From the Twenty-First Century to the Middle Ages:
The Mythical (De)construction
of Stephen the Great of Moldavia
I Journey into the past:
Flashbacks and nostalgia for Stephen the Great
(1433- July 2, 1504)
Prince Stephen IIJ of Moldavia is one of the most acclaimed Romanian
historical characters, known as „Stephen the Great.“ He ruled during the secend half
of the fifteenth century in the Principality of Moldavia, one of the three historical
principalities which today fotm Romania. Stephen‘ s reign, policy, personality, artistic
and military endeavours, were unique when compared to the reigns of his
predecessors – a fact which elevated the prince on a pedestal already during his
lifetime. As time progressed, Stephen’s place on his „pedestal“ was strengthened by
the fact that his direct and indirect successors were eager to mirror his actions, his
character, and his reign altogether. This outcome gave bi1th to a distinction between
Stephen as a historical prince and Stephen as a mythical prince. This study will
discuss the transformation of the man into his myth, exploring the genesis, the
reasons, and the mutations of this myth, including a survey of the twentieth- and
twenty-first century image of the prince.
July 2015
Up to 10,000 people gathered on July 5, 2015 in the small settlement of tefan
cel Mare (named after the great ruler Stephen) to celebrate the life, reign, and legacy
of the prince. It became a tradition for the tefan cel Mare Town Hall to organise
each year, at the beginning of July, a vast celebration with various activities such as
art exhibits, book launches, concerts, all dedicated to the prince. „Just like every time,
the prince hirnself will be among us, embodied by an actor,“1 declared Mayor Mihai
Moraru at the occasion of the 2015 festivities. The participants enjoyed the folkloric
festivities, the „presence“ of Stephen, but they also enjoyed the 20,000 stuffed
1 Sorin Saizu, „Praznicul lui tefan cel Mare“ [The Feast of Stephen the Great] Obiectiv Vaslui,
online http://obicctivvaslui.ro/praznicul-lui-stefan-cel-mare/ (accessed January 25, 2016).
7
cabbage rolls prepared by the Town Hall, a delicacy Stephen himself would have also
appreciated!
During the same time and in the same tenitory imbibed with the presence of
the prince (the Vaslui county, a region where Stephen gained his most well-known
military success), a different gathering was celebrating Stephen’s life. The settlement
ofMuntenii de Jos organised their commemoration under the title „tefan cel Mare i
Sfänt- Cava!er al Cretinatatii“ ( Saint Stephen the Great- The Champion of Christ),
which also included a mass for the remembrance of national heroes by the feet of the
equestrian statue of Stephen the Great?
Each year in July, similar commemorations are organised especially throughout
the historical province of Moldavia, the most impo1tant of which takes place at Putna
Monastery, Stephen’s mai.n commission and burial place. Although the monks of
Putna organise grand yearly festivities, the one of 2014 stood out as it was the 51 oth
commemoration of Stephen ’s death.
July 2014
The year 20 14 coi ncided wi.th the celebration of 51 0 years since the passing of
the great prince, which resulted in various types of cornrnemorations, some filled
with piety, others replete with jubilation. Two events stand out, representing the
different, someti.rnes opposite understandings that Stephen’s irnage has received up
until the 21st century.
In 1 87 1 , the poet Mi.hai Eminescu encouraged Romanians to „transform Putna
[Monastery] into the Jerusalem of the Romanian people and the tomb of Stephen into
an altar of national consciousness.“3 Putna has become a site for pilgrin1ages and
impressive celebrations, a fact proven by the over 2,000 people4 who gathered at the
monastery on July 2, 2014. An anay of people arrived at the site of Stephen’s tomb,
ranging from clergy (the Metropolitan of Moldavia and Bucovina, archbishops and
bishops, accompanied by a !arge nurober of priests and deacons), administrative
officials, representatives of the police and local administration, to ordinary people
coming not only from Romania but also from the Republic of Moldova, many of
them dressed in traditional costumes. An uncommon arrival was staged by the
2 Mihaela Zamescu, „Petrecere Ia umbra statuii lui Stefan cel Mare“ (Celebration under the Statue
of Stephen tbe Great] Monitorul de Vaslui online at http://www.monitoruldevaslui.ro/20 1 5/07/
perrecere-la-umbra-statuii-lui-stefan-cel-mare-de-la-bacaoani.html (accessed: January 25, 20 16).
3 This advice was part of Mihai Eminescu’s speech at the first student congress in the honour of
Stephen the Great which was organised at Putna, betwcen the 1 4th and the 1 7th of August 1871.
See also: fnainte, impreunii. Programul Romania Junii 2030 [Forward, together. The Romania
Junii Programme 2030] (Bucharest: Visarta, 2012), 15-18 and 30-3 1 .
4 Neculai Roca, „Peste 2000 de credincioi, ieri, Ia Puma, de ziua pomenirii voievodului tefan cel
Mare“ [Over 2,000 Christians were present yesterday at Putna at Stephen the Great’s
commemoration] Obiectiv de Suceava (local online newspaper),
http://wwvi.obiectivdesuceava.ro/ locaUpeste-2-000-de-credinciosi-ieri-la-putua-de-ziuapomenirii-
voievodului-stefan-cel-mare-galerie-foto/ (accessed January 25, 20 16).
8
members of the Romani an Christian-Orthodox Student Association who, also dressed
in national costumes, travelled by foot from the city of Suceava to the Putna
Monastery.
Within the liturgy headed by His Holiness Teofan, the Metropalitau of
Moldavia and Bucovina, and aided by the Patriarchal Choir, the sermon performed by
His Holiness Teodosie, the Archbishop of Tomis, summed up the image of Stephen
today:
Prince Stephen the Great is truly a man chosen by God, he is the good ruler, the
brave, the one ful l of Iove and divine gifts, and in his 47 years of reign he
believed, prayed, fasted, and defeated . . . he respected his people and was
careful not to have traitors sell his country. He loved bis country, loved his
people, loved faith, because he knew that without faith, neither his country nor
his people would resist 5
The liturgy ended with military honours and a parade. After the military orchestra of
Suceava had performed several military and heroic hymns, flower garlands were laid
by Stephen‘ s tomb, guarded by an always-lit candle. The entire day then ended with
the members of the Romanian Christian-Orthodox Student Association who, late in
the night, lit the so-called „torches of gratitude,“ surrounded the monastery, and then
bowed by the tomb of the prince. 6
The feeling of devotion for the saintly and heroic prince was present all
throughout the celebrations of the 2″d of July. One could easily notice the pedestal on
which Stephen was metaphorically erected as a national hero and saint. However, a
very different type of glorification was seen one month later, when a camival was
staged by the shore of the Black Sea in which Stephen the Great had the main role.
Radu Mazlire, the then-mayor of the harbour city of Constanta is known to be a
flamboyant character who used to engage in the organisation of costumed camivals
(similar to those in Rio de Janeiro) where he placed hirnself as the main character. He
had already headed the camival impersonating historical characters such as Suleyman
the Magnificent, Emperor Caesar, or Louis XIV, but on August 2 he interpreted
Stephen the Great of Moldavia. The camival Started with a procession of chariots
throughout the city of Constanta, headed by the mayor’s chariot which, on this
occasion, was embellished with medieval Moldavian motifs: it bore on its front side
the Moldavian symbol of the ox, while a fake horse was placed on its cent:re which
the mayor mounted. Mazlire wore a red cloak, a golden gamished blouse with a !arge
cross on it, a moustache and a wig with lang hair, as weil as an imposing crown. He
5 See the extract from tbe sennon in: Daniela Micutariu, „Sfänrul Voievod tefan cel Mare,
särbätorit ieri, Ia Putna, de mii de credincioi“ [Saint Stephen the Great, celebrated yesterday at
Putna by thousands of Christians) Monitorul de Suceava (local online newspaper), http://
www. monitorulsv.ro/Local/20 14-07 -03/Sfanrul-Voievod-S tefan-ccl-Mare-sarbatorit-ieri-laPutna-
de-mii-de-credinciosi, (accessed January 25, 2016).
6 For a full presentation of the events, see: lbidem.
9
was accompanied by two acclaimed folk singers7 impersonating Prince Stephen’s
mother and Yräncioaia, the legendary old Iady who was said to have helped Stephen
win a battle.8 At the end of the procession, the „actors“ went up on a stage prepared
for the reproduction of several episodes of the prince’s life: the ultimaturn given by
Stephen’s mother to retum to the battle field and defeat the Ottomans; Stephen’s
meeting with Yräncioaia, but also with Hennit Daniil; a scene from the Ottoman
camp; a clash between the Otternans and the Moldavians. The entire enactment ended
with the mayor’s words: „This was Stephen the Great.“9
While the commemoration at Putna revealed the perception of Stephen from
the point of view of religion and national identity, the so-called Camival of Mamaia
revealed his perception from a lay and a political point of view. Firstly, with the
camival, Stephen was deprived of his saintly aura and introduced in the realm of
entertainment. Stephen ceased to be the receiver of prayers and gained a human side,
among sparkly camival chariots and club dancers. Moreover, he became the almost
explicit model for the mayor of Constanta. Radu Mazare stressed his high esteem for
the ruler: „What happened on stage was more than pious . . . I did not stay at the
camival dressed as Stephen the Great because he is a saint and I did not mean to
associate him with what the rest of the camival is about.“10 lndeed, it was for the first
time that the mayor did not remain on stage to watch the rest of the camival.
Moreover, the mayor’s description of his interpretation betrays an affinity to the
image of the great prince: „lt was an uplifting situatioo for me, as Ieader . . . lt [the
roJe] fits me, I must admit. If 1 had played a simple spahi, it would have probably
been more difficult, but I was able to play a Romanian Ieader very well.“11
Additionally, describing his costume, he clarified that the crown did not bother him at
all and that when he took it off, it „feit as if something was missing.“12 Needless to
say, the mayor’s words suggest that he identified hirnself with the image of the
imposing ruler. As implied by the mayor’s extravagant attitude and Statements,
7 lrina Loghin and Maria Carneci. See: Cosmin Vaideanu, „Primaml Radu Mazare 1-a interpretat pe
domnitoml $tefan cel Mare Ia carnavalul din Mamaia“ [Mayor Radu Mazare interpreted Prince
Stephen the Great at the Carnival of Mamaia), Mediafaxnews agencyhttp://www.mediafax.ro/sociallprimarul-
radu-mazare-l-a-interpretat-pe-domnitorul-stefan-cel-mare-la-camavalul-dinmamaia-
foto-13026134 (accessed January 25, 2016).
8 The legend which features Stephen the Great and Vräncioaia is set on the background of a battle
between the Moldavians and tbe Hungarians within the plains of Yrancea. Stephen was losing the
battle and took shelter atV räncioaia’s house who not only affered him food and a place to rest,
but who also affered her seven sons to aid Stephen in winning the battle. In the end, Stephen did
wiu the baule with the help of the Seven Brothers. See the versions of the legend in: $tefan ce/
Mare i Sfänt. Portret fn legendä [Saint Stephen the Great. Portrait in legends] (Suceava:
Muatinii, 2003), 185-197 (Bätälia din muntii Vrancei [The battle of the mountains ofVrancea))
and 231-234 (Povestea Vrancei [The story of Vrancea)).
9 Quoted in: Vaideanu, „Prin1arul Radu Mazare l-a interpretat pe domnitorul $tefan cel Mare.“
10 Ibidem.
11 Ibidem.
12 Ibidem.
10
Stephen’s crown could have been his own, just like Stephen’s role as Ieader could
have been his. Although Mazare’s entire staging was ostentatious and heavily
criticised, the association of Mazare with Stephen was a masked demonstration of
power, done through the image of Stephen the Great – just like Stephen had used the
image of iconic characters such as Constantine the Great or Alexander the Great, the
Ieaders of today seem to use the iconic image of Stephen hirnself in order to enhance
their own reputation.
Thus Stephen the Great is a model, not only for Ieaders, but for ordinary people
living in the Romanian territory. Stephen became omnipotent, omnipresent, and
received as many guises as one could imagine. His image was personified for as
many reasons as:
• Advettising campaigns: such as that of the ROM Chocolate, which, coupled with
the traditional Pegas bicycle brand, created the „Marea Unire Digitala“ (The Great
Digital Union) campaign which used the image of Stephen as promoter for a
digital „union“ between Romania and the Republic of Moldova (Fig. 1);
• Environmental causes: such as the placards used in the manifestations against the
construction of the gold mine at Roia Montana which hinted to Stephen the Great
and his legacy (Fig. 2);
• Art: in 2010, a vittual museum (unavailable online anymore) was created with
representations of Romanian cultural figW“es as caricatures made by over 1500
artists.13 A representation of Stephen the Great was also exhibited which showed
the prince counting his vict01ies against the Ottomans (Fig. 3);
• Nationalistic causes: the rather extreme online publication Ziarul Stefan cel Mare
[Stephen the Great Newspaper] whose slogan is „Unity, justice, brotherhood“14
states its purpose from the opening webpage: „A national, political, and
independent publication which rnilitates for the independence, suzerainty,
integrity, and reunification of Romania.“15
13 See the presentation of the exhibition: „Mari romäni, euro n u i-a1i mai vlizut“ [Great Romanians,
as you have never seen them before], Evenimentul Zilei online, http://www.evz.ro/mari-romanicum-
nu-i-ati-mai-vazut-897342.ht ml#ixzz2wluSzU9z (accessed: January 26, 20 16).
14 http://www.ziarulstefancelmare.ro/ (accessed: January 26, 2016).
15 lbidem.
I I
·3Cl & UVlW\E G&AtuiTA JM itE?UBLICA MllDUV l
ICICLit APEGAS.Ml}
Fig. I: One of thc advertisements used for the „Marea unire digitala“ campaign whcre one of
Stephen ’s most iconic images is used with the (marketing) purpose of uniting online the people of
Romania and Moldova. The campaign was initiated by the ROMChocolate l>rand and was aided by
the Pegas bicycle – both of them imbibed with national identity as they had both been produced for
nearly half a century. Image source: http://www.romautentic.ro/mareaunire/ (accessed: January 26,
2016).
12
Fig. 2: Placard used at a manifestation against the Roia Montanä Gold Corporation project. The
text says: „Roia Montanä is not yours. lt belongs to the followers of your followers.“ It hints to the
fictional speech of Stephen the Great written by the playwright Barbu tefänescu-Delavrancea:
„Moldavia did not belong to my forefathers, does not belong to me or to you, but belongs to your
followers and to the followers of your followers.“ (Barbu Stefänescu-Delavrancea, Teatru [Tbeatre)
(Bucharest: Minerva, I 983), 53). Image source: www.facebook.com (accesscd: January 26, 2016)
13
Fig. 3: Caricature of Stephen the Great counting bis battles against the Ottomans (20 I 0).
Image source and ©: Flemming Aabech
http://www.aabech.dk/index-s-ny.htm: „Karikaturer afrurmenske
personligheder“ 1 (acccssed: January 26, 20 16)
Stephen’s modern impersonations are however much more meaningful in the
Republic of Moldova, where both (pro-Romanian and pro-Moldovan) fractions
created after its declaration of independence have used Stephen the Great as proof for
their causes: as the conflicts between Stephen and the Wallachians were largely
speculated and interpreted, the prince became the great Moldovan and the means of
legitimisation for the newly-established state. 16
16 For a very concise presentation ofthe Moldovan version ofStephen’s myth, see: Virgil Päslariuc,
„Stefan cel Mare in bätälia politicä din Republica Moldova“ [Stephen the Great witbin the
political battle in the Republic of Moldova], Historia online version of the magazine
http://www. h istoria.ro/excl usiv _ web/generaVarticoVstefan-cel-mare-batalia-pol i tica-republ icamoldova,
last time accessed: January 26, 2016.
14
Furthermore, probably the most accurate perceptions of Stephen the Great
today are revealed by direct testimonies of everyday ordinary people. The twentiethcentury
guest books of Putna Monastery are filled with zealous remarks and
comments, 1 7 as the tvventy-first century comments continue in the same spirit of piety
and national identity, also revealing the mythical dimension of Stephen the Great. 18
Most comments are prayers to Stephen („Saint He1mit Daniil, Saint Stephen, ask the
Lord to forgive us, Amen!“ – Fig. 4), while others are thanking the prince for his
legacy („Thank you, Stephen the Great, for what you have given the Romanian
nation“- Fig. 5).
Fig. 4: „Saint Hermit Daniil, Saint Stephen, ask the Lord to forgive us, Amen!“
Guest book ofPutoa (August 2013). Image source: Teodora Artimon
Fig. 5: „Thank you, Stephen the Great, for what you have giveo the Romanian nation.“
Guest book ofPuma (September 2013).lmage source: Teodora Artimon
Some of them are written in lengthier expressions of devotion, others in short
but telling assertions. A man who signed hirnself as simply „Cristi“ made a just as
simple (but conclusive) afft1mation: „Without Stephen, we would have been a vile
weak nation .“ (Fig. 6) The visitor changed his mind and decided to !essen the
dramatic comment by replacing the word „vile“ with the word „weak.“
Fig. 6: „Without Stephen, we would bave been a ‚t’He weak nation.“
Guest book ofPuma (August 2013). Image source: Teodora Artimon
17 See: Monah Alexie Cojocaru, „The guest books of the Puma Monaslery. Betweeo history and
etemity,“ Analeie Putnei 1 (2007), 181-212.
18 All extracts which will be presented are dated August and September 2013 and were collected by
the author of this study.
15
Many comments recall the pride of being the followers of Stephen (“ . . . proud
to be Romanian – a foliower of Stephen“ – Fig. 7), while others attest a lifelong
desire to visit the burial place of the prince: „l wished, ever since I was a child, to
retum once more to Putna and to the tomb of the Great Stephen. My wish has finally
come true . . .“ (signed by Valentin, 53 years old [Fig. 8]).
Fig. 7: “ . . . proud to be Romanian – a foliower of Stephen.“ Guest book of Putna (August 20 13)
Image source: Teodora Artimon
A aJt. f{ d..c ‚(OJ)‘>1
o“-:c: f�“ „“-C>“i’v..“.-.\J
k.-: ,…z. · ,d: . .. VH. \ cn • ßcW\c;� ( t:; ,…;)
Fig. 8: „I wished, ever since I was a child, to retum once more to Putna and to the tomb of the Great
Stephen. My wish has finally come true . . .“ Guest book ofPuma (August 2013).
Image source: Teodora Artimon
A type of sublime admiration is also attested in many comments: „I nomish a
great respect and boundless Iove for the one who was the prince of Moldavia, Saint
Stephen the Great“ (Fig. 9).
{1,1 ($. //1′</-r• &�ü.-..4 / .,-.-t’P’/..k:“ jt:iUu“
rr tA:c/1.= ;dP/41.-‚4’i ,/#‘.. ,:p;; l Al I aa..· r.:… ‚
ttlifii:Jf‘.ti.);t /Jll/t/ ;ied-; I; UN’�•.-v
;.4 ve/ #· .1-· ec-r • '“ •
cpdl/-t A614;4�
Fig. 9: “ . . . I nourish great respect and bowtdless Iove for the one who was the prince ofMoldavia,
Saint Stephen the Great.“
Guest book of Putna (August 2013). Image source: Teodora Artimon
16
Fig. I 0: „Let us NOT forget the past!“ Guest book ofPutna (August 2013).
Image source: Teodora Artimon
Nevertheless, the most important aspect perceivable in the comrnents is the
encouragement that the past should live on through Stephen’s legacy („Let us NOT
forget the past!“ (Fig. 10), as well as the explicit confirmation through the visitors‘
eyes that Stephen is still recognised as a genuine mythical hero.
There are two indicators of Stephen’s mythical perception in the extracts of
Putna. The first one is perceived through the verses of Adrian Päunescu’s poem
Juramimt Ia Putna [A Vow at Putna] which is often encountered in the comments
(„Rise up, Stephen, and behold your sons/Because the times are hard/Forever faith to
our Fatherland!We vow, Your Highness“- Fig. 11).
Fig. I I: „Rise up, Stephen, and behold your sons/Because the times are hard/Forever faith to our
Fatherland/We vow, Your Highness.“
Guest book of Putna (August 20 13). Image source: Teodora Artimon
The second one is observed through free-written comments which embody the
entire sphere of Stephen’s celebrated charactetistics as hero-saint:
• Putna will always represent for me a true legend on the path of the prince we
would like to follow.“ (Fig. 12)
1 l’to t.b:. .“l‘;,c.. . otYi“nt 0 !t.(‚fiö owlö (Ji fl>e I‘ (WU/ • jOI’W, (‚thl \IJ .(O • ,., ‚
Fig. 12: „Putna will always represent for me a true legend on the path ofwhose prince we would
like to follow.“ Guest book of Putna (August 20 13). Image source: Teodora Artimon
• „Wonderful! We miss Prince Stephen the Great to unite our nation and guide it
towards truth, faith, and prosperity. Thank you, Stephen!“ (Fig. 13)
17
Fig. 13: „Wonderful! We miss Prince Stephen the Great to unite our nation and guide it towards the
truth, faith, and prosperity. Thank you, Stephen!“ Guest book ofPutna (August 2013).
Image source: Teodora Artimon
• „A dead epoch? A controversial ruler? Not at all! He was a providential
personality of the past, present, and future Romanian nation, joined in
perfection. Saint Stephen is watehing over us and is asking God to have the
necessary patience and wisdom to be able to move the rock of faithlessness,
oblivion, and indolence.“ (fig. 14)
Fig. 14: „A dead epoch? A controversial ruler? Not at a11! He was a providential personality of the
past, present, and future Romaniao nation, joioed in perfection. Saint Stephen is watehing over us
and is asking God to have the oecessary patience and wisdom to be able to move the rock of
faithlessness, oblivion, and indolence.“Guest book of Puma (August 2013). Image source: Teodora
Artimon
• “ . . . we cherish history for the immortality of our true heroes.“ (Fig. 15)
11\w.f;“‚-: .::. o4.h<•G‘ • <J!<.t ..
e/4M’fo „( I ‚\ i“ lo.e tiW. A cW
..h-cnt ,.,lof�.��. , I
,(OJ
Fig. 15: „We are real Romaoians, true Christians, we Iove our history and people. We cherisb
history for the immonality of our tnte heroes.“ Guest book ofPuma (August 20 1 3).
Image source: Teodora Artimon
• „Glory to the heroes of om nation! Saint Stephen the Great!“ (Fig. 16)
1 8
Fig. 16: „Glory to the heroes of our nation! Saint Stephen the Great!“
Guest book ofPutna (August 2013). Image source: Teodora Animon
• „History is always calling us, i n those holy places, in order to see who we were
and how capable our forefathers were. God bless all those who laid a brick on
the foundation of this countly. Sleep in peace, Saint Stephen the Great!“ (Fig.
17)
Fig. 17: „History is always calling us, in those holy places, in order to sce who we were and how
capable our forefathers were. God bless all those who laid a brick on the foundation of this country.
Sleep in peace, Saint Stephen the Great!“ Guest book of Putna (August 2013 ). Image source:
Teodora Artimon
• „We came here 1ooking for God and we enjoyed all the memories and heroic
acts of Stephen the Great. We leave in hope that his [Stephen’s] spirit still
dwells in us and [ we hope] that his memory will forever exist in my [ our]
minds and souls“ (Fig. 18)
1 9
·
Fig. 18: „We came here looking for God and we enjoyed all the memories and heroic acts of
Stephen the Great. We leave in bope tbat his (Stepben’s] spirit still dwells in us and [we hope] that
bis memory will forever exist in my [our] minds and souls.“ Guest book of Putna (August 2013).
Image source: Teodora Artiman
Stephen’s spirit still dwells in the existence of today’s Romanians. Whether he
is the impersonation of the liberating saint, of the perfect hero, or of the genuine
Romanian, one fact is certain: his myth has been blooming for over 500 years, not
ceasing to gain new and outstanding attributes. The beginning of this mythical
process will be explored in the following, focusing on Prince Stephen’s and bis
immediate successors‘ methods to enhance his image. How can the mythical genesis
for the character known today as „Stephen the Great ofMoldavia“ be characterised?
20
II The man and bis reign
Before being a myth, Stephen was a man. He was bom semetime between
1437 and 1439 19 when, as Constantin C. Giurescu observed, Mo1davia entered „the
most beautiful period in its entire history.“20 A1though little is known about the
ruler’s early years, it is certain that he was the son of Bogdan II and probably the
grandson of Alexander the Good.21 In 1450, his name appeared for the first time in an
official document next to the title of voivode/prince: on the II th of February, Bogdan
11 associated his son to the throne in a document which vowed loyalty to the
Hungarian Kingdom‘ s govemor, John Hunyadi.22 One year later, Bogdan ll was
murdered forcing Stephen to flee – his whereabouts between this date to the time of
his enthronement are unclear. The soon-to-be ptince might have taken refi.tge in either
19 The exact date of the ruler’s birth can only be estimated. Various dates have been proposed, the
most probable being the 1437-1439 interval. See: Leon Simanschi, „Fom1area personalitäii lui
Stefan cel Mare“ (The Formation of Stephen the Great’s Personality], in $tefan ce/ Mare i Sfdnt
– Porrret in Istarie ( Saint Stephen the Great – Historical Portrait), ed. Maria Magdalena Szekely
and Stefan S. Gorovei (Putna: Muatinii, 2003), 36 and Stefan S. Gorovei and Maria Magdalena
Szekely, Princeps Omni Laude Maior. 0 istorie a lui $tefan ce/ Mare [Princeps Omni Laude
Maior. A History of Stephen the Great) (Putna: Muatioii, 2005), 10-1 1 .
2° Constantin C. Giurescu, Istoria romdnilor din cele mai vechi timpuri pdnii Ia moartea rege/ui
Ferdinand [The History of the Romanians from the Oldest Times to the Death of King
Ferdinand] (Bucharest: Humanitas, 2000), 139. 21 The ascendance of Bogdan II is uncenain: he may have been eilher the son of Alexander the
Good bimself or the son of Alexander’s brother, therefore Alexander’s nephew. See: Gorovei and
Szekely, Princeps Omni laude Maior, 9.
22 Documente moldovene·ti inainte de $tefan cel Mare [Moldavian doclllnents dated before the time
of Stephen the Great) ll, ed. Mihai Costächescu (Iai: Viata Romäneascä, 1932), document no.
220; 75 1 .
21
John Hunyadi’s Transylvania, in Ylad the Impaler’s Wallachia/3 or even on the
territ01y ofthe Ottoman Empire.24
Stephen’s first act recorded after 1451 materialised in 1457 when he entered
Moldavia with about 6,000 people gathered from Lower Moldavia and Wallachia?5
Peter lii Aron, the man behind the execution of Bogdan U and the current ruler of
Moldavia, was the target of Stephen’s army. The battle was fought on April 12 at
Doljeti and resulted in the dethronement of Peter Aron, who escaped to Po land. It
was thus assumed that the enthronement of the new ruler, Stephen Ill, was made
somewhere close to the battlefield, in a place known in chronicles as Direptate:
And Prince Stephen gathered the great and small boyars and tagether with the
Metropolitan Teoctist and many monks, at the place called Direptatea; and they
were all asked: do you all agree that he be your ruler? They all called out in
one voice: May you rule for many years.26
Nevertheless, the supposition that the coronation took place on a field rather than in a
princely church, as required by liturgical tradition, is improbable.27 It is more likely
that the enthronement ceremony headed by the Metropoliran Teoctist I took place in
the fonner capital of Moldavia, close to the princely palace of Siret, in the Church of
the Holy Trinity.28 Thus on Aplil 1 2, 1457, Stephen inherited (or gained) an
unbalanced and weak Moldavia. Since the death of Prince Alexander the Good in
23 Only hypotheses can be formulated about the whereabouts of Stephen during this period, the one
regarding Stephen’s stay at the court ofVlad the lmpaler being the most plausible one (argued by
historians from A.D. Xenopol to Maria Magdalena Szekely). See, for instance: Stefan S.
Gorovei, Muatinii (The Mushatin Dynasty) ( Chiinäu: Columna, 1991), 56.
24 Stepben’s anti-Ottoman policies and alignment with the anti-Ottoman crusades, should not
exclude a possible flee of young Stephen to the Ottoman Empire!
25 „Prince Stephen, a son of Prince Bogdan, then came with a small army, with Wallachians, with
the lower Iands, having about 6000 people.“ See: „Cronica Moldo-Polona“ (The MoldavianPolish
Chronicle), in Stefan ce/ Mare i Sfiint. Portret fn cronica [Saint Stephen the Great.
Portraits in chronicles) (Suceava: Muatinii, 2004), 22. (henceforth: „The Moldavian-Polish
Chronicle“).
26 Grigore Ureche, Letopiseful Tiirii Moldovei [The Chronicle of Moldavia), ed. Dan Horia Mazilu
(Bucharest: Gramar, 2009), 35 (henceforth: Ureche, The Chronicle of Moldavia). The account of
Ureehe is a later, seventeenth-century description. Contemporary sources describe the events in
less detail: „Afterwards, the entire country was gathered with the Metropolitan Teoctist and he
anointed him for the throne, on the River Siret, in a place named until today Dereptate.“ See:
„Letopisetul de Ia Putna !“ [The Chronicle of Putna 1], in Stefan ce/ Mare §i Sfiint. Portret fn
cronica, 30. (henceforth : „The Chronicle of Putna !“).
27 The error of this hypothesis led to the misinterpretation and mistranslations of the chronicles. See:
Constantin Rezachevici, Cronologia critica a domnilor din Tara Romaneascii §i Maidova (A
critical chronology of the mlers of Wallachia and Moldavia) (Bucharest: Enciclopedica, 2001),
537-538.
28 Dan loan Murean, „Teoctist I i ungerea dornneascä a lui Stefan cel Mare·• [Teoctist I and the
princely anointment of Stepheo the Great), in Romiinii in Europa Medievala: fnlre orientu/
bizantin §i occidemul /atin [ Romanians in Medieval Europe: Between the Byzantine East and the
Latin West) (Braila: lstros, 2008), esp. 341-343.
22
1432, the principality had gone through a hectic period which weakened authority.
The new ruler managed to guide the principality into a thriving period, leaving
behind the politically unstable times marked by a series of rapidly-changing reigns
approved only by noble parties?9 Seeking to disperse boyar power, Stephen
employed a series of methods (including !arge executions) meant to suppress their
control – as the Polish Jan Dlugosz described, „through his harshness and
righteousness, leaving no crime unpunished, he made them [the boyars] obey all his
orders.“30
A simple division of Stephen’s rei was made by the historians Maria
Magdalena Szekely and Stefan S. Gorovei. 1 It outlines three time slots: the 1457-
1473 period, corresponding to the beginning and the stabilisation of the reign; the
Great Policy ( 1 4 73-1486), referring to the period of highest economical and military
growth; and the Great Prayer (1486-1 504), relating to the time of the numerous
church and monastic commissions.
Beginnings
Three events should be highlighted when discussing the first period: the
conquest of the Chilia fortress, the conflict with the Hungarians at Baia, and the
beginning of the conflict with the Wallachian prince.
Stephen the Great launched his reign with a series of military interventions in
Hungarian territory. Following his defeat, Peter Aron fled to Poland and then to the
Hungarian Kingdom, where Stephen entered to capture him, as he still represented a
threat to his throne.32 Although Peter Aron could not be captured, Stephen did not
cease his attacks on the Hungarians. The boldest offensive took place in 1462 when
the prince tried to conquer the fortress of Chilia, which was at the time under
29 For more on the political siruation sunounding the corooatiou of Stephen the Great, see: Leon
$imaoschi and Dumitru Agache, „Insdiunarea lui $tefan cel Mare: preliminarii i consecinte
( 1 450-1460)“ [The Enthronement of Stephen the Great: Preliminaries and Consequences (1450-
1 460)], in :jtefan cel Mare i Sfant. Portret fn istorie [Saint Stephen the Great. Historical Portrait)
(Suceava: Muatinii, 2003).
3° Cu/egere de documente privind istoria romani/or. Secolele XIV-XVI [Collection of Documents
regardiog the History of the Romanians. FoUiteenth-Sixteenth Centuries], ed. Adioa BerciuDraghicescu
and Liliana Trofin (Bucharest: Editura Universitätii Bucureti, 2006), 180.
(heneceforth: Culegere de documente privind istoria romanilor).
31 The two historians outlined this periodisation in their most recent monograph of Stephen the
Great. See: Gorovei and Szekely, Princeps Omni Laude Maior.
32 Peter Aron sought help at the court of the Hungarian King Mattbias Corvinus, where he was
campaigning for the king’s aid to support hi.m regain the Moldavian throne. On the 51h of June
1461 however, Stephen tried a failed attack on Peter in Transylvania. See: „Letopisetul de Ia
Putna Il“ (The Chronicle of Putna II), in :jtefan cel Ma re :ji Sfant. Portret fn cronica, 33.
(henceforth: „The Chronicle ofPutna II“).
23
Hungarian and Wallachian contro1.33 The attack was unsuccessful and the ruler’s
ankle was badly wounded34 – a wound which would affect bis health throughout his
entire life.35 Tbe successful conquest of tbe Chilia fortress was possible only tbree
years later, an event which augered the Hungarian king, Mattbias Corvinus, who
„could not stand to be failed and disregarded by Stephen.“36 As a consequence,
Mattbias entered Moldavia aiming to deth.rone Stephen and give the reign back to
Peter Aron. In December 1467, the two armies clashed by tbe town of Baia. Wbile
both sides were severly damaged, Stephen seems to have won the battle/7 while King
Matthias was injured in the back by an arrow and forced to withdraw.38 While the
Battle of Baia ended most of the Moldavian-Hungarian dissentions, Stephen did not
abandon the idea of capturing Peter Aron. He seems to have created a setup39 for
Peter in order to attract him back to Moldavia. Once he retumed to Moldavia, he was
„welcomed“ by Stephen‘ s mmy and Bogdan l l’s deatb was avenged with his
decapitation.
The conflict with the Wallachian prince Started during the first part of Stepben
reign, in 1469, and Iasted for over ten years. Radu tbe Fair, the ruler of Wallachia,
was an ally of the Ottoman Empire – m a fact which Stephen disliked. Stephen
wanted to replace Radu with a ruler with wbom he would collaborate in bis antiOttoman
endeavours, and to eventually transfotm Wallacbia into a „Moldavian
bastion.“40 Tbe competition for the seat of Wallachia was full of twists as Radu the
Fair was dethroned several times and replaced witb Basarab Laiota, the ruler
appointed by Stephen. As a matter of fact, the intervention of Stephen in Wallachia
was so intense that the Wallachian chronicle, Letopisefu/ Cantacuzinesc, recorded
33 „In Lhe month of July, the 22″d day, Prince Stephen came in front ofChilia and could not conquer
it.“ See: „Cronica Moldo-Polona“ [The Moldavian-Polish Chronicle], in $tefan cel Mare $i Sfänt.
Portret fn cronicii [Saint Stephen the Great. Portraits in chronicles] (Suceava: Muatinii, 2004),
22. (henceforlh: „The Moldavian-Gem1an Chronicle“).
34 “ . . . he was shot on his left ankle and then he left Chilia.“ See: lbidem.
35 lronically, in a cyclic symbolism, one might argue that the wound gained in the first important
battle led by Stephen the Great was also the wound which eventually led to his death.
36 Jan Dlugosz about the battle of Baia in Culegere de documente privind istoria romanilor, 1 8 1 .
3 7 Many debates have been raised conceming the outcome o f the battle of Baia with some historians
arguing that the Moldavians won the battle and others arguing that the Hungarians did. See the
history of the debates in: Alexandru Simon, „Valahii Ia Baia. Regatul Ungariei, Domnia
Moldovei i lmperiul Otoman in 1 467 (The Wallachs in Baia. The Kingdom of Hungary, the
Rule of Moldavia and the Ottoman Empire in 1467),“ Anuarul lnstitutului de Istarie „A.D.
Xenopo/“ 46 (2009): 127-150.
38 „Then King Mattbias was shot by two arrows wbich he took with him out of the country.“ See:
„The Moldavian-German Ch.ronicle,“ 23.
39 Although Lhe theory is still under debate, it seems that some of Stephen’s boyars, prctending that
they were not satisfied with the new mler, wrote a fakc Ietter to Peter Aron, asking him to retum
and to retake his righteous place as the prince of Moldavia. See: Gorovei and Szekely, Princeps
Omni Laude Maior, 74.
40 See: Florin Constantiniu, 0 istorie sincerä a poporului romein [An Honest History of the
Romanians] (Bucharest: Univers Encicopedic Gold, 2010), 1 10.
24
that „the old Stephen of the Moldavian country . . . stood here 111 the country
[Wallachia] and ruled for sixteen years.“41
Conjlicts
During the period described as the Great Policy, the conflict with Radu the Fair
and Wallachia continued. Stephen the Great entered Wallachia accompanied by
Basarab Laiotä and provoked the military reply of Radu in 1473. The Wallachian was
defeated and lost his throne, as weil as bis wife and daughter42 who were taken into
Moldavian captivity, but he retumed one month later and removed Basarab Laiotä
from his seat. Nevertheless, Stephen defeated Radu once more, although the latter
was aided by an Ottoman am1y comprised of about 19,000 soldiers.43 Nevertheless,
this ever-lasting enthronement-dethronement game with Radu the Fair44 fades away
when compared to the events most eloquently identified with the Great Policy period:
Moldavia’s relationship with the Ottoman Empire.
In 1474, Basarab Laiotä, once more the prince of Wallachia, allied with the
Ottomans and broke his fidelity to Stephen. Laiotä, like most Wallachian mlers,45
understood that in order to keep the seat of the principality he had t<> concede to the
sultan, as such a small piece of land as Wallachia could not rival the Ottoman
Empire. Seemingly, Stepben was the only one who believed that Wallachia could
withstand the Ottoman power and this resulted in one of the main reasons for the
beginning of the Ottoman-Moldavian conflict. There were several crucial causes
which animated Sultan Mehmed II’s anger towards the Moldavia: Stephen the
Great’s endless interference in Wallachia; his refusal to pay Moldavia’s tribute to the
Ottoman Empire; and the conquest of the Chilia fortress, the port by the Danube,
which the Ottomans wanted attached to their empire.46 The tension between the
41 Cronicari munteni [Wallachian Chroniclers] I, ed. Mihail Gregorian (Bucharest: Minerva, 1984),
55.
42 Radu’s daughter, Maria Yoichita, was thus a prisoner at the Court of Suceava, only to later on
become Stephen ’s third wife, the mother ofthe heir to the throne, Bogdan TH.
43 The Moldavian-German Chronicle recalls that Radu’s army was formcd of 1 3,000 Ottomans and
6,000 Wallachians. See: „The Moldavian-German Chronicle,“ 24.
44 A l l contemporary chronicles present the conflict between Stephen the Grcat and Radu the Fair.
The most detailed however is „The Moldavi.an-German Chronicle.“ See the entire entry on this
conflict in: Ibidem, 24-25.
