“At a time when south-eastern Europe was falling under Ottoman rule, Romanian territory and our culture became the bulwark, the very heart of this eastern region as regards its south-eastern European part”1 Our monasteries became centres of cultural influence for Christians who had fallen under Ottoman rule, and it was here too that scholars – Serbs, Bulgarians and Greeks from south of the Danube – came to stay for a time or for the rest of their lives. For the glorification of Romanian culture, there was, in the sixteenth century, the ‘Coresi moment’. This was the moment of ‘the transition to Romanian as the language of culture, and you will not find this in any of the Southern European cultures’2).
Dan Zamfirescu’s pertinent remark justifies our belief that the 16th century was an era of cultural affirmation, and that Deacon Coresi ‘went down in the history of the Romanian people as one of the most distinguished printers our culture has ever had, a true pioneer in the history of our culture and literature’3.
These are the conclusions that truly underpin the phrase ‘the Coresi moment’, a moment which contributed significantly to the introduction of the Romanian language into the Church and led to the creation of a literary language.
The 17th century continued the trajectory set by the ‘Coresi moment’, but with many more figures. Dan Zamfirescu’s remark is quite rightly noted: ‘you will see that the most interesting and vibrant ancient literature of this era is, without a doubt, Romanian literature’4, with its chroniclers, with Varlam’s Cazania, with the poet Dosoftei ‘the greatest poet of his time, and the first national poet of Eastern Europe’5; the great encyclopaedist Dimitrie Cantemir; and Șerban Cantacuzino’s great Bible.
Those two centuries, through the works of the figures mentioned above, led to an initial victory in a silent struggle between the Church Slavonic and the Romanian languages. The Romanian language gradually took the place of Slavonic in the Church, where the Orthodox faithful could understand it, whilst literature was firmly established in the language spoken by the people.
In support of this assertion, ‘a twofold clarification must be made: on the one hand, account must be taken of the triumph achieved by the Romanian language in the 17th century, when it became an instrument of culture; and, on the other hand, it is necessary to take into account the relationship that had been established between the Romanian and Slavonic languages’6. The Romanian language was on the rise, whilst the Slavonic language was on the wane, although the Cyrillic script would remain in use until after 1864. “The eighteenth century was a decisive period in the political and cultural life of the peoples of Europe”7, as Ștefan Ciobanu rightly observed. It was the Age of Enlightenment, the age of encyclopaedias, but also a time of revolutions in various fields.
For Romanians, amidst the sombre backdrop of the 18th century, a ray of light appeared, in which a few individuals made extraordinary efforts to nurture a centuries-old tree: the Romanian language. The fruits of these efforts would become apparent after their passing, and we see them especially today, when their work—‘with time and without time’, under harsh conditions but with great enthusiasm—has left us these veritable literary monuments, their legacy, for which we are here today. This century brings us Dimitrie Cantemir, Mitrofan, Saint Antim Ivireanul, and the Greceanu brothers, who link it to the previous century; it continues with the bishops Damaschin, Climent and Grigorie Socoteanu; and it will come to a brilliant conclusion with Chesarie and Filaret.
It is the century in which the Diocese of Râmnic was the capital of cultural publishing, thanks to the brilliant constellation of bishops listed above. Whilst it appears that Macarie’s first book, as well as the first Romanian book, Pravila de la Govora, was printed in the Diocese of Râmnic-Noul Severin, the Hierarch and Martyr Antim Ivireanul, canonised in 1992 – and chosen in 1999 as the spiritual patron of the municipality of Râmnicu-Vâlcea – brought a printing press to Râmnic in 1705, from whose presses he would produce 10 works.
The printing activity in Râmnic “appears as a centre that was particularly active in the 18th century, exerting a far-reaching influence and a powerful pull over all three Romanian principalities”8). Researchers who have studied this ‘centre’, as well as the books printed there, have found that there were ‘worthy bishops’ here with noble scholarly pursuits who ‘have inscribed their names forever in the history of ancient Romanian culture’9).
Furthermore, in his History of Romanian Literature, Nicolae Iorga makes the following classification: Slavonic Literature, Early Religious Literature, The First Chroniclers, with subdivisions – Volume I; The Age of Cantemir, The Age of Chesarie of Râmnic, with subdivisions – Volume II 10. The classification made by the great historian entitles Ștefan Ciobanu to assert that it is “a fair and natural classification”11.
