RECIPROCAL IMAGES RUSSIAN CULTURE IN THE MIRROR OF

TRAVELLERS' ACCOUNTS (BASED ON THE KOLLEKOLLE CONFERENCE,

COPENHAGEN, 2.-5. DECEMBER 1994) GUEST EDITOR: PETER ULF MØLLER

Culture & History

Guest editor: Peter Ulf Møller

Editors:

Michael Harbsmeier, Mogens Trolle Larsen and Uffe Østergaard

Editorial Board: R. MaC. Adams, Anthropology, Washington DC Howard Bloch, French, Berkeley Johannes Fabian, Anthropology, Amsterdam Jonathan Friedman, Anthropology, Lund Ulf Hannerz, Anthropology, Stockholm Kirsten Hastrup, Anthropology, Copenhagen Fritz Kramer, Art History, Hamburg Kristian Kristiansen, Archaelogy, Copenhagen Orvar Löfgren, Ethnology, Lund Christopher Miller, French, Yale Mike Rowlands, Anthropology, London Niels Steensgaard, History, Copenhagen Jesper Svenbro, Classics, Paris Copyright © 1997 Scandinavian University Press. All articles published in Culture & History are protected by copyright, which covers the exclusive rights til reproduce and distribute the article. No material in this journal may be reproduced photographically or stored on microfilm, in electronic data bases, video or compact disks etc. without prior written permission from Scandinavian University Pess.

Special regulation for photocopies in the USA: Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by Scandinavian University Press for libraries and other users registered with the copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service, provided the fee of US$ 7.00 per article is paid to CCC, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA 0346-8755/94/US$ 7.00. This authorization does not include copying for general distribution, promotion, new works, or resale. In these cases, specific written permission must first be obtained from Scandinavian University Press.

Publisher Business communications including orders, standing orders, back issues should be sent to: Scandinavian University Press, PO Box 2959 Tøyen, N-0608 Oslo, Norway. Phone: +47 22 57 54 00. Fax: +47 22 57 53 53. E-mail: subscription@scup.no, Homepage: http: //www. scup. no

Culture & History is published irregularly by Scandinavian University Press. The price for No. 14 is US$ 35.00 including air speed delivery, NOK 210,- in Scandinavia.

USA POSTMASTERS: Send address changes to Culture & History, Scandinavian University Press North America, 875 Massachusetts Ave. Ste 84, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.

Printed in Norway by HS-Trykk A/S, Oslo.

ISBN 82-00-37654-0 ISSN 0902-7521

Published with support from the Danish Research Council for the Humanities.

Indexed in: America: History and Life (1989-); Anthropological Litterature; Historical Abstracts. Part A. Modern History (1989-); Historical Abstracts. Part B. Twentieth Century (1989-); Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts; Social Planning/Policy and Development Abstracts (SOPODA); Sosiological Abstracts.

Contents:

Peter Ulf Møller (U. of Copenhagen) Russia and Europe: A Duel with Images. Introductory Remarks 5

John H. Lind (U. of Copenhagen) Danish Impressions of Russia in 1578. A Contrastive Analysis of Three Travel Descriptions (Jacob Ulfeldt, his Priest and NN) 13

Michael Harbsmeier (U. of Odense) Images of Despotism: Ottoman and Muscovite in German 16th and Early 17th Century Travel Accounts 37

Peter Ulf Møller (U. of Copenhagen) The Russians as Seen by Three Danish Travellers in the First Half of the Eighteenth Century: Just Juel, Rasmus Æreboe, and Peder von Haven 48

Lyubov Kiseleva (Tartu University, Estonia) Europe of the 1770s through the Eyes of a Russian Sailor (Aleksandr Shishkov) 67

Fiona Björling (U. of Lund) Dostoevskij's Outburst of Wounded Patriotism - Prejudice or Perspicacity? On the first visit to Europe as presented in Winter Notes on Summer Impressions) 74

Irina Sandomirskaja (Moscow) Walter Benjamin's Moscow Diary: A Mission to the Margins of History 93

References

Adelung, Friedrich von (1846) Kritisch-literarische Übersicht der Reisenden in Russiand bis 1700, deren Berichte bekannt sind, 1-2, St. Petersburg.

Jakobson, Roman (1931) "Der russische Frankreich-Mythus", Slavische Rundschau, III, pp. 636-642.

Kazakova, N. A. (1980) Zapadnaja Evropa v russkoj pis'mennosti XV-XVI vekov. Iz istorii meždunarodnych kul'turnych svjazej Rossii, Leningrad.

