The first Bishop of Râmnic during the so-called ‘Phanariot’ period was Damaschin Dascălul of Buzău, a ‘scholar of the highest calibre and of unceasing diligence’, “born into the lowest class of the people”, who, “through his merits and diligence”, brought about, in nearly two decades of ministry, “a glorious era for our Church”1. A distinguished scholar and a true patriot, he distinguished himself as a staunch defender of his diocese’s rights and a great lover of the Romanian language, translating, right up until the end of his life, almost all the liturgical books required for the holy services.
Damaschin’s life up to his election as bishop
Very little is known about the life of this distinguished hierarch, ‘perhaps the greatest figure to have shepherded the Diocese of Râmnic in centuries past’2 before he became Bishop of Buzău and later of Oltenia. We do not know who he was or what he did previously, only that he was a Romanian 3, born around the year 1660 4, into a family of freeholders named Voinescu, from the village of Voinești, Dâmbovița County 5. He has been identified by some historians as ‘the humble hieromonk Damaschin Gherbest, the printer’, who took part, in 1683, in the printing of the Apostles in Bucharest and the 1688 Șerban Bible, both as a printer and as an ‘illustrator’6. As there is no document or contemporary evidence to prove that the two are one and the same person, others consider this hypothesis unacceptable, as ‘7’ is a common monk’s name. Moreover, if we compare the signature of the engraver Gherbest from 1683 with that of the bishop from 1703, we find that they are not in the same hand 8.
Given the name Gherbest or Herberst, it has been suggested that the future hierarch was from the Timișoara or Transylvania area, and that he was a pupil of Bishop Mitrofan of Buzău, from whom he learnt the craft of printing, and whom he would succeed as head of that diocese 9. Whilst Bishop Ghenadie Enăceanu believes he was from the Banat region, like the printer ‘Atanasie-Vici’, brought by ‘Damaschin Gherbest, who was also from those parts of Romania’, others consider him to be of Ukrainian origin, though without providing any evidence to support this 10. In other writings, he appears as the abbot of Curtea de Argeș Monastery, from where he went on to become bishop of Buzău 11.
Unfortunately, we have no reliable information about his family either. Some researchers suggest that this ‘true-born Romanian’ had relatives in Voinești, Dâmbovița, where they owned an estate and mill rights, and that he adopted the name Gherbest out of humility, ‘to conceal his true name’12. Whilst certain documents mention his brothers, the village headman Bratul and the poor monk Iosif 13, others, dating from 1730–1740, refer to Eftimie the captain and Stan the scribe Voinescu, who were still living in their village 14. In 1731, Eftimie Voinescu, his brother, and Radul, his son, are mentioned, whilst ten years later, a cousin of Radul’s, Ștefan Voinescu, had become a logofăt in the district of Craiova. It cannot be ruled out, however, that he may have moved from Transylvania to Dâmbovița, as was customary at the time 15.
Contemporary accounts, however, refer to him as a ‘teacher’, without specifying the circumstances in which he acquired his refined education. He was well versed in Slavonic, Latin and Greek, having taught at the Slavonic school in Bucharest, and later as tutor to Constantin Cantacuzino’s son16; he also trained many apprentices in the art of printing. Within our ancient culture, he distinguished himself particularly through his translations of religious texts, contributing significantly to the creation and development of the Romanian literary language 14.
Speaking of his cultural work, one of those who succeeded him in the ancient episcopal see of Râmnic, Bishop Atanasie Mironescu, described him as “the man most eager and most diligent in banishing foreign languages from our holy books”, who had been working towards this end “even before becoming a bishop”. According to him and others, amongst “those teachers well versed in the Greek language and punished in our own language” who translated the Bible in 1688, we ought to mention “the modest hieromonk Damaschin Gherbest, nicknamed ‘The Teacher’, who was a man of great learning in every sense of the word”, and a master of three foreign languages. His name was not recorded alongside those of “those great and honourable figures of the Church and the laity, who translated that great literary monument into the Romanian language”, since at that time he was “a simple and all too modest ‘hieromonk’ working in the Buzău printing house”; yet it is inconceivable that he did not contribute to this significant work, especially as he had a thorough knowledge of Church Slavonic 17. In the Holy Register he is mentioned amongst the great hierarchs of the time, alongside Mitrofan and Antim Ivireanul, having an affinity for Greek culture 18. Building on this fact, Nicolae Iorga later stated: ‘Damaschin, a teacher of Slavonic and a pupil of Mitrofan the Moldavian, was, around 1700, more concerned with establishing a new order, based on Greek models, for the books required in the church’19. In that year, the Octoechos of Buzău was to appear, “almost entirely rewritten with great labour by our teacher Damaschin”, as Metropolitan Teodosie notes 20.
