Cultural activity
Although he endured many hardships, ‘the man learned in Latin and Slavonic’1 also distinguished himself through his scholarly pursuits. ‘An honourable and learned bishop, who devoted himself to the welfare of his people’2—seeing that his flock did not understand the sacred services 3—supported the introduction of the Romanian language into the church, translating almost all the liturgical books: the Anthologion, the Pentecostarion, the Book of Hours, the Typikon, the Book of Prayers, the Katavasia, the Octoechos, the Triodion, the Mineya 4, as well as the Lives of the Saints 5. As a first step, immediately upon his enthronement, he requested that the divine services be conducted in Romanian on the feasts of the Lord and of the Mother of God 6.
It should be noted that in Râmnic, printing activity had ceased following the election of Saint Antim Ivireanul as metropolitan, leaving the town at the foot of Capela Hill without a press or a printer 7. That he was determined to reopen the printing press is attested to by himself in his first published book, where he mentions the expense ‘of setting up the new printing press’8. Unfortunately, the man “who fought vigorously against the papal schemes to Catholicise the region on this side of the Olt”9 was only able to resume his series of publications once he had been granted permission to restart his publishing activities 10.
To this end, in the autumn of 1725, he sought the approval of the Austrian authorities, who requested the manuscript of the book to be printed so that they might examine it. On 22 November, he sent a long letter to General Tige, in which he outlined his cultural project, which had begun ten years earlier, when he set about translating all the ecclesiastical books from Greek and Slavonic—books that were also widespread in Serbia, Bulgaria, Poland, Russia, and even in the Romanian provinces. Seeing that the Romanians ‘sit in church like oxen, not understanding what is being read or sung, and leave the church having gained nothing’, he had tried to have them printed some time ago, but lacked the funds and a good printer. The first book he wished to print was the Minologion—that is, the 12 Minee—of which he would send one each month to be examined, followed by other books, which he intended to distribute throughout Transylvania, the Banat region of Timișoara and the district of Arad. To persuade him, he sent the general two barrels of wine from the Drăgășani hills 11. According to historians, his reply has gone down in the literary history of the 17th century as ‘one of the most valuable manifestations of culture’12.
Having received the approval of the Austrian authorities, in 1724 he published a new prayer book containing the entire daily and nightly liturgy. (10 folios + 506 pages), with the support of the printer Ilie Cernăvodeanul 13, and a 55-page booklet, Teaching on the Seven Sacraments 14, of which we have no complete version, as copies are missing the title page 15. The work was not intended to be polemical, but rather to instruct priests not to consecrate Holy Chrism or to perform the Sacrament of Ordination, as these duties were reserved solely for hierarchs 16. After only one year, it was banned by the Synod of the United Diocese 17.
It was also under his leadership that the Psalter of the Prophet and King David was published. Now printed for the second time in this form in the Holy Diocese of Râmnic (1 folio + 248 [?] unnumbered folios), by Ilie Cernavodeanul, in 1725 18, for which he sought permission to sell it in Banat and Crișana in order to raise funds with which to print other translations into Romanian. As was to be expected, the Austrian general did not approve his request, and many of his translations remained in manuscript form 19. He wanted the authorities to grant him permission to distribute the books in Transylvania, the Banat region around Timișoara and Arad, but this was not permitted. Restrictions on the publication of a book, the ban on distributing them outside Oltenia and a lack of resources were the reasons that prevented him from printing everything he had translated 20. Despite the ban, his printed works enjoyed wide circulation in Transylvania, Oltenia, Moldova and Maramureș 21, putting ‘an end to Slavonic influence in the Romanian Church’22.
Although he “worked his whole life to enrich our ecclesiastical literature”, this was all he managed to publish, as he died suddenly on 25 December 1725 23. His manuscripts have survived, but no printed editions of his works are yet known. In 1905, Nicolae Iorga discovered an Apostles’ Book from 1725 at the United Church in Maieri, Alba Iulia, though it did not indicate where it had been printed. Furthermore, ‘some of the books from Buzău and Bucharest, printed in Romanian, which do not specify who exactly translated them and which appeared around the year 1700, both before and after that time, are very likely to have been produced by Damaschin’, as some researchers 24 maintain.
