Ornithomorphic and fantastical motifs in the decoration of Brâncoveanu charters

1. Introduction

In the first part of our study1, we highlighted several Brâncoveanu chancery documents decorated with serpents, and we asserted, in that context, that the illustration—which contrasts with the sobriety of the type of document on which it appears—can be understood through its symbolic, religious and positive connotations2, the serpent being a symbol of wisdom3; that is to say, in this instance, of the voivode’s discernment, which represents a gift received from God to lead his entrusted subjects.

In this article, we continue our examination of the documents4 from the period in question, by referring to other zoomorphic elements encountered, namely various types of birds, with the aim of determining, on a case-by-case basis, whether these have purely aesthetic value or suggest some iconographic mystery, through which reference is made to one official symbol or another, with a connotation, not merely administrative but also spiritual, relating to the content of ancestral or ancient law, identified with the Orthodox Christian faith.

2. Brâncoveanu charters

We begin this presentation with a charter written by a well-known calligrapher, previously encountered in the documents featuring serpents5, as well as in various manuscripts, including the memorial service list of the Metropolis of Târgoviște6, which represents an important historical source, and whom we consider to be the possible miniaturist of these pieces, namely Isar the logofețel/logofăt, as he signed himself. The charter in question is on parchment, dated 20 December 16957, issued in Bucharest by Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu (1688–1714) in favour of a boyar, Vergo, the Grand Cupbearer, to whom the voivode confirmed the estates of Fometești, Negreni8 and Zvânjoi in Vâlcea County, which he had purchased, but over which he had, on several occasions, been involved in legal disputes with his neighbours, as the lands were, initially, intermingled and undivided. Finally, following an on-site investigation and on the basis of the testimonies of several boyars acting as witnesses—their number reaching 489 due to the case being reopened in the Divan—the prince confirmed Vergo’s ownership of the estates.

The document is notable for its ornamentation, characterised by symmetry, elegance and solemnity, the latter being emphasised, above all, by the use of gold leaf and the colour red—symbols which, in the Byzantine world, carried special significance, having once been the prerogatives of the Emperor of Constantinople, and which subsequently retained a particular grandeur. Floral and acanthus motifs are depicted on the frontispiece, beneath the text, as well as in the composition accompanying the initial ‘M’. It should be noted, however, that hidden amongst the petals of the flowers we discover a splendid peacock, which holds in its beak one end of the scroll on which the letter M is depicted (standing for Milostieiu Bojieiu, meaning ‘By the Grace of God’), the other end being held in the beak of another bird, which appears to be an eagle (Fig. 1).

Imagine

The distinctive ornaments that embellish the document can be explained, on the one hand, by the fact that the charter contained the final decision, which meant that there was no room for further legal proceedings on the same matter. On the other hand, Vergo, a former chief steward during the reign of Prince Șerban Cantacuzino (1678–1688), was also an important figure in the state10. Unfortunately, however, although he carried out diplomatic missions to Constantinople—that is, Istanbul—and, for a time between 1701 and 1702, became the most prominent Wallachian official at the Sublime Porte (capuchehaie)11, enjoyingthe prince’s trust—who granted him a salary as well as gifts at his wedding, as recorded in the Treasury Register—he ultimately proved disloyal to the prince and to his own homeland, fleeing with the harach money. As a result of this blow, the prince was only able to recoup part of the sum, obtained from the sale of the contents of the house that Vergo owned in Bucharest12. We should also note that Isar the logothete, who wrote the document and may well have illuminated it himself, was a highly regarded calligrapher, employed to draft the important documents of the time. A reference in this regard is the charter featuring icons and other floral and zoomorphic (snake) miniatures, with which the same prince endowed his beloved foundation, Hurezi Monastery—which he also intended to serve as his burial place—with properties, as well as the manuscript containing the official memorial list of the Metropolitan See of Wallachia.

It is worth noting that peacocks can also be found in earlier periods, on other Wallachian chancery documents from the early 17th century. For example, on the charter dated 10 July 1614, issued by Prince Radu Mihnea13 for Dealu Monastery, which was, at that time, led by the Greek hierarch Matthew of Mirelor († 1624), who was, in all likelihood, the illustrator himself. This document is also adorned with portraits of the founders, as well as with the church’s patron saint icon, Saint Nicholas the Hierarch, and is consequently regarded as the first document featuring images of saints to have been identified to date14. Returning to the Brâncoveanu period, it is worth noting that peacocks, as well as other zoomorphic elements—both real and fantastical, including snakes—are also found in other types of historical sources besides state documents; for example, in the decoration of certain liturgical manuscripts. In this regard, we cite a few examples: a Liturgy Book written in Greek by the hieromonk Calinic, commissioned by the voivode (Figs. 2 & 3)15, a work which also shares ornamental similarities with an earlier work, namely the Service Book of Metropolitan Stephen I of Ungrovlahia16; another Liturgy Book, dated to the first half of the 17th century, compiled by the hieromonk Daniil17; a later Greek manuscript, from the early 18th century, containing the service for the Holy Archangels Michael and Gabriel, as well as for the Holy Martyrs Onisifor and Porphyry (9 November)18. Peacocks also appeared on the Tetraevangelion written and decorated by Saint Nicodimus of Tismana in the early 15th century19 (Figs. 4 & 5).

Imagine

Imagine

Imagine

Imagine

A connection with the Greek world, as well as with the school of the hierarchs Matthew of Mirela and Luke of Buzău—the latter, originally from Cyprus, who later became Metropolitan of Wallachia (1602–1629)20, is suggested by the presence of peacocks and snakes, depicted as dragons, on codices containing theological and liturgical texts, currently preserved at the Great Meteor Monastery, dating from the early 17th century and written by the hieromonk Antim of Ioannina, a disciple of the calligrapher-hierarch Luke of Cyprus, who was active for a time in Wallachia21. In this regard, Codex 217 is particularly noteworthy: a manuscript of the Psalter, written between 1634 and 1635, in which the architectural frame, featuring the icon of King David, is adorned with several peacocks, whilst on another page, one can observe an initial decorated with two dragons, which have elongated heads and teeth but the bodies of snakes, depicted coiled around the two stems of the letter, with their mouths open22. It is worth noting that this decorative form is also found in 17th-century Wallachian chancery documents, to which we referred in the first part of our study23.