Ključevskij, V. O. (1991) Skazanija inostrancev o Moskovskom gosudarst-ve, Moskva.

Møller, P. U. (1994) "Russiske billeder af Europa", Udenrigs, 4, 1994, pp. 57-65.

Møller, P. U. (1995) "Vnutri ich po-prežnemu sidit mužik. Obraz russkich v zapiskach datskogo morskogo komandora Justa Julja, poslannika pri Petre Pervom", in: Roman Lejbov (ed) "Svoe" i "čužoe" v literature i kul'ture (= Studia Russica Helsingiensia et Tartuensia IV), Tartu, pp. 53-65.

12

Danish Impressions of Russia in 1578. A Comparative Analysis of Three Travel Descriptions (Jacob Ulfeldt, his Priest and NN)

JOHN H LIND

The Latin description of Russia in the year 1578, Hodoeporicon Ruthenicum, attributed to the Danish aristocrat Jacob Ulfeldt, is, of course, well-known. It ranks almost as a classic, although not quite on level with Sigismund Herberstein's Rerum Muscoviticarum Commentarii. It has been published several times since the first edition in 1608, and early translations were made both into Danish and Russian. Few works on the reign of Ivan Groznyi appear without references to Ulfeldt, and if such a work happens to be illustrated, some illustrations are bound to originate from the first edition of Ulfeldt's text.

Whereas Herberstein's text is not only quoted but has been scrutinized by numerous scholars, Ulfeldt's description has never been subjected to a critical analysis. A first step in that direction was made in 1978 by the Danish historian Knud Rasmussen, when he prepared a re-edition of both the first Latin and the Danish edition from 1680, in celebration of the fourth centenary of the Embassy to Russia.1

1. Knud Rasmussen, Jacob Ulfeldts Rejse i Rusland 1578, Kbh 1978. The Danish trans-lation appeared in the edition of Lyskander's history of Frederik II, which was pub-lished under Peder Hansøn Resen's name, cf. Resen, Kong Frederichs den Andens Krønicke, Kbh 1680, p. 398-436. A modern Danish version (Jacob Ulfeldt, Ruslandsrejse 1578, Gentofte 1993), allegedly based on the Latin text, is of little value. The translator, Richard Mott, constantly kept an eye on the Old Danish text and often followed that rather than the Latin text, where they differ. Furthermore, large sections are not translated ("Sub lectas literas accersebat ... omnia esse servaturum", in Rasmussen's ed. pp. 112-14; "Sermonem modo ... hac in re decepti sumus", pp. 142^14; "Cum autem inter navigandum ... venimus ipsis Nonis Novemb", p. 154), whereas "Velikaja hedder floden" in the new translation (p. 21) has no counterpart in Ulfeldt's text.

13

To this parallel edition Rasmussen added an introductory chapter.2 Later Rasmussen also gave a paper on Ulfeldt's account, where he discussed, whether it was a source for Russian or Danish history.3

The fact that Ulfeldt, who was the formal leader of the Danish Embassy to Ivan Groznyi in 1578, had composed an account of his experiences dur-ing the journey became public knowledge in 1588.

After returning from Russia in January 1579 with a treaty that favoured Russia far beyond the instructions Ulfeldt had received from Frederik II, he was severely censured, fell out of grace with the king, lost all political influ-ence, and retired to his estates.

When a new king, Kristian IV, succeeded to the throne in 1588, Ulfeldt attempted a political come-back. Outside the agenda he addressed an as-sembly of government officials and the nobility in an attempt to be rehabil-itated. He defended his conduct during the Russian Embassy by stressing the many difficulties put in his way by the Russians and the unfriendly re-ception with which the Embassy had been met. For this occasion Ulfeldt had prepared a brief relation with some relevant documents included.4

Together with the relation he handed over an account of the journey,5 which he planned to publish as a justification.

The government strongly advised against publishing, unless Ulfeldt also included the instructions he had transgressed; otherwise the government threatened to publish a counter-account. It seems Ulfeldt then decided not to publish.

2. Rasmussen 1978, p. 7-27. A shorter Russian version of this introduction was pub-lished separately, cf. Knud Rasmussen, "O knige Jakoba Ul'fel 'dta "Hodoeporicon Ruthenicum", Frankfurt 1608", Skandinavskij sbornik 23, Tallinn 1978, pp. 57-67. Before Rasmussen, the last scholars to discuss Ulfeldt were Bjarne Nørretranders, Ivan den skrækkelige i russisk tradition, Kbh 1956, pp. 11-14; The Shaping of Czardom under Ivan Groznyj, Cph 1964, p. 150, 157; and Andreas Kappeler, Ivan Groznyj im Spiegel der ausländischen Druckschriften seiner Zeit. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des westlichen Russlandbildes, Frankfurt/M 1972, p. 92 et al.