Also attributed to him is The Exposition of the Gospels by Theophylact of Ohrid, which survives to this day in manuscript form 25, and a Catechism, published in 1897 by Gherasim Timuș, Bishop of Argeș, based on a copy made by Lavrentie the hieromonk in 1767 26. In 1719, five registers of the monastic settlements in the diocese, together with their privileges, were published in Craiova under his signature. The second of these lists the names of the monasteries and hermitages in the counties of ‘Kesaric Valahia’, as Oltenia was then known 23.
According to Nicolae Iorga, some of the Romanian printed works of Saint Antim Ivireanul, although signed by him, actually belong to Damaschin: “The three Romanian books which Antim published at his own expense in 1712 and 1713 naturally have no other author, although we do not understand how Damaschin, now Bishop of Râmnic, agreed to have the works published under another name, as in the days when he was merely a ‘teacher’”27. If the great historian’s assertion is correct, then the 1694 Psalter was also translated into Romanian by him. “Consequently,” Barbu Teodorescu points out, “the Octoechos, the Liturgy and the Book of Prayers all three are attributable not to Antim, but to Damaschin. Naturally, this is merely a hypothesis, which will need to be substantiated, perhaps by comparing the texts”28.
Having researched his work, Alexandru Lapedatu believes that he also translated the Catavasier: ‘As for the Catavasier, it is quite possible that one of the three editions of this book, printed in Râmnic between 1716 and 1750, […] may well have been based on a translation by Damaschin unknown to us, for Damaschin’s printers did not always state clearly and without ambiguity the provenance of the sources from which they worked”29. This view is also supported by other historians. Taking into account the letter of 1703, in which the metropolitan thanks the bishop for the five Catavasiere sent as a gift: ‘For the five Catavasiere you have sent me as a gift, we are most grateful to your brotherhood’, they conclude ‘that we have before us a new printed edition by the Teacher’30.
We must not overlook the fact that his translations were brought to the fore by his successors in office, supported by proofreaders and manuscript editors such as Laurențiu and Rafail of Hurezi, and by the Atanasievici family of printers from Râmnic 31. Later works, such as: the Prayer Book (1730), the Triodion (1731), the Liturgy Book (1733), the Katavasia (1734), the Anthologion (1737), the Pentecostarion (1743), the Anthologion (1745), the Book of Hours (1745), the Gospel (1746), the Akathist (1746), the Prayer Book (1747), the Octoechos (1750) and the Mineies (1776–1780), which appeared in several editions, have led historians to state that ‘between 1724 and 1830, the Râmnic printing press did nothing but print and distribute throughout the country’ the manuscripts of the Oltenian hierarch32, translated ‘in a very enlightened style and language’33
The prefaces to these books state that, before being printed, they were cross-checked against the Slavonic and Greek sources, with Damaschin’s text remaining the fundamental one, because his translations “promoted a language that was both refined and accessible to the broad strata of the population in all the Romanian provinces”34. It is from him and from the monks of the 18th century that we have inherited, to this day, the harmonious phrasing, the serene vocabulary and the simple language spoken by the people. They “did not come from any school nor from any family half-alienated from the people, but arose from the very depths of the nation itself”35).
Through his work, Bishop Damaschin is rightly regarded as ‘a forerunner of later unifications and one of the architects of the Romanian literary language’36). Even though they were viewed with hostility in Transylvania, his writings, composed “according to his mind and heart”, spread – particularly in the 18th century – throughout the country. Translated into simple language and printed in large numbers – some ran to 5–9 editions – the books enjoyed success in Abrud, Cluj, Orăștie, Sibiu, Făgăraș, in Maramureș, Moldova37, and Banat, which ‘would be the direct and immediate beneficiary of the beginnings at Râmnic’38. In this way, through his works which found their way into all the churches, he inscribed his name amongst the great learned hierarchs who advocated, in word and deed, for the introduction of the Romanian language into church services 10.
