Ghenadie Georgescu – a hierarch close to his priests

Among the distinguished bishops of Râmnic at the beginning of the 20th century, it is fitting to pay special tribute to Ghenadie Georgescu, who is remembered by his flock for his frequent canonical visits, his particular care for priests, his philanthropic endeavours and the founding of the diocesan magazine Luminătorul. As few people today know who he was, we believe a brief account of his life and work is welcome, especially as very little has been written about him; he is not known, in proportion to his achievements, by the priests and faithful of Oltenia today.

Born Gheorghe as a layman, the future hierarch was born on 20 April 1855 in the village of Petreștii de Sus, in the commune of Greci, Dâmbovița County. The son of a priest, he attended primary school in Târgoviște, after which he enrolled at the Central Seminary in Bucharest, graduating with exceptional results in 1875. In September of that same year, he was appointed teacher of Religion at the Elena Doamna Asylum in the capital, and a year later he was ordained as a priest for the institute’s chapel, founded by Queen Elisabeth. Following a competitive examination held in the autumn of 1877, he transferred to Mihai Viteazul High School, and from 1884 he also taught at the Teacher Training College of the Society for the Education of the Romanian People in Bucharest 1. As a teacher, he showed exceptional zeal and skill in fulfilling his public duties and in the development of underprivileged classes 2, exerting an immense influence on his poor pupils, whom he supported like a true spiritual father. Referring to this period, one of his close friends and colleagues, Professor Petre Gârboviceanu, director of the Church House and the Teacher Training College, wrote with great esteem in a commemorative article: “Wherever he was called, His Grace Ghenadie worked with skill and with his heart. He was a man of duty in every sense of the word! At the Elena Doamna Orphanage, he was the right-hand man of Dr Davila and Barbu Constantinescu. The true father of those unfortunate orphans, however, was Father G. Georgescu! Wherever you looked for him, there he was, serving them to ensure they led an honourable life. As a teacher, he was a role model who commanded the respect of everyone. He did not know the meaning of dereliction of duty. A father figure to his pupils; a true friend to his colleagues. That is why he was loved and respected by all. As his former headmaster, I shall never forget how hard he worked to foster perfect harmony amongst colleagues and to ensure the conscientious fulfilment of duty – the most powerful means for the proper education of pupils.”

Having lost his wife at a young age, he found solace in a secluded life devoted to prayer 3, and in study, attending courses at the Faculties of Arts and Theology in Bucharest 4. Eager to learn, in 1895 he requested leave to further his studies in Paris. Although his request was not granted, he was not discouraged and remained in the country, where he obtained his degree in Theology. He did, however, arrive in the French capital on 22 July 1896, having been appointed head of the Romanian Orthodox Chapel at the ‘5’, which he led until 1 February 1902, when he returned home 6. Since, on 29 March 1897, the Minister of Religious Affairs wished to appoint Bishop Meletie Dobrescu of Galați to the church in Paris, the Primate Metropolitan Iosif Gheorghian replied as follows: “At present, the priest Gheorghe Georgescu is in Paris, having been duly appointed and confirmed by Royal Decree No. 3059/96; consequently, he cannot be removed from office except by a court ruling”5. From the few documentary sources available, we know that he proved himself here to be ‘a warm-hearted Romanian guided by enlightened patriotism’, being held in high esteem by the entire Romanian community 7. As he himself was to confess, both as a teacher, for over two decades, and as a pastor to the Paris community, he had the desire “to instil as much faith as possible in the minds of the faithful and to zealously defend the prestige of our Church”8.

Auxiliary Bishop of Iași

In recognition of his blameless life, on 21 February 1902, he was elected bishop, with the title of Băcăoanul, and was consecrated on the feast of St George, in the Metropolitan Cathedral of Iași 9. On this occasion, in his customary address, ‘the most humble servant of the Church’ first gave thanks to God, then to the King, the members of the Holy Synod, the Minister of Religious Affairs and the governors, and finally, to the Metropolitan of Moldavia, concluding: ‘The future lies in God’s hands. But if the Good Lord continues from now on to grant me His benevolent and almighty support, I hope that I shall be able to defend and, from now on, to fight for the defence of the treasure of our ancestral faith’10. Although we do not have much information about his work in Iași, contemporary sources tell us that in May he was appointed vicar, and shortly afterwards he was entrusted with the abbotship of the Church of Saint Spyridon and the Tărâța Hermitage, situated on the outskirts of the town of 11. As a vicar bishop, “he wrote the story of his own life through piety, honour, integrity, prudence and peace”, being “respected by all who had the opportunity to know him”12. As the documents show, on 3 March 1902, he took part, alongside Bishop Calist of Botoșani, in the installation of Bishop Conon Arămescu-Donici as Bishop of Huși; on 10 October 1907 he took part in the consecration of the painting in the episcopal chapel, together with Metropolitan Partenie Clinceni of Moldavia and Bishop Atanasie Mironescu of Râmnic, 13 and on 27 January 1909 he was present at the funeral service for Metropolitan Primate Iosif Gheorghian at Cernica Monastery 14. It should be noted that from 30 December 1908, following the resignation of the Moldovan hierarch, by royal decree, he had overseen the affairs of the Metropolis 15 until the election of its new holder, Pimen Georgescu, who was installed following a service conducted by him on 15 February 1909 16.

Bishop of Râmnic

He held the office of vicar until 22 March 1909, when he was promoted to Bishop of Râmnic, with 147 votes out of 149. In his acceptance speech, he promised that he would travel throughout the diocese to see how the priests were carrying out their mission and what the spiritual needs of the faithful were, hoping that, through his conduct, he might set an example to those he would shepherd: ‘I shall be a watchman who never sleeps in guarding the ancestral treasure of our faith; I shall preach peace, tranquillity and brotherhood, rightly directing the word of truth so that our holy country may rise and be strengthened […] I shall take up the apostolic staff and go not only to the populated and nearby villages, but even to the most remote ones. I shall work to raise the prestige and moral authority of the priest, guiding him with gentleness and brotherhood in the fulfilment of his holy mission. I shall encourage Christians to draw near with love and to follow without hesitation their spiritual shepherd, who desires that they may have life and have it more abundantly, so that, in this way, the holy faith may penetrate even more deeply into their souls’17. Impressed by his speech, Spiru Haret, the Minister of Religious Affairs, congratulated him, saying, amongst other things: “That is precisely how I believe the lofty and holy calling of a bishop should be understood. To go down among his flock; to get to know them and to guide them along the right and beneficial paths. Let there be no village in the remotest corner of the diocese that he has not visited and studied at close quarters. Let him travel the length and breadth of the diocese, in season and out of season, and provide spiritual nourishment as the circumstances require’18

Consecrated on 24 March, the hierarch promised that he would make every effort to ‘uplift spiritually and improve physically’ his flock, expressing his gratitude for having been chosen for this part of the country, which he regarded as “the cradle of our nation”, from where “heartfelt movements for the good of our beloved country have sprung”. Aware of the mission entrusted to him, at his installation on 26 March he once again expressed his joy, having arrived “in the homeland of nationalism, from where the most heartfelt ideas and the most felicitous solutions for the glorification and strengthening of our nation originated […] in the beautiful, fertile and God-blessed Oltenia, which par excellence is dotted with the most magnificent and resplendent religious monuments and which His Majesty the King, our beloved Sovereign, on the occasion of a visit to this part of the country, in a speech brimming with fervent patriotism, rightly called it: ‘the pearl of the royal crown’”19. Thus began a new phase in his life and in that of the Diocese of Râmnic, which, though short-lived, was marked by outstanding achievements worthy of tribute.