45 Basarab Laiotä was not the only one whom Stephen appointed prince of Wallachia but who
politically berrayed him by allying with the Ottoman Empire. See: Ileana Cazan and Eugen
Denize, Marile pweri i spafiul romiinesc fn secolele XV-XVI [The Great Powers and the
Romanian Space in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries] (Bucharest: Editura Universitätii din
Bucureti, 2001), 73-74.
46 These reasons were the engine for the beginning of the war between Moldavia and the Ottoman
Empire. After the defeat of the Wallachian Prince Radu thc Fair, the Sultan, already tired of
Stephen’s „misbehaviour,“ reacted quickly and violently. For a thorough explanation of the
factors involved in the Ottoman-Moldavian conflict, see: Ileana Cazan and Eugen Denize, Marile
25
Empire and Moldavia grew, but before an attack on Stephen’s principality, the sultan
gave him an ultimaturn to pay his tribute. Alk Paazade recalled how
the sultan, with the help of Allah almighty, after he subdued the vilayets of all
the unfaithful beys, he called the ruler of Moldavia to the Porte and told him:
„This time you will bring yourself the tribute, just like the tribute from the
Wallachian vilayet is brought, and you will be with us just like the bey of
Wallachia is, so that we know in which way you live with us.“ With these
words the unfaithful was summoned, but he did not come and did not even take
account of them [ the sultan‘ s words]. 47
Unsw-prisingly, as Stephen neglected the sultan’s ultimatum, the attack on Moldavia
was inevitable. lt came in January 1475. The Ottoman a1my, fonned of about 120.000
people as Maciej Stryjkowski estimated, plus a Wallachian army, headed by Paa
Suleyman, was sent towards Moldavia in the winter of 1474. Based on the same
estimation of Stryjkowski, Stephen had an atmy of around 40,000 people, to which
an uncertain nurober of Polish soldiers were added together with 5,000 Szeklers and
1 ,800 Hungatians sent by King Matthias.48 The numbers of the participants to the
battle must have been highly exaggerated on both sides but it is nonetheless certain
that there was a significant discrepancy berween the two military forces. Being
outnumbered, Stephen bumt the southem pa11 ofMoldavia thus destroying all sources
of subsistence.49 lt was under these circumstances that the Ottoman army, tired and
hungry,50 entered Stephen ’s principality in February 1475. The prince made sure that
pureri i spaJiul romänesc in secolele XV-XVI [The Great Powers and the Romanion Space in the
Fifteenth and Sixteenth Cenhlries} (Bucharest: Editura Universitätii din Bucureti, 200), 70-74.
47 A$ik Paa Zade in Eugen Denize, Romänii illlre Leu $i Semilunii. Rela{iile turco-venefiene $i
influenta lor asupra spafiului romänesc. Secolele XV-XVI [The Romanian between the Lion and
the Crescent Moon. The Ottoman-Venetian Relations and their Influence on the Romanian
Space. Fifteenth-Sixteenth Centuries] (Tärgovi$le: Ceratea dc Scaun, 2009), 134.
48 The numbers of the soldiers were estimated by Maciej Stryjkowski. See: Maciej Stryjkowski,
„Kronika Polska,“ in Stefan cel Mare $i Sfänt. Portret in cronicii, 1 94.
49 ln the context ofthe conflict between the Ottoman Empire and the Danubian Principalities, Florin
Constantiniu describes what he calls a medieval „asymmenic conflict,“ which refcrs to the clash
bctween two numerically unequal armies. Constantiniu discusses the strategy used by the
principalities in this type of conflict – always a defensive strategy, focused on a tactic meant to
discourage the Ottoman conquest. This tactic implied avoiding an open-field battle and
preventing the enemy from using its numerical and technical superiority. A demographical and
economical void would be created by evacuating the population and destroying!burning the crops
and houses located on the path of the enemies. The military groups that would detach from the
main anny in search for food, would be hit by surprise by the Ylach. This harassment ofthe
enemy therefore not simply meant its weakening by not giving rhem access to food and shelter,
but also meant the demoralisation of the people who would feel insecure. See more: Florin
Constantiniu, 0 istorie sincerii a poporului romän [An Honest History of the Romanians]
(Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic Gold, 201 0), 87-93.
50 „The lslamic army was weak because it had gone through the expedition against Alexandria.“
See: Mehmed Neri, in $tefan cel Mare i Sfänt. Portret in cronicii, 264. See also: Szekely and
Gorovei, Princeps Omni Laude Maior, 1 1 3 .
26
the battle would not take place in an open field, but in a territory that would
advantage him. The valley of the Bärlad River, close to the fortress of Vaslui, was a
narrow space where the Ottoman arrny could not unfold. The benefits of the site were
enhanced by the bad weather conditions which had a visible impact on the Ottoman
arrny.51 The arrnies collided there, Stephen hirnself entering the battle52 as the
Ottomans were flanked within the valley. They seem to have been chased from the
valley, as sources attest that a significant number of Ottoman soldiers died while
many others were taken prisoners:
. . . but there were those [of the Ottoman anny] who were not used to fighting
and got tired … They were looking for the chance to run away, and when they
had the opportunity, they scattered away and they were what caused the defeat.
Leaving the battle and the slaughter, they ran and they did not Iook back. There
was no way to do that [to Iook back]. They stepped on each other as if they
were a herd of sheep and the brave ones could not fight anymore. Suleyman
Paa could not gather in one place the soldiers who were spreading away . . . 53
The battle, known as the Battle of Vaslui, was a resonating success often reflected in
the voices of the time, as well as in Stephen the Great’s memorable Ietter to the
Western Ieaders which described the confrontation and asked for help in the
imminent reply of the Ottomans – a help which never came.
Although the Moldavians were successful at Vaslui and „took the sword in
their hands and, with the help of God, went over them, stepped on them [the
Ottomans] and took them through their spears,“54 the Ottoman reply came promptly.
This time, the suJtan himself, Mehmed II, was leading the arrnies. The Ottomans had
conquered earlier in the year the Khanate of Crimea, so at the time of the attack on
Moldavia, in July 1476, the sultan had additional help from the Tartars, who attacked
Moldavia from the N01th, while he was charging from the South.55 While Mehmed
advanced with his numerous arm/6 – among whom, also the men ofLaiotä Basarab57
51 “ . . . it was a very difficult winter. Because of the cold, the army could not resist and suffered a
defeat.“ See: Mehmed Neri, in !jtefan cel Mare $i Sfänt. Portret fn cronicii, 264.
52 “ . . . all the formations . . . were defeated by the Turks and a great danger was threatening them,
until Stephen jumped hirnself in the middle ofthe Turks.“ See: Jan Dlugosz, „Historia Polonica,“
in Stefan cel Mare $i Sfänt. Portret fn cronicii, 164.
53 The Ottoman chronicler Tevarih-1 Ali-1 Osman on the Battle of Yaslui in Culegere de documente
privind istoria romänilor, ed. Adina Berciu-Dräghicescu and Liliana Trofin, 183.
54 From the Lener of Stephen to the Christian rulers after the Yaslui victory (25 January 1475) in
lstoria Romäniei in texte [The Romanian History in Texts], ed. Bogdan Murgescu (Bucharest:
Corint, 2001), 136.
55 „But Stephen was not frightened by these two powerful enemies, meaning the Tartars and the
Turks, who, with remarkable armies, raided over Moldavia almost at the same time.“ See: Jan
Dlugosz, „Historia Polonica,“ 169-170.
56 Tbe Moldavian-German Chronicle estimated that about 200,000 men comprised tbe Sultan’s
army, although the number may be exagerrated. „The Moldavian-Getman Chrouicle,“ 26.
57 “ . . . the Turkish tsar himself, uamed Mehmed-beg, came with all bis power together with Prince
Basarab.“ See: „Letopisetul anonim al Moldovei“ [The Anonymaus Chrouicle of Moldavia], in
27
– Stephen faced the discontent of his own men who were eager to go back Notth to
their Iands and defend their households against the Tartar attack. Consequently,
Stephen allowed his men to retum to their homes for two weeks. This led to the
unfortunate outcome that at the time of the clash with the Ottoman am1y, the prince
stood without the largest part of his army.58 The battle was fought at a site called
Valea Alba (Razboieni), and Stephen with his few men was defeated. Stephen
retreated and the sultan headed towards the seat of Moldavia, Suceava, but could not
conquer it and eventually retumed to Istanbul.59 Altogether, the Battle of Valea Alba
was a military failure for Moldavia, but at the same time it was a political success,
because the prince remained on his seat and the principality was not transformed into
a paalfc. 60
The last significant event which took place during the so-called Great Policy
period was the conquest of Stephen’s two most-cherished fortresses: Chilia and
Cetatea Alba (Akkerman). The two fortresses, essential tradin points in the Black
Sea region, were what may be called the „gates and the keys“ 1 of Western trading
into the East. Furthermore, they were the only missing pieces for the Ottoman Empire
to close the Black Sea and have full control over it. Sultan Bayezid ll eventually
made the decisive move and seiged the fortresses.62 Chilia was conquered after a tenday
sief:e in July 1484 and Cetatea Alba was conquered shortly afterwards, in
August. 3
Stefan ce/ Mare $i Sfmc t. Porrret fn cronicii, 17. (benceforth: „Anonymous Chronicle of
Moldavia“).
58 Stepben allowed his men to go back and defend their bomes for 1 5 days after which tbey were to
retum to tbc battlefield. Therefore, at the time of the battle, hc was only accompanied by his
boyar army, formed of about 10.000 to 1 2.000 men. See: Gorovei and Szekely, Princeps Omni
/aude Maior, 154.
59 „Tben the Turks killcd all thc army of Prince Stephen . . . so that he escaped with a few men. And
they bumt almost the entire country but they could not conquer any fortress.“ See: „Tbe
Moldavian-German Chronicle,“ 26.
6° Florin Constantiniu sbows the Battle of Valea Alba as a perfect example for thc asymmetric
military conflict. A conflict involving an expedition ofthe Sultan with a numerous anny in which
the Ottomans were victorious, but could not take advantage of its undoubtful superiority to gain a
political success: the dethronement of Stephen the Great. See: Constantiniu, 0 istorie sincerii a
poporu/ui romiin, 88-89 and 1 1 2.
61 Gorovei and Szekely, Princeps Omni Laude Maior, 222. 62 One of the most thorough descriptions of the campaign, which also incorporates the Ottoman
preparations, was written by Mevläna Mehmed Neri. See in: Stefan cel Mare $i Sfiint. Portret fn
cronicä, 258-260. Nevertheless, the account written by Ibn Kemal in his Teviirih-Al-i Osman.
VIll. Defter is even more detailed than that of Mebmcd Neri. See its presentation in: Nagy
Pienaru, Ovidiu Cristea, „Campania otomanli din 1484. Marturia lui Ibn Kemal – The Ottoman
Campaign in Moldavia ( 1 484). Ibn Kemal’s Testimony,“ Analeie Putnei 1 (20 1 2): 43-58.
63 Moreover, during this one-month period, Stephen seemed to have lost not only Chilia and
Akkennan, but up to six ports by the Black Sea (Chilia, Licostomo, Cetatea Alba, Cetatea
Neagril., Sevastopole and Ilice), which made the economical, military and, quite importantly, the
psychological impact on the princc even greater. See details on the conquest and its
28
The conquest had a strong impact on Stephen ’s transition from the Great
Policy period to the Great Prayer period, as the two fo rtresses had a unique
emotional relevance for him. The results of the Ottoman campaign were disastrous:
Chilia and Akkerman were conquered along with the entire Moldavian coast,
allowing half of the urban Moldavian population to fa ll under Ottoman occupation.64
Moreover, returning to Suceava after the unfortunate events, the court did not resume
its duties until two years later at the end of the summer of 1486,65 leading to
speculation that the prince had lost his throne. 66 The prince however remained on his
throne and made efforts to regain stability and even re-conquer the lost fortre sses.67
When he eventually realised that his efforts were ineffective, he lost his Iang-lasting
„obsession“68 for them and redirected his energy towards intemal issues and grand
church and dynastic-building programmes. This was the positive aspect of losing the
fortresses: it opened the path towards new initiatives, leading to the mpture between
the Great Policy and Great Prayer period.69
consequences in: Alexandru Simon, „Naples, Milan and the Moldavian Question in the Summer
of 1484: New Documents,“ Studii $i Materiale de lstorie Medie 24 (2008): 177-196.
64 Alexandru Simon, „Chilia i Cetatea Alba in vara anului 1484. Noi documente din arhivele
italiene“ (Naples, Milan and the Moldavian Question in the Summer of 1484: New ltalian
Document s), Studii i Ma teriale de /s torie Medie 26 (2008): 178.
65 Gorovei and Szekely, Princeps Omni Laude Maior, 22 1. 66
Simon, “ aples, Milan and the Moldavian Question in the Summer of 1484: new Documents,“
179 and 191.
67 There are at least two documents which stand as proof for this. Firstly, Giovanni Dario
documented that after the conflict, Stephen had rerumed to Suceava and caused numerous
disorders (see: 22 Dispacci da Constantinopoli al doge Giovanni Mocenigo, ed. Giuseppe Calo
and Alvise Zorzi (Yenice: Corbo e Fiore, 1992), 174), suggesting that the prince was trying to reconquer
lost territories. Secondly, a Yenetian report from the Ottoman Empire reproduced in
May 1485 a dialogue between a Moldavian ambassador to the Porte and a Pasha, which took
place in lstanbul after the taking of Chilia and Akkerman. Stephen Iransmitted through his
ambassador the infonnation that he would refuse to pay thc rribute to thc Empire until he was
returned the two fortresses which were rightfully his. The Ottoman refused, arguing that „quelle
duy te!Te stavano meglio in mano del Gran Turcho“ (“ … the rwo cities were bctter in the hands of
the Great Turk.“) See: Nagy Pienaru, „Moldova i Imperiul Otoman. Solia lui tefan cel Mare
din 1485“ [Moldavia and the Ottoman Empire. The messenger of Stephen the Great from 1485],
in Puma. Ctitorii ei $i lumea lor (Puma. lts ktetors and thcir world) (Bucharest: Oscar Print,
2011), 85 (see the entire text: 85-86).
68 tefan Andreescu acrually used the word „obsession“ when describing Stephen’s affection for the
fonresses. tefan Andreescu, „Cronica lui tefan cel Mare: ln!elesurile uoei lntreruperi“ [The
Chroncle of Stephen the Great: the meanings of an interruption], in Jsroria romänilor: cronicari,
misionari, critori (s ec. XV-XVII) [The history of the Romanians: chroniclers, missionaries, ktetors
(fifteenth-seventeenth centuries)] (Bucharest: Universitätii, 1997), 126. For more on this
„obsession“ and its consequences, see also: Ovidiu Pecican, Siinge i trandafiri. Culrurii ero(t) icii
in epoca tefanianii [Blood and Roses. (H)ero(t)ic Culture in the Era of Stephen tbe Great)
(Cbiinäu: Cartier Istoric, 2005), 101-102.
69 A second thcory concerning the ruprure between the two periods highlights Stephen’s fall of bis
horse in 1486. See: tefan S. Gorovei, „Gesta Dei per Stephanum Yoievodam,“ in $tefa n cel
29
Art and spirituality
The period of the Great Prayer, as its name indicates, is marked by spüitualrelated
activity rather than by military enterprises. Of course, the rnilitary aspect of
the reign was present in events such as the Battle of Codrii Cozminului: the successor
of Casimir IV, John Albett, was planning Stephen’s dethronement and his
replacement with his younger brother, Sigismund. Accordingly, after a period filled
with pressure, John Albert attacked Moldavia in 1 497. The battle ended with
Stephen’s victory and a peace treaty was signed with Poland two years Jater.70
Whereas the first thirty years of Stephen ’s reign were characterised on an
artistic Ievel by mostly building fortresses and fortifications, and by reconstructing
some of the princely courts, the last twenty years of the reign were substantially
linked to a prograrnme focused on building churches and monasteries, by refining a
unique architectural style and a Byzantine-based iconography. The most important
edifice for Stephen was however built before the Great Prayer period: the Putna
Monastery. The monastery was erected between 1466 and 146971 and although it was
destroyed in a fire and reconstructed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, it
still holds the most relevant items of Stephen’s dynastic image construction: the tomb
of Stephen plus eleven other tombs belanging to members of his family, which all
survived the fire. Putna was built as a necropolis for the princely family. Based on the
richness of the edifice and the symbols of power which adomed the tombs and their
surroundings, it has been suggested that this site was meant to be a recreation of
historical memory, a lieu de memoire.12
Although it is questionable if, as legends say, Stephen built a church after each
military victory, it is known that between 1487 and 1 504 almost 30 churches and
monastefies were built at the prince’s order, plus several others comrnissioned by his
boyars.73 During this period, monastic att was enlivened. Architecturally, the socalled
Moldavian style was established, which was a mixture of Byzantine and Gothic
models, where the Byzantine influence was reflected in the spatiality of the edifices,
while the Gothic was visible in the construction techniques and decorative elements.
Iconographically, the style was a junction between the Paleologian and SouthDanubian
artistic influences and, as Vasile Drägut explained, it is characterised by an
Mare i Sfant. Atlet al credinfei crtine [Saint Stephen the Great. Champion of the Christian
Faith) (Suceava: Muatinii, 2004), 410-412.
70 See a detailed description of the Banle of Codrii Cozminului in: Gorovei and Szekely, Princeps
Omni Laude Maior. 3 1 9-340.
71 Vasile Drägtq, Dic(ionar enciclopedic de artä medievalä romaneascii [Encyclopedic Dictionary
ofRomanian Medieval Art) (Bucbarest: $tiinrificä i Enciclopedicä, 1 976), 250.
72 Maria Magdalena Szekely elaborates on tbe idea of Putna as a lieu de memoire in her article „Le
Monastere de Poutna – lieu de memoire,“ in !jtefan cel Mare i Sfant. Atlet al credinfei cretine
[Saint Stephen the Great. Champion of tbe Christi an Faith) (Suceava: Muatinii, 2004), 37-71.
73 Vasile Drägur, Pictura muralä din Moldova. Secolele XV-XVI [Mural Painting in Moldavia.
Fifteeoth aod Sixteenth Centuries) (Bucharest: Meridiane, 1 982), 1 1 .
30
austere and grave sense of face expressions, by simple and clear compositions, and by
warm, soft, and non-exuberant chromatics.74 Moldavian painting reached its maturity
with the age of Stephen the Great, not only from a stylistic point of view, but also
from a communicational point of view. Certain aspects of the iconographical
programme were designed to transmit not only religious messages, but also particular
political messages, highlighting the princely authority and sometimes the animosity
with the enemies of the principality. This is the case of the Mounted Procession of the
Holy Cross, the mural scene commissioned at the Päträuti Monastery. The Mounted
Procession presents an army of military saints led by the Arehanget Michael and
Constantine the Great after the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. The unique painting
represents the establishment of both the Byzantine Empire and Christianity. The
commission of this image symbolically suggests both the political and dynastic
aspirations of the Moldavian mler as a visual link between the desired „empire“ of
Stephen and the Empire of Constantine 1.75
Including a variety of Iocal elements, the disposition and conception of the
iconography was based on the Greek Ermeneia.76 Thus the superior part of the church
carried representations of the Divine Church with Christ Pantocrator placed in the
central dome, while the lower part was dedicated to Biblical stories and military
saints – interestingly, the votive image of the mler and his family was represented
within the space reserved to military saints. All edifices conunissioned by Stephen
were decorated with this type of iconography, leading Moldavian medieval painting
to its peak. Some of the most important churches and monasteries are the Päträuti
Monastery, Miliäuti Monastery, St. George Church of Härläu, Yoronet Monastery,
St. Elijah Church in Suceava, St. Michael Church at Räzboieni, or Bälineti
Monastery.
„Love“
Stephen the Great matTied three times and each man·iage was replete with
political and ideological aspirations. His first wife was Evdokia o f Kiev, whom he
married in 1463.77 Her father was the cousin of Casimir lV, therefore she descended
from the family of the great dukes of Lithuania. The marriage alliance revealed the
political orientation of Stephen at the time, as weil as his affiliation with Poland. The
matTiage with Evdok.ia only Iasted four years, as the princess died in 1467.
74 Vasile Drägut. DiCJionar enciclopedic de artii medievalii rom{meascii, 232.
75 Vasile Drägut also suggested anotber interpretation of the mural. The Mounted Procession may
also refer to the crusade-like battles fought by Stephen, thus suggesting bis desire of political
independence. See: Vasile Drägut, Pictura muralii din Moldova, 12-! 3.
76 See: Paul Hetherington, The „Painter’s Manual“ of Dionysius of Fourna (London: Sagittarius
Press, 1974).
77 „In the year 6971 [ 1463), June 5th, be made Evdokia bis wife, the sister of the tsar of Kiev.“ See:
„Tbe Chronicle of Putna I,“ 30.
3 1
Nevertheless, during this short period of time, she gifted her husband with a strategic
alliance with Poland.78
The choice of Stephen’s second wife suggests both the prince’s political
orientation and some of his dynastic aspirations. In 1472, he married Maria Assen
Palaiologos of the Principality of Mangup in the Crimean Peninsula, the last extant
Byzantine territory during Stephen’s reign.79 The name of the princess shows her
connection to both the Byzantine and the Bulgarian Empires – she was a descendant
of the Byzantine Palaiologian farnily and the Bulgarian Assenid dynasty.8° Corina
Teodor suggests three of Stephen’s reasons for choosing Maria as wife. The first
reason was political, in accordance with his anti-Ottoman policies: in a moment when
new anti-Ottoman plans were being projected in Europe, having the Crimean peninsula
on the Christian!Moldavian side was a great advantage. The second reason was
commercial: the space which encompassed the Peninsula witnessed an ample international
trade which Moldavian princes were weil aware of ever since the end of the
fourteenth century. The third reason was ideological: as the fall of Constantinople
operred the door for a next emperor who would inherit the Byzantine Empire’s
legacy, both Ottomans and Christians were eager to gain this new role. Stephen was
no exception and the marriage to a Byzantine-descending princess was a symbolic
step towards accomplishing this.8 1
The prince’s third wife, whom h e married six months after Maria of Mangup
had died, was Maria Yoichita, the daughter of the Wallachian prince Radu the Fair.
Unmistakably, Stephen married the second Maria because of bis desire to bring
Wallachia under Moldavian ideological regulation and to integrate it into Moldavia’s
78 As Constantin Rezachcici points out, „the marriage with this princess of Kiev offered the young
Moldavian prince thc advantages of cenain dynastic links in the Polisb-Lithuanian-Moscow
space, which Iasted for a long period after the early death of Evdokia, and which, from an
alliance point of view, were much more prestigious and practical than the links offered by the
other two marriages of Stephen.“ See: George Marcu, intre diplomafie i „iubire.“ Sofiile lui
Stefan cel Mare [Between Diplomacy and ‚·Love.“ The Wives of Stepben the Great], on
http://reteaualiterara.ning.com/profileslblogs/ntre-diploma-ie-i-iubire-so-iile-lui-tefan-celmare?
xg_source=activity&id= 1971741 %3ABlogPost%3A1262523&page=4, last time accessed
on Januaty 25, 2016.
79 Gorovei and Szekely, Princeps Omni Laude Maior, 90.
8° For more on the princess’s origins, and especially on her Byzantine descendance, see: Maria
Magdalena Szekely and Stefan S. Gorovei, Maria Asanina Paleologhina. 0 prin{esa bizantina pe
tronul Moldovei [Maria Assen Palaiologos. A Byzantine princess on the throne of Moldavia]
(Suceava: Muatinii, 2006), especially the chapter-articles „Rudenii byzantine ale Doamnei
Maria“ (Byzantine relatives of Doamna Maria), 1 1 2-143, and „Maria Asanina Paleologhina,
Doarnna Moldovlahiei“ [Maria Assen Palaiologos, Doamna ofMoldavia], 69-1 12. 81 For more on tbe reasons for martying Maria of Mangop, see: Corina Teodor, „State Reasons and
Matrimonial Strategies in Moldavia During the Reign of Stefan cel Mare,“ The Yearbook of the
„Gheorghe $incai“ Jnstitutefor Social Seiences and the Humanities ofthe Romanian Academy 7
(2004): 15-16.
32
extemal (anti-Ottoman) policy.82 The fact that their son was named Bogdan-Vlad
(uniting the two most emblematic Moldavian and Wallachian historical names) is one
of the most evident proofs for the political alliance made through this marriage.83
Stephen’s three marriages reflect the prince’s political inclinations, resulting in
three distinct periods: the Polish period, the Byzantine period, and the Wallachian
period. While Stephen’s relations to all these three realms were constant during his
entire reign, it may be stated that the prince ’s inclination towards one or the other
became dominant at certain times, depending on his wife.
82 This desire was reflected in the actual names of the two principalities: while before Stephen’s
reign, Moldavia was known as Valahia Minor and Wallachia as Valahia Major, sometime during
Stephen’s reign, the names changed and Moldavia became Valahia Major, while Wallachia was
transformed into Valahia Minor. Moreover, Stephen’s intitulature in official documents points to
a suzerain-vassal relationship between the two principalities as the Wallachian prince is named
„the son of my [Stephen ’s] reign.“ See more: Serban Papacostea, „The F oreign Policy of Stephen
the Great: the Polish option (1459-1473),“ Studii i Materiale de Istarie Medie 25 (2007): 24-25.
More aspects of this suzerain-vassal relation and of Stephen’s intirulature will be discussed
further on in the article.
83 Nevertheless, a para11el hypothesis arglles that political interests may bave not been the only
reasons which convinced Stephen to marry bis third wife: may Iove have also been implied?
Corina Teodor argues that certain representations of the royal couple seem to indicate that
Stephen loved Maria. See: Corina Teodor, „State Reasons and Matrimonial Strategies in
Moldavia during the Reign of $tefan cel Mare,“ 1 8 .
33
111 The creation of the self:
Stephen and the origin of his myth
The dynastic project
Stephen imprinted on multiple Ievels of his reign: chroniclers were delicate
with the words they used while scribing the ruler’s name on parchment, as weil as the
artists who carefully designed his and his wife’s faces on manuscripts or textiles;84
his soldiers, inspired by his ever-presence in war, composed songs about his
bravery;85 his donations and plentiful comrnissions allowed the clergy to recall rum in
sainthood; Szeklers and Polish people were thankful for the land and tax privileges
Stephen offered them in Moldavia;86 Moldavian subjects had the opportunity to
adntire his countless votive portraits painted in churches and monasteries which
allowed the association of his name with a face; and so on. lt may thus be assumed
that Stephen, from the debut of his reign, methodically built his image not only for
his present subjects, but also for the unbom heirs of Moldavia – peasants, boyars or
rulers – within something that may be called a „dynastic project.“87 The dynastic
84 The most thorough examples, still extant today, are the portrait of Stephen the Great in the
Gospels ofHumor ( 1473), and the tomb cover of Stephen’s second wife, Maria ofMangup.
85 There are only latcr, sixteenth-cenrury testimonies, about the chants presenting Stephen the Great,
but it must be assumed that these cbants originated in tbe time ofStepben and were propagated in
the fi.trure. The chant recorded by the Polish Maciej Stryjkowski, reminded of Stephen in the
following way: „Stephen, Prince Stephen, Stephen, Prince Stepben, you beat the Turks, beat the
Tartars, beat the Hungarians, the Russians and the Polish.“ See: Ciiliirori sträini fn Tarife
Ro1mine I [Foreign travelers in the Romanian Principalities I], ed. Maria Holban (Bucharest:
$tiintificä, 1970), 454.
86 However, Stepben did not offer his hclp because of kindness, but because he bad true cconomical
reasons for colonising Moldavia. For more information on Stephen’s colonisation efforts, see:
Gorovei and Szekely, Princeps Omni Laude Maior; see also: Maria Magdalena Szekely,
„Monarhul ideal in imaginarul evului mediu. Rene d‘ Anjou si Stefan cel Mare – Le monarque
ideal dans l’irnaginaire medieval. Rene d’Anjou et Etienne le Grand.“ Analeie Putnei I (2010):
292-293.
87 For a description of the dynastic project, see also: Benoit Joudiou, „Le regne d’Etienne Je Grand
et Ia succession: une perspective ideologique,“ in Stefan cel Mare i Sfdnt. Atlet al credinfei
34
project was a means of securing the throne for hirnself and his offspring by relying on
the creation of a princely persona which legitimised Stephen and his family to the
throne from the perspective of the past, present, and future. While he cormected his
image to his most illustrious predecessors88 and he associated his sons to the throne,89
the actions he made regarding his present are most relevant for the conception of his
myth. The next sub-points will show how Stephen built his own notoriety and how
the people surrounding him helped bring his myth to life for the very first time in
history.
Was Stephen his little princpi ality’s emperor?
Let us marry . . . an empress!
A significant number of studies have been written on the „imperial“ dimension
of Stephen’s reign,90 but a few issues which are still worth discussing in order to
understand the foundation of the myth, starting with the ruler’s marriages. Stephen
matTied Evdochia of Kiev in 1463 and, five years after her death, in 1472, he married
Maria of Mangup. The two ladies never met, yet there is a meaningful cormection
between them: they were both linked to imperial legacies and in the chronicles
written under Stephen the Great, their names were closely cormected to the title of
emperor. The Chronicle of Putna 1 recalls that „in the year 6971 ( 1 463] July 5, he
took Evdochia as wife, the sister of Simeon, tsar of Kiev.“91 The title changed,
however, and became more explicit in the Romanian translation of the chronicle: „In
the year 6[9]7 J [ 1 463], July 5, he took Evdochia of Kiev as wife, the sister of
Emperor Simeon.“92 Evdochia descended from the line of the great dukes of
Lithuania as her father was Olelko of Kiev, first cousin of Casimir IV, King of
cre$1ine [Saint Stephcn the Greal. Champion of the Christian Faitb] (Suceava: Muatinii, 2004),
41 5-429.
88 See for instance the way he connected bis image to tbe first ruler of Mol da via, Drago, in Stefan
S. Gorovei, „Umbra lui Drago. La Putna – The sbadow of Drago. At Puma“ Analeie Putnei I
(2008).
89 More on tbis in: Joudiou, „Le regne d’Etienne Je Grand et Ia succession: une perspective ideologique.“‚
90 A wide variety of arguments have been elaborated in order to prove the reality or non-reality of
Stephen as emperor. See, among otbers: Dumitru astase, „Stefan cel Mare imparat“ [Emperor
Stepben tbe Great] in Stefan cef Mare $i Sfant: 1504 – 2004. Portret in lsrorie, 568-61 1 ; Valentin
Al. Georgescu, „L“idee imperiale byzantine et !es reactions des realites roumaines (X!Ve-XVllle
sickles). Ideologie politique, structuration de !’Etat et du droit“ Byzantina 3 (1971): 3 1 1-339;
Constantin Rezacbevici, „Neamul doamnei Evdochia de Kiev, in legatura cu descoperirea pietrei
sale de mormänt Ia Suceava“ [Tbe family of Evdocbia of Kiev, regarding the discovery of her
tombstone in Suceava] in Srejan cei Mare $i Sfdnt. Arier ai credinfei crtine, 120, 125.
91 Tbe Chronicle ofPutna I, 30.
92 „Traducerea Romaneascii a Letopiserului de Ia Puma“ [Tbc Romanian translation of tbe
Cbronicle ofPuma] in Stefan cef Mare $i Sfant. Portret in cronicii, 38.
35
Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania. In reality, Si.meon, Evdochia’s brother, was
prince of Kiev and not emperor, but they were considered to be the descelldallts of
the Ruri.k dynasty whose members were sometimes given the title of “emperor.“93
Although at the time of the maniage, Stephen had already siglled a Polish-Moldavian
peace treaty with Casimir IV,94 the i.mportallce of the marriage remains: the marital
contract aimed the reinforcement of the Polish-Moldavian relations, but Stephen was
also i.nterested in the legacy given by a woman with a good family history.
The same happened when he manied Maria of Mangup: „In the year 6980
[ 1 472], September 14, Prince Stephen took a wife, Maria from Mallgup; there was a
Christiall empire . . .“ 95 The Crimeall princi.pality, known as Mangup or Theodoro,
being the last standing strip of Byzantine land, represented an oppornmity for
Stephen to attach his name to Byzanti.ne legacy. Who was Maria of Mangup and how
could her name have helped Stephell? There is no concluding genealogical
information on Maria. Based Oll indirect material and written sources, it may only be
implied that she was descending from the Palaeologan family.96 Thus, she was a
Byzalltille prillcess comi.ng from the Crimean peninsula, which meant that she
represented a double advantage for Stephen: on one side, through a marital alliance
with Ctimea, Stephen could develop his influence on the seaside territory which
would result in ecollornic advantages; and on the other side, Stephen could
legitimately enter the realm of the Byzantine world. The importance of Maria ’s
ideological heritage can be seen in a particular tomb cover: that of Maria herself (Fig.
1 9). Recent studies have shown that the princess‘ tomb cover is „the only piece
known today which brings tagether all the signs of power of the last Byzantine
emperors,“97 including two two-headed eagles and the monogram of the Palaeologan
family.
Stephen wanted to i.nherit the Byzantine legacy and, in a period when the
Ottoman Empire was pushing into Christian tenitories, Stephen was among those
rulers who wanted to keep the Byzantine heritage intact. The Principality of Mangup
was threatened by Ottoman occupation and, in a fifteenth-century world where
Orthodox rulers were attracted by the idea of becoming the continuators of the
93 For more details on this descendance: Gorovei and Szekely, Princeps Omni Laude Maiar, 49-50.
94 The peace treaty with Poland was a Strategie move which assured Stepben that an attack from the
Ottoman Empire would not take place. See more: Eugen Denize, Stephen the Great and His
Reign (Bucharest: The Romanian Cultural lnstitute Pubfishing House, 2004), 45-49.
95 The Moldavian-Polish Clu·onicle, 43.
96
For some of the most significant and recent srudies on tbe Byzantine wife of Stepben tbe Great,
see: $tefan S. Gorovei, „Maria Asanina Paleologhina, Doamna Moldovlahiei I“ [Maria Asanina
Paleologbina, Princess Of Moldavia 1] Studii i Materiale de Istarie Medie 22 (2004): 9-50;
Idem, „Maria Asanina Paleologhina, Doamna Moldovlahiei li“ [Maria Asanina Paleologhina,
Princess Of Moldavia 11] Studii i Materiale de Istarie Medie 24 (2006): 55-80; Szekely and
Gorovei, Maria Asanina Palealaghina: a prin{esa bizantina pe rranul Maldavei.
97 $tefan S. Gorovei and Maria Magdalena Szekely, „Insemnele imperiale ale doanmei Maria
Asanina Paleologhina“ [The imperial signs of Princess Maria Asanina Paleologhina] in Stefan cel
Mare i Sfdnt. Atlet al credinfei cretine, 105.
36
emperors of Constantinople, it is easy to argue that Stephen might have imagined
that, being manied to a Byzantine princess and being able to defeat the Ottomans, he
would inherit if (for sure) not Constantinople, then at least the small principality of
Mangup.98 lt has been assumed, in fact, that after the Principality of Mangup was
conquered by the Otternans (leaving Stephen with no fm1her possible interest in the
Principality and his Byzantine princess), the prince stepped back from his wife’s life,
and shifted his interested towards his third wife, Maria Voichita.99
Fig. 19: Tomb cover of Maria of Mangup, Putna Monastery. Image source:
http://www.stefancelmare.ro/Acoperamantul-de-mormant-al-Mariei-de-Mangop-s6-ss22-c9.htm
98 Stephen the Great was not the only ruler who aspired to be the new Byzantine ruler/emperor. Ivan
lli of Moscow married Sophia Palaeologus, granddaughter of Emperor Constantine XI, in the
same year that Stephen married Maria: 1472. It becomes clear that by this Strategie move, Ivan
III aspired to transform Moscow into the „Third Rome,“ just as, maybe, also Stephen had on his
mind. See more: Alexander Gertsen and Nadezhda Gertsen, „Moldova i principatul Theodoro Ia
1475“ [Moldavia and the Principality of Theodoro in 1475] in !jtefan cel Mare i Sfänt. Atlet al
credinfei cre:;tine, 142-143.
99 lbidem, 145.
37
„Long live the Tsar!“
An indirect argument for Stephen as a ruler who wished to hold imperial power
could be indicated by the date of his marriage to Maria of Mangup. They married on
September 14, 1472, which coincided with the date of the Feast of the Exaltation of
the Cross. The Church did not allow weddings during feast days, which means that
the ruler must have received an exemption from the Church for the maniage. This
shows that it was particularly important for him to many his Byzantine wife on that
precise day which commemorated the cross, the symbol of Christianity and the
Byzantine world. While this marriage allowed Stephen to aspire to the roJe as a new
emperor of a new Byzantine world, it also allowed him to hope that Suceava might
become a new Constantinople.100 lt is intriguing how shortly after the prince’s
wedding to Maria of Mangup, his title changed. In vety few, rather controversial
sources, he now became tsar – emperor.
The Moldavian ruler had a more or less standardised title, which was used in
most documents of the time. Stephen was usually named with the following formula:
[ 1 ] with the will ofGod + [2] Io + [3] Stephen + (4] voivode/prince +
+ [5] ruler [domn] + [6] ( of the) Moldavian Principality101
Most documents issued by Stephen’s court respected this formula and resulted in
syntagms such as „Nos Stephanus woiewoda, Dei gratia dominus terrarum
Moldaviae.“102 However, this formula changed occasionally and designations such as
haeres, the one „crowned by God,“ the „Iover of God,“ „palatinus“ or even
„emperor/tsar“ can be encountered in various documents. 103 This imprecision in
titling led to various interpretations of Stephen ’s imperial title. 104
There are five known sources which recall Stephen as „tsar.“ The first instance,
dated 1473, is found in the Gospel of Humor, commissioned by Stephen, where the
epilogue of the manuscript, on the verso of folio 265, presents the ruler with the
100 See: Maria Magdalena Szekely and tefan S. Gorovei, „<Semne i minuni> pentru tefan
Voievod. Note de mentalitate medievalä“ („Signs and miracles“ for P1ince Stephen. Notcs on
medieval mentality) in Stefan ce/ Mare i Sftint- Portre/ in lstorie, 72. 101 The basic version of this fommla ([I ) Stephen + [2) voivode + [3] ruler [domn] + (4) (of the)
Moldavian + (5] Principality) plus the attributes which complement it (with the will ofGod+ lo)
have been presented and explained point by point by Gorovei in bis anicle „Titlurile lui Stefan
cel Mare. Tradi!ie diplomaticä i vocabular politic“: 4 1 -78. 102 loan Bogdan, Documentele /ui Stefan cel Mare li (1493 – 1 503; 1457-1503) [The Documents of
Stephen the Great) (Bucharest: 1 9 1 3), 266. 103 All the examples cited at this point can be found, tagether with their explanation and
contextualisation, in Gorovei’s article „Titlurile lui Stefan cel Mare. Tradi!ie diplomaticä i
vocabular politic,“ 4 I -78. 104 Benoit Joudiou made this poinr very clear: „L’imprecision du titre souverain roumain ouvrait Ia
porte aux interpretations !es plus !arges quant a Ia nature meme de Ia domnia.“ See the article
„Remarques sur Ia signification du titre „souverain“ dans les Principautes Roumaines“ Studii i
Materiale de Istarie Medie 19 (200 I ) : 77.
