Gift-Giving, Memoria, and Art Patronage in the Principalities of Walachia and Moldavia

The Function and Meaning of Princely Votive Portraits (14th 17th Centuries)

Laura-Cristina tefnescu
Student number 3307115

Supervisor: Dr. G. Van Bueren, Utrecht University Second assessor: Dr. A. B. Adamska, Utrecht University

Research Master Thesis in Medieval Studies, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Utrecht University

2010

Motto:

Iubitu mieu fiiu, mai nainte de toate s cade s cinsteti i s lauzi nencetat pre Dumnezeu cel mare i bun i milostiv i ziditorul nostru cel nelept, i zioa i noaptea i n tot ceasul i n tot locul.

My beloved son, first of all, it is right to continuously honour and praise God, our great, good and kind and wise creator, during the day and during the night, at all hours and in all places.

- Neagoe Basarab, nvturile lui Neagoe Basarab ctre fiul su Theodosie (The Teachings of Neagoe Basarab to His Son Theodosie) -

Dirept acia, feii miei, mi v rog s pomenii i pre mine n sfnta voastr rugciune i nu uitarei pre mine, cela ce sunt oaia cea rtcit i tatl vostru, ca se priimeasc i pre mine, pctosul, Domnului nostru Iisus Hristos, pentru rugciunea voastr []

For that reason, my sons, please remember me in your holy prayer and do not forget me, who am the lost sheep and your father, so that I, the sinner, may be received by our Lord Jesus Christ because of your prayer []

- Neagoe Basarab, nvturile lui Neagoe Basarab ctre fiul su Theodosie (The Teachings of Neagoe Basarab to His Son Theodosie) -

Table of Contents

Introduction 1. The Subject Matter: The Problematic and Research Questions 2. The Approach 3. The Importance of the Research Chapter I: Historiography, Paradigms and Concepts 1. Romanian Historiography 2. Western European Perspectives: Gift-Giving and Memoria 3. The Act of Founding Definitions Chapter II: The Sources: Methodological Challenges 1. The Sources 1.1. Architecture and Iconographical Sources 1.2. Written Sources 1.3. The Oral Tradition: Foundation Legends 1.4. A Broader Perspective: Other Sources 2. Votive Portraits and Their State of Preservation 2.1. Originals and Acceptable Restorations 2.2. Disputed Restorations 2.3. Complete Alterations 3. Restrictions Chapter III: The Foundations 1. General Outlines: The Founders and Their Foundations 2. The Architecture 3. The Paintings 4. Conclusion: Motivation and Function 4.1. The Spiritual Function 4.2. The Funerary Function: The Princely Necropolis 4.3. Defending Christianity 4.4. The Political and Social Function Chapter IV: The Votive Portraits

4 4 7 12 14 14 19 28 33 33 33 36 38 40 41 42 44 45 47 48 48 53 57 61 61 63 64 66 68

1. Location 1.1. Related to Architecture 1.2. Related to the Iconographical Program 1.3. Reception 2. The Background 3. The Composition and the Protagonists 4. The Inscriptions: The Relation between Image and Text 5. The Worldly Level 5.1. The Portrait: The Face 5.2. The Costume 5.3. The Hands: Attitudes, Gestures and Objects 6. The Religious Level 6.1. From this World to the Other: Divine Figures and Intercessors 6.2. From the Other World to this One: Receiving the Crown 7. The Political Level 7.1. Towards the Past: Succession Series 7.2. The Present: The Figure of the Prince 7.3. Towards the Future: The Followers 8. The Social Level 8.1. The Family 8.2. Women 9. Conclusion: Motivation and Function 9.1. The Liturgical Function: Remembrance and Commemoration 9.2. A Political and Social Statement Conclusions 1. A Comparative Perspective 2. The Message and the Meaning 3. Questions for the Future Appendices 1. Princely Religious Foundations from Walachia and Moldavia 3. Illustrations Bibliography

68 68 69 71 72 73 76 78 78 79 81 82 82 84 85 85 88 89 90 90 91 92 92 93 95 95 97 98 101 101 134 190

Introduction

1. The Subject Matter: The Problematic and Research Questions

There is an amazing quality about portraits, because they are an invitation to remember. When the dust of time covers the traces of the past, portraits act like preservers of memory, evoking those who have walked the face of the earth before us. If one of the many foreign vistors crowded in the small, almost claustrophobic, space of a church from a monastery hidden among the green hills of Northern Moldavia, looks around carefully at the interior walls, covered from top to bottom with paint centuries old, he might discover an image that would remind him of similar representations from his own country. The image I refer to is the votive portrait 1 of the founder and his family, offering the model of the church he has build to God. The following research focuses on exactly this type of source. The present thesis is concerned with the votive portraits of princes of Walachia and Moldavia, from the 14th to the end of the 17th century that can be found in princely foundations. I intend to bring these sources together, in order to analyze them in the context of the act of founding a church or a monastery. I would like to decipher what were the functions of these votive portraits, related to those of the church in which they are to be found, as well as the motivations that have led the founder to build the religious edifice and to have himself portrayed on its walls, these being my main research questions. I am hoping to decipher the message that these foundations and votive portraits were intended to deliver, being guided by Western European methodologies, namely the paradigms of gift-giving and memoria, which, through their concepts, allow a holistic understanding of these phenomena. From a spatial perspective, my thesis focuses on sources from Romania, because up to now, for this territory, the votive portraits of princes have not been thoroughly analyzed as a whole, within the framework of a monograph. In the Middle Ages, on the territory of nowadays Romania, there were three separate principalities: Transylvania, Walachia and Moldavia. I chose to focus only on the last two, because of the similarities between them. I excluded Transylvania, both for the necessity of restriction and for its particularities. Transylvania had a different

The term votive will be defined in the third part of the first chapter.

history, being dominated by the Hungarian monarchy. Consequently, its culture has been influenced a lot by Western Europe, separating it, somehow, from the other two principalities that would more or less share a history. Surely, between Walachia and Moldavia there are several differences too, as I will explain later on, but, here, orthodoxy was able to flourish, as opposed to Transylvania, which became officially a catholic land. The chronological limits of this thesis might surprise the Western European medievalist, who might claim that the 17th century has nothing to do with the Middle Ages. However, for Romania, as for other countries as well, this artificial chronological framework is extended according to a different evolution, in which the characteristics that we define as medieval persist. The 17th century is not fully medieval. It is a transition period, in which the echo of the Middle Ages slowly fades away. However, the reason for choosing this timeframe (14th 17th centuries) is another. This period is marked by the so-called earthly reigns (domnii pmntene), characterized by the rule of local princes, from families of Walachia and Moldavia. In 1711 (Moldavia) and 1714 (Walachia), begins the Phanariote reign, meaning that, from now on, the two principalities were ruled by princes from the members of important Greek families, living in Phanar, the Greek quarter of Constantinople, from which their name derives. To sum up, my timeframe begins in the 14th century, when the principalities of Walachia and Moldavia were created and ends in the 17th century that emphasizes the end of the medieval period and the beginning of another political and cultural period, marked by the Phanariote rule. The research question of this thesis has been restricted in several ways, which I would like to point out in what follows, for a clear understanding of the subject matter. First of all, my primary sources represent votive portraits of princes, which can be found painted on the walls of the churches and monasteries they have founded. That is to say, on the one hand, that my main focus is represented only by the frescoes that show memorial princely portraits and, on the other hand, that these images come exclusively from their own foundations. I understand by this churches and monasteries built and painted by princes; built by others, but painted or repainted by them; and built and painted by others from their explicit order. I will not take into account the portraits of princes from churches and monasteries that have been built by other members of the society, like clerics or boyars2. My second restriction, of which more will be said in chapter two, regards the state of preservation of the frescoes. Even though I started with a number of over two
2

Boyars represent the highest rank of the feudal aristocracy in Walachia and Moldavia.

hundred princely foundations3, I ended up with around fifty painted ensembles. The others are either completely destroyed, a ruin, have never been painted or I did not find any information on them. From the fifty that were painted, some were repainted in the 19th century, some slightly modified and some remarkably preserved. Obviously, they were not equally useful for the purpose of my research and this implied a new restriction, reducing their number to half, for reasons which will be explained later on. Now that I have introduced the material, I would like to proceed with explaining what the purpose of my thesis is and what issues and research-questions I would like to address to these sources. First of all, Romanian historiography, as it will be later explained, has not produced a study focusing only on votive portraits form this period. This is why I would like to bring all these similar sources together for a comparative analysis. Also, whenever, in articles or monographs, Romanian historians and art historians have touched upon this matter, it was from a limited perspective: either their brief mentioning or simple description of what we can see. Obviously, some articles have made interesting observations on their function and message, but these are limited to case-studies. In Western Europe, historiography has treated the same type of source more critically, asking several questions that have been neglected by Romanian historians and which have given birth to paradigms that Romanians are less acquainted with. In a few words, I would like to ask Romanian sources the questions that Western European historians have asked for quite some time to their own material. The study of the memoria is still unfamiliar for the historians in my country, while, elsewhere, it has produced relevant research that brings together historians, art historians and scholars who focus on written sources. My research is based on South-Eastern European sources and Western European methods. Hoping that the combination of the two will bring a breath of fresh air in Romanian historiography and quality results, the purpose of my paper is to analyze the rich material of princely votive portraits using the methodology of gift-giving and memoria research. The main issue of this thesis concerns two key matters of the memoria: motivation and function. These will be addressed on two levels, that of the foundation and that of the votive portrait included in it. First of all, I would like to explain which are the reasons why churches and monasteries were built by princes and what was their function and, secondly, to go one step
3

See part 1 of the Appendices.

further and see what was the role of the votive portrait within the religious edifice and why was it important to have oneself painted on the walls of ones foundation. I think that we cannot address the second matter without looking at the first, because somehow the votive portrait was shaped also according to the purpose of the church where it was painted. The main research question of my thesis can be summarized as wanting to know for what reasons and for what purposes were churches built and votive portraits painted within them. When being a prince, having ones portrait painted in a public space must have been important. The walls of the church were a canvas ready to be filled according to a general rule, but, in which, small significant details would be inserted for a specific purpose. Reading them in the right way, we might come to understand the message that the prince, with the help of the artist, wanted to convey to those who could see and who could read. Deciphering this message is the overall purpose of my thesis, which I hope to attain by using certain methods, which I will present in what follows, along with the intended structure of thesis, by whose means I hope to convey my findings to the reader.

2. The Approach

Having already pointed out the general direction of my research, I would like to emphasize a few methodological guidelines, some of which will be explained in depth in the first chapter and, also, to offer an overview of the contents of the thesis. As stated beforehand, I will be analyzing Romanian sources with Western European methods. Some might say that these methods would not be suitable for sources from a different part of Europe. However, beside that which separates the two parts, there is common ground between them and many similarities. At the same time, identical methods have been used for German, Dutch and French sources with success, meaning that they have a general applicability and, also, a flexibility that allows them to adapt to the local differences. That is to say that I will be using these paradigms carefully, keeping in mind that which is specific to Romanian sources. First of all, because building a church is primarily an act of offering to God, fact expressed visually in votive portraits, the act of founding is included in the paradigm of giftgiving, together with the act of donation. In this way, I think it is indispensable to be familiar

with research questions, methods and results that revolve around this concept and to look at the act of founding a church also from the perspective of the gift. Because votive portraits have a lot to do with remembrance and commemoration, they belong to the category of memorial art. Memoria, with its specificity, having been intensely studied by Western European scholars for quite some time, has become a paradigm on its own, giving birth to schools and research groups devoted to its analysis. Obviously, when studying this type of memorial art, that of votive portraits, one has to be aware of the developments in this field of study. Both gift-giving and memoria have been labelled total social phenomena, from the concept introduced by the French sociologist Marcel Mauss in his Essai sur le don4. To briefly explain that which will be later resumed, this means that both phenomena deal with all aspects of society. One would be tempted to conclude that memoria, being mainly expressed through liturgical commemoration, is an exclusively religious phenomenon and that, when you build a church, you are driven only by religious motives. This is a pitfall in which many have fallen. We see that in the otherwise interesting study of Sorin Dumitrescu5, who, claiming to depart from the anachronistic perspective which sustains the intrusion of laic matters in the exclusively religiondriven world of the church, states that the medieval man perceives everything in an iconic manner, and the cosmic world, and the political world, and the economical world, and the world of ideas. Therefore, it is a lack of culture to suspect a medieval iconography of laic inflexions or to qualify one or another of the images as semi-secularized icons, as often votive portraits are regarded6. It is obvious that for medieval men religion played an essential part in their lives and it is true that it would be an anachronism to see them through a laic perspective, but I do not agree with the fact that this meant excluding all other aspects from their lives or submitting everything to religion. It seems that in the search for historical justice and, probably, influenced

Marcel Mauss, Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de lchange dans les socits archaques, in Marcel Mauss, Sociologie et Anthropologie (Paris 1950, reprint Paris 1993). 5 Sorin Dumitrescu, Chivotele lui Petru Rare i modelul lor ceresc: o investigare artistic a bisericilor-chivot din nordul Moldovei (The Shrines of Petru Rare and Their Heavenly Model: An Artistic Investigation of the ShrineChurches from the North of Moldavia) (Bucureti 2001). Because the titles are in Romanian and their understanding is indispensable to the reader, I have always added between brackets my English translation. 6 Dumitrescu, Chivotele lui Petru Rare, 229-230: omul medieval percepe totul iconic, i lumea cosmic, i lumea politic, si lumea economic, si lumea ideilor. De aceea este incult s suspectezi o iconografie medieval de inflexiuni laice sau s califici una sau alta din imagini ca icoane semi-secularizate, aa cum adesea sunt privite tablourile votive. Because most of the literature I used is in Romanian, I will be giving my own translation of the quotes in the text and the original Romanian quote in the footnote.

by the zeal of his own faith, Sorin Dumitrescu fails to be impartial and makes the medieval world an exclusively religious one. Votive portraits have been inserted within a sacred space full of religious images. They have been adapted to this context, but, however saintly the princes might have been rendered or thought to have been in popular tradition, I do not think that the portrait of a worldly figure and his family, even in such a sacred place, would be transformed into an icon, in the religious sense. The prince might have been worshiped for his bravery or good rule, but he is still a worldly being among the saints. As he has no aura around his head, he is distinguished from the sacred and the marks of his status as a prince clearly bring a political touch to the iconic world of the church. This whole digression was meant to show that we cannot be exclusive about such phenomena. Nothing can be reduced to one category, especially when it comes to memorial paintings. They are religious in a very large part, but they are also political, economical and social expressions. This is one of the main guidelines of my thesis: trying to look at these portraits from all of these perspectives, as it is suitable for a total social phenomenon. Obviously, such a characteristic implies the need for interdisciplinary research, probably one of the most used method in papers from the Humanities, especially nowadays. But this, going beyond scholarly fashion, becomes a necessity for the present research and will be reflected in the variety of articles used, related to archaeological finds, iconographical comparisons, historical analysis of the act of foundation, based on charters or studies of the history of costume. It is also reflected in the structure of the fourth chapter. At a first glance, this research would be catalogued as art historical. However, as a historian of formation, I find the two go hand in hand and this is recognized more and more by art historians, also in Romania, as explained in a methodological article, stating that the research of Romanian art remains organically linked to the historical research7. Another indispensable method for scholars is that of the comparative approach, which will be used in the present paper both for a chronological comparison of the votive portraits, in order to see whether we can speak of an evolution or a continuity in the iconography and for a comparison between the principalities of Walachia and Moldavia, hoping to find out which

Teodora Voinescu, Metode de cercetare n domeniul artei medievale romneti (Research Methods in the Field of Romanian Medieval Art), in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei, Seria art plastic (Studies and Researches of Art History, Art Series) 142: cercetarea artei romneti rmne organic legat de cercetarea istoric propriu-zis.

messages they wanted to bring across and whether they came up with similar or different solutions of representing founders. The argument of the thesis will develop during four main chapters. The first chapter will be dedicated to a discussion of the historiography, paradigms and concepts used. It will begin with a short overview of Romanian historiography, after which I will give a few details about the Western European paradigms and concepts that I offer as an alternative, explaining some key elements in the study of gift-giving and memoria and resuming the concept of total social phenomena. For the sake of clarity, I will then proceed to defining the act of founding a church or a monastery, with all the elements it implies, making a difference between the various participants and their roles and explaining the different types of portraits that we can find in a foundation and the terms they are designated by. Because of the variety of paintings from the point of view of their preservation, a methodological chapter related to our visual sources imposed itself. The second chapter begins with an overview of the sources that I used, architectural, iconographic and written ones, also adding a small entry about legends and the oral tradition. Because the church should be seen as a unitary whole and because donations and votive portraits are of various types, I added a piece on other sources that could be used for a future broader comparative perspective, like embroideries or miniatures. The chapter continues with an evocation of possible states in which the paintings can be found nowadays, according to which I defined three categories. These are explained and exemplified. The first is that of originals and acceptable restorations; the second of disputed restorations and the third of votive portraits which have been completely altered. As a conclusion, this chapter ends with the restrictions and choices that have been made, explaining why only some categories are used in the present paper. As previously stated, I want to place the votive portraits in the context of their foundation, so, accordingly, the third chapter focuses on the churches and monasteries. First of all, I will offer some general chronological outlines, in order to familiarize the reader with the founders and the foundations that will appear throughout the thesis. Secondly, I will say a few words about the architectural style and about the painting, making some general remarks, some of which contain information relevant to our main research questions. It is with them that the chapter ends, as I try to explain the motivation and function of these foundations, dividing them roughly, for the sake of structuring, into four otherwise intertwined categories: the spiritual

10

function, the funerary function, their significance within the princes fight for defending Christianity and their political and social meaning. I will then proceed to the most important part of the thesis, that of the analysis of the votive portraits, which represent the essential sources of the fourth chapter. I propose an iconographical description combined towards the end with one that points out their total quality. In this sense, I start by explaining where these portraits are to be found, related to the architecture and the iconographical program and who was supposed to see them. I then have a look at the way the background is represented and, afterwards, I make a short overview of how the composition is structured and who appears in it. Once speaking about the necessity of identifying the protagonists, I continue speaking about the role played by text within the composition, as a tool for identification and expressing the motivation. I then start off by analyzing the way in which the worldly figures are depicted, from their portrait, costume to their attitudes and gestures and the objects they hold in their hands, among which the model of the church. This last item, representing the gift, makes the link with the religious world, which is described next, from the main divine figures and the intercessors that take the message from this world to the other, to the angels that close the circle, by offering the crown as a mark of the divine origin of princely power. This takes us to the political interpretation structured around elements of the past (succession series), of the present (the figure of the prince) and the future (the followers). The social level follows, focusing on the representation of the family and its power, adding a touch of gender studies to the thesis, by a brief look at the women in these votive portraits. As a conclusion that matches that of the previous chapter, I will sum up the motivation and function behind these votive representations, structured according to their religious function and political and social statement. The thesis will conclude with a comparative overview, in time and space, of these votive portraits, followed by a final remark on the message they were supposed to deliver and a preview of possibilities for future research. The appendices will contain a list of all princely foundations from Walachia and Moldavia in alphabetical order, with information about the dates of their several foundations and the respective founders, followed by a colourful display of images from each church and monastery, presented alphabetically. The end will be marked by the bibliography that has been used.

11

3. The Importance of the Research

Going back to the point of departure, I would like to emphasize the importance of this research and its results, because of the fact that it offers for the first time a comparative approach to votive portraits from Walachia and Moldavia, which have never been brought together, while concentrating on their function and message through the use of the paradigms of gift-giving and memoria. The present research is useful and relevant because of the fact that it tries to bring these sources together in an extensive study, looking at the elements that compose this votive iconography. Romanian historiography has given them attention in articles, which could obviously not treat all the problems that arise or could only focus on case-studies. Reuniting Walachian and Moldavian princely votive portraits in an extensive comparative study is important, as much as offering a new perspective on this problem by linking known sources to new questions, new for the local historiography, which mostly wrote about them without letting them speak on their own8, that is to say without analyzing that which was essential to these votive portraits. When articles do attack the major questions regarding function and meaning, they do it on a microscopic level and never under the guidance of the paradigms of gift-giving and memoria. At the same time, its importance is given by the importance of the sources being analyzed: the votive portraits of princes. Within the religious iconographical unity of the church, they are like a drop of ink on a white sheet of paper. They are assimilated, but also singled out. These portraits contain extremely precious information, which are less evident elsewhere among the paintings of the church and which belong to all aspects of society. The history of costume can benefit from it, but also the history of princely power and its symbols or genealogy. Besides their rich and varied content, votive portraits are like a key to the lock or the signature of an intentional author, a small place where princes could publicly show their face, the one they wanted to present or which it was thought that they had. It is their public character which makes them important and singles them out among other similar representations. If a votive portrait can be found in a Gospel book, it would be destined for a restricted audience, maybe only for the prince, its private nature changing its function
8

Maria Ana Musicescu, Byzance et le portrait roumain au Moyen Age, Etudes byzantines et post-byzantines II (1979) 154: sans leur accorder la parole.

12

completely. But a votive portrait painted on the wall of a church would surely have more viewers than the previous example, its public and monumental character turning it into an official representation of the prince. This is why these frescoes are important, but also it is the reason why we limit the thesis to this type of source: it has a particular nature, from which a particular function derives. The votive portraits represent the official image of the prince, in front of God, but in front of his country as well, as we will prove in the fourth chapter. The novelty of the present research lies both in an extensive comparative analysis of princely votive portraits from Walachia and Moldavia, reuniting these sources, and in the new perspective from which they will be studied, one focusing on the coexistence of intertwined meanings and functions, all of which need to be taken into account and revealed.

13

Chapter I Historiography, Paradigms and Concepts

1. Romanian Historiography

In what follows, I would like to give an overview of Romanian historiography related to votive portraits in order to prove the lack and need of a systematic research that brings together mural paintings from Walachia and Moldavia (14th 17th centuries), analyzing their functions. Votive portraits have appeared from the very beginning in the work of Romanian pioneer historians and art historians. During this early period, their presence within the space of the church has been recorded, being described in detail. We could speak of a descriptive approach, which might be thought of as limited, but which is actually a very useful one. Early scholars would visit the monasteries and churches of the country, an impressive number of them, and describe with precision what they saw there. Many were recorded in The Newsletter of the Committee of Historical Monuments (Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice) and were structured regionally, in the form of a descriptive inventory, according to the county to which they belonged9 or described in a separate article10. For Moldavia, the same Newsletter published three in depth and lengthy chronological studies of Gheorghe Bal 11, but which, apart from giving a lot of information, seem to be more focused on the evolution of the architecture. Even though this type of scholarly work might seem outdated, it is very valuable for nowadays researchers. The hundreds of plans of the monasteries and churches are endlessly reproduced. These pioneers, from the need of understanding what was there, were all proficient in deciphering the Slavonic and Greek inscriptions, both the sculpted and painted ones. Their

Victor Brtulescu, Biserici din judeul Arge (Churches from the County of Arge) (Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice (The Newsletter of the Committee of Historical Monuments)) (1933). 10 Victor Brtulescu, Mnstirea Polovragi (Polovragi Monastery) in Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice (The Newsletter of the Committee of Historical Monuments) 106 (1940). 11 Gheorghe Bal, Bisericile lui tefan cel Mare (The Churches of Stephen the Great) in (Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice (The Newsletter of the Committee of Historical Monuments)) (1926); Gheorghe Bal, Bisericile moldoveneti din veacul al XVI-lea (The Moldavian Churches from the 16th Century) in (Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice (The Newsletter of the Committee of Historical Monuments)) (1928); Gheorghe Bal, Bisericile i mnstirile moldoveneti din veacurile al XVII-lea i al XVIII-lea (The Moldavian Churches and Monasteries from the 17th and 18th Centuries) in (Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice (The Newsletter of the Committee of Historical Monuments)) (1933).

14

descriptions12 contain the precious translation of the inscriptions on the votive portraits, which can also be found gathered in systematic volumes13. It is important to say that because a lot of this work has been done in the past and because of other developments in historiography, nowadays, scholars are no longer compelled to have solid knowledge in the field of Slavonic and Greek epigraphy and palaeography, which was a must beforehand. They can now focus more on interpretation, being indebted to the minute work of their predecessors. Familiarity with the fields mentioned above is however a plus. Surely, not all the work has been done and the Romanian Academy continues to publish volumes of translated inscriptions and, at the same time, these publications need to be looked at critically, because there might be hidden mistakes within them. In this period of time, princely portraits were mostly thought of in a descriptive manner, but also from the perspective of a collector. Nicolae Iorgas two volumes gather different types of portraits of princes and their wives14. However, the images are not accompanied by any sort of analysis. They are left to speak visually to the reader, the volumes being more evocative than analytical ones. Therefore, we can conclude that, in the beginning, the priority was to record all these wonderful artefacts with an antiquarians spirit, leaving no time for further investigation, which was left for the generations to come Next, we find votive portraits scattered among general studies15, compact researches that were focused on style and the rule of one prince16, volumes tracing the evolution of mural paintings in Walachia and Moldavia17 or monographs of churches18, written by art historians
Grigore Tocilescu, Raporturi asupra ctorva mnstiri, schituri i biserici din ar, prezentate Ministerului Cultelor i al nvmntului public (Reports on a Few Monasteries, Hermitages and Churches from the Country, Presented to the Ministry of Culture and Public Education) in Analele Academiei Romne (The Annals of the Romanian Academy) II, tome VIII (1885-1886). 13 Nicolae Iorga, Inscripii din bisericile Romniei (Inscriptions from the Churches of Romania) (Bucureti 1905). 14 Nicolae Iorga, Domnii romni dup portrete i fresce contemporane (Romanian Princes after Contemporary Portraits and Frescoes) (Sibiu 1930); Nicolae Iorga, Portretele doamnelor romne (The Portraits of Romanian Princesses) (Bucureti 1937). 15 Pavel Chihaia, Arta medieval (Medieval Art) (Bucureti 1998); Paul Henry, Monumentele din Moldova de Nord: de la origini pn la sfritul secolului al XVI-lea: contribuie la studiul civilizaiei moldave (The Monuments of Northern Moldavia: From the Origins to the End of the 16th Century: Contribution to the Study of the Moldavian Civilization) (Bucureti 1984); Ioan D. tefnescu, Arta feudal n rile Romne: pictura mural i icoanele, de la origini pn n secolul al XIX-lea (Feudal Art in the Romanian Principalities: Mural Painting and Icons, from the Origins until the 19th Century) (Timioara 1981). 16 Cornelia Pillat, Pictura mural n epoca lui Matei Basarab (The Mural Paintings in the Time of Matei Basarab) (Bucureti 1980); Ana Dobjanschi and Victor Simion, Arta n epoca lui Vasile Lupu (Art in the Time of Vasile Lupu) (Bucureti 1979); Vasile Drgu, Arta brncoveneasc (The Art of the Brncoveni) (Bucureti 1971). 17 Wladyslaw Podlacha, Pictura mural din Bucovina (The Mural Painting of Bucovina) (Bucureti 1985);Virgil Vtianu, Pictura mural din Nordul Moldovei (The Mural Painting of Northern Moldavia) (Bucureti 1974);
12

15

among which Ioan D. tefnescu, Pavel Chihaia, Virgil Vtianu, Vasile Drgu. Some of these actually have paragraphs or small chapters on the votive portraits and come to interesting conclusions, even combining traditional art historical stylistic comments with the context-based research of historians, but still on a level of case-studies. There also seems to be an interest in uncovering the influences that Romanian art has experienced in time, trying to find the origin of certain iconographical practices. If the Serbian and Byzantine influences are always remarked, there seems to be little comparison between the principalities themselves, each being treated separately. The same holds true for articles, which never allow lengthy researches to develop. However, in the well-known art historical magazine Studies and Researches of Art History (Studii i cercetri de istoria artei), many interesting articles can be found, mostly those of Sorin Ulea19, in which he analyses votive portraits in case-studies whose real purpose is the dating of the painting of the church, using the information encoded in these sources wisely, but not dedicating himself to the study of their own function. Sometimes, judging by the title, one would say there is nothing in it to be found about votive portraits, so it is necessary to look in unexpected places. Sometimes volumes written in the honour of a scholar hide precious small articles focused on votive portraits20, which you are lucky to bump into. However, many of these articles and even some books contain a paradox. They make pertinent remarks, to which they afterwards add a touch of communist ideology, thusly, showing the stigma of the regime they were writing under. I want to make a small digression in this sense, giving a few examples of what Sorin Dumitrescu would call the narcosis of the ideological rhetoric21, for the simple reason that Western European scholars might not be familiar with this phenomenon. For a long period of time, the communist regime imposed on what was being published their slogans, ideology and necessary quotes from Marx and Engels. This affected
Vasile Drgu and Petre Lupan, Pictura mural din Moldova: secolele XV-XVI (The Mural Paintings of Moldavia: 15th-16th Centuries) (Bucureti 1982); Carmen Laura Dumitrescu, Pictura mural din ara Romneasc n veacul al XVI-lea (The Mural Paintings of Wallachia in the 16th Century) (Bucureti 1979). 18 To give only one example: Vasile Drgu, Dobrov (Bucureti 1984). 19 Sorin Ulea, Datarea ansamblului de pictur de la Dobrov (Dating the Ensemble of Painting from Dobrov) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) 2 (1961). 20 Tereza Sinigalia, Ctitori i imagini votive n pictura mural din Moldova la sfritul secolului al XV-lea i n prima jumtate a secolului al XVI-lea o ipotez (Founders and Votive Images in the Mural Paintings of Moldavia at the End of the 15th Century and in the First Half of the 16th a Hypothesis) in Arta istoriei, istoria artei: academicianul Rzvan Theodorescu la 65 de ani (The Art of History, the History of Art: the Academist Rzvan Theodorescu at the Age of 65) (Bucureti 2004). 21 Dumitrescu, Chivotele lui Petru Rare, 142: narcoza retoricii ideologice.

16

historical and art historical publications. On an official level, history was written in the communist way and, in order to publish, you had to have a little drop of the logic of the regime. Some adhered to this more than others, but it is important to be aware of the existence of such a content, which produces patriotic pieces when speaking of the portrait of a prince, like in this example about the Moldavian 16th century prince Petru Rare: in spite of the apparently soft features, the expression is lively, energetical, precisely as we know the fearless ruling prince was like, often a victor and never defeated without glory, a leader of a small country, who nevertheless was by no means the inferior of his powerful opponents who headed the armies of an empire22. But things can be far worse. In an article which offers an interesting interpretation of the mystery of the exterior paintings of churches during the reign of Petru Rare, which we will discuss in the second chapter, Sorin Ulea brings together pertinent conclusions and unacceptable anachronisms, concluding with a quote from Engels and the thought that the external Moldavian paintings are a brilliant confirmation of these words23. The ideas would then spread and be promoted in monographs, Nicolae Stoicescu summarizing Uleas conclusion in a more evocative phrase than we could find in the original article, stating, according to his inspirer, that the walls of the churches became a genuine screen meant to contribute to the patriotic education of the popular masses, to prepare them for fight and to inspire them with the hope of victory 24. However, it is a paradox that Uleas article is actually a very useful one if you can read beyond the ideological level. For this reason, I wanted to give an example of the communist touch in Romanian historiography, which reminds the researcher of the necessity of a permanent critical spirit. The same holds true for interesting publications, impregnated this time with excessive faith, in which religion dominates everything, from the author to the entire medieval society and which we have already mentioned25. I consider that moderation would have benefited the interesting hypothesis a lot more, in the case of Sorin Dumitrescus publication. There are

Vasile Drgu, Humor (Bucureti 1973) 19. Sorin Ulea, Originea i semnificaia ideologic a picturii exterioare moldoveneti I (The Origin and Ideological Meaning of the External Moldavian Painting I) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) (1963) 91: o confirmare [] strlucit a acestor cuvinte. 24 Nicolae Stoicescu, Humor (Bucureti 1978) 19. 25 Dumitrescu, Chivotele lui Petru Rare.
23

22

17

religious interpretations which do not exclude other possibilities, as it is suitable for a total phenomenon26. Regarding the act of founding, foundations and votive portraits, a few publications are worth mentioning. First of all, I would like to express the disappointment when, after a promising title about princes and their foundations, many of them27 offer no conclusion about the reason for which these princes had such an elaborate programme of founding. They just simply follow a manual or guide-like structure, giving a short biography of the prince, followed by a short presentation of each church and monastery that he founded. There are a few articles28 and publications focusing on the act of founding, Voica Pucaus elaborate study29 offering an impressive table of all churches and monasteries in Walachia and Moldavia until the end of the 18 th century with a list of all their founders, which represented a starting point for finding the sources for this paper. Publications devoted exclusively to votive portraits of princes are very few and are represented by three articles that we know of30, a chapter in a study of Walachian mural paintings31 and two chapters in an unpublished PhD thesis32, offering a broader perspective. The only study that focuses on votive portraits exclusively refers to the 19th century33.

Maria Crciun, Semnificaiile ctitoririi n Moldova medieval O istoie social a religiei (The Meanings of Founding in Medieval Moldavia A Social History of Religion) in Violeta Barbu, Paul Cernovodeanu and Andrei Pippidi, Naional i universal n istoria romnilor: studii oferite prof. dr. erban Papacostea cu ocazia mplinirii a 70 de ani (The National and the Universal in the History of the Romanians: Studies Offered to prof. dr. erban Papacostea on the Occasion of His 70th Celebration) (Bucureti 1998). 27 Sergiu Adam, Ctitorii muatine (Foundations of the Muat Family) (Bucureti 1976); Adrian Petru Drghici, Adrian Gabor and Adrian Portase, Domnitorii i ierarhii rii Romneti: ctitoriile i mormintele lor (The Princes and Hierarchs of Wallachia: Their Foundations and Tombs) (Bucureti 2009); Florentin Popescu, Ctitorii brncoveneti (Foundations of the Brncoveni Family) (Bucureti 1976). 28 Gheorghe Cron, Dreptul de ctitorire n ara Romneasc i Moldova. Constituirea i natura juridic a fundaiilor n evul mediu (The Right of Founding in Walachia and Moldavia. The Formation and Juridical Nature of Foundations in the Middle Ages), Studii i materiale de istorie medie (Studies and Materials of Medieval History) IV (1960). 29 Voica Pucau, Actul de ctitorire ca fenomen istoric n ara Romneasc i Moldova pn la sfritul secolului al XVIII-lea (The Act of Founding as a Historical Phenomenon in Wallachia and Moldavia until the End of the 18th Century) (Bucureti 2001). 30 Musicescu, Byzance et le portrait roumain au Moyen Age; Maria Ana Musicescu, Introduction unde tude sur le portrait de fondateur dans le Sud-Est europen. Essai de typologie, Revue des tudes sud-est europennes VII (1969) 2; Sinigalia, Ctitori i imagini votive. 31 Dumitrescu, Pictura mural din ara Romneasc: chapter III Iconografie i ctitori (Iconography and Founders) 44-66. 32 Tania Kamburova, Le don dans limage Byzantine du souverain (unpublished PhD thesis). 33 Andrei Pnoiu, Pictura votiv din nordul Olteniei: secolul XIX (The Votive Painting from the North of Oltenia: 19th Century) (Bucureti 1968).

26

18

This situation shows two major needs in Romanian historiography on medieval princely votive portraits from mural paintings: that of a systematic research comparing Walachia and Moldavia and that of a contact with Western European developments in the field, which would shift the perspective towards the focus on motivation and function, being aware at all times about the multiple implications of such representations.

2. Western European Perspectives: Gift-Giving and Memoria

The purpose of this part of the introduction is to present the alternative of Western European paradigms that are useful in the study of the act of foundation and that of votive representations. I will try to briefly emphasize the different research levels and questions, as well as concepts that are related to this matter and which I consider it is important to be aware of when analyzing such sources. However, not all of them will be applied within the length of this thesis, for practical reasons. I would like to specify that being concerned mainly by the problematic proposed by the paradigm of gift-giving and memoria, I will not present here a history of their development, which can easily be found elsewhere 34 and would like to emphasize that the following statements are deeply indebted to the work of Dutch scholars of the memoria, especially Truus van Bueren, through whom I was introduced to this paradigm, but also ArnoudJan Bijsterveld, with references to the works of German and French scholars as well, given their importance in these fields of study. Ever since medievalists have borrowed it from anthropologists, in the 1980s, the concept of gift-giving has been used in relation to religious donations and foundations. Arnoud-Jan Bijsterveld defines gift-giving as a series of ceremonial transactions of goods or services to create, to maintain, or to restore relations between individuals or groups of people 35. At the same time, he defines memoria as the liturgical commemoration of the living and the dead by monks, canons, nuns, and other clerics36, a similar definition to the one adopted by Joan

Michel Lauwers, Memoria. A propos dun objet dhistoire en Allemagne, in Jean-Claude Schmitt and Otto Gerhard Oexle (ed.), Les tendances actuelles de lhistoire du Moyen Age en France et en Allemagne. Actes des colloques de Svres (1997) et Gttingen (1998) (Paris 2002). 35 Arnoud-Jan Bijsterveld, Do ut des: Gift Giving, Memoria, and Conflict Managament in the Medieval Low Countries (Hilversum 2007) 85. 36 Bijsterveld, Do ut des, 7.