Pastoral Ministry

A gentle yet energetic man, raised to preach the faith and lead the Church, 7 Ghenadie proved himself, over the course of more than three years, to be a “skilled, hard-working, just, kind and merciful’ hierarch for over three years, who took care of religious institutions, supported the philanthropic movement, reorganised life in the monasteries and ‘made the diocesan administration an example of fair and conscientious leadership’. A worthy steward and wise shepherd, he was best known for his canonical visits throughout the diocese, which were intended to examine more closely the problems of his flock and, in particular, those of the priests, to whomhe issued a comprehensive pastoral letter on 16 April 1909, aimed at ensuring effective parish ministry: “Offer everyone the consolations of the faith, always and everywhere, in season and out of season, in all circumstances of life. Be watchful guardians for the salvation of the souls of the faithful, for you will bear a heavy responsibility before the Righteous Judge for their loss. As Christians and as Romanians, you are duty-bound to be, in truth, the spiritual fathers of your faithful, enlightened counsellors, steadfast guides […] In the villages and communities you shepherd, you have a good and kind-hearted colleague: the schoolteacher. Forge a sincere friendship with him and strive together; you through the church, and he through the school, for the moral and material uplift of the people, for the sound and flourishing moral and material condition of a people is the strength of both the people and the country!”. In the final part of these exhortations, he addressed the monastic community, drawing their attention not to forget the vow they had made before the altar to sacrifice themselves to God: “Spend your whole life in labour and prayer! Let the monasteries and hermitages be places of piety and spiritual elevation!”20

A skilful guide of souls, ‘in the true evangelical spirit and a consummate connoisseur of the times’,21fully understood his calling, fulfilling it with humility and confidence ‘that admirable part of his address delivered before the Grand College, in which he so movingly raised the question of the apostolate amongst villages and communities’22. Shortly after his appointment, he visited his spiritual sons throughout the diocese, being likened “to the diligent and wise bee, which gathers nectar from all the flowers”23. Thus, just five months after his enthronement, the first issue of the diocesan magazine Luminătorul noted the following: ‘Having visited, in turn, the five counties of this Diocese, particularly their county towns, His Grace the Bishop is now spending days and weeks on end amongst the rural population, amongst the peasants and the common people. This descent into the midst of the people, being a sign of a return to the ancient Christian spirit, when the apostles had no other aim than to be perpetually among the people, seems to us to fully fulfil the Saviour’s wish: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…’24 As might be expected, these visits made a favourable impression on the priests of Gorj County, greatly enhancing their prestige in the eyes of the faithful. Those who were deserving were praised and encouraged in their work, whilst those less interested in spiritual matters were, for the most part, set on the right path. Speaking of the significance of the apostolate at the church in Peșteana de Jos, he stated “that this ease in carrying out episcopal work is expected above all from our young priests and those of the new school, whose collaboration is greatly needed in the work of moral and religious renewal of our people”25.

No less significant were his visits to Vâlcea County, where he never missed an opportunity to draw closer to the faithful in spirit, addressing various topics in his sermons. Whilst on 20 June 1910 he taught those attending the service at Govora Monastery about their duties towards the Church and the State 26, on 31 August 1911 he spoke to the villagers of Milostea about the priest’s mission in the parish: ‘He is called upon to perform the most significant acts of life: baptism, marriage and death. He blesses the cradle of childhood, strengthens the union between man and woman, and prays for the dead. The priest must be a friend to all people; he must comfort the sorrowful, defend the weak, support those whom no one else helps, be a father to orphans and a wise counsellor to all the faithful’27”. Describing his character, the well-known priest Teodor Bălășel was to say after the consecration of the church in Zlătărei: “His Grace Bishop Ghenadie is a gentle shepherd, in the broadest sense of the word, humble, neither proud nor conceited, patient and as forbearing as can be, which is why the people flock around His Grace and listen to his words with love and great reverence. In a word, a truly democratic, truly apostolic and ecclesiastical spirit reigns around His Grace, which does a great deal of good, especially in these times. With such shepherds, much good can be done for the Church’28’.

Whilst among the faithful in the village of Deveselu, Mehedinți County, “in a sermon full of authority and episcopal gentleness”, the bishop described “the holy sacrament of marriage with its wonderful benefits for the progress of human and Christian society, urging those who live in a pagan manner to renounce such a state, which is harmful to both soul and body”, for “only in this way will the majestic building they have erected be a source of heavenly blessing for all”29. Concerned with the elevation and renovation of churches throughout the diocese, in the parish of Dedovița he urged the faithful to lend their support to the beautification of the church, following the example of the other surrounding villages, where the churches are true houses of God, not to be content with what their ancestors had left behind—who had built the church according to the standards of their time—and to take inspiration even from their own homes, which they modify and adapt to the demands of the times 30. Far more stirring, however, is the sermon delivered on 21 September 1911 in the parish of Greci, where, speaking of the events of 1907, he stated that ‘the priest has a sacred duty to constantly urge order and tranquillity, urging everyone to understand that merit lies in honest work and in the sacred fulfilment of the duties imposed by the State and the Church. In this spirit, let the apostles of the villages labour to earn both human and divine reward’31.

Whilst visiting the faithful of Dolj County, on 8 November 1909 he celebrated the Divine Liturgy at Harșu Church in Craiova, where he spoke about the holy angels32; and on 15 August 1910 he took part in the patronal feast of the Madona Dudu Church, emphasising in his sermon that ‘good deeds seal our worthy remembrance for posterity. However wealthy a person may be, if they have not sealed their name through acts of mercy and public charity, they have left nothing on the altar of immortality’33. His arrival in the parish of Tatomirești was greeted with great joy by Father Pavel Călugărescu, who, in his welcoming address, said: “like an angel of peace, full of great kindness, Your Holiness, you bring the gifts of love and faith to this afflicted household, rushing to wipe away the tears of orphans and to fly beneath the window of both the law-abiding and the lawless’34.

Equally important were his visits to Romanați County (now Olt), where he took part in services and church consecrations, preaching to the congregation whenever he had the opportunity. For example, at the service on 2 October 1910, at the parish of Dăbuleni, whilst expounding the parable of the talents during the Divine Liturgy, he stated that ‘no one can complain against God for having given them too small a talent. A small talent is like a small lump of dough, but, with care, a large quantity of flour can rise. The unworthy servant who, through laziness, hid his single talent, could, through that same laziness, have lost the many as well, producing nothing either for himself or for his Lord […] God, as Master, has made one rich and another poor in gifts; just as the potter makes from his clay vessels that are more precious or more ordinary’35 On the occasion of the consecration of the church in Dăbuleni, he was keen to reward the pupils of the girls’ and boys’ schools with the sum of 100 lei, “for their warm welcome and the well-behaved manner in which they presented themselves”36. Deeply impressed by his presence amongst the people, Father Dimitrie Bobicescu from the village of Bobicești remarked with admiration: “I have been a priest for over 50 years and in my entire life I have neither seen nor heard of any bishop who understands his role as well as His Grace the Bishop fulfils it.” I am certain,’ added the priest, ‘that if, in days gone by, the bishops had acted in this way—mingling with the people and coming into direct contact with the clergy, encouraging them in their work, recognising the worthy and setting an example, whilst offering fatherly admonishment to the less capable, we would not have suffered such a great loss in the religious and moral spheres”37

Other priests were to dedicate verses to him, as in the case of Iorgu Firulescu, from the parish of Cornu, Dolj County, who wrote the poem ‘By Example in Deeds!’ (His Grace the Diocesan Bishop D. D. Ghenadie), 38 and that of I. Iorgulescu, who, on the occasion of the consecration of the church in the village of Deveselu, Mehedinți County, recited an ‘Ode to His Grace the Bishop of the Diocese of Râmnicu-Noul Severin, D.D.Ghenadie Georgescu, highlighting his tireless work, despite the inclement weather, which ‘Does not prevent you from travelling from one village to another / To lead Christendom towards faith and virtue; / To preserve the traditions as their forefathers left them’39”.

