West EUROPEAN DIPLOMATS,
merchants, soldiers and technicians
who either visited or resided in Mus-
covy in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries doubtless registered many
impressions, and some might even
have ordered them into more or less
coherent patterns. But obviously only
if they committed their impressions
and reflections to writings which then
‘were published could such individu-
als contribute to the Western image of
Russia. The question, what was the
Samuel H. Baron
EUROPEAN
IMAGES OF MUSCOVY
A slave-state where
despotic superstition
ruled —
Herberstein’s vision
of sixteenth-century
Russia set the
agenda for future
European attitudes.
Western image of Russia in these
centuries?, must therefore be
answered preliminarily with another
question: what were then the most
widely published works on the sub-
ject?
The two which assuredly take the
palm are Baron Sigismund von Her-
berstein’s Rerum Moscoviticarum
Commentarii and Adam Olearius’
Newe Beschreibung der Muscowitischen
und Persischen Reyse. Herberstein’s
work, first published in 1549, wentthrough some nineteen Latin, Ger-
man, and Italian editions in the next
150. years, not counting extracts.
Olearius’ book first appeared in 1647,
and the enlarged version printed in
1656 went through more than a score
of German, French, English, Dutch,
and Italian editions by the end of the
century, The well-known English
account, Giles Fletcher's Of the Russe
Commonwealth (1591) is generally
grouped with the other two as one of
the three most important foreign
reports on Muscovite Russia, even
though it was published only three
times in this period.
Herberstein, who went to Moscow
‘on behalf of the Holy Roman Emperor
in 1516-17 and 1525-26 (to mediate a
conflict between Poland and Russia),
has often been acclaimed as ‘the dis
coverer of Russia, He was so
described, because he wrote the first
detailed, fairly comprehensive, and
more or less systematic account of the
Muscovite regime. But also because
this regime, owing to a recent con-
catenation of events ~ the fall of the
Byzantine Empire (1453), the over-
throw of the Tartar yoke (1480), and
the subsequent unification of many
Russian principalities under the aegis
of the Moscow princes ~ was in’a
senseanew realm, just emerging onto
the European stage.
Unlike earlier writers on Russia,
Herberstein was an eye-witness, and
he spent a full sixteen months in the
country he wrote about; he was well-
‘educated, and had some facility with a
Slavic language. Furthermore, as his,
mission was welcome to Moscow, he
hhad unusual access to many highly-
placed persons. These conditions
help to explain the solidity of his
work, which has long figured as the
standard against which to judge other
18
foreign accounts of Muscovy.
Although Herberstein produced a
rather comprehensive account, only a
sketch is needed to convey the salient
features of his image of Russia. His
single most important set of percep-
tions is this: ‘In the sway that he holds
over his people the ruler of Muscovy
surpasses all the monarchs of the
world” He possesses ‘unlimited con-
trol of the lives and property of his
subjects’ and ‘all confess themselves
to be his Chlopos, that is, serfs of the
prince The word ‘all’ isnot employed
casually, for the prince. ‘uses his,
authority as much over ecclesiastics as
(Top and left) The Winter kingdom: images
from Herberstein of Tsar Vasil Il and travel
hy sledge in Muscory. (Above) Sigismund
‘rs Herberstein; a contemporary portrait
from ‘Moscow and Muscwey’ (1557).
laymen’ and ‘no one dares oppose
him’, The awesome relationship of the
people to their lord is expressed in
their byword: The will of the prince is
the will of God’. Even the greatest of
the subjects obsequiously touch their
heads to the ground before the ruler,Servile in relation to their master, the
noblemen are in turn arrogant and
domineering with respect to. the
common people, who are as serfs to
them as well as to the prince.
Herberstein’s implicit frame of
reference, of course, was the Western
societies he knew, where, for all their
diversity, nothing was to be found like
the extraordinary power of the ruler,
the subservience of the Church, the
insignificance of the nobility, and the
seemingly universal servitude in
Muscovy. He arrestingly exposed to
the Western public a system unlike
the contemporary monarchies of
Europe, a system which would
become known as Russian autocracy.