His merits were recognised by the great scholars, who described him ‘as the principal figure in the work of translating our church books into Romanian’. For example, Samuil Klein stated that ‘he translated all our church books’, whilst Radu Tempea noted that “the greater part of the ecclesiastical books were translated by Damaschin, Bishop of Râmnic, in a very enlightened style and language”39. For his part, Constantin Erbiceanu wrote in 1908: “Damaschin, alongside Bishop Mitrofan, Metropolitan Antim and Veniamin Costache, are the architects and founders of the Romanian ecclesiastical language within the National Church”40. He also noted in a manuscript donated to the Library of the Romanian Academy in the same year: ‘the Romanian language (of Damaschin, ed.) is admirable, beautiful and dignified’41]. For Nicolae Iorga, he was a “diligent translator of works not written by him”42). And for Alexandru Lapedat: “the role of this overzealous and learned ecclesiastical writer in our cultural history remains, for us too, the same as that defined by Samuil Klein: the translator of our ritual books”43).
It is also fitting to remember his disciples and successors: the hieromonk Lavrentie, Bishop Climent, Metropolitan Neofit, Sofronie, the abbot of Cozia, Iosif and Grigorie, both bishops of Argeș, etc., who have left us various accounts of his rich body of work 44. Even Chesarie, half a century after the death of his predecessor, said of him: ‘It was during the reign of Matei Voivode Basarab that the translation (of books into Romanian) began in the days of Matei Voivode Basarab and were continued in the days of Șerban Voivode Basarab Brâncoveanu, through the diligence of Chir Damaschin, Bishop of Râmnic”. Through his immense labour, he gathered around him numerous bishops and scholars, spanning several generations 45. ‘He made himself a great teacher of the Romanian people – as Bishop Atanasie Mironescu testifies – working his whole life to write and translate into Romanian dozens of large volumes of ritual and educational texts, and thus, in defiance of the Papists, who slandered him in their reports, Bishop Damaschin secured the most well-deserved gratitude of the entire Romanian nation. And this is the brightest halo in which this great bishop will appear before God and the Romanian people’46 Under his guidance and that of his successors, “the Râmnic printing press continued and completed the process of replacing the Church Slavonic language with Romanian in church services”47.
Administrative work
Alongside these achievements, Bishop Damaschin also proved himself to be a capable administrator, carrying out fruitful work in the administrative sphere. This is attested to by over 30 documents, which show that he increased the Diocese’s wealth by acquiring, in addition to the numerous vineyards, estates, houses and mill rights he had purchased, various donations from Christians, as well as royal privileges and acts of charity. Thus, between 1709 and 1724, he purchased: a site with a mill ford, ‘on the waters of the Râmnic River upstream from the town’, from Simion, son of the priest Marin of Râmnic; a vineyard “on Boerescu Hill”, from the nun Marta; two plots worth 16 talers, from Tudosie the Logothete; 13 plots in Râmnic; a vineyard, from the nun Marta, in the locality of “la Mal”; ‘a plot at the edge of the town in the fields’, from the priest’s wife Efrima of Râmnic and her sons; a vineyard plot, from Vișa of Ocnele Mari and her son-in-law; half of the Călina estate, comprising 196 stânjini, from Mihaiu Scutelnicu of Gioroc and others; 112 stânjini in Dăești, on the Prundeni boundary, from Ștefan, son of the nun Elisafta, granddaughter of Dragomir Postelnicul Prundeanul; ‘3 fălci of land in Bogdănești’, from Stoica Cotea, brother of Ion Părcălabu of Muereasca; a vineyard on Taomir Hill, worth 165 taleri, from Father Sinca of Râmnic; several plots in Popânzălești, worth 12 thalers, from Constantin Racoviceanu.