3 8
following titles: „The honourable and Iover of Christ tsar, Jo Stephen voivode, ruler
of Moldovlahia.“105
The following three instances can all be fotmd in a single source: the
Anonymaus Chronicle, written at the court of Stephen. Firstly, the chronicle notes the
following: „In the same year, August 29, there was a big earthquake all over the
world, while the tsar was sitting at his table.“106 Historians reached the unanimous
conclusion that the „divine sign“ of the earthquake must have aimed Stephen, who
was probably seen by the scribe of the chronicle as the ruler of the world, thus the
appellative tsar.107 Another event guided by the divine was also portrayed while
mentioning „tsar“ Stephen:
And Prince Stephen with all his soldiers returned as a bearer of victory in his
fortress Suceava and the Metropolitans and priests all came before him,
holding the Gospels in their hands, praying and praising the Lord for all that
has been given as a gift from the Almighty and blessing the tsar: „Long live the
tsar!“108
One can notice that the „tsar“ is mentioned twice within this sentence. Moreover, not
only is Stephen identified with imperial designation, but he is also enacting
something which seems to be a triumphal entry into Suceava. lt is easily
understandable why this procession is associated to the word „tsar.“ The event takes
place when Stephen retums from his campaign against the Ottoman army which
entered Moldavia in 1475 and which was eventually defeated_l09
There is finally a fifth instance where Stephen is identified with the imperial
title. A Bulgarian Book of Eight Tones, an oktoihos found in Kiev, describes the
conquests of the fortresses of Chilia and Akkerman and, while telling the story, it
names Stephen the „tsar of Moldavia. „1 1 0
Therefore, one can notice that Stephen is t{apb, an equivalent o f emperor. The
question is now whether Stephen actually used the title of emperor or whether this
105 Mihai Berza, Repertoriul monumentelor $i obiectelor de arta din mpul lui $tefan cel Mare [The
collection of monuments and artifacts dating from the reign of Stephen the Great] (Bucharest:
Academiei, 1958), 388. 106 „Anonymous Chronicle ofMoldavia,“ 15. 107 Dumitru Nli.stase explains that the chronicler highlighted the eanhquake as a world-wide event
by describing it as „a big eartbquake there all over the world.“‚ Because this world-wide event is
correlated to the name of Stephen, the conclusion ofthe historian is that Stephen must have been
seen as the ruler ofthis very world. See: Nli.stase, „Stefan cel Mare impli.rat“, 568-569. See also:
Gorovei, „Titlurile lui Stefan cel Mare. Traditie diplomaticli. i vocabular politic,“ 73-74.
108 „Anonymous Chronicle of Moldavia,“ 16.
109 for a description of the events of 1475, surrounding the clash between the Moldavians and the
Ottomans, see: Eugen Denize, Romcmii fntre Leu $i Semilunii. Rela{ii/e turco-veneJiene i
injluen{a lor asupra spa{iului romanesc, secolele XV-XVI (The Romanians betwecn the Lion
and tbe Half-Moon. Turkish-Venetian relations and their intluence on the Romanian space,
fifteenth-sixteenth centuries] (Tärgovite: Cetatea de Scatm, 2009), 132-139.
110 The Book of Eight Tones was found in Kiev by the philologist Ioan Bogdan who hypothesised
that the document must be contemporary to Stephen the Great. See: lbidem, 74.
39
title was only used in connection to him. While there are not enough arguments to
support the theory that Stephen actually used the title of emperor, it is likely that he
wanted to have his name connected to an imperial dignity. The oktoihos is a further
argument for this theory and its impo1tance rises as it is a source not created in
Stephen’s principality: the fact that Stephen is named tsar within this docurnent must
be a reflection of Stephen ’s imperial aspirations outside the borders of Moldavia.
Suceava and imperial manifestation
The fortress of Suceava was Stephen ’s capital. It is particularly impo1tant to
see not only how it was reflected in sources (and, consequently, in the Moldavian
imaginary), 1 1 1 but also how Stephen used this space in order to enhance his strength
over the ptincipality. A critical delimitation should be made at this point: the space
used by Stephen for what will be named in the following as „impe1ial manifestation“
was that of the fortress itself and not that ofthe surroLmding city. 12
The ruler’s „imperial manifestation,“ if it existed in Moldavia, should be
visible in court ceremonials and rituals, such as coronations, weddings, feasts,
processions, etc. However, extant sources indicate no imperial-like ceremonials for
any of these events. 1 13 The only ceremonies which may be resembled to anything
imperial are Stephen ’s retums from battles to Suceava. These returns, which
resembled triumphal entries, 1 14 seem to have been based on a recipe which was
enacted after a military victOty. There are four instances when sources discuss these
1 1 1 For a study ofthe city Iandscape and its reflection in medieval imaginary, see: Alexandru Pinzar,
„Suceava in imaginarul medieval – Suceava in medieval imaginary,“ Analeie Putnei 2 (2008):
25-50.
1 12 Historians often mixed the space of Suceava’s fortress with that of Suceava’s city. This
confusion was deepened by inaccurate translations of sources which mixed the terms „fortress·‘
and „city.“ Stefan Gorovei made the situation clearer by taking the original versions of some of
these sources and explaining how they make a clear delimitation between what was city and
what was fortress. For his study, see: Stefan S. Gorovei, „Cetatea de scaun a Sucevei. 0 ipo1ezä
– The Suceava fortress. A hypothesis,“ Analeie Putnei 2 (2008): 1 5-24.
1 1 3 Coronations and weddings are most often studied. Bogdan-Petru Maleon highlights that the
hypothesis according to which a whole ceremonial following the Byzantine or Western model
used to be perfonned since the foundation of the Moldavian state, should be excluded. See:
Bogdan-Petru Maleon, „Observarii privind dobändirea puterii princiare in Moldova epocii
tefaniene’· (Some Remarks on Gaining the Princely Power in Moldavia during Stephen the
Great Epoch} Analeie Putnei I (20 1 1}: 7-20. For information on the wedding of Stephen to his
„imperial“ wife Maria of Mangup, see, for example: Maria-Venera Rädulescu, „Episoade din
istoria Moldovei redate pe cahle descoperite Ia Curtea Domneasca de Ia Vaslui: nunta lui Stefan
cel Mare cu Maria de Maugop“ (The wedding of Stephen the Great and Maria of Mangup.
Images on glaze stove tiles discovered at Vaslui (I S’h century}, Studii i Materiale de Istarie
1 Medie 14 (2006): 8 1 -100. 14 For a concise article concerning this subject, see: Maria Magdalena Szekely, „Atributele
imperiale ale cetätii Suceava“ (Imperial attributes of the Suceava fortress) Analeie Putnei 2
(2008): 5-14.
40
„entries:“ the entries of 1 465, of 1473, of 1475, and of 148 1 . The four known
„entries“ appear in most of the chronicles written during Stephen’s reign and they
present the prince as a triumphant Ieader of armies:
• The entry of 1465, after Stephen conquered the fortress of Chilia:
And then he [Stephen] returned with all his army in his seat of Suceava. And
he ordered all the metropolitans and the bishops and all the priests to thank.
God for what was given to him by God A1mightly . . . 115
• The 1473 entry, which took p1ace after Stephen victory over the Wallachian
Prince Radu the Fair:
And he took the wife of Prince Radu and his daughter, his only-bom, and all
the treasures and the vestments and his flags . . . And then he retumed to his seat
of Suceava. And then, the metropo1itan with all the clergy made him a
wondetful and beautiful greeting, but they especially praised God for all the
gifts He had given to his servant, Prince Stephen. 116
• The entry of 1 475 is probably the most famous one because it was preceded by the
victory of Vaslui, where Stephen defeated the Ottoman army 1ed by Su1eyman
Pasha. This entry is particu1ar1y important as it has an aura of imperialism:
And their flags and !arge maces were taken away, more than 40 maces. And
Prince Stephen returned as a bearer of victory with all his soldiers in his
fortress Suceava and the Metropolitans and priests all came before him,
holding the Gospels in their hands, praying and praising the Lord for all that
has been given as a gift from the Almighty and blessing the tsar: <Long live
the tsar! > 117
• The entry of 148 1 was preceded by another victorious battle with Wallachia,
which took place at Rämnic:
And Prince Stephen retumed from there as a bearer of victory with all his atmy
and his boyars, in his seat of Suceava. And there, Prince Stephen made a great
feast to the metropolitan, the bishops, his boyars and his entire army. And he
named a Iot of viteji1 1 8 and he gave a Iot of gifts and expensive vestments to his
boyars and his viteji and his entire army. And he Iet all of them go home and he
115 „Anonymous Chronicle ofMoldavia,“ 14. This entry is also presented in the Chronicles of Puma
numbers I and H, in the Romanian translation of the Chronicles of Puma, and also in the
Moldavian-Polish Chronicles. 1 16 „Anonymous Chronicle of Moldavia,“ 1 6 . This entry is also presented in the Chronicle of Putna
nurober I!, in the Moldavian-German Chronicle, and in the Moldavian-Polish Chronicle.
117 „Anonymous Chronicle of Moldavia,“ 16. 118 The title of viteaz (pl. viteji) is a higher title in the Moldavian army. For a description of the
Moldavian army composition, see: Ioan Cupa, Arta militarii a moldovenilor fn a douajumiitate
a secolului al XV-Iea (!jtefan cel Mare) [The Moldavian military art in the second half of the
fifteenth century (Stephen the Great)] (Bucharest: Editura Militarä a Ministerului fortelor
Armare ale R.P.R., 1959), chapter Il Puterea militara a Moldovei [The military power of
Moldavia], especially 20-28.
4 1
taught them to praise and bless the Lord for all that has happened, because it all
came from God. 1 19
Reading these examples, one can notice that Stephen’s entries in Suceava followed
the recipe of a ritual: he entered the fortress with his army, was welcomed by the
clergy, and a religious ceremony took place after the entrance. The entry in 1481 adds
to this information: not only did a religious ceremony take place, but a feast was also
organised where, probably, war plunder was distributed to the most significant
soldiers, while others received higher titles as a result of their success in battle. But
can one discuss a „triumphal entty?“ Should one compare Roman or Byzantine
triumphal entries to Stephen’s entries based on extant sources, Moldavian entries
seem rudimentary. Relevant elements of Stephen ’s entries remain unknown, the most
important of which is the triumphal route. The Constantinopolitan triumphal route
was dictated by the city Iandscape and further on detailed by custom, 120 therefore,
although standardised, it was prone to change. However, when studying the
Moldavian case, it is easy to notice that there exist no indicators of the route or its
changes, or of the ruler’s stops – apart from the obvious stop at the church where the
religious ceremony took place. Also, apart from the „Long Jive the tsar!“ acclamation
of the 1475 entry, there are no other testimonies of acclamations, chants or
intonations, all indispensable to triumphal entries. Similarly, while guilds would
normally be involved in the decoration of the imperial route, in cleaning the streets
and stewing them with flowers/21 there are no visual sources in Moldavia to attest
any type of preparation of the fortress for such a major, imperial-like event. Surely,
considering the description of the entries in the Moldavian chronicles, it must be
assumed that these were large-scale events, involving a !arge public.
Regardless of all these gaps, one cannot decisively argue that Stephen’s entries
were not moulded on the model of triumphal entries. Suceava did not have a
triumphal route, but neither did Constantinople or Rome have a standardised one.122
While one can argue that there was no standardised triumphal route in Suceava, one
cannot argue that the route used by Stephen (whichever it was), was not meant to be
triumphal. Moreover, the four above-presented sources indicate some aspects which
can easily be l inked to imperial behaviour: Stephen retums from his expeditions with
a significant amount of goods, including royal hostages such as the Wallachian
ntler’s wife and daughter; he participates in religious processions involving the
Metropolitan, bishops and a !arge body of clergy; he disnibutes war booty and grants
higher dignities. Whether these aspects sum up the behaviour of an emperor is
irrelevant. What is relevant, instead, is that they are signs of ostentatious showing of
power.
1 19 „Anonymous Chronicle ofMoldavia,“ 18.
120 Michael McConnick, Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rufership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium and
the Early Medieval West (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 208.
121 Ibidem, 205-208.
122 For a comparison between the triumphal landscape of Constantinople and Suceava, see: Szekely,
„Atributele imperiale ale ceti’liii Suceava,“ 7-8.
42
Stephen, the Last Emperor?
Stephen seemed to have wanted to surpass the status of an ordinary Moldavian
ruler and resemble the image of an emperor – be it in the form of a Byzantine
emperor or in the form of the Last Emperor. The myth of the Last Emperor bad a
valuable significance in the history of Christianity and its importance rose on the eve
of the Apocalypse, believed to begirr at the end of the fifteenth centmy. 123 The myth
implied that a Roman emperor would have to live through a period of hardship and
fight evil, in order to eventually defeat the enemy. Having defeated the enemy, he
would suuender his imperial regalia to God and would thus put an end to the Roman
Empire. The end of the world would fo llow, allowing the kingdom of God to be
established. 124 A nurober of significant rulers were identified with the Last
Emperor, 125 especially in times of distress and negative expectations, and Stephen the
Great was seemingly one of them. Because the myth of the Last Emperor was known
in fifteenth-centmy Moldavia, 126 one may deduct fa cts which, although scarce, point
to Stephen as a ruler identified with the Last Emperor. In connection to this, the
messianic aspect of the Mounted Procession of the Holy Cross (Fig. 20), a mural
scene painted in the narthex of the Pätrauti Monastery, should be pointed out.
As a scene rarely depicted in orthodox iconography127 and much debated in
historiography, this mural has been interpreted in several ways. Most historians
conclude that it was intended to represent Stephen ’s crusade agairrst bis Islamic
enemies, as weil as a sign of the political and religious aspirations of the ruler. 128 The
image illustrates a saintly mOtmted procession headed by a winged rider, identified in
an inscription as the Arebangel Michael, who Jeans towards the rider close behind
123 Based on the calculations of Gennadius Scholarius frorn his 1472 Chronograph, the end of days
were to arrive in 1492. See rnore : Maria Magdalena Szekely, „Stefan cel Mare i sfäritul lumii
– Stephen the Great and the End of the World,“ Studii i Ma teriale de Istarie Medie 21 (2003):
256. 124 More on the myth of the Last Ernperor in: Maria Ana Travassos Valdez, Historical
Interpretations of the „Fifth Empire. “ The Dynamics of Periodization fr om Daniel to Antonio
Vieira, S.J (Studies in the History of Christiau Traditions, series ed.Robert J. Bast) (leiden:
Brill, 20 II ) , 208-223. 125 Such as Cbarlemagne or Frederick II. See: Ibidem, 211. 126 The Apocalypse by Pseudo-Methodius of Patara coutaius the most widely-spread description of
the Last Ernperor as an apocalyptic figure. Pseudo-Methodius‘ Apocalypse was also to be found
in a manuscript frorn Nearn1 Monastery (now rnanuscript no. 135 at the Library ofthe Romanian
Academy). See: Liviu Pilat, „Mesianism i escatologie in imaginarul epocii lui Stefan cel Mare
– Messianism and cschatology during the time of Stephen thc Great,“ Srudii i Ma teriale de
Istarie Medie 22 (2004): 107. 127 This scene cannot be found in any versions of the Ermeneia, the guide of Byzantine Orthodox
iconographical programrnemes. 128 Both of these hypotbeses were for mulated in the first and groundbreaking study of the mural
scene. Andre Grabar, „Les croisades de 1 ‚Europe orientale dans I ‚an,“ in L ‚Art de Ia fin de
/’amiquite et du Moyen Age (Paris: College de France, 1968), 169-175.
43
him, identified as Constantine the Great in another inscription. F ollowing the
Areharrgel and Constantine, there are the militaty saints George and Demetrius,
followed themselves by a !arge group of other saints. In the upper right comer of the
scene, in the sky, a bright white cross is visible, which gives meaning to the entire
mural. The Mounted Procession of the Holy Cross illustrates the miraculous vision of
the Holy Cross by Emperor Constantine: on the eve of the Battle of the Milvian
Bridge against the Roman Emperor Maxentius, Constantine had a vision of the Cross,
accompanied by the wording „in this sign, [you shall] conquer.“ He subsequently
won the battle, operring the path towards Christianisation throughout the Roman
Empire. In drawing a parallel with Constantine’s victory over the pagans, a
significant number of studies have linked the emperor’s victory with an eventual
victory of Stephen the Great over his pagan enemies – namely, the Ottomans.129
Fig. 20: The Mounted Procession ofthe Holy Cross, Paträuti Monastery. lmage source:
http://www.crestinortodox.ro (accessed: February 4, 2016)
The scene painted in the Paträuti Monastery offers insight into the various
ideologies pursued by the mler,130 including the eschatological idea of the Last
Emperor. While the scene was primarily interpreted by historians as an anti-Ottoman
plea, it may also be seen as a representation of the last days in which the Last
Emperor defeats his enemies. A parallel can be made between the Mounted
Procession and the Russian icon of Ecclesia mifitans, painted after the conquest of
129 A !arge number ofhistorians referred to this imerprctation ofthe scene, starting with the alreadymentioned
srudy of Andre Grabar. See some of the sn1dies referring to the anti-Ottoman
significance of this scene in: Drägu\, Pictura muralä din Moldova, 13-16; Virgil Vätäianu,
lstoria artei feudale fn Tarife Romane [The history of feudal art in the Romani an Principalities)
I (Bucharest: Academiei, 1959), 806; !dem, Studii de artä veche romäneascii §i universal
(Studies of old Romanian and universal art] (Bucharest: Meridiane, I 987), 5 1 ; Dan Zamfirescu,
Neagoe Basarab !fi fnvafaturile ciitre fiul sau Theodosie: problemele controversate [Neagoe
Basarab and his teachings to bis son Theodosie: controversial problems] (Bucharest: Minerva,
1973), 85-86. 130 At least three ideas may be noticed within the mural scene: the idea of an anti-Ottoman crusade;
that of following the Constantinian model; as well as the eschatological idea.
44
Kazan by Ivan IV of Russia in 1 552 (Fig. 2 1 ). In Ecclesia militans, lvan the Terrible
follows the Archangel Michael in leading away a !arge group of military saints
(including Constantine I) from the conquered city of Kazan and towards the New
Jerusalem represented in the left corner of the icon. Based on this parallel, Liviu Pilat
explains that the Moldavian scene of Paträuti is the representation of the taking of
Jerusalem by earthly soldiers, before the New Jerusalem descends. 131 The historian
explains that the final scope ofthe Orthodox Crusade was the Iiberation of Jerusalem,
while the Iiberation of Constantinole was „just a stage, the final point being the
Emperor’s entrance in Jerusalem.“1 2 While making this comparison, it should be
stressed that Jerusalem may be identified with the image of the Cross (as in the scene
of the Mounted Procession), especially in a monastery dedicated to the Holy Cross
(as the Päträuti Monastery was). 133 Stephen the Great may thus be identified in the
scene of the Mounted Procession of the Holy Cross with the Last Emperor, while
liberating Jerusalem and allowing the end of days to begin.
Fig. 2 I : Ecclesia Militans, Tretyakov Gallery. Image source: Wikimedia Foundation,
http://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki!Biessed_Be_the_Host_of_the_King_of_Heaven#mediaviewer/
File:Biessed_Be_the_Host_of_the_King_of_Heaven%E2%80%A6_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
(accessed: January 4, 20 I 6)
One shall not … forget the prince ’s face!
The functions of images and iconography are varied and although they may
initially seem to have a solely spiritual purpose, spirituality rarely remains the only
attribute of images. One of the imperative functions of images is that of proclaiming
and promoting power. Within every church commissioned by Stephen the Great, the
northern wall of the naos usually accommodated the votive portrait of the ruler.
Facing the altar and highly visible to all participants at the mass, votive portraits
131 Sec the full explaoation in: Pilat, „Mesianism i escatologie in imaginarul epocii lui tefan cel
Mare,“ 1 1 1 – 1 13.
132 Ibidem, 1 12.
133 lbidem.
45
represented the donor while offering the model of the church to Christ. Being visible
was a vital part of political life as it meant eligibility for public life. 134 Thus the
visibility of the mler within a public (and holy) space such as a church or monastery
was a needful strategy: art and visual means were part of creating a public persona
and reputation. 135
lt is difficult however to find intact votive portraits. There are only six
remaining votive images which were comrnissioned by Stephen the Great in
Moldavia: in the Church of St. Elijah in Suceava, in the monastery of Voronet, the
Church of St. Nicholas in Rädäuti, the monastery of Päträuti, the St. Nicholas Church
in Dorohoi, and the monastery of Dobrovät. 136 Apart from these six portraits of the
ruler, there is another relevant one: the votive image in the manuscript of the Gospels
of Humor. A recent study by Ion Solcanu demonstrated that only two of these images
are original ones: the votive image of Voronet and the one preserved in the
manuscript of Humor.137 Therefore, these two images are the only sources for the
genuine, „original“ face of Stephen the Great.
Stephen’s face on the wall
The Monastery of Voronet was built by Stephen the Great between May and
September 1488 on the place of a former monastety with the same name and
dedicated to the same saint: St. George. 138 The votive portrait of Voronet presents
Stephen the Great while offering the model of the monastery to Christ (Fig. 22). The
act of offering is mediated by the patron saint of the church, Saint George, while
134 For more on generat manners regarding sight and social practice, see: Patricia Lee Rubin,
Images and Jdentity in Fifteenth-Century Florence (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007),
1 13-1 14.
135 Eadem, 1 14. 136 All these six votive images were painted in churches and monasteries. However, there are also a
few other remaining images, not painted on church walls, which bear the figure of Stephen the
Great: there are two stoles, one from Pätrau{i and another from Dobrovli{; there is the veil
(dviri) ofthe altar door ofPutna; and, last but not least, there is the bas-relief from the Vatopedi
Monastery on Mount Athos. 137 All the other five votive portraits were destroyed intentionally eilher by the Ottoman troops in
their 1538 campaign in Moldavia or by personal enemies of Stephen. The votive images were
repaioted at an unknown time after 1538. I t is however possible that also the votive image ofthe
church ofPliträuti remained in its original state, but this theory remaios uncertain. See more: Ion
I. Solcanu, „Portretul lui tefan cel Mare in pictura epocii sale. Noi considera{ii“ [The portrait of
Stephen the Great in the paining ofhis time. New considerations] in $tefan cel Mare i Sfänr Portret
fn Istorie, 1 17-130. 138 For a recent and detailed history of the monastery, especially from an archaeological point of
view, see: icolae N. Pucau and Voica Maria Pucau, „Mänästirea Voronerutui. Arheologie
i istorie“ (The Voroner Monastery. Archaeology and history) Analeie Putnei 1 (2009): 75-138.
See also the bistory of Voronet from the ktetors point of view: Maria Magdalena Szekely,
„Ctitorii Voronerului“ (The founders of the Vorone1 Monastery) Analeie Putnei I (2009): 139-
156.
46
Stephen is followed by three members of his family: his daughter Maria, wife Maria
Voichita, and son Bogdan Ill. A particular harmonious relationship between Stephen
and Saint George is visible in the saint’s body language: he is holding the ruler by his
shoulder, tightly, as if in a gesture of encouragement when presenting him to Chtist.
Considering that votive images canonically present the ruler in a static position
without revealing feelings or personal traits, the gesture of the saint highlights an aura
of the ruler which can only be seen in another votive painting, in the Saint Elijah
Church of Suceava. At St. Elijah, Stephen’s band is held by the patron saint of the
church while presented to Christ. Stephen is introduced in an almost familial
environment although he is facing the highest authority: Christ. This suggests that
Stephen’s votive portraits were conceived in such a way that they presented the
prince as a person beloved by saints and appreciated by the Son of God. A fmther
theory was hypothesised on the basis of this type of imagery, which referred to the
fact that Stephen was presented in an almost saint-like manner, on the same Ievel
with the patron saints who introduced him to Christ. 139
Retuming to the actual physical aspect of the ruler, the viewer can see him
wearing his princely vestments and his crown, both embroidered and decorated with
precious stones. Considering that the wall painting was finished during the reign of
Stephen, it should be assumed that the painter was acquainted with the physiognomy
of the mler and thus painted him in the most realistic way for the possibilities of the
time: Stephen had a roundish face with a !arge forehead, with thick arched eyebrows
above his blue eyes and bis thin, pointed nose. His hair was long and blonde, just as
his beard and prominent moustache. Most likely, this is the closest image to what
may be called the „real,“ historical Stephen the Great. Analysing the image of
Stephen at Voronet, the att historian Vasile Drägut said that within the solemn beauty
of the votive portrait, the preoccupation of Stephen the Great with royal authority, as
weil as with the stability of the throne was obvious. 140 But did the fifteenth-century
viewer understand Stephen by looking at bis portrait? It is difficult to say, although
one issue is certain: by painting his pmtrait so accurately, Stephen made sure that his
physical image, his face, would not fade away with time. His face was not to be
forgotten.
139 For this presentation, see: Gorovci and Szekely. Princeps Omni Laude Maior, 505-506. 140 Drägul, Pictura muralii in Moldova. Secole/e XV-XVI, 17.
47
Fig. 22: Votive image, VoroneJ Monastery. [mage source: http://www.onbphoto.net
(accessed February 4, 2016)
Stephen’s face on parchment
The same may be said about Stephen’s image in the manuscript of the Gospels
of Humor (Fig. 23). The major difference however is the audience of the two images:
while the portrait at Voronet was seen by a variety of people who entered the church,
the po1trait in the Gospels was seen by a significantly smaller number of people.
The physical appearance of Stephen in the Gospels manuscript is similar to his
representation at Voronet, with the observation that here Stephen is some twenty
years younger (as the Gospels of Humor were commissioned in 1473). The prince’s
round face and pink cheeks suggest the representation of a younger man. The same
blue eyes with thick eyebrows framed by Jong blonde hair and his pronounced
moustache (without the beard) are gazing up to an enthroned Virgin Mary with her
Son, while Stephen is presenting Christ with the manuscript he had just
commissioned. On tbis occasion, the Mother of God is the mediator between the
commissioner and Her Son.
48
Fig. 23: Votive portrait ofStephen the Great in the manuscript ofthe Gospels of Humor.
Image source: http://www .stefancelmare.ro/T etraevanghelul-de-la-Humor- 147 3 -s6-ss22 -c’S .hrm
Apart from the realistic physical image of the mler, there are two significant
issues which strike the eye: the kneeling position of the ruler and a white space on the
right side of the image which must be the place where another figure should have
been painted. The fact that the prince kneels is compelling because he never k:neels in
any of his other votive images. In all the other five votive portraits, Stephen appears
in a typical Byzantine standing position before Christ. A further particular element of
the representation is the act of mediation done by the Virgin Mary herself – a fact
49
pa1ticularly relevant as the Virgin never appears in any other votive images of
Stephen. The fact that he is kneeling may therefore be related to the presence ofMary
– yet another connection to the Byzantine Empire whose capital was symbolically
placed und er the protection of the Mother of Christ. 141
While kneeling, Stephen faces a white space, which surely should have
acconunodated a second kneeling character. The white space seems to never have
been painted, although the intention of having somebody represented there is
apparent. Ovidiu Pecican asks hirnself who was supposed to be represented as the
second kneeling character. He presents a new hypothesis142 which disturbs the logical
supposition that the second character should have been Stephen’s wife at the time of
the manuscript’s comnuss10n, Maria of Mangup.143 The manuscript was
commissioned in 1473 when Stephen was still married to Maria ofMangup. In 1478,
after a short mouming period, Stephen married Maria Voichita. The year 1473 is also
the year when Stephen took Maria Voichita hostage, a year which marked the
begimling of one of the most tumultuous periods in Stephen’s reign: two more
clashes with the Wallachians in 1473 and 1474, as weil as two major military
conflicts with the Ottoman Empire in 1 475 and 1 476. Observing these circumstances,
Ovidiu Pecican concludes that the work of the Humor miniaturist „could have been
stopped by a higher cleric (a father superior, a bishop, or even the Metropolitan
himself) who, paying attention to both Stephen’s policies and to the matTiage to
Maria of Mangup who had given the ruler only daughters, would have preferred,
because of transparent reasons, calmer times in order to decide who would be the best
one to stand next to the prince.“144 Should this hypothesis be accepted, a further
argument could be given to the alleged „higher cleric’s“ reasoning on the ruler’s
wife: Maria of Mangup lost her ideological importance when the Ottoman Empire
conquered the Principality of Mangup. Stephen thus lost his interest in both a
possible Moldavian conuest ofthe princess‘ principality of origin and, consequently,
for the princess herself. 1 5 Whether this hypothesis is accepted or not, it points out an
important element in the ruler’s image: the image of the ruler’s wife which was just
141 However, ooe cannot disregard Western examples of donor portraits where the dooor is depicted
kneeling. Given that kneeliog is a rypical positioo for donors in the West, a Westem/gothic
influence should not be omitted. See the hypothesis conceming westem influences in: Pecicao,
Sange i trandafiri, 47-50.
142 See the presentation ofthe whole theory in: lbidem, 50-58.
143 Certainly, the first hypothesis which comes to mind is tbat the wife who was supposed to be
portrayed in the white space was the prince’s wife at the time of the comrnission. Just like the
Stole of the Dobrovät Mooastery (commissioned in 1 504) had the images of Stephen the Great
and Maria Voichita represented in the lower register of the cloth, the Gospels of Humor
logically should have beared the representations of Stephen and his current wife in 1473, Maria
ofMangup.
144 Pecican, Sange i trandafiri, 57.
145 See more in the Subdivision of this study „Let us marry an empress“ and in: Gensen and
Gerrsen, „Moldova i principatul Theodoro Ia 1475“, 145.
50
as relevant as that of Stephen’s. The wife was an integral patt of the ruler’s image and
her visual appearance in the presence of the ruler was carefully constructed.
Analysing these two votive portraits which surely became examples for later
representations of the ruler, it is evident that the remembrance of the
·
ruler’s face was
essential. Stephen was represented as a handsome man, full of potential, an image he
is still identified with today. The exterior beauty is particularly significant as in the
Middle Ages a beautiful exterior was the reflection of a beautiful interior. 146 Stephen
the Great was physically portrayed on one side as the expression ofbeauty, inside and
out, and on the other side as the expression of authority embellished with all his
regalia, including his red shoes, signaHing greatness, power, and highest status. The
existence of red shoes brings the discussion back to Stephen’s ambition of becoming
a genuine Byzantine (imperial) continuator. The miniature in the Gospels of Humor,
the votive portraits in the Rädauti and Dorohoi monasteries, the representation of
Stephen on the Veil of the Crucifixion at the Putna altar door and on the Stole of
Dobrovat, all still show the red colour of the prince’s shoes. Red shoes were among
the chief signs of Byzantine imperial rank and a preeminent symbol of power. 1 47
Unsurprisingly, Stephen was to be identified (and remembered) with the attributes of
this type of imperial ranking.
Another way to create memory: the Church of Riizboieni
Occasionally, Stephen veritably created memory. In 1496, Stephen
commissioned the St. Michael Church of Räzboieni with a particular purpose: for the
remembrance of his soldiers who died twenty years before in the Battle of Valea Alba
or Päräul Alb, 148 close to the church. The battle took place in 1476 and was the direct
consequence of the Battle of Vaslui where Stephen defeated the Ottoman armies in
1475. Consequently, Mehmet li hirnself headed the Ottoman army which attacked
Moldavia one year later and defeated the weakened Moldavian army. 149 Twenty years
146 The „otl1er,“ tlle bad, the misunderstood is always the one with an unusual exterior, with a
malforrnation, a different skin colour, a different religion, and so on. By contrast, the good is
always tlle beautiful one, tlle one who fits tlle nonns of the society. For a brief introduction to
the medieval self and „other,“ see: Albrecht Classen, „The Self, the Other and EveJything in
Between: Xenological Phenomenology of the Middle Ages“ in Meeting the Foreign in the
Middle Ages, ed. Albrecht Classen (New York: Routledge, 2002), xi-lxxiii.
147 For a discussion on red shoes as a symbol of Byzantine power. see: Warren T. Woodfin, The
Embodied Icon. Liturgical Vestments and Sacramental Power in Byzantium (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2012), 145-146.
148 Valea Alba or Päräul Alb should be translated as „The White Stream.“
149 Mehmed Il attacked Moldavia at the same time the Tartars attacked it from tlle onh. Stephen
was thus forced to divide his arrny and allow his men tO retum to their Iands in the North in
order to defend them. As a consequence, Stephen only faced the sultan wit11 the so-called „Small
Army“ forrned only of his trained boyars and soldiers. For the battle of Valea Alba, see:
Constantiniu, 0 istorie sincerii a poporului romon, 111-112. Also, for the political
circumstances of surrounding the battles of Vaslui and Valea Alba, see: Bogdan Murgescu,
51
later, Stephen commissioned the Church of Razboieni and had the following
inscription added to the new edifice:
In the days of the good-Christian and Christ-loving ruler, Io Prince Stephen,
ruler of Moldavia with the mercy of God, son of Prince Bogdan, in the year
6984 ( 1476), in the twentieth year of his reign, the powerful Turkish emperor
Mehmet II rose with all his eastem powers; and also Prince Basarab, known as
Laiotä, came with him, with all of his Wallachian country. And they came to
raid and take the Moldavian country; and they came up until here, at the place
known as Päräul Alb. And we, Prince Stephen, with my son Alexander, went
before them and made great war with them, in the month of July, 26; and with
the will of God, the Christians were defeated by the pagans. And a great
number of Moldavian soldiers feil there that day . . . Because of this, Io Prince
Stephen with all his good will, built this house in the name of the Areharrgel
Michael; and for the remembrance of himself, of his wife Maria and his sons
Alexander and Bogdan, and for the remembrance and acknowledgement of all
the Christians who died here. In the year 7004 ( 1496), the 40’h year of his reign,
the month ofNovember, l 81h.150
This sole inscription is unique for the reign of Stephen the Great, but in August,
1 973 151 archaeologists discovered that not only the inscription was unique, but also
the chmch itself. lt was, just like the Putna Monastery, a lieu de memoire, but in a
more Iitera! sense. A !arge ossuary was found undemeath the church, placed in
exceptional positions undemeath the altar and the naos suggesting tombs of
martyrs, 152 which gathered the remains of the men who fought and died at the battle
of Valea Albä/Razboieni, on the 261h of July 1476, as the inscription of the church
indicates.
The existence of this church with its remarkable insctiption and ossuary is
however not the only indication of Stephen’s method of designing memoty. $tefan
Andreescu pointed to the recently-edited memoires of the Dominican friar Martin
Gruneweg ( 1 562-about 1 6 1 8). At the end of the sixteenth century, the friar travelled
through Moldavia and observed that
[Moldavia] rarely has peace and is continuously robbed at all its borders,
because of which !arge spillings of blood occur, but wherever a great battle
took place, the field is marked with one of these pillars instead of a cross. Such
Jiirile romiine intre fmperiul Otoman .yi Europa Cre.ytinii [The Romanian Principalilies between
the Ottoman Empire and Christian Europe) (Bucharest: Polirom, 2012), 1 7-20. 150 See the inscription in in $tefan ce/ Mare §i Sfiint 1504- 2004. Biserica. 0 lecfie de istorie, 124-
125. 151 tefan Andreescu, „Cämpurile de batalie – locuri ale memoriei. 0 noull märturie“ (Tbc
Battlefie1ds – Places of Memory. A New Testimony) Analeie Putnei I (2010): 304. 152 The connection between the positions of the bones at Räzboieni aud tbe tombs of martyrs was
made by the archaeologist Gh. I. Cantacuzino. See: 1bidem.
5 2
pillars can be seen very often, especially where an important person had
died.153
The fact that Stephen marked his battle fields with pillars is evident when studying
other documents which point to the existence of battle-field pillars. In 1583, Prince
Peter Schiopul issued a donation act with the following words: “ . . . and from
Verbove to Olova, up there on the road, between the land of Olhove and Sucevia,
then downstream, by the fountain, where Prince Stephen’s cross and pillar
stand … „154 Similarly, thePolish traveller Maciej Stryjkowski, on his way through
Moldavia saw the „remains“ of the battle of Vaslui, 1475:
. . . and there, with a few men, he defeated a hundred thousand Turks and
Tartars, with the help of God. He ordered that the bodies of the dead be burnt,
whose bones are still visible today in !arge piles, which I saw with my own
eyes . . . and also three crosses, which were built there as a sign of that
victory. 155
Stephen thus had his military deeds remembered – although not only by visual
schemes, but also with the help of written means. As the ruler of bis principality,
Stephen was able to manipulate (his) time as he desired. In some of the documents he
issued, a unique chronology was used, creating something which may be called „the
time of Stephen the Great. „156 Instead of dating the document with the actual
chronological time, Stephen had it dated with „his own“ time. This way, the boyar
Hanco received the gypsies brought from „the County of Basarabia, when I [Stephen
the Great] made war and burnt Floci and Ialomia.“157 Other similar documents refer
to the fact that valuable documents of donation were lost or destroyed: some
privi!eges from Princes Alexander the Good, Ilia and Stephen were lost „when the
Turks robed Horincea;“158 other privileges were destroyed „when the Turkish
emperor came and plundered our country;“159 similarly, other documents from
Alexander the Good went missing when „the Tmks came upon us, at Päräul Alb.“160
153 See the original text quoted by tefao Andreescu (at page 305) in: Almuet Bues (Hg.), Die
Aufteichnungen des Dominikaners Marlin Gruneweg (1562 – ca .. 1618) über seine Familie in
Danzig, seine Handelsreisen in Osteuropa und sein Klosterleben in Polen (Wiesbaden: Barrassowitz
Verkag, 2008), 701-714.
154 Document quoted in Ibidem, 306.
155 Ciiliitori striiini despre Jiirile Romane Jl [Foreign Travellers on the Romanian Principalities],
ed. Maria Holban, M. M. Alexandrescu-Dersca Bulgaru, Paul Cernovodeanu (Bucharest:
Editura $tiintificä, 1 968), 452-453. 156 For more details on the concept of „the time of Stephen the Great,“ see Gorovei and Szekely,
Princeps Omni Laude Maior, chapter „Timpul i spatiul unui suveran“ [The time and the space
of a sovereign], 485-49 1 .
157 Quoted i n Gorovei and Szekely, Princeps Omni Laude Maior, 489. Originally in Documenta
Romaniae Historica. A. Moldavia II (1449-1486), ed. Leon $imanschi (Bucharest: Academiei,
1976), document no. 191; 286. (henceforth: DRH A. 11)
158 Ibidem. Originally in DRH A.II, document no. 209; 317.
159 Ibidem. Originally in DRH A.ll, document no. 230, 352. 160 Ibidem. Originally in DRH A.II, document no. 126; 246.
53
The context of the event described, whether it be the destruction of certain documents
or acts of privileges, thus became more important than the event itself. The event of
the document became subdued to the context – a context which highlighted the acts
ofStephen the Great. Stephen thus designed, in a way, his own history textbook.