Bishop of Buzău
Whilst we do not have much information about him prior to his ordination as a hierarch, his subsequent work is, however, better known to us. Following Mitrofan’s death, his reputation as a learned scholar propelled him to the see of Buzău on 3 October 1703, having been chosen from among the three monks proposed to Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu 21.
Once there, he soon proved himself to be ‘the prelate most eager to replace foreign languages with Romanian in our church’. To realise such an ideal, however, he had to obtain the consent of the synod and of Metropolitan Teodosie, who wished for the divine service to be conducted in Church Slavonic. The translation of liturgical books was viewed with scepticism, as the Romanian language was considered poor and did not contain ‘all the words of the Slavonic and Greek sources’22 Whilst the high-ranking hierarch was wary of translating dogmatic texts, the Teacher of Buzău ‘found sufficient expressions, and the Romanian language, in his hands, became capable of conveying all the ideas of the Christian religion’23.
Continuing Mitrofan’s printing work, the newly elected abbot printed the Prayers for Vespers and Matins (1702, 1703–1704), with the prayers in Church Slavonic and the liturgical order in Romanian 24, and in 1703, the Psalter, with the psalms in Church Slavonic, but the liturgical instructions, the prayers following the kathismas and several ‘teachings’ in Romanian. In the preface dedicated to the prince and the metropolitan, the hierarch wrote as follows: ‘I was moved to have this Psalter of the Prophet and King David, which is so beneficial to souls, printed in the language commonly read in Romanian churches—Slavonic—taking great care to correct and refine it”. Elsewhere, he stated: ‘The Psalter is a mirror of the true faith in God, who forgives sins, leads us onto the path of righteousness, and awakens us to the praise of God. It teaches us to have faith, hope and love in God’25 In 1703, he published a new edition in Romanian, which he did not sign, but which was reprinted in 1725 in Râmnic26
It was also through the efforts of Bishop Damaschin, who “laboured, like his predecessor, at the printing press, turning night into day”27 that The Apostle was reprinted in 1704 in Romanian, based on the 1683 edition from Bucharest 28. He had previously sought the Metropolitan’s approval for this, which he received on 25 September 1703. On this occasion, Teodosie also sent him ‘two reams of paper’ so that he too might print 25 copies, ‘and do not print these as you have done with the other Gospels, where the page is narrow, leaving so much blank space unused; but let the space up to the margins be filled with text, and add a line at the bottom as well, so that you may make the most of it, and also for the sake of the paper, for you see, my brother, that it entails a great expense’29 The author of the preface is the hierarch himself, who, in his dedication to the ruler, states that it was published “for the glory of God, one in the Trinity, and for the benefit of Your Majesty’s priests and all the Orthodox people, and for the immortal remembrance of Your Majesty’s name…”30.
From his brief tenure as bishop in Buzău, a Romanian version of the ‘Explanation of the Apocalypse’ also survives, compiled by Andrei, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, based on a Slavonic translation by the pious priest Lavrentie Zizaniia 31. The colophon of the manuscript, preserved at the Romanian Academy 32, states that ‘it was rendered into Romanian by the humble Damaschin, Bishop of Buzău’33. From the title and the dedication to the prince and the metropolitan, we can see that this work was also printed, but no copies have survived to the present day 34.