Among the donations received, we note: a quarter of ‘Burile’ and ‘Isvorul Frumos’, from Lupul Glogoveanul, 14 June 1710; ‘three plots and the vineyard plot at Troian, with all the outbuildings’, from Neaga, the wife of Constantin, son of Dumitrașco Hulubescul of Râmnic, 20 September 1711; ‘half a helestiu, a small vineyard and a mill’, which belonged to Badea, 14 May 1713; the vineyard at Troian, “two unfenced plots outside the Catarei well, below the Ocna road”, an enamel-gilded cross and an apiary, from Paisie Proigumen of Cozia, 6 December 1713; a vineyard at Troianu, belonging to Lady Marica Albeasca and her sons, 8 December 1713; 732 stânjeni from the Milcovul estate in Olt, from Șărban Șătrariul and others, 14 February 1714; a portion of an estate in the village of Bereni, from Radu, son of the priest Stoica of Sutești, 12 May 1714; 4 oxen with a cart and 22 thalers, from Ioan Toboșariul and his brother Stan of Muereasca, 6 March 1722.
Furthermore, Ștefan Cantacuzino assisted the Diocese of ‘Râmnicul de Sus’, issuing a princely charter on 31 May 1714 whereby he granted ‘Vinărici’ from 17 men on the Râmnic hill, “ten vedre of wine for one vadră, with the gift tax, amounting to 33 bani and the parpor, as is their custom”. A few days later, on 8 June, he also decreed that the estates of Prundeni and Bereni were to be taken from Surpatele Monastery.
It is also worth noting the ‘boundary’ deeds signed for the estates: Bereni, 30 June 1715; Prundeni, Mihăești and Drăgășani, 6 November 1715; Păușasca in Prundeni, 6 November 1715; Brăcoci, Bicod and Modoia, 26 June 1721; Comanca, 24 June 1724. On 22 April 1724, a decree issued ‘by order of the Chesăricești Administration’ to 12 boyars is recorded, instructing them to choose their shares of the estate comprising ‘Comanca with the mountain and the estates of Muereasca and Comarnicul’.
Several of the hierarch’s ‘curse’ documents have also been preserved, of which we note the one dated 11 June 1710, addressed to certain priests and inhabitants of Râmnic and the villages of Oltenii de Jos, Oltenii de Sus and Bogdănești, concerning the selection of certain sites for the Diocese within the territory of the Oltenians and Bujoreni, which were “in serious dispute with Bojoreanca”, and another dated 19 August 1724, addressed to Nicola Buzduga and several witnesses, regarding the demarcation of the Diocese’s estate within the ‘Buzdug’ districts of ‘Bunești’.
Among the ‘declaration’ documents, we mention first and foremost that issued on 7 December 1711 by Nicola, the chamberlain of Ocnă, by which he acknowledges the bishop’s ownership of ‘a house with a stone cellar and its surrounding grounds here in the town, at Vel Ocnă, and, in addition to the vineyard at Mihalcea, two threshing floors and half a falcie of orchard land, stretching from the foot of the vineyard down to the river, and an orchard at Sohărât, which orchard had been pledged by Șerban to Stroe, their father, and in the village of Vlădești, the orchards in the Turburea valley, as many as they may find’. This was followed by another document, issued on 17 June 1712 by the priests and inhabitants of Râmnic, regarding the ownership of a mill “belonging to those living below the town”, over which Damaschin was “in dispute with Abbot Iosif of Cetățue”. On 8 March 1714, “the boyars of Ocnă and others from the surrounding area” read the deeds relating to the Iaroslovești estate, which had been acquired by the Diocese, but claimed in other old documents by “Lady Vișa, daughter of Radu Vistieriu Ocnariul”.
