AN INTERPRETATIO WALLACHICA OF SERBIAN CULTURAL PATTERNS:

THE CASES OF RIBIA, STREISNGEORGIU AND CRICIOR

(BUT ALSO RME)
VLADIMIR AGRIGOROAEI
Cucule, pop srbesc,
Vino s m spovedesc,
C nu am multe pcate,
Num-un car i jumtate
i cte-oi mai duce-n spate.1

I wish to deal with cultural history and especially with the history of the
individual. Therefore my primary concern is with medieval art and literature,
which embody the thoughts and experiences of medieval man. A critical look at
the bibliography on medieval Transylvania reveals a series of interesting details,
some of which I shall present in the framework of our debate regarding
historical regions. Here I map the existence of regional cultural characteristics,
and the role of the Vlachs in their formation.
More exactly, I discuss here some monuments in the Haeg region and
the southern Apuseni Mountains, and I shall return to these from different
perspectives in a future work of synthesis. For now, I shall present the subject
in a nutshell.
a) Streisngeorgiu
Lack of written evidence would suggest, at first glance, that medieval man was
silent. But in the case of Romanians in the Middle Ages, this silence was broken
by the first inscription at Streisngeorgiu (1313-1314) (Fig. 1). On the eastern
wall of the apse in the church is an Old Slavonic inscription mentioning the
name of the knez Balot, the founder, with a curious formula at the end:
In the year six thousand eight hundred and two I started this church with the
help of Saint George and the Mother of God and all saints, for the aid and

PhD, Centre dtudes Suprieures de Civilisation Mdivale, France; University of Verona, Italy.
Cuckoo, my Serbian priest/ Come and let me confess/ For I dont have many sins/ Only a wagon
and a half/ And as many as I can carry on my back. Flori alese din cntecele poporului [A
garland of folk songs] 1920, in Ovid Densuianu, Flori alese din cntecele poporului. Vieaa
pstoreasc n poezia noastr popular. Folclorul: cum trebuie neles. Graiul din ara Haegului,
[A garland of folk songs. Pastoral life in Romanian folk poetry. Folklore: how it must be
understood. The dialect of Haeg country], (Bucharest: Editura pentru Literatur, 1966), 150, no.
CLX.
1

Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Historica, 16/II (2012): 105-135

|VLADIMIR AGRIGOROAEI
forgiveness of the sins of knez Balot, as well as for the aid and salvation of
Nane the priest, and Teofil (being) the painter.2

The otherwise insignificant little church in the Strei river valley, where the
Haeg basin meets the Mure river valley, displays not (as has so often been
claimed) a character of pre-state feudalism,3 but the expression of three
wishes. Let us explain. According to the Acts of the Apostles, a founder (Gr.
, Lat. possessor) is one who sells his ephemeral worldly goods, that time
can only destroy or diminish, in order to make an offering to God.4 From this
point of view, a founder gives up something to make an offering to the Saviour,
thanking Him for His sacrifice.5 Thus there is a difference between a founder
and a donor. The two corresponding Latin notions are possessor and donator. It
is no surprise that traditionally, founders are also donors, since in the vast
majority of cases the two categories overlap not to mention their political,
economic, or social prestige, much greater than that of other cultural agents.
However, there were also monks who founded monasteries,6 and we know of
medieval churches founded by the entire village.7 This notion is extremely
vague. So when the donor is a poor local knez, all the other founders appear
alongside him, even if they are not founders in the literal sense of the term, but
simple possessores of a certain skill or will. The case of Streisngeorgiu joins
together a knez, a priest, and a painter. As such, it is the most edifying. The

Ion-Radu Mircea, Quelques considrations palographiques et linguistiques au sujet de

linscription votive de 1313-1314 Streisngeorgiu, Dacia 20 (1976): 63-69.
3 Radu Popa, Streisngeorgiu. Mrturii de istorie romneasc din secolele XI-XIV n sudul
Transilvaniei [Streisngeorgiu. Testimonies of Romanian history in the 11th-14th centuries in
southern Transylvania], Revista muzeelor i monumentelor istorice 47 (1978): 29. The formula is
quoted as such by Anca Bratu, Biserica ortodox Sf. Gheorghe din satul Streisngeorgiu (Clan,
jud. Hunedoara) [The Saint George Orthodox Church in the Village of Stresngeorgiu (Clan,
Hunedoara county)], in Vasile Drgu (Ed.), Repertoriul picturilor murale medievale din Romnia
(sec. XIV-1450) [Repertory of medieval mural paintings from Romania, 14th century-1450], Part I,
(Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1985), 291, (henceforth abbreviated Bratu, Biserica ortodox
Sf. Gheorghe).
4 Cf. Acts 4, 33-35: With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the
Lord Jesus. And Gods grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy
persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses [] sold
them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to
anyone who had need.
5 Tania Kambourova, Ktitor: le sens du don des panneaux votifs dans le monde byzantine,
Byzantion 78 (2008): 261-287.
6 See the case of Tomik, founder of Iviron monastery on Mount Athos; Rosemary Morris, Monks
and Laymen in Byzantium: 843-1118, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 85-87.
7 Sophia Kalopissi-Verti, Church Foundations by Entire Villages (13th-16th centuries): A Short
Note, Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog instituta, Belgrade, 44 (2007): 333-340. It must be
highlighted that the final part of the study overestimates the economic factor, assigning collective
foundations to an agrarian economy which materializes for the author in a mediocre quality of
the painted decoration, 339.
2

|106

An Interpretatio Wallachica of Serbian Cultural Patterns|

knez could be the donor, the priest the founder, while the artist glorified the
Saviour with his talent. And all of them together: a voice speaks here to show us
once again how un-feudal Romanian feudalism was.
On the other hand, things do not stop here. There is also the
participation of the common people, who naturally felt the need to leave
behind a series of drawings including animal figures and ploughs, and also
inscriptions.8 Inscribing the names of the dead does not imply an act of
vandalism or violation of a work of art.9 These inscriptions are not merely
names on a wall or fence. We must understand that they were scratched with
the consent or perhaps even participation of a member of the clergy (since the
majority of the community was illiterate). Some inscriptions even mention the
name of the priest or schoolmaster who incised them. Birth and death articulate
both personal and collective identity, and render meaning to a monument.10
Similarly the scratched drawings of ploughs, probably connected to the feast of
Saint George, patron of the church,11 also prove that the entire community
participated in a cultural act, albeit subsequent to the completion of the
painting. Further, there is also a kind of aesthetic care in making these
inscriptions, as well as a kind of respect for the painters work or the religious
message.12 The modern alterations from the time of Bishop Inochentie Micu
Klein also seem to have respected the choices made by the medieval painters.13
Adrian Andrei Rusu, Reprezentri de pluguri pe fresca bisericii medievale de la Streisngeorgiu
(jud. Hunedoara) [Representations of ploughs on the frescos of the medieval church in
Streisngeorgiu (Hunedoara county)], in Idem, Investigri ale culturii materiale medievale din
Transilvania [Investigations of medieval material culture of Transylvania], (Cluj-Napoca: Editura
Mega, 2008), 46 (re-plication of a 1976 article), (henceforth abbreviated Rusu, Reprezentri de
pluguri).
9 See on the fresco of the northern wall of the altar: Ivanca, Amen; Ivan; her mother died;
remember, Lord, Avram secretary 8 on the second day of the month of April ... priest Adam;
and on the opposite wall: Anica; the servant of God Costandin died; first of the month of
January Gods servant Elina passed away in the quiet heavenly empire and eternal and
peaceful life. Cf. Bratu, Biserica ortodox Sf. Gheorghe, 295-296.
10 For a theoretical analysis of this issue, see: Nuala C. Johnson, Plic Memory, in James S.
Duncan, Nuala C. Johnson, Richard H. Schein (Eds.), A Companion to Cultural Geography, (s.l.:
Blackwell, 2004), 317.
11 Rusu, Reprezentri de pluguri, 41-51.
12 Ibid. 48, These drawings, that we tend to consider destructive, are at the same time artworks
by anonymous creators outside the circle of elites, graphic transpositions or most often secular
ideas. In an age mentally dominated by the church, one cannot speak about iconographic
desecrations. The grouping of the ploughs in the peripheral area of the frescoes, avoiding the
figures of the saints, proves this.
13 Adrian Andrei Rusu, Ileana Burnichioiu, Monumente medievale din ara Haegului. Medieval
monuments of Haeg District, (Cluj-Napoca: Editura Mega, 2008), no page numbering, [] as
apparent from another inscription, this stratum [from 1409, authors note] was remade in the
eighteenth century (1743) with the financial support of the Greek Catholic Bishop Inochentie
Micu Klein. The addition was colour on colour [].
8