34

19

Holladay37. These are the two guidelines for this thesis that apply to foundations and votive portraits. I would like to emphasize the distinction between memory, as the cognitive process of retaining information of the past, and memoria, as a process centered on commemoration. Memoria was meant to create a bond between the living and the dead, thusly making the past present. Because of the powerful ties that link gift-giving and memoria together, both centred on the notion of gift, the two share the characteristic of being total social phenomena, first attributed to gift-giving by Marcel Mauss38, as previously stated, and then extended to memoria. Mauss described gift giving practices as: des faits sociaux totaux [] cest--dire quils mettent en branle dans certains cas la totalit de la socit et de ses institutions [] Tous ces phnomnes sont la fois juridiques, conomiques, religieux, et mme esthtiques, morphologiques, etc.39. This is what he called le systme des prestations totales40, in which all institutions were expressed at the same time. Returning to Mauss, Ilana Silber speaks of the multifacetedness and multivocality of the gift 41 and Arnoud Jan-Bijsterveld considers that a gift is total because it expresses different orientations in society, but, also, because it is somehow related to society as a whole42. Being related to gift-giving, because it involves donations, the concept of memoria has the same characteristic, emphasized by Otto Gerhard Oexle, of being a total social phenomenon. A reason for this is the fact that the motives behind the religious gifts were all the time interwoven and that they never had a singular nature, but rather multiple facets. All of these aspects could coexist with no separation in the mind of the medieval donor, while it is our own perception and tendency towards categorization that leads us to make distinctions between religious, political, social, genealogical and economical motives. As Truus van Bueren has

Joan A. Holladay, Tombs and Memory: Some Recent Books, Speculum 78 (2003) 441: the liturgical and paraliturgical practices that established a community between the living and the dead and maintained the presence of the dead among the living. 38 For a discussion on the criticism and defense of Marcel Mausss theories and approach, see the articles in the volume of Gadi Algazi, Valentin Groebner and Bernhard Jussen (ed.), Negotiating the Gift: Pre-Modern Figurations of Exchange (Gttingen 2003). 39 Mauss, Essai sur le don, 274-275. 40 Mauss, Essai sur le don, 151. 41 Ilana F. Silber, Gift-giving in the Great Traditions: The Case of Donations to Monasteries in the Medieval West, Archives europennes de sociologie 36 (1995). 42 Bijsterveld, Do ut des, 29.

37

20

emphasized, in memoria religious and other aspects appear as intertwined43 and distinctions should be made for the purpose of analysis only. Arnoud-Jan Bijsterveld points out to the danger of anachronism, concluding that we may continue to typify a donors motivation as being economic or political, as long as we remain aware that we are in fact isolating one motive or aspect from a complex of motives that is, in essence, inextricable44. In the medieval society, the worldly and otherworldly were at all times interconnected, because the religious and the material do not exclude each other, but go hand in hand. As Bijsterveld explains 45, spiritual and sociopolitical intentions were in fact two sides of the same coin: they were separated by their different nature, but they formed a whole. Nigel Saul, referring to tombs, shows that they had both a secular and religious function, forming together a holistic strategy for the afterlife 46. This holds true for princely votive portraits. The problem of total phenomena and of holistic approaches must be their applicability. It is very hard for one man to have so many pairs of eyes with which he can look at each corner of society, but it can be done when this man becomes a community of scholars that follow their individual paths and then relate their findings to each other. Lately, conferences and seminars, collective volumes and research groups have turned interdisciplinarity into practice, proving its validity. Within the field of memoria, as Truus van Bueren points out, this has been a necessity47, because of the particularity that we have already discussed. For this reason, interdisciplinarity as a method of research has been put into practice by the community of scholars of the memoria, starting with the Germans, the pioneers of the field. The result of such a development has been, to give a representative example, the volume on memoria, published in 1984, by Karl Schmid and Joachim Wollasch, which gathered, in an interdisciplinary manner, the works of historians, philologists, theologians and art historians48. Following the same pattern, Truus van Bueren and

Truus van Bueren, Care for the Here and the Hereafter: A Multitude of Possibilities, in Truus van Bueren and Andrea van Leerdam (ed.), Care for the Here and the Hereafter: Memoria, Art and Ritual in the Middle Ages (Turnhout 2005) 14. 44 Bijsterveld, Do ut des, 53. 45 Bijsterveld, Do ut des, 122. 46 Nigel Saul, Death, Art, and Memory in Medieval England: The Cobham Family and Their Monuments, 13001500 (Oxford and New York 2001) 243. 47 Van Bueren, Care for the Here and the Hereafter, 13. 48 Karl Schmid and Joachim Wollasch (ed.), Memoria: der geschichtliche Zeugniswert des liturgischen Gedenkens im Mittelalter (Munich 1984).

43

21

Andrea van Leerdam published a collection of studies on memoria49 that reveal the countless aspects of this phenomenon: gender issues, genealogical meanings, political interests, the importance of sound next to visual representations, within multimedial contexts50, the importance of the audience, the role of contracts, charters and memorial books. An essential problem that can be found at the core of the study of gift-giving and memoria is the well-known question, at all times present in the mind of the historian and which also guides the present research: why and for what reasons? Trying to find out the intimate causes that have triggered a donors action of gift-giving to a church or monastery is a difficult, to some, a questionable task, but one that deals with an essential part of any phenomenon. The main characteristic of the intentions of medieval donors is their total nature, the fact that, somehow, hidden behind a gift to a religious institution, we may find not only one, but several motives, at the same time. They seem to contradict themselves, for it is hard to relate pious devotion to the need of showing off ones status and power51, yet, at all times, they coexist and are intertwined. As clearly stated by Truus van Bueren, memorial pieces may express religious, social, historical, historiographic, or socio-political goals or a combination of these52. Until now, I have only addressed the motivation of the donors, but it would be worth while to remember that there must have been a motivation behind the receiving institutions as well, some reasons for which they accepted this practice. It might be objected that a motivation is like an impulse, it generates an action and that receivers did not have any initiative, but only accepted the things that came to them. However, this is contested by the numerous cases in which receiving institutions are hunting for donors and take a lot of trouble to convince laics to make donations. The well-documented case of Katerina Lemmel53, who led an entire campaign of propaganda for donations to her monastery, through letters sent to her friends and family, using consciously instigated rivalries between possible donors to achieve her goals, shows that,
Truus van Bueren and Andrea van Leerdam (ed.), Care for the Here and the Hereafter: Memoria, Art and Ritual in the Middle Ages (Turnhout 2005). 50 Volker Schier, Memorials Sung and Unsung: Liturgical Remembrance and Its History, in Truus van Bueren and Andrea van Leerdam (ed.), Care for the Here and the Hereafter: Memoria, Art and Ritual in the Middle Ages (Turnhout 2005) 125. 51 Llewellyn C. J. J. Bogaers, Commemoration in a Utrecht Collegiate Church: Burial and Memorial Culture in St. Peters (1054-1784), in Truus van Bueren and Andrea van Leerdam (ed.), Care for the Here and the Hereafter: Memoria, Art and Ritual in the Middle Ages (Turnhout 2005) 211. 52 Van Bueren, Care for the Here and the Hereafter, 29. 53 Corine Schleif, Forgotten Roles of Women as Donors: Sister Katerina Lemmels Negotiated Exchanges in the Care for the Here and the Hereafter, in Truus van Bueren and Andrea van Leerdam (ed.), Care for the Here and the Hereafter: Memoria, Art and Ritual in the Middle Ages (Turnhout 2005).
49

22

sometimes, receivers were more motivated than donors, in the process of gift-giving. It makes us wonder whether a monk advising a prince to build monasteries does not think of the benefits of a future monastic community, giving the receiver, in this case an inspirer, a motivation to accept a gift. In what follows, I would like to address the debate on whether we can we really identify the intentions of the donors from the sources that we have at hand, started by Henk Teunis, who considers that it is pointless to research lay peoples motives when they have been recorded by cleric scribes54 and by Michel Lauwers who questions the interest of medieval people to adhere to the system of memoria55. Truus van Bueren and Arnoud-Jan Bijsterveld have contested these pessimistic views with clear arguments. Bijsterveld, analyzing the case of the priory of Postel, discusses whether when donors express their motives in charters, statements such as out of pious devotion or for the salvation of his/her soul 56 are the expression of the true feelings and intentions of the donors or just mere formulas. These formulas are similar with the ones that we can find in the Romanian pisanii57. Bijsterveld argues that the religious motivations often found in the arenga, under a formulaic appearance58, are not fossilized constructions that hide the interests of the clerics, but that the donor was aware of their meaning and that traces of his own influence on the wording can still be found59. He argues that the rich specification of the memorial services and the variety of the formulas transform these from hollow phrases into intentional formulas, expressing the sincere wishes of donors and grantors60. Truus van Bueren brings more arguments to the table, explaining that the motives of donors can be found also in documents that have not been written by clerics and that, by choosing a variety of sources, we can come to a more accurate conclusion. She also points out to a very good method of identifying the donors motivations, that of analyzing documents that have resulted from a conflict between the two parties. Direct and indirect information and even alteration to art

Cf. Bijsterveld, Do ut des, 53. Lauwers, Memoria, 118-119. 56 Bijsterveld, Do ut des, 115. 57 The pisanii are pieces of sculpted or painted text usually hanging above the entrance of the church or above other interior doors and in which a small history of the edifice is being presented, giving the motives of the founders and the date of the foundation. 58 The most common motivations to be found are religious ones: in elemosinam, pro salute anime, ob remedium anime, in remissionem peccatorum: Bijsterveld, Do ut des, 81. 59 Bijsterveld, Do ut des, 172. 60 Bijsterveld, Do ut des, 177.
55

54

23

objects betray intentions61. Truus van Bueren concludes her article with a statement that clearly puts an end to the debate started by Teunis and provides a good characterization of research into donors motivations: The road to success may be full of pitfalls, but it is certainly possible to trace intentions62. There are many possible approaches to the paradigm of memoria, meaning that there are different aspects that one can analyze within this framework. For instance, reception history has become an important research topic, trying to shift the focus from the author or the donor towards the audience, showing, as Bram van den Hoven van Genderen resumed, that the public mattered, too63. The public of medieval donations mattered quite a lot for contemporaries and it ought to matter likewise to scholars studying these practices. A donation was generally not an act made in secrecy, only between man and God, but, rather, a public ritual at which an entire community was invited to participate. Donations took place in a public context, so that it was essential for them to be observable, aspect emphasized by Truus van Bueren64. Actually, the audience was the mechanism without which the memory could not have been preserved, because: memoria could only be effective if the living did remember the dead, if epitaph texts were read, if prayers were recited, and if viewers devotion was aroused.65. Remembrance could only take place through those that were living after the donor had died, making the public somehow responsible of fulfilling the donors wishes. The donation itself acted as an instrument, a means of activating the memory among the audience. In theory, the process ought to have functioned well, but in practice, many times, the results were different from what they were intended to be. If the successor had an interest in showing his descent from an important ancestor, remembrance was accomplished. Sometimes, violent reactions from the audience led to the complete destruction of all the instruments by which memory had been preserved. Such has been the case of Queen Christines of Denmark

Van Bueren, Care for the Here and the Hereafter, 15. Van Bueren, Care for the Here and the Hereafter, 28. 63 Bram van den Hoven van Genderen, Remembrance and Memoria: the Descriptions of Four Churches Compared, in Truus van Bueren and Andrea van Leerdam (ed.), Care for the Here and the Hereafter: Memoria, Art and Ritual in the Middle Ages (Turnhout 2005) 268. 64 Van Bueren, Care for the Here and the Hereafter, 17. 65 Van den Hoven van Genderen, Remembrance and Memoria, 268.
62

61

24

mausoleum66, destroyed when, after political and religious changes, the preservation of her memory has turned into damnatio memoriae. Cases of damnatio memoriae are to be found in Romanian princely votive portraits as well, as we will see later on. At the same time, memorial representations attracted the interest and curiosity of outsiders, who would stop to admire these monuments and read their inscriptions, thus contributing to the process of remembrance. Travel accounts offer information on the response of a different type of audience to memorial practices67. For the Romanian principalities such valuable sources have been gathered in a collection of numerous volumes entitled: Foreign Travellers about the Romanian Principalities (Cltori strini despre rile Romne)68. There are several problems that arise when dealing with reception history, which are much more difficult to solve than, for example, those related to understanding the motivations of the donor. Basically, the problem derives from the fact that there is no general public 69. The audience is formed by several groups born out of a specific context, which have their own interpretation, groups that have to be analyzed separately and which, if going to the extremes, might even be represented by individuals, because each person has his own unique reaction. If responses surpass purposes in variety and broadness, they have also a big disadvantage in the fact that reactions are less known than intentions. The main question of reception history, within the paradigm of memoria, seems to be whether the process of remembrance through memorial practices really did function. If, in theory, a statue or portrait of a donor or the recitation of his name made him present in the face of God during the liturgy, did these instruments determine the same result for the worldly audience? Did the medieval churchgoer really notice all those heraldic signs and memorial pieces?70. Such questions are of critical importance for the study of memoria, but, at the same time, they are extremely difficult to answer, for causes mentioned above. Marcel Mauss has developed another concept, which, like that of a total social phenomenon, has been applied to the paradigm of memoria. In the context of gift-giving, Mauss
Brigitte Bggild Johannsen, Genealogical Representation in Gendered Perspective: on a Lost Royal Mausoleum from Early Sixteenth-Century Denmark, in Truus van Bueren and Andrea van Leerdam (ed.), Care for the Here and the Hereafter: Memoria, Art and Ritual in the Middle Ages (Turnhout 2005) 83. 67 Van den Hoven van Genderen, Remembrance and Memoria, 267. 68 Cltori strini despre rile Romne (Foreign Travellers about the Romanian Principalities) (Bucureti 19682001). 69 Van Bueren, Care for the Here and the Hereafter, 28. 70 Van den Hoven van Genderen, Remembrance and Memoria, 268.
66

25

identifies une thorie gnrale de lobligation71, according to which the gift implied a triple obligation: lobligation de donner, lobligation de recevoir et lobligation de rendre 72. Following Mauss, some scholars of the memoria have identified a notion of reciprocity that seemed to govern silently the relationship between a donor and the receiving religious institution, whilst others have contested Mausss argument and conclusions and have brought up different interpretations. The principle Do ut des (I give so you may give), characterizes this mechanism that governs society and most of the exchanges between its members, an ongoing process that transforms gifts into a means of social integration73. Counter-gifts or return gifts are at the centre of this notion of reciprocity. Because giving implies giving back, receiving religious institutions were meant to give something in return to the donor and this attitude is well-documented and manifested in several ways, even though the idea of counter-gifts remains somehow a matter of debate between scholars of the memoria. First of all, counter-gifts are of a spiritual and material nature. The first type consists of prayers, liturgical commemoration and benefices in the afterlife, whilst the second, mostly small sums of money had a symbolic value, representing a compensation for the donors material gift and, at the same time, a promise that the receiver will fulfil his spiritual obligation. I introduced this idea in order to familiarize the reader with it, as it will be later mentioned in the third chapter. Memoria and remembrance are concepts related both to this world and to the next, idea well-captured in the title of the volume edited by Truus van Bueren: it is the care for the here and the hereafter74. If donations display material wealth, they can also display another type of wealth and source of power: lineage. Genealogical representations have drawn the attention of many scholars, being an obvious expression of the coexistence of spiritual and worldly purposes75. In her book Leven na de dood76, Truus van Bueren distinguishes two types of memorial sources that are connected to some sort of a descent: family works and successors series. The first represent the donors descent within his own family and the indissoluble ties

Mauss, Essai sur le don, 160. Mauss, Essai sur le don, 205. 73 Bijsterveld, Do ut des, 18. 74 Van Bueren and van Leerdam (ed.), Care for the Here and the Hereafter. 75 Johannsen, Genealogical Representation in Gendered Perspective, 79; Anna Bergmans, Le mmorial dynastique du duc Henri III de Brabant et dAlix de Bourgogne dans lglise des Dominicains Louvain, in [Actes du] 12eme Congres international dtudes sur les Danses macabres et lart macabre en gnral. Gand du 21 au 24 septembre 2005 (Meslay-le-Grenet 2006) II, 28. 76 Truus van Bueren, Leven na de dood: gedenken in de late Middeleeuwen (Turnhout 1999).
72

71

26

that link members of the same family. The second represent portraits of officials from secular and ecclesiastical institutions who succeeded one another over time77, as for example the Sukzessionsbilder of popes, in which one would be memorializing his predecessors and locating himself at the end of a historical series78. The hermeneutic model according to which these succession series can be studied, formed by the triple concept of Tradition, Sukzession und Memoria has been described by Truus van Bueren and Otto Gerhard Oexle 79 and it is extremely useful when analysing such cases in Walachian and Moldavian princely foundations, which we will be doing in the fourth chapter of the thesis. Some of these dynastical monuments have also one more thing in common: they were commissioned by women. If, the roles of women in donating or administering sacred works of art as memorials to themselves and their family members have long been ignored80, it seems that, lately, this gendered perspective attracts scholars more and more and the part played by women in memorial representations has inspired many recent researches 81. Even though it is difficult to trace the importance of women, gender should always be taken into account in memoria research82 and this is what we will try to do, at least partially, for the Romanian sources that we are studying. I have insisted a lot on this part, because I think that through formulating problems and through the awareness of concepts from Western European historiography, we are able to broaden and deepen the perspective upon Romanian medieval princely votive portraits. Most of
77

Truus van Buerens classification cf. Brigitte Dekeyzer, For Eternal Glory and Remembrance: On the Representation of Patrons in Late Medieval Panel Paintings in the Southern Low Countries, in Paul Trio and Marjan De Smet (ed.), The Use and Abuse of Sacred Places in Late Medieval Towns (Leuven 2006) 73. 78 Julian Gardner, Epilogue: From Hence Your Memory Death Cannot Take, in Truus van Bueren and Andrea van Leerdam (ed.), Care for the Here and the Hereafter: Memoria, Art and Ritual in the Middle Ages (Turnhout 2005) 291. 79 Truus van Bueren, Otto Gerhard Oexle, Die Darstellung der Sukzession: ber Sukzessionbilder und ihren Kontext in Truus van Bueren and Andrea van Leerdam (ed.), Care for the Here and the Hereafter: Memoria, Art and Ritual in the Middle Ages (Turnhout 2005) 55. 80 Schleif, Forgotten Roles of Women as Donors, 137. 81 June Hall McCash (ed.), The Cultural Patronage of Medieval Women (Athens 1996); Cynthia Miller Lawrence (ed.), Women and Art in Early Modern Europe : Patrons, Collectors, and Connoisseurs (Pennsylvania 1997); Elisabeth van Houts, Memory and Gender in Medieval Europe, 900-1200 (Houndmills and London 1999); Elisabeth van Houts (ed.), Medieval Memories: Men, Women and the Past, 700-1300 (Harlow 2001); Emmanuelle Santinelli, Les femmes et la mmoire. Le rle des comtesses dans la Francie occidentale du XIe sicle, in Franois Bougard, Cristina La Rocca and Rgine Le Jan (ed.), Sauver son me et se perptuer. Transmission du patrimoine et mmoire au haut Moyen Age (Rome 2005); Virginia C. Raguin and Sarah Stanbury (ed.), Womens Space: Patronage, Place, and Gender in the Medieval Church (Albany NY 2005); Johannsen, Genealogical Representation in Gendered Perspective; Schleif, Forgotten Roles of Women as Donors. 82 Van Bueren, Care for the Here and the Hereafter, 23.

27

the remarks that I have made until now have a clear applicability for the Romanian sources, though obviously there are differences to be taken into account.

3. The Act of Founding Definitions

If one wants to do research on votive portraits of founders, one needs to define the word founder and the word votive, the first being a problematic one. Differences between Western European and Romanian foundation practices can be observed on the level of the terminology and concepts used when referring to a founder. It was probably noticed that, when speaking about Romanian historiography, I mainly used the terms foundation and votive portraits, while, when shifting to the Western European one, the terms donation and memorial piece prevailed. In what follows, I will try to explain these differences, making a few remarks on the act of founding a monastery, with emphasis on the protagonists and on the types of portraits related to this phenomenon. I will not insist here on all the juridical aspects of the act of founding a church or a monastery or on the history of its development in Walachia and Moldavia, as these matters have been studied in depth by Voica Pucau 83. I would only like to give her definition of the act of founding: a bilateral understanding, with a contractual character, between the different representatives of the feudal power and the institution of the church. On the basis of this understanding, the first committed themselves to building, endowing, maintaining and repairing the religious buildings (in the purpose of marking and emphasizing in this way their own authority, on a spiritual and social level) and the beneficiaries of the foundation committed themselves to assure all the conditions envisaged by the founders: the security of their tombs, the celebration of commemoration masses, as well as other wishes, which even though rarely formulated in documents, would represent, in their turn, firm contractual terms 84.

Pucau, Actul de ctitorire. Pucau, Actul de ctitorire, 201: o nelegere bilateral, cu caracter contractual, ntre diferiii reprezentani ai puterii feudale i instituia bisericii. n virtutea acestei nelegeri, primii se obligau s construiasc i s nzestreze, s ntrein i s repare edificii de cult (n scopul de a marca i sublinia n acest fel propria lor autoritate, pe plan spiritual i pe plan social), iar beneficiarii ctitoririi se obligau s asigure toate condiiile preconizate de ctitori: securitatea mormintelor ctitoriceti, oficierea slujbelor de pomenire, precum i alte deziderate, care dei mai rar formulate n documente, constituiau, la rndul lor, clauze contractuale ferme.
84

83

28

Medieval donations are divided into two different categories: foundations and endowments. Christine Sauer, in a Western European context, explains that the first category represents the initial donation, while the second consists of the contributions made by donors or benefactores to create the material base for monastic life. Consequently, the founder or fundator is the donor of the dos or fundus, the piece of land on which a church or monastery was built 85. Christine Sauer considers that in order to become a founder it is sufficient to have provided the piece of land on which the church or monastery has been built. At first, I was struck by the fact that, in this case, the intention of the donor plays no part, but it is quite logical that the one providing the material goods and means for the building ought to be the founder and not the one with the idea. However, in order for a monastery or a church to exist, not only land is required, but also money or materials to erect the building itself, which I believe is an essential part of the founding of a religious institution. It would be interesting for a systematic research to be carried out, in order to identify, in Western European sources, what did medieval men consider a founder to be and whether the donors that have raised the building had this title as well86. Sorin Dumitrescu takes the problem one step further, when he distinguishes between the author and the founder, giving the founder an intentional dimension as well, comparing the two with the relationship between an author and book editor: the author makes/erects the building, the founder offers it87. He gives the example of prince Petru Rare of Moldavia and his cousin Grigorie Roca, who later became metropolitan bishop of Moldavia. Dumitrescu sees the prince as the founder of his monasteries and Roca as the author o f their iconographical program. Truus van Bueren offers a valuable classification of the parties involved in the act of donation or foundation: for the sake of clarity we might distinguish participants in donations in terms of 1) conveyance of the concrete idea; 2) inducements for the donation to be made; 3) funding of the donation; and 4) monitoring of the actual execution. It goes without saying that a

Ideas of Christine Sauer cf. Bijsterveld, Do ut des, 87. There are surely several definitions of the words founder and donor, but I will not go into this matter any further. Truus van Bueren has informed me that, for the Netherlands, the word founder is used in various ways. 87 Dumitrescu, Chivotele lui Petru Rare, 60: autorul realizeaz/ridic zidirea, ctitorul o nchin.
86

85

29

person could assume (some of) the roles simultaneously, but for the purpose of research it would seem wise to distinguish between these groups.88. A problematic situation that we may encounter is that in which a religious institution is re-founded on the site of a previous one and the new donor is considered as the founder. This contradicts the definition with which we have started, as this donor is obviously not the one that has given the land, but the one that has rebuilt the edifice, proving that it is important to take this aspect into account when defining the founder. I believe that the situation is worse when the church is not partially or completely rebuilt, but when we deal with something common for monasteries and churches in Walachia and Moldavia, the renovation of the paintings or the complete repainting. In such cases, the donor who supported the cost is often considered to be a founder and is represented according to this status in a votive portrait, making the definition of a founder very broad and clearly variable, according to the context in which it has taken place. This is a current situation for monasteries in Walachia and Moldavia, as we shall see later on, as a prince would often repaint the foundations of his predecessors that have been ruined. This Romanian practice does not make any sense in the context of Christine Sauers definition of a founder. Actually, there is quite a difference between this definition, suitable only for Western European cases and the way the founder was defined and understood by medieval men in Walachia and Moldavia. Because these differences do exist, apart from pointing them out, I would like to present, succinctly, the definition of a founder, as given by Voica Pucau, which reflects the perception and practice in the Romanian space, obviously broader than the Western European one, given by Christine Sauer. First of all, the Romanian correspondent for the term of founder is that of ctitor, which again is used with higher liberty and can designate, even to this day, the donation of an icon, which according to Western European rules would be considered as an endowment. The medieval understanding of the term ctitor was the following, according to Voica Pucau: this name corresponds to all the people who, through the actions they initiated, brought a concrete contribution either to the building of a religious edifice, either to the ensuring of the surviving

88

Van Bueren, Care for the Here and the Hereafter, 22.

30

conditions as a religious institution of such an edifice89. She distinguishes two large categories of founders: de facto and de jure. To the first category belong the initial founders, also known as the great founders: all those who conceived and put into practice the building and the endowment of a religious edifice90, sometimes, to this group, belonging even the painters who did not receive payment for their work, thusly, contributing to the foundation through their own work In the same category of founders de facto we find the secondary founders or new founders, defined as all those who contributed (to various degrees), to the completion of the endowment of a pre-existent foundation with properties or movable goods; to the restoration, reparation, transformation of the initial edifices or to the addition of new ones within the same foundation, to their painting or re-painting91. I would like to point out that Voica Pucau tries to make here a distinction between foundation, as the initial act, and endowment, as donations that follow it, in the way in which it is made for Western European cases. However, I feel that, in some parts, the two definitions overlap. The one who donated the painting of a monastery could be regarded as a great founder as much as a new founder. The last group in this category is that of the founders of confirmation (ctitori de ntrire), those who contributed to the confirmation of previous acts of donations. The founders de jure are represented by the family of the founder de facto, even though they have not participated to the foundation in a material way. I wanted to offer these alternative definitions only to point out the difficult task of defining the quality of founder, for both the Western and Eastern parts of Europe. For Walachia and Moldavia, it is even worse because of the broadness of the term ctitor that may give the impression of a random use. The discussion around the notion of foundation or founder of religious institutions is one that still needs careful research and intense reflections upon the sources available, because it is not only hard for nowadays scholars to understand, but maybe it

Pucau, Actul de ctitorire, 191: aceast denumire corespunde tuturor persoanelor care, prin aciunile iniiate, i aduceau contribuia concret fie la construirea unui edificiu de cult, fie la asigurarea condiiilor de supravieuire ca aezmnt n sine a unui atare edificiu.. 90 Pucau, Actul de ctitorire, 191: toi aceia care concepeau i puneau n practic construirea i nzestrarea unui lca. 91 Pucau, Actul de ctitorire, 192: toi cei care contribuiau (n msur variabil), la completarea nzestrrii cu bunuri imobiliare sau mobiliare a unui aezmnt preexistent; la refacerea, repararea, transformarea edificiilor iniiale sau la adugarea unora noi n cuprinsul aceluia aezmnt, la pictarea sau repictarea acestora..

89

31

was unclear even to those who have introduced it, as at times it leaves the impression of a chaotic use. As a conclusion, for this thesis it seems more adequate to use the term founder in its broad Romanian sense, which often overlaps the Western European notion of donor. This is done for the sake of a quick naming, as I find it more useful and correct to designate each participant in the act of foundation / donation by his actual precise contribution, distinguishing between the one financing the building and the one financing the painting. This is suitable when dealing with a multiple or layered foundation, but becomes unpractical when both are one and the same person. Problems are not only limited to naming the protagonists, but are extended to our actual sources. I would like to make it clear that I choose to mainly designate these portraits as votive portraits and less as memorial portraits, not because they are not memorial, but for another reason. All the votive portraits that we discuss are memorial portraits, but not all memorial portraits are votive ones. Memorial portraits would include funerary portraits as well, which I consider to be distinct from the votive ones. From my point of view, a votive representation involves an offering, expressed in our cases by the model of the church, which the princes hold in their hands as a manifestation of their gift, presenting it to God. A funerary portrait does not have this particularity. To prove this I will give the example of the monastery of Probota. In the nave, there is a votive portrait with the founder offering the church to God (fig. 25.7.), while in the crypt, we have a funerary portrait of one the sons of the founder (fig. 25.5.), which does not express his quality of indirect founder, but has a funerary function92. There has been much confusion between votive and funerary portraits in Romanian literature, some scholars making a distinction, some considering they are the same thing, because being buried in the church was part of the rights of the founder. However, I will make a distinction, because, at least for Moldavia, the spaces in which the votive and funerary portraits appear are different ones, meaning that they have a different function. To conclude this rather lengthy historiographical chapter, I would like to justify its size because of the necessity to present a theoretical background, which will allow a better

Sorin Ulea, Portretul funerar al lui Ion un fiu necunoscut al lui Petru Rare i datarea ansamblului de pictur de la Probota (The Funerary Portrait of John an Unknown Son of Petru Rare and the Dating of the Painting Ensemble from Probota) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) 1 (1959).

92

32

understanding of what is to follow. This is also due to the multifacetednees of the phenomenon we are dealing with, in which all aspects of society have found a reflection.

33

Chapter II The Sources: Methodological Challenges

1. The Sources
All sources from the past have been subjected to the passing of time, which has left its inevitable mark on them. The historian has the difficult mission of fitting a puzzle with very few of the original pieces. Many have been lost, some have lost their colour and shape and some have been replaced by others. A painting created four hundred years ago looks different now from what it was at the moment of its birth and is subjected to change in a similar way as the evolution of the human face. Time digs its wrinkles in the sources of the past and it is because of the varied results of this process of aging that I am writing this chapter. First of all, I would like to show the material that is available and which can be used when researching medieval foundations or donations, their functions and motivations. Next I will restrict the discussion to the essential source of this thesis, the princely votive portraits from mural paintings, evoking their state of preservation and the categories it determines, from my point of view, in order to be able to assess what sources are useful for the questions I need to ask and why. I have divided them into architecture, iconographical sources and written sources, but one has to keep in mind the fact that images and texts coexist in many of them.

1.1. Architecture and Iconographical Sources

Because the present paper is related to the act of founding religious buildings by princes, the key sources are represented by these foundations. To be more precise, the religious buildings in which we find votive portraits are churches. However, these churches are of different types, being either destined to laic communities or monastic ones. To the first category belong the chapels built around the princely court, but also the metropolis of the principality. Because the metropolitan bishop was the religious counterpart of the prince, the metropolis was generally built near the princely court. However, as we will see later on, many princely foundations are also monastic ones. Founders preferred them because they were better organized, had their own

34

economical means, which made them last longer93. A monastery, unlike a town church, is a complex of different buildings, meaning that, when founding a monastery, a prince had more than a church to build. Monasteries, usually, had fortified walls, a princely house, a bell tower, the cells of monks, a main church, a princely chapel, a refectory, a library, a printing house, painting and sculpting workshops, additional churches, a cemetery, a hospital church (bolni94) or a fountain. As we can see, a monastery was a complex foundation and a fragmentary one. A prince might manage to build only the main church and the other elements might be added in time by another prince. Regarding monasteries, our interest focuses mainly on the churches within the monastic grounds, but also on its other parts as long as they might be used to determine its function. The first visual source from which we can gather information is obviously the architectural ensemble which immediately meets the eye. Though architecture might mainly be used to evoke the changes in style or the technical achievements of their creators, its utility for the present thesis lies in uncovering the message hidden underneath their changing shapes. A particular function of the church might be expressed in specific architectural innovations, as we will see in the next chapter, when speaking about the appearance of the crypt. At the same time, architectural differences between churches built by princes and churches built by boyars could express the difference in status. Architecture is only a part of the entire religious edifice. Mural paintings are its counterpart in churches from Walachia and Moldavia and, together, they form the unity of this sacred space, meaning that they ought to be thought of as intertwined and interdependent. One may think that the dimensions of paintings are determined by the surface on which they will be displayed, but we know that, in many cases, the need to show a specific iconographic program changes the architecture of the church. They model each other in order to obtain a specific result. This will be exemplified in the next chapter.

93

94

Pucau, Actul de ctitorire, 31. The term comes from Slavonic, meaning the place where the sick where healed. Later on, Romanian art historians have assimilated it with the small churches, built in separate enclosures next to important monasteries, near the cells destined to shelter the sick monks. Because the cemetery would usually surround this church, Luiza Zamora, in her study about hospital churches, proposes the use of the term cemetery chapel: Luiza Zamora, Biserici bolni din ara Romneasc n secolele XVI-XVIII (Hospital Churches from Walachia in the 16th-18th Centuries), Grupul Romn pentru o Istorie Alternativ (The Romanian Group for an Alternative History) (www.patzinakia.ro), (Bucureti 2007) http://www.patzinakia.com/index2.html (last consulted on 13.08.2010, 13:30), pages 10 and 118.

35

The technique in which the paintings are made is the fresco. The walls of churches from Walachia and Moldavia become a space in which iconographies develop from top to bottom covering every surface according to a pre-determined logic. These visual representations cover not only all of the interior space of the church, but, at one point in time, they are extended to the exterior walls, decorating their surface entirely, in a unique artistic representation. In this thesis, the iconographical richness of these mural paintings will not be completely analysed, but only certain relevant scenes will be taken into account for their value within the present discourse. Of course, the church is a unitary iconographical space, in which not only each scene is connected with each other, but also the external and internal representations, as it will be further discussed. The sources that I will use, however, are limited by the scope of the present paper to certain scenes that contain relevant information for our research. Religious scenes are used as well, but mostly scenes depicting worldly characters. Portraits are the key iconography which we are trying to analyse. Because they were the most accessible form of marking the quality of founder95, because of their public nature and the richness of the information contained in them, the central visual source for the present thesis, apart from architectural elements and other iconographies, remain the votive portraits. Here again, our purpose is to identify the image of the princely founder within the space of his own foundation, without taking into account the representations that occur in churches founded by boyars or clerics, out of consideration for the prince, because he belonged to the family of boyars or as an expression of gratitude for having given his consent to the foundation. Such is the case of two churches belonging to the Cantacuzino family of the prince of Walachia, Constantin Brncoveanu. In the churches of Filipetii de Pdure (fig. 8.1.) and Mrgineni (fig. 13.1.), Prvu Mutu96, their artist, paints an incredible gallery of their family, containing up to fifty or sixty portraits97, among which those of the ruling prince to which they were related (fig. 8.2, 13.2). This votive portrait, though impressive in size and content, will not be discussed in this thesis, as it belongs to the foundation of boyars.

95 96

Pucau, Actul de ctitorire, 45: forma cea mai accesibil de marcare a calitii de ctitor. Teodora Voinescu, Zugravul Prvul Mutul i coala sa (The Painter Prvul Mutul and His School) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) 3-4 (1955). 97 Anca Vasiliu, Pictura mural brncoveneasc. II. Arta portretului (The Mural Painting of the Brncoveni. II. The Art of the Portrait) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) 30 (1983) 2223.

36

Because a princely foundation does not represent only the image of its founder, but many times, portraits of his family the founders de jure, as explained in the first chapter and even those of his predecessor princes, to whom he might not be genealogically connected, we will take into account the unity of votive representations made from the command and under the financing of princes.