The outcome of these meetings with the faithful from every corner of the Oltenian diocese is described by another clergyman in the pages of the 1911 issue of the magazine Luminătorul: ‘The effects of these canonical visits exceed all expectations: the old churches, weather-beaten, built of wood, small and cramped, are being replaced year on year by monumental stone churches, worthy of God and of the name of Christian and Romanian; since the arrival of His Grace Bishop Ghenadie, no more wooden churches have been built, for His Grace has personally ascertained their lack of solidity; and in Mehedinți County alone there are over 50 churches under construction; good priests are praised and emulated; the bad ones are guided onto the right path; and the faithful are encouraged to lead a Christian life and perform charitable deeds”40 Based on these considerations, following the visits in the autumn of 1912, the publication in question was to report as follows: “In all his sermons, His Grace sought to instil in all his spiritual children the idea that the Romanian people hadsurvived in the past solely thanks to a living faith in the Church of their forefathers and that, in the future, it will be able to exist only thanks to the religious and national sentiments which the two leading institutions—the Church and the school—will cultivate amongst the people […] P.S. He draws the attention of needy priests to the fact that they bear a great responsibility before God and reminds them of all the passages in the Holy Scriptures over which they must reflect deeply, so that they may not receive the sentence of condemnation meted out to the cunning and lazy servant, but may seek to resemble the one who proved herself worthy of a reward from her Master’41

Given the importance of preaching to the congregation, Bishop Ghenadie issued a circular through the diocese’s protoieries to the priests in all counties, urging them to pay greater attention to this in church, in order to teach the faithful the truths of the faith: “It is necessary for priests in all parishes and village communities to preach the Word of the Lord both inside and outside the church. In church, they shall explain to them, in carefully chosen words that all may understand, the purpose of the Church, their duties towards God, towards themselves and towards their neighbour, their duties towards their superiors, towards the Church, towards the country and towards the authorities. Outside the church, he will enlighten them with fatherly counsel in all the work they undertake and at all times—whether at home, on the road, in the fields, or wherever they may be—regarding the right path of the true Christian and citizen […] Those who distinguish themselves through sermons and pastoral exhortations shall be sent to me in due course so that they may be considered for honouring with ecclesiastical ranks, whilst those who are slothful shall be severely punished. The distinguished sermons of such men shall be submitted to the chancery of the Holy Diocese, which shall arrange for their publication’42

As we have seen, he himself delivered dozens of sermons during the services he officiated, bringing words of teaching, comfort and encouragement to his listeners: ‘he knew how to speak to minds, but above all he knew how to speak to hearts […] he was one of those men and dignitaries who love the world and its affairs, for, especially as a dignitary, the authority under which he governed the lowly and through which he spurred them on to work was not the authority of terror, which is the defining mark of small souls, but the authority of kindness, which is the distinguishing mark of noble souls and through which only a man can inspire even the youngest, his equals, and even those greater than himself with a true sense of duty and a genuine love for the common good”43 On 6 December 1909, on the feast day of the Episcopal Cathedral, he declared, at the end of the service, that his wish was “for the Romanian clergy in the western part of the country to be guided along new and wholesome paths of moral renewal, in the interests of the orthodox Romanian people”44.

His image as a consummate preacher is particularly vividly portrayed by the student Nicolae Bălan, the future Metropolitan of Transylvania, on the occasion of a visit to the Diocese of Râmnic in 1912: “His Grace was officiating, surrounded by the priests of the Diocese, whilst our choir provided the responses during the Liturgy. Towards the end of the service, His Grace, a tall and imposing figure, stepped forward to the royal doors to address us. Addressing us with the tact of a man who knows what not to say, yet says everything he believes souls are most disposed to receive and profitably retain on such an occasion, he spoke to us of the Descent of the Holy Spirit, through which the Lord’s Apostles were strengthened in their faith so that they might proclaim the Gospel of salvation with fervour and without fear; he told us how, through great faith, the Romanian people persevered through the hardships of past centuries; he spoke to us about Cozia Monastery, where Mircea and the mother of Mihai Viteazul are laid to rest, then of other venerable monuments and glorious deeds that took place within the diocese, which stand as shining proof that our ancestors triumphed through faith and, through it, led a rich cultural life. To conclude, he gave us a heartfelt exhortation to quench our souls from the spring of the Gospel and of our history, so that, by strengthening our faith in God and our faith in the future of our nation, we might work with zeal and devotion for its good. These heartfelt words made a deep impression on us, and tears of emotion streamed from the eyes of many. I was thinking then, amongst other thoughts stirred by the words I had heard, of the great good that this pastor brings with him and spreads through the visits of which we had been told, throughout every part of his diocese45”.

Apart from his missionary work, one of the wise and fruitful measures for the clergy and faithful of Oltenia was the decision taken that all priests should attend pastoral conferences in the county centres: “he encouraged them at the pastoral conferences, which were almost imbued with a boundless love that emanated from all his speeches and good wishes, which flowed directly from his heart on these occasions”46. In this regard, on 16 July 1909, he held a protopope’s conference in the Spiritual Hall of the Diocesan Consistory, where discussions took place regarding the establishment of a clerical and philanthropic society, which would encompass all the priests in these regions, priestly conferences designed to enrich the clergy’s culture and clarify their calling, and the launch of a magazine as a platform for the expression and encouragement of young people. On this occasion, he told the archpriests that they had “the duty to clear a path full of thorns and brambles so that, once the way is made clear, the clergy of those counties may also set out on the path of renewal and edification”. With regard to the theological journal, he clarified the role of the press, ‘which, unfortunately, is not always well understood, for the press, being a school, is expected to shed light rather than cause confusion, confusion of minds, and that polemic which is so unjust and personal—which not only fails to nourish us in any way or uplift us, but often perverts within us that common sense and right understanding of things […] It is my wish and desire that this journal be launched by the young theologians within this Diocese, and that it may serve as a beacon of light, learning and Christian spirit, in which truth and justice shall prevail over those impulses and customs which, whilst they may not characterise a good and gifted writer amongst the laity, all the more so a son of the Church and a journalist claiming to be ecclesiastical”. With regard to the establishment of a clerical society comprising the entire clergy of the diocese, he proposed that “it should be called upon to foster amongst the clergy that sense of solidarity, so that, as in a living organism, they might be one with the whole, and bound by that indissoluble bond which the body is to each of its individual members 47.

Without going into detail, we may note that the first pastoral conference took place in Craiova on 17–18 August 1909, bringing together over 150 priests at the Madona Dudu school 48. From the newspaper Doljiu, published on 19 August, we learn of a telegram he sent to the chairman of the priests’ conferences, Father Gr. Popescu Breasta, in which he expressed his regret at not being able to be amongst the clergy at these conferences “intended to raise the cultural level of the clergy and the people in that part of the county. A clergy that is conscious of, and imbued with, its sacred mission and calling is a true blessing for our country. For this reason, I have approved, in good faith, the commencement of these conferences throughout the diocese, and I hope that their fruits will soon become apparent, to our spiritual satisfaction’49

It is also worth mentioning the conference held in Gorj County, on 18–19 November, which Ghenadie hoped would be “a breeding ground for strong faith, for convinced apostles fully equipped to lead the flock of Christ”50. Nor should we overlook the conference of the Vâlcea clergy on 24 November 1909, held in the hall of the episcopal library, in the presence of the bishop, who, in his opening address, described the importance of this diocese in history, where many of the state’s revivalist ideas were forged: ‘And our most significant historical figures are closely linked to our religious institutions. His Grace recalls, in a wonderful setting of tender storytelling, the remains of Voivode Matei, buried at Arnota; the Hurez Monastery in connection with the deeds of Voivode Brâncoveanu; of Cozia, where the remains of Mircea and of the nun Teofana, mother of Mihai Viteazul, lie51”.

Deeply moved by the kind words received from the clergy of Romanați, on the occasion of the conferences held in Romanați County on 12–13 January 1910, the Bishop sent a telegram to Father Gr. Popescu-Breasta, wishing him “every success in the Lord’s service”, and that “these conferences may firmly cement the bonds of mutual benefit amongst our clergy, perfecting them through the light of knowledge and a full understanding of their priestly duties and the teachings of the Gospel”52. From another telegram to the ecclesiastical inspector, we gather that the hierarch wished these conferences “to be a new source of light and strengthening in the true faith, as well as an opportunity for greater inspiration and vigour in shepherding the faithful flock for the happiness and exaltation of our beloved national Orthodox Church and our Romanian people’53.

In order to fulfil his duty as Primate to the full, on 11 August 1910 he summoned the archpriests of the diocese, at the request of the Minister of Education, with the aim of discussing the future cultural circles to be organised by priests and schoolteachers; and the following day he summoned the school inspectors to his residence for the same purpose54 Here is what he wrote, for example, in a letter to the then Minister: ‘As one who has wholeheartedly desired the union of the two leading figures in village life: the priest and the teacher, we are delighted that this beginning can be provided for us, first and foremost, by the cultural circles, a means of mutual instruction and enlightened discussions with a view to the same goal: to awaken the villagers to a life of greater self-awareness, free from the darkness of ignorance, the bigotry of superstition and the ignorance of the clergy, which is the source of their poverty and worthlessness’55”.

Examining the sources of the time, we find that he was also concerned with the training of church singers, summoning, in the autumn of 1910, those from Vâlcea to the diocesan residence to be examined on their knowledge and duties relating to their service 56. Steadfast in his mission, on 3 February 1912 he presided over the conference of archpriests from the same county at the Diocesan Centre, which established, amongst other things, the topics for future priests’ conferences, 57 and on 26 June he chaired the conference of archpriests convened at Cozia, where measures were taken regarding new inspection reports on the intellectual content of the magazine and on canonical visits 58.

