Stephen’s Successors
3. Stephen’s Princely Group
3.1. Bogdan III the Blind
Apart from these three factors, the proximity of Bogdan’s reign to that of his father’s resulted into an unfortunate situation for the historiography related to him. Although sources and primary information available for Bogdan are quite abundant, there is no monograph on him,441 and there are only a few relevant secondary sources related directly to his reign.442 This is a result of the uneven comparison between Stephen the Great and his son which led to Bogdan’s historiographical neglection. Nevertheless, documents are telling the story of Stephen’s heir who followed the footsteps of his father and who transmitted his legacy onwards.
439Ştefan Gorovei characterizes Bogdan as one of those rulers who “although cannot add too much to their country’s esteem and power, they know how to transmit with dignity the legacy of their predecessors.” See:
Gorovei. Muşatinii, 73.
440 All these conflicts will be detailed in the subsections of this chapter.
441 The only research project close to a monograph is a seminar paper written by a student in 1910: Iulian Marinescu, Bogdan III cel Orb [Bogdan III the Blind] 1504–1517 (Bucharest, 1910).
442 Probably the most relevant articles written on Bogdan III are the following: Maria Magdalena Székely,
“Bogdan al III-lea – note de antropologie politică – Bogdan III – political anthropology,” Analele Putnei 1 (2008):
265-278; Ştefan S. Gorovei, “Contribuţii pentru istoria domniei lui Bogdan al III-lea – Contributions to the history of the reign of Bogdan III,” Analele Putnei 1 (2008): 279-294; idem. “O controversă: <doamnele> lui Bogdan al III-lea – A Controversy: Bogdan III’s <Wives>,” Studii şi Materiale de Istorie Medie 27 (2009): 145-157;
Ovidiu Pecican, “Ideologia puterii centrale în Moldova lui Bogdan cel Orb” [The Ideology of the Central Power in Bogdan the Blind’s Moldavia], in Ovidiu Pecican, Troia, Veneţia, Roma [Troy, Venice, Rome] (Cluj-Napoca:
Editura Fundaţiei pentru Studii Europene, 1998), 316–331; Liviu Pilat, “Mitropolitul Maxim Brancovici, Bogdan al III-lea şi legăturile Moldovei cu Biserica sârbă – Metropolitan Maxim Branković, Bogdan III and Moldavia’s Ties with the Serbian Church,” Analele Putnei 1 (2010): 229-238; Virgil Pâslăriuc, “Marea boierime moldoveană şi raporturile ei cu Bogdan vodă al III-lea (1504–1517)” [The Great Moldavian Boyars and their Relationship with Bogdan III (1504-1517)], in Virgil Pâslăriuc, Raporturile politice dintre marea boierime şi domnie în Ţara Moldovei în secolul al XVI-lea [The Political Relations between the Great Boyars and the Ruler in Moldavia in the Sixteenth Century] (Chişinău: Pontos, 2005), 17–39; C. Burac, “Bogdan-Vlad, urmaşul lui Ştefan cel Mare”
[Bogdab-Vlad, the Follower of Stephen the Great], Anuarul Institutului De Istorie şI Arheologie A.D. Xenopol 25 (1988): 247–252.
CEUeTDCollection
105 3.1.1. Who was Bogdan?
Bogdan III is one of the rather few medieval rulers of the principalities whose exact date of birth is known: “… in the same month, day 16th, the wife of Stephen gave birth to their son, Bogdan, son of Prince Stephen, who lives today, with the mercy of God.”443 This excerpt from the Moldavian-German Chronicle indicates Bogdan’s birth: June 16th 1479. Similarly, another chronicle contemporary to Bogdan tells about his death and length of reign:
And after Prince Stephen, his son came to the throne, Prince Bogdan, who ruled for 12 years, nine months and three weeks and who died in the year 7025 [1517], 22nd of April444 and was buried at the Putna Monastery, in the large pronaos, on the right side. May he forever be remembered.445
When he was born, the prince received the name Bogdan. He also received a second name which, combined with his first one, formed a symbolic nomination: Bogdan-Vlad. Bogdan-Vlad represented Stephen the Great’s way of creating a symbolic reunion between the two dynasties of Moldavia and Wallachia,446 while his name was also the embodiment of Stephen’s political desires over Wallachia. Stephen seemed to have had an inheritance arrangement planned for both his sons:
his elder one, Alexander, was to inherit Moldavia, while Bogdan (as his fatidic name indicated) was to reign over Wallachia. Bogdan eventually did not inherit Wallachia, but he did inherit his father’s political ambitions over the neighbouring principality, as it shall be seen shortly. Despite these ambitions and unlike his father however, Bogdan’s reign was not marked by the relationship with Wallachia. His reign was instead marked by a conflict which reverberated through the entire Muşatin dynasty: it began in the time of Peter I of Moldavia, escaladed and developed during the time of Stephen the Great and probably peeked with the rule of Peter Rareş.447 In 1388, Peter I of Moldavia lended Władysław II Jagiełło a significant sum of money, receiving for the period of the loan (three years), as a pledge, the territory of Pokuttia.448 Later on, Stephen the Great, animated by the fact that the agreement was not respected, invaded and occupied Pokuttia.449 Bogdan III continued the conflict, although in a rather unintentional way. Looking for a marriage alliance with the
443 “The Moldavian-German Chronicle,” 27.