This wealth of documents presents him to us as a capable steward and protector of the Diocese’s interests. We must, however, mention that a deed of purchase for a site with a mill ford has also survived, on which the following note is written in his own hand: “This money, as stated here in the deed—36 thalers—was given back to me by Bratul, and I gave him the deed so that he might hold it in peace on our behalf, along with whatever else he purchased from Simion, as the deed will show.” This site was later ceded to the Bishopric by the abbot Joseph of Govora Monastery, his brother, who may have inherited it from Bratul, the other brother 48.
On the other hand, it is worth noting that Bishop Damaschin founded the Păpușa Hermitage 49, rebuilt the Dintr-un Lemn Monastery 50, commissioned the painting of the monastic settlements of Iezer 51 and Sărăcinești, where his portrait is preserved 52, and redeemed the Troianu Hermitage. A memorial list compiled by the proegumen Paisie shows that he redeemed, “with the permission of Father Kir Damaskin the Bishop”, the vineyard at Troianu, along with the lands that had been sold by Bishop Antim to Teodosie, the logothete Olănescu 53.
It is possible that he also provided significant assistance to Jgheaburi Monastery, as his name appears in the painted memorial list at the proskomidia table, alongside those of his predecessors, Ilarion and Antim 54, as well as Govora Monastery, where his painted likeness is preserved. Through his care, the old memorial list of the Diocese, dating from the time of Bishop Ștefan, was also restored, with the Introduction—translated from Russian by Metropolitan Varlaam—placed at the beginning.
Also during his tenure, Father Stanislav discovered the head of Saint Mercurie in the ruins of an old church at Ocnele Mari, from where it was taken ‘with a Litany’ by the bishop and placed in the Church of Saint George in the village. Later, it was taken to Râmnic and placed in the Episcopal Cathedral 55.
Links with the people of Brașov
Towards the end of his ministry, the Oltenian bishop also took care of the Church in Transylvania, which had been severely affected by Atanasie Anghel’s union with Rome 56, establishing contact with the non-united Romanians of Țara Bârsei and with the priests of Șcheii Brașovului. This occurred in 1724, following an order issued by the Oberdirector of Oltenia, which stipulated that non-Uniate priests were no longer to have ecclesiastical ties with the bishops beyond the Carpathians. As they opposed this, arguing that “the bishop of Wallachia is commemorated by them and will continue to be commemorated, for it was from there that they received the gift of the priesthood, and they cannot fail to take into account the ties and the excommunication that would come from the bishops who ordained them”, it was proposed that they maintain links with the Oltenian hierarch, and thus began a correspondence that continued even after his death 57. It was a good opportunity for him to make the city of Brașov “a gateway for Romanian books to the whole of the Romanian lands beyond the Carpathians”58.
The end of his life
Bishop Damaschin died suddenly on 5 December 1725, after leaving the church before midday, ‘without having time to utter a single word’. A few days later, the Craiova Administration reported to General Tige: “This bishop had not even received any donation from the emperor, nor had he inherited anything from his parents or relatives; rather, he possessed only the movable and immovable property of the Diocese during his tenure as a clergyman, as assets and revenues that were purely ecclesiastical and which, by right of inheritance, belonged to the episcopal see and office”. As for his estate, the money was left to his two nephews, the steward Bratul and the monk Iosif, in whose possession 10,000 florins and the cross bestowed by the emperor in 1717 were found. Part of this was given to Tige, who appointed Bratul as judge in Râmnic 59 and Iosif as abbot at Govora 60.
Higly regarded by his contemporaries and by later generations alike, Bishop Damaschin is remembered for his patriotism and diplomatic skill, for his sound management of the diocesan assets, but above all for his talent as a translator. According to his biographer, Alexandru Lapedatu, he determined “the fate and dominance of the Romanian language forever within our Church”61. By translating almost all liturgical books into the language of his forefathers, he contributed ‘to the formation of the Romanian literary and liturgical language’62, standing alongside his predecessors, Simion Ștefan, Varlaam, Dosoftei, Mitrofan of Buzău, Antim Ivireanul, “one of the most enthusiastic advocates for the full triumph of the Romanian language in church services, a remarkable cultural figure, but also a staunch patriot, determined to fight for the defence of the rights of the Church and of the Romanian people”63. For his entire body of work, it is fitting that we honourably enshrine him in the Church’s Pantheon as a great patriot and trailblazer, worthy of the respect of all those interested in our nation’s past, especially those who love literature, who may see in him a ‘Teacher’ who devoted his entire life to books, particularly translations, which were so essential for the enlightenment of the people and the celebration of services in the language of our forefathers.