Unfortunately, Damaschin was only able to publish these books in Buzău, where the printing press remained closed for four decades, until 1743, due to a lack of activity. It should also be noted, however, that, in his capacity as a hierarch, he campaigned for the establishment of a school in Focșani, as evidenced by the letter addressed to Metropolitan Teodosie in 1703 35. At the same time, he proved himself a skilled woodcarver, as evidenced by the prints in the 1683 Apostol, as well as by the Antimis, made of linen and featuring a wooden block, which was consecrated on 15 September 1704 36. Last but not least, it must be noted that he had to deal with numerous concerns regarding complaints and disputes over the church estates within the diocese, as evidenced by the bishop’s court records preserved in the Diocese’s archives 37.
Bishop of Râmnic
Bishop Damaschin governed in Buzău until 16 April 1708, when he was transferred to Râmnic 38, replacing another great scholar, Saint Antim Ivireanul, who, on 28 January, had been elected Metropolitan of Bucharest 39. It was here that he began his true work as a pastor and translator, proving himself to be a shrewd steward who increased the Diocese’s wealth, a defender of Orthodoxy and the monasteries within the diocese, but above all a true Romanian and an unrivalled scholar of his time, through the introduction of the Romanian language into the sacred services and the translation of almost all the ritual books 40.
As Bishop of Râmnic, he enjoyed great authority, having been sent on 9 November 1711 by Saint Constantine Brâncoveanu to Cozia, accompanied by a representative of the principality and a ledger, in which to record everything the abbot of the monastery—who had proved himself unworthy during his tenure—had eaten and spent 41. Three years later, on 25 March, the day after the prince’s deposition, he took part, alongside the metropolitan of the country and other boyars, in the assembly convened by Mustafa Aga, the envoy of the Ottoman Porte, to elect the new prince, Ștefan Cantacuzino, who, on 2 June 1715, allowed him to settle, alongside certain boyars, a dispute between Hurezi Monastery and the Romanians of the village of Hurezi 42. Another document, dated 1722, shows that the Divan of Craiova informed him that, whilst the case between Dobrotă County and the abbot of Cozianu was being heard, neither party had appeared in court. For this reason, the two appealed to the hierarch “with the request that he, together with Șerban Bujoreanul, send men to bring the freeholders from Bogdănești and to investigate once more the dispute concerning that part of Sima the Logothete’s estate, an estate not held by the monastery, but by the freeholders together with the Diocese’43”.
However, his tenure was marked by the war between the Turks and the Austrians from 1716 to 1718, which ended with the Peace of Passarowitz. According to the treaty concluded on 21 July 1718, Oltenia came under Austrian rule 36, remaining so until 1739, when, following the Peace of Belgrade, it was reunited with Wallachia. In these circumstances, Bishop Damaschin proved himself a skilful diplomat, who knew how to stand up to the Austrian authorities, defend his Church and promote the cultural movement. As early as February 1717, when peace had not yet been concluded but the Austrians had already established themselves in Oltenia, he led a delegation of boyars to Vienna to discuss the situation in the region of Oltenia. In a 10-point memorandum submitted to the War Council, he requested that the Church on the right bank of the River Olt retain the rights and privileges it had enjoyed until then, and that the monasteries be exempted from the quartering of troops. Following a report from the Court Council, the Emperor granted his request by a decree issued on 30 May 1717, which also determined the provisional administration of the country. Regarding the two demands in the memorandum concerning the Church, it was agreed that religious freedom should be granted and that monastic settlements should be exempt from being used as barracks, except in times of war, when garrisons were to be stationed there. On this occasion, the delegates each received a decoration, whilst the bishop was presented with a cross, crafted from gold and precious stones.
Following further negotiations, it was decided to return to the monasteries everything that Nicolae Mavrocordat had taken from them during his reign. Unfortunately, these rights were respected only during the war, until the Austrians took control of Oltenia. After the peace treaty was concluded, General Steinville, the commander in Transylvania, proposed to the War Council that: the Bishop of Râmnic should retain only his ecclesiastical rights, the princely monasteries should, apart from ecclesiastical matters, be under the imperial treasury rather than the boyars or the bishop, and the abbots should be elected solely by the monks of the respective monasteries. At the same time, a delegation of boyars, having travelled to Vienna, requested the Court that the bishop should no longer be subject to the Metropolis of Wallachia, but to the metropolitan appointed by the Emperor in Serbia, and that priests should be ordained solely by the Oltenian hierarch.
