Notes upon Russia/Volume 1/Notes upon Russia

by Sigismund von Herberstein

NOTES UPON RUSSIA.

 

---

 

Various are the opinions entertained respecting the origin of the name of Russia. Some maintain that it is derived from one Russus, a prince of the Poles, and brother or nephew of Lech, as though he himself had been a prince of the Russians. Others again derive it from a certain very ancient town, named Russum,^[1] not far from Great Novogorod. Some also derive it from the dark colour of the people; and some think that, by a change in the word, Russia has received its designation from Roxolania. The Muscovites, however, contradict those who maintain these discrepant opinions, and assert, that it was anciently called Rosseia, as a nation dispersed and scattered, which indeed the name implies. For Rosseia, in the language of the Russians, means a dissemination or dispersion; and the variety of races even now blended with the inhabitants and the various provinces of Russia lying promiscuously intermingled, manifestly prove that this is correct. It is well known also to those who read the sacred writings, that the prophets use a word expressing dissemination when they speak of the dispersion of nations.^[2] There are not wanting those also, who by a somewhat similar process of reasoning, derive the name of the Russians from a Greek, and hence from a Chaldaic origin, viz., from the Greek word ῤοῦς, a flowing, or from a kind of dispersion, as it were, by drops, which is called by the Aramæans,^[3] Resissaia or Ressaia; just as the Galli and Umbri have received their appellations from the Hebrew words, Gall and Gallim, and from Umber, i.e., floods, storms, and inundations; which is as much as to call them an inconstant and stormy people, or a nation liable to burst out and run over. But whatever be the source from which Russia has derived its name, all the races using the Sclavonic language that observe both the faith and the forms of Christianity in accordance with the ritual of the Greeks, and are called in conventional language Russians, and in Latin Rhuteni, have increased to so great a multitude, that they have either driven out all intermediate nations, or have absorbed them into their own habits of living; so that all may now be designated by one common word, Russians.

Moreover, the Slavonic language,—which, by a slight corruption of the word, is called Sclavonic at the present day,—has a most extensive range: for the Dalmatians, the Bosnians, the Croatians, the Istrians, and those who dwell along the Adriatic in a long tract of country as far as Friuli; the Carni,^[4] whom the Venetians call Charsi; the Carniolians also, and the Carinthians, as far as the Drave; the Styrians, likewise, below Gratz, who dwell along the Muhr, as far as the Danube; then the Mysians, Servians, Bulgarians, and others dwelling as far as Constantinople, all speak the Sclavonic language; add to these the Bohemians, Lusatians, Silesians, Moravians, and those who dwell by the river Waag, in the kingdom of Hungary; the Poles also, and the widely ruling Russians, together with the Circasians, called the Quinquemontani, on the Black Sea; lastly, through Germany, the remains of the Vandals scattered here and there over the north beyond the Elbe. While these various nations pretend to be Sclavonians, the Germans promiscuously call all those who use the Sclavonic language, Wends, Winden, and Windisch,—a term taken only from the Vandals.

Russia extends near to the Sarmatian mountains, up to a short distance from Cracow; thence along the river Tyra, which the natives call Dniester, to the Black Sea, and across to the Dnieper. Some years since, however, the Turk took possession of Alba, otherwise called Moncastro [Bielograd], also situated at the mouth of the river Dniester, and under the dominion of the Waywode^[5] of Moldavia. The king of Taurica likewise crossed the Dnieper, and laying waste the country far and wide, built two fortresses,—one of which, called Ochakov, situated not far from the mouth of the Dnieper, is still in the possession of the Turk: but the space between these two rivers is now a desert. Moreover, in ascending the Dnieper, we come to the town of Circas [Cherkasui], lying towards the west, and then to the very ancient city of Kiev, formerly the metropolis of Russia; and on the opposite side of the Dnieper, is the still inhabited province of Sewera; and from thence, directly eastward, we come to the sources of the Don. Proceeding then a long distance by the course of the Don, as far nearly as the conflux of the rivers Occa and Volga, and crossing the Volga, a very long journey brings us at length to the Northern Ocean. Thence returning through the countries which are subject to the king of Sweden, by Finland, the Gulf of Livonia, Livonia, Samogithia, and Masovia, and lastly through Poland, the country is bounded by the Sarmatian mountains, two provinces only intervening,—namely, Lithuania and Samogithia,—which two provinces are intermixed with the Russians; and though they have their own dialects, and use the Roman ritual, the inhabitants are nevertheless for the most part Russian.

Of the princes who now rule over Russia, the first is the Grand Duke of Moscow, who holds the greatest part of it; the second is the Grand Duke of Lithuania; the third is the King of Poland, who now is sovereign both of Poland and Lithuania.

This nation possesses no information concerning its origin beyond the annals hereafter quoted, which state that this Sclavonic people were of the race of Japhet, and were formerly seated on the Danube, in that part which is now called Hungary and Bulgaria, and that they were at that time called Norici; that at length they were scattered and dispersed over various lands, and took the names of the places whither they went: as for instance, the Moravians took their name from the river Moraw; others called themselves Ozechi, i.e., Bohemians; also Ghorwati^[6], Bieli, Serbli, i.e., Servians; the Chorontani^[7] also, who located themselves on the shores of the Danube; others being driven out by the Walachians, came to the Vistula, and took the name of Lechi, from one Lech, a prince of the Poles, from whom also the Poles are called Lechi. Others are called Lithuanians, Mazovians, and Pomeranians; others, taking their abode by the Dnieper where now Kiev is situated, were called Poleni; others Drewliani, dwelling in woods; others between the Dwina and Peti were called Dregowici; others called Poleutzani, on the river Polta, which flows into the Dwina; others about the Lake Ilmen, who took possession of Novogorod, and selected as their ruler a prince named Gostomissel; others, called Seweri or Sewerski,^[8] dwelt on the shores of the rivers Desna and Sula;^[9] others again named Chriwitzi, by the sources of the Volga and the Dnieper, whose capital and fortress is Smolensko. These things are testified by their own annals.

It is unknown who were the original sovereigns of Russia, for they had no characters in which their deeds could be written and transmitted to memory. But after that Michael, king of Constantinople, had sent the Sclavonian characters into Bulgaria in the year of the world six thousand four hundred and six [898],^[10] then first, not only the occurrences of the period, but also those which they had heard from their ancestors and retained through long memory, began to be written and recorded in their annals. From these it appears, that the people of the Coseri had formerly exacted from some of the Russians a tribute of squirrel skins, to be delivered to them from each house, and also that the Waregi had been rulers over them. Concerning the Coseri,^[11] I have been able to learn nothing from the annals, beyond the name, as to whence they came or who they were; and the same likewise with the Waregi;^[12] but as they gave the name of Waregan Sea to the Baltic, and to that sea which divides Prussia, Livonia, and part of their own territory from Sweden, I have concluded from the vicinity that their princes were either Swedes or Danes, or Prussians. But since Wagria seems to have been formerly a most famous seat and province of the Vandals, near to Lubeck and the Duchy of Holstein, it would appear that the sea which is now called the Baltic took its name from it; and as that sea, together with the gulph which divides Germany from Denmark, and separates also Prussia, Livonia, and the maritime portion of the Russian empire from Sweden, was at that time called by the Russians Waretzokoie Morie, i.e. the Waregan Sea; and as in addition to this the Vandals were at that time powerful, used the language, and practised the manners and religion of the Russians, it appears to me more probable that the Russians called their princes from the Wagrii, or Waregi, than that they conferred their government upon foreigners, who differed from them in religion, manners, and language. It happened, then, that as the Russians had contentions among themselves from time to time concerning the sovereignty, and the opposite parties, inflamed with hatred against each other, were carrying their quarrels to the highest pitch of malignity, one Gostomissel, a man of prudence and great authority in Novogorod, advised, as a conciliatory measure, that they should send to the Waregi, and request three brothers, who were there held in high estimation, to undertake the government. His advice meeting with a ready approval, ambassadors were sent to fetch the brother princes, who, upon their arrival, divided between them the government thus voluntarily conceded. Rurick obtained the principality of Novogorod, and fixed his residence in Ladoga, thirty-six German miles below great Novogorod. Sinaus settled himself at the White Lake [Bielosero] and Truvor, in the town of Svortzech [Isborsk], in the principality of Plescov. The Russians boast that these brothers derived their origin from the Romans, from whom even the present prince of Russia asserts that he is sprung. The entrance of these brothers into Russia took place, according to the annals, in the year of the world 6370 (862). Two of them dying without heirs, Rurick, the survivor, came into possession of all the principalities, and divided his fortresses among his friends and relatives. Upon his death-bed, he entrusted his youthful son, named Igor, together with the kingdom, to the care of one of his kinsmen, named Oleg, who increased the latter by the conquest of many provinces. Carrying his arms as far as Greece, he laid siege even to Constantinople, and after a reign of thirty-three years, died of an injury caused by the bite of a poisonous snake, through accidentally planting his foot on the skull of his horse after it had been some time dead. Upon the death of Oleg, Igor, who had married a wife from Plescov, named Olga, took the reins of government. This prince proceeded with his forces still further than his predecessor, and reached Heraclea and Nicomedia; at length, however, he was overthrown in battle and fled. He met his death subsequently at the hand of Maldittus,^[13] a prince of the Drevlians, at a place called Ciresti,^[14] and was there buried. As his son Svyatoslav’, whom he left an infant, could not reign on account of his tender age, his mother Olga became regent in the interim; and on one occasion, when the Drevlians sent twenty messengers to her with commands that she should marry their prince, Olga first ordered the messengers of the Drevlians to be buried alive, and then dispatched messengers of her own to them to say, that if they wished her to be their princess and mistress, they should send a greater number of wooers, and of higher rank: after this she scalded to death, in a bath, fifty picked men that had been sent to her, and again sent other messengers to announce their arrival, and ordered that they should prepare some aqua mulsa^[15] and other things which were usually considered necessary in providing for the obsequies of a deceased husband. Moreover, when she came to the Drevlians, she held a mourning for her husband, and having made the Drevlians drunk, slew five thousand of them: she then returned to Kiev, raised an army, and proceeding against the Drevlians, oppressed them with a siege which lasted a whole year, during which she persecuted those who fled to her camp, and finally obtained the victory. Terms of peace being afterwards agreed upon, she demanded a tribute from every house of three pigeons and as many sparrows, and upon receiving the birds, she sent them back with various combustible materials fastened under their wings; the birds being released, made their way for their accustomed homes, and flying back to the fortresses, set fire to them, while those who fled from the conflagration were either slain or taken prisoners, and sold. When she had taken possession of all the fortresses of the Drevlians, and revenged the death of her husband, she returned to Kiev. Proceeding subsequently to Greece, in the year of the world 6463 (955), she received baptism under King John of Constantinople, and changing her name of Olga for that of Helen, received large presents from the king upon the occasion of her baptism, soon after which she returned home. She was the first Christian among the Russians, according to their annals, which compare her to the Sun: for as the Sun illuminates the world itself, so also, say the records, she illuminated Russia with the faith of Christ. She could not, however, by any means persuade her son Svyatoslav’ to be baptized, who on arriving at manhood proved to be strong and active, and shrunk from no warlike exertion or danger to which warriors were accustomed. He permitted his army to carry no baggage, not even cooking utensils, and himself ate nothing but roast meat, and was accustomed to sleep upon the ground with only a saddle for his pillow. He carried his arms as far as the Danube and conquered the Bulgarians, and fixed his court in the city of Pereaslav’, saying to his mother and counsellors: “This is my capital, in the midst of my dominions; from Greece are brought to me Panodokhi^[16] gold, silver, wine, and various fruits; from Hungary, silver and horses; from Russia, schora,^[17] wax, honey and slaves.” To which his mother replied: “Now at length I am prepared to die, bury me wherever thou wilt.” And at the end of three days she died, and was enrolled amongst the number of the saints by her grandson Vladimir, who had been already baptized. The 11th day of July is dedicated to her. Svyatoslav’, who reigned after his mother’s death, divided the provinces among his sons: to Yaropolk he gave Kiev, to Oleg he gave the Drevlians, and to Vladimir, Great Novogorod. Indeed, the Novogorodians were instigated by a certain woman named Dobrina, to request that Vladimir should be made their prince; for there was a certain man at Novogorod, called Calufeza the Little,^[18] who had two daughters, Dobrina^[19] and Malusha, and while Malusha was in the gynæceum of Olga she became the mother of Vladimir, by Svyatoslav’.

Meanwhile Svyatoslav’, having an eye to the aggrandisement of his sons, proceeded to Bulgaria, laid siege to the city of Pereaslav’, and took it. He then declared war against the kings Basil and Constantine; but they sent messengers to sue for peace, and promising, though deceitfully, that they would pay tribute according to the number of his army, desired that he would inform them of its extent; and after they had ascertained the number of his forces, they also levied an army. At length, when both were confronted, the Russians became terrified at the host of the Greeks, but Svyatoslav’ seeing their fear, thus addressed them: “Since, O Russians, I see no place into which we can retreat with safety, and as at the same time it has never entered into my thoughts to surrender the soil of Russia to our enemies, I am resolved either to die or win renown by fighting bravely against them. For if I die fighting valiantly, my name will be immortal; whereas if I flee, I shall carry with me eternal disgrace. And since it is not possible for one who is surrounded by a host of enemies to escape, it is my determination to stand firmly, and at all risks to expose myself in the foremost rank for the sake of my country.” The soldiers replied: “Wheresoever thou leadest we will follow.” Having thus restored the confidence of his army, he rushed upon the enemy with a terrific onslaught, and bore away the victory. Subsequently, while laying waste the country of the Greeks, the other princes of the country besieged him with presents of gold and panodochmi (so the annals have it); but all their gifts he slighted and refused, accepting the garments and arms which the Greeks afterwards sent to him. This manifestation of virtue on his part so moved the people of Greece, that they addressed their own sovereigns on one occasion when assembled together, to the effect, that that was the sort of king that they desired to serve—namely, one who preferred arms to gold. As Svyatoslav’ was approaching Constantinople, the Greeks at last got rid of him from their country by the payment of a large tribute. Finally, in the year of the world 6480 (972), Cures, a prince of the Pieczenigi,^[20] caught him in an ambush and slew him, and made a goblet of his skull surrounded with a golden rim, on which was engraved this sentence: “By seeking the possessions of others he lost his own.”

