Back to
Istituto Romeno’s Publications
Back to Homepage
Annuario 2004-2005
p. 141
Alexandru Simon,
Babeº-Bolyai
University of Cluj-Napoca
The “History” of Stephen the Great’s son, who lived in Istanbul, has a
right to be told on its own account. For the time being, the sources remain the
main story tellers, with help of course from several interpretative views,
which arise from the context created by the documents[1].
It is easy to understand that any opinion on this matter is not the
p. 142
(absolute)
truth, but a hypothetical construction, with a greater or lesser chance to
reflect actual history when compared to the other possibilities that “build”
the hidden life of Stephen’s heir from Istanbul[2].
Everything begins with the rise of Bogdan III to the throne. Before we turn to
it, a few complementary phrases might be necessary.
The Picture. Moldavia’s Ottoman History, both “proo” and “anti”, is, after all, a
product of Stephen the Great’s reign (1457-1504)[3].
This is more than a simple and “historiographically correct” statement.
Stephen’s almost fifty-year reign, of which only 12-15 years (6, if we think
only of the major and high intensitity confrontations) can be called “years of
war”, symbolizes, beyond the simple chronological lines, Moldavia’s great
bounce between an alliance with Istanbul and an active crusader policy, between
the acceptance of the Ottoman over-hand and the rejection of the Turk hegemony[4].
p. 143
In this respect, Stephen’s final dayss (covered by a highly popular,
though historically inaccurate legend), offer the image of a Stephen who
advises his successor and his noblemen to submit themselves to the Ottomans,
for they are wiser and fairer than Moldavia’s Christian neighbours, may well
define the story of the future saint[5].
And it was not long after his death that Venice’s doctor, “ambassador” and spy
at Stephen’s court, said that in Moldavia, things were tutto sotto sopra[6]. In the long
run, Stephen had won, securing his legacy. In the late medieval era, drama,
more than victory, was the word to use in order to depict history. It is enough
to look at other successions that took place in and around XVth
century Moldavia, a tormented orthodox state[7].
I. From the 1500s. In 1517, with the death of Bogdan IIII, the legitimate line of Stephen’s
successors came to an end. This is what both interpretation and historical
sources offer us. No legitimate son, nephew or grand-son took Bogdan’s place[8]
It had seldom been the case in the 1400s, though legitimacy was a big Moldavian
issue.
I. 1. The Summer of 1504. In June 1504, in Istanbul,
a son of Stephen, whose legitimacy remained unchallenged by the Moldavian
elite, was Bayezid II’s choice for Moldavia’s throne[9].
He left for Moldavia, accompanied, with or without his consent, by chancellor
Ioan (John) Tãutu, gone to Istanbul to negotiate Bogdan’s succession. Bogdan,
p. 144
the
oldest of Stephen’s legitimate and living sons, inside Moldavia, was the heir
desired by Stephen. A small blood-bath got him elected[10].
Meanwhile, the Ottomans had stopped on the right bank of the Danube, fearing
probably a Hungarian attack[11].
p. 145
The pretender did not give up. In ordder to avoid a large scale conflict,
the Sultan took his distance from the situation, but kept him under control[12].
In January 1505, he tried again. In Hungary[13],
a potential victory of Bogdan was regarded as a miracle in front of such an
opponent. Bogdan won[14].
And, even in defeat, the sources refuse to give up the contender’s name. As in
theory, the documents reflect only a part of the past.
p. 146
Bogdan’s peace wasn’t insured by thiss victory in January 1505. He had to
bear the heavy burden of his father’s heritage. In a time span of not even ten
years, Bogdan had gotten himself in conflict with every neighbour[15].
Internally, things were far from being perfect[16].
Furthermore, pretenders to the throne kept bothering him[17].
Only[18]
in the last years of his rule, seemingly the peace was restored inside and
outside his rule (1514-1517). The state of Moldavia, trapped on the splippery
level of achievements and plans between more, and, in fact, less in comparison
to Stephen’s time was actually in crisis[19].
p. 147
I. 2. Back from the Fall of 1538. We go
forward, not backward in time, as it might be normal. In 1538, an alleged son
of Stephen, for reasons of legitimacy, but seen simply as the, at best, 30 year
old illegitimate son of Alexander, in the most reliable report on him, by the
papal nonce in Vienna, Fabio Miganelli, used massive ottoman support to take
Moldavia’s crown from Peter Rareº, an illegitimate son of Stephen. Peter Rareº
had come to power at the death of Stephen the Young, Bogdan’s illegitimate son
(1527)[20].
The series of legitimate rulers seemed to have ended with Bogdan’s death.
The name of Moldavia’s new ruler of 11538 was Stephen, nicknamed
afterwards Lãcustã (the Locust), for
the locusts were to cause a disaster during his reign. He had grown up in the
influential circles of Istanbul due to his father, whom a source, a polish one
this time, referred to as Alexander,
voivode of the Moldavians[21].
“In percentages”[22], due to the
age of the new prince, the fact that the name of his father is given by two
sources,
p. 148
the
fact that the elite did not challenge his status of princely scion (with the exception of Peter, after he regained the
throne in 1541), the identity of Lizard’s
father is clear. He was Alexander (Sandrinus),
very likely the contender from 1504-1505, as no other more plausible
explanation can be offered[23].
But, Locust always claimed to be
Stephen the Great’s son, not the legitimate or illegitimate offspring of
Alexander[24].
Regardless the shape of the blood linne connecting the Locust to Alexander, the latter had been
a personality who did not require a lot of explaining, an old problem[25].
Nobody in Moldavia referred to Locust as
Alexander’s son[26], but as Stephen
the Great’s
p. 149
son.
Only in the Christian (Catholic) neighbourhood, not the Ottoman, was he
regarded as Alexander’s son. The message is relatively strong, but not exactly
clear.
I. 3. Two Enthronements, One Grave. In
1504, a legitimate son of Stephen the Great, named probably Alexander, and
probably (for the second time) of legitimate descendance, was in Istanbul,
probably (for the third time) as hostage. It a more likely than the possibility
of him flighing from Moldavia after a fight with his father, possibly on
matters of succession. The hostage explanation is the most likely, even though
favourable sources to Stephen the Great claim that, contrary to Walachia,
Moldavia was exempted from sending hostages (till the second reign of Peter
Rareº, 1541-1546)[27].
In 1538, nobody said that Alexander, Stephen the Locust’s father, was
Stephen the Great’s son. A Habsburg report clearly stated, against biological
evidence, that Peter, the illegitimate son of Stephen, had lost power in favour
of his legitimate son, sent by him to Istanbul[28].
Somewhere, the prestige and legitimacy begotten by Stephen the Great were
colliding. So, rather quickly, it is time to descend into the 1400s.
p. 150
Before we do so, there is a happeningg in the Ottoman Empire that has to
be noted: in the church of the Patriarchate, at Pammakaristos, a voivode of
Moldavia is buried[29].
It is hard to identify him as anybody else than Alexander. No other possible
Moldavian voivode (a title applied to rulers, to almost every contender or to a
son of a prince, who had been “officially” placed by his father in the line of
succession) who died in the Empire is known to have been subject, near his end,
to such great honours, as the mysterious Alexander[30].
It is a rather “strong” statement given our knowledge.
p. 151
II. Sons of Stephen. The documents and the Diptych
from Bistriþa point out two Alexanders as the sons of Stephen. One was the
result of his marriage to Evdochia of Kyiv, with whom Stephen stayed married
for four years (1463-1467), the other, the illegitimate fruit of his relation
with Marushka[31].
The Diptych knows nothing of the
first one, despite the fact that it contains the names of several of Evdochia’s
relatives[32].
A confusion between the two is hard tto assert. Even more difficult is to
state that, soon after his prestigious marriage to Evdochia, Stephen had her
adopt his bastard son Alexander, who first appears in the papers in 1464[33],
ten months after the wedding
p. 152
(1463).
The natural conclusion is that Stephen had two sons, two Alexanders, of whom
one probably carried another first name in order to be distinguished from the
other[34].
II. 1. Names and Careers. The fate of the bastard
son is known. He, voivode Alexander,
in the Diptych, was associated by
Stephen the Great as ruler of (South-Western) Moldavia, where he died in 1496[35].
The other Alexander’s life is unknown.
Suddenly another doubt surfaces, disrregarding the mysterious
disappearance of Evdochia’s and Stephen’s son from Moldavia’s papers and
stones. What if Alexander from Istanbul was the son of Stephen and Mary of
Mangop (1472-1477), of Stephen and Mary Voichiþa (1478-1504), his other two
wives[36].
An answer must be given.
p. 153
The answer comes rather easy. There iis no reason why Stephen would have
christened a child Alexander, while the other one was alive and in power, and
it would have been his third Alexander. On the other had, christening his and
Evdochia’s son Alexander was giving him the name of his mother’s grandfather’s
name, the same way the other Alexander, probably older (for in 1476 he was
fighting alongside his father), was named after his father’s grandfather[37].
We can now turn to the political aspects.
Alexander the Legitimate may have reaached Istanbul after peace was
concluded be between Stephen and Bayezid (1486)[38].
It would mean that the Alexanders coexisted
p. 154
for two
decades[39],
without any trace of confusion between the two (or distinction for that
matter), without any prove that “The Legitimate” was Stephen’s associate, not
his half brother. No reasonable explanation can be found, under the Moldavian
circumstances of the time, for the sending as a hostage of a 23 year old
medieval political figure. The Ottoman sultans usually took as guarantees
children under 15[40].
The peace of 1486 was not a desperate one for Stephen the Great[41].
He could have sent the future Bogdan III, Mary Voichiþa’s son. The boys born by
Mary of Mangop had already died[42].
p. 155
There is but one solution. Alexander had left for Istanbul before 1486[43].
He could have left between 1479-1481, during the Moldavian-Ottoman peace talks.
But the discussions resulted to nothing, and every time fighting resumed,
mainly because the Ottoman peace terms were not to Stephen’s satisfaction. He
could not have sent his already major son[44].
Subsequently we have to go back in time, before the war with the Ottoman
Empire, before the fall of 1473[45].
Now, things become really complicated.
p. 156
II. 2. All the Sultan’s Men. One comma might shift
the balance definitively. Mehmed the Conqueror sent his envoy to Stephen the
Great, in 1476: “requirendoli el castello
de Licostomo, li prexoni Turchi, luy haveva [!] uno de’ soi figlioli, el caraço de anni tre pasati”[46].
Either Stephen was asked to send a son to Istanbul, or the Ottoman sultan
wanted to get back the “son” captured after the battle of Vaslui (1475)[47].
The first comma separating “li
prexoni Turchi” of “luy haveva” doesn’t make sense if the
words refer to the prisoners taken by Stephen the Great. “Li prexoni Turchi che luy
haveva”, would have been the normal expression. But it’s the second comma
that is really troubling. It separates “luy
haveva” from “uno de’ soi figlioli”[48].
It is redundant even if we think only of the unnatural place taken by the first
comma, and mainly when we take into account the message that the text is
supposed to have sent[49].
Finding the document is an unlikely ooption. The editor’s quotation is
vague at best[50]. Still there
seems to be no other solution. New sources must be taken into account.
D³ugosz talks of Alexander, Stephen’ss brother as the contender brought
by the sultan to Moldavia during the campaign in the summer of 1476[51].
It could have been his
p. 157
son[52].
But Alexander was under-aged. A regency council would have been necessary. As
Jan (John) D³ugosz states, Stephen had been abandoned by a significant part of
the elite and by many others. The same information is delivered by Balthazar of
Piscia[53].
The context could have assured the Otttoman Empire an extended control
over Moldavia. Still for Piscia, the Ottoman candidate was the son of Peter
Aaron, the former prince of Moldavia[54].
It all seems to be a dead end. One option would be to give up the
identification of Alexander with the contender from 1504. But no other son of
Stephen could have possibly been sent hostage after 1486[55].
We are back from where we started.
Confidence grows again. Alexander thee Legitimate is the best candidate
for the hostage position. Moreover it seems that, in Istanbul, Michael
Kantakuzenos bought the house of John Ralli Palaiologus, prepared to leave for
Moscow, as a gift for the voivode of Moldavia
(1484-1485)[56], a thing
which happened before the peace of 1486. Once more, we are pushed before 1473.
And, due to Alexander’s age in 1476, a confusion made by Balthazar of Piscia
and a well-intended change operated by Jan D³ugosz, largely favourable towards
Stephen the Great, do not count that much in the equation[57].
p. 158
Plus, a son of Peter Rareº[58],
sent hostage to Istanbul in 1542 (to replace another son, sent before 1538),
named also Alexander, does not appear in the Diptych. It means that being a hostage was a serious problem in
Moldavia[59]. The
contact with the Empire was getting more and more painful, fitting into the
patern of the Ottoman expansion[60].
These developpements strengthen, instead of modifying, the question at hand[61].
p. 159
II. 3. An offer. The late summer of 1471
constitutes our chronological choice for Alexander’s departure from the court
of Suceava. He would have left Moldavia for Istanbul, when his country was at
war with Walachia, loyal to the Empire, when, in July, Stephen refused to obey
Kazymir IV’s of Poland, his suzerain, who had ordered him to send his son,
together with an army corps to the king’s aid, for his son was too raw[62].
In September, alongside Alexander, in the princely council appears another son,
Peter[63].
Peter makes his appearance four years after Evdochia’s death (1467) and one
year before Stephen’s marriage with Mary of Mangop in 1472[64].
Peter too was an illegitimate son of Stephen the Great. It was as if the
“replacements” took the field[65].
The departure was not recorded by intternal documents. Legitimate or not,
no Alexander ever left the documents (1464-1496)[66].
By probably pushing the political situation after the plot against Stephen, a
plot led by his brother-in-law, was discovered
p. 160
and
crushed (December 1470-January 1471), the other Alexander, perhaps already an
alternate choice for a ruler, took the place of the legitimate son[67].
The hypothetical chain of events ends here. Now it’s time to confront the
pieces of reality we know.
III. Too little. Regardless of the exact date of the happening, no claim for a hostage
from Stephen exists in the Ottoman chronicles of the time[68].
As for Walachia, for the brothers Radu the Beautiful (1462-1473, 1473-1474),
Vlad the Impaler (1448, 1456-1462, 1476), both former hostages, and known as
such, things become “clearer” in the chronicles from the mid 1600’[69].
Radu, “until then [1462] had shown himself worthy of honour and glory
in his service at the Gate of Happiness”. We also find out that Stephen the
“Locust (Cetne) was the son of Istefan
[Stephen the Great], on of the old noble
sons of Moldavia, who, for a long time, had been in the Empire’s service”[70].
Stephen the Locust “remains” Stephen the Great’s son. No extra data is
offered. Therefore a considerable freedom is given to hypothesis. But one
statement made also in the 1600’ may limit this freedom. For the first time,
almost a century after the events
p. 161
of
1538, a Moldavian chronicler and statesman, Grigore (Gregory) Ureche, says
clearly that Locust was the son of
voivode Alexander[71].
Altogether, it is still too late.
III. 1. Survival. If Alexander the Legitimate left
Moldavia in 1471, he managed to stay alive in the Ottoman Empire for more than
thirty years[72]. This is
hard to explain. The Sultans would not have taken the chance of loosing a
hostage of great value. Still, rash acts were not unfamiliar to them[73].
The main reasons for the survival of Stephen’s offspring have to be seeked
among the Orthodox elite under Ottoman rule[74].