Following these proposals, Emperor Charles VI issued another decree on 22 February 1719, in which he outlined the issues concerning the administration of Oltenia, as well as a proclamation to the inhabitants. As regards the Church, he granted religious freedom, whilst protecting the Orthodox faith, but the hierarch was removed from the canonical jurisdiction of the Metropolitan See of Ungrovlahia and placed under that of the Serbian Metropolitan of Belgrade or another metropolitan from the hereditary lands of the House of Austria, with certain of his rights and powers being restricted. Furthermore, the clergy were forbidden from interfering in the affairs of, or the veneration by, monasteries at the Holy Places in the East, and from maintaining any links with them, whilst the monasteries were placed, from an administrative point of view, under the authority of the Austrian Government, which also approved the election of the abbots. As regards privileges and exemptions, these were first to be investigated by the Austrian Administration in Oltenia, which was required to report its findings to the Court, ‘so that imperial benevolence towards the people might be evident from this’. Pending their confirmation, the monasteries and the priests’ homes were to be exempt from billeting.
It should be noted, however, that the transfer of the Diocese to the canonical jurisdiction of the Serbian metropolitan, the Court’s interference in the election of abbots, and the placing of the monasteries under Austrian control displeased the bishop, who protested, together with the abbots of Hurezi, Bistrița, Arnota and Govora, on 29 November 1719, by submitting an 11-point memorandum to the Court. In this, they demanded that the Diocese of Râmnic be elevated to the rank of a metropolitan see, to be canonically subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Among other things, they argued that there had previously been a metropolis at Severin, which, before these lands fell under Turkish rule, had the Bishop of Mehadia under its jurisdiction. Furthermore, it was requested that the spiritual leader of Oltenia be granted the right to supervise monastic settlements, to dismiss abbots guilty of mismanagement or misconduct in the care of the community, and to be consulted regarding the construction of churches and monasteries, so that donors might not appoint the abbots, and that only Romanians known for their faith should be elected to the office of hierarch. At the same time, they advocated for better organisation of the monasteries and access to education for the clergy. Point 10 is particularly noteworthy, in which they called for the establishment of a Romanian school in Râmnic, under the bishop’s care, supported by monasteries and priests, as well as a Latin school in Craiova, to be funded by the Austrian Administration and the boyars of 44. Having analysed the surviving documents from that period, Veronica Tamaș concluded that the Romanian school must have existed, in much the same way as the one in Craiova, which, in 1724, was under the care of ‘Antonie, the Latin teacher’, paid 18 thalers by the administration 45.
This memorandum illustrates the paternal care that the Oltenian bishop had for the church entrusted to him. However, the authorities did not approve any of his requests, issuing an imperial decree, right in front of him and a delegation of boyars and priests, summoned to Sibiu on 7 December 1721, thereby severing the ties between the Diocese of Râmnic and the Metropolis of Bucharest. Moreover, at the end of 1725, Vienna recognised that the Metropolitan of Belgrade should have under his jurisdiction the see of the Diocese on the right bank of the Olt, and, after only one year, that of the Metropolitanate of Carloviț.
In such circumstances, the appointment or dismissal of abbots was carried out by the Court in Vienna, on the recommendation of the Oberdirector, following a proposal from the local administration and, more rarely, from the hierarch. Consequently, due to this direct interference in the affairs of the monasteries, there were abbots who renounced Orthodoxy, such as the one at Segarcea, who joined the Union, or abusive abbots, whose misdeeds were covered up by Austrian generals in return for gifts.
On the other hand, it should be noted that, following the occupation of Oltenia, the Court Chamber delegated the chamber councillor from Transylvania to investigate the region’s economic strength, in order to set the taxes. Following these findings, it was proposed to the Emperor that a commission be appointed to examine all the titles on the basis of which the monasteries held their estates and enjoyed certain privileges, so that appropriate measures could be taken. On 21 November 1719, the inventories of the monasteries’ assets—drawn up by the bishop himself, who had summoned the abbots with all the relevant documents—were sent to the Court Chamber, after receiving assurances that those assets and privileges would not be touched, but merely verified. Also regarding the monasteries, in 1720, General Steinville, the Oberdirector of Oltenia, reported to the War Council.