107|

|VLADIMIR AGRIGOROAEI
All these details may dimly reveal the cultural importance of the monument at
Streisngeorgiu. Within the local community, the tiny church and its paintings
may have represented the Work of Art as such. On a temporal level, this
artwork was eternal, and only thus can we comprehend how members of the
community desperately appended their names to it so as not to remain
unmentioned, to steal for themselves, each and every one, a small part of
eternity. This merely confirms the suppositions made on reading the first
inscription. The knez did not represent his authority by building the
monument. On the contrary, he was also joined by the priest, the painter, and a
group of anonymous others, who could only make their presence felt through
the graffiti on the walls.
Another interesting fact is worth mentioning at Streisngeorgiu. A
second inscription (1408) mentions that the building might have had a triple
function: as parish church, court chapel, and monastery (Fig. 2). Let us quote
the whole inscription:
In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Master Chendre
and his Mistress Nistora and his sons built this monastery in honour of the
great saint, martyr and soldier of Christ George; and it was finished and painted
for bodily health and for the salvation of the soul in the days of King Jicmon
[Sigismund] and of the Transylvanian voivodes Ioane and Iacov, October 2nd
6917.14

While the first two functions raise the unsolved problem of the court chapel,
the third remains a mystery. We have no idea why the church became a
monastery. The community does not seem to have changed. At first glance
the only explanation might be that when this second inscription and votive
painting were created, the new name for the cultural act probably shows the
(reassessed) importance that the building had in the eyes of those involved.
However, another problem arises here. Next to the figures holding the
tabernacle, the following lines are inscribed: the servant of God master Laco;
the servant of God mistress Nistora; the founder master Chendre offering
the monastery to Saint George and the servant of God Vlaico (son) of
Chendre.15 It has been observed that the same disposition of names around the
inscription, a similar text, and many other analogies (in clothing, for instance)
can be found also in the churches of Ribia and Cricior, north of the Mure
valley, but no coherent explanation of this resemblance has been provided

Gheorghe Mihil, Cele mai vechi inscripii cunoscute ale romnilor din Transilvania (13131314 i 1408, Streisngeorgiu-oraul Clan, judeul Hunedoara, [The earliest known inscriptions
of Romanians from Transylvania (1313-1314 and 1408, Streisngeorgiu-Clan town, Hunedoara
county], Revista Muzeelor i monumentelor istorice. Monumente istorice i de art XLVII/1
(1978): 38.
15 Anca Bratu, Biserica ortodox Sf. Gheorghe, 298.
14

|108

An Interpretatio Wallachica of Serbian Cultural Patterns|

before now. The impossibility of treating this problem in its entirety forces us
to leave it for later, after presenting the paintings of Ribia and Cricior.
b) Ribia
The church of Ribia, with its painting probably finished in 1407, is one of the
most important monuments of the corpus.16 Perhaps this is because here we
find a text similar to that in Streisngeorgiu, the second inscription from 1409
(Fig. 3). I shall not speak here about the painters hands or about formal
features of the murals at Ribia, since such things are always subject to
interpretation and the criteria change constantly according to researchers
whims. Nor shall I discuss the iconography of the paintings; a brief mention
will be made only of the problem of the three royal saints from the Hungarian
dynasty, painted on the wall opposite the votive painting. Instead, this latter
painting will be discussed in greater detail, particularly the characters
represented. By name they are, as listed in the inscriptions:
the servant of God master Vladislav;
the servant of God master Micluu;
the servant of God ...[female];
the servant of God Ana, daughter of Vladislav.

The list goes on to name Matia, Stana/Stanca, Sora, Ioanca/Stanca, and other,
unknown figures; the painted inscriptions giving their names have disappeared,
and the quasi-anonymous kneeling figures offer the tabernacle of the church to
Saint Nicholas. I shall mention also the text of the much disputed inscription,
wrongly copied and repainted, decipherable only with great difficulty, and
remaining in the end an enigma.17 It says, more or less:
By the will of the father and the help of master Vladislav and his mistress
Stana with his son and , brother of master Micluu and his mistress Sora ...
to the heavenly empire built and painted the monastery of Saint Nicholas ...
and his family in eternity in the days ....18

The 1993 restoration of the church revealed an inscription on the northern wall of the altar,
containing the year 1407; Irina Popa, Les peintures murales du Pays de Zarand (Transylvanie) au
dbut du XVe sicle: Considrations sur liconographie et la technique des peintures murales,
edited by Jean-Paul Sodini and Catherine Jolivet-Lvy, (Paris: DEA de lUniversit de Paris I,
1995), 24. Before this discovery, proposed datings were 1417, 1414, 1404, and even the late
fourteenth century.
17 For the first citations of this inscription, see Silviu Dragomir, Vechile biserici din Zarand i
ctitorii lor n sec. XIV i XV [The old churches of Zarand and their founders in the 14th and 15th
centuries], Anuarul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice pentru Transilvania (1929): 223-264
(henceforth abbreviated Dragomir Vechile biserici din Zarand). Dragomir mentioned first a
Vasile in 1414-1415, then a Vladislav in 1417. Except for the name Vladislav, none of the
information is correct, although repeatedly quoted in the literature.
18 Liana Tugearu, Biserica Sf. Nicolae din com. Ribia (jud. Hunedoara) [St. Nicholas Church
from Ribia (Hunedoara county)], in V. Drgu, Repertoriul picturilor murale, 146.
16

109|

|VLADIMIR AGRIGOROAEI
But which monastery, since archaeological research has revealed no evidence of
any such construction?19 Further, the inscription differs markedly from that
published by dn Nemes in 1868, and mentioned again by Rusu.20 The text is
the following:
In gratitude to the Good Lord I have raised this church because King Sigismund
returned the goods lost by our father Vladislav. Matia, Vladislav, Miclu of
Ribia, and with the daughters Ana and Ioanca built this in 1404... to be a
charter for their sons ... the sixth Saturday of Lent...21

Could this latter text be, as Rusu proposes, a summary of the real inscription,
eliminating stereotypes and religious formulae? It could well be, although this is
hard to prove unequivocally. Dragomirs reading of the inscription, confused
and with many errors, has led to a multitude of interpretations:
By the will of the Father and the help of the Son and the accomplishment of
master Vladislav and his mistress Stana and his son []
and with his brother master Miclu and with his mistress Sora.
to the Heavenly Emperor was built and painted the monastery of Saint
Nicholas []
his and his familys forever, to the day of the terrible judgment of Christ. In
the days of Jicmund []
to be a charter for his sons
[] completed in the sixth Saturday of Lent
Stana to complete and they completed with the blessing of the Holy
Spirit
, Priest Dragosin, in the year 6925, in the month of July, the 15th, was
completed and painted by hand22

It is clear that the three men were sons of a certain Vladislav (1404), son of a
certain Nexa Teodor (1369). King Sigismund punished Vladislav for a nota
infidelitas with confiscation of his estates. The three sons of Vladislav
mentioned in the inscription, once they had recovered their inheritance and
reached an agreement with the king, thanked him any way they could. This
information is completed with the mention of a certain priest, Dragosin, and by
another inscription on the northern wall, now lost:
Built under the pastoral care of Pope Gregory and of Anastasios, 1404.23

If we also take into account the three Hungarian royal saints represented on the
northern wall, next to the lost inscription, things seem to get more complicated.
Can we speak about a double ecclesiastical authority for the Romanians in
dn Nemes, A ribicei templom 1404-bl [The church of Ribia from 1404], Haznk s a
Klfld 4/4 (1868): 63-64, apud Adrian Andrei Rusu, Biserica romneasc de la Ribia (judeul
Hunedoara) [The Romanian church from Ribia (Hunedoara county)], Revista Monumentelor
Istorice 60/1 (1991): 3-9, (henceforth abbreviated Rusu, Biserica romneasc de la Ribia).
20 Rusu, Biserica romneasc de la Ribia, 8.
21 Ibid., 7.
22 Dragomir, Vechile biserici din Zarand, 30.
23 Rusu, Biserica romneasc de la Ribia, 7.
19