In the list of bishops of Râmnic-Noul Severin, Bishop Atanasie Mironescu ranks Chesarie as the 21st 12, whilst historians Nicolae Șerbănescu and Mircea Păcurariu consider him, in the list of bishops, to be the 24th 13. He became Bishop of Râmnic following the death of Partenie, “a diligent steward of the episcopal estate, which he sought to increase”14, which occurred towards the end of 1771 15. It was not possible to elect a bishop immediately due to the Russo-Turkish War which was raging in the Romanian Principalities, particularly in Wallachia.
However, to understand the political situation of those times, it is worth taking a look at the sombre picture of the 18th century, as I mentioned above.
Following Dimitrie Cantemir’s alliance with Peter the Great and their defeat at Stănilești, in 1711, as well as following the martyrdom of Saint Voivode Constantin Brâncoveanu, who was canonised in 1992, the Turks no longer trusted the Romanian voivodes. The rule of the Phanariots began in 1711 in Moldavia and in 1716 in Wallachia, lasting until the uprising led by Tudor Vladimirescu in 1821. In the Bosphorus there was a ‘lighthouse’ or ‘fanar’ by which ships navigated, and the neighbourhood surrounding it was called Fanar. Here, ‘the inhabitants were mainly Greeks; amongst them were descendants of the ancient Byzantine families, dating back to before the conquest of Constantinople, as well as others of more recent origin but who had become wealthy through trade’16.
In 1711, according to Dimitrie Cantemir, “in whom the sultan had placed such high hopes”17, the Turks appointed Nicolae Mavrocordat as voivode, and in 1716, he also ushered in the Phanariot rule in Wallachia. He was “the son of Alexandru Mavrocordat Exaporitul, the negotiator of the Treaty of Karlowitz”18. Of course, he was a man of “refined culture”19 who “had assembled at Văcărești Monastery, which he had founded, ‘a very fine library’”20.
During the more than one hundred years that this period lasted, “there were no fewer than 40 reigns in Muntenia and 36 in Moldova, apart from the various Russian and Austrian occupations”20. Under this Phanariot regime, the ruler was appointed directly by the Sultan and regarded as an Ottoman official; the country’s army was disbanded, its autonomy severely violated, the boyar class had become Hellenised, whilst a section of the landed gentry had organised itself into a ‘national faction’. If we take a broad view, the Phanariot rule was ‘an era of decline’20, during which Romanian territories were lost 21, taxation increased, and intrigue, baksheesh and bribery were rife 17.
As for the positive aspects—admittedly negligible compared to the great hardships inflicted upon the nation—we might mention the abolition of the Romanian principality, the establishment of schools and hospitals, and new legislation. Nevertheless, the Phanariot era ‘remains a sad chapter in our history’17.
In the 18th century, the Romanian Principalities found themselves ‘between the three empires’22, as Russia and Austria took advantage of the crisis in the Ottoman Empire following 1683, provoking an increasing number of wars for hegemony. We shall focus on the Russo-Ottoman War of 1768–1774. The Russians occupied the Romanian Principalities. The Austrians, seeing that the Turks had been defeated, ‘mobilised their army’ and ‘peace was concluded at Kuciuc-Kainargi, a village in southern Dobruja, in 1774’23. The ‘National Party’ sought liberation from Turkish rule. Thus, “Mihai Cantacuzino, in the memoirs presented to the Congress of Focșani, called for the restoration of Wallachia’s ancient rights and independence”24. This would later cost him dearly.
As a result of these efforts, and also of the peace treaty, the Romanian Principalities were exempted from tribute for two years, their autonomy was confirmed, and the Russian protectorate over them began.
Nor was the situation of the ecclesiastical hierarchy any better during the Phanariot era. A great many Greek elements found their way in. Thus, on the primatial throne of the Metropolis of Wallachia, “during the Phanariot era (1716–1821), there were no fewer than twelve hierarchs, of whom six were of Greek origin and six were Romanians”25. The suffragan bishoprics fared no better. For example, in the Diocese of Buzău, out of eleven bishops, five were Greek’26. Nevertheless, of the ten bishops of Râmnic during the Phanariot period, only two were Greek: Nectarius (September 1792 – 16 December 1812) and his nephew, Galaction, 25 January 1813–12 April 1824), a fact which explains perfectly why Râmnic was the ‘capital of printing’ and why a veritable ‘Râmnic school’ operated there.
