over, under his own responsibility, all the assets of the aforementioned, as recorded in the ledger by the former abbot Isaiia, both movable and immovable property, and to draw up separate ledgers detailing income and expenditure, as well as the building works carried out to date at the hermitage. These ledgers are to be sent to us via the scribe Gheorghe. We therefore command you, the obedient servants and labourers of this holy house, to give him your full obedience, recognising him as your master, offering no resistance whatsoever, but striving to carry out all that he commands you to do in the service of the house. Thus we write. 24 May 178275”.
Apart from the signature, the original document also bore the seal of Bishop Filaret, as indicated by the copy in the register.
And on 25 April 1783, Bishop Filaret, having investigated the situation at Hurezi Monastery, replied to Ioanichie, the steward, and the monks there, who had asked for the abbot to be replaced, that he would not remove Abbot Rafail from office, as he was worthy both in spiritual matters and in the care of the monastery. To this end, the hierarch wrote to the monks at Hurezi:
“To the reverend iconographers of the Holy Monastery of Hurezi, Kir Ioanichie, and to all the other fathers of this Holy Monastery, blessings.
We have received the letter you sent us and have read what you have written, namely that you are being urged by ‘30’ and are requesting a change of abbot for this monastery. When we appointed Father Rafail as abbot, we chose him as a worthy man, both in matters of administration and in spiritual matters; and since his appointment, as you yourselves have shown me, the affairs of the monastery have been flourishing, as you yourselves have shown me.
For this reason, we write to you now: guard against this sort of behaviour, for it is entirely to the detriment of the monastery. Attend to the affairs of the monastery wholeheartedly, giving due obedience to the reverend Kir Rafail’76’.
The Hegumen Rafail mentioned here is the copyist of several important texts on the spiritual life, including the Philokalia of Dragomirna (preserved at the Library of the Romanian Academy in Bucharest, under the call number Mr. rom. 2597); he was in the company of Saint Paisie Velicicovschi between 1768 and 1769, from whom he learnt the rules of communal life and unceasing prayer 77. Good relations continued to be maintained between Hurezi Monastery and the Diocese of Râmnic even after this incident. For example, on 10 December 1783, Niculai, the diocese’s logofăt, leased the Craiovița estate, which belonged to Hurez, but was used by the diocese—which had no estates in the area—for hay and other provisions required for the manor house in Craiova 78.
The register also contains copies of certain documents from previous bishops, but which relate to Bishop Filaret, having been confirmed by him. For example, there is a document from Bishop Climent, who, on 4 March 1751, divided up his estate, bequeathing portions of land to his relatives and to the Pietrari hermitage, his own foundation 79. Certain privileges of the hermitage had been granted by Bishop Grigorie and reconfirmed by Bishop Filaret. For example, on 28 October 1748, Bishop Grigorie had granted the holy abode on Mount Bărbătești—founded from the ground up by Bishop Climent of Râmnic—the right to have a lay priest as its chaplain, exempt from the taxes normally payable by priests 80. And Bishop Filaret, on 17 December 1783, confirmed Bishop Gregory’s charter regarding the appointment of a lay priest to the Pătrunsa Hermitage on Mount Bărbătești:
‘Filaret, by the grace of God, Bishop of Râmneț.
In accordance with the authority of this letter from His Holiness, the late Bishop Gregory, our brother in Christ, we too confirm, that you, the Archpriest of the county, should follow and command that the priest whom you shall appoint to this holy hermitage of Pătrunsa should cause no offence whatsoever. We also beseech your Holinesses, in the Holy Spirit, beloved brother bishops, to whom the pastoral care of this diocese will in due course be entrusted, to uphold the charity of this holy hermitage, and that the charitable works of your brotherhoods may remain unshaken for ever.
Filaret, Bishop of Râmnic, have confirmed this81’.
Climent had been Bishop of Râmnic between 1735 and 1748, when he retired and, with the help of his relatives, founded the hermitages of Pietrarii de Jos (his birthplace), Pătrunsa and others; he subsequently became a monk, taking the name Cosma 82.