|110

An Interpretatio Wallachica of Serbian Cultural Patterns|

Haeg and Zarand?24 Although a working hypothesis has been proposed that the
organization of the Romanian Orthodox church of Transylvania was influenced
by that of the Catholics, I think that the special situation of Ribia must be
understood differently. Here, masters Vladislavu and Micluu decided, for
reasons unknown, to mention the names of the Pope and the Bishop of Severin,
though they seem to be in complete contrast. They also decided to paint the
kings St Stephen, St Emeric and St Ladislas. This ensemble is difficult to explain.
However, the details are easier to understand. Rusu, attempting to explain the
problem, pointed out that for the medieval world political loyalty takes
concrete, nuanced forms, including in religious terms. He also noted that,
whatever the explanation for the lost inscription and the royal saints, what
remains is a show of recognition of two ecclesiastical hierarchies and
authorities.
Since Anastasios was the orthodox bishop of Vidin between 1387 and
1403, and maybe even later, around 1412,25 we may conclude that in 1404 the
three brothers and their families built a church as a sign of gratitude to God for
the recovery of their inheritance. This explains the importance of 1404, the first
year mentioned in the inscription, connected with the charter of Sigismund of
Luxemburg. However, the building of the church and completion of the
painting lasted for several years, so that the year of the inscription is 1407,
when the murals were finished. Only then was the problem of an inscription
raised, and inquiries made as to who the ecclesiastical leaders of the time were.
Those involved must have known of Bishop Anastasios long before, since priest
Dragosin must surely have mentioned him often, but they could not have
known of Gregory XII before 1406, when he became Pope (1406-1415, deposed
in 1409.) But why would they have mentioned the pope? In fact, why not? As
Valentin Trifescu, Bisericile cneziale din Ribia i Cricior (nceputul secolului al XV-lea)
[Knezial churches in Ribia and Cricior (beginning of the 15th century)], (Cluj-Napoca: Eikon,
2010), 25 (henceforth abbreviated Trifescu, Bisericile cneziale), citing Adrian Andrei Rusu,
Ctitori i biserici din ara Haegului pn la 1700 [Founders and churches in Haeg county before
1700], (Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Stmrean, 1997), 34. The comparisons with Bihor county,
mentioned by Trifescu, are valid. Those with southern Italy however must be treated carefully.
See for this Graham A. Loud, The Latin Church in Norman Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2007), especially the chapter on Latins, Greeks and Non-Christians, 494-520.
In Apulia and Calabria, because of repeated tensions between the Latins and Greeks, the Latin
offensive led to a synthesis in which the political factor played a fundamental role. Pope
Alexander II, for example, granted the right to Robert Guiscard in 1067 to found Latin
settlements or to convert Greek monasteries to Latin monasteries. Several documents prove that
the monks were of different origins: Greeks, Lombards, or even Normans; G.A. Loud, The Latin
Church, 86. There are also reverse examples in which Latin settlements were given to Greek
monks, but these examples are characteristic mostly for the first half of the eleventh century and
the patronage of Lombard seniors; G.A. Loud, The Latin Church, 55. There is no such situation in
Transylvania.
25 Rusu, Biserica romneasc de la Ribia, 8.
24

111|

|VLADIMIR AGRIGOROAEI
long as they were mentioning everything that could be mentioned: themselves,
the charter, the priest, the king, and the bishop of Vidin. The case is a special
one. It seems that, just as the church of Streisngeorgiu did not present a case of
pre-state feudalism, nor does that of Ribia prove privileged status for the
knezes in Sigismund of Luxemburgs Hungary.26 The theoretical premises must
have been wrongly set.
It would perhaps be best to remember that this enigma cannot be
explained by overestimating political or social factors. The strange case of Ribia
will not be understood if the gesture is not seen in its real significance, if the
individual is always subjected to a social taxonomy, compared with other
cases, and subsumed to the category of Romanian nobleman in transition
from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. Of course the nobles of Ribia belonged to this
category, but the paintings and inscriptions represent not only the Hungarian
kingdom in all its diversity, but also, first and foremost, the chaotic and
unrelenting will of a whole family. The members of this family, passing through
a terrible ordeal, came close to losing their estates and status; the world in
which they had lived was about to change radically. In this situation, the
abundance of texts on the church walls shows the degree of desperation that the
three sons reached after their father committed the nota infidelitas.
The three brothers with their wives and children simply do not know
how to express their thanks after they had overcome this difficulty. They thank
God, and they thank the king. They thank not once, but several times. They
also mention the charter, for fear of any future ambiguity. They mention the
name of the pope, that they find out only subsequently. They mention the
name of the bishop of Vidin. Next appears the name of the priest Dragosin, just
as in the first inscription of Streisngeorgiu. The inscriptions form a synthesis of
their world, a world for the existence of which they all made an offering. The
procession of founders does not represent their social status alone. Behind the
stereotypical formulas is also an intense experience, gratitude for being allowed
to stay within the world of their father and grandfather, to keep their fortune
and place in this world. Therefore the inscription not only fixed for eternity the
moment when the church was built and painted. The inscription becomes, in its
turn, an act to serve the descendants in any possible legal problems. Such
situations as will become apparent appeared at Cricior over the centuries.
c) Cricior
Distinct from the situation at Ribia, Cricior presents different features. The
Church of the Assumption of Mary of this village was partly rebuilt during the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, during which work the paintings were

26

Trifescu, Bisericile cneziale, 10.

|112

An Interpretatio Wallachica of Serbian Cultural Patterns|

damaged.27 Moreover, the paintwork is seriously deteriorated, and the

contemporary restoration failed to make the most of it. The paintings are a
secco and follow a pattern shared with Ribia (the Hungarian royal saints
appear here too), but the founders approach is different. Although no traces of
a votive inscription have been identified, as they disappeared after the
eighteenth century, some small texts on the votive painting describe in detail
the names and relationships of the founders (Fig. 4). These are painted in the
south-western corner of the nave, on two walls, and bear the following names:
Gods servant, the founder master Blea, offers the monastery to the Holy
Mother of God the eternal Virgin Mary;
Gods servant mistress Vie;
Iuca, son of the founder;
Gods servant Laslo son of Blea.28

At the feet of mistress Vie is another character, a child, tefan. Unlike at

Ribia, at Cricior we are dealing with members of a single family, with the
figure of master Blea preeminent. The wife and sons accompanying him are
marked off by a colonnade, often employed in the paintings and sculptures of
gothic Europe, especially on tombstones.29 However, it is not this colonnade
that interests me, but another detail. The church built in 1411 with the
financial support of this local nobleman does not express humble thanks for
escaping a great difficulty, but a real pride. The silhouettes of the founders
emanate an air of dignity. In the same political context in which the noblemen
of Ribia lost their lands and rights, the king granted master Blea several other
estates.30 In other words, although the paintings are strikingly similar, the two
So as not to list all modifications, I shall only mention the enlargement of the apse of the altar,
which destroyed walls and, presumably, the painting on the eastern side; Trifescu, Bisericile
cneziale, 43. It is also worth mentioning that the church has traces of a possible external painting
as well (northern side).
28 Liana Tugearu, Biserica Adormirii Maicii Domnului din satul Cricior (com. surban a oraului
Brad, jud. Hunedoara) [The church of the Assumption of Mary of the village of Cricior (surban
commune of Brad town)], in Drgu, Repertoriul picturilor, 90-91 (henceforth abbreviated
Tugearu, Biserica Adormirii Maicii Domnului).
29 For the interpretations of the colonnade under which the founders are represented, see
Tugearu, Biserica Adormirii Maicii Domnului, 80 (the space decreases beginning with knez
Blea); Virgil Vtianu, Istoria artei feudale n rile Romne [The history of feudal art in the
Romanian principalities], (Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1959), 404; and Trifescu, Bisericile
cneziale, 77 (which compares it with the old imported colonnade of Strei). A similar colonnade
appears with the Hungarian Kings painted at the church of Tileagd.
30 Blea, son of Boar of Cricior, received several estates in the district of Criul Alb for his
services to the crown; Eudoxiu Hurmuzaki, Documente privitoare la istoria romnilor
[Documents regarding the history of Romanians], I, 2, collected, annotated and plished by
Nicolae Densuianu, (Bucharest: Socec, 1891), 433; Dragomir, Vechile biserici din Zarand, 1718, considers the modern evidence fake, but nothing prevents us from believing (as he himself
does not seem not to believe completely) that Blea could be identical with Boalya de
Krestior, accused of the murder of a certain Johann de Nueremberga, a familiaris of the king.
27

113|

|VLADIMIR AGRIGOROAEI
monuments and works of art have an utterly different significance as cultural
acts. Master Blea and his family members are treated separately, majestically,
under separate arcades, and not kneeling all together, in a restricted group, like
Vladislav, Matia, and Micluu. The painting of Cricior responds to that of
Ribia, competes with it, and opens up a dialogue whose main human factor was
the eternal vice of pride. Two rival families, two rival churches, two paintings
similar in form, but different in meaning. Maybe even two rival painters, for
artists always suffer from this creative vice.
One more detail however demands our attention. The votive painting
may be incomplete, since in 1773, when the descendants of the medieval
founders had to prove their right of possession over some villages, they cited the
inscription and paintings in the church. From the documents then presented,
we find that the lord was a certain voivode Bla, the wife was Vie, the sons
tefan (who died young), Ladislau, and Ciuca (?), and the daughters Szor and
Filca. The date is 1411.31 The mention of the two daughters, like the daughters
also mentioned at Ribia, suggests a representation of their figures in the space
between the three royal saints and the founders sons, now occupied by a
modern window. So much for Cricior.
d)Rme monastery
Although it seems to be outside our corpus, the church of Rme monastery also
raises several problems previously unelucidated.32 This is precisely why I have
left it till last. First of all, the date of construction is unknown. Attempts at
dating range from the early fourteenth to the early fifteenth century. For the
time being I do not wish to take sides in these disputes, and thus shall not
include here the exact text of the inscription painted onto the second layer of
painting (Fig. 5). Let me only say that some have read the year as 1377, others as
1485. The whole problem derives from another inscription on the outside, and
also from two attempts to translate its text. The inscription contains three
proper names. The first is the name of the painter Mihu, originating from Criul
Alb region (Zarand), then the name of Archbishop Gelasios (also read as
George), and of the Hungarian King Louis the Great (or Matthias Corvinus,
Although pardoned by the king, he was probably executed by Pippo Scolari in 1415. For the
moment, this event, dated after the construction of the monument and the completion of the
painting, seems to be anecdotal. In this description the figure of Blea of Cricior remains
imprinted forever in the majestic portrait on the votive painting in the church. His death presents
no special interest as long as it cannot be connected to any modification of the painting.
31 Dragomir, Vechile biserici din Zarand, 16, cites and rejects the year 1411 in an attempt to date
the foundation to the time of Louis the Great. However, the arguments presented are not
pertinent.
32 For all references, see Liana Tugearu, Biserica mnstirii Rme (sat Valea Mnstirii, nglobat
satului Rme, com. Rme, jud. Alba) [The church of Rme monastery (Valea Mnstirii
village, belonging to Rme village)], in Drgu, Repertoriul picturilor murale, 149-173.
(henceforth abbreviated Tugearu, Biserica mnstirii Rme).