His protectors are to be found among the Greek Elite, among the
Kantakuzenes, in Ottoman service[75],
which needed such a figure from the “Orthodox Free World”, for
p. 162
their
prestige and political survival. Another safe place for him might have existed
inside the Patriarchate, who, since 1453, had lost control over Moldavia and
could have viewed this Alexander as the one who was to restore its power in
Suceava[76].
By way of the Kantakuzenes, to whom he probably got related by marriage, he
ended up a benefactor of Mount Athos[77].
The support given to him by the Patriarchate would explain why even though at
peace with Istanbul, Moldavia refused to reaccept and reaknowledge after the
events in 1453 or those in later years, the patriarch’s authority until 1513[78].
But, on the other hand, Stephen, seemingly, had taken his mind from Alexander
“since the day he
p. 163
left”.
He had quickly promoted the other Alexander and Peter[79].
Also Peter Rareº considered his son Alexander sent to Istanbul as good as dead
(1542)[80].
If the Polish version of Locust’s
history, which explicitly called his father Alexander,
voivode of the Moldavians, is not
more distorted than the others, then the peace of 1486 could have brought
Alexander back to Moldavia. Here he died and his wife, pregnant with Stephen
the Locust, was chased off[81].
Otherwise, Alexander died after his failed attempts of 1504 and 1505[82].
The second possibility is more likely.
The first one would have meant a Locust
at least a decade older than the age given to him by eyewitnesses (30 years)[83].
It would have required that the Turks return a hostage to his country before
his time to rule[84]. Naturally,
things can change.
p. 164
III. 2. A Line. Named after the grandfather on
his mother’s side, as the elderly Alexander, the son of Stephen and Marushka,
had been christened after the grandfather on his father’s side, Alexander, son
of Stephen and Evdochia, had to be sent hostage in the late summer of 1471. At
that time[85], the most
favourable ruler in the region towards Stephen was his former opponent Mathias
Corvinus of Hungary. It was a drastic change compared to Alexander’s years of
conception and birth (1463-1464)[86].
In Istanbul, he lived for more than three decades, protected by the
Kantacuzenes and the Patriarchate.
Immediately after the departure, Stepphen installed as his successor the
son of Marushka. Perhaps the only political figure “through God’s grace his
father’s son”, he became Stephen’s associate after 1475[87].
In 1489, he married Mary, probably a daughter of Bartholomew Drágffy, leader of
the family of the Drãgoºeºti, the old
arch-rivals of the Bogdãneºti, the
dynasty in power since the 1360’ in Moldavia[88].
At that time,
p. 165
Drágffy,
the future voivode of Transylvania (1493-1498), was cupbearer of Matthias[89].
This Alexander made his career almostt against legitimacy. He was
Stephen’s favourite. Stephen himself was an illegitimate son of Bogdan II, and
he too had been “imposed as successor” at a very young age[90].
All may have backfired when Mary Voichiþa, mother of Bogdan, born in 1479,
established herself as Lady of Moldavia[91].
Initially Bogdan (Bogdan–Vlad by his full name), was supposed to became prince
of Walachia, but this never happened[92].
In 1495, with Ottoman support, the son and co-regent of Vlad the Monk, Radu,
known as “the Great”, became prince. Signs of hostility towards this succession
p. 166
from
Moldavia, since 1486 once again a tribute payer to the Empire, are unknown[93].
One year later, in 1496, Alexander the Illegitimate died.
He was buried in the monastery of Bisstriþa, in the land under his direct
control, not in the monastery of Putna, like the other sons of Stephen[94].
Until Peter Rareº, who, though very careful in reinforcing his bound with
Stephen, “broke off with tradition”, establishing Probota as necropolis, the
princes were buried in Putna[95].
Peter, Alexander’s “partner” of 1471, had been buried too in Putna (1480).
Curiously, he rests together with Bogdan, son of Stephen the Great and of Mary
of Mangop, a six year old, who died before him in 1479, under ome tombstone,
made soon after Peter’s death[96].
Meanwhile, the other Alexander was esstablishing himself as an important
figure inside the Ottoman power-structure. Before 1504 and after Stephen’s
death in 1505, he tried to get the crown. He failed, but seems to have outlived
his defeat[97] in order to
get his son, the future, Stephen the Locust, into Ottoman service. Another son,
Iani (John) tried his luck in Venice[98].
He too was unsuccessful. Only Stephen the Locust made it.
p. 167
III. 3. At the End. The campaign led by Suleiman
the Magnificent (1521-1566) against Moldavia enabled him to replace, with significant
internal help, Peter, Stephen’s illegitimate son (1538)[99].
Peter had gained in 1527 the favour of the Moldavian Church. It was impossible
for Locust to do the same[100].
Now the story is nearing its end.
On the throne, Locust placed
quickly his son Alexander as successor. The wheel seemed to have turned[101].
Due to his previous life, Locust was
expected to be the Sultan’s
p. 168
man, a
representative of the orthodox hard-liners around the Patriarchate[102].
He wasn’t. He initiated contacts with the Habsburgs, the Catholic World, and
prepared to regain the territories lost by Moldavia to the Ottomans[103].
He was killed by the boyars[104].
It is this light, half subjective, half objective, of his anti-ottoman attempt,
that makes him a true scion of Stephen the Great. And this remains only a story[105].
p. 169
Hostages and Prestige. It is a mixture that could hardly woork, at least in theory. In the long
run, the response is more reassuring. It did not. Before one takes a look at
the Moldavian case, Serbia’s dying experience under Djuradj (George) Brankoviæ
(1427-1456), while trying to keep a balance, as difficult as such undertaking
proved to be, between East and West, is an Orthodox example worth to be
remembered[106].
When Stephen the Great went to war wiith the Ottoman Empire, after 16
years of reign (1457-1473), he had drawn closer the chronological limit of
political survival as a neighbour to the Sultan. Before him, the rulers from
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Stephen Tomaš (1443-1461) and Stephan Vukæiæ
(1448-1466) “had resisted” for 18 years[107].
But Stephen the Great had got vulnerable, in the most delicate area of
succession, in a manner unfamiliar to Moldavia, for she was still a young
tributary state of the Ottoman Empire (1455-1456)[108].
His legitimate heir, Alexander, was a hostage in Istanbul. And the father went
to war, not signing peace until 1486, and still the son outlived him, for he
had found protection amongst the Orthodox survivors within the Empire, for
Stephen had grown into a threat, hard to annihilate from outside the Moldavian
political space[109].
This is the scenario that age, documents, context and
speculations have led us to. It is neither cruel, nor overly ellaborated. It is
only medieval, suiting both victory and defeat in Moldavia past the succession
of 1504. It opens up the story of a survivor[110].
Other articles published in
our periodicals by Alexandru Simon:
La place chrétienne
de la foi des Roumains de Transylvanie en 1574
For this material,
permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for
educational purposes and personal use.
Whether you intend to
utilize it in scientific purposes, indicate the source: either this web address
or the Annuario. Istituto Romeno di cultura e ricerca umanistica 6-7
(2004-2005), edited by Ioan-Aurel Pop, Cristian Luca, Florina Ciure, Corina
Gabriela Bãdeliþã, Venice-Bucharest 2005.
No permission is granted for
commercial use.
© ªerban Marin,
October 2005, Bucharest, Romania
Last Updated:
July 2006
Back to Homepage
Annuario 2004-2005
Back to
Istituto Romeno’s Publications
[1] A
small repertory, directly, but mainly indirectly linked to the subject, is made
of the following sources: Constantin Esarcu, O relaþiune contimpuranã ineditã despre ªtefan cel Mare [An
Inedited Contemporary Information on Stephen the Great] (=Piscia), in “Columna lui Traian”, VII, 1876, p. 378; Jan D³ugosz/ Joannes
Dlugossis [seu Longini], Historiae Polonicae libri XII, in Idem, Opera Omnia, vol. XIV, edited by Alexandri Przezdziecki, Cracoviae 1878
(=J. D³ugosz, op. cit.), p. 644;
[Marino Sanudo], I diarii di Marino
Sanuto (MCCCCXCVI-MDXXXIII) dall’ autografo Marciano ital. cl. VII cod.
CDXIX-CDLXXVII, published by Guglielmo Berchet, Frederico Stefani,
Nicolò Barozzi, Rinaldo Fulin and Marco Allegri, vol. VI, 1504-1507,
edited by G. Berchet, Venice 1881-1882, col. 50 (1504); Eudoxiu de Hurmuzaki, Documente privitoare la istoria românilor [Documents
regarding the History of the Romanians] (=E. de Hurmuzaki, Documente), vol. II/1,
1451-1575, edited by Nicolae Densuºianu, Bucharest 1891, no. 153, p. 197,
no. 155, p. 200 (1538); Ibidem, vol.
XV/1, Acte ºi scrisori din arhivele oraºelor ardelene Bistriþa, Braºov,
Sibiu,1376-1600 [Documents and Letters from the Archives of the
Transylvanian Towns of Bistriþa, Braºov, Sibiu], edited by Nicolae Iorga,
Bucharest 1911, no. 187, p. 105 (1480), no. 208, p. 116 (1481); Ioan Bogdan, Documentele lui ªtefan cel Mare [The
Documents of Stephen the Great] (=I. Bogdan, Documente ªtefan), vol.
II, Hrisoave ºi cãrþi domneºti,
1493-1503. Tractate, acte omagiale, solii, privilegii comerciale,
salv-conducte, scrisori, 1457-1503 [Homages, Embassies, Commercial
Privileges, Letters], Bucharest 1913, no. 139, p. 312 (1471); Acta et epistolae relationum Transylvaniae
Hungariaeque cum Moldavie et Valachia (=Fontes
Rerum Transylvanicarum), vol. I, 1468-1540,
collegit et eddidit Andreas Veress, Budapest 1914 (=Acta), no. 245, p. 290, no. 247, p. 293, no. 252, p. 297 (1538);
Grigore G. Tocilescu, 534 documente
slavo-române din Þara Româneascã ºi Moldova privitoare la legãturile cu
Ardealul. 1346-1603. Din arhivele oraºelor Braºov ºi Bistriþa [534 Slavic-Romanian
Documents from Walachia and Moldavia concerning Their Relations with
Transylvania. From the Archives of the Towns of Braºov and Bistriþa] (=Documente, 1346-1603), Bucharest 1931
[1905], no. 130, p. 126 (1481); Damian P. Bogdan, Pomelnicul mãnãstirii Bistriþa [The Diptych of the Monastery of
Bistriþa] (=Pomelnicul), Bucharest
1941, p. 86; Repertoriul monumentelor ºi
obiectelor de artã din timpul lui ªtefan cel Mare [The Repertory of
Monuments and Artifacts from the Time of Stephen the Great] (=Repertoriul), edited by Mihail Berza,
Bucharest 1958, no. 7, p. 91 (1491), no. 14, p. 143 (1496), no. 85, p. 291
[post 1481], no. 152, p. 401 (1491); Letopiseþul
anonim [The Anonymous Chronicle]; Cronica
moldo-germanã [The Moldo-German Chronicle], in Cronicile slavo-române din secolele XV-XVI publicate de Ioan Bogdan
[The Slavic-Romanian Chronicles from the XVth-XVIth
Centuries published by Ioan Bogdan], edited by P. P. Panaitescu, Bucharest 1959
(=Cronicile), p. 16, p. 29, p. 34
(ante 1502); Documenta Romaniae Historica (=DRH), series A. Moldova, vol. II, 1449-1486,
edited by Leon ªimanschi, Georgeta Ignat, Dumitru Agache, Bucharest 1976, no.
119, p. 169 (1464), no. 135, p. 193 (1466), no. 176, p. 261 (1471), p. 462
(index); Ibidem, vol. III, 1487-1504,
edited by Constantin Cihodaru, Ion Caproºu, Nicolae Ciocan, Bucharest 1984, no.
242, pp. 442-443 (1499), p. 560 (index); Theodor [Spandugino] Spandounes, On the Origin of the Ottoman Emperors (=Theodor Spandounes), edited by Donald M. Nicol, Cambridge 1997, p.
46. The main divergent views of this topic belong to ªtefan Sorin Gorovei, Note istorice ºi genealogice cu privire la
urmaºii lui ªtefan cel Mare [Historical and Genealogical Notes on Stephen
the Great’s Successors] (=ªt. S. Gorovei, Note),
in “Studii ºi materiale de istorie medie”, VIII, 1975, pp. 187-192; Constantin
Cihodaru, Pretendenþi la tronul Moldovei
între anii 1504 ºi 1538 [Contenders to the Moldavian Throne between the
Years 1504 and 1538] (=C. Cihodaru, Pretendenþi),
in “Anuarul Institutului de Istorie ºi Arheologie «A. D. Xenopol»”, XIV, 1977,
pp. 104-109. Complementary data is offered by Tahsin Gemil, Românii ºi Otomanii în secolele XIV-XVI [The Romanians and the Ottomans in
the XIVth-XVIth Centuries], Bucharest 1991, p. 157;
Adrian Andrei Rusu, Ioan de Hunedoara ºi
românii din vremea sa. Studii [John Hunyadi and the Romanians of his Tims.
Studies], Cluj-Napoca, 1999, p. 23 (the brothers John-Janko, the general, and
John Hunyadi, his side-kick); Constantin Rezachevici, Cronologia domnilor din Þara Româneascã ºi Moldova, a. 1324-1881
[The Chronology of the Princes of Transylvania and Moldavia, a. 1324-1881] (=C.
Rezachevici, Cronologia), vol. I, Secolele XIV-XVI [XIVth-XVIth
Centuries], Bucharest 2001, p. 94, p. 101, p. 546 (Bogdan and Bogdan–Vlad, two
of Stephen’s sons), pp. 567-569; Eugen Denize, Stephen the Great and His Reign (=E. Denize, Stephen), Bucharest 2004, pp. 69 sqq.
[2] The
only Romanian analysis of the Ottoman political mechanism of hostages, and
probably also the most extensive one in European litterature, is a chapter of
the PhD Thesis of Dan–Ioan Mureºan (Idem, Le
Patriarcat œcuménique et les Principautés roumaines. Droit nomocanonique
et idéologie politique (XIVe-XVIe siècles)
(=D.–I. Mureºan, Patriarcat), vol.
II, Paris 2005, pp. 549-619 (to be published in “Turcica. Revue d’études
turques”), to whom we would like to thank again for having allowed us to
consult his work.
[3] See also, in the current issue of the “Annuario
dell’Istituto Romeno di Cultura e Ricerca Umanistica di Venezia”, the study of
Ion Toderaºcu, Stefano il Grande – anni
di pace e anni di guerra.
[4] For
the question at hand, see also Andrei Pippidi’s approach in his Tradiþia politicã bizantinã în þãrile române
în secolele XVI-XVIII [The Byzantine Political Tradition in the Romanian
Countries in the XIVth-XVIIIth Centuries], 2nd
revised edition, Bucharest 2002, pp. 145-146.
[5] ªt. S.
Gorovei, Moldova în “Casa Pãcii”. Pe marginea
izvoarelor privind primul secol de relaþii moldo-otomane [Moldavia in the
“House of Peace”. Considerations on the Sources regarding the First Century of
Moldavian-Ottoman Relations], in “Anuarul Institutului de Istorie ºi Arheologie
«A. D. Xenopol»”, XVII, 1980, pp. 648-652; Ieana Cãzan, E. Denize, Marile puteri ºi spaþiul românesc în
secolele XV-XVI [The Great Powers and the Romanian Space in the XVth-XVIth
Centuries], Bucharest 2001, pp. 192-193, note 226.
[6] M.
Sanudo, Diarii, vol. VI, col. 50; E.
de Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. VIII, 1376-1600, Bucharest 1894, no. 50, p.
