1.4.1. The descriptions of the country

Three parts of the treatise that stand somewhat outside the central structure of the argument serve as illustrations. They provide general information about the country’s geographic location, a bit of its history and religion, its soil and climate, its native commodities and its chief towns and cities.

Two chapters in the treatise give accounts of the Russian cities and towns –

‘The chief cities of Russia’ (Chapter 10) and ‘Of the government of their provinces and shires (Chapter 10). The first city describedin the chapter is the capital – the city of Moscow. Fletcher gives a brief account of its history (its foundation, the sieges the city repulsed, a number of its enlargements etc.), the origin of its name, the form of the city, the number of houses at that time etc. After Moscow Fletcher refers to Novgorod. Here he makes an extremely important mention: ‘the memorable war so much spoke of in stories of the Scythian servants’, when the noblesse of Novgorod and the territory about had war with the Tatars, which they won. Upon returning home they realised that their kholopy (Fletcher uses the exact word) – bondslaves – possessed their towns, lands, houses wives in their absence.The warriors decided to march and lash altogether with their whips – this rendered a visible effect on the villains – and they surrendered. In memory of the victory the Novgorodians stamped their coin with the figure of a horseman shaking a whip aloft in his hand.

The author emphasizes that Moscow and Novgorod ‘exceed the rest in greatness’, but mentions that the other chief towns: Pskov, Smolensk, Kazan’, Astrakhan’, and Yaroslavl’.

‘The other towns have nothing that is greatly memorable save many ruins within their walls, which showeth the decrease of the Russe people under this government’ – to my mind, in this phrase Fletcher expresses his disdainful attitude towards the decaying life of the provinces which is, according to his view, utterly due to the governmental structure.

Thereafter the author describes how an ordinary house in a Russian town looked like. Fletcher obviously does not approve of a house’s wooden foundation, and gives several reasons why living in a wooden house was inferior to living in a one built of limestone and bricks.

1.4.2. Description of the Tsar’s family

The chapter ‘Of the house or stock of the Russe emperors’ starts with the erroneous explanation of the origin of the imperial surname. According to Fletcher’s account, the surname was Bela, which had supposedly been adopted from the kings of Hungary. The mistake lies in Fletcher’s misunderstanding of the epithet ‘white’ («белый»), which the Muscovite rulers adopted in imitation of the khans of the Golden Horde.

Thereafter the author deepens into the roots of the origin of the first Muscovite princes; he assigns a special part to Ivan the Terrible and mentions the dreadful murder of his son, when he struck with to death with a stick, and also the killing of Tsarevich Dmitry. The last sentence of the chapter sums up his general attitude: ‘If it be into a government of some better temper and milder constitution, it will be happy for the poor people that are now oppressed with intolerable servitude’.

The following chapter, ‘Of the manner of crowning or inauguration of the Russe emperors’, gives an extremely detailed and a little dreary description of the Russe coronation ceremony – in my opinion, there is practically no need to give any details. Fletcher’s attitude is expressed in the last few phrases: ‘…The rest I omitted of purpose, because I knew they gloried to have their style appear to be of a larger volume than the queen’s of England. But this was taken in so ill part that the chancellor with a loud chafing voice called still upon me to say out the rest…’ The gist of the fragment is undoubtedly Fletcher’s feeling of Great Britain’s great superiority to Russia.