- 1
N. Iorga, A History of Romanian Literature in the 18th Century, Bucharest, 1901, p. 418.
- 2
Mihail Regleanu, Contributions…, p. 448.
- 3
I. D. Lăudat, A History of Early Romanian Literature, Bucharest, 1968, p. 82.
- 4
†Ghenadie Craioveanul, The Holy Register…, pp. 104–105; †Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Bishopric…, pp. 122–124; I. D. Lăudat, The Contribution of the Printing Press…, p. 363. The preface to the Minei for the month of November (1778) indicates that he translated the Minei, which were printed towards the end of the century by Bishop Chesarie.
- 5
Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, pp. 640–641.
- 6
The Holy Diocese of Râmnicu Noul Severin, Yearbook for the year 1900, Bucharest, 1899, p. 8; †Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, p. 125, note 2.
- 7
Barbu Teodorescu, ‘The Circulation of Old Church Books – Contributions to a Cumulative Catalogue’, in BOR, vol. LXXIX (1961), no. 1–2, p. 172.
- 8
Aurelian Sacerdoțeanu, ‘The Printing Press of the Diocese of Râmnic (1705–1825)’, in MO, vol. XII (1960), no. 5–6, p. 296; Nicolae Bănică-Ologu, The Golden Age of Râmnic, Oscar Print, Bucharest, 2000, p. 179. The printing press used to publish his books was that of Antim of Bucharest, which had reached Râmnic via Făgăraș and had been ‘rebuilt from scratch’, rather than being a new press as had been thought.
- 9
P.S. Bishop Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, p. 300.
- 10a10b
Mircea Păcurariu, Tiparul…, p. 125.
- 11
†Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, pp. 124–125; Nicolae Dobrescu, The History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia…, pp. 58–59, 164–165; Gabriel Cocora, 250 Years…, p. 870.
- 12
Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, p. 633.
- 13
BRV, vol. IV, p. 47; Aurelian Sacerdoțeanu, The Printing House of the Diocese of Râmnic…, pp. 316–317; Barbu Teodorescu, The Circulation of Old Books…, p. 172.
- 14
Ioan Bianu, Nerva Hodoș, Early Romanian Bibliography (1508–1830), vol. II (1716–1808), Bucharest, 1910, p. 22; Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, p. 636. Nicolae Iorga discovered it at an exhibition in Sibiu in 1905 and reproduced its preface; Fr Damaschin Dascălu, Teachings on the Seven Sacraments, translated and adapted by Fr Dr Dorin Octavian Picioruș, Bucharest, 2010, 16 October, https://www.teologiepentruazi.ro/tag/ps-damaschin-dascalul/, accessed on 3 June 2022.
- 15
BRV, vol. IV, p. 224; Aurelian Sacerdoțeanu, The Printing House of the Diocese of Râmnic…, p. 317.
- 16
N. Iorga, The History of the Romanian Church…, p. 109.
- 17
Rev. Prof. Dr Mircea Păcurariu, History of the Romanian Orthodox Church, vol. II, eibmbor, Bucharest, 1994, p. 331.
- 18
BRV, vol. II, p. 23; Aurelian Sacerdoțeanu, The Printing House of the Diocese of Râmnic…, p. 317.
- 19
I. D. Lăudat, The Contribution of Printing…, p. 363.
- 20
†Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, pp. 123–124; Nicolae Dobrescu, History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia…, pp. 59–60, 163–164.
- 21
Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, p. 642.