In addition to the logofețel from Isar, we also recall, with regard to zoomorphic elements, the documents dated: 14 January 1696 [Lord Constantin Brâncoveanu confirmed for Brâncoveni Monastery the portion of Radu-Vodă Monastery in the Roșiani estate, Romanați County, and the portion belonging to the nun Marta from the village of Bănești; the initial ‘M’ is adorned with acanthus leaves and a bird—namely an eagle—with outstretched wings, holding in its beak a cross and a scroll bearing the year 1696 (Fig. 6)]24; 18 June 1696 [the same prince granted the Râmnicu de Jos monastery the toll from the carts at Ocna Teișani, and the Radu-Vodă monastery the toll at Ghitioara; on the frontispiece, on either side of the flowers forming the border of the shield bearing the country’s coat of arms, is depicted a cross-winged eagle, framed by a floral motif, holding, in its talons, a scroll inscribed with the year 1696; on either side of the medallion bearing the eagle, set against two acanthus-leaf floral motifs, are depicted two further birds, with their wings folded but not facing one another, each looking in a different direction (Fig. 7)]25; before 1 September 1702 [the Voivode of Wallachia granted the scholar Constantin Cantacuzino (1639–1716), former Grand Steward, the estate of Arzoaia on the River Mostiștea, in Ilfov County, purchased from the sons of Vasile Câmpineanul; two birds are depicted on the acanthus leaf motifs flanking the coat of arms (the shield being largely decorated with floral and zoomorphic motifs), placed at the centre of the frontispiece; the cross-winged eagle holds, in one talon, a scroll bearing the year 170226 (Fig. 8)].

Imagine

Imagine

Imagine

From the last two charters (18 June 1696 and before 1 September 1702), cited above, it appears that the two birds, placed on either side of the official coat of arms of Wallachia (the eagle with the cross in its beak), serve a largely decorative purpose, forming part—alongside the plant and floral elements (acanthus petals and flowers)—of the shield’s actual decoration, whereas, on the charter dated 14 January 1696, where the coat of arms no longer appears on the frontispiece but only on the seal authenticating the text (now lost; only its imprint remains visible), the bird actually represents the heraldic eagle, although it is no longer depicted in the classical composition on the shield, but separately, above the initial ‘M’ adorned with an acanthus flower; it has its wings spread, a cross in its beak and the scroll bearing the year the document was drawn up.

On 22 December 1691, from Bucharest, Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu granted to Hurezi Monastery parts of the villages of Puțuri, Gioroc and Bratovoești, situated in Dolj County, which, as the text tells us, the voivode had previously purchased them whilst he was still merely a boyar; then, after being elected prince and commencing the construction of the monastery, he bestowed these estates upon the monastic community, together with the documents evidencing the purchase, namely the deeds: For these estates at Puțuri, Gioroc and Brătivoești, having been purchased by My Lordship, have been held by My Lordship in peace. And after God had graciously granted us the rule and dominion over these lands, and by divine inspiration it was conceived in our hearts to build and erect the holy monastery on the site of the village of Hurezi, finding that place to be suitable and a fitting site for a monastery, and with God’s help we began the foundation work for the monastery’s construction. And having further dedicated to the monastery other villages and estates, I, Your Highness, deemed it fit to dedicate also these plots of land from among these villages, as detailed above, handing over all the deeds of purchase, so that the holy monastery may be strengthened and the monk Fathers provided with food and clothing, whilst My Lordship and My Lordship’s late fathers may receive eternal remembrance27. Written on parchment by the renowned scribe Costandin Mihalovici, the Conțescu logothete27, the document is sumptuously decorated: on the frontispiece is the country’s coat of arms, namely the eagle with a cross in its beak, holding the symbols of power—the sword and the mace—in its talons, upon a shield adorned with laurel leaves, which in turn rests upon a scroll supported on either side by two further eagles. A third bird, different from the others, white (possibly a dove), holding a scroll in its beak bearing the sign of the Holy Cross, can also be seen above the acanthus flowers of the initial ‘M’28 (Fig. 9).

Imagine

At this point, it is worth recalling that several charters, decorated with zoomorphic elements (including snakes), had been written by Mihai, son of Stan the logothete of Târgoviște, an active scribe of the time, even before the reign of Saint Constantin Brâncoveanu. For the purposes of this study, we also note the charter dated 20 May 1693 issued by the same logofăt, at the behest of the Wallachian voivode, in favour of the priest Fiera and his children, confirming their estate in Băjești, Ilfov County, and a fishpond on the Mostiștea River. The frontispiece of the document is decorated with two bouquets of acanthus flowers, on either side of the shield bearing the country’s coat of arms, which features a cross-bearing eagle, whilst the floral ornamentation of the letter M features a white bird with its wings folded (Fig. 10)29.

Imagine

Another Brâncoveanu charter, also from the same logofăt Mihai, son of Stan, has been preserved; it is of particular interest for its decoration, namely the one issued by the Prince of the Mountains on 30 December 169130, in favour of Alexandru, Grand Logothete, to whom the villages of Alexeni and Băbeni in Ialomița County were confirmed, with mention also of the history of the estates, when and from whom he had purchased them, at what price, and which parts had been inherited from his father, Ghiorma Banul. Our attention is drawn to the frontispiece, in which the shield, bearing the country’s coat of arms, the heraldic eagle, and a border of laurel leaves and acanthus flowers, is placed on a scroll, supported by two winged lions, rampant and facing each other, which is a distinctive feature, in that fantastical motifs were rarely used on charters of that period. The symbolic invocation is set within a floral composition, and the initial ‘M’ is beautifully rendered, with the two vertical strokes of the letter depicted as two candles, above which stands a bird with its wings folded; the ornamentation is executed mostly in cinnabar and liquid gold, a detail which lends it a distinctive solemnity31. We note, however, a discrepancy between the document’s dating—indicated solely by the year 7200, 30 December (corresponding to the year 1691 AD) and the scarf held in the talons of the cross-bearing eagle in the coat of arms, on which the Christian year 1692 is marked. This discrepancy can be explained either by the fact that the miniature was created or completed in 1692, given that the text was written on 30 December 1691, or that, in this case, two people were involved, the scribe being different from the miniaturist. The fact that the year from Christ is 1691 and not 1692 is evident not only from standard calculation but also from an analysis of the members of the Princely Divan, who sign as witnesses at the end of the text. It is conclusive for us that Diicu Rudeanu, who signs as Grand Clucer, held the office from June 1689 until June 1692; subsequently, he signed as former Grand Clucer (therefore, on 30 December 1692, he was no longer in office); furthermore, Ghinea Rustea-Văleanu served as Grand Steward between 1687 and 26 April 169232 (Fig. 11).