When Svyatoslav’ was dead, one of his nobles named Svyadolt, went to Yaropolk at Kiev, and besought him with the greatest earnestness and pertinacity to thrust out his brother Oleg from the kingdom, because he had put his son Lutas to death. Yaropolk, overruled by his persuasions, waged war against his brother, and routed his army of Drewlians; while Oleg himself, in endeavouring to escape to a certain fortress, was shut out from it by his own followers, and in the confusion of the flight was thrust over a certain bridge, and died a wretched death beneath the numerous bodies of those who fell upon him. Yaropolk, after having gained possession of the camp, sought for his brother, and when he found the body lying among the dead, he gazed upon his upturned countenance and exclaimed: “O Svyadolt, behold here the accomplishment of thy desire!” He then buried him.

When Vladimir heard that Oleg was slain, he left Novogorod and fled beyond the sea to the Waregi; upon which Yaropolk established a viceroy at Novogorod, and was made monarch of all Russia. After this, Vladimir, having procured the assistance of the Waregi, returned, drove out his brother’s viceroy from Novogorod, and knowing that his brother was about to take up arms against him, was the first to make a declaration of war. In the interim he sent messengers to Rochvolochda, prince of Plescov’, through whose country he had passed in his march from Wagria, to ask the hand of his daughter Rochmida in marriage. The maiden, however, knowing Vladimir was illegitimate, did not wish to be married to him, but rather to his brother Yaropolk, who she thought would be likely soon to prefer his suit. Vladimir, indignant at having suffered a refusal, waged war against Rochvolochda, and slew him and his two sons; but he took Rochmida the daughter to be his wife, and afterwards marched to Kiev against his brother. Yaropolk, however, not daring to engage in a battle against his brother, shut himself up at Kiev. While Vladimir was besieging Kiev, he sent a secret messenger to one Blud, the intimate counsellor of Yaropolk, and dignifying him with the appellation of father, begged him to suggest the means of killing his brother. When Blud understood the request of Vladimir, he promised that he himself would kill his master, but advised Vladimir to lay siege to the fortress; at the same time, however, he recommended Yaropolk not to remain within the fortress, alleging as a reason that many of his men had deserted to Vladimir. Yaropolk, confiding in his counsellor, fled to Roden, at the mouth of the Yursa,^[21] imagining that he would there be safe against the violence of his brother. When Vladimir had subdued Kiev, he led his army against Roden, and pressed Yaropolk with a long and severe siege. Afterwards, when they were exhausted with long famine and could no longer endure the siege, Blud advised Yaropolk to make peace with his brother, he being by far the more powerful of the two. In the meantime, however, he sent a messenger to Vladimir, to say that he would soon bring his brother to him and deliver him up to him. Yaropolk followed the counsel of Blud, and submitted himself to the will and power of his brother, voluntarily avowing that he should be grateful for any concessions that he would be pleased to make in his favour.

These terms were by no means displeasing to Vladimir. Blud then recommended his master to go to Vladimir, though another counsellor of his, named Verasco, strongly advised him not to do so. Yaropolk, however, neglected the advice of the latter, and proceeded to his brother; and, as he was entering a gate, he was killed by two Waregi, while Vladimir himself was looking down upon the scene from a tower. After the commission of this crime, Vladimir debauched his brother’s wife, a Greek woman by birth, whom Yaropolk also had got with child previous to marrying her, and at a time when she was a nun.

This Vladimir established many idols at Kiev: one of these was called Perun, whose head was of silver, but the rest of his body wood; the others were called Uslad, Corsa, Dasva, Striba, Simaergla, and Macosch. To these idols, which were also called Cumeri,^[22] he offered sacrifices. His wives were numerous. By Rochmida he had Isoslaus, Yeroslas, Servold, and two daughters; by the Greek he had Svyatopolk; by a Bohemian he had Saslaus; and by another Bohemian, Svyatoslav’ and Stanislaus; by a Bulgarian woman he had Boris and Glyeb. He kept, besides, in a high tower, three hundred concubines; in Bielograd, also three hundred, and in Berestov and Selvi, two hundred.

Now that Vladimir was become the undisputed monarch of all Russia, there came to him, from different quarters, ambassadors, exhorting him to join their respective sects; but when he saw that these sects differed from each other, he himself sent out messengers of his own to ascertain what were the requirements and ceremonies of each; and, finally making choice of the Christian religion, according to the Greek ritual, he sent ambassadors to the kings Basil and Constantine, at Constantinople, with a proposal, that, if they would give him their sister Anna to be his wife, he would embrace the Christian religion, with all his subjects, and would restore to them Corsun, and all the other places in Greece of which he had possession. This being agreed upon, the time was arranged, and Corsun selected as the spot for the celebration of the ceremony; and there, upon the arrival of the two kings, Vladimir was baptized, and received the name of Vasiley in lieu of that of Vladimir. After the celebration of the nuptials, he restored Corsun and the other places, as he had promised. These events took place in the year of the world 6469 (961), since which time Russia has continued in the faith of Christ. Anna died twenty-three years after her marriage, and Vladimir four years after the death of his wife. He built a city, situated between the rivers Wolga and Occa, which he called Vladimir, after his own name, and constituted it the metropolis of Russia. He is worshipped yearly among the saints, as an apostle, on the 15th of July.

After the death of Vladimir, his sons disagreed among themselves, and, preferring various claims to the succession, fought together, till the strongest overcame the weakest or less skilful and drove them from the kingdom. Svyatopolk, who had taken possession of the principality of Kiev by force, procured assassins to kill his brothers Boris and Glyeb, who, after death, were enrolled amongst the number of the saints under changed names, the latter being called David, and the former Romanus. The 24th of July is held sacred to them. But during these contentions among the brothers, no deed worthy of record was done by them, unless the reader wish to hear of treachery, ambuscades, deceit, and civil wars. Vladimir, the son of Levold, surnamed Monomach, again reduced the whole of Russia into a monarchy, and left behind him certain insignia which are used at the present day, at the inauguration of princes. Vladimir died A.M. 6633 (1125); nor did his children, or grandchildren after him, do any thing worthy of record till the times of Georgius and Vasiley, whom Bati, king of the Tartars, conquered and killed, and burnt and plundered Vladimir, Moscow, and a considerable part of Russia.

From that time, namely in the year 6745 (1237), up to the present Grand Duke Vasiley, not only were nearly all the princes of Russia tributaries of the Tartars, but every principality was deferred to the will of the Tartars when Russians were making any interest to procure them. Moreover, although the Tartars took cognizance of, and decided in, the quarrels that arose among them on account of their successors and inheritances, nevertheless wars often arose between the Russians and Tartars. Between brothers also there were sundry tumults, expulsions, and exchanges of kingdoms and dukedoms; for the Duke Andrew Alexandrovich obtained the Grand Duchy, and when Dimitry had taken possession of it, his brother Andrew requested, and obtained, an army of Tartars, drove him away, and committed many infamous acts throughout Russia. So also the Duke Dimitry Michailovich killed the Duke George Danielovich while he was among the Tartars. Asbech, king of the Tartars, seized Dimitry, and subjected him to capital punishment. There was a contention respecting the Grand Duchy of Tver, which, when the Duke Simeon Ivanovich begged of Zanabech, king of the Tartars, he demanded an annual tribute of him; but which the nobles, bribed with a large sum, successfully interceded for him that he should not pay. Afterwards, in the year 6886 (1378), the Grand Duke Dimitry overcame in battle the great king of the Tartars, named Mamaii, and three years afterwards again routed him, and that with such a slaughter that the ground for more than thirteen miles was covered with dead bodies. In the second year after that conflict, Tachtamich, king of the Tartars, came over and routed Dimitrye, and besieged and took possession of Moscow; those who were slaughtered were redeemed for burial at the rate of eighty bodies per ruble, and the total sum was computed at three thousand rubles. The Grand Duke Vasiley, who reigned in the year 6907 (1399), took possession of Bulgaria, which stretches along the banks of the Volga, and drove out the Tartars.

This Vasiley Dimitrievich left an only son, whom he did not love because he had suspected his wife Anastasia, who was this child’s mother, of adultery; and therefore on his death-bed he left the Grand Duchy of Moscow, not to his son, but to his brother George. But as George observed that many of the Boyars^[23] adhered to his son as the legitimate heir and successor, he hastened to the Tartars, and begged the king to summon Vasiley and decide to whom the Duchy lawfully belonged. The king, instigated by one of his counsellors who supported George, gave his opinion in favour of George in the presence of Vasiley; upon which the latter threw himself at the feet of the king, and begged permission to speak. On receiving the king’s assent, he said: “Thou hast announced thy decision upon lifeless words, but I trust that the living documents which I possess, and which distinctly express, under the authority of thy golden seal, thy former wish to invest me with the Grand Duchy, may be held by thee to be of far greater weight and importance”; and he besought the king to hold his own words in remembrance, and graciously to adhere to the promise which he had given. To which the king replied: “That it would be more consistent with justice to keep the promises contained in living documents, than to admit the validity of dead ones.” He ended by investing Vasiley with the Duchy, and dismissed him.

George, being very indignant at this result, levied an army and drove out Vasiley; but this he treated with the greatest unconcern, and retired to the Principality of Uglitz, which had been left him by his father. George quietly enjoyed the Grand Duchy during his life time, and left it by will to his nephew Vasiley; but his sons Andrew and Dimitry, considering themselves deprived of their rightful inheritance, were greatly incensed at this, and laid siege to Moscow in consequence. When Vasiley, who had entered the monastery of St. Sergius, heard of these proceedings, he sent out scouts, and took the precaution of stationing outposts, that he might not be overwhelmed by a sudden attack. The two brothers, however, became aware of this, and laid a plot to fill certain waggons with armed soldiers, which they sent on as if they were loaded with merchandise; and being brought in at twilight, they attacked their enemies under cover of the night, and took them while unsuspicious of any danger. Vasiley was captured in the monastery, and having first had his eyes put out, was sent, together with his wife, to Uglitz. Shortly afterwards, when Dimitry saw that the generality of the nobles were hostile to him, and that they went over to the blind Vasiley, he fled to Novogorod, leaving behind him his son Ivan, who subsequently became the father of Vasiley Semeczitz, who was confined in prison at the very time that I was in Moscow: but of this more hereafter. Dimitry was surnamed Semecka, and hence all his descendants bear the cognomen of Semeczitzi.

At length the blind Vasiley Vasilievich obtained quiet possession of the Grand Duchy. From the time of Vladimir Monomach up to this Vasiley, Russia had no monarch. But Vasiley’s son, who was surnamed Ivan, was most fortunate; for at the same time as he married Mary the sister of Michael, Grand Duke of Tver, he drove out his brother-in-law, and took possession first of the Grand Duchy of Tver, and then even of great Novogorod; and after that, all the other princes being either moved by the grandeur of his achievements or stricken with fear became subject to him. As affairs continued to prosper with him, he began to assume the title of Grand Duke of Vladimir, Moscow, and Novogorod; and finally to declare himself monarch of all Russia. This Ivan had by Mary a son, also named Ivan, to whom he gave in marriage the daughter of Stephen the great Waywode of Moldavia, who had overthrown Mahomet king of the Turks, Matthew king of Hungary, and John Albert king of Poland. After the death of his first wife Mary, Ivan Vasilievich married Sophia, daughter of Thomas, who formerly had held wide sway in the Peloponnesus (I mean the son of Emanuel king of Constantinople, of the race of Palœologi): by her he had five sons, Gabriel, Dimitry, George, Simeon, and Andrew: and while living he divided their patrimony amongst them. To Ivan the eldest he reserved the sovereignty, to Gabriel he appointed Great Novogorod, and to the rest he made other allotments according to his pleasure. Ivan the eldest died, leaving a son, Dimitry; and his grandfather invested him with the sovereignty, according to custom, in the room of his late father. They say that this Sophia was a very artful woman, and had considerable influence over the actions of the grand duke. Among other things she is reported to have induced her husband to remove his grandson Dimitry from the sovereignty, and to elevate Gabriel to his place. For the duke, overruled by his wife, cast Dimitry into prison and kept him there, until at length on his death-bed he ordered him to be brought to him, and thus addressed him: “Dear grandson, I have sinned against God and thee, inasmuch as I have afflicted thee with imprisonment and have deprived thee of thy just inheritance; I beseech thee forgive me the injury I have done thee, depart in freedom and enjoy thy right.” Dimitry, affected by this address, readily forgave his grandfather the injury; but as he went out he was seized by command of his step-brother Gabriel, and thrown into prison. Some think that he was murdered by starvation and cold, and others that he was suffocated with smoke. Gabriel acted as regent during the life of Dimitry, but after his death he retained the sovereignty without having been inaugurated, merely changing his name of Gabriel to that of Vasiley.

The Grand Duke Ivan had by Sophia a daughter, Helena, whom he united to Alexander, Grand Duke of Lithuania, afterwards proclaimed king of Poland. The Lithuanians hoped that the discords of these princes, which had already been very severe, would be arranged by this marriage; but far more grievous quarrels arose out of it. For at the nuptials it was agreed that a temple should be built in accordance with the Russian religion in an appointed spot in Vilna, and that certain matrons and virgins of the same religion should be attached to it; but as after some little time this was neglected to be done, Alexander’s father-in-law took it up as a pretext of war against him, and having levied a triple army proceeded to attack him. The first army he sent southward, towards the province of Severa, the second westward against Toropetz and Bicloi, and the third he placed between them, towards Dorogobusch and Smolensko; thus supplying reserves for his army by which he could bring the most effective assistance to that portion of it against which he might observe a disposition in the Lithuanians to make an attack. But after both armies had reached a certain river called Vedrosha,^[24] the Lithuanians under the command of Constantine Ostroski, who was surrounded by a numerous staff of noblemen and chiefs, gained information from some prisoners respecting the number of the enemy and of their leaders, and entertained great hope of routing them. Moreover, as the stream intercepted the conflict, both parties made search for a ford by which they could cross it. Some Russians, however, first reached the bank and challenged the Lithuanians to the combat; but the latter resisted, and routed them, and following in pursuit drove them back across the river. Both armies soon after met in a pitched battle, and a terrific engagement ensued. In the meantime, while they were keenly contending on both sides with equal fury, one of the armies which had been placed in ambush, though without the knowledge of many of the Russians, fell suddenly upon the main body of the enemy. The Lithuanians, stricken with fear, were routed, and the commander in chief, together with many nobles, taken; the remainder in terror yielded up their camp to the enemy, and surrendered themselves and the fortresses of Drogobush, Toropetz and Bieloi. The army, however, which had moved towards the south under the command of Machmethemin the Tartar king of Casan, made a vigorous attack on the governor (commonly called Waywode) of the city of Brensko, and took possession of that city. Afterwards, two brothers, cousins of Vasiley, the one named Staradub, the other Semeczitz, who were owners of a great part of the province of Severa, and otherwise subject to the dukes of Lithuania, surrendered themselves up to the government of Russia. Thus in one single conflict, and on one day, the Russians acquired what it had cost Vithold, Grand Duke of Lithuania, many years of the greatest exertion to gain possession of. The Russian monarch, however, behaved somewhat cruelly to these Lithuanian prisoners, and kept them confined in very severe bondage. He also made a stipulation with Constantine their general that he should desert his natural master and serve him; and as he had no hope of escaping by any other means, he accepted the condition, and after binding himself by a very strong oath, received his freedom; but although great estates and possessions were granted to him for the maintenance of his rank, he could not be reconciled or withheld from making his escape on the first opportunity through the intricacies of the woods.