At the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish War of 1768–1774, the episcopal sees in the Romanian Principalities were held by Grigore II, serving as metropolitan (28 July 1760 – 18 December 1787, with an interruption between 26 June 1770 and October 1771, when the see was occupied by Grigore III Socoteanul, former Bishop of Râmnic), Partenie (21 May 1764 – 1774) on the episcopal see of Râmnic and Cozma Popescu (30 September 1763 – 9 October 1787, when he became metropolitan) on the episcopal see of Buzău.
I mentioned above that ‘following the death of Bishop Partenie, it was not possible to elect a bishop for Râmnic immediately’27). Wallachia was the ‘theatre’ of military clashes between the Russians and the Turks; Metropolitan Grigore II had only just returned from a diplomatic mission to Russia, and Bishop Cozma of Buzău had only just ‘returned from exile’15. Nevertheless, towards the end of 1777, Metropolitan Grigore II entrusted the leadership of the Diocese of Râmnic to the metropolitan’s ecclesiarch, Archimandrite Chesarie.
The question naturally arises: who was Archimandrite Chesarie? All the sources examined state that he was of Romanian descent 28, ‘a native of Bucharest, he was the son of Ilinca and the zaraful Anghelachi Halepliu’29. Although the Greek scholar Constantin Daponte refers to him in his historical catalogue as a ‘blahos’, meaning a Romanian like Metropolitan Gregory II 30, some historians, such as Nicolae Iorga and Father Mircea Păcurariu, speculate that his ancestors may have come from Aleppo in Syria, where, as Iorga noted, “one might suspect a fairly recent Romanian origin”31. This is possible, as his great-grandfather, Hagi Gheorghe Halepliu, was mentioned in Bucharest records 32, although the historian Alexandru Elian maintains that ‘blood ties with some of the bearers of the Halepliu heritage cannot be confirmed or ruled out’33.
One of his brothers, State Halepliu, rose “to the rank of district clucer”32. We do not know how his financial circumstances developed during his lifetime. What is certain is that, in 1804, ‘the sons of the late clucer Halepliu’ were destitute and seeking employment. Metropolitan Dositei Filitti’s (1793–1810) report to the prince highlights the merits of ‘Uncle’ Chesarie. Following the report, the prince ‘appointed the eldest of the petitioners as colonel of the market town’32 In 1767, his father, Anghelachi Halepliu, was still alive; he “bequeathed the income from some of his shops to the Colțea Hospital in his will”34.
All those who have studied the life and work of Bishop Chesarie agree on one point: the year of his birth is unknown 34, and he was educated at the Royal School in Bucharest. Among his teachers was the Greek Alexandru Turnavitu, of Bulgarian origin, the head of the school” 35. We do not know the future bishop’s academic results, but if ‘he thoroughly mastered the Greek languages (Ancient and Modern), Russian, Latin, history, philology and French’36, it leads us to believe that he worked hard at his studies and that the results would be evident in his work. In 1761, he received the great schema at the Metropolitan Cathedral in Bucharest and entered the service of this institution 37. The Bishop of Râmnic, Atanasie Mironescu, quoting Nicolae Iorga, states that ‘he was tonsured during the time of Metropolitan Filaret I Mihailitzis’ (1753–1760, in the first half of 1760) 38. Having been born in Bucharest, he may have known the metropolitan, but given the two dates – 1760, the year of Metropolitan Filaret I’s death, and 1761, the confirmed year of his ordination – we do not believe he was a disciple of Filaret I. Perhaps when he was a layperson. All the sources examined indicate that he was a disciple of Gregory II (1760–1787) and that he took monastic vows during his time. He then served for 12 years as protosinghel and ecclesiarch at the Metropolitan See 39. In our view, there is a slight inconsistency here as well. If we carefully calculate the 12-year period from 1761, during which he served as protosinghel, we see that he would not have attained the rank of archimandrite until 1773. Leaving aside this calculation of the years, we concur with the historian Nicolae Șerbănescu and the priest Mihai Manolache, who state that the rank of archimandrite was attained in 1771, a fact also confirmed by other sources 40. What is certain is that on 26 December 1771, Archimandrite Chesarie was entrusted with the Diocese of Râmnic ‘in place of the late Bishop Partenie’41 He arrived here with a wealth of experience in printing and diplomacy.