3. Knud Rasmussen, "Das Hodoeporicon Ruthenicum von Jacob Ulfeldt – eine Quelle zur russischen oder zur dänischen Geschichte?", Reiseberichte als Quellen europäischer Kulturgeschichte, Wolfenbüttel 1982, pp. 177-92 (= Wolfenbütteler Forschungen XXI).

4. Breuis quædam et succinta narratio negotiorum Ruthenicorum a Gregorio Ulstand, Arnoldo Ugerup, Paulo Vernicouio et me Jacobo Ulfeldio exactorum, cf. Det kgl. bib-liotek, Håndskriftsamlingen, Rostgaards Samling 48 2°.

5. In his relation, p. 2, he explicitly refers to his account: Quae omnia ex Hodoporico meo in itinere exarato constabunt. quare ea hic missa facio ad rem ipsam properans.

14

After this, Rasmussen thought, the account disappeared until the eventu-al publisher, Melchior Goldast, found a manuscript in Lyon in 1601. When Goldast in 1608 first published the text, he did not know who exactly had written it. After the text had been published, however, the Danish priest and historian, Claus Christophersen Lyskander, informed him that the author was Jacob Ulfeldt. Therefore, Goldast's second edition from 1627 appeared under Ulfeldt's name.

On the basis of the introductions to Goldast's two editions, Rasmussen concluded that Ulfeldt's manuscript during the 1590s must have travelled from Denmark and finally turned up in Lyon.

Judging from Rasmussen's introduction, we might think that no other manuscript than the one found in Lyon existed and that Ulfeldt's text is known today only from Goldast's edition. That is, as we shall see, not the case.

Rasmussen pointed, however, to three other extant manuscript accounts of the Embassy, – not in order to establish their value as descriptions of Russia, but to determine whether they could have influenced Ulfeldt's account. Therefore he did not give full attention to the contents of these oth-er accounts.

Of these three accounts, Rasmussen found only one relevant in his con-text: a Latin account of the voyage, which according to a note added in 1596 was written by Ulfeldt's priest, one Andreas N. from Funen (scriptum ab Andrea N: Fionico).6

The other two accounts were, 1) the official protocol in German;7 2) an anonymous text in Danish in the form of a diary, – the text referred to as NN in the title.8 Of these, the protocol mainly contains copies of letters sent and received by the Embassy (and can actually not be considered a travel account, JL). The Diary, Rasmussen thought, could, perhaps, have formed the frame-work of Ulfeldt's account. There were, however, many discrepancies re-

6. Det kgl. bibliotek, Håndskriftsamlingen, Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°. The main manu-script consists of 64 folios (+ 2 infront and 2 behind). One type of paper with water-mark close to but not identical with Briquet nr. 917 (1554) or perhaps 919 (1580) is used. On this and the other manuscripts mentioned here, see J. Lind, "O rukopisnom nasledii Datskogo posol'stva 1578 goda v Rossiju", forthcoming in Jakob Ul'fel 'dt, Putešestvie v 1578 g. (perevod L.N. Godovikovoj), Moscow.

7. In Rigsarkivet, TKUA Speciel del. Rusland AII. C. Gesandtskabsarkiver. 92: 1578 (72)-79 Jacob Ulfeld's, Gregers Truidsen Ulfstand's, og Arild Ugerup's og Paul Wernicke's Gesandtskabsarkiv.

8. Det kgl. bibliotek, Håndskriftsamlingen, Gl. kgl. Samling nr 871 2°.

15

garding localities in which the Embassy had stayed, and Rasmussen there-fore concluded that Ulfeldt had not used any of these texts.