Herberstein offers no analysisof the
origins of the system, but his account
of ‘the unscrupulous and brutal
methods to which the Moscow
princes resorted in their unification of
the Russian lands hints that they
appropriated the arbitrary, rapacious
style of government of the former
Tartar overlords, whom they had
served while simultaneously aggran-
dising themselves. ‘The unification
process carried out by Tsars Ivan IIL
(1462-1505) and Vasilié II (1505-33) is
represented not just as the conquest
and expulsion of other princes from
their domains but as a sort of plague
emanating from Moscow that strikes
down and engulfs everything in its
path. The case of Novgorod is most
shockingly told. Ivan Ill attacked the
city on false pretences and then
‘despoiled the archbishop, the citi-
zens, merchants and foreigners of all
their goods: Not content with that, he
‘reduced all the inhabitants to abject
servitude, deported all the leading,
citizens, and turned their lands over
to the minions he sent to replace
them. A further result of the cata-
strophe, the author observes, is that
the people of Novgorod, who used to
be courteous and honourable, ‘now,
doubtless from the Russian contagion
introduced by people who emigrated
from Moscow, are become most
degraded’
‘According to Herberstein, the
common people of Muscovy are ruth-
lessly exploited, utterly defenceless,
and morally degraded. The peasants
must work six days a week on the land
of their masters, and have but one day
to till theirown allotments. They must
bear mistreatment _uncomplainingly
as they have no access to the prince
and, in any case, ‘all justice is venal’
The moral degradation of the people,
asthe nobleman Herberstein seesit, is
manifested, among other ways, in
their want of military valour. ‘The
Russians depend more on numbers
than skill and discipline, and after
attacking impetuously, they behave as,
if to say: ‘If you do not flee, then we
must, The Muscovites have no sense
of honour; rulers routinely violate
their solemn oaths.
In the conduct of business, the
Muscovites are ‘more cunning and
deceitful than all others. They engage
n outrageous bargaining, and ‘they
swear with the very intention of
deceiving. Then Herberstein is,
repelled by the Russians’ treatment of
women. None is considered virtuous
unless she lives shut up like a pris-
oner. Women are thought to be defil-
ing, and so are seldom admitted into
churches. Most surprisingly, married
women regard beatings by their hus-
bands asa measure of their lave. Such
evidence ofa slavish disposition is not
confined to women, for servants too
complain if they do not receive a fair
amount of beating. “This people
enjoys slavery more than freedom,
Herberstein declares in amazement,
supporting the assertion with the
observation that serfs who are
manumitted immediately sell them-
selves again.
Is Herberstein’s depiction of Mus-
covite ways truthful? It is certaink
overdrawn in some respects. He mis-
understood some of the phenomena
he describes; and some other items he
reported, for example that women
take beatings as a sign of love, evoke
scepticism. Needless to say,
moreover, the diplomat’s personal
values coloured his portrayal, and his
negative emphasis. may in some
measure have stemmed from talk
heard at the Polish court before and
after his visits to Moscow: Despite
these failings, the work is to a large
extent sound.
On the whole, it should be added,
Herberstein uses restrained language
in describing what he clearly finds
distasteful in the people and mores of
Muscovy. But on one occasion he
gives vent to a memorable outburst
that expresses his repugnance and
perplexity’
It is a matter of doubt whether the
brutality of the people has made the
prince a tyrant, or whether the people
themselves have become brutal and
cruel through the tyranny of the prince,
No resolution of this conundrum
occurs in. Herberstein’s Conmmentari
The numerous editions of Herber-
stein’s opus produced a strong influ-
ence on other writers on Russia. The
Russian historian V.O. Kliuchevskii,
author of a study of foreign accounts
of the Muscovite state, observed: For
most of the foreigners who wrote
Tothe Queenes moft ex-
cellent