We shall now focus on his work as a member of the Romanian delegation to Moscow, where he was to present the Romanians’ requests to Empress Catherine II (1762–1796), whom Voltaire called ‘the Semiramis of the North’. The delegation was large, but we intend to highlight three figures: Gregory II, Archimandrite Chesarie and Filaret, his successor. The Romanian delegation’s visit to Moscow took place in the midst of the Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774). The Romanians’ hopes were high, particularly as, between 7 and 21 July 1770, during the battles of Larga and Cahul, detachments of Romanian volunteers distinguished themselves. They fought under the command of Field Marshal Pyotr Rumyantsev, who routed the Turks 42 and kindled a flame of hope for the Romanians.
In Moscow, the Romanian delegation attended the consecration as bishop of Platon Levshin of Tver 43. Shortly after the consecration, Archbishop Platon delivered a speech at the tomb of Peter the Great, Tsar of Russia (1682–1725). This address was translated into Greek by Chesarie, ‘who possessed an elegant and pure command of the Greek language’44. The work of Chesarie – who had a good command of Russian – was highly regarded in Moscow. Both he and Filaret were each presented with a gold cross 45. During his time in Moscow (26 June 1770 – October 1771), the see of metropolitan was held by the former Bishop of Râmnic, Grigorie Socoteanu, known as Grigore III. Chesarie stood alongside Grigorie II, the Metropolitan of Wallachia, in the latter’s political activities linked to Mihail Cantacuzino’s faction. Furthermore, around the time of the Treaty of Kuciuc-Kainargi, Chesarie accompanied Mihai Cantacuzino to Iași to meet Field Marshal Petru Rumianțov 46. Church historians maintain that Chesarie became a bishop with the support of the pro-Russian Cantacuzino faction 47, but even if this were true, it in no way diminishes the value of Bishop Chesarie’s works.
Election as bishop
As mentioned, on 16 December 1771, Archimandrite Chesarie was entrusted with the leadership of the Diocese of Râmnic. For two years he would lead the faithful of the diocese with dignity, prompting them to request that he be appointed ‘shepherd of that diocese’. This took place on 26 December 1773, and he was ordained on 12 January 1774. He was “a handsome man of refined manners, a keen reader of Greek and French literature, an accomplished orator and a formidable historian”48 Field Marshal Pyotr Rumyantsev was also present at his election as bishop. On the day of his ordination, he made a solemn pledge which he would honour throughout his life: “I solemnly declare that I shall preserve, in every respect, the prerogatives of the Metropolitan See intact throughout my entire diocese, for as long as I live and breathe”49.
At the start of his ministry, the Diocese of Râmnic found itself, from an economic point of view, in a very difficult situation, with several debts, which the new hierarch was forced to pay “from his own wealth”50.
A worthy successor to Bishop Damaschin, Chesarie worked for seven years in Râmnic to further the progress of his diocese, both culturally and materially. His ministry came to an end on 9 January 1780 at the metochion of the Diocese of Bucharest, unexpectedly, as he was, it seems, poisoned 51. We quote Rafail Hurezeanu’s account of this unexpected event: ‘The bright sun has set from the eyes of Wallachia; the great teacher, His Holiness, Bishop Chir Chesarie of Râmnic, passed from this life to the eternal abodes on a Thursday, at eight o’clock in the morning in Bucharest’52”. An eulogy will be delivered by the lawyer Mihail Photinopoulos, one of the most brilliant representatives of modern Greek culture, whilst a merchant remarked with admiration: “As long as Wallachia endures, it will never have a bishop like Chesarie”53. Indeed, it was then that a great teacher and a good, gentle, hard-working and joyful father, a man of learning, passed away to the Lord 54.
Printing work
In 1765, Chesarie translated from Greek a voluminous work entitled A Discourse of Questions and Answers Concerning Christ. The work was written by Saint Simeon of Thessaloniki and was published by the Metropolitan See of Bucharest 55.