Alexander, the king of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania, who always delighted more in peace than war, relinquished all the provinces and forts which had been taken by the Russians, and contenting himself with the liberation of his own people, made peace with his father-in-law.

This Ivan Vasilievich was so successful, that he overcame the people of Novogorod in battle at the river Scholona,^[25] and reduced them to acknowledge him as their lord and prince, on certain proposed conditions. He granted them a large sum of money and then left them, after having first appointed a representative to supply his place; then again returning after the lapse of seven years, he entered the city with the cooperation of the Archbishop Theophilus, reduced the inhabitants to the most abject servitude, and seizing the gold and the silver and all the goods of the citizens, carried off more than three hundred waggons full of booty.

He himself was only once engaged in war, when the principalities of Novogorod and Tver were taken possession of; at other times he never used to go to battle, but nevertheless always carried off the palm of victory; so that Stephen the great Palatine of Moldavia would often say, when speaking of him at his banquets: “That he increased his dominion while sitting at home and sleeping, while he himself could scarcely defend his own boundaries by fighting every day.” He even appointed and deposed the kings of Casan at his own pleasure; sometimes he threw them into prison, but at length, in his old age, received a severe defeat at their hands. He was the first who fortified his ducal residence at Moscow with a wall, as it is seen at this day. Moreover he was so hostile to women, that if any women met him by chance, they almost always fainted with terror at the sight of him. No access was allowed to him for poor men, who were oppressed by the more powerful or unjustly treated; he generally drunk so excessively at dinner as to fall asleep, and while his guests were all struck with terror and sitting in silence, he would awake, rub his eyes, and then first begin to joke and make merry with them. But although this Grand Duke was so powerful a prince, he was nevertheless compelled to acknowledge the sway of the Tartars, for when the Tartar ambassadors were approaching, he would go forth from the city to meet them, and make them be seated while he stood to receive their addresses, a circumstance which so annoyed his Greek wife, that she would daily tell him she had married a slave of the Tartars, and to induce her husband to throw off this servile habit would sometimes persuade him to feign sickness on the approach of the Tartars. There was within the citadel of Moscow a house in which the Tartars lodged for the purpose of learning what was going on at Moscow, and as this also gave great offence to his wife, she sent messengers with liberal presents to the queen of the Tartars, begging her to give up that house to her; for that she had been admonished in a dream from heaven to build a temple upon that spot; at the same time she promised to allot another house to the Tartars. The queen granted her request; the house was destroyed and a temple was built on its site, and the Tartars thus driven out of the citadel have never been able to obtain a house from any subsequent Duke.

This Ivan the Great died A.M. 7014 [1506], and his son Gabriel, afterwards called Vasiley, succeeded him as Grand Duke, but kept his brother’s son, Dimitry, in prison, who, according to the custom of the people, had been constituted the lawful monarch during the lifetime of his grandfather; for this reason Vasiley refused to receive the solemn investiture of the monarchy, not only while his nephew lived but even after his death. He imitated his father in many things; all the dominions that his father had left him he not only kept entire, but added thereto many provinces besides, not so much by war, in which he had but little success, as by industry. As his father had reduced Great Novogorod into subjection, so did he with the confederate city of Plescov. He became likewise governor of the noble principality of Smolensko, which had been more than a century under the dominion of the Lithuanians; for when Alexander king of Poland died, Vasiley, seeing that Sigismund, who became king of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania, was rather inclined to peace than war, and that the Lithuanians were equally averse to fighting, although he had no ground of contention with him, found an excuse for a war in the following manner: he said that his sister, Alexander’s widow, was treated with very great indignity by the Lithuanians, and also pretended that king Sigismund had provoked the Tartars against him. Upon this plea he declared a war, and bringing up his artillery laid siege to Smolensko, but without any success. Subsequently, however, Michael Lyncsky, who was sprung from the noble stock and of the family of the princes of Russia, and who had formerly held the chief management of affairs under Alexander, sent over to the Grand Duke of Muscovy, and managed so as to induce him to take up arms; he also undertook to carry Smolensko by storm if he would lay siege to it a second time, but with this stipulation, that the principality should be conceded to him. Vasiley consented to these conditions, and a second time pressed Smolensko with a heavy siege. Lyncsky having become possessor of the city by treaties, or more correctly by bribery, led all the officers of his soldiery with him into Moscow, with the exception of one, who, guiltless of the crime of treachery, returned to his master. The other officers, however, having been bribed with money and presents, did not dare to return into Lithuania; and to give a colour to their crime inspired fear into their soldiers, by saying, if we turn our steps towards Lithuania we shall from time to time be either plundered or killed; and by this process the soldiers becoming intimidated, went all of them into Moscow and received pay from the prince.

Vasiley, elated with this victory, ordered his army to proceed directly into Lithuania, but he himself remained in Smolensko. After some of the more neighbouring fortresses and towns had been received in surrender, then first did Sigismund, king of Poland, levy an army and send but too tardy assistance to those who were besieged in Smolensko. Afterwards, when Smolensko was taken, and when he saw that the Russian army was directing its march towards Lithuania, he himself fled to Borisov, which is situated near the river Beresina, and sent on his army thence under the command of Constantine Ostroski. When the latter reached the Dnieper, near the town of Orsa [Orcha], which is twenty-three German miles distant from Smolensko, he found that the Russian army, which was about eighty thousand strong, was not far from him. The Lithuanians, on the other hand, had not more than thirty-five thousand men, with the addition, nevertheless, of a few pieces of artillery. It was on the 8th day of September, A.D. 1514, that Constantine, seeing the state of affairs, threw a bridge over the Dnieper, and made his infantry pass over near the town of Orsa. The cavalry passed by a narrow ford under the very walls of Orsa. Presently, when half the army had crossed the Dnieper, Ivan Andryeevich Czeladin, to whom the chief command had been entrusted by the Grand Duke, received an intimation that he ought to attack this part of the army and overwhelm it. But he replied: “If we were to fall upon this part of the army, the other part, to which perhaps yet other forces may be added, will still remain, and thus a greater danger would threaten us: let us wait until the whole army has crossed, for our strength is such that without doubt we shall be able with but little exertion either to overwhelm this army, or to surround them and drive them like cattle to Moscow, and then it will only remain for us to take possession of the whole of Lithuania.”

Meanwhile the Lithuanian army advanced, mixed with Poles and foreign troops, and when they had arrived within four miles distance of Orsa both armies came to a halt. Two wings of the Russians had withdrawn to some distance in order to circumvent the enemy in the rear, but the main army stood drawn up midway, some advancing from the van to challenge the enemy to battle. On the other side the Lithuanian army was placed in a long array, drawn up according to their different nations, for each principality had sent troops and a captain from among its own people, and thus each had its allotted place in the body of the army. The legions being at length brought front to front, the Russians, sounding their clarions, made the first attack on the Lithuanians, who, however, met them vigorously and repulsed them. Presently others came to the assistance of the Russians, and in their turn put the Lithuanians to flight; and thus each side, assisted by new supplies, several times routed the other. At length came the greatest struggle. The Lithuanians purposely retreated towards the spot where their artillery had been placed, and then turning them upon the Russians who were in pursuit, struck their rear, which was placed rather closely together in reserve, and put them to utter confusion and flight. The Russians, who thought that those who fought with the enemy in the front ranks were the only men in danger, became terrified, and imagining that their van was already routed, fled in great confusion; upon which the Lithuanians turned and pursued them with all their forces, and put them to a terrific slaughter, which was checked only by the shades of night and the shelter of the woods.

Between Orsa and Dobrovna, which are four German miles distant from each other, there is a river called Cropivna, over whose slippery and steep banks so many fleeing Russians fell and were drowned, that the course of the river was stopped. All the captains and counsellors of the army were taken in that engagement, the chief of whom were received by Constantine with great honour on the following day, and sent to the king, and distributed among the fortresses of Lithuania. Ivan Czeladin, with two other captains, now of failing age, were kept in iron fetters at Vilna; and when I was sent into Moscow by the Emperor Maximilian, I visited them by the permission of King Sigismund, and offered them consolation. I gave them also some gold pieces.

When the prince heard of the slaughter of his soldiers, he instantly left Smolensko and fled into Russia, and ordered the fort of Drogobusch to be burned, lest the Lithuanians should take it. The Lithuanian army proceeded straight to the city of Smolensko, but could not take it, for it had been left under the protection of a strong garrison, and the approaching winter presented many obstacles to a siege; besides which, a great number of the soldiers, who had loaded themselves with spoil after the battle, thought that they had done enough, and returned home; and independently of these reasons, neither the Lithuanians nor the Russians were skilled in the method of besieging fortresses and taking them by storm.

King Sigismund regained nothing from that victory beyond three fortresses on this side of Smolensko. Four years after this battle the grand duke sent an army into Lithuania, which pitched their camp between the rivers Dwina and Poloczko, and sent out from thence a considerable portion of the army to lay Lithuania waste with plunder, slaughter, and fire. The Waywode Albert Gastold Polocski, however, went forth one night, and crossing the river, set fire to a great hillock of hay which the Russians had collected in preparation for a long siege, and fell upon the enemy, some of whom were killed by the sword, some drowned in their flight, and some taken prisoners. A small number escaped, while various detachments which were roving about laying waste Lithuania in various directions, were subdued or strayed into the woods, and were slain by the inhabitants.

At that time also the grand duke attacked the kingdom of Cazan both with a naval and military force, but returned unsuccessful, and with the loss of a large number of his soldiers. Although, however, the Prince Vasiley is thus most unsuccessful in war, he is, nevertheless, constantly being praised by his courtiers as if he had brought things to a happy issue; and on occasions when scarcely half his army has returned home, they have told him that not a man was lost in battle. In the sway which he holds over his people, he surpasses all the monarchs of the whole world, and has carried out his father’s plan of ejecting all princes and others from the garrisons and fortified places. He certainly grants no fortresses to his relations, nor even puts them in charge of any, but oppresses nearly all of them with close confinement; and whoever receives his orders to attend at court, or to go to war, or upon any embassy, is compelled to undertake whatever it may be at his own expense, with the exception of the younger sons of nobles of slender fortune, whom he sends for every year, and maintains with a fixed but inadequate stipend. But such of these as receive six gold pieces yearly, forfeit the stipend every third year; and those who receive twelve gold pieces every year, are compelled to hold themselves in readiness, and fully equipped, for the performance of any duty, at their own expense, and with their own horses; and to the more distinguished among them, namely, such as undertake an embassy, or any office of a more weighty character, are assigned districts, or towns, or villages, which are allotted to them according to their respective dignity, or the task performed. From each of these governments, however, certain annual tributes are paid to the prince: the fines extorted from the poor who may chance to be guilty of any delinquencies, and some other perquisites, are all that these nobles receive. The Grand Duke grants tenures of this kind generally for a year and a half; but if he regards any one with unusual favour or goodwill, he adds a few months to the period, but when that time is elapsed, all favour ceases, and the service must be performed six years gratuitously. There was one Vasiley Tretyack Dolmatov, a favourite of the prince, and one of his private secretaries, who, when appointed ambassador to the Emperor Maximilian, and receiving orders to make his preparations, declared that he had not the means and appurtenances necessary for such a journey; upon which he was immediately seized in Bielosero, and thrown into prison for life. After his death, which was most miserable, his property, both real and personal, was seized by the prince for himself; and although he thus acquired three thousand florins in ready money, he did not give even a farthing to the brothers and heirs of the deceased. Independent of common report, one Ivan, a scribe, who was appointed by the prince to supply me with the daily necessaries of life, confessed that this was the case, and that he had him in his custody at the time that he was taken. The two brothers of Vasiley likewise, Feodore and Zacharias, who were appointed my purveyors on my return from Moscow to Smolensko, confirmed his statement.

Whatever articles of value ambassadors who have been sent to foreign princes bring back with them, the prince places in his own treasury, saying, that he will recompense them in some other manner, which manner is as I have described above. For when the ambassador, the Knes Ivan Posetzen Yaroslavski, was sent with Semen (i.e., Simeon) Trofimov as his secretary, to the court of Charles V, they were presented by the emperor with heavy torques and chains of gold, and with Spanish money, and that in gold; and also by my master, the emperor’s brother Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria, with cups of silver and baskets of gold and silver, and German money in gold; but when they returned with us to Moscow, the prince immediately on their arrival took away from them the chains and cups, and the greater part of the Spanish gold pieces. When I enquired of the ambassadors respecting the truth of this matter, one of them constantly denied it, from fear of compromising his prince; the other said, that the prince had ordered the royal presents to be sent to him that he might see them: as I alluded to the matter on frequent subsequent occasions, one of them, in order to avoid falsehood on the one side if he denied, or danger on the other if he were to confess the truth, ceased to visit me. The courtiers did not deny that it was the fact, but replied, “What then, if the prince repays them in some other kind?”

He uses his authority as much over ecclesiastics as laymen, and holds unlimited control over the lives and property of all his subjects: not one of his counsellors has sufficient authority to dare to oppose him, or even differ from him, on any subject. They openly confess that the will of the prince is the will of God, and that whatever the prince does he does by the will of God; on this account they call him God’s key-bearer and chamberlain, and in short they believe that he is the executor of the divine will. Thus if at any time petitions are presented on behalf of any captive, or with reference to any important business, the prince himself is accustomed to reply, “when God commands, he shall be liberated”. In like manner also, if any one enquires respecting some doubtful and uncertain matter, the common answer is, “God and the great prince know”. It is matter of doubt whether the brutality of the people has made the prince a tyrant, or whether the people themselves have become thus brutal and cruel through the tyranny of their prince.

From the time of Rurick to this present sovereign, these princes have borne no other title than that of Grand Dukes, either of Vladimir or Moscow or Novogorod, etc., except Ivan Vasilievich, who styled himself Lord of all Russia, and Grand Duke of Vladimir, etc. But this Vasiley Ivanovich assumes to himself both the royal name and title thus. The Grand Duke Vasiley, by the grace of God King and Lord of all Russia and Grand Duke of Vladimir, Moscow, Novogorod, Plescov, Smolensko, Tver, Jugaria^[26] [Jugra, Yugorski], Permia, Viackia [Viatka], Bulgaria, etc., Lord and Grand Duke of Nijni Novogorod and Tchernigov, Rezan, Volotkia [Vologda], Rschov,^[27] Beloia,^[28] Rostov, Yaroslav, Bielozeria, Udoria,^[29] Obdoria,^[30] Condinia,^[31] etc.