1.2. Written Sources

If so-called visual sources have the quality of expressing motivation, function and identity in an interpretive way, meaning that you could see what you wanted to see, if you could understand what was represented, written sources have a more precise quality. Of course, there is a lot of room for interpretation when it comes to words, but I would say less than with images or perhaps, to be more correct, in a different way. When I say this, I have in mind the capacity of words to express motivation and function, in the context of religious foundations. It might take a lot of visual clues in order to understand why a church was built, but an inscription might sum it up in a few words, making it apparently very clear. This is meant to justify the importance of written sources for our research. They sometimes hold the key to the mystery, yet one that remains questionable, because of the formulaic appearance of these inscriptions, as we have already discussed, for Western European sources, in the first chapter. Churches from Walachia and Moldavia are filled with images, each adorned with words. Every scene is accompanied by a title or small explanation, saints and worldly characters are each named, with an amazing precision. The question why? is linked to the problem of reception and we will come back to this in the fourth chapter. Words are mingled with images in the space of the church, interacting with them at all times. There are different types of written sources. I will first present those which can be found in images or on the building of the church, which will than be followd by documents and narrative sources First of all, we have the painted names and, sometimes, status of the protagonists of the votive scene, written above their heads. These are painted, as well as the fragment evoking the founder who painted the church or the specific part of it. This fragment belongs to the category of pisanii, inscriptions that give the name of the founder and his motivation, term already explained in chapter one, and derives from the sculpted ones hanging at the entrance of the

37

church. Both the painted and sculpted pisanii give the name of the founder, the date of the foundation, the dedication of the church and, most importantly, the reason why it was built or painted98. Sometimes, the lengthy text represents true pages from a chronic or the reproduction or paraphrasing of some liturgical texts99. These are our main textual sources for deciphering motivation, but also useful in matters of dating and attributing. Commemorative practices have left behind traces materialized in the form of pomelnice, commemorative sources that usually note a list of names of all founders and their family members100. They were actually painted on the walls of the church, in the place of the proscomidie, where the Liturgy of the preparation of the gifts of bread and wine for the Eucharist takes place. They had the same function with memorial books or obituaries, recording the founders who were to be commemorated by the priests during Mass. I only wanted to note their presence as written sources. Because many of them are badly preserved and they only record names and not intentions, I have been less concerned with them for the present research. Turning to documents, I have to say that, unlike the pisanii, foundation charters are more familiar to the Western European scholar. Unfortunately, they have not always come down to us for the principalities of Walachia and Moldavia. Donation acts are more common, but they involve endowments and are generally connected to the donation of land, often for the purpose of increasing the foundations wealth. These documents have been studied in detail by Voica Pucau, in order to understand the use of the term ctitor (founder) and its meaning101. In the same way, I note the importance that narrative sources, like chronics and travellers accounts may have, among others, for reception history. Because of the large quantity of material and the purpose and limits of the thesis, I was obviously not able to gather all of these sources for each specific case, but have limited myself to evoking them and the problems they generate, as well as to using conclusions drawn by those who have investigated them in detail.

Pucau, Actul de ctitorire, 35. Pucau, Actul de ctitorire, 38: adevrate file de cronic, fie reproducerea sau parafrazarea unor texte liturgice. 100 Pucau, Actul de ctitorire, 116-118. 101 Pucau, Actul de ctitorire, 48-59.
99

98

38

1.3. The Oral Tradition: Foundation Legends

In what follows, I intend to present a controversial source, but one which offers a version of the motives that have determined a prince to found a church. The oral tradition has preserved legends, especially when related to princes, in which a short anecdotic story is presented in order to explain why in a specific place and at a precise moment was a church built. Using legends as historical sources has been rejected clearly by important historians, such as Langlois and Seignobos in their Introduction to the Study of History: The rule will be to reject every statement of legendary origin; nor does this apply only to narratives in legendary form: a narrative which has a historical appearance, but is founded on the data of legend, [] ought equally to be discarded.102. However, some historians have thought they are worth while looking at. This is the case of the Romanian historian Gheorghe I. Brtianu and his research on the founding of the Romanian principalities, published in 1945, under the title: The Historical Tradition of the Founding of the Romanian Principalities103. In his daring attempt, as the author himself confesses104, of defying the shared opinion of the most important Romanian historians of the time, Brtianu reevaluates the importance of historical tradition as a source which reveals important aspects of the medieval origins of the Romanian principalities. The entire book represents a defence of tradition against the harsh criticisms to which it has been subjected, before being completely ignored. Brtianu had remarked a certain evolution in the attitude towards tradition, which was characterized by three stages: the thesis accepting the tradition without any criticism, the antithesis- rejecting any tradition as a historical source because of too much criticism and the synthesis accepting the tradition as a source, but not without a proper critical analysis, this last stage being a combination of the previous ones105. Brtianus purpose was to reach a certain equilibrium between harsh criticism and blind acceptance of the historical tradition, in order to be able to use this source properly and extract from it the grain of truth. As he himself stated, skepticism a priori in front of the statement of a historical document that represents a certain
Ch. V. Langlois and Ch. Seignobos, Introduction to the Study of History, transl. by G. G. Berry (London 1898) 183. 103 Gheorghe I. Brtianu, Tradiia istoric despre ntemeierea statelor romneti (The Historical Tradition of the Founding of the Romanian Principalities) (Chiinu 1945, reprinted 1991). 104 Brtianu, Tradiia istoric, 82. 105 Brtianu, Tradiia istoric, 40.
102

39

tradition is not the most proper method.106. That is why a first step in his approach is the following: We shall start off with another spirit, less inclined to doubting, more objective, based not only on rules and methods applied mechanically to any text and any testimony, but also on considering all the factors of information and of historical life. The wider the horizon is, the more fruitful and deeper our research will be.107. In order to separate the elements of reality from those of fiction, which coexist within the historical tradition, we have to control it by comparing it to all the other information we have at hand. The comparative method is an important element in Brtianus research. Similar legends seem to have led to the conclusion that they are due to imitation or to the influence of one tradition on the other. It is all a matter of interpretation 108, but, also, a matter of taking into account all the aspects of a certain phenomenon and of comparing it to similar ones. Similar legends may be due to the spread of a certain common myth, but might, also, be caused by similar events. Discerning fact from fiction within tradition is a difficult task, but a rewarding one, because, as in Bratianus research, tradition might contain essential information and might refer to real phenomena that, otherwise, would have remained unknown. As his book demonstrates, the tradition kept by historical sources, even when it describes events much older than the time in which the works that relate them have been written, still has, most of the time, at its foundation, real facts or events and by eliminating anachronisms and fantasies, we are left with a grain of truth which can not be neglected.109. These theoretical guidelines can be applied to oral sources recording the reasons behind the foundation of a monastery. I would like to offer briefly two such examples, one from Walachia and one from Moldavia. The monastery of Arnota was founded by the prince of Walachia Matei Basarab in the 17th century. The pisanie from the church was not preserved, so we have no clear information about why it was built. A legend says that, running away from the

Brtianu, Tradiia istoric, 37: scepticismul a priori n faa afirmaiunii unui document istoric care reprezint o anumit tradiie nu e metoda cea mai indicat.. 107 Brtianu, Tradiia istoric, 40: Vom pleca ns la drum cu alt spirit, mai puin pornit spre noial, mai obiectiv, ntemeiat nu numai pe regule i metode aplicate mecanic oricrui text i oricrei relaiuni, ci pe o considerare mai deplin a tuturor factorilor de informaie i de via istoric. Cu ct orizontul e mai larg, cu att i ptrunderea n adncime e mai rodnic.. 108 Brtianu, Tradiia istoric, 107. 109 Brtianu, Tradiia istoric, 140: tradiia pstrat de izvoarele istorice, chiar cnd descrie ntmplri mult mai vechi dect vremea n care au fost alctuite scrierile ce le relateaz, are totui mai ntotdeauna, la temeiul ei, fapte sau mprejurri reale.; Eliminnd anacronismele i fanteziile, rmne un smbure de adevr ce nu poate fi nesocotit.

106

40

Ottomans, who were trying to catch him, the prince hid in a lake and was able to escape his followers. As a sign of gratitude, he filled the lake with coal and built a monastery right on top of his hiding place. Those who say that the legend is true sustain their position by the constant humidity and dampness and by the fact that, during some repairs in 1932, coals have been discovered underneath. Nobody has investigated this any further 110. In Moldavia, the monastery of Vorone, founded by Stephen the Great in the 15th century, has a pisanie, but it does not mention why the church was built. The Moldavian chronicler Ion Neculce (1672-1745) records a legend, according to which, while Stephen was retreating from the Ottomans, after having been defeated in the battle of Rzboieni (1476), he came up to a place where a hermit called Daniil lived. The hermit told him to go back because he will win the battle and afterwards to return and build a monastery there. Stephen gathered an army and went back to fight with his enemies and, as the hermit predicted, victory was his. He then returned and built the monastery of Vorone as a sign of gratitude111. Ion Solcanu, in his article entitled Vorone Tradition and Historical Truth investigates this legend, proving the existence of Daniil the hermit at Vorone and concluding that the essential elements of the legend are real: the battle, the hermit and the development of the events, considering that, for this reason, we can accept the information about Stephen the Greats reasons contained within the legend112. Still generating debates among scholars, I believe that legends and the oral tradition ought to be taken more seriously by researchers. Before discarding them as fantastical sources, we should try at least to investigate them in depth and compare them with other sources and the historical context, because they might be able to fill in the occasional silence of trusted witnesses from the past.

1.4. A Broader Perspective: Other Sources

To conclude the overview of the sources we have at hand when studying medieval religious foundations, I would like to add the endless list of donations and other artefacts that make up the ensemble of a church. Of course, these are not sources that we will use for the
Dumitru Cristescu, Sfnta Mnstire Arnota (The Holy Monastery of Arnota) (Rmnicu Vlcea 1937) 16. Ion Neculce, O sam de cuvinte (A Few Words) (Bucureti 1953) 16-17. 112 Ion Solcanu, Vorone Tradiie i adevr istoric (Vorone Tradition and Historical Truth) in Arta istoriei, istoria artei: academicianul Rzvan Theodorescu la 65 de ani (The Art of History, the History of Art: the Academist Rzvan Theodorescu at the Age of 65) (Bucureti 2004) 79.
111 110

41

present paper but for adjacent comparisons. However, votive portraits ought to be seen as integrated in the aforementioned holistic strategy for the afterlife 113 and a comparison with other portraits from other donated items might be useful. Funerary sources are very important from this perspective, because of their intimate link with the founder, who, many times, chooses to be buried in his church, transforming it into a necropolis for his family. Tomb slabs and funerary portraits, combining text and image, offer interesting visual and written information, but also embroidered tomb covers, like those of Moldavian princes and brothers Simion and Ieremia Movil (fig. 27.6, 27.7). Donations vary from church bells, with votive inscriptions on them, icons and Gospels with the portraits of the donors to religious objects and clothing, relics and even the inalienable possessions114 of land property. All of these contribute in different ways to the commemoration of the dead and to the other functions of donations, being important adjacent sources to which votive portraits can be compared, being thought of as the branches of the same tree.

2. Votive Portraits and Their State of Preservation

After having shown the variety of sources at hand for studying the phenomenon of founding and its different aspects, in what follows, I would like to focus only on those sources which are at the core of the present thesis, the votive portraits, and to discuss their state of preservation. Because of the varied situations that we can encounter, I chose to divide these representations into three categories, according to what happened to them in time. If we are lucky to have many intact churches with votive portraits six centuries old, which only needed to be cleaned of smoke, we are unlucky to have many composite edifices, whose painting retraces their entire history, from their creation to the 21st century. Alterations in votive portraits or other painted scenes generally occur when the original has been damaged or destroyed or when important changes have taken place that require modification. The history of some of these churches and monasteries has not always been a smooth one, being shaped by the events that marked the evolution of the two principalities. Because of wars against the Ottomans and invasions by the Tartars, they would be repeatedly
113 114

Nigel Saul, Death, Art, and Memory in Medieval England, 243. Concept developed by Annette Weiner: Annette B. Weiner, Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of KeepingWhile-Giving (Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford 1992).

42

plundered and destroyed. This was, for example, the tragic fate of the monastery of Rca (fig. 26.1.), from Moldavia. Built in the 15th century, it was completely destroyed in 1510 by the Tartars. Rebuilt starting from 1512, it is again ravaged by the Ottomans, this time in 1538. In 1542, the rebuilding begins and, in 1572, the Ottomans plunder and destroy it once more. It is restored in 1617, but suffers the same fate consequently in 1686, 1691, 1697, 1716, and 1821. After being again rebuilt, in its unlucky fate, it is damaged by a great fire in 1921. This tragic example of a princely foundation contrasts with the impeccably preserved 15th century mural paintings from Moldovia monastery in Moldavia. In Walachia, earthquakes and fires have been the main cause of decay and the reason for less numerous preserved foundations from the early periods. The communist regime has destroyed many churches in Bucharest, the capital of Romania, and, sometimes, especially during the monarchy, as we will see, important foundations with damaged, but existing mural paintings, were completely repainted in an unfaithful neo-Byzantine manner, by French artists. This is in fact the main problem of paintings. Whenever they lost their original shine, artists would start recolouring or modifying them entirely, for the purpose of rendering back the churchs neat aspect, without being aware of the precious representations that were damaged in this way. The results of these changes raise the questions about how to treat these altered complexes. In what follows, I will group the votive portraits into three categories, explaining why they are useful or not in the context of our discussion.

2.1. Originals and Acceptable Restorations

The idea of an original painting is not as clear as it may seem and can offer multiple interpretations. In the present thesis, I will be using the word giving it a specific meaning. According to the chronological limits of my research, I consider that an original votive portrait is one which has been painted before the 18 th century. That is to say, if we have a church built and painted by a prince and, years later, repainted by another, we will consider it an original, if the last prince to paint it has reigned before the Phanariote rule, because they still preserve their initial function. We do not consider originals to be only votive portraits made by the first founder. For example, the prince of Moldavia Petru Rare, who reigned in the 16 th century, has

43

repainted many of the churches of his father and predecessor on the throne, prince Stephen the Great, who reigned in the 15th century. In some cases, we do not know whether the churches had been painted or not during Stephens reign, but even if they would have been, Petru Rares layer of paint would still be considered as an original, from the perspective of the present thesis. At the same time, an original means that, once completed, it was not altered by later hands, transforming it into a composite scene, with an iconography that dates from the 16 th century and faces reshaped in the 18 th century or altered costumes. The whole composition ought to be exactly as it was when it was last completed and it ought to date before the 18th century. Of course, even in such cases of miraculous preservations, they do not come down to us in exactly the same condition as when they were finished, because time leaves nothing unspoiled, especially after centuries have passed. Many churches hide precious original paintings underneath a dark layer of smoke, mostly caused by burning candles. The monastery of Ptrui, from Moldavia, has been only recently restored, in 2003, under the care of its dedicated priest Gabriel Herea. A photograph (fig. 24.4) shows a section from the votive portrait cleaned of smoke and a section yet untouched. The figure of Christ is barely distinguishable and the beauty and light of the original colours impossible to imagine. This example was given, so that it would be clear that even these original paintings have been touched by the hands of future generations. However, these restorations do not alter the original paintings. They only help to clean off the traces of time. Such careful, authorized and successful restorations are the only ones that offer the ideal source for an art historian, meaning that originals will be our first rate material. Sometimes, as is the case of the monastery of Curtea de Arge from Walachia115 and of the Moldavian monastery of Trei Ierarhi116, the inside of the church is covered completely with 19th century paintings, as we will see in the last category. If in the monast ery of Cldruani in Walachia, nothing survives from the original frescoes (fig. 3.2, 3.3), the two mentioned above, have had a more lucky faith. In a moment of inspiration, well-preserved fragments, which include the votive portraits, were cut out and now they are kept in museums or other churches. Of course, these fragments are unfortunately taken out of their monumental context, being

George Nedelcu, n legtur cu repictarea bisericii episcopale din Curtea de Arge (About the Repainting of the Bishopric Church from Curtea de Arge) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) 20 (1973). 116 Dobjanschi and Simion, Arta n epoca lui Vasile Lupu, 57.

115

44

separated and incomplete, but they still provide useful information for the matters discussed in the present thesis.

2.2. Disputed Restorations

The problematic restorations follow in the next two categories, the first grouping cases in which originals are partially degraded, the second those in which originals have been altered beyond repair, leading to their disappearance, being replaced with new versions from the 18th century onwards. The least damaging restoration among these is represented by those interventions that take place when the colour has faded away or has been damaged. It is known in the literature as repainting colour over colour, meaning that the initial iconography remains the same. The original colour, in these cases, is not preserved and we cannot be sure whether the repainting is faithful to the original in terms of colours. However, such portraits offer interesting information, because not all has been changed. They can be useful for a discussion about the location of votive portraits or about who is represented. From the point of view of stylistic matters, they are less useful, because they can alter the original features and shades. There are several possible ways in which a painting might have been modified. Without being possible to give all the different instances, I will discuss some, according to a few cases. The princely church from Curtea de Arge, in Walachia, which is different from the monastery church near it, has generated a lot of debates among researchers because of the lack of information and abundance of suppositions. Here, the votive portrait in the nave, which is supposed to be that of the prince of Walachia Vladislav Vlaicu and his wife Ana (fig. 6.2.), has been repainted entirely in 1827 117. However, it must have respected the general lines of the original, because the costume is not an anachronism, but reproduces quite well the costumes of the time, as we know from other frescoes. This is why the portrait can be used to a certain extent. The paintings from the monastery of Snagov, from Walachia have some preserved original fragments from the 16th century, but in a few places, it has been repainted and

Vasile Drgu, Arta romneasc: preistorie, antichitate, ev mediu, renatere, baroc (Romanian Art: Prehistory, Antiquity, Middle Ages, Renaissance, Baroc) (Bucureti 2000) 100 and Maria Ana Musicescu, Biserica Domneasc din Curtea de Arge (The Princely Church of Curtea de Arge) (Bucureti 1976) 11.

117

45

retouched118. However, these alterations do not destroy completely the votive ensemble, which has an important value because of its succession series (fig. 14.2, 14.3, 14.4). In Moldavia, in the church of Saint Nicholas in Dorohoi, the votive painting (fig. 18.2.) has been partially repainted, but the iconographical structure and the costumes have been preserved119. In the church of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary from Baia (fig. 16.2.), we can see clear alterations in the costumes worn by the princely family, apart from those made by the passing of time. At the church of Saint Elijah near Suceava (fig. 28.2), the heads of the prince and his family have been cut out and remade later120. But, apart from that, they still offer some useful information about the initial composition and, this is why, we might sometimes use these votive portraits for certain aspects of this paper.

2.3. Complete Alterations

In this category, I have gathered the unfortunate cases, which, if they still exist and are painted, have votive portraits that will not be used within the scope of our thesis, because they have no relevance. First of all, many churches and monasteries founded by princes have now completely disappeared. From others, only the ruins survive. From the princely chapel of Hotin only the walls remain (fig. 21.1.), offering material for debate to those interested in architectural aspects121. In Moldavia, a regrettable practice of destroying the wall between the nave and the narthex or crypt, in order to enlarge the space, has led to the disappearance of many votive portraits which were painted on it. In Suceava, at the church of Saint George and Saint John the New, only one figure remains from the original votive portrait, because of such a destructive action122. Finally, I would like to evoke the unfortunate restorations done under the French architect Andr Lecomte de Noy, whom, during the 19th century, transformed some of the most important churches from Walachia and Moldavia into the displayers of a modern French
Mircea Deac, Mnstirea Snagov (Snagov Monastery) (Bucureti 1969) 26. Bal, Bisericile lui tefan cel Mare, 41. 120 Bal, Bisericile lui tefan cel Mare, 29. 121 Bal, Bisericile moldoveneti din veacul al XVI-lea, 84-87. 122 Drgu, Lupan, Pictura mural din Moldova, 26.
119 118

46

interpretation of medieval Romanian art, inspired by Eugne Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc. The churches from Curtea de Arge in Walachia and that of Trei Ierarhi, from Moldavia all suffered the same fate. For this reason, I will only reflect on the first, in order to present these drastic and tragic decisions. I add that this happened to the monastery of Cldruani as well, this time under the brush of Belizarie123. Lecomte de Noy was thirty two years old when he was asked to restore the church of the monastery of Curtea de Arge, being recommended by the authority of Viollet -le-Duc. He had developed his artistic taste under the empire of Napoleon III and came with this mentality to recreate medieval churches from Romania, inspired by Byzantine paintings. This led to his wrong ideas about the existing frescoes, indeed deteriorated, but which, nevertheless, were extremely valuable. He writes a report in which he says leffet dcoratif est nul and that, for the new paintings, une coloration claire, vive, rehausse dor doit tre adopte en principe.124. Because of that, he decides that the church must be completely repainted, which he actually does. This has led to the loss of all of the original 16 th century paintings, except the few fragments that he decided to keep (fig.7.4-7.9.). Lecomte de Noy judges the votive portraits harshly, but decides to cut them out and keep them, considering that the restoration would be trouble for nothing. Lecomte de Noy couldnt have understood the value of the original paintings, but the Romanian inspectors who supervised the restoration should have, yet we read that architect Nicolae Gabrielescu thought that the French architect was competent enough to restore the church125. The lack of understanding of the Romanian medieval artistic conception was so deep that they even envisaged reproducing the paintings in the form of a mosaic, a medium that was a total stranger to the medieval Walachian artist 126. George Nedelcu remarks that nowhere in the acts and correspondence related to this restoration, which he has carefully studied, did any form of regret that precious paintings were destroyed appear. I allowed myself this small digression, because this episode is relevant for the fate of some medieval princely foundations. Now, when entering the 16th century church of prince Neagoe Basarab, at Arge, one is welcomed by the heavy gold surrounding the portraits of king Charles I of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen and of his wife Elisabeth I (fig. 7.3.) that appear next to
Damian Stnoiu, Mnstirea Cldruani (Cldruani Monastery) (Bucureti 1924) 32. Andr Lecomte de Noy apud Nedelcu, n legtur cu repictarea bisericii episcopale din Curtea de Arge, 59. 125 This is what he writes in a letter to his brother, cf. Nedelcu, n legtur cu repictarea bisericii episcopale din Curtea de Arge, 60. 126 Nedelcu, n legtur cu repictarea bisericii episcopale din Curtea de Arge, 63.
124 123

47

the modern ones of the initial founders (fig. 7.4.), as a proof of the cruel passing of time. This unfortunate case is so different from the perfectly preserved churches of Moldavia, protected by Unesco for their unique value.

3. Restrictions
As a conclusion to this second chapter, I would like to briefly summarize the choices that I had to make regarding the sources used for the present thesis. First of all, I would like to say that I started off with a list of over two hundred churches and monasteries founded at one point in time by a prince of Walachia and Moldavia, between the 14th and 17th centuries, list that I was able to make with the help of Voica Pucaus detailed tables and whic h can be found in the first part of the appendices127. Afterwards, I started to inquire about whether they were painted or not and came to around sixty monasteries with presumed votive portraits. After an extensive look into the literature, I realized that only around twenty of them had original, preserved votive portraits. For the rest, there were debates about the degree of alterations, they were severely altered or I was not able to find sufficient information on them or visit them in order to photograph the paintings. In conclusion, because of the necessity of limiting my research, I decided it was best to narrow it to the original votive portraits that have been preserved and which represent the foundation of the present thesis, without using extensively the questionable sources. A detailed analysis will remain the privilege of the foundations with original paintings, which can be found in the overview at the end of this paper, in the third part of the appendices. However, sometimes, I will make references to churches and monasteries that belong to the second category previously described, because they are able to make the picture complete.

127

Pucau, Actul de ctitorire.

48

Chapter III The Foundations

1. General Outlines: The Founders and Their Foundations

For the sake of clarity, I would like to present, in the beginning of this chapter, a brief overview of who our protagonists are, both the founders and their foundations. I consider this necessary for those who are not familiar with the names of the princes of Walachia and Moldavia and with the main churches and monasteries on which I will focus later on. I have no intention of going into historical details, but only to present in a manual-like fashion these founders from the past. For continuity, I decided it was best to discuss the two principalities separately. Before the two principalities were actually formed, on their territory, several political entities existed. After a gradual process, they were united in a single formation, by those rulers considered as founders, Basarab I (1310-1352) for Walachia and Bogdan I (1359-1365) for Moldavia. They are considered to be the first princes, although the process of founding the principalities and obtaining their recognition continued under their followers. Basarab I and Bogdan I created the two dynasties that reigned between the 14th and 16th centuries: the Basarabi, in Walachia and the so-called Muatini, in Moldavia. In this period, the successor to the throne was elected by the princely council from descendants of the male line from the two families. Anyone, even bastards, could be chosen as long as they would fulfil the aforementioned condition, summarized in the expression of princely bones (de os domnesc). This contrasted to the one used for descendants of the female line of the family of princely blood (de snge domnesc), who could not claim the throne, but who ended up reigning in both principalities in the 16th and 17th centuries. From the 15th century onwards, the Ottoman Empire would invest the chosen prince and later on, from the second half of the 16th century, the sultan would even name the new prince. From the 14th to the 16th centuries, it was common practice that the ruling prince would associate to the throne his legitimate elder son, in order to facilitate his election128.

Constantin Rezachevici, Cronologia critic a domnilor din ara Romneasc i Moldova 1324-1881: I: secolele XIV-XVI (The Critical Chonology of Princes from Walchia and Moldavia 1324-1881: I: 16th - 17th Centuries) (Bucureti 2001) 24-27.

128

49

I start off the chronological presentation of the princes who are related to the present thesis, with the ones from Walachia. After the death of his brother Dan I (1383-1386), Mircea the Elder (1386-1394; 1397-1418)129, the great-grandson of Basarab I, becomes prince. He continues the program of his predecessors regarding the consolidation of Walachia and resists the tendencies towards expansion of Hungary and Poland, as well as those of the Ottoman Empire, defeated by him in the well-known battle of Rovine (17th of May 1395). He participated in the crusade against the Ottomans, which was concluded by the defeat of the Christians at the battle of Nicopolis (25th of September 1396). Mircea founded several monasteries and churches, among which the best known is that of Cozia, where he is buried. In 1408, he associated his son Mihail to the throne, being represented next to him in the nave of the church from Cozia (fig. 4.3.). A century later, prince Radu the Great (1495-1508)130, after having been associated by his father to the throne since 1492, continued the politics of subjection to the Ottomans. He was less interested in warfare, so the reason behind his name was due to his cultural achievements. Although his best known foundation is the monastery of Dealu, it is Govora monastery which has captured our attention. Neagoe Basarab131 ruled Walachia between 1512 and 1521. He is thought to be the descendant of Basarab I through the female line of the family. Neagoe married princess Despina, from the Serbian family Brankovi. Considering that war is to be made only when there is no other solution left, he has promoted peace and amiable relations with his neighbors, in order to avoid any armed conflict, especially when the enemy was more powerful. These are his words to his son Theodosie on this matter: And if those pagans will have more armies and more powerful ones than you, first you should bow to them with good and kind words. So, if you will be able to reconcile with those good words, do know that it is due to Gods help; and if they will not want to make peace with you with those good words, because of their lack of faith, you should give them money as much as you can. And do not ever love revolts and wars and never think about fighting with them132. At the same time, in 1519, together with Stephen IV, prince of Moldavia,
More about Mircea the Elder in: Petre P. Panaitescu, Mircea cel Btrn (Mircea the Elder) (Bucureti 1944). Rezachevici, Cronologia critic a domnilor, vol. I, 129-131. 131 More on Neagoe Basarab in: Manole Neagoe, Neagoe Basarab (Bucureti 1971). 132 Neagoe Basarab, nvturile lui Neagoe Basarab ctre fiul su Theodosie, (Chiinu 1998) 220: Iar de vor fi pgnii aceia cu oti mai multe i cu putre mai mare dect voi, iar voi nti s v plecai lor cu cuvinte bune i blnde. Deci de v vei putea mpca cu acle cuvinte bune, s tii c iaste acia din ajutoriul lui Dumnezeu; iar de
130 129

50

he sent an embassy to the Vatican expressing his intention to participate next to the other Christian princes and the Pope to an expedition against the Ottomans, in the hope of organizing a crusade, which was the only possible way in which this great danger could be eliminated. Neagoe Basarab was an educated prince, who knew Latin, Greek and Slavonic. In this last language he wrote The Teachings of Neagoe Basarab to his Son Theodosie (nvturile lui Neagoe Basarab ctre fiul su Theodosie)133, with guidelines for the future prince. Neagoe Basarabs most important foundation is that of the monastery of Curtea de Arge, which a century later would amaze the Syrian traveler Paul of Alep, who recorded in his accounts that: in order to gather all in one word, this church is a jewel. Her departed founder has drained even his blood from the heart in order to build it and has not speared any expense for its greatness and its embelishment134. Neagoe Basarabs daughter Ruxandra would marry two of the future princes of Walachia, both sons of Radu the Great. Her first husband, Radu of Afumai (1522-1523; 1524-1529)135 fought against the Turks and the princes they supported. Being advised by the boyars, he made peace with the sultan, but when he resumed his previous politic, the boyars killed him. He had a portrait of himself and his wife painted in Neagoe Basarabs monastery from Curtea de Arge (fig. 7.6, 7.7.). Ruxandra then remarried his brother Radu Paisie (Petru of Arge)136 (1535-1545), who had to face the same problems of instability and inner conflict. His stepbrother, Mircea the Shepherd, took the throne from him and, afterwards, he was exiled by the Turks in Egipt, where he is thought to be buried in a church in Alexandria. He was baptized Petru, took the name of Paisie while a monk and abbot of the monastery of Curtea de Arge and then took his fathers name Radu, as a prince. His portrait and that of his son were painted during his reign in the aforementioned monastery (fig. 7.8.) and he might also be the founder of the hospital church from Cozia.

nu vor vrea s s mpace cu voi cu acle cuvinte bune, pentru necredina lor, voi s le dai i bani ct vei putea. Iar s nu iubii rzmiriele i rzboaiele, nici s v duc mintea s v batei cu dnii. 133 Neagoe Basarab, nvturile lui Neagoe Basarab ctre fiul su Theodosie. 134 Paul of Alep, Cltori strini, vol. VI, 169: Pentru a cuprinde totul ntr-un singur cuvnt, aceast biseric este un giuvaer. Rposatul ei ctitor i-a stors i sngele din inim pentru a o cldi i nu a cruat nici o cheltuial pentru mreia i mpodobirea ei. 135 For the exact dates of his several reigns, see Rezachevici, Cronologia critic a domnilor, vol. I, 152-174. 136 Rezachevici, Cronologia critic a domnilor, vol. I, 192-197.

51

A century later, Matei Basarab (1632-1654)137, who considered himself to be the nephew and follower of Neagoe Basarab, came to the throne of Walachia. Son of boyar Danciu of Brncoveni and his wife Stanca, he was captain in the army of prince Michael the Brave (15931601). During his reign, most of his conflicts were related to prince Vasile Lupu of Moldavia (1634-1653), who wanted to become prince of Walachia in his place and leave the rule of Moldavia to his son. They were once reconciled and, as a token of peace, they each built a monastery in the principality of their former enemy. But the conflict restarted until the final defeat of Vasile Lupu at Ialomia (May 1653). The reigns of both of these princes are famous for their cultural activities. During Matei Basarabs rule, Slavonic was replaced with Romanian officially. He contributed to the foundation of around thirty monasteries, out of which, because of reasons described in chapter two, only one retains our attention for its well-preserved paintings, the monastery of Arnota. The last prince of Walachia related to the purpose of this thesis is Constantin Brncoveanu (1688-1714)138, descendant from two important families, the Brncoveanu and Cantacuzino. He had four sons and seven daughters with his wife Marica. He had inherited an impressive wealth being surnamed the prince of the gold by the Turks. During the war between the Russians and the Turks from 1710-1711, he did not take a clear position, waiting to see what the outcome will be. For his hesitation, the Turks accused him of betrayal and condemned him to death. He was taken to Istanbul, where on the 15th of August, the princes birthday and the celebration of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary, he was beheaded together with his four sons and main adviser. The Turks tortured him in order to find out where Brncoveanu had hidden his treasures. He was given the chance to live if he would be converted to Islam but he refused. His sons were beheaded in front of him and when the youngest was about to accept the new faith, the father defended him to do so, this tragic death and the strength of his belief having led to his sanctification. Their bodies were thrown into the sea, from where they were collected by some Christian fishermen, who buried them on Halki Island. Brncoveanus remains were brought back to Walachia by his wife in 1720. His reign was marked by a period of cultural transition and by the crystallization of an architectural style that bears his name. Besides the palaces built by Brncoveanu, he also founded around twenty monasteries, repaired and repainted decayed
More on Matei Basarab in: Nicolae Stoicescu, Matei Basarab (Bucureti 1988). More on Constantin Brncoveanu in: tefan Ionescu, Panait I. Panait, Constantin Brncoveanu: viaa domnia epoca (Constantin Brncoveanu: the Life the Reign the Epoch) (Bucureti 1969).
138 137

52

monasteries, like those of Govora and Polovragi. From his foundations, the impressive monastery of Hurezi, its hospital church and chapel, as well as the hospital church of Brncoveni and his wifes foundation from Surpatele have retained our attention. Switching to the principality of Moldavia, I begin my overview with the reign of prince Stephen the Great (1457-1504)139, another prince who was sanctified, this time because of his numerous battles against the Ottomans and the great number of his religious foundations. I will not go into details regarding his rule because there are too many to be said. Stephen the Great was in conflict with the king of Hungary, Matei Corvin, whom he defeated at Baia (1467). He was involved in the choice of princes in Walachia, because he wanted to have support against the Ottomans. His interference upset the sultan and this started the conflict, highlighted by several battles, among which those of Vaslui (1475) and Rzboieni (1476). He repeatedly tried to obtain help from Christian princes from Western Europe and from Poland, but instead of receiving help, he ended up fighting against the latter. Being not only a prolific leader, who built many fortresses, he was also the founder of around thirty monasteries, out of which those of Dobrov, Ptrui and Vorone will be later on discussed. After the reigns of his son Bogdan III (1504-1517) and Bogdans son, Stephen the IV (1517-1527), another son of Stephen the Great, an ilegitimate one, follows on the throne, Petru Rare140 (1527-1538; 1541-1546). He resembled his father in his defiance of the Turks, who decided to organize a campaign of punishment against him. Even though advised by the boyars to submit to the sultan, he refused and decided to carry on fighting, but the boyars deserted him and Petru was exiled. Later on, reconciling with the Ottomans, he came back to the throne, being at the same time involved in the crusading plan of the Christian princes against the Turks, which failed in 1542. Just like his father, Rare founded several churches and monasteries, repainting many which had been built by his father, like the monastery of Dobrov. He initiated the complete painting of the exterior walls that have made Moldavian churches and monasteries famous worldwide. The monasteries of Probota, Moldovia and Humor will be discussed later on. His son, Ilia, prince of Moldavia (1546-1551) did not inherit his fathers nature and ended up abdicating in favour of his brother, converting to Islam.

Because the literature on Stephen the Great is very vast, I will only refer to the publication of: Nicolae Iorga, Istoria lui tefan cel Mare (The History of Stephen the Great) (Bucureti 1904; reprinted 1985). 140 More on Petru Rare in: Leon Simanschi (coordinator), Petru Rare (Bucureti 1978).

139

53

The founder of Sucevia monastery was prince Ieremia Movil (1595-1600; 1600-1606), whose mother descended from Petru Rare. He had a close relationship with the Poles, being brought back on the throne after the short reign of Walachian prince Michael the Brave in Moldavia, who managed to reunite the three Romanian principalities for a limited amount of time. The last Moldavian prince who is of interest to us, Vasile Lupu 141 (1634-1653) has already been mentioned in relation to his correspondant in Walachia, Matei Basarab. Mostly the monastery of Trei Ierarhi and that of Hlincea interest us from among his fifteen foundations. This concludes our short presentation of the main princely figures that will come back time and again during the following part of the thesis, presentation which has a very general nature, due to the limits that we have to respect.

