Elena of Moldau

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Akrogiali

Elena of Moldau

Legg inn av Akrogiali » 03 mar 2006 05:13:28

Who was Grand Duchess (?) Elena of Moldau? She married 1483 Prince Ivan
"Molodoy" Donskoy.

regards

George

Gjest

Re: Elena of Moldau

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 mar 2006 12:15:09

Ilincu (Elena) a daughter of Prince Io Stefan III "the Great" Gospodar
of Moldova (1457-1504) and his 2nd wife Yevdotia Olelkowicza, Princess
of Kiev, married 12.1.1483 Moscow, Ivan "Molodoy" "the Younger" Great
Duke of Tver (1485-90).
Repudiated she was sent to prison after her husband's death and died
18.1.1505.
Source: Miroslav Marek - Mushati, rulers of Moldavia and Rurikids,
rulers of Russia

Best regards,
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
(Portugal)

Radu Bogdan

Re: Elena of Moldau

Legg inn av Radu Bogdan » 03 mar 2006 18:05:47

Good evening Francisco,

I'm afraid that Miroslav Marek's site has less acurate information on
Moldavia and Walachia.

One must be careful with the titles :))
"Prince" was only one title out of five ; "Io" commes from "Iôannès"
and was the « royal particle », while "Gospodar"... well, "Gospodar"
never was a title, neither in Moldavia, nor in Walachia... !

Gjest

Re: Elena of Moldau

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 mar 2006 18:45:56

Thats why I identified the source. And from a portuguese (the
westernmost of Europe) point of view I thought Miroslav was conversant
with eastern subtleties. :-))

I know nothing about Moldavia or Walachia and very little about Russia.
I thought Gospodar meant Lord and never understood the difference, if
any, to Voivoid.
"Iôannès" that I have never heard of sounds latin derived
(rumanian?). If so, why latin derived titles (from rex, dux, ... ...
dominus) are not used?
And Prince "one out of five" really baffled me. How should the rulers
of Moldavia be correctly styled?

Best regards,
Francisco

Radu Bogdan

Re: Elena of Moldau

Legg inn av Radu Bogdan » 04 mar 2006 11:06:57

Hello Francesco,

The titles used by the monarchs of Walachia and Moldavia were "Domn"
(cf. Dominus), "Principe" (cf. Princeps), "Mare Voevod" (Grand
Voyvode), "Voevod" (Duke) and "Io" (a.k.a. the royal particule). The
first two are, etymologically, of Latin origin, the next two, Slavonic,
while the last is Byzantine (Greek).
These titles were gradually assumed from the 1230s to 1359. (You must
be wondering about the etymological diversity :)) Such a "melange"
reflects both the diversity of south-eastern Europe before the Ottomans
came - Latins, Slavs and Roman-Byzantine -, and the political diversity
created by the Fourth Crusade and, implicitely, by the political and
dynastic fusion of Western Europe with the Mediterranean Orient and
south-eastern Europe after 1204.

This particle, Io, comes from "Iôannès" which means in Greek, "by
grace of God", "elected/chosen by God" ; in Roumanian : "Ioan"
(litterally "John", "Jean, "Joao", "Juan", "Giovanni", "Johann", etc.
).
It was not a name, but a _quality_ (like Stefan[os], which, before
being turned into a name, meant "the Crowned"; the same for
"Sebastian", etc.)

But the use of these titles stopped after 1714, when Walachian and
Moldavian rulers started to be appointed by the Sultans after literally
bidding for the throne. The meaning of "Io", for instance was lost for
decades, because the new "princes" weren't at all acquainted with the
traditions of the Walachian and Moldavian monarchies ; "Domn" became
ineffectual, as it was not compatible anymore to the political reality
of the two Roumanian States ; and so on...

As for Gospodar, I'll try to be short : "Gospodar"/"Hospodar" has a
long history of being misproperly used by the European diplomacy. It
was never a title, it was the way the Russians described the position
held by the Phanar-originated rulers of Walachia and Moldavia after
1718, 1739 and especially after 1774. The meaning of the term is
"administrator" in Roumanian, even if, in old Slavonic, "gospodar"
meant "sovereign prince". (You see now why it was so easy for the
Russians to exhume and use again this term, after centuries.)
However, "Hospodar/Gospodar" continued to be used by the European
diplomacy even after 1821, year when Greek (Phanariot) "princes" ceased
to rule in Walachia and Moldavia (following a Roumanian & Greek riot
and also due to Russian pressure, they were not appointed by the Sultan
anymore). After 1821, the meaning of Hospodar turned again from
"adminstrator" to "sovereign Prince".
In Roumania Gospodar/Hospodar was not used. In common language, it
means "administrator" (un bun gospodar = efficient administrator).

Best regards,
Radu B.

Radu Bogdan

Re: Elena of Moldau

Legg inn av Radu Bogdan » 04 mar 2006 11:13:26

I have to add that "Iô[annès]", like "Stephanos", was created by the
Byzantine Empire to be bestowed upon the kings that were willing to
integrate in the political community of the Eastern Roman Empire (i.e.,
the Bulgarian czars).

[... "political community of the Eastern Roman Empire", this needs a
book to be explained :) ]

R.B.