Blessing for the construction or restoration of churches: The register also contains an example showing that, in 1781, Bishop Filaret had inspected, on site (i.e. during a visit to the diocese), the condition of the Church of the Holy Archangels in Craiova and had given his blessing for its rebuilding, as it lay in ruins. However, the merchants and local craftsmen involved in the reconstruction were required to ensure that, if they demolished the old church, they had the financial means to build the new one, so that the Christians would not be deprived of services for a long time. At the same time, their attention was drawn to the need to ensure that the former founders were listed first in the memorial service, in order to satisfy the claims of the heirs and to settle the dispute that had arisen over this matter. The church was to be rebuilt on the old foundations, and the first founders were to be depicted in the same place where they had been portrayed in the past. Thus, Bishop Filaret would only agree to the demolition of the old, ruined church on this condition: that a new, well-built church be erected swiftly on the old site, with the former founders mentioned first in the memorial list and depicted first in the frescoes. Moreover, Bishop Filaret had also emphasised in his encyclical of 1781 the importance of receiving a blessing when building a church, and in this regard he had expressed himself clearly: “Let no one dare to build a church in the Diocese without our consent and blessing, in accordance with the commandment of the Rule”83).
We now reproduce the documents relating to the rebuilding of the Church of the Holy Archangels in Craiova, as contained in the register:
‘Filaret, by the grace of God, Bishop of Râmnicu.
After we, with God’s help, arrived in the diocese and found ourselves here in Craiova, it so happened that we also visited the Church of the Holy Archangels, which was built (as the inscription shows) from the foundations up by a priest, Ioan Ungureanu, and later completed by a gentleman, Ion Docuz, at the expense and with the help of other Christians whowere kind enough to do so. We found this holy church to be in such a poor state that it was on the verge of collapsing, as it was evident that the walls had not been reinforced with lime, but with clay, sand and earth, as best they could manage.
Whilst we were there, these merchants came before us, namely: Petru Ghieța, Ioan Mitran the sieve-maker84 Marcu Petru, Șărban the furrier, and Ioan; Matei the furrier, and Ion the priest, asking us to grant them our blessing to rebuild this holy church from the ground up, in the very same place where it stands.
Therefore, in response to their request, we first questioned and examined them, lest, by demolishing this old one, they might fail to complete the new one, as often happens in many places. And they pledged before us that, once begun, they would see it through to completion, and they handed us a written undertaking as a guarantee, stipulating that this year, 1781, they would complete all the preparation of materials, so that nothing would be lacking. And in the year 1782, they are to commence building in the spring and complete it in the autumn, so that the Christians may not be deprived of the holy service for a long time.
Therefore, having recognised the zeal they have shown for this holy undertaking, and having received the assurance they have given us in writing, we grant our permission and blessing for the restoration of this holy church. And if we are here ourselves, we shall perform the blessing of the foundations; but if we are not, this shall be done by the protosyncellus or the archpriest of the town.
However, all the bricks removed from the old church are to be used in the construction of the new church. And the original founders are to be depicted in the same places where they were depicted in the old church; likewise, on the memorial tablet of the holy church, the original founders are to be listed first, followed by the new ones. We do this, on the one hand, so that the former founders may also be commemorated, and on the other, to put an end to the opposition shown by the family of the founder Iovan Docuz, who did not wish to alter the holy church.
We record this.
20 February 178185”.
The register also contains a copy of the deed by which the merchants and townspeople promised Bishop Filaret to erect a new church on the old foundations of the old one, which was to be demolished due to its advanced state of disrepair:
‘We, whose names are set out below, have entrusted this deed of ours to the most honourable hand of His Holiness, Father Bishop Kiriu Kir Filaret of the Holy Diocese of Râmnicu, so that it may be known that there is a church here in our neighbourhood, where the feast day of the Holy Voivodes is honoured and celebrated, built by a priest named Ioan Ungureanul and by the late Iovan Docozul and other local merchants86 And as this church has fallen into a very poor state of repair, its vault and walls having been built solely of sand and earth, without any lime, we, the residents of the neighbourhood who are here now, have taken it upon ourselves to make some of the necessary preparations to restore it.