2. The Architecture
The following part of this third chapter is dedicated to uncovering the function and motivation behind princely foundations. Because votive portraits are inserted within the great architectural and iconographical ensemble of the church, I will discuss these sources in two separate parts, trying to show which are their main characteristics. I will start with the architectural elements that create the foundation of the sacred space of the church. First of all, it is important to note that churches from Walachia and Moldavia have always been divided into several rooms. In Moldavia, at first there were only three: the narthex, the nave and the altar and, afterwards, they ended up being four: the porch, the narthex, the crypt, the nave and the altar. Monasteries with the complete four chambers include Probota (fig. 25.2, 25.3.) and Sucevia (fig. 27.1.). Gabriel Herea gives an interesting interpretation to the interior space of the church, as it is shaped by the architecture, seeing it like a path space142, borrowing Heinrich Ltzelers term. He considers the church to be like a pathway to God. Once entering its sacred ground, the believer is separated from the material world and slowly proceeds towards the spiritual one, whose complete manifestation is to be found in the altar. In Moldavia, generally, each room is
More on Vasile Lupu in: Constantin erban, Vasile Lupu, domn al Moldovei (1634-1653) (Vasile Lupu, Prince of Moldavia (1634-1653)) (Bucureti 1991). 142 Gabriel Herea, Pelerinaj n spaiul sacru bucovinean (Pilgrimage in the Sacred Space of Bucovina) (Cluj-Napoca 2010) 16: spaiul cale.
141

54

separated from the other, meaning that there is no open space of the church, as in Gothic cathedrals, where, right from the entrance, you have a clear view all the way to the back of the church. In Moldavia, there is no such view, but the glimpse one can have when looking through the portals that connect each room. That is when the path reveals itself (fig. 25.6.)
143

. These

portals are bridges connecting the separate rooms and, because architecture and iconography are intimately linked, the one leading to the nave is guarded by painted Archangels that protect these magic doors144. Each room plays a special part, in this architectural and spiritual development. It is like a stage of evolution. The porch separates the sacred space from its natural environment, introducing the faithful to this different world. The narthex takes him one step further, being like a room of initiation, a space in which up to this day the baptism is performed 145. To the crypt we will come back later on. These three chambers do not represent the spiritual world, but rather the space in which the Christian believer is prepared for meeting God, event that takes place in the nave and altar, where the Liturgy is celebrated146. In Eastern Christianity, the nave is materially separated from the altar by the iconostasis (fig. 9.2.), basically a wall of icons, which hides the sacred space of the altar from the view of laics and, at the same time, reveals it through its iconography. Architecture and iconography work hand in hand in order to achieve the perfection of this space and Gabriel Herea decoded the interesting separation between the space of transition (porch, narthex, crypt) and the space of fulfillment (nave, altar) by observing some interesting elements. The labyrinth painted on the lower register of the walls (fig. 22.2.) connects the first three rooms and stops at the entrance of the church, marking in a decorative way this division, while, on the outside, decorative ceramics and arches mark only the last two rooms147. Besides this horizontal path, Herea remarks the existence of a vertical iconographical hierarchy. Usually, on top of the nave a tower would be built, allowing a vertical exchange between the worldly and the spiritual. Watching from the top of the dome, Christ Pantocrator descends to the believer and raises him up, this intersection between the horizontal and vertical
143

144

Herea, Pelerinaj n spaiul sacru bucovinean, 25. Herea, Pelerinaj n spaiul sacru bucovinean, 50. 145 Herea, Pelerinaj n spaiul sacru bucovinean, 20: ca o camer de iniiere, un spaiu n care pn astzi se svrete botezul. 146 Herea, Pelerinaj n spaiul sacru bucovinean,15. 147 Herea, Pelerinaj n spaiul sacru bucovinean, 22 and 48.

55

paths being called by Herea the halt space (spaiul popas) (fig. 15.2.), which determines a timeless feeling, a collectedness, a stop148. And, indeed, this is the space where any visitor stops gazing towards the sacred figure on the dome, as though somehow to touch Him. I insisted so much on the interpretation of Gabriel Herea, himself priest at Stephen the Greats foundation in Ptrui, because I feel it does somehow touch upon the essence of a Romanian medieval church. It reaches the spiritual core so much forgotten by scholars interested in dating and stylistic matters and he does it in a scholarly and well-argued way. As stated before, there is no separation between architecture and iconography. If architecture determines iconography in a logical way, the same is valid for the reverse. In Walachia, where it is not common for a crypt to appear in a separate room, the narthex usually has a funerary function, sometimes even the nave. The narthex of the church of the monastery of Hurezi, is much larger than the nave, because it was supposed to shelter the tombs of Constantin Brncoveanus family members and the large gallery of votive portraits, subjecting architecture to iconography and both to the other function of this space, the worldly one. I would like to continue with some remarks regarding the architectural evolution that was observed by previous scholars in Walachia and Moldavia. First of all, since the 14th century, in the two principalities the triconch plan started to spread, most churches being built according to it 149. This means that the side apses are flanked, inside, by two rectangular niches150. The churches from Walachia, in the 16th century, have a unitary architectural character, with a tower above the nave and a semi-circular altar151. Matei Basarab introduces two new elements, which are the bell-tower above the narthex and the open porch, with arches and columns made out of brick152. At the same time, his reign marks a strong connection to the

Herea, Pelerinaj n spaiul sacru bucovinean, 42: determin o trire atemporal, o reculegere, o oprire. Rzvan Theodorescu, Despre planul triconc n arhitectura medieval timpurie a sud-estului european (About the Triconch Plan in the Early Medieval Architecture of the South-East of Europe) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) 20 (1973) 211. 150 Horia Teodoru, Contribuii la studiul originii i evoluiei planului triconc n Moldova (Contributions to the Study of the Origin and Evolution of the Triconch Plan in Moldavia) in Buletinul Monumentelor Istorice (The Newsletter of Historical Monuments) 1 (1970) 31: absidele laterale sunt flancate, la interior, de cte dou firide dreptunghiulare. 151 Nicolae Ghica-Budeti, Evoluia arhitecturii n Muntenia i Oltenia: II: Vechiul stil romnesc din veacul al XVIlea (The Evolution of the Architecture in Muntenia and Oltenia: II: The Old Romanian Style from the 16th Century) in Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice (The Newsletter of the Committee of Historical Monuments) 63-66 (1931) 14. 152 Ana Dobjanschi, Arta i cultura n rile Romne n vremea lui Matei Basarab i Vasile Lupu (The Art and Culture of the Romanian Principalities during the Time of Matei Basarab and Vasile Lupu) in Marius Porumb and
149

148

56

architecture of the previous century, reusing traditional decorative elements, while also using oriental motifs and those influenced by the baroque in Transylvania153. In the time of Constantin Brncoveanu, the architecture of the Renaissance is visible in the architectural composition of monastic ensembles, adding baroque ornamental motifs on the stone columns154. In Moldavia, there is a clear parallelism between the architectural evolution and the history of the principality. If during the long and powerful reign of Stephen the Great, a true Moldavian style is shaped, when instability sets in, foreign shapes appear and they are mingled with the traditional ones, determining a great diversity155. As the narthex starts to be enlarged around 1490-1497, Dumitru Nstase observes that the extra space corresponds to the size of a tomb slab, meaning that, progressively, there was a need to accommodate tombs in the interior of a church. This enlargement led to the apparition of a separate chamber with a funerary destination, the crypt, first at Neam monastery in 1497, being inserted in every princely necropolis of the 16th century: at Probota, Slatina and Sucevia monastery (fig. 27.4.)156. In the time of Petru Rare, the length and height of the churches, as well as the width of the walls, augment and the Gothic style leaves its mark on the Moldavian architecture, especially on the shape of portals and windows157. This is extremely evident on the Western faade of Probota monastery (fig. 25.4.). The architecture of Petru Rares reign is also influenced by the Italian Renaissance. At the end of the 16th century, the classical Moldavian architecture starts to adopt new shapes, best reflected by the monasteries of Galata and Dragomirna (fig. 19.1.). The 17th century brings influences from Walachia, being characterized by the tendencies to unify the interior space of the church by demolishing the wall between the nave and the narthex and by the presence of three windows in the apses of the nave and altar, in order to increase the quantity of light. If the porch starts to accommodate a bell-tower as in Walachia, traditional elements survive

Aurel Chiriac (coordinators), Art romneasc Art european Centenar Virgil Vtianu (Romanian Art European Art Virgil Vtianu Centenary) (Oradea 2002) 131. 153 Drgu, Arta brncoveneasc, 11. 154 Drgu, Arta brncoveneasc, 20-21. 155 Bal, Bisericile i mnstirile moldoveneti din veacurile al XVII-lea i al XVIII-lea, 7 and 594. 156 Dumitru Nstase, Despre spaiul funerar n arhitectura moldoveneasc (About the Funerary Space in Moldavian Architecture) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) 14 (1967) 203-207. 157 For more about the influence of the Gothic style on Moldavian architecture, see: Mira Voitec-Dordea, Reflexe gotice n arhitectura Moldovei (Gothic Reflections in the Architecture of Moldavia) (Bucureti 2004).

57

in the Moldavian shape of the roof, in the vaulting system and the persistence of the triconch plan158. All of the architectural elements of churches and monasteries from Walachia and Moldavia are combined in such a way that, even though the shapes evolve in time, they create a unitary space in which the worldly meets the sacred.

3. The Paintings
The architecture creates the necessary space for the iconography to develop. The two are the sides of the same coin and because the walls serve as support and surface for the paintings, we thought to present them together as the main elements that form a church, being aware of the several additional items that exist, but which have less relevance for a thesis focused on mural paintings. The images work together with the architecture to create the same divided sacred space of which we spoke beforehand and, in the same way, the symbolic message of the mural paintings has developed in a close connection with the liturgical role of this space159. Interconnectedness is not only related to architecture and painting, but, because of the unity of the church, it brings together all the different scenes. Sorin Dumitrescu speaks of the relational character160 between the interior and the exterior paintings of the church. Going further along this line, Gabriel Herea remarks the existence of interactions between the different compositions of the iconographical program (intericonice) and of interactions that take place within the same composition (intraiconice), that form mega-ensembles with a liturgical coherence161. If the iconographical space of the church is a unitary one, that does not mean it does not evolve in time. Surely, images followed the Byzantine tradition, in the beginning, passed down from painter to painter and, later on, recorded under the form of a manual, known as hermineia (erminie), which actually contained collections of manuscripts with iconographic and technical recommendations compiled by painters. A very well-known such compilation was produced by

Dobjanschi, Simion, Arta n epoca lui Vasile Lupu, 22-24. Herea, Pelerinaj n spaiul sacru bucovinean, 17: Mesajul simbolic al picturii murale s-a dezvoltat n strns legtur cu rolul liturgic al acestui spaiu. 160 Dumitrescu, Chivotele lui Petru Rare, 42: caracterul relaional. 161 Herea, Pelerinaj n spaiul sacru bucovinean, 64-65: megaansambluri cu coeren liturgic.
159

158

58

Dionysius of Fourna, however, around 1730-1734162. Even though this might lead to the preconceived idea that the compositions would repeat time and again, we must be aware that the hermineia does not represent a code, as it was thought for too long, but a guide, an aidemmoire163. Romanian artists and founders introduced in their churches scenes previously unknown to Byzantine iconography and which can be found in no other church, like that of the Cavalcade of the Holy Cross, from the church of Ptrui (fig. 24.3.). This scene appears on the Western wall of the narthex and shows the army of military saints killed during the persecutions of the Christians, led by the Archangel Michael and Saint Constantine, guided by the Cross. Vasile Drgu considers that it is a legendary motif taken over from Byzantine books164. Its significance will be discussed in the last part of this chapter. Actually, in the same spirit are the much-debated exterior paintings of Moldavian churches, which first appeared in 1530, at Saint Georges church in Hrlu. The practice of painting the faades of churches was not a new one, but never was it taken to such an extent than in the time of Petru Rare, who is responsible, together with his cousin, the metropolitan bishop Grigorie Roca, of the amazing frescoes that , even to the present day, cover all over the exterior walls of many Moldavian churches. As Sorin Dumitrescu remarks in favour of their singularity, it is not the fact that external walls were painted that amazes, but the unique scale of the decision to cover up their exterior completely with frescoes, just as the interior and, capital fact, according to a specially elaborated iconographical program165. More so, after the death of Petru Rare, only two churches repeat this idea, that of Vorone monastery, but which was painted on the initiative of Grigorie Roca and that of Sucevia monastery, which was probably done in an act of showing off the fact that the founder, prince Ieremia Movil was a member of the Muatini dynasty and a direct follower of his predecessor Petru Rare. About the iconography, Sorin Ulea noticed that the main thematic stays the same for all the foundations, being repeated, while some secondary scenes vary in subject166.The main iconographies are the following: the last judgement (usually on the Western wall) (fig. 30.3.), the
Dionisie din Furna, Erminia picturii bizantine (Hermineia of Byzantine Painting) (Bucureti 2000). Bal, Bisericile moldoveneti din veacul al XVI-lea, 285: nu reprezint un cod, precum s-a crezut prea mult timp, dar o cluz, un aide-mmoire. 164 Drgu, Lupan, Pictura mural din Moldova: secolele XV-XVI, 13. 165 Dumitrescu, Chivotele lui Petru Rare, 14: anvergura unic deciziei de a le acoperi complet exteriorul cu fresce, la fel ca interiorul i, fapt capital, potrivit unui program iconografic special elaborat. 166 Ulea, Originea i semnificaia ideologic a picturii exterioare moldoveneti I, 69.
163 162

59

prayer of all saints (on the apses) (fig. 27.3.), the Akathist Hymn (prayer dedicated to the Virgin Mary) (fig. 23.3.), the siege of Constantinople (fig. 23.2.), the tree of Jesee (fig. 27.2.) and the philosophers of Antiquity (fig. 30.6.) (on the two side walls). The so-called scene of the siege of Constantinople, though most art historians have identified it in this way, has been thought by Sorin Dumitrescu to represent the taking over of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453 167, because of a reference to the source known as the Lament of Ivako Peresvetov168. His book argues that the entire program of these exterior iconographies is inspired by the Vision of the Terrible Last Judgement of Saint Niphon169. I agree with the last argument, as long as it can be proved that Petru Rare or Grigorie Roca had read it. However, regarding the taking over of Constantionple, I will agree with most art historians that it most probably represents the siege of Constantiople. This is why the debate started. The scene represents the city of Constantinople surrounded by enemies (fig. 23.2). In the city a procession is under way, in which the icon of the Virgin Mary is being displayed, invoking her help against the enemy troops. One can see the effect of this prayer in the rain, thunder and fire which destroys the attacking armies. At the monastery of Arbore, an inscription tells us that this is the siege of 626 and that the invaders were the Persians and the image does not seem to contradict this. However, for other monasteries, like Moldovia, there is no inscription and we can see that the invaders are dressed like the Turks contemporary to Petru Rare and that they use the artillery. This led to the assumption that the scene depicted might be the disaster in 1453, because, otherwise, it would be an anachronism. However, if indeed we would have the taking over of Constantinople, why would the prayer to the Virgin lead to the destruction of the enemies, when they were in fact the victors? If a Christian defeat and not a victory was represented next to Christians invoking the help of the Virgin Mary wouldnt that mean that the prayer had no effect? For this reason, I consider that the scene is the siege from 626, in which the Christians were successful and not the tragedy from 1453. The Constantinopolitans invoking the Virgin through their procession are connected to the Akathist Hymn (fig. 23.3) next to it, a prayer to the Virgin and to the prayer of all the saints (fig. 27.3.). This makes one wonder why did 16th century Turks appear instead of 7th century Persians. It is not an anachronism, but something deliberately presented in this way. Everything is connected to the function of this
167 168

Dumitrescu, Chivotele lui Petru Rare, 76. The source can be found in: Dumitrescu, Chivotele lui Petru Rare, 349-366. 169 The source can be found in: Dumitrescu, Chivotele lui Petru Rare, 317-339.

60

scene, at least the one that we consider it has and which will be explained in the next part of this chapter. The Turks and the other enemies of the Moldavians appear in another external scene, that of the last judgement (fig. 30.5.). They populate hell for their disbelief and for all the damage they have done to the Christians. If the external painting is exclusively characteristic of Moldavian churches and of the reign of Petru Rare, there are not only differences between the mural paintings of Moldavia and Walachia. Most researchers before 1970, ignored the similarities between the two, but, in fact, there was a certain stylistic and iconographic coherence170. This can be seen in the general organization of the interior mural paintings that are divided in hierarchical registers from top to bottom. More about this will be said at the beginning of chapter four. If a sense of unity in the mural paintings can be perceived, it is not only due to the fact that these foundations were many times built from the initiative of the same prince. An important part is played by the workshops of painters that have actually produced these amazing frescoes. Most of the hands that have brought these images to life belong to unknown artists, whose names have not endured the test of time or who were not even known at the time. From the period of Stephen the Great, we only know that there was an important workshop at Suceava, which seems to continue its existence during the reign of his son, Petru Rare, when the name of painter Toma surfaces. It is known that Sucevia monastery has been painted by the artists Ion and Sofronie 171. More information starts to appear in the 17th century and names can be identified in the painted pomelnice of which we have already discussed in the second chapter. In Walachia, there is an important workshop at Trgovite in the 16th century, connected to the princely court, to which Dobromir, the painter of the monastery of Curtea de Arge belongs172. However, it is only during the reign of Matei Basarab, that the painters are no longer anonymus. The climax of this evolution is reached at Hurezi monastery, where the artists appear in the votive portraits (fig. 10.3.), sign of a more modern conception173.

Vasile Drgu, Pictura mural din ara Romneasc i Moldova i raporturile sale cu pictura Europei de sud-est n cursul secolului al XVI-lea (The Murals Paintings from Walachia and Moldavia and Their Relation to the Paintings of South-Eastern Europe in the 16th Century) in Buletinul Monumentelor Istorice (The Newsletter of Historical Monuments) 4 (1970) 17-18. 171 Drgu, Pictura mural din ara Romneasc i Moldova, 18-21. 172 Voinescu, Zugravul Prvul Mutul i coala sa, 133. 173 Drgu, Arta brncoveneasc, 12-14.

170

61

The mural paintings that decorate the walls support the architectural program, creating a unitary space at the intersection between the sacred and profane, a space with a meaning and a message that we will try to analyze in the following conclusion.

4. Conclusion: Motivation and Function

As a conclusion to this third chapter, I would like to discuss the several functions of religious foundations and the motivations that determined princes to build them. I have distinguished between four of them, though all overlap, beginning with two mainly religious ones and finishing off with two that belong mostly to matters of this world. However, we must keep in mind that a single church can have, at the same time, all of the mentioned functions, without there being any contradiction between them.

4.1. The Spiritual Function

I chose the spiritual function as a point of departure, because the church is mainly a religious place, the house of God, where the essential Christian ritual is performed time and again during the Liturgy. I consider that the main function of the church is that of reuniting man with God. This can be seen in Gabriel Hereas interpretation of the function of this religious building, but, also, in the perspective of other scholars, both the spatial shape and the images associated in the building of the church representing from this perspective the privileged and ceremonial structure of the meeting and communion between man and God 174. Architecture and iconography, as we have seen, both contribute to the creation of a space whose purpose is to show the Christian believer the path towards Divinity, which is represented by the building itself. This passing from a space of initiation and transition from the material world to the spiritual one to a space of fulfilment and encounter with God is the essential meaning of a church. It is also a place of performing the necessary religious rituals, a place of reflection and prayer.

174

Anca Vasiliu, Sensuri ale transparenei n iconografia brncoveneasc Schitul sfinii apostoli Hurezi (The Meanings of Transparency in the Iconography of the Brncoveni the Hermitage of the Saints Apostles from Hurezi) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) 37 (1990) 44.

62

It is obvious, that the main reason for which churches were built by princes must have also been a religious one, because an exclusive display of power and wealth could have been equally achieved through the foundation of palaces and princely courts and residences. However, the medieval princes, as members of the medieval society, had a powerful religious side. This spiritual motivation appears in most of the pisanii, of which we will give only a few examples, and is related to the salvation of the founders soul and his acceptance in Heaven, to the glorification of God and to commemoration and remembrance. Since the end of the 15th century, the concern for salvation is more and more present and is reflected in the motivations expressed in the pisanii displayed at the entrance of the church. Founders are somehow assured that the building and maintaining of churches will bring them salvation175, as they represent acts of piety and good deeds. One of the pisanii, from the monastery of Curtea de Arge, dated 1517, lets us know, most probably in the founders own words, the hope of the educated prince Neagoe Basarab that he will be received in Gods kingdom after his death: and you, Immaculate Mother of God, who are the hope of all Christians and mine, the unworthy and humble, mine who was born out of sin, [] and am not worthy to be named your son, because I am full of sins, but have mercy Immaculate Mistress and receive me [] like it is written in the holy Gospel: Receive me, Father, as one of your servants, thusly receive me the sinner and your servant, Io Neagoe Basarab176. The purposes of glorifying God and that of commemoration, as motivations for building princely churches, can be found coexisting in the pisanie from Hurezi monastery, in Walachia, built by Constantin Brncoveanu for the glory, first the boundless and for ever unchanged one of God, who has helped this good and blessed prince to do this and for the eternal commemoration of him and of all his good and blessed family 177. Thusly, we can see, as other

Crciun, Semnificaiile ctitoririi n Moldova medieval, 142: ntemeierea i ntreinerea de biserici le vor aduce mntuirea. 176 Constantin Blan, Inscripii medievale i din epoca modern a Romniei: judeul istoric Arge (sec XIV-1848) (Medieval Inscriptions and from the Modern Epoch of Romania: the Historical County of Arge (14th Century 1848)) (Bucureti 1994) 206-207: i tu, dar, Preacurat Maic a lui Dumnezeu, care eti ndejdea tuturor cretinilor i mie nevrednicului i umilitului, mie care sunt nscut n pcate, [] i nu sunt vrednic s m numesc fiul tu, fiindca sunt foarte ncrcat de pcate, ci milostivete Preacurat Stpna i primete-m [] precum scrie n sfnta evanghelie: Primeste-m, Printe, ca pe unul din slugile tale, aa primete-m i pe mine greitul, robul tu, Io Neagoe voievod . 177 Ioana Iancovescu, Corina Popa, Mnstirea Hurezi (Hurezi Monastery) (Bucureti 2009) 259: spre slava, nti cea necuprins i neschimbat n veci, a lui Dumnezeu celuia ce au nvrednicit pre acestu bun i blagocestiv domnu a face acestea i spre nemoarta pomenire a sa i a tot bun i prea bl(a)gorod(nic) neamului su.

175

63

scholars have noticed178, that when motivation is expressed officially in written sources, it generally speaks of spiritual reasons: faith, the salvation of ones soul and commemoration. In these churches and monasteries, priests and monks would pray for the health and protection of their prince, attracting Gods blessing over him and the country179. At the same time, building a church or a monastery meant to participate, in fact, to the creation of the Church, it was an act of apostolic origin180. These princes were not only the followers of their predecessors, but also those of the Apostles, through the symbolic act of founding a church or monastery. Maria Crciun concludes that, among others, the act of founding is accordingly an act of faith that expresses the piety of the founder181. This is reflected in the predominant religious function of the church, as a space of encounter between man and God and in the spiritual motivations of the founder that have been mentioned before.

4.2. The Funerary Function: The Princely Necropolis

In the middle ages, the burial within the church was a privilege belonging to the elite of the feudal hierarchy182. This meant that a church would not only be the place where religious rituals were performed, but that it would have, as well, the function of a necropolis. In Moldavia, in time, a special room, the crypt, was developed within the church, whose purpose was to shelter the tombs of the founder and his family. However, in this case, the funerary function does not only correspond to the crypt. Because the crypt exists within the space of the church, the funerary function is transmitted to the entire foundation. In Walachia, the tombs were generally placed in the narthex, this being the space were services for the commemoration of the dead would take place183.

Crciun, Semnificaiile ctitoririi n Moldova medieval, 159. Henry, Monumentele din Moldova de Nord, 72. 180 Gabor and Portase, Domnitorii i ierarhii rii Romneti, 17: A construi o biseric sau o mnstire nsemna s participi, n fond, la edificarea Bisericii, era un act de sorginte apostolic. 181 Crciun, Semnificaiile ctitoririi n Moldova medieval, 142: ctitorirea este prin urmare un act de credin care exprim pietatea ctitorului. 182 Nstase, Despre spaiul funerar n arhitectura moldoveneasc, 201. 183 Cornelia Pillat, Tradiie i inovaie n iconografia picturii rii Romneti din epoca lui Matei Basarab (Tradition and Innovation in the Iconography of the Paintings of Walachia from the Epoch of Matei Basarab) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) 20 (1973) 265 and 268.
179

178

64

We have several examples of such a princely necropolis, out of which we will only give a few, without explaining them in detail, as it is not our purpose to discuss in depth this matter. In Walachia the monastery of Hurezi and in Moldavia, Bistria monastery, Probota monastery and Bogdana monastery from Rdui have had this function, at least intentionally. Because of Brncoveanus tragic death, his tomb at Hurezi is now empty (fig. 10.4.), as he has been buried in another church, in Bucharest. Without developing any further about the funerary iconography of the crypt and the tomb slabs, because of the limits of the present thesis, I will only mention the link between the commemorative reasons for which churches were built and their sometimes associated funerary function. It goes without saying that not all princely foundations were meant to accommodate the tombs of the prince and his family members.

4.3. Defending Christianity

In the two parts that follow, I would like to address functions and motivations that link the spiritual with the more worldly matters. First, I intend to resume the consideration on some interesting scenes. The Cavalcade of the Holy Cross, from the church of Ptrui (fig. 24.3.), which was previously presented, is connected to the idea of fighting and succeeding in the name of the Cross against all pagan enemies. It is a declaration of the matters that preoccupied Stephen the Great the most, namely, the fight against the Ottomans and a proof that religion came to support these worldly affairs. In this sense, all the military saints that have fought in the name of the Cross, were invoked as a spiritual support for Stephens own battles against the Turks. The church is dedicated to the Holy Cross, showing that its entire meaning revolved around the idea of defending Christianity and defeating its enemies. This miniature church, set among beautiful hills, is both a cry for help and a testament of Stephens adopted mission. As said beforehand, his son, Petru Rare, took over his fathers crusading mission, unfortunately being less successful. The exterior paintings that begin to decorate the outer walls have been highly debated upon. Sorin Dumitrescu considers that they represent the overview of the providential work of the Holy Ghost184. Sorin Ulea states, in an ideologically based conclusion, that it was meant to activate the masses and, thusly, become an important
184

Dumitrescu, Chivotele lui Petru Rare, 243: panoramarea lucrrii proniatoare a Duhului Sfnt.

65

ideological support for the politics of the prince against the Ottomans 185. I agree with neither of them, but consider that the role of the external iconography was the same as for the previous example, sensed by Paul Henry who said that they might represent the materialization [] of the prayers and invocations which the prince demanded in the moment when he was ready to attack186. I would say that the images functioned like a visual prayer for victory against the Ottomans. In this sense, the siege of Constantinople (fig. 23.2.) is meant to show a precedent and the purpose of the prayer. Its connection with the Akathist Hymn and the prayer of all the saints is the invocation to the Virgin Mary and the entire heavenly world for help against the pagans. This shows a motivation for building churches before an actual battle, but there were reasons to build one after a victory, as well. The legends we discussed in chapter two emphasized the gratitude of the prince for having been supported by invisible forces in battles against the Turks. Sometimes, even a defeat would lead to the foundation of a church. This motivation is even included in the pisanie, in the case of the church from Rzboieni, built on the spot where Stephen the Greats battle against the Turks from 1476, in which he was defeated, actually took place. The expressed motivation is that of commemorating the founder and his family, but most importantly, all of those who have died fighting for the Cross: and with the will of God, the Christians were defeated by the pagans, and, there, a great number of the soldiers of Moldavia have fallen. At the same time, the Tartars struck the principality of Moldavia in that part. This is why, Io Stephen Prince has deigned with his good will and has built this church dedicated to the name of the arch-strategist Michael and for his prayer and that of his Lady, Mary and his sons Alexander and Bogdan and also for the commemoration of the souls of all the faithful Christians who have died here187. Monastic foundations, in the context of these recurrent battles, might have also had two other roles. One is related to the existence in Moldavia of a small chamber above the crypt,

185

Ulea, Originea i semnificaia ideologic a picturii exterioare moldoveneti I, 73: pentru a activiza masele i a deveni, astfel, un important sprijin ideologic al politicii antiotomane a domniei. 186 Henry, Monumentele din Moldova de Nord, 221: materializarea [...] a rugciunilor i a invocaiilor pe care voievodul pune s fie nlate n momentul cnd e gata s treac la atac. 187 Iorga, Inscripii din bisericile Romniei, 44: i cu voia lu Dumnezeu, au fost biruii cretinii de ctre pgni, i au czut acolo mulime mare dintre ostaii Moldovei. Tot atunci i Tatarii au lovit ara Moldovei din ceia parte. Drept aceia, a binevoit Io tefan Voevod cu buna sa vrere i a fcut acest hram ntru numele arhistratigului Mihail, i pentru rugciunea sa i a Doamnei sale Maria i a fiilor si Alexandru i Bogdan i pentru pomenirea i de sufletul tuturor binecredincioilor cretini cari au perit aice.

66

called the treasury (taini), which could hide both the valuables of the monastery, but also those of the founder. The fact that many monasteries were plundered could be linked to the precious items that were publicly displayed, but also hidden within their walls. At the same time, monasteries were well defended by fortified walls, so there is a possibility that they could function as a place of refuge against the pagan enemies. This function of the church as a prayer to God for the victory of the Christian army of the prince connects the religious and the worldly, in a spiritual, yet also material crusade, revealing a motivation that was directly shaped by the political situation of the time, reminding the scholar of the importance of placing the sources within their historical context.

4.4. The Political and Social Function

There are additional reasons for founding a church, which could have never been publicly expressed in pisanii or other documents, but which were suggested in a veiled manner. A prince could not say openly that he was building a monastery in order to legitimize his rule, but it could be secretly understood. In this sense, restoring or rebuilding the churches of predecessors was a declaration of continuity. Petru Rare repainted the churches of his father, for example at Dobrov. Constantin Brncoveanu restored the ruined churches of his predecessor Matei Basarab. These deliberate choices must have meant as well that the princes were faithful followers of these important princely figures that have ruled before them. As stated before, the monastery of Sucevia (fig. 27.1.), built by prince of Moldavia Ieremia Movil, was a curious reminder of an artistic practice a century old and which had never been revived after the death of Petru Rare, that of painting the outside walls of a church completely. This had nothing to do with what was fashionable in Movils time, but was a clear expression of legitimacy. Movil descended from Rare on the female line, which was a less accepted succession practice, so he wanted to show that he was a true follower of Rare and, thusly, a legitimate prince. The exterior of Sucevia was supposed to remind as well and instantly, like a genealogic act sui generis, of the foundations from the time of the great and princely grandfather of the Movileti, one to whom they understood to be the family heirs and spiritual continuers despite of a new historical,

67

and political, social and cultural climate188. It is also known that Stephen the Great embellished the tombs of his predecessors, which had been buried in the princely necropolis from Rdui, with new tomb slabs between 1479 and 1481, both for the purpose of commemorating them and for being seen as a continuator of their dynastic line189. Rzvan Theodorescu considered that all of these founding efforts had as a main purpose [] the affirmation of a special social prestige190. Ieremia Movil was expressing through his impressive foundation, not only legitimacy, but also the quick ascension of his family of boyars. Elegance, rich decorative elements, those things that were not really necessary, but which would amaze the viewer, had the function to display prestige, power and fortune. I will mention additionally, the cultural function of monasteries as Govora, where a tipography was installed by Matei Basarab, or of those famous for their painting workshops. However, this was an annex and was not directly reflected by the building of the church. Having presented the several possible functions of the church and the reasons behind building them, I intended to emphasize the interconnectedness of spiritual and worldly matters and the variety of possible motivations. Founding a church would give many advantages to the prince, because of the total nature of this act, a meeting point between this world and the next.

Rzvan Theodorescu, Despre civa oameni noi, ctitori medievali (About a Few New People, Medieval Founders) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) 24 (1977) 90: trebuia s aminteasc totodat i instantaneu, ca un act genealogic sui generis, de ctitoriile din timpul marelui i domnescului bunic al Moviletilor, cel ai crui motenitori de familie i continuatori spirituali ei nelegeau s fie n pofida unui nou climat istoric i politic, social i cultural. 189 Nstase, Despre spaiul funerar n arhitectura moldoveneasc, 201. 190 Theodorescu, Despre civa oameni noi, ctitori medievali 74: toate aceste eforturi ctitoriceti aveau drept scop fundamental [] afirmarea unui prestigiu social deosebit.

188

68

Chapter IV The Votive Portraits

1. Location 1.1. Related to Architecture

After having discussed princely religious foundations in general, with their functions and the motivations that have generated them, in the last chapter, I will turn to those iconographical representations that best express the quality of a founder, the votive portraits. I want to analyze them in order to understand the way in which they were conceived, what they presented and what was the message which they were supposed to deliver. I will begin with the first question that comes in mind, namely, where are these portraits to be found. Where are they placed in relation to the architectural structure of the church and what is their connection to the iconographies they are surrounded by? Afterwards, I will be addressing the problem of the audience and of reception. First of all, votive portraits are in most cases found in the interior of the church. In Moldavia, for the period we are referring to, all votive portraits have been painted in the nave, on the western wall, facing the altar, in the lower register. Usually, it occupied only the Southern part of this wall, as is the case at Vorone and Moldovia monaster ies (fig. 30.7. and fig. 23.4.). However, sometimes the scene would be extended on the Southern wall, as well. At Ptrui, the religious scene is painted on the Western wall and the founders on the Southern one (fig. 24.4.). In the case of Sucevia the same continuation is applied, but , because of the great number of worldly figures, the founders start to be painted on the Western wall (fig. 27.5.). The placing of the votive portrait in the nave, facing the altar, might have had a liturgical reason. That it is to say that, in this way, through their visual representation, the founders were always present during Mass. They were depicted in the sacred space of the church in which the meeting with God took place through the celebration of the Liturgy. The founders were strategically placed so that they could symbolically witness each religious celebration. In Walachia, in the beginning, there seems to have been the same choice, as witnessed in the votive portraits from the church of Cozia monastery (fig. 4.3.) and of the princely church

69

from Arge (fig. 6.2.). However, this soon changes and, at the monastery of Curtea de Arge, the votive portraits were placed in the narthex. Neagoe Basarab intended to create an impressive dynastic representation, for which he needed to have enough space. The votive portrait was probably moved here for this reason, but also for the fact that the narthex sheltered the tombs of the princely family, having a funerary function191. In this way, practical and liturgical matters were combined. It is interesting to remark, that at the hospital church from Cozia and at Snagov monasteries, the successors of Neagoe Basarab combined the two possibilities, leading to the appearance of votive portraits both in the nave and in the narthex. Vasile Drgu argues that the votive portrait from the nave of Snagov monastery (fig. 14.3., 14.4.) had the function of a votive representation. When those represented are shown once more in the narthex (fig. 14.2.), they are placed in the dynastic context of succession series. However, in both cases, the founders are represented holding the model of the church, meaning that the portrait is still a votive one, but one included in a legitimizing perspective. Later on, during the reign of Matei Basarab and Constantin Brncoveanu, votive portraits continue to be painted in the narthex, where they offer the necessary space for displaying the family of the founder and the princes that preceded him. In the case of the monastery of Hurezi, the narthex is even enlarged, so that it can offer sufficient space for the vast votive program of Constantin Brncoveanu. As a conclusion, in Walachia, votive portraits end up being displayed in the space of transition between this world and the spiritual one, a space of spiritual initiation, but also one of funerary commemoration, as opposed to those in Moldavia, where worldly founders enter the sacred place of the nave.

1.2. Related to the Iconographical Program

I have already mentioned that it is important not to treat a scene as separated from those that surround it, because everything has been created with a holistic vision in mind. That is to say that votive portraits interacted with the images around them. They are always inserted in the lower register of the church, not only for reasons of visibility, but because these votive representations were part of a larger iconography. The so-called Ecclesia is a composition that
191

Dumitrescu, Pictura mural din ara Romneasc n veacul al XVI-lea, 32.

70

occupies the first register in each room of the church, starting with the narthex and finishing with the nave-altar192. This scene (fig. 17.3.) is represented by portraits of saints, martyrs, monks and other saintly figures, which surround the church at eye-level, giving the visitor the sensation that he is walking among the saints. Only the superior registers present actual religious scenes. According to Gabriel Herea, this was not only a simple display of saintly figures, but it was like a prayer of the Triumphant Church in the Heavenly Kingdom 193, with which the votive portraits of the founders were associated. The location of these representations was dictated by the iconography and by visibility matters. Often, the votive portraits were associated with the ones of Saints Constantine and Helena. At the monastery of Dobrov (fig. 17.3.), they are painted on the Northern part of the same Western wall, being separated from the votive portrait by the portal. The princes represented here, among whom Stephen the Great and Petru Rare, the last being the one who financed the painting, were best known for their implication in the fight against the Ottomans. Vasile Drgu considers that the proximity of Saint Constantine is a reference to the fact that, just like him, the two princes were defending Christianity against the pagans194. In Walachia, at the monastery of Hurezi, the biggest part of the upper part of the Eastern wall of the narthex is illustrated with scenes from the life of Saint Constantine. On the same wall, below these scenes, is the votive portrait of Constantin Brncoveanu and his family, to which they are related. The choice of representing the life of Saint Constantine was a deliberate one, showing the interaction between the different iconographies, but also, the fact that everything was precisely thought of, so as to create a logical ensemble. Beside the fact that Brncoveanu shared the same name with the saint, this choice was also a veiled expression of his political attitude. Brncoveanu was not the man of the Turks. Clearly, it was very hard to oppose these powerful ennemies at the time, but he had in mind the possibility of going against them when the time was right. Including the scene of the battle at Pons Milvius, in the narthex in which he had his portrait painted and keeping the traditional symbolic structure prescribed by the hermineia, he developed intentionally some themes which revived the tradition of militant paintings 195, this referring to
Herea, Pelerinaj n spaiul sacru bucovinean, 18: compoziie ce ocup primul registru n fiecare ncpere a bisericii, ncepnd cu pronaosul i terminnd cu naos-altarul. 193 Herea, Pelerinaj n spaiul sacru bucovinean, 68: ca o rugciune a Bisericii Triumftoare n mpria cereasc. 194 Drgu, Arta romneasc, 146. 195 Drgu, Arta romneasc, 301: pstrnd structura simbolic tradiional i prescris de erminii, a dezvoltat n mod intenionat unele teme care renviau tradiia picturii militante.
192

71

those discussed in chapter three. This shows the importance of studying votive portraits in their iconographical context, as it may offer new perspectives on their meaning.