Imagine

Birds, other than the heraldic eagle—which appears in the coat of arms of Wallachia and on the princely seals—also feature on charters from the period under study. For example, on the charter dated 15 January 168933, by which Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu exempted 50 Romanian households belonging to Bistrița Monastery (then led by Abbot Paisie) from taxes. These Romanians were from Costești, in Vâlcea County; the document was written in Bucharest, on parchment, by Radu, son of Gherghe the logothete. From the text we learn that the village belonged to the monastery, dedicated to the Dormition of the Mother of God, built from the ground up by the late Barbu Ban Craiovescu, appointed by the prince, his ancestor, and the Romanians were exempt from paying the taxes, listed by name, with the exception of the money they had to pay towards the harac, which was spread over several instalments. In return for these tax concessions, they were obliged to serve and obey the holy monastery and the monk fathers who would reside in that holy monastery as helpers34. Among the ornaments on this charter, we see a first bird, perched on the stem of the acanthus flower decorating the sign of the Holy Cross, looking upwards, towards another, somewhat similar in appearance, holding an unwritten scroll in its beak, perched atop the bouquets of flowers adorning the initial ‘M’, which is decorated with interlacing patterns and vases of flowers, alluding to Oriental motifs. The document is authenticated by the princely seal (a movable stamp, placed between the two parts of the monogram) and by the voivode’s autograph signature, but the coat of arms—that is, the cross-bearing eagle in its classical form on the shield— no longer appears on the frontispiece; in this instance, we may regard the bird on the acanthus leaf as an eagle, thus alluding to the heraldic symbol, but, on this occasion, the sign of the Holy Cross has not been inscribed on the scroll. As for the first bird, we consider that it serves, however, only a decorative purpose (Fig. 12).

Imagine

A similar composition, featuring an eagle with outstretched wings perched on a bouquet of acanthus flowers within the ornamentation of the initial ‘M’, also appears in the document dated 16 December 169135, in which Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu bequeathed to the Hurezi Monastery, his own foundation, dedicated to Saints Constantine and Helena (which is mentioned as having been built from the ground up through the prince’s efforts, for the glory of God; the voivode, by the divine providence36, having resolved in his heart to build and erect the holy monastery on the site of the village of Hurezi, finding that place to be suitable and a fitting site for a monastery, and with God’s help having laid the foundation for the construction of the monastery37), the lord’s vineyards in the hills of Sutești, Nemoiu, Gărdești, Zlătărei and Crețeni, situated in Vâlcea County, with the monks receiving, each year, one vadră and the parpărul from every ten vedre of wine38. On this occasion, the sign of the Holy Cross is depicted in miniature on the bird’s wing as a symbolic invocation, whilst a second bird, also an eagle, is depicted in the lower left-hand corner of the floral ornamentation surrounding the initial letter M. The text was written by Gherghe, logothete of the Divan, and signed by39 Iane, logothete40 (Fig. 13).

Imagine

3. The significance of the use of the ornithomorphic motif in chancery documents

The Brâncoveanu charters, impressive for their use of gold leaf and cinnabar, have a distinctive form in terms of decoration. Most commonly, we find floral compositions, featuring acanthus, which are expansive and elegantly crafted, placed around the initial letter ‘M’, the sides of which are sometimes depicted as two candlesticks with candles, or as two ancient columns. The heraldic coat of arms appears on the princely seals; however, it is not always depicted in the centre of the frontispiece, on the shield, as was customary. Instead, an eagle holding a cross in its beak, or with a cross depicted on the sash held in its beak, can be seen above the floral ornament (acanthus) of the initial letter – usually ‘M’ – introducing the formula of devotion expressed in Church Slavonic. Alongside this eagle, which has heraldic significance, other birds also appear in some documents, either as supporters of the coat of arms’ shield or amongst the branches of the floral decoration of the sign of the Holy Cross, in front of the text. The initial is also sometimes decorated with snakes—one or two—entwined with one another or climbing separately, each up one of the letter’s stems. Although rare, we also see fantastical elements, such as the winged lions flanking the eagle on the frontispiece. In only one instance, so far, have we encountered iconographic miniatures, of the type found in icons41 depicting saints, angels and the Saviour Jesus Christ, as seen on the charter of 1695, by which the voivode endowed his foundation, Hurezi Monastery, with estates.

The talented calligraphers who wrote the documents, decorated with zoomorphic and ornithomorphic elements—some even fantastical—to which we have referred in the preceding lines (Isar, logothete; Constantin Mihailovici Conțescul; Mihail, son of Stan, logothete; Radu, son of Gherghe, logothete; Gheorghe, logofăt of the Divan, son of Iane, logofăt), had previously drafted chancery documents—some of which featured miniatures—during the reigns of other princes, but they also copied other types of material, such as religious manuscripts. Indeed, we consider it highly likely that they were also the ones who illustrated the written texts. The details revealed suggest continuity in the work of the royal chancellery scribes during the second half of the 17th century, regardless of changes in rulers, whilst the diversity of the documents produced and their degree of difficulty highlight the scribes’ mastery.

However, in contrast to the first half of the 17th century, as well as the Phanariot period, we observe several characteristics regarding the Brâncoveanu charters: 1) a preference for floral ornaments, which abound; 2) the adoption, though not frequent use, of some of the animal and bird motifs more commonly found during the reigns of Antonie Vodă (1669–1672), Grigorie I Ghica (1660–1664, 1672–1673) and Gheorghe Duca (1673–1678); 3) a rare use of sacred imagery, such as iconographic miniatures, even in documents intended for monasteries.