Before setting off on a diplomatic mission to Moscow, the Bucharest Metropolitanate’s printing press published, in 1769, a new edition of Meletius Pigas’s work, Orthodoxos didascalia. This was the second edition, and a person with a good knowledge of Greek was required. Chesarie’s knowledge of Greek was called upon, and so his name appears on the title page as the person who ensured the translation was accurate 56. The events that took place between 1768 and 1774 were described by Chesarie in a work entitled History of the War between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. The work was written in Greek. Unfortunately, it has been lost. Ambrose Pamperis’s translation into Modern Greek informs us of its existence. Chesarie described the events as someone who had taken part in the diplomatic negotiations, as I have previously shown 57. He would also oversee the printing of books beyond the country’s borders. Thus, in 1780, the ‘Paterikon of Saint Gregory the Dialogist’, printed by Constantine Chesarie Daponte, appeared in Venice 57. Upon becoming Bishop of Râmnic, Chesarie wished to restore the printing press. He was well aware of its importance there. Although he printed the work Church Teaching in 1774, printing activities ceased the following year. It appears that this was the time when the hierarch renovated the printing press 57. With the help of a friend from Sibiu, Constantin Hagi Pop, Bishop Chesarie brought lead and tin to Râmnic for casting the type, as well as linseed oil for greasing the presses. Constantin Hagi Pop would also procure the engravings for printing the mineas. An extensive correspondence took place between the enlightened bishop and the merchant from Sibiu. In a letter dated 12 June 1778, he asked Hagi Pop to send him lead and tin urgently at a reasonable price. The text speaks for itself: “For the printing press of the Holy Diocese, which requires two hundred oca of lead and thirty oca of tin, considering that at present in the city of Sibiu or elsewhere in your region it may be found at a lower price, we humbly request, out of brotherly love, that you supply us with this lead and tin which we urgently require’57 A month later, on 17 July 1773, Chesarie thanked his friend for the items sent and requested “one hundred oca of lead and twenty-five oca of tin, as well as five vedre of pure linseed oil”57. In a letter dated 14 September 1778, he tells Hagi Pop that the printing works in Râmnic lacks engravings and asks him to send vignettes and other necessary plates. The great undertaking was beginning: the printing of the mineas, and everything had to be finalised. One can see here the meticulous care with which he prepared this magnificent work, a work that made a profound impression and which stands as a source of pride for Chesarie’s labour.
Once everything had been finalised, further works by the great scholar appeared from the Râmnic printing house. Thus, an Octoechos and an Anthologion were published in 1776, a Triodion in 1777, a Prayer Book in 1778, and in 1779, a Book of Hours and a Psalter58).
The printing press was working at full capacity and it seems it was quite busy. We learn this from a letter from Bishop Chesarie to his friend, dated 20 January 1779, in which he asks him to arrange for the printing in Venice of ‘600 books’59 (“Bibles”, ed.). Constantin Hagi Pop replied that the estimated cost was 360 thalers. Bishop Chesarie gave his consent, but also increased the print run by a further 100 copies, which he wished to be unbound, to be bound at the Bucharest printing house, whilst he requested that the 600 originally ordered be bound in ‘60’ cardboard.
During Chesarie’s time, the book circulated freely. The book printed in Râmnic was sent not only to Transylvania but also to Moldavia. In a letter dated 28 November 1779, the compiler of the Minee writes to Hagi Pop about the difficulties he encountered in compiling the six Minee, but also about the gift he is making ‘for the needs of your household or so that you too may give one to someone, we are presenting you with a set of Mineas, one for each month’.
The books printed at Râmnic, and in particular the Minei, constitute the magnum opus of the scholar-bishop Chesarie. During these years, ten books emerged from the presses of the Râmnic printing house with astonishing speed. The preservation of Church Slavonic as the sacred language was completely abandoned, as Chesarie was an advocate of the complete Romanianisation of the liturgical language. The first, in chronological order, was the Minei for the month of October, printed in 1776, in two editions during the reign of ‘the most exalted lord, Io Alexandru Ioanu Ipsilantu Voevodu, with the blessing and at the entire expense of His Holiness the Metropolitan of Ungro-Wallachia, Chiru Grigorie’. ‘The Bishop of Râmnic, Chir Chisarie’ was assisted in the printing ‘by the humble hieromonk Climentu, the printer-hieromonk, and by the priest Constandim, the printer of Râmnic’.
Fresh off the printing press, the Minei was sent across the Milcov River to Moldavia, as part of a consignment of books from Râmnic. Ioan, the bookbinder, was “the envoy of the Oltenian bishop”61 The Bishop of Roman, Leon Gheucă (1769–1786), received the book from Râmnic and was delighted with it. This prompted him to send a letter to the Bishop of Huși, Inochentie, in which he spoke in glowing terms of Bishop Chesarie and his work.
Inochentie, as Bishop of Huși (1752–1782), led the Moldavian delegation to the court of Tsarina Catherine II (1762–1796) between 20 November 1769 and 1770 62. The delegation included Vartolomeu Măzăreanul, the abbot of Solca Monastery, and Venedict, the abbot of Moldovița Monastery 63, whilst Inochentie ‘spoke to Tsarina Catherine in the presence of the Metropolitan of Wallachia’64. I have emphasised this point to show that Archimandrite Chesarie and Inochentie, Bishop of Huși, had met in St Petersburg, but this in no way detracts from the beauty of Leon Gheucă’s letter.