1.3. Reception
I would like to finish this first part, with a discussion on reception, which will be resumed once we analyse the relation between image and text in princely votive portraits. The fact that the audience was not limited to God is logical, yet some claim that la prire daffermissement au pouvoir et le tmoignage de fidelit travers la ddicace du don et lhommage aux anctres, sont prsents avant tout Dieu et non aux yeux de la population 196, with arguments like the darkness of the church and its location in Moldavia, those assisting at Mass having their backs turned at the votive portraits. Surely, the churches were poorly lit, but with fresh colours, and gold scattered about them, they were well visible and the second argument is even easier to prove wrong, as it is logical that the main liturgical focal point would be the altar, meaning that it was important for the founder to be turned towards it as well. I do not agree with the lack of visibility claimed by Tania Kamburova, because votive portraits were at eye-level and they would become clearly visible when the faithful exited the church, being constantly seen by the clerics performing the Liturgy. At the same time, Kamburova seems to ignore the fact that in Walachia they have a completely different location, being painted on all of the walls of the narthex, being visible both when entering and exiting the church. In terms of audience, I believe they were destined to be seen by worldly eyes as well. The display of wealth and power was meant for their contemporaries. The question of who exactly entered the church to pray and who would actually notice these votive representations is hard to answer, because we lack the sources. However, this iconography was very suggestive visually for the illiterate and it was easy to know that it was the founder, because he was holding the model of the church in his hand and if he wore a crown it was probable that he was the prince. I do not know whether there was a limited access to princely chapels, but I think we can safely say that anyone could enter the church of a monastery and most of our sources are from such locations. This means that the prince could be seen by anyone, from the wealthy and powerful to the simple peasant, generating obviously different reactions and levels of understanding. The
196

Kamburova, Le don dans limage Byzantine du souverain, 502.

72

broadness of the audience is very important, because it gives the public character of these images. Keeping in mind that they could be seen by anyone, they were probably created with the audience in mind, as some sort of an official art. The reactions of those entering the church at the time, especially if they were simple peasants are impossible to trace. The zealous interpretation that when the Christians saw the founder princes next to the saints on the walls of churches, passing before them, they would uncover their heads and commemorate them, by honouring them with a prayer197 is an idyllic supposition that we cannot confirm.

2. The Background
Moving on from the space of the church to the space of the actual painting, I would like to discuss the way in which the background of the scene was represented. Usually, it is a monochrome one, deprived of landscapes or decorative elements, like at Hurezi Chapel (fig. ). This is probably due to the fact that, in the case of many churches, the background has been repainted. Sometimes, it is divided in two levels, as in the case of Dobrov monastery (fig. ). Here, the lower part of the votive portrait is painted in green and the upper part in ultramarine. It is interesting to observe the fact that the figure of Christ is reduced so as to fit in the upper part, delimited by the change of colour used for the background. This is more than an interesting rendering of the perspective and the green does not only represent the earth and the blue the sky, as in any landscape198. Te background here has the precise function of separating the material world, to which the three princes belong, from the spiritual one, in which the divine figure appears. As stated beforehand, the votive portrait appears included in the large iconography of the Ecclesia. In Moldavia, the saintly figures of this scene are usually delimited by arches above their heads. These arches are sometimes extended to the votive portrait, as in the case of the church of Saint Nicholas in Dorohoi (fig. 18.2.) and that of the church of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary in Baia (fig. 16.2.). Both have been repainted, so I wonder whether these arches were present when originally painted. My guess is that they werent and that they were later added and extended to the votive representation instinctively. The two churches have been
Gabor, Portase, Domnitorii i ierarhii rii Romneti, 17: Cnd cretinii i vedeau pe voievozii ctitori alturi de sfini pe pereii bisericilor, trecnd prin faa lor, se descopereau i i pomeneau cinstindu-i cu o rugciune. 198 Drgu, Dobrov, 8.
197

73

painted initially by Petru Rare, being afterwards retouched. The monastery of Moldovia offers an original fresco from his reign (fig. 23.4.). Here we can see clearly that the arches are present in the iconography of the Ecclesia, but they are no longer present in the votive portrait. These arches probably symbolize saintly figures or a sacred space. Once the worldly figures are inserted in this display of saints, they are also separated from them, the sudden rupture in what appears to be a decorative effect, probably being intended to mark the intrusion of worldly characters among saintly ones and to separate the votive scene. In many other cases in which the original is preserved, like at Humor monastery (fig. 22.3.), but also, Sucevia (fig. 27.5.), Vorone (fig. 30.7.) in Moldavia and Arnota (fig. 1.2.) in Walachia, stars are scattered on the dark background. They have a decorative role, but they also symbolize the fact that the meeting between the founder and Christ, to whom the church is generally offered, takes place in a space between Heaven and Earth, a neutral space, in Cosmos. This could be the moment of the Last Judgement, with Christ sitting on his throne surrounded by angels, like in the votive portrait of Sucevia monastery (fig. 27.5.)199. A white background is usually used, according to the rules written in the hermineia, to symbolize Heaven, like in the well-known scene of the last judgement from Vorone monastery (fig. 30.4.), in opposition to the dark background of earthly scenes200. So, this means that Christ does not appear to the founder in Heaven, but most probably in an eschatological space. The votive portrait of Sucevia can be understood as the founder showing his piety on the day of the last judgement, bringing in front of God the model of his church as a proof of his good deeds, being related to the concern for the fate of the soul after death201. The votive portrait is not only an expression of this important moment, but it also contributes to the donors salvation by making him present during Mass.

3. The Composition and the Protagonists

The votive scene is usually an iconography which connects this world with the spiritual one. In Moldavia, there is a clear division between the sacred space in which the divine figures are represented and the material one, to which the founders belong. In Walachia, the divine figures are barely noticeable, but they still belong to another level. In Moldavia, because the
199 200

Herea, Pelerinaj n spaiul sacru bucovinean, 110. Herea, Pelerinaj n spaiul sacru bucovinean, 9. 201 Crciun, Semnificaiile ctitoririi n Moldova medieval, 152.

74

founders offer the church to Christ, they are all turned towards him, meaning that the place in which the religious scene is depicted dictates the direction in which the votive scene unfolds. Usually the sacred figures are displayed on the right, next to the portal that marks the entrance to the nave. This leads to a procession of founders turned towards the right, as is visible in the church of Saint Elijah, near Suceava (fig. 28.2.). However, at the church of Saint Nicholas in Dorohoi (fig. 18.2.), there is an unique example of a switch of direction: Christ appears on the Southern wall, meaning that the founders now turn from right to left in order to face him202. I think it would be interesting to analyze who is portrayed in a votive representation, among the worldly protagonists. It is obviously clear that this iconography is first of all meant to emphasize the quality of being a founder, meaning that it is obvious that the founder of the church is always represented. This takes us back to the discussion in chapter one regarding the definition of a founder. He is generally the one with the money and the intention, but I would like to note an interesting case, that of the monastery of Humor. It would seem inconsistent that we use this monastery as a source for the present thesis, because it was founded by logothete (logoft)203 Teodor Bubuiog. However, the text of one of the two pisanii, similar to the second informs us that through the will and with the help of the blessed prince Petru, son of the old prince Stephen, was begun and built this church dedicated in the name of the honoured Dormition of our immaculate and blessed Mistress, Mother of God and forever Virgin Mary, with the expense and trouble of boyar Teodor, great logothete and his wife Anastasia 204. According to the text, it seems clear that prince Petru Rare had the initiative of building the monastery and that it was executed by his logothete. However, we cannot tell whether the socalled help meant that he actually contributed financially to the foundation. It is interesting to note that the votive portrait in the nave (fig. 22.3.) represents only the prince with his family, while Teodor and his wife are painted in the crypt that houses their tombs (fig. 22.5. and fig. 22.4.). If Anastasias portrait seems to be mostly a funerary one, that of Teodor must have had both the function of a funerary and votive portrait, as he is holding the model of the church in his hand. This arrangement can be explained by the precedence of Petru Rare as prince and by the
Henry, Monumentele din Moldova de Nord, 158. This is a title equivalent to a minister or secretary of state. 204 Bal, Bisericile moldoveneti din veacul al XVI-lea, 26 prin voina i cu ajutorul blagocestivului Domn Petru Voevod, fiul btrnului tefan Voevod, s-a nceput i s-a fcut acest hram n numele cinstitei Adormiri a prea curatei i prea binecuvntatei noastre Stpne Nsctoare de Dumnezeu i pururea Fecioare Maria, cu cheltueala i cu osteneala robului lui Dumnezeu Jupan Teodor, marele logoft i ale soiei lui Anastasia.
203 202

75

possibility to paint the financing founders near to their tombs, which offered a solution to a problematic situation for Moldavian votive portraits. When repaintings are being done, the last founder makes sure that besides him, the initial founders are portrayed as well205. This is the case of Stephen the Greats foundations, repainted by Petru Rare, like the monastery of Dobrov. The case of Govora monastery is similar to the one of Humor, but less clear. It was first founded by Radu cel Mare, being restored allegedly by Constantin Brncoveanu or out of his initiative. However, the pisanie does not mention the prince, as the one at Humor does. Both the financing and the idea seem to belong to the abbot Paisie, who: seeing the weakness of the church, was urged by his good thought and rebuilt it completely, embellishing it with paintings and with all its ornaments, with his expense and with help from the monastery206. The votive portrait shows Radu the Great holding the monastery with the abbot Paisie (fig. 9.3.), reuniting prince and cleric, while Brncoveanu (fig. 9.4.) is holding only a cross in his hands, which could be a sign of having participated to the act of founding207. We can not conclude on this matter, though we are inclined to believe that Brncoveanu was added out of respect and that we are dealing with a church built by a prince and rebuilt and repainted by an abbot, possibly from Brncoveanus order. At the hospital church of Cozia monastery, the portrait of the founder of the main church of the monastery, prince Mircea the Elder is added too, probably mostly out of dynastic reasons (fig. 5.7.). Usually, the founder is surrounded by members of his family, the founders de jure, which are also present in the motivation included in the pisanii, when speaking about the commemoration of not only the founder, but his entire family. Also, succession series are included next to votive representations. Their princely figures are less related to the offering of the church, because they have never participated in its foundation, but they appear next to the prince founder in order to show the predecessors of whom he considered himself to be the follower. Other participants to the act of founding appear as well. In the later period, artists are included in the votive representation, like at Hurezi monastery (fig. 10.3.). At the hospital church of Cozia, foundation of prince Radu Paisie, in the narthex is depicted the portrait of boyar Stroe
Pucau, Actul de ctitorire, 47. Radu Florescu, Mnstirea Govora (Govora Monastery) (Bucureti 1965) 22: vzndu slbiciunea bisericii, ndemnatu-au dentru al su gndu bun i au prefcut-o din temelie, nfrumusend-o cu zugrveal i cu toat podoaba ei, cu cheltuial de la el i cu ajutoriu den mnstire. 207 Dumitrescu, Pictura mural din ara Romneasc n veacul al XVI-lea, 53.
206 205

76

(fig. 5.8.), who was close to the prince and is considered to have supervised the constructions208. However, because the pisanie says that the church was built in the days of Radu Paisie and does not explicitly state that it was done by him and, also, because Stroe is holding a cross in his hand and, in that time, it was not common for a supervisor to be portrayed, Carmen Laura Dumitrescu argues that he might be the actual founder or might have contributed to the foundation209. However, because the church was built within the monastic complex at Cozia, founded by prince Mircea the Elder, I believe that the most probable founder is Radu Paisie, Stroe having only contributed to the foundation, due to their close relationship. In Moldavia, it is known that Petru Rare was probably sustained in his foundation enterprises by his cousin the metropolitan bishop Grigorie Roca. He is probably the author of the exterior paintings, in the sense that he had the theological knowledge that could put Rares political ideas into the practice of a coherent religious iconography210. That is to say that he knew which religious scenes should be used. His role is always silenced and his portrait never appears in any foundation. But after Petru Rares death, Roca decides to decorate the foundation of Stephen the Great at Vorone with exterior paintings and he has a portrait of himself painted as well, outside, near the entrance and underneath the pisanie (fig. 30.2.). The choice of the representation of worldly figures in a votive portrait offers a variety of situations and presents different protagonists, not only the main founder. The problem that arises from representing many figures, often similar or undistinguishable is that of the way in which they were identified. And the answer to these questions lies in the following part of this chapter.

4. The Inscriptions: The Relation between Image and Text

Votive scenes were not composed only from images, but they contained written text as well. The painted inscriptions were represented by the names and status of the worldly protagonists, but also the names of the divine figures that would appear. Text might also be written on scrolls that the founders hold in their hands, as is the case in the votive portrait from Hlincea monastery (fig. 20.2.), but it could also be used to write a second pisanie, usually related to the founder who had the church painted, in which he would express his reasons. As we can
Drgu, Arta romneasc, 225. Dumitrescu, Pictura mural din ara Romneasc n veacul al XVI-lea, 16 and 53. 210 Dumitrescu, Chivotele lui Petru Rare, 60-65.
209 208

77

see, text accompanies the images for the purpose of the identification of the characters and for an explanation regarding who, when and why had the church been painted. Adding text to images was common practice in mural paintings, the hermineia giving even the text that ought to be written for each scene. But text in votive portraits was more than a habit. It was a necessity. When images were not able to offer a complete identification, names would be introduced, in order to show with precision who is who. When a numerous family was displayed, the only way to distinguish between similar faces was through what was written above their heads. The question that rises next is whether anyone could actually read all of these texts. They were written in Slavonic and Greek, languages that were only familiar to the educated clerics or possibly to the elite. In the beginning, we have very little information about literacy. Even as late as Constantin Brncoveanus reign, those who could read were very few and an oral culture predominated211. This proves that texts were only understood by the small number of literates, if they were able to read the script of the inscriptions. We do not have any information in this sense, so we will not jump to conclusions. However, we can assume that apart from functioning as tools of identification for the few who could read, they were meant to identify the founder in a more symbolic way. Naming was part of the process of commemoration. It identified the founders in front of God. That is to say that words and texts, apart from a practical function, might have had a symbolic and ritual one. And, in fact, written names did accomplish their function of remembrance, because it is due to them that we are now able to safely identify the protagonists of votive portraits. If few people could read and understand the written texts, this means that it was all up to the images to convey a message to the viewer. As Marco Mostert explains, an illiterate beholder might feel emotions when looking at an image212. But, the illiterate cannot read the picturesigns so as to gain new knowledge, meaning that he could only identify what he already knew and that, without the help of another person, he was not able to learn anything or even be able

Adam, Ctitorii muatine, 103. Marco Mostert, Reading Images and Texts: Some Preliminary Observations Instead of an Introduction in Marille Hageman and Marco Mostert (ed.), Reading Images and Texts Medieval Images and Texts as Forms of Communication Papers from the Third Utrecht Symposium on Medieval Literacy, Utrecht 7-9 December 2000 (Turnhout 2005) 5.
212

211

78

guess what the image represented with certainty213. This means that somehow you needed to be either a literate or a well-educated person in order to be able to understand a religious scene. However, the votive portraits must have been easy to understand and identify, at least on a basic and limited level, but again, this remains a supposition and a topic open for debate.

5. The Worldly Level 5.1. The Portrait: The Face

In the following part of this chapter, I want to take a closer look at the elements which make up the worldly figures of these votive portraits. I will analyze the way in which the face is represented, the costume they wear, their attitudes and the objects they carry in their hands. I will start with the face, which has a very troublesome nature. That is to say that most people expect a likeness in the painted face of someone, a matter that has been of interest to many art historians, when sometimes this is the least important element of a portrait. The reason for this, in our case, is that many repaintings have damaged the face or recreated the face, while leaving the costume intact, for example. The second reason for the lack of importance of the face is that, although artistically important, historically speaking it does not offer any information about the people represented, because medieval art, even towards its final phase, treats the human face in a hieratical and idealized way. Many art historians have lost themselves in literary descriptions of the fine and lively features of our medieval princes, which had no justification and no point. Wladyslaw Podlacha considers votive portraits to be attempts of portraits 214, obviously from the perspective of the rendering of the face. Most art historians admit the hieratical and repetitive characteristic of the human face in the early middle ages, which were dematerialized and idealized, like those of the saints, being quite impersonal215. However, from the 17th century onwards, they start to consider that votive portraits lose their rigidity, because religious painting starts to be influenced by laic art216. In this sense, it has been stated that the votive portraits from Trei Ierarhi (fig. 29.2.) anticipate with more than a century the modern easel painting, in this
Lawrence G. Duggen, Reflections on Was Art Really the Book of the Illiterate? in Marille Hageman and Marco Mostert (ed.), Reading Images and Texts Medieval Images and Texts as Forms of Communication Papers from the Third Utrecht Symposium on Medieval Literacy, Utrecht 7-9 December 2000 (Turnhout 2005) 95-96. 214 Podlacha, Pictura mural din Bucovina, 138: ncercri de portrete. 215 Pillat, Pictura mural n epoca lui Matei Basarab, 51. 216 Pillat, Pictura mural n epoca lui Matei Basarab, 52.
213

79

case, the portrait genre217. In the same period, in Walachia, the portraits from Arnota monastery (fig. 1.2.) are thought to be humanizing, completely detached from the traditional hieratic display218. Once the impressive galleries of votive portraits of Constantin Brncoveanus reign, with a considerable number of protagonists, start to appear, like at Hurezi monastery (fig. 10.8, 10.9.) or, for boyar foundations, those at Filipetii de Pdure (fig. 8.1.) and Mgureni (fig. 13.1), the question of the portrait, individuality and facial features is resumed once again. It seems that not only political and social reasons determined the magnitude of votive portraits from this period. It is clear that laic art was becoming fashionable, because such an unprecedented importance was given to it. Artists started to be specialized in religious or laic art, meaning that some would paint the religious scenes and some the worldly portraits219. Having ones portrait painted was a practice that started to become more accessible and it started to be slowly separated from religious art, but the portraits still had an idealized rendering. We cannot speak of individuality, yet and I think that Anca Vasilius conclusion about the rendering of the face in this period of transition explains very well that the art of portraiture, tempered by a natural idealization in the mentality of the time, and doubled by the background of an interior profile expressing the sensitive ideal of the century, is less marked by the effort to compete with the directly visible reality, and more by the search to render a generic and conventional image of the beauty and virtues appreciated by the refined world of this end of century220.

5.2. The Costume

The costume of the princely protagonists of votive portraits and those of their wives have been described in detailed by many early art historians, who would give minute renderings of each piece of clothing. It is of course, beyond the limit of this thesis to describe the costumes worn by all princely founders. In what follows I will make a short analysis of the typical
Dobjanschi, Simion, Arta n epoca lui Vasile Lupu, 58: anticipeaz cu mai bine de un secol pictura de evalet modern, n spe, genul portretistic. 218 Istoria artelor plastice n Romnia (The History of the Arts in Romania) (Bucureti 1970) vol. II, 65. 219 Voinescu, Zugravul Prvul Mutul i coala sa, 154-156. 220 Vasiliu, Pictura mural brncoveneasc. II. Arta portretului, 22: arta portretisticii, temperat de o idealizare fireasc n mentaliatea epocii, i dublat de fondul unui profil interior exprimnd idealul sensibil al veacului, e mai puin marcat de efortul unei concurri cu realitatea direct vizibil, ct de cutarea configurrii unei imagini generice, convenionale, a frumuseii i a virtuilor apreciate de lumea rafinat a acestui sfrit de secol.
217

80

costumes that we can see in these votive representations, giving the fact that, during four centuries, fashion was due to change. These mural portraits are in fact an important source for the history of the costume. The beginning of the feudal costume in both principalities was related to the ties with Transylvania and Hungary. Princes adopted Western European fashions221, which are well visible in the portrait of Mircea the Elder from Cozia monastery (fig. 4.3.) and that of Vladislav Vlaicu from the princely church from Curtea de Arge (fig. 6.2.). However, the traditional Byzantine fashion will take over in Moldavia, flourishing during Stephen the Greats and Petru Rares reigns. This fashion is represented by the so-called Byzantine granatza, long manteau de type byzantin, descendant jusqu' la cheville, avec des trs longues et larges manches 222, worn by the aforementioned princes in all of their authentic portraits, for example at Vorone (fig. 30.7.) and at Moldovia (fig. 23.4.). This was more than a simple costume and, according to Corina Nicolescu, it played the same part as the crown in the ceremony in which a new prince was invested223. In this period of time, the wives of the princes wore the same granatza224. I would like to remark the presence of a piece of the traditional national costume which is up to this day worn by Romanian women. In the votive portraits from the frescoes of the monastery of Curtea de Arge, Lady Despina and her three daughters (fig. 7.4.) and Lady Ruxandra (fig. 7.7.) wear the traditional Romanian blouse called ie, a blouse on which decorative elements have been manually sown, according to a traditional composition, distinguished in these portraits by the lines of vertical decorations known as rivers (ruri). It is know that Lady Despina, Neagoe Basarabs wife was of Serbian origin, so the choice of this traditional Romanian blouse was not inherent. The reasons why she made this choice might be numerous, but because we have no solid argument, we refrain from speculations. Towards the end of the period we are studying, from the end of the 16th century, the granatza is replaced by the so-called caftan225, which is well-exemplified in the votive gallery from Hurezi monastery (fig. 10.8, 10.9.). A general characteristic is the use of gold when
Corina Nicolescu and Florentina Jipescu, Date cu privire la istoria costumului n Moldova sec. XV- XVI (Information Regarding the History of the Costume in Moldavia, 15th 16th Centuries) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) 1-2 (1957) 136. 222 Corina Nicolescu, Les insignes du pouvoir Contribution lhistoire du crmonial du cour roumain in Revue des tudes sud-est europennes XV (1977) 2, 245. 223 Nicolescu, Les insignes du pouvoir, 245. 224 Nicolescu, Jipescu, Date cu privire la istoria costumului n Moldova sec. XV- XVI, 147. 225 Nicolescu, Les insignes du pouvoir, 246.
221

81

rendering these costumes, characteristic which is not abandoned with the passing of time, because it evoked wealth, splendour and some kind of hierarchical superiority.

5.3. The Hands: Attitudes, Gestures and Objects

Not much can be said about the postures and gestures of these worldly figures. Mostly they are represented in a static, hieratical way. Their hands are raised both in a gesture of offering and in an attitude of prayer. In Walachia, from the reign of Matei Basarab, but mostly during that of Constantin Brncoveanu, a slight variety can be noticed. The protagonists begin to simulate some kind of vague movement, suggested by the different calm and elegant gestures that mark the inner dynamic of these figures. In order to break the apparent monotony and repetitive feel, especially when the number of portraits rises, rhythm is created through the variation of gestures, but, also, of the objects held by the protagonists in their hands. This is best exemplified by the votive portrait of Constantin Brncoveanus family, from the church of Hurezi monastery (fig.10.5, 10.7.) and Surpatele monastery (fig. 15.3, 15.4.), in which, a son holds a book in his hand, while some of his daughters hold roses. There is no hidden symbolism in these elements, apart from the fact that flowers were appropriate for girls as much as books for future princes. Actually, in this period, the objects and gestures have only the function of offering rhythm and an apparent sense of movement to an otherwise static and repetitive scene226. Before this period of time, the objects that we sometimes find in the hands of founders are crosses. This appears both in Moldavia, for example at Sucevia monastery (fig. 27.5.), and especially in Walachia, at the monastery of Curtea de Arge (fig. 7.8.), at the hospital church of Cozia (fig. 5.8.), at Snagov monastery (fig. 14.4.) and even later on, at Govora (fig. 9.4.). Carmen Laura Dumitrescu, when discussing the case of the portrait of boyar Stroe from the hospital church of Cozia, explains that the cross he is holding in his hand is a sign that he has participated to the act of foundation227. However, by looking at the votive gallery from the church of Hurezi monastery (fig. 10.11-10.14.), we see that all of the princes that have preceded Brncoveanu and which he chose to represent next to him, in a dynastical context, hold crosses
226 227

Vasiliu, Pictura mural brncoveneasc. II. Arta portretului, 20. Dumitrescu, Pictura mural din ara Romneasc n veacul al XVI-lea, 53.

82

in their hands. None of the boyars, members of Brncoveanus family, also portrayed there hold a cross. Obviously, we cannot say that, here, the cross symbolizes the contribution to the foundation, because the church had been built by Brncoveanu only, so we might conclude, that, in this case, the cross is an attribute, just like the crown, through which princes are clearly distinguished among the vast array of figures. It is important to note that the meaning of holding a cross in ones hand is not clear or well defined or unitary. It seems to vary from case to case, yet, I suppose we can always understand it as a mark of faith. However, we still cant explain for many cases why only some protagonists of the votive scene are holding crosses in their hands, while others dont. Further research is needed in this respect. The last object held by protagonists of votive portraits in their hands to which we will refer is the model of the church. This is the epitome of the gift. In this miniature representation of the church, as well as in the gestures of offering of the founders, the act of gift-giving has been concentrated. I think this is the element which identifies the main founders, because they are the ones holding it in their hands. These miniature churches are always faithful to the way in which the church looked like at the moment the portrait was painted 228. When the architecture has come down to us unaltered, we see a perfect match between the monumental source and its image in the votive portrait. For example the model of Surpatele monastery (fig. 15.3.) is identical with what we can see today (fig. 15.1.). At the same time, when architectural alterations occur in time, the model of the church serves as a first rate source for those who want to restore the church to its initial look. This happened in the case of Snagov monastery, which has been given its original form due to the model from the votive portrait, during the restoration campaign of 1943-1944229. The miniature of the church, as an embodiment of the gift, makes the link between worldly characters and divine figures, which we will be analysing in the following part of this chapter.

6. The Religious Level 6.1. From this World to the Other: Divine Figures and Intercessors
As previously stated the votive portrait was not only composed of worldly characters. Because it was an expression of the act of offering the church to God, divine figures were
228 229

Musicescu, Byzance et le portrait roumain au Moyen Age, 158. Deac, Mnstirea Snagov, 18.

83

generally present, too, sometimes in a spiritual space, separated by the material one, through the differentiated background, as in the case of Dobrov monastery (fig. 17.2.). The sacred world has been rendered visually in a different way in Moldavia and in Walachia, reason for which we will discuss the two separately. In Moldavia, the religious scene occupied an important part of the votive representation. In the church from Ptrui (fig. 24.4.), it holds up half of the space, the other half being destined to the representation of the founders. Generally, the main divine figure of the scene is Christ. He is usually sitting on a throne, blessing the gift and the donors with his right hand, while holding the Gospel in the other, like in the nave of Vorone monastery (fig. 30.7.). In most of the Moldavian examples, intercessor saints mediate the contact between the founder and Christ. It is important to note the fact that, every time, the one who interferes is the saint connected to the dedication of the church. This is quite normal, given the fact that the founder is presenting the church he had built in honor of that specific saint. Saint George is the intercessor in the votive portrait of the church of Saint George from Vorone (fig. 30.7.), Saint Elijah at the Church of Saint Elijah near Suceava (fig. 28.2.), Saint Constantine at the Church of the Holy Cross in Ptrui (fig. 24.4.) and the Virgin Mary at the church of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary from Humor (fig. 22.3.). The importance of these intercessors lies in the fact that they facilitate the founders contact with the sacred figure of Christ 230. In Walachia, the visual rendering of the sacred scene is completely different from Moldavia. In only one case, that of the monastery of Cozia (fig. 4.3.), the divine figures, here the Virgin Mary and a young Christ, occupy an important part of the scene. For the rest of our sources, the spiritual world is barely noticeable. At the hospital church from Cozia (fig. 5.3.), a minuscule Christ appears from a cloud in the right-hand upper corner, blessing the founder and his foundation. This is the general pattern according to which, in Walachia the Christ on the throne of the same size with the founders, in Moldavia is shrunk to a barely visible figure, noticeable also in the case of the monastery of Curtea de Arge (fig. 7.8.). This was probably due to the Serbian influence, brought by Lady Despina, Neagoe Basarabs wife, who was of Serbian origin. Mother-in-law of the founder of the hospital church from Cozia, prince Radu Paisie, she must have been the one who brought the Serbian artists that painted the church 231. They have

230 231

Crciun, Semnificaiile ctitoririi n Moldova medieval, 154. Dumitrescu, Pictura mural din ara Romneasc n veacul al XVI-lea, 52.

84

most probably rendered the votive portrait according to the Serbian fashion, as we shall see in what follows. At the same time, the unusual height of the foundation was typical for Serbian churches232. In Walachia, towards the end of the period we are analyzing, the religious scene disappears completely from the votive portrait, as though, the artists of Constantin Brncoveanu have forgotten completely about it, being so much preoccupied by the worldly figures. This is the case in the votive representation of Surpatele monastery (fig. 15.3.). It is important to note that there is a case in Moldavia, which somehow combines the two solutions together, that of the votive portrait from Probota monastery (fig. 25.7.). First of all, it should be said that scholars have reached the conclusion that the votive portrait painted during the reign of Petru Rare has been repainted after his death by his son Ilia233. Because the number of children of Rare, after painting the first votive portrait, had risen, the painter of Ilia had to accomodate in the same space a larger number of characters. He sacrificed the religious scene, in order obtain more space. If he was not aware of the Walachian practices, the mother of Ilia, Lady Elena was of Serbian origin and might have provided the solution. Christ no longer appears on his throne, having the big proportions with which Moldavian art had once represented him, but is similar to the small Christ in Walachia, blessing from the clouds, in this case being surrounded by the symbols of the four evangelists. The Moldavian painter does not sacrifice the tradition entirely, but manages to squeeze in the intercessor saint Nicholas, offering a compromise between the two different renderings of the religious scene.

6.2. From the Other World to this One: Receiving the Crown
If the intercessors were saintly figure that bridged the gap between this world and the spiritual one, there are other sacred characters whom, instead, close the circle, bringing Gods favour upon the prince. These figures appear only in Walachia in the manner which will be described and analyzed in what follows. I refer to the angelic figures that appear from clouds, holding the crown on the princes head. This representation first appears at the hospital church from Cozia (fig. 5.3-5.6.), being shortly reused in the monastery of Snagov (fig. 14.5.). As it was
232 233

Zamora, Biserici bolni din ara Romneasc n secolele XVI-XVIII, 35. Ulea, Portretul funerar al lui Ion, 66.

85

the case for the small image of Christ, these crown-bearing angels are of Serbian inspiration as well, being related to lady Despinas origin. This was a current detail of Byzantine inspiration in Serbian art, as proven by the material in Tania Kamburovas PhD thesis234, but it was unusual for Romanian medieval votive representations235. The meaning of this gesture is clearly expressed both in the title of the prince and in a classical fragment from Neagoe Basarabs Teachings, which states that: to each emperor or prince, the kingdom and reign is given to him, through Gods mercy 236. The angels that hold the princes crown are an expression of the divine origin of princely power. This representation is introduced in Radu Paisies votive representation, either by the Serbian artists, who were used to such portrayals or on the advice of Lady Despina237. She might have considered that the attempts to banish Radu Paisie from the throne, in 1536, 1538 and 1539 and the general atmosphere of instability needed to be countered through legitimizing representations that expressed the sacred and divine nature of Radu Paisies princely power. Tania Kamburova introduces in her PhD thesis the idea that the offering of the crown was a counter-gift from God, meant to reward the prince for his gift, represented by the model of the church238. However, I do not agree with Kamburovas reasoning, whom I think is too keen to apply the concept of reciprocity developed by Marcel Mauss in relation to gift-giving. I think that if we took her assertion for granted it would mean that the counter-gift was generated by the gift, meaning that God invested the prince as a reward for having founded a church. In this way, only by founding a church, could a prince obtain his power from God. The crown looks like a tempting counter-gift, but it cannot be one. It is only a visual representation of the divine nature of princely power, whose purpose was not to reciprocate the founders gift, but to legitimize him. When Constantin Brncoveanu reuses this iconography, less than two centuries later, in his important foundation at Hurezi, he introduces it with the same purpose of showing that his power derives directly from God, fact enhanced by replacing the traditional angel with the figure of Christ, who offers the crown himself to the Walachian prince (fig. 10.5, 10.6.). Because Christ is not holding in his hands the crown on Brncoveanus head, but another one, shows that the
Kamburova, Le don dans limage Byzantine du souverain. Zamora, Biserici bolni din ara Romneasc n secolele XVI-XVIII, 40. 236 Neagoe Basarab, nvturile lui Neagoe Basarab ctre fiul su Theodosie, 150: fecrui mprat sau domn cruia i s d mpria i domnia, den mila lui Dumnezeu s d. 237 Dumitrescu, Pictura mural din ara Romneasc n veacul al XVI-lea, 52. 238 Kamburova, Le don dans limage Byzantine du souverain, 60.
235 234

86

Serbian tradition had been slightly adapted. The offering of the crown is a proof of the total nature of votive portraits, because it mingles the spiritual with political matters, which will be discussed in detail in the following part.

7. The Political Level 7.1. Towards the Past: Succession Series

Political references abound in princely votive portraits, being mingled with religious and social ones. Their main purpose is that of legitimizing the rule of the prince or of consolidating it, through an official portrait that would display attributes of power. However, there is also the concern for future stability, which was often insured by the practice of associating the eldest legitimate son to the throne, this practice being translated into the votive representations as well. I will start off by analyzing those dynastic representations that were included in votive portraits for the sake of legitimacy, known as succession series, in which Truus van Bueren and Otto Gerhard Oexle have identified the triple pattern formed by Tradition, Sukzession und Memoria239. This model is also present in several succession series from Walachia and Moldavia, which we will be presenting next. When Petru Rare repainted churches built by his father and predecessor Stephen the Great, he always inserted succession series, dictated by Stephens initial foundation, but also by his illegitimate sons need to prove his rightful descent and princely rule. At Dobrov monastery (fig. 17.4.), we have a curious votive representation of three identical princes. The three are Stephen the Great, his son Bogdan III, who at the time the church was built was associated to the throne and became indirectly a co-founder240 and last, Petru Rare, the one who had the church painted. It is evident why each of these characters were present in this representation, but the question is why were they represented identically, in an unprecedented way? Vasile Drgus interpretation, to which we adhere, states that the resemblance up to identity of the figures, emphasized by the similarity of the ceremonial clothes as by the identity of the gestures, must be understood as a demonstrative act with political implications 241. Painted only two years after
239 240

Van Bueren, Oexle, Die Darstellung der Sukzession, 55. Drgu, Dobrov, 7. 241 Drgu, Dobrov, 8: asemnarea pn la identitate a figurilor, pus n eviden de asemnarea vemintelor de ceremonial ca i de identitatea gesturilor, trebuie neleas ca un act demonstrativ cu implicaii politice.

87

Rares ascent on the throne, both the intiative of repainting the church and the curious votive representation expressed clearly his wish to show that he was not only a legitimate successor of Stephen the Great242, but also one who had in mind the continuation of his fruitful politics against the Ottomans. The same type of dynastic representation is to be found in another church founded by Stephen the Great and painted by Petru Rare, the church of Saint Nicholas in Dorohoi (fig. 18.2.), where Stephen IV, Bogdan IIIs follower and Rares immediate predecessor is also included. However, the votive portrait has been slightly repainted, so we cannot use it as a fruitful comparison to the previous one. In Walachia, the monastery from Curtea de Arge used to have a gallery of dynastic portraits, out of which only a few survive, after the restorations from the 19th century. It is important to note from the very beginning the fact that these portraits were painted some during Neagoe Basarabs reign, others being added by his followers Radu of Afumai and Radu Paisie. Tradition was maintained by adding ones portrait to those already existent, legitimacy and succession were also expressed and memory was kept alive at the same time through these portraits. Some art historians have tried to identify under which prince was each portrait painted, but all that can be surely said is that they were all done by Neagoe Basarabs main artist, Dobromir, who finished the portraits during his followers reign, in 1526 243. The ones still preserved are the portrait of Neagoe Basarab and his family (fig. 7.4.), which introduces the original frontal presentation, unique in post-Byzantine art244, that of Mircea the Elder (fig. 7.9.), those of Radu of Afumai and his wife Ruxandra (fig. 7.6, 7.7.) and those of Radu Paisie, Ruxandras second husband and his son Marcu (fig. 7.8.). It is however, known that Neagoe Basarabs necropolis would have housed initially the portraits of three more predecessors of the prince245. Carmen Laura Dumitrescu considers that it was lady Despina who suggested to the continuator of the paintings, her son-in-law, Radu of Afumai, to insert these dynastic portraits, again after a Serbian model and for the purpose of consolidating Radus reign and legitimizing his rule246. Whether initiated by Neagoe Basarab or Despina and Radu, this was the first dynastic

Drgu, Lupan, Pictura mural din Moldova: secolele XV-XVI, 22. Victor Brtulescu, Frescele din biserica lui Neagoe de la Arge (The Frescoes from Neagoes Church in Arge) (Bucureti 1942) 24. 244 Musicescu, Byzance et le portrait roumain au Moyen Age, 161. 245 Drgu, Arta romneasc, 208. 246 Dumitrescu, Pictura mural din ara Romneasc n veacul al XVI-lea, 49.
243

242

88

representation in Walachia. The one at Snagov monastery shortly follows, but it has been altered in the 19th century. The last that I want to reflect upon among these succession series is that from the monastery of Hurezi, where apart from his family portrait, Constantin Brncoveanu has added the portraits of six predecessor princes (fig. 10.10-10.14.), to which he added the years of reign and the name of their father. This part of his extensive votive gallery represented an official painting, due to the princely initiative, which developed and adapted here the fomula of dynastic representation from the church of the monastery of Curtea de Arge247.