|114

An Interpretatio Wallachica of Serbian Cultural Patterns|

although some researchers have claimed that even Sigismund of Luxemburg

could be hiding under the name Matthias). The inclusion of these authorities
in the inscription, and Mihus elegant manner of painting, led to the invention
of a school of painting, existing beforehand, if in 1377 it already produced an
artist of his talent.33 Those who invented this school have discounted the
possibility that Mihus artistic talent was innate. If my reasoning is correct, this
could have also been why he was invited to paint at Rme monastery.
However, the research is far from complete. It has ignored a formula
often used in documents, beginning or ending with reference to secular or
ecclesiastical authorities (almost invariably the king and the pope, archbishop,
or sometimes other prelates). Taking into account that such documents exist for
the Hungarian kingdom,34 it may well be that the inscription of Rme was
inspired by medieval diplomatic tradition and that the presence of the
authorities, Louis/Matthias/Sigismund, and perhaps also Gelasios, was not
merely incidental.35 Attention must be drawn to the formula in the days of
[] preceding the kings name, corresponding to the Latin regnante. Unlike
the king, Gelasios could have participated in the foundation, since he is also
mentioned at the beginning of a later (eighteenth-century) name-list scratched
onto the walls of the altar, but it is curious that his name is only mentioned
after the painters. If we were to believe the names in the inscription, in the
economy of cultural gestures the painter Mihu is more important than
Archbishop Gelasios, which raises a series of questions. Moreover, it would be
well worth finding out who this Gelasios was, always mentioned but never
analyzed.36 This said, I have now finished the description of my corpus.
Tugearu, Biserica mnstirii Rme, 165.
Let us mention only three of the many documents using this formula, issued in the period of
three different kings (Andrew III, Charles Robert of Anjou, and Louis the Great) to show that its
use was quite constant: Anno Domini MCCXCVII, regnante domino nostro Andrea, serenissimo
rege Ungariae, et temporibus domini Faletro de Venetiis, Dei gratia, Sibinicensis electi [];
Georgius Fejr, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, vol. 1, (Budapest: Typis
Typogr. Regiae Universitatis Ungariae, 1829), 119; Cf. Anno Domini MCCCIII, ind. I (II) XX
Octobris, regnante domino nostro Roberto, rege Ungariae, tempore quidem ven. Patris D. fratris
Petri, archiepiscopi Spalatensis, egregii viri D. Comitis Georgii []; Georgius Fejr, Codex
diplomaticus Hungariae, vol. 8/1, 157; Cf. [] Datum die Dominico proximo post festum
Pentecostes. Anno Domini MCCCLXIV, praesentibus tamen dominis Petro lectore, Paulo cantore,
Iohanne custode, Lamperto Lamperti, Ladislao Iacobi, Nicolao Ladislai canonicis, in dicta ecclesia
iugiter Deo famulantibus, regnante domino nostro Ludovico, illustri rege Hungariae,
venerabilibus in Christo patribus Thoma Strigoniensi, Stephano Colocensi archiepiscopis, et
domino Benedicto praeposito et praelato nostro[], ibid., vol. 9/3, 452. The list could include
several other examples.
35 Thanks to Marian Coman for his remark that such formulae (in the days of) also appear in
Slavonic documents. However, any terms of comparison for the period of interest are lacking, and
my comparison is only limited to Latin documents.
36 As a sample, tefan Andreescu, Un ierarh necunoscut: Arhiepiscopul Gheorghe [An unknown
prelate: Archbishop George], Biserica Ortodox Romn 84/7-8 (1966): 839-840; he only
33
34

115|

|VLADIMIR AGRIGOROAEI
The inscription-charters
At first sight, research seems to be blocked at this descriptive deadlock.
However, although we lack much information that we would need, some of it
seems to connect in a certain way. I speak here of the votive paintings and
inscriptions. One example is that at Rme, along with those of Cricior, Ribia,
and Streisngeorgiu. While a similarity between the last three votive paintings
has been noted in terms of compositional elements or the clothing depicted,37
these similarities have not yet been explained as derived directly or through
intermediaries from the inscription at Rme. Two arguments must be
mentioned. Firstly, that the nobles of the three settlements knew each other
and had much in common.38 Secondly, the formulae used at Streisngeorgiu,
Cricior and Ribia are also similar. Although the inscriptions of Ribia and
Cricior were lost or deteriorated, there is a series of parallels in the texts and
their insertion into the votive paintings. I shall present the cases in a table, to
make comparison simpler:
Cricior

Ribia

Streisngeorgiu

Gods servant, the founder

master Blea, offers the
monastery to the Holy
Mother of God the eternal
Virgin Mary

Gods servant master

Vladislav

The founder master

Chendre offers the
monastery to Saint
George

mentions that the prelate Gheorghe (the earlier reading of the inscription) was acknowledged
by the King of Hungary. All other studies which mention the archbishop present more or less the
same interpretation.
37 In addition, the men on the votive paintings wear weapons, detail which has kindled the
enthusiasm of archaeologists. Whereas in the case of the Ribia painting the case is clear, the
weapons are clearly swords, at Cricior these are sometimes thought to be knives, sometimes also
swords. I shall not go into this debate, the solution of which has nothing to offer to cultural
history. However, I wish to point out that the presence of weapons is not an attribute of power
and the recognition of social status privileged by Hungarian royalty (Trifescu, Bisericile
cneziale, 55). Giving up these allegedly socially relevant considerations, I shall only note that the
figures on the votive painting are represented in festive dress. The presence of weapons can be
understood as a proof of their pride, just like their clothing, but I do not think that weapons could
have anything to do with the Hungarian king.
38 See for this Trifescu, Bisericile cneziale, 18-19, who explains at length the connections between
the families of these noblemen: Boia (Blea) of Cricior and Vladislav of Ribia probably took
different sides in one of the conflicts in the second part of Sigismund of Luxemburgs reign, which
led the Hungarian king to honour the former and persecute Vladislav. Vladislavs descendants
probably returned to fidelitas, and the proximity to Cricior made them either rivals or friends of
their southern neighbours. As for the noble family of Streisngeorgiu, it is known that a certain
Ladislav Bollya (Blea) of Cricior was a royal emissary at their institution. The families of these
knezes definitely knew each other.

|116

An Interpretatio Wallachica of Serbian Cultural Patterns|

Gods servant mistress Vie

Gods servant...

Gods servant mistress

Nistora

Iuca son of the founder Gods

servant Laslo son of Blea

Gods servant Ana,

daughter of Vladislav

Gods servant Vlaico

(son) of Chendre

Gods servant master

Micluu

Gods servant master

Laco

...

By the will of the father

and the help of...

In the name of the

Father and the Son
and the Holy Spirit

...

Built and painted39

Built

...

Master Vladislav and his

mistress Stana with his son
and ...., his brother master
Micluu and his mistress
Sora... to the heavenly
empire

Master Chendre and

his mistress Nistora
and his sons

...

The monastery

This monastery

...

To Saint Nicholas...

To the Saint great

martyr and soldier of
Christ, George

...

And to his descendants

forever

And it was finished

and painted as prayer
for bodily health and
the salvation of the
soul

...

In the days of
THE POPE
THE BISHOP

In the days of king

Jicmon [Sigismund]
and voivodes of the
mountains Ioane and
Iacob in year 6917
October 2

Parallel comparison of the three inscriptions shows that they use a series of
common formulae. That which interests me most is in the days of , also
found in the inscription at Rme.

39

I have reversed the place of this expression for a better understanding of the formula.