Between Ulfeldt's and Andreas' accounts there was, however, Rasmussen had to admit, a clear interrelationship. He found many parallels and similarities; but he also found differences. First of all Andreas' account contained considerably more text, particularly concerning church matters. On the other hand, Ulfeldt's account also contained material not found in Andreas' account. Rasmussen pointed here to a Swedish attack on Pernau, related under 6 June. Therefore Rasmussen concluded that the two texts could not depend directly on one another.9

A clue to how the two accounts interrelate Rasmussen found by compar-ing these texts:

Priest Ulfeldt 1 Junij, mare Monsunt traiecto curiam regiam Mongardt dictam accessimus, ubi sub dio primum

pernoctandum nobis erat. Nam à Rutenis et Suecis combusta et deruta tota erat curia.10

1. Die Mensis Iunii trajecimus mare Monsund pervenimusqve ad curiam regiam Mongard: ubi ilia nocte sub dio delitescere cepimus, erat namque à Ruthenis & Suecis devastata & combusta.11

The two accounts are identical as to the facts they describe, but they use a different structure and a different Latin vocabulary. Rasmussen, therefore, suggested that both accounts depended on a common source in some other language than Latin, presumably Danish or German. Who the author of this assumed original text could have been, Rasmussen found impossible to de-termine.

With such a solution, a re-edition in 1978 of Ulfeldt's account rather than a new and first edition of Andreas' account was justifiable. Rasmussen's edition was, however, problematical in another respect.

As mentioned above, Rasmussen's introduction clearly indicates that to-day Ulfeldt's text is known only from Goldast's edition. That is not so. The Royal Library holds a manuscript with Ulfeldt's text,12 a manuscript that is

9. Rasmussen 1978, p. 22. 10. Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°, f. 7r. 11. Rasmussen 1978, p. 42. 12. Det kgl. bibliotek, Håndskriftsamlingen, Gl. kgl. Samling nr 870 2°.

16

undoubtedly older than the edition. The watermarks date the paper to 1541-63.13 Furthermore, whereas the main hand writing the text cannot possibly be identified with Ulfeldt's hand, the hand which has corrected the text between the lines has close similarities with Ulfeldt's hand.14 Part of these corrections are found in the edition, others not. At least on some points the manuscript has a better text than the edition.15

One important difference between the manuscript and the edition con-cerns the illustrations. Goldast's two editions both included five illustra-tions. One bird's-eye view of Aleksandrovskaia sloboda, three of inside sit-uations from the reception of the Embassy and the subsequent negotiations, and, finally, as "Fig. No 5", a rostrum supporting the Tsar's orb. In the text there are references to Figures 1-4. But the reference to Figure 4 is obvious-ly misplaced and should have been to "Fig. No 5". Considering this and comparing the Aleksandrovskaia sloboda of the first illustration with the ac-tual situation in present-day Aleksandrov, Rasmussen suspected that the il-lustrations were the work, not of Ulfeldt, but of the publisher with no inde-pendent source value.16

In the manuscript there are no references to illustrations. Instead there is one drawing in the margin, where the edition by mistake refers to fig. 4. The drawing in principle depicts the same rostrum that the edition has as "Fig. No 5".17 The lack of these references in the manuscript may be seen to sup-port Rasmussen's suspicion that the illustrations in the first edition were es-

13. The same watermark appears throughout the manuscript: Briquet nr 916. 14. Ulfeldt's hand is known from a couple a documents emanating from the Embassy in,

Rigsarkivet, TKUA Speciel del. Rusland AII. C. Gesandtskabsarkiver. 92: 1578 (72)-79 Jacob Ulfeld's, Gregers Truidsen Ulfstand's, og Arild Ugerup's og Paul Wernicke's Gesandtskabsarkiv. Here, on a copy of the Instruction, dated 30/4 1578, Ulfeldt confirms "with his own hand" on the paper covering his seal that the text is a true copy of "our instruction". Another well-known sample of his hand is found in the famous "Langebeks kvart", a manuscript with Danish ballads, in which members of nobility entered samples of ballads. Here is also a ballad, entered by Ulfeldt, cf. Ny Kgl. Saml. 816 4°, f. 179r.

15. One piece of factual information which shows that the manuscript cannot be secondary to the edition, or a manuscript on which the edition is based, is the distance given between Novgorod and Aleksandrovskaia sloboda. In the edition it is 100 miles, whereas the manuscript has 110 miles, same as the priest. Cf. Rasmussen 1978, p. 90, and Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°, f. 12v. If we add up the lengths of the individual stag-es as recorded by Ulfeldt (and Andreas), the distance equals 111 miles.

16. Cf. Rasmussen 1978, p. 16-17. 17. Gl. kgl. Samling nr 870 2°, f. 16r. Cf. Rasmussen 1978, p. 112 and 167.

17

sentially the work of the publisher. On the other hand, the presence of one of the illustrations (admittedly, the least complicated and interesting, and therefore never reproduced in other contexts) shows that Ulfeldt did think in terms of illustrations. Perhaps this one illustration was the stimuli that in-spired the publisher to make more. In any case, it is difficult to disagree with Rasmussen that the first four illustrations look suspect, considering the actual layout in Aleksandrov and that the illustrations could have been made by an imaginative artist on the basis of the text.