And one of the townspeople stood up, namely Gheorghe, son of Iovan Docozul, who had lodged a complaint with His Highness the Prince, asking that we not be permitted to renovate this holy church, claiming that it would defile the memory of his father. And His Highness the Prince commanded his caimacam to investigate this matter and report back to His Highness. Thereupon, this enlightened command being brought before the Divan, the caimacam and the boyars together with the other judges, and the caimacam himself went with the boyars; and they saw that the church was in a very dilapidated state, with a cracked vault, and that there was no other way to repair it; for even if it were repaired, it would collapse again in time; they therefore deemed it appropriate to rebuild the ‘87’ anew, on the very site of this holy church.
Likewise, when His Grace the Bishop came and saw that the church was in a dilapidated state, he gave us his blessing to rebuild it from scratch. And His Grace commanded us to show which of us would undertake the work with diligence and a commitment to the holy church, so that, once we had begun to demolish the old one, we might build a new one in its place, so that it might not happen that, whilst demolishing the church, the other might remain unfinished, having taken this into account and deliberated amongst ourselves, we have chosen those whose names are signed below to build the church as is fitting, with all the adornments and endowments befitting this holy place.
Therefore, we have bound ourselves by this deed, which we have placed in the holy hands of His Holiness, to first carry out all the preparations this year, the year 1781. And in the year 1782, we shall complete the church in its entirety, beginning in the spring and finishing all the building work, so that the priests may serve within it. And until we commence work, the priests are to continue celebrating the Holy Liturgy in this old church. In the same manner, we have been instructed to proceed, as set out above, with the completion of the holy church.
And as a guarantee, we have confirmed this with our signatures. 28 January 1781.
Pătru Ghineța, Ion, mayor of Craiova, Șărbu the furrier, Ion Hristea30 the blacksmith, Marin the tanner, Marin [… ]23, Matei the furrier, Ion the priest”88.
In another decree, addressed to Archpriest Radu, Bishop Filaret asks him to investigate whether a church is needed in the village of Ulmetul 89, and, if so, to begin construction and, upon its completion, to inform him 90 for the consecration.
Through the examples above, selected from the register of orders, we have sought to highlight some of the activities of Bishop Filaret of Râmnic, namely: his concern for the proper stewardship and increase of church assets; the issuing of letters of spiritual guidance, taking care to avoid confusion and ordinations not permitted by canon law; the appointment or replacement of abbots within his diocese; and the investigation of grounds for divorce; examining situations on the ground relating to the reconstruction of places of worship; issuing instructions for the organisation of processions with the Holy Relics and prayers in special circumstances, such as locust infestations or drought. Furthermore, the hierarch ratified decrees issued by former bishops concerning privileges granted to hermitages and monasteries; he called upon priests to collect donations for the Holy Sepulchre and for the maintenance of schools 91. All of this, together with the directives to priests and archpriests and the encyclical of 1781, which focused particularly on liturgical matters and the combating of certain superstitions—to which I referred in a previous study—can supplement the information regarding the pastoral activity of Bishop Filaret, who is best known for his fruitful involvement in cultural and printing work.
- 1
In order for a metropolitan to occupy a bishop’s see, the approval of the Ecumenical Patriarch Sophronius was sought and obtained on 3 March 1780. See also Fr. Niculae Șerbănescu, ‘The Bishops of Râmnic’, in Mitropolia Olteniei, XVI, 1964, nos. 3–4, pp. 196–197; The Holy Diocese of Râmnicu Noul Severin, Past and Present, ed. Athanasie Mironescu, Bucharest, 1906, pp. 152–157.
- 2
Fr. Niculae Șerbănescu, ‘The Metropolitans of Ungrovlahia’, in The Romanian Orthodox Church, LXXVII, 1959, nos. 7–9, pp. 799–801.
- 3
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. 424. The author considers that the printing of the six Mineia within a single year indicates that they had already been translated during the time of Bishop Chesarie and that Bishop Filaret merely edited them; however, it is possible that the latter assisted Metropolitan Gregory II in translating the Mineia for October–December, as at that time Filaret was archimandrite at the Metropolis. The preface to the Minei for April, published in 1780, states that it was printed ‘through the labour and translation of the God-loving Kir Filaret, Bishop of Râmnic’. See Dorin Teodorescu, Old Romanian Books from Râmnic (1701–1830), Slatina, University for All Foundation Press, 2005, p. 73. For cultural activity, see also I. D. Lăudat, ‘The contribution of the Râmnicu Vâlcea printing press to the promotion of books in the 18th century’, in Mitropolia Olteniei, XXVIII, 1976, nos. 5–6, pp. 360–369.