These reports and their annexes stated that there were 40 monasteries in Oltenia, of which 18 were for monks, 5 for nuns and 17 hermitages, which were divided into four categories: princely, free, those subordinate to the lower-ranking monasteries, and hermitages subordinate to the monasteries of the country. These settlements owned over 100 large estates, comprising roughly one-fifth of Oltenia, and enjoyed the following privileges: to take a certain number of large or small blocks of salt from the salt mines, to levy customs duties at certain locations, to have their important goods exempted from customs duties, to be exempt from certain tithes, to harvest grapes from certain vineyard-covered hills, to fish in the fish-filled ponds, etc. According to the rapporteurs – though we do not know whether they are telling the truth – some of these monasteries fell into ruin, particularly the feudal ones, because they were not properly managed by the abbots, who disposed of their assets without accounting for income and expenditure. Many absconded with the monastery’s money and property, whilst the abbots of the endowed monasteries were replaced every three years. The rulers took large sums from them, either by mutual agreement or as loans, which they never repaid, allowing them in return to commit all manner of abuses.
On the basis of these reports, it was proposed: that the monasteries be given money in exchange for the revenue they received from customs duties; that they be excluded from any involvement in or control over the collection of customs duties; that the tax authorities take all the revenue or only a part of it; collected from fairs and markets; that the supply of salt from Ocne be reduced to the quantity necessary for consumption; that sheep-rearing duties be levied every year; that the monasteries be exempted from tithes; and that fishing in the ponds be permitted to continue, as the monks needed fish, especially during Lent. Furthermore, wealthy monasteries were to be administered by a proegumen or dichiu and inspected every year, or at least every two years, by a boyar, accompanied by a tax official. Some of them were to be preserved, as they had served as refuges, whilst others could, in times of war, provide shelter for troops and store supplies.
In light of these reports, the monasteries were subject to ‘certas praestationes’ and ‘varias decimas’, and the quantity of salt allocated to them was reduced from 3,860 bolovani to 196, in small quantities rather than in bulk. Furthermore, they were subject to the sheep tax and the tithe every year from 1720 onwards, rather than every three years or upon the accession of a new ruler, and from 1725 they were subject to the wine tax. Even though they were exempted from quartering by imperial decree, Brâncoveni Monastery in Olt County was occupied by troops for a long time, until Maria Brâncoveanu, as the founder, lodged a protest in Vienna.
These violations of the rights and privileges of the monasteries in the Diocese of Olt were to find an energetic defender in the person of Bishop Damaschin, who lodged repeated protests in Vienna. Had there not been a hierarch such as him in those days, the monasteries’ vast wealth would probably have been lost. He intervened when the abbot of Segarcea joined the Union, demanding that he be removed from the monastery; he took an interest in the fate of the monastic settlements and drew up the registers himself, when they were asked to produce their title deeds, and when they were required to pay the wine tax; he summoned the abbots of six monasteries and drafted a petition to the Craiova Administration, which came to their defence. Motivated by love for his country and the faith of his forefathers, these actions led Bishop Atanasie Mironescu to conclude: ‘We believe that Providence has decreed that, in these difficult times, the Church of Oltenia should have as its shepherd the most worthy and learned man who has led this diocese in centuries past’46
- 1
†Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese of Râmnic and Noul Severin: Past and Present, Gutenberg Press, Joseph Göbl, Bucharest, 1906, p. 95.
- 2
P. S. Bishop Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925, Tipografiile Române Unite S.A., Bucharest, 1924, p. 299.
- 3
Fr Gabriel Cocora, ‘250 years since Bishop Damaschin’s ministry in Buzău’, in: Glasul Bisericii, vol. VII (1958), no. 9, p. 869 (hereafter cited as GB).