As regards the symbolism of ornithomorphic motifs, apart from the eagles in the coat of arms, some birds serve an aesthetic purpose. Peacocks, however, do not merely serve a decorative purpose—being admired for the beauty of their plumage—but also a symbolic one, having been used in Christian art since Byzantine times; as such, they appear in church mosaics as well as in religious manuscripts. It is important to note, for the purposes of our study, that they also appear on charters—that is, on chancery or state documents—which, by their very nature, possess a certain sobriety and, by extension, solemnity, as every detail is scrutinised, given that they involve the state as an institution, and not merely the private person of the issuing voivode. In the Romanian translations of texts such as the Physiologus or the Bestiary, the parable of the peacock served to remind Christian believers that, however many good qualities they might possess, they have no reason to take pride in them, for they are gifts received from God, just as the peacock ought not to be haughty about the magnificent plumage of its beautiful tail42. In the ancient world, the peacock symbolised grandeur and beauty, in the positive sense; whereas, in the Christian world, it came to symbolise, again in a positive sense, immortality and resurrection, given that the peacock’s body or flesh does not decay. However, depending on the context, the peacock also symbolised eternal life and paradise, especially when two peacocks appear on either side of a vessel, a spring or the tree of life; the incorruptibility of the soul, again linked to the fact that the peacock’s flesh does not decay; spiritual rebirth, associated with the annual renewal of its plumage; God’s omniscience and spiritual vigilance, with the eyes on the tail serving as a reference point, interpreted as symbols of knowledge, sight and vigilance. In a negative sense, the peacock may symbolise pride, vanity and arrogance, due to the display of its plumage43. For these reasons, it was depicted in catacomb paintings, on works of art and in numerous liturgical manuscripts44, some of which were created by apprentices trained in the calligraphic and miniature painting tradition of Bishop Matei al Mirelor45, the renowned scholar from the early 17th century whom I mentioned earlier.

With regard to the coat of arms of Wallachia, specialists have studied the type of bird, establishing certain similarities between the Wallachian heraldic eagle and the vulture, which represented an ancient model from the classical period46, adopted, later adopted in Christianity as a symbol of Saint John the Evangelist, but used both on funerary steles, recalling the Resurrection of the Lord, and in bestiary-type writings47. Used in the ancient Roman and Byzantine worlds, the eagle—whether single-headed or double-headed—also found its way into the Transylvanian region. Although it is believed that this occurred indirectly, according to some researchers, through the Hungarian Angevin dynasty48, the eagle may have served as a reminder, both the Romanisation of the Dacian population and the Christianisation of the territory49, which suggests that this development took place during the early stages of the ethnogenesis and Christianisation of the Romanian people.

As a form of representation, however, there was also some confusion regarding terminology, partly caused by differences between the images50; yet it was established, on the basis of the inventory of preserved documents, that the oldest seal impression, such as that from 1368, found on the document issued by Vladislav I, Prince of Wallachia (1364–1377), depicts the archaic type of bird, which belongs to a specific species of eagle51, which explains the black colour. This design was used up until the reign of Vlad I the Usurper (1394–1397), because, between his reign and that of Vlad the Monk (1481–1495), the seals of the Wallachian princes would gradually evolve from the original vulture to the eagle known in zoology as Aquila chrysaëtos (the golden eagle)52.

Symbolising flight towards heights, dignity and courage, but above all the existence of a Christian state, the heraldic bird of Wallachia appears on Brâncoveanu’s documents not only on the frontispiece, on the shield, as we are accustomed to seeing, but also atop the initial letter ‘M’, which introduced the formula of devotion, whereby the voivode affirmed that he held power through the mercy of God53. In some documents, this bird appears alongside other species of birds—possibly serving a decorative purpose—which are white and more delicate, and may allude to doves, hidden amongst the floral ornaments of the symbolic invocation or the sign of the Holy Cross, all these details suggesting the era’s appreciation of beauty, but also the autonomy of Wallachia—as a Christian state—in relation to the Ottoman Empire, yet of the Islamic faith, which, in exchange for tribute, allowed the Romanians—not only in Wallachia but also in Moldavia—to preserve their institutions and, by extension, the full expression of the Orthodox faith.

All this reflects, amongst other things, the Romanians’ conviction that the sign of the Holy Cross, which appeared on their country’s coat of arms, protected them—and, by extension, their political and spiritual leaders—the cross being the protective weapon of Christians. This is also evident from the verses accompanying the heraldic symbol, printed by Saint Antim Ivireanul († 1716) 54 in an Euchologion published in Târgoviște in 1713: This sign of the Cross which the raven bears / Christ bestows upon Lord Constandin / May it serve as his protection, with good will / And may it prolong his reign55.

At the same time, the use of this heraldic symbol also indicates the Romanians’ connection with Byzantine Christianity, as is evident from an Anthologion printed in Râmnic, in 1705, where, through laudatory verses, a parallel is drawn between Emperor Constantine the Great and Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu; today, both dignitaries, together with the book’s publisher, the hierarch Antim Ivireanul, are honoured amongst the Saints: A mighty sign and a most powerful weapon of war / Was revealed from heaven, O great miracle / A cross marked by stars in the heavens / Is shown to the Great Constantine by Christ / With Râmnic letters inscribed all round / ‘Over all your enemies, you shall triumph’ / Now even the raven shows it once more / To Lord Constantine on this very day / Granting him strength with firm hope / That he may reign, for he is of noble lineage56.

Therefore, beyond its beauty, the decoration of Wallachian state documents suggested a distinctive symbolism, conveying, iconographically, a message referring, in this instance, to the existence of a Christian state and, at the same time, to a world still attentive to symbols and spiritual values.

4. Epilogue

An analysis of the zoomorphic, ornithomorphic and fantastical motifs present in the decoration of the charters issued during the reign of Saint Martyr Constantin Brâncoveanu highlights the complexity of the visual language cultivated in the chancellery of Wallachia, at the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries. Far from being mere ornamental additions, these representations contribute to the construction of a coherent discourse on the nature of authority, the legitimacy of princely power and the religious identity of the state. Through their integration into frontispieces, into the composition of initial letters, and in proximity to the symbolic invocation of devotional formulas or heraldic emblems, the animal and avian motifs acquire a semantic function inseparable from the legal and ceremonial content of the document.

Within this repertoire, the snake motif stands out for the richness and ambivalence of its meanings. Although biblical and patristic tradition also attributes negative connotations to it, associating it with temptation, sin, cunning or hypocrisy, the context in which it appears on charters favours the positive meanings enshrined in the Gospel’s exhortation to wisdom and discernment. Depicted near the Holy Cross, the initials of the phrase ‘by the grace of God’ or symbols of royal power, the serpent can be interpreted as an expression of the prudence, wisdom and capacity for sound judgement required of a political leader. Just as the serpents depicted on the archbishops’ croziers evoked the discernment necessary for spiritual guidance, so too did those incorporated into the decoration of chancery documents suggest the wisdom indispensable to any ruler, who was both called upon and, at the same time, entrusted, to ensure the sound political and social governance of the Christian people.