From the Minerva newspaper, we learn of the primate’s intention to establish a priests’ residence in his city of residence to provide accommodation and hospitality for the priests of the diocese 36. To this end, in 1911 the sum of 2,150 lei was collected at the Râmnic Bank, which was deposited with the Vâlcea County Financial Administration under the name ‘fund for the construction of a priests’ residence’59.

Cultural activity

Wishing to support the priests, in September 1909, the bishop of Râmnic founded the magazine Luminătorul, “to encourage talented individuals to preach the truth through writing. Himself a distinguished preacher and a master of oratory, he made the magazine Luminătorul the cherished focus of his hours of spiritual recreation”46. Although Nicolae Iorga characterised it as “somewhat weak”, 60 it appeared twice a month at various printing houses in Craiova and Râmnicu Vâlcea 61. Intended “to support all those revitalising ideas that are for the advancement of our entire national Church and its clergy everywhere”62 and to bring together “aroundthe very best that the Oltenian clergy has to offer in terms of intellect, theological and secular culture”, 63 the publication featured various reports, notes and information, exhortations to priests, moral stories, occasional speeches, reviews and sermons. The most frequently addressed topics were: the priest’s place in the Church and society, the significance of religion, the hierarch’s canonical visits, the economic, social and cultural aspects of society, the issues of the day, parish libraries and new publications. Although renowned priests from the diocese contributed to it, such as D. Lungulescu, Gh. Sacerdoțeanu, Ioan Mateescu, Teodor Bălășel, Matei Pâslaru and many others, 64 the issue of 15 December 1909 reported that numerous ministers of the Church had rejected the magazine, ‘which is published at great sacrifice and whose purpose is to guide the affairs of our Church towards the better’65. Consequently, 66 was published only until 1912.

To better illustrate his cultural activity, we consider it necessary to note that, in addition to his various contributions to the magazine Luminătorul, in 1912 he published Octoihul Mare (67) in Râmnic under his own name. Furthermore, the bishop took particular care of the episcopal library, founded by Bishop Ghenadie Enăceanu, enhancing its prestige through various book donations 68.

Concern for the Seminary

It is worth noting that, during his tenure, Bishop Ghenadie also turned his attention to theological education, taking an active interest in the smooth running of the Vâlcea Seminary, which he frequently visited at Bistrița Monastery, where it had been relocated during the time of Bishop Atanasie Mironescu. His steadfast concern for the students’ education and his love for the teachersprompted him to attend, on 30 January 1909, the school’s patronal feast, where ‘he delivered an uplifting sermon on the theme of the lofty Christian virtues which had inspired the three great pillars of Orthodoxy’69. The following year, he sent a telegram to the headmaster, wishing him “ever-increasing success in the sound religious and moral education of the seminary pupils. And may the Three Holy Hierarchs, celebrated together by the Church for their zeal and steadfast faith, serve as an example to all your colleagues at the Seminary of the soundness of the work accomplished through mutual understanding and harmony”70.

Recognising the role of this institution for future generations of priests, on 1 September 1911 he relocated it to Râmnic, near the Bishop’s Palace, to its former premises. 71 Letter No. 859 of 1911 sets out the reasons that led to its relocation, even though it was situated “in a splendid mountainous location, with healthy air, good water and enchanting views”: the excessive distance and the lack of a railway line, the difficulty in procuring food, the uncertain supervision of pupils’ health in cases of illness and epidemics, the need to remain close to the bishop, its patron, the lack of an effective selection process for teachers to enhance the literary gatherings in Râmnicu Vâlcea and the intellectual life of a local cultural centre, and the beautification of the liturgical services at the Episcopal Cathedral and of the town itself with an imposing building. At the same time, the hierarch hoped that the hotbed of intrigue—stirred up for various reasons by certain teachers—would cease, and that the bishop would be restored to moral oversight of this institution. Above all, he believed that the students should not be confined within the school’s walls, for the school prepares them not to live in isolation, but in society—a society which the shepherd of souls is called upon to understand and support 72. Deeply attached to the seminary, on 30 January 1912 he took part in the patron saint’s day celebrations, expressing in warm words the school’s mission to produce good ministers who, alongside cultural knowledge, all the spiritual education that can perfect the sound foundation of conscientious work 73.

Following an excursion by the pupils and teaching staff of the School for Church Singers in Tg. Jiu to the monasteries of Gorj, the hierarch remarked: ‘School excursions are of undeniable value; for schools of church singers, however, although they may seem like a new development in their activities, they serve a far greater purpose: not only do they refresh the spirit, not only do they bring the pupil closer to the teacher, not only do they provide an opportunity to gain new knowledge: but they are intended to popularise church singing in a uniform manner and to raise, in the eyes of the world, the all too low standard of our singers today”74

Church builder

Another fact worth noting is that “he set a fine example of stewardship within the Church, ensuring through his persistent zeal the construction of new church buildings, true adornments within the Diocese of the country’s most numerous historical monuments”46. Thus, he first turned his attention to the Episcopal Cathedral, carrying out repairs and the restoration of the frescoes, 75 but he did not neglect the monasteries of Oltenia either. After consecrating the chapel at Frăsinei in 1909, where he delivered a speech about Bishop Gherasim Saffirin of Roman, its founder, 76 in 1912 he wrote to Constantin Dissescu, chairman of the Commission for Historical Monuments, regarding the restoration of Cozia Monastery: ‘Are not the names of our most renowned princes themselves linked to the names of the greatest holy sites? For Arnota is but the word that brings to mind the figure of Matei Basarab, buried there; just as Cozia prompts you to utter the names of Mircea and Putna, those of Stephen the Great’77”.

During his tenure as bishop, Bishop Ghenadie was also involved in the renovation and consolidation of many churches within the diocese, and he would consecrate others that were to be built, such as the one in the village of Crețești, Gorj County, where on 13 September 1909 he delivered an instructive sermon on the significance of the act of consecration and the blessings bestowed by the church upon Christian believers who place their hope in its aid 78. According to contemporary sources, on 27 May 1910 he consecrated the Church of the Dormition of the Mother of God in Caracal, praising the efforts of those who had contributed to its construction, 79 and on 12 September, the Church of St George in Bucura, Mehedinți County. On this occasion, he spoke to the villagers about “the great spiritual benefit that attending church and heeding the word of God brings to the faithful, about priests, their importance, the respect they are due, and the obedience and support that must be given to them”80.

Other records show that on 31 October 1910 he consecrated the cemetery chapel in Târgu Jiu, emphasising the significance of the church and its benefits for Christians, 81 on 25 September 1911 he consecrated the church in Ilovița, Mehedinți County, where he preached on the importance of the priest in the life of the parish, 82 and on 23 April 1912 he consecrated the church in Benești, Vâlcea County, emphasising in his sermon “the Christian love that unites forces and prepares them for community works that will endure, in a beautiful peroration. He concluded his invocation to God for the founders and the faithful who translate piety into magnificent churches and buildings of public utility’83’.

Among the churches consecrated during this period, we mention those in Băbeni-Ungureni (1910), Lăunele de Jos (1910), Greblești (1910–1912), Boghea (1910), Roești (1907–1911), Zlătărei (1902–1910), Rusănești (1910–1912), Merișești (1910–1912), Cioponești (1909–1911), Popești (1903–1910) and Aninoasa (1911), in Vâlcea County;84 Bumbești-Jiu (1910), Alimpești (1911), Sârbești (1911), Turcenii de Sus (1911), in Gorj, Bulbuceni (1910), Gubaucea (1911), Pârșani (1911), Sărbătoarea (1910) and Dobromira (1911), in Dolj, Caracal (1910), Fărcașul de Jos (1910) and Ciocănești (1910) in Olt; Bărboi (1910), Padina Mare (1910), Bădișeti (1911), Corzu (1911), Croici (1911) and Colibași (1911) in Mehedinți85

Alongside this work, he also ordained many priests for the churches of Olt. For example, on 25 January 1911, he ordained Luchian Iliescu for the parish of Vârtopu, in Dolj County, 70; on 7 February 1911, he ordained Gh. Pârșcoveanu for the Cathedral in Turnu-Severin 86 and, on 9 October 1911, the hierodeacon Ilarion Christea for Bistrița Monastery and the deacon for the seminary’s spiritual director, the monk Sofronie 87.