117|

|VLADIMIR AGRIGOROAEI
Here we are at the second argument: the presence of the Hungarian
king and other authorities (voivodes, popes, or prelates) at Streisngeorgiu,
Ribia and Rme. It is difficult to prove a direct derivation from Rme (the
first evidence of the formula, in a much more concise form) as long as this dates
to the fifteenth century, which is why I also agree with the dating of the
inscription to 1376 or 1377.40 I say first evidence because this formula, quoted
below, is much closer to that used in diplomatic tradition, mentioning the name
of the king and ecclesiastical authorities.
I wrote it myself, the sinful servant of God Mihu, that is, the painter from
Criul Alb, with the consent of Archbishop Gelasios, in the days of King Louis,
in the year 6885 (1377), the month of July, the 2nd.41

In all probability, in the second inscription of Streisngeorgiu the formula was

changed by combing it with a different one, which could not have happened
prior to its consecration in the southern Apuseni Mountains. The appearance of
the expression in the days of [...] at Ribia (1407) could confirm that the
influence for the three inscriptions derived from north of Mure river.
As for the use of the term monastery in two out of three cases, this can
be explained in the first phase of the argument by the (voluntary or
involuntary) intention of people from Ribia (and maybe also from Cricior) to
polarize the local cultural network by founding a monastery, even if only
symbolically, to replace the role of Rme monastery, located too far out to the
east of the centre of the network.42 This self-assertion can easily be read
between the lines, from the many details accompanying the inscriptions of the
votive painting. The same amount of detail can also be found at Streisngeorgiu,
in the description of the founders. Moreover, it is also possible that this was
soon taken over at Cricior. The absence of any inscription in this church
suggests that there used to be one, based on formal similarities between the
scrolls describing the founders, and especially on the basis of modern evidence.
It is tempting, yet impossible to prove, given that the mural paintings are
seriously damaged.
Were it not for the series of formal similarities, my second hypothesis
would be just as hard to accept. From the perspective of this paper, there are
It is also possible that the inscription was recopied or repainted, and in the process a series of
changes could have occurred. My argument does not refer to the dating of the murals, but to the
dating of the inscription as a text, not as a painting.
41 Monica Breazu, Studiu epigrafic [A study in epigraphy], in V. Drgu, Repertoriul picturilor
murale, 49.
42 This monastery may have been built later, in the sixteenth century, as the monastery of Vaca.
Archaeological research of this latter has proved that there were no medieval traces, but has not
excluded that there might have been some migration to the south by certain monks from Ribia
(insofar as the term monastery in the inscription is to be understood as real). Adrian Andrei
Rusu, Ioachim Lazr, Gheorghe Petrov, Mnstirea Vaca [Vaca monastery], Ars Transsilvaniae 2
(1992): 145-168 (mainly 162).
40

|118

An Interpretatio Wallachica of Serbian Cultural Patterns|

affiliations even between the earlier inscription at Streisngeorgiu (1313-1314)

and the inscription at Rme. Although the nature of these affiliations is
unclear, the equivalence of the two is hard to disregard: painter/painter,
priest/archbishop, nobleman/king.43 It could be argued that the order of naming
is reversed, and that the terms of the equation are evidently different. Certainly,
Rme scales the hierarchies: the inscription names a prelate and a king. But let
us not forget that the talent of master Mihu albeit overestimated in art
historical research exceeds that of poor Teofil (the horses head on the
northern wall at Streisngeorgiu is a proof of his nave art). This leads to the
working hypothesis that the older inscription at Streisngeorgiu, or its
influences, could have influenced the Rme inscription. At the same time, a
formula from medieval Latin documents was also introduced. Taken over in at
least one case, at Ribia, it then returned to the wall opposite the first
inscription at Streisngeorgiu, and again at Cricior, in a cultural loop which
probably forgot its own starting point. Identifying this route is of course a
working hypothesis for future research. Some other terms should also be
included in the equation (the possible inscriptions at Cricior and Strei),44 and
perhaps also other inscriptions which either were destroyed (Hlmagiu and
Lenic), or have not been revealed yet. Future research will only enrich the
nodes of the cultural network, modifying its shape, but not denying its
existence.45 Thus for lack of other evidence, I prefer to stop here and say that
the nodes of this network once communicated as a transmitter belt, mobilizing
the cultural event. All we have left of that network is at an incomplete stage,
undoubtedly distorted by contemporary research.
Serbian influences
However, although much has been said, research is by no means finished. The
juridical role of these inscription-charters has attracted attention. The later
event at Cricior, when descendants used the inscriptions as evidence in a legal
matter, completed with the micro-historical reading of the inscription of Ribia,
As a second argument, let me provide another detail: the inscription of Streisngeorgiu is
painted between Saint Basil and Saint Nicholas (probably). The inscription of Rme is painted
next to Saint Gregory in a context of Saints Nicholas and Basil, and many other bishop saints.
There could be a chance that this similarity is not completely accidental.
44 For Lenic, Dragomir, Vechile biserici din Zarand, 14, mentions that such a painting, much
larger, decorates almost half the northern wall of the nave. He probably exaggerated or was
speaking from memory, because what is left of the votive painting at Lenic does not entitle us to
assume that it could have occupied more than one sixth of the northern wall of the nave.
45 Similarities have also been signalled with the votive paintings of Saint Nicholas church in
Rnov and Saint Nicholas church in Brsu. Cf. Virgil Vtianu, Studii de art veche
romneasc i universal [Studies in early Romanian and universal art], (Bucharest: Meridiane,
1987), 39. The network identified in this research is much more complicated, extending as late as
the sixteenth century and perhaps even beyond, if we consider the special case of the church of
Rocani.
43

119|

|VLADIMIR AGRIGOROAEI
alerts us that this type of inscription might not only have cultural connotations
(as a trend) but also legal ones (as a deed). Incidentally, many such examples are
to be found in Serbia. The first of these is represented by three deeds painted in
the course of the thirteenth century, and later repainted on the walls of the
fourteenth-century portico of the Serbian monastery of ia.46 (Fig. 6). The
story of these inscriptions is that after receiving the royal crown from the pope
in 1217, Stefan Nemanja II made ia an autocephalous archbishopric and
coronation place of the newly created dynasty. On this occasion, the foundation
deed was enforced by three charters issued by his chancery. These documents
were painted onto the portico walls of the bell-tower of the church, in order to
make the founding gesture more glorious, and also to stand as eternal evidence
for the donations made to the monastery. All three acts are reproduced in their
entirety, with all their penal clauses, on the external walls of the tower.
In a lengthy note in her study on Byzantine painting in the late Middle
Ages, Tania Velmans reconstructs a complicated route for these deeds,
transcribed in their entirety on mural complexes. For her, such charters,
without portraits, may be found in the 13th century churches.47 She also
mentions the monastery of ia, of Saint Andrew from Treska and other
examples, but thinks that Serbia could have been a place of contamination by
Byzantine and Italian influences, represented by the painted charter at
Subiaco.48 It is unclear whether this is the case: Marjanovi-Duani rules out
this possibility and rejects Italian influence, but agrees with the Byzantine
origins. The third part of her study, much more interesting, shows how this
cultural act led to the appearance of other painted deeds.49 Ignoring for now the
enumeration of all examples mentioned, I shall only add that such aspects
appear not only in Serbia but also on Mount Athos, on the eastern wall of the
Smilja Marjanovi-Duani, La charte et lespace sacr : les actes royaux transcrits dans les
peintures murales serbes (XIIIe-XIVe sicles) et leur contexte symbolique, Bibliothque de lcole
des Chartes 167/2 (2009): 391-416 (presented at a conference at Paris cole des Chartes, and
Poitiers CESCM, in 2008), (henceforth abbreviated S. Marjanovi-Duani, La charte et lespace
sacr). Cf. Soti Gojko, Trea ika povelja [The third Chrysobull of ia], Zograf 31 (20062007): 51-58; this analyzes the third inscription-charter of the monastery of ia, or more
precisely the fragments preserved of its repainting made with the redecoration of the church
under Archbishop Saint Sava III (1309-1316). For more details, see also Matthew Savage, The
Interrelationship of Text, Imagery and Architectural Space in Byzantium. The Example of the
Entrance Vestibule of ia Monastery (Serbia), in Wolfram Hrandner, Andreas Rhoby (Eds.),
Die kulturhistorische Bedeutung byzantinischer Epigramme, Denkschriften der phil.-hist.
Klasse, 371, Verffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 14 (Vienna: Verlag der sterreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008), 101-112.
47 Tania Velmans, La peinture murale byzantine la fin du Moyen ge, vol. 1, Bibliothque des
Cahiers Archologiques 11 (Paris: Klincksieck, 1977), 73, note 123.
48 Above it is the representation of Pope Innocent III, the authority who issued the charter, and
the inscription-charter is rolled and held by the abbot of the monastery and by Saint Benedict.
49 Marjanovi-Duani, La charte et lespace sacr, 404-415.
46

|120

An Interpretatio Wallachica of Serbian Cultural Patterns|

katholikon of Hilandar. This practice, beginning in the thirteenth century with

the rule of the Serbian dynasty, was widespread in the time of king Stefan Uro
II Milutin (1282-1321), but also long afterward.50 However, above and beyond
subtle analysis of the relations between the visual representation of these
charters and the iconographic choices, we must necessarily remember that the
chart was a sacred image,51 just as venerated as relics or the icons of saints. This
detail, extremely useful for the arguments of this paper, will be discussed later
on. For the time being let us not forget that most paintings in churches of the
Haeg region supposedly show Serbian or Dalmatian influence. Let us also not
forget that one name mentioned at Ribia was that of the Bishop of Severin, nor
that the first Cyrillic inscriptions as well as the first manuscripts also appear in
the Severin region52 or the Banat,53 also inspired by Serbian tradition. All these
and other supporting arguments plead for a southern cultural influence,
explaining the appearance of the inscription-charter as a northern extension of
a Serbian cultural network. On the other hand, one should also not forget that
both the painted deeds in Serbia and the inscription at Rme are found in
monasteries (painted on the churches, or onto the walls of adjacent buildings).
There could thus be a second explanation for the appearance of the word
monastery instead of church. Though it is possible that small communities
of monks could have settled next to the churches of Ribia and Streisngeorgiu,