40; Kenneth M. Setton, The Papacy and
Levant (1204-1571), vol. III, Philadelphia, 1984, p. 37.
[7] One is
allowed to refer on this topic to the thesis of D.-I. Mureºan, Patriarcat, vol. I, p. 378 sqq.
[8]
Details and extensive bibliography ar to be found in C. Rezachevici’s, Cronologia, vol. I, pp. 550 sqq.
[9] M.
Sanudo, Diarii, col. 50; E. de
Hurmuzaki, op. cit., no. 50, p. 40;
Tãutu’s career, who’s cover for the negotiations was the delivery of the
tribute, in ªt. S. Gorovei, Activitatea
diplomaticã a marelui logofãt Ioan Tãutu [The Diplomatic Activity of the
Grand Chancellor Ioan Tãutu], in “Suceava. Anuarul Muzeului Judeþean Suceava”,
V, 1978, pp. 237-251; such mention would not have lacked from the report sent
from Buda (21 August 1504), containing Moldavian news from the doctor, Leonardo
Masari, of the late Stephen (2nd of July 1504). It was a close fight
in which element counted. The Ottomans could have hardly kept hostage and
threatened through him Bogdan succession, somebody with significant legitimacy
problems in front of the heir desired by Istanbul’s former stubborn rival,
Stephen (the last “Ottoman years” of Stephen’s rule, in E. Denize’s study, ªtefan cel Mare ºi rãzboiul otomano-veneþian
din 1499-1503 [Stephen the Great and the Ottoman-Venetian War of
1499-1503], in “Revista de istorie”, XLI, no. 10, 1988, pp. 977-991).
[10] M.
Sanudo, Diarii, vol. VI, col. 50; E.
de Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. VIII,
no. 50, p. 41; C. Rezachevici, Cronologia,
vol., I, pp. 549-550; for the events surrounding Stephen’s death, P. P.
Panaitescu, Contribuþii la istoria lui
ªtefan cel Mare [Contributions to the History of Stephen the Great], in
“Analele Academiei Române. Memoriile Secþiunii Istorice”, IIIrd
series, XV, 1933-1934, pp. 77-78; in 1504, there were three other contenders to
the throne, one from inside Moldavia, Luca Arbore, the “governor” of Suceava
(Nicolae Grigoraº, ªtefan vodã cel Tânãr
ºi Luca Arbore [Stephen the Young and Lucas Arbore], in “Anuarul
Institutului de Istorie ºi Arheologie «A. D. Xenopol»”, IX, 1972, pp. 1-26;
Maria Magdalena Székely, Obârºia lui Luca
Arbore. O ipotezã genealogicã [The Origins of Luca Arbore.
A Genealogical Hypothesis], in In honorem
Paul Cernovodeanu, edita Violeta Barbu, Bucharest 1998, pp. 419-430, who
seems to have arisen only late in the race, one in Poland, and one in Hungary,
quickly abandoned by Wladyslaw II Jagiello, who started backing-up Bogdan
(until the end of the year, see also E. de Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. XV/1, no. 308, p. 169, no. 314, p. 170).
[11] M.
Sanudo, Diarii, vol. VI, col. 50; E.
de Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. XV/1,
no. 314, p. 170 (on the 27 January 1504, correct 1505, János Bornemissa,
Ladislas II treasurer; wanted to know from the Council of Braºov if Bogdan, who
had succeeded in defeating his rival, which would be a miracle due his
opponents formidable strength and also due the recent disappearance of such
great monarch [Stephen]. There is no reason to change the date of the document
into 1514 (as C. Cihodaru, Pretendenþi,
p. 107, has done), given the fact that, until now (but see In honorem Ioan Caproºu.
Studii de istorie [In Honorem Ioan
Caproºu. Historical Studies], edited by Lucian Leuºtean, M. M. Székely,
Mihai–Rãzvan Ungureanu, Petronel Zahariuc, Iaºi 2002, p. 522, for the surprises
that may occur over the next years), there is no known document from Bogdan as
a ruler until February 1505 (Documente
privind istoria României [Documents regarding the History of Romania] (=DIR), series A, veacul XVI [The XVIth Century], vol. I, 1501-1550, edited by Ion Ionaºcu, L.
Lãzãrescu–Ionescu, Barbu Câmpina, Eugen Stãnescu, David Prodan, Mihai Roller,
Bucharest 1953, no. 37, p. 43), and, specially, because the mention of Bogdan’s
joint rule with his father, who had recently passed away (E. de Hurmuzaki, Documente, no. 314, p. 170), would make no
sense ten years later, not even two years later (plus, changing a 4 into a 7, and therefore changing the year into 1507, as attractive as it
may appear, is unlikely, because, that very year the conflict between Moldavia and
Walachia, who was supporting a contender to Bogdan’s crown, had reached a
regional, see continental, importance, that would not allow the rather simple
formula used by Bornemissa, a subject of king Wladyslaw II who was to play, in
1507, a key role in avoiding the final confrontation between the two Romanian
States; see also M. Sanudo, Diarii,
vol. VII, 1507-1509, edited by R.
Fulin, Venice 1882, col. 8, col. 120, col. 180, col. 232), but into 1505 (as
already suggested by the editor of the document in question, N. Iorga, in E. de
Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. XV/1, p.
370), a few months after the dramatic events of June-July 1504 (Fryderik Papée,
Acta Alexandri Regis Poloniae, magni
ducis Lithuaniae, etc. (1501-1506), Monument Medii aevi res gestas Poloniae
illustrantia, XIX), Cracoviae 1927 (=Acta
Alexandri), no. 260-263, pp. 430-433; no 274-275, pp. 454-456, Veniamin
Ciobanu, Þãrile Române ºi Polonia.
Secolele XIV-XVI [The Romanian Countries and Poland. XIVth-XVIth
Centuries], Bucharest 1985, pp. 101-104; Poland seemed to have accepted the
idea of a Moldavian ruler imposed by the Ottomans as long as Krakow’s interests
were, extensively, respected).
[12]
Bogdan’s rule was still very shaky, inside and outside of Moldavia’s boarders.
By offers, messages sent as far as Italy, black-mails, involving even a
possible opening of Moldavia’s gates to the Turks (this was directed foremost
at Hungary), he tried to establish himself as a respected figure, while his
main external supporter, Wladyslaw, was in serious doubts over his capacities,
although, for time being, he had put under guard his former candidate for the
throne of Moldavia (M. Sanudo, Diarii,
vol. VI, col. 50, col. 98; E. de Hurmuzaki, Documente,
vol. XV/1, no. 306, p. 166, no. 308, p. 169; Acta, no. 59, p. 72, no. 61, p. 74). Under this circumstances as
the Moldavian crisis was prolonging, the Turks had no reason to give up on the
other son of Stephen (as a deal with Bogdan seemed less probably and mainly
less profitable than the success of their own candidate), event though Bayezid
had to avoid a direct confrontation. In this context, the Moldavian refugees in
Walachia and Walachia itself, an close ally to Poland, who had planned/who
where planning to the take over the throne of Moldavia, for it “had to remain in Christian hands”, but
who’s prince Radu was also a loyal subject to the sultan, made a suiting
combination for a indirect attempt to replace Bogdan with Stephen’s son from
Istanbul (Acta Alexandri, no. 83, p. 104, no. 114, p. 167, no.
123, p. 177, no. 130, p. 196, no. 168, p. 285; E. de Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. II/2, 1451-1510, edited by N. Densuºianu,
Bucharest 1891, no. 312, p. 321, see also no. 448, p. 557; in November 1504,
when things started, once again, to heat up in the area, Radu was contributing
to the anxiety in Buda stating that Bogdan was preparing an army and nobody
knew where he was heading towards; M. Sanudo, Diarii, col. 98).
[13] E. de
Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. XV/1, no.
314, p. 170 (the battle took place probably before the end of January 1505); it
is not far fetched, on the contrary, to think that the army (35-40.000;
according to Radu; M. Sanudo, Diarii,
vol. VI, col. 98) gathered by Bogdan in November, was supposed to confront the
other son of Stephen who came to Moldavia in winter. It was a rather unusual
time for battle. In Moldavia, this had happened before in January in 1475, in
1485. Both times the situation was quite desperate and it involved a clash with
the Ottomans (Archivio di Stato di Venezia (=ASV), Senato Secreta. Dispacci Constantinopoli, fz. [filza] 1A (1484-1567. Dispacci al Senato di Pietro
Bembo Bailo, 1483, 16 gennaio m. v.-1484, 9 febbraio m. v.), doc. 20a (9
February 1484 more veneto); Aºik Paºa Zade;
Mehmed Neºri, in Cronici turceºti
privind þãrile române. Extrase [Turkish Chronicles regarding the Romanian
Countries. Extracts] (=Cronici turceºti), vol. I, Secolul XV-mijlocul secolului
XVII [XVth Century-Middle of the XVIIth Century],
edited by Mihail Guboglu, Mustafa Ali Mehmet, Bucharest 1966, pp. 95-96, pp.
127-128; only once (1475) had Stephen been successful, in the long run (a few
references are still of value here; ASV, Senato
Secreta. Dispacci Constantinopoli, reg. 32, 1484-1485, c. 148r (16th of May 1485); Aºik Paºa Zade, p. 96, p. 128).
[14] Iulian
Marinescu, Bogdan III cel Orb, domn al
Moldovei (1504-1517) [Bogdan III the Blind, Prince of Moldavia
(1504-1517)], Bucharest 1910, pp. 17-31; DIR.
A, veacul XVI, vol. I, no. 37, pp. 42-43; N. Iorga, Istoria românilor [The History of the Romanians], edited by Vasile Neamþu,
Stelea Cheptea, Bucharest 1994 (=N. Iorga, Istoria
românilor), pp. 190-192; one of the intriguing facts about Bogdan is his
alleged blindness (one eye blind; monoclus).
Even tough medically it is a subject for discussion, his adversaries, the later
chronicles insisted on this disability which, in the best Byzantine monarchic
way, rendered him unfit to rule (A. D. Xenopol, Istoria românilor din Dacia Traianã [The History of the Romanians
from Trajan Dacia], vol. II, De la
întemeierea Þãrilor Române pânã la moartea lui Petru Rareº, 1546 [From the
Foundation of the Romanian States to the Death of Petru Rareº], edited by Nicolae Stoicescu, Maria
Simionescu, Bucharest 1987, p. 421, note 5; C. Rezachevici, Cronologia, vol. I, pp. 490, pp.
547-548). It is a problem that has to be add up to his difficult relation with
the Moldavian Church, until 1513 (see Cronica
Moldo-Rusã [The Moldo-Russian Chronicle], in Cronicile, pp. 158-159; Alexandru Simon, The Use of the “Gate of Christendom”. Hungary’s Mathias Corvinus and
Moldavia’s Stephen the Great Politics in the late 1400’s, in “Quaderni
della Casa Romena di Venezia”, no. 3, 2004, p. 224, note 184), to his rejection
of the patriarch of Constantinople, Joachim, who, in 1505, tried to make peace
with Moldavia (D.–I. Mureºan, Rêver
Byzance. Le dessin du prince Pierre Rareº de Moldavie pour libérer
Constantinopole, in “Études Byzantines et Post-Byzantines”, IV, 2003, pp.
229-230, note 39; Bogdan’s attitude towards the See of Constantinople as well
as to Moldavian Church, first of all its hard liners, changed only in
1513-1514). It is rather tempting to link this problems to the troubles of his
election as ruler of Moldavia, when his counter-part was backed up by Istanbul,
and very likely, in reason of the close political bound established between the
Orthodox Church, in captivity, and the Sultans (Halil İnalcık, The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch
under the the Ottomans, in “Turcica. Revue d’études turques”, XXIII, 1991,
pp. 407-436), by the Patriarchate; it is a “story” to which we shall return,
politically, over the next pages (more exactly notes).
[15]
Petricã Dumitrache, Politica externã a
lui Bogdan al III-lea (1504-1517) [The Foreign Policy of Bogdan III
(1504-1517)], in “Anuarul Institutului de Istorie «A. D. Xenopol»”, XXXIX-XL,
2002-2003, pp. 61-77.
[16] For
instance, as an omen (for a little known rule), Bogdan III’s first council was
identical with the last one known from Stephen’s rule (DIR, A, veacul XVI, vol. I, no. 37, p. 43; DRH, A, vol. III, no. 295, p. 529), despite the fact that two key
political figures, Arbore, mainly, and Tãutu, had very suspect attitudes in
1504 (year from which we know, until now, no document issued by Stephen or
Bogdan; DIR, A, veacul XVI, vol. I,
p. IX; DRH, A, vol. III, p. LVII). In
regard to this subject, one can use also, with profit, the data collected, for
a later period, by Neagu Djuvara, Les
grands Boïars ont-ils constitué dans les Principautés Roumaines une
véritable oligarchie institutionnelle et héréditaire?, in “Südostforschungen”,
XLVI, 1987, pp. 1-56; M. M. Székely, Sfetnicii
lui Petru Rareº [Peter Rareº’s Counsellors], Iaºi 2001, pp. 467-468, pp.
478-481.
[17] C.
Cihodaru, Pretendenþi, pp. 109-118; Bogdan’s rule “is crushed”
between those of Stephen and Peter.
[18] E. de
Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. II/1, no.
31, p. 29; DIR, A, veacul XVI, vol.
I, no. 84-104, pp. 88-108; N. Iorga, Istoria
românilor, vol. IV, p. 208, p.
216.
[19] A few
guide-lines can be found in Constantin C. Giurescu, Dinu C. Giurescu, Istoria românilor [History of the Romanians], vol. II, Bucharest 1976,
pp. 262-272; new researches are naturally compulsory.
[20] Acta, no. 249, p. 295 (we should not
forget that, afterwards, simply called Locust,
Sandrinus Moldavus; Acta, no. 252, p. 297); comments
throughout time regarding this information: N. Iorga, Istoria românilor, vol. IV, p. 284; ªt. S. Gorovei, Domnia lui ªtefan Lãcustã [The Reign of
Stephen the Locust], (=ªt. S. Gorovei, ªtefan
Lãcustã), in Petru Rareº, edited
by L. ªimanschi, Bucharest 1978, pp. 162-163; C. Rezachevici, Cronologia, vol. I, pp. 567-568; For
Peter’s rise, see Ion Toderaºcu, Înscãunarea
[The Enthronement], in Petru Rareº,
pp. 47-56; Petre ª. Nãsturel, Întregiri
la istoria lui Petru Rareº [Complements to the History of Peter Rareº], in “Revista Istoricã”,
new series, VIII, no. 7-8, 1997, p. 497, note 1; for Stephen the Young, see ªt.
S. Gorovei, Muºatinii [The Family of
the Mushats], Bucharest 1976, pp. 75-81; Alexandru V. Boldur, Privire generalã asupra domniei lui
ªtefãniþã, fiul lui Bogdan [An Overview of the Reign of Stephen the Young,
son of Bogdan], in “Anuarul Institutului de Istorie ºi Arheologie «A. D.
Xenopol»”, XXVII, 1990, pp. 215-220. It is rather obvious that there is almost
no information left unused by the Romanian scholars in regard to this
particular topic.
[21] See
ªtefana Simionescu, Noi date despre situaþia internã ºi externã a
Moldovei în anul 1538 într-un izvor inedit [New Data on Moldavia’s Interior
and Foreign Situation in 1538, from a Unpublished Source], in “Studii. Revistã de istorie”, XXV, no. 3, 1972, pp. 232-233;
ªt. S. Gorovei, Note, pp. 187-188; C.
Rezachevici, Cronologia, vol. I, p.