7.2. The Present: The Figure of the Prince

Legitimacy and the consolidation of power were also obtained through the way in which the image of the founder prince was created. Several elements of court ceremonial would be used to create the image of a powerful and legitimate ruler. Apart from the costume, which we have already discussed, the crown was the most important attribute of the prince, which was worn sometimes both by their wives and children. Later on, in Moldavia, the couca or beretta would appear underneath the crown, as is the case of the votive portraits from Probota (fig. 25.7.) and Baia (fig. 16.2.). At the end of the 16th century, this type of hat decorated with pearls and precious stones, was to replace the crown, being worn comme insigne du pouvoir monarchique accord par le sultan248. After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Romanian princes considered themselves, through intentions or actions, as followers and continuers of the Byzantine emperors, borrowing from them, their ideas, lifestyle, pomposity and even their emblems 249. Borrowing a Byzantine emblem, Mircea the Elder, in the votive portrait from Cozia monastery (fig. 4.2.) has two doubleheaded eagles on his knees, which refer to Byzantine heraldics 250, like Neagoe Basarab has on his costume, in the portrait from the monastery of Curtea de Arge (fig. 7.4.). Neagoe shows himself as a succesor of fallen Byzantium, a continuator of the fight against the Ottomans,
247

Iancovescu, Popa, Mnstirea Hurezi, 109: pictur oficial, datorat iniiativei domneti care vaolrifica i adapta aici formula de reprezentare dinastic de la biserica mnstirii Curtea de Arge. 248 Nicolescu, Les insignes du pouvoir, 243. 249 Dobjanschi and Simion, Arta n epoca lui Vasile Lupu, 12: s-au considerat, prin intenii sau fapte, drept urmai i continuatori ai mprailor bizantini imprumutnd de la acetia ideile, stilul de via, pompa i chiar stemele. 250 Theodorescu, Despre civa oameni noi, ctitori medievali, 104.

89

emphasized by the presence in his necropolis of the portrait of Serbian knyaz Lazar (fig. 7.5.), the hero from the battle of the Serbians against the Turks from Kosovo (1389)251. Through these two elements, Neagoe emphasizes the idea of the crusade against the pagans and shows himself as a defender of the Cross. We have already proved how Stephen the Great and Petru Rare displayed their political views, in the third chapter of the thesis.

7.3. Towards the Future: The Followers

Through votive portraits, princes did not only express their concern for their own legitimacy, but also their interest in the future of their followers. The practice of associating the elder legitimate son to the rule was expressed through the votive representations as well, where he appears next to his father, wearing a crown on his head. Mircea the Elder was portrayed at Cozia monastery next to his son, Mihail, whom he had associated to the throne (fig. 4.3.). But, unfortunately, things did not always go according to the princes plan. This happened to Stephen the Great, whose elder son, Alexander, associated to the throne, died in 1496, after which his younger brother Bogdan was associated to the throne by Stephen. This dramatic change was reflected in the votive portraits from the church of Ptrui and from the church of Saint Elijah near Suceava, both painted during the reign of Stephen the Great. On the first (fig. 24.4.), we see Stephen the Great, an unidentified son, Lady Maria, his wife and two daughters. Researches have shown that the votive scene from the Southern wall, with the worldly figures has been painted on top of another layer, while the religious scene has remained unchanged252. The most probable reason for this is the fact that, after Alexanders death, Stephen the Great repainted the scene, in order to have his new follower shown next to him. It is probable that the initial votive portrait would have represented Alexander as associated to the throne, next to Stephen and a young Bogdan. However, in the new image, the unidentified son is most probably the new follower, Bogdan. Things are a bit different at the church of Saint Elijah near Suceava (fig. 28.2.), though the situation remains unchanged. On the Southern wall, following Stephen the Great are two young crowned sons, followed by Lady Maria and a daughter. It is visible that the image of the
Drgu, Pictura mural din ara Romneasc i Moldova i raporturile sale cu pictura Europei de sud-est n cursul secolului al XVI-lea, 27. 252 Sinigalia, Ctitori i imagini votive n pictura mural din Moldova, 61.
251

90

second son has been repainted at one point in time. It is probable that initially, the second son, surely Bogdan, was represented as a child and, after the death of his elder brother and after having taken over his position as future successor of his father, he was repainted wearing a crown on his head, as a symbol of his new acquired status. We see here that dynastic and political representations were also a family matter and this takes us to another level that we can identify in votive representations.

8. The Social Level 8.1. The Family

Besides being displayers of dynastical genealogical representations, votive portraits would also offer the possibility to present the founders family, for more pious reasons like that of their remembrance and commemoration. The daughters of a prince, less subjected to political matters, from the perspective that they were not able to succeed their father as sons did, would have been added by more intimate reasons, like that of presenting the founder in the context of his family. This distinction between dynastical representations in a political sense and family portraits can easily been seen at the monastery of Hurezi, where Constantin Brncoveanu has himself portrayed twice, as a prince together with his wife and children and in the line of the predecessor princes he displays (fig. 10.5.) and as a young boy (fig. 10.10), but still wearing a crown in order to be distinguished, included in the family painting that illustrates the two branches from which he descends, that of the Brncoveni (fig. 10.9.) and that of the Cantacuzini (fig. 10.8.). Brncoveanu integrates a vast family display to the dynastic one, clearly separating the two from each other and at the same time keeping them together253. This important representation of boyars appears in the context of an increased concern for expressing the power of these families of boyars full of influence, which is best visible in the galleries from Filipetii de Pdure (fig. 8.1.) and Mgureni (fig. 13.1.). These family representations that exceed the usual length of the wife and children of the founder have been somehow initiated by the iconography from the narthex of Arnota monastery, transformed by Matei Basarab into a real family portrait254. We observe an evolution from the classical
253 254

Iancovescu, Popa, Mnstirea Hurezi, 106-107. Drgu, Arta romneasc, 294: un adevrat portret de familie.

91

Moldavian representation of small proportions, like at Moldovia monastery (fig. 23.4.), extended at Sucevia (fig. 27.5.) to the later impressive display of numerous members that could hardly fit on the wall of the church, in order to express the power of these influent families. The intimate, pious context of the family was once more extended to issues of legitimacy, as all of these apparently separate elements, in fact, coexist in the total nature of this phenomenon.

8.2. Women
Women seem to have always played an adjacent role in the process of founding monasteries in Walachia and Moldavia, being always connected to their prince husbands. They are usually represented next to them in every votive portrait, but they are not indispensable to the composition. At Dobrov monastery (fig. 17.4.), women are completely inexistent, this being an unusual case for Moldavian votive iconography. However, there is a logic to it. Petru Rare was the illegitimate son of Stephen the Great and the step-brother of the legitimate Bogdan III. They had different mothers. If he would have represented Stephen next to his wife Maria, mother of Bogdan, Petru himself would have been considered her son, which was not real. Bogdan III was not married at the time he participated in the founding of the church next to his father and Petru Rare, when the paintings where executed was a widower, so there was no need to have women represented255. However, the wives of princes have founded churches and monasteries as well, especially when their husband was a prolific founder himself. The wife of Constantin Brncoveanu founded the monastery of Surpatele (fig. 15.1.). Sometimes, women might have been involved in the creation of an iconographical program more than we would like to think. I have already given the example of the wife of Neagoe Basarab, Lady Despina of Serbian of origin, who introduced iconographical innovations in votive portraits from Walachia and also genealogical and dynastical displays meant to justify the legitimacy of her two son-in-laws, Radu of Afumai and Radu Paisie256. Lady Chiajna, born from a Serbian mother as well, daughter of Petru Rare and wife of the prince of Walachia Mircea the Shepherd, must have acted in the same way as

255 256

Ulea, Datarea ansamblului de pictur de la Dobrov, 485. Dumitrescu, Pictura mural din ara Romneasc n veacul al XVI-lea, 90.

92

Despina, in the case of the votive portraits from Snagov Monastery257, proving that, sometimes, women were able to exercise their influence and make their voices heard.

9. Conclusion: Motivation and Function 9.1. The Liturgical Function: Remembrance and Commemoration
From all that has been said in this last chapter, many of the functions of votive portraits have already been pointed out along the way. This conclusion is meant to bring them all together, in order to emphasize the variety of meanings a votive portrait can have, related to the function of the entire foundation. I begin once more with the religious aspects, because, in the end, these are religious foundations and their main function was that to glorify God and facilitate and encounter between Him and the faithful. Of course, the main reason for painting a votive portrait, as well as the main function of this representation was that of expressing the quality of founders of those depicted. The whole emphasis on the gift, metamorphosed in the model of the church held in the hands of the founder, is meant to show who was responsible for this pious act. Because foundations and donations were pious acts, good deeds meant to facilitate the admission to Heaven after death, the votive portrait had a function of his own in terms of the concern for the salvation of ones soul. It was placed in the interior of a sacred liturgical space. In Moldavia, founders would be symbolically present during the celebration, both through the names written above their heads and through their image. The votive portrait had in this sense a clear commemorative function and was there to preserve the memory of the one represented, ensuring that prayers for his souls would be recited, for his generous act of founding 258. In Walachia, the commemorative function of the votive portraits was also linked to the funerary character of the space in which they began to be painted, that of the narthex, where tombs were usually placed and funerary services held. But beyond this function of remembrance and commemoration, votive portraits were meant to create a bond between the spiritual and the material world, two essential parts of a Moldavian votive portrait. From the foundation of the church to the votive representation everything is meant to bring the founder closer to God. The act of building a church and then
257 258

Dumitrescu, Pictura mural din ara Romneasc n veacul al XVI-lea, 57. Gabor and Portase, Domnitorii i ierarhii rii Romneti, 17.

93

offering it to God in a votive portrait was the expression of the founders own faith, which must have been the decisive reason when choosing to found religious and not laic edifices. As emphasized by Maria Crciun, the votive image offers a special possibility for an individual or at least familial communication with the sacred259.

9.2. A Political and Social Statement

At the same time, just as the act of founding a church or monastery had a political and social function and was determined by such motivations, princely votive portraits play an extremely important part, as an official art, in legitimizing the present or future rule of a prince and in expressing the prestige and power of some important families. Votive representations are included in what Rzvan Theodorescu called cultural genealogy 260, meaning that it could offer through succession series the dynastic evidence that some princes needed because they were breaking the rules of traditional succession methods. We already showed that the act of repainting the church of a predecessor went hand in hand with that of adding a dynastic portrait, like in the case of Petru Rare. Having to show the initial founder as well in the votive portrait offered an excellent excuse for adding up a touch of political interest. At the same time, the votive portrait was the perfect place to display ones social prestige, ones wealth and success, as was the case with the Movil family and their foundation from Sucevia. In Walachia, votive portraits would affirm the power of families of boyars, who felt more and more inclined to show their large numbers on the walls of their foundations, as at Filipetii de Pdure (fig. 8.1.) and Mgureni (fig. 13.1.). At Hurezi monastery, Constantin Brncoveanus impressive gallery of votive portraits represents a true political manifest, translating not only Brncoveanus wish to legitimate his presence on the throne, not only the need for authority which in the context of the time must be understood as an instrument of stability but also the conviction that art may serve princely purposes261. Indeed, this must have been the reason for which votive portraits became such a
Crciun, Semnificaiile ctitoririi n Moldova medieval, 143: imaginea votiv ofer o posibilitate special de comunicare cu sacrul, individual sau cel puin familial. 260 Theodorescu, Despre civa oameni noi, ctitori medievali, 88: genealogie cultural. 261 Drgu, Arta brncoveneasc, 15: constituie un veritabil manifest politic, traducnd nu numai dorina lui Brncoveanu de a-i legitima prezena pe tron, nu numai nevoia de autoritate care n contextual epocii trebuie neleas ca un instrument de echilibru ci i convingerea c artele frumoase pot sluji elurilor voievodale.
259

94

successful and rich artistic representation. As official and public art, they were the perfect canvas on which princes could display the image that would benefit them most, both in this world and in the next. I would like to conclude this chapter with Tereza Sinigalias words in which the important total nature of votive representations is so well phrased, namely that a votive portrait is the most sensitive barometer of an epoch that completes the letter of documents and the commentaries of chronicles262.

Sinigalia, Ctitori i imagini votive n pictura mural din Moldova, 65: cel mai sensibil barometru al unei epoci, completnd litera documentelor i comentariul cronicilor.

262

95

Conclusions

1. A Comparative Perspective
As promised, I will begin the conclusion of this thesis with a comparative look at religious foundations and votive portraits, in order to emphasize their evolution or continuity in time and the differences and similarities between Walachia and Moldavia. It is noticeable that from a chronological perspective, there is a constant evolution concerning certain elements that constitute a votive portrait and which are inevitably influenced by the passing of time and never stay the same. We noticed a change in the costume worn by princes and their families, from the sumptuous Byzantine granatza to the more simple caftan. Because of political changes, even the crown, which would seem a constant attribute of the prince, is replaced in Moldavia by the couca, a hat embroidered with pearls meant to express the investment of the prince by the sultan. The conception upon the laic portrait also develops in time, but not in a radical way. Figures slowly start to lose their hieratical postures, simulating artificial gestures for the sole purpose of creating rhythm in otherwise static galleries of portraits, like it can be seen in the votive portraits from Hurezi (fig. 10.7.) and Surpatele monasteries (fig. 15.4.). Changes also occur in the relation between the sacred and the profane. If, at first, in Walachia, the model of the church was still offered to minuscule divine figures, later on, the sacred disappears completely from the votive scene, which starts to be more or less a laic display of worldly portraits. The whole idea of the gift-giving process seems lost, because though the founders are holding in their hands the miniature church, as an embodiment of the gift, they have no one to offer it to, because the receptor is no longer shown. In such cases, as at Surpatele monastery (fig. 15.3.) the bond between the spiritual and the material world, which is to be found at the essence of a religious foundation, is broken because paintings become increasingly laic. Later on, in the 18th century, things get further apart, when founders no longer hold their foundation in their hands and the miniature is simply painted above the entrance to the church. As Maria Ana Musicescu remarks, lunit donateur-don avait perdu sa signification initiale263. Although, there seems to be an apparent unity in time regarding the way votive portraits are

263

Musicescu, Byzance et le portrait roumain au Moyen Age, 158.

96

rendered, at a closer look, there is a gap between those of the early and later period in the sense mentioned before. To switch to the comparison between the two principalities of Walachia and Moldavia, we found a lot of differences between the two, regarding the iconography of votive portraits. The first matter in which the two offer different solutions is that of the location of these scenes. If Moldavia is exclusive about representing the founder in the sacred space of the nave, in which the Liturgy is celebrated, Walachia, after a period of oscillations, decides to paint the founder in the narthex, a space where a large display of worldly figures was possible and, where the votive image could be associated to the funerary character of this chamber, in which tombs were sheltered and funeral services celebrated. A major difference between the two principalities derives from the way in which they treated the religious scene. In Moldavia, it played an important part in the votive ensemble, occupying even half of it, like at the church from Ptrui (fig. 24.4.). Christs figure was as large as the worldly ones, being always accompanied by that of an intercessor saint, which is always present in Moldavian votive portraits. In Walachia, not only are the intercessors absent, but the whole religious scene was shrunk to the minuscule size of a tiny Christ, appearing for a barely visible gesture of blessing from a cloud, like at the hospital church from Cozia (fig. 5.2.). At the same time, in Walachia, due to the Serbian influence exercised through Lady Despina, wife of Neagoe Basarab, the particular image of angels appearing from clouds and holding the crown on the princes head begins to be inserted in the votive representation, as a declaration of the divine origin of princely power. Also in terms of differences, we notice that, towards the end of the period we have analyzed, in Walachia, family portraits become more and more important, being extended at Hurezi monastery to a vast display of a large number of prince Constantin Brncoveanus family members, in order to show the power of the two families of boyars from which he descended. At the same time, there were also similarities between the two principalities. They are not so much obvious in terms of the way in which votive portraits were conceived as much as in terms of their function and the reasons for which they were created. We see, a clear unity both in time and in space, regarding the use of foundation acts and votive portraits as dynastical displays meant to legitimize a new prince or consolidate his reign. Both principalities are confronted with the Ottoman danger and this historical reality is reflected in the mural paintings of both Walachia

97

and Moldavia, though we should say that more intensely for the latter. In the following part, I would like to summarize the answer to the initial research questions formulated in the introduction of this thesis, by showing what was the message and meaning of princely foundations and votive portraits.

2. The Message and the Meaning

The purpose of the present thesis was that of bringing together votive princely portraits from Walachia and Moldavia from the 14th to the end of the 17th century, in order to find out what was their function and meaning, as well as the reasons for which they were created. My approach started off with an analysis of the act of founding princely churches and monasteries, which, decrypted through its architectural and iconographical sources, showed the motivation behind it and the function of these foundations. Because the votive portrait was inscribed within the space of the princely foundation, it was important to have this chapter on the churches, because the function of a votive portrait was related to that of the religious foundation in which it had been placed. The composition of the votive portraits was then explained, in order to uncover several layers of information that overlapped within its space, the religious, political and social one. In the end, I was able to find an answer to the research questions initially formulated and observe the message and meaning of princely votive portraits in the chronological and spatial frameworks previously reminded. The conclusion that I reached was facilitated by the Western European methodology that I decided to apply to these sources, because they had never been looked at from such a perspective. The paradigms of gift-giving and memoria have offered the necessary conceptual background for the understanding of the phenomenon of founding and that of votive representations to their fullest. The idea of the French sociologist Marcel Mauss that they were total social phenomena clearly puts an end to so many debates among Romanian scholars, some claiming exclusive political intentions, others an all-encompassing spiritual determination. I hope this thesis was able to make clear the fact that votive representations are of a total nature, meaning that they had both religious, political and social functions, which did not contradict themselves, but were interdependent and intertwined. Sometimes a spiritual figure, like that of the crown-bearing angels, had not only a religious meaning, but also a political one.

98

I will not go into details now about all the conclusions that I have reached, because they were already formulated in the final parts of the last two chapters. I would only like to summarize the results of the present research. It has been noticed that the reasons for a prince to be building a church were similar to the reasons for having his votive portrait painted. They were first of all of a religious nature, the founders being concerned for the salvation of their souls through acts of piety and commemoration, but also by the simple wish to express ones wish and glorify God. At the same time, they were driven by worldly motives, which easily surfaced in a public and official context. By restoring the churches of their predecessors and by portraying themselves in succession series they wanted to show the viewers their solid and legitimate descent and, thusly, to consolidate their power. Princes also wanted to express their implication in the fight against the Ottomans and their status of defenders of Christianity. There was also a display of wealth and prestige or of the power of families of boyars, which were all meant, if not to enhance their social status, already at a high level, at least to display it. Accordingly foundations and, also, votive portraits had, at the same time, the religious function of commemorating and remembering the dead, actions which led to the salvation of their soul and of creating a space of meeting and a link between the spiritual and material world, but also the political function of legitimizing and consolidating the princes rule, while also displaying the social status of those portrayed. To put it all in one sentence, religious foundation and votive portraits were somehow meant to serve the multilayered interests and wishes of their founders, transmitting through their visual and written means, cumulated information about these founders and their time, a cryptic message about who they thought to be, who they wanted to be, what they were seen like and how they were. These are the answers to our initial research question and the results of applying a Western European methodology to South-Eastern European sources.

3. Questions for the Future

Though we have reached the end of our thesis, this is far from the actual end of this research, because there is still so much more to be said and decrypted. The boundaries of this thesis can be crossed in so many ways and I would like to shortly add what I think future research should be, regarding this subject. First of all, new problematic matters should be raised,

99

like that of reception history and the audience, which is important for a better understanding of function, because, when creating an iconographical program, the author must have had an audience in mind. However, as stated in chapter one, this is a delicate subject which, unfortunately, lacks proper sources. The main solution for the future, in my point of view is a systematic extension of the research on several levels and the idea of creating an online database of memorial representations for Romanian medieval sources, just as it has been done by Truus van Bueren and her team for the Netherlands264. A database would offer the prefect framework for future research, because it would gather all of the sources in one place, providing information about them. Finding my sources was a difficult task, because, for many princely foundations, I was unable to find relevant information or images of the votive portraits. A database would make things a lot easier. I think that it would be interesting to confront the princely votive portraits from mural paintings with images of donors that were created using a different medium and technique, like those on embroideries, miniatures or engravings. It is important to see how the context of a specific artistic technique changes the function of a portrait, because of its personal or official nature. The foundation of a church was made up of so many types of donations that it would be interesting to analyze votive portraits in the broader perspective of everything that a foundation act implied, from funerary monuments to donations of land. I have only referred to votive portraits of princes from princely foundations, but boyars have painted portraits of princes in their foundations as well, so it would be interesting to compare the image of a prince in a princely foundation with the one in a boyar foundation. It would also be interesting to compare princely foundations and votive portraits to that of the boyars, or just study votive portraits of all social categories. An extension in time would of course enlarge the scope of a future research, but it would be fruitful from the perspective of looking at how the idea of a donation evolves in time. This would also lead to a possible inclusion of the altered sources that I was not able to use within the limits of this thesis, which would be related to the interesting question of how did future generations perceive their ancestors. How did a 19th century painter choose to represent a 16th century prince, while restoring his portrait? Comparing this type of image with original portraits

264

See http://memo.hum.uu.nl/ (last consulted on the 19th of August at 06:47).

100

made during the princes lifetime might reveal whether there was a concern for maintaining a previous image or whether a new vision was offered. Last, but not least, the comparative approach could be broadened from a spatial perspective. I only compared Walachia with Moldavia, but it would be interesting to add to these the votive portraits from Transylvania. Comparisons with other South-Eastern European sources have already been made, but comparisons with Western European ones scarcely. To go back to the point of departure, if a Western European visitor to a Moldavian monastery understands the votive representation of a Romanian prince or at least finds he is able to place it in the context of his own knowledge of such images from his country, it means that there is a historiographic gap to be bridged between Western European scholars and those of the other parts of Europe, who are closed in their national boundaries, which they hardly surpass in their research. The rising interest in memorial representations and the importance of these sources as containers of layered information from all aspects of society has led to important scholarly research in Western Europe, which still has to be carried out for the virgin territory of Romania. At the same time, I think it is important for scholars to look at researches from other countries, because we might uncover that the same needs have generated the same responses in different parts of the world and that memorial representations are scattered all over the globe, in different cultures, because of the eternal human fear of being one-day forgotten.

101

Appendices 1. Princely Religious Foundations from Walachia and Moldavia265

Name DISTRICT Location Area

Identification number: Name (Date of the foundation) DISTRICT Location Area = Name of founder (if prince: dates of reign / if wife of prince: name of prince / other categories: specification of status / unknown) place of reign (Walachia or Moldavia) 266

List of abbreviations:

265

a. = ante av. = avenue c. = commune cca. = circa d. = district of the Republic of Moldavia M = Moldavia m. = municipality n. = neighbourhood nr. = number sc. = suburban commune str. = street t. = town

This is a list of all the churches and monasteries founded at one point in time by a medieval prince of Walachia and Moldavia, from the creation of the two principalities to the beginning of the 18th century. The list is in alphabetical order. 266 This is a model of the structure followed. Each church / monastery / chapel appears in bold, with reference to its name, the district to which it belongs, the exact location of the edifice and the area concerned. Underneath there is a list of all the foundations of that specific edifice in chronological order. Each foundation is given the identification number found in Table 1 in Pucau, Actul de ctitorire, 219 481. The name of the edifice is followed by the date of the foundation, the district, location, area and its founder. If the founder is a prince, the dates of his reign are specified and whether he reigned in Walachia or Moldavia or both. If the founder is a princes wife, the name of the prince is specified as well and the principality in which he reigned. When the founders have another function or status, they will be mentioned between brackets. It will also be specified if the founder is unknown. I have translated the names of the founders, as well as certain area specifications, like the name of a church only when it was possible. The names of towns, villages or streets have not been translated at all.

102

v. = village v.c. = village commune W = Wallachia ??? = incompatibility / possible mistake in the original table / not found

Agapia Veche NT village commune (v.c.) Agapia

23: Agapia Veche (ante (a.) 1587) NT v.c. Agapia = Elena Despotovna (wife of Petru Rares) Moldavia (M) 24: Agapia Veche (1680) NT v.c. Agapia = Anastasia Duca (wife of Gheorghe Duca) Walachia + Moldavia (W+M)

Agaton BZ v. Nucu, c. Bozioru

25: Agaton (a. 1521) BZ v. Nucu, c. Bozioru = Neagoe Basarab (January 1512 - September 1521) W 26: Agaton (a. 1694) BZ v. Nucu, c. Bozioru = Matei Basarab (September 1632 - April 1654) W

Aninoasa BZ v.c. Cislau

73: Aninoasa (a. 1589) BZ v.c. Cislau = Lady Neaga (wife of Mihnea II the Turkish) W

Aninoasa BZ c. Buda

74: Aninoasa (a. 1581) BZ c. Buda = Mihnea II the Turkish (September 1577 - July 1583 / April 1585 - May 1591) W

Arnota VL v. Corbu c. Albota

102: Arnota (a. 1633) VL v. Corbu c. Albota = Danciu of Brancoveni (boyar) 103: Arnota (1637) VL v. Corbu c. Albota = Matei Basarab (September 1632 - April1654) W

Aroneanu IS v.c. Aroneanu

104: Aroneanu (XVI) IS v.c. Aroneanu = Alexandru Lapusneanu (1552 - 1561 / 1564 - 1568) M

103

105: Aroneanu (1594) IS v.c. Aroneanu = Aron the Tyrant (1592 - 1595) M

Babele GR v. Neajlovu, c. Clejani

121: Babele (1492 - 93) GR v. Neajlovu, c. Clejani = Vlad IV the Monk (September 1481 November 1481 / April 1482 - September 1495) W 122: Babele (a. 1746) GR v. Neajlovu, c. Clejani = unknown 123: Babele (1779) GR v. Neajlovu, c. Clejani = unknown

Baia SV v.c. Baia The White Church

135: Baia (XV) SV v.c. Baia The White Church = Stephen the Great (1457 - 1504) M

Baia SV v.c. Baia Adormirea

134: Baia (1532) SV v.c. Baia Adormirea = Petru Rares (1527 - 1538 / 1541 - 1546) M

Berzunti BC c. Berzunti

321: Berzunti (cca. 1570) BC c. Berzunti = Bogdan Lapusneanu (1568 - 1572) M

Bisericani NT v. Bisericani c. Viisoara

336: Bisericani (cca. 1512) NT v. Bisericani c. Viisoara = Stephen IV / StefanitaVoda the Young (1517 - 1527) M + Petru Rares (1527 - 1538 / 1541 - 1546) M 337: Bisericani (1786) NT v. Bisericani c. Viisoara = Constantin Moruzzi (October 1777 - 8 June 1782) M

Bistrita NT c. Viisoara

339: Bistrita (a. 1407) NT c. Viisoara = Alexander the Good (1400 - 1432) M 342: Bistrita (1554) NT c. Viisoara = Alexandru Lapusneanu (1552 - 1561 / 1564 - 1568) M

Bistrita NT c. Viisoara Chapel

340: Bistrita (1498) NT c. Viisoara Chapel = Stephen the Great (1457 - 1504) M 341: Bistrita (1546) NT c. Viisoara Chapel = unknown

104

Barlad VS street (str.) Vasile Lupu nr. 10 Domneasca

359: Barlad (a. 1504) VS str. Vasile Lupu nr. 10 Domneasca = Stephen the Great (1457 1504) M 360: Barlad (1636) VS str. Vasile Lupu nr. 10 Domneasca = Vasile Lupu (1634 - 1653) M

Barnova IS v.c. Barnova

377: Barnova (1629 - 67) IS v.c. Barnova = Miron Barnovschi-Movila (1626 - 1629 / 633) M + Eustatie Dabija (1661 - 1665) M ??? 376: Barnova (a. 1633) IS v.c. Barnova = Miron Barnovschi-Movila (1626 - 1629 / 1633) M

Borzesti BC suburban commune (sc.) Borzesti municipality (m.) Onesti

471: Borzesti (1493-94) BC sc. Borzesti m. Onesti = Stephen the Great (1457 - 1504) M

Botosani BT Calea Nationala nr. 291 The Monastery of Our Lady

484: Botosani (1552) BT Calea Nationala nr. 291 The Monastery of Our Lady = Elena Despotovna (wife of Petru Rares) M

Botosani BT Calea Nationala nr. Domneasca

485: Botosani (1551) BT Calea Nationala nr. Domneasca = Elena Despotovna (wife of Petru Rares) M

Botosani BT str. Stefan cel Mare nr. 33A Popauti

486: Botosani (1496) BT str. Stefan cel Mare nr. 33A Popauti = Stephen the Great (1457 1504) M

- Brebu PH v. Brebu c. Manastirea Brebu 559: Brebu (1650) PH v. Brebu c. Manastirea Brebu = Matei Basarab (September 1632 April 1654) W

Brancoveni OT v.c. Brancoveni

567: Brancoveni (a. 1582) OT v.c.Brancoveni = unknown

105

570: Brancoveni (XVI) OT v.c.Brancoveni = ??? (boyar) 571: Brancoveni (1634) OT v.c. Brancoveni = Matei Basarab (September 1632 - April 1654) W 568: Brancoveni (1699) OT v.c.Brancoveni = Constantin Brancoveanu (October 1688 March 1714) W

Brancoveni OT v.c. Brancoveni Hospital

569: Brancoveni (1700) OT v.c.Brancoveni Hospital = Constantin Brancoveanu (October 1688 - March 1714) W

Bucuresti B str. dr. G. Marinescu nr. 2 Cotroceni

639: Bucuresti (XVII) B str. dr. G. Marinescu nr. 2 Cotroceni = unknown 640: Bucuresti (1679) B str. dr. G. Marinescu nr. 2 Cotroceni = Serban Cantacuzino (November 1678 - October 1688) W 641: Bucuresti (XVII) B str. dr. G. Marinescu nr. 2 Cotroceni = Serban Cantacuzino (November 1678 - October 1688) W

Bucuresti B str. Iuliu Maniu nr. 33 Curtea Veche

646: Bucuresti (1559) B str. Iuliu Maniu nr. 33 Curtea Veche = Mircea the Shepherd (March 1545 - November1552 / May 1553 - February 1554 / January 1558 - September 1559) W

Bucuresti B str. Academiei nr. 22 Dintr-o zi

653: Bucuresti (XVII) B str. Academiei nr. 22 Dintr-o zi = Neagu son of Mihai of Tarsor (boyar) 654: Bucuresti (1702) B str. Academiei nr. 22 Dintr-o zi = Marica Brancoveanu (wife of Constantin Brancoveanu) W

Bucuresti B Calea Victoriei nr. 28 Doamnei

655: Bucuresti (XV) B Calea Victoriei nr. 28 Doamnei = unknown 656: Bucuresti (1683) B Calea Victoriei nr. 28 Doamnei = Serban Cantacuzino (November 1678 - October 1688) W

106

687: Bucuresti (XVII) B m. Bucuresti Magureanu

687: Bucuresti (XVII) B m. Bucuresti Magureanu = Serban Cantacuzino (November 1678 October 1688) W 688: Bucuresti (1763) B m. Bucuresti Magureanu = Parvu Cantacuzino (great logothete)

Bucuresti B str. Sapientei nr. 4 Mihai-Voda

691: Bucuresti (1594) B str. Sapientei nr. 4 Mihai-Voda = Michael the Brave (W: September 1593 - August 1601 / M: 1600)

Bucuresti B Aleea Patriarhiei nr. 2 The Patriarchy

703: Bucuresti (1655) B Aleea Patriarhiei nr. 2 The Patriarchy = Constantin Serban Basarab / Carnul (W: April 1654 - January 1658 / M: 1659 / 1661)

Bucuresti B str. Plumbuita nr. 58 Plumbuita

715: Bucuresti (1535-45) B str. Plumbuita nr. 58 Plumbuita = Radu Paisie / Petru of Arges (September 1534 - November 1534 / June 1535 - March 1545) W 716: Bucuresti (1647) B str. Plumbuita nr. 58 Plumbuita = Matei Basarab (September 1632 April 1654) W

Bucuresti B str. Radu Voda nr. 24 Radu Voda

719: Bucuresti (1568) B str. Radu Voda nr. 24 Radu Voda = Radu Mihnea (W: September 1601 - March 1602 / March 1611 - May 1611 / September 1611 - August 1616 / August 1620 - August 1623 / M: 1616 - 1619 / 1623 - 1626)

Bucuresti B Piata 1849 St. George the New

742: Bucuresti (1707) B Piata 1849 St. George the New = Antonie Voda of Popesti (March 1669 - February 1672) W

Bucuresti B m. Bucuresti St. John the Baptist

107

748: Bucuresti (1670) B m. Bucuresti St. John the Baptist = Grigore I Ghica (September 1660 - November 1664 / February 1672 - November 1673) W

Bucuresti B Calea Victoriei St. John the Great

749: Bucuresti (a. 1591) B Calea Victoriei St. John the Great = Andrei (great treasurer) 750: Bucuresti (1702-1703) B Calea Victoriei St. John the Great = Constantin Brancoveanu (October 1688 - March 1714) W

Bucuresti B m. Bucuresti Prund

757: Bucuresti (a. 1682) B m. Bucuresti Prund = Lady Maria (wife of Serban Cantacuzino) W

Bucuresti B m. Bucuresti St. Sava

768: Bucuresti (a. 1616) B m. Bucuresti St. Sava = Andronache (parcalab267) 769: Bucuresti (1709) B m. Bucuresti St. Sava = Constantin Brancoveanu (October 1688 March 1714) W

Bucuresti (13) B Avenue (av.) Marasesti Slobozia

782: Bucuresti (13) (1666) B av. Marasesti Slobozia = Radu Leon (December 1664 - March 1669) W 783: Bucuresti (1774) B av. Marasesti Slobozia = Constantin Nasturel (boyar)

Buhalnita NT v. Buhalnita c. Hangu

826: Buhalnita (a. 1627) NT v. Buhalnita c. Hangu = Miron Barnovschi-Movila (1626 - 1629 / 1633) M

Buzau BZ Aleea Episcopiei nr. 2-3 Bishopric

879: Buzau (cca 1543) BZ Aleea Episcopiei nr. 2-3 Bishopric = unknown 880: Buzau (1649) BZ Aleea Episcopiei nr. 2-3 Bishopric = Matei Basarab (September 1632 - April 1654) W
267

Governor of a district.