444 The date of his death differs in this chronicle from the date on his tombstone: while in the chronicle the day of April 22nd is indicated as his death, the tombstone indicates that he died on April 20th. For the text of the tombstone, see: I. C. Chiţimia, “Ştefan cel Mare, ctitor în domeniul istoriografiei,” 210.
445 “The Chronicle of Putna II,” 38.
446 Bogdan I was the founder of the Moldavian principality, while Vlad was the founder of Wallachia. See the explanation of Stephen’s dynastic project which included the naming of Bogdan and the significance of the name Bogdan-Vlad in Chapter II of this dissertation, subchapter “Predicting the future.” Also, see a relevant discussion on the naming of Bogdan in: Székely, “Bogdan al III-lea – note de antropologie politică,” 265-273.
447 The conflict between Peter Rareş and Poland, as a result of the conflict between Bogdan and Poland, will be explained in the subchapter referring to Rareş.
448 Rezachevici, Cronologia critică, 453.
449For the history of Stephen’s conflicts for Pokuttia, see: Gorovei and Székely, Princeps Omni Laude Maior, 274-282.
CEUeTDCollection
106
Jagiełłonians, Bogdan seeked to marry Princess Elisabeth, the daughter of Cazimir IV and in June 1505, he signed a treaty with King Alexander Jagiełłon through which he ceded the territory of Pokuttia in return for the hand of Elisabeth.450 The treaty included the agreement that, once the marriage was arranged, Bogdan would receive Pokuttia back as dowry. The territory thus became Polish property, but the marriage never materialized: Elisabeth refused to marry a prince who was
“alterius ritus et monoculus.”451 In 1509, Bogdan complained to Pope Julius II about the situation.452 Although the Pope summoned the new Polish king Sigismund I to respect the terms of the agreement, the humiliated prince understood that the marriage would never become official. As a consequence, he attacked and regained the lost territory of Pokuttia, only to be later on re-conquered by the Polish.453 A peace treaty was then signed between the two parts which conditioned that Bogdan was to return all Polish territories still under his occupation, as well as all letters between himself and King Alexander. Moreover, he was never to mention this unsuccessful marriage alliance again.454
Regardless of this rather humiliating treaty and the unfortunate engagement to Elisabeth, he soon concluded a new and successful marriage alliance. In 1513, Doamna Ruxandra, daughter of Mihnea the Mean, prince of Wallachia, became the wife of Bogdan.455 However, she gave him no children, thus the dynasty was continued through his two illegitimate sons: Stephen the Young and Alexander Lăpuşneanu.
3.1.2. Descriptions and representations
One of the most famous descriptions of Bogdan III directly links the character of the ruler to his great father: “… his son, Prince Bogdan, follows the example of his father, he is shy like a girl and brave like a man, friend of all virtues and of all virtuous men, he is a young man of about 25 years old.”456 Stephen the Great’s physician, the Venetian Matteo Muriano, was reporting back to Venice about the environment at the court of Stephen, when he made this comparison between Bogdan and his father. There are no other elaborate descriptions contemporary to Bogdan III, except for Polish chronicles which generally discuss his eye issue, as it will be seen below. The closest other description in time to that of Muriano’s is the comment of the seventeenth-century chronicler
450 Gorovei, “Muşatinii,” 71.
451 Quoted in Gorovei, “Contribuţii pentru istoria domniei lui Bogdan al III-lea,” 279.
452 Hurmuzaki II.2, document no. CCCCLXV, 583-584.
453 For a description of the political relationship between Poland and Moldavia and the situation of Bogdan’s failed engagement to Elisabeth, see: Gorovei, Muşatinii, 71-72.
