No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Access to the Divine: Gender and Votive Images in Moldavia and Wallachia
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
Extract
In Orthodox Last Judgements in sixteenth-century Moldavia, both Adam and Eve appear as saintly intercessors on behalf of mankind. The presence of these suppliant figures, on either side of the throne of hetimasia (Plate i), suggests that Orthodoxy and Catholicism differed significantly in their evaluations of the gender implications of the Fall. In medieval Catholicism the portrayal of a nimbed figure of Eve, or even of Adam, was inconceivable. In the West the ideas of the Fall as the cause of the crucifixion and of Mary as the antithesis of Eve produced a powerful set of negative views of women’s nature. The weaker sex was inherently vulnerable to temptation, flattery, and persuasion, endangering not only women’s souls but those of all mankind. The veneration of Mary tempered this negative image, but Mary’s extraordinary nature could never entirely erase the assumptions of innate female inferiority based on the role of Eve in the Fall. The depiction of Eve as a saint in Orthodox wall painting appears to offer an unexpected challenge to the view that such gender associations are the only possible outcome of the Genesis account. It is also tempting to relate the presence of such representations in Moldavia to the highly unusual social position of women in Moldavian society, based on inheritance customs which divided estates equally between both sons and daughters.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1998
References
1 The Orthodox iconographical theme of the throne of hetimasia represents and symbolizes the equality of the three hypostases of the Trinity.
2 Fotino, G., Étude sur la situation de la femme dans l’ancien droit roumain (Paris, 1931)Google Scholar, and ‘Droit romain et droit oriental: phénomènes d’interpénétration de la représentation en matière de successions féminines dans l’ancien droit roumain’, Mélanges in memoria lui Vasile Parvan (Bucharest, 1934), pp. 5–13; Gonţa, A. I., Satul în Moldova medievală-Instituţiile (Bucharest, 1986), pp. 249–50 Google Scholar. Women in Moldavia also retained significant control over their dowry during marriage.
3 Depiction of women as active donors was only possible when no male co-donors were portrayed. This seems to be the case at the church of St Nicholas Rădăţi. The paintings in this church have subsequently been very much overpainted, but Marina Sabados suggests that the votive image on the east wall of the pronaos dates from the sixteenth century. Interestingly, the donor in this image does not hold a model of the church, but relies solely on the scroll of commendation held by the female saint who stands behind her with her right hand protectively on the donor’s shoulder.
4 For a more detailed discussion see C. Peters, ‘The relationship between the human and the divine: towards a context for votive images in mural painting in Moldavia and Wallachia’, Revue des études sud-est européenes [hereafter RÉSEE], 32 (1994), pp. 35–43.
5 At its simplest the composition of the Deisis consists of an enthroned figure of Christ flanked by the Virgin Mary and St John the Baptist as intercessors.
6 Barbu, D., Pictura murală în Ţara Românească in secolul al XlV-lea (Bucharest, 1986), pp. 18–22 Google Scholar; Musicescu, M. A. and Ionescu, G., Biserica Domneasca din Curtea de Argeş (Bucharest, 1976), p. 11 Google Scholar; Ulea, S., ‘Portretul funerar al lui Ion – un fiu necunoscut al lui Petru Rareş, – şi datarea ansamblului de pictura de la Probota’, Studii şi Cercetării de Istoria Artei (Artă Plastică), 6/1 (1959), pp. 61–9 Google Scholar. A similar contrast can be seen at Bistriţa-Neamţ: Sabados, M. I., ‘Sur un portrait votif inédit de Bistriţa-Neamt’, RÉSEE, 30 (1992), pp. 89–96.Google Scholar
7 Ştefănescu, I. D., Iconografia artei bizantine si a picturii feudale românesti (Bucharest, 1973), pp. 162–3 Google Scholar; Musicescu, M. A., ‘Byzance et le portrait roumain au Moyen Age’, Études Byzantines et Post-Byzantines, 1 (1979), pp. 153–79 Google Scholar, labels the Moldavian iconography of the votive image as the ‘portrait à l’intercesseur’ (p. 158).
8 The church of Dobrovaţ is dedicated to the Descent of the Holy Spirit, which may explain the unusual absence of a mediatory saint. The votive image is described and discussed, mainly with respect to genealogy and dating, in Drăguţ, V., Dobrovaţ (Bucharest, 1984), pp. 7–9.Google Scholar
9 Dumitrescu, C. L., Pictura murală din Ţara Romāneascâ în veacul al XVI-lea (Bucharest, 1978), pp. 44–65 Google Scholar. A further Wallachian feature, first introduced at Bolniţa Coziei in 1542, was the inclusion of a small angel in the act of crowning the voievode.
10 Petković, R. V., La Peinture serbe du moyen âge (Belgrade, 1930)Google Scholar; Tatic-Djurić, M., ‘L’iconographie de la donation dans l’ancien art serbe’, in Berza, M. and Stanescu, E., eds, Actes du XIVe congrès international des études Byzantines – Bucarest 1971 (Bucharest, 1976), pp. 311–22.Google Scholar
11 Efremov, A., ‘Portrete de donatori în pictura de icoane din Ţara Romăneascâ’, Buletinul Monumentelor Istorice, 40/1 (1971), pp. 41–2 Google Scholar; M. A. Musicescu, ‘Byzance et le portrait roumain’, p. 170, details the three icons commissioned by the Serbian princess Despina, wife of the voievode Neagoe Basarab. The icon of the Descent from the Cross (c. 1522) includes Despina in mourning holding her dead son. In another icon (c. 1522) Despina and her two daughters kneel at the feet of the Serbian royal saints, Simeon and Sava. The icon of St Nicholas (c. 1518) includes Despina, her husband, and her children.