568; for his “Ottoman education and career”, see also E. de Hurmuzaki, Documente, supl. II/1, Documente culese din archive ºi biblioteci polone,
1510-1600 [Documents Collected from Polish Archives and Libraries,
1510-1600], edited by I. Bogdan, Bucharest 1893, no. 14, p. 18, no. 79, p. 112;
Acta, no. 116, p. 155; ªt. S. Gorovei, ªtefan Lãcustã, p. 163. His first attempt to the crown was in 1527.
In 1517, he was too young (at best 9 years old), and so was the son of Bogdan
(very likely of the same age), but the ottoman chances in a potential battle of
the minors, were quite small (for the context, Horia I. Ursu’s work, Moldova în contextul politic european
(1517-1527) [Moldavia in the International Political Context, 1517-1527],
Bucharest 1972, pp. 16-18). Plus, if the son of Alexander was to be crowned, he
had to rule (until he was 15), under a “legal guardian”, which was not in
Istanbul’s best interest (for data and details: C. Rezachevici, Cronologia, vol. I, pp. 553-554).
[22] DIR, A, veacul XVI, vol. I, no. 437, p.
483 (1546; the document was issued four month before Peter’s death, on the 3rd
of September); ªt. S. Gorovei, ªtefan
Lãcustã, pp. 162 (note 17), pp. 169-174. For example, Sigismund of Poland,
although in private referred to Stephen the Locust, as to ªtefan Alexandrovic (=Stephen, son of Alexander), avoided such
mention in the treaty concluded with him (E. de Hurmuzaki, Documente, supl.
II/1, no. 82, p. 116, no. 87, p. 122).
[23] By
filiation, we mean not so much the actual blood relation, for, legitimate or
illegitimate, there were no children left from Stephen’s (born around 1438; L.
ªimanschi, O cumpãnã a copilãriei lui
ªtefan cel Mare: Reuseni, 15 octombrie 1451 [A Crossroad in Stephen the
Great’s Childhood: Reuseni, the 15th of October 1451], in “Anuarul
Institutului de Istorie ºi Arheologie «A. D. Xenopol»”, XIX,1982, pp. 196-197;
no legitimate son of his was born after 1480; it’s hard to believe, given his
age and life style, the previous decades of war, that in the 1490’s several
illegitimate sons were born, that could have tried their luck in 1538; ªt. S.
Gorovei, Note, pp. 185-193), but the
claim, the “father” who supports it (in this respect, he can only be compared
to Alexander the Good; C. Rezachevici, Cronologia,
vol. I, pp. 476-499, pp. 513-525).
[24] DIR, A, veacul XVI, vol. I, no. 356, p.
393 (1540; in the document, his father’s name and a word after voivode have been erased by men or time,
so we now know his title under a reconstructed form Din mila lui Dumnezeu, noi ªtefan voievod, fiul <lui ªtefan>
voievod <cel Bãtrân>, domn al Þãrii Moldovei [Through God’s
Grace, We Stephen voivode, son of <Stephen> voivode <the Old>
prince of the Land of Moldavia]), no. 357, p. 394 (1540; this document, and the
following, support the reconstruction by containing, the unaltered title), no.
358, p. 395 (1540), no. 359, p. 396 (1540), no. 360, p. 397 (1540), no. 363, p.
399 (1540), no. 364, p. 401 (1540).
[25] This
is probably why the new prince talked about himself, against all biological
evidence, that he is the son of Stephen, not of Alexander (Acta, no. 249, p. 295; DIR,
A, veacul XVI, vol. I, no. 356-360, pp. 393-397, no. 363-364, pp. 399-401).
Being an offspring of Stephen seems to have been the shortest way to the crown
in the competition with Peter’s, born in the late 1480, form of legitimacy.
Peter seems not to have been well known as Stephen’s son until 1527, staying in
a sort o dynastic “hide-out”, assured also, in fact or only in text, by the
Church (Macarie, in Cronicile, p. 95; ªt. S. Gorovei, Petru Rareº (1527-1538; 1541-1546) (=ªt.
S. Gorovei, Petru Rareº), Bucharest
1982, pp. 15-17). In this respect it is not unnecessary to remind the
hypothesis, born by Peter’s general knowledge, that he was the king of Moldavia, and not as generally
considered, Iani, a “brother” of Locust (N. Iorga, Pretendentul “Iani rege al Moldovei” (1516-1521) [The Pretender Iani,
king of Moldavia (1516-1521)] (=N. Iorga, Pretendentul
Iani), in “Revista Istoricã”, I , no. 2, 1915, p. 25), studying in Rome
(1516) in a Greek school (N. Grigoraº, Formaþia,
cultura ºi începutul domniei lui Petru Rareº [The Upbringing, Culture and the
Beginning of Peter Rareº’s Reign], in “Revista de istorie”, XXXVIII, no. 7,
1985, p. 651). Still, putting aside all possible speculations, it was a battle
for the success in the present, not for the justices or injustices in the past
(see also Dumitru Ciurea, Relaþiile
externe ale Moldovei în secolul al XVI-lea [Moldavia’s Foreign Relations in
the XVIth Century], in “Anuarul Institutului de Istorie ºi
Arheologie «A. D. Xenopol»”, X, 1973, pp. 6-15).
[26] See
also C. Rezachevici, Originea ºi domnia
lui Alexandru vodã Cornea (c. 21 decembrie 1540-9 sau 16 februarie 1541) dupã
documente inedite din Polonia [The Origin and Reign of Alexander Voivode
Cornea as Portrayed in Unpublished Documents from Poland], in “Revista
Istoricã”, new series, III, no. 7-8, 1992, pp. 504-505. On has also to add, in
regard to Alexander, status of voivode,
that one did not necessarily have to rule in order to take such a title. Petru
Rareº, who called Locust a thief, name which meant under dynastic
circumstances, impostor (DIR, A, veacul XVI, vol. I, no. 437, p.
483; C. Rezachevici, Cronologia, vol.
I, p. 568), pretender from an
illegitimate branch of the family (Ilie Corfus, Documente privitoare la istoria României culese din arhivele polone
[Documents concerning the History of Romania collected from Polish Archives],
[vol. I], Secolul al XVI-lea [The XVIth Century] (=I.
Corfus, Documente polone), Bucharest
1979, no. 85, p. 181, from 1553), asked, soon after his enthronement, the king
of Poland to cut the nostrils of Peter
the voivode [title which meant at least that he was a nephew of a prince,
the prince’s sons, in office or in exile, were generally called voivodes, but
only if they had been recognised as such by their father in his documents] who finds himself is inside the kingdom
(for sure, since 1510; I. Corfus, Pagini
de istorie româneascã în noi publicaþii poloneze [Pages of Romanian History
in New Polish, Publications], in “Anuarul Institutului de Istorie «A. D.
Xenopol»”, V, 1968, pp. 228-229; C.
Cihodaru, Pretendenþi, pp. 111-118;
ªt. S. Gorovei, Petru Rareº, pp.
15-17). While Bogdan contested this Peter’s status of a prince’s son or nephew
(E. de Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol.
II/2, no. 481, p. 614), Peter Rareº accepted it. Under these circumstances,
Peter could be another of Stephen’ sons. Still we have not found a document in
which this very simple and useful connection for the pretender is made.
Therefore Peter’s father should be looked up among the descendants of Peter
Aaron (1451-1452, 1454-1455, 1455-1457) or Elias I (1432-1433, 1435-1436,
1436-1442) living in Poland (see I. Bogdan, Documente
ªtefan, vol. II, no. 182, p. 458
[1501]).
[27] Theodor Spandounes, p. 46 (on his text,
see, in the current issue of the “Annuario dell’Istituto Romeno di Cultura e
Ricerca Umanistica di Venezia”, Gianluca Masi’s study, Stefano il Grande e la Moldavia nei “Commentari” di Andrea Cambini e
Theodoro Spandugino Cantacuzeno); C. Rezachevici, Cronologia, vol. I, pp. 568-569, p. 589); “Wishful thinking” is not
excluded for the matter.
[28] ªt. S.
Gorovei, Note, p. 192; “Imperator
Turcharum Petrum vayuodam Moldauum ex Moldauia expulit, et propugnauit, fuit
autem idem Petrus vayuoda, filius bastardus condam Stephani vayoudae Moldauie,
qui vayuoda dimiserat in Curiam ipsius Imperatoris Turcharum unum filium
legitimum, Cui regnum Moldauie legittime pertinet, Itaque cum Turchus regnum
Moldauiae, ad vota sua subiygasset, et omnes Boiarones ei obedienciam
dedissent, Constituit illum filium legittimum, vayuodam in Moldauia, plus: istum vayuodam novum, dicunt esse totaliter
turcharum” (E. de Hurmuzaki, Documente,
vol. II/1, no. 155, p. 200).
[29] Peter
Schreiner, Eine unbekannte Beschreibung
der Pammakaristoskirche (Fethiye Camii) und weitere Texte zur Beschreibung
Konstantinopels, in “Dumbarton Oaks Papers”, XXV, 1971, pp. 221-226; D.–I.
Mureºan, Et Théodose dans tout ce la ?
(=D.–I. Mureºan, Théodose), in Închinare lui Petre ª. Nãsturel la 80 de ani
[Homage to Petre ª. Nãsturel on his 80th Birthday], edited by Ionel Cândea,
Paul Cernovodeanu, Gheorghe Lazãr), Brãila 2003, p. 284.
[30] D.–I. Mureºan, Patriarcat, vol. II, pp. 577-578; but, under one condition (with
multiple terms), if, after failing to gain the throne, he stayed alive (which
he probably did, according to Miganelli, first of all; Acta, no. 249, p. 295) and he kept his Orthodox faith and did not
go over to become a Muslim in order to achieve more power inside the Ottoman
System, as many other descendants of the Orthodox Dynasties, who had come under
the sultan’s (direct) control did (see Jadran Ferluga, Partis et courants politiques dans les cours balkaniques vers le milieu
du XVe siècle, in “Byzantinische Forschungen”, XI, 1987,
pp. 221-243; Theoharis Stavrides, The
Sultan of Vezirs: The Life and Times of Ottoman Grand Vezir Mahmud Pasha
Angeloviæ (1453-1474), Leiden–Boston–Köln 2001, pp. 220-234; Bojko I.
Bojoviæ, P. ª. Nãsturel, Les fondations
dynastiques du Mont Athos. Des dynastes serbes et de la sultana Mara aux
princes roumains (=B. I. Bojoviæ, P. ª. Nãsturel, Les fondations), in
“Revue des études Sud-Est européennes”, XLI, no. 1-4, 2003, pp. 149-175; this
was perhaps also a way to attempt, through a relative, or directly, as a pasha,
to takeover his family’s “estates”; see also Matei Cazacu, Dracula [suivi du “Capitaine
Vampire” une nouvelle roumaine par Marie Nizet (1879)], Paris 2004, pp.
46-47, pp. 52-56, pp. 98-100, pp. 288-298). Another thing has to be pointed
out. In the late 1510’s and early 1520’s, a Iani
(John), tried to find support in Venice for his claim of the Moldavian throne.
He also had to be, closely, linked to Alexander. In blood or only in princely
effort, he was Locust’s brother (E.
de Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. VIII,
no. 60-62, pp. 49-50; N. Iorga, Pretendentul
Iani, p. 25; C. Cihodaru, Pretendenþi, p. 109). Iani had close
ties to the influential Greek circles in the Empire. His coming to Italy
(before 1516) and then to Venice was probably the result of Alexander’s death,
or only of his choice for Stephen, who was entrusted to the sultan. Also, Iani
claimed that before reaching Venice, he had served under Maximilian I, which
makes his story more interesting and more unreliable. Still in 1503, Maximilian
had asked Stephen to allow Bogdan to accompany him on his projected coronation
as emperor in Rome (ªt. Simionescu, ªtiri
noi despre relaþiile diplomatice dintre ªtefan cel Mare ºi Maximilian I de
Habsburg [New Information on the Diplomatic Relations between Stephen the
Great and Maximilian I of Habsburg], in “Revista de istorie”, XXXIII, no. 12,
1980, pp. 1981-1986); it is a topic worth the historian’s time.
[31] DRH, A, vol. II, no. 135, p. 193 (1466);
Pomelnicul, p. 86 (one could suppose
also that, after the events of 1486-1504, Alexander, has been made son of
Marushka, in order to keep him in the monks prayers and at bay from any other
implications held by his being, as a legitimate son, of Stephen, hostage in
Istanbul, but this would be too complicated, when the easy solution would’ve
been to simply omit, the way that most of this problems were dealt with, in the
damnatio memoriae fashion, not too
unpopular in the monastic environment; for it see the case of the Moldavian
metropolitans in ªt. ª. Gorovei, Aux
débuts des rapports moldo-byzantins, in “Revue Roumaine d’Histoire”, XXIV,
no. 3, 1985, pp. 254-255); the formula used in the charter given to the
Monastery of Zographu, on Mount Athos, is eloquent. The monks had to remember
in their prayers “my Lady along side Me and our God given children,
Alexander and Helen” (Helen was married to Ivan, the son of Ivan the Great
in 1482; Dan Sluºanschi, Princess Olena’s
Safe-conduct through Poland and Lithuania (1482), in “Revue Roumaine
d’Histoire”, XXXIV, no. 1-2, 1995, pp. 195-199).
[32] See
Damian P. Bogdan, Pomelnicul de la
Bistriþa ºi rudeniile de la Kiev ºi de la Moscova ale lui ªtefan cel Mare
[The Pomelnic of Bistriþa and Stephen the Great’s relatives from Kyiv and
Moscow], in “Analele Academiei
Române. Memoriile Secþiunii Istorice”, IIIrd series, XXII, 1940, pp.
633-657 (on the other hand, see Petru Caraman, Cum nu trebuiesc editate vechile manuscrise slavo-române. Studiu
critico-lingvistic asupra ediþiei “Pomelnicului de la Bistriþa” ºi ale unor
ediþii de documente slavo-române (I) [About the Way Old Slavic-Romanian
Manuscripts Should Not Be Published. A Critical-Linguistical Study on the
Edition of the “Diptych from Bistriþa” and Other Editions of Slavic-Romanian
Documents], in “Revista de istorie socialã”, I, 1996, pp. 563-591; Ibidem (II), in “Revista de istorie
socialã”, II-III, 1997-1998, pp. 479-506), and, more recently, C. Rezachevici, ªtefan cel Mare, Ivan III, Sofia Tomincina
(Paleolog) ºi Elena Stefanovna Voloºanca – Legãturi dinastice ºi politice
[Stephen the Great, Ivan III, Sophie Tomincina (Paleologus) and Helen Stefanova
Voloºanca – Dynastic and Political Relations] (=C. Rezachevici, ªtefan), in “Studii ºi materiale de
istorie medie”, XXII, 2004, pp. 52-60.
[33] DRH, A, vol. II, no. 119, p. 169 (1464);
Letopiseþul anonim, p. 16; ªt. S.
Gorovei, Note, p. 192; C. Cihodaru, Pretendenþi, pp. 105-106, thought that
the naming of Alexander as Stephen’s successor might have not coincided with
the desires of the metropolitan Theoctist, a possibility rather far fetched for
that period (1464-1468), but not at all impossible for the later years (1471-1473).
After the fall of 1473, when Stephen engaged himself in the war against the
Ottoman Empire (ªt. S. Gorovei, 1473:
ªtefan, Moldova ºi lumea catolicã [1473: Stephen, Moldavia and the Catholic
World], in “Anuarul Institutului de Istorie «A. D. Xenopol»”, XXIX, 1992, pp.
