‘Women in Church, Men at the Public House’: religious experience in Romanian society, 1700–1830

Abstract

This study analyzes religious practices in the Romanian lands in the long eighteenth century. Research for it was based on a series of largely unpublished archival documents which illustrate ordinary people's attitudes to faith, magic, superstition and the church. In periods of instability and insecurity, quite understandably, as daily worries become more acute, faith and religion step in to offer spiritual comfort. This study looks at spiritual practices in the Romanian old regime and explores the ways in which women and men used them as focal points for building sociability and solidarity networks.

Keywords:

• family
• women
• religion
• everyday life
• Romania
• religious practices

Acknowledgements

My special thanks for the English translation of this study are addressed to Angela Jianu. This work was supported by the strategic grant POSDRU/89/1.5/S/62,259, Project ‘Applied social, human and political sciences. Post-doctoral training and post-doctoral fellowships in social, human and political sciences’ co-financed by the European Social Fund within the Sectorial Operational Program Human Resources Development 2007–2013 and the University of Bucharest.

Notes

^1. In 1711/1716 Moldavia and Wallachia acquired new regimes known as the ‘Phanariot’ regimes. The ruling princes, elected from the Greek elite of the Phanar quarter in Constantinople, were appointed and deposed by the Sultan every three years, and sometimes even earlier. Such frequent changes led to a permanent administrative and juridical instability in the principalities. For further details, see Georgescu, 1991, pp. 85–105.

^2. A similar process affected the Russian Orthodox Church, whose status in society grew considerably in the eighteenth century. However, as research by Gregory Freeze and Robin Bisha has shown, the rigidity of its precepts undermined its authority in the following century. To this were added processes of change and modernization in society which inevitably also affected the family. See Freeze, 1990, pp. 709–746; Bisha, 2003, pp. 227–242.

^3. For this court and its activity see further details in Vintilă-Ghiţulescu, 2004/2005, pp. 188–210; 2009, pp. 77–99; 2011, pp. 141–160.

^4. Taken to court, the priest was required to observe social hierarchies during church services by ‘minding the honour due to them when attending the church service’. (Biblioteca Academiei Române [The Library of the Romanian Academy], Manuscripts Collection, ms. 638, f. 133v, 21 September 1783, hereafter BAR, ms., followed by the pressmark).

^5. The conflict did not end with the removal of the ‘chairs’: the women rebelled, asking for their rights to be restored, a petition was sent to the Metropolitanate and an inquest was held among priests and parishioners to establish the origins of the initiative. But the preservation of peace and order during mass prevailed and the pews were never brought back.

^7. See also Barbu, 2001, pp. 120–121, and Jianu, 2007, p. 216. Aici si la Hartulari mai jos ar trebui sa ai 2007a si 2007b (?)

^6. The church hierarch Dionisie Romanov was equally critical of the new mores of Wallachia in a short moral tale written in 1840: ‘It is a terrible sight to see multitudes dressed as for a masquerade turning the church into a dance hall; the heart is in pain when one sees that most men and women do not come to church to perform the due rites, but only to show their dress and adornments and settle the time of their evening engagements’. The text was published in the church periodical Vestitorul Besericesc in March 1840. This was the earliest church periodical in Wallachia. The first issue appeared in 1839 from the printed presses of the Bishopric of Buzău. The Hieromonk Dionisie Romano produced this publication almost single-handedly. Its content consisted chiefly of short stories with a moral message and advice to priests. The periodical was short-lived and ceased publication within a year.

^8. For further details, see Vintilă-Ghiţulescu, 2005, pp. 77–110.

^9. At Sibiu (Hermannstadt) in neighbouring Transylvania, a pillory was installed in 1550 in Piaţa Mare (Rom. central square), but was removed in 1783. Alongside the pillory, another control device was the so-called ‘fools’ cage' (Rom. cuşca nebunilor), used to contain disorderly behaviour. Cf. Sigerus, 2006, pp. 17, 33, 41.