- 4
After becoming a hierarch, he continued the work of translation and editing previously begun by Bishops Damaschin and Chesarie, and printed the remaining Mineies, namely those for the months of March to August, for which he also wrote a preface. See The Holy Bishopric of the Diocese of Râmnicu-Noul Severin, Past and Present..., p. 153.
- 5
For Bishop Damaschin’s work as a translator, see Ioana Iancovescu, ‘The Life and Work of the Blessed Damaschin the Teacher, Bishop of Râmnic (5 December 1725)’, in Martyria, 2018, no. 1, pp. 19–33 (Part I of the article) and 2018, no. 2, pp. 37–54 (Part II).
- 6
Details of his life, in Fr. Mircea Păcurariu, Dictionary of Romanian Theologians, 3rd ed., Sibiu, Andreiana Publishers, 2014, p. 242; Melchisedec Ștefănescu, ‘Biographical Sketches from the Life of Filaret II, Metropolitan of Ungrovlahia – 1792, and Other Church Figures with Whom He Was Closely Associated’, in Ibid., Biographies, ed. Archimandrite Pimen Costea, Roman, Filocalia, 2013, pp. 95–142.
- 7
The delegation from Muntenia comprised: the Metropolitan of Ungrovlahia, Gregory; Bishop Chesarie of Râmnic; Archimandrite Filaret (his successor); the treasurer Mihail Cantacuzino; and the boyar Nicolae Brâncoveanu. See Fr. Mircea Păcurariu, History of the Romanian Orthodox Church, vol. 2..., p. 396.
- 8
Father Filotheu Bălan of the Petru-Vodă Monastery in Moldova, to whom we extend our thanks here, was kind enough to draw our attention to and translate two interesting notes in Greek found in a manuscript at the Sinai Monastery in Egypt (Ms. Sinai Gr. 1505): the first, dated 1692, was written by Nichifor of Chios, from Bucharest, in which it was stated that, after his death, the book was to be donated to the church in Sinai; the second mentioned the death, in 1706, of two monks ‘from the princely monastery of Râmnic in Ungrovlahia’. Consequently, the metochion of the Diocese of Râmnic, dedicated to the Forty Martyrs of Bucharest, appeared in the Greek manuscript as a foundation of a prince, probably from the 17th century, if not earlier, the church having been rebuilt by Mihai Cantacuzino in the 18th century. Father Filotheu Bălan also translated for us the Greek document dated 15 March 1777, by which the Church of the Forty Martyrs was endowed with the relics of certain martyrs commemorated on 13 December, namely: Eustratius, Auxentius, Eugenius, Mardarius and Orestes. BAR, Doc. Ist., XCI/138.
- 9
Nicolae Iorga, ‘The Life of a Metropolitan of Yesteryear: Filaret II, Based on his Unpublished Collection of Letters’, in Convorbiri literare, XXXV, 1901, pp. 999–1009 and 1101–1137.
- 10
In 1781, Bishop Filaret also issued an important encyclical. See Constantin Erbiceanu, ‘The Canonical Encyclical of Bishop Filaret of Râmnic’, in The Romanian Orthodox Church, XV, 1891, no. 6, pp. 403–421; no. 7, pp. 507–521 and no. 8, pp. 626–647.
- 11
The first name Filaret (Φιλάρετος), attested in the Romanian-speaking world from the 18th century onwards within ecclesiastical circles, is derived from the Greek phil (lover of) and arete (virtue). Aurelia Bălan Mihailovici, Christian Onomastic Dictionary, Bucharest, Minerva Publishers, 2003, p. 211.
- 12
Ghenadie Enăceanu was Bishop of Râmnic between 1886 and 1898; he was highly active in cultural life, publishing numerous works, particularly on church history, and some of his books and manuscripts found their way into the Library of the Romanian Academy in Bucharest. Fr. Mircea Păcurariu, Dictionary of Romanian Theologians..., p. 233.