454 See the entire text of the treaty in: Hurmuzaki II.2, document no. CCCCLXXXVIII, 624-631.
455 For more information on the women in the life of Bogdan, especially on doamna Ruxandra, see: Ştefan S.
Gorovei, “O controversă: <doamnele> lui Bogdan al III-lea,” 145-157.
456 From Matteo Muriano’s report from Moldavia in 1502. See: Călători străini despre Ţările Române I, 148.
CEUeTDCollection
107
Grigore Ureche who believed that Bogdan was “not much different from the personality of his father.”457 Ureche wrote a detailed description of the prince when he presented the circumstances of his death:
Prince Bogdan the Frightful, the son of Prince Stephen the Good, died in the year 7025 [1517] … eulogizing the brave things that he did, because it was not in drunkenness or feasts that he spent his time, but he was like an oak tree watching over all his sides, so that he would not damage the country that he inherited from his father.458
Based on these scarce descriptions, one can set apart two main characteristics of Bogdan: he was first of all continuing the legacy of his father and secondly, he had a medical issue with one of his eyes. These two characterizations are, most likely, interconnected. Interestingly, although Ureche calls Bogdan “the Frightful” (referring to his physical flaw), there are no Moldavian accounts contemporary to Bogdan which mention any kind of imperfection on the ruler’s face. Nevertheless, Polish sources abound in descriptions relating to the ruler’s eye: Matthias de Mechovia called him
“Bogdan… uno oculo orbus,” Bernard Wapowski referred to him as “Bogdanus filius monoculus,” and Martin Kromer wrote “Cui (Stephani) Bogdanus filius luscus succesit.”459 While Constantin Rezachevici argues that the ugliness caused by his facial handicap was simply an amplification of reality made by Grigore Ureche,460 one cannot state that Bogdan had no visible imperfection to his eye – otherwise, the Polish accounts cannot be explained. The lack of comments in Moldavian documents on this issue suggests that the authority in Moldavia wanted to keep Bogdan’s problem away from the public sphere. This leads to the conclusion that Stephen the Great, Bogdan III, and their boyars were silent about this issue, just like Moldavian documents are sometimes silent about undesired situations.461 Should documents had not kept this silence, the very succession of Bogdan to
457 Ureche, The Chronicle of Moldavia, 80.
458 Ibidem, 86.
459 For all these three sources, see: Iulian Marinescu, Bogdan al III-lea cel Orb [Bogdan III the Blind] (Bucharest:
1910), 24.
460 The arguments of Constantin Rezachevici are very well constructed. He argues that Matteo Muriano, a physician himself, in his careful description of Bogdan never mentioned that he had any problems with his eyes. Similarly, he describes the episode when Emperor Maximilian I invited Bogdan to join him and his men for his coronation in Rome, arguing that Maximilian would have never invited Bogdan, unless he was flawless.
However, he fails to mention the Polish chronicles describing Bogdan as “one-eyed,” who, although not all contemporary to the ruler’s life, lived in the period following his reign. See: Rezachevici, Cronologia critică, 547-548.
461 An eloquent example for such a historical omission in documents is related to Stephen’s equestrian accident in the Battle of Râmnic. At that time, Stephen fell off his horse and could not return to safety until a boyar named Purice found him. The boyar was not mentioned in any of the official chronicles of the court. The official chronicles only superficially state that the ruler had fallen off his horse at the Battle of Râmnic. Nevertheless, the Moldavian-German Chronicle and the Chroncile of Stephen the Great in Schedel’s version both thoroughly explain the event and also mention the boyar and his saving act. See: The Moldavian-German Chronicle, 28;
and Cronica lui Ştefan cel Mare. Versiunea germană a lui Schedel [The Chronicle of Stephen the Great.
Schedel’s German Version], ed. Ion Const. Chiţimia (Bucharest: Casa Şcoalelor, 1942), 68.