- 22
Șerban Papacostea, Oltenia under Austrian rule…, p. 299.
- 23a23b
†Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, p. 125.
- 24
Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, pp. 636–637. Just as in 1725 he had the 1704 Psalter, which belonged to him, reprinted, so too did he proceed with the Epistle, which he republished in the final year of his life.
- 25
Mihail Regleanu, Contributions…, p. 445.
- 26
†Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, p. 125, note 1; Alex. Lapedatu, Damaschin the Bishop and Teacher…, pp. 577–579; Mihail Regleanu, Contributions…, p. 446.
- 27
N. Iorga, The Work of Bishop Damaschin…, p. 3.
- 28
N. Iorga, The History of the Romanian Church…, p. 101; Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, pp. 635–636.
- 29
Alex. Lapedatu, Damaschin, the Bishop and the Teacher…, p. 573, note 3.
- 30
Emil Vârtosu, Glossă…, p. 452; Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, p. 635; Mircea Păcurariu, History of the Romanian Orthodox Church…, p. 147.
- 31
Barbu Teodorescu, The Circulation of the Old Book…, pp. 172, 177.
- 32
†Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Bishopric…, p. 125, note 1; Alex. Lapedatu, Damaschin, the Bishop and Teacher…, pp. 577–579; Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, p. 641. †Ghenadie of Craiova, The Holy Register…, pp. 104–105. ‘He was the first to undertake the translation of the Anthology and, by having it printed, ensured that the services for the imperial feasts and those of the Mother of God could be sung in Romanian throughout the Romanian Churches. He translated the Pentecostarion, through which he rendered the services for the Resurrection and the Feast of Pentecost up to All Saints’ Sunday into Romanian; and, finally, he ensured that the services for the Great Fast were also conducted in Romanian, having previously translated theTriodion, which was printed in July 1731. It was also Bishop Damaschin who, in his capacity as Bishop, translated the Small Octoechos, which was completed by Archimandrite Ghenadie, the Abbot of Cozia”; Doru Căpătaru, Damaschin Episcopul…, p. 147. “From 1724 until 1830, no fewer than 15 Romanian book titles in 73 editions rolled off the presses at the Râmnic printing house, circulating throughout the entire territory inhabited by Romanians”; Prof. Corneliu Rădulescu, ‘The First Romanian Translations of Liturgical Books, 16th–18th Centuries (A Historical, Liturgical and Linguistic Study)’, in: GB, vol. XXXIV (1975), nos. 9–10, p. 1032.
- 33
Barbu Teodorescu, The Circulation of the Old Book…, p. 174.
- 34
Archimandrite Vasile Miron, ‘Portraits of Romanian Clergy, Monks and Laypeople Who Translated Ecclesiastical Texts’, in Orthodoxia, Series II, vol. XL (2019), no. III, p. 54.
- 35
N. Iorga, A History of Romanian Literature: A Concise Introduction (based on shorthand notes from a lecture), published by Librăria Pavel Suru, Bucharest, 1929, p. 115; Lecturer Dr Sergiu Popescu, ‘A Champion of Orthodoxy and Romanian Identity – Bishop Damaschin Dascălu’, in The Diocese of Severin and Strehaia, Mehedinți: History, Culture and Spirituality, vol. VI, Drobeta Turnu Severin, 2013, p. 841.
- 36
Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, p. 634.
- 37
Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, p. 635; I. D. Lăudat, The Contribution of Printing…, p. 369; Gheorghe Pârnuță; Nicolae Andrei, A History of Books, the Press and Printing in Oltenia, Craiova, 1994, p. 96.
- 38
Gheorghe Pârnuță; Nicolae Andrei, The History of the Book…, p. 95.
- 39
†Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, p. 122; Alex. Lapedatu, Damaschin, the Bishop and Teacher…, p. 568.
- 40
C. Erbiceanu, ‘A Few Words on the Next Homily of Saint Ephrem the Syrian, of Great Importance’, in BOR, vol. XXXII (1908–1909), no. 4, pp. 395–408.