- 13
Anaphora – report (account) by a civil servant to Mr Augustin Scriban, Dictionary of the Romanian Language, Bucharest, Saeculum Publishers, 2013, p. 98.
- 14
Library of the Romanian Academy in Bucharest (BAR), Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/78.
- 15
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/121.
- 16
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/12.
- 17
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/18.
- 18
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/27; document partially damaged.
- 19
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/68.
- 20
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/18.
- 21
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, MXXXIX/1–181.
- 22
Addiction.
- 23a23b23c
Illegible.
- 24
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, MXXXIX/128, f. 127.
- 25
V. Al. Georgescu, Byzantium and Romanian Institutions up to the Mid-18th Century, Bucharest, RSR Academy Press, 1980, pp. 199, 204. Far from diminishing, the Byzantine influence on the Romanian protimisis grew during the 18th century.
- 26
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, XCIV/37, transcribed and reproduced as a facsimile by Oana-Mădălina Popescu, ‘God is marvellous in His saints’. Holy Figures in Ancient Romanian Documents, Bucharest, Dinasty Books Publishing House and Printing Works, 2020, pp. 124–126.
- 27
For example, we learn that, on 20 May 1783, Grigorie Hrisoscoleu had purchased the houses from Radu the logothete; these were situated in the Boteanu (Bradu) neighbourhood and included a courtyard, fruit trees, a garden and a stable. For his part, Radu Logofăt had purchased a house with its grounds and garden in the neighbourhood from his cousin, the priest Grigore, on 5 October 1763. And this Grigore had sold the house and its grounds, which had not belonged to him but to his sister, Ioana, the wife of Nedelcu the tailor, but as both had died a violent death, childless, by misfortune, the house, debts and liabilities had fallen to their relatives. The relatives, in order to pay off the debts and perform the memorial services, sold the properties to Radu the scribe, their cousin, whilst respecting the right of pre-emption, that is to say, with the knowledge of the neighbourhood residents and in the presence of witnesses.
- 28
The Holy Bishopric of the Diocese of Râmnicu Noul Severin, past and present..., pp. 155–156; for the registers, see BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXV/1–326 and CMLXXVI/1–621 respectively.
- 29a29b29c
Blank space.
- 30a30b30c30d30e
A likely lesson.
- 31
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/38.
- 32
The Amendment of Law No. 1652, ed. Andrei Rădulescu, Bucharest, RSR Academy Press, 1962, p. 115.
- 33a33b
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/58.
- 34
that is, undecayed or with blood on it.
- 35
Amendment to Law No. 1652..., pp. 894–895: Title 378, Chapter 26: ‘Concerning a dead man, if he is found intact, whom they call a “strigoi”, that is, a true werewolf, what is to be done with him?’
- 36
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Ms. rom. 2100, f. 110 r–v, which we transcribed in a previous article.
- 37
Smead – between dark-haired and fair-haired, neither dark nor blond. Augustin Scriban, Dictionary of the Romanian Language, Bucharest, Saeculum, 2013, p. 1214.
- 38
Bay – black. Augustin Scriban, Dictionary of the Romanian Language..., p. 842.
- 39
Prapadoamna – most pious. Augustin Scriban, Dictionary of the Romanian Language..., p. 1034.
- 40
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/ 121 A.
- 41
Constantin Erbiceanu, ‘The Canonical Encyclical of Filaret, Bishop of Râmnic’, in The Romanian Orthodox Church, XV, 189, no. 8, pp. 632–633.
- 42
Fr. Constantin Bobulescu, ‘A Curious Case of Romanian Ecclesiastical Archaeology’, in The Romanian Orthodox Church, XLIV, 1926, no. 4, pp. 207–210.
- 43
Constantin Erbiceanu, ‘The Canonical Encyclical of Filaret, Bishop of Râmnic’, in The Romanian Orthodox Church, XV, 189, no. 8, p. 627.
- 44
former Chief Treasurer, a few words in his honour.
- 45a45b
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/64.
