1.4.3. The state and form of the Russe government

At the beginning of the chapter called ‘The state and form of their government’, Fletcher denotes the following: ‘The manner of their government is much after the Turkish fashion, which they seem to imitate as near as the country and reach of their capacities…’ This remark may emphasize that Russia imitated the political system of a Muslim country on some political purposes – which furthermore lets us speculate that Fletcher was skeptical about Russian people’s veritable religious beliefs.

‘The state and form of their government is plain tyrannical, as applying all to the behoof of the prince, and that after a most open and barbarous manner as may appear by the sophismata or secrets of their government afterwards set down, as well for the keeping of the nobility and commons in an under proportion and far uneven balance in their several degrees, as also in their impositions and exactions wherein they exceed all just measure without any regard of nobility or people, farther than it giveth the nobility a kind of injust and unmeasured liberty to command…’In this long extract the author expresses his own interpretation of the Russe state structure. As we can notice, according to Fletcher’s view, it is based on tyranny, intimidation and great social subordination.

Fletcher denounces autocracy and centralization, and also mentions that sovereigns frequently used bishops, abbots and friars to make advantage of the people’s superstitions, even against themselves.

Oddly enough, Fletcher made no mention at all of the zemskii sobor (земский собор), the one body in the Muscovite system that even vaguely resembled parliament. In 1589 Muscovite institutions seemed to his static and unshakeable, partly because he didn't notice the sobor.

In the chapter ‘Of the nobility, and by what means it is kept in an under proportion agreeable to that state’ Fletcher describes the social hierarchy of the nobless and the reforms of Ivan the Terrible, according to which, the nobless became the Tsar’s kholopy themselves. He mentions the famous oprichnina (during which Tsar Ivan the Terrible instituted a domestic policy of secret police, mass repressions, public executions, and confiscation of land from Russian aristocrats) and gravely denounces it, calling it ‘tyrannous’ and ‘wicked’.

1.4.4. Description of common people

One of the most important chapters for my research work, ‘Of the state of the commonalty, or vulgar sort of people in the country of Russia’, starts with the following phrase: ‘The condition of the commons and vulgar sort of people may partly be understood by that which already hath been said concerning the manner of their government and the state of the nobility with the ordering of their provinces and chief towns of the lands’. Hereby the author suggests that the common people’s problems were mostly due to the political structure of the country.

‘The great oppression of the poor commons maketh them to have no courage in following their trades, for that the more they have, the more danger they are in…’ – Fletcher denotes. –‘This maketh the people <…>to give themselves much to idleness and drinking, as passing for no more than from hand to mouth. And hereof it cometh that the commodities of Russia, as wax, tallow, hides, flax, hemp, etc., grow and go abroad in far less plenty than they were wont to do, because the people, being oppressed and spoiled of their gettings, are discouraged from their labours…’

To sum it all up, the Russian, treated harshly by his rulers and Church, returns the favor to anyone he has power over, including his family: ‘In living with their wives, they show themselves to be but of a barbarous condition: using them as servants, rather than wives’. Fletcher denotes: “The Russe neither believes anything that an other man speaks, nor speaks anything himself worthy to be believed”.

In the chapter ‘Of the private behaviour or quality of the Russe people’ Fletcher calls the Russian’s diet ‘rather much than curious’. His attitude towards Russian apparels also seems to be ambiguous.

Fletcher puts forward the following idea: ‘As touching their behaviours and quality otherwise they are of reasonable capacities if they had those means that some other nations have to train up their wits in good nurture and learning…’

About Russia’s common people Fletcher also denotes the following: ‘They (people) make no account of the life of a man. <…> I will not speak of the strangeness of the murders and other cruelties committed among them, specially such as profess themselves Christians. <…>The whole country overfloweth with all sin of that kind, and no marvel, as having no law to restrain whoredoms, adulteries, and like uncleanness of life…'

The author describes abject poverty among Russian people: ‘The number of their vagrant and begging poor is almost infinite, that are so pinched with famine and extreme need as they beg after a violent and desperate manner with ‘give me and cut me, give me and kill me’ and such like phrases…’