Building Stephen ’s myth from the outside: perceptions of Steplzen
Although until the sixteenth century, Stephen was not recalled in extemal
sources as „the Great,“ the fifteenth century abounds in references to the ruler which
testify his outstanding deeds. Christians, non-Christians, allies, and enemies, all
recorded their perception of Stephen.
The pope: Stephen, the champion of Christ
The title Athleta Christi, or Champion of Christ, awarded by the Pope to men
who successfully defended Christianity in military campaigns, was also bestowed on
Stephen the Great. The title which initially evoked an image of struggle161
represented a significant honour in the Late Middle Ages as rulers such as John
Hunyadi or George Kastrioti Skanderbeg received it following their battles with the
Ottomans. 162 Usually, successful military encounters against the Ottoman Empire
resulted in the bestowal of this papal title, thus Stephen received it after defeating
Suleyman Pasha at the notorious battle of Vaslui. 163
The title Athleta Christi is probably the most distinguished that Stephen ever
received from one of his contemporaries. However, Stephen was not named „Athleta
Christi,“ but „verus christiane fidei athleta,“ the true champion of the Christian faith:
. . . as all people of the earth know, the lawless Turks will not stop conspiring
against the Christian faith and against those who received the holy baptism of
rebirth and above all, against the beloved son, the noble man, Prince Stephen,
duke of Moldavia, and against his dominions . . . and although the abovementioned
Stephen, as a true champion of the Christian faith, is prepared to
resist the foulness and the attacks of the Turks, in order to carry such a heavy
burden and in order to bring it to an end, his sole powers are not sufficient. 164
161 See the late antique and hagiographical origins of the title in: Thomas Head, Hagiography and
the Cult of Sainls: The Diocese of Orleans, 800-1200 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
162 1990), 1 1 3-1 14. For the circumstances in which Skanderbeg was narned „Athleta Christi,“ see: Robert Elsie,
Historical Dictionary of Albania (Plymouth: Scarecrow Press, 20 I 0), 74-75. 163 For a contextualisation of the events surrounding 1475 within tbe Eastem European frame, see:
Ion Grumeza, The Roots of Balkanization: Eastern Europe C.E. 500-1500 (Lanham: University
Press of America, 201 0), 98-99.
164 Documente privitoare Ia istoria Romcinilor. 1451-1510 [Documents regarding the history of
Romaniaus. 145 1-15 10], Il, Part 2, collected by Eudoxiu de Hunnuzaki (Bucharest: 1891),
54
Analyzing this extract, Stefan Gorovei revealed the political connection between
Stephen the Great and Pope Sixtus IV, within the anti-Ottoman Jeague initiated under
the Pope’s guidance:65 Between 1476 and 1477, a set of letters between the Pope and
the prince divu1ged the existence of this unique partnership. The exceptionality of this
relationship is betrayed by the content of the written dialogues between Stephen and
Pope Sixtus.
Stephen was the initiator of this „dialogue“ with a Ietter in which he asked the
Pope to invest a man suggested by him as the new bishop of Baia. The Pope accepts
the plea and invests the man – „ex … desiderium tuum,“166 as Sixtus IV points in his
response. Furthermore, in a different Ietter, Stephen also asked for financial help from
the Holy See. The Pope once more answered positively: he would give Stephen all
the funds collected from indulgences in the Catholic Churches of Baia and those in
the fortress of Cetatea Alba. It was within this response that Stephen was named
„verus christiane fidei athleta“ and it is certainly remarkable to see how the head of
the Catholic Church decides to fund an orthodox prince with the indulgences
collected from the most important catholic churches in the Moldavian territ01y.167
Poland, Hungary, and others
Sources show that Polish writers (whether they were chroniclers, diplomats,
geographers, or travellers through Moldavia) were the strengest admirers of Stephen
amongst the neighbours of the principality. Although they occasionally portrayed
Stephen as a blood-thirsty ruler, his general contemporary perception was one which
displayed amazement.
Polish sources recall that Stephen the Great „was different from others by
means of his perfidy, restlessness, agility, and deftness“168 while he inflicted a deeR fear in Polish soldiers because „many Polish men were disgracefully chased away“1 9
by him. However, despite these deeds (or maybe because of them!), he was known as
„the most famous prince and watTior of that time, known because of victories agairrst
the Tmks.“170 When describing Stephen, Polish sources were imbibed with the
document 110. CCXVI, 241 (entire text ofthe Pope’s Ietter: 241 -243). (he11ceforth: Hurmuzaki
11.2). 165 For the entire study 011 the connection between Stephen and the Pope, see: Stefan S. Gorovei,
„1473: Stefa11, Moldova i lumea catolicä“ [1473: Stephen, Moldavia and the Catholic world) in
Stefan cel Mare i Sfänt – Portret fn lstorie, 395-406.
166 Documente privitoare Ia istoria Romänilor. 1451-1575 [Documents regarding the history of
Romanians. 1451-1 575), Il, Pan 1, collected by Eudoxiu de Hurmuzaki (Bucharest: 1891),
167 document no. XVII. 14 (entire text ofthe Pope’s Ietter: 14-15). (henceforth: Hurmuzaki II.I). See a Iborough discussion of the significance of this issue in: Gorovei, „1473: Stefan, Moldova
i lumea catolicä“, 40 l -402. 168 Jan Dtugosz, Historia Polonica in !jtefan cel Mare !fi Sfänt. Portrel fn cronicä, 159. 169 Maciej Miechowita, Chronica Polonorum in Stefan cel Mare i Sfänt. Portret fn cronicii, 173. 170 Bemard Wapowski, Chronicorum Partern Posterarem in Stefan ce/ Mare i Sfänt. Portret in
cronicii, 176.
55
leitmotif of the hero. He was the „brilliant watTior,“171 the „lucky, wise and brave,“172
“with a heart of a rarely-found bravery, always happy and tireless,“173 and „a grand
soul.“l74
The impact of Stephen was strong enough to generate signs able to suggest a
future defeat of the Polish anny:
1494. In the city of Cracow, a woman gave birth to a child and a snake, who
ate the back of the child and filled him with wounds. In a slum of the same
city, another woman gave birth to an even uglier monster, which had rabbit
neck and ears, and instead of his stomach it had a deformed intestine and
opened a large and unbound mouth. This eeriness was bom on the 22″d of
October. Three years later, in the last days of the same month, the loud and
unlucky battle against the Moldavians was fought.175
The „loud and unlucky battle“ was that of Codrii Cozminului, fought in October
1 497, when Poland’s King John I Albert entered Moldavia to dethrone Stephen.
Nature often symbolically announced imminent threats Uust like it happened with the
death of Stephen176). In the case of Codrii Cozminului, the imminent threat was none
other than Stephen. This image of the fearful enemy inspired three of the most
concise and relevant Polish characterisations of Stephen the Great. Jan Dtugosz
acclaimed the ruler with the following words:
Oh, wonderful man, you are nothing less than other heroic commanders, who
all amaze us so much! In our days, he, the first of the princes of the world, wins
a brilliant victory over the Turks. In my opinion, he is the most wo1thy man to
Iead and rule the world and he is especially worthy of the honour of being the
conunander against the Turks, with the advice, understanding and
determination of all Christians . . . 177
Maciej Miechowita had similar thoughts on Stephen the Great:
Oh, triumphal and victorious man, who fought down all neighbouring kings!
Oh, happy man, who was bestowed with all gifts, as others receive only some
of these gifts from nature: some are wise and crafty, others are brave and
righteous, and others are lucky against enemies. You are the only one who was
given all these gifts together: righteous, foreseeing, crafty, victorious over all
171 lbidem, 1 8 1 .
172 Maciej Miechowita, Chronica Polonorum, 175.
173 Jan Dlugosz, Historia Polonica, 170.
174 Bemard Wapowski, Chronicorum Partern Posterarem in $tefan cel l’vfare i Sfiint. Portret in
cronica, 177. A similar characterisation of Stephen as a man with a great soul can be found in
Jan Dlugosz, Hsi toria Polonica in $tefan cel Mare i Sfiint. Portret in cronicii, 172.
175 Bemard Wapowski, Chronicorum Parrem Posterorem, 179.
176 Polish Chronicler Bemard Wapowski recalled nature ‚ s reaction on tbe cve of Stepben’s death:
„tbe rivers swelled from the numerous rains and they spilled outside their channels as nevcr seen
bcfore; and not 1ong afterwards, Stephen, the prince of Moldavia, died.“ See: fbidem, 190- 1 9 1 .
177 Jan Dh1gosz, Hi storia Polonica, 165-1 66.
56
enemies! It is not in vain that he should be considered one of the heroes of our
century. 178
Finally, Bernard Wapowski also had only words ofpraise for the prince of Moldavia:
lndeed, he was brave, crafty, and lucky in war. Because he won over Matthias,
the king of Hungary … He drove the Tartars away many times. Mehmed, the
emperor of the Turks, who after taking Constantinople, crossed the Danube
with 120.000 Turks and robbed Moldavia, was defeated … Apart from these,
he also defeated King Albert … Stephen was gifted with the virtues of a hero,
therefore, he may rightfully be considered among the fa mous men of the art of
war. 1 79
When one compares Polish sources to Hungarian ones, their contrasring nature is
apparent. Although Stephen’s bravery and the successful military aspects of his reign
were never omitted by Hungarian chroniclers, the accent however fe ll on the
rebellious nature of the Moldavian prince.
He was „a good protector of his countty and his people, ready to die for
them.“ 180 Nevertheless, Antonio Bonfini perceived him filled with revolutionary
spirit: „As a subject of the king of Hungary, he [Stephen] had to pay all his taxes and
to obey all orders, but he, driven by craze and his fierce temper, altough fe rvent and
teJTific in war, would not obey in any way.“181 The negative characterisations of
Stephen were almost always connected to the Battle of Baia, where King Matthias
was defeated in 1467.182 Hungarian clu·oniclers agreed that Moldavia, altogether, was
rebellious und er the guidance of Stephen, 1 83 although they also agreed that guided by
Stephen, Moldavia „defeated Suleyman Pasha and the commander of Rumelia so that
out of 30.000 Turks, ve1y fe w, those who by chance rode very fa st horses, managed
to get away .“184 Still, regardless of the success against the Ottoman annies, when the
clashes between Stephen and Matthias were described, the Moldavian prince became
perfidious:
In that time, the entire province was ruled by a man with a unique boldness; his
name was Stephen. This man, gathering a great m1mber of people, hulTied to
178 Maciej Miechowita, Chronica Polonorum, 175.
179 Bemard Wapowski, Chronicorum Partern Posterorem, 191.
18° Chronicon Dubnicense in !jtefa n ce/ Mare $i Sfä nt. Portret in cronica, 207.
181 Antonio Bonfini, Historia Pannonica ab Origine Gentis ad Annum 149j in $tefa n cel Mare i
Sj (mt. Portret in cronica, 208. 182 Fora detailed description of the Battle of Baia, see: Gorovei and Szekely, Princeps Omni Laude
Maior, subcbapter „Lupta de Ia Baia“ [Tbe Battle of Baia], 59-70.
183 „Moldavia also revolted.“ See: Petrus Ranzanus, Epitome Rerum Hungaricarum in $tefa n cel
Mare i Sfänt. Portret in cronicii, 211 . Or, as in another inslance: „Matthias headed tbe reins of
his horses towards Moldavia, whicb was a rebel at that time.“ See: Ioannes de Thurocz,
Chronica Hungarorum in $tefa n ce/ Mare i Sfänt. Portret fn cronicii, 212.
184 Felix Petancic, „Despre drumurile pe care trebuie sä se porneascä expediria contra turcilor“
[About the roads on which the campaign against the Turks sbould debut] in $tefa n ce/ Mare i
Sf änt. Portret in cronicii, 214.
57
set fire in many places of the city [the Fortress of Baia], after midnight, so that
the king and all his men, dizzy with sleep and wine, would transform into
ashes. 1 81
Hungarian chronicles contemporary to Stephen show him in both positive and
negative terms, a fact best summarised in the sixteenth-century work of Miklos
Istvanffy: “ . . .i t is therefore seen that he must rightfully be considered among the men
worth remembering ofhis time. But he was changing and unstable. H e was proud and
his unusual cruelty erased some ofthe fame and glory ofhis deeds.“186
Other sources from beyond Moldavian borders combine the two contrasting
views on Stephen: the veritable hero versus the brave rebel. Stephen’s preeminent
image is somewhat faded as he ceased to be the man Dhtgosz, Miechowski, and
Wapowski described, although he still remained the brave and strong corrunander.
Chronicles originating in Gennan and Russian territories also add to Stephen’s
characterisation with negative epithets: Stephen is once more a brutal, merciless ruler.
In the eyes of Jakob Unrest, the Moldavian ruler was wise and it was with the
help of this virtue that he accomplished the victory of 1475 against Suleyman
Pasha.187 As the 1475 victory echoed outside Moldavia, he was unsurprisingly
portrayed as a ruler who accomplished the almost un-accomplishable: „The prince . . .
soon aftetwards killed 1 3,000 and caught 5,000 of them [the Ottomans]. And such a
cry went all the way to Constantinople and such a cry rose, because for many years
something similar had not been heard . . . „188 A similar echo was recorded by an
anonymous chronicle after the battle of Codrii Cozminului when Stephen defeated
the Polish king:
And the defeat of the Polish was so great, that the king barely retumed with ten
men, after which the king became sick. And then this saying was bom: during
the time of King Albert, the Polish army [szlachta] perished.189
These chronicles, however, also described a cruel ruler, such as during the events
when the Tartar army tried to invade Moldavia and Stephen captured the Khan’s son:
And envoys from his father came, threatening Prince Stephen. Stephen,
however, erdered that the son of the Khan be killed in front of them and he
impaled all of them [the envoys], except for one, whose nose and ears he cut
down and sent him back like this to the tsar ofthe Tartars. 190
185 Petrus Ranzanus, Epitome Rerum Hungaricarum, 2 1 2 .
186 Mikl6s lsrvanffy, Regni Hungarici Historia in Stefan cel Mare i Sfant. Portret fn cronicii, 216. 187
“ . . . again Stephen voivode entered Moldavia, where six groups of Ottoman armics were . . .
whom he defeated with bis wisdom and he made them mn . . . “ See: Jakub Unrest, Chronicon
Austriacum in $tefan ce/ Mare $i Sfant. Porrret fn cronicii, 222.
188 Cronicii germanii [Thc German Chronicle] in $tefan cel Mare $i Sfant. Portret fn cronicii, 222.
189 Cronica de Ia miiniisiirea Husranscaia (The Chronicle of the Hustynska Monastery] in $tefan
cel Mare $i Sfänt. Portret fn cronicii, 225.
190 Ibidem, 224.
58
A Lithuanian chronicle fills the Iack of information in the above-cited extract and
explains how the son of the Khan was actually executed: “ . . . very few escaped with
the Khan, and his eldest son was captured by the Moldavians and cut to pieces.“191
Unsurprisingly, there are similar accounts of how Stephen punished his enemies after
Stephen’s most famous battle, that of Vaslui in 1475: “ . . . he [Stephen the Great]
ordered that the I I ,000 captured Turks and Tartars be impaled, within ten rows of
stakes.“192
However, probably the most relevant characterisation of Stephen is the
following: “ 1 504. Stephen died, the prince of Moldavia, brave warrior just like a
second Alexander.“193 He was not simply praised for his military deeds, but was
compared to one ofthe already-mythical king-figures, Alexander the Great. The sheer
comparison with the Macedonian king offers Stephen a magnificent dimension which
surpasses the borders of his humble principality.
Ottomans on Stephen
Stephen the Great’s reign was marked by Moldavia’s relationship with the
Ottoman Empire. He eventually subdued and accepted to pay the Ottoman tribute, but
not before a long series of conflicts which were mainly fought without substantial
help from any Christian power of the time.194
In accordance with this tumultuous relationship, Ottoman sources do not
present the prince in a positive perspective. Documents and chronicles mainly focus
on the two events which shook the Moldavian-Ottoman relations: the 1475
Moldavian victory at Vaslui and the 1476 Ottoman counter-victory at Podul lnalt
(Räzboieni). In a1most all Ottoman instances, the battle of Vaslui is presented briefly,
while the battle of Räzboieni is described in its entire ampleness. A1k Paazade is a
fine example in this sense: while he descibes the events of the year 1475 in no more
than five sentences, he elaborates the cionflict of 14 76 in a space which encompasses
more than six times the space used for 1475. 195 The explanation for the Ottoman
disproportionate allocation of space for these events is self-explanatory. Nobody
expected that the Ottoman army led by Suleyman Pasha would be defeated in 1 475,
thus the outcome of the battle created a wave of shock in the Ottoman world which
191 Cronica Liruaniana [Lithuanian Chronicle) in Srefan cel Mare i Sfiinr. Portrer in cronica, 226-
227.
192 lbidem, 227.
193 Cronica de Ia manastirea Hust{mscaia, 226.
194 For insights to all the relevant conflicts between Stephen’s Moldavia and the Ottoman Empire,
see: Tahsin Gemil, Romiinii $i otomanii in secole/e XIV-XVI (Romanians and Otternans from the
fourteenth to the sixtecnth centuries] (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Romane, 1991), chapter
„Romänii in fa{a unui nou imperiu“ [Romanians in front of a new empire); Cazan and Denize.
Mari/e puteri i spafiul romiinesc, Chapter III „Domnia lui tefan cel Mare – epoca de maximä
afirmare politicä a Moldovei medievale“ [Stephen the Great – Medieval Moldavia’s pe1iod of
maximal political affirmation).
195 See: A1k Paazade in Stefan cel Mare .yi Sfiint. Portret fn cronica, 248-249.
59
substantially contributed to the negative characterisations of Stephen in Ottoman
perspective.
Kara-Bogdan-olu196 was „the enemy from Moldavia,“197 „the Ieader of the
devils in Moldavia,“1 8 the „unworthy giaour“199 as Tursun Bei described him, and
the „damned unfaithful“200 as Atk Paazade named him. Stephen was disliked
mainly because he disobeyed the Sultan and refused to pay the taxes, and because, on
top of his disobedience, he was victorious in 1475. Nevertheless, one year later, the
Ottomans were avenged: because he „had shown recklessness in submission and in
paying the tribute, he was defeated and punished as he deserved.“201
Thus Sultan Mehmed rearranged the Ottoman-Moldavian balance in 1476 and,
Jess than ten years later, his successor Bayezid II took control over Stephen’s most
beloved fortresses: the ports of Chilia and Akkem1an. With this conuest, Bayezid
ended in 1485 Stephen’s hostile policy towards the Ottoman Empire.20 In fact, Atk
Paazade highlighted that Stephen not only abandoned his hostile attitude, but took
shelter in Poland until the situation of the fortresses was clear. In this context, Atk
Paazade made a thorough characterisation of the prince, rhetorically asking hirnself
why Stephen abandoned his principality in what he perceived as a cowardly gesture:
What kind of unfaithful man is this Kara-Bogdan-oglu that when such miseries
come upon his vilayet that he could not find a place to guard his head! To this
question, I answered in verses:
He stepped on the Hungarian king,
He broke the bow of Suleyman-bei,
He scared even the one in Wallachia,
And many times his [the Wa!lachian prince’s] principality as weiL
Also, he stood face to face with Sultan Mehmed.
His army was destroyed, but he fought weil.
He saved his head from the hands ofhis enemy.
This is the unfaithful who defeated many armies.
He was vain and rogue and full ofhimself,
196 This was the name by which Stephen the Great was known in the Ottoman Empire. See in: Atk
Paazade, „Tevarih-I AI-I Osman“ in Cronici rurceti privind Tiirile Romane. Extrase. Sec. XVmijlocul
sec. XV!l T [Turkish Chr011icles regarding the Romanian Principalities. Extracts. From
tbe fifteenth century to tbe mid-seventeenth century], ed. Mihail Gublogu and Mustafa Mebrnet
(Bucharest: Academiei, 1966), 100.
197 Tursun Bei, „Tarih-I Ebu-1 Feth-I Sultan Mehmed-Han“ in Cronici turceti privind Tarife
Romane, 69.
198 Ibidem, 77.
199 Ibidem, 78. 200 A1k Paazade, „Tevarih-1 AI-I Osman“ in Cronici turceti privind Tarife Romane, 96. 201 Ibidem. 202 After the year 1485, Stephen’s reign entered the new phase of building and adoroing churches
and focusing on a more spiritual side of his reign. Ovidiu Pecican argues that it was the deep
disappointment that Stephen feit when he lost tbese two fortresses that made him give up bis
hostitle attitude towards the Onornans. See Pecican, Sange Ji trandafiri, 43.
60
But he ran without shame from Ali-bei.
The greatness of Bayezid-han made him run away,
And go in the cotmtry of the Polish mler.203
A1k Paazade both praised and denigrated the mler. Stephen had enough power to
defeat a Pasha (Suleyman), but had no courage to stand in front of the new sultan,
Bayezid. Although Stephen was a skilled wanior, the position of Moldavia to the
Empire did not allow the prince to be seen positively. Thus, other fifteenth-centmy
Ottoman historians had similar views to A1k Paazade. Mehmed Neri also thought
that Stephen was a „damned“204 „giaour“205 but, interestingly, he also made a
eulogising statement regarding the prince: „lstefan-bei from Moldavia, a ve1y skilled
man and great master in wars against giaours, served very weil Sultan Murad and
Sultan Mehmed.“206
One must argue therefore that the figure of Stephen was not completely
negative and this is a significant element when discussing the image of the Moldavian
prince. The fact that a representative of the Ottoman Empire admitted that a man who
probably caused the Sultan some sleepless nights was in fact a skilled wanior, may
be seen as a strike to his ego. Nevertheless, Stephen’s courage is present in all his
characterisations, although it was probably words like these ones that the Sultan
mostly enjoyed: „Bogdan207 ran with his face darkened, with tears in his eyes and his
heart broken. „208
203 Atk Paazade, „Tevarih-I Al-l Osman“ in Cronici turceti privind Tarife Romiine, l 02.
204 Mehmed Neri, „Djihannuma, Tarih-I AI-I Osman“ in Cronici turceti privind Tarife Romane,
127. 205 Ibidem. 206 Mehmed Neri in !)tefan cel Mare i Sfii nt. Portret in cronica, 263.
207 Stephen the Great. 208 The characterisation of Stephen the Great after the defeat at Podul inalt in 1476. See: Semseddin
Ahmed bin Suleiman Kemal Paazade in !)tefan cel Mare 9i Sfiint. Portret in cronicii, 271 .
6 1
IV The great successor and the pursuit of the dynastic
proj ect: Prince Peter Rare
The fifteenth-century followers of Stephen the Great all tried to emulate the
image oftheir &reat predecessor: from his son Bogdan III to the illegitimate claimants
to the throne.20 However, none of them followed in the footsteps of Stephen as much
as his illegitimate son Peter Rare ( 1 5 27-1538; 1 54 1 – 1546) did. The „swan with
golden feathers,“ as Rare’s personal chronicler Macarie called him,210 had an
inunense ambition animated by his vision of justice – this was visible throughout the
actions of his entire reign, but was also verbalised by the prince hirnself „God helps
the one who does not slug, the one who welcomes hardships and calls God for his
help, God helps the one who loves justice and who judges with righteousness,
because justice is true happiness for God, and for the tsar it is true wisdom. „2 1 1
Peter Rare was seeking justice – a justice which may be called his own twofold
justice. On the one hand, like any righteous medieval ruler, Rare promoted and
followed divine justice: „True justice is Christ . . . and God lives in the empire where
there is justice and he gives it [the empire] his saintly help; and God’s wrath never
rises against that empire.“212 On the other hand, there was the justice that Rare
followed in the footsteps of his father, a justice which was more of a guideline that
allowed him to engage in purposeful projects similar to his father’s.
209 See Teodora Artimon, „The Proto-Myth of Stephen the Great of Moldavia“ doc1oral dissenation
(Budapest: Centrat European University, 2015), chapter „Tbe Pursuit of the Dynastie Project:
Stephen’s Successors.“ 210 „Cronica lui Macarie“ (The Chronicle of Macarie] in Ioan Bogdan, Vechile cronice
moldovenesci panä Ia Urechia (Bucharest: Lito-Tipografia Carol Gobl, 1891), 2 1 2 (hencefonh:
„The Chronicle of Macarie“).
211 [van Peresvetov, „Jalba cea mare“ (The !arge Ietter), in Ciilätori striiini d.tspre Tiirile Romane I,
453.
212 lbidem, 457.
62
(I/legitimate) origins and (legitimate) enthronement
The origins of Peter Rare are covered in shade. While his official chronicler
omits any information about his mother and only focuses on his descendance from
Stephen the Great,213 Grigore Ureehe adds information on both his mother and on the
way he was appointed to the Moldavian throne:
After the death of his predecessor Stephen the Young, the boyars gathered and
discussed whom they will choose as ruler, because custom did not allow the
reign of somebody who had no princely blood. And discussing with each other,
they leamed from the Metropolitan about events that happened before Prince
Stephen [the Young] and because Prince Stephen [the Young] was sick at
Hotin, he ordered that if he died, nobody should come to the tlu·one except
Peter Mäjariul, nicknamed Rare, by the name of his mother who was named
after another man [her husband], merchant in Härläu, called Rare. Thus,
confirming that he was descending from the bone of Prince Stephen [the
Great], they all raised him prince, on January 20.214
One leams from this excerpt that Peter was the illegitimate son of Stephen the Great,
raised under the protection of a man named Rare, in the town of Härläu. This was
the general historiographical opinion for a long time215 until it was proved that Peter
Rare was not the fish merchant living unknowingly of his ptincely status,216 but a
man raised either within a family of boyars with noble connections in Härläu and
Baia,217 or within the powerful boyar family ofCemat.218
Chronicles consented, as seen in the above quotation from Ureche, that it was
Stephen the Young who appointed Rare to the Moldavian throne. It is difficult to
know how correct this infmmation is,219 but it is certain that the Royal Council
decided to appoint Rare disregarding the sons of Stephen the Young.220 This may be
explained by the fact that Stephen ’s sons were still under-aged, but also by the fact
213 “ . . . Prince Peter, the son ofold Prince Stephen . . . “ See: „The Chronicle ofMacarie,“ 203.
214 Urccbe, The Chronicle ofMoldavia, 9 1 .
215 And it most likely remains so for several historians.
216 For this opinion, see: Ion Toderacu, „Inscaw1area“ (The enthronement], in Perru Rar(!.$. ed.
Leon Simanschi (Bucbaresr: Academiei, 1 978), 63. 217 lt may have been that Maria, Rare’s mother, descended from the logothete 1saia·s family from
Baia, while her busband descended from a boyar named Bärla from Härlau. See: Maria
Magdalena Szekely, „Neamul dinspre mamä a lui Perm Rare“ (The family of Peter Rare
dcscending from bis mother], Arhiva Genealogicii 5 ( 1 998): 169-178.
218 Stefan Gorovei, Petru Rare!j (Bucha.rest: Edimra Militara, 1982), 269. See also: Serban Oracu,
„Mama lui Petru Rare“ [The mother ofPeter Rare]. Magazin Jstoric I I (1977): 36.
219 Ovidiu Pecican hypothesised that 1he story of Rare’s enthronement as appointed by Stephen the
Young is most likely a well-imbibed motifin Moldavian and Wallachian cultures, which bad at
least th.ree more manifestations in three different mlers of Wallachia. See: Ovidiu Pecian, Evul
mediuflctiv [Fictional Middle Ages] (Bucha.rest: Tracus Arte, 201 2), 120.
220 Stephen the Young’s sons were the later prince John the Brave and the aspirant to tbe throne,
lvan Bogdan. See: Rezachevici, Cronologia criticii, 560.
63
that Stephen the Great’s notoriety at the time could not allow the boyars to appoint
anyone eise to the throne but his closest descendant. Whichever the circumstances, it
is certain that in 1 527, upon receiving the throne of Moldavia, Peter Rare was
congratulated by King Sigismund 1 for becoming the foliower of Stephen the
Young.221
The first reign: matehing the father?
Peter Rare wanted to be known as the son of Stephen the Great and evidence
shows that he was deeply pleased with this status. During bis reign, he commissioned
a chronicle from bishop Macarie which was meant to show the history of his reign,
preceded by short histories of Bogdan III and Stephen the Young. The introduction of
the chronicle is relevant:
And we try, as we can, to continue the story and to bring it up to our days, not
because we want to brag ourselves in rhetorical boosts, but because we are
following the princely orders of our illustrious and feared-by-enemies Prince
Peter, the son of Stephen the Brave . . . to not allow the deeds of the past fall
into the grave of oblivion.222
Peter, therefore, tbrough the words of his chronicler, made his ambitions clear from
the very beginning of his own story. Although the text refers to the continuation of
the previous chronicles written in the fifteenth century, it nevertheless implies
something more subtle (which may or may not have been intentional): Peter Rare
was going to „continue the story“ of his father. But he could not continue the st01y i f
he was not known a s the son o f his father – which is why he became furious when
Sigismund I confused him for the son of Bogdan III (the father of Stephen the Young
and the legitimate son of Stephen the Great). During the conflict with Poland over
Pok.kutia, the strip of land for which both his father and his brother Bogdan IIl
fought, Peter and Sigismund exchanged a number of letters. In one of them,
Sigismund mistakenly mentioned Peter as the son of Bogdan. Peter’s answer to this
assertion came promptly, in 1 53 1 :
And you say that I am not the son of Prince Stephen the Great, but that I am the
son of Prince Bogdan, who was my brother. Here, your writer was
rnisinformed and he was wrong to deny my father. And that part of Pokkutia,
Prince Stephen the Great, my beloved father, kept for a long time in his
possession. 223
221 Documente privitoare Ia istoria Romanilor. 1510-1530 (Documents regarding the history of
Romanians. 1 5 1 0-1530), Il, Pan 3, collected by Eudoxiu de Hurmuzaki (Bucharest: 1 892),
document no. CCCCVH, 600 (henceforth: Hurmnzak.i 11.3) 222 „The Chronicle ofMacarie;· 198-199. 223 See the entire Ietter of Peter in: Scrisori domnl!§ti [Royal letters], ed. Nicolae Iorga (Välenii de
Munte: Tipografia „Neamul Romänesc,“ 1 912), 46-49, esp. 47.
64
The vety tone of this answer indicated that Stephen the Great represented a model for
Peter. Nevertheless, while he tried to fo llow his father’s „recipe,“ he fa iled to do one
thing which led to the fatal end of his first reign: he omitted the fact that Stephen
never confronted two enemies at the same time, and he concomitantly entered in
conflict with two powers which, combined, could only Iead to an unfortunate
outcome – the Polish Kingdom and the Ottoman Empire.
The conflict with King Sigismund and Suleyman the Magnificent not only
shows that Rare tried to accomplish more than he physically could/24 but it also
unveils his way of conducting his policy and his larger-than-life personality. The
„tyrant,“ as he was viewed by some from the very beginning of his reign,225 started
his relationship with Poland in good tenns by signing an alliance which referred to
maintainin§ peace between Moldavia and Poland and offering reciprocal help, when
necessary.2 6 Nevettheless, soon after signing this treaty, Peter Rare sent Sigismund
a Ietter in which he was asking back ten·itory of Pokkutia227 – arguing that it
rightfully belonged to Moldavia not only since the time of Bogdan III, but even
before. As expected, the answer was negative, which led to military conflicts between
the two rulers. In December 1530, Peter occupied Pokkutia. As a consequence,
Sigismund asked Rare to respect their alliance and to free the territory. He refused,
so the voivode of Galicia lan Tarnowski re-conquered Pokkutia once more for the
Polish Kingdom. When he defeated Peter’s armies left in Pok.kutia, the Moldavian
prince responded promptly by leaving for Pokkutia with a new army. This fa tally led
to „the most embarrassing defeat that the world has ever seen“228 when „over 7,000
Moldavians were slaughtered“229 at Obertyn on August 22, 1531.230
Not only did the Polish slaughter the Moldavians, but they also diminished
Rare’s pride when they took all the artillery which was comprised of 50
bronze cannons and three gilded flags, ofwhich one is thought to have been the
investment flag received from the sultan. And these flags are now hung in the
224 Meaning that he tried to gain Moldavia’s independence from both the Ottoman Empire and the
Polish Kingdom. While he managed to do so with Sigismund, he greatly fa iled at doing so with
Suleyman the Magnificent. See: Rezacbevici, Cronologia criticii, 562. 225 Tn 1528, Tranquillo Andreis sent a Ietter to Jan Tamowski, the commander of the Polish army,
telling him about the siruation in Wallachia. Ln this context, he mentioned Rare saying that the
only way towards Wallachia is by Moldavia-referring to the prince, he mentioned him as „that
tyrant.'“ See: Cii/iitori striiini desp re Tiirile Romane l, 246. 226 See the entire text of the treaty in: Hurmuzaki 11.3, document no. CCCCX, 602-606. For a
discussion of this document, see: Veniamin Ciobanu, „Aparätor al motenirii lui Stefan cel
Mare“ [Defender of Stephen the Great’s lcgacy], in Petru Rare, ed. Leon Simanschi
(Bucharest: Academiei, 1978), 111-1 12. 227 Gorovei, Mu$atinii, 89. 228 Ercole the Dalmatian described the events surrounding the conquest of tbe Pokkutia as he was in
Moldavia at the time. See: Cii/iitori striiini despre Tiirile Romäne I, 315. 229 Ibidem.
23° For the thorough descriptions of the conquest of Pokkutia and tbe defeat at Obertyn, see:
Ciobanu, „Apärätor al motenirii lui Stefan cel Mare,“ 107-135; Gorovei, MI .t$alinii, 84-85.
65
Cracow Cathedral. The cannons . . . once belonged to the King of Po land, who
was defeated by the Moldavian prince, that also brave captain Stephen [the
Great).231
The humiliation was even greater as Peter hirnself was wounded twice and some of
his most impmtant boyars were taken prisoners i n Poland – the logothete Toader
Bubuiog, governor Huru, and cup-bearer Popescu 232
While Peter’s precipitation to jurnp into battle with Jan Tamowski without
properly considering his strategy, inherently characterises him as a poor military
strategist,233 he still remained „rebellis inventus.“234 Although throughout the letters
and the messengers sent between Moldavia and Poland after Obertyn, Peter tempered
his demands and gave up on Pokkutia, he was still ask.ing for compensation after his
defeat in Poland.235 In this context, Nicholas lskrzyck.i, the chamberlain of
Camenitsa, was sent to negotiate with the Moldavian prince. The initiative failed and
Peter Rare ended their dialogue with the following sharp words:
. . . and if His Highness the King will not want to finish fighting with me, do
you see this icon of the Resurrection above my head? I swore on it before and I
swear now that I will not stop revenging, even if my head falls . . . even if the
entire world falls on me. 236
In 1 533, however, it came to knowledge (and also to Peter’s knowledge)237 that
Sigismund did not want to „finish fighting“ with Peter, and signed a peace treaty with
the Ottoman Empire that would surround Moldavia with enemies, isolate it, and
eventually depose Peter Rare.238 In 1 532, Peter Opalinski, Sigismund’s judge, was
sent to the Porte in order to discuss the Polish-Ottoman treaty. Reporting back to his
king, while secluded in the Transylvanian fortress of Media by Peter’s men, he told
S igismund about the „terrible traps that the price of Moldavia prepared [for me], both
when I went and when 1 retumed, in Moldavia, Hungary, and Transylvania, as
well.“239 Opalinski eventually escaped from Peter’s „few thousands Vlachs.“240 Any
vengeance from Peter was, however, useless because in 1 53 8 Moldavia was attacked
fi·om three different parts: from the south by the Ottoman army led by Suleyman the
231 Ercole the Dalmatian, in Ca/ätori straini despre fGrile Rom{me 1, 3 15. 232 Gorovei, Mu$alinii, 84.
233 Maria Magdalena Szekely, Sfetnicii lui Petnt Rar (Tbe Boyars of Peter Rare) (Iai: Editura
Universitätii Alexandru Ioan Cuza, 2002), I I .
234 As Andrew Mihalevich called him in one of his letters to Ferdinand of Habsburg. See: Cä/atori
235 s/räini despre Tärile Romane I, 302. Ciilätori striiini despre Tiirile Romane I, 351. 236 lbidem 3 55 237 Sigism’und’ messenger, Peter Opalinski rcported to his king that “ . . .t he prince of Moldavia
foresaw that I would go to the Turk.“ See: Cäliitori straini despre Tiirile Romane l, 347. 238 For a thorough descriptioo of what happened after tbe treaty, see: Rezacbevici, Cronologia
criticä, 563-567.
239 Caliitori sträini despre Tärile Romone I, 344.
240 lbidem, 348.
66
Magnificent hirnself and accompanied by a Wallchian army; from the north by the
Polish army; and from the east by the Tartar anny.241 Peter Rare, therefore, found
hirnself trapped between his neighbours: „And the head of Moldavia was struggling
in the middle. There was no hope for any help.“242
Peter thus conunitted the fatal mistake that his father had always avoided: in a
mismatched diplomatic strategy, he raised all neighbouring powers aainst him.
„Leaming about the arrival of the Turks, Peter was stricken with fear“ 43 and was
forced to flee to Transylvania before Suleyman the Magnificent reached the gates of
Suceava. However, before running to Transylvania, documents show that he did not
abandon his seat without a military response. Peter Rare thoroughly prepared for the
clash with the Polish army and after another confrontation with Jan Tamowski, he
signed a peace treaty with the Polish Kingdom. Peace with the Ottomans, on the other
hand, was not possible: although he defeated the Tartar anny at $tetaneti/44 he did
not have the chance to confront Suleyman’s men because of the treason of his most
important boyars. lt was only when his trusted boyar Huru told him about the plot of
the Royal Council to ally with the sultan245 that Peter left Moldavia and took shelter
in Transylvania. lt was the end ofhis first reign, dated l 41h of September 1538.246
A man of (still) dynamic personality: the second reign
Although in 1538, Peter Rare, as Abdülaziz Efendi described, „showed his
hidden rebellion, spitting his tilthy poison from his snake-like mouth,“247 he still
followed his interests and managed to retie the relationship with the Ottoman Porte.
In 1539, he approached Sultan Suleyman for the first time and shortly afterwards, in
1 540, he left for lstanbul to pay his dues for regaining the throne.248
241 „Next to tbe Turks came tbe Ta1tars as weil, witb tbeir beastly faces, and next to tbe Turks came
tbe Ieaders of tbe Wallacbian armies too, and from the north [came] the low-minded Pols.“ See:
„The Chronicle ofMacarie,“ 207.
242 lbidem.
243 The Chronicle of Mustafa Celalzade („Tabakat al-memalik ve daradjat al-mesalik“), in Cronici
rurceti privind Tiirile Romane. Extrase [Turkish Chronicles on the Romanian Principalities] I,
ed. Mihail Guboglu and Mustafa Mehmet (Bucharest: Academiei, 1966), 264.
244 Rezachevici, Cronologia crilicii, 564.
245 „But the keeper of the royal chamber, whose name was Härä, leaming about all this, told the
prince everything and he said: oh, prince, the boyars are counselling to abandon you.“ See: „The
Chronicle ofMacarie,“ 208.