I again thank Marian Coman for pointing out some other examples of painted charters in
modern Wallachia. Cosmin Popa-Gorjanu drew my attention to another curious example: in
1618, the monks of Cmpulung monastery asked for confirmation of the donation of Bdeti
village by Nicolae Alexandru in 1351-1352. The monks brought with them an icon of the Mother
of God bearing the donations of Nicolae Alexandru about the village in question; cf. Documenta
Romaniae Historica B ara Romneasc, 1247-1500, vol I, (Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1966)
11-12 (note).
51 S. Marjanovi-Duani, La charte et lespace sacr, 415.
52 Cf. Adrian Andrei Rusu, Castelarea carpatic: fortificaii i ceti din Transilvania i teritoriile
nvecinate (sec. XIII-XIV) [Castle-building in the Carpathian basin: fortifications and castles in
Transylvania and the neighbouring territories (13th-14th centuries)], (Cluj-Napoca: Mega,
2005) 211, mentioning an (indecipherable) Slavonic epigraphic frieze discovered in the ruined
chapel of Severin castle. There is also an amulet discovered near Turnu-Severin, containing an
exorcist prayer (184 lines) in Slavonic bearing traces of Serbian, inscribed on lead plates, dated to
the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century; L.I. Ciomu, Un vechi monument epigrafic slav la
Turnu-Severin. O rugciune-descntec slavo-srb din sec. XIII-XIV [An Old Slavonic
epigraphic monument at Turnu-Severin. A Slavonic-Serbian exorcist prayer from the 13th-14th
centuries], Revista istoric romn 8 (1938): 210-234, apud Dennis J. Deletant, Slavonic Letters
in Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania from the Tenth to the Seventeenth Centuries, The
Slavonic and East European Review 58/1 (1980): 1-21, here 2, (henceforth abbreviated Deletant,
Slavonic Letters)
53 Deletant, Slavonic Letters, 2-3, mentions the Slavonic manuscript no. 340 of the collections of
the Romanian Academy, discovered at Caransebe and dated, in all probability, to the thirteenth
century.
50

121|

|VLADIMIR AGRIGOROAEI
it cannot be excluded that the term was taken over tale quale as a consecrated
formula, without any monks present.54
Stimulus diffusion
The special case of the Transylvanian group of inscription-charters shows that
these were not servile imitations of the Serbian influences, but a local synthesis.
The deed is not reproduced on the church walls, but only referred to in the text
of the inscription. Therefore, the scenario I suspect is that once the inscription
including the Hungarian kings name had been painted at Rme, this started a
new procedure which must have become known in the cultural network of the
southern Apuseni valleys. Provided that the painters or even founders knew the
inscription-charters from Serbian territories, the strange choice at Ribia may
have been influenced by two uses, a local and an imported one. The cultural act
of the sons, daughters-in-law and grandchildren of the unmentioned Vladislav
(the noted traitor) was inscribed on the one hand into a local paradigm
(Rme) their thanks justifying the presence of the king and on the other
hand took over from Serbia an idea which helped them witness to eternity, by
means of a mural painting in the church, a deed which could have been
destroyed by the ravages of time. We should remember that in the Serbian
examples the painted deeds were sacred themselves. Bearing in mind the special
case of Ribia, we may assume that King Sigismunds deed was a sacred object
for the families of the three brothers. In other words if I may make such a
leap the charter (when mentioned) parasitizes the inscription, borrowing
something of the latters sacred nature. It is mentioned in the text of the
inscription, even if only in passing, for the descendants of the three families to
enjoy the privileges once granted by King Sigismund. Let us remember that
several years later the idea was also taken up at Cricior and Streisngeorgiu. In
its present state it is not clear whether the inscription of Cricior mentioned
any charter, but it was definitely used by early modern descendants of the
founding family in a legal matter, which could not have been merely incidental.
I suspect that its presence was planned from the very beginning.
All this shows that, despite coming from two different influences, the
inscriptions of Ribia, Cricior, and Streisngeorgiu do not entirely follow either
the Serbian influences, or that from Rme. On either side of the Mure valley a
third use was formed, a local synthesis, strange and unique, adapted to a local
forma mentis, reminiscent one of stimulus diffusion, a category of cultural
borrowing familiar to the diffusionists. Alfred L. Kroebers definition applies
wonderfully to the case of the so-called inscription-charters:

We could return to Virgil Vtianus earlier idea of a phrase from which the term monastery
could have been taken; Virgil Vtianu, Vechile biserici de piatr romneti din judeul
Hunedoara [Old Romanian stone churches in Hunedoara county], Anuarul Comisiunii
Monumentelor Istorice pentru Transilvania, 1929, (Cluj: Tipografia Cartea Romneasc, 1930), 31.
54

|122

An Interpretatio Wallachica of Serbian Cultural Patterns|

Diffused culture material often contains concrete or specific elements by which
the fact of diffusion can be subsequently recognized even in absence of a record
of the event [] only fragments of a larger complex or system reach the
affected culture or are accepted by it. In this event, the fragments or isolated
items may be put into an entirely new context in the culture which they
enter.55

This cultural borrowing has the imperfections pardon the comparison of

Chinese whispers.56 The receivers do not use the same codes as the senders, but
try in different forms to convey the original idea. They reach the same goal via
different means.
Votive paintings and the cycle of the Three Hungarian Holy Kings
Traces of this same stimulus diffusion can also be found in the founders
portraits where descriptive inscriptions appear. This is where we find
processions of figures in the Serbian style, familiar in Wallachian and
Moldavian paintings of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. For example, in
the Saint Nicholas princely church in Arge, the figures in the votive painting
(repainted) hold the tabernacle exactly as those of Cricior and Streisngeorgiu
do, except that they are crowned heads and the Serbian influences have
completely different meanings.57
Having reached this point in the argument, I cannot ignore the
importance of a fundamental article published by Corina Popa in 1996.58
Alfred L. Kroeber, Stimulus Diffusion, American Anthropologist 42/1 (1940): 1. A.L. Kroebers
article analyzes several cultural borrowings of this type, from the diffusion of various
technologies in the Far East to the alphabet of the Cherokees. He proves that stimulus diffusion
characterizes all human societies at all times (henceforth abbreviated Kroeber, Stimulus
Diffusion)
56 Kroeber, Stimulus Diffusion, 2, A goal or objective was set by something previously existing
in another culture; the originality was limited to achieving the mechanisms by which this goal
could be attained.
57 The influences brought into discussion for the paintings at Arge are also Serbian, because of a
dynastic obsession. The problem of dating is very complicated. The dating proposed comes from
Carmen Laura Dumitrescu, Anciennes et nouvelles hypothses sur un monument roumain:
lglise Saint-Nicolae-Domnesc de Curtea de Arge, Revue Roumaine dHistoire de lArt. Srie
Beaux-arts 16 (1979): 3-63. The painting at Arge was probably made in the time of Radu I,
around 1376-1377, or perhaps as late as 1382, and was repainted in the eighteenth century. See
also Ana Dumitrescu, Une nouvelle datation des peintures murales de Curtea de Arge. Origine
de leur iconographie, Cahiers Archologiques 37 (1989): 135-162; Eadem, Une iconographie peu
habituelle: les saints militaires sigeant. Le cas de Saint-Nicolas dArge, Byzantion 59 (1989): 4863. The two articles propose a new dating, since they try to demonstrate that the paintings were
repainted in the fifteenth century. See however Draginja Simi-Lazar, Sur une datation des
fresques de lglise de Saint-Nicolas de Curtea de Arge (Roumanie), Zbornik Matice srpske za
likovne umetnosti 39 (2011): 9-38, who vehemently rejects the dating proposed by Ana
Dumitrescu in favour of the older one of the fourteenth century.
58 Corina Popa, La peinture murale orthodoxe en Transylvanie au XIVe sicle et ses relations avec
le monde serbe, Revue roumaine dhistoire de lart, Srie Beaux-arts 33 (1996): 3-19, (henceforth
abbreviated C. Popa, La peinture murale orthodoxe). The Serbian influence was also signalled
55