Charitable works

Another significant aspect of his work was his philanthropy; he was rightly regarded as ‘an exceptionally kind and generous soul, a man of rare virtue’. From the very beginning, he understood the need to support his flock, performing numerous acts of charity which have remained in the memory of those who held him in high esteem: ‘he encouraged all philanthropic initiatives, his name appearing everywhere as a wonderful example of charity […] But what shall I say of his priceless inner character? For he was one of the rare few: unrivalled in paternal love, in gentleness, in kindness, and in a spirit of reconciliation’88 The records that have been preserved show that he fulfilled the duty to which he was called “with great worthiness”, preached Christian love 89 and assisted many institutions throughout his diocese. Thus, in December 1909, he donated the sum of 100 lei to the Craiova School Canteens Society, 90, and in 1911 he granted the same amount to the Mângâerea Society to help poor children, 91 20 lei to the Jitianu People’s Bank in Dolj County, 20 lei to the United Trades Corporation in Caracal, 92 1,000 lei for the priests’ residence to be built in Râmnicu Vâlcea 93 and 200 lei for those affected by the floods in Moldova 94.

Synodal activity

To gain a better understanding of his character, we must also highlight his work within the Holy Synod. A cultured, dynamic and balanced pastor, “a lover of the enlightened and conscientious lay clergy, he always took joy in his calling to the Church’s high council alongside the Church’s hierarchs”. His views attracted the attention and esteem of Bishop Evghenie Humulescu, who was to describe his synodal work as follows: ‘His word, authority and example have always accompanied his episcopal dignity […] In the Holy Synod, his words were, in the words of the Apostle Paul, sound and clear, seasoned with salt, and by no means insipid. His Grace would dispel, in the company of his brothers, all disturbances that troubled the peace of the soul, and would tolerate nothing that might be contrary to good relations and the common good. A follower and herald of the holy teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ, the preacher of peace at all costs, Bishop Ghenadie understood that misunderstandings between spiritual shepherds, and between shepherds and people of sound judgement, can be resolved peacefully, if greater emphasis is placed on sound judgement than on emotions or vain ambitions”95.

It is evident from the records of the high council that on 1 May 1908, 96 was elected to the Commission for the Examination of Religious Education Textbooks for Primary Education, and on 23 October he agreed to the proposal of the Primate Metropolitan to postpone the reprinting of the Bible, “because on a work of such significance we must all work together and take all editions into account. When it was decided to reprint the New Testament based on the edition from Neamț Monastery, the work was carried out with great care; it was reviewed almost word for word, and His Grace worked for an entire summer alongside His Grace Bishop of Argeș, on revising the text, comparing the parallel passages and compiling the titles for each chapter”97. From other notes, it appears that on 21 October 1909 he signed, alongside other hierarchs, the proposal by the Metropolitan of Moldavia that the archpriests and school inspectors within a diocese should meet in conference under the chairmanship of the diocesan bishop in order to guide the rural faithful along the path of righteousness under the leadership of priests and teachers 98. Nor should we overlook the fact that on 14 May 1910, together with the other members, he condemned the smear campaign waged by certain priests against the Church, 99 and at the meeting of 18 May 1912 he spoke out regarding Ștefan Dinulescu’s request to be appointed editor of the magazine Biserica Ortodoxă Română, proposing that this be included in the future budget by the Minister for Religious Affairs. A few days later, he requested that Bishop Evghenie Humulescu be appointed inspector of the schools for church singers, and that the director of the Church Books Printing House should receive an allowance for his efforts and in his capacity as editor of the aforementioned magazine, a proposal which was unanimously accepted by100. In order to resolve the disagreements between the singers’ societies in Bucharest, Ioan Cucuzel and Macarie, at the meeting on 24 October, he shared the opinion of the Primate Metropolitan that they should be summoned for discussions, in order to put an end to this scandal, which is detrimental to good ecclesiastical order 101.

Correspondence

From the correspondence exchanged during this period, it is fitting to mention first and foremost a letter sent to the president of the Orthodox Society of Romanian Women, Anastasia Filipescu, following their appeal of 12 June 1911, in which they expressed their wish “that this small fortress defending our ancestral heritage may be transformed into the great citadel of Romanianism as a whole, conscious of its faith, traditions and national identity”102. Equally worthy of mention are the two telegrams sent in September, on the occasion of the jubilee of the University of Iași, to the rector of the University, in which he congratulated him on this important event “of the highest cultural institution in our beloved Moldova”, and to Metropolitan Pimen of Moldova, in which he expressed his regret at being unable to attend, whilst nevertheless wishing “that celebrations of the kind announced may be repeated ceaselessly in the life of our nation, for the strengthening of the country and the perfection of our national culture”103. We also have a letter from him sent to Nicolae Iorga on the occasion of the reopening of the summer courses at Vălenii de Munte, in which he praises the great historian’s project, ‘which has met with a worthy response far and wide, since His Royal Highness, Prince Carol, himself was drawn to the beacon of light radiating from the secluded and picturesque village of Văleni-Prahovei. On my own behalf, I offer you my warmest congratulations and pray to the Good Lord that He may grant me the opportunity to participate in these interesting summer courses in the future and that He may soon bring to fulfilment the ideal you cherish for the Romanian mind and heart’104

Finally, we mention the telegram sent by the venerable bishop to the Congress of Religious Education Teachers, addressed to Father Constantin Nazarie, the chairman of this gathering in Bucharest, from which we quote: “Having returned from my canonical visit and found your telegram, I thank you warmly for your kind wishes and hope with all my heart that the congress at which you are gathered may be a source of light and teaching, surrounded by the most beautiful fruits in terms of strengthening the faith in the souls of the children entrusted to your care’105

Other activities

To gain as comprehensive a picture as possible of his deeds, it is worth noting that he also took part in other significant events in the life of the Church and the Oltenian community. Brief notes indicate that on 23 April 1909, 106 visited the County Library in Craiova, and a few months later he consecrated the Lahovari boyars’ manor house, which served as the town hall of Râmnic until after the Second World War, 107 and on 11 October he took part in the laying of the foundation stone for the new premises of the Alexandru Lahovari Grammar School and inaugurated the town’s primary school and Froebel school 108.

After inaugurating, alongside Minister Spiru Haret, the premises of the agricultural school in Poiana Mare on 24 April 1910, 109 was shortly afterwards elected an honorary member of the ‘Art and Labour’ Artistic and Literary Circle, whose foundationswere established at the headquarters of the Civil Servants’ Bank in Râmnicu Vâlcea on 26 June, with the aim of fostering moral values and developing intellectual and physical faculties through the organisation of lectures, the establishment of a public library, and excursions 110. Another report indicates that on 17 October he attended the laying of the foundation stone in Turnu Severin for the town’s public sanitation building and subsequently for the trade centre with the neighbouring state, in the presence of Prime Minister I.I.C. Brătianu, stating that he felt proud every time he blessed such necessary projects in the Oltenian diocese, ‘where the purest Romanian character is preserved and so many deeds have been forged that have had a salvific influence on all Romanians’111. Less than a month later, on 28 November 1910, he attended the inauguration of the new premises of the grammar school in Râmnicu Vâlcea, where he conducted the religious service, in the presence of the Minister of Religious Affairs, who on this occasion inspected the recent work carried out on the cathedral 56.

According to other documents, on 11 February 1911 he was granted an audience with the King to present a memorandum concerning episcopal activities and the needs of the clergy in Oltenia, 112 on 8 May, he attended the funeral service for Barbu Constantinescu, his teacher at the seminary and university, 113 and on 17 July he officiated at a religious service during the banquet held in the town at the foot of the Chapel by the Craftsmen’s Circle of Bucharest, where he spoke of “the enduring patriotic virtues, which are all the more precious memories for any good Romanian who comes to pay their respects before the monuments to piety and heroism of Romania’s past”. On this occasion, he explained in simple terms “how beneficial such journeys are to the body, taking us to our historical sites and monuments, especially the holy monasteries, where even today, as it were, the names of so many valiant rulers (such as Matei Basarab of Arnota and Mircea the Elder of Cozia) and so many other noble forefathers, whose impassioned voices have inspired our people to preserve our national heritage’.” From the Gazeta Meseriașilor, published in Bucharest, we learn that his sermon was well received, and that the address was “as rarely can such a grand, uplifting and self-assured word be spoken by a Bishop to the faithful thirsting for truth”114.