75-84; E. Denize, ªtefan cel Mare ºi
luptele cu turcii. O nouã abordare [Stephen the Great and Fights with the
Turks. A New Approach], in “Studii ºi materiale de istorie medie”, XIX, 2001,
pp. 115-128), the metropolite, leader of the anti-unionist party (D.–I.
Mureºan, Isihasmul ºi prima etapã a
rezistenþei la deciziile conciliului florentin în Moldova (1442-1447)
[Heyschasm and the First Stage of the Resistance to the Decisions of the
Florentine Council in Moldavia (1442-1447)], in “Studia Universitatis
Babeº-Bolyai. Series Historiae”, XLIV, no. 1-2, 1999, pp. 54-56, pro-ottoman
almost directly, and the other bishops of Moldavia lost their seats in the
princely council, where they were not to return not even under the reign of
Peter Rareº (see DIR, A, veacul XVI,
vol. I, passim, and specially, no.
201-353 (1527-1538), pp. 228-391; DRH, A,
vol. II-III, passim; I[oan] Ursu, ªtefan cel Mare. Domn al Moldovei de la 12
aprilie 1457 pânã la 2 iulie 1504 [Stephen the Great. Prince of Moldavia
from the 12th of April 1457 to the 2nd of July 1504],
Bucharest 1925, p. 290; meanwhile they made only a brief appearance on the
political (explicit) level, in 1499, when the metropolitan and the bishops
signed the treaty with Poland; Documente
ªtefan, vol. II, no. 178, p. 434, p. 441).
[34] C.
Cihodaru, Pretendenþi, pp. 105-109;
C. Rezachevici, Cronologia, vol. I,
pp. 568-569; D.–I. Mureºan, Patriarcat,
vol. II, p. 579; it’s the case of the two Bogdan, alive at the same time, one
simply Bogdan (son of Mary of Mangop), the other Bogdan–Vlad (son of Mary
Voichiþa); Constantin Burac, Bogdan–Vlad,
domn al Moldovei (1504-1517) [Bogdan–Vlad, Prince of Moldavia (1504-1517)],
in “Anuarul Institutului de Istorie ºi Arheologie «A. D. Xenopol»”, XXIII, 1986
(=C. Burac, Bogdan–Vlad), pp.
314-317. In general, see Paul H. Stahl, Les
noms des princes roumains, in “Revue des Études Roumains”, XVII-XVIII,
1993, pp. 129-154 (with a relevant table of names).
[35] E. de
Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. XV/1, no.
208, p. 116; Documente ªtefan, vol.
II/2, no. 169, p. 379; see also Emil
Vârtosu, Titulatura domnilor ºi asocierea
la domnie în Þara Româneascã ºi Moldova (pânã în secolul al XVI-lea) [The
Titles of the Princes and the Associated Rule in Walachia and Moldavia until
the XVIth Century], Bucharest 1959, pp. 170-171, pp. 257-262.
Nevertheless, our knowledge in this matter remains rather restricted.
[36]
Regarding the two wives see Letopiseþul
anonim, pp. 16-18 (the marriage with Mary Voichiþa, in 1478, daughter of
Stephen the Great’s rival Radu the Beautiful, taken hostage, together with her
mother by the prince of Moldavia, in 1473, is not mentioned, this occurs only
in Cronica moldo-germanã, p. 34, who
places the marriage, by accident probably, on the day of Mary of Mangop’s
death, the 19th of December 1477); Nicolae Bãnescu, Contribution
à l’histoire de la Seignurie de Théodoro–Mangup en Crimée, in
“Byzantinische Zeitschrift”, XXXV, 1935, pp. 21-22; ªt. S. Gorovei, Note, p. 192; Idem, Alianþe dinastice ale domnilor Moldovei [Dynastic Alliances of the
Princes of Moldavia], in Românii în
istoria universalã, vol. II/1, Iaºi 1987, pp. 685-697; ªtefan Andreescu, Alianþe dinastice ale domniilor Þãrii
Româneºti (secolele XIV-XVI) [Dynastic Alliances of the Princes of
Walachia], in the same volume Românii în
istoria universalã, pp. 675-684. One other mention is to be made, once
again. It is unlikely (as we have to use moderate words) that, even given the
particularities of the Moldavian (Romanian in general) system of princely
succession, the Ottomans would have accepted an illegitimate son of Stephen as
hostage. As far as we know, until the 1600’ (C. Rezachevici, Cronologia, vol. I, passim) no such sons were asked for and received by the sultans
(even a character like Basarab The Litte
Impaler, prince of Walachia (1474, 1477-1481, 1481-1482), said that he had
remained loyal to the Christian cause even when he had to be in the Ottoman
Empire (as long as God kept me with the
Turks), as hostage most probably, was the legitimate son of Basarab II
(1442-1444); I. Bogdan, Documente
privitoare la relaþiile Þãrii Româneºti cu Braºovul ºi cu Þara Ungureascã în
secolele XV ºi XVI [Documents Regarding the Relations of Walachia with
Braºov and Hungary in the XVth and XVIth Centuries], vol.
I, 1413-1508, Bucharest 1905 (=I. Bogdan, Documente Braºov), no. 107, p. 135; C. Rezachevici, Cronologia, vol. I, p. 95, p. 111; see
also C. A. Stoide, Basarab al II-lea
(1442-1444), in “Anuarul Institutului de Istorie ºi Arheologie «A. D.
Xenopol»”, XVII, 1980, pp. 279-302). This is why, even if the Empire reinforced
its upper hand in the relation with Moldavia after 1513-1514 (E. de Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. II/3, 1475-1531, edited by N. Densuºianu,
Bucharest 1893, no. 157, p. 171; Marcel–Dumitru Ciucã, Din relaþiile Moldovei cu Imperiul Otoman în timpul domniei lui Bogdan
al III-lea [On the Relations between Moldavia and the Ottoman Empire during
the Reign of Bogdan III], in “Revista de istorie”, XXXI, no. 7, 1978, pp.
1253-1263; C. Rezachevici, Cronologia,
vol. I, p. 553, p. 576, p. 615), Stephen the Young, the illegitimate son of
Bogdan, was not sent as a hostage to Istanbul (we do not have to forget that
the context remains rather cloudily in written and in action), where the sultan
already had the future Stephen the Locust at his disposition (and therefore it
would have been rather in favour of Bogdan, who fathered other illegitimate
sons, to have one in Istanbul, to match the threat posed by the son of
Alexander; given the hostility between Moldavia and Poland a good place to
start an inquiry would be in the area of Ottoman-Polish relations; see Dariusz
Kolodzuejczyk, Ottoman-Polish Diplomatic
Relations (15th-18th Century). An annotated Edition of
“Ahdnames” and Other Documents, Leiden–Boston–Köln 2000, pp. 100-104).
[37] ªt. S.
Gorovei, Note, p. 192 (in regard to
the son of Stephen and Evdochia). Stephen’s grand father, in claim or fact, was
Alexander the Good (1400-1432), father/uncle of Bogdan II (C. Rezachevici, Cronologia, vol. I, pp. 513-517, pp.
535-537; C. Cihodaru, Alexandru cel Bun
(23 aprilie 1399-1 ianuarie 1432),
[Alexander the Good (23rd of April 1399-1st of January
1432], Kishinev 1990, pp. 258-261.
[38] One
could say that Alexios or even Olobei
(possible Greek and Tartar forms for Alexander, though they are most probably
not; ªt. S. Gorovei, “Maria Asanina
Paleologhina, Doamna Moldovlahiei” (I) [Maria Asanina Paleologhina, Lady of
Moldovlachia] (=ªt. S. Gorovei, Maria Asanina),
in “Studii ºi materiale de istorie medie”, XXII, 2004, p. 21, note 69, p. 29),
the father (also the name of her brother) of Mary of Mangop, could be a
solution for the christening of another baby Alexander, this time, the son of
Stephen and Mary of Mangop (see also Aleksandr A. Vasiliev, The Goths in the Crimea, Cambridge
[Mass.] 1936, pp. 219-223). Leaving aside the doubts arisen by such hypothesis,
we can only say that there is nor the time (war with Istanbul), nor the
documentary back-ground (all of Mary of Mangop’s, who died in 1477, sons appear
in documents; DRH, A, vol. II, no.
191, p. 286; ªt. S. Gorovei, Note, p.
192), to sustain this idea.
[39] For an
overview see Pomelnicul, p. 86; DRH, A, vol. II, p. 462 (index); Ibidem, vol. III, p. 560 (index).
[40] See
D.–I. Mureºan, Patriacat, vol. II,
pp. 552-561, p. 580; one case draws our attention. Vlad the Monk, prince of
Walachia (1481, 1482-1495), first appeared as a contender to the throne in
1457, after having been a monk (E. de Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. XV/1, no. 82, p. 47; C. Rezachevici, Cronologia, vol. I, p. 125). Inspite of
his age (born probably in the 1430’), the last of his sons, Vlad (the Young)
was born in 1494. We do not know when his sons were born or whether they were
sent hostages, or more exactly which one of them. Any way, two exceptions could
be supposed, given the special relation he enjoyed with the powerful Serbian
elite, which was in the Ottoman service (around 1487, he was named by the
sultana Mara, before her death, as her succesor as protector of the Serbian
foundations on Mount Athos, which he officaly became only after the death of
Mara’s sister, around 1492; B. I. Bojoviæ, P. ª. Nãsturel, Les fondations, pp. 166-167). First, because of his age an elderly
son could have been accepted as hostage (though none of his sons is mentioned
in the documents until 1487; DRH, series
B, Walachia, vol. I, 1247-1500, edited by P. P. Panaitescu
and Damaschin Mioc, Bucharest 1966, no. 181-201, pp. 293-322). The second
exception starts with an “if”. If this son was the future Radu the Great (who
first appears in the documents, in june 1487, together with his brother Vlad,
and then disappears, one month later, when Vlad is named for the first time voivode; Ibidem, no. 203, p. 327; no. 205, p. 331), the sultan returned him,
as sign of (rather unprecedented) good will in 1492, when Radu was also
installed as co-regent (his brother Vlad, had died at the beginning of 1488,
and since then, no other son of the Monk
had been mentioned in the documents; Ibidem,
no. 210-231, pp. 336-371; suddenly, together with the voivode Radu, another son of Vlad, Mircea, appears, in the same
document). In 1492, Vlad (even only for a moment; E. de Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. II/2, no. 303, p. 341),
alongside Stephen, had opposed the sultan who wanted to invade Transylvania (Ibidem, vol. VIII, no. 32, p. 28;
Alexandru Lapedatu, Vlad Vodã Cãlugãrul,
1482-1496. Monografie istoricã [The Voivode Vlad the Monk, 1482-1496. A
Historical Monography], Bucharest 1903 [first published in “Convorbiri
Literare”, XXXVI, 1902], p. 43; [Antonio Bonfini] Antonius de Bonfinis, Rerum ungaricarum decades cum dimidia,
editores Iosephus Fógel, Ladislaus Juhász, Bela Iványi, vol. IV, Lipsiae [Leipzig]
1941, p. 188). The exceptions are quite shaky. But, nothing is impossible in
these matters, given only the century.
[41] See T.
Gemil, Quelques observations concernant
la conclusion de la paix entre la Moldavie et l’Empire Ottoman (1486) et la
délimitation de leur frontière, in “Revue Roumaine d’Histoire”,
XXII, no. 3, 1983, pp. 225-238; Nagy
Pienaru, Tratatul de pace
moldo-otoman (1486) [The
Moldavian-Ottoman Peace Treaty (1486)], in Naþional
ºi universal în istoria românilor. Studii oferite Prof. dr. ªerban Papacostea
cu ocazia împlinirii a 70 de ani [National and Universal in the History of
the Romanians. Studies offered to Professor ªerban Papacostea on this 70th
Birthday], edited by Gheorghe Lazãr, Bucharest 1998, pp. 264-303.
[42] Repertoriul, no. 58, p. 254; ªt. S.
Gorovei, Note, p. 192; Mary Voichiþa
had one son, in 1479, Bogdan–Vlad. Mary of Mangop had twins, Elias, who died a
baby in 1473, Bogdan, who passed away in 1479.
[43] Which
does not come into complete contradiction with Theodor Spandounes (p. 46; see also Ovidiu Cristea, Pacea din 1486 ºi relaþiile lui ªtefan cel
Mare cu Imperiul Otoman în ultima parte a domniei [The Peace of 1486 and
Stephen the Great’s Relations with the Ottoman Empire during the Last Part of
his Reign], in “Revista Istoricã”, new series, XV, no. 3-4, 2004, pp. 32-34),
who, sympathetic to the cause of Stephen, in the first half of the XVIth
Century, stated that the Moldavian prince does not have to send hostages to
Istanbul. Alexander went to Istanbul before Stephen became widely known (see
also, J. D³ugosz, op. cit., p. 623)
and, because of his being there in 1486, there was no (obvious) reason for the
sultan to ask for another son. Therefore Spandounes does not know anything
about the hostages sent by Moldavia, as Alexander has grown out of the
condition of a hostage.
[44] Documente ªtefan, vol. II, no. 157-158,
pp. 355-357, no. 160, p. 360, no. 163, p. 365; Acta, no. 32-34, pp. 34-37;
Documente, 1346-1603, no. 130, p. 126; Silviu Dragomir, Documente nouã privitoare la relaþiile Þãrii
Româneºti cu Sibiiul în secolii XV ºi XVI [New Documents concerning the
Relations between Walachia and Sibiu in the XVth and XVIth
Centuries], Cluj 1927 [first published in “Anuarul Institutului de Istorie
Naþionalã din Cluj”, IV, 1926-1927, pp. 3-79], no. 8, pp. 18-19; Aurel Decei, Tratatul de pace – Sulhnâme – încheiat între
sultanul Mehmed al II-lea ºi ªtefan cel Mare la 1479 [The Peace Treaty
concluded between sultan Mehmed II and Stephen the Great in 1479], in “Revista
Istoricã Românã”, XV, no. 4, 1945, pp. 465-494; Nicoarã Beldiceanu, La conquête de cités marchandés de
Kilia et de Cetatea Albã par Bayezid II, in “Südostforschungen”, XXIII,
1964, pp. 36-90; M. A. Mehmet, Un
document turc concernant le kharatch de la Moldavie et de la Valachie aux XVe
et XVIe siècle, in “Revue des études Sud-Est
européennes”, V, no. 1-2, 1967, pp. 265-274; Al. V. Boldur, ªtefan cel Mare voievod al Moldovei (1457-1504). Studiu de istorie socialã ºi politicã [Stephen the Great,
voivode of Moldavia (1457-1504). A Study in Social and Political History],
Madrid 1970, p. 236; Documente turceºti
privind istoria României [Turkish Documents concerning the History of
Romania] (=Documente turceºti), vol.
I, 1455-1774, edited by M. A. Mehmed, Bucharest 1976, no. 5, p. 6; Karl
Nehring, Quellen zur ungarischen
Außenpolitik in der zweiten Hälfte des 15. Jahrhunderts (=K. Nehring, Quellen), in “Lévéltári Közlemények”,
XLVII, no. 1, 1976, no. 107, p. 104; Bogdan Murgescu, O nouã reglementare de pace moldo-otomanã în 1481 [A New
Moldavian-Ottoman Peace Settlement (1481)], in “Studii ºi articole de istorie”,
LI-LII, 1985, pp. 268-274; Mihai Maxim, Þãrile
Române ºi Înalta Poartã. Cadrul juridic al relaþiilor româno-otomane în Evul
Mediu [The Romanian Countries and The High Gate. The Juridical Back-Ground
of the Romanian-Ottoman Relations in the Middle Ages], Bucharest 1993, pp.