^10. For instance, on 19 November 1781, Călin from the Dichiului suburb was ‘«canonised» (i.e. sentenced according to canon law) to be pilloried’ for drunkenness and ‘whoring and for dishonouring his parents and wife with his behaviour.’ He was reported to the authorities by his own father (BAR, ms. 636, f. 91r). A man called Dragul from the suburb Precupeţii Vechi ‘had his neck thrust in the pillory’ to bring him ‘back to his senses’, as he had threatened to lock his wife up in the family home and set it on fire. (BAR, ms. 638, f. 220^r, 1 July 1784. See also ms. 637, ff. 5^v-6^v, 3 October 1784).

^11. All these measures repeatedly enforced by the political and ecclesiastical authorities were geared towards the modernization of the state. One noticeable change was the increasing intrusion of church and state in the individual's life. Many of the Phanariot princes regarded themselves as ‘enlightened despots’ and, in line with the new ethos of the time, felt that it was their duty to enforce reform. Many ordinances targeted ordinary people, the ‘mob’, who had to be educated and ‘civilised’ in the spirit of social order and discipline. They covered all aspects of daily life: street sweeping, young girls' sexuality, the demeanour of priests, oath-taking, church attendance and the observation of Lent, the ways in which people administered their wealth and property, the use and abuse of cosmetics by women, were all subjected to the new legislative initiatives (BAR, ms. 648, f. 6^r, < 10 July 1810>; ff. 39^v–43^r, ff. 57^v–58^r; ANR, ms. 141, ff. 99^v, 101^v–103^r; ms. 143, f. 194^v–195^v; Urechia 1891, I, 370–373, 401; III, 48, IV, 101–105; V, 255–258, 294–296, 472; VI, 741; VII, 144, 174–175, 428–429). The Church and the State had identical objectives and such measures were meant to create good subjects who paid their taxes, respected social hierarchies and order, went to church and refrained from challenging authority. However, control was neither efficient nor comprehensive. State and Church often overlapped or contradicted each other in the application of the same prescription. Ambiguity, incoherence and brutality often marred the application of these policies. It was only later in the century that new mechanisms and strategies could be put in place for enforcing public order.

^12. Court records show that many priests were very active in their parishes: they arbitrated conflicts with the authorities or within families, offered advice, read or wrote documents and letters for the less literate parishioners, helped them with their testaments, and even headed local rebellions. For specific case studies, see Vintilă-Ghiţulescu, 2003–2004, pp. 144–174.

^13. For the early nineteenth century, Alain Corbin links church absenteeism to a ‘profound process of de-christianisation’, without however being able to measure the extent of the phenomenon (Corbin, 1975, I, pp. 621–625).

^14. For this topic see Păun, 2001, pp. 63–73; 2002, pp. 125–139.

^15. There were numberless legends about miraculous fountains and icons, saints' lives (such as saint Philophteia and saint Mercury), as well as exceptional cases of divine retribution. Parishioners would relate such stories, which the metropolitan duly noted down in detail in his travel log. See Carataşu, 1980, pp. 243–315.

^16. The 1739 edict of Metropolitan Neophyte attempted to put an end to a series of ‘devilish customs’ practised by ‘priests and laymen alike, by men and women, by old and young’ in villages and suburbs. These were rites enacted on the days of religious festivals such as Holy Thursday, Christmas, the day of St. Basil, Epiphany, etc. The metropolitan linked such practices to ancient pagan and Dionysian rites and therefore did not consider them compatible with Christian values. Cf. the document published by Năsturel, 1984, pp. 251–257.

^17. For further details see also Jianu, 2007, pp. 429–444.

^18. The spells have formed the object of a significant number of linguistic and ethnographic studies. For a recent contribution, see Timotin, 2010.

^20. ANR, Bucharest, Fonds Mitropolia Ţării Româneşti, CCCLXV/2, 14 June 1820, Vasile Dobruneanu vs. Elena Repezeanu.