Ornithomorphic motifs complement and enrich this symbolic universe. Some birds fulfil primarily an aesthetic function, contributing to the balance, symmetry and elegance of the composition, whilst others embody well-defined spiritual meanings. The peacock, for example, suggests—with reference to the Orthodox Christian tradition—immortality, the Resurrection of the Lord, eternal life, the incorruptibility of the soul and spiritual vigilance, whilst also retaining the moralising message of a warning against vanity and pride. In contrast, the cross-bearing eagle clearly transcends the decorative realm, serving as a heraldic symbol of state authority and, at the same time, a visual expression of Wallachia’s Christian identity. Its presence not only on the shield on the frontispiece or on the princely seal, but also above the initial of the devotional formula, in direct association with the sign of the Holy Cross, emphasises the voivode’s power as being rooted in an order considered to be of divine right.

Consequently, the association between the serpent, the birds, the heraldic eagle, the Cross and the formula of devotion reflects the Byzantine and post-Byzantine conception of the relationship between political and spiritual authority. The prince, invested through a religious ceremony and called upon to rule ‘by the grace of God’, was required to embody the virtues necessary for the protection and leadership of his subjects, just as the bishop was bound to exercise discernment in the spiritual guidance of the faithful. The decoration of the charter thus conveyed, in iconographic terms, the ideal of the Byzantine harmony between the State and the Church, lending the legal document a theological and representative dimension. In a political context marked by Ottoman suzerainty and the pressures exerted by the neighbouring great powers, this visual language simultaneously affirmed the country’s internal autonomy, the continuity of its institutions and its uninterrupted affiliation with the spiritual world of Orthodoxy.

A comparative study of the documents also reveals the continuity of certain calligraphic and miniature-painting practices, which transcend the succession of voivodes. The recurrence of certain decorative motifs in the charters written by the same logofeți suggests the existence of relatively stable workshops, artistic affiliations and working methods, linked in particular to Târgoviște, the former capital and an important cultural centre of Wallachia. Although identifying the copyists as the authors of the miniatures remains, in the absence of explicit evidence, a hypothesis requiring further investigation, the consistency of the ornamental repertoire provides grounds for further research into the relationship between the scribe, the miniaturist and the artistic milieu of the princely chancellery. The circulation of motifs between charters, liturgical manuscripts, printed works and other forms of art confirms, in turn, the permeability of the boundaries between ecclesiastical culture and political and administrative life.

From a stylistic perspective, the decoration under investigation lies at the confluence of the Byzantine and post-Byzantine traditions with Eastern and Western influences, absorbed through the movement of people, manuscripts and printed works, as well as goods. The predominance of floral ornamentation, the rarer but yet significant, use of zoomorphic, ornithomorphic and fantastical motifs, as well as the sporadic presence of iconographic miniatures, confer upon the Brâncoveanu charters a distinct individuality within the evolution of Wallachian documentary art. Their originality lies not only in their chromatic refinement and the mastery of their execution, but, above all, in their ability to bring together diverse artistic traditions into a whole suited to the solemn function of the state document.

In conclusion, the Brâncoveanu charter stands out as an organic unity of text, image and authority. Its decoration does not merely illustrate the legal content on the surface, but interprets it, amplifies it and places it within a broader spiritual and political context. From this perspective, the zoomorphic, ornithomorphic and fantastical motifs become elements of a visual vocabulary through which the virtues of governance, the sacred nature of the princely investiture, and the link between the Principality and the Church are expressed, against the backdrop of emphasising a reality, namely the Orthodox Christian identity of a state destined to protect the Romanian people. The charters under investigation therefore constitute not only diplomatic and legal sources of the utmost importance, but also privileged testimonies to a political culture specific to the Romanians, in which the act of governance, artistic expression and religious legitimisation formed a unified discourse on the world order and the responsibility of power.

• 1

  Published in issue no. 1 of the journal Martyria for the year 2026, under the title: ‘Zoomorphic and fantastical motifs in the decoration of Brâncoveanu charters (I)’.

• 2

  In other instances, as depicted in various other sources, snakes may evoke the devil, the temptation in Paradise or human hypocrisy; they are therefore used therefore, to convey a negative connotation, as this zoomorphic motif possesses symbolic ambivalence [The Bible or Holy Scripture, Jubilee Edition of the Holy Synod, ed. Bartolomeu Valeriu Anania, Bucharest, Published by the Biblical and Missionary Institute of the Romanian Orthodox Church, 2001, pp. 25 (Genesis 3), 1488 (Matthew 23:29–39)].

• 3

  As we have shown in the first part of our study, the serpents depicted on Wallachian state documents symbolised the discernment of lay rulers, whilst, on liturgical manuscripts or episcopal crozi, they symbolised the wisdom of the bishops; it is implied, however, that both discernment and wisdom were gifts from God, received through ecclesiastical consecration. Another example may be added at this point, namely a letter from a hierarch, the initial letter ‘E’ of which is decorated with floral motifs and three serpents. This refers to the letter of March 1653, in which the Patriarch of Antioch, Macarius III Ibn al-Za’im, informed the Tsar of his forthcoming visit to Russia. The document also attests to the Eastern influence of this decorative element; see Vera Tchentsova, ‘Documents Grecs des Métoques Roumains du Mont Athos et des Patriarcats Orientaux Conservés à Moscou à la Lumière d’une Analyse Paléographique’, in The Romanian Principalities and the Holy Places Along the Centuries, edited by Emanoil Băbuș, Ioan Moldoveanu and Adrian Marinescu, Bucharest, Ed. Sophia, 2007, p. 170, Appendix 12.

• 4

  Generally speaking, studies of the Brâncovean style, with its characteristic decorative elements—floral and animal motifs—have focused on architectural monuments, sculptures and liturgical manuscripts, whilst, amongst the documents, the archiepiscopal charter of Metropolitan Antim Ivireanul—the original of which is preserved at the Central National Historical Archives in Bucharest under reference number Sul 13—has attracted particular attention due to the fact that the animals on the frontispiece, rendered with reference to the Greek alphabet, contain the initials of the name Anthimos: Aetos (eagle), Nikterida (bat), Thos (jackal), Ierax (hawk), Melissa (bee), Ophis (snake), Saligkaros (snail); see Cătălina Velculescu and Ileana Stănculescu, Not by the Letter, but by the Spirit and the Mystery of Thought, Piscu, Școala Agatonia, 2020, p. 199; see also Gabriela Dumitrescu, ‘The Princely Chancellery during the Reign of Constantin Brâncoveanu’, in Civilizația epocii brâncovenești, ed. Drd. Anca Beatrice Todireanu, Bucharest, Official Gazette Publishing House and Printing Works, 2014, pp. 70–98.

• 5

  ANIC, Series 9, document dated 25 April 1695.