In the letter, the Bishop of Roman told Inochentie that ‘Ioan the bookbinder is a man of His Holiness, to Brother Chesarie, Bishop of Râmnic, ‘who, having been sent here with ecclesiastical books and asking me to grant permission for them to be sold to those who ought to receive them in my diocese, have been staying here since this spring until now’65”. Of course, the year of his stay in Roman for the sale of the Minei was 1777.
Ioan, the bookbinder, must have been in Râmnic because the Minei for the month of November appears in 1778. The title page also lists the craftsmen: Father Constandin, the printer of Râmnic, and Dimitrie Mihai Popoviciu, the printer, as do the pages for December, January, February and March 1779. All have distinctive prefaces that demonstrate Bishop Chesarie’s erudition. We note the division into three eras that Chesarie makes in the preface to the Minei for the month of November.
‘Wallachia has had three epochs, that is to say, significant eras: one era in which wars were waged; another in which the building of the princely monasteries began; another in which the translation of books from Slavonic into the Romanian language began. When Wallachia was at war, it was called Dacia, and its inhabitants were known as the Dacians and the Getae. As for the building of the monasteries, this began under Voivode Rad, known as ‘the Black’, the first ruler of the country, who built the monastery at Câmpulung and the church at Târgu Argeș, where the holy relics of the Martyr Philothea are kept. The translation of the texts began in the days of Prince Matei Basarab and was continued in the days of Prince Sărban Basarab. And it was brought to its full splendour in the days of Prince Constantin Basarab Brâncoveanu, through the diligence of Father Damaschin, Bishop of Râmnic. Through the building of monasteries, God is glorified in good order; the names of the founding princes are commemorated and their zeal is praised; those fleeing from worldly desires find refuge within them, whilst many in worldly desires find aid through them. All these benefits are deemed small and fleeting when compared to the benefit of the translation of books. Their names do not remain confined solely within the walls of monasteries, but, being inscribed at the beginning of books—such as that of Prince Matei in the ‘Pravilă’ and in other works, of Prince Sărban in the Bible, and of Prince Constantin in many other books— as if on wings it races to the ends of the earth; so that after death it may be known to those who did not know it in life. And this glory is not subject to the passage of time, unlike the monastery walls which are subject to decay, but it endures through the ages and remains alongside the course of the sun, renewing itself through the printed word, which, though perishable by nature, and by its very composition, bestows incorruptibility upon the perishable things of this world’66
In the preface to the Menaion for January, the tireless bishop Chesarie addresses ‘the entire clergy, the entire nobility – the merchant class, everyone, I beg you, cast your eyes upon the beginning of this book!’ This was the great hierarch’s exhortation to all to read in this preface a historical compendium of the Romanian people, sincerely testifying: ‘I trace the lineage of the Romanian people back to ancient times, deriving from the glorious race of the Romans; the Vlachs being so named after the Slavic language, whose glory shone forth wherever the sun’s rays reached’67
The printing and circulation of Chesarie’s Minei were to carry forward, with vigour and love, the history of the Romanian people. In these, he expounds on the most significant biblical readings for each month, elucidates the significance of the months on historical and mythological grounds, and dwells upon the church feasts and festivals from the Holy Apostles onwards 68.
In addition to his cultural and publishing work, in which he excelled, Bishop Chesarie also carried out a wide range of administrative and financial duties in Râmnic. He increased the diocese’s wealth through donations as well as through purchases.
During Chesarie’s time, the church in Mischii and the Church of the Forty Holy Martyrs in Bucharest—which was to become the diocese’s metochion—were dedicated to the Diocese of Râmnic. In the deed of dedication, its founder, Mihail Cantacuzino, states: ‘I have dedicated this to the Bishop of Râmnic, Chesarie, and I have decided to build a house alongside this holy church to serve as the residence of the bishops of Râmnic when they come to Bucharest, for as long as His Holiness lives and for those who succeed him’69”. The property of this metochion, comprising a house and a plot of land, ‘in the neighbourhood of Priest Dârvaș’, was situated on Calea Victoriei57, where, on Thursday 9 January 1780, Bishop Chesarie met his end.