108

Casin BC v.c. Casin

924: Casin (a. 1656) BC v.c. Casin = unknown 925: Casin (1656 - 57) BC v.c. Casin = Gheorghe Stefan (1653 - 1658) M 926: Casin (1776) BC v.c. Casin = unknown 927: Casin (1796) BC v.c. Casin = unknown

Caldarusani B c. Gruiu

942: Caldarusani (1638) B c. Gruiu = Matei Basarab (September 1632 - April 1654) W

Calugareni GR v.c.Calugareni

964: Calugareni (1632 - 54) GR v.c.Calugareni = Matei Basarab (September 1632 - April 1654) W

Cerneti MH sc. Simian, m. Drobeta-Turnu Severin

1033: Cerneti (a. 1596) MH sc. Simian, m. Drobeta-Turnu Severin = unknown 1034: Cerneti (1663) MH sc. Simian, m. Drobeta-Turnu Severin = Grigore I Ghica (September 1660 - November 1664 / February 1672 - November1673) W 1035: Cerneti (1781) MH sc. Simian, m. Drobeta-Turnu Severin = unknown

Chilia TL v.c. Chilia

1063: Chilia (1647 - 48) TL v.c. Chilia = Vasile Lupu (1634 - 1653) M

Ciolanu BZ v. Rusavat c. Viperesti

1117: Ciolanu (1600) BZ v. Rusavat c. Viperesti = Lady Neaga (wife of Mihnea II the Turkish) W 1118: Ciolanu (1643) BZ v. Rusavat c. Viperesti = ??? (boyar)

Cislau BZ v. Buda-Craciunesti, c. Cislau

1144: Cislau (1590) BZ v. Buda-Craciunesti, c. Cislau = Lady Neaga (wife of Mihnea II the Turkish) W

109

1145: Cislau (1749) BZ v. Buda-Craciunesti, c. Cislau = Metodie of Buzau (boyar)

Campulung AG str. Negru Voda nr. 64 Dalgopol

1174: Campulung (1351 - 52) AG str. Negru Voda nr. 64 Dalgopol = Nicolae Alexandru (1352 - 16 November 1364) W 1175: Campulung (1638) AG str. Negru Voda nr. 64 Dalgopol = Matei Basarab (September 1632 - April 1654) W

Campulung AG str. Negru Voda nr. 64 Hospital

1176: Campulung (cca. 1647) AG str. Negru Voda nr. 64 Hospital = Matei Basarab (September 1632 - April 1654) W 1177: Campulung (1718) AG str. Negru Voda nr. 64 Hospital = ??? (prince)

Campulung AG town (t.) Campulung Grecilor

1180: Campulung (1565-1566) AG t. Campulung Grecilor = Chiajna (wife of Mircea the Shepherd) W

Campulung SV t. Campulung Moldovenesc

1193: Campulung (a. 1676) SV t. Campulung Moldovenesc = unknown 1195: Campulung (a. 1688) SV t. Campulung Moldovenesc = Constantin Cantemir (1685 1693) M 1194: Campulung (a. 1765) SV t. Campulung Moldovenesc = unknown 1196: Campulung (a. 1768) SV t. Campulung Moldovenesc = ??? (prince)

Carnu BZ v. Tega, c. Panatau

1219: Carnu (1536) BZ v. Tega, c. Panatau = Mircea the Shepherd (March 1545 - November 1552 / May 1553 - February 1554 / January 1558 - September 1559) W

Comana GR v.c. Comana

1277: Comana (a. 1476) GR v.c. Comana = Vlad III the Impaler (1448 / 1456-November 1462 / November 1476 - December 1476) W

110

1278: Comana (cca. 1558) GR v.c. Comana = Radu Serban (August 1602 - December 1610 / June 1611 - September 1611) W 1279: Comana (a. 1709) GR v.c. Comana = ??? (boyar)

Corbu VS c. Lipovat

1323: Corbu (1628) VS c. Lipovat = unknown 1324: Corbu (a. 1631) VS c. Lipovat = unknown 1325: Corbu (1635) VS c. Lipovat = Vasile Lupu (1634 - 1653) M

Cornatel CL v.c. Manastirea

1343: Cornatel (1648) CL v.c. Manastirea = Matei Basarab (September 1632 - April 1654) W

Cornet VL v. Tutulesti c. Racovita

1349: Cornet (1666) VL s. Tutulesti c. Racovita = Radu Leon (December 1664 - March 1669) W

Cotmeana AG v.c. Cotmeana

1407: Cotmeana (XIV) AG v.c. Cotmeana = unknown 1408: Cotmeana (1389) AG v.c. Cotmeana = Mircea the Elder (September 1386 - November 1394 / January 1396 - January 1418) W

Cotnari IS v.c. Cotnari

1409: Cotnari (1491-93) IS v.c. Cotnari = Stephen the Great (1457 - 1504) M 1410: Cotnari (a. 1617) IS v.c. Cotnari = Iane Caragea (postelnic268)

Cozia VL t. Calimanesti

1425: Cozia (1393) VL t. Calimanesti = Mircea the Elder (September 1386 - November 1394 / January 1396 - January 1418) W

268

Cozia VL t. Calimanesti Hospital

Rank corresponding to that of a chamberlain.

111

1426: Cozia (1542) VL t. Calimanesti Hospital = Radu Paisie / Petru of Arges (September 1534 - November 1534 / June 1535 - March 1545) W

Cozia VL t. Calimanesti Chapel

1427: Cozia (1583) VL t. Calimanesti Chapel = Mihnea II the Turkish (September 1577 July 1583 / April 1585 - May 1591) W 1428: Cozia (1711) VL t. Calimanesti Chapel = Ioan (dean)

Crucisoara OT v. Potelu c. Ianca

1530: Crucisoara (a. 1568) OT v. Potelu c. Ianca = Mircea the Shepherd (March 1545 November 1552 / May 1553 - February 1554 / January 1558 - September 1559) W

Curtea de Arges AG str. Vlaicu Voda nr. 8 Botusari

1562: Curtea de Arges (1583) AG str. Vlaicu Voda nr. 8 Botusari = Petru Cercel (July 1583 April 1585) W 1563: Curtea de Arges (a. 1658) AG str. Vlaicu Voda nr. 8 Botusari = Matei Basarab (September 1632 - April 1654) W

Curtea de Arges AG av. Basarabilor nr. 1

1569: Curtea de Arges (1439) AG av. Basarabilor nr. 1 = Vlad II Dracul (December 1436 1442 / 1443 - 1447) W

Curtea de Arges AG t. Curtea de Arges Arges Monastery

1572: Curtea de Arges (1517 - 26) AG o. Curtea de Arges Arges Monastery = Neagoe Basarab (January 1512 - September 1521) W

Curtea de Arges AG t. Curtea de Arges Chapel

1573: Curtea de Arges (1517) AG t. Curtea de Arges Chapel = Neagoe Basarab (January 1512 - September 1521) W

112

1574: Curtea de Arges (1534) AG t. Curtea de Arges Chapel = Radu of Afumati / V (December 1522 - April 1523 / January 1524 - June 1524 / September 1524 - April 1525 / August 1525 - January 1529) W

Dealu DB v. Viforata sc. Aninoasa, m. Targoviste

1619: Dealu (1418) DB v. Viforata sc. Aninoasa, m. Targoviste = Mircea the Elder (September 1386 - November 1394 / January 1396 - January 1418) W 1620: Dealu (1500) DB v Viforata sc. Aninoasa, m. Targoviste = Radu the Great / IV (September 1495 - April 1508) W

Dintr-un Lemn VL v. Dezrobiti, c. Francesti neighborhood (n.) Manastireni

1654: Dintr-un Lemn (1635) VL v. Dezrobiti, c. Francesti n. Manastireni = Matei Basarab (September 1632 - April 1654) W

Dobrovat IS v.c. Dobrovat n. Rusi

1688: Dobrovat (a. 1499) IS v.c. Dobrovat n. Rusi = ??? (boyar) 1689: Dobrovat (1503 - 4) IS v.c. Dobrovat n. Rusi = Stephen the Great (1457 - 1504) M 1690: Dobrovat (a. 1607) IS v.c. Dobrovat n. Rusi = unknown

Domnesti VR v. Domnesti-Sat, c. Pufesti in the courtyard

1713: Domnesti (1650) VR v. Domnesti-Sat, c. Pufesti in the courtyard = Eustatie Dabija (1661 - 1665) M

Dorohoi BT str. Stefan cel Mare nr. 61 Domneasca

1716: Dorohoi (1495) BT str. Stefan cel Mare nr. 61 Domneasca = Stephen the Great (1457 1504) M

Dragoslavele AG v.c. Dragoslavele Joseni

1735: Dragoslavele (1661) AG v.c. Dragoslavele Joseni = Grigore I Ghica (September 1660 - November 1664 / February 1672 - November 1673) W

113

Draganesti PH v.c. Draganesti

1750: Draganesti (1667) PH v.c. Draganesti = Serban Cantacuzino (November 1678 October 1688) W

Draganesti TR v. Cosoteni, c. Vedea

1751: Draganesti (a. 1647) TR v. Cosoteni, c. Vedea = Matei Basarab (September 1632 April 1654) W

Fedelesoiu VL v. Fedelesoiu c. Daesti

1854: Fedelesoiu (1673) VL v. Fedelesoiu c. Daesti = Grigore I Ghica (September 1660 November 1664 / February 1672 - November1673) W

Flamanda VL v. Cremenari c. Galicea

1891: Flamanda (a. 1583) VL v. Cremenari c. Galicea ??? = 1890: Flamanda (a. 1652) IL c. Giurgeni la catun = Eustatie Dabija (1661 - 1665) M

Focsani VR m. Focsani Sf. Ioan

1914: Focsani (1663 - 64) VR m. Focsani Sf. Ioan = Grigore I Ghica (September 1660 November 1664 / February 1672 - November 1673) W

Galati GL Aleea Mavromol nr. 12 Mavromol

1982: Galati (1669-1702) GL Aleea Mavromol nr. 12 Mavromol = Gheorghe Duca (W: November 1673 - November 1678 / M: 1665 - 1666 / 1668 - 1672 / 1678 - 1683)

Galati GL m. Galati St. Dumitru

1985: Galati (1644) GL m. Galati St. Dumitru = Vasile Lupu (1634 - 1653) M

Gherghita PH v.c. Gherghita Domneasca

2032: Gherghita (1641) PH v.c. Gherghita Domneasca = Matei Basarab (September 1632 April 1654) W

114

Glavacioc AG v. Glavacioc c. Stefan cel Mare

2086: Glavacioc (XIV) AG v. Glavacioc c. Stefan cel Mare = unknown 2087: Glavacioc (XV) AG v. Glavacioc c. Stefan cel Mare ??? = Mihnea II the Turkish (September 1577 - July 1583 / April 1585 - May 1591) W

Govora VL v. Buleta, c. Mihaesti

2135: Govora (a. 1457) VL v. Buleta, c. Mihaesti = Vlad II Dracul (December 1436 - 1442 / 1443 - 1447) W 2136: Govora (1492) VL v. Buleta, c. Mihaesti = Radu the Great / IV (September 1495 April 1508) W 2137: Govora (1701-2) VL v. Buleta, c. Mihaesti = Constantin Brancoveanu (October 1688 March 1714) W 2138: Govora (1727) VL v. Buleta, c. Mihaesti = unknown

Habasesti IS v. Habasesti, c. Strunga

2229: Habasesti (1762) IS v. Habasesti, c. Strunga ??? = Constantin Brancoveanu (October 1688 - March 1714) W

Herasti GR v. Herasti c. Hotarele

2243: Herasti (XVI) GR v. Herasti c. Hotarele = unknown 2244: Herasti (a. 1620) GR v. Herasti c. Hotarele = Herescu (family) 2245: Herasti (1644) GR v. Herasti c. Hotarele ??? = Elena Despotovna (wife of Petru Rares) M

Harlau IS str. Stefan cel Mare 53 St. Dumitru

2266: Harlau (1535) IS str. Stefan cel Mare 53 St. Dumitru = Petru Rares (1527 - 1538 / 1541 - 1546) M

Harlau IS str. Logofat Tautu nr. 10 St. George

2267: Harlau (1492) IS str. Logofat Tautu nr. 10 St. George = Stephen the Great (1457 1504) M

115

- Horezu OT v. Horezu c. Dobretu 2294: Horezu (a. 1682) OT v. Horezu c. Dobretu = Constantin Brancoveanu (October 1688 March 1714) W

Horezu VL v. Romanii de Jos

2295: Horezu (1692) VL v. Romanii de Jos = Constantin Brancoveanu (October 1688 March 1714) W

Horezu VL v. Romanii de Jos Chapel

2296: Horezu (1696 - 97) VL v. Romanii de Jos Chapel = Constantin Brancoveanu (October 1688 - March 1714) W

Horezu VL v. Romanii de Jos Hospital

2297: Horezu (1697) VL v. Romanii de Jos Hospital = Constantin Brancoveanu (October 1688 - March 1714) W

Horezu VL v. Romanii de Jos The Apostles

2298: Horezu (1698) VL v. Romanii de Jos The Apostles = Constantin Brancoveanu (October 1688 - March 1714) W

Horezu VL v. Romanii de Jos St. Stephen

2300: Horezu (1703) VL v. Romanii de Jos St. Stephen = Constantin Brancoveanu (October 1688 - March 1714) W

Horezu VL v. Romanii de Jos n. Balanesti

2301: Horezu (1659) VL v. Romanii de Jos n. Balanesti = Mihnea III (March 1658 November 1659) W

Hotin RU Hotin Citadel Chapel

2321: Hotin (XV) RU Hotin Citadel Chapel = Stephen the Great (1457 - 1504) M

116

Husi VS str. M. Kogalniceanu nr. 19 Bishopric

2336: Husi (1495) VS str. M. Kogalniceanu nr. 19 Bishopric = Stephen the Great (1457 1504) M 2337: Husi (1753-56) VS str. M. Kogalniceanu nr. 19 Bishopric = Inochentie (bishop)

Iasi IS str. Ghica Voda nr. 26 Barnovschi

2352: Iasi (1627) IS str. Ghica Voda nr. 26 Barnovschi = Miron Barnovschi-Movila (1626 1629 / 1633) M

Iasi IS Cetatuia Monastery

2354: Iasi (1669-72) IS Cetatuia Monastery = Gheorghe Duca (W: November 1673 November 1678 / M: 1665 - 1666 / 1668 - 1672 / 1678 - 1683)

Iasi IS str. Podgoriilor m. Iasi

2355: Iasi (a. 1619) IS str. Podgoriilor m. Iasi = unknown 2356: Iasi (a. 1638) IS str. Podgoriilor m. Iasi = Vasile Lupu (1634 - 1653) M

Iasi IS str. A. Panu nr. 65 Domneasca

2360: Iasi (1492-93) IS str. A. Panu nr. 65 Domneasca = Stephen the Great (1457 - 1504) M

Iasi IS m. Iasi Galata din Vale

2361: Iasi (1577-79) IS m. Iasi Galata din Vale = Peter the Cripple (1574 - 1577 / 1578 1579 / 1582 - 1591) M

Iasi IS Galata Monastery

2362: Iasi (1582-83) IS Galata Monastery = Peter the Cripple (1574 - 1577 / 1578 - 1579 / 1582 - 1591) M

Iasi IS str. Cuza Voda m. Iasi Golia

117

2364: Iasi (a. 1564) IS str. Cuza Voda m. Iasi Golia = unknown 2365: Iasi (1564) IS str. Cuza Voda m. Iasi Golia = Ioan Golai (boyar) 2366: Iasi (1660) IS str. Cuza Voda m. Iasi Golia = Vasile Lupu (1634 - 1653) M

Iasi IS str. Stefan cel Mare.16 Mitropolia

2370: Iasi (1682) IS str. Stefan cel Mare.16 Mitropolia = Gheorghe Duca (W: November 1673 - November 1678 / M: 1665 - 1666 / 1668 - 1672 / 1678 - 1683) 2371: Iasi (1694) IS str. Stefan cel Mare. 16 Mitropolia = Anastasia Duca (wife of Gheorghe Duca) W + M

Iasi IS str. Dobrogeanu Gherea nr. 14 St. John the Baptist

2383: Iasi (1625-35) IS str. Dobrogeanu Gherea nr. 14 St. John the Baptist = Miron Barnovschi-Movila (1626 - 1629 / 1633) M

Iasi IS str. Zalataust nr. 3 St. Ioan Gura de Aur

2384: Iasi (cca. 1563) IS str. Zalataust nr. 3 St. Ioan Gura de Aur = Stefan Tomsa I (1563 1564) M

Iasi IS str. Zalataust nr. 3 m. Iasi St. Ioan Zalataust

2387: Iasi (1682) IS str. Zalataust nr. 3 m. Iasi St. Ioan Zalataust = Gheorghe Duca (W: November 1673 - November 1678 / M: 1665 - 1666 / 1668 - 1672 / 1678 - 1683)

Iasi IS str. Costache Negri St. Sava

2396: Iasi (1583) IS str. Costache Negri St. Sava = Peter the Cripple (1574 - 1577 / 1578 1579 / 1582 - 1591) M 2397: Iasi (1625) IS str. Costache Negri St. Sava = Iane Caragea (postelnic)

Iasi IS str. Pacurari m. Iasi St. Trinity

2401: Iasi (1613 - 14) IS str. Pacurari m. Iasi St. Trinity = Stefan Tomsa II (1611 - 1615 / 1621 - 1623) M

118

Iasi IS av. Socola m. Iasi Socola

2406: Iasi (cca. 1560) IS av. Socola m. Iasi Socola = Alexandru Lapusneanu (1552 - 1561 / 1564 - 1568) M 2407: Iasi (cca. 1560) IS av. Socola m. Iasi Socola = unknown

Iasi IS str. Stefan cel Mare Trei Ierarhi

2411: Iasi (XVII) IS str. Stefan cel Mare Trei Ierarhi = Vasile Lupu (1634 - 1653) M

Iezarul VL t. Baile Olanesti

2427: Iezarul (a. 1501) VL t. Baile Olanesti = Radu the Great / IV (September 1495 - April 1508) W 2428: Iezarul (a. 1692-1700) VL t. Baile Olanesti = ??? (cleric)

Laculete DB v. Laculete-Gara sc. Branesti t. Pucioasa

2545: Laculete (1645 - 46) DB v. Laculete-Gara sc. Branesti t. Pucioasa = Matei Basarab (September 1632 - April 1654) W 2546: Laculete (a. 1714) DB v. Laculete-Gara sc. Branesti t. Pucioasa = Constantin Brancoveanu (October 1688 - March 1714) W

Lunceni BZ v. Grajdana c. Tislau n. Lunceni

2629: Lunceni (cca. 1590) BZ v. Grajdana c. Tislau n. Lunceni = Lady Neaga (wife of Mihnea II the Turkish) W

Mamul VL c. Lungulesti

2652: Mamul (a. 1659) VL c. Lungulesti = ??? (boyar) 2653: Mamul (XVII) VL c. Lungulesti = unknown 2654: Mamul (1696) VL c. Lungulesti = Constantin Brancoveanu (October 1688 - March 1714) W

Margineni PH v. Marginenii de Jos c. Filipestii de Targ

119

2732: Margineni (1482 - 93) PH v. Marginenii de Jos c. Filipestii de Targ = Draghici (vornic269 from Margineni) 2733: Margineni (1646) PH v. Marginenii de Jos c. Filipestii de Targ = Matei Basarab (September 1632 - April 1654) W

Maxineni BR v.c. Maxineni

2746: Maxineni (XVI) BR v.c. Maxineni = unknown 2747: Maxineni (1638) BR v.c. Maxineni = Matei Basarab (September 1632 - April 1654) W

Miera VR v.c. Mera

2769: Miera (a. 1686) VR v.c. Mera = Ioan (bishop of Roman) 2770: Miera (1706 - 35) VR v.c. Mera = Antioh Cantemir (1695 - 1700) M

Miliseuti SV v. Miliseuti c. Badeuti

2791: Miliseuti (1487) SV v. Miliseuti c. Badeuti = Stephen the Great (1457 - 1504) M

Mislea PH v. Mislea c. Scorteni

2805: Mislea (1534) PH v. Mislea c. Scorteni = Radu Paisie / Petru of Arges (September 1534 - November 1534 / June 1535 - March 1545) W

Mogosoaia B sc. Mogosoaia m. Bucuresti

2835: Mogosoaia (1688) B sc. Mogosoaia m. Bucuresti = Constantin Brancoveanu (October 1688 - March 1714) W

Moldovita SV v.c. Moldovita Veche

2839: Moldovita (a. 1402) SV v.c. Moldovita Veche = Alexander the Good (1400 - 1432) M

Moldovita SV v.c. Moldovita

2840: Moldovita (1532) SV v.c. Moldovita = Petru Rares (1527 - 1538 / 1541 - 1546) M
269

Palatinus.

120

Neamt NT v. M-rea Neamt, c.Vanatori Neamt

2897: (cca 1374) NT v. M-rea Neamt, c. Vanatori Neamt = ??? (prince) 2898: Neamt (a. 1407) NT v. M-rea Neamt, c. Vanatori Neamt = Alexander the Good (1400 1432) M 2899: Neamt (1497) NT v. M-rea Neamt, c.Vanatori Neamt ??? = Stephen I (1394 - 1399) M 2900: (XIV) NT v. M-rea Neamt, c. Vanatori Neamt = unknown 2901: (1796) NT v. M-rea Neamt, c. Vanatori Neamt = unknown

Negoesti CL v. Negoesti c. Soldanu

2907: Negoesti (a. 1624) CL v. Negoesti c. Soldanu = Stanciu (sluger270) 2908: Negoesti (1648) CL v. Negoesti c. Soldanu = Elina Doamna (wife of Matei Basarab) W

Ocnele Mari VL Gura Suhasului Domneasca

2983: Ocnele Mari (1677 - 89) VL Gura Suhasului Domneasca = Constantin Brancoveanu (October 1688 - March 1714) W

Orhei RM t. Orhei district of the Republic of Moldavia (d.) Orhei

3045: Orhei (XVI) RM t. Orhei d. Orhei = unknown 3046: Orhei (a. 1619) RM t. Orhei d. Orhei = ??? (prince) 3047: Orhei (1638 - 39) RM t. Orhei d. Orhei = Vasile Lupu (1634 - 1653) M 3048: Orhei (1793) RM t. Orhei d. Orhei = unknown

Ostrov VL t. Calimanesti

3057: Ostrov (a. 1500) VL t. Calimanesti = ??? (prince) 3058: Ostrov (1520) VL t. Calimanesti = Neagoe Basarab (January 1512 - September 1521) W

Rank corresponding to that of the Masters of the Royal Court. The slugger was in charge of supplying and distributing the meat within the court.

270

121

Patrauti SV v.c. Patrauti

3113: Patrauti (1487) SV v.c. Patrauti = Stephen the Great (1457 - 1504) M

Pausa VL area of t. Calimanesti

3122: Pausa (1654 - 1658) VL area of t. Calimanesti = Lady Balasa (wife of Constantin Serban Basarab / Carnul) W + M

Piatra Neamt NT Piata Libertatii nr. 2 Domneasca

3166: Piatra Neamt (1497 - 98) NT Piata Libertatii nr. 2 Domneasca = Stephen the Great (1457 - 1504) M

Piatra Neamt NT m. Piatra Neamt St. Friday

3170: Piatra Neamt (1618) NT m. Piatra Neamt St. Friday = Radu Mihnea (W: September 1601 - March 1602 / March 1611 - May 1611 / September 1611 - August 1616 / August 1620 - August 1623 / M: 1616 - 1619 / 1623 - 1626)

Piatra Neamt NT m. Piatra Neamt Valeni

3171: Piatra Neamt (1574) NT m. Piatra Neamt Valeni = Peter the Cripple (1574 - 1577 / 1578 - 1579 / 1582 - 1591) M

Pinul BZ v. Pinul c. Braesti

3188: Pinul (1582) BZ v. Pinul c. Braesti = unknown 3189: Pinul (1647 - 48) BZ v. Pinul c. Braesti = Matei Basarab (September 1632 April 1654) W

Pitesti AG str. Doamna Balasa nr. 2 Domneasca

3207: Pitesti (a. 1634) AG str. Doamna Balasa nr. 2 Domneasca = unknown 3208: Pitesti (a. 1654) AG str. Doamna Balasa nr. 2 Domneasca = Matei Basarab (September 1632 April 1654) W

Pitesti AG str. Doamna Balasa nr. 2

122

3209: Pitesti (1656) AG str. Doamna Balasa nr. 2 = Constantin Serban Basarab / Carnul (W: April 1654 - January 1658 / M: 1659 / 1661)

Pitesti AG m. Pitesti Ianache the treasurer

3211: Pitesti (1672 - 88) AG m. Pitesti Ianache the treasurer = Serban Cantacuzino (November 1678 - October 1688) W

Pangarati NT v.c. Pangarati

3223: Pangarati (XV) NT v.c. Pangarati = ??? (cleric) 3224: Pangarati (a. 1565) NT v.c. Pangarati = Alexandru Lapusneanu (1552 - 1561 / 1564 1568) M 3225: Pangarati (1642) NT v.c. Pangarati = ??? (cleric)

Plataresti CL v.c. Plataresti

3250: Plataresti (1646) CL v.c. Plataresti = Matei Basarab (September 1632 April 1654) W

Ploiesti PH str. Matei Basarab nr. 63 Domneasca

3266: Ploiesti (cca. 1535) PH str. Matei Basarab nr. 63 Domneasca = unknown 3267: Ploiesti (1639) PH str. Matei Basarab nr. 63 Domneasca = Matei Basarab (September 1632 April 1654) W

Poenile BC c. Dofteana

3296: Poenile (a. 1655) BC c. Dofteana = unknown 3297: Poenile (a. 1665) BC c. Dofteana = Gheorghe Stefan (1653 - 1658) M

Poienile de sub Ceahlau NT

3298: Poienile de sub Ceahlau (1599) NT = Ieremia Movila (1595 - 1600 / 1600 - 1606) M

Potlogi DB v.c.Potlogi

3379: Potlogi (1685) DB v.c.Potlogi = Constantin Brancoveanu (October 1688 - March 1714) W

123

Preotesti NT v. Preutesti c. Timisesti

3397: Preotesti (a. 1638) NT v. Preutesti c. Timisesti = Vasile Lupu (1634 - 1653) M

Probota SV v. Probota c. Dolhasca near the creek

3412: Probota (XV) SV v. Probota c. Dolhasca near the creek = Stephen II (1433 - 1435 / 1436 - 1442 / 1442 - 1447) M 3413: Probota (XV) SV v. Probota c. Dolhasca near the creek = Stephen the Great (1457 1504) M

Probota SV v. Probota c. Dolhasca din Pajiste

3414: Probota (1530) SV v. Probota c. Dolhasca din Pajiste = Petru Rares (1527 - 1538 / 1541 - 1546) M

Putna SV v.c. Putna

3438: Putna (1469) SV v.c. Putna = Stephen the Great (1457 - 1504) M 3439: Putna (1662) SV v.c. Putna = Vasile Lupu (1634 - 1653) M + Eustatie Dabija (1661 1665) M ??? 3442: Putna (1754) SV v.c. Putna = ??? (clerics)

Rarau SV under Rarau

3462: Rarau (a. 1527) SV under Rarau = unknown 3463: Rarau (a. 1546) SV under Rarau = Petru Rares (1527 - 1538 / 1541 - 1546) M

Radaseni SV v.c. Radaseni

3477: Radaseni (1622 - 23) SV v.c. Radaseni = Stefan Tomsa II (1611 - 1615 / 1621 - 1623) M

Razboieni NT v.c. Razboieni

3517: Razboieni (1496) NT v.c. Razboieni = Stephen the Great (1457 - 1504) M

124

Reuseni SV v. Reuseni c. Udesti

3535: Reuseni (1503 - 4) SV v. Reuseni c. Udesti = Stephen the Great (1457 - 1504) M

Ramnicu Sarat BZ str. Sf. Gheorghe nr. 4

3546: Ramnicu Sarat (a. 1691) BZ str. Sf. Gheorghe nr. 4 = unknown 3547: Ramnicu Sarat (1691 - 97) BZ str. Sf. Gheorghe nr. 4 = Constantin Brancoveanu (October 1688 - March 1714) W

Ramnicu Sarat BZ t. Ramnicu Sarat

3550: Ramnicu Sarat (a. 1504) BZ t. Ramnicu Sarat = Stephen the Great (1457 - 1504) M

Ramnicu Valcea VL Piata Mircea cel Batran m. Ramnicu Valcea

3554: Ramnicu Valcea (cca. 1510) VL Piata Mircea cel Batran m. Ramnicu Valcea ??? = Mircea II (1442) W 3555: Ramnicu Valcea (1747) VL Piata Mircea cel Batran m. Ramnicu Valcea = unknown

Ramnicu Valcea VL str. Arges nr. 47 m. Ramnicu Valcea Bishopric

3559: Ramnicu Valcea (XIV) VL str. Arges nr. 47 m. Ramnicu Valcea Bishopric = unknown 3560: Ramnicu Valcea (a. 1653) VL str. Arges nr. 47 m. Ramnicu Valcea Bishopric = Matei Basarab (September 1632 - April 1654) W 3561: Ramnicu Valcea (a. 1749) VL str. Arges nr. 47 m. Ramnicu Valcea Bishopric = Climent (bishop of Ramnic)

Ramnicu Valcea VL Calea Traian nr. 141 m. Ramnicu Valcea

3571: Ramnicu Valcea (1557) VL Calea Traian nr. 141 m. Ramnicu Valcea = Patrascu the Good (March 1554 - December 1557) W

Rasca SV v.c. Rasca

3582: Rasca (1542) SV v.c. Rasca = Petru Rares (1527 - 1538 / 1541 - 1546) M 3583: Rasca (XVIII) SV v.c. Rasca = unknown

125

Roman NT str. Alexandru cel Bun. 5 Bishopric

3601: Roman (a. 1408) NT str. Alexandru cel Bun. 5 Bishopric??? = 3600: Roman (1696) NT str. Veronica Micle 17 Alba ??? = Anastasia Duca (wife of Gheorghe Duca) W + M 3602: Roman (1542) NT str. Alexandru cel Bun. 5 Bishopric = ??? (prince)

Roman NT str. Roman Musat Precista

3603: Roman (cca. 1569) NT str. Roman Musat Precista = Petru Rares (1527 - 1538 / 1541 1546) M 3604: Roman (1753 - 54) NT str. Roman Musat Precista = ??? (cleric)

Runcu VL (c. Runcu?)

3664: Runcu (a. 1584) VL (c. Runcu?) = Lady Neaga (wife of Mihnea II the Turkish) W

Sadova DJ v.c. Sadova

3681: Sadova (a. 1530) DJ v.c. Sadova = Barbu Craiovescu (Pahomie monk) 3682: Sadova (1633) DJ v.c. Sadova = Matei Basarab (September 1632 - April 1654) W 3684: Sadova (1790) DJ v.c. Sadova = unknown

Schitul Doamnei NT m. Piatra Neamt

3759: Schitul Doamnei (XVI) NT m. Piatra Neamt ??? = Elena Despotovna (wife of Petru Rares) M 3760: Schitul Doamnei (a. 1790) NT m. Piatra Neamt = Mitrofan (abbot?)

Scanteia IS v.c Scanteia

3766: Scanteia (XV) IS v.c Scanteia = unknown 3767: Scanteia (XVII) IS v.c Scanteia ??? = Stephen the Great (1457 - 1504) M 3768: Scanteia (a. 1636) IS v.c Scanteia = unknown

Silisteni VS pe Ialan

3820: Silisteni (a. 1692) VS pe Ialan = Constantin Cantemir (1685 - 1693) M

126

Siret SV v. Manastioara St. Onufrie

3840: Siret (a. 1617) SV v. Manastioara St. Onufrie = ??? (cleric) 3841: Siret (1673) SV v. Manastioara St. Onufrie = Stefan Petriceicu (1672 - 1673 / 1673 1674 / 1683 - 1684) M

Slatina SV v.c. Slatina

3873: Slatina (1553 - 54) SV v.c. Slatina = Alexandru Lapusneanu (1552 - 1561 / 1564 1568) M

Slatioarele VL v. Slatioarele t. Ocnele Mari

3884: Slatioarele (1570) VL v. Slatioarele t. Ocnele Mari = Lady Ecaterina (wife of Alexandru II Mircea) W

Slobozia IL t. Slobozia

3895: Slobozia (a. 1636) IL t. Slobozia = Matei Basarab (September 1632 - April 1654) W

Snagov B v.c. Snagov

3904: Snagov (a. 1431) B v.c. Snagov = Mircea the Elder (September 1386 November 1394 / January 1396 - January 1418) W 3905: Snagov (1517) B v.c. Snagov = ??? (prince) 3906: Snagov (cca. 1453) B v.c. Snagov ??? = Neagoe Basarab (January 1512 September 1521) W

Solca SV t. Solca

3917: Solca (a. 1615) SV t. Solca = Stefan Tomsa II (1611 - 1615 / 1621 - 1623) M

Soveja VR v. Dragoslavele c. Soveja

3930: Soveja (1645) VR v. Dragoslavele c. Soveja = Matei Basarab (September 1632 - April 1654) W

Stancesti GJ c. Musetesti

127

3948: Stancesti (1720) GJ c. Musetesti ??? = Constantin Brancoveanu (October 1688 - March 1714) W

Strehaia MH t. Strehaia

4011: Strehaia (1645) MH t. Strehaia = Matei Basarab (September 1632 - April 1654) W

Suceava SV m. Suceava

4036: Suceava (a. 1461) SV m. Suceava = unknown 4037: Suceava (a. 1627) SV m. Suceava = Miron Barnovschi-Movila (1626 - 1629 / 1633) M

Suceava SV str. Stefanita Voda nr. 3 Coconi

4038: Suceava (XV) SV str. Stefanita Voda nr. 3 Coconi = unknown 4039: Suceava (1642) SV str. Stefanita Voda nr. 3 Coconi = Vasile Lupu (1634 - 1653) M

Suceava SV str. A. Ipatescu nr. 14 Invierea

4041: Suceava (XIV) SV str. A. Ipatescu nr. 14 Invierea = unknown 4042: Suceava (XV) SV str. A. Ipatescu nr. 14 Invierea = unknown 4043: Suceava (XV) SV str. A. Ipatescu nr. 14 Invierea = unknown 4044: Suceava (XVI) SV str. A. Ipatescu nr. 14 Invierea = unknown 4045: Suceava (1551) SV str. A. Ipatescu nr. 14 Invierea = Elena Despotovna (wife of Petru Rares) M

Suceava SV str. Stefan cel Mare nr. 1

4052: Suceava (XIV) SV str. Stefan cel Mare nr. 1 = unknown 4053: Suceava (a. 1534) SV str. Stefan cel Mare nr. 1 = Petru Rares (1527 - 1538 / 1541 1546) M 4054: Suceava (1534 - 35) SV str. Stefan cel Mare nr. 1 = Petru Rares (1527 - 1538 / 1541 1546) M

Suceava SV str. Sf. Ioan nr. 2 Mitropolia

128

4055: Suceava (1514 - 22) SV str. Sf. Ioan nr. 2 Mitropolia = Stefan IV / StefanitaVoda the Young (1517 - 1527) M

Suceava SV v. Sf. Ilie sc. Scheia

4058: Suceava (a. 1488) SV v. Sf. Ilie sc. Scheia = unknown 4059: Suceava (1488) SV v. Sf. Ilie sc. Scheia = Stephen the Great (1457 - 1504) M

Sucevita SV v.c. Sucevita

4069: Sucevita (a. 1583) SV v.c. Sucevita = Movila (family) 4070: Sucevita (1583 - 86) SV v.c. Sucevita = Ieremia Movila (1595 - 1600 / 1600 - 1606) M

Sucevita SV v.c. Sucevita Chapel

4071: Sucevita (1583) SV v.c. Sucevita Chapel = Ieremia Movila (1595 - 1600 / 1600 1606) M

Surpatele VL v. Surpatele c. Francesti

4085: Surpatele (a. 1512) VL v. Surpatele c. Francesti = Tudor of Dragoiesti (great logothete) 4086: Surpatele (a. 1521) VL v. Surpatele c. Francesti = ??? (prince) 4087: Surpatele (1706) VL v. Surpatele c. Francesti = Marica Brancoveanu (wife of Constantin Brancoveanu) W

Scheia IS v.c. Scheia

4100: Scheia (a. 1654) IS v.c. Scheia = Vasile Lupu (1634 - 1653) M

Serbesti NT v.c. Stefan cel Mare

4116: Serbesti (1636) NT v.c. Stefan cel Mare = Vasile Lupu (1634 - 1653) M

Tazlau NT v.c. Tazlau

4176: Tazlau (a. 1424) NT v.c. Tazlau = ??? (boyar) 4177: Tazlau (a. 1496 - 97) NT v.c. Tazlau = Stephen the Great (1457 - 1504) M

129

Tismana GJ v.c. Tismana

4244: Tismana (1374) GJ v.c. Tismana = Vladislav I / Vlaicu Voda (16 November 1364 cca. 1377) W 4246: Tismana (1720) GJ v.c. Tismana = ??? (cleric)

Tismana GJ v.c. Tismana Chapel

4245: Tismana (1650) GJ v.c. Tismana Chapel = Matei Basarab (September 1632 - April 1654) W

Tanganu B v. Tanganu c. Cernica

4255: Tanganu (a. 1475) B v. Tanganu c. Cernica = Radu III the Handsome (November 1462 - November 1473 / December 1473 - 1474 / October 1474 January 1475) W

Targoviste DB Calea Domneasca 221 Domneas-ca Mare

4262: Targoviste (1583) DB Calea Domneasca 221 Domneas-ca Mare = Petru Cercel (July 1583 - April 1585) W

Targoviste DB Calea Domneasca 221 Domneas-ca Mica

4263: Targoviste (a. 1455) DB Calea Domneasca 221 Domneas-ca Mica = Lady Sultana (?) W