• 6

  BAR, Ms. rom. 5748, copied in 1696 by Isar the logothete, as he signed on fol. 10v. It is a splendidly decorated manuscript. We should mention that we are currently working on a study dedicated to this valuable historical source.

• 7

  BAR, Historical Document, CCCI/26. Document reproduced as a facsimile in Constantin Brâncoveanu. Documents from the Collections of the Library of the Romanian Academy, ed. Library of the Romanian Academy/Metropolis of Oltenia, Craiova, published by the Metropolis of Oltenia, 2014, pp. 100–101.

• 8

  Negreni Fometești, a village in Vâlcea County, now part of the commune of Mihăești, also in Vâlcea County (Melentina Bâzgan, Index of Medieval Localities in Wallachia up to 1831, Bucharest, Cartea Universitară, 2004, p. 69).

• 9

  The ‘attesting boyars’, as they were known, could number 6, 12, 24 or, at most, 48, their role being to investigate the case both on the ground and through old documents, as well as to give evidence regarding what they had discovered; their report was then submitted to the prince, who would deliver the final decision. In this instance, the number reached 48—a situation which, whilst not unique, was quite rare in judicial practice, owing to the repeated appeals lodged by the neighbours of Vergo the cupbearer’s estate.

• 10

  Of Greek origin, Vergo held several offices during the reigns of Șerban Cantacuzino and Constantin Brâncoveanu: Grand Cupbearer, from 9 March 1695 to 17 June 1697; Grand Steward, from September 1697 to 12 July 1702; previously, he had served as chief cupbearer to Prince Șerban Cantacuzino, as well as to Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu, who also entrusted him with various diplomatic missions to the Turks (Nicolae Stoicescu, Dictionary of the Great Officials of Wallachia and Moldavia, 14th–17th Centuries, Bucharest, Ed. Enciclopedică Română, 1971, p. 253).

• 11

  Ion Matei, The Diplomatic Representatives (capuchehăi) of Wallachia at the Ottoman Court, ed. Nagy Pienaru, Tudor Teoteoi, Bucharest, Romanian Academy Press, 2008, p. 258: Brâncoveanu employed Vergo, a former gatekeeper under Șerban Cantacuzino and a capuchehaie attached to the serascher in Babadag, on various missions to the Sublime Porte. In 1690, he was a capuchehaie to the Tatars, attached to Calgai Sultan. The anonymous Brâncoveanu source considers Vergo to be a friend of Mustafa Pasha (Biyikli), who had become Grand Vizier in 1693 and was preparing a major expedition. In 1695, he was with the Ottoman army, then with the Tatar khan. In 1696, he was a vel clucer and was sent to Adrianople [...] he had been part of another delegation in 1690, concerning the demarcation of the country’s borders with the Brăila district. Around 1700, he was a vel clucer and formed part of the delegation led by Șerban vel vistiernicul Greceanu, which was tasked with settling the country’s debts to the Sublime Porte and auditing the capuchehăi’s management of funds. From this point onwards, Vergo remained permanently as a capuchehaie at the Sublime Porte, residing for the most part in Adrianople, in the service of the Grand Vizier or the caimacam.

• 12

  Ion Matei, The Diplomatic Representatives (capuchehăi) of Wallachia at the Ottoman Court..., p. 259.

• 13

  Prince of Wallachia (1601–1602, 1611, 1611–1616, 1620–1623), as well as of Moldavia (1616–1619, 1623–1626).

• 14

  See Prof. Dr. habil. Ion Marian Croitoru, Dr Oana-Mădălina Popescu, ‘Artistic Refinement and Symbolic Renewal: The Continuity of Tradition and the Emergence of New Christian Motifs in the Miniature and Ornamental Art of the Voivodal Charters from Târgoviște and Bucharest, in the 17th century”, a study submitted for publication in the volume Voivodes of Târgoviște – Founders of Orthodox Spirituality, due to be published by the Archdiocese of Târgoviște Publishing House this year.

• 15

  Liana Tugearu, Miniatures and Ornaments in the Manuscripts of the Collection of Medieval Romanian Art, vol. I, Byzantine and Late Medieval Greek Manuscripts, Bucharest, National Museum of Art of Romania, 1996, pp. 163–164, 217; the Liturgy Book of Saint Constantine Brâncoveanu bears the reference number Ms. 23. On fol. 2r of this manuscript, in the frontispiece introducing the text of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, two peacocks appear (Liana Tugearu, Miniatures and Ornamentation in Manuscripts..., p. 213); other birds, as well as animals, are also found on f. 6r, next to the icon of a saint (Liana Tugearu, Miniatures and Ornamentation in Manuscripts..., p. 216); on the initial letter O, on fol. 54v (Liana Tugearu, Miniature and Ornament in Manuscripts..., p. 218), we find two more peacocks, with their heads pressed against one another, but each looking in a different direction, with their beautiful tails hanging down, in shades of ochre, purple, red and green; a peacock with its tail spread out can also be seen on fol. 18v (Liana Tugearu, Miniatures and Ornaments in Manuscripts..., p. 209), at the top of the initial ‘T’, on the same folio as the cartouche bearing the name of Lord Constantin Brâncoveanu.

• 16

  BAR, Ms. rom. 1790.

• 17

  BAR, Ms. gr. 1427, f. 1 r.

• 18

  BAR, Ms. gr. 1371.

• 19

  See the Tetraevangelion of Saint Nicodimus the Pious of Tismana. Calligraphed and illuminated at Prislop Monastery in 1404–1405, anastatic edition, edited by Ginel Lazăr, Onești, Magic Print, 2018; on fol. 101, there is a peacock, beautifully coloured in shades of purple; on fol. 17, other types of birds are also depicted.

• 20

  For more on the work of these hierarchs, see Ion I. Croitoru, Orthodoxy and the West in the Spiritual Tradition of the Romanians. The Unity of Orthodoxy and the Defence of the Orthodox Faith against Protestant Propaganda in the 17th Century, vol. I, Târgoviște, Cetatea de Scaun Publishers, 2012, pp. 246–247.

• 21

  Georgios Papaefthimiou, ‘Lukas of Cyprus, Bishop and Metropolitan of Wallachia, and his Calligraphy School’, in The Romanian Principalities and the Holy Places Along the Centuries…, p. 129.

• 22

  D. Z. Sofianos, Holy Meteora. Itinerary, 2nd ed., Holy Monastery of the Great Meteoron, 2012, p. 85. The images to which we have referred are reproduced in facsimile and form part of Codex 217, ff. 4v–5r.