246 The official date of the end of his first reign is September 14, 1538, as noted by Macarie in his
chronicle. See: Ibidem.
247 The chronicle of Abdülaziz Efendi, „Suleimanname,“ in Cronici turce!lti privind Tarife Romane,
534.
248 Rezachevici, Cronologia criiicii, 566.
67
Peter became one of the sultan’s men again. This is visible not only in the
communication between Sultan Suleyman and King Sigismund,249 but also in a Ietter
written by a man named Husein, a messenger of the sultan to the Polish King. Husein
was advising Sigismund to keep good relations with Peter because „the sultan has
shown him (Rare] such a great honour that he has not shown to anyone in a long
time.“250
However, regardless of the sultan’s actions, Mehmed bin Mehmed’s words
regarding the events of 1 53 8 still seem to be valid for his second reign: „he was
subdued only in appearance and in fact he was a rebel.“251 Following the antiOttoman
policy pursued by his father and risking to violate the treaty with the
Ottoman Empire, Peter demonstrated that he was still in the anti-Ottoman camp. In
1 544, upon leaming that Joachim JI Hector of Brandenburg was about to initiate an
anti-Ottoman campaign, he promised Joachim II all his help, including money and
anirnals, as weil as the commitment of „selling“ the sultan to the Christians. Peter’s
messenger said that „he [Rare] wants to stay with the Christians and believes that he
could help them more than others could.“252 Moreover, his anti-Ottoman position was
visible on other occasions as weil: in 1 542, while passing through Moldavia,
Niebolas the Armenian recorded Rare’s words about his Ottoman policy: “ . . . if I
saw that a Christian king rose with power and faith agairrst the Turks, I would join
him with faith and help him with all my powers.“253
The policy of Stephen the Great therefore still lived on during both reigns of
Peter Rare, because oftwo ofhis most prominent actions: his campaign for Pokkutia
and his anti-Ottoman campaign. But Stephen’s legacy most visibly lived tlu·ough a
different aspect: cultural and artistic growth. Peter was, without a doubt, the most
resourceful continuator of his father’s artistic endeavours.
249 See the 1etters between Suleyman aod Sigismuod in which the sultan announced the second
enthronement of Peter. as weil as Sigismund’s accepta.nce of the Situation. See, for examp1e,
Sigismwtd’s Ietter to the Sultan of April 20’h 1541 and Suleyman ’s Ietter to the Polish King from
the beginning of 1541 in: Documente privitoare Ia isloria Romiiniei culese din arhivele polone.
Secolul XVI. [Documents regarding the history of Romania from Polish archives. The sixteenth
cenmry ], ed. Ilie Corfu (Bucharest: Academiei, 1979), 1etters oo. 27 and 28, 34-36.
250 Ibidem, Ietter oo. 29, 3 7.
251 Tbe cbronicle of Mehmed bin Mehmed, „Nuhnet-ut-Tevarib ve’l-ahbar,“ in Cronici turceti
privind Tärile Romiine, 4 1 1 .
252 Scrisori domne$1i, ed. Nicolae lorga, Ietter no. XXVII, 59.
253 Cälätori sträini despre Tärile Romiine I, 387.
68
Art and visual culturt/54
Recycling, remembering, and modernising
After a period of experimentation, Stephen the Great’s art reached what an
historians call the period of maturity in Moldavian art.255 On the one hand, the socalled
„Moldavian style in medieval architecture“256 was developed, while on the
other hand, mural painting bloomed and became the most significant decorative
element of Stephen‘ s artistic legacy. Following the example of his father, Peter Rare
made two relevant steps: firstly, he used the artistic patterns of his father and
commissioned a number of edifices which recalled the art of Stephen, and secondly,
he modemised the already established forms of Stephen the Great.
Peter and his family commissioned a !arge number of ecclesiastic edifices: the
Church of Probota, his main commission as princely necropolis, the Humor
Monastery, the Moldovita Monastery, the Saint Demetrius and the Dermition
churches of Suceava, Precista Church of Baia, Saint Paraschiva Church of Roman,
Räca Monastery, Saint Paraschiva Church of Tärgu Frumos.257 A relevant aspect of
Rare’s commissions is that he re-conunissioned edifices commissioned by his
predecessors, thus confinning his family ties to his father’s dynasty.258
The same type of confirmation was revealed by the construction of his most
important commission, the Probeta Monastery. Built in 1 530,259 the monastery was
meant to replace Stephen the Great’s main commission of Putna, as princely burial
place. This decision was received with concern by the monastic authorities of Putna,
especially since Peter somewhat ignored Putna during his first reign.260 ln order to
settle these anxieties, the prince built his necropolis in the proximity of an edifice
once commissioned by his father, reinforcing, this way, the continuity between
himself and his father. But this continuity was much more visible in the architectural
resemblance between Probeta and Putna: the two monasteries, with minor details, are
254 A study of Peter Rarefs anistic endeavours would require much more space tban this. Because
of practical reasons, this part will only focus on the relationship betwecn Pcter’s an to that of
Stepben’s.
255 Drägut, Pictztra murala din Moldova. Secolele .XV-XVI, 1 2 .
256 Fora description of the Moldavian style, see: lbidem.
257 See: Ion Solcanu, „Realizäri artistice“ [Artistic achievements], in Petru Rare, ed. Leon
$imanschi, 297. 258 See more in: Maria Cräciun, „Apud Ecclesia: church burial and the development of funerary
rooms in Moldavia,“ in Sacred Space in Early Modern Europe, ed. Will Coster and Andrew
Spicer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 144-166.
259 Drägut, DiC[ionar encicopedic de arta medievala romaneasca, 247. 260 Bogdan-Petru Maelon, „Mänästirea Probora inn·e ierarhia ecleziasticä i domnie. Semnificatiile
unor privilegii din secolele XV -XVI – The Probola monastery between the ecclesiastic
hierarchy and the reign. The significance of some privileges during the 15th and 16th centuries,“
Studii i MaTeriale de Istarie Medie 1 4 (2006): 1 4 1 .
69
in perfect architectural concordance.261 lt can easily be argued that Putna was a model
for Probota. So Peter did not simply set a new princely burial location while
abandoning his father’s princely burial place. On the contrary, it seems that, in an act
of ambition so characteristic of Peter Rare, he wanted to build a new necropolis
detaching hirnself from his father’s cornmission but at the same time following his
artistic precepts. Therefore, he wanted to build something new, but something new
within the lines of his father. Moreover, the inaugural inscription of the church
invokes Stephen the Great’s imperial Jegacy, indicating his belief in his legitimate
right to build his own burial place:262
With the will of the Father, and with the help of the Son and the action of the
Holy Spirit, I, the slave of Jesus Christ, Io Prince Peter, ruler of Moldavia with
the mercy of God, son of Prince Stephen the Old, with my good will, in the
fourth year of my imperial rufe, I built this church in the name of the miracledoer
Saint Nicholas, father superior being Grigore, in the year 1738, in
October.263
Indeed, the son of Stephen seemed to have had grand plans, able to minimise his
illegitimate origin. Analysing the architectural dynamism of Probota, Ion Solceanu
concludes that the monastery portrays the „ambition of the prince to equal, if not even
to exceed, Stephen the Great’s constructions of Putna and Neamt.“264 Peter’s
monastery is not a simple replica of Putna, but a development of Putna’s f01ms.265
However, Probota was not the only monastery commissioned by Peter which owed its
fonn to commissions of Stephen the Great. This was also the case of the Saint
Demetrius Church of Härläu which was a „veritable copy“266 of Stephen’s
commission from the same town. Moreover, most of Peter’s cornmissions added
novelties to the already established architectural forms of Stephen the Great. By
modernising an already-established fom1, Peter identified hirnself with the art of
Stephen, thus revealing his „awareness of the capacity of imagery to fix identity.“267
Peter was constructing his image through the legacy of his father, thus building his
own identity upon and with the help of the identity of Stephen the Great. At the same
time, he was opening the door for new approaches in a1t, particularly in mural
261 Probota was built respecting the architecrural plan of Putna monastery, commissioned by
Stephen the Great. See: Drliguj, Pictura murafii din Moldova. Secolele XV-XVI, 23; A second
architecrural plan however, which inspired Probota was that of Neam1 monastery, also
262 commissioned by Stephen. See: Adam, Ctitorii mu$aline, 90. Maelon, „Mlinästirea Probota lntre ierarhia ecleziasticä i domnie,“ 143. 263 Sergiu Adam, Ctitorii muatine. Biserici, mäniistiri, cetiifi, cur{i domne$ti. Secofe/e XIV-XVI
[Commissions of the Muatin dynasty. Churches, monasreries, royal courts. Fourteenthsixteenth
centuries] (Cluj: Casa Cli!fii de tiinfä, 2001), 90. 264 Ion Solcanu, „Realizäri artistice“ [Artistic achievements], in Petru Rar€$, ed. Leon Simanschi,
296. 265 For the description ofthe architectural developments at Probota, see: lbidem, 296-297. 266 Ibidem, 297. 267 Rubin, Images and Identity in Fifteenth-Century Florence, 55.
70
pamtmg. One of the most efficient functions of images is that of promoting and
proclaiming power and Peter Rare used this function on both the interior and
exterior ofhis churches.
Just like other mlers in the Christian world, Peter „sold“ himself, his image,
and his authority, by using the Church as mediater. He flrstly did so by using an
already-established method: commissioning the incorporation of his votive image
within the iconographic programme of the church intetior. Probably two of his bestknown
votive images are those of the Humor (Fig. 24) and Meldevita monasteries. In
both images, in a devotional act mediated by the Holy Virgin, Christ is seated on a
throne, his left hand holding the Bible and his right hand blessing the prince who is
presenting him with the model of the monastery. Rare is shown in all bis sumptuousness:
dressed in ceremonial clothing, he wears an ample crown and a brocade mantle
with broad sleeves, everything embroidered in gold 26
Fig. 24: Votive image, Mo1dovi\a Monastery. Image source: Tudor Photo B1og,
http://tudorphotob1og. b1ogspot.ro/20 1 3/04/manastirea-mo1dovita-unesco.htm1
268 For a detai1ed description of the Humor votive image, see: Vasi1e Drägut, Humor (Bucharest:
Meridiane, 1973), 18.
7 1
The most significant votive images (from the point of view of mythical
genesis) are the so-called dynastic votive portraits.269 The irnportance of betonging to
the family of Stephen, so strongly manifested in Peter, is proven by the fact that all
dynastic representations of this type painted after the death of Stephen the Great,
were created during the reign of Rare.270 In 1 529, Peter made his first commission
by finishing one of Stephen the Great’s last commissions, the monastery of Dobrovä.
The monastery, built du ring the last two years of Stephen ’s life, •vas left unpainted271
until Peter adomed it with its iconography. Described as a „connecting bridge“272
between the reigns of Stephen the Great and Peter Rare, the monastery bears „one of
the most beautiful votive images in the painting of medieval Moldavia.“273 The mural
painting (Fig. 25) shows three Moldavian princes, without any other members oftheir
families: Stephen the Great, Bogdan III (Stephen’s legitimate son), and Peter Rare.
A similar dynastic votive image was painted in the same year of 1 529, at the Bistrita
monastery. In this scene, Stephen the Great, accompanied by Saint John the New, is
followed by Peter, while on the opposite of them stand Bogdan Ili and Stephen the
Young.274 The Church of Dorohoi also bears a similar representation: Stephen the
Great with his wife Maria, accompanied by Bogdan Ill, Stephen the Young, and Peter
Rare.275 Nevertheless, the fact that Peter integrated the dynastic idea in his votive
images was not the only technique used by the prince to demonstrate his connection
to his great predecessor. A study made by Teodora Voinescu pointed to the fact that
the p01traits of Peter found in the Humor and Moldovita monasteries directly
resembled the portraits of SteRben the Great – the similarities of their physiognomies
were proven to be striking. 76 The most apparent example for the physiognomy
resemblances is the votive image of Dobrovät in which one can observe the
269 For the dynastic votive images conunissioned by Peter Rare, sce: Elena Firea, „Conceptie
dinastica in tablourile votive ale lui Petru Rare“ [Dynastie concept in the votive images ofPeter
Rare], Ars Transylvaniae 14-15 (2004-2005): 143-161.
270 Szekely, „Bogdan al lll-lea- note de antropologie politica,“ 273.
271 272 Dragut, Dic(ionar encicopedic, 128. Dragut, Pictura muralii din Moldova, 22.
273 lbidem, 24.
274 The image was painted on the fayade of the monastery’s tower. See: Maria Magdalena Szekely,
„Bogdan al Ill-lea: note de antropologie politica – Bogdan UI: political anthropology.“ Analeie
Putnei I (2008): 272-273.
275 Some historians, following the hypothesis of Sorin Ulea, believe that the „Peter“ in this votive
image is not Peter Rare, but the brother of Stephen thc Y oung, also bearing the name Peter.
See: Sorin Ulea, „Datarea ansamblului de pictura de Ia Sf. Nicolaie-Dorohoi“ (Dating the
painting of Saint Niebolas in Dorohoi], Studii i Cercetiiri de lstoria Artei, seria Artii Plasticä
I I {1964): 74-79. However, M. M. Szekely believes that the image must represent Peter Rare,
as Stephen tbe Young was too little interested in representing dynastic continuity through art.
See: Szekely, „Bogdan al III-lea – note de antropologie politica,“ 273.
276 Teodora Voinescu, „Portretele lui tefan cel Mare in arta epocii sale“ [Tbe portraits of Stephen
the Great in the art of his time), in Cultura moldoveneascii fn timpul lui $tefan cel Mare
[Moldavian culture during tbe time of Stephen the Great], ed. M. Berza (Bucharest: Academiei,
1964), 463-478.
72
comparability between Stephen, Bogdan III, and Peter Rare:277 identical clothing and
crowns, round faces with arched eyebrows, the same moustache, chin, and long hair.
Stephen was the model which inspired the figures of Bogdan and Peter and the fact
that his physiognomy was copied by his successors is proof of his growing myth.
Fig. 25: Votive image, Dobrovat Monastery.
Stephen the Great followed by Bogdan I I l and Peter Rare. Image source: Cezar Suceveanu, 2009
Mobilisation: an artistic anti-Ottoman cmsade?278
Studies have already pointed out Stephen the Great’s way of using painting in
his own service. He used church iconography not only for its religious rote or for
expressing princely authority, but he also used it in order to instruct about whom
277 For a discussion of the votive images of Stephen the Greal and their resemblance in their
successors‘ votive picrures, see: Solcanu, „Ponrerul lui Stefan cel Mare in picrura epocii sale“,
1 1 7-129, esp. 128-129. 278 This subchapter is inspired from: Teodora Animon, „Peter Rare and His Visual Concept: An
Ambitious Sixteenth-Cenrury PR Campaign?“ Master thesis (Budapesl: Central European
University, 2010).
73
people should fear and to mobilise against Moldavia’s most powerful enemy of the
time – the Ottoman Empire. Leaning on his father’s artistic language, Peter Rare,
aided by his cousin and archbishop Grigorie Roca,279 seemed to have made a few
steps further: most historians agree that they developed Stephen’s (iconographic)
language and took it outside churches and monasteries in a decoration incorporated
within the entirety of the walls, from the apses to the narthex. This theory was
however dismantled by Dumitm Nästase who demonstrated that the exterior
iconoraphy as develped durin Petr’s reign was in fact
.
initited by tephen the
Great. 80 Nästase stud1ed the Samt Ntcholas Church of Bähnetl, commtssJOned by
the logothete Ioan Tautul, and its following aspects: the analysis of its exterior
painting and the placement of architectural decoration, its votive image (and the
model of the church represented in the votive image), and the placement of its
fow1ding insc1iption. Based on his analysis, Nastase concluded that semetime around
the year 1499 it was decided that the church be painted both on the inside and on the
outside. As such elaborate exterior painting had not been commissioned before,
certain architectural mutations needed to be done – all of which stand as proof that
the promoter of exterior iconography was in fact Stephen the Great. The typical
Moldavian exterior of Balineti, embellished with slabs, ceramics, and enamelled
discs, was sacrificed in the expectation of its exterior iconography?81 The same
change in the exterior Iayout of churches is visible in the monastic commissions
dating from 1499 up to Stephen’s death: three princely commissions (the churches of
Volovat, Dobrovat, and Reuseni) and one commission of the boyar Arbure (the
Arbure Monastery). All exterior decorations of these edifices suddenly disappeared,
including the typical system of blind arches and niches, thus suggesting the
preparation of the space for full mural painting.282 lt will be seen that the exterior
painting which was to cover the walls was imbibed with anti-Ottoman messages.
From this point of view, there is a compelling correlation between the initiation of
this new type of art after 1499 and the historical circumstances of Moldavia: in 1 499,
Stephen signed a peace treaty with Po1and, officially positioning itself in the antiOttoman
camp, while in 1 500, Stephen refused once more to pay the tribute which
was equivalent to engaging in a conflict with the Ottoman Empire.283
279 Archbishop Dosoftei first mentioned Grigorie Roca as Rarefs cousin. The same blood link was
made between Archbishop Roca and Toader by Matei Coruga, Lhus linking him to Peter Rare.
See: Matei V. Coruga, Gheorghe al ll-lea $i Grigorie de Ia Neam{, doi mitropoli(i necunoscu{i
ai Moldovei din secolul al XVJ-lea [Gheorghe Il and Grigorie of Neamt, two unknown
archbishops of sixteenth-century Moldavia], in Biserica Ortodoxii Romlind 89 ( 1 997): 1230-
1243. 280 Dumitru Nastase, „Biserica din Balineti i pictura ei exterioara“ [The Church of Balineti and
its exterior panting] , Studii $i cercetiiri de istoria artei. Seria artii plastic 43 ( 1996): 3-18. 281 282 lbidem 9 Nästas tkes the example of the Church of Volovät and thoroughly describes all its architectural
changes. Ibidem, I 0-13.
283 lbidem, 16.
74
The sheer fact that there is no extant exterior mural painting dating from the
time of Stephen the Great (except maybe for the one at Bälineti), does not
automatically imply that it was a novelty introduced by Peter Rare. Rather, it
suggests that between the period of exterior iconography of Stephen’s time, up until
the time of Peter, there was a period of experimentation with the new mural
techniques. Peter’s flourishing art with its quality and resistance must have been the
result of an artistic evolution. The only visible remnants of this experimental period
are the church walls stripped off their charactetistic architectural decorations,
seemingly awaiting their iconographic clothing.
Nathan Knobler talked about the „necessity of human beings to transform their
experiences into visual symbols.“284 The exterior iconography, as known during
Peter’s time, relied on past historical experience to create a visual dialogue285
between the image and the viewer. Some historical experiences were evoked in
scenes such as the Last Judgment (Fig. 26) or the Akathistos Hymn (Fig. 27) where
Moldavian-Ottoman clashes were subtly recalled. With the reign of Stephen the Great
still present in collective memory,286 images such as doomed Ottomans and Tartars
going towards the mouth of Hell (Fig. 28), as weil as the triumph of Christians over
the Ottoman-attacked Constantinople (Fig. 29) could have easily echoed the victories
of Stephen the Great and inspired the viewers with courage for possible future
conflicts.
284 Nathan Knobler, Dialogul vizual [The Visual Dialogue) I, trans. Sorin Märculescu (Bucharest:
Meridiane, 1983), 12. 285 Idem, Dialogul vzi ual [The Visual Dialogue) li, trans. Sorin Mllrculescu (Bucharest: Meridiane,
1983), 172.
286 By making a simple calculation, M. M. Szekely and $. Gorovei, concluded that the image of
Stephen was kept alive by generations ofpeople who lived during his time, up until the reign of
Prince Alexander Läpuneanu, the illegitimate son of Bogdan Ul: the cbildren bom in tbe ninth
and tenth decades of the fifteenth century must have lived up until mid-sixteentb century. See:
Gorovei and Szekely, Princeps Omni Laude Maior, 539.
75
Fig. 26: Last Judgement, Yoronej Monastery. Image source: Teodora Artlinon
Fig. 27: Akatbistos Hymn, Moldovita Monastery. lmage source: Teodora Artilnon
76
Fig. 28: Last Judgement, Humor Monastery. Detail: Sinners‘ group. Image source: Teodora
Artimon
Fig. 29: Tbe siege of Constantinople, Moldovila Monasiery. Detail from the Akathistos Hymn
Image source: Teodora Artimon
77
fig. 30: Celestial Hierarchy, Moldovila Monastery. Southem and centrat apses.
Image source: Teodora Artimon
Four mural scenes were painted on all exterior walls and repeated in an
unchanged manner on each and every church. The three apses always represent the
Celestial Hierarchy (Fig. 30), a scene with a great number of characters arranged on
usually six horizontal registers representini different groups of saints, angels,
prophets, apostles, holy fathers, and martyrs.2 7 Further on, either the northem or the
southem fa9ade bears the Akathistos Hynm, accompanied by the representation ofthe
Siege of Constantinople (Fig. 29)/88 while the Tree of Jesse (Fig. 3 1 )289 appears on
the oposite fa9ade. The fourth grand theme is that of the Last Judgement (Fig.
26)/9 almost always present on the western wall.
287 For a presentation of the scene of the Celestial Hierarchy from Humor, one of the best preserved
such scenes, see: Vasile Drägut, Vasile Florea, Dan Grigorescu, and Marin Mihalache, Pictura
romaneascii fn imagini [Romanian painting in images] (Bucbarest: Meridiane, 1970), 62.
288 Tbe Akathistos Hymn, probably written sometime after the Persian siege of Constantinople in
626, inspired the iconography ofthe Akathistos murals. See: Egon Wellesz, „Tbe Akathistos. A
Study in Byzantine Hymnography,“ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 9 ( 1 956): 1 4 1 – 1 74.
289 For the origins and model which inspired the Moldavian Tree of Jesse, see: Michael D. Taylor,
„A Historiated Tree of Jesse,“ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 34 ( 1 980- 1981): 1 25- 1 76.
29° For a presentation of the most famous exterior painting of the time of Rare, thc Last Judgment
from the Vorone1 monastery, see: Drägut and all, Pictura romaneascii fn imagini, 71 -72.
78
Fig. 3 1 : The Tree of Jcsse. Moldovita Monastery. Image source: Teodora Artimon
Peter Rare and Grigorie Roca were behind the exterior painting of a
significant number of churches and monasteries: Probota ( 1 532); Humor ( 1 535), with
the best preserved exterior murals; Moldovita ( 1 537); Arbore ( 1 54 1 ); Baia ( 1 535-
1 538); Saint George of Suceava ( 1 534); Saint George of Härlau ( 1 530); Coula
79
( 1 536-1538); Räca ( 1 5 5 1 – 1 52); Voronet ( 1 547);291 and most like1y Dobrovät, which
is yet to be dated. What is stri.king in all of these walls is the harrnonisation of the
scenes in such a way that they seem to suggest an anti-Ottoman manifeste. Sorin Ulea
was the first art historian to hrRothesise this opinion,292 but others supported and
reaffirmed his opinion as weiL 93 All four exterior scenes bear (sometimes less)
visible elements which point to Rare’s political ideals:
• While the Akathistos Hyrnn is frequently represented in church iconography, the
Moldavian Akathistos is the only one which contains an additional scene: the
Siege of Constantinople (Fig. 29). The scene is a (metaphorical) representation of
a besieged Constantinople, which, with the divine help of the Holy Virgin,
withstands its assaulters. It is usually identified with the Persian siege of
Constantinople from 626. However, two details set the battle and the siege not in
Byzantine territory, but rather on Moldavian Iands: first, the besiegers are dressed
in Ottoman clothing and use cannons for breaking the walls;294 second, the fortress
is defended by a rider who is attacking his enemies while wearing typical
fifteenth-sixteenth century Moldavian clothing.295 Thus the fortress cannot be
identified with Constantinople in 626, but instead should be identified with
Suceava, represented in a moment of hypothetical military success over the
Ottomans.
• While the key point in the Akathistos Hyrnn is the Moldavian rider, the key point
in the Last Judgernent is the group of the darnned. As an essential part of church
iconography, the Last Judgement was meant as a self-assessment of the person
looking at the scene, desifned to „allow viewers to judge themselves when they
see the Last Judgment.“29 However, the Moldavian Last Judgment seems to bear
a second message as weil, given by its key element. Characterised as the
291 The Räca and Voronet monasteries were painted on lhe exterior after the death of Peter Rare
but under lhe guidance of bishops Macarie and Grigorie Roca who continued the legacy and
ideology of lhe late ruler. 292 See his two most relevant anicles on this subject: Sorin Ulea, „Originea i semnificatia
idcologicä a picturii exterioare moldoveneti I“ (The origin and the ideological meaning of the
Moldavian exterior painting I] Studii i cerceltiri de Jstoria Artei. Seria Artii Plasticii 10 ( 1 963):
57-93; Idem, „Originea i semnificatia ideologicä a picturii exterioare moldoveneti ll“ (The
origin and the ideological meaning of the Moldavian exterior painting TI], Studii i cercetiiri de
lstoria Arlei. Seria Arlii Plasticii 1 9 ( 1 972): 37-54.
293 See, for example, Drägut, Pictura muralii din Afoldova. Secolele XV-XVJ and ldem, Piclura
romäneascii in imagini.
294 tefan Andreescu, „Päträuti i Arezzo: 0 comparatie i consecintele ei“ [Päträuti and Arezzo: A
comparison and its consequences], in Stefan cel Mare $i Sfänt. Allel al Credin{ei Crtine
[Stephen the Great and the Saint. Champion of the Christian Faith) (Suceava: Muatinii, 2004),
386. 295 Ulea, „Originea i sernnificaria ideologicä a picturii exterioare moldoveneti 1“, 72. 296 Cynthia Hahn, „Vision“ in A Campanion lo Medieval Art: Romanesque and Gothic in Norlhern
Europe, ed. Conrad Rudolph (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 56.
80
„psychological centre of the composition,“297 the two groups represented by the
Ottomans and the Tartars (Fig. 28) within the entire group of the damned seem
highly individualised: compared to the other groups of the Annenians, Latins, and
Jews, they are not merely fa ces with similar physiognomy, but they are
individualised portraits: Sorin Ulea argued that this individualisation was
„mirroring the anti-Ottoman fe elings of the masses. „29 8
• The Celestial Hierarchy is a saints‘ procession, divided, upon the three church
apses, in several registers comprised of diffe rent groups of holy people. Also
named „the prayer of all saints,“ the scene is a representation of a prayer: the wellknown
prayer scene of Deisis in which Christ, flanked by his Holy Mother and
John the Baptist, appears in the middle of the central apse – therefore at the very
core of the scene. While Sorin Ulea’s interpretation might be somewhat farfe
tched, he offers a unique exp lanation for the Celestial Hierarchy: connecting the
scene with those of the Last Judgment and the Akathistos Hymn, the scholar
argued that it was an „explicit iconographic replay and transposition“299 of the
anti-Ottoman prayer suggested by the Siege of Constantinople, the Akathistos
Hymn, and the Last Judgment altogether. Therefore, seeing all three scenes as a
grand prayer for the Moldavian cause, Ulea suggested that Peter was a prince
well-aware of the visual persuasion possibilities.
• The Tree of }esse is a representation of Christ’s genealogy, linking him as direct
descendant to the kings of Israel and thus evokin Biblical history.300 Being
among the most complex representations of this type, 01 one hypothesis states that
the Moldavian Tree of Jesse was introduced in the exterior iconographic
programme as a means of completing the message of the Celestial Hierarch/02
and thus supporting its military purpose. A second interpretation however, might
link Peter Rare to his fa ther. Discussing the scene, Michael Taylor argued that the
liturgical role of the Tree is complemented by a dynastic roJe. Therefore, it is
particularly interesting how at the Sopocani and Arilje monasteries, the Tree is
correlated with dynastic images of Stephen Dragutin’s sons, Uros and Yladislav,
and with a dynastic procession. The most relevant development of such
correlations is the creation of the genealogical tree of the Nemanjid dynasty (such
as the one at Pec) which derived from the Tree of Jesse and which equates the
descendants of Stephen Nemanja to those of Jesse, implying thus a divine
ordination of their rule.303 Could it be that similar dynastic implications were
suggested by the Moldavian Tree of Jesse?
297 DräguJ and all, Pictura romaneascii in imagini, 71. 298 Ulea, „Originea i semnificatia ideologica a picturii exterioare moldoveneti 1,“ 78. 299 Ibidem, 84.
300 For the meaning of the Tree of Jesse and its various visual representations, see: Anhur Watson,
The Early lconography ofthe Tree of Jesse (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1934). 301 Dragut and all, Pictura romaneascä in imagini, 64. 302 Ulea, „Originea i semnificatia ideo1ogicä a picturii exterioare moldoveneti I,“ 88.
303 For the detailed explanation ofthus argument, see: Tay1or, „A Historiated Tree of Jesse,“ 164.
81
While the Iegitimation through the Tree of Jesse may be debatable, the
militating messages of Peter’s other exterior paintings point to a fact which directly
connects him to Stephen the Great and which, indirectly, legitimise his actions: Peter
finished what Stephen had started 30 years earlier. He perfectioned the exterior
iconography as seemingly initiated by Stephen in the churches of Yolovä, Dobrovät,
Reuseni, and also at Bälineti and Arbure.
„The great“ continuator
The most important monastic commission of Peter Rare was that of Probota.
Designed as the new princely burial place, Probota must have been a „jewel“ for
Peter, just like Putna was for his father. Moreover, the inauguration inscription of
Probota gives a hint on the ruling aspirations of the prince: “ . . . in the fourth year of
my imperial rufe, I built this church . . . „304 This affirmation may go unnoticed, if not
for his father’s imperial aspirations. Considering the histm-y of Stephen the Great, the
inscription suggests that Peter inherited his father’s entire ideology, including that of
a type of imperial ruling over Moldavia.305 This argument is reinforced by the words
of Rare’s official chronicler, Macarie, who described the seat of Moldavia as the
„imperial town of Suceava.“306 Furthermore, the messengers of Ferdinand I to
Moldavia also reinforced Peter’s Byzantine aspirations when they recalled the
prince’s statement on his anti-Ottoman position in 1 536. Peter allegedly explained
his affinity to the westem anti-Ottoman league with the following words: „And when
His Highness will want to start a general campaign against the Turks, he should send
1 5,000 soldiers, to whom I will add 45,000 chosen soldiers from my countt-y, 20,000
from Transylvania and 25,000 from Wallachia.“307 The messengers then explained
the prince’s plans with tbese annies: „With these men, with the help of God, he wants
to go to Constantinople.“308 The fact that „he wants to go to Constantinople“ reveals
two details: on the one band, the existence of his desired association to the Byzantine
Empire, just like in the case of his father; and on the other hand, his exceptional (but
improbable) desire to liberate Constantinople by starting a military offensive against
the most threatening force of the time.
Retuming to Probota, the monastery holds yet another symbolic message
which can most likely be attributed directly to Peter: Saint Mercury, painted within
tbe interior iconography, holds a shield with a unique symbol on its inside – the
304 Adam, Clitorii mu$aline, 90.
305 B. P. Maleon argued that tbe imperial inheritance of Stephen implied an „exceptional mission,
tbat of defending the right faith within the Orthodox world, without meaning that the ruler
would have any claim on a universal suverainty.“ See: Maelon, „Mänastirea Probota intre
ierarhia ecleziasticä i domnie,“ 143.
306 „The Chronicle ofMacarie “ 2 1 2
307 Mare Pemffiinger and B;lthaza BanffY’s report to Ferdinand 1 in Calatori straini fn Tiirile
Romäne I, 378. 308 Ibidem.
82
double-headed eagle.309 Analysing the symbol (weil camouflaged within the shield in
such a way that only a few initiated people would understand its message),310 M . M.
Szekely dectypted one of its possible messages. Considering that Saint Mercury was
a military saint and that the double-headed eagle was an imperial symbol for the
rebirth of Christianity, it might be that these two elements (the saint and the symbol)
were painted together with a precise purpose: a call for a fight against the enemies of
Christianity, the Ottomans. 3 1 1
Peter Rare seems to have been the successor who most thoroughly followed
the „recipe“ of Stephen the Great’s dynastic project: he fought for Stephen’s goals
and ideals (see not only the anti-Ottoman campaigns, but also somewhat smaller
endeavours such as that for Pok.kutia); he was the most thorough continuator of
Stephen ’s art (Peter gave a rebirth to the Moldavian a1t as established by Stephen); he
continued the „imperial“ legacy of his father (not only by the affirmations as seen
above in Probota’s conunissioning inscription, but also by smaller facts, such as
manying an Orthodox woman with imperial origins312). Moreover, he was also . . .
„the great.“ In a Transylvanian Ietter dating from 1 543, Peter Rare was named by the
appellative of his father: „Moldavus magnus, dux Valachorum.“3 1 3 For the moment,
this is the only known document in which he is called as „the great Moldavian,“
therefore his fame was not perpetuated by his name, as it happened with his father.
Nevertheless, this nomination calls attention to the dimension of Peter’s reign.
As a veritable heir, although i llegitimate, Peter Rare inherited Stephen’s
ambitions, as weil as his ways of thinking and acting. But the fact that the same blood
was running through their veins, seems to also have brought certain negative aspects
with it. By the end of his reign, just like it happened by end of his father’s reign, Peter
was frequently accompanied by a doctor who took care of a never-healing ulcer. The
question which is yet to be answered is the following: was he suffering from diabetes,
just like Stephen did, having a similar ulcer which did not heal until his death?314 It
may certainly be the case, as Peter purchased a pair of glasses in 1 546, because of an
309 ln her article dealing with this issue, Maria Magdalena Szekely concludes that the two-headed
eagle may have been either Peter’s direct contribution, or it may have also been the personal
comribution of lhe church painters. See: Maria Magdalena Szekely, „Un manifest de putere Ia
mänästirea Probota? ,“ in De Potestate. Semne i expresii ale purerii in evul mediu romonesc [De
Potestate. Signs and expressions of power in the Romanian Middle Ages] (lai: Editura
Universitälii „Alexandru loan Cuza,“ 2006).
310 Eadem 514 31 1 Eadem: 515: 312 Peter was married for the second time (or third time, as be might have bad two wives before the
last one) with Jelena Brankovic, the daughter of the Serbian despol lovan Brankovic. See:
$tefan S. Gorovei, „Familia lui Petru Rare“ [The family of Peter Rare]. in Peter Rare, ed.
Leon $imanschi, 266-27 I . 313 Quoted by Gorovei, Mu$atinii, 95.
314 M. M. Szekely explained Peter’s physical distress. For a full explanation of the issue and the
questions posed by the historian, see: Maria Magdalena Szekely, „La curte, Ia Petru Voä“ [At
the court ofPrince Peter], Revista Jstorica 7-8 ( 1997): 494-495. , • . y:· ·l\),
83
eye disease which may have been easily caused by diabetes.315 Peter was a genuine
continuator of Stephen the Great, mentally, politically, and . . . physically.
315 . 494.
lhill“..
84
V Stephen’s impact in the sixteenth century
Because finite individual memory opens out into the limitlessness of collective
memory,316 this section will explore certain mental patterns of the sixteenth century
which point to Stephen’s most relevant traits. They will be highlighted in sources
springing from the court, from intemal and extemal letters and documents, from
foreigners travelling through Moldavia, from extemal allies or enemies. The
juxtaposition of all these sources will allow sight beyond visual representations and
rhetorical expressions of the time. It will allow sight into the imaginary of Stephen
the Great.
Although collective memory implies a societal unity of thought, the memories
of people who witnessed a common event are not identical because memmy evokes
different associations and feelings for each of them.317 Nevertheless, in case of ideal
monarchs such as Stephen the Great, most mental evocations are grouped around
certain characteristics which reunite rulers under the sphere of sainthood, warfare,
and generally speaking, under the sphere of exceptionality. Descending from a long
line of princely ancestors, having a special relationship with God, bringing back
peace and prosperity after decades of trouble, Stephen the Great continuously
accumulated, improved, produced, and changed318 the principles of his reign. Without
a doubt, he may be included in the stereotyped categories of hero monarchs
developed in medieval thought.319
316 Michael Uebel, „The Pathogenesis of Medieval History,“ Texas Studies in Literature and
Language 41 (2002): 5 1 .
317 Amos Funkenstein, „Collective Memory and Historical Consciousness,“ History and Memory 1
( 1989): 6.
318 Accumulation, improvement, production, and change are the four ideals of govemmentality, as
defined by Jürgen Pieters and Alexander Roose. See: Jürgen Pieters and Alexander Roose, „The
Art of Saying ‚No‘. Premonitions of Foucault’s ‚Govemmentality‘ in Etienne de La Boetie’s
Discours de Ia servitude volontaire, “ in Mystifying the Monarch. Studies on Discourse, Power,
and History, ed. Jeroen Deploige and Gita Deneckere (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University
Press, 2006), 96.
319 See more: Pecican, Sange i trandafiri, 73.
85
Stephen, the warrior: echoes in the sixteenth century
The divine was an essential factor for an ideal reign as the mler could not
overcome the difficulties of his reign without godly suppon. War was one such
unavoidable difficulty during which the monarch had to demonstrate his qualities and
his privileged connection to the divine by leading his (Christian) army to victory and
re-establishing the pace and harmony of his reign.320
Stephen the Great succeeded a significant nurober of times to re-establish
peace and harmony which is why he remained in collective memory as a veritable
army commander. Sources eulogise his victories during his lifetime, but his military
success is just as strongly echoed in the sixteenth century. For instance, the prince
not01iously celebrated his militaty victories with feasts which sometimes Iasted for
up to three days.321 This allowed the creation, in collective memory, of a link between
the image of the prince and the concept of a victorious reign, which boosted
Stephen’s prestige both during his lifetime and in the aftetmath of his reign.322 His
qualities as military commander, his bravery, his sh·ength and heroism, his military
strategies, were continuously evoked in the sixteenth-centUiy as weil, m a manner
which highlighted a certain gallant image of the mler.
War-time descriptions and recollections
The several resounding victories of Stephen allowed the prince to be perceived
as a man of many military skills. The chronicles of the sixteenth centUiy made
generous descriptions not only of the battle of Vaslui, but also of his military
enterprises altogether. Moreover, many writings recall not only one achievement at a
time, but highlight Stephen’s three-fold victories against his neighbours: the
Ottomans, the Polish, and the Hungarians. However, Stephen was not praised alone:
often, chroniclers presented the „warrior“323 Moldavian anny which, under Stephen’s
comrnand, was capable of defeating !arge armies.
Sorne of the first reports to appear soon after Stephen ’s death in 1 504 indirectly
pointed to the prince’s military significance. Such is the exarnple of King Ladislas li
of Hungary who ordered that the northern-Transylvanian territory of Maramure.
32° For more on the divine implications on war in Stephen the Great’s Moldavia, see: Ovidiu
Cristea, „Declanarea räzboiului, victorii i inträri triumfale in Moldova lui Stefan cel Mare:
evenimente, reprezentäri, interpretäri – War outbreak, victories and triumphal entries in
Moldavia of Stephen tbe Great: events, rcpresentations, interpretations,“ Analeie Putnei 1
321 (2008): l 05-132, esp. 129. See, for instance, the battle with Wallachia’s Prince Radu the Fair in 1473, whom Stephen
dethroned after which “ . . . he stayed there for three days, rejoicing.“ See: „Anonymaus
Cbronicle ofMoldavia,“ 16.