Akrogiali

Re: Elena of Moldau

Legg inn av Akrogiali » 05 mar 2006 22:38:03

Actually your comments are not right.
Hospodar was a title and existed before the Phanariots were appointed
administrators.
The Title Hospodar was replaces by Domnitx (or something like that (Domnitza
female))
which then was followed years later when the Phanariots arrived by Voivode
and Prince

that
"Radu Bogdan" <sellathonus_2003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141467206.212637.239080@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I have to add that "Iô[annès]", like "Stephanos", was created by the
Byzantine Empire to be bestowed upon the kings that were willing to
integrate in the political community of the Eastern Roman Empire (i.e.,
the Bulgarian czars).

[... "political community of the Eastern Roman Empire", this needs a
book to be explained :) ]

R.B.

Radu Bogdan

Roumanian Old Titles [olim : Elena of Moldau/de Moldova]

Legg inn av Radu Bogdan » 06 mar 2006 09:20:07

1) to Francesco

Good morning Francesco,

Yes, from this point of view you, the Portuguese, are unique, you are
_the_ "happy few", given the fact that your frontier with Spain is the
only one in Europe stabile since 1143. There is not other that old,
IIRC. You have the - should I say luck ? - to have for neighbours one
nation and an Ocean :)) ; this luck is your geographical location.
Eastwards you go, situation changes : France is more or less surrounded
by 6 nations, Roumanians had 11 nations for neighbours, the Poles - 10,
etc. This implies different frontier dynamics.

The language always was the same, Roumanian, the only Romance language
in eastern Europe, having a 75% lexical concordance with Spanish, 77%
with Portuguese, 76% with Italian, and 67% with French. (For
comparison, French/Spanish : 72%, French/Portuguese : 74% ; on the
contrary, Spanish/Portuguese, 93%, French/Italian : 81%). [taken from a
study directed by Henri Guiter for the "Latin Union", intergovernmental
organisation of the Romance-language countries, 131, rue de Bac, Paris,
75007]
What made a difference was the use of Slavonic in Church and State
administration until the end of the 16th century/beginning of the 17th.
This differentiation, as you know, is not unique in Europe (Latin for
Slavs and Germans, etc. Roumanians used Slavonic because Slavonic was
the 4th language of the Church - after Hebrew, Greek and Latin -, the
2nd of the Eastern Church - after Greek -, to which Roumanians belong.)


When I said that "Iô[annès]" was a royal quality, and not a name
(even if it is a Christian name), that's because it must be understood
in the same way as Kaiser/Czar (Cæsar) and Kral/király (Karl,
Charles). They are originally names, but Cæsar, Karl and Iôannès
[John] were used to describe the quality and the form of a monarchic
authority by making reference to an earlier pattern : it was Cæsar for
the Germans and Slavs, it was Karolus Magnus for the Serbs and
Hungarians. "Iô[annès]" is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew
"Jehohanan" meaning "by grace of God" (or, literally, "Dieu/YHWH rend
grâce").

In 1866, the Roumanian parliament dedicated several reunions to decide
if Carol of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen should adopt or not the particle
"Io". The answer was "no" because the new Roumanian monarchy had to be
modern and liberal (the parliament was dominated by liberals at the
time), compared to the first Roumanian monarchy, mediaeval and "by
divine right" ; this was a good thing, as long as the meaning of "Io"
was not lost. Nevertheless, when on the throne, the late Hohenzollern
[-Sigmaringen] made use of the old monarchy's titles : i.e., the
daughters of Ferdinand and Marie were styled Domnitã [pronounce like
"Domnitza"], equivalent to Princess Royal ; the title "grand-voevod"
was brought to light for Michael after 1930... etc.

But the ruling dynasty were not called "royal"/ "dinastie regalã" in
Roumanian, but "domneascã", a word derived from Domn (Dominus).
"Regal", "regalã" are modern words that replaced (not "upgraded") the
old "domnesc" (singular, masculine) and "domneascã" (singular,
feminine).

The monarch was « Io' ...N..., grand-voevod and Domn [faithful and
obedient and Christ loving], by Grace of God ruling and governing
etc... »

When the monarch's title was only "grand-voevod" [literally, grand
duke], each of his sons was 'voevod' [duke].
Later, when the monarch's supreme title was Domn, his first son -
usually associated to the throne - was styled "grand voevod" (he also
had the right to the royal particle "Io"), while the rest of his male
progeny was 'voevod'. (Several times the title "grand voevod" was
conferred to the monarch's brother, only if associated to the throne.)

Best regards,
Radu B.


2) to Akrogiali :

Actually your comments are not right.
Hospodar was a title and existed before the Phanariots were appointed
administrators.
The Title Hospodar was replaces by Domnitx (or something like that (Domnitza
female))
which then was followed years later when the Phanariots arrived by Voivode
and Prince

At all, Akro. You did not carefully read my posting. I did not deny the
term Hospodar as existing among the titles, I denied it as existing in
Roumanian language. It is Slavonic, and it can be found in old
Roumanian Court documents describing the sovereign quality of the
monarch. However, it's just a _translation_. I said it was "revived" by
the Russian diplomacy during the 18th century, not that is was created
by the Russians.
(Of course it was used by the Russians, it's easier for them, it's
Slavonic.)

R.B.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»