Moreover, as all now call him emperor, it seems necessary that I should explain the title and the cause of this mistake. Czar in the Russian language signifies king, but in the common Slavonic dialect among the Poles, Bohemians, and all the rest, through a certain resemblance of sound in the last, which is the most important syllable, czar [or czeszar] would be understood as emperor or kaiser. In the same manner, all who are not skilled in the Russian idiom or mode of spelling, such as the Bohemians, Poles, and even the Slavonians who are subject to the kingdom of Hungary, call the king by another name, namely, kral, kyrall, or koroll.^[32] They think a kaiser or emperor only should be called Czar; and hence it came, that the Russian interpreters hearing their prince thus called by foreign nations, began themselves to call him emperor, and they think that the name of czar is more noble than that of king, although that is its real meaning. But if you examine all their histories and sacred scriptures, you will find everywhere that czar is put for “king”, and kessar for “emperor”. By the same mistake, the emperor of the Turks is called czar, though he has never borne any more distinguished title than that of king, viz., the ancient name of czar. Thus the European Turks who speak the Slavonic language call Constantinople Czarigrad, which means the royal city.

Some call the prince of Moscow Albus, or white. I have taken great pains to learn why he should be called the white king, since no prince of Moscow has hitherto borne that title; and, indeed, I have frequently, when occasion offered, told his counsellors themselves that we did not acknowledge him as king, but Grand Duke. Many have thought the reason of his bearing the title of king was because he had kings under his sway, but they supplied no reason for the name of Albus. My own belief is that in the same manner as they now call the Persian kisilpassa, that is, red head, on account of his red head-dress, these also are called white on account of their white garments. The Grand Duke, moreover, uses the title of king to the Roman Emperor and Pontiff, the King of Sweden and Denmark, the Prince of Prussia and Livonia, and also, as I have heard, to the Sovereign of the Turks; but he is not called king by any of these, unless perhaps by the Prince of Livonia. In former times the Grand Dukes used to bear their titles on three circles included in a triangle, the first of which, on the topmost circle, was expressed in these words: Our God the Trinity, which was before all ages, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,—not however three Gods in substance, but one God. In the second was the title of the emperor of the Turks, with the addition of the sentence: “To our beloved brother”. In the third, the title of the Grand Duke of Muscovy, in which he declared himself king and heir and lord of all eastern and southern Russia, and in addition to the common formula we have seen added: “We have sent to thee our faithful counsellor”. To the King of Poland the Grand Duke uses a title of this sort—“The great Lord Vasiley, by the grace of God, Lord of all Russia, and Grand Duke of Vladimir, Moscow, Novogorod, Smolensko, Tver, Jugaria, Permia, Bulgaria,” etc., leaving out the title of king, for neither of these princes condescends to receive the letters of the other, if there is any addition of a new title. This happened once, indeed, while I was at Moscow, when the grand duke was highly indignant that the letters of King Sigismund should be sent to him with the addition of the title of Duke of Moscow. Some have asserted that the grand duke has requested that the style and title of king should be given him by the Pope and the Emperor Maximilian. I do not think this p⟨ro⟩bable, especially as there is no one to whom he is more o⟨bn⟩oxious than to the Pope, whom he does not condescend to designate by any title but that of Doctor. That he does not esteem the emperor to be greater than himself, is evident from his letters, in which he affixes the title of emperor to his own name.

The title of duke among these people, is given by the word “knes”;^[33] nor, as I have already said, have they ever had any higher title than that, with the addition of the word “great”, for all the other dukes who held only one principality, were simply called “knes”; but those who held several principalities and other “knesi” under their command, were called Veliki Knesi, that is, grand dukes. The lowest title or dignity amongst them, is that of the Boyars, who hold the rank of our nobles or knights. In Croatia, indeed, the superior nobles are likewise called Knesi; but with us, as also in Hungary, they only obtain the names of counts. Some gentlemen of princely rank have not hesitated to tell me, by way of casting it in my teeth, that the present Prince of Russia used to produce letters of the Emperor Maximilian of sacred memory, in which the name of king was given to his father Gabriel,—who subsequently changed his name, from preference, to that of Basil;—they say also, that he declares that I myself was the bearer of those letters to him; and on this ground he has desired that, in the recent negotiations with the King of Poland, he should be styled king, or else all treaties between them should be null and void. But although I ought to be by no means moved by these assertions, which are neither true nor probable, yet not so much for my own sake, as for that of my late excellent and most gracious prince, I am compelled to say a word in contradiction when I see that his sacred shade is thus cited upon an invidious question.

It is well known that there was once a quarrel between the Emperor Maximilian and Sigismund, king of Poland, viz., at the time when Sigismund took to wife the daughter of Stephen, Count of Scepus,i.e., Zips; for some made it appear that the matter was so arranged, that John, the brother of the bride, was to receive in marriage Anne, daughter of Vladislav’, king of Hungary, through the influence and management of his brother Sigismund; and by this means the right of succession to the throne of Hungary, which appertained to Maximilian and his posterity, would be stopped, and become void. For this reason, Maximilian thought that it concerned his interests to make an ally of the Grand Duke of Russia, who was the perpetual enemy of the Lithuanians and Poles. But on a subsequent occasion, when a conference was held at Posen, between Maximilian and Vladislav’, respecting the marriage of Anna, in the presence, and with the approval, of Sigismund, Maximilian met Sigismund, and unhesitatingly laying aside all appearance of suspicion or disagreement, embraced him so closely, that no one would doubt that he was ready to go either to heaven or hell with him. Although, therefore, there was a time when Maximilian wished the Grand Duke of Russia to be allied with him, yet he never gave him the title of king, which might be easily proved by letters and documents given and received on both sides, if there should be any one who thinks my testimony, true and faithful as it is, to be of too little weight.

But why should the Grand Duke ask this title from the Emperor Maximilian, since, before he had any communication with him, he would not only make himself appear his equal, but his superior, and always, whether speaking or writing, put the title of emperor after his name, and still retains it most tenaciously? Since my return from Moscow, however, he has assumed the title of King in writing to the King of Poland. Indeed, it is an acknowledged fact, that, in writing to the Emperor, or the Pope, he styles himself King and Lord of all Russia, nor does he refrain from using the title of emperor, if he chance to add any words from the Russian language, translated into Latin, inasmuch as the interpreters themselves change the word czar, which signifies king, into “Imperator”. And in this manner he makes himself both king and emperor. But that he has been recognised as king by the Emperor Maximilian, or his successors, to the prejudice of the King of Poland, let no one believe. For why should he hesitate to seek the dignity of a king, as report says that he did, from the pope if he had received it already from the emperors?

I have said all this in the cause of my august master, Maximilian, who, as long as he lived, was a firm and faithful friend of King Sigismund. Why, indeed, should I speak of myself? How, I would ask, could I have presumed to go and return so often into Poland and Lithuania, to enter the presence of the two Sigismunds, father and son, kings of Poland, to take a part in public meetings of the Poles, and to look princes in the face, if I had compromised my prince in this matter, in whose name I have very often laid before the King and other persons of various ranks despatches couched in brotherly, kind and friendly terms, despatches that might well be sent from an excellent and most generous emperor in closest alliance with them. If there be nothing secret which shall not be revealed, it would certainly have come to light a long time ago, had I sanctioned anything unworthy of my office. But I comfort myself with the consciousness of rectitude, which is the strongest of all consolations; and I gratefully acknowledge that I never lacked the favour of the King of Poland, nor, indeed, the goodwill of persons of all ranks in that country. There were, perhaps, times when such things might occur without causing so much jealousy as now; but to promulgate them at this time, is only to seek the means of dissolving good feeling between princes who are most closely allied to each other,—a good feeling which has been cemented and consolidated by all kinds of obligations and good offices. Every thing which was generally regarded as of paramount importance towards preserving the remains of Hungary, and recovering what had been lost, seemed to have been done. But the very parties to whom this fact had already been of great service, and would have been of still greater service hereafter, under the influence of a Turkish or some other such perverse spirit, have ignored treaties and covenants, and plotted new injuries, without considering into what jeopardy they are about to bring themselves and the neighbouring provinces, especially Hungary, which has deserved so well of all Christendom.

 

Mode of Inaugurating their Princes.

The following formula, which I had some difficulty in obtaining, will depict to you the manner in which the princes of Russia are inaugurated, and which was adopted when the Grand Duke Ivan Vasileivich invested his grandson, Dimitry, as I have said above, with the Grand Dukedom and monarchy of Russia.

In the middle of the church of the Holy Virgin was erected a platform, on which three seats were placed,—one for the grandfather, one for the grandson, and one for the metropolitan. There was also placed on it a stage, upon which were laid the ducal hat and barma, which means the ducal ornament. The archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, and the whole assembly of ecclesiastics, came in dressed respectively in their appropriate vestments. Then upon the entrance of the Grand Duke with his grandson into the church, the deacons sang, according to custom, “Long live the only Grand Duke, the great Ivan”. The Metropolitan then began to sing, together with all the clergy, the prayer of the Holy Virgin, and of St. Peter the Confessor, whom, in their ritual, they call the Miraculous. Which done, the Metropolitan, the Grand Duke, and his grandson, ascended the platform, and sat on the seats placed for them; the grandson’s seat being placed at the front of the platform. At length the Grand Duke spoke in these words: “Father Metropolitan, according to the custom anciently and until now observed by our predecessors the grand dukes, our ancestors the grand dukes have, by the grace of God, consigned the grand duchy to their eldest sons; and after their example the Grand Duke, my father, blessed me with the Grand Duchy in his own presence, so also I, in like manner, blessed my first-born son Ivan with the Grand Duchy in the presence of all. Since however it has happened by the Divine pleasure that my son is dead, but that his only son Dimitry, whom God gave me in the place of my son, survives, I likewise, in conformity with the same custom, bless him in the presence of all, both now and after my death, with the Grand Duchies of Vladimir, Novogorod, and all else with which I should have blessed his father.”

Upon this, the Metropolitan desired the grandson to go to the seat which was assigned to him, and blessing him with the cross, ordered the deacon to repeat the Diaconal prayers; he himself meanwhile sitting near him with his head bowed, pronounced the following prayer: “O Lord our God, King of kings, Lord of lords, who by thy servant Samuel the prophet, didst choose David and anointed him to be King over thy people Israel, hear now the prayers of Thine unworthy servant, and look down from Thy sanctuary upon Thy faithful servant whom Thou hast chosen to exalt him to be King over Thy holy nations, and whom Thou hast redeemed with the most precious blood of Thy only-begotten Son; anoint him with the oil of gladness, protect him with the virtue of the highest, place upon his head a crown of precious stones, give him length of days and a royal sceptre in his right hand, place him on a righteous throne, surround him with all the arms of justice, strengthen his arm and subdue unto him all barbarian tongues; let his whole heart be in Thy fear, that he may humbly obey Thee, keep him from the false path and point out to him the true preserver of the commands of Thy holy universal Church, that he may judge the people in justice, and administer justice to the poor and preserve the children of the poor, and finally that he may attain the kingdom of heaven.” He then said in a loud voice: “Even as Thine is the power and Thine is the kingdom, so be praise and honour to Thee, God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, now and for ever.” When this prayer was finished, the Metropolitan ordered two abbots to bring the barma, which, together with the hat, was covered with a certain silk covering called schirnikoiu. He then delivered it to the Grand Duke, and marked the grandson with the cross, and the Grand Duke placed the barma upon his grandson. The metropolitan then said “Peace be with you all”; to which the deacon responded, “Let us pray”. After which the Metropolitan said, “Bow yourselves with me, and pray to Him who governs all things,” and pronounced the following prayer: “O Lord, we pray to Thee, the only King Eternal, to whom also is committed the sovereignty of the earth, uphold [the prince] under Thy protection; continue him in the kingdom, that he may always do that which is good and seemly, make justice to shine in his days; and in the enlargement and tranquillity of his dominion, let us live quietly and peaceably in all goodness and purity.” This was said in a rather subdued tone. Then, in a loud voice, he said: “Thou art the King of the world, and Preserver of our souls; praise be to Thee, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, now and for ever. Amen.” At length he delivered to the Grand Duke the ducal hat, which had been brought to him, at his command, by two abbots. He then marked the grandson with the cross, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and while the Grand Duke placed the hat upon the head of his grandson, the Metropolitan first, and the archbishops and bishops approaching afterwards, blessed him with the imposition of hands. When this was finished in due order, the Metropolitan and Grand Duke ordered the grandson to be seated by the side of the Grand Duke, and after a short pause they rose. Meanwhile the deacon began a litany (as they call it), “Have mercy upon us, O Lord”, and named Ivan as Grand Duke Ivan. Again a chorus, in response, mentioned Dimitry, the grandson, as grand duke; and then made allusion to others in the usual manner. When the litany was finished, the Metropolitan prayed, “O most holy Lady, Virgin mother of God”, and after the prayer the metropolitan and grand duke sat down. The priest or deacon then pointed out the place selected for the gospel, and said, with a loud voice,—“Long live the Grand Duke Ivan, good and faithful, beloved of Christ, chosen of God, and to be honoured by God; long live the Grand Duke Ivan Vasilievich, monarch of Novogorod and all Russia.” Then the priests before the altar sang, “Long live the Grand Duke”; and the deacons in the choir, on the right and on the left, in like manner sang, “Long live the Grand Duke”. At length again the deacon cried out with a loud voice, “Long live the Grand Duke Dimitry, good and faithful, beloved of Christ, chosen and to be honoured of God; long live Dimitry Ivanovich, Grand Duke of Novogorod and all Russia.” The priests also before the altar and in both choirs thundered out, “Long live Dimitry!” When this was done, the metropolitan, the archbishop, the bishops, and the whole congregation, approached the grand dukes in procession, and saluted them with an obeisance; the sons also of the grand duke approached, bowing and saluting the grand duke.

 

Ceremonies after the Inauguration of the Grand Duke.

