Mănăstirea Bistrița (Neamț) și Alexandru cel Bun. Revizii de interpretare
Authors:   Cercetător independent, RUSU Adrian A. 
Published: March 2024

Between 2017-2022, the Bistrița monastery (Moldavia) was subjected to an extensive renovation, which assumed archaeological supervision. As a result, a number of new data and materials were unearthed enabling a different understanding of some elements of the history of the place. A part of these are developed in these pages. 1. When and how did the history of the monastery begin. Subsuming the historical and archaeological data confirms the foundation of the monastery took place around 1407, on a territory, where earlier wooden structures did not exist. The general context is related to the very beginning of the state organization and church life in the Principality of Moldavia. The monastery has interesting data and a scenario can be put forward according to which an association with the Neamţ monastery had existed and its liturgical endowment, except its landed estates, were offered by the lordship. Secular power had an overwhelming role in the construction of the monastery, through all the levers it had at hand (appointing a task force, hiring and paying craftsmen, gathering materials and unskilled laborers). 2. How did the first church, raised by Alexandru cel Bun, look like. The remains of the first church were found, when the restoration of the drains around the current church took place. It was observed that these were in a neglected state from the beginning and partially even destroyed by the 20th century drains. For unknown reasons, the old church had been radically rebuilt. However, there is reason to believe that part of the masonry was preserved and the intervention touched upon through a remodeling around these, in the time of Ștefan cel Mare (Stephen the Great). For the same first church, the construction level and the lack of scaffolding traces were observed and assessments were made for the use of several construction materials. Concerning the latter, well-dated stone frames are missing yet, ceramic pavements, fragments of frescoes and glass window arrangements exist. These demonstrate a significant plethora of masters of gothic architecture, that came from the west, but also rather Balcanic than Byzantine decorative contributions, and implications of a ‘Pontic art’ (resulted from a Greek-Genovese-Tartar/Oriental cultural synthesis). 3. Pavements from marble spolia and the relationship with the Byzantine Empire. A special study was published to demonstrate that white marble plaques with Antique and early Christian motifs arrived to Bistrița from the Byzantine Empire, through the direct relation of Alexandru cel Bun. The resumption of the analysis found that these spolia, used in the church only as simple tiles, were also found in the extension of the church ordered by ruler Alexandru Lăpușneanu, in the middle of the 16th century. As a result, all previously imagined chronological and relational construction falls apart. Only hypothetically can one presume that the marble floors also existed in the first church. Which church also had floor tiles made from molded and glazed bricks.
The antique spolia have a long history in Moldavia. They were used consistently in the 15th – 16th centuries, by a series of rulers for several different foundations. They were the subject of long-distance trade, which certainly also involved the use of marble for the preparation of quality lime. 4. The grave of Alexandru cel Bun? The excavation of the interior tombs of the church has a relatively long history. In 1932, several fragments of garments, sewn with threads of precious metal, were collected from the same place. It was known that Alexandru cel Bun was buried in Bistrița, so the remains were automatically attributed to his tomb. However, the analyses of the historians who dealt with the clothes were from the beginning uncertain in attributing those remains to a limited period, the first half of the 15th century. It turned out that the analogies slightly raised above this limit and the garments were clearly influenced by Renaissance art. These data corroborated with the general layout of the tomb, reminiscent of the tomb of Ștefan cel Mare in the Putna monastery, the absence of any funerary sign dedicated to Alexandru cel Bun, but the presence of a serious arrangement dedicated to the namesake son of Ștefan cel Mare, determines that the tomb considered to be the founders belong more correctly to a later tomb, of a successor prince, without a reign.
5. The ‘princely house’ of Alexandru cel Bun. On the western side of the premises, almost in the axis of the church, the archaeological research found, between 1970-1973, the ruins of a rectangular building. This was interpreted as a cellar, although the exterior and interior contemporary levels did not indicate that the building is was buried. The building had a set of carefully arranged windows, a long seating bench and above all, painted elements on the preserved walls up to 1.50 m high. It needs to be stated here, that a ‘painted cellar’ cannot be accepted but rather a ground floor of a noble residence. Unfortunately, due to unjustified negligence, the testimony of these frescoes is reduced to only one photograph. They appear to have represented the folds of a large drapery with stylized and geometric ornaments. The frescoes do not exist anymore, it seems that after heavy rains they all disintegrated, since the ruin was not protected in any way. What is preserved in the walls of the cellar access, in the north, are blocks with fresco fragments repositioned from the first demolished monastic church. The entire archaeological inventory is rediscussed, signaled in general terms, and the conclusion is that these cannot be linked automatically or only to this construction. The entire ceramic material (stove tiles and pottery) characterizes a large surface of the perimeters and what is more important, that they come from workshops which functioned not very far away, towards the south, inside the curtain walls.
The history of the building probably ended in 1476, after an Ottoman intervention. Years after the destruction a new ‘palace’ (monastery) appeared immediately in parallel towards the west. From this only its northern part exists, while its southern part is outlined as a ruin on the ground. The older building had a different fate, it was emptied and became a real cellar. Its historical-touristic recovery took place in 2022, by marking its walls on the ground and through its new pavements.