- 4
Rev. Prof. Dr Mircea Păcurariu, Dictionary of Romanian Theologians, Andreiana Publishing House, Sibiu, 2014, p. 201.
- 5
Fr. Niculae Șerbănescu, ‘The Bishops of Râmnic’, in: Mitropolia Olteniei, vol. XIV (1964), nos. 4–6, p. 190 (hereinafter cited as MO).
- 6
Alex. Lapedatu, ‘Damaschin, the Bishop and Teacher – Translator of Our Liturgical Books’, in: Convorbiri literare, vol. XL (1906), p. 563, note 1; Mihail Regleanu, ‘Contributions to our knowledge of Damaschin, Bishop of Râmnic’, in: Hrisovul, vol. I, Bucharest, 1941, pp. 442, 444 (hereafter cited as H); Niculae Șerbănescu, The Bishops of Râmnic…, p. 190.
- 7
Barbu Teodorescu, ‘Bishop Damaschin and his contribution to the development of the Romanian literary language’, in: MO, vol. XII (1960), nos. 9–12, pp. 629–630; Rev. Prof. Dr Mircea Păcurariu, History of the Romanian Orthodox Church, vol. II, 3rd ed., Trinitas Publishing House, Iași, 2006, p. 147.
- 8
Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, p. 630, note 18.
- 9
†Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, pp. 95–96; Mihail Regleanu, Contributions…, pp. 442, 444.
- 10
Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, p. 629.
- 11
†Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, p. 96, note 1.
- 12
Gabriel Cocora, 250 Years…, p. 869.
- 13
† Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, p. 95, note 4.
- 14a14b
Niculae Șerbănescu, The Bishops of Râmnic…, p. 190.
- 15
Mihail Regleanu, Contributions…, pp. 443–444; Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, p. 630.
- 16
I. D. Lăudat, ‘The contribution of the Râmnicu Vâlcea printing house to the promotion of books in the 18th century’, in: MO, vol. XXVIII (1976), no. 5–6, p. 363.
- 17
†Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, p. 120.
- 18
Archimandrite Ghenadie Enăceanu, ‘Condica sfântă’, in: Biserica Ortodoxă Română, vol. VIII (1884), no. 11, p. 811, note 156 (hereafter cited as BOR); † Ghenadie of Craiova, The Holy Register of the Metropolis of Ungrovlahia, vol. I, Bucharest, Church Books Printing and Lithography, 1886, p. 100.
- 19
N. Iorga, The History of the Romanian Church and the Religious Life of the Romanians, 2nd ed., vol. II, Ministry of Religious Affairs Press, Bucharest, 1930, p. 100.
- 20
N. Iorga, ‘The Work of Bishop Damaschin’, in: Ramuri, vol. IV (1909), no. 1, p. 2; N. Iorga, The History of the Romanian Church…, p. 100; Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, p. 630.
- 21
†Ghenadie Craioveanul, The Holy Register…, p. 91; Mihail Regleanu, Contributions…, p. 442; Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, p. 631.
- 22
†Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, p. 121.
- 23
Ghenadie Enăceanu, The Holy Register…, p. 816.
- 24
Ioan Bianu, Dan Simonescu, Early Romanian Bibliography (1508–1830), vol. IV, Bucharest, 1944, p. 29 (hereinafter cited as BRV); Mircea Păcurariu, History of the Romanian Orthodox Church…, p. 147.
- 25
BRV, vol. IV, pp. 29–30; Gabriel Cocora, 250 Years…, p. 872; Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, p. 635.
- 26
Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, p. 635; Rev. Acad. Mircea Păcurariu, Printing in the Romanian Orthodox Church, Andreiana Publishing House, Sibiu, 2016, p. 106.
- 27
Gabriel Cocora, 250 Years…, p. 871.
- 28
†Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, p. 123.
- 29
Emil Vârtosu, ‘A Commentary on Typographical Terminology in 1703’, in: H, vol. I, Bucharest, 1941, p. 449; Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, p. 631.