After the inauguration, Simon, the metropolitan, said: “O lord my son Dimitry, by the divine will Grand Duke, the Grand Duke, thy father, hath shewn thee favour, and blessed thee with the grand dukedom; do thou also, O lord my son, have the fear of God in thy heart. Love justice and just judgment; obey the grand duke thy grandfather, and interest thyself with all thy heart about all the truly faithful. We bless thee also, O lord my son, and pray God for thy welfare. Then the metropolitan and the grand dukes arose, and the metropolitan praying, blessed the grand duke and his sons with the cross; and at length, when the liturgy—i.e., the holy service—was finished, the grand duke, the grandfather, withdrew to his own dwelling; but Dimitry, wearing the ducal hat and barma, left the church of the Blessed Virgin, and proceeded, surrounded with a host of boyars and their sons, to the church of Michael the Archangel, at the entrance of which, upon the threshold, he was sprinkled by George, son of the Grand Duke Ivan, with three golden dengs (the deng is one of their coins); and when he had entered the church, the priests singing the litany according to custom, blessed him with the cross, and signed him with the sign of the cross at the tombs and monuments. Then, as he went out of the church, he was again sprinkled by George at the door with golden dengs. He next proceeded straightway to the church of the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary, where the priests in the same manner blessed him, and he was sprinkled by George with dengs as before. When all this was finished, Dimitry presented himself to his grandfather and to his mother.

This took place on the 4th of February, anno mundi 7006, anno Domini 1497. There were present at this installation by the grand duke and consecration by Simon the metropolitan—Tychon, Archbishop of Rostov and Yaroslav, Nyphon, Archbishop of Susdal and Toruski, Vasian, Bishop of Tver, Prothasius, Bishop of Rezan and Murom, Afranius, Bishop of Columna, and Euphemius, Bishop of Sarki and Podonski. There were present also many abbots and priors, among the most powerful of whom were Serapian, prior of the monastery of Saints Sergius and Makirius, under the invocation of the Holy Trinity, and the prior of the monastery of St. Cyril, and finally, a great assemblage of monks and ecclesiastics. While at dinner, a broad girdle worked with gold, silver, and precious stones, was brought [to the grand duke?] as it were by way of a present, with which he girded himself. Afterwards were brought to him some selgi of Pereaslav,—that is, little fishes from the Lake of Pereaslav, not unlike herrings, and indeed they are called by the same name. It is thought that the reason for presenting that kind of fish is, because Pereaslav was never separated from Russia or the monarchy.

The barma is a sort of collar of broad form, of coarse silk, beautifully worked on the outside with gold and all kinds of gems. It was taken by Vladimir from a certain Genoese named Capha.^[34] The hat which Vladimir Monomach used and left behind him, and which is adorned with precious stones and plates of gold, and curiously worked with certain vibrating spirules, is called in their language Schapka. Hitherto, I have spoken of the prince who holds the greater part of Russia. The other parts of Russia are held singly by Sigismund King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania. But in speaking of the kings of Poland who have derived their origin from the Lithuanians, I think it right to subjoin some details of their genealogy.

A certain Prince Vitenen ruled over the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, whom, according to the Polish annals, Gedemin, his servant slew, and afterwards gained possession both of his duchy and his wife. By her he had several sons,—the two principal of whom were Olgird and Kestud. Kestud was the father of Vithold, otherwise called Vitowd, and Anna, the wife of Janusius, Duke of Masovia. Vithold left an only daughter, Anastasia, who was given in marriage to Basil, Duke of Muscovy, and was named Sophia. She was the mother of Vasiley, father of the great Ivan, and grandfather of Vasiley, prince of the Russians, to whom I was sent as ambassador.

Moreover, Kestud was thrown into prison by his brother Olgird, and died miserably. Vithold also, than whom Lithuania has never produced a greater man, and who took the name of Alexander at his baptism, died in 1430. Olgird, son of Gedemin, amongst other sons whom he had by his wife Maria, a Christian princess of Tver, had Jagelon. He in his lust of dominion not only affected the kingdom of Poland, but Hedwige herself also, who at that time wore the crown, and who was betrothed to William Duke of Austria, and with the consent of her relatives and the primates of both kingdoms, had, after the royal fashion, lain with him before attaining a marriageable age. Jagelon presently sends ambassadors into Poland and asks for the kingdom and the hand of Hedwige. Moreover, in order to obtain the concurrence of the Poles, and to constitute himself a proper candidate, he promised among other things, that he and his brothers, together with the duchies of Lithuania and Samogithia, would embrace the Christian religion; and with other promises of the sort, he so drew over the Poles to his cause, that Hedwige, overruled by their authority, and even against her own will, rescinded her former treaty of marriage and married him. Upon this, Jagelon was immediately baptized, and took the name of Vladislav’, and was crowned king. He received Hedwige in marriage A.D. 1386, but she died not long after in her first child-bed. He then married Anna, Countess of Cilley, by whom he had an only daughter, Hedwige, who was espoused to Frederic the younger of Brandenburg. He married also a certain old woman, who likewise dying, he married Sonca, a Russian lady, daughter of Andrew Ivan, Duke of Kiev, who afterwards adopted the Roman ritual, and was called Sophia. By her he had two sons, Vladislav’ and Casimir. Vladislav’ succeeded his father in the kingdom, and was also crowned king of Hungary, having removed the lawful heir Ladislav’, the posthumous son of the deceased king Albert. He was subsequently overthrown by the Turks at Lake Warna. Casimir, who then held the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and who, influenced perhaps by his brother’s example, wished to deprive the posthumous Ladislav’ of the kingdom of Bohemia, succeeded his brother in the kingdom of Poland. He afterwards married Elizabeth, sister of that Ladislav’, king of Hungary and Bohemia, and had by her the following sons:—Vladislav’, king of Hungary and Bohemia; John Albert, Alexander, and Sigismund, kings of Poland; Frederick, a cardinal; and Casimir, who was enrolled amongst the number of the saints.

Vladislav’ had a son Louis, and a daughter Anna. Louis succeeded him in the kingdom, and married the daughter of Philip, King of Castile and Archduke of Austria. He was overthrown by the Turks at Mohaez, in the year 1526. Anna married Ferdinand, king of Hungary and Bohemia and Archduke of Austria, and after giving birth to four sons and eleven daughters, died in childbed at Prague, A.D. 1547. John Albert died unmarried. Alexander married Helen, daughter of Ivan, Grand Duke of Muscovy; but died without children. Sigismund had by his first wife, Barbara, daughter of Stephen, Count of Zips, Hedwige, who became wife of Joachim, Elector of Brandenburgh. By his second, Bona, daughter of John Sforza, Duke of Milan and Bari, he had Sigismund, second king of Poland, Grand Duke of Lithuania, who married Elizabeth, daughter of the Emperor Ferdinand, king of Hungary and Bohemia, on the 6th of May 1543; who, however, died an untimely death, and without issue, on the 15th of June 1545. He then married, against the consent of his parents, Barbara, of the house of Radavil, who had previously been married to Gastold, the Lithuanian; but his subjects were so indignant at this marriage, that a rebellion, which had already sprung up amongst them, would have ended in a dangerous outbreak, had not King Ferdinand preferred burying his daughter’s injuries in oblivion to revenging them: but she being dead, Sigismund, being desirous to reestablish his alliance and relationship with Ferdinand, took to wife Catherine, half sister of Elizabeth, widow of Francis, Duke of Mantua. The marriage was celebrated at Cracow, the 31st of July 1553. I myself, as master, or prefect of the court, conducted each of these sisters to her bridegroom.

Semovisten, Duke of Mazovia, had by Alexandra, the sister of Jagelon, many sons and daughters. The sons died childless. Of the daughters, Czimburgis married Ernest, Archduke of Austria, and had by her the Emperor Frederick, father of the Emperor Maximilian. Maximilian was the father of Philip, King of Spain; and Philip was father of the Emperor Charles Ferdinand.

Ovka was given in marriage to Voleslaus, Duke of Teschen.

Amelia married Voguslaus, Duke of Stolpen, who is now called Duke of Pomerania. Anne married Michael, Duke of Lithuania. Catherine died unmarried.

Moreover, if any one would review in order the brothers and nephews of Olgird and Jagelon, and the daughters’ children of the latter, as well as the descendants of Kestud, Casimir, and the other kings, the enumeration of the race would extend beyond all bounds; yet rapidly as it increased, the male line, at the present day, survives only in the son of the late King of Poland, viz., Sigismund, the second King of Poland.

But since we have made reference to the posterity of Gedemin, and the kings of that race, it seems appropriate to lay before the reader the events which occurred during the reigns of Vladimir, king of Hungary and Bohemia, and his brother Sigismund, king of Poland, the sons of Casimir.

After Vladislav’ had come into possession of Hungary by the concession of the Emperor Maximilian, who, however, reserved to himself the right of succession, Vladislav’ being now an old man with only one daughter, Maximilian, with the view of strengthening the right of succession by a somewhat stronger bond, began to propose to Vladislav’ a marriage between one of his grandchildren by his son Philip, king of Spain, and Anna, Vladislav’s daughter. Now John Zapolski, son of Stephen, Count of Zips, whose influence with King Mathias, and consequently with Vladislav’ himself, was very great, was extremely anxious to bring about a marriage between himself and Anne; and in his pursuit of this object was strenuously assisted by his widowed mother, who bribed all the leading men in the counties and provinces of Hungary with presents and annual stipends, called in their language Jargalass, and thus held them bound to perform any service which she might require at their hands, nothing doubting, that by their contrivances and influence, she might bring about this marriage for her son, and thus procure him the kingdom: to these woman-like machinations the marriage between her daughter, John’s sister, and Sigismund, king of Poland, added great weight. Maximilian observing this state of affairs, and considering that it now became still more necessary for him to urge his proposition of a marriage between his grandson and Anna, and finding also that Vladislav’ desired the same thing, but that he met with impediments from the plots and contrivances of those who were under the orders of John Zapolski, thought it necessary for his own interest to cast the die, and to put Hungary to the test by force of arms; in which war I made my first essay in the career of a soldier. But as it happened that Vladislav’s son, Lewis, was born in the midst of this strife of arms, a truce was entered into, and hence a more solid peace was brought about, which ended in Vladislav’s coming to Maximilian at Vienna, together with his son already crowned, and his daughter and his brother Sigismund, king of Poland. The nuptials with Anne were then solemnized at Vienna, and all the enmity and suspicious feeling which had been engendered by the ambition of John Zapolski being extinguished, these princes were united in a lasting bond of amity. So great was the mutual satisfaction occasioned by this union between King Sigismund and the Emperor Maximilian, that the latter has sometimes said, in my hearing, that he would willingly go to heaven or hell with such a king. It was a vulgar saying concerning Lewis, that he was immaturely born, came of age too soon, and was immaturely married; that he came too early to the throne, and met with an untimely death. To these sayings it may be added, that his death was as disastrous to his kingdom of Hungary, and all the neighbouring states, as it was immature. But although Lewis was not well advised, it is certain that he was excellently well disposed towards his country and his subjects, and sought every means of benefiting them; for when he became aware that Soliman, after the capture of Belgrade, was planning a new and formidable expedition against himself, he, being a young man, sent a Pole, the master of his household, named Trepca, to his uncle, Kang Sigismund, beseeching him in the most anxious and earnest manner not to consider it a hardship to come to meet him on the frontier of his dominions for the purpose of giving him his advice in this dilemma. But as this request met with a distinct refusal on the part of Sigismund, Trepca is said to have exclaimed to him, with tears in his eyes, “Never again, O king, shalt thou see thy nephew, nor receive another message from him”; which prophecy, in fact, came to pass; for as King Sigismund subsequently left the confines of Hungary, on a religious pretext, for Dantzic in Prussia, his nephew died, together with this same Trepca, in that most disastrous slaughter, which is named, from the place, “the slaughter of Mohacz”. But now I return to the Russians.

While Vasiley Ivanovich was deliberating about his marriage, it struck him that it would be better that he should marry the daughter of one of his subjects than a foreigner, by which means he would not only spare himself very great expense, but also avoid having a wife accustomed to foreign habits and of a different religion. The suggestor of this idea was one George, surnamed the Little, the prince’s treasurer and chief councillor, who thought it likely that the prince would marry his own daughter; but at length it happened that when at the public suggestion fifteen hundred daughters of the boyars were brought together into one place, that the prince might make his selection from their number, he chose for his wife, contrary to George’s anticipation, Salomea, daughter of the boyar Ivan Sapur; but as after one-and-twenty years he had no children by her, chagrined at her barrenness, he thrust her into a convent in the principality of Susdal, in the same year that I came to Moscow, namely, 1526. When the metropolitan, upon her arrival at the convent weeping and sobbing, cut off her hair and then offered to put on the hood, she was so indignant at its being placed upon her, that she took it and hurling it to the ground, stamped upon it with her feet. One of the chief councillors irritated at the sight of this indignity, not only reviled her bitterly, but beat her with a scourge, and asked her, “darest thou resist the will of my lord? and delayest thou to obey his commands?” When Salomea in return asked him by what authority he beat her, he replied, “by the will of his lord”; upon which she, broken-hearted, protested in the presence of all, that she took the hood unwillingly and under compulsion, and invoked the vengeance of God on her behalf for so great an injury. After Salomea was thus cast into the convent, the prince married Helen, daughter of the blind Duke Vasiley Lintzki (mow dead)—I mean the brother of the Duke Michael Lintzki, who was then in prison; but this had no sooner taken place than a report became current that Salomea was pregnant and near the time of her delivery. This report was confirmed by two matrons, the wives of the chief councillors, George the Little, the treasurer, and Jacob Mazur, chamberlain,—which ladies said that they had heard from the mouth of Salomea herself that she was pregnant, and near the time of her delivery. The prince when he heard this was much disturbed, and drove both of them from his presence; he even punished one of them, the wife of George, with stripes, for not having earlier informed him of the fact; he then sent the councillor Theoderic Rack, and one Potal, a secretary, to the convent in which Salomea was confined, and desired them to inquire diligently into the truth of the case. While I was at Moscow, some persons declared solemnly that Salomea had brought forth a son, named George, but that she would not show the infant to any one; she is said, however, to have replied to some persons who were sent to her for the purpose of ascertaining the truth of the matter, that they were unworthy to set eyes upon the infant, who, when he came of age to be king, would revenge the injury done to his mother. Some, however, constantly denied that she had had a child. Thus the reports about this business are doubtful.

I have heard that there were two reasons why the prince should marry the daughter of Vasiley Lintzki, the fugitive from Lithuania, besides the hope which he had of having children by her: the first was, that his father-in-law derived his lineage from the family of Petrovitz, which was formerly of great distinction in Hungary, and professed the Greek faith; the second was, that his children would have for their uncle Michael Lintzki, a man of uncommon talent and distinguished valour,—for the prince had two brothers-in-law yet living, George and Andrew, and therefore he thought that if he were to have any children by another wife they would not be safe in the government, while those brothers were alive; but he did not doubt that if Michael were again received into favour, and released from prison, the children whom he might have by Helen would enjoy greater peace by means of the authority of their uncle. His liberation was spoken of in my presence, and after having first had his chains removed, and then being honourably set free on his parole, I at length saw him at full liberty, and enrolled by the prince among the other dukes by patent, and finally appointed tutor to his nephews Ivan and George. But subsequently, after the death of the prince, when Michael saw that his widow was constantly dishonouring the royal bed with a certain boyar named Ovczina, and that she showed implacable enmity against her husband’s brothers, who had been thrown into prison, and that she otherwise governed with much cruelty, he, actuated purely by a sense of piety and honour, took occasion sometimes to admonish her to live a more worthy and religious life. She received his admonitions, however, with so much offence and indignation, that it was not long before she took counsel as to the best means of putting him out of the way. She soon found a reason, for they say that Michael was immediately arraigned for the crime of treason, and again thrown into prison, where he died a wretched death. It is also said that the widow not long after was carried off by poison, and that the adulterous Ovezina was cut to picces. The eldest son Ivan, who was born in 1528, came to the throne after the death of his mother.