No less important is the fact that, in the same year, on 24 December, he awaited the body of the late Bishop Gherasim Timuș of Argeș on the platform at Râmnicu Vâlcea railway station, which he then led to Turnu Monastery, where he now rests in eternal peace 115. Following the installation of Bishop Teodosie as head of the Diocese of Roman, the hierarch of Oltenia was entrusted by Royal Decree to oversee the affairs of the Metropolis of Ungrovlahia until the confirmation as metropolitan of Conon Arămescu-Donici, elected by the Grand College on 14 February 1912 116.

Last but not least, it is worth noting that on 1 April 1912 he was present at the Metropolitan Cathedral in Bucharest for the ordination service of Vicar Bishop Teofil Mihăilescu, formerly a clergyman at Râmnic, alongside the Primate Metropolitan and Bishop Valerian of Râmnic, 117 and on 26 August he officiated at the laying of the foundation stones for the Vâlcea County Prefecture and for the monument erected in memory of the heroes of the War of Independence, in the presence of Ministers Ion N. Lahovari and C. Arion 118.

The end of his life

After a ministry of less than four full years, although he was young and in the prime of his working life, he passed away on the night of Friday, 23/24 November 1912, at his home in Bucharest, at 30 Toamnei Street, following a long illness. The day before, he had been visited by Constantin Dissescu, the Minister of Religious Affairs, whom he asked to be buried as a simple monk, and that his clothes and vestments be donated to the Church of Saint Spyridon in Iași, where he had served as bishop for seven years. His last words were: “Lord, grant me days so that I may devote the rest of my life to the Church and my people!” In the presence of numerous relatives and friends, teachers and pupils,119 was laid to rest without military honours, in accordance with his wishes, at Antim Church, and then laid to rest in Bellu Cemetery on 25 November, alongside his brother, General Dr Georgescu, by a congregation of hierarchs and priests, led by the Primate Metropolitan. On this occasion, Bishop Evghenie Humulescu of Pitești, speaking on behalf of the Holy Synod, said, amongst other things: ‘Endowed with all the qualities required of a shepherd of souls, he sought to imbue them with the spirit of humility of Christ, Whom he served. The final words from his lips bear ample witness to this, and the humble manner in which he wished to be laid to rest serves as proof and an example of a Church Father who sought God’s mercy above all, rather than the glory of this world.”

Present at the service, the Vicar Bishop of Râmnic, Sofronie Vulpescu, in turn delivered a eulogy in which he briefly outlined the fine work carried out in the regions of Oltenia: “During the four years I worked with His Grace, I was able to get to know and appreciate the noble character of the one who has fallen asleep in the Lord. A conscientious administrator, he never neglected the interests of his flock, whose needs he knew well, having travelled to every corner of his diocese, inspecting all the churches. A worthy hierarch, he had founded his life upon the Gospel principle that teaches us to love our neighbour as ourselves. To these qualities was added a warm sense of patriotism, both noble and enlightened. A great lover of historical monuments, His Grace had longed to establish a monastery in the Banat region of Oltenia, at Tismana. A cruel death took him from us before he could fulfil this wish of his. Filled with respect and love for his soul, so richly endowed, we bow our heads before the will of the Almighty…”.

Equally laudatory words were spoken by Bishop Vartolomeu of Bacău, the administrator of the Church’s Treasury, who in a few years’ time would succeed him in the episcopal see of Râmnic: “His Grace Ghenadie carried with him into the higher realm where he—that charming affability and that steadfastness of spirit which form the distinctive character of Romanians in better times and which are still quite natural to our fellow countrymen today, as is only fitting […] Wherever His Grace Ghenadie went, he knew how to forge paths whose traces were destined to endure, and to stamp his accomplished deeds with the mark of enduring achievements, for His Grace knew how to speak to the minds, but above all, he knew how to speak to hearts; and it is widely recognised that the spiritual strength through which the sacrifices required for the common good can be made lies more in the heart than in the mind, since with the mind a person is more inclined towards their own interests, whereas with the heart, man steps outside himself, that is, into the wider world of his neighbour, whenever he is seized by the thirst for true love”120

We add here the testimony of Metropolitan Nicolae Bălan of Transylvania, at that time a student at the Faculty of Theology, who recorded his passing into eternity with many words of praise: “The Diocese of Râmnic-Noul-Severin, the one closest to us and with which we once had very fruitful cultural ties, has been bereaved following the unexpected death of its diligent shepherd, His Grace Bishop Ghenadie. The late bishop was not one of those whose work you hear much about from afar, but all the more pleasantly moved were you when, drawing near to him, you sensed that you had entered an atmosphere of kindness and nobility, of sincere aspirations to work for the good of the flock he shepherded […] With his unexpected death, the Romanian Church has lost a man of great worth, who even in the midst of his final sufferings prayed to God: ‘Grant me life, O Lord, that I may devote the rest of my days to the good of the Church and of my people!’ We, too, who have welcomed him into our hearts and who will cherish his memory, shed a tear upon his fresh grave”121

In recognition of his tireless work in the service of the ancestral faith, Nicolae Iorga dedicated a few lines to him in his newspaper, Neamul românesc, noting that: “In Ghenadie, Bishop of Râmnic, who died young, the Church loses one of its finest leaders, and the movement for the moralisation and spiritual uplift of the Romanian people loses one of its most sincere and warm-hearted champions. In a sad era for the high clergy of Romania, he proved himself worthy of the pure bishops of bygone days, who ended their lives thinking of the Church and the Nation, to whom they would have wished, by the Lord’s mercy, to devote even longer and more sustained efforts. His keen eye quickly discerned, amidst the chaos of ideas and the clamour of cries in our times, where the righteous host is being prepared under a new banner […] His name will be counted amongst those who, before the dawn of the day, set out on the unrewarded journey122”.

Finally, we turn to the notes of Professor Petre Gârboviceanu, who concludes his obituary as follows: “The Romanian Orthodox Church has lost one of its good shepherds far too soon; and the country, a warm-hearted and devoted son. How much he had worked in the service of the Church and the country! And how much hope had been placed in him! Yet it is clear, now and always, how unfathomable and mysterious are the mysteries of God! We bow our heads and fervently pray to the Almighty to inspire those in authority to appoint a worthy successor to lead his beloved Diocese. May the earth rest lightly upon him and his memory be eternal!”21

From what has been presented so far, it is clear that Bishop Ghenadie was a prominent figure in the ecclesiastical life of Oltenia in the early part of the last century, a good shepherd of souls, a hard-working and generous man, inspired by love for his fellow human beings, with a profound understanding of the meaning of life, but, above all, a tireless labourer in the Lord’s vineyard, who revitalised spiritual life in the Diocese of Râmnic, taking a special interest in his priests, whom he visited even in the remotest corners of Oltenia. These are just a few of the reasons why we must honour his memory, in the hope that, in the future, there will be others who cherish our past who will examine his life and work to bring to light further praiseworthy achievements from his brief tenure as bishop, carried out in the service of the Church and our nation.

• 1

  P. G., ‘The Death of His Grace Ghenadie Georgescu, Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin’, in The Romanian Orthodox Church, vol. XXXVI (1912), no. 9, p. 860 (hereafter cited as BOR); † Dr Veniamin Pocitan Ploeșteanu, The Romanian Orthodox Church in Paris, Bucharest, Church Books Printing House, 1941, p. 128; Rev. Niculae Șerbănescu, ‘The Bishops of Râmnic’, in Mitropolia Olteniei, vol. XIV (1964), no. 4–6, pp. 204–205 (hereafter cited as MO); Rev. Prof. Niculae Șerbănescu, ‘Aspects of Church Life in the Diocese of Râmnic–Noul Severin, around 1918’, in MO, vol. XXXI (1979), nos. 4–6, p. 304.

• 2

  “P. S., Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin: D. D. Ghenadie”, in Luminătorul, vol. II (1910), no. 8–9, p. 3 (hereafter cited as L).

• 3

  P. G., The Death of P. S. Ghenadie Georgescu…, pp. 857–862.

• 4

  The Administration of the Church House, the Orthodox Church and Foreign Denominations in the Kingdom of Romania, Bucharest, Carol Gobl Institute of Graphic Arts, 1904, p. CXLVII.