^19. This allegation was quickly rejected by the couple's wedding witness, who was able to produce the evidence: the young wife's bloodstained chemise, given to him by the grateful young husband himself after the wedding night. (Arhivele Naţionale din România [National Historical Archives] Bucharest, Fonds Mitropolia Ţării Româneşti, CCCLXV/3, 16 June 1820, the deposition of Ghiţă Turnavitul [a former grand serdar – a high-ranking boyar title] regarding the virginity of Elena Repezeanu of Mavrodin, Teleorman county). (Hereafter ANR, ms., followed by the pressmark)

^21. ANR, Bucharest, Fonds Mitropolia Ţării Româneşti, CCCLXV/4b, 22 June 1820, the inquest led by the priests of the market town of Mavrodin, Teleorman county.

^22. For further details on spells, incantations and other occult practices in the period, see Roman, 2006, 2007.

^23. Constantin from the town of Câmpulung went to see a ‘hag’ who practised chiromancy: he wanted to know whether ‘the girl who lives up the hill is with child’. A ‘tax on carnal sin’ was the punishment for illicit affairs in both customary and canon law. This, and the opposition to the marriage of the girl's parents, made him run to the ‘enchantress’ and to the priests to assess the ‘danger’ he might be in (should the girl be pregnant). (BAR, ms. 647, ff. 112v–113v, 4 January 1810).

^24. In such cases, an enchantress was said to be able to ‘enslave’ the person placed under a spell, to subjugate him or her, to ‘make them mad’ or to ‘change their ways’. Thus, for instance, Stana ‘shed hot tears’ as she begged the Metropolitan to summon the ‘accursed’ Maria and ‘force her to undo the spells which led my husband astray’. Her husband, the fisherman Dinu had been ‘involved’ with that Maria for a long time, even before his marriage to Stana. None of the measures taken – numberless summons to the ecclesiastical court, pledges recorded in the church register, corporal punishment and even short periods in prison – had been successful in separating the two. (BAR, ms. 646, f. 177^r, 18 August 1804).

^25. The law code included a series of penalties for those who practiced magic and for those who resorted to their services. (Îndreptarea legii, 1962 , 302, 410). See also the manual of Antim Ivireanul, 1997, 206.

^26. For details on these practices and the attitude of the Church, see Ghiţulescu, 2004; Vintilă-Ghiţulescu, 2006.

^27. See also Capp, 2003, pp. 353–374; Crawford, 1993.

^28. BAR, ms. 636, f. 2^v. See also the case of England, where only women, never men, were ever accused of neglecting their faith, Foyster, 2005, p. 94).

^29. In Rom. ‘Popa toacă şi îi chiamă/ La biserică să meargă,/ Ei la cârciumă aleargă. Cu oala de dimineaţă/ Să tămâie în toată viaţa’; ‘Cine bea până la îmbâtare, nume bun în lume n'are’ (Pann, 1991, p. 72). ‘Toaca’ is a wooden sounding board used in Romanian monasteries to call the faithful to prayer.

^30. Anton Pann devoted many of his writings to the critique of this particular vice: Indreptătorul beţivilor, care cuprinde faptele care curg din beţie (1832), Cântătorul beţiei (1851), Triumful beţiei sau diata ce o lasă un beţiv fiului său (1852).

^31. Deacon Dragnea from the village Poienari was seriously wounded by a reveller while on call in the middle of the night to administer the last rites to the publican's dying father. The deacon could not help admonishing a drunken customer, captain Ianoş, with the words: ‘my son, why are you eating meat and cheese during Christmas fast?’ The drunken captain attacked the deacon with a knife and the victim had to ‘lie in bed for three months’. BAR, ms. 636, ff. 37^v–38^r, 13 April 1781.

^32. BAR, ms. 648, ff. 33^r–34^r, 26 February 1814.

^33. Even though religious norms were the same for all Christians, in practice male debauchery was regarded with more leniency, even by the church itself. See Capp, 2003; Foyster 2004.

^34. Document dated 4 March–22 April 1739 published by Năsturel, 1984, p. 257.

^35. The training of priests was often deficient in the period considered. The recruitment of a parish priest was sometimes dictated less by a formal degree in theology than by the fact that the candidate could show that he knew the liturgical texts by heart and could perform the basic sacraments. For further details, see Ghiţulescu, 2002, pp. 121–136.

^36. Cf. also Capp, 2003, pp. 353–374; Crawford, 1993, pp. 73–75.