Targoviste DB str. Libertatii nr. 1 Mitropolia

4268: Targoviste (a. 1520) DB str. Libertatii nr. 1 Mitropolia = Radu the Great/ IV (September 1495-April 1508) W

- Targoviste DB str. Constantin Brancoveanu nr. 5 Sfintii Imparati 4284: Targoviste (cca. 1650) DB str. Constantin Brancoveanu nr. 5 Sfintii Imparati = Matei Basarab (September 1632 - April 1654) W

130

Targoviste DB str. Grigore Alexandrescu nr. 44 Andronesti

4285: Targoviste (a. 1527) DB str. Grigore Alexandrescu nr. 44 Andronesti = Manea Persanu (great vornic) 4286: Targoviste (cca. 1653) DB str. Grigore Alexandrescu nr. 44 Andronesti = Lady Elina (wife of Matei Basarab) W

Targoviste DB str. Stelea nr. 6 Stelea

4292: Targoviste (XV) DB str. Stelea nr. 6 Stelea = unknown 4293: Targoviste (1582) DB str. Stelea nr. 6 Stelea = ??? (boyar) 4294: Targoviste (1645) DB str. Stelea nr. 6 Stelea = Vasile Lupu (1634 - 1653) M

Targsor PH sc. Targsoru Vechi m. Ploiesti

4302: Targsor (XVI) PH sc. Targsoru Vechi m. Ploiesti = Mihnea II the Turkish (September 1577 - July 1583 / April 1585 - May 1591) W 4303: Targsor (XVII) PH sc. Targsoru Vechi m. Ploiesti = Antonie Voda of Popesti (March 1669 - February 1672) W 4304: Targsor (XV) PH sc. Targsoru Vechi m. Ploiesti = Vlad III the Impaler (1448 / 1456 November 1462 / November 1476 - December 1476) W 4306: Targsor (XV) PH sc. Targsoru Vechi m. Ploiesti = Vladislav II (1447 - 1448 / 1448 1456) W

Targu Frumos IS str. Petru Rares nr. 5

4319: Targu Frumos (a. 1546) IS str. Petru Rares nr. 5 = Petru Rares (1527 - 1538 / 1541 1546) M

Targu Neamt NT (in the Citadel)

4331: Targu Neamt (1651 - 52) NT (in the Citadel) = Vasile Lupu (1634 - 1653) M

Targu Neamt NT t. Tg. Neamt Domneasca

4332: Targu Neamt (1631-61) NT t. Tg. Neamt Domneasca = Vasile Lupu (1634 - 1653) M

131

Targu Neamt NT t. Tg. Neamt

4333: Targu Neamt (a. 1677) NT t. Tg. Neamt = Gheorghe Stefan (1653 - 1658) M

Toporauti RU v. Toporauti Storojinet

4379: Toporauti (a. 1627) RU v. Toporauti Storojinet = unknown 4380: Toporauti (1627) RU v. Toporauti Storojinet = Miron Barnovschi-Movila (1626 - 1629 / 1633) M

Tunari B str. Tunari, m. Bucuresti

4406: Tunari (1702) B str. Tunari, m. Bucuresti = Marica Brancoveanu (wife of Constantin Brancoveanu) W

Tutana AG v. Tutana c. Barbulesti

4433: Tutana (a. 1497) AG v. Tutana c. Barbulesti = unknown 4434: Tutana (1582) AG v. Tutana c. Barbulesti = Mihnea II the Turkish (September 1577 July 1583 / April 1585 - May 1591) W

Valea AG v. Valea Manastirii c. Titesti

4514: Valea (a. 1510) AG v. Valea Manastirii c. Titesti = Radu Paisie / Petru of Arges (September 1534 November 1534 / June 1535 - March 1545) W

Valea Scheilor PH v.c. Valea Calugareasca

4559: Valea Scheilor (XVI) PH v.c. Valea Calugareasca = Lady Neaga (wife of Mihnea II the Turkish) W

Vaslui VS str. Stefan cel Mare 54

4576: Vaslui (a. 1490) VS str. Stefan cel Mare 54 = unknown 4575: Vaslui (1490) VS str. Stefan cel Mare 54 = Stephen the Great (1457 - 1504) M

Viforata DB v. Viforata sc. Aninoasa m. Targoviste

132

4641: Viforata (1532) DB v. Viforata sc. Aninoasa m. Targoviste = Vlad VI the Drowned (June 1530 - September 1532) W 4642: Viforata (a. 1794) DB v. Viforata sc. Aninoasa m. Targoviste = unknown

Vintila Voda BZ v.c. Vintila Voda

4648: Vintila Voda (1532) BZ v.c. Vintila Voda = Vlad VII Vintila / of Slatina (September 1532 - September 1534 / November 1534 - June 1535) W

Vanatori NT v.c. Vanatori Nemt

4660: Vanatori (cca. 1560) NT v.c. Vanatori Nemt = Alexandru Lapusneanu (1552 - 1561 / 1564 - 1568) M

Volovat SV v.c. Volovat

4706: Volovat (XIV) SV v.c. Volovat = unknown 4707: Volovat (1500 - 1502) SV v.c. Volovat = Stephen the Great (1457 - 1504) M

Voronet SV v. Voronet t. Gura Humorului

4716: Voronet (a. 1488) SV v. Voronet t. Gura Humorului = unknown 4717: Voronet (1488) SV v. Voronet t. Gura Humorului = Stephen the Great (1457 - 1504) M 4718: Voronet (1782) SV v. Voronet t. Gura Humorului = Macarie (abbot of Voronet)

133

2. Illustrations271 A. Walachia 1. Arnota Monastery

Figure 1.1 Arnota Monastery

Figure 1.2. Narthex, Eastern wall, Constantin Brncoveanu and his wife Lady Elena
This part of the appendices contains images from churches and monasteries from Walachia and Moldavia, discussed throughout the thesis. They are presented first from Walachia and then from Moldavia, in alphabetical order. Most pictures have been taken by myself, but some are also taken from publications.
271

134

Figure 1.3. Narthex, Southern Wall, Calea and her husband boyar Datco

Figure 1.4. Narthex, Western Wall, Stanca, her husband boyar Preda and son

Figure 1.5. Narthex, Northern Wall, boyar Radu

Figure 1.6. Narthex, Western Wall, boyar Danciu and boyar Vlsan, Northern Wall, boyar Barbul

135

2. The Hospital Church from Brncoveni

Figure 2.1. The Hospital Church from Brncoveni

Figure 2.2. Narthex, Southern Wall, Matei Basarab and Marica, wife of Constantin Brncoveanu

Fig 2.3. Narthex, Western Wall, Constantin Brncoveanu and his grandfather Preda Brncoveanu

136

3. Cldruani Monastery

Figure 3.1. Cldruani Monastery

Figure 3.2. Narthex, Western Wall, King Charles I and Matei Basarab

Figure 3.3. Narthex, Western Wall, Queen Elisabeth I and Lady Elena, wife of Matei Basarab

137

4. Cozia Monastery

Figure 4.1. Cozia Monastery

Figure 4.2. Detail, Double-headed eagles

Figure 4.3. Nave, Western Wall, Mircea the Elder and son Mihail

138

5. The Hospital Church from Cozia

Figure 5.1. The Hospital Church from Cozia Figure 5.2. Detail, Blessing Christ

Figure 5.3. Nave, Western Wall, Radu Paisie

Figure 5.4. Lady Ruxandra, Prince Marcu and Princess Zamfira

139

Figure 5.5. Detail, Angel crowning Radu Paisie

Figure 5.6. Detail, Angel crowning Prince Marcu

Figure 5.7. Narthex, Western Wall, Mircea the Elder and son Mihail

Figure 5.8. Narthex, Northern Wall, boyar Stroe

140

6. The Princely Church from Curtea de Arge

Figure 6.1. The Princely Church from Curtea de Arge

Figure 6.2. Nave, Western Wall, Vladislav Vlaicu and his wife

141

7. Curtea de Arge Monastery

Figure 7.1. Curtea de Arge Monastery

Figure 7.2. Narthex, Western Wall, King Charles I and Queen Elizabeth

Figure 7.3. Narthex, Repainted votive portrait of Neagoe Basarab and his family

142

Figure 7.4. Original fresco, votive portrait of Neagoe Basarab and his family

Figure 7.5. Original fresco, knyaz Lazar

143

Figure 7.6. Original fresco, Radu of Afumai

Figure 7.7. Original fresco, Lady Ruxandra

Figure 7.8. Original fresco, Radu Paisie and Prince Marcu

Figure 7.9. Original fresco, Mircea the Elder

144

8. The Church from Filipetii de Pdure

Figure 8.1. Narthex, Western Wall, votive portrait of boyars

Figure 8.2. Narthex, Northern Wall, votive representation with Prince Constantin Brncoveanu

145

9. Govora Monastery

Figure 9.1. Govora Monastery

Figure 9.2. Iconostasis

146

Figure 9.3. Narthex, Western Wall, Radu the Great and abbot Paisie

Figure 9.4. Narthex, Southern Wall, Constantin Brncoveanu

147

10. Hurezi Monastery

Figure 10.1. Hurezi Monastery

Figure 10.2. Sculpted pisanie at the entrance door

148

Figure 10.3. Portraits of artists

Figure 10.4. Constantin Brncoveanus empty tomb

149

Figure 10.5. Narthex, Eastern Wall, Constantin Brncoveanu and his family

Figure 10.6. Detail, Crown-bearing Christ

Figure 10.7. Detail, Flowers and gestures

150

Figure 10.8. Narthex, Western Wall, Cantacuzino family

Figure 10.9. Narthex, Western Wall, Brncoveanu family

Figure 10.10. Young Brncoveanu

151

Figure 10.11. Narthex, Southern Wall, Matei Basarab and Neagoe Basarab

Figure 10.12. Narthex, Northern Wall, Constantin erban, Radu erban

152

Figure 10.13. Narthex, Southern Wall, Laiot Basarab

Figure 10. 14, Narthex, Northern Wall, erban Cantacuzino

153

11. The Hospital Church from Hurezi

Figure 11.1. The Hospital Church from Hurezi

Figure 11.2. Western Wall, votive portrait of Constantin Brncoveanu and his wife

154

12. The Chapel from Hurezi

Figure 12.1. The Chapel from Hurezi

Figure 12.2. Western Wall, Constantin Brncoveanu and his family

155

13. The Church from Mgureni

Figure 13.1. Votive portrait of boyars

Figure 13.2 Votive portrait with Constantin Brncoveanu

156

14. Snagov Monastery

Figure 14.1. Snagov Monastery

Figure 14.2. Narthex, Southern Wall, Neagoe Basarab and his son Theodosie, Mircea the Shepherd, Peter the Young, Radu, Mircea and Lady Chiajna

157

Figure 14.3. Nave, Western Wall, Neagoe Basarab, His son Theodosie and Mircea the Shepherd

Figure 14.4. Nave, Western Wall, Peter the Young, Radu and Mircea

Figure 14.5. Detail, Angel holding the crown of Peter the Young

158

15. Surpatele Monastery

Figure 15.1. Surpatele Monastery

Figure 15.2. The Pantocrator in the dome

159

Figure 15.3. Narthex, Western Wall, Votive portrait of Constantin Brncoveanu and his family

Figure 15.4. Details, Gestures

160

B. Moldavia 16. The Church of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary from Baia

Figure 16.1. The Church of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary from Baia

Figure 16.2. Nave, Western Wall, Petru Rare and his family

161

17. Dobrov Monastery

Figure 17.1. Dobrov Monastery

Figure 17.2. Religious scene from the votive portrait

Figure 17.3. The Iconography of the Ecclesia

162

Figure 17.4. Nave, Western Wall, Petru Rare, Bogdan III, Stephen the Great

163

18. The Church of Saint Nicholas from Dorohoi

Figure 18. 1. The Church of Saint Nicholas from Dorohoi

Figure 18.2. Nave, Western Wall, Petru Rare, Stephen IV, Bogdan III, Southern Wall, Lady Maria and Stephen the Great

164

19. The Monastery of Dragomirna

Figure 19.1. Dragomirna Monastery

165

20. Hlincea Monastery

Figure 20.1. Hlincea Monastery

Figure 20.2. Vasile Lupu

166

21. The Princely Chapel from Hotin

Figure 21.1. The Princely Chapel from Hotin

167

22. Humor Monastery

Figure 22.1. Humor Monastery

Figure 22.2. The Labyrinth

168

Figure 22.3. Nave, Western Wall, Petru Rare and his family

169

Figure 22.5. Crypt, portrait of Teodor Bubuiog

Figure 22.4. Crypt, Funerary portrait of Anastasia

170

23. Moldovia Monastery

Figure 23.1. Moldovia Monastery

Figure 23.2. The Siege of Constantinople

171

Figure 23.3. The Hymn Akathist

Figure 23.4. Nave, Western Wall, Petru Rare and his family

172

24. The Church of the Holy Cross from Ptrui

Figure 24.1. The Church of the Holy Cross from Ptrui

Figure 24.2. The Church of the Holy Cross from Ptrui

173

Figure 24.3. Narthex, The Cavalcade of the Holy Cross

Figure 24.4. Nave, Western Wall, Stephen the Great and his family

174

25. Probota Monastery

Figure 25.1. Probota Monastery

175

Figure 25.2 and figure 25.3. The plan of Probota Monastery, cf. Ion, Miclea and Radu Florescu, Probota (Bucureti 1978) 6-7.

176

Figure 25.4. Gothic windows

Figure 25.5. Crypt, Funerary portrait of Ion, Petru Rares son

Figure 25.6. The Path

177

Figure 25.7. Nave, Western Wall, Petru Rare and his family

178

26. Rca Monastery

Figure 26.1. Rca Monastery

Figure 26.2. Repainted votive portrait

179

27. Sucevia Monastery

Figure 27.1. Sucevia Monastery

Figure 27.2. The Tree of Jesee

180

Figure 27.3. The prayer of all saints

Figure 27.4. Crypt, tombs of Ieremia and Simion Movil

181

Figure 27.5. Nave, Western and Southern Walls, Ieremia Movil and his family

182

Figure 27.6. Embroidered tomb cover of Simion Movil Fig. 27.7. Embroidered tomb cover of Ieremia Movil

183

28. The Church of Saint Elijah near Suceava

Figure 28.1. The Church of Saint Elijah near Suceava

Figure 28.2. Nave, Western and Southern Walls, Stephen the Great and his family

184

29. Iai, The Church of Trei Ierarhi

Figure 29.1. Iai, The Church of Trei Ierarhi

Figure 29.2. Votive portrait

185

30. Vorone Monastery

Figure 30.1. Vorone Monastery

Figure 30.2. Portrait of Grigorie Roca and Daniil the Hermit

186

Figure 30.3. The Last Judgement

Figure 30.4. Detail, Heaven

187

Figure 30.5. Detail, the Turks in Hell

Figure 30.6. The Philosophers of Antiquity

188

Figure 30.7. Nave, Western Wall, Stephen the Great and his family

189

Bibliography
Cltori strini despre rile Romne (Foreign Travellers about the Romanian Principalities) (Bucureti 1968-2001).

Istoria artelor plastice n Romnia (The History of the Arts in Romania) (Bucureti 1970) vol. II.

Adam, Sergiu, Ctitorii muatine (Foundations of the Muat Family) (Bucureti 1976).

Algazi, Gadi, Valentin Groebner and Bernhard Jussen (ed.), Negotiating the Gift: Pre-Modern Figurations of Exchange (Gttingen 2003).

Bal, Gheorghe, Bisericile lui tefan cel Mare (The Churches of Stephen the Great) (Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice (The Newsletter of the Committee of Historical Monuments)) (1926).

Bal, Gheorghe, Bisericile moldoveneti din veacul al XVI-lea (The Moldavian Churches from the 16th Century) (Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice (The Newsletter of the Committee of Historical Monuments)) (1928).

Bal, Gheorghe, Bisericile i mnstirile moldoveneti din veacurile al XVII-lea i al XVIII-lea (The Moldavian Churches and Monasteries from the 17th and 18th Centuries) in (Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice (The Newsletter of the Committee of Historical Monuments)) (1933).

Blan, Constantin, Inscripii medievale i din epoca modern a Romniei: judeul istoric Arge (sec XIV-1848) (Medieval Inscriptions and from the Modern Epoch of Romania: the Historical County of Arge (14th Century - 1848)) (Bucureti 1994).

Bergmans, Anna, Le mmorial dynastique du duc Henri III de Brabant et dAlix de Bourgogne dans lglise des Dominicains Louvain, in [Actes du] 12eme Congres international dtudes

190

sur les Danses macabres et lart macabre en gnral. Gand du 21 au 24 septembre 2005 (Meslay-le-Grenet 2006) II, 13-30.

Bijsterveld, Arnoud-Jan, Do ut des: Gift Giving, Memoria, and Conflict Managament in the Medieval Low Countries (Hilversum 2007).

Bogaers, Llewellyn C. J. J., Commemoration in a Utrecht Collegiate Church: Burial and Memorial Culture in St. Peters (1054-1784), in Truus van Bueren and Andrea van Leerdam (ed.), Care for the Here and the Hereafter: Memoria, Art and Ritual in the Middle Ages (Turnhout 2005) 191-219.

Brtianu, Gheorghe I., Tradiia istoric despre ntemeierea statelor romneti (The Historical Tradition of the Founding of the Romanian Principalities) (Chiinu 1945, reprinted 1991).

Brtulescu, Victor, Biserici din judeul Arge (Churches from the County of Arge) (Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice (The Newsletter of the Committee of Historical Monuments)) (1933).

Brtulescu, Victor, Frescele din biserica lui Neagoe de la Arge (The Frescoes from Neagoes Church in Arge) (Bucureti 1942).

Brtulescu, Victor, Mnstirea Polovragi (Polovragi Monastery) in Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice (The Newsletter of the Committee of Historical Monuments) 106 (1940) 3-32.

Bueren, Truus van, Care for the Here and the Hereafter: A Multitude of Possibilities, in Truus van Bueren and Andrea van Leerdam (ed.), Care for the Here and the Hereafter: Memoria, Art and Ritual in the Middle Ages (Turnhout 2005) 13-34.

Bueren van, Truus and Andrea van Leerdam (ed.), Care for the Here and the Hereafter: Memoria, Art and Ritual in the Middle Ages (Turnhout 2005).

191

Bueren, Truus van, Otto Gerhard Oexle, Die Darstellung der Sukzession: ber Sukzessionbilder und ihren Kontext in Truus van Bueren and Andrea van Leerdam (ed.), Care for the Here and the Hereafter: Memoria, Art and Ritual in the Middle Ages (Turnhout 2005) 55-77.

Bueren van, Truus, Leven na de dood: gedenken in de late Middeleeuwen (Turnhout 1999).

Chihaia Pavel, Arta medieval (Medieval Art) (Bucureti 1998).

Crciun, Maria, Semnificaiile ctitoririi n Moldova medieval O istoie social a religiei (The Meanings of Founding in Medieval Moldavia A Social History of Religion) in Violeta Barbu, Paul Cernovodeanu and Andrei Pippidi, Naional i universal n istoria romnilor: studii oferite prof. dr. erban Papacostea cu ocazia mplinirii a 70 de ani (The National and the Universal in the History of the Romanians: Studies Offered to prof. dr. erban Papacostea on the Occasion of His 70th Celebration) (Bucureti 1998) 137-171.

Cristescu, Dumitru, Sfnta Mnstire Arnota (The Holy Monastery of Arnota) (Rmnicu Vlcea 1937).

Cron, Gheorghe, Dreptul de ctitorire n ara Romneasc i Moldova. Constituirea i natura juridic a fundaiilor n evul mediu (The Right of Founding in Wallachia and Moldavia. The Formation and Juridical Nature of Foundations in the Middle Ages), Studii i materiale de istorie medie (Studies and Materials of Medieval History) IV (1960) 77-113.

Deac, Mircea, Mnstirea Snagov (Snagov Monastery) (Bucureti 1969).

Dekeyzer, Brigitte, For Eternal Glory and Remembrance: On the Representation of Patrons in Late Medieval Panel Paintings in the Southern Low Countries, in Paul Trio and Marjan De Smet (ed.), The Use and Abuse of Sacred Places in Late Medieval Towns (Leuven 2006) 71-101.

192

Dionisie din Furna, Erminia picturii bizantine (Hermineia of Byzantine Painting) (Bucureti 2000).

Dobjanschi, Ana, Victor Simion, Arta n epoca lui Vasile Lupu (Art in the Time of Vasile Lupu) (Bucureti 1979).

Dobjanschi, Ana, Arta i cultura n rile Romne n vremea lui Matei Basarab i Vasile Lupu (The Art and Culture of the Romanian Principalities during the Time of Matei Basarab and Vasile Lupu) in Marius Porumb and Aurel Chiriac (coordinators), Art romneasc Art european Centenar Virgil Vtianu (Romanian Art European Art Virgil Vtianu Centenary) (Oradea 2002) 129-134.

Drghici, Adrian Petru, Adrian Gabor and Adrian Portase, Domnitorii i ierarhii rii Romneti: ctitoriile i mormintele lor (The Princes and Hierarchs of Wallachia: Their Foundations and Tombs) (Bucureti 2009).

Drgu, Vasile, Arta brncoveneasc (The Art of the Brncoveni) (Bucureti 1971).

Drgu, Vasile, Arta romneasc: preistorie, antichitate, ev mediu, renatere, baroc (Romanian Art: Prehistory, Antiquity, Middle Ages, Renaissance, Baroc) (Bucureti 2000).

Drgu, Vasile, Dobrov (Bucureti 1984).

Drgu, Vasile, Humor (Bucureti 1973).

Drgu, Vasile, Petre Lupan, Pictura mural din Moldova: secolele XV-XVI (The Mural Paintings of Moldavia: 15th-16th Centuries) (Bucureti 1982).

Drgu, Vasile, Pictura mural din ara Romneasc i Moldova i raporturile sale cu pictura Europei de sud-est n cursul secolului al XVI-lea (The Murals Paintings from Walachia and

193

Moldavia and Their Relation to the Paintings of South-Eastern Europe in the 16th Century) in Buletinul Monumentelor Istorice (The Newsletter of Historical Monuments) 4 (1970) 17-32.

Duggen, Lawrence G., Reflections on Was Art Really the Book of the Illiterate? in Marille Hageman and Marco Mostert (ed.), Reading Images and Texts Medieval Images and Texts as Forms of Communication Papers from the Third Utrecht Symposium on Medieval Literacy, Utrecht 7-9 December 2000 (Turnhout 2005) 63-107.

Dumitrescu, Carmen Laura, Pictura mural din ara Romneasc n veacul al XVI-lea (The Mural Paintings of Wallachia in the 16th Century) (Bucureti 1979).

Dumitrescu, Sorin, Chivotele lui Petru Rare i modelul lor ceresc: o investigare artistic a bisericilor-chivot din nordul Moldovei (The Shrines of Petru Rare and Their Heavenly Model: An Artistic Investigation of the Shrine-Churches from the North of Moldavia) (Bucureti 2001).

Florescu, Radu, Mnstirea Govora (Govora Monastery) (Bucureti 1965).

Gardner, Julian, Epilogue: From Hence Your Memory Death Cannot Take, in Truus van Bueren and Andrea van Leerdam (ed.), Care for the Here and the Hereafter: Memoria, Art and Ritual in the Middle Ages (Turnhout 2005) 291-296.

Ghica-Budeti, Nicolae, Evoluia arhitecturii n Muntenia i Oltenia: II: Vechiul stil romnesc din veacul al XVI-lea (The Evolution of the Architecture in Muntenia and Oltenia: II: The Old Romanian Style from the 16th Century) in Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice (The Newsletter of the Committee of Historical Monuments) 63-66 (1931) 5-41.

Henry Paul, Monumentele din Moldova de Nord: de la origini pn la sfritul secolului al XVI lea: contribuie la studiul civilizaiei moldave (The Monuments of Northern Moldavia: From the Origins to the End of the 16th Century: Contribution to the Study of the Moldavian Civilization) (Bucureti 1984).

194

Herea, Gabriel, Pelerinaj n spaiul sacru bucovinean (Pilgrimage in the Sacred Space of Bucovina) (Cluj-Napoca 2010).

Holladay, Joan A., Tombs and Memory: Some Recent Books, Speculum 78 (2003) 440-450.

Houts, Elisabeth van (ed.), Medieval Memories: Men, Women and the Past, 700-1300 (Harlow 2001).

Houts van, Elisabeth, Memory and Gender in Medieval Europe, 900-1200 (Houndmills and London 1999).

Hoven van Genderen, Bram van den, Remembrance and Memoria: the Descriptions of Four Churches Compared, in Truus van Bueren and Andrea van Leerdam (ed.), Care for the Here and the Hereafter: Memoria, Art and Ritual in the Middle Ages (Turnhout 2005) 267-290.

Iancovescu, Ioana, Corina Popa, Mnstirea Hurezi (Hurezi Monastery) (Bucureti 2009).

Ionescu, tefan, Panait I. Panait, Constantin Brncoveanu: viaa domnia epoca (Constantin Brncoveanu: the Life the Reign the Epoch) (Bucureti 1969).

Iorga, Nicolae, Domnii romni dup portrete i fresce contemporane (Romanian Princes after Contemporary Portraits and Frescoes) (Sibiu 1930).

Iorga, Nicolae, Istoria lui tefan cel Mare (The History of Stephen the Great) (Bucureti 1904; reprinted 1985).

Iorga, Nicolae, Inscripii din bisericile Romniei (Inscriptions from the Churches of Romania) (Bucureti 1905).

Iorga, Nicolae, Portretele doamnelor romne (The Portraits of Romanian Princesses) (Bucureti 1937).

195

Johannsen, Brigitte Bggild, Genealogical Representation in Gendered Perspective: on a Lost Royal Mausoleum from Early Sixteenth-Century Denmark, in Truus van Bueren and Andrea van Leerdam (ed.), Care for the Here and the Hereafter: Memoria, Art and Ritual in the Middle Ages (Turnhout 2005) 79-105.

Kamburova Tania, Le don dans limage Byzantine du souverain (unpublished PhD thesis).

Langlois, Ch. V. and Ch. Seignobos, Introduction to the Study of History, transl. by G. G. Berry (London 1898).

Lauwers, Michel, Memoria. A propos dun objet dhistoire en Allemagne, in Jean-Claude Schmitt and Otto Gerhard Oexle (ed.), Les tendances actuelles de lhistoire du Moyen Age en France et en Allemagne. Actes des colloques de Svres (1997) et Gttingen (1998) (Paris 2002) 105-126.

Lawrence, Cynthia Miller (ed.), Women and Art in Early Modern Europe : Patrons, Collectors, and Connoisseurs (Pennsylvania 1997).

Mauss, Marcel, Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de lchange dans les socits archaques, in Marcel Mauss, Sociologie et Anthropologie (Paris 1950, reprint Paris 1993) 143-279.

McCash, June Hall (ed.), The Cultural Patronage of Medieval Women (Athens 1996).

Miclea, Ion and Radu Florescu, Probota (Bucureti 1978).

Mostert, Marco, Reading Images and Texts: Some Preliminary Observations Instead of an Introduction in Marille Hageman and Marco Mostert (ed.), Reading Images and Texts Medieval Images and Texts as Forms of Communication Papers from the Third Utrecht Symposium on Medieval Literacy, Utrecht 7-9 December 2000 (Turnhout 2005) 1-7.

196

Musicescu, Maria Ana, Biserica Domneasc din Curtea de Arge (The Princely Church of Curtea de Arge) (Bucureti 1976).

Musicescu, Maria Ana, Byzance et le portrait roumain au Moyen Age, Etudes byzantines et post-byzantines II (1979) 153-179.

Musicescu, Maria Ana, Introduction unde tude sur le portrait de fondateur dans le Sud-Est europen. Essai de typologie, Revue des tudes sud-est europennes VII (1969) 2, 281-310.

Nstase, Dumitru, Despre spaiul funerar n arhitectura moldoveneasc (About the Funerary Space in Moldavian Architecture) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) 14 (1967) 201-208.

Neagoe Basarab, nvturile lui Neagoe Basarab ctre fiul su Theodosie, (Chiinu 1998).

Neagoe, Manole, Neagoe Basarab (Bucureti 1971).

Neculce, Ion, O sam de cuvinte (A Few Words) (Bucureti 1953).

Nedelcu, George, n legtur cu repictarea bisericii episcopale din Curtea de Arge (About the Repainting of the Bishopric Church from Curtea de Arge) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) 20 (1973) 57-73.

Nicolescu, Corina and Florentina Jipescu, Date cu privire la istoria costumului n Moldova sec. XV- XVI (Information Regarding the History of the Costume in Moldavia, 15th 16th Centuries) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) 1-2 (1957) 129-154.

Nicolescu, Corina, Les insignes du pouvoir Contribution lhistoire du crmonial du cour roumain in Revue des tudes sud-est europennes XV (1977) 234-266.

197

Panaitescu, Petre P., Mircea cel Btrn (Mircea the Elder) (Bucureti 1944).

Pnoiu, Andrei, Pictura votiv din nordul Olteniei: secolul XIX (The Votive Painting from the North of Oltenia: 19th Century) (Bucureti 1968).

Pillat Cornelia, Pictura mural n epoca lui Matei Basarab (The Mural Paintings in the Time of Matei Basarab) (Bucureti 1980).

Pillat, Cornelia, Tradiie i inovaie n iconografia picturii rii Romneti din epoca lui Matei Basarab (Tradition and Innovation in the Iconography of the Paintings of Walachia from the Epoch of Matei Basarab) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) 20 (1973) 273-295.

Podlacha, Wladyslaw, Pictura mural din Bucovina (The Mural Painting of Bucovina) (Bucureti 1985).

Popescu, Florentin, Ctitorii brncoveneti (Foundations of the Brncoveni Family) (Bucureti 1976).

Pucau, Voica, Actul de ctitorire ca fenomen istoric n ara Romneasc i Moldova pn la sfritul secolului al XVIII-lea (The Act of Founding as a Historical Phenomenon in Wallachia and Moldavia until the End of the 18th Century) (Bucureti 2001).

Raguin, Virginia C. and Sarah Stanbury (ed.), Womens Space: Patronage, Place, and Gender in the Medieval Church (Albany NY 2005).

Rezachevici, Constantin, Cronologia critic a domnilor din ara Romneasc i Moldova 1324 1881: I: secolele XIV-XVI (The Critical Chonology of Princes from Walchia and Moldavia 13241881: I: 16th - 17th Centuries) (Bucureti 2001).

198

Santinelli, Emmanuelle, Les femmes et la mmoire. Le rle des comtesses dans la Francie occidentale du XIe sicle, in Franois Bougard, Cristina La Rocca and Rgine Le Jan (ed.), Sauver son me et se perptuer. Transmission du patrimoine et mmoire au haut Moyen Age (Rome 2005) 459-484, 529.

Saul, Nigel, Death, Art, and Memory in Medieval England: The Cobham Family and Their Monuments, 1300-1500 (Oxford and New York 2001).

Schier, Volker, Memorials Sung and Unsung: Liturgical Remembrance and Its History, in Truus van Bueren and Andrea van Leerdam (ed.), Care for the Here and the Hereafter: Memoria, Art and Ritual in the Middle Ages (Turnhout 2005) 125-135.

Schleif, Corine, Forgotten Roles of Women as Donors: Sister Katerina Lemmels Negotiated Exchanges in the Care for the Here and the Hereafter, in Truus van Bueren and Andrea van Leerdam (ed.), Care for the Here and the Hereafter: Memoria, Art and Ritual in the Middle Ages (Turnhout 2005) 137-154.

Schmid, Karl and Joachim Wollasch (ed.), Memoria: der geschichtliche Zeugniswert des liturgischen Gedenkens im Mittelalter (Munich 1984).

Silber, Ilana F., Gift-giving in the Great Traditions: The Case of Donations to Monasteries in the Medieval West, Archives europennes de sociologie 36 (1995) 209-243.

Simanschi, Leon (coordinator), Petru Rare (Bucureti 1978).

Sinigalia Tereza, Ctitori i imagini votive n pictura mural din Moldova la sfritul secolului al XV-lea i n prima jumtate a secolului al XVI-lea o ipotez (Founders and Votive Images in the Mural Paintings of Moldavia at the End of the 15th Century and in the First Half of the 16th a Hypothesis) in Arta istoriei, istoria artei: academicianul Rzvan Theodorescu la 65 de ani (The Art of History, the History of Art: the Academist Rzvan Theodorescu at the Age of 65) (Bucureti 2004) 59-65.

199

Solcanu, Ion, Vorone Tradiie i adevr istoric (Vorone Tradition and Historical Truth) in Arta istoriei, istoria artei: academicianul Rzvan Theodorescu la 65 de ani (The Art of History, the History of Art: the Academist Rzvan Theodorescu at the Age of 65) (Bucureti 2004) 67-82.

Stnoiu, Damian, Mnstirea Cldruani (Cldruani Monastery) (Bucureti 1924).

Stoicescu, Nicolae, Humor (Bucureti 1978).

Stoicescu, Nicolae, Matei Basarab (Bucureti 1988).

erban, Constantin, Vasile Lupu, domn al Moldovei (1634-1653) (Vasile Lupu, Prince of Moldavia (1634-1653)) (Bucureti 1991).

tefnescu, Ioan D., Arta feudal n rile Romne: pictura mural i icoanele, de la origini pn n secolul al XIX-lea (Feudal Art in the Romanian Principalities: Mural Painting and Icons, from the Origins until the 19th Century) (Timioara 1981).

Teodoru, Horia, Contribuii la studiul originii i evoluiei planului triconc n Moldova (Contributions to the Study of the Origin and Evolution of the Triconch Plan in Moldavia) in Buletinul Monumentelor Istorice (The Newsletter of Historical Monuments) 1 (1970) 31-36.

Theodorescu, Rzvan, Despre civa oameni noi, ctitori medievali (About a Few New People, Medieval Founders) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) 24 (1977) 67-124.

Theodorescu, Rzvan, Despre planul triconc n arhitectura medieval timpurie a sud-estului european (About the Triconch Plan in the Early Medieval Architecture of the South-East of Europe) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) 20 (1973) 211-225.

200

Tocilescu, Grigore, Raporturi asupra ctorva mnstiri, schituri i biserici din ar, prezentate Ministerului Cultelor i al nvmntului public (Reports on a Few Monasteries, Hermitages and Churches from the Country, Presented to the Ministry of Culture and Public Education) in Analele Academiei Romne (The Annals of the Romanian Academy) II, tome VIII (1885-1886) 151-238.

Ulea, Sorin, Datarea ansamblului de pictur de la Dobrov (Dating the Ensemble of Painting from Dobrov) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) 2 (1961) 483-485.

Ulea, Sorin, Originea i semnificaia ideologic a picturii exterioare moldoveneti I (The Origin and Ideological Meaning of the External Moldavian Painting I) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) (1963) 91, 57-93.

Ulea, Sorin, Portretul funerar al lui Ion un fiu necunoscut al lui Petru Rare i datarea ansamblului de pictur de la Probota (The Funerary Portrait of John an Unknown Son of Petru Rare and the Dating of the Painting Ensemble from Probota) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) 1 (1959) 61-70.

Vasiliu, Anca, Pictura mural brncoveneasc. II. Arta portretului (The Mural Painting of the Brncoveni. II. The Art of the Portrait) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) 30 (1983) 12-25.

Vasiliu, Anca, Sensuri ale transparenei n iconografia brncoveneasc Schitul sfinii apostoli Hurezi (The Meanings of Transparency in the Iconography of the Brncoveni the Hermitage of the Saints Apostles from Hurezi) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) 37 (1990) 43-68.

Vtianu, Virgil, Pictura mural din Nordul Moldovei (The Mural Painting of Northern Moldavia) (Bucureti 1974).

201

Voinescu, Teodora, Metode de cercetare n domeniul artei medievale romneti (Research Methods in the Field of Romanian Medieval Art), in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei, Seria art plastic (Studies and Researches of Art History, Art Series ) 139-143.

Voinescu, Teodora, Zugravul Prvul Mutul i coala sa (The Painter Prvul Mutul and His School) in Studii i cercetri de istoria artei (Studies and Researches of Art History) 3-4 (1955) 133-157.

Voitec-Dordea, Mira, Reflexe gotice n arhitectura Moldovei (Gothic Reflections in the Architecture of Moldavia) (Bucureti 2004).

Weiner, Annette B., Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-While-Giving (Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford 1992).

Zamora, Luiza, Biserici bolni din ara Romneasc n secolele XVI-XVIII (Hospital Churches from Walachia in the 16th-18th Centuries), Grupul Romn pentru o Istorie Alternativ (The Romanian Group for an Alternative History) (www.patzinakia.ro), (Bucureti 2007) http://www.patzinakia.com/index2.html (last consulted on 13.08.2010, 13:30).

202