• 23

  See note 1 above.

• 24

  ANIC, Brâncoveni Collection, III/21; Claudiu Victor Turcitu, Constantin Basarab Brâncoveanu. A Princely Portrait and Retrospective of an Era (1654–1714), Bucharest, DAR Publishing Development, 2019, pp. 266–267.

• 25

  ANIC, Râmnicu-Sărat Monastery, I/16; Claudiu Victor Turcitu, Constantin Basarab Brâncoveanu. A Princely Portrait and Retrospective of an Era (1654–1714)..., pp. 268–269.

• 26

  ANIC, Cernica Monastery, II/20; Claudiu Victor Turcitu, Constantin Basarab Brâncoveanu. A Princely Portrait and Retrospective of an Era (1654–1714)..., pp. 294–295: On the frontispiece, a shield featuring floral, plant and zoomorphic elements, surmounted by a cross-topped eagle.

• 27a27b

  ANIC, Hurezi Monastery, III/71.

• 28

  ANIC, Hurezi Monastery, III/71. For this document, reproduced in facsimile and transcription, see Laurențiu-Ștefan Szemkovics, Documents from Constantin Brâncoveanu concerning Hurezi Monastery and certain localities in Vâlcea County (1691–1714), Brăila, Carol I Museum of Brăila, Ed. Istros, 2017, pp. 81–84, 213, doc. 5: the initial letter is adorned with silver acanthus leaves and flowers, with red pistils and dots of the same colour scattered here and there; in the upper left-hand corner of the initial letter is a bird, depicted in profile, with its head turned towards its left wing, holding in its beak a charter unfurled horizontally and bearing at its centre the symbolic invocation: a black radiant cross [...] on the frontispiece of the document is the heraldic coat of arms of Wallachia: a round, bordered shield, bearing a silver eagle, depicted in full and from the front, with its body turned to the right, wings spread, head turned, holding in its right talon a sword positioned in pale, in its left talon a mace arranged in bar, and in its beak a double black cross [...] the heraldic composition is placed in the centre of another unfurled charter [...] with the flanks slightly turned inwards, and on which stand, as supports, two eagles, depicted with their bodies turned inwards and their wings spread.

• 29

  ANIC, Metropolitanate of Wallachia, XVI/17; Claudiu Victor Turcitu, Constantin Basarab Brâncoveanu. A Princely Portrait and Retrospective of an Era (1654–1714)..., pp. 258–259.

• 30

  BAR, Historical Document, CLIX/15. The document belonged to I. C. Filitti, as indicated by the ex-libris in the form of a stamp.

• 31

  This solemnity can be explained by the fact that the beneficiary, Alexandru Alexeanu, Grand Logothete from May 1689 to May 1692 (also known as Alexandru of Alexeni or Ghiormănescu, being the son of Ghiorma, Grand Ban, of Greek origin), was a prominent figure in the state, owing to his lineage as well as the offices held by himself or by members of his family; he was related, through his first wife, Marica, to Prince Matei Basarab, and through his second wife, Stanca, to the Corbeni boyar family, who were related to Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu, see Nicolae Stoicescu, Dictionary of the Great Magistrates of Wallachia and Moldavia, 14th–16th centuries…, pp. 105–106.

• 32

  Nicolae Stoicescu, Dictionary of the Great Rulers of Wallachia and Moldavia, 14th–17th centuries..., pp. 185, 239.

• 33

  ANIC, Bistrița Monastery, LXIII/234. For this charter, published in facsimile and transcription, see also Claudiu Victor Turcitu, Constantin Basarab Brâncoveanu. A Princely Portrait and Retrospective of an Era (1654–1714)..., pp. 76–79.

• 34

  ANIC, Bistrița Monastery, LXIII/234.

• 35

  ANIC, Hurezi Monastery, LV/1. For this charter, reproduced in facsimile and transcription, see Claudiu Victor Turcitu, Constantin Basarab Brâncoveanu. A Princely Portrait and Retrospective of an Era (1654–1714)..., pp. 128–131; see also Laurențiu-Ștefan Szemkovics, Documents from Constantin Brâncoveanu concerning Hurezi Monastery and certain localities in Vâlcea County (1691–1714)..., pp. 80–81, 212, doc. 4, with a detailed description of the miniature (p. 81), of which we reproduce only a part: the symbolic invocation depicted in the form of a cross with extended arms, flanked by two small stars, all painted in cinnabar and arranged in the centre of an unfurled charter, held by its left edge in its beak by a silver eagle, depicted in full, in profile, with its head turned towards its left wing, standing with its feet on the upper right-hand side of a red acanthus flower, with white shading here and there [...] on the left-hand side, at the base of the plant, another silver eagle, depicted in full and slightly oblique towards the plant, with its wings spread, the right wing pointing downwards and the left wing upwards.

• 36

  Năstav = guidance, direction, advice [Dictionary of the Romanian Language (DLR), vol. X, Bucharest, Romanian Academy Press, p. 126].

• 37

  ANIC, Hurezi Monastery, LV/1.

• 38

  Părpăr = a tax on vineyards and wine, paid in perperi [Feudal Institutions in the Romanian Principalities. Dictionary, ed. Ovid Sachelarie and Nicolae Stoicescu, Bucharest, Editura Academiei, 1988, p. 359].

• 39

  Za Divan = of Divan; Snă = his son, in Slavonic.

• 40

  ANIC, Hurezi Monastery, LV/1. This document, too, lacks a coat of arms on its frontispiece; however, it is authenticated by a round, movable seal bearing the cross-bearing eagle, accompanied by the sun and moon, perched on a tree and flanked by two crowned figures. For a description of this type of seal, see Laurențiu-Ștefan Szemkovics, Documents from Constantin Brâncoveanu concerning Hurezi Monastery and certain localities in Vâlcea County (1691–1714)..., p. 27, where the miniature is also described in detail: the symbolic invocation depicted in the form of a cross potent, flanked by two small stars, all painted in cinnabar and arranged in the centre of an unfurled charter, held by the beak at the left-hand edge, by a silver eagle, depicted in full profile, with its head turned towards its left wing, standing with its feet on the upper right-hand side of a red acanthus flower [...] on the left-hand side, at the base of the plant, there is another silver eagle, depicted in full and slightly obliquely towards the plant, with its wings spread, the right wing pointing downwards and the left wing upwards.

• 41

  At this point, we are referring to what the miniatures represent – in other words, the depictions of the saints – rather than to the liturgical or devotional use of icons.