93-94, pp. 183-184, pp. 197-201; Viorel Panaite, Rãzboi, pace ºi comerþ în Islam. Þãrile Române ºi dreptul otoman al popoarelor
(secolele XV-XVII) [War, Peace and Commerce in Islam. The Romanian
Countries and the Ottoman Legislation of the People (XIVth-XVIIth
Centuries)], Bucharest 1998, pp. 317-344; the document from the end of 1479
(more likely), makes no refers to hostages (Documente
turceºti, vol. I, no. 5, p. 6).
[45] See
also the works of C.A. Stoide, Legãturile
dintre Moldova ºi Þara Româneascã în a doua jumãtate a secolului XV [The
Relations between Moldavia and Walachia in the second Half of the XVth
Century], in “Studii ºi Cercetãri ªtiinþifice. Iaºi – Seria Istorie”, VII, no.
1, 1956, pp. 59-73; L. ªimanschi, D. Agache, Moldova între anii 1469 ºi 1473: program de guvernare ºi conjuncturi
politice [Moldavia between the Years 1469-1473: Government Program and
Political Context], (=L. ªimanschi, D. Agache, Moldova), in “Anuarul Institutului de Istorie «A. D. Xenopol»”,
XXXV, 1998, pp. 1-18.
[46] N.
Iorga, Acte ºi fragmente cu privire la
istoria românilor (=N. Iorga, Acte ºi
fragmente), vol. III [-1], Bucharest 1898, p. 56; one has to bear in mind
that this were not, explicitly, back-breaking conditions (in contrast [Domenico
Malipiero], Annali veneti dall’anno 1457
al 1500 del Senatore Domenico Malipiero ordinati e abbreviati dal senatore
Francesco Longo, introduction and annotated by Agostino Sagredo, Parte Ia e IIa degli
Annali – Guerra co’ Turchi – Guerre d’Italia, in “Archivio Storico
Italiano”, Ist series, VII/1, 1843, p. 67, p. 107, p. 194; Momèilo
Spremiæ, I tributi veneziani nel Levante
nel XV secolo, in “Studi Veneziani”, XIII, 1971, pp. 246-248).
[47] Acta, no. 8, pp. 7-8; M[átyás]
Florianus, Chronicon Dubnicense
(=Historiae Hungariae Fontes Domestici, I/3), Quinque-Ecclesiis 1884, p. 233;
one of the sultan’s sons or the vice-emperor
were rumoured to have been take prisoners at Vaslui, and huge amounts (up to
80.000 Ducats) were said to have been offered in ransom (N. Iorga, Acte ºi fragmente, vol. III [-1], p. 55,
p. 94). This makes the hypothesis of a hostage Alexander more interesting and
also weaker.
[48] N.
Iorga, Acte ºi fragmente, vol. III
[-1], p. 56; see also E. Denize, Stephen,
pp. 72-81, pp. 84-93.
[49]
“Missplacing” commas was not unusal. In
1483, Venice assured Rome that Quanto a
la turcha, tregua, azo che la RPV vostra possi ben exprimer a la Caesarea
Maiestate [Frederic III] quale fu lo
intimiseco nostro e lo (ASV, Senato
Secreta. Dispacci
Constantinopoli, reg. 31, c. 10v).
[50] N.
Iorga, Acte ºi fragmente, vol. III
[-1], p. 56; the document comes from the archive of Milan and was to be found
in the fond Ungheria–1490.
[51] J.
D³ugosz, op. cit., p. 644; and more,
according to [Giovanni Maria Angiolello] Donado Da Lezze, Historia Turchesca, edited by I. Ursu, Bucharest 1910, p. 88, who,
among othe things, also states to have encountered several princes of Walachia
in Istanbul, the sultan claimed to have come also as a liberator of the
Moldavians from Stephen’s oppression. It was a major reason not to use
Alexander, a 13 year old boy.
[52] L.
ªimanschi, D. Agache, Moldova, p. 7,
note 34; the idea seems to have remained “isolated” in written.
[53] Piscia, p. 380 (on Piscia, his views and
his career see also; K. Nehring, Quellen,
no. 99, p. 102; ªt. Andreescu, Cu privire
la ultima fazã a raporturilor dintre Moldova ºi Genova [In Regard to the
Last Phase of the Relations between Moldavia and Genova], in “Anuarul
Institutului de Istorie ºi Arheologie «A. D. Xenopol»”, XIX, 1982, pp. 204-209,
and K. Nehring, Matthias Corvinus, Kaiser
Friedrich III und das Reich. Zum Hunyadisch-Habsburgischen Gegensatz im
Donauraum (zweite ergänzte Auflage), Munich 1989, p. 83, p. 90, p. 115).
[54] Piscia, p. 380; L. ªimanschi, D. Agache,
op. cit., p. 7, note 34; he had
probably fled from Hungary.
[55] ªt. S.
Gorovei, Note, pp. 188-192; C.
Cihodaru, Pretendenþi, pp. 106-108;
Bogdan was certainly not sent, he too is to be found constantly in the
documents (DRH, A, vol. III, p. 567,
index). Because his control over Moldavia was minimal, Bayezid could not be
satisfied with somebody second or third in line of succession.
[56] M.
Cazacu, Stratégies matrimoniales et
politiques des Cantacuzène sous la Turcocratie (XVe-XVIe
siècles (=M. Cazacu, Stratégies),
in “Revue des Études Roumains”, XIX-XX, 1995-1996, pp. 160-164; it remains the
main guide-line (it is to be noted that Mara’s sister, Catherine of Cilly, was
know as the Kantakuzene; D. M. Nicol, The
Byzantine Family of the Kantakuzenos (=D. M. Nicol, The Byzantine Family), Dumbarton Oaks 1968, pp. 216-219; B. I.
Bojoviæ, P. ª. Nãsturel, Les fondations,
p. 166).
[57] In
1485-1486, Bayezid seemed to have wanted Stephen’s, and his followers (family
included) fall achieved with strong help inside Moldavia, where the strength of
the opposition had grown significantly since 1484, Alexander was not, maybe for
the second time, a candidate (Cronica
moldo-germanã, pp. 35-36; Sergiu Iosipescu, Contribuþii la istoria Moldovei lui ªtefan cel Mare [Contributions
to the History of Stephen the Great’s Moldavia], (=S. Iosipescu, Contribuþii), in “Anuarul Institutului
de Istorie «A. D. Xenopol»”, XXIX, 1992, p. 64. On J. D³ugosz, Heinrich
Zeissberg, Die polnische Geschichtsschreibung
des Mittelalters, Lepizig 1873 (reprint Köln–Graz 1968), pp. 197-205;
Ilie Minea, Informaþiile româneºti ale
cronicii lui Jan D³ugosz [The Romanian Information of Jan D³ugosz’s
Chronicle], Iaºi 1927, pp. 58-66; Al.
Simon, În jurul bãtãliei de la Vaslui
(1474-1475). Consideraþii asupra relaþiilor dintre Regatul Ungariei, Moldova ºi
Þara Româneascã [Around the Battle of Vaslui (1474-1475). Considerations on
the Relations between the Kingdom of Hungary, Moldavia and Walachia], in
“Studia Universitatis Babeº-Bolyai. Series Historiae”, XLIX, no. 2, 2004, pp.
6-10.
[58] N.
Iorga, Studii istorice asupra Chiliei ºi
Cetãþii Albe [Historical Studies on Chilia and Cetatea Albã] (=N. Iorga, Studii istorice), Bucharest 1899,
“Appendix”, no. 32, p. 325 (30th October 1540); Pomelnicul, p. 87; I. Corfus, Documente
polone, vol. I, no. 47, p. 87 (23rd
April 1542); see also C. Rezachevici, Petru
Rareº între sultan ºi lumea creºtinã în 1541-1542 dupã noi izvoare polone –
Solia “hatmanului” Petru Vartic din 1542 (I) [Peter Rareº between the
Sultan and the Christian World in 1541-1542, according to New Polish Documents
– The Mission of the Captain-General Peter Vartic from 1542], in “Revista
Istoricã”, new series, I, no. 5, 1990, pp. 442-443; Ibidem (II), in “Revista Istoricã”, new series, I, no. 7-8, 1990,
“Appendix”, no. 5, p. 702 (=C. Rezachevici, Petru
Vartic), the second information, concerning Alexander, reinforces the first
one. We don not know what the name of the first one was. It could have been
Bogdan (ªt.S. Gorovei, Note, pp.
194-196), but a/ the Bogdan, son of Peter, died in Moldavia in 1540, or, more
likely, in 1534 (cf. C. Cihodaru, Politica
internã [“The Domestic Policy”], in Petru
Rareº, p. 82, note 109). His name appears in the Pomelnicul (p. 87), only under Stephen Rareº’s rule (1551-1552), a
former hostage. In a Diptych (1542-1546) from Târgul Frumos, when Peter Rareº
was still alive, Bogdan’s name does not appear (Pomelnicul, p. 21; maybe, only because Bogdan wasn’t the son of
Peter’s current and powerful wife Helen).
[59]
Because in the Pomelnicul (p. 87) the name of Peter’s successor Elias
(1546-1551), gone over to Islam, was erased
it is difficult to say how strong the hostility towards a hostage was before
this episode (also because Elias had been Alexander’s successor, at his death,
in 1544, as a hostage; C. Rezachevici, Cronologia,
vol. I, p. 589; Idem, Politica externã
[The Foreign Policy] (=C. Rezachevici, Politica),
in Petru Rareº, pp. 245-246.
[60] Sorin
Ulea, O surprinzãtoare personalitate a
evului mediu românesc: cronicarul Macarie [A Surprising Personality, the
Chronicler Macarie], in “Studii ºi Cercetãri de Istoria Artei”, XXXII, no. 1,
1985, pp. 14-44; Maria Crãciun, Politica
confesionalã a lui ªtefan Rareº (1551-1552) [The Confessional Policy of
Stephen Rareº (1551-1552)], in “Revista Istoricã”, new series, VI, no. 7-8,
1994, pp. 694-696; Linda Darling, Contested
Territory: Ottoman Holy War in Comparative Context, in “Studia Islamica”,
XCI, 2000, pp. 133-169.
[61] It is
always tempting to mix business with pleasure in medieval politics but it would
be a lack of fairness towards the characters to brutally separate them (see for
Stephen the Great, the almost classical example of interpretation signed by M.
M. Székely, ªt. S. Gorovei, “Semne ºi
minuni” pentru ªtefan cel Mare. Note de mentalitate medievalã [Signs and
Miracles” for Stephen the Great. Notes on Medieval Mentality], in “Studii ºi
materiale de istorie medie”, XVI, 1998, pp. 49-64). Specially, we don’t have to
forget that in the 1530 and 1540 (after the shock of 1538), Moldavia’s ottoman
experience was completely different in size and “quality” than it had been in
the early 1470 (N. Grigoraº, Relaþiile
Moldovei cu Imperiul Otoman pânã la domnia lui ªtefan cel Mare [Moldavia’s
Relations with the Ottoman Empire before Stephen the Great’s Reign], in
“Revista de istorie”, XXVIII, no. 1, 1975, pp. 33-49; ªt. Simionescu, Les rélations de la Moldavie avec les
Habsbourg pendant le règne de Petru Rareº (1527-1538, 1541-1546), in “Revue Roumaine d’Histoire”, XVI, no. 3,
1977, pp. 455-467; M. Cazacu, Les
Ottomans sur le Bas-Danube au XVe siècle. Quelques précisions,
in “Südost Forschungen”, XLI, 1982, pp. 27-41). Yet again, the context is a
troubling historical affair.
[62] Documente ªtefan, vol. II, no. 139, p.
312 (13th of July); E. de Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. XV/1, no. 133, p. 77 (7th of August).
[63] DRH, A, vol. II, no. 176, p. 261 (13th
of September), no. 175, p. 260 (in the previous document from the 10th
of September, although, the guarantee of every member of the princely council
was involved, the “credinþa” [the
trust, the guarantee] of his son Alexander was not mentioned); it is a very
interesting document, a new donation made to the Monastery of Zographu. Stephen
speaks of “credinþa preaiubiþilor fii ai
domniei noastre, Alexandru ºi Petru, ºi credinþa tuturor copiilor noºtri” [the guarantee of our Lordship most
beloved sons, Alexander and Peter, and the guarantee of all Our children]. But until
1471 we know only of a girl, Helen as another (legitimate) child of Stephen,
who had been explicitly mentioned in the first charter (chrysobull) for
Zographu (DRH, A, vol. II, no. 135,
p. 193. And Evdochia, of whom the Cronica
moldo-germanã (p. 29) said that she had given birth to only one child, “doamna din Þara Moscovei” [the Lady in
the Land of Moscow], that is Helen,
had died in 1467 (Letopiseþul de la Putna
[The Chronicle of Putna], p . 49; DRH, A,
vol. III, no. 176, p. 261). This document clearly states, at least, that there
is more for to be found out about Stephen’s family.
[64] On
this topic see also ªt. S. Gorovei, Maria, pp. 9-11 (according to the Cronica moldo-germanã, p. 30, in
antagonism to the Letopiseþul anonim,
p. 19, the year would be 1471). In addition, if we think, with little reason,
of an earlier period, Alexander’s departure could be linked to the “Chilia
scandal” in 1465 (J. D³ugosz, op. cit.,
p. 409). But it was only after 1470 (in 1468 a armistice had been concluded
between the sultan and Mathias, Stephen’s and Mehmed’s common enemy), after he
struck Walachia once again, that Stephen grew into a “real pain”.
[65] Under
these circumstances, Stephen’s decision to go to war with the Ottoman Empire
may also be related to the birth of two legitimate sons, the twins Elias and
Bogdan, in 1473 (DRH, A, vol. III,
no. 191, p. 286, no. 192, p. 288).
[66] Ibidem, vol. II, p. 462 (index); Ibidem, vol. III, p. 560 (index); there
are no evidences for “honorary mentions” in these cases.
[67] C.
Cihodaru, Observaþii pe marginea
izvoarelor privind unele evenimente din istoria Moldovei între anii 1467-1474
[Observations based on the Sources concerning Certain Events from the History
of Moldavia between the Years 1467-1474], in “Studii ºi Cercetãri ªtiinþifice. Iaºi
– Seria Istorie”, VIII, no. 1, 1957, pp. 15-21.
[68] Not to
say anything more about the documents, still a problem for the scholars of
Ottoman Century (see also Suraiya Faroqhi, Approaching
Ottoman History: An Introduction to the Sources, Cambridge 1999, passim).
[69] Solakzade Mehmed Hemdemi, Müneğğimbaºî, in Cronici turceºti, vol. II, Secolul XVII-începutul secolului XVIII
[From the XVIIth Century to the Beginning of the XVIIIth
Century], edited by M. Guboglu, Bucharest 1974, p. 140, p. 252). Two things have
to be stressed out. The Ottomans refer to Stephen the Locust as he did, as a
son of Stephen the Great, and not of Alexander. Locust was one of the many sons of Moldavian princes (who had or
had not reigned). Because the information comes from the XVIIth
Century, because our concern is the real and not the alleged son of Stephen, we
shall go no further on this topic. On the other hand, like in the case of the
two sons that followed Peter Rareº back to Moldavia, where this data could mean
that Peter had a hostage son in Istanbul (Nasuh
Matrakci, in Cronici turceºti,
vol. I, p. 231; ªt. S. Gorovei, Note, p. 196); like it was known in an
information from 1540, regarding the previous years, when Peter, now considered
dead had ruled N. Iorga, Studii istorice,
“Appendix”, no. 32, p. 325: “Dicitur
preterea, Petrus ille, quondam Vayvoda Moldavorum, non ita pridem expulsus,
apud Thurcam esse illique filium suum in pignus obsidionis dedisse, ea sub
condicione ut, si rursus dicionem moldavicam possit adipisci, qua pulsus est
(quod sibi Cesar ille annuere affirmatur) quod esset obediens in omnibus Cesari
Thurcarum”; this had happened somewhere between 1527 and 1534, in the first
half of this time span), details might lying around in ottoman sources. Still,
we shall repeat a previous observation, which seems to gain weight under these
circumstances. It doesn’t matter, for now, who and how “legally” fathered Locust, it matters only to whom he was
linked in order to support his claim.