• 5a5b

  † Dr Veniamin Pocitan Ploeșteanu, The Romanian Orthodox Church…, p. 128.

• 6

  The Administration of the Church House, the Orthodox Church… p. CXLVII.

• 7a7b

  P. G., The Death of P. S. Ghenadie Georgescu…, p. 850.

• 8

  “The sermon delivered by His Eminence Bishop Ghenadie Băcăoanu on 23 April 1902, on the occasion of his ordination as bishop in the Metropolitan Cathedral of Iași”, in BOR, vol. XXVI (1902), 1, p. 72.

• 9

  P. G., The Death of His Grace Ghenadie Georgescu…, p. 861; Niculae Șerbănescu, The Bishops of Râmnic…, p. 205; P. S., Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin: D. D. Ghenadie…, p. 4.

• 10

  The speech delivered…, pp. 69–72.

• 11

  P. S., Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin: D. D. Ghenadie…, p. 4.

• 12

  P. G., The Death of P. S. Ghenadie Georgescu…, pp. 850, 861.

• 13

  Archimandrite, Lecturer, Dr Emilian Nica, ‘Remember Your Forefathers’. The Archdiocese of Iași between 1900 and 1948, Doxologia Publishing House, Iași, 2009, pp. 41, 93.

• 14

  P. G. ‘The Death of His Eminence Metropolitan and Primate Iosif Gherghian’, in BOR, vol. XXXII (1909), no. 11, p. 1210.

• 15

  “Official Documents. Resignation of His Eminence the Metropolitan of Moldavia and Suceava, D. D. Partenie”, in: BOR, vol. XXXII (1909), no. 10, p. 1083; On 12 October 1908, he requested leave from the Holy Synod until 15 October in order to prepare for the feast of Saint Paraskevi, the patron saint of the city of Iași; see ‘Official Documents. Summary of the meeting of 12 October 1908’, in BOR, vol. XXXII (1908), no. 8, p. 848.

• 16

  Emilian Nica, Remember…, p. 102.

• 17

  G., ‘The Election, Consecration and Installation of the New Bishops’, in: BOR, vol. XXXIII (1909), no. 1, pp. 14–17; ‘Chronicle. The Election of New Bishops’, in Candela, vol. XXVIII (1909), no. 5, p. 325 (hereafter cited as C); ‘Church Life. From the Church of Romania’, in Revista Teologică, vol. III (1909), no. 4, p. 232 (hereafter cited as RT); ‘His Grace, Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin: D. D. Ghenadie’, in L, vol. II (1910), nos. 8–9, p. 4; P. G., The Death of His Grace Ghenadie Georgescu…, p. 862.

• 18

  “Ghenadie, Bishop of Râmnicu Noul-Severin, True Words”, in L, vol. III (1912), no. 8–9, p. 2.

• 19

  G., The Election, the Inauguration…, pp. 20–21, 28.

• 20

  † Ghenadie, ‘Pastoral Letter’, in BOR, vol. XXXIII (1909), no. 2, pp. 135–137.

• 21a21b

  P. G., The Death of P. S. Ghenadie Georgescu…, p. 862.

• 22

  P. S., Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin: D. D. Ghenadie…, p. 3.

• 23

  “The canonical visit of His Grace the Bishop of the Diocese of Râmnic ‘N. Severin’ D. D. Ghenadie to Romanați County (1910)”, in L, vol. II (1911), nos. 17–19, p. 28.

• 24

  P. Lombardul, ‘Some notes on the work of His Grace Bishop Ghenadie’, in L, vol. I (1909), no. 1, p. 3.

• 25

  “The Canonical Visits of His Grace Bishop D. D. Ghenadie of Râmnicu-Noul-Severin”, in L, vol. I (1909), pp. 5–6.

• 26

  Prepa, ‘Canonical Visits’, in L, vol. I (1910), nos. 20–21, p. 5.

• 27

  C. St. C., ‘Canonical Visits in Vâlcea County’, in L, vol. III (1911), no. 3–4, p. 7.

• 28

  Fr Teodor Bălășel, ‘A canonical visit and the consecration of a church’, in: L, vol. II (1910), no. 8–9, pp. 9–12.

• 29

  Assistant, ‘The canonical visit of His Grace Bishop Ghenadie of Râmnic to Mehedinți County’, in L, vol. II (1910), no. 2–3, pp. 5–6.

• 30

  “The canonical visit of His Grace Bishop Ghenadie of Râmnic to Mehedinți County in 1911”, in L, vol. IV (1912), nos. 1–2, p. 23.

• 31

  “The canonical visit of His Grace Bishop Ghenadie of Râmnic to Mehedinți County in 1911”, in L, vol. III (1912), nos. 19–21, p. 24.

• 32

  ‘Notes and Information’, in: L, vol. I (1909), no. 6, p. 15.

• 33

  Assistant, ‘Episcopal Service and Visit’, in L, vol. II (1910), vol. 2, no. 1, p. 1.

• 34

  Fr. Pavel Călugărescu, ‘On the canonical visits made to the Diocese of Râmnicu-N. Severin by His Grace Diocesan Bishop D. D. Ghenadie”, in L, vol. III (1911), no. 7–8, p. 11.

• 35

  Assistant Professor Nicolae Barzeanu, ‘The Episcopal Service’, in L, vol. II (1910), no. 4–5, p. 7.

• 36a36b

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. II (1910), no. 4–5, p. 24.

• 37

  Ioanichie, ‘Fapte’, in L, vol. III (1911), no. 5–6, p. 10.

• 38

  Rev. Iorgu Firulescu, ‘By Example and Deed! (His Grace, Diocesan Bishop D. D. Ghenadie)’, in L, vol. IV (1912), no. 1–2, pp. 2–3.

• 39

  Rev. I. Torgulescu, ‘Ode to His Grace Bishop Ghenadie Georgescu of the Diocese of Râmnic-Noul Severin’, in L, vol. IV (1912), no. 3–4, pp. 4–5.

• 40

  A Cleric, ‘A Reply’, in L, vol. III (1911), no. 3–4, p. 2.

• 41

  “P. S. Diocesan Bishop on Canonical Visits”, in L, vol. IV (1912), no. 5–6, pp. 7–8.

• 42

  Deacon N. Runceanu, ‘Circular from His Grace Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin, His Grace Ghenadie, regarding the exhortation to priests to preach”, in L, vol. I (1909), no. 4, pp. 4–5; ‘Information’, in L, vol. I (1909), no. 3, p. 8.

• 43

  P. G., The Death of P. S. Ghenadie Georgescu…, pp. 855–856.

• 44

  Assistant, ‘The Feast of the Patron Saints, the Bishops of Râmnic’, in L, vol. I (1910), no. 9, p. 15.

• 45

  N. B., “† P. S. His Grace Bishop Ghenadie of Râmnic”, in RT, vol. VI (1912), nos. 20–22, pp. 591–592.

• 46a46b46c

  P. G., The Death of P. S. Ghenadie Georgescu…, p. 859.

• 47

  P. Lombardul, A Few Notes…, pp. 3–4.

• 48

  Asistent, ‘The General Pastoral Conferences of the Clergy of Dolj’, in L, vol. I (1909), no. 1, p. 5.

• 49

  ‘Pastoral Conferences’, in L, vol. I (1909), no. 1, p. 7.

• 50

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. I (1909), no. 8, p. 16.

• 51

  ‘The Opening of the General Pastoral Conferences in Vâlcea County’, in L, vol. I (1909), no. 7, p. 11; ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. I (1909), no. 7, p. 15.

• 52

  “Cronica”, vol. I (1910), no. 12, p. 14.

• 53

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. I (1910), no. 10, p. 15.

• 54

  ‘Notes and Information’ in L, vol. I (1910), no. 24, p. 12; ‘Notes and Information’, in: L, vol. I (1910), nos. 22–23, p. 22.

• 55

  “Circular from His Grace the Bishop to the Archpriests of the Diocese”, in L, vol. I (1910), no. 24, p. 11.

• 56a56b

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. II (1910), no. 6–7, p. 24.

• 57

  ‘Notes’, in L, vol. III (1912), no. 10–11, p. 23.

• 58

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. III (1912), nos. 19–21, p. 29.

• 59

  ‘Donations’, in BOR, vol. XXXVIII (1914), no. 3, p. 283; P. G., The Death of His Grace Ghenadie Georgescu…, p. 859 (It was decided to set up a ‘Ghenadie’ fund to build a priests’ residence, which he had planned to erect in his home town).