• 42

  Cătălina Velculescu, Viorel Guruianu, Manuela Anton (eds.), Fiziolog. Bestiar, Cavallioti Publishers, Bucharest, 2001, p. 58: Romanian manuscript 3275, dated 1799, copied in Wallachia by Ioniță Dascălul, contains a description of the peacock: ‘The peacock is more beautiful than other birds; it has magnificent plumage and moves with great grace, And when it rises up, it seems as though it were an angel; but when it sees its own feet and claws, like those of a hen, then it cries out and humbles itself, placing itself lower than all other birds. The moral: So too, O man, if God grants you wealth, do not become proud, for we are all made by one Creator; for He who made the king made the poor man as well.

• 43

  For further details, see Jelena Andelković, Dragana Rogić and Emilija Nikolić, ‘The Peacock as a Symbol in Late Antique and Early Christian Art’, in Archaeology and Science, no. 6 (2010), pp. 231–248; Raphaël Demès, Autour du paon et du phénix. Étude d’une iconographie cultuelle et funéraire dans le Bassin méditerranéen (IVe–XIIe siècles), PhD thesis in art history, Université Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, 2017.

• 44

  Louis Charbonneau-Lassay, The Mysterious Symbolism of Jesus Christ: The Bestiary of Christ, Albin Michel, Paris, 2006, pp. 617–627.

• 45

  Ovidiu-Victor Olar (ed.), The Greek Liturgy Book from Stavropoleos Monastery, Cuvântul Vieții Publishers, Bucharest, 2024, pp. 24, 26, 28, 59: two manuscript Liturgy Books, one produced in 1611 and preserved at the Monastery of Saint Panteleimon on Mount Athos, and another from 1622 and preserved at the Athonite Monastery of Ivir.

• 46

  See I. D. Ștefănescu, ‘The Origin and Evolution of Certain Themes Appearing in Ecclesiastical Art’, in Mitropolia Moldovei și Sucevei, XL, no. 1–2, pp. 43–57. In this study, the author emphasised, amongst other things, that during the Roman period, the eagle was believed to be the bird that carried the soul of the deceased emperor to heaven. In Christianity, the eagle, having acquired a new interpretation, would appear on funerary steles, recalling the Resurrection of the Lord and verse 5 of Psalm 102: ‘Your youth shall be renewed like that of the eagle’. This reference to the verse also symbolises a connection with the Christian’s spiritual rebirth, through embracing a way of life in accordance with Orthodoxy.

• 47

  From the eagle, man could learn, amongst other things, to warm his soul through the Holy Mysteries of the Church, just as that bird warms itself in the sun: So too, O man: as you grow old, turn upwards—that is, to your spiritual father—and confess your sins to him; let him wash you with your tears and warm you by the sun, that is, by the service of the Holy Church, and in this way you will be freed from sin [Cătălina Velculescu, Viorel Guruianu, Manuela Anton (eds.), Fiziolog. Bestiar…, pp. 36, 41].

• 48

  It is believed that the symbol reached the West from the Byzantine Empire via trade links – more specifically, through the silks used to drape religious objects – travelling from Hungary to Wallachia (I. D. Ștefănescu, ‘The Origin and Evolution of Certain Motifs Appearing in Ecclesiastical Art’..., p. 50). On the Western influence, via the Hungarian route, of the ancient Wallachian heraldic symbol, see also Dan Cernovodeanu, The Evolution of the Coats of Arms of the Romanian Principalities, from their emergence to the present day (13th–20th centuries), translated from French by Livia Sîrbu, Brăila, Brăila Museum, Istros Publishers, 2005, p. 74.

• 49

  Laurențiu-Ștefan Szemkovics, Maria Dogaru, Romanian Seal Collection. Vol. I: Seals Issued by the Princely Chancellery of Wallachia (1390–1856), Bucharest, Ars Docendi, 2006, p. 29: although frequently used throughout Europe, the bird appears in a cross-shaped form only in Wallachia, thus vividly illustrating the fact that the Christian religion penetrated this territory through the Romans, who were often represented heraldically by an eagle. Taken together, the symbols in the coat of arms attest to the fact that the indigenous people of these lands, the descendants of the Dacians and Romans, adopted Christianity as early as the first centuries of the first millennium; their early conversion and the preservation of their faith, despite all the vicissitudes of the times. See also Octavian Iliescu, ‘From the History of a Coat of Arms: An Unusual Eagle’, in Magazin Istoric, V, 1971, no. 3, pp. 27–32; Maria Dogaru, From the Heraldry of Romania, Bucharest, JIF, 1994, p. 38.

• 50

  Although it was closer to an eagle, the bird depicted was described, due to the vagueness of the image, sometimes as an eagle and sometimes as a raven, a fact attributable to the seal-maker’s lack of knowledge [Laurențiu-Ștefan Szemkovics, Maria Dogaru, Romanian Seal Treasury. I: Seals issued by the princely chancellery of Wallachia (1390–1856)..., p. 29; Dan Cernovodeanu, The Evolution of the Armouries of the Romanian Principalities, from their emergence to the present day (13th–20th centuries)..., p. 76].

• 51

  That is to say, scientifically, Aegypius monachus, commonly known as the black vulture or black kite, is primarily primarily on consuming carrion [Dan Cernovodeanu, The Evolution of Armouries in the Romanian Principalities, from their emergence to the present day (13th–20th centuries)..., p. 75]. It should therefore be noted that only certain species of vultures feed on carrion, whilst the majority of species are, first and foremost, predators and prefer live prey.

• 52

  Dan Cernovodeanu, The Development of Armouries in the Romanian Principalities, from their origins to the present day (13th–20th centuries)..., p. 75.

• 53

  Laurențiu-Ștefan Szemkovics, Maria Dogaru, Romanian Seal Collection. Vol. I: Seals Issued by the Princely Chancellery of Wallachia (1390–1856)…, p. 29.

• 54

  For more on his work, see Associate Professor Dr (now Professor Dr Habil.) Ion Marian Croitoru, Saint Antim Ivireanul – Defender of the Ancestral Law, Râmnicu Vâlcea, Praxis Publishing House of the Archdiocese of Râmnic, 2019.

• 55

  Antim Ivireanul. The Printed Works, ed. Archimandrite Policarp Chițulescu (coord.), Doru Bădără, Ion Marian Croitoru, Gabriela Dumitrescu, Ioana Feodorov, Bucharest, Romanian Cultural Institute Press, 2016, p. 178.

• 56

  Antim Ivireanul. The Printed Work..., p. 135.