In the summer of 1881, Ioan Slavici and the architect G. Mandrea were visiting the monasteries of Muntenia and Oltenia as members of the Commission for the Survey of Monuments on this side of the Milcov, established following a draft bill on the country’s cultural life, initiated by V. A. Urechia, Minister of Religious Affairs and Public Instruction (1881–1882). Another commission, comprising Pantazi Ghica and Nicolae Ionescu, was tasked with investigating the monasteries in Moldavia at the same time. Upon completion of their investigations, each commission drew up a report; the one concerning the monasteries in Muntenia and Oltenia was entitled ‘The Report of Messrs I. Slavici and G. Mandrea (architect) on the monasteries on this side of the Milcov’ and was published in the volume *National Monuments. Orthodox Monasteries and Churches. Reports from the Commissions Set Up for Their Research, Part II, Bucharest, State Printing House, 1881, pp. 177–249. 1.
Both D. Vatamaniuc and Constantin Mohanu 2 believe that the aforementioned report was drawn up by Ioan Slavici and also signed by G. Mandrea, who, of course, in his capacity as an architect, ensured the accuracy of the technical data which he had, moreover, provided during the fieldwork. Slavici and G. Mandrea’s commission was tasked with surveying 118 historical monuments (monasteries, churches, cultural establishments) in the districts of Mehedinți, Gorj, Dolj, Romanați, Vâlcea, Olt, Argeș, Muscel, Dâmbovița, Prahova, Teleorman, Vlașca and Ilfov. The report shows that, during the 49-day journey, the commission managed to survey only 64 of the historical monuments considered to be of greater importance. The reason for not visiting all 118 monuments on the list provided by the ministry was “on the one hand, difficulties with transport, and on the other, the very great distances between the various monasteries” (RSM, O VIII, 550).
In this article, we shall refer only briefly to the findings concerning the monasteries in Vâlcea County, with the intention of revisiting these analyses in a planned, more comprehensive study on Ioan Slavici’s relationship with Vâlcea County. In presenting the monasteries, the authors of the report take into account their geographical location, their history, donations and restoration over time, their current condition, their historical, architectural and artistic value, necessary repairs, their cost, manuscripts, old books, preserved documents and records, and proposals regarding their future. In particular, the Commission sought to highlight the historical importance and artistic value of the monasteries, whilst also endeavouring to demonstrate the purpose of each in the past ‘and to ascertain whether and in what way it might fulfil the same purpose, or at least a similar one, in the present day’ (RSM, O VIII, 558). The authors of the report identify five distinct purposes, arising from the founders’ intentions and the needs of past centuries.
The first category comprises monasteries founded as burial sites for the families of princes and boyars, and are therefore primarily of a private nature. Some of these, at least in their current state, the commission members believe, “cannot serve any purpose suited to the present-day needs of our society, nor do they have more than secondary value as historical monuments” (RSM, O VIII, 558), having been established in memory of their founders. Slavici laments the state of disrepair of both the monastic buildings and the churches housing the remains of the founders. As private institutions, they are maintained from their own endowments, but the state has a duty to keep all the buildings of the monastic complex in good repair and to guarantee the perpetual right of ownership over part of the monastic grounds, as well as the possibility for the caretaker to collect firewood from near the hearth and to graze livestock. The members of the commission also express the wish that caretakers be recruited solely from among monks, widowed parish priests or very elderly priests with families.
The commission members classified 24 monasteries into this category. Six such monasteries and churches are included from Vâlcea County: Arnota, Surpatele, Slătioarele, Titireci, Arhanghel and Stănești.