 

Religion.

As Russia began, so to the present day it continues to observe the Christian faith according to the Greek ritual. The metropolitan formerly resided in Kiev, afterwards in Vladimir, but now in Moscow. It was a custom of the metropolitans to pay a visit every seven years to that part of Russia which was subject to the Lithuanians, and to return after exacting sums of money from them; but Withold fearing that his territories would become exhausted of coin, would no longer permit this. He therefore called a convocation of bishops, and appointed a special metropolitan, who at this day holds his seat at Wilna, the metropolis of Lithuania, a city which though observing the Roman ritual, has more Russian than Roman churches in it. The Russian metropolitans hold their authority from the Patriarch of Constantinople.

The Russians openly boast in their annals, that before the times of Vladimir and Olha, the land of Russia was baptized and blessed by Andrew, the apostle of Christ, who came, as they assert, from Greece to the mouth of the Dnieper, and that he sailed up the river against the stream as far as the mountains where Kiev now stands, and there blessed and baptized all the country; that he planted his cross there, and preached the great grace of God, foretelling that the churches of the Christians would be numerous; that thence he went afterwards to the sources of the Dnieper, to the Great Lake Volok, and descended by the River Lovat to Lake Ilmen, and thence by the River Volchov’, which flows out of the same lake, to Novogorod; thence by the same river to Lake Ladoga, and by the River Neva to the sea, which they call Varetzkoi, but which we call the German Sea [the Baltic], between Finland and Livonia, and so sailed to Rome. Finally, that he was crucified for Christ’s sake in the Peloponnesus by Antipater. Such is the account given in their annals.

Metropolitans and bishops were formerly chosen at an assembly of all the archbishops, bishops, abbots, and priors of monasteries; a man remarkable for sanctity was sought for through monasteries and deserts, and was selected. But they say that it is the custom of the present prince to summon certain ecclesiastics to him, and choose one of their number according to his own judgment. When I was the Emperor Maximilian’s ambassador at Moscow, Bartholomew, a man of holy life, was the metropolitan; and on one occasion, when the prince had violated an oath made conjointly by him and the metropolitan himself to the Duke of Semeczitz, and had made assertions which appeared to him to be contrary to truth, he went to the prince and said:—Since thou usurpest all authority to thyself, I find it impossible to retain the charge of my office; and tendering the staff which he bore, which was in the form of a cross, he thus resigned his office. The prince without hesitation accepted the staff, together with the resignation of the office, and immediately sent the poor man bound with chains to Bielosero. They say that he was there a long while in chains, but that he was afterwards liberated, and privately passed the rest of his life in a monastery. One Daniel succeeded him as metropolitan, a man of about thirty years of age, of a large and corpulent frame, and with a red face, who, lest he should be thought more given to gluttony than to fastings, vigils, and prayers, used on all occasions when he had to perform any public ceremony, to expose his face to the fumes of sulphur to make himself pale; and when he had by this means become thoroughly pale, he would present himself in public.

There are also two other archbishops in the Russian monarch’s dominions in Novogorod, viz., the archbishop of Magrici and of Rostov’; also, the bishops of Tver, Resan, Smolensko, Permia, Susdal, Columna, Tczernigov’, and Sari. All these are subject to the metropolitan of Moscow; but they have certain revenues of their own out of estates and other extraordinary accidentals (as they call them); they have, however, no forts, cities, or other secular administration (as they call it). They abstain constantly from meats. I only found two abbots in Russia, but very many priors of monasteries, all of whom are chosen at the will of the prince himself, whom no one dares resist.

The mode of electing the priors is described in the letters of one Varlamus, prior of the monastery of Hutten, established in the year 7034 [1525], from which I have only selected the leading particulars. In the first place, the brothers of any monastery beseech the Grand Duke to choose a fitting prior to instruct them in divine precepts. After the election, he is compelled, before he is confirmed by the prince, to bind himself by an oath and a bond, that he will live a pious and holy life in that monastery, according to the appointment of the holy fathers,—to appoint all officers with the consent of the elder brothers, according to the custom of their predecessors,—to advance such as are faithful in performing their duties, and to give diligent attention to the welfare of the monastery,—to consult three or four of the elders on important questions of business, and after deliberation to refer the matter to the whole fraternity, and to decide and settle according to their general opinion; not daintily to live in private, but constantly to be at the same table and eat in common with the monks; diligently to collect all the registers and annual returns, and deposit them faithfully in the treasury of the monastery. All these things he promises to observe under a heavy penalty, which the prince can inflict on him even to the deprivation of his office. The senior monks also bind themselves by an oath that they will observe all the aforesaid rules, and faithfully and diligently obey the prior who shall be appointed.

Those who are consecrated secular priests are for the most part such as have served a long time in the churches as deacons. But no one is consecrated deacon unless he be married, whence they are very often married and ordained deacons at the same time. But if the betrothed of any deacon is in bad repute, he is not ordained deacon: it is necessary that he should have a wife of unblemished character.

When the wife of a priest is dead he is immediately suspended from officiating, but if he live in chastity, he may be present in the choir as a minister with the other minister of the church, at the offices and other divine engagements. Indeed it was the custom formerly for widowers who lived in chastity to administer the sacraments without blame, but now the custom is introduced that no widower be permitted to perform the sacraments, unless he enter some monastery and live according to rule. If any priest who is a widower enter on a second marriage, which he is free to do, he has nothing in common with the clergy, nor does any priest whatever dare either to administer the sacrament, to baptize, or to perform any other duty, unless a deacon be present.

Priests hold the first place in the churches, and if any one of them on any account were to do that which is contrary to religion and the priestly office, he is brought to a spiritual tribunal; but if he be accused of theft or drunkenness, or fall into any other vice of that sort, he is punished by the secular magistrate as they call him. I saw some drunken priests publicly whipped at Moscow, whose only complaint was, that they were beaten by slaves, and not by a gentleman. A few years ago, one of the prince’s deputies caused a priest who had been caught in theft to be strangled, at which the metropolitan was very displeased, and laid the matter before the prince. When the deputy was summoned to the prince, he replied, that “according to the ancient custom of the country a thief who was not a priest was hanged”; and so he was sent away unblamed. If a priest complain before a lay judge that he has been struck by a layman (for all kinds of assaults and injuries apply to the secular law), then the judge, if he happen to learn that the layman was provoked by the priest, or previously injured in any way by him, punishes the priest.

Priests are generally maintained from the contribution of people connected with the court, and have some small tenements allotted to them with fields and meadows, whence they derive their support by their own and their families’ industry, like their neighbours. They have very slender offerings. Sometimes the church money is put out at interest at ten per cent., and they give the interest to the priest from fear of being compelled to maintain him at their own expense. There are some also who live by the liberality of the princes. Certainly, not many parishes are found endowed with estates and possessions, except the bishoprics and some monasteries. No parish or priesthood is conferred on any one but a priest. In every church there is only one altar, and they do not think it right that the service should be performed more than once a day. A church is very seldom found without a priest, who is bound only to perform the services three times a week.

They wear nearly the same dress as the laity, with the addition of a small round skull cap to cover the tonsure, and a broad hat to keep off the heat and rain, or they use an oblong beaver hat of a grey colour. They all carry staves to lean upon, called Possoch.

Abbots and priors, as we have said, preside over monasteries,—the latter are called Igumens, the former Archimandrites.^[35] Their laws and regulations are very severe, but are gradually falling into disuse, and becoming obsolete. They dare not indulge in any sort of amusement. If any one is found to have a harp or any musical instrument, he is most severely punished. They constantly abstain from meat. They all obey, not only the commands of the prince, but all the boyars sent by the prince. I was present when my purveyor requested something at the hands of a certain prior, and finding that he persisted in refusing to comply with his request, he threatened to have him beaten, the hearing which immediately produced the desired effect. There are many who leave the monasteries and betake themselves into wildernesses and there build huts, in which they live sometimes alone and sometimes with companions. They seek their livelihood from the earth and the trees, eating roots and the fruits of the trees. These are called Stolpniki: for Stolp means a column: and their narrow little dwellings are raised up high in the air and supported on columns.

The metropolitan, the bishops, and archbishops, constantly abstain from all kinds of meat; but when they invite laymen or priests at seasons when meat is eaten, they have the prerogative of being permitted to place meat before them at their entertainment; but this is prohibited to abbots and priors.

The archbishops, bishops, and abbots, wear round black mitres; but the bishop of Novogorod alone wears a white two-horned mitre after our fashion. The daily garments of the bishops are like those of other monks, except that sometimes they have them of silk, especially the black pallium, which has three white strips waving, like the flowing of a river, from the breast in every direction, to signify that from their mouth and heart flow streams of the doctrine of faith and good works. They carry a staff in the form of a cross, on which they lean, which in the common language is called Possoch. The bishop of Novogorod wears a white pallium. The bishops confine their attention entirely to matters of divinity and to the pious promotion and advancement of religion itself, and intrust the management of both private and public affairs to their officials.

They have in their list certain Roman pontiffs whom they venerate among the saints, but they execrate others who followed that schism as seceders from the ordinances of the holy fathers and the seven councils, and call them heretics and schismatics, and hate them even more than the Mahometans. For they say, that it was decided at the seventh general council, that those things which had been settled and determined upon in the previous councils should be maintained unalterably for ever, and that it was not lawful for any body thereafter either to summon or to attend at any other council, on pain of anathema; and this decision they themselves most rigidly observe. There was one metropolitan of Russia who, at the instance of Pope Eugene, went to a synod, where the two Churches were met in unison, but on his return to his own country he was seized, all his goods were confiscated, and he thrown into prison, from which, however, he after some time escaped.

What difference exists between our^[36] creed and theirs may be learned from a letter addressed by John, metropolitan of Russia, to the Archbishop of Rome, as they call him, which is as follows:—

“I have loved thy glory, O lord and blessed father, most worthy of the apostolic seat and vocation, who from afar hast looked down upon our humility and poverty, and cherishest us with the wings of love, and salutest us as thine own in thy charity, and inquirest specially concerning our true and orthodox faith, and when thou heardest admired, for so the bishop related to us of your blessedness. And since thou art such and so great a priest, I therefore in my poverty salute thee, honouring thy head and kissing thy hands and arms. Mayst thou be joyful and protected by the supreme hand of God, and may God Almighty grant good order to thee, thy spirituals, and us. I know not whence heresies have arisen respecting the true way of salvation and redemption; and I cannot sufficiently wonder what devil was so malignant and envious, so hostile to the truth, and such an adversary to our mutual good-will, as to alienate our brotherly love from the whole Christian congregation, by saying that we are not Christians; we for our parts have from the beginning acknowledged that by the grace of God ye are Christians, although ye do not keep the faith of Christ in all things, and are in many things divided,—a fact which I will show from the seven great synods by which the orthodox Christian faith has been established and definitely confirmed, in which also the wisdom of God has built herself a house as it were upon seven pillars. Moreover, all the popes who sat in these seven synods were held worthy of the chair of St. Peter, because they agreed with us. In the first synod was Pope Sylvester;^[37] in the second, Damasus;^[38] in the third, Celestinus;^[39] in the fourth, the most blessed Pope Leo;^[40] in the fifth, Vigil;^[41] in the sixth, Oaphanius,^[42] a venerable man, and learned in the Holy Scriptures; in the seventh, the holy Pope Adrian,^[43] who first sent Peter as bishop and abbot of the monastery of St. Sabas, whence have subsequently arisen dissensions between us and you, which have principally prevailed in ancient Rana. Truly, there are many evil things done by you contrary to the divine laws and statutes, of which we will briefly write to thy charity. First, concerning the unlawful observance of fasting on the Sabbath; secondly, concerning the great fast from which ye cut off a week, and eat meats, and allure men to you by the gluttony of feasting. You reject also those priests who lawfully marry wives. Ye also anoint a second time those who have been anointed in baptism by the presbyters, and say that baptisms may not be performed by simple priests but by bishops only. So likewise with respect to unwholesome unleavened bread, which manifestly indicates Jewish service or worship. And, which is the chief of all evils, ye have begun to alter and pervert those things which were ratified by the holy synods, and say of the Holy Ghost, that he not only proceeds from the Father but also from the Son, with many more things, concerning which your Blessedness ought to refer to your spiritual brother, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and to use all diligence that such errors should be at some time removed, and that we should be united in spiritual harmony, as St. Paul says in his instructive words, ‘I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye think and speak the same thing, and that there be no division among you, and that ye be joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.’