- 46
Posadnică – concubine. Augustin Scriban, Dictionary of the Romanian Language..., p. 122.
- 47a47b
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/62.
- 48
Badea Pârâianu was the son of Staico and thus the nephew (on his father’s side) of Danciu Pârâianu, who had built Polovragi Monastery in 1652, during the reign of Matei Basarab. See Octav-George Lecca, Romanian Boyar Families, ed. Alexandru Condeescu, Bucharest, Museum of Romanian Literature, Libra Cultural Foundation, n.d., pp. 460–463. Another date for Danciu Pârâianu’s foundation, namely 1647, is proposed by Ștefan Andreescu, ‘The Founders of Pologravi’, in Mitropolia Olteniei, XVI, nos. 3–4, 1964, pp. 231–235.
- 49
Bogasier – a merchant dealing in manufactured goods or trinkets. Augustin Scriban, Dictionary of the Romanian Language..., p. 182.
- 50a50b
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/63.
- 51
A village in Vâlcea County. Melentina Bâzgan, Index of Medieval Settlements in Wallachia up to 1831, Bucharest, Cartea Universitară, 2004, p. 27.
- 52
For these issues, see, for example, Gheorghe Cronț, ‘The Right of Endowment in Wallachia and Moldavia. The Establishment and Legal Nature of Foundations in the Middle Ages’, in Studies and Materials in Medieval History, IV, 1960, pp. 77–116.
- 53
Sutești – today in the commune of the same name, in Vâlcea County. Melentina Bâzgan, A Guide to Medieval Settlements in Wallachia up to 1831..., p. 96.
- 54
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/77.
- 55
Mihail Constantin Suțu reigned in Wallachia from July 1783 to March 1786; from March 1791 to December 1792; October 1801 to May 1802; and in Moldavia from February 1793 to April 1795. Nicolae Caragea had been prince of Wallachia from January 1782 to 6 July 1783. Mihai Țipău, The Phanariot Princes in the Romanian Principalities (1711–1821), Bucharest, Omonia Publishers, 2008, pp. 168, 65.
- 56
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/86.
- 57
Ilie Georgescu, ‘The Links between the Romanian Principalities and Jerusalem’, in Theological Studies, vol. VIII, 1956, no. 5–6, p. 361.
- 58
Fr. I. Popescu-Cilieni, ‘Patriarch Avramie of Jerusalem and his links with the Romanian Principalities’, in Arhivele Olteniei, XXI, 1942, nos. 119–124, p. 119; N. A. Gheorghiu, ‘Patriarch Avramie of Jerusalem at Căluiul Monastery’, in Arhivele Olteniei, XV, 1936, nos. 83–85, p. 218.
- 59
Treapăd – a levy or fine for failure to comply with orders. Feudal institutions in the Romanian Principalities. Dictionary, ed. N. Stoicescu, Bucharest, RSR Academy Press, 1988, p. 475.
- 60
Mumbașir – a police officer sent to collect the money and ensure the sentence is carried out. Augustin Scriban, Dictionary of the Romanian Language..., p. 841.
- 61
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/66. Text also reproduced by N. A. Gheorghiu, ‘From the correspondence of Bishop Filaret of Râmnic’, in Arhivele Olteniei, XIV, 1935, nos. 79–82, p. 255.
- 62
Alexandru Ipsilanti was Prince of Wallachia from September 1774 to January 1782 and from August 1796 to November 1797; he also reigned in Moldavia from January 1787 to April 1788. See Mihai Țipău, The Phanariot Princes in the Romanian Principalities (1711–1821)..., p. 94.
- 63
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/128.
- 64
Paul Cernovodeanu, ‘An ecological scourge of the Romanian Middle Ages: locust invasions’, in Studies and Materials in Medieval History, XI, 1992, p. 70.
- 65
Vasile Mihordea, ‘An Associate of Constantin Mavrocordat in the Abolition of Romania: Metropolitan Neofit (1738–1753)’, in The Romanian Orthodox Church, LXXXIII, 1965, no. 7–8, pp. 715–734. A recent study on the work of this hierarch has been written by Archimandrite Nectarie Șofelea, Neofit the Cretan: Metropolitan of Wallachia, Bucharest, Basilica Publishers, 2020.