322 Gorovei and Szeke1y, Princeps Omni Laude Maior, 454.
323 Anonymaus description of Moldavia dated 1587. See: Ciilatori striiini despre Tiirile Romane
[Foreign travellers on the Romanian Principalities] lii, ed. Maiia Holban (Bucharest: Editura
Stiinlifica, 1971 ), 20 l .
86
neighbouring Moldavia, prepared for war. ln his Ietter, the king explained that the
prince of Moldavia had died, thus they must be pregared to proceed to Moldavia in
order to retain it from being conquered by enemies.3 4 Narurally, the death of a prince
often caused rurmoil both on the inside and outside of a principality or kingdom, but
in his Ietter, Ladislas was not only concemed with a territory under his subjection, but
also made a subtle implication: Stephen preserved Moldavia’s territorial integrity
without major intrusions. Without Stephen, Moldavia was vulnerable.
Following 1 504, an abundance of direct and indirect recollections of Stepben ’s
military carnpaigns emerged. In 1 5 14, King Sigisrnund I reported to Pope Leo X
about the Ottornan advance. In this comext, he recalled „Stephen, the old prince,“325
who defeated the Ottoman Empire three times regardless of their numerous armies
which descended upon the principality. The king additionally mentioned the trouble
Stephen had caused to both kings Matthias and John Albert.326 Blaise de Vigenere
was similarly contemplating on the three-fold victories that Stephen („the bravest and
most famous army commander of his time“327) was renowned for: the French
diplomat remembered „the greatest man of his time . . . who gained the most beautiful
victories over Mehmed, the Ottoman sultan, Matthias, the king of Hungary and John
Albett, the king of Poland.“328 The fact that Stephen defeated the three fundamental
powers in Moldavia’s surroundings became somewhat of a leitmotif in sixteenthcenrury
literarure and Stephen consequently becarne the ultimate almost-undefeatable
warrior.329
Fifteenth- and sixteenth-century official irrtemal documents and Moldavian
chronicles highlighted the !arge numerical discrepancy between the local and invader
armies.330 External sources also emphasised this aspect, offering Stephen a plus of
heroic traits as he was portrayed plunging into battle with little concem of bis
numerical inferiority: “ . . . sending 1 20,000 soldiers against Prince Stephen who had
324 See the original Ietter in: Hurmuzaki !I.2, document no. CCCCXXITI, 525.
325 HumlUzaki TT.3, document no. CL VII, 1 7 1 .
326 See the eotire original refereoce to Stephen in: Tbidem.
327 Blaise de Vigenere (Descriprion du royaume de Ia Poloigne), in Ciiliitori striiini despre Tiirile
Romane Il, 640.
328 lbidem.
329 See other relevant descriptions of Stephen’s victories against the Ottomans, Hungarians, and
Pols: in 1587, Johannes C. Decius Barovius referred to Stephen as „that prince of Moldavia who
ofteo defeated the greatest armies of the peoplc of Moscow, Scythians, and Turks, and who
destroyed Suleyman Pasha, the bey of Rumelia . . . “ See: Jobarmes C. Decius Barovius in
Ciiliirori striiini despre Tiirile Romane III, 216. In the same year of 1587, an aoonymous
description inspired by the history written by Mattbias Miechowski praised Stephen: “ . . . during
Pope Sixtus‘ pontificate, to whom he sent envoys with booty eamed by defeating Sultan
Mehmed, the Turks, the Polish, the Tartars and the great King Mattbias Corvinus.“ See:
„Anonymous Description ofMoldavia from 1587,“ in Ciiliitori striiini despre Tiirile Romane III,
201.
330 See for instance: Chapter II, subchapter ‚·How to remernher the prioce’s deeds: creating
memory.“ See also: „The Moldavian-German Chronicle,“ 26.
87
only 40,000 men, [the Ottomans] were defeated and only five or six thousand of them
survived.“331 Stephen not only „defeated the unspeakably numerous Turkish
anny,“332 but also the numerous Polish armies. In 1 570, the Polish diplomat Andrzej
Taranowski, recalled his recentjoumey through Moldavia:
. . . I travelled from Po land to Constantinop1e through Moldavia, through the
beech forese33 where 73 years ago, in the year 1497, 50,000 Polish men were
killed by the Moldavians in one day.334
Unsurprisingly, for a certain period of time Moldavia was perceived with the same
attributes as its Prince Stephen was: invincible and unconquerable. By the end of the
sixteenth century, the image of the undefeatable Moldavia became synonymaus with
Stephen the Great. Sources hinted to a Moldavian military „golden age:“
This country of Bogdania, whose leading Settlement is Iai, used to be called
Moldavia; but since the Ottoman sultans had it subdued 50 years ago, its name
was changed to Bogdania or Karabogdan, meaning black land and this is due to
the endless blood which shed while taking this province.335
Remains ofwar, remains ofvictories
However, while passing through Moldavia, most travellers not only
remembered Stephen the Great’s victories, but they also experienced the impact
Stephen had in Moldavia: they either witnessed local people’s ways of remembering
the prince or they physically observed the remains of Stephen’s reign.
In probably the most thorough (and famous) description of Stephen’s reign,
Maciej Stryzgowski described how the people of the sixteenth century kept Stephen ’s
memory and legacy alive. Based on Stryzgowski’s account, both his deeds and his
physical image were well-imbedded in collective memory:
Moldavians and Wallachians always play their violins and sing in their
language at all their gatherings: „Stephen, Prince Stephen, Stephen, Prince
Stephen who defeated the Turks, defeated the Tartars, defeated the Hungarians,
the Russians and the Polish.“ When l went to the Ottoman Empire, I saw at
331 Blaise dc Vigenere (Description du royaume de Ia Poloigne) in Ciiliitori striiini despre Tarife
Romiine ll, 640.
332 Giovanni Francesco Commendone’s short description of Wallachia and Moldavia, in Ciiliitori
striiini despre Jiirile Romane II, 376.
333 Taranowski referred to the forest of Codrii Cosminului, where the Moldavian-Polish battle took
place on October 26, 1497.
334 Andrzej Taranowski’s description of his journey through Moldavia (1 570), in Ciiliitori striiini
despre Jiirile Romane l l, 398.
335 In reality, Moldavia had been called „Karabogdan’· by the Ottomans since the fifteenth cenrury.
Moreover, the author of the cxcerpt made confusion between Karabogdan (referring to
Moldavia) and Karabildan (referring to black soils, as a consequence of bloodshed). See the
original text: Franois de Pavie’s description of his 1585 joumey to the Ottoman Empire, in
Ciiliitori striiini despre Tiirile Romane Ill, 182.
88
Bucharest, the seat ofthe Wallachian Prince where I had dined, that on the wall
of the Prince’s bedroom a face was painted on wood, in old style, showing this
Stephen as a tall man with his royal crown on his head.336
With his description, Stryzgowski unveiled the actual impact Stephen had not
only in Moldavia, but also in the neighbouring Wallachia. The fact that the
Wallachian prince owned a painted image of Stephen is remarkable, considering the
rather unfriendly relationships between the Wallachian and Moldavian princes,
especially during Stephen’s reign. The painted image in the royal bedroom does have
an ideological explanation however. Stryzgowski travelled tlu·ough Wallachia dwing
the time of Prince Alexander TI Mircea ( 1 568- 1 577), at the tum 1 574. This was a
turbulent period for both Moldavia and Wallachia: Alexander’s brother, Peter
$chiopul [the Crippled]337 had taken over the seat of Moldavia with the help of the
Wallachian prince. Alexander’s desire to take over Moldavia seemed to be just as
great as Peter’s. He was not only actively and physically involved in the taking of
Moldavia,338 but he also added a significant ideological aspect to the entire operation:
he used the image of the most iconic Moldavian prince and incorporated it into his
reign. Jn other words, Alexander symbolically welcomed Stephen into Wallachian
history, thus symbolically merging the two principalities – just like Stephen wanted
to merge them during his own reign.
Stryzgowski’s description also shows Stephen’s relevance in Moldavian
collective memory. Already in the second half of the sixteenth century, the ruler
seemed to have surpassed the realm of the humane. As songs were sang about him he
entered the world of the irnmOJtal, of myth. Without a doubt, rulers remernbered in
such folkloric manners were beyond what the average ruler meant: they were not only
heroes, but they were rulers chosen to be remernbered as such in the aftermath of
their death. This mythical aura of Stephen the Great was further on enhanced by
physical remains of his heroic deeds. References to still-visible bodily remains of
Moldavian, Ottoman, and Polish soldiers who fought both at Vaslui and Räzboieni
were explicit and numerous. Stryzgowski’s detailed portrayal of Stephen also
included information on these almost-relics, with reference to the Battle of Vaslui:
He (Stephen] ordered that the bodies of the dead be burnt, and this left behind
bones and high piles which I saw with my own eyes when 1 went to Turkey in
336 Maciej Stryzgowski‘ s description of his travel through Moldavia and Wallachia, in Ciilätori
striiini despre Tiirile Romane II, 454.
337 Three times Moldavian prince: June 1574 – November 1577; January 1578 – ovember 1579;
October 1583 – August 1 59 1 .
338 The proof for his active involvement in the taking o f Moldavia stands i n the words o f his
logothete Tatul, who on tbe 1 2’h of April 1574 issued a document „in the town of Rilmnicu
Sär at, when our Prince Alexander was away in the Principality of Moldavia in order to enthrone
his brother Prince Peter as prince of tbe Principa1ity of Moldavia.“ See: Documenta Romaniae
Historica B. Tara Romäneascä VII ( 1 571-1575), ed. $tefan $tefanescu and Olimpia Diaconescu
(Bucharest: Academiei, 1988), 229-23 1 .
89
the year 1575, and I saw as weil three crosses which were built as a sign of that
victory.339
The text was referring to the bodies of the Ottomans, exRlaining at the same time that
the Moldavians defeated „1 00,000 Turks and Tartars.“ 40 The piles of bones were a
factor in Stephen’s propagation in the realm of myth. Therefore should one have
passed by the river of Bärlad, where the clash took place, one would have possibly
seen the remains of a Moldavian victory. Stryzgowski’s text is even more significant
as the author describes the battle scene on its l001h anniversary. As described by the
Polish diplomat, the scene seems to have still been vibrant and charged with emotions
even J 00 years after the celebrated confrontation. Before Stryzgowski, however, the
battle scene was almost identically described by Marcin Bielski341 who emphasised
both the piles of bones and the stone crosses erected there for the remembrance of the
vict01y. The preservation of these tokens until almost the end of the sixteenth century
and the reactions of the sixteenth-centll1y observers to them proves that Stephen’s
intention of protecting and perpetuating his reputation was a success. There are no
sources describing the Moldavian feelings regarding the battle scenes, but should one
recognise the impact they had on foreign travellers through Moldavia, one must
assume that their impact on the local community was just as strong, i f not much
stronger.
The Battle of Codrii Cosminului, where Stephen the Great defeated the Polish
army in 1497 echoed not only amazement, but also fear. In 1 563, the Veronese
mercenary Alessandro Guagnini was part of the army which deth.roned Jacob
Heraclides, the then prince of Moldavia.342 While describing the expedition, he
claimed to have seen the whitened bones, reminders and remains of the Polish
defeat.343 His account was confirmed by another similar recording,344 that of Antonio
339 Maciej Stryzgowski’s description of his travel through Moldavia and Wallachia i11 Cäliitari
striiini despre Tiirile Rarruine II, 453.
340 lbidem.
341 “ . . . and the bodies, he [Stephen] ordered that they be gathered, in such a way that piles of bones
are visible up until today, next to three stone crosses reminding of that victory.“ See: Marcin
Bielski, „Kronika Polska,“ in !jtefan cel Mare i Sfänt. Par/re/ in cronicä, 198.
342 The text of Alessaodro Guagnini has several errors: the mercenary wrote that the campaign took
place in 1562, although the correct date is 1563; similarly, the text claims that Alessandro took
part in the campaign on the sidc of Jacob Heraclides, although historical evidence shows the
opposite. See more details in: Cii/atori striiini despre Jiiri/e Ramäne IT, 291.
343 lbidem.
344 Certainly, these two accounts of the human remains rn the Codrii Cosminului forest were not the
only extants ones. A different account was giveo by Staoislaus Samicius who suggested that
among the bones must have also been Moldavian ones: “ . . . in the year 1562, they saw in those
forests the bones ofthose who were surrounded and k.illed by the Moldavians. But I believe that
there are also bones ofthe Moldaviaos among them.“ See: Stanislaus Sarnicius, „Annales seu de
origine et rebus gestis Polononun et Litbuanorum,“ in !jtefan cel Mare i Sfänt. Partret in
cronicii, 196.
90
Maria Graziani, the biegrapher of Heraclides. In his text, Graziani presented the
retreat of the Polish army after the prince’s death:
But after they advanced this way without facing the enemy, they feit fear that a
trap might have been prepared for them; and their concem and suspicion was
amplified by the fact that they were retreating through the same woods in
which the memoty of King John Albert’s great defeat by the Moldavians
headed by Stephen, their tireless and fearless „king,“ was still alive.345
Graziani does not mention the human remains of the Polish anny, but he does
mention something of profound impact: „the memory . . . [was] still alive.“ This
memory generated an amalgam of Feelings which combined awe and fear. The
„fearless and tireless king“ was still alive in that forest and the fact that he evoked
such dynamic feellngs is proof for the existence of the myth.
A sixteenth-century „definition“ of Stephen, the wanior
The !arge nurober of descriptions concerning Stephen’s actions on the
battlefield resulted in texts which may be seen a veritable „defmitions“ of the
Moldavian mler as warrior. The most particularised and complex definition belongs
to the Polish Maciej Sttyjkowski who touched upon different Ievels of Stephen’s
reign. His report begins with the description of Stephen in his most acclaimed battle:
Vaslui, 1475. In this context, Stryjkowski recounts the composition of both annies, as
well as the strategy and deployment of the Moldavians. Further on, he describes the
booty and prisoners taken by the Moldavians, as weil as the human remains still
visible I 00 years after the end of the battle. A !arge part of Stryjkowski ’s description
relates to the mler’s victories against the Ottomans, Polish, and Hungarians –
consequently, Stephen was the „clever and lucky“346 prince, who not only overcame
all these enemies, but who additionally also „wounded the king hirnself [Matthias]
with three spears“347 in the Battle of Baia. The fact that Stephen was in such close
combat with both Matthias and John Albett is emphasised by the Polish historian who
concluded that „any historian can rightfully eulogise him [Stephen] for this blessed
luck with such a small countty.“348
This description must have been the result of the combination of two different
sources: previously-written histories such as that of Maciej Miechowita349 and
contemporary accounts, most likely Moldavian, gathered while travelling through
Moldavia. Stryjkowski’s definition of Stephen’s heroism was not singular however,
345 Antonio Maria Graziani in Ciiliitori striiini despre Tiirile Romane II, 62 1 .
346 Maciej Stryzgowski in Ciiliitori straini despre Tarife Romane ll, 454.
347 Tbidem.
348 Tbidem. Also, see the entire description of Stephen writteo by Stryzgowski in Ciiliitori straini
despre Tarife Romeine Il, 452-454.
349 Miechowita wrote Chronica Polonorum in which Stephen was named an „admirable and
victorious man.“ See: $tefan cel Mare i Sfcint. Portret fn cronica, 173-1 76.
9 1
as several others emerged. Martin Cromer revoked the Moldavian as „a man wotth
remembering at all times for the greatness of his soul, for his ingenuity, for his
competence in the art of war and for his lucky wars agairrst the Turks, Hungarians,
Polish, and Tartars.“350 Similarly, for Joachim Cureus, Stephen was „an unspeakably
brave and tireless man.“351 Moreover, he emphasised that it was difficult to ftnd
another watTior more heroic than Stephen was in his time. 352
Indirect accounts also pointed to a cettain admiration neighbouring countries
had for the prince. The rivalry between the H ungarians and Poles seats indirectly
revealed Stephen’s perception outside Moldavian borders: „This way, this great
warrior who defeated the Turks, Tartars, and Hungarians, subdued to the Polish king.
Should such a submission have been made to Matthias, he would have surely been
proud of it.“353 This affinnation summarises the positive image Stephen had, an
image which inspired all the praises of the sixteenth century.
Of course, negative traits also emerged within these „definitions.“ Cureus
highlighted that Stephen was „not only a fearless man, but also a cruel one,“
continuing to describe how, after the clash with the Tartars in 1 468, Stephen had the
son of the Khan cut into four pieces in front of his envoys and had his head sent back
to his father.354 Stephen was thus perceived as a brave man, but nonetheless as
devious and unstable.355 As one would expect, all negative understandings came fi·om
enemies of the principality. While they all agreed on Stephen’s fame in war and his
braveness,356 negative accounts were explicit: „[he defeated] King Matthias, although
rather by means of deceit which he often used, than by means of real power . . . he
was unstable . . . he was woud and his unusual cruelty erased a little from the fame
and glory of his deeds.“3 7 Recalling the Sattle of Baia where Matthias was defeated,
the Hungarians were not eager to praise Stephen. Neither were the Ottomans,
especially when remembering the Battle of Vaslui: “ . . . that darrmed prince of Moldavia,
who surpassed in wickedness the Devil himself.“358 Not surprisingly, negative
portrayals also appear in Wallachian descriptions of Stephen’s heroic deeds:
He was a brave man and he made many wars . . . he would not stay to rest and,
with luck on his side, he defeated many. He was however ungrateful for the
good he received and he was ungrateful to Prince Radu, the Wallachian, with
350 Martin Cromer, „Polonia sive de origine et rebus gestis Polonorum,“ in $tefan ce/ Mare $i Sfänt.
Portret in cronicii, 194.
351 Joachim Cureus, „Gentis Silesiae Annales,“ in $tefan cel Mare $i Sfänt. Portret in cronicii, 334.
352 fbidem.
353 Mare in Bielski, „Kronika Polska,“ in $refan cel Mare i Sfänt. Portret fn cronicii, 200.
354 Joachim Cureus, „Gentis Silesiae Annales,“ in $rejan cel Mare $i Sfänr. Porrret fn cronicii, 334.
355 Mikl6s fstvänffy actually referred to him as a „man famous for his wars, but changeable when it
comes to his temper and faith.“ See: Mikl6s Istvänffy, „Regni Hungarici Historia,“ in $tefan cel
Mare # Sfänt. Portret in cronicä, 2 15.
356 fstvänffy said that he „proved himselfto be above all his enemies.“ See: Ibidem.
357 lbidem, 216.
358 Kemal Paazade in $tefan cel Mare $i Sfänt. Portret in cronicii, 276.
92
whose help he gained the Moldavian throne and afterwards came with war
upon him unexpectedly, and Radu fled to the Ottomans, while Stephen took his
wife and daughter Yoichita, whom he then married.359
Just like the Hungarians and the Ottomans, the Wallachians admitted that Stephen
was a hero, but given the rivalry between the two principalities, they did not offer
him the ack.nowledgement other accounts did. Tbe above-quoted fragment is dated
seventeenth century, but because there are no similar sources originating in the
sixteenth century, one must assume that this chronicle relied on older texts which did
not survive beyond their time.
The sixteenth-century public image of Stephen the Great
Stephen the Great became in the sixteenth centUJy the representation of an
ideal Ieader. Folklore shaped collective memmy by means of popular songs such as
the one described by Strijkowski, but also by exploiting the renmants of Stephen’s
life: on the one hand, the physical image of the prince still visible in his church
foundations, his impressive tomb at the Putna Monastery, or the battlefields and their
markers erected at Stephen’s order; on the other hand, the recollections of people
who lived during the prince’s reign.
The coloniser
Stephen the Great ruled for 47 years. At least two generations of children were
bom in the 1 480s and 1 490s who lived roughly until l 550360 and who must have been
able to perpetuate their memories of the mler all throughout their Jives – therefore, up
until the rniddle of the sixteenth centu1y. Similarly, a second group of people were
likely to preserve a positive irnage of the prince: Jandowners. Two !arge volumes361
of docurnents issuing donations from Stephen the Great were published – most of
these documents being land donations. As anticipated, all people who received these
donations had their existence tied to the name of Stephen the Great. Colonisers frorn
Transylvania and Poland also had their names tied to Stephen as the prince brought
thern to Moldavia, offering them land privileges, particularly during the Moldavian-
359 Radu Popescu, „Istoriile Domnilor Taräi Romäneti“ (The histories of the Wallachian princes),
in $tefan cel Mare i SfmC t. Portret in cronicii, 152.
360 Gorovei and Szekely calculated that the generations bom in thc 1480s and J490s must bave been
able to perpetuate Stephen’s image up until mid sixteentb century. See: Gorovei and Szekely,
Princeps Omni Laude Maior, 539.
361 Documenta Romaniae Hislorica. A. Moldavia li ( 1 449-1486), ed. Leon $imanschi (Bucharest:
Academiei, 1 976), document no. 1 9 1 ; 286. (henceforth: DRH A. II) and Documenta Romaniae
Historica. A. Maidova lll (1487-1 504), ed. C. Cihodaru, J. Caprou, N. Ciocan (Bucbarest:
Academiei, 1980), 529. (henceforth: DRH A. II!).
93
Polish conflicts and Transylvanian persecutions.362 These colonisations had two-way
advantages: while Stephen offered colonisers unoccupied Iands, they were obliged to
be patt of Stephen’s so-called small host, the permanent princely army.363 Moreover,
with this strategy, Stephen also strengtherred central power and diminished the
chances of political anarchy. Fifteenth-century Moldavia benefited from vast socalled
„deserted“364 territories which were given by the centrat power to colonisers in
order to organise new settlements and work the Iands for agricultural purposes.
Colonisers received tax-free Iands and were exempt from obligations to the
principality365 – except for the obligation of military service, of course. Considered to
be small boyars as part of the lower nobility,366 historians see this social category as a
catalyst for the preservation of Stephen the Great’s memory: „I thin.k that the
preservation of Stephen’s name up until today (while the names of other rulers were
erased in light oftradition) is owed to a great extent to this act of colonisation.“367
Stephen was thus supported by a !arge number of subjects who, already before
the time of his death, had perceived him as a ruler with a mythical aura.368 The fact
that the length of Stephen’s reign was overstated both during his lifetime and
afterwards, is proof for this superhuman perception: in 1497, an Ottoman source
claimed that Stephen had been ruling in Moldavia for 52 years/69 just like one
362
See more information on the propagation of Stephen’s memory through Iaudowners and
colonisers in: Gorovei and Szekely, Princeps Omni Laude Maior, 539-540.
363 The Moldavian army was formed of two military divisions. The first one was the small host (or
small army) which was the Moldavian permanent army comprised of boyars and their personal
armies. The secend type of army (the !arge host) mainly comprised of peasants, was only called
at war in Iimes of imminent danger when !arge numbers of soldiers were needed. See: Nicolae
Stoicescu, Curteni $i slujitori. Comribufii Ia istoria armarei romäne [Courtiers and servants.
Contributions to the history o f the Romanian army] (Bucharest: Militarä, 1968), 6-7.
364 A deserted territory was considered to be a territory without an owner- therefore not belanging
to any boyar or the Church, it was under the control of the prince. See more: Perre P. Panaitescu,
Ob$tea {iiriineascä in Tara Romäneascä $i Maidova – Oränduirea feuda/ii [Peasants in
Wallachia and Moldavia – Feudal Organisation] (Bucharest: Academiei, 1964), 96.
365 Matei D. Vlad, Colonizarea ruralä fn Tara Romaneascii i Maidova (secolele XV-XVfl)l (Rural
colonisation in Wallachia and Moldavia (Fifteenth – eighteenth centuries)] (Bucharest:
Academiai, 1973), 18.
366 Panaitescu, „$tefan cel Mare. 0 lncercare de caracterizare,“ 1 6 .
367 lbidem 1 7
368 Amold va Gennep exp1ained that any ruler who was ab1e to sunound bimself with a !arge
number of faithful subjects was eventually perceived by them as immortal: one could not
understand the death of a man who was appreciated as superior from all points of view and who
had a substantial intluence on one’s life. See: Arnold V an Gennep, La formation des legendes
(Paris: Emest Flammarion, 1 929), 1 2 J . From this point of view, Romani an historians compared
Stephen the Great to other „imrnortal“ rulers such as King Arthur, Frederick I Barbarossa, Frederick
li, or Constantine XI. See: Gorovei and Szekely, Princeps Omni Laude Maior, 484-489.
369 Der fromme Sultan Bayezid. Die Geschichte seiner Herrschaft (1481-1512) nach den altosmanischen
Chroniken des Oruc und des Anonymus Hanivaldanus, ed. Richard F. Kreutel 9 (Graz:
Verlag Styria, 1 978), 93. Also quoted in: Gorovei and Szekely, Princeps Omni Laude Maior,
485.
94
century later, Kodja Husein was emphasising that the prince, „a master in war,“ was
„famous among Christian kings for his wiliness and was an evil-doer who ruled for
90 years.“370 The impact of Stephen the Great becomes apparent once one comes in
contact with such sources highlighting the outstanding nature of his reign. The fact
that the Moldavian’s exceptionality was perpetuated is verified by sources which
particularly emphasise the transmission of Stephen’s prominence in time: at the end
ofthe sixteenth century, the Transylvanian Valentin Prepostvari was using Stephen as
an example to the Moldavian Prince Aron the Tyrant – should Aron have been
inspired by the acts of his predecessor, he would have gained a na.me comparable to
that of Stephen the Great whose „brave fame and name“ still lived „today and will
live until this world will exist.“371 One should thus conclude that Stephen’s image
was very much present in the .memories of the sixteenth-centl.lly Moldavians. Not
surprisingly, Prince Stephen received the appellation „the Great.“
The Great
Until recently, it was believed that the appellative „the Great“ was attached to
Stephen ’s name in the sixteenth century. The earliest attestations of the designation
were believed to spring from two sources: the account of the Austrian Baron
Sigismund von Herberstein and a communication between Prince Peter Rare and
King Sigismund I. As a diplomat, Herberstein travelled nvice to Moscow (in 1 5 1 7
and 1526) and subsequently wrote his Rerum Moscoviticarum Commentarii372 which
detailed his expeditions but which also mentioned the name of the Moldavian prince
t\vice. There are three original versions of the text (Latin, German, ltalian), thus
Stephen’s name appears six times altogether. Of these six times, the Moldavian is
presented with his „the Great“ app four times, suggesting that during Herberstein’s
travels to Moscow Stephen was com.monly known as „the Great.“373 Years later, in
February 1 53 1 , Peter Rare received a Ietter from Siismund J in which the Polish
king refetTed to Stephen as Stephanus ille Magnus. 74 Ftuthermore, Stephen was
37° Kodja Husein, „Beda’i ul-veka’T,“ in !)tefan ce/ Mare i Sfiint. Portret in cronica, 289.
371 Documente privitoare Ia istoria Ardealului, Moldovei i Ttirii Romaneti [Documents
concerning the history ofTransylvania, Moldavia and Wallachia), ed. Andrei Veress, IV Acte i
scrisori (1593-1595) [Docurnents and letters ( 1 593-1 595)] (Bucharest: Cartea Romäneascä,
1 932), document no. 27, 45-55. Also quoted and exemplified by Cristea in „Declanarea
räzboiului,“ 106.
372 Three editions of the book are available at: http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/dmslload/irng, last
time accessed: February 4, 2016.
373 For the thorough explanation of this hypothesis, see: Gorovei, „<Cel Mare>. Märrurii i
interpretäri,“ 8-13.
374 See tbe Ietter in: Documente privitoare Ia istoria romiinilor. 1510-1600 [Documents regarding
tbe history of Romanians. 1 5 1 0-1600] Suplement Tl, vol. I, ed. Ioan Bogdan (Bucharest: 1893),
21 -22. (henceforth: Hurmuzaki Suplement li vol. 1).
95
known as „the Great“ also to the sixteenth-century Otternans who were familiar to
him as „Qodjea lstefan.“375
In the fifteenth century, Moldavia and Wallachia were extemally known as
Valahia Minor (Moldavia) and Valahia Mcyor (Wallachia) – denominations showing
both territorial and political limitations.37 Dw-ing the reign of Stephen the Great
however, Va/ahia Minor wanted to hold political power over the neighbouring
Valahia Major. As Moldavia attempted to increase its influence over Wallachia,
diplomatic reports became indicative of one principality’s (claimed) „greatness“ over
the other. Consequently, in August 1473, a foreign report refetTed to Stephen as
„grossen Walachen.“377 As the „great Wallachian“ syntagm also refelTed to a „great“
Wallachia, one can notice a change in the perception of both principalities: at a
certain time during the reign of Stephen, Moldavia became Va/ahia Major and
Wallachia was transformed into Valahia Minor. This change in perception was owed
to Stehen’s anti-Ottoman policy which progressively tried to integrate Wallachia as
well.3 8 The fact that the two principalities interchanged their nominations during
Stephen ’s reign reflects the extent of the prince’s influence. Not only did his
principality gain the „Major“ title, but Stephen hirnself gained a new title379 which
shortly afterwards received a deeper symbolic understanding: he became the „great
Wallachian,“ the self-proclaimed suzerain of the Wallachian principality, as sources
divulge.380 This was the beginning of a titling process which propelled Stephen’s
narne into posterity. He was soon transformed from the „great Wallachian“ into a
375 Bayezid Il referred to Stephen as such in a documem dated 1 5 8 1 . „Qodjea“ was used as a
synonym for „old,“ but also for „great“ or „enorrnous.“ See: Gorovei and Szekely, Princeps
Omni Laude Maior, 538-539.
376 For a short historical presentation of the Valahia Minor and Valahia Major nominations, see:
Papacostea, „The Foreign Policy ofStephen the Great: the Polish option (1459-1473),“ 22-23.
377 The report reproduced the latest news coming from Poland and was sent from Strasbourg and
destined to Albrecht lil Achilles, Elector of Brandenburg. See: Papacostea, „The Foreign Policy
ofStephen the Great,“ 25 (the original text ofthe report is reproduced in footnote 27).
378 Papacostea, „The Foreign Policy of Stephen the Great,“ 22-23.
379 For intitulature of Stephen the Great, see: Gorovei, „Titlurile lui tefan cel Mare. Tradilie
diplomaticä i vocabular politic“, 41-78 (Subchapter no. Vlll referring particularly to the titling
„the great“).
380 The tem1inology used by intemal sources indicates a feudal relationship between Moldavia and
Wallachia, where Moldavia bad the suzerain role. erban Papacostea highlighted two particular
examples. The first one refers to the chronicle of Grigore Ureehe where tl1e chronicler states that
Vlad Cälugärul, the Wallachian prince, tumed his back on „bis Iord, Prince Stephen“ –
suggesting a feudal-like relationship between princes Stephen and Vlad. The second example
points to a 1481 document in which Stephen announced the inhabitants of the Wallachian
borderline lhat he would appoint to the Wallachian throne Mircea, „the son of my reign“ –
making reference to the „father“ and „son“ relationship which evoked thc suzerain-vassal
relationship between two rulers. See: Papacostea, „The Foreign Policy of Stephen the Great,“
24-25.
96
more personal and individual „Stephen the Great.“ A recent thorough analysis381
presents the stages of this transformation:
• The first known instance of „the great“ Stephen appears in 1473, in the abovecited
document which mentions the prince as „grossen Walachen.“
• The second known instance is dated 1481382 and appears in the inscription of the
entrance tower at the Putna Monastery: „the great Prince Stephen, son of the great
Prince Bogdan.“383
• A third instance is documented for 1491 in the Gospel written by Teodor
Mariescul for Alexander, Stephen’s the eldest son. It describes Alexander as
follows: „the son of the great Prince Stephen. „384
• Soon after Stephen’s death, in 1 5 1 0, a fLmeral inscription from Suceava refers in
Greek to Manoil Mmati, the deceased who lived during the time of Prince
Bogdan, the son of „the great Prince Stephen“385
• In 1 5 14, King Sigismund wrote to Pope Leo X about the Bastern European
relationship between Christians and Ottomans.386 Within the Ietter, the adjective
„magnanimus“ is used twice with reference to Stephen: „De quibus vojevodam
illum magnanimum olim Stephanum – (is enim Stephanus . . . erat . . . natura vafer,
subdolus, varius, strenuus et magnanimous, ob que a teneris appellabatur vulpis
astuta )“387
• The other two relevant sources describing Stephen as „the great“ are the ones
belonging to Sigismund von Herberstein between the years 1 5 1 7 and 1 527
(„Stephanus ille magnus Vuaivoda Moldaviae,“ „der groß Stephan Weyda,“ „quel
gran Stephano Vuayuuoda di Moldauuia,“ „magnus ille Stephanus Moldavuiae
381 Stefan S. Gorovei, „<Ce! Mare>. Marturii i interpretäri“ – „Le Grand“. Temoignages et
interpretations,“ Analeie Putnei 2 (2012): 7-37.
382 Although the inscription is dated 1 4 8 1 , the present inscription was re-carved in the eighteenth
century, based on the original one.
383 Gorovei, „<Ce! Mare>. Mätturii i interpretari,“ I 5. See also the original text in: Reperwriul
monumentelor i obiectelor de arla, ed. Mihai Berza, 49.
384 Gorovei, „<Ce! Mare>. Märturii i interpretari,“ 15. See also: Mihai Berza, „Trei Tetraevanghele
ale lui Teodor Märiescul in Muzeul Jstoric de Ia Moscova“ [Three Gospels written by Teodor
Märiescul at tbe Moscow Historical Museum] in Cultura mo/doveneasca fn timpul lui !jtefan
cel Mare [Moldavian culture during the time of Stephen the Great], ed. Mihai Berza (Bucharest:
Academiei, 1 964), 590.
385 Stefan S. Gorovei, „Trei „probleme“ din biografia lui Stefan cel Mare – Trois „questions“ de la
biograpbie d’Etienne Je Grand,“ Analeie Pulnei I (2010): 249. It should be highlighted that
Stefan Gorovei also points to another inscription dated between 1491 and 1 5 10. He discusses a
fourth description which does not make direct reference to Stephen the Great, but to his father
Bogdan: the Menaion ofMarch 1504 written at the Putna Monastery makes reference to Stepben
as „the son of the great Prince Bogdan.“ See: lbidem, 1 5 – 1 6 and Repertoriul monumentelor $i
obiectelor de artii din timpul lui !jtefan cel Mare, ed. Mihai Berza, 422-423. 386 See the entire Ietter in: Hurmuzaki ll.3, document no. CL VII, 168-1 82.
387 Ibidem, 1 7 1 . See also the discussion on this part of the text in: Stefan S. Gorovei, „Trei
„probleme“ din biografia lui Stefan cel Mare,“ 248-249.
97
palatines,“ and „quel gran Stephano Pallatino“388) and to King Sigismund 1 i n
1531 („Stephanus ille Magnus, Stephanus Magnus“389)
This sequence of sources show a history of the meaning of Stephen‘ s greatness, as
one can see the intitulature transforms from a feudal connotation into a clear
indication of personal „greatness,“ by the end of the prince’s life. More relevantly,
Stephen was not simply a self-proclaimed „great“ prince in the Moldavian-Wallachian
relationship, but he was „great“ outside the Moldavian borders as weil,
allowing more complex understandings ofthe prince’s greatness. The development of
Stephen ’s intitulature shows that already in the first half of the sixteenth century,
Stephen’s „greatness“ was perceived inside and outside Moldavia in terms of
personal identity.
The over-imagined
As the sixteenth century invoked and mystified Stephen the Great, his myth
successively developed. One of the most compelling proofs for the mystification of
the prince is the fake documentation claimed to have been written during his reign.
While one cannot estimate with precision which documents were written when, they
are a confitmation of the roJe Stephen played in collective memory, regardless of
their time of conception.
Roughly 37 fake documents390 referring to Stephen the Great are known to
have survived up until today. Being relatively easily identifiable by usually analysing
the lists of boyars who „signed“ them,391 fake documents relate to all periods of
Stephen’s reign. The vast majority refer to land donations and property
388 See all the excerpts of Herberstein’s text with reference to Stephen the Great (in original
languages), as weil as their discussion, in: Gorovei, „<Cel Mare>. Märturii i interpret1iri,“ 8-13.
389 See the original Ietter in: Hurmuzak.i Suplemcnt Jl vol. l , 2 1 -22.
390 Documenta Romaniae Hisrorica is the most comprehensive collection and sums up a number of
37 fake documents for the entire period of Stephen’s reign. See: Documenle privind istoria
Romaniei. Veacul XVI. A. Moldova [Documents regarding the history of Romania. The
Sixteenth Century. A. Moldavia] 11 (1551-1570), ed. Mihail Roller (Bucharest: Academiei,
1951) , 414-460 (henceforth: DIR A.2) (24 documents); and Documente privind istoria
Romaniei. Veacul XVI. A. Moldova IIl ( 1571 – 1 590) (Documents regarding the history of
Romania. Sixteenth century. A. Moldavia Ul (1571-1590)], ed. Mihail Roller (Bucharest:
Academiei, 1951) (henceforth: DIR A.3) (13 documents). Other collections also include fake
documents dating from Stephen’s time. See: Documente privitoare Ia istoria ora$ului IG$i
(Documents regarding the history of the city of lai] I Acle interne (1408-1 660) [Intemal
documents (1408=1660)], ed. Ioan Caprou. Petronel Zahariuc (Iai: Dosoftei, 1999), 545. See
also: loan Bogdan, Documentefalse atribuite lui Stefan cel Mare (Fake documents attributed to
Stephen the Great] (Bucharest: Socec, 19 13) – this collection also consists of the documents
found in Documenta Romaniae Historica volumes cited above.
391 See one of the first ana1yses done on three such documents in: Francisc Pali, „Acte suspecte i
false ln colec1ia <Documentele lui Stefan cel Mare> a lui foan Bogdan“ [Suspicious and fake
documents in the Ioan Bogdan’s collection „The Docwnents of Stephen the Great“], Revista
lstorica 4-6 (1933): I 05-1 13.
98
confi1mations. They clarify whom the land was given to and signal territorial
borderlands, as donation acts usually do. These forged property confirmations indicate
that ce1tain people relied on the name of Stephen in order to gain rights to
certain Iands. The effect of documents signed by Stephen and his Council becomes
more apparent when analysing docurnents which hint to certain territorial disputes.
There are a number of documents which delimit a land or a settlement between t\vo
boyar families or groups of families;392 similarly, there is a document which details
the fact that a certain boyar Bogdan sold his Iands to Stephen the Great who
afterwards donated them to another boyar, Avram Frincu.393 As these documents may
reveal certain boyar disputes, an issue becomes ce1tain: the (probable) disagreement
was solved by invoking a document „issued“ by Stephen the Great. lndirectly, the
image of Stephen „the judge“394 becomes visible in posterity. During his reign, the
prince solved disputes in such a way that there were no complaints or re-judgements
of his decisions after his death (as it often happened with other princes).395 The
righteousness of his decisions was then propagated in the aftem1ath of his reign,
which resulted in such forged documents.
