- •Contents
- •Introduction
- •Chapter 1. Giles fletcher’s ‘of the russe commonwealth’
- •1.1. Historical background
- •1.2. Giles fletcher's biography
- •1.3. ‘Of the russe commonwealth’
- •1.4. Analysis of ‘of the russe commonwealth’
- •1.4.1. The descriptions of the country
- •1.4.2. Description of the Tsar’s family
- •1.4.3. The state and form of the Russe government
- •1.4.4. Description of common people
- •1.4.5. Religious attitude
- •Chapter 2. Silvestr’s ‘domostroy’
- •2.1. About ‘domostroy’
- •2.2. Analysis of ‘domostroy’
- •2.2.1. The relationship between Russian people and the Tsar
- •2.2.2. Religious practices
- •2.2.3. The mode of life of Russian people
- •Chapter 3. The conclusions on the accounts
- •3.1. Fletcher’s account
- •3.2. The ‘domostroy’ clichés
- •Overall conclusions
- •Biblography
2.2.3. The mode of life of Russian people
The author of ‘Domostroy’ gives an extremely detailed account of the mode of life of Russian people. For instance, the first chapter of ‘Domostroy’ is titled ‘Instructions from a father to a son’ («Наказание от отца к сыну»). The book deals with children’s upbringing. It mentions some traditional Russian apparels. The culinary part plays a significant role: there are minute instructions of having meals and preparing food on a wide variety of occasions: religious feasts, fasting, wedding ceremonies etc. Some of the mentioned meals seemed to be very peculiar and odd, such as beef udder (коровье вымя).
Chapter 3. The conclusions on the accounts
Having read both Fletcher’s ‘Of the Russe Commonwealth’ and Silvester’s ‘Domostroy’, can we say that Muscovy was definitely a rude and barbarous kingdom or just a kingdom differing radically from most other European kingdoms of that time? In order to be examined, the topic is to be observed from a variety of angles.
3.1. Fletcher’s account
The first of these angles is the English account (‘Of the Russe Commonwealth’).
Primarily, Fletcher appears to be subjective: he expresses his personal attitudes as a representative of his own country – and apparently does it for the sake of Great Britain, holding it as an example (the proof is the following phrase from the preface: ‘<…>a true and strange face of a tyrannical state (most unlike to your own)…') Secondly, Fletcher’s indignation is also due to the culture shock he had upon his arrival. Everything is radically different, and – predictably – rude and barbarous. Fletcher’s main reasons for culture shock obviously were:
An extreme change of the encirclement. While working on my research I visited the exhibition dedicated to the Golden Age in England in the 17th century organised in the Kremlin – I can say England was one of the most prosperous countries of that time, going through its best times. Furthermore, the voyagers themselves were mostly from the highest social ranks (for instance, at the exhibition I saw a rich portrait of Francis Drake). Taking into account all these facts, imagine an English gentleman who consorted with Elizabeth I herself arriving at a poor province and witnessing crowds of paupers begging. A striking impression!
The state and social structure. As we know, England (afterwards Great Britain) has always been a limited monarchy, with Parliament as the principal legislative body. Russia, on the contrary, was an absolute monarchy – which was the main confusing point for Fletcher. However, as I’ve mentioned in the first chapter, there are lapses in the treatise. For instance, Fletcher does not mention the Zemskiy sobor, which in fact vaguely resembled Parliament in Muscovy.
The blind servility shocked the English ambassador – he was practically unable to conceive why people were enduring all kinds of oppression from the authority’s side. This must be one of the reasons for his indignation.
National values and customs. This is the most obvious point to be analysed. To cut the long story short, I can say that the national values and customs seemed to Fletcher utterly incomprehensible – this blind servility and the correlation of the monarch with God Himself, those peculiar apparels, those strange meals, those inconceivable national feasts etc. This is a typical kind of culture shock.
Religious beliefs. England had already been converted to Protestantism when Fletcher was sent to Russia, and he must have been totally uninformed about the main Orthodox customs (a detailed description in ‘Domostroy’). That’s why he felt disdainful towards all the traditions he witnessed, such as, for example, colourful frescoes on the walls of a church. To him it was something inconceivable and incognisable – and, predictably, rude, barbarous and ridiculous.
Historical circumstances. In my opinion, the historical circumstances affected the way Fletcher wrote his treatise. The English ambassador was received in an extremely cool manner due to the previous disputes with some Englishmen who had conducted provocative actions in Muscovy. Fletcher might have been offended – plus the first impression is usually extremely significant.