“We^[44] have written to you as much as we could of these six excesses; we will hereafter write to thy charity of other things also. For if it be true as we have heard, thou thyself wilt acknowledge with me that the canons of the holy apostles are transgressed by you, as well as the institutes of the seven great councils, at which all your first patriarchs were present, and united in pronouncing your doctrine to be vain. And that you are manifestly wrong, I will now plainly prove. In the first place, with reference to fasting on the Sabbath, you see what the holy apostles, whose doctrine ye hold, taught respecting it, as well as the most blessed Pope Clement, the first after the Apostle St. Peter, who thus writes concerning the Sabbath, from the statutes of the apostles, as it is given in the sixty-fourth canon:—If an ecclesiastic be found to fast on the Lord’s day or the Sabbath, except the great Sabbath, let him be degraded; but if a layman do so, let him be excommunicated and separated from the Church. Secondly, with reference to general fasting, which ye corrupt. It is a heresy of the Jacobites^[45] and Armenians, who use sheep’s milk even on the great holy fast, for what true Christian dares so to do or to think? Read the canons of the sixth great synod, in which your Pope Oaphanius forbids these things. We indeed, when we learned that in Armenia and some other places they ate cheese made from sheep’s milk at the great fast, ordered our people who were there to abstain from such food and from every sacrifice to devils; from which, if a man abstain not, he should be separated from the Church; and if he be a priest, he should be suspended from performing the sacred offices. Moreover, the third error and sin is very great, concerning the marriage of priests, for ye forbid those who have wives to receive the Lord’s body; whereas the holy council, which was held at Gangra, writes in the fourth canon, ‘He who despises a priest who has a wife according to law, and says that it is not lawful to receive the sacrament at his hand, let him be accursed.’ The council also says, ‘Every deacon or priest putting away his own wife shall be deprived of his priesthood’. The fourth sin is the anointment or confirmation. Is it not everywhere said in the councils, ‘I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins’. If, therefore, there is one baptism, there will be also one anointing, and the virtue of the bishop will be the same as that of the priest. The fifth error is with reference to unleavened bread, which error indeed is the beginning and root of all heresy, as I will prove; and although it might be necessary to bring to the proof many Scriptures, yet I will do otherwise, and for the present will merely say: That the Jews make unleavened bread in memory of their deliverance and flight from Egypt; but we are once for all Christians—we never were in Egyptian bondage—and we have been commanded to omit this kind of Jewish observances with respect to the Sabbath, unleavened bread, and circumcision. And as St. Paul says, whosoever follows one of them is bound to keep the whole law; for the same apostle says, ‘Brethren, I have received from the Lord, that which also I have delivered unto you, how that the Lord on the night on which he was betrayed, took bread, blessed, and sanctified it, broke it and gave it to the holy disciples, saying, Take and eat, etc.’ Consider what I say: he did not say, ‘The Lord taking unleavened bread’, but bread. That on that occasion, no unleavened bread was used,—and that it was not the Passover,—and that the Lord was not then eating the Passover with his disciples, is probable from the fact, that the Jews’ Passover was eaten standing, which was not the case at Christ’s supper, as the Scripture says, ‘While they were lying down with the twelve’; also, ‘And the disciple lay upon his bosom at supper’. For when he himself says, ‘With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you’, he does not understand the Jews’ Passover, which he had often before eaten with them. Nor when he says, ‘This do in remembrance of me’, did he impose the necessity of doing as at the Jews’ Passover. Nor does he give them unleavened bread, but bread, when he says, ‘Behold the bread which I give you’; and likewise to Judas, ‘To whomsoever I shall give the bread when I have dipped it in the salt, he shall betray me’.^[46] But if ye argue, ‘we use unleavened bread in the sacrament, because in divine things there is no admixture of the earthly’, why then have ye forgotten divinity, and follow the rites of the Jews, walking in the heresy of Julian himself, of Mahomet, of Apollinarius,^[47] and Paul^[48] the Syrian, of Samosata, and Eutychius,^[49] and Diasterius,^[50] and others, who were pronounced at the sixth Council to be most depraved heretics, and filled with the spirit of the devil? For why do ye say, ‘I believe in God the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost, who proceeds from the Father and the Son’? Truly it is marvellous and horrible to speak of, that ye thus dare pervert the faith, while from the beginning it has been constantly sung in all Churches throughout the whole world, ‘I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who, together with the Father and the Son, is worshipped and glorified’. Why then do ye not say as all other Christians do, instead of making additions, and introducing a new doctrine, while on the other hand the Apostle declares, ‘If any man preach to you more than those things which we have declared to you, let him be anathema.’ I hope ye may not fall under that curse, for it is a dangerous and a fearful thing to alter and pervert the Scripture of God, composed by the saints. Do ye not know how very great is your error? For ye introduce two virtues, two wills, and two principles, with reference to the Holy Spirit, taking away and making of small account his honour, and ye conform to the Macedonian heresy,^[51] from which God preserve us. I bow myself at thy sacred feet, and beseech thee to cease from errors of this kind which are amongst you, and above all abstain from unleavened bread. I wished also to write something concerning strangled and unclean animals, and of monks eating meat, but if it please God, I will write of these hereafter. Excuse me of thy extreme charity that I have written to thee of these things. Examine the Scriptures and thou wilt find whether the things which are done by you ought to be done. I pray thee, my Lord, write to my Lord the Patriarch of Constantinople, and to the holy metropolitans who have in themselves the word of life, and shine as lights in the world. For it may be, that by their means God may inquire concerning errors of this sort, and correct and settle them. Afterwards, if it shall seem good to thee, write to me who am the least among all others. I, Metropolitan of Russia, salute thee and all thy subjects, both clergy and laity. The holy bishops, monks, kings, and great men, salute thee also. The love of the Holy Spirit be with thee and all thine. Amen.”

 

Here follow the Canons of one John, a Metropolitan

called the prophet, which I have thought well to subjoin, although collected at intervals as I was able to obtain them.

Children may be baptized in a case of necessity without a priest.

Animals and birds torn by birds or animals may not be eaten; but those who eat them, who celebrate the sacrament with unleavened bread, or who eat meat during Septuagesima,^[52] or consume the blood of animals, shall be corrected.

Birds and animals which have been strangled may not be eaten.

The Russians may, in case of necessity, eat with the Romans, but by no means receive the sacrament with them.

Russians should convert to the true faith all Romans not rightly baptized (inasmuch as they have not been entirely immersed in water); and when they are converted, the Eucharist is not to be immediately administered to them, any more than to Tartars or others of a different creed.

Old images and pictures which have been consecrated may not be burned, but buried in gardens or some other honourable place, lest they should be injured or disfigured.

If you build a house upon a spot that has been consecrated, let the place where the altar has stood be left void.

If a married man enter a monastery and his wife marry another, let him be consecrated to the priesthood.

A prince’s daughter shall not be given in marriage to one who receives the communion in unleavened bread, or uses unclean meats.

Priests should wear in the winter time leggings, made of the skins of the animals which they have eaten.

Those who have not confessed, nor made restitution of the property of another, shall not be admitted to the communion.

Priests and monks may not be present at weddings at the time of the dances.

If a priest shall knowingly perform the marriage service for any one wishing to be married the third time, he shall be deprived of his office.

When a mother wishes her children to be baptized, and they are unable to fast, she shall fast for them.

If a husband leave his first wife and marry a second, or if the wife marry another, he shall not be admitted to the communion until he return into wedlock.

Let no one be sold to a strange faith.

Any one knowingly eating with the Romans must be purified by prayers of purification.

If a priest’s wife be taken by the infidels, she should be redeemed, and be taken again into wedlock, because she has suffered violence.

Merchants and foreigners going into Roman parts shall not be deprived of the communion, but shall be admitted after making atonement by certain prayers enjoined as a penance.

No women shall be invited to any feast held in a monastery.

Marriages may only be contracted publicly, in churches.

 

Here follow the questions of one Cyril to Niphon,

Bishop of Novogorod.^[53]

What if a man after the communion vomit from a surfeit of meat and drink? Answer: He shall do penance by fasting forty days. If it be not from a surfeit, but from nausea, he shall fast twenty days. If from some other trifling cause, a shorter time. A priest doing such a thing, shall abstain from sacred functions, and fast forty days; but if it happen from some slight cause, he shall fast for a week, and abstain from mead, flesh, and milk. If a man vomit on the third or fourth day after communion, he shall do penance; but if any one vomit the sacrament, he shall do penance for one hundred and twenty days, unless it be through infirmity, when he shall do penance for three days, but he shall burn the vomit in the fire and say one hundred psalms; but if a dog devour the vomit, he shall fast one hundred days.

If vessels of earthen ware or wood be unclean, what is to be done? Answer: Let them be cleansed with prayers of purification.

What is to be done for the soul of a deceased person? Answer: Let one grifna^[54] be given for five masses, with fumigations, loaves, and cooked barley, called kuthia; but let the priest have his own wine.

What if I were to give nothing to eat for twelve days to a sick monk wearing the seraphic vestment? Answer: It were well done, since he belonged to the angelic order.

What if a member of the Roman Church wish to be initiated into the Roman ritual? Answer: Let him enter our church seven days; let a new name be given him, and on each day four prayers be devoutly offered in his presence; let him then wash himself in a bath, abstain seven days from meats and milk, and on the eighth day after washing, let him enter the church; then let those four prayers be said over him; let him put on clean robes; let a crown or garland be placed upon his head; let him be anointed with the chrism, and a wax light be put in his hand. While the mass is being performed, let him receive the communion, and be accepted as a new Christian.

Is it lawful to kill birds, fishes, and other animals, on festivals. Answer: A man should go to church on Sunday, because it is a festival; but under the demands of human nature, these animals may be killed.

Is it lawful to preserve for a whole year the sacrament that has been consecrated in Passion week? Answer: Let it be preserved in a clean vessel; but when the priest administers it to a sick man, let him add a little wine to it.

Is it lawful, in administering the communion to the sick, to add water to the wine? Answer: The wine alone is sufficient.

Is it lawful to administer the sacrament to demoniacs and to insane persons? Answer: Let their mouths only be touched with the sacrament.

Is it lawful for a priest, who has a wife in child-bed, to repeat prayers over her as he would over the wives of laymen? Answer: No,—for that custom is not retained in Greece, unless in case no other priest can be found.

What should be eaten on the day of the exaltation of the holy cross? Answer: Monks may not eat fish; but laymen, who have that day kissed the holy cross, may eat meat, unless it happen to fall on Friday or Wednesday.

***^[55]

Are little infants to receive the communion after baptism? Answer: They may receive it in the church during the performance of service, or while vespers are being sung.

What kind of food is to be eaten during the great fast? Answer: On Sundays and Saturdays, fish; but on other days, ikhri, that is, fishes’ entrails. In the great week, monks should eat honey, and drink kwas, that is, acid water.

In the consecration of the Kuthia, how many wax-lights should be burned? Answer: Two for the souls of the dead, three for the health of the living.

How should Kuthia be made? Answer: Three parts should be of cooked barley, the fourth of peas, beans, and vetches, also cooked. It should be seasoned with honey and Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/261 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/262 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/263 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/264 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/265 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/266 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/267 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/268 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/269 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/270 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/271 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/272 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/273 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/274 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/275 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/276 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/277 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/278 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/279 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/280 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/281 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/282 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/283 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/284 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/285 both as stipendiaries and as aspirants to the prince's favour, to go to battle.

They have small gelded horses, unshod, and with very light bridles, and their saddles are so adapted that they may turn round in any direction without impediment, and draw the bow. They sit on horseback with the feet so drawn up, that they cannot sustain any more than commonly severe shock from a spear or javelin. Very few use spurs, but most use the whip, which always hangs from the little finger of the right hand, so that they may lay hold of it and use it as often as they need; and if they have occasion to use their arms, they let it fall again so as to hang from the hand. Their ordinary arms are a bow, a javelin, a hatchet, and a stick, like a cæstus,^[56] which is called in Russian, kesteni; in Polish, bassalich. The more noble and wealthy men use a lance. They have also suspended from their arm oblong poignards like knives, which are so buried in the scabbard, that they can scarcely touch the tip of the hilt, or lay hold of them in the moment of necessity. They have also a long bridle perforated at the end, which they attach to a finger of the left hand, so that they may hold it at the same time as they use the bow. Moreover, although they hold the bridle, the bow, the short sword, the javelin, and the whip, in their hands all at the same time, yet they know how to use them skilfully without feeling any incumbrance.

Some of the higher classes use a coat of mail beautifully worked on the breast with a sort of scales and with rings; some few use a helmet of a peaked form like a pyramid.

Some use a dress made of silk stuffed with wool, to enable them to sustain any blows. They also use pikes.

They never have infantry or artillery in an engagement; for whatever they do, whether they are attacking, or

Herberstein Muscovy cavalry

pursuing, or fleeing from the enemy, they do everything suddenly and rapidly, so that neither infantry nor artillery can be of any use to them. Both infantry and artillery have however been used by the present Prince Vasiley, for when the King of Precop, on his return from investing his nephew with the sovereignty of Kasan, had pitched his camp at thirteen miles' distance from Moscow, the Prince Vasiley in the following year pitched his camp by the River Occa, and then for the first time made use of infantry and artillery, perhaps with the view of displaying his strength, or to blot out the disgrace which he had incurred the year before from a most disgraceful flight, in which he was said to have hidden himself some days under a hay stack; or possibly he may have done so with the intention of ridding his territories of a king whom he thought likely to invade his throne. It is certain that he had to my knowledge, for I saw them, nearly fifteen hundred infantry, consisting of Lithuanians, and a host of men of various nations.

They make the first charge on the enemy with great impetuosity; but their valour does not hold out very long, for they seem as if they would give a hint to the enemy, as much as to say, "if you do not flee, we must". They seldom take a city by storm, or by a sudden assault, but prefer a long siege, and to reduce the people to surrender by hunger or by treachery. Although Vasiley besieged the city of Smolensko with cannon, some of which he had taken with him from Moscow, and some he had founded there during the siege, and though he battered the city to pieces, he accomplished nothing. In like manner he besieged Kasan with a large force of men, and brought up some cannon against it, which he had conveyed thither by the river, but on that occasion also he produced no beneficial result; for such was the cowardice manifested on this occasion, that during a lapse of time while the citadel was in flames and was burning down to the ground — aye, and even might have been completely Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/292 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/293 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/294 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/295 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/296 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/297 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/298 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/299 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/300 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/301 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/302 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/303 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/304 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/305 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/306 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/307 Page:Notes upon Russia (volume 1, 1851).djvu/308 to see any such skins myself. Ermine skins also are brought from various places turned inside out, by which, however, many buyers are imposed upon. They have certain marks about the head and tail, by which they are known whether they have been caught at the proper season. For directly this animal is caught it is skinned, and the skin is turned inside out, lest it should be injured by the hair being rubbed. If one of them be taken at an unseasonable time, and the skin be deficient in its natural good colour, they then pull out and extract (as it is said) certain significant hairs from the head and tail, lest it should be known that the animal was caught at the wrong time, and so they deceive the purchasers; they are mostly sold, however, for three or four dengs a-piece; those which are a little larger are deficient in that whiteness which is otherwise seen pure in the smaller ones.

Fox skins, and especially black ones, which they usually make into caps, are valued very highly, for sometimes ten of them are sold for fifteen gold pieces. Squirrel skins also are brought from different parts, but the greater number from the province of Siberia; but those of the finest quality from Schvwaii [Svhajsk?], not far from Kazan. These skins are brought also from Permia, Viatka, Ustyug, and Vologda, always bound up in bundles of ten; in each of which bundles there are two best, which they call Litzschna; three, somewhat inferior, which they call Crasna; four, which they call Po-crasna; and the last one, called Moloischna, is the worst of all. These skins are sold for one or two dengs a-piece.

The merchants take the best and picked ones into Germany and other parts, and derive great profit therefrom.

Lynx skins are of little value, but wolves' skins, since they began to be held in esteem in Germany and Moscow, have a very high price attached to them; but wolves' skins are much less costly here than with us.

Beavers' skins are held by them in high esteem, and nearly all have the borders of their garments made of this fur, because it is black, which is the natural colour.