Stephen’s righteousness may be tied to other types of fake documents as well:
donations of settlements or lands/96 as weil as donations to monasteries such as
Bistrita, Neamt, or Humor.397 All these documents, regardless their type, indicate a
high Ievel of tmst in the late mler, whose name on a document was sufficient for the
acceptance of ce1tain land donations or rights.
The most captivating forged docurnents, however, are those relating to the fight
agairrst Ottomans and Ta1tars in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. Highlighting
the brave1y against the „other,“ these documents genuinely show Stephen’s image:
that of a veritable propagator of the Christian cause and a restless commander against
the Ottoman threat. All three documents to be presented were proved to be written
between the seventeenth and nineteenth centUJies. Their relevance for the mythical
genesis however does not fade as they are emulations of the pre-seventeenth-centmy
collective mem01y. The documents closest in time of the mythical genesis are two
donation acts which reward the bravery of two boyars with Iands. Dated May 1 2 ,
1475 (therefore sh01tly after the Battle of Yaslui), but conceived after 1 6 10,398 an act
„issued“ by Stephen signalled the donation of a land by the River Bärlad to a certain
Avram Huiban because of „his bravery in the battle with the Turks from upper
392 For instanee: DRH A.3, doeument Vll. 543-545; DRH A.2, doeument X, 433-435.
393 DRH A.2, doeument XX, 453-455.
394 For the image of Stephen as judge and the disputes he seuled dur ing his reign, see: Gorovei and
Szekely, Princeps Omni Laude Maior, 462-468.
395 Ibidem, 462.
396 See, as examples. documents XII or XIV in DRH A.2, 438 and 444.
397 See the aets of donation to these monasteries in: DRH A.2, doeuments lii and IV, 41 6-420; and
DRH A.3, doeuments I, JV, X, 532-533, 538-540, 550-551.
398 The extant doeumenl is a supposed 1610 translation of an original Slavenie doeument. However,
in 1610, Slavenie documents were not yet translated. See: DRH A.2, 452.
99
Yaslui.“399 Supposedly ten years later, in 1485, Stephen issued a new document in
gratitude to another Moldavian act of bravery: Maluca and Cozma Rizan, together
with their brothers, received Iands by the ban.ks of the Yinovat River in order to
establish new Settlements. The document stated that these Iands were a reward to the
four men for their bravety in defending the Moldavian border from Tartar attacks.400
The third document is the most fascinating one, although it was most likely written
sometime in mid-nineteenth century.401 Dated September 7, 1474, the document
accommodates Stephen‘ s orders regarding the imminent Ottoman attack, materialised
in the 1475 Battle of Yaslui. Through bis boyar Gavril Boldm, Stephen ordered that
all Moldavian boyars, part of the so-called small host, be prepared for the
confrontation. The instructions to the Moldavian soldiers end in a paragraph which
not only sums the orders of Stephen, but also sums the way Stephen was perceived in
posterity: „Be healthy and merciless, just like your parents and your grandparents
were. Have trust . . . do not be afraid of the pagan multitude . . . „402
A last type of forged documents completes the collection of documents which
delineate the image of Stephen the Great in collective memory. A document dated
1480 showed that the Moldavian prince was the establisher of the guild of the poor in
the town of lai: “ . . . the poor of the market of Iai have gathered . . . and discussed
among us and we were willingly or/ianised in a guild, by the order of the abovementioned
prince, Stephen the old.“40 The good, compassionate, and giving Stephen
the Great transpired in this document.
Analyzing these documents altogether, an „imagined“ image of the ruler may
easily be highlighted: Stephen the Great was the humane protector of the poor, the
supreme judge whose decisions were irrefutable, merciful with the helpless and
merciless with enemies. Undoubtedly, these characteristics were the intrinsic
elements of Stephen’s image in the aftermath of his death. Because any type of
mythical narrative is the direct result of collective memory processes,404 this image
was also the catalyst for the !arge amount of legends surrounding the mler’s life and
deeds.
The legendary
A significant number of legends detail aspects of Stephen the Great’s life,
some ofwhich can be traced back to the mler’s life, uncovering the veracity of some
of these stmies. At the turn of the seventeenth century, Ion Neculce compiled his
„Collection of words.“ A quarter of the 42 legends present in Neculce’s compilation
399 Ibidem, document XIX, 452. 400 Ibidem, document XXIV, 460. 401 The document was writtcn in a style which points to oineteenth-ceotury forgery. See more: !bi-
4 dem, 452. 02 See entire document: Ibidem, 450-452, esp. 452.
403 Ibidem, document XXI, 456.
404 van Gennep, Laformation des legendes, 5.
100
relate to Stephen’s reign, a fact which demonstrates the impact he had on collective
memory, as well as the reaction of collective memory to his image. Neculce’s
collection includes two of Stephen’s most well-known legends, both of which mingle
between truth and legend.
The image of Stephen as righteous judge and protector of the poor also
emerges in these legends. The story known as the „The Hillock of Purcel“405 shows
Stephen on a Sunday morning, while going to mass in Yaslui. Once he left his court,
he heard a man calling his oxen to plough his land. Surprised that somebody would
work on a Sunday, the prince ordered that the man be brought to him. The man
named Purcel was ploughing his land („now known as the Hillock of Purcel“)406
when he was summoned to Stephen. Purcel explained to the ruler that, being a poor
man, he had to work on Sundays, especially because his brother did not agree to !end
him his plough only on this day of the week. Consequently, Stephen decided to „take
the plough of the rich brother and give it to the poor brother, to be his.“407 It has
already been shown that this legend seems to have its origin in historical truth:408 the
story was propagated by the P(B)urcel409 family and was transmitred to Neculce in
the seventeenth century by a foliower of the family. Surely, while one cannot attest
the truthfulness of the entire legend, it is more relevant to high light the fact that the
Purcel family kept the righteous judgement of Stephen in their memory for centuries.
The second legend which broke historical boundaries presented Stephen in an
atypical and non-princely sih1ation: a defeated prince who had fallen off his horse. As
the fifth legend in Neculce’s collection, the story describes the events which took
place at the battle of cheia, where Stephen was defeated by a claimant to the throne,
Peter Hroiot.410 During this battle, Stephen feil off his horse and was not able to
return to safety. In Neculce’s version of the events, the boyar Purice offered the
prince his horse but still he could not mount because „he was a small man.“4 1 1
Consequently, the boyar offered that h e crouched in front o f the horse in such a way
that Stephen could step on bis back and then mount the horse. „T will crouch into a
small hillock“412 and so he did. Stephen then replied: „Poor Purice, should you and I
40s
See legend number VII in Ion Neculce, „0 samä de cuvinte“ [A collection of words], in
Letopiseful Tiirii Moldovei (The Chronicle of Moldavia), ed. Anatol and Dan Vidracu
(Bucharest: Litera International, 200 1), 16-17.
406 lbidem, 17.
407 lbidem.
408 Mircea Ciubotaru, „De Ia Vilneti Ia Movila lui Burcel. Observatii onomastice i istorice“ [From
Vilneti to the hillock of Burcel. ldentity and historical Observations), Arhiva Genealogicä VI
(1994): 143-149. See also: $tefan S. Gorovei, „Ion Neculce i traditiile Putnei“ [Ion Neculce
and the traditions ofPutna) Analeie Putnei 1 (2005): 55.
409 The family name was changed into Burcel in the nineteenth century. See: Ciubotaru, „De Ia
Vilneti Ia Movi1a 1ui Burcel. ObservaJii onomastice i istorice,“ 143-149.
410 See information on the Banle of $cheia in: Gorovei and Szekely, Princeps Omni Laude Maior,
235-238.
411 Sec legend number V in Ion Neculce, „0 samä de cuvinte,“ 16.
412 lbidem.
101
be able to escape safely, you shall change your name to Movilä (meaning
„hillock“).“413 They both escapcd and Stephen eventually returned to his throne. The
legend said that Stephen rewarded the boyar with a high dignity, as weil as with a
new name – that of Movilä. A century later, at the end of the sixteenth century, the
Movilä family became the ruling family of Moldavia. The legend, in the version
presented by Neculce, stressed the connection between Stephen the Great and the
new dynasty of the Movilä family. Historical sources however presented a somewhat
different image: Purice did help Stephen out of the battle, but only after the prince
had spent half a day „among the dead.“414 Moreover, the name-change of Purice was
not mentioned in original sources, thus suggesting that Neculce’s legend suffered a
transformation with the domination of the Movilä family, under whose reign the
legend was widespread.415
Analyzing these two legends, one may notice two propagation channels for
Stephen’s image: one popular and another princely. The P(B)urcel family, whose
representative was aided by Sthen the Great, was a small family of boyars
originating in Lower Moldavia.41 They propagated among themselves the story of
Stephen’s righteous judgement for several generations through oral tradition.
Oppositely, the legend of Stephen’s defeat was propagated on a much higher Ievel,
that of the princely court of the Movilä family,417 and was altered in such a way that it
suited the legitimatised discourse of the throne. Surely, both of these channels had
their own particularities and interests in propagating the image of Stephen –
especially the princely spheres. The genesis of Stephen’s public (imagined) image
was thus a complex process born on different layers (both legendary and historical)
and continuously developed from the time of his death.
All this information Ieads once more to the discussion on Stephen’s
designations: he was „the great,“ suggesting that his close followers were well aware
of his immortal dimension. However, his immortal dimension did not only include
bis „the great“ appellative, but others as well – all of which reveal the perception of
the prince in the sixteenth century. In 1 509, five years after the prince’s death, a
monk from the Putna Monastery named the ruler „Prince Stephen the Good and the
Old.“418 Given the designation „the Old,“ one would expect the existence of a
„Stephen the Young,“ but as Stephen the Young was only enthroned in 1 5 17, tefan
Gorovei concluded that „the old“ naming must be a synonym for „the great.“419
413 lbidem.
414 „The Moldavian-German Chronicle,“ 28.
415 Pecican, Sange i rrandafiri, 35.
416 Ciubotaru, ··oe Ia Vilneri Ia Movila lui Burcel. Observatii onomastice i istorice,“ 147-148.
417 Pecican, Sange i rrandafiri, 35.
418 See: Darnasehin Mioc, „Materiale romäneti din arhive sträine“ [Romanian documents in foreign
archives], Studii $i Materiale de Istarie Medie 6 ( 1 973): 333-334.
419 Of conrse, after the reign of Stephen the Yonng, „the old“ designation needs no more
explanation as n1lers such as Peter Rare, Alexander Läpuneanul or the Movilä family
102
However, „the old“ appellative may also refer to another one of Stephen’s
dimensions: the wise Stephen, transforming his naming into a legitimate „Prince
Stephen the Good and the Wise.“
Should one collate all of Stephen’s designations in the sixteenth century, three
of them would be prominent: the good, the old, and the great. These designations are
in opposition to the ones of the seventeenth century, when the image of Stephen
slightly changes as he becomes the good, the old, and the saint.420 By comparing
Stephen’s cognomina of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, one of them stands
out: „the saint.“ The prince seems to become saint only in the seventeenth century.
Thus what happens in the sixteenth century? Is Stephen the Great saint also in the
sixteenth century?
Stephen, the saint?
Stephen is a saintly hero – a hero considered saint,421 although not canonised
until recently.422 The parameters for canonisation in the Orthodox Church were very
broad in the Middle Ages as three main generat criteria emerged: orthodoxy;
perfection in virtue which could be demonstrated by defending the faith even to the
point of death; and evidence of supemanu·ai signs and miracles.423 Stephen only
accomplished the first two criteria, thus he was not sanctified until the end of the
twentieth century. Nevertheless, the time between his lifetime and canonisation
allowed the evolution of the idea that Stephen was in fact saint, bestowing on him
various saintly characteristics which made the transition from man to saint.
Although lacking any signs of miracles performed during his lifetime or by his
tomb after his death, the Prince lived a life imbibed with Christianity: following the
Battle of Vaslui, Stephen fasted for forty days on water and bread only, he built the
Church of Räzboinei on the bodily remains of those fallen in battle, as weil as he
attributed all his victories to God while he considered all his defeats divine
punislunents.424 Stephen however should not be seen as a man who lived in full piety,
frequently use it. See the analysis of the text in: Gorovei, „<Cel Mare>. Märturii i interpretäri,“
18-19. 420 See the chronicles of Grigore Ureche, Miron Costin, or Ion Neculce, all cited before. See also:
Gorovei, „<Cel Mare>. Marturii i interpretäri,“ 19-20.
421 Pecican, Sänge §i trandafiri, 82. 422 Stephen the Great was canonised on the 20’h of June, 1992 by the Romanian Orthodox Church.
His sanctification is still contested by many.
423 James C. Skedros, „Reading the Lives of the Saints“ in Thinking through Faith. New
Perspectives from Orthodox Christian Schofars, ed. Aristotle Papanikolaou and Eli.zabeth H.
Prodromou (New Y ork: SVS Press, 2008), 172. 424 Jan Dlugosz emphasises some of these aspects in Stephen’s reign: ‚·following this victory (that
of Vaslui], Stephen did not become conceited, but he fasted for 40 days with water and bread.
And he ordered in the entire principality that nobody should dare to assign this victory to him,
but only to God, although everybody knew that the victory of this day was only owed to him.“
103
but rather as a princely saint beatified for acts of bravery, church building,
commissions, while he was also known for un-saintly acts.425 Altogether, the sanctity
of Stephen has depended on his very person and personality. Divine kinship was
dependent on the corroboration of several elements, not unknown to Stephen’s reign:
a unique individual, special circumstances, and specific means.426 Moreover, in order
to reach veneration, a frince had to outstrip his predecessors and peers and to rise to
extraordinary power.42 Eventually, his sanctity may easily be seen as a declaration or
confirmation of excellence. The extraordinary nature of Stephen’s reign and
personality has already been highlighted in this paper. Not swprisingly, all these
factors led to the perception of the prince as an authentic hero-saint.
Stephen the Great continuously supported the Chmch and had close
relationships with certain members of the clergy such as the Metropolitan Teoctist or
the Hermit Daniil. Meeting Daniil had a profound irnpact on the life and
accomplishments of the Moldavian prince. Two of the most visible outcomes of the
connection between Daniil and Stephen are the constructions of the Putna and
Voronet monasteries.428 Later narratives show that the relationship between the t\vo
men seems to have been much deeper – on a mythological Ievel. Whether the story
known as „A collection of words“ narrated by Ion Neculce at the turn of the
seventeenth centmy429 is historically accurate is not important – what is relevant in
the following account is that, almost three centwies after his death, the prince was
still present in collective memory, in both his heroic and saintly fom1. Out of the 42
short stories/legends presented by Neculce, 9 of them refer directly to the reign of
Stephen, wo of which are particularly relevant for the perception of Stephen as a
saintly figure. The first story details the relationship and the influence Hermit Daniil
had on Stephen: following the Battle of Räzboieni where the prince was defeated by
the Ottoman army, Stephen seeks refuge and advice with the hermit The prince asks
Daniil whether he should subdue Moldavia to the Porte. The hermit’s answer is
definite: no, „the war is his [Stephen’s].“43° Consequently, Stephen returned to the
battlefield and upon Ottoman retreat, he built the Monastery of Voronet, as Daniil
Jan Dlugosz, „Historia Polonica,“ in Portret fn cronicii, 164. See also: Gorovei and Szekely,
Princeps Omni Laude Maior, 474.
425 His conflicts with the boyars, sometimes violent, are probably the most thorough example for
this. 426 Gabor Klaniczay, Hofy Rufers and Bfessed Princesses: Dynastie Cufts in Medievaf Centrat
Europe (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 2000), 19.
427 Ibidem.
428 See a comprehensive study on the life of Hermit Daniil: Constantin Turcu, „Danii1 Sihastru.
Figura istoricä, Iegendara i bisericeascä“ [Hermit Daniil. Historical, legendary and church
character]. in Stefan cef Mare $i Sfant (1504-2004): Portret fn istorie, 178-192.
429 Ion Neculce wrote a chronicle of Mol da via together with the so-called „A collection of words.“
The „Collection“ presents a number of 42 storiesllegends connected to the history of Moldavia
and based on oral tradition – therefore, they are stories „heard from man to man,“ as the
chronicler himse1fpoints out. See the collection in: Ion Neculce, „0 sama de cuvinte“, 13-33.
430 lbidem, 1 5 .
1 04
asked him to. The relevance of this legend stands in the relationship between the mler
and God, a relationship mediated by Hermit Daniil. Ovidiu Cristea highlights that
defeat (such as the one at Räzboieni, which leaves the prince exhausted) was
interpreted as a sign of God’s anger for the sins committed by the ruler.
Consequently, Stephen seeks a way to reconcile with divinity and thus approaches
Daniil, a representative of God. Once the prince comes in contact with the hennit, the
reconciliation process begins. Daniil promises Stephen that he will be triumphant,
although this comes at a price, or a „gift exchange:“431 God offers Stephen victory,
while Stephen offers God the Monastery of Voronet.432
The other legend narrated by Neculce and connected to the divinity is much
shorter, but just as suggestive. The story, secend in the line of 42 legends of the
„Collection,“ is accommodated within two telling sentences: „Prince Stephen the
Good won many wars. And it is heard from the old and elderly that be built as many
churches as wars he had won.“433 This account of the connection between the battles
and the churches built is not singular. The Syrian Paul of Aleppo, while passing
through Moldavia at the time Neculce wrote his chronicle, reported that Stephen had
built 44 churches, equivalent to his military victories.434 The chronicler Grigore
Ureche, decades earlier, reported the same munber of churches.435 lt thus becomes
evident that the legend conceming Stephen’s 44 churches436 was already being
propagated during Stephen’s lifetime.
Both legends of Daniil‘ s advice and that of the 44 churches hint to Stephen’s
connection to the divine. Both stories intuitivety conclude that war led the prince
closer to the divine and that there was an interactive relationship between the prince
and God. God rewarded Stephen with military and political success and Stephen
showed his gratitude with his church and monastic foundations. But the connections
between Stephen’s war and the divi.ne were more profound.
431 Ovidiu Cristea, „Despre raportul dintre principe i „omul sfänt“ in Tärile Romane. fntälnirea lui
Stefan cel Mare cu Daniil Sihastrul“ [The relationship between the prince and the „holy man“ in
the Romanian Principalities. Stephcn the Great meeting Hermit Daniil), in !jtefan cel Mare i
Sfdnl – Portret fn lstorie, 196.
432 See the entire interpretation of the meeting between Stephen and Daniil in Neculce’s legend:
fbidem, 195-197.
433 Ion Neculce, „0 samä de cuvinte,“ 1 3 .
434 „Stephen was a famous hero in war and feared by all. He had 44 campaigns or battles against the
Tu.rks, Tartars, Polish and Hungarians. He defeated all of them many times, therefore bis name
became famous and was feared by all and this was due to his abilities and sharp mind. Among
his foundations are 44 monasteries and stone churches.“ See: Paul of Aleppo in Ciiliitori striiini
despre Tiirile Romane V1 [Foreign Travellers on the Romanian Principalities], ed. M. M.
Alexandrescu-Dersca Bulgaru and Mustafa Ali Mehmet (Bucharest: tiintificä i Academicä,
1976), 28-29.
435 „Prince Stephen ruled for 47 years, two months and three weeks and he built 44 churches . . . “ In:
Ureche, The Chr011icle of Moldavia, 66.
436 It is still uncertain how the counting up to number 44 occurred. lt might have happened that
more churches, now destroyed, were k.nown in the sixteeoth-seventeenth centuries when these
accounts are dated. See also: Gorovei and Szekely, Princeps Omni Laude Maior, 468-469.
105
On a visual Ievel, the link between Stephen and the saintly world is still visible
in Moldavian churches. As a ktetor, Stephen had a !arge nurober of votive images
painted in his church commissions. Some of them are particular however, as the
painter (or the ktetor himself) seems to have highlighted a familiar and intimate
relationship between the prince and the mediating saint. It has already been shown in
this study that in two particular votive images, Stephen is guided towards Christ in a
visibly friendly way by the mediators of the act of commission (Saint George,
respectively Saint Elijah) who affectionately hold the prince by his shoulder and by
his hand. This sympathetic relationship between the prince and the divine is also
reflected on the battle field, although in a somewhat different way.
During certain military events, saints appear in order to aid the ptince and his
army: Saint Procopius appears riding his horse above the Battle of Rämnic (148 1),437
while Saint Demetrius also shows hirnself on a horse at the Battle of Codrii
Cozminului ( 1 497).438 The two accounts of saints riding above the battle fields are
dated seventeenth century, thus one may assume that collective memory worked in
such a way that it „paired“ Stephen with saints in these particular battles. A
development of this „pairing“ can be traced, highlighting how the collective mem01y
of the sixteenth centw;x transf01med facts into myths. Contemporaty chronicles date
the Battles of Rämnic 39 and Codrii Cozminului,440 revealing that the celebration of
Saint Procopius coincided with the victory of the fust battle, while the celebration of
Saint Demett·ius coiTesponded to the success of the latter. Thus the concurrence of the
saints‘ days and the military victories (which may or may not have been simple
coincidences)441 was materialised into the actual physical presence of the saints on
the battle field, helping the prince gain victory.
Interestingly, both battles where saints physically appear were led against other
Christians (in the Battle of Rämnic, the opposing anny was led by the Wallachian
Basarab the Young, while at Codrii Cozminului the Moldavians clashed with the
Polish anny). Relevant battles against the Otternans (such as those of Vaslui or
Räzboieni) remain silent as to whether Stephen was aided or not by saintly
characters. Historians theorised that this plus of „sanctity“ in the battles against other
437 “ . . . it is said that Saint Procopins showed bimself to Prince Stephen, mounted above tbe war and
armed as a brave man, being of belp to Prince Stepben and offering to support to bis arrny.“ See:
Ureche, The Chronicle ofMoldavia, 50.
438 “ . . . some say that Saint Demetrius bad shown himselfto Prince Stephen in this war, riding and
armed as a brave man, helping him and supporting bis am1y.“ See: Ibidem, 60.
439 See: „The Anonymous Chronile ofMoldavia,“ 17; and „The Chronicle ofPutna l,“ 32.
440 See: „Tbe Chronicle of Putna no. ll,“ 37; „Anonymous Chronicle of Moldavia,“ 20.
441 Although there is not enough evidence to fully support this theory, cbronicles do hint to the fact
that, wben Stephen could, he paired his battles witb saints‘ celebrations. See tbe rwo battles of
Rämnic and Codrii Cozrninului, as weil as the attack against Braila in 1470 which took place on
the Tuesday before the Easter days of fasting and the distribution of flags before the campaign
in Wallacbia whicb took place on the feast day of the Arebangel Michael. See discussion in:
Cristea, „Declanarea razboiului,“ 123. See also: Gorovei, „Gesta Dei per Stephanum
Voievodam,“ 4 1 1-412.
106
Christians should be seen as a justification for the conflict – therefore, in these
particular cases, Grigore Ureche, the author of the seventeenth-century chronicle
describing these interventions, highlighted that the divine agreed with the violence
against Christians.442
There was one instance however which attested a type of saintly apparition
within Stephen‘ s conflicts with the Ottoman Empire – although not in historical
sources but in a legend prese1ved at Mount Athos. At a certain point of unce1tainty in
Stephen ’s struggle against the Ottomans, Saint George appeared to the prince in a
dream and encouraged him to sta1t the attack against his enemies. The second day,
Stephen, aided by the presence of the saint, clashed with the Otternans and gained
victory.443
Therefore one can notice that Stephen had a collection of attributes which
eventually led to his canonisation: he was a man of faith, who dedicated a
considerable amount of his reign to the Chw·ch and projects of the Church
(commissions, donations), he fasted, he dedicated his victories to the divine, he was
thought to be aided by saints and he was even identified with Saint George. However,
none of these accounts are as telling as Maciej Stryjkowski and Marcin Bielski’s
reports. Stryjkowski ’s exhaustive presentation of the ruler ends in a meaningful
assertion: “ . . . because of his unbelievable bravery, they consider him a saint. „444
Bielski’s description of Stephen ends in an almost identical argument (Stryjkowski
was probably inspired by Bielski’s writings): “ . . .a nd because of his unbelievable
bravery, they call him saint.“445
Stephen ’s saintly aura was thus present in the „afterlife“ of the ruler ever since
the beginning of the sixteenth century. Regardless of the fact that he was only
canonised half a millennium after his death, the followers of Stephen and the
collective memory they carried seem to have perceived Stephen in all his complexity:
as a saintly hero.446
442 Gorovei and Szekely, Princeps Omni Laude Maior, 480-481.
443 Cristea, „Declanarea räzboiului,“ 124-125. See also: Matei Cazacu, Minuni, vedenii i vise
premonilorii in trecwul romänesc [Miracles, visions and premonition dreams in the Romanian
past) (Bucharest: Sigma, 2003), 57; and Damian P. Bogdan, „Quelques temoignages des Iiens
roumano-grecs sous le regne d’Etienne le Grand, prince de Moldavie,“ Bulletin de l’Association
Internationale d’Etudes du Sud-Est Europeen 5 ( 1967): 122.
444 Maciej Srryzgowski, „Kronika Polska,“ in !jtefan cel Mare i Sfänt. Portret in cronicii, 195.
445 Marcin Bielski, „Kronika Polska,“ in !jtefan cel Mare # Sfänt. Portret in cronicii, 206.
446 Stephen the Great’s sanctity must be understood in medieval terms. Although throughout
Stephen ’s reign, there are no references to any saintly acts required by a man to gain
canonisation, Stephen’s sanctity should be understood within the sphere of medieval royal
kingship. Although human by nature and actions, Stephen should be secn as saintly „because he
represented and imitated the image of the living Christ“ and he represented the mediation
between heaven and earth. See: Emst H. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies. A Study in
Mediaeval Political Theology (Princeton: Princeton, 1957), 87-88.
107
VI Conclusions: The prince and the myth
Stephen’s reign represented a tuming point m the history of medieval
Moldavia. He changed the way both the mler and his enemy (most visibly, the
Ottoman sultan) were perceived and he heightened the expectations of the subjects
from their prince. The prince was now supposed to be able to fulfil at least two
crucial ruling objectives: successfully defend the principality from any extemal threat
and ensure stable and prosperaus living conditions for his people. The historical
developments of the sixteenth century did not allow the fulfilment of these objectives.
The growing Ottoman pressure in the sixteenth-century Moldavia did not allow the
„birth“ of a new Stephen-like hero. Two decisive outcomes resulted from this
situation: firstly, Stephen’s time started to be perceived as a lost golden age resulting
in his gradual entrance into the mythical realm; and secondly, Stephen became a
model figure for his followers. Consequently, the pattems of Stephen’s reign,
tagether with his dynastic project were propelled into the sixteenth century and into
the reigns of prolific rulers such as Peter Rare. The positive factors which defined
Stephen’s reign (including his character, his actions, and the historical conditions of
his time) transforrned him into the ultimate type ofMoldavian Ieader.
The complexity of Stephen‘ s mythical genesis was not only given by the fact
that he became an ultimate type of Ieader, but also by the fact that his image was
comprised of so many various perceptions. Stephen was not solely perceived fro m
one angle, but from a variety o f angles which led t o the birth o f a many-fold ruler.447
In the fifteenth and the sixteenth centuries, Stephen the Great was the prince of many:
• The prince of official documents. Visible throughout charters, letters, and
chronicles, this prince represents the image that Stephen and the Royal Council
wanted to present. He is the ultimate Christian warrior. He is imbibded with
goodwill and mercy and he rewards both the living and the dead. He unites the
447 The following short presentation on Stephen’s many-fold image is inspired by the analysis on
Saint Louis done by Jacques Le Goff. See: Jacques Le Goff, Saint Lousi , trans. Garetb Evan
Gollrad (Notre Dame: University of otre Dame Press, 2009), „Part II: Tbe Production ofRoyal
Memory: Did Saint Louis Exist?“
108
past with the present and the future, while he impersonates the attributes of an
emperor. Altogether, the prince of official documents seems to be flawless,
especially as events such as the fall of his horse at the battle of Scheia448 are
concealed from documents springing from the court.
• The prince of foreigners. The prince of foreigners is visible in the chronicles,
letters, and rep01ts of any type of non-Moldavians, including Clu·istians,
Ottomans, but also Wallachians. Should one Iook at all these documents
altogether, their prince has a balanced image: he is not the entirely positive ruler
of the Moldavian official documents as his weaknesses, his harshness, and
generally negative characteristics become visible. He is the prince of colliding
extremes: he is both a saint and „the Ieader of the devils.“ This is probably the
most cornplex prince because his irnage is comprised of perspectives depending
on Stephen’s (direct or indirect; positive or negative; satisfying or unsatisfying)
interactions with foreigners describing him.
• The prince of bis immediate followers. This prince is the model prince. He is the
example of the heirs to his throne, each of whom tries to fit within their
predecessor’s shoes (or throne) as much as possible. Although the circumstances
of the sixteenth centmy did not always allow it, all direct heirs of the sixteenth
century from Bogdan I I I to Alexander Läpuneanul tried to continue the legacy of
the dynastic project.449
There was also the „real“ prince, however. The real historical prince is invisible, but
he exists within all the other three princes. One could only assurne who was Stephen,
the man. He was surely the ambitious Christian wanior and political strategist visible
within all the other Stephens, but he must have also been afraid at times, tired,
lacking interest, embittered, and ang1y. He was first and foremost a man. What makes
this man rernarkable is that he transforrned hirnself from the „real“ prince into all the
other princes and eventually, into the myth. Stephen the Great was rnetaphorically
erected on a pedestal next to the most iconic medieval models, thus becoming hirnself
one of those very models. Nevertheless, Stephen was not erected on this pedestal by
his followers alone, but also by fellow rulers, diplomats, travellers through Moldavia,
etc. Stephen was a man of complex personality and traits, an intriguing character who
changed the face of Moldavia: although he was a usurper and often a wicked man, he
was also the saviour, the church builder, the good Christian, the art reviver, the
dynastic „architect,“ the coloniser, the diplomat, the „charnpion of Christ,“ the Last
Ernperor, the rebel, the fierce warrior, the crusader, the drearner, the hero, the great.
Stephen was the man bound to become myth, a rnyth which still continues to grow
and create new faces of the ruler‘ s image even 500 years after his death.
448 See information on the Battle of Scheia in: Gorovei and Szekely, Princeps Omni Laude Maior,
235-238.
449 See PhD dissertation: Teodora Artimon, „The Proto-Myth of Stephen the Great of Moldavia“
109
Bibliography
Primary sources
22 Dispacci da Constantinopoli al doge Giovanni Mocenigo, ed. Giuseppe Calo and
Alvise Zorzi. Venice: Corbo e Fiore, 1992.
Abdülaziz Efendi. „Suleirnanname.“ In Cronici turceti privind Tiirile Romane.
Extrase. Sec. XV – mijlocul sec. XVII I [Turkish Chronicles regarding the
Romanian Principalities. Extracts. From the fifteenth century to the midseventeenth
centuty ], ed. Mihail Gublogu and Mustafa Mehmet. Bucharest:
Academiei, 1966 .
. Atk Paazade. „Tevarih-I Al-l Osman.“ In Cronici turceti privind Tarife Romane.
Extrase. Sec. XV – mijlocul sec. XVII I [Turkish Chronicles regarding the
Romanian Principalities. Extracts. From the fifteenth centuty to the midseventeenth
century], ed. Mihail Gublogu and Mustafa Mehmet. Bucharest:
Academiei, 1966.
Bielski, Marcin. „Kronika Polska.“ In Stefan cel Mare i Sfant. Portret fn cronicii.
1504-2004 [Saint Stephen the Great. Portrait in chronicles. 1 504-2004]. Suceava:
Muatinii, 2004.
Bonfini, Antonio. „Historia Pannonica ab Origine Gentis ad Annum 1495.“ In Stefan
cel Mare i Sfant. Portret in cronicii. 1504-2004 [Saint Stephen the Great. Portrait
in chronicles. 1 504-2004]. Suceava: Muatinii , 2004.
Bues, Almuet (ed.), Die Aufzeichnungen des Dominikaners Martin Gruneweg (1 562
– ca. 1618) über seine Familie in Danzng, seine Handelsreisen in Osteuropa und
sein Klosterleben in Polen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2008
Ciiliitori straini in Tiirile Romane I [Foreign travellers in the Romanian
Principalities], ed. Maria Holban. Bucharest: $tiintificä, 1 968.
Ci’ilatori striiini despre Tarife Romane II [Foreign Travellers on the Romanian
Principalities], ed. Maria Holban, M. M. Alexandrescu-Dersca Bulgaru, Paul
Cemovodeanu. Bucharest: Editura $tiintificä, 1 968.
Celalzade, Mustafa. „Tabakat al-memalik ve daradjat al-mesalik.“ In Cronici turceti
privind Tarile Romane. Extrase [Turkish Chronicles on the Romanian
1 10
Principalities] I, ed. Mihail Guboglu and Mustafa Mehmet. Bucharest: Academiei,
1966.
Chronicon Dubnicense. In $tefan cel Mare $i Sfant. Portret in cronidi. 1504-2004
[Saint Stephen the Great. Portrait in chronicles. 1 504-2004]. Suceava: Muatinii,
2004.
Cromer, Martin. „Polonia sive de origine et rebus gestis Polonorum.“ In $tefan cel
Mare $i Sfant. Portret fn cronicii. 1504-2004 [Saint Stephen the Great. Portrait in
chronicles. 1 504-2004] . Suceava: Muatinii, 2004.
„Cronica de Ia manästirea Hustänscaia“ [The Chronicle of the Hustanscaya
Monastery]. In $tefan cel Mare $i Sfant. Portret in cronicii. 1504-2004 [Saint
Stephen the Great. Pmtrait in chronicles. 1 504-2004]. Suceava: Muatinii, 2004.
„Cronica Lituaniana“ [Lithuanian Chronicle]. In $tefan cel Mare $i Sfant. Portret in
cronidi. 1504-2004 [Saint Stephen the Great. Portrait in chronicles. 1 504-2004].
Suceava: Muatinii, 2004.
„Cronica lui Macarie“ [The Chronicle of Macarie]. In Vechile cronice moldovenesci
panii la Urechia [Old Romanian Chronicles written before Ureche], ed. Ioan
Bogdan. Bucharest: Lito-Tipografia Carol Gobl, 1 8 9 1 .
„Cronica Mo1do-Germanä“ [The Moldavian-German Chronicle]. I n $tefan cel Mare
$i Sfant. Portret in cronicii. 1504-2004 [Saint Stephen the Great. Portrait in
chronicles. 1 504-2004]. Suceava: Muatinii, 2004.
„Cronica Moldo-Polona“ [The Moldavian-Polish Clu·onicle]. In $tefan cel Mare $i
Sfant. Portret in cronicii. 1504-2004 [Saint Stephen the Great. Portrait in
chronicles. 1 504-2004]. Suceava: Muatinii, 2004.
Cronicari munteni [Wallachian Chroniclers] I, ed. Mihail Gregorian. Bucharest:
Minerva, 1 984.
Culegere de documente privind istoria romanilor. Secolele XIV-XVI [Collection of
Documents regarding the History of the Romanians. Fourteenth-Sixteenth
Centuries], ed. Adina Berciu-Dräghicescu and Liliana Trofin. Bucharest: Editura
Universitatii Bucureti, 2006.
Cureus, Joachim. „Gentis Silesiae Annales.“ In $tefan cel Mare $i Sfant. Portret fn
cronicii. 1504-2004 [Saint Stephen the Great. Portrait in chronicles. 1 504-2004 ].
Suceava: Muatinii, 2004.
Dlugosz, Jan. „Historia Polonica.“ In $tefan cel Mare $i S.fant. Portret in cronicii.
1504-2004 [Saint Stephen the Great. Pmtrait in chronicles. 1 504-2004]. Suceava:
Muatinii, 2004.
Documenta Romaniae Historica. A. Moldava II ( 1 449-1486), ed. Leon $imanschi.
Bucharest: Academiei, 1 976.
Documenta Romaniae Historica B. Tara Romäneasca [Wallachia] VII ( 1 5 7 1 – 1 575),
ed. $tefan $tefiinescu and Olimpia Diaconescu. Bucharest: Academiei, 1 988.
Documente false atribuite lui $tefan cel Mare [Fake documents attributed to Stephen
the Great], ed. Ioan Bogdan. Bucharest: Socec, 1 9 1 3 .
1 1 1
Documente moldovene.Jfi de Ia $tefonifii voievod (1 5 1 7-152 7) [Moldavian documents
from Prince Stephen the Young ( 1 5 1 7- 1 527)], ed. Mihai Costächescu. Iai:
Institutu1 Romän de arte grafice „Brawo,“ 1943.
Documente privind istoria Rom{miei. Veacul XVI. A. Moldova II ( 1 5 5 1 – 1 570)
[Documents regarding the history of Romania. The Sixteenth Century. A.
Moldavia ( 1 5 5 1 – 1 570)], ed. Mihail Roller. Bucharest: Academiei, 1 95 1 .
Documente privind istoria Rom{miei. Veacul XVI. A. Moldova lll ( 1 57 1 – 1 590)
[Documents regarding the histoty of Romania. Sixteenth century. A. Moldavia lli
( 1 57 1 – 1 590)], ed. Mihai1 Roller. Bucharest: Academiei, 1 95 1 .
Documente privitoare Ia istoria A rdealului, Moldovei .Ji Tiirii Romane.Jfi 1
[Documents regarding the history of Transy1vania, Moldavia and Wallachia], ed.
Andrei Veress. Bucharest: Cartea Romäneascä, 1929.
Documente privitoare Ia istoria ora.Jului la.Ji I [Documents regarding the histOJy of
the city of Iai] Acte interne (1408-1660) [Interna! documents ( 1 408- 1 660)], ed.
Ioan Caprou, Petronel Zahariuc. Iai: Dosoftei, 1 999.
Documente privitoare Ia istoria Romaniei culese din arhivele polone. Seco/u/ XVI.
[Documents regarding the history of Romania from Polish archives. The sixteenth
century], ed. llie Corfu. Bucharest: Academiei, 1979.
Documente privitoare Ia istoria Romani/ar. 1451-1575 [Documents regarding the
history of Romanians. 1 45 1 – 1 575], Il, Patt 1, collected by Eudoxiu de Hurmuzaki,
Bucharest: 1 89 1 .
Documente privitoare Ia istoria Romani/ar. I 451-1510 [Documents regarding the
history of Romanians. 1 45 1 – 1 5 1 0], Tl, Part 2, collected by Eudoxiu de Hurmuzaki.
Bucharest: 1 8 9 1 .
Documente privitoare Ia istoria Romani/ar. 1510-1530 [Documents regarding the
history of Romanians. 1 5 1 0- 1 530], 11, Part 3, collected by Eudoxiu de Hurmuzaki.
Bucharest: 1 892.
Documente privitoare Ia istoria romanilor. I 5 I 0-1600 [Documents regarding the
history of Romani ans. 1 5 1 0- 1 600) Sup1ement Il, vol. 1 , ed. Ioan Bogdan.