• 60

  Onisifor Ghibu, Church Journalism among the Romanians, Sibiu, 1910, p. 129; Rev. Dr Laurențiu Rădoi, Vâlcea: A Cradle of Romanian Culture and Spirituality, Alma Mater Publishing House, Sibiu, 2012, p. 94.

• 61

  George Baiculescu et al., Romanian Periodicals (newspapers, journals and magazines), Bucharest, 1969, p. 385.

• 62

  The Editors, ‘Foreword’, in L, vol. I (1909), no. 1, p. 1.

• 63

  The Administration, ‘On the Threshold of the Third Year’, in L, vol. III (1911), no. 1–2, p. 1.

• 64

  Georgeta Ghionea, ‘The Church Press in Oltenia: An Economic and Social Landmark (1890–1945)’, in AO, 2017, no. 31, pp. 120–121.

• 65

  ‘Notes and Information’, in: L, vol. I (1909), no. 8, p. 15.

• 66

  Georgeta Ghionea, The Ecclesiastical Press in Oltenia…, pp. 120–121.

• 67

  Prof. Dr Nuțu Roșca, ‘Church Issues in Săpânța’, in Orthodoxy in Maramureș, vol. XIV (2009), no. 14, p. 88, http://teologie.cunbm.utcluj.ro/pdf/OM_cuprins/ortodoxia_maramureseana_14_2009.pdf, accessed on 3 June 2021.

• 68

  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. 58.

• 69

  ‘Cronica’, vol. L, year I (1910), no. 12, p. 15.

• 70a70b

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. II (1911), no. 10–11, p. 24.

• 71

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. II (1911), nos. 20–21, p. 24.

• 72

  Fr. P. Partenie, Yearbook of the ‘St Nicholas’ Seminary in Râmnicu Vâlcea for the academic year 1924–1925, with a brief history from its foundation to the present day, Matei Basarab Printing Works, Bookbindery and Bookshop, Râmnicu Vâlcea, 1926, pp. 111–112.

• 73

  “The Feast of the Seminary’s Patron Saint (30 January this year)”, in L, vol. III (1912), no. 8–9, p. 9.

• 74

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. II (1911), no. 20–21, p. 24.

• 75

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. I (1910), no. 22–23, p. 22.

• 76

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. (1909), no. 1, p. 8.

• 77

  “Ghenadie, Bishop of Râmnic and Noul Severin, on the restoration of Cozia-Vâlcea Monastery”, in L, vol. IV (1912), no. 3–4, p. 24.

• 78

  Asistent, ‘The Consecration of the Church in the village of Crețești, Gorjiu’, in L, vol. I (1909), no. 2, p. 8.

• 79

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. I (1909), no. 19, p. 16.

• 80

  Econom Durak – Turnu Severin, ‘A Church Consecration’, in: L, vol. II (1910), no. 2–3, p. 8.

• 81

  Asistent, ‘Report on the Chapel at the Târgul-Jiului Cemetery’, in L, vol. II (1910), no. 6–7, p. 23.

• 82

  V. Gh. D., ‘The Consecration of the Church in Ilovița, Mehedinți’, in L, vol. III (1911), no. 3–4, p. 23.

• 83

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. III (1912), nos. 16–18, p. 31.

• 84

  Laurențiu Rădoi, Vâlcea…, pp. 153–452 (On 27 February 1911, he consecrated the Church of Saint Parascheva in Râmnic — see ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. II (1911), nos. 12–13, p. 24).

• 85

  The Holy Metropolis of Oltenia, Râmnic and Severin, Church Life in Oltenia. Yearbook of the Metropolis of Oltenia…, pp. 133–797.

• 86

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. II (1911), nos. 12–13, p. 24.

• 87

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. III (1911), no. 3–4, p. 24.

• 88

  P. G., The Death of P. S. Ghenadie Georgescu…, pp. 856, 859.

• 89

  G., ‘The Installation of P. S. Sofronie, Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin’, in BOR, vol. XXXVII (1913), no. 3, p. 257.

• 90

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. II (1910), no. 8–9, pp. 23–24.

• 91

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. II (1911), nos. 10–11, p. 24.

• 92

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. II (1911), nos. 12–13, p. 23.

• 93

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. II (1911), nos. 14–16, p. 32.

• 94

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. II (1912), no. 23–24, p. 23.

• 95

  P. G., The Death of P. S. Ghenadie Georgescu…, pp. 851, 859.

• 96

  ‘Official Documents’, in BOR, vol. XXXII (1908), no. 3, p. 246; ‘Official Documents’, in BOR, vol. XXXII (1908), no. 8, p. 847.

• 97

  “Official Documents”, in BOR, vol. XXXII (1908), no. 8, p. 872.

• 98

  “Summary of the Meetings of the Holy Synod”, in BOR, vol. XXXIII (1909), no. 8, pp. 894–895.

• 99

  “Official Documents. Proposals of the Holy Synod at its meeting on 14 May this year”, in BOR, vol. XXXIV (1910), no. 2, pp. 206–207.

• 100

  “Official Documents. Minutes of the Holy Synod’s Meetings”, in BOR, vol. XXXVI (1912), no. 4, pp. 342, 353, 355.

• 101

  “The Debates of the Holy Synod during the Autumn Session. The Year 1912”, in BOR, vol. XXXVI (1913), no. 11, p. 63.

• 102

  Fr. P. Partenie, ‘The Orthodox Society of Romanian Women and the Address by His Grace Bishop Ghenadie’, in L, vol. II (1910), no. 1, pp. 7–8.

• 103

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. III (1911), no. 3–4, p. 23.

• 104

  ‘Reports’, in L, vol. III (1912), nos. 19–21, p. 24.

• 105

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. IV (1912), no. 3–4, p. 24.

• 106

  Prof. Gabriela Braun, “Autographs in a Volume – The Aman Museum. From the archives of the ‘Alexandru and Aristia Aman’ Library in Craiova”, http://greenstone.bjc.ro/greenstone/collect/documen1/index/assoc/JAutogra.dir/autografe_si_dedicatii_1834-1946.pdf, accessed on 3 June 2021.

• 107

  Chronicle of Archaeological Research in Romania, Preliminary Reports on Archaeological Research. Archaeological Research Report, 2007, http://cronica.cimec.ro/detaliu.asp?k=3959, accessed on 5 June 2021.

• 108

  Antideluvian, ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. I (1909), no. 4, pp. 15–16.

• 109

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. I (1910), no. 16, p. 16.

• 110

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. I (1910), nos. 20–21, p. 24.

• 111

  Assistant, ‘P.S. Our Bishop at Severin on 17 October 1910’, in L, vol. II (1911), no. 10–11, pp. 11–12.

• 112

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. I (1910), no. 13, p. 16.

• 113

  G., ‘Dr Barbu Constantinescu’, in BOR, vol. XXXV (1911), no. 3, p. 335.

• 114

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. II (1911), no. 23–24, p. 24.

• 115

  P. G., ‘The Death of P. S. Gherasim Timuș, Bishop of Argeș’, in BOR, vol. XXXV (1912), no. 10, p. 1088.

• 116

  ‘Notes’, in L, vol. III (1912), no. 10–11, p. 24.

• 117

  G., ‘The Three Young Bishops’, in BOR, vol. XXXVI (1912), no. 1, p. 7; † Bishop Dr Veniamin Pocitan of Ploiești, ‘Vicar Bishops in the Romanian Orthodox Church’. The Vicars of the Archdiocese of Bucharest, the Metropolis of Ungro-Wallachia and the Romanian Patriarchate, Bucharest, 1937, p. 45.

• 118

  ‘Notes and Information’, in L, vol. IV (1912), no. 1–2, p. 23.

• 119

  “Obituary. The Death of His Grace Bishop Ghenadie of Râmnic and Noul Severin”, in C, vol. XXXL (1912), no. 12, pp. 667–668 (Suffering from anthrax, the doctors operated on him, but he did not survive).

• 120

  P. G., The Death of P. S. Ghenadie Georgescu…, pp. 850–860.

• 121

  N. B., † P. S. His Grace Bishop Ghenadie of Râmnic…, pp. 591–592.

• 122

  N. Iorga, Oameni cari au fost, Bucharest, the ‘King Carol II’ Foundation for Literature and Art, 1935, pp. 32–33.