[70] The
line is basically identical with one
used to describe him in the 1540’ (Nasuh
Matrakci, p. 230).
[71] Letopiseþul Þãrii Moldovei [The
Chronicle of the Land of Moldova], edited by Tatiana Celac, Chiºinãu 1990, p.
78 (=Letopiseþul Þãrii Moldovei);
still, Grigore Ureche does not say directly that Alexander was the son of
Stephen. But, the previous voivode Alexander mentioned by him in his chronicle
was the son of Stephen the Great (Letopiseþul
Þãrii Moldovei, p. 50). Very likely, under this textual circumstances, for
Ureche, Alexander the Illegitimate was Stephen the Locust’s son. On Ureche’s
work and career, who surprisingly for a defender of the rights of the boyars,
took Locust’s side in the conflict
with a part of the elite (which lead to Locust’s
death; Letopiseþul Þãrii Moldovei,
pp. 78-79; for the back-ground, ªt. S. Gorovei, Gãneºtii ºi Arbureºtii [The Families Gane and Arbure], in
“Cercetãri Istorice”, new series, II, 1971, pp. 143-159), see Dumitru Velciu, Grigore Ureche, Bucharest 1979, passim).
[72] It’s
the amazing period spent, in accordance to our hypothesis, by Alexander in the
Empire. It surpasses even Radu the Beautiful’s stay (1442-1462), hostage since
he was five (C. Rezachevici, Cronologia,
vol. I, p. 94, p. 105). We have to take into account the possibility, important
for the case of Alexander, that Radu was also a “representative” of the
patriarchy (D.–I. Mureºan, Patriarcat,
vol. I, pp. 402-403).
[73] N.
Iorga, Acte ºi fragmente, vol. III
[-1], p. 55; Stephen’s brother in law, Alexander of Mangop, was executed,
before the Moldavian envoys came to negotiate his release (20th of
May 1476). Still, he was not of Alexander the Legitimate’ s political value for
the sultan (Ibidem, p. 56; 23rd
of May). His lordship in the Crimea had ceased to exist, in December (?) 1475
(see also Robert Croskey, Byzantine
Greeks in Late Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Century Russia, in The Byzantine Legacy in Eastern Europe,
edited by Lowell Clucas, Boulder 1988, p. 51, note 7).
[74] For
the fate of the Greek elite after 1453, in Istanbul, Venice and Rome: Denis A.
Zakythinos, Le despotat grec de Morée, vol. I, Histoire politique, Paris 1932 (reprint London 1975), pp. 277-279,
pp. 285-295; Deno E. Geanakoplos, Byzantine
East and Latin West: Two Worlds of Christendom in Middle Ages and Renaissance.
Studies in Ecclesiastical and Cultural History, Oxford 1966, pp. 88-95; D.
M. Nicol, The Byzantine Family, pp.
216-219; Idem, The Immortal Emperor: The
Life and Legend of Constantine Palaiologos, Emperor of the Romans, Oxford
1992, pp. 114-116. Under Bayezid II out of 21 great dignitaries, 11 were former
Christians (Hans Reindl, Männer um
Bayezīd II. Eine prospogarphische Studie über die Epoche Sultan
Bayezīds II (1481-1512), Berlin 1983, passim).
[75] See D.
M. Nicol, The Byzantine Family, pp.
203-209; Jean–Michel Cantacuzène, M. Cazacu, Génalogie et empire. Les Cantacuzènes de l’époque byzantine
à l’époque ottomane, in L’empereur
hagiographe: culte des saints et monarchie Byzantine et post-byzantine,
edited by Petre Guran, [Bucarest] 2001, pp. 294-308.
[76] This
is still a topic for debate; see Historia
Politica et Patriarchica
Constantinopoleos. Epirotica (=Corpus Scriptores Historiae Byzantinae,
III), recognovit Immanuel Bekkerus, Bonnae 1849 (=Historia Pariarchica), passim;
specially Vitalien Laurent, Les premiers
patriarches de Constantinople sous la domination turque (1454-1476), in
“Revue des Études Byzantines”, XXVI, 1968, pp. 229-263; Steven Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity: A Study of
the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the
Greek War of Independence, London 1968, pp. 189-194; C. J. G. Turner, The Career
of George–Gennadius Scholarius, in “Byzantion”, XXXIX,
1969-1970, pp. 420-455; Basil G. Spiridonakis, Grecs, Occidentaux et Turcs de 1054 à 1453, Thessaloniki
1990, pp. 243-249, and Marie–Hélène Blanchet, Georges–Ghennadios Scholarios a-t-il été trois fois patriarche de
Constantinople?, in “Byzantion”, LXXI, no. 1, 2001, pp. 60-72.
[77] The
main reasoning belong to M. Cazacu, Stratégies,
p. 164; D.–I. Mureºan, Patriarcat,
vol. II, p. 579.
[78] In
1505, a few months, after the events of July 1504, January 1505, Bogdan refused
to receive the patriarch Joachim. It’ is not unlikely that already (1499)
Stephen had broken off talks with the same patriarch (Malaxos, in Historia
Patriarhica, p. 160; P. ª.
Nãsturel, Radu vodã cel Mare ºi
patriarhul de la Constantinopol, Ioachim I [Radu Voivode the Great and the
Patriarch from Constantinople, Joachim I], in “Studii ºi materiale de istorie
medie”, XX, 2002, pp. 24-25; D.–I. Mureºan, Patriarcat,
vol. I, pp. 412-419; in 1499; see also M. Sanudo, Diarii, vol. IV, 1501-1503, edited by N. Barozzi, Venice
1880-1881, col. 311; Documente ªtefan,
vol. II, no. 176, p. 411[1500]; Georgios Salakides, Sultansurkunden des Athos-Klosters Vatopedi aus der Zeit Bayezid II.
und Selim I. Kritische Edition und wissenschaftlicher Kommentar,
Thessaloniki 1995, no. 5, p. 36, no. 13, p. 73). One possibility would be that
Joachim had tried his luck in 1505, because he had not been in office during
the events of June-July, 1504, when his opponent Pahomios was in charge (a
different perspective in D.I. Mureºan, op.
cit., pp. 417-419). This would mean that Bogdan refused to accept the
Patriarchate not a particular patriarch. But then, it’s once again very
interesting that he accepted, in 1513-1514, the visit and authority of
Pahomios, who probably had backed up (ointed) Alexander in 1504 (see also
Nicolae M. Popescu, Patriarhii
Þarigradului prin Þãrile Române. Veacul XVI [The Patriarchs of
Constantinople in the Romanian Countries. The XVIth Century],
Bucharest 1914, pp 8-12, pp. 18-24). Given the strong pressure put on by
Istanbul on Suceava in 1513-1514 (E. de Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. II/3, no. 99, p. 91, no. 104, p. 93, no. 106, p.
97, no. 157, p. 171, the only reasonable explanation, under these
circumstances, would be that the patriarch’s visit, that came after a “series
of curious events” and after (apparently) Moldavia had joined (again) the Roman
Crusade Project (Monumenta rusticorum in
Hungaria rebellium anno MDXIV, edited by Antál Fekete Nagy, Victor Kenéz,
László Solymosi, Géza Érszegi, Budapest 1979, no. 2, p. 33) had full ottoman
political support.
[79] In a political way, not in prayer (DRH, A, vol. II, no. 176, p. 281).
However, until now, we do not know, except, for “the comma question”, that the
was a object of bargain in 1475-1476 (see also note 73).
[80] E. de
Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. II/1, no.
191-192, pp. 224-225; ªt. S. Gorovei, Muºatinii,
p. 100; I. Corfus, Documente polone,
vol. I, no. 35, p. 50, no. 47, p. 87; C. Rezachevici, Politica, p. 246; Idem, Petru Vartic (II), “Appendix”, no. 5,
p. 702; this Alexander, he too was omitted also from the Moldavian chronicles (Eftimie, in Cronicile, p. 118), could be a competitor for Stephen the Great’s
Alexander for burial in the Pammakaristos Church of Istanbul (D.–I. Mureºan, Patriacat, vol. II, p. 579). But because
he had lived there for only two years and due to the previously tensed
relations between Peter and the Patriarchate (this is also why his unnamed
brother and predecessor as a brother, if he died in Istanbul, can not be
considered a likely candidate for burial in the Pammakaristos Church), Peter’s
Alexander can not be given preference in this funerary matter to Stephen’s
Alexander, who had spent almost his entire life in the Ottoman Empire (M.
Cazacu, Stratégies, pp. 162-164).
[81] ªt.
Simionescu, Noi date, p. 233; but the report from Suceava, through Buda, clearly
states that it was Stephen’s son not his nephew the Ottomans wanted on the
throne (M. Sanudo, Diarii, vol. VI,
col. 50; E. de Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. VIII, no. 50, p. 41).
One the other hand, the odds for a (conscientious) confusion are not inexistent
on this unstable ground (see also the “Walachian possibilities” in note 40).
[82] The
(two) sources: M. Sanudo, Diarii,
vol. VI, no. 50; E. de Hurmuzaki, Documente,
vol. VIII, no. 50, p. 41; Ibidem,
vol. XV/1, no. 314, p. 170.
[83] Acta, no. 249, p. 295; his age has never
been a simple fact (C. Rezachevici, Cronologia,
vol. I, p. 567).
[84] It
would be more accurate to say the permanent return of a hostage to his country
before his succession. We do not know such case. One way out of Istanbul, under
these circumstances, was an escape. It seems to have been the case of Basarab
the Little Impaler (I. Bogdan, Documente
Braºov, no. 107, p. 135), maybe also that of a Bogdan, probably Peter’s
first born, in 1538 on the eve of the Ottoman campaign against Moldavia, for
one of Peter’s sons, without any documentary possibility of identification,
died fighting Locust in 1540; if in
1540, the one fighting wasn’t a illegitimate son, if in 1534, a rather late
time for Peter to send a son to Istanbul, Bogdan’s disappearance from the
documents wasn’t a result of his death or of the intrigues of Helen, Peter’s
new wife, it would be a strong possibility; given the numerous “ifs”, it is
not; Pomelnicul, p. 21, p. 87; ªt.S.
Gorovei, Note, p. 194, p. 196;
C.Cihodaru, Pretendenþi, p. 120) The
other way out was a return “for the holidays”, for a special event, perhaps the
case of Theodose, the son of Neagoe Basarab (D.I.Mureºan, Théodose, p. 284; [1517]). Somewhere in between the two great case
scenarios is the fate of one of Peter’s son, Constantine. He was sent hostage
to Istanbul in exchange probably for Stephen, who was placed prince (but not
immediately after; see I. Corfus, Documente
polone, vol. I, no. 70, p. 145, p. 147, from November 1547), when Elias
became Muslim and “abdicated”, in Istanbul (1551). Constantine returned to
Moldavia with an Ottoman embassy, seemingly he wasn’t need there any more after
Elias was officially and religiously one of the important pashas. He (under
aged, born in 1541/1542) returned to Istanbul after the murder of Stephen
(1552), as there were still hopes to keep the throne under Peter’s sons. He
died “mysteriously” in 1554 (ªt. S. Gorovei, Muºatinii, p. 100; C. Rezachevici, Cronologia, vol. I, pp. 594-597). His story is exceptional.
Nevertheless, when Stephen Rareº, placed his son, Peter, among his brothers,
his half brother Bogdan was included for the first time (Pomelnicul, p. 21), and sisters, in the Pomelnicul (p. 87) and erased from it Elias (or just had him
forgotten, if Stephen was the first one to order the names to be placed on the
list), he did not remove (omit) Constantine (ªt. S. Gorovei, Note, p. 195). Stephen Rareº had been a
hostage, plus Constantine was probably back in Moldavia, and therefore not a
(“big”) matter.
[85] E. de
Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. XV/1, no.
133-134, p. 77; J. D³ugosz, op. cit.,
pp. 541-542, 560; see also Al. Simon,
Stephen the Great and his Involvement in
Transylvania, in “Transylvanian Review”, XIII, no. 2, 2004, pp. 35-53.
[86] See M.
Cazacu, Du nouveau sur le rôle
international de la Moldavie dans la seconde moitié du XVe
siècle, in “Revue des Études Roumaines”, XVI, 1981, p. 43; C.
Rezachevici, ªtefan, pp. 51-53.
[87] See E.
de Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. XV/1,
no. 208, p. 116; Documente ªtefan,
vol. II, no. 169, p. 379 (“Sandrinus, Dei
gracia filius illustrissimi principis Stephani waywode […]”). Given the
succession, an accident is, here, out of question.
[88] Acta, no. 37, p. 41; Letopiseþul anonim, p. 20; ªt. S.
Gorovei, Note, pp. 190-192; C.
Cihodaru, Pretendenþi, pp. 106-109;
the other strong possibility, given the fact that Mathias who sends his gift to
the “wedding of the son of the Moldavian
voivode” (Stephen’s name is not mentioned either) without mentioning that
his bride was the daughter of one of his loyal subjects and given the data,
that Alexander, the Locust’s father,
died in Moldavia, and his wife was then chased off, is that the marriage was
concluded between the Alexander from Istanbul, now back in Moldavia, and his Greek wife (ªt. Simionescu, Noi date,
pp. 230-233). Because, it was his father who intrusted him to the sultan, it is
impossible to state that the Locust
was Alexander the Illegitimate’s son (Acta,
no. 249, p. 295), that in light of a third possibility that would consider
Alexander getting married to somebody else than the daughter of Drágffy (still
in this case, we could ask ourselves why Mathias doesn’t state that the son of
the Moldavian voivode was also his associate in power as he had made himself
known in Transylvania; E. de Hurmuzaki, Documente,
vol. XV/1, no. 208, p. 116, no. 211, p. 117; Documente ªtefan, no. 164, p. 367, no. 169, p. 379).
[89] Ioan
Lupaº, Der siebenbürgische Woiwode
Bartholomäus Dragfi, in Idem, Zur
Geschichte der Rumänen Aufsätze und Vorträge, Sibiu 1943, pp. 154-161; S.
Iosipescu, Drãgoºeºtii, in “Arhiva
Genealogicã”, I (VI), no. 1-2, 1994, pp. 27-34; Ioan Drãgan, Nobilimea româneascã din Transilvania,
1440-1514 [The Romanian Nobility of Transylvania, 1440-1514], Bucharest
2000, p. 421; we may also talk about a daughter of Stephen and a son of
Bartholomew. As in most other case taken here into consideration, everything
could be subject “to change”.
[90] DRH, A, vol. II, no. 11-13, pp. 12-14,
no. 15, p. 16 (1451); C. Rezachevici, Cronologia,
vol. I, pp. 535-536; in the Moldavia of the stormy 1450’, the most likely
explanation is that Bogdan needed the support of the family of Oltea, Stephen’s
mother.