Bucharest: 1 893.
Husein, Kodja. „Beda’i ul-veka’I.“ In $tefan cel Mare .Ji Sfant. Portret in cronicii.
1504-2004 [Saint Stephen the Great. Portrait in chronicles. 1 504-2004). Suceava:
Muatinii, 2004.
Istoria Romaniei fn texte [The Romanian H istory in Texts], ed. Bogdan Murgescu.
Bucharest: Corint, 200 1 .
lstvanffy, Mikl6s. „Regni Hungarici Historia.“ I n :)tefan cel Mare .Ji Sfant. Portret fn
cronicii. I 504-2004 [Saint Stephen the Great. Portrait in chronicles. 1 504-2004).
Suceava: Muatinii, 2004, 2 1 4- 1 5 .
.K.reute1, Richard F . (ed.), Der fromme Sultan Bayezid. Die Geschichte seiner Herrschaft
(1481-1512) nach den altosmanischen Chroniken des Oruc und des
Anonymus Hanivaldanus. Graz: Verlag Styria, 1 978.
1 1 2
„Letopisetul anonim al Moldovei“ [The Anonymaus Chronicle of Moldavia]. In
$tefan ce/ Mare i Sfcmt. Portret in cronicii. 1 504-2004 [Saint Stephen the Great.
Portrait in chronicles. 1 5 04-2004]. Suceava: Muatinii, 2004, 14-2 1 .
„Letopisetul de Ia Putna I“ [The Chronicle of Putna I]. I n $tefan ce/ Mare i Sfant.
Portret in cronicii. 1504-2004 [Saint Stephen the Great. Portrait in chronicles.
1 504-2004]. Suceava: Muatinii, 2004, 29-32.
„Letopisetul de Ia Putna II“ [The Chronicle of Putna l l ] . In $tefan ce/ Mare i Sfant.
Portret in cronicii. 1504-2004 [Saint Stephen the Great. Portrait in chronicles.
1 504-2004]. Suceava: Muatinii, 2004., 33-37.
Mehmed bin Mehmed. „Nuhnet-ut-Tevarih ve‘ l-ahbar.“ In Cronici turcti privind
Tarife Romane. Extrase [Turkish Chronicles on the Romanian Principalities] I, ed.
Mihai I Guboglu and Mustafa Mehmet. Bucharest: Academiei, 1 966.
Miechowita, Maciej. „Chronica Polonorum.“ In $tefan ce/ Mare i Sfant. Portret in
cronicii. 1 504-2004 [Saint Stephen the Great. Portrait in chronicles. 1 504-2004].
Suceava: Muatinii, 2004.
Neculce, lon. „0 samä de cuvinte“ (A collection of words]. In Letopise{U/ Tiirii
Moldovei [The Chronicle of Moldavia], ed. Anatol and Dan Vidracu. Bucharest:
Litera International, 200 I
Neri, Mehmed. „Djihannuma, Tarih-I AI-I Osman.“ ln Cronici turce,ti privind
Tiirile Romane. Extrase. Sec. XV – mij/ocul sec. XVII I [Turkish Chronicles
regarding the Romanian Principalities. Extracts. From the fifteenth century to the
mid-seventeenth century], ed. Mihail Gublogu and Mustafa Mehmet. Bucharest:
Academiei, 1 966.
Peresvetov, Tvan „Jalba cea mare“ (The !arge Ietter]. In Ciiliitori striiini in Tiirile
Romane I [Foreign travellers in the Romanian Principalities], ed. Maria Holban.
Bucharest: tiintificä, 1 968.
Petancic, Felix. „Despre drumurile pe care trebuie sä se porneascä expeditia contra
turcilor“ [About the roads on which the campaign against the Turks should debut].
In $tefan cel Mare i Sfant. Portret fn cronicii. 1504-2004 [Saint Stephen the
Great. Portrait in chronicles. 1 504-2004 ] . Suceava: Muatinii, 2004, 2 1 3- 1 4.
Popescu, Radu. „Istoriile Donmilor Täräi Romäneti“ [The histories of the
Wallachian princes]. In $tefan cel Mare i Sfant. Portret in cronicii. 1 504-2004
[Saint Stephen the Great. Portrait in chronicles. 1 504-2004). Suceava: Muatinii,
2004, 1 5 1-56.
Ranzanus, Petrus. „Epitome Rerum Hungaricarum.“ In $tefan cel Mare ·i Sfant.
Portret in cronicii. 1504-2004 [Saint Stephen the Great. Portrait in chronicles.
1 504-2004]. Suceava: Muatinii, 2004, 2 1 1 – 1 2 .
Repertoriul monumentelor i obiectelor de arta din timpul lui $tefan ce/ Mare [The
collection of monuments and artifacts dating from the reign of Stephen the Great],
ed. Mihai Berza. Bucharest: Academiei, 1958.
Samicius, Stanislaus. „Annales seu de origine et rebus gestis Polonorum et
Lithuanorum.“ In $tefan cel Mare i Sfant. Portret in cronicii. 1504-2004 [Saint
1 1 3
Stephen the Great. Portrait in chronicles. 1 504-2004). Suceava: Muatinii, 2004,
196 . .
Scrisori domne$li [Royal letters], ed. Nicolae lorga. Välenii de Munte: Tipografia
„Neamul Romänesc,“ 1 9 1 2.
Stryjkowski, Maciej. „Kronila Polska.“ In $tefan cel Mare $i Sjmf t. Portret fn
cronicii. 1504-2004 [Saint Stephen the Great. Portrait in chronicles. 1 5 04-2004].
Suceava: Muatinii, 2004, 1 94-95.
Thurocz, loannes de. „Chronica Hungarorum.“ In $tefan cel Mare $i Sjmf t. Portret fn
cronicii. 1504-2004 [Saint Stephen the Great. Pmtrait in chronicles. 1 504-2004).
Suceava: Muatinii, 2004, 2 1 2.
Turstm Bei. „Tarih-I Ebu-1 Feth-I Sultan Mehmed-Han.“ In Cronici turcti privind
Tiirile Romiine. Extrase. Sec. XV – mijlocul sec. XVJJ I [Turkish Chronicles
regarding the Romanian Principalities. Extracts. From the fifteenth century to the
mid-seventeenth century], ed. Mihail Gublogu and Mustafa Mehmet. Bucharest:
Academiei, 1966.
Unrest, Jakub. „Chronicon Austriacum.“ In $tefan cel Mare i Sfiint. Portret in
cronicii. 1504-2004 [Saint Stephen the Great. Portrait in ch.ronicles. 1 504-2004 ].
Suceava: Muatinii, 2004, 222.
Ureche, Grigore. Letopiseful Tiirii Moldovei [The Chronicle of Moldavia], ed. Dan
Horia Mazilu. Bucharest: Gramar, 2009.
Wapowski, Bemard. „Chronicorum Partern Posterorem.“ In Stefan cel Mare i Sfiint.
Portret in cronicii. 1504-2004 [Saint Stephen the Great. Portrait in chronicles.
1 504-2004]. Suceava: Muatinii, 2004, 1 7 6-90.
Secondary Literature
Adam, Sergiu. Ctitorii muatine. Biserici, miiniistiri, cetii{i, curfi domne$ti. Secolele
XIV-XVI [Commissions of the Muatin dynasty. Churches, monasteries, royal
courts. Fourteenth-sixteenth centmies]. Cluj: Casa Cärtii de tiinra, 2001 .
Andreescu, Stefan. „Cronica lui Stefan cel Mare: lntelesurile unei lntreruperi“ [The
Chroncile of Stephen the Great: the meanings of an inte1ruption]. In Istoria
romiinilor: cronicari, misionari, ctitori (sec. XV-XVII) [The history of the
Romanians: chroniclers, missionaries, ktetors (Fifteenth-seventeenth centuries)].
Bucharest: Universitätii, 1997, 1 1 8-28.
_ . „Genovezi pe <drumul moldovenesc>“ [The Genoese on the „Moldavian
road“]. In In honorem loan CaprO$U. Studii de istorie [In honorem loan Caprou.
Studies of history], ed. Lucian Leutean, Maria Magdalena Szekely, Mihai-Räzvan
Ungureanu, Petronel Zahariuc. Iai: Polirom, 2002, 204-30
_ . „Päträuti i Arezzo: 0 comparatie i consecintele ei“ [Päträuti and Arezzo: A
comparison and its consequences]. In !jtefan cel Mare $i Sfiint. Atlet al Credinfei
Cre$tine [Saint Stephen the Great. Champion of the Christian Faith). Suceava:
Muatinii, 2004, 375-88.
1 14
_ . „Un nou act genovez cu pnvtre Ia tefan cel Mare“ (A New Genoese
Document about Stephen the Great). Studii i Materiale de Istorie Medie 22
(2004): 1 32-36.
_ . „Presiune otomanä i reactie ortodoxä ln Meldova urmailor lui Petru vodä
Rare“ (Ottoman Pressure and Otthodox Reaction in Moldavia in the Time of
Prince Petru Rare‘ Descendants). Studii i Materiale de Istorie Medie 27 (2009):
25-59.
_ . „CämpUtile de bätälie – locuri ale memoriei. 0 nouä mätturie“ (The
Battlefields – Places of Memory. A New Testimony). Analeie Putnei 1 (2010):
303-308.
Artimon, Teodora. „Peter Rare and His Visual Concept: An Ambitious SixteenthCentury
PR Campaign?“ Master thesis. Budapest: Central European University,
20 1 0 .
_ . „The Proto-Myth o f Stephen the Great of Moldavia.“ doctoral dissertation.
Budapest: Central European University, 20 1 5.
Berza, Mihai. „Trei Tetraevanghele ale lui Teodor Mariescul ln Muzeu1 Istarie de Ia
Moscova“ [Three Gospels written by Teodor Märiescul at the Moscow Historical
Museum]. In Cu!tura moldoveneascii fn timpul lui $tefan cel Mare [Moldavian
culture during the time of Stephen the Great], ed. Mihai Berza. Bucharest:
Academiei, 1 9 64, 589-6 1 3 .
Bogdan, Damian P . „Que1ques temoignages des Iiens roumano-grecs sous 1e regne
d’Etienne le Grand, prince de Moldavie.“ Bulletin de I’Association Internationale
d’Etudes du Sud-Est Europeen 5 ( 1 967): 1 20-28.
Cazan, Ileana and Denize, Eugen. Marile puteri i spafiul romanesc in secolele XVXVI
[The Great Powers and the Romanian Space in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth
Centuries]. Bucharest: Editura Universitätii din Bucureti, 200 I .
Ciobanu, $tefan. Istoria /iteraturii romiine vechi [The history o f early Romanian
literature]. Bucharest: Eminescu, 1989.
Ciubotaru, Mircea. „De Ia Vilneti Ia Movila lui Burcel. Observatii onomastice i
istorice“ [From Vilneti to the hillock of Burcel. ldentity and historical
observations]. Arhiva Genealogicii VI ( 1 994): 143-49.
Classen, Albrecht „The Self, the Other and Everything in Between: Xenological
Phenomenology of the Middle Ages.“ ln Meeting the Foreign in the Midd!e Ages,
ed. Albrecht Classen. New York: Routledge, 2002, XI-LXXUI.
Cojocaru, Monah Alexie. „The guest books of the Putna Monastety. Between history
and eternity,“ Analeie Putnei 1 (2007), 1 8 1 – 2 1 2 .
Constantiniu, Florin. 0 istorie sincerii a poporului romiin [An Honest History o f the
Romanians]. Bucharest: Univers Encicopedic Gold, 20 1 0 .
Coruga, Matei V. „Gheorghe al II-lea i Grigorie d e I a Neamt, doi mitropoliti
necunoscuti ai Moldovei din secolul al XVI-lea“ [Gheorghe li and Grigorie of
Neamt, two unknown archbishops of sixteenth-century Moldavia]. Biserica
Ortodoxii Romänii 89 ( 1 997): 1230-43.
1 1 5
Cräcitu1, Maria. „Apud Ecclesia: Jnmormäntarea 1n bisericä in Moldova secolelor
XV -XVII“ [Apud Ecclesia: Church Burial in Fifteenth-Sixteenth-Century
Moldavia]. In Confesiune i culturii in Evul Mediu. In honorem Ion Toderacu
[Confession and culture i n the Midd1e Ages. In honorem Ion Toderacu], ed.
Bogdan-Petru Ma1eon and Alexandru-Florin P1aton. Iai: Universitätii „Al. I.
Cuza“, 2004, 29-70.
Cristea, Ovidiu. „Despre raportul dintre principe i „omu1 sfänt“ in Tärile Romäne.
Intälnirea lui $tefan cel Mare cu Daniil Sihastrul“ [The relationship between the
prince and the „holy man“ in the Romanian Principalities. Stephen the Great
meeting Hermit Danii1]. I n !jtefan cel Mare i Sfdnt (1504-2004) : Portret in istorie
[Saint Stephen the Great ( 1 5 04-2004): Historical Portrait]. Suceava: Muatinii,
2003, 68-76.
_ . „Dec1anarea räzboiului, victori i i inträri triumfale in Moldova lui $tefan ce1
Mare: evenimente, reprezentäri, interpretäri“ (War outbreak, victories and
triumphal entries in Mo1davia of Stephen the Great: events, representations,
interpretations). Analeie Putnei 1 (2008): I 05-32.
Cupa, loan. Arta militarii a moldovenilor in a doua jumiitate a secolului al XV-lea
($tefan cel Mare) [The Mo1davian mi1itary art in the second half of the fifteenth
century (Stephen the Great)]. Bucharest: Editura Militarä a M inisterului Forte1or
Armate ale R.P.R., 1 959.
Denize, Eugen. Stephen the Great and His Reign. Bucharest: The Romanian Cultural
Institute Pub1ishing House, 2004.
_ . Romdnii fntre Leu i Semilunii. RelaJiile turco-veneJiene i injluenJa lor
asupra spaJiului romdnesc, secolele XV-XVI [The Romanians between the Lion
and the Half-Moon. Turkish-Venetian re1ations and their influence on the
Romanian space, fifteenth-sixteenth centuries]. Tärgovite: Cetatea de Scaun,
2009.
Drägut, Vasile. Humor. Bucharest: Meridiane, I 973.
_ . DicJionar enciclopedic de artii medievalii romdneascii [Encyclopedic
Dictionary of Romanian Medieval Art]. Bucharest: $tiintificä i Enciclopedicä,
1976.
_ . Pictura muralii din Moldova. Secolele XV-XVI [Mw·al Painting in Moldavia.
Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries]. Bucharest: Meridiane, 1 982.
Drägut, Vasile and Vasile Florea, Dan Grigorescu, Marin Mihalache. Pictura
romdneasci’i fn imagini [Romanian painting i n images]. Bucharest: Meridiane,
1970.
Elsie, Robert. Historical Dictionary of Albania. Plymouth: Scarecrow Press, 2 0 1 0.
Firea, E1ena. „Conceptie dinasticä ln tablourile votive a1e 1ui Petru Rare“ [Dynastie
concept in the votive images of Peter Rareü Ars Transylvaniae 1 4- 1 5 (2004-
2005): 143-6 1 .
Funkenstein, Amos. „Collective Memory and Historical Consciousness.“ History and
Memory 1 ( 1 989): 5-26.
1 16
Georgescu, Valentin Al. „L‘ idee imperiale byzantine et les reactions des realites
roumaines (XIVe-XVIIIe siecles). Ideologie politique, structuration de !’Etat et du
droit.“ Byzantina 3 ( 1 9 7 1 ) : 3 1 1-39.
Gertsen, Alexander and Nadezhda Gertsen. „Moldova i principatul Theodoro la
1475“ [Moldavia and the Principality of Theodoro in 1475]. In $tefan cel Mare $i
Sfant. Atlet al credinfei cre$tine [Saint Stephen the Great. Champion of the
Christian Faith]. Suceava: Muatinii, 2004, 1 4 1 -56.
Giurescu, Constantin C. lstoria romanilor din cele mai vechi timpuri panii Ia moartea
regelui Ferdinand [The History of the Romanians from the Oldest Times to the
Death of King Ferdinand]. Bucharest: Humanitas, 2000.
Gorovei, tefan S. „Familia lui Petru Rare“ [The family of Peter Rare]. In Petru
Rare$, ed. Leon imanschi. Bucharest: Academiei, 1978.
_ . Petru Rare$. Bucharest: Editw·a Militarä, 1 982.
_ . Muatinü [The Mushatin Dynasty]. Chiinäu: Columna, 1 9 9 1 .
_ . “ 1473: tefan, Meldova i lumea catolicä“ [ 1473: Stephen, Moldavia and the
Catholic world]. In $tefan cel Mare $i Sfant (1 504-2004): Portret in istorie [Saint
Stephen the Great ( 1 504-2004): Historical Portrait]. Suceava: Muatinii, 2003,
394-404.
_ . „Gesta Dei per Stephanum Voievodam.“ In $tefan cel Mare $i Sfant. Atlet al
credinJei cre$line [Saint Stephen the Great. Champion of the Christian Faith].
Suceava: Muatinii, 2004.
_ . „Maria Asanina Paleologhina, Doamna Moldovlahiei I“ [Maria Asanina
Paleologhina, Princess Of Moldavia I ] . Studii $i Materiale de Istarie Medie 22
(2004): 9-50.
_ . „Cetatea de scaun a Sucevei. 0 ipotezä“ (The Suceava fortress. A hypothesis).
Analeie Putnei 2 (2008): 1 5-24.
_ . „Umbra lui Drago. La Putna“ (The shadow of Drago;;. At Putna). Analeie
Putnei I (2008): 5-26.
_ . „Trei „probleme“ din biografia lui tefan cel Mare“ (Trois „questions“ de Ia
biographie d’Etienne le Grand). Analeie Putnei 1 (2010): 239-52.
_ . „<Cel Mare>. Märturii i interpretäri“ („Le Grand“. Temoignages et
interpretations). Analeie Putnei 2 (2012): 7-37.
Gorovei, tefan S. and Maria Magdalena Szekely. „Insemnele imperiale ale doamnei
Maria Asanina Paleologhina“ [The imperial signs of Princess Maria Asanina
Paleologhina]. In $tefan cel Mare i Sfant. Atlet al credinfei cre$line [Saint
Stephen the Great. Champion of the Christian Faith]. Suceava: Muatinii, 2004,
8 1 – 1 1 2.
_ . Princeps Omni Laude Maior. 0 istorie a lui $tefan cel Mare [Princeps Omni
Laude Maior. A History of Stephen the Great]. Putna: Muatinii, 2005.
Grabar, Andre. „Les croisades de l ‚Europe orientale dans l ‚ art.“ In Melanges Charles
Diehl. Paris: Leroux, 1930, 1 9-27.
Grun1eza, Ion. The Roots of Balkanization: Eastern Europe C.E. 500-1500. Lanham:
University Press of America, 2010.
1 1 7
Hahn, Cynthia. „Vision“ in A Campanion to Medieval Art: Romanesque and Gothic
in Northern Europe, ed. Conrad Rudolph. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006, 45-
64.
Head, Thomas. Hagiography and the Cult of Saints: The Diocese of Orleans, 800-
1200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 990.
Hetherington, Paul. The „Painter’s Manual“ of Dionysius of Fourna. London:
Sagittarius Press, 1 974.
lnainte, fmpreunii. Programul Romdnia Junii 2030 [Forward, together. The Romdnia
Juna Programme 2030] (Bucharest: Visarta, 2 0 1 2)
Joudiou, Benolt. „Le regne d’Etienne le Grand et Ia succession: une perspective
ideologique.“ In $tefan cel Mare $i Sfdnt. Atlet a/ credinfei cre$fine [Saint Stephen
the Great. Champion ofthe Christian Faith]. Suceava: Muatinii, 2004, 4 1 5-28.
_ . „Remarques sur Ia signification du titre „souverain“ dans !es Principautes
Roumaines.“ Studii $i Materiale de Istarie Medie 1 9 (200 1 ) : 67-77.
Kantorowicz, Ernst H. The King’s Two Bodies. A Study in Mediaeval Political
Theology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957.
Klaniczay, Gäbor. Holy Rufers and Blessed Princesses: Dynastie Cults in Medieval
Central Europe. Cambridge: University of Cambtidge Press, 2000.
Knobler, Nathan. Dialogul vizua/ 1 [The Visual Dialogue], trans. Sorin Märculescu.
Bucharest: Meridiane, 1 983.
_ . Dialogul vizual I I [The Visual Dialogue], trans. Sorin Märculescu. Bucharest:
Meridiane, 1983.
Lr Goff, Jacques. Saint Louis, Irans. Gareth Evan Gollrad (Notre Dame: University of
Notre Dame Press, 2009)
Maelon, Bogdan-Petru. „Mänästirea Probora lntre ierarhia ecleziasticä i domnie.
Semnificatiile unor privilegii din secolele XV-XVI“ (The Probota monastery
between the ecclesiastic hierarchy and the reign. The significance of some
privileges during the 1 5th and 1 6th centuries). Studii $i Materiale de Istarie Medie
14 (2006): 1 3 1 -50.
_ . „Observatii privind dobändirea puterii princiare ln Moldova epocii
tefaniene“ (Some Remarks on Gaining the Princely Power in Moldavia during
Stephen the Great Epoch). Analeie Putnei I (201 1 ) : 7-20.
Marcu, George. lntre diplomatie $i „iubire. “ Sotiile lui $tefan cel Mare [Between
Diplomacy and „Love.“ The Wives of Stephen the Great] on http:
//reteaualiterara.ning.com/profiles/blogs/ntre-diploma-ie-i-iubire-so-iile-lui-tefancel-
mare?xg_source=activity&id=l 97 1 74 1 %3ABlogPost%3A 1 262523&page=4,
last time accessed on March 3, 2 0 1 6.
„Mari romäni, cum nu i-ati mai väzut“ [Great Romanians, as you have never seen
them before], Evenimentul Zilei online, http://www.evz.ro/mati-romani-cum-nu-iati-
mai-vazut-897342.html#ixzz2wiuSzU9z, last time accessed: January 26, 2016.
McCormick, Michael. Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rufership in Late Antiquity,
Byzantium and the Early Medieval West. Cambtidge: Cambridge University Press,
1990.
1 18
Micutariu, Daniela. „Sfäntul Voievod $tefan cel Mare, särbätorit ieri, Ia Putna, de mii
de credincioi“ [Saint Stephen the Great, celebrated yesterday at Putna by
thousands of Christians] Monitaruf de Suceava (local online newspaper),
http:/ /www.monitorulsv .ro/LocaV20 14-07 -03/Sfantul-Voievod-Stefan-cel-Maresarbatorit-
ieri-la-Putna-de-mii-de-credinciosi, last time accessed on January 25,
20 16.
Mioc, Damaschin. „Materiale romäneti din arhive sträine“ [Romanian documents in
foreign archives]. Studii $i Materiale de Istarie Medie 6 ( 1 973): 325-47.
Murean, Dan loan. „Teoctist I i ungerea dornneascä a lui $tefan cel Mare“ [Teoctist
1 and the princely anointment of Stephen the Great]. In Romanii in Europa
Medievalii: intre orientul bizantin $i occidentul latin [Romanians in Medieval
Europe: Between the Byzantine East and the Latin West]. Bräila: Istros, 2008.
Murgescu, Bogdan. Tarife romane fntre Imperiul Otoman $i Europa Cre$tinii [The
Romanian Principalities between the Ottoman Empire and Christian Europe].
Bucharest: Polirom, 2 0 1 2 .
Nästase, Dumitru. „Biserica din Bälineti i pictura e i exterioarä“ [The Church of
Bälineti and its exterior panting], Studii $i cercetiiri de istoria artei. Seria artii
plastic 43 ( 1 996): 3 – 1 8 .
_ . „$tefan cel Mare lmpäraf‘ [Emperor Stephen the Great]. I n :jtefan cel Mare $i
Sfant (1 504-2004): Portret in istorie [Saint Stephen the Great ( 1504-2004):
Historical Portrait]. Suceava: Muatinii, 2003, 567-609.
Oracu, $erban. „Mama lui Petru Rare“ [The mother of Peter Rare]. Magazin
Istarie 1 1 ( 1 977): 422-3 1 .
Pali, Francisc. „Acte suspecte i false in colectia <Documentele 1ui $tefan cel Mare>
a lui Ioan Bogdan“ [Suspicious and fake documents in the Ioan Bogdan ’s
collection „The Documents of Stephen the Great“]. Revista Istoricii 4-6 ( 1 933):
I 05- 1 3 .
Panaitescu, Petre P. Ob$tea Jiiriineascii in Tara Romaneascii $ i Maidova –
Oranduirea feudalii [Peasants in Wallachia and Moldavia – Feudal Organisation].
Bucharest: Academiei, 1964.
Papacostea, $erban. „Politica externä a lui $tefan cel Mare: optiunea polonä ( 1459-
1 4 72)“ (The Foreign Policy of Stephen the Great: the Polish option ( 1 459- 1 473)).
Studii $i Materiale de Istarie Medie 25 (2007): 1 3-28.
Päslariuc, Virgil. „$tefan cel Mare in bätälia politicä din Republica Moldova“
[Stephen the Great within the political battle in the Republic ofMoldova], Hsi toria
online version of the magazine http://www.historia.ro/exclusiv _ web/generaU
articol/stefan-cel-mare-batalia-politica-republica-moldova, last time accessed:
January 26, 2016.
Pecican, Ovidiu. Sange $i trandafiri. Culturii ero(t)icii in epoca $lefanianii [Blood
and Roses. (H)ero(t)ic Culture in the Era of Stephen the Great]. Chiinäu: Cartier
Istoric, 2005.
Jl9
_ . Evul mediu fictiv. Reprezentiiri despre medievalitatea romlineascii (i nu
numai) [The fictional Middle Ages. Representations of the Romanian Middle Ages
(and not only)]. Bucharest: Tracus Arte, 2 0 1 2 .
Petru Rare, ed. Leon $imanschi. Bucharest: Academiei, 1978.
Pienaru, Nagy. „Un act otoman privitor la convertirea voievodului Ilia (30 mai
1 5 5 1 )“ (An Ottoman Document Conceming Prince Ilia‘ Conversion to Islam (30
May 1 5 5 1 )). Studii i Materiale de Istarie Medie 27 (2009): 1 0 1 – 10.
Pienaru, Nagy and Ovidiu Cristea. „Campania otomanä din 1484. Mä1turia lui Ibn
Kemal“ (The Ottoman Campaign in Moldavia ( 1 484). Ibn Kemal’s Testimony).
Analeie Putnei I (20 1 2) : 43-58.
Pieters, Jürgen and Roose, Alexander. „The Art of Saying ‚No‘. Premonitions of
Foucault’s ‚Govemmentality‘ in Etienne de La Boetie’s Discours de Ia servitude
volontaire.“ In Mystifying the Monarch. Studies on Discourse, Power, and History,
ed. Jeroen Deploige and Gita Deneckere. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University
Press, 2006, 79-97.
Pilat, Liviu. „Mesianism i escatologie in imaginarul epocii lui tefan cel Mare“
(Messianism and eschatology during the time of Stephen the Great). Studii $i
Materiale de Istarie Medie 22 (2004): 1 0 1 – 1 6.
Plnzar, Alexandru. „Suceava ln imaginarul medieval“ (Suceava in medieval
imaginary). Analeie Putnei 2 (2008): 25-50.
Pucau, Nicolae N. and Yoica Maria Pucau. „Mütmintele Putnei“ [The tombs of
Putna]. In $tefan cel Mare $i Sjfmt. Atlet al credinfei cre$tine [Saint Stephen the
Great. Champion ofthe Christian faith]. Suceava: Muatinii, 2004, 19-36.
Rädulescu, Maria-Venera. „Episoade din istoria Moldovei redate pe cahle descoperite
Ia Curtea Domneascä de Ia Vaslui: nunta lui $tefan cel Mare cu Maria de Mangop“
(The wedding of Stephen the Great and Maria of Mangup. Images on glazestore
tiles discovered at Yaslui ( 1 5th century). Studii $i Materiale de Istarie Medie 1 4
(2006): 8 1 – 1 00.
Rezachevici, Constantin. Cronologia criticii a domnilor din Tara Romaneascii $i
Moldova [A critical chronology of the rulers of Wallachia and Moldavia].
Bucharest: Enciclopedica, 200 l .
_ . „Neamul doamnei Evdochia de Kiev, ln legatura cu descoperirea pietrei sale
de mormänt Ia Suceava“ [The family of Evdochia of K.iev, regarding the discovery
of her tombstone in Suceava]. In $tefan ce/ Mare $i Sflint. At/et al credinfei
cre$fine [Saint Stephen the Great. Champion of the Christian faith]. Suceava:
Muatinii, 2004, 1 1 3-32.
Roca, Neculai. „Peste 2000 de credincioi, ieri, Ia Putna, de ziua pomenirii
voievodului $tefan cel Mare“ [Over 2000 Christians were present yesterday at
Putna at Stephen the Great‘ s commemoration] Obiectiv de Suceava (local online
newspaper), http://www. ob iectivdesucea va. ro/local/peste-2 -000-de-credi nciosiieri-
la-putna-de-ziua-pomenirii-voievodului-stefan-cel-mare-galerie-foto/, last time
accessed on January 25, 2 0 1 6.
120
Rubin, Patricia Lee. Images and Identity in Fifteenth Century Florence. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2007.
Saizu, Sorin. „Praznicul lui $tefan cel Mare“ [The Feast of Stephen the Great]
Obiectiv Vaslui, online http://obiectivvaslui.ro/praznicul-lui-stefan-cel-mare/, last
time accessed January 25, 2 0 1 6 .
$imanschi, Leon and Dumitru Agache. „Inscaunarea lui $tefan cel Mare: preliminarii
i consecinte ( 1 450-1 460)“ [The Enthronement of Stephen the Great: Preli.minaries
and Consequences ( 1450-1 460)]. In $tefan cel Mare i Sfant. Portret fn istorie
[Saint Stephen the Great. Historical Portrait]. Suceava: Muatinii, 2003.
$imanschi, Leon. „Formarea personalitatii lui $tefan cel Mare“ [The Formation of
Stephen the Great’s Personality]. In $tefan cel Mare i Sfant: 1504 – 2004. Portret
in Istarie [Saint Stephen the Great: 1504-2004. Historical Portrait]. Suceava:
Muatinii, 2003.
Simon, Alexandru. „Chilia i Cetatea Albä ‚in vara anului 1484. Noi documente din
arhivele italiene“ (Naples, Milan and the Moldavian Question in the Summer of
1484: New Documents). Studii i Materiale de lstorie Medie 26 (2008): 1 77-96.
_ . „Valahii Ia Baia. Regatul Ungariei, Domnia Moldovei i Imperiul Otoman in
1 467 (The Wallachs in Baia. The Kingdom ofHungaty, the Rule of Moldavia and
the Ottoman Empire in 1 467),“ Anuarul Institutului de Istarie „A.D. Xenopol“ 46
(2009): 127-50.
Skedros, James C. „Reading the Lives of the Saints.“ In Thinking through Faith. New
Perspectives from Orthodox Christian Schofars, ed. Aristotle Papanikolaou and
Elizabeth H. Prodromou. New York: SVS Press, 2008, 1 59-8 1 .
Solcanu, Ion. „Realizari attistice“ [Attistic achievements]. In Petru Rare$, ed. Leon
$imanschi. Bucharest: Academiei, 1 978, 292-3 1 7.
$tefan cel Mare i Sfant (1 504-2004). Portret fn Legenda [Saint Stephen the Great
( 1 504-2004). Legendary Portrait], ed. $tefan S. Gorovei. Putna: Muatinii, 2003.
Stoicescu, Nicolae. Curteni $i slujitori. Contribufii la istoria armatei romane
[Couttiers and servants. Contributions to the history of the Romanian army].
Bucharest: Militara, 1 968.
Szekely, Maria Magdalena. „La curte, Ia Petru Voda“ [At the court of Prince Peter].
Revista Istoricii 7-8 ( 1 997): 485-96.
_ . „Neamul dinspre mama a lui Petru Rare“ [The family of Peter Rare
descending from his mother]. Arhiva Genealogicii 5 ( 1 998): 1 69-78. _ . Sfetnicii lui Petru Rare$ [The Boyars of Peter Rareü Tai: Editura
Universitatii Alexandru Ioan Cuza, 2002. _ . „$tefan cel Mare i sfäritul lumii“ (Stephen the Great and the End of the
World). Studii i Materiale de Istarie Medie 2 1 (2003): 255-62.
_ . „Le Monastere de Poutna – lieu de memoire.“ In $tefan ce/ Mare i Sfiint.
Atlet al credin{ei cre$tine [Saint Stephen the Great. Champion of the Christian
Faith]. Suceava: Muatinii, 2004.
_ . „Putna Monastery As «Lieu De Memoire».“ Studii i Materiale de Istarie
Medie 22 (2004): 73- 1 0 1 .
1 2 1
_ . „Un manifest de putere Ia mänästirea Probota?“ In De Potestate. Semne i
expresii ale puterii in evul mediu romcmesc [De Potestate. Signs and expressions of
power in the Romanian Middle Ages]. Iai: Editura Universitäii „Alexandru Ioan
Cuza“, 2006.
_ . „Atributele imperiale ale cetätii Suceava“ (Imperial attributes of the Suceava
fortress). Analeie Putnei 2 (2008): 5-14.
_ . „Bogdan al UI-lea – note de antropologie politicä“ (Bogdan III – political
anthropology). Analeie Putnei I (2008): 265-78 .
. „Monarhul ideal in imaginarul evului mediu. Rene d‘ Anjou si Stefan cel
Mare“ (Le monarque ideal dans I‘ imaginaire medieval. Rene d‘ Anjou et Etienne le
Grand). Analeie Putnei I (20 1 0): 283-302.
Szekely, Maria Magdalena and tefan S. Gorovei. „<Semne i minuni> pentm tefan
Voievod. Note de mentalitate medievalä“ [„Signs and miracles“ for Prince
Stephen. Notes on medieval mentality]. In $tefan cel Mare i Sfmf t (1 504-2004):
Portret in istorie [Saint Stephen the Great ( 1 504-2004): Historical Portrait].
Suceava: Muatinii, 2003, 67-85.
_ . Maria Asanina Paleologhina. 0 prinjesii bizantinii pe tronul Moldovei [Maria
Asen Palaiologos. A Byzantine princess on the throne of Moldavia]. Suceava:
Muatinii, 2006.
Taylor, Michael D. „A Historiated Tree ofJesse.“ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 34 ( 1980-
1981): 125-76.
Teodor, Corina. „Ratiuni de stat i strategii matrimoniale in Moldova lui tefan cel
Mare“ (State Reasons and Matrimonial Strategies in Moldavia During the Reign of
tefan cel Mare). The Yearbook of the „Gheorghe $incai“ Institute for Social
Seiences and the Humanities of the Romanian Academy 7 (2004): 9- 1 9.
Toderacu, Ion. „Inscäunarea“ [The enthronement). In Petru Rare, ed. Leon
imanschi. Bucharest: Academiei, 1 978, 47-56.
Travassos Valdez, Maria Ana. Historical Interpretations of the „Fifth Empire. “ The
Dynamics of Periodization from Daniel to Antonio Vieira, S.J. (Studies in the
History of Christian Traditions, series ed. Robert J. Bast). Leiden: Brill, 20 l l .
Turcu, Constantin. „Daniil Sihastru. Figurä istoricä, Iegendara i bisericeascä“
[Hermit Daniil. Historical, legendary and church character]. In $tefan cel Mare i
Sjmf t (1 504-2004): Portret in istorie [Saint Stephen the Great ( 1 504-2004):
Historical Portrait]. Suceava: Muatinii, 2003, 1 7 8-9 1 .
Uebel, Michael. „The Pathogenesis o f Medieval History.“ Texas Studies in Literature
and Language 4 1 (2002): 47-65.
Ulea, Solin. „Datarea ansamblului de picturä de Ia Sf. Nicolaie-Dorohoi“ [Dating the
painting of Saint Niebolas in Dorohoi]. Studii i Cercetiiri de lstoria Artei, seria
Artii Plasticii I I ( 1 964): 69-79.
_ . „Originea i sernnificatia ideologicä a picturii exterioare moldoveneti I“ [The
origin and the ideological meaning of the Moldavian exterior painting I]. Studii i
cercetiiri de Istoria Artei. Seria Artii Plasticii I 0 ( 1963): 57-93.
122
_ . „Originea i semnificatia ideologicä a picturii exterioare moldoveneti ll“
[The origin and the ideological meaning of the Moldavian exterior painting II].
Studii i cercetiiri de Istoria Artei. Seria Arta Plastica 19 ( 1 972): 37-54.
Yan Gennep, Amold. Laformation des legendes. Paris: Emest Flammarion, 1929.
Yaideanu, Cosmin. „Primarul Radu Mazare 1-a interpretat pe domnitorul Stefan cel
Mare I a camavalul din Mamaia“ [Mayor Radu Mazäre interpreted Prince Stephen
the Great at the Carnival of Mamaia], Mediafax news agency,
http://www.mediafax.ro/social/primarul-radu-mazare-J-a-interpretat-pedomnitorul-
stefan-cel-mare-la-carnavalul-din-mamaia-foto-130261 34, last time
accessed on January 25, 20 1 6 .
Yätaianu, Virgil. lstoria artei feudale in Tarile Romane 1 [The history of feudal art
in the Romanian Principalities]. Bucharest: Academiei, 1959.
Vlad, Matei D. Colonizarea ruralii fn Tara Romaneascii $i Maidova (secolele XVXVll!)
[Rural colonization in Wallachia and Moldavia (Fifteenth – eighteenth
centuries)]. Bucharest: Academiai, 1973.
Yoinescu, Teodora. „Portretele lui Stefan cel Mare ln arta epocii sale“ [The portraits
of Stephen the Great in the ar1 of his time]. In Cultura moldoveneascii fn timpul lui
$tefan cel Mare [Moldavian culture in the time of Stephen the Great], ed. M.
Berza. Bucharest: Academiei, 1 964, 463-78.
Wellesz, Egon. „The Ak.athistos. A Study in Byzantine Hymnography.“ Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 9 ( 1 956): 1 4 1 -74.
Woodfin, Warren T. The Embodied lcon. Liturgical Vestments and Sacramental
Power in Byzantium. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 20 1 2.
Zamfirescu, Dan. Neagoe Basarab i inviifiiturile catre fiul sau Theodosie:
problemele controversate [Neagoe Basarab and his teachings to his son Theodosie:
controversial problems]. Bucharest: Minerva, 1973.
Zärnescu, Mihaela. „Petrecere Ja umbra statuii lui Stefan cel Mare“ [Celebration
under the statue of Stephen the Great] Monitorul de Vaslui online at
http:// www.moni toruldevaslu i.ro/20 1 5/07/ petrecere-la-umbra-statui i- lui -stefan-celmare-
de-la-bacaoani.html, last time accessed: January 25, 20 1 6
http://www.ziarulstefancelmare.ro/, last time accessed: January 26, 2 0 1 6 .
123