- 66
Eudoxiu de Hurmuzaki, Documents relating to the history of the Romanians, vol. XIII, Greek texts, edited by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, translated by G. Murnu and C. Litzica, Bucharest, Carol Gobl Institute of Graphic Arts, 1914, pp. 481–482, which contains, in G. Murnu’s translation, Gheorghe Papadopol’s text concerning the prince’s coronation. A translation of the prayer from Greek is also provided by Tudor Dinu, Bucureștiul fanariot, vol. I, Bucharest, Humanitas, 2015, p. 291.
- 67
“The unbelieving basileus lacked legitimacy [...] A sovereign who violated the moral law of the Orthodox Church became himself unworthy of obedience”. For further details, see Alain Ducellier, The Byzantines, Bucharest, Ed. Teora, 1997, p. 81.
- 68
See, for example, Dimitri Obolensky, A Medieval Commonwealth: Byzantium, Bucharest, Corint, 2002; Nicolae Iorga, Byzantium after Byzantium, Bucharest, 1972; Andrei Pippidi, The Byzantine Political Tradition in the Romanian Principalities in the 16th–18th Centuries, Bucharest, 2001.
- 69
See, for example, Helene Ahrweiler, The Political Ideology of the Byzantine Empire, Bucharest, Corint, 2002.
- 70
There were also instances of conflict, but these were on a personal level, not an institutional one, as the Church was respected.
- 71
The metropolitans, ex officio members of the Princely Council, also had judicial authority in matters governed by customary law and falling within the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical bodies, such as inheritance, guardianship and divorce. Feudal Institutions in the Romanian Principalities. Dictionary..., p. 298.
- 72
Dan Simonescu, Romanian Ceremonial Literature. Gheorgachi’s Register, 1762, Bucharest, King Carol I Foundation, 1939, p. 113.
- 73
Dobrușa – a hermitage dedicated to the Entry of the Mother of God into the Church, dating from the 15th–16th centuries, repaired in the 18th century by the monk Ilarion, and the church remodelled by Stephen, Bishop of Râmnic. See, for example, T. G. Bulat, ‘From the records of the Dobrușa-Vâlcea Monastery, 1659–1751’, in Revista Istorică, XII, 1926, pp. 250–255.
- 74
The charter reproduced by Oana-Mădălina Popescu, ‘Legislative Acts Concerning Church Life in Wallachia in the 18th Century’, in Martyria, 2017, no. 2, pp. 37–58.
- 75
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/152.
- 76
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/71A.
- 77
We would like to thank Father Filotheu Bălan of Petru-Vodă Monastery in Moldova for this information.
- 78
Document published by Nicolae Iorga, Documents from the Hurez Monastery Archive, Bucharest, Socec Printing Works, 1907, p. 118.
- 79
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/112.
- 80
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/108.
- 81
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/109.
- 82
Fr. Mircea Păcurariu, Dictionary of Romanian Theologians, 3rd ed. ..., p. 150.
- 83
Constantin Erbiceanu, ‘The Canonical Encyclical of Filaret, Bishop of Râmnic’, in The Romanian Orthodox Church, XV, 189, no. 6, p. 407.
- 84
Dragoș Șesan, Glossary of Rare and Forgotten Words, Bucharest, University of Bucharest Press, 2012, p. 100; a compound word derived from the Turkish kürk – ‘fur’ and bașa – ‘chief’, meaning ‘chief of furriers’.
- 85
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/48.
- 86
Meaning ‘residents of a slum’.
- 87
De iznoavă – once again. Augustin Scriban, Dictionary of the Romanian Language..., p. 668.
- 88
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/39.
- 89
Probably in Vâlcea County. Melentina Bâzgan, Index of Localities..., p. 103.
- 90
BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/180. The document is partially torn and was probably issued between 1780 and 1786.
- 91
For example, on 4 July 1782, Filaret instructed Archpriest Preda to ensure that money was sent for the schools, and on 24 July 1782, the hierarch asked the abbot of Bistrița to hasten the delivery of the money, again for the schools. BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Historical Documents, CMLXXIX/158; 157.