Detailed, thorough and noteworthy observations are made regarding Arnota Monastery, which, in terms of its setting, is described as ‘one of the most beautifully situated monasteries in the country’ (RSM, O VIII, 569). The spires, the church floor and foundations, one of the monastery’s wings and the belfry are in a precarious state. Also instructive is the plea for the need to carry out repairs, based on the importance of the founding prince’s era in Romanian national history, “as this is the tomb of the ruler of the country who ushered in the most national era in our history, at a time when nationalist ideas have come to the fore” (RSM, O VIII, 571). In this category of the 24 historical monuments, those in Vâlcea County should also include Goranu and Cetățuia on the outskirts of Rm. Vâlcea, as well as others which “today can no longer serve any purpose, but deserve special care, either as historical monuments or for their artistic value” (RSM, O VIII, 581). A further seven such monuments are therefore added, including, amongst those in Vâlcea County, the Bishop’s Palace of Râmnic.
The second category of monasteries, according to their original purpose, comprises those that served primarily as resting places for travellers. The modern development of Romanian society has meant that monasteries are no longer the only places of rest for travellers, but there are some places in the country further removed from developed centres where monasteries can still fulfil this purpose. These are more secluded places where Romanian life has been preserved, sheltered from invasions. Apart from serving this purpose, they should also be visited, and such visits should indeed be encouraged by the state, as they help to strengthen national sentiment and solidarity, as well as to foster an understanding of history. The Commission also makes a number of proposals for achieving these objectives.
It includes eight monasteries in this category, three of which are in Vâlcea: Bistrița, Dintr-un Lemn and Govora. The observations regarding Bistrița Monastery are particularly significant. After describing the site, its history, past restorations, current condition and proposing repairs costing 1,937 new lei, the report laments the entirely unsuitable conditions in which the old books and a large number of manuscripts are kept: ‘Bistrița Monastery houses one of the most valuable monastic libraries, containing old books and a significant number of Slavonic and Romanian manuscripts, cast into a tower with a window lacking glass, battered by the rain, mouldy and largely destroyed as a result of this total lack of care” (RSM, O VIII, 591). Unflattering remarks regarding the library’s storage conditions are also made in the case of Govora Monastery.
The commission then proposes including Ostrov Monastery in this category as well; founded in 1501 by Despina Doamna, the wife of Neagoe Basarab, this monastery was not included on the Ministry’s list, though the two members did not visit it.
The next group comprises monasteries which in the past served as places of refuge and defence against danger, but which have in recent times been converted into barracks. Slavici believes that it would be necessary to assign them a purpose more in keeping with the intentions of their pious founders. The monasteries of Buliga, Stelea and Dealu would fall into this category. As can be seen, none of the monasteries in Vâlcea could be classified here.
The fourth class of monasteries comprises those used as prisons, hospitals, almshouses, and asylums for the mentally ill and disabled, serving ‘a special purpose, suited to the needs of today’s society’ (RSM, O VIII, 558). Three monasteries in Vâlcea also belong to this category: Troianu, Arnota—which was also discussed under Category I—and Cozia. In the case of Arnota, a proposal was made to change its purpose, consisting of the establishment of a ‘penitentiary for clergy and for people of higher social standing, convicted of offences which cannot be classified as common crimes (…)’ (RSM, O VIII, 599).
“Thus, little by little, a large part of the precious remnants that could have served as starting points for assessing the level of culture and the way of thinking of our forebears—and from which we could undoubtedly-could have shed light on many of the events from our country’s past, about which we remain in the dark”.
The report is extremely critical of Cozia Monastery, “for centuries the most important monastery in the country, which today has been turned into a prison (…)” (RSM, O VIII, 599). It highlights numerous instances of the monastery’s deterioration, noting that “Such is the extent of the lack of reverence for the founder—not only of the monastery, but to a large extent of our country itself—thatthe roof over which the tastefully built chapel stands has been left unrepaired” (RSM, O VIII, 600). The deterioration is also clearly visible in the adjacent church founded by Petru Cercel, ‘one of the most precious architectural monuments’ (RSM, O VIII, 600). The report also contains a recommendation: should the prison here not be able to be relocated, the monastery should not be closed down, and the monks should remain there.