- 41
See Ioana Iancovescu, ‘The Life and Work of the Blessed Damaschin the Teacher, Bishop of Râmnic (†5 December 1725)’, in MO, 2018, no. 2, p. 38.
- 42
N. Iorga, A History of Romanian Literature from 1688 to 1780…, p. 464; Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, pp. 637–638.
- 43
Alex. Lapedatu, Damaschin the Bishop and Teacher…, p. 581.
- 44
†Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, p. 123.
- 45
Barbu Teodorescu, Bishop Damaschin…, p. 645.
- 46
†Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, p. 119.
- 47
Șerban Papacostea, Oltenia under Austrian rule…, p. 298.
- 48
†Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, pp. 97–105; Corneliu Tamaș, New Data…, pp. 133–140.
- 49
†Ghenadie Enăceanu, Canonical Visits Accompanied by Historical and Archaeological Notes, 1890–1891, Bucharest, 1892, p. 32.
- 50
N. Iorga, Inscriptions from the Churches of Romania, vol. II, Bucharest, 1908, pp. 181–182.
- 51
V. Drăghiceanu, ‘The Iezerul-Vâlcea Hermitage’, in the Bulletin of the Commission for Historical Monuments, vol. IV, Bucharest, 1911, p. 149.
- 52
The inscription in the narthex states that the painting was commissioned ‘through the skill and at the expense’ of Bishop Damaschin. The two bishops, Stephen and Damaschin, holding a model of the church, appear above the doorway, flanked by Pahomie the hieromonk—perhaps the abbot of the monastery— and by Sava, the hegumen of Strehaia, joined on the south side by the hieromonk Dosoftei, the hieromonk Paisie, and Ioan, the archimandrite ‘of the Hurez’ – figures who probably contributed financially to the painting of the church. See Corina Popa, ‘The Church of the Dormition of the Mother of God at the Sărăcinești Hermitage’, in Corina Popa et al., Catalogue of Brâncoveanu Murals. I. Vâlcea County, Bucharest, 2008, vol. I, pp. 401, 409, 418, and vol. II, p. 273; Ioana Iancovescu, ‘The Life and Work of the Blessed Damaschin the Teacher…’, no. 1, p. 25.
- 53
Ghenadie Enăceanu, The Holy Register…, p. 815; †Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, p. 94.
- 54
Ioana Iancovescu, Life and Work…, pp. 25–26.
- 55
†Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, pp. 105, 126.
- 56
The Holy Metropolis of Oltenia, Râmnic and Severin, Church Life in Oltenia. Yearbook of the Metropolis of Oltenia, Printing House of the Holy Metropolis of Oltenia, Râmnic and Severin, Craiova, 1941, p. 103.
- 57
†Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, p. 119; Nicolae Dobrescu, History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia..., pp. 55–56.
- 58
Doru Căpătaru, Damaschin the Bishop…, p. 144.
- 59
Nicolae Dobrescu, The History of the Romanian Church in Oltenia..., pp. 60–61, 65. The two brothers were staying in Râmnic, alongside Damaschin.
- 60
†Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese…, p. 105, note 3.
- 61
Alex. Lapedatu, ‘Damaschin the Bishop and Teacher, Translator of Our Liturgical Books’, in Convorbiri Literare, Vol. XL, published by the Göbl Institute of Graphic Arts, Bucharest, 1909, p. 20.
- 62
Mircea Păcurariu, Dictionary of Theologians…, p. 201; Mircea Păcurariu, History of the Romanian Orthodox Church…, p. 290. (“Damaschin was a remarkable cultural figure, an energetic defender of his Church’s rights and such a great lover of the Romanian language that he can be regarded – alongside Mitrofan of Buzău and Antim Ivireanul – as an enthusiastic advocate of the introduction of the Romanian language into the church”).
- 63
Sergiu Popescu, A Fighter for Orthodoxy and Romanian Identity…, p. 841.