- 30
Ioan Bianu, Nerva Hodoș, Early Romanian Bibliography (1508–1830), vol. I (1508–1716), Bucharest, 1903, p. 457; N. Iorga, A History of Romanian Literature from 1688 to 1780, Vol. II, 2nd ed., Pavel Suru Bookshop, Bucharest, 1926, p. 465; Gabriel Cocora, 250 Years…, p. 871.
- 31
†Nestor Vornicescu, On the centenary of the autocephaly of the Romanian Orthodox Church. Facts and figures from the ecclesiastical life of the Metropolis of Oltenia, in: BOR, vol. CIII (1985), nos. 5–6, p. 421.
- 32
†Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, p. 121; Alex. Lapedatu, Damaschin, the Bishop and Teacher…, p. 571.
- 33
Alex. Lapedatu, Damaschin: Bishop and Teacher…, p. 572; Gabriel Cocora, 250 Years…, p. 871.
- 34
Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, p. 635.
- 35
Emil Vârtosu, Glossă…, p. 451; Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, p. 631.
- 36a36b
Gabriel Cocora, 250 Years…, p. 872.
- 37
Ioana Iancovescu, ‘The Life and Work of the Blessed Damaschin Dascălul, Bishop of Râmnic (†5 December 1725)’, in: Martyria, 2018, no. 1, p. 24 (hereafter cited as M).
- 38
Ghenadie Enăceanu, The Holy Register…, p. 815; Nicolae Dobrescu, The History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia during the Austrian Occupation (1716–1739), published by the Carol Göbl Institute of Graphic Arts, Bucharest, 1906, p. 6.
- 39
†Ghenadie of Craiova, The Holy Register…, p. 100.
- 40
†Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, pp. 96–97.
- 41
General Directorate of the State Archives of the Socialist Republic of Romania, Medieval Treasures of Vâlcea. Catalogue of Documents from the State Archives in Râmnicu Vâlcea (1388–1715), vol. I, Bucharest, 1983, p. 349.
- 42
Prof. Dr Corneliu Tamaș, ‘New information on Damaschin Voinescu, Bishop of Râmnic’, in: MO, vol. XLIX (1997), nos. 3–6, pp. 131–132.
- 43
General Directorate of the State Archives of the Socialist Republic of Romania. Vâlcea County Branch of the State Archives, Archival Treasures of Vâlcea. Catalogue of Documents from the State Archives in Râmnicu Vâlcea (1467–1800), vol. II, Bucharest, 1985, p. 48.
- 44
Nicolae Dobrescu, The History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia…, pp. 18–23; †Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, pp. 106–109; N. Iorga, Documents from the Archives of Hurez Monastery, the Argeș Deanery, the Brâncoveni boyars and other families, found in the Brâncoveni family estate in Bucharest, 1907, p. XIX; Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, p. 632; Șerban Papacostea, Oltenia under Austrian Rule (1718–1739), edited by Gheorghe Lazăr, Editura Enciclopedică, Bucharest, 1998, p. 291; Mircea Păcurariu, The History of the Romanian Orthodox Church…, pp. 288–289; Doru Căpătaru, ‘Damaschin: Bishop, Teacher and Diplomat of Râmnic’, in: MO, vol. LXIX (2007), nos. 5–8, pp. 141–145; Damaschin protested that the Diocese should not be subordinate to the Metropolis of Belgrade, as it was the successor to ‘the Metropolis of the Severin region, which had previously held the place (that of) Amasya’, and thus ranked fourteenth, after the Ecumenical Patriarch. ‘Thus, the Metropolitan of Râmnic (sic) was superior in rank to that of Belgrade’. See Rev. Prof. Niculae I. Șerbănescu, The Romanian Orthodox Church from the Earliest Christian Settlements on Romanian Soil to the Patriarchate, vol. edited by Rev. Dr Mihai Ovidiu Cățoi, Basilica Publishing House, Bucharest, 2015, p. 465.
- 45
Veronica Tamaș, ‘Contributions to the history of education in Vâlcea during the Middle Ages (1415–1830)’, in: Studii Vâlcene, 1974, pp. 148–149.
- 46
Nicolae Dobrescu, The History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia…, pp. 23–52; †Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, pp. 109–116; N. Iorga, History of the Romanian Church…, pp. 102–104.