CEUeTDCollection
108
the throne could have been jeopardized: a deformed ruler was not a desired ruler, but Stephen had no other choice but to appoint Bogdan as heir, as he was his only legitimate son still alive.462
One can only speculate on the nature of the eye issue: it may have been a glaucoma problem463 or an injury resulting from a battle. Visual representations present him in a just as perfect way as written documents do, therefore the debut of his illness will most likely remain unknown. All votive portraits464 show him as a handsome man with a smooth face. There are two aspects concerning the depiction of Bogdan III which are most noteworthy. Firstly, Bogdan is one of the few rulers who were represented during three time different periods: before becoming a ruler, while being the ruler, and after his death.465 Secondly, in all these representations his iconography is closely related to that of his father’s. Bogdan’s physiognomy in votive portraits is the exact replica of Stephen the Great’s physiognomy.466 The fact that Bogdan commissioned his votive portraits by using the example of his father’s representations is neither singular to the Mușatin dynasty after Stephen, nor is it accidental: both Bogdan and his followers used the image of Stephen in order to show their association to his family and legacy.467
3.1.3. Dynastic construction and the continuity of Stephen through the reign of Bogdan III The so-called “last will” of Stephen the Great appeared for the first time in the chronicle of Grigore Ureche, where the events surrounding the death of Stephen were described:
And when his end was approaching, he [Stephen the Great] called all his governors and councillors and great boyars and all who were able to come, and showed them that they would not be able to take care of the country as he did, because [among all their enemies] the Turk was strongest and wisest, therefore he advised that the country be subdued to the Turks.468
462 See: Pâslăriuc, Raporturile politice dintre marea boierime și domnie în Țara Moldovei în secolul al XVI-lea, 19-20.
463 Constantin Rezachevici highlights that glaucoma was a common problem in the Mușatin dynasty, both Alexander Lăpuşneanu and Bogdan Lăpuşneanu being affected by it. See: Rezachevici, Cronologia critică, 548.
464 Votive portraits showing Bogdan were painted in the the Rădăuți Monastery, Voroneț Monastery, Pătrăuți Monastery, Saint Nicholas Church of Dorohoi, Saint Elijah in Suceana, Dobrovăț Monastery.
465 Székely, “Bogdan al III-lea – note de antropologie politică,” 270.
466 Maria Magdalena Székely describes a most representative example of this similarity when she discusses the veil [dvĕrĭ] of the Dormition donated by Bogdan in 1510 to the Putna Monastery (in which the votive image of the donor is visible) and the veil of the Crucifixion donated by Stephen to Putna as well and in which the donor is represented. M. M. Székely explains that the two representations of the rulers are identical, probably Bogdan’s representation being copied after Stephen’s. See: Székely, “Bogdan al III-lea – note de antropologie politică,” 271-272.
467 This need of association between Stephen’s followers and Stephen visible in visual representations will be explained later on in the chapter, in the section dealing with Peter Rareş.
468 Ureche, The Chronicle of Moldavia, 66-67.
CEUeTDCollection
109
The “will” is merely a “classical scholarly invention.”469 Stephen did pay tribute to the Ottoman Empire during his reign, just like he also signed an ahdname with the sultan in which he acepted the Ottoman Empire as suzerain.470 Needless to say, Bogdan did the same, not because Stephen or his “will” obliged him to do so, but because the political situation between Moldavia and the Ottoman Empire constrained him.471 Thus paying the tribute to the Ottoman Empire had nothing to do with either a supposed “will” of Stephen, or with the continuity of his legacy. There are other situations, however, which point to Bogdan as a genuine continuator of Stephen.
Discussing monastic commissions, one can notice that there are two main churches connected to the name of Bogdan: the church of Reuseni and the Saint George Church in Suceava.
On the 8th of September 1503,472 Stephen the Great gave the start for the construction of the Reuseni Church, his very last commission. Less than a year later, Stephen died, and Bogdan was left to finish the church which commemorated the place where Bogdan II, his grandfather, was executed.473 In that same year, 1504, a few months after the death of his father, Bogdan completed the construction. The second church connected to Bogdan is Saint George of Suceava. The church was built between 1514 and 1522, therefore he was unable to finish his only monastic commission – his son, Stephen the Young did. The church is a reflection of Stephen’s Neamț Monastery, with the exception that it is larger and it does not have a mortuary room. The construction of these two edifices does not necessarily reflect an ideological continuation of Stephen’s reign – rather, these commissions represent a transition from the artistic boom of Stephen the Great to the art of Peter Rareș. Nevertheless, Bogdan had a distinct point in his policy which aligned him to his father’s dynastic project.