In the metochions of the Diocese of Bucharest and Obedeanu in Craiova, Bishop Chesarie established two schools. At the school in Bucharest there were two teachers: one for Slavonic and the other for Greek, whilst at the school in Craiova there was a teacher of Romanian for 12 children70
Regarding Chesarie’s many virtues, the Greek chronicler Constantin Chesarie Daponte said that Chesarie Râmniceanu was “a man of refined manners and a charitable, generous soul, spending over 150 pouches on the printing press, schools, churches and monasteries, as well as on various other acts of charity and aid to the needy” 71.
An Enlightenment scholar, Bishop Chesarie of Râmnic was the first Romanian to translate from Diderot’s Encyclopédie and was familiar with the work of the Byzantinist Charles Le Beau: Histoire du Bas-Empire.
Thus, Bishop Chesarie was “one of the most enlightened and active of the Wallachian hierarchs of the 18th century. He was not only involved in the printing of books, but also translated a book himself which was regarded by his contemporaries as exemplary and was emulated by religious writers in Transylvania’72”. He was one of those scholars who ‘revitalised the Romanian language’, convinced that it must be learnt ‘in such clear Romanian’ and that none of the inhabitants of this country had the right to ‘distort the language of the country’73.
- 1
Dan Zamfirescu, History and Culture, vol. I, ‘Early Romanian Literature, a lecture delivered in the Dalles Hall on 8 September’, Roza Vânturilor, Bucharest 2003, p. 454.
- 2
Ibid., p. 455.
- 3
Rev. Prof. Dr Mircea Păcurariu, History of the Romanian Orthodox Church. A textbook for secondary school theological seminaries, published by the Diocese of Lower Danube, Galați, p. 154.
- 4
Dan Zamfirescu, Op. cit., p. 456.
- 5
Ibid., p. 458.
- 6
Alexandru Duțu, Aspects of Romanian Culture in the 18th Century, Editura pentru Literatură, Bucharest, 1968, p. 30.
- 7
Ștefan Ciobanu, A History of Early Romanian Literature, Hyperion, Chișinău, 1992, p. 601.
- 8
Alexandru Duțu, Op. cit., p. 123.
- 9
Rev. Prof. Dr M. Păcurariu, op. cit., p. 289.
- 10
Nicolae Iorga, A History of Romanian Literature, 2nd edition, Bucharest, 1928; See also Ștefan Ciobanu, Op. cit., p. 33, and Alexandru Duțu, Op. cit., p. 122.
- 11
Ștefan Ciobanu, Op. cit., p. 33.
- 12
†Athanasie Mironescu, The History of the Diocese of Râmnic and Noul Severin, Gutenberg, Bucharest, 1906, pp. 149–152.
- 13
Rev. Nicolae Șerbănescu, ‘The Bishops of Râmnic’, in M.O., vol. XVI, nos. 3–4, 1964, pp. 176–195 and Rev. Prof. Dr M. Păcurariu, I.B.O.R., E.I.B.M.B.O.R., Bucharest, 1981, vol. III, pp. 518–519.
- 14
Fr. N. Șerbănescu, op. cit., p. 195.
- 15a15b
Ibid., p. 195.
- 16
C. C. Giugescu, The History of the Romanians, Humanitas, Bucharest, 2000, p. 218.
- 17a17b17c
Ibid., p. 218.
- 18
Mihai Bărbulescu, Dennis Deletant, The History of Romania, Enciclopedica, Bucharest, 1998, p. 301.
- 19
C. Giurescu, Op. cit., p. 219.
- 20a20b20c
Ibid., p. 219.
- 21
Ibid., pp. 219–224; see also Mihai Bărbulescu, Op. cit., pp. 318–320.
- 22
M. Bărbulescu, Op. cit., pp. 270–275.
- 23
C. Giurescu, Op. cit., p. 221.
- 24
M. Bărbulescu, Op. cit., p. 319.
- 25
Rev. Prof. Dr M. Păcurariu, op. cit., p. 275.
- 26
Ibid., p. 275.
- 27
N. Șerbănescu, Op. cit., p. 195.
- 28
Rev. Mihai Manolache, ‘The Life and Work of Bishop Chesarie of Râmnic, 1773–1780’, BOR No. 1–2, 1966, p. 130; see also N. Șerbanescu, Op. cit., p. 196; †Athanasie Mironescu, Op. cit., p. 149; Șt. Ciobanu, Op. cit., p. 623.
- 29
Dictionary of Romanian Literature from its Origins to 1900, ed. Acad., 1979, p. 177.
