The same may be said about Stephen's image in the manuscript of the Gospels of Humor (Fig.
23).
The major difference however is the audience of the two images:while the portrait at Voronet was seen by a variety of people who entered the church, the po1trait in the Gospels was seen by a significantly smaller number of people.
The physical appearance of Stephen in the Gospels manuscript is similar to his representation at Voronet, with the observation that here Stephen is some twenty years younger (as the Gospels of Humor were commissioned in
1473).
The prince's round face and pink cheeks suggest the representation of a younger man. The same blue eyes with thick eyebrows framed by Jong blonde hair and his pronounced moustache (without the beard) are gazing up to an enthroned Virgin Mary with her Son, while Stephen is presenting Christ with the manuscript he had just commissioned. On tbis occasion, the Mother of God is the mediator between the commissioner and Her Son.Fig. 23: Votive portrait ofStephen the Great in the manuscript ofthe Gospels ofHumor.
Image source: http://www .stefancelmare.ro/T etraevanghelul-de-la-Humor-1 4 73 -s6-ss22 -c'S .hrm Apart from the realistic physical image of the mler, there are two significant issues which strike the eye: the kneeling position of the ruler and a white space on the right side of the image which must be the place where another figure should have been painted. The fact that the prince kneels is compelling because he never k:neels in any of his other votive images. In all the other five votive portraits, Stephen appears in a typical Byzantine standing position before Christ. A further particular element of the representation is the act of mediation done by the Virgin Mary herself - a fact
pa1ticularly relevant as the Virgin never appears in any other votive images of Stephen. The fact that he is kneeling may therefore be related to the presence ofMary - yet another connection to the Byzantine Empire whose capital was symbolically placed und er the protection of the Mother of Christ. 141
While kneeling, Stephen faces a white space, which surely should have acconunodated a second kneeling character. The white space seems to never have been painted, although the intention of having somebody represented there is apparent. Ovidiu Pecican asks hirnself who was supposed to be represented as the second kneeling character. He presents a new hypothesis142 which disturbs the logical supposition that the second character should have been Stephen's wife at the time of the manuscript's comnuss10n, Maria of Mangup.143 The manuscript was commissioned in
1473
when Stephen was still married to Maria ofMangup. In1478,
after a short mouming period, Stephen married Maria Voichita. The year
1473
is also the year when Stephen took Maria Voichita hostage, a year which marked the begimling of one of the most tumultuous periods in Stephen's reign: two more clashes with the Wallachians in1473
and1474,
as weil as two major military conflicts with the Ottoman Empire in1 475
and1 476.
Observing these circumstances, Ovidiu Pecican concludes that the work of the Humor miniaturist "could have been stopped by a higher cleric (a father superior, a bishop, or even the Metropolitan himself) who, paying attention to both Stephen's policies and to the matTiage to Maria of Mangup who had given the ruler only daughters, would have preferred, because of transparent reasons, calmer times in order to decide who would be the best one to stand next to the prince."144 Should this hypothesis be accepted, a further argument could be given to the alleged "higher cleric's" reasoning on the ruler's wife: Maria of Mangup lost her ideological importance when the Ottoman Empire conquered the Principality of Mangup. Stephen thus lost his interest in both a possible Moldavian con�
uest ofthe princess' principality of origin and, consequently, for the princess herself. 1 5 Whether this hypothesis is accepted or not, it points out an important element in the ruler's image: the image of the ruler's wife which was just141 However, ooe cannot disregard Western examples of donor portraits where the dooor is depicted kneeling. Given that kneeliog is a rypical positioo for donors in the West, a Westem/gothic influence should not be omitted. See the hypothesis conceming westem influences in: Pecicao, Sange �i trandafiri, 47-50.
142 See the presentation ofthe whole theory in: lbidem, 50-58.
143 Certainly, the first hypothesis which comes to mind is tbat the wife who was supposed to be portrayed in the white space was the prince's wife at the time of the comrnission. Just like the Stole of the Dobrovät Mooastery (commissioned in 1 504) had the images of Stephen the Great and Maria Voichita represented in the lower register of the cloth, the Gospels of Humor logically should have beared the representations of Stephen and his current wife in 1473, Maria ofMangup.
144 Pecican, Sange �i trandafiri, 57.
145 See more in the Subdivision of this study "Let us marry an empress" and in: Gensen and Gerrsen, "Moldova �i principatul Theodoro Ia 1475", 145.
50
as relevant as that of Stephen's. The wife was an integral patt of the ruler's image and her visual appearance in the presence of the ruler was carefully constructed.
Analysing these two votive portraits which surely became examples for later representations of the ruler, it is evident that the remembrance of the· ruler's face was essential. Stephen was represented as a handsome man, full of potential, an image he is still identified with today. The exterior beauty is particularly significant as in the Middle Ages a beautiful exterior was the reflection of a beautiful interior. 146 Stephen the Great was physically portrayed on one side as the expression of beauty, inside and out, and on the other side as the expression of authority embellished with all his regalia, including his red shoes, signaHing greatness, power, and highest status. The existence of red shoes brings the discussion back to Stephen's ambition of becoming a genuine Byzantine (imperial) continuator. The miniature in the Gospels of Humor, the votive portraits in the Rädauti and Dorohoi monasteries, the representation of Stephen on the Veil of the Crucifixion at the Putna altar door and on the Stole of Dobrovat, all still show the red colour of the prince's shoes. Red shoes were among the chief signs of Byzantine imperial rank and a preeminent symbol of power. 147 Unsurprisingly, Stephen was to be identified (and remembered) with the attributes of this type of imperial ranking.