The women use the skins of domestic cats. There is a certain animal, which in their common language they call pessetz,^[57] the skin of which they use on a journey or in expeditions, because it generally gives most warmth to the body.

The customs or duty on all goods, either imported or exported, is carried into the treasury. Seven dengs are levied on everything of the value of one ruble, except wax, on which the duty is demanded, not only according to its value, but also its weight. Four dengs are levied on a certain weight, commonly called pud.

I shall give a full description below in the "Chorography of Russia", of the roads which the merchants take in importing and exporting their merchandize, and also through the different districts of Russia.

Usury is prevalent; and although they acknowledge it to be a great sin, yet scarcely any one refrains from it. Moreover, it is absolutely intolerable, for it is always taken at one in five, that is, twenty per cent. They seem to treat the church more leniently (as it is called), and accept from it ten per cent, (as they term it).

1. Staraia Russa, Anglicè Old Russa, to the south of Lake Ilmen.
2. Herberstein appears here to allude to Leviticus, chap. xxvi, verse 23, and Ezekiel, chap. xxii, verse 15, and other passages, where occurs the Hebrew root זרה, to scatter, probably connected with זרע, to sow.
3. The inhabitants of Syria and Mesopotamia, so named as the descendants of Aram the fifth son of Shem. The name of Aram, given in Genesis to Syria, extended itself also to Mesopotamia, Chaldea, Assyria, and Elam. The languages spoken in the ancient country of Aram,—viz., the Syriac and Chaldean,—are still called Aramæan languages.
4. A people of Gallia Transpadana, whose boundaries are thus given by Pliny, Livy, and others: on the east, the river Formio, which divided them from the Istri; on the north, the Julian Alps, by which they were separated from Noricum; on the south, the Adriatic; and on the west, the River Tagliamento, which divided them from the Veneti. Thus they occupied the country which now forms the eastern part of the province of Friuli and the county of Goritz. The capital was Aquileia, now Aglar, a small town lying about midway between Palma Nuova and the sea.
5. The original is “Voyvoda”, which, in Russian, signifies “leader of an army”.
6. The Hungarian form for Croatians.
7. The extent of Karantania, the country of the Chorontani or Karantani, is described by Schafarik, in his Slawische Alterthümer, as embracing Carinthia, Stiria, and part of Tyrol. It was thus bounded on the south by Lombardy, east by Pannonia, north by Lower Austria and Bavaria. The modern name of Karinthia is derived from it.
8. I.e., northern.
9. Two rivers falling into the Dnieper.
10. According to Nestor, the ancient Sclavonian chronicler, it was about the year 863, and not 898, as given by Herberstein, that Michael the Third sent into Bulgaria Cyrillus and Methodius, two brothers, natives of Thessalonia, who were distinguished for their learning and piety, to translate the Scriptures into the Sclavonian language of the country. They invented the letters known as the Cyrillic alphabet.
11. The Khozars, or Khazars, a race of Turkish origin who inhabited for a long time the western shores of the Caspian. They were first called Akazirs, under which name they in the year 212 made an irruption into Armenia. They were conquered first by Attila, and afterwards by the Bulgarians. After the death of Attila, they became free; and in the sixth century they had continual wars with the Persians, who, under Cosroes, erected a wall against them, known as the Caucasian wall, the ruins of which still exist. They subsequently carried on hostilities with the Arabs, invaded Hungary likewise, and made several princes tributary, so that their dominion extended from the Volga and the Caspian Sea to the Moldavia and Wallachia of the present day. At length their kingdom fell under the frequent attacks of the Russians about 1016; the name of Chazars, however, prevailed for a century or more afterwards. They were known under the name of Kosa to the Chinese themselves. For a summary of the history of this people, see Stritter, Memoriæ Populorum Septentr., tom. iii, fo. 548; St. Petersburg, 1778, 4to.; Karamzin, tom. i, fo. 48; Paris, 1819, 8vo.; and De Guignes, Hist. des Huns, tom. i, part II, pp. 507-509.
12. After a long controversy amongst the Russians, it seems to be very generally allowed by the best antiquaries, that the Waregi were Scandinavians or Northmen. For a detailed account of them, see Karamzin, vol. i, fo. 52, et seq.
13. Nestor calls this prince “Male”.
14. This is a misspelling for Korosten, the ancient capital of the Drevlians. It occupied the site of the present town of Iskorosk in Volhynia. A mound called the “Tomb of Igor” is still to be seen on a plain near the town by the banks of the river Oosha.—Geographichesky Slovar Rossyeskago Gosoodarstva. Moscow, 1804, 4to.
15. Hydromel. Pliny, in his twenty-second book, says, “Mellis quidem ipsius natura talis est ut putrescere corpora non sinat”. Columella (lib. xii, cap. 12, fo. 420) speaks of the preparation of aqua mulsa.
16. The editor is unable to offer any explanation of the meaning of this word, which on the following page is spelt panodochmi, beyond the suggestion that it may be derived from the Greek words πᾶν and δέχομαι, as implying the reception of “gifts of all sorts”.
17. A Russian word for harness.
18. Karamzin calls him Liubchanin.
19. Karamzin describes Dobrina as the brother of Malusha.
20. The Pieczenigi or Badjnaks were a tribe of Turkish origin constantly engaged in wars either with the Russians, the Hungarians, the Greeks, or the Khazars. They occupied an extensive territory, bounded south by Bulgaria and Servia, east by Hungary and Poland, north by the Grand Duchy of Kiev, and west by the Khazars. They gradually became weakened by their incessant wars, and were at length completely subdued by John II, Comnenus, since which time they ceased to be spoken of as an independent nation. For some details of their habits, see Von Hammer, Sur les Origines Russes. St. Petersburg, 1825, 4to., fo. 33 and 46.
21. Nestor calls this place Rodna on the Resa. Karamzin describes it as Rodnia, situated at the point where the river Ross falls into the Dnieper. In the Geographichesky Slovar Rossyeskago Gosoodarstva, Rodnia is given as the place to which Yarapolk fled, but is said to be on the Sula, a river which likewise falls into the Dnieper, and at a point not far distant from the embouchure of the Ross. After a fruitless examination of the best maps, both early and modern, the editor has concluded that it is a mistake to place the town in question on the Sula, since the Yursa of Herberstein, the Resa of Nestor, and the Ross of Karamzin, may easily be supposed to mean the same river, while they bear no resemblance to the name of Sula. Upon this subject, Scherbatov, after describing the town as Roden on the mouth of the Ursa, remarks that others call it Goroden, and place it on the Sula. It is remarkable that none of the various historians of Russia appear to have discussed this discrepancy as to the site of this town; and only one, as far as the editor has been able to discover, has even alluded to it.
22. The Russian word for idols.
23. A title borne by the grandees or nobles of Russia. It is said to be derived from boi, a battle, the title being originally given to the chiefs who surrounded the prince on the field of battle. It was subsequently extended to all the chief dignitaries of state. In ancient days the boyars were always consulted by the czar in matters of importance.
24. The Vedrosha is a very small river which flows into the Osma, an affluent of the Dnieper.
25. The river Chelon’, which rises in the government of Pskov, and flowing in a north-east direction, falls to Lake Ilmen at its south-west corner.
26. An old province in the north of Russia, lying between Petchora and Condora. It still gives a title to the Emperors of Russia.
27. Probably Rjer Vladimirov’ is here referred to. This ancient town and district are situated in the government of Tver; but no town bearing any similar name supplies a title to the present Emperor.
28. Perhaps White Russia is meant, the word meaning “white” in Russian.
29. Now called in the titles of the Emperor Udorski, the ancient name of the country round Arkhangel, particularly the district of Mezen. It took its name from the River Udor which flowed through it.
30. This name was anciently given to all the country in the north round the river Obi, and now comprehended in the government of Tobolsk in the district of Berezov’. The principal place is Obdorsk. Its name is still retained amongst the titles of the Russian sovereigns. In the dialect of the country it means “mouth of the Obi”.
31. The country through which the river Conda flows in the government of Tobolsk. It is still retained amongst the titles.
32. The derivation of the word Tsar, or Czar, has been the subject of much discussion among etymologists. Constantine Oikonomos, in his Δοκιμιον περὶ τῆς πλησιεστάτης συγγενείας τῆς Σλαβονο-Ρωσσὶκης γλώσσης πρὸς τῆν Ελληνικην, objects to the confounding what he calls the ancient Sclavonic word Tsar, with the much more recent Latin word Cæsar, and says that the mistake has arisen from the incorrect mode adopted by Europeans of representing the Russian word Tsar’ by the ill-invented form of Czar. Reiff, on the other hand, in his Dictionnaire Russe Français, gives the word as a primitive, and describes it as expressed in Croatian by Czar and Czeszar, from the Latin Cæsar. The sentence in the original Latin is not very clear. The editor has inserted the Croatian form “czeszar” in brackets, by way of suggesting an explanation of Herberstein’s meaning, when he speaks of the last syllable of a word, which would otherwise appear to contain but one.
33. More properly represented by “knyaz”. The correct meaning is “prince”, not “duke”.
34. The Sviatǔi Barmi, i.e., Holy Barmi, as it is called (spelt by Herberstein barma), was worn by the czars of Russia at their coronation up to the time of Peter the Great. It is now preserved in the Imperial Museum at Moscow. Various are the accounts given of its first introduction into Russia. Some say, though there is no certainty in the story, that in the year 1114, the Grand Duke Vladimir ravaged Thrace, and carried off a vast booty. The Emperor Constantine, alarmed at his progress, sent him many valuable presents, and among others the barmi. It appears, however, from printed state documents, that the barmi was certainly known in the fourteenth century. The Grand Duke John Danielovich Kalita, by his will in 1328, bequeathed it to his younger sons John and Andrew. It would seem from the wording of the various bequests of the barmi, that it was attached to the dress, and always kept with it. Antiquaries are at variance as to the origin of the word; some have derived it from the Greek βαρημα—heaviness, as implying the burden of duty and responsibility undertaken by the newly inaugurated monarch; but this is mere conjecture.
35. Dr. King, in his Rites and Ceremonies of the Greek Church in Russia, says: “The principal of a monastery is called either Archimandrite, from μανδρα, a fold; or Hegumen, from ἡγοῦμαι, duco. The former is equivalent to abbot or father, the appellation of him who has the government of the monks or friars, who are brethren. The Hegumen is much the same as prior, who is the chief of a smaller convent, of which he has the direction.
36. The reader will recollect that Herberstein was a member of the Roman Church.
37. Sylvester held the first œcumenical Council of Nicæa, A.D. 325, against Arius, who ascribed different substances to the Trinity, and denied the divinity of the Word.
38. Damasus held the first Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, against Macedonius and Eudoxus, who denied that the Holy Ghost was God.
39. Celestine held the first Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, against Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, who declared that the Virgin was only the mother of Christ’s manhood, and that the Word consisted of two persons, God and man.
40. Leo the Great held the Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, against Eutyches, Abbot of Constantinople, who asserted that Christ, after becoming incarnate, had not two natures, but only the divine nature.
41. Vigil held the second Council of Constantinople, A.D. 553, against Origen and Evagrius, who denied the Resurrection, and maintained that the soul is created before the body. In this synod it was ordered that the Blessed Virgin should be called Θεοτοκος, or Deipara, to express her being the mother of God as well as man.
42. This Oaphanius must be Agathon, who held the sixth recognized œcumenical council of the Greek church—which was the third Council of Constantinople—A.D. 680, against the Monothelites, who asserted that Christ had only one will and one nature.
43. Adrian I held the second Council of Nicæa, A.D. 787, against the iconoclasts.
44. The indiscriminate use of “we” and “I” in this letter, is literally translated from the original.
45. A religious sect in the east, whose leader was Jacob Zanzale, Bishop of Edessa in Mesopotamia in 541. They still exist in different parts of Asia, particularly in Syria, Ethiopia, and Armenia. Their chief resides at Kara-Amid, capital of Diarbehir. They only recognize one nature in Jesus Christ, namely, the divine nature, a dogma originated by Eutyches (respecting whom, see note at page 64), and of which, after being nearly extinguished by the decision of the Council of Chalcedon and by Imperial edicts, the Jacobites were but the revivers.
46. These passages are literally translated from the original, but the reader will see that though placed between inverted commas, they are not given strictly in the language of Scripture.
47. There were two Greek rhetoricians of this name, in the fourth century, father and son, who taught at Berytus and Laodicæa. They embraced Christianity; and Apollinaris the younger, who is here alluded to, became a bishop. He originated a dogma that there was nothing human in the soul of Jesus Christ. He was condemned by many councils.
48. Paulus Syrius Samosatensis, Bishop of Samosata in Syria, and afterwards Patriarch of Antioch about 262. He was the author of a heresy which consisted in denying the Trinity, and the divinity of Jesus Christ: he was excommunicated at the Council of Antioch, 270: his followers were named Paulinists.
49. Eutychius, more properly Eutyches, was abbot of a monastery near Constantinople at the time when Nestorius promulgated his heresy: he left his retreat in order to defend the faith, but fell himself into a new heresy, which he began to disseminate in 448. He taught that there was only one nature in Jesus Christ, namely the divine nature, in which his human nature was absorbed like a drop of water in the sea. His followers, many of whom still exist in the East, are called Eutychians, or Monophysites.
50. The editor has sought in vain for information respecting this heresiarch. Neither Tillemont, Walch, Pluquet, nor Mosheim, make any allusion to the name of Diasterius. Possibly, by an error, this name has been written for that of Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, who adopted the opinions of Eutyches. He supported those opinions at the Council of Ephesus, in 449; and, on his return to Alexandria, had the boldness to excommunicate the pope, Leo the Great; but in the following year he was deposed from his patriarchate, at the Council of Constantinople, and in 451 was deprived of his bishopric and priesthood at the Council of Chalcedon. He died in exile, A.D. 458, at Gangra, in Paphlagonia,—the place above alluded to, at p. 63, as the seat of a council which was held in the year 324.
51. Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople in the middle of the fourth century, did not believe that the divinity of the Holy Ghost was clearly declared in the Scriptures, but that they simply ascribed to him the characteristics of a creature.
52. Septuagesima Sunday being the first term of preparation for Lent, it is customary in the Greek Church to announce the approaching fast to the people on that day, and hence the week following is called the week of prosphonesima, or week of publication.
53. Some of these being more interesting to the theologian than acceptable to the good taste of the general reader, the translator has thought proper to omit them, and to supply their place with asterisks.
54. A coin, to be referred to hereafter, under the head of Russian money.
55. Seven lines are here omitted.
56. This instrument is more fully described in the German edition as a stick having a thong attached to it, from which depends a knot or hall covered with spikes.
57. Canis lagopus. The arctic fox of Pennant.

 

END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.