[91] This
is obviously an hypothesis (Aurelian Sacerdoþeanu, Divanele lui ªtefan cel Mare [The Councils of
Stephen the Great], in “Analele Universitãþii din Bucureºti. Seria Istorie”, V,
1956, p. 159, note 9, and Tereza Sinigalia, Ctitori
ºi imagini votive în pictura muralã din Moldova la sfârºitul secolului al
XV-lea ºi în prima jumãtate a secolului al XVI-lea. O ipotezã [Patrons and
Votive Images in Moldavian Mural Paintings at the End of the XVth
Century and at the Beginning of the XVIth Century. An Hypothesis],
in Arta Istoriei. Istoria Artei.
Academicianul Rãzvan Theodorescu la 65 de ani [The Art of History. The
History of Art. Homage to Rãzvan Theodorescu on his 65th Birthday],
Bucharest 2004, pp. 60-62; for the dynastic “chain of power” in the paintings
from the late 1490’s). For another votive representation, in, a possible,
regard to the other Alexander: Repertoriul,
no. 144, p. 379, p. 388; D.–I. Mureºan, Patriarcat,
vol. II, p. 579 (it is hard to believe that the white spot on the Stephen’s
right in a miniature from a gospel-book, achieved in 1473, means that, for
three decades, the image remained unfinished, for a silver overlay was added to
this, very debated, gospel-book, in 1487).
[92] See L.
ªimanschi, ªtefan cel Mare – domn al
Moldovei ºi Þãrii Româneºti [Stephen the Great, Prince of Moldavia and
Walachia], in “Cronica”, XXX, no. 7 (1411), 1995, p. 7; C. Burac, Bogdan–Vlad, pp. 314-317. Even though
his name is not changed, but shortened, some suggestions may be found in
Gertrud Thoma, Namens-änderungen in
Herrscherfamilien desmittelalterlichen Europa, Munich 1985, pp. 91-92, pp.
128-134, pp. 201-203, pp. 216-219; and in the book-review signed by Gudrun
Schmalzbauer, Zur byzantinischen
Herrscheronomastik, in “Byzantinoslavica”, L, no. 2, 1989, pp. 215-222.
[93] Radu
the Great was Vlad the Monks’ coregent since 1492 (DRH, B, vol. I, no. 231,
p. 371; no. 233, p. 373; Olimpia Diaconescu, Întregiri documentare la istoria secolelor XV-XVI [Documentary
Complements to the History of the XVth-XVIth Centuries],
in “Studii ºi materiale de istorie medie”, VII, 1974, p. 294). He is a ruler
worth research.
[94] Repertoriul, no. 58, p. 254; ªt. S.
Gorovei, Muºatinii, pp. 68-75 (later
one, somebody noted over his portrait in Bistriþa, that he had died “in the army”); it is another subject
open to debate. The burial place of Elias, son of Stephen and of Mary of Mangop,
is unknown. Anna, daughter of Stephen and of Mary Voichiþa, was buried (1499),
alongside Alexander, in Bistriþa (DRH, A,
vol. III. no. 246, p. 442).
[95] Ion I.
Solcanu, Realizãri artistice
[Artistic Achievements], in Petru Rareº,
pp. 294-295; Claudiu Paradais, Comori ale
spiritualitãþii româneºti la Putna [Treasures of Romanian Spirituality from
Putna], Iaºi 1988, passim; M. M.
Székely, Mãnãstirea Putna – Loc de memorie [The Monastery of
Putna: A Place of Memory], in “Studii ºi materiale de istorie medie”, XXII,
2004, pp. 73-100; Peter’s first wife, Mary, was buried in Putna (1529), so the
change can be linked to his second marriage. When we say “the princes”, we take
into account the fact that both Bogdan III and Stephen the Young had no
legitimate sons, the fact that Bogdan’s wife Anastasia, who died in 1512
(before the events of 1513-1514), was buried in Dobrovãþ, not in Putna (the
burial place of his second wife, since 1513, -when the wedding took place under
not too favourable circumstances-, Ruxandra, daughter of Mihnea, former ruler
of Walachia, is unknown; plus, her name and that of Anastasia, both childless,
are not mentioned in the Pomelnicul,
p. 86), while Stephen’s wife, Stana, returned to Walachia, after his death (N.
Iorga, Istoria românilor, vol. IV, p.
208; ªt. S. Gorovei, Muºatinii, p. 75, p. 81).
[96] Repertoriul, no. 58, p. 254 ; in the Diptych, Peter (dead at the age of at
least nine) is placed between Elias (he died in 1473, a few months after his
birth, and may have been buried in Putna) and Bogdan, like he was one of
Stephen and Mary of Mangop’s sons (Pomelnicul,
p. 86; ªt. S. Gorovei, Note, p. 192, note 68).
[97] E. de
Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. XV/1, no.
314, p. 170; Ibidem, supl. II/1, no.
79, p. 112; Acta, no. 247, p. 293,
no. 249, p. 295.
[98] E. de
Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. VIII, no.
60-62, pp. 49-50; N. Iorga, Pretendentul
Iani, pp. 24-26; ªt. S. Gorovei, Note,
p. 191.
[99] T. Gemil, Les rélations de la Moldavie avec la Porte ottomane pendant le premier
règne de Petru Rareº, 1527-1538, in “Revue Roumaine d’Histoire”,
XVII, no. 2, 1978, pp. 291-312; ªt. S. Gorovei, Petru Rareº, pp. 145-150; N. Iorga, Istoria românilor, vol. IV, pp. 282-287; in contrast, Locust was “di la vera stripe delli waivodi” (Acta, no. 247, p. 293), which opens the question of Peter’s rise to
power in 1527. After Mohács (1526), Hungary was no longer a threat, as it had
been in 1504 (see Gábor Barta, An
d’illusions. Notes sur la double élection de rois après la défaite de
Mohács, in “Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae”, XXIV, no. 1,
1978, pp. 5-11, pp. 34-40). Stephen the Young had no legitimate sons (ªt. S.
Gorovei, Muºatinii, pp. 81-85; the
two bastards he had were under-aged). Sill, Locust
was not used and it is unlikely that he had fled Istanbul before 1527 (see also
E. de Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol.
II/1, 153, p. 197, no. 155, p. 200). Therefore, Peter must have struck a major
deal with or in Istanbul. In this regard: [the sultan had gone to Moldavia] “per castigar Pietro […] et metter in suo luogo […] questo waiwoda nuovo, figlio quondam dil Sandrino, et dicese che
questui è stato frate” (Acta,
no. 247, p. 293), could mean that Alexander had become a monk before his death,
that he was Peter’s brother, that Peter was Stephen the Locust’s brother. Still, any answer given to this question would
not change the fact that, despite the very likely ottoman deal from 1527, Peter
was to turn afterwards against Istanbul (see Alexandru Ciorãnescu, Petru Rareº ºi politica orientalã a lui
Carol Quintul [Peter Rareº and the Oriental Policy of Charles V], in
“Analele Academiei Române. Memoriile Secþiunii Istorice”, IIIrd
series, XVII, 1936, pp. 241-256), inspite the fact that his son was a hostage
there (N. Iorga, Studii istorice,
“Appendix”, no. 32, p. 325; ªt. S.
Gorovei, Note, p. 196). Consequently,
we are back in the land of “perhaps”, “possible”, “probably”.
[100] DIR, A. veacul XVI, vol. I, no. 354-364
(1539-1540), pp. 391-403 (minus no. 355, p. 392), still no document granting a
direct princely favour to the Church was issued (Macarie in Cronicile, p.
102). Only (apparently) the bishop of Vad (in the Transylvanian Lands, of the
princes), had been since the beginning on his side (see also Al. Simon, Feleacul, 1367-1587, Cluj-Napoca 2004,
p. 258, note 179, p. 266, note 65).
[101] DIR, A. veacul XVI, vol. I, no. 356, p.
393; A. Pippidi, op. cit., p. 237, note 107; second in the line of succession, was
his son Stephen (interestingly, Stephen the Great never gave one of his known
sons his name). Needless to say that neither Locust, nor his sons do not appear in the Pomelnicul (pp. 86-87); but Peter allowed his widow Chiajna to be
buried in the monastery of Bistriþa, one of Moldavia’s necropolis, ªt. S.
Gorovei, ªtefan Lãcustã, p. 174;
Alexander the Illegitimate had been buried there. Possibilities arise once
again). One of them, Alexander was expected to arrive in Istanbul with the
captain-general Mihul in April 1540, but this did not probably happen, for, in
June, Peter Rareº, now at the Sultan’s feet, was rejoicing to the idea/news
that Locust was to be recalled to
Istanbul (I. Corfus, Documente polone,
vol. I, no. 24, p. 31; Ioan–Aurel Pop, Cu
privire la domnia lui ªtefan Lãcustã [In Regard to Stephen the Locust’s
Reign], in “Anuarul Institutului de Istorie ºi Arheologie din Cluj-Napoca”,
XXVII, 1985-1986, p. 95). Locust’s son was very likely killed, after his
father’s assassination (I. Corfus, Documente
polone, vol. I, no. 26, p. 34).
[102] M.
Maxim, Les rélations des Pays Roumains
avec l’arhcevêché d’Ohrid à la lumière de documents turcs
inédits, in “Revue des études Sud-Est européennes”, XIX, no. 4, 1981, pp.
653-671; D.–I. Mureºan, Autour de
l’élément politique du culte de sainte Parascève la Jeune en Moldavie,
in L’empereur hagiographe, pp.
249-280.
[103] Acta, no. 264, pp. 304-305; I. Corfus, Documente polone, vol. I, no. 20, pp. 24; I.–A. Pop, op. cit., pp.
79-96; meanwhile, he defeated two successive attacks launched against him by filius Petri quondam Vayvode and by the
“filius oli Stephani Vayvode eciam
Moldavie” (N. Iorga, Studii istorice,
“Appendix”, no. 32, p. 323, Cfr. A. Pippidi, op. cit., p. 233, note 92, one was of the son of Peter Rareº, the
other a unknown son of Stephen the Great. Other identifications are given for
this one by ªt. S. Gorovei, Note, p.
196, note 115; and a lot (this case included, the present paper “is a long
footnote”) is footnote work.
[104] ªt. S.
Gorovei, ªtefan Lãcustã, p. 173; C.
Rezachevici, Cronologia, vol. I, p.
574; one of the charges brought against him was, significantly enough for the
way Moldavia’s elite moved politically and justified its moves, but also for
the way one has “to talk to the sources”, that he tried to convert Moldavia to
Islam.
[105] It is
in Venice (A. Pippidi, I Paesi Romeni e
Venezia. Nuove testimonianze, in “Annuario dell’Istituto Romeno di Cultura
e Ricerca Umanistica di Venezia”, I, no. 1, 1999, pp. 27-28) that we can expect
to find new information. For instance, it is probable that Aloisio Gritti’s
illegitimate daughter became the wife of Stephen the Locust (V[ictor] Motogna, Momente istorice [Moments from History],
in “Revista Istoricã”, XIV, no. 1-3, 1928, pp. 36-37; N. Iorga, Istoria românilor, vol. IV, p. 284, note
27). His “brother” (probably also in blood), Iani (John), had previously tried to became duke, king if possible,
of Moldavia with the help of Venice (E. de Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. VIII, no. 60-62, pp. 49-50; N. Iorga, Pretendentul Iani, pp. 24-26; ªt. S.
Gorovei, Note, p. 191; C. Cihodaru, Pretendenþi, p. 109). It is in this see
of small sources and large possibilities that a document has been interpreted
as a indication for the existence, in 1493, of a renegade son of Stephen the
Great, named, after becoming a Muslim, Ahmed
Pasha (ASV, Senato Secreta. Dispacci
Constantinopoli, reg. 34, 1489-1493,
c. 214 r; 17th of October; Cfr. Maria Pia Pedani–Fabris, In Nome del Gran Signore. Inviati Ottomani a
Venezia dalla caduta di Constantinopole alla Guerra di Candia, Venice 1994,
p. 47, note 69). Another two information’s might prove relevant, in general.
One is the Venetian mention from August 1476, that stated that the family of Stephen was in Italy (A. D.
Xenopol, Un nou document veneþian
privitor la ªtefan cel Mare [A New Venetian Document regarding Stephen the
Great], in “Arhiva Societãþii ºtiinþifice ºi literare din Iaºi”, XVIII, no.
7-8, 1907, p. 364; N. Iorga, Veneþia în
Marea Neagrã III. Originea
legãturilor cu ªtefan cel Mare ºi mediul politic al dezvoltãrii lor [Venice
in the Black Sea III. The Origins of the Relations with Stephen the Great and
the Political Environment of their Development], in Idem, Studii asupra evului mediu românesc [Studies regarding the Romanian
Middle Age], edited by ª. Papacostea, Bucharest 1984, no. 30, p. 272 (initially
published in “Analele Academiei Române. Memoriile Secþiunii Istorice”, IInd,
XXXVII, 1914-1915, pp. 1-76). The other document concerns Stephen’s alleged/
possible funding by Venice, after 1486, after the events of 1490-1492 (in full
length: [Viakeslav] Vicentio Makuscev (collecta atque illustrata), Monumenta Historica Slavorum Meridionalum
vicinorumque populorum e tabularis et bibliothecis italicis derompta, vol.
I/2, Genua, Mantua, Mediolanum, Panormus
et Taurinum, Belgradi 1882, no. 15, p. 137; Litterae Francisci Tranchedini e Bononia ad Illmum Principem
et Excellmum D. D. Ducem Mediolani, 17 Octobris 1492: “Un mio amico, quale ha hogi parlato con uno
Paduano, quale de recenti vene da Venetia, mi ha facto intendere havere
retracto da epso Paduano come la Illustrissima Signoria de Venetia ha conducto
novamente per suo Capitaneo il Signore Stephano Vaivoda de Mundavia, homo
sagacissimo et callidissimo in lo mestere del arme, cum stipendio de LXX milia
overo LXXX milia ducati, et questo dice havere havuto da persona de grande
auctorita in Venetia”.
[106] See
from Emile Picot, Généalogie de la
famille Brankoviæ, in “Columna lui Traian”, new series, IV, no. 1-2, 1883,
pp. 64-82, to V. Demetriades, E. A. Zachariadou, Serbian Ladies and Athonite Monks, in “Wiener Zeitschrift für die
Kunde des Morgenlandes”, LXXXIV, 1994, pp. 35-55, the different stages of
Serbian medieval question.
[107] For a
survey, see also History of East-Central
Europe, edited by Peter F. Sugar, Donald W. Treadgold, vol. V: P. F. Sugar,
South-Eastern Europe under Ottoman Rule
1354-1804, Seattle–London 1979, pp. 28-34; Ferenc Szakály, Phases of Turko-Hungarian Warfare before the
Battle of Mohács. 1365-1526, in “Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientarum
Hungaricae”, XXXIII, no. 1, 1979, pp. 99-103.
[108] ª.
Papacostea, La Moldavie état tributaire
de l’Empire Ottoman au XVe siècle: le cadre international des
rapports établis en 1455-1456, in “Revue Roumaine d’Histoire”, XIII, no. 3,
1974, pp. 445-460.
[109] See
also ª. Papacostea, Relaþiile
internaþionale ale Moldovei în vremea lui ªtefan cel Mare [Moldavia’s
International Relations in the Time of Stephen the Great], in “Revista de
Istorie”, XXXV, no. 5-6, 1982, pp. 617-628; S. Iosipescu, Contribuþii, p. 64; M. Cazacu, Stratégies,
pp. 158 sqq.
[110] The
survivor may be regarded also as a Moldavian version of “le Roi Caché” (see
Yves-Marie Bercé, Le Roi Caché. Sauveurs
et imposteurs: myths politiques populaires, Paris 1994, passim).