The dynastic project was widely discussed in the previous chapter. Part of Stephen’s project was his double-named son, Bogdan-Vlad. While Stephen hinted with this name to a possible dynastic union of the two principalities,474 Bogdan seems to also have been attracted by the possibility of a Moldavian-Wallachian connection. Although in a less visible way, Bogdan walked into his father’s footsteps with similar aspirations. Ştefan Gorovei pointed out a number of documents and
469 Istoria României în texte, ed. Bogdan Murgescu, 141.
470 Documente turcești privind istoria României, ed. Mustafa A. Mehmed, 5-6.
471 See numerous documents and chronicles attesting the Moldavian prince paying taxes, such as this one:
“…Also, from the bey of Wallachia and Moldavia … countless gifts arrived, together with the settled tribute.”
See: the chronicle of Kodja Hussein in Cronici turceşti privind Tările Române. Extrase I, ed. Mihail Guboglu and Mustafa Mehmet, 467.
472 Gorovei and Székely, Princeps Omni Laude Maior, 420.
473 The inscription of the church indicates the location of the church as the place of Bogdan II’s death: “In 7011, September 8, Io Prince Stephen, ruler of Moldavia with the mercy of God, started to build this church … in this place where the head of his father Prince Bogdan was cut…” See: Adam, Ctitorii mușatine, 77.
474 An actual political union of the two principalities was out of question at the time. However, one cannot suggest a definite hypothesis on the way Stephen imagined this union. See: Székely. “Bogdan al III-lea – note de antropologie politică,” 269.
CEUeTDCollection
110
descriptions, all dated between 1509 and 1513, in which Bogdan refers to himself not only as the son of Stephen, but also as the grandson of Radu the Fair, prince of Wallachia and father of his mother.
At the moment there are only five known documents475 which bear this information but the fact that they are dated between the years of war with Wallachia,476 led Gorovei to argue that this was Bogdan’s way of making a claim over Wallachia: the fact that he was the grandson of Radu the Fair legitimized him to enter Wallachia. This was reinforced by his emblematic double-name, which symbolically linked him to the Wallachian dynasty. One can thus notice a connection between the policies of Stephen and Bogdan on the level of the dynastic project. Bogdan followed the “recipe” left by his father and he followed it successfully, by eventually marrying a Wallachian princess, just like Stephen did.
The dynastic project was however not the only link between the father and his son. Bogdan seemed to also follow the attitude of his father both in war and after war. Based on the accounts of Poland’s King Sigismund I, who complained in a letter to King Ladislas II of Hungary about the atrocities Bogdan had caused in his territories, it seems that he was a rather fierce enemy. In his letter, Sigismund also mentioned Mihnea the Mean, who also complained about the restlessness of Bogdan.477 However, based on extant documents, it is difficult to say whether Bogdan was just as tenacious in battle as his father was. There are indications however that he was eager to continue the battle rituals of his father. The triumphal entries of Stephen the Great have already been presented in the previous chapter. It is important to highlight however that after the year 1481, the post-battle celebrations faded. The years between 1481 and 1497 represented a period of deep disturbance: there was a blood rain in the town of Roman, Putna Monastery caught fire, the two fortresses of Chilia and Akkerman were lost, and the prince fell off his horse during the Battle of Şcheia.478 As these were all symbols for misfortune, it is easy to understand why Stephen allowed the ceremonies to fade in importance and why the ruler, upon returning from battle was not celebrated in Suceava anymore, but in the Fortress of Hârlău.479 However, although Stephen decided to move the celebrations from Suceava to Hârlău, Bogdan changed this situation, and in 1509 he moved the welcoming of the victorious ruler back to Suceava.480 The movement of the ruler’s victorious entries back to Suceava must have had a deep symbolic meaning. It may be interpreted as Bogdan’s way of
475 See the texts of all five documents in Gorovei, “Contribuţii pentru istoria domniei lui Bogdan al III-lea,” 280-281.
476 The war with Wallachia started in 1507 and in 1513 Bogdan married Ruxanda, the daughter of Mihnea the Mean, the Wallachian prince. See: Ibidem, 283.
477 See the entire original letter in: Documente privitoare la istoria Românilor. 1510-1530 [Documents regarding the history of Romanians. 1510-1530], II, Part 3, collected by Eudoxiu de Hurmuzaki (Bucharest: 1892), document no. LXXIII, 68-70. (henceforth: Hurmuzaki II.3)
478 Székely, “Atributele imperiale ale cetăţii Suceava,” 8-9.
479 See: Eadem, 9.
480 Eadem.