The final category comprises monasteries which “were purely religious establishments, places of refuge for those who chose to spend their lives in pious seclusion, as servants of God and instruments for the cultivation of religious sentiment’ (RSM, O VIII, 559). The Commission believes that it is necessary for these institutions to strive to support themselves, for it is precisely the absence of state subsidies that would prompt them to work towards winning society over to religious sentiment. However, the authors of the report concede that each must be granted an adequate annual subsidy and, most importantly, “be declared, by a specific law, to be legal entities subject to the discipline of the ecclesiastical hierarchy (…)” (RSM, O VIII, 602).
In this category, the commission’s members include a total of 17 monasteries, four of which are in Vâlcea: Dintr-un Lemn Monastery, Hurezi, Mamu and Sărăcinești. Regarding Dintr-un Lemn Monastery, which is also listed under the category of those intended for use as manor houses, they state that, although it may serve such a purpose, it “falls into the category of purely religious establishments” (RSM, O VIII, 607).
Interesting observations are made regarding Hurezi Monastery, ‘the only one amongst the monasteries in this category that deserves to be ranked amongst historical monuments of architectural value’ (RSM, O VIII, 608). The authors of the report consider the monastery unsuitable as a convent and believe it could house a hospital or the Cozia prison, with the nuns subsequently being transferred to smaller monasteries. The library receives high praise, being described as “one of the richest (…), the only one that is well preserved” (RSM, O VIII, 609). The conclusion of the report expresses sadness at the state of neglect ‘in which most of the monasteries find themselves, the centres of our national culture from centuries past’ (RSM, O VIII, 611). This refers, of course, to the monasteries throughout the entire territory visited, not just those in Vâlcea. The caretakers are, for the most part, unsuitable individuals, incapable of appreciating the value of these monuments. In most cases, there is a lack of a sense of stewardship, evident in the courtyards being littered with rubbish and rubbish or in the weeds growing through and beneath the walls. Major repairs have been rare, poorly executed, using poor-quality materials and lacking any artistic sensibility, to the extent that they have distorted the buildings, altering their original form.
Inside the churches, too, there are major shortcomings. The plasterwork has been damaged by the smoke from poor-quality candles, which have been used speculatively to replace the good ones; the portraits of the founders and saints have been seriously distorted; and ‘the memorial lists, old books and manuscripts still found in the monasteries are for the most part ruined by mould, mildew and damp, eaten by moths or torn through misuse’ (RSM, O VIII, 612). The conclusion is therefore strongly critical: ‘Thus, little by little, a large part of the precious remains that could have served as starting points for assessing the level of culture and the way of thinking of our forefathers—and from which we would undoubtedlyhave been able to shed light on many of the events from our country’s past, about which we are currently in the dark” (RSM, O VIII, 612).
The report by Ioan Slavici and the architect G. Mandrea, members of the Commission for the Investigation of Historical Monuments on this side of the Milcov, drawn up following their visit on the instructions of the Minister of Religious Affairs and Public Education, is a significant document regarding the condition of the monasteries in Vâlcea, as part of the wider context of those in Muntenia and Oltenia in 1881 3.
- 1
RSM, Vol. VIII = ‘Report by Mr I. Slavici and G. Mandrea on the monasteries on this side of the Milcov’, in Ioan Slavici, Works, Vol. VIII. Historical and ethnographic writings. Social and economic writings. Text selected and edited, with notes, commentary, critical notes and indices by Constantin Mohanu. Preface by Eugen Simion, Bucharest, National Foundation for Science and Art, Univers Enciclopedic Publishing House, 2007. The page number is given after the abbreviation.
- 2
See D. Vatamaniuc, Ioan Slavici and the World He Lived In, Bucharest, Romanian Academy Press, 1969, p. 231; see also Constantin Mohanu, Notes and Comments on Ioan Slavici, Works, vol. VIII. Historical and Ethnographic Writings. Social and Economic Writings. Text selected and edited, with notes and commentaries, critical notes and indices by Constantin Mohanu. Preface by Eugen Simion, Bucharest, National Foundation for Science and Art, Univers Enciclopedic Publishing House, 2007, p. 1530.
- 3
D. Vatamaniuc, op. cit., p. 232; p. 1529.