- 30
Rev. Mihai Manolache, MA, Op. cit., p. 131; see also Șt. Ciobanu, Op. cit., p. 623.
- 31
Ibid., p. 130; see also M. Păcurariu, Op. cit., p. 287.
- 32a32b32c
Ibid., p. 130.
- 33
Ibid., p. 130, see note 4.
- 34a34b
Ibid., p. 131.
- 35
Gh. Moisescu, History of the Romanian Church. A Textbook for Theological Institutes, E.I.B.M.O., Bucharest, 1957, vol. II, p. 250; see also Rev. Mihai Manolache, MA candidate, op. cit., p. 131; N. Șerbănescu, op. cit., p. 196; Dictionary of Romanian Literature from its Origins to 1900, p. 177.
- 36
See the works listed in note 43 on the same page.
- 37
N. Șerbănescu, op. cit., p. 196; see also Mihai Manolache (MA student), op. cit., p. 131; Dictionary of Romanian Literature from its Origins to 1900, p. 167; Gb. Moisescu, op. cit., p. 250.
- 38
Athanasie Mironescu, op. cit., p. 149.
- 39
Rev. Mihai Manolache, MA, op. cit., p. 131; see also N. Serbănescu, op. cit., p. 196; Dictionary of Romanian Literature from its Origins to 1900, p. 177; Gb. Moisescu, op. cit., p. 250.
- 40
Rev. Mihai Manolache (M.A.), op. cit., p. 133; see also N. Șerbănescu, op. cit., p. 196; see also Athanasie Mironescu, op. cit., p. 149; Gh. Moisescu, op. cit., p. 250.
- 41
N. Șerbănescu, op. cit., p. 196.
- 42
Constantin C. Giurescu, The History of Romania in Figures, Editura Enciclopedică Română, Bucharest, 1971, p. 154.
- 43
Dictionary of Romanian Literature from its Origins to 1900, pp. 177–178.
- 44
Mihai Manolache, MA, op. cit., p. 131; Dictionary of Romanian Literature from its Origins to 1900, p. 178.
- 45
Athanasie Mironescu, op. cit., p. 149.
- 46
Athanasie Mironescu, op. cit., p. 178.
- 47
Fr. Mihai Manolache (MA candidate), op. cit., p. 133; see also Athanasie Mironescu, op. cit., pp. 149–150.
- 48
Nicolae Bănică Olagu, The Golden Age of Râmnic, Oscar Print, 2000, p. 187.
- 49
Mihai Manolache, MA, op. cit., p. 133.
- 50
Athanasie Mironescu, op. cit., p. 257; see also Nicolae Bănică Ologu, op. cit., p. 187.
- 51
Dictionary of Romanian Literature from its Origins to 1900, p. 196.
- 52
Athanasie Mironescu, op. cit., p. 152.
- 53
Mihai Manolache, MA, op. cit., p. 150.
- 54
Nicolae Șerbănescu, op. cit., p. 196.
- 55
Mihai Manolache, MA, op. cit., pp. 131–132.
- 56
Ibid., p. 137.
- 57a57b57c57d57e57f
Ibid.
- 58
Athanasie Mironescu, op. cit., p. 151.
- 59
Mihai Manolache, MA, op. cit., p. 137.
- 60
G. Ionescu, ‘The Diocese of Râmnicul Vâlcea’s Printing Press’, in RIAF vol. X (1909), pp. 342–343; see also Nic. Bănică Ologu, op. cit., p. 189.
- 61
Al. Duțu, op. cit., p. 129.
- 62
Rev. Prof. Dr Mircea Păcurariu, op. cit., p. 296.
- 63
Gh. Moisescu, op. cit., p. 270.
- 64
Ibid., p. 276.
- 65
V. Molin, ‘A travelling book society from Râmnic operating in the dioceses of Moldavia – 1777’, in M.O., vol. XVII, 1965, nos. 5–6, p. 421.
- 66
Al. Duțu, op. cit., pp. 175–176; see also Tudor Nedelcea, Predoslovii, Scrisul românesc, Craiova, 1994, pp. 108–109.
- 67
T. Nedelcea, op. cit., pp. 115–116.
- 68
Gh. Moisescu, op. cit., p. 251.
- 69
Ibid., p. 135.
- 70
Athanasie Mironescu, op. cit., p. 280.
- 71
Mihai Manolache, MA candidate, op. cit., p. 135.
- 72
N. Șerbănescu, op. cit., p. 196.
- 73
Nicolae Bănică Ologu, op. cit., p. 173.