123|

|VLADIMIR AGRIGOROAEI
Understanding the similarities, so familiar to a researcher who often had to deal
with Wallachian art, Popa devoted a whole article to the study of Serbian
influences. In what follows I discuss the proposed working hypotheses, adding
new interpretations, nuances and hypotheses, for this article deserves to be the
fundamental piece of scholarship in the interpretation of paintings in Haeg and
the southern Apuseni Mountains. Therefore it should be settled from the start
that in the case of the paintings of the southern Apuseni, we should speak of
direct Serbian influence and not of vague reminiscences coming via Wallachia.59
Corina Popa explains the connections between the two Romanian cultural
regions only by collateral influences rather than by direct communication. My
own explanation is found below.
Corina Popa holds that votive paintings in the Criul Alb valley and
Haeg semblent avoir pris pour modles les reprsentations votives des glises
des krali et des despotes serbes, ou les modles des fondations plus modestes de
la fodalit moyenne.60 Her proposed primary terms of comparison date from
the fourteenth century; these are Lesnovo (founded by master Oliver), Karan
(by master Brajan), and Psaa (by knez Paska and his son Vlatko). The
explanation is as simple as it is coherent: while in the Serbian environment
these reflect the development of the cult of royalty the dynastic obsession of
the Nemanji , in Haeg, since there was no State, ce monde... qui manque par
consquent une hirarchie ecclsiastique, mme dans des conditions
conomiques modestes, affirme son rang social par le droit de fonder des glises.
Les tableaux votifs refltent justement cette mentalit.61 Moreover,
Transylvanians used not only the representations of lesser Serbian founders as
sources of inspiration, but also the great royal ones. If Popas explanation is
correct, then the appearance of angels at Cricior could be influenced by the
votive painting at Manasija (1407) or by similar influences. At Manasija two
angels help Stefan Lazarevi hold his regalia (as the founder holds the

by Irina Popa, Les peintures murales du Pays de Zarand, 48. I found Corina Popas article
relatively late, when my research on Serbian influences had been going on for a long time. This
article went unnoticed by most recent studies, which for strange reasons, chose either to ignore it
or to regard it as secondary. In contrast, for my research this study has not only confirmed my
hypotheses, but also identified new directions of research.
59 The same hypothesis based on different arguments was proposed by Corina Popa, La peinture
murale orthodoxe, 5, where, after mentioning the presence of scenes inspired by apocryphal
texts in Haeg and Zarand, but absent in Wallachia, she wonders: Est-ce que ce fait signifie quil
ny avait pas de relations entre lart de la cour princire valaque et lart provincial transylvain au
cours de la deuxime moiti du XIVe sicle ?
60 Ibid, 8.
61 Ibid., 9. I cannot accept this idea in an exclusively social approach which seems too restrictive
but as long as we understand social rank as the vanity of various individuals, with different
reasons and manifestations, then Popas hypothesis seems flawless.

|124

An Interpretatio Wallachica of Serbian Cultural Patterns|

tabernacle in his hands), and the Saviour himself from heaven puts a crown on
the kings head.
This calls for a microhistorical interpretation of the votive painting of
Cricior. To me, the background story seems to be the following: after receiving
several estates in the Criul Alb valley from Sigismund of Luxemburg, master
Blea felt the need to have a church-monastery built and painted which would
surpass that of his rivals at Ribia. Since it was a contest of pride, he wanted to
look more important, nobler, and more powerful than the lords Vladislav,
Miclu and Matia. But as daily experience shows, the naivety typical for a man
of modest condition violates the canons. It could have also caused his death by
the hand of Pippo Scolari in 1415, if certain documents indeed refer to him
although Dragomir considered these to be fakes. Represented in the paintings
he commissioned as proud and dignified,62 Blea, newly appointed voyvoda de
Krestor, drew inspiration from Serbian royal influences. Either he or the
painters must have known about Manasija, for Stefan Lazarevi was a known
figure in Hungary in those times.63 In this situation it matters less who came
into contact with the Serbian representations, whether the iconography was
proposed by the painter or the founder. What is essential is that it reflects the
pride of an ordinary man who had become a great statesman overnight.

The earlier interpretation claiming that the founders of Cricior were kneeling exactly like
their counterparts in the votive painting at Ribia does not convince me. For this interpretation
see: Ecaterina Cincheza-Buculei, Date noi privind pictura bisericii din Cricior (sfritul secolului
al XIV-lea) [New data on the painting of the church of Cricior (end of the 14th century)], Studii
i cercetri de istoria artei. Seria Art Plastic 25 (1978): 38, who based her working hypothesis on
the pointed lines which would suggest the form of the founders legs in the votive painting.
However, it must be said that the votive painting at Cricior continued below the bottom border
of the scene with the two military saints. Once this border had been crossed, nothing keeps us
from holding that they stood erect, just as in Streisngeorgiu. As secondary evidence it can also be
mentioned that both at Cricior and Streisngeorgiu, the tabernacle is held on both sides by a man
and a woman. This is a Serbian influence, and the characters do not kneel, only bow their heads
sometimes. The third piece of evidence is the orientation of the founders at Cricior, who are not
represented in profile like those of Ribia. The contortion of the legs, visible on the plans plished
by E. Cincheza-Buculei, seems odd. Fourthly, the sons of the founders of Cricior are not
represented kneeling either. Finally, the unexpected kneeling position at Ribia may indicate also
the humility of the founders in gratitude to God, the saint, and possibly even the king. At
Cricior, the lack of motivation for the founders of Ribia makes it more plausible to think that
the five (or seven) founders were painted legs astraddle, without their knees bent.
63 Stefan Lazarevi became a Knight of the Order of the Dragon in 1408, and received fiefs from
Sigismund of Luxemburg. The paintings at Manasija were completed a year before (1407). Let us
not forget also the campaigns of Sigismund of Luxemburg in the Balkans, especially in Bosnia
(1404-1409); John Van Atwerp Fine, Late Medieval Balkans. A Critical Survey from the Late
Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest, (Ann Arbour: University of Michigan Press,
1994), 464, passim. Nothing prevents us from assuming that the Romanian nobles of Haeg region
of the southern Apuseni Mountains could have participated in these campaigns, admiring many
of the Serbian examples for themselves.
62

125|

|VLADIMIR AGRIGOROAEI
Nevertheless, there were definitely further influences, since the
iconography of the votive painting varies significantly in other foundations by
Serbian noblemen as well.64 This is not only true for representations of Serbian
founders. There is another similar case in the same category, a church founded
by a Bulgarian nobleman in the Tsardom of Vidin. At Donja Kamenia, in an
earlier thirteenth-century church, the group of founders (fourteenth century)
includes an anonymous boyar, his wife and two children in a representation
which seems to be situated half-way between the votive paintings of
Streisngeorgiu and Cricior (Fig. 7).65 However, this votive painting is not
isolated. The continuation portrays the same character, the founder, together
with (probably) a brother. This time the founder again offers a tabernacle to the
Virgin and Child. Another representation portrays two anonymous monks,
unknown to research. Then two crowned heads appear as well: a certain Mihail,
son of a Tsar Mihail and his wife, the Despotess Ana. Their representation is
also echoed in another fresco, portraying Emperor Constantine and Empress
Helena. The extremely complex scenario of Donja Kamenia seems to use the
Serbian representation only to a certain extent, in order to represent a different
situation. The same thing must have happened also north of the Danube, in the
churches of Zarand.

Elizabeta Dimitrova, The Portal to Heaven: Reaching the Gates of Immortality, Ni &
Byzantium, 5, Ni, The Collection of Scientific Works, 2007, 368: The khtetorial arrangements
depicted in the foundations commissioned by the members of the nobility also belong to two stypes: the first one is the vertical s-type of a two-zonal disposition (Saint George in Poloko,
narthex of Saint Archangel Michael in Lesnovo), while the second one is the horizontal s-type: of
a basic character or the picture of the donor/donors with the sovereign of the state (Holy Mother
of God in Kueviste, Saint Nicholas in Psaa) and of a simplified character or the picture of the
donor and the patron saint (naos of Saint Archangel Michael in Lesnovo). I do not wish to go
into more detail below because the minor role of votive painting in the demonstration does not
allow for accurate identification of Serbian influences for Cricior, Ribia, and Streisngeorgiu. I
shall stop here, pointing out Elizabeta Dimitrovas study and bibliography as an excellent starting
point for research on votive paintings of Serbian influence.
65 Dora Panajotova, Les portraits des donateurs de Dolna Kamenica, Zbornik vizantolokog
instituta 12 (1970): 143-156; or Eadem, Les portraits des donateurs et lornament sur les fresques
de lglise Dolna Kamenica, Byzantino-bulgarica 4 (1973): 275-294. The dating of the painting
varies between the early fourteenth century, in which context the boyar could have been the son
of Tsar Mihail iman, or the mid-fourteenth, in which case he could have been the son of
Michael Asan and grandson of Tsar John Alexander; cf. Teodora Vasileva, The Scene Melismos
in the Church St. Virgin in Dolna Kamenitsa (XIVth century), Ni and Byzantium, 2, Ni, The
Collection of Scientific Works, 2004, 271-277 (269; for the bibliography of this issue see note 1). I
shall not identify the figures as long as scholarly opinion is divided. Dora Panajotova in her 1973
article drew some risky conclusions, overinterpreting details of the paintings. In her opinion, the
founder was a stepbrother of the despot Michael and illegitimate son of Michael iman, and the
child in the first votive painting became a certain Ludovicus, a person attested in Italian sources,
having nothing to do whatsoever with the church.
64