12 Elena was the daughter of John, despot of Srem (d. 1502) and married Petru Rareş, voievode of Moldavia, in 1529. After his death in 1546 she built two churches on her estate at Botoşani and one at Suceava. Some authorities maintain that Elena was also the sister of Despina, wife of Neagoe Basarab, voievode of Wallachia. If true, the limited nature of contemporary Serbian influence at Probota is all the more surprising. The ancestry of Despina is uncertain. She may have been the daughter of Domka, the first wife of despot Iovan Brankovitch, and at least some connection with the Brankovitch family seems certain: Mircea, I.-R., ‘Relations culturelles roumano-serbes au xvie siècle’, RÉSEE, 1 (1963), PP. 377–419.Google Scholar
13 The absence of exterior painting in Wallachia in this period means that a more detailed theological analysis of the total assemblage is required before we can fully appreciate the nature of the religious difference between the two regions.
14 The second church at Moldoviţa was begun in 1532, and the paintings are thought to date from 1537. Saints interceding with Christ on behalf of the donor usually only hold an intercessory scroll. A possible composition would therefore have been for the husband and wife to hold the church model jointly whilst the saint held the scroll of commendation.
15 The church was built in 1530, and the paintings completed in 1535.
16 For Humor see n. 15. The church of Voroneţ was built in 1488, and the paintings of the sanctuary and naos date from the reign of Ştefan cel Mare (before 1496). An inscription dates the paintings of the narthex to 1550, but this is now thought to refer to a repainting of a scheme contemporary with the paintings in the sanctuary and the naos. The exonarthex was added and painted in 1547. Cincheza-Buculei, E., ‘Le programme iconographique du narthex de l’église du monastère de Voroneţ’, Revue roumaine de l’histoire de l’art, 30 (1993), pp. 6–7 Google Scholar. Suceviţa was painted in 1595–6.
17 The church of Arbore was built by Luca Arbore, pâracălab of Suceava, in 1502. The date of painting is less clear. An inscription in the naos gives the name of the painter, Dragos,, and the date 1541. For Balş, this referred to a repainting, and he noted that all the figures in the naos votive images, except Christ and the saints, had been removed and replaced during the sixteenth century, probably after enemy destruction. The second votive image, which is in the pronaos above the tomb of Luca Arbore, depicts two not five children. If the convention of depicting only those in life was followed, this would suggest different dates of painting. More recently Drăguţ has taken the 1541 date of painting at face value, although recognizing the hand of more than one artist. This has the interesting result of making the patron of the paintings Ana, the niece of Luca Arbore who had lost his life for his part in a conspiracy against the voievode in 1523. However, it seems quite unlikely that the church would have remained unpainted for almost forty years, especially as Luca Arbore was clearly prospering in the first two decades of the sixteenth century. He invested large sums in parchasing villages, built a church at Sipote close to another of his residences, and in 1517 became tutor to the young prince Ştefăniţa.
Traces of painting to the left of the second saintly figure in the naos votive image at Arbore suggest the possibility of identification of an angel. The closest parallel to this composition is the votive image at Balineşti. Here, in the background behind the donor’s wife a standing figure of an angel gestures towards Christ. The church of Balineşti was built by the logofat loan Tăutu and, according to the dedication inscription, was completed in 1499. It is probable that the votive image was completed before the death of Tăutu in 1511 by the artist Gavril Ieromanhul. G. Balş, Bisericile lui Ştefan cel Mare, Buletinul Com. Mon. Istorice (Bucharest, 1926), pp. 15, 111–17, 133–8, 253, 262; Drăguţ, V., Arbore (Bucharest, 1969), pp. 15–17 Google Scholar; Popa, C., Balineşti (Bucharest, 1981), pp. 9–10 Google Scholar; Ulea, S., ‘Gavril Ieromonahul, automi frescelor de la Balineşti’, in Cultura moldovenească in timpul lui Ştefan cel Mare (Bucharest, 1964), pp. 424–61.Google Scholar
18 Very few funerary images survive, and of these not all take the form of the commendation of the individual to a divine or saintly figure. Gender differentiation is also expressed more subtly in the contrast between the two votive images at Arbore discussed above. Here the association of the wife in the act of donation is emphasised more in the votive image than in the funerary image. This rather paradoxical conclusion may simply reflect the position of the funerary image above the tomb of Luca Arbore.
19 For example, Eve is shown with cloth-covered hands in the Last Judgements at Arbore, Humor, Voroneţ, Moldoviţa, and St Demetrius, Suceava, but not at Probota.
20 Levin, E., Sex and Society in the World of the Orthodox Slavs, 900–1700 (Ithaca, NY, and London, 1989)Google Scholar. By the mid-seventeenth century, under the influence of Catholicism, images of the Fall depicting the serpent with a female head can be found in Russia.
21 Henry, P., Folklore et iconographie religieuse (Bucharest, 1928), pp. 21–30.Google Scholar
22 The placing of the Anastasis in the context of the Acathist hymn in praise of the Virgin Mary may contribute to a more egalitarian representation, as in the examples at Arbore and Sucevip.
23 The four female saints are Pelagia, Theodora, Barbara, and Mary the Egyptian.
24 James, M. R., ed., The Apocryphal New Testament, being the Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses (Oxford, 1926), pp. 208, 214 Google Scholar. The Greek narrative reads: ‘And behold as they bare her [Mary], a certain Hebrew named Jephonias, mighty of body, ran forth and set upon the bed, as the apostles bare it, and lo, an angel of the Lord with invisible power smote his two hands from off his shoulders with a sword of fire and left them hanging about the bed.’ The Latin narrative of Pseudo-Melito states: ‘And he came near and would have overthrown the bier and cast the body on the earth. And forthwith his hands dried up from his elbows and clave to the bier.’