|126

An Interpretatio Wallachica of Serbian Cultural Patterns|

Such oddities however are not just specific to neighbouring areas. They
also appear in Serbia. One of the most conclusive examples resembles both
Cricior (in the style of the portraits and the appearance of children) and
Streisngeorgiu (in the disposition of figures in the painting). The painting,
dated to the second half of the fourteenth century, is located at Psaa. This
example, mentioned by Popa,66 deserves detail treatment. Here, on the southern
wall of a monastery church, a whole group of figures appears (Fig. 8). The
founders are knez Pasca (grandfather) and Vlatko (father). Further characters
are Ozra (grandmother, to the left of Pasca) and Vladislava (daughter-in-law,
wife of Vlatko). Three children also appear in the paintings, one older and two
younger (Stefan, Uro, and Ugljea).67 The similarities are striking, and are not
only apparent at a strictly formal or compositional level. There is also similarity
in the names, which drives us to a different direction of research.
The children in the paintings in Saint Nicholas Church of Psaa bear
names reminiscent of the Nemanja dynasty: Stefan and Uro. Vlatko gave his
sons the names of Serbian rulers, showing that he was faithful to the crown.
Even more so, his piety, demonstrated by the construction and painting of a
monastery, bore no irreverence to the sovereign. Thus the northern wall of the
same church in Psaa also bears representations of the kings Uro and Vukain
as saints, accompanied by another saint dear to the Serbian dynasty,
Constantine the Great.68 In other words the founders legitimated themselves by
invoking the dynastic and imperial saints represented on the opposite wall, or
even attached themselves to them. The situation is the same at Ribia. There,
three dynastic saints, namely the three Hungarian royal saints, appear opposite
the votive painting. There they are again at Cricior, though not on the opposite
wall but as an extension of the group of founders. Looking at these details, I do
not think the similarities are accidental (Fig. 9).
In this particular case the presence of the Hungarian royal saints is of
course also connected to the noblemens gratitude to King Sigismund of
Luxemburg, as mentioned before, but the reasons are not as obvious as has been
supposed. The symbolic relationship between the votive painting and the scene
of the three royal saints has already been signalled, but has only been explained
See Corina Popa, La peinture murale orthodoxe, 9, for a short reference; and 17 for an
illustration, unfortunately only a detail which does not show the real size of the votive painting.
For St. Nicholas Church in Psaa, see also F. Kmpfer, Die Stiftungskomposition der
Nikolauskirche in Psaa Zeichentheoretische Beschreibung eines politischen Bildes, Zeitschrift
fr Balkanologie, 10/2 (1974): 39-61.
67 For the founders, see V.R. Petkovi, Portreti iz Psae [Portraits from Psaa], Narodna Starina
20 (1929): 202 (a short text) and 203 (two illustrations).
68 The hypothesis has also been formulated that Vukains portrait was painted at a later date, over
an earlier representation of Helena, wife of Uro. Elizabeta Dimitrova, The Portal to Heaven, 377
refutes this hypothesis. At any rate, even if true, the comparison with the Transylvanian case
remains just as pertinent.
66

127|

|VLADIMIR AGRIGOROAEI
in relation to the social function of the founders.69 Apart from this hypothesis, it
can also be observed that two of Bleas sons bear the names of royal saints:
Laslo (Ladislas) and tefan (Stephen).70 This repeats the situation of Psaa, and
let us also not forget that, just as Blea from Cricior received land and villages
from the king, similarly Vlatko was granted the title of sebastocrator by Stefan
Uro IV Duan. The pride of the two noblemen, Serbian and Romanian, has
already been compared in the votive paintings, but can also be compared in this
latter respect. Bleas pride has a limit, only evident where the saintly authority
of the Hungarian king begins. As for the connection between Cricior and
Psaa, it is likely that it was not direct. Other inscriptions and votive paintings
could have existed in the valleys of the Carpathians. Moreover, the Serbian
corpus has not been analyzed yet. Comparison must extend to the votive
painting at Lesnovo (1346-1347),71 already mentioned by Popa, to other votive
paintings portraying Serbian noblemen,72 and also to paintings from tombs of
the Nemanja dynasty at Mileeva, Sopoani, Gradac, Deani, urevi Stupovi,
Prizren (Bogorodica Ljevika) or Jazak. In these latter cases the groups of
founders are always accompanied by dynastic saints and the sainted bishops of
the Serbian church, and even by the Constantine cycle and the True Cross;73
and several other themes appearing in the southern Apuseni Mountains, in the
Mure valley or in Haeg. The problem is far from being settled. Things could
be much more complicated than briefly presented here.
Therefore I think that the theory of regions, eminently used during the
heyday of the Annales School, can be employed as a starting point for solving
this problem, but only if we take into account the role played by the individual
in cultural history, as opposed to the role of the event or longue dure. For it
Trifescu, Bisericile cneziale, 56.
This detail was also noticed by Drago-Gheorghe Nstsoiu, Sancti Reges Hungariae in Mural
Painting of Late-Medieval Hungary, MA Thesis defended at CEU, (Budapest: 2009), 55. It cannot
be excluded however that the name of Stephen could have been inspired precisely by Serbian
representations.
71 Nonetheless, Lesnovo must be treated with great caution because the relationship of master
Oliver with the sovereign Duan raises a series of political problems, as he was closer to John
Cantacuzenus.
72 See for example the paintings of Dobrun monastery (Bosnia and Herzegovina), with the
representations of the founders Pribil, Peter, and Stephen, all living in the fourteenth century, in
a painting repainted in the time of Stephen Lazarevi. The comparison can be extended to
Bulgarian territory as well. See the votive paintings of Zemen monastery from the fourteenth
century, with other groups of founders (an elderly anonymous person, followed by his wife Doya
and two children; then another votive painting with a certain Vitomir and a child Stoyu). The list
of examples to compare is too vast to be reproduced here entirely.
73 Elena Dana Prioteasa, The Holy Kings of Hungary in Medieval Orthodox Churches of
Transylvania, Ars Transsilvaniae 19 (2009): 41-56, here 42, notes that the votive paintings of
Ribia and Cricior are not only connected to the three Hungarian royal saints, but also to the
Discovery of the True Cross.
69
70

|128

An Interpretatio Wallachica of Serbian Cultural Patterns|

could well be that the whole that we define as Transylvania was in fact made up
of several micro-regions. Such could be the one where we found these Serbian
influences, although it does not correspond to findings in social and political
history. Here the Vlachs of the Western Carpathians, who according to research
in social history and archaeology, should have been influenced by western
representations, seem to have rather been influenced by southern Danubian
ones.
Without claiming to have completed this research, which would require
a whole book, I only wish to highlight that this field of research, indicated by
Corina Popa, has remained unexplored. For the moment, striking similarities
between the Serbian representation and that of the southern Apuseni may make
us think that we face a case of emulation or stimulus diffusion. People north of
the Danube must have admired the dynastic cult of the Serbs and, although
they merely were poor knezes in poor mountain valleys, they tried to take over
a fashion. The large groups of founders also indicate some dynastic obsession,
albeit brought down to a level of caricature. Not only sons, but also daughters
are present. Children big or small, adults or old people, all are there in the
paintings, down to the last person alive in the family lineage at the time the
votive painting was completed.

129|

|VLADIMIR AGRIGOROAEI

1a

1b

Fig. 1. a) Drawing of the first inscription of Streisngeorgiu; after Popa 2008.

b) Contemporary view of the same inscription; Ileana Burnichioiu.
Fig. 2. Watercolour reproducing the votive painting and the second inscription of
Streisngeorgiu; after Rusu, Burnichioiu 2008.

|130

An Interpretatio Wallachica of Serbian Cultural Patterns|

3a

3b

Fig. 3. a) Votive painting and inscription at Ribia; Derzsi Csongor. b) Saint George
and the Three Holy Kings of Hungary at Ribia; Derzsi Csongor.
131|

|VLADIMIR AGRIGOROAEI

Fig. 4. a) Votive painting at Cricior: master Blea and his wife presenting the
tabernacle; Ileana Burnichioiu. b) Votive painting at Cricior: detail with master
Blea; Derzsi Csongor. c) Votive painting at Cricior: the two sons; Derzsi Csongor.
Fig. 5. Drawing of the inscription at Rme; after Porumb 1998.

|132

An Interpretatio Wallachica of Serbian Cultural Patterns|

Fig. 6. The three painted charters at Serbian monastery of ia; after MarjanoviDuani 2009 and Suboti 2006-2007.

133|

|VLADIMIR AGRIGOROAEI

7a

7b

7c

Fig. 7. Three of the votive scenes at Donja Kamenia church: a) the founder and his
family; b) the two possible brothers; c) the two monks; Nicoy (Picasa user).

|134

An Interpretatio Wallachica of Serbian Cultural Patterns|

Fig. 8. Votive painting at Psaa. Partial view: Knez Pasca (the grandfather),
Sebastokrator Vlatko (the father), Vladislava (Vlatkos wife) and two of the children;
after Millet (Velmans) 1969. Fig. 9. a) Saint Kings Uro and Vukain, accompanied by
Constantine the Great in paintings at Psaa; after Millet (Velmans) 1969; b) Three Holy
Kings of Hungary in paintings at Cricior; Derzsi Csongor.

135|