Considering that we possess this early manuscript, it ought to have been given priority in any modern edition of Ulfeldt's text18 and must be taken as the basis of a future new edition.

That we possess an early manuscript of Ulfeldt's text is, of course, im-portant. Still more important, concerning early travel accounts of Russia, is the fact that, in addition to Ulfeldt's account, we have two further manu-script accounts of the Embassy to Russia in 1578, which has never been put to use by scholars. One of these, the Diary of NN, was, according to Rasmussen, entirely unrelated to Ulfeldt's account.

Before turning to the Diary, however, we shall first consider the Latin ac-count of the voyage, attributed to Ulfeldt's priest, Andreas.19 The attribu-tion itself is undoubtedly correct. The close link between Ulfeldt and his priest is obvious, if we compare the two texts. Where, for instance, Ulfeldt uses "Ego" or a verbal form in first person, the priest has, "D: Jacobus

18. That Rasmussen did not notice this manuscript is surprising, since it is registered in the two most used catalogues of the Royal Library together with the other two manuscript accounts of the 1578 Embassy that Rasmussen discussed.

19. It has, so far, not been possible to link our Andreas to any otherwise known priest. In 1596 the manuscript came into the possession of the priest at Ledøje church, Bo Olsen († 1599), who wrote the attribution to "Andreas, Ulfeldt's priest". But before Bo re-ceived the text, it had already, according to Bo, belonged to another priest, Nikolaj Eskildsen, at the St Peter's Church in Næstved. From there it went into the possession of St Martin's Church also in Næstved. Consequently it had travelled through at least three hands before 1596, after it went out of the author's possession. Furthermore, the extant text is not the original: while copying the writer skipped back from on one "-equis" to another, but soon discovered it and struck through the repetition: ".. retentis equis, quos Neugardiæ acceperamus ... secum equis quos Neugardiæ", cf. f. 28v. On the other hand it may well be Andreas' own fair copy. Later, in 1614, the manuscript was in the possession of the priest in Vandborg (Ringkøbing amt), Gregers Jensen Lemvig, presumably through his brother Anders Lemvig († 1603), professor at Copenhagen University. Anders Lemvig was acquainted with Bo Olsen, Ledøje Church being one the University's churches. In 1754 the antiquarian Terkel Klevenfeldt found the manuscript in Thy and brought it back among the learned circles of Copenhagen.

18

Wlfeldius."20 One place in particular clearly suggests that Andreas was in-deed Ulfeldt's personal priest and not just a priest associated with the Embassy. When the Embassy reached Fellin on 11 June, a number of Livonian women approached its priests and asked them to baptize their children. On this occasion Ulfeldt wrote, "more than 55" were baptized "by our priest";21 while Andreas wrote, "by myself more than 50".22 From the Diary, also mentioning this occasion, we know that the Embassy had more than one priest,23 therefore, when Ulfeldt used the singular form "our priest", he must have meant his and his servants' personal priest.

The question we first of all have to address is whether the solution Rasmussen reached about the interrelationship between Ulfeldt's and his priest's accounts is correct. That is, whether, in addition to the extant ac-counts, a further account - in Danish or German - really existed, of which Ulfeldt's and Andreas' accounts both are descendants of equal value.

Rasmussen's first argument - on which he based his view that because both the Priest and Ulfeldt had information the other did not have, they could not depend on one another - is certainly not valid. Any information unique to one of the accounts could, of course, be derived from an addition-al source or, in this case, even personal recollections. Concerning the spe-cific piece of information which Rasmussen pointed to as unique to Ulfeldt's account, the Swedish attack on Pernau, it is important that the one literary source Ulfeldt in his account openly acknowledged having used is a Livonian Apology, "recently published."24 Here Ulfeldt might well have borrowed any additional information about the Livonian war. Rasmussen suggested that this Livonian Apology may have been the second (actually the third, JL) edition of Balthasar Rüssow's Chronica der Prouintz Lyfflandt, which appeared in 1584. Here, and not in the first edition of 1578, information about the Russian attempt to retake Wenden in October 1578, for which Ulfeldt referred the reader to the Livonian Apology, could be

20. Compare Rasmussen 1978, pp. 44, 52, 78, 90, 144, with Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°, f. 8r, 11v, 21v, 32v, 53r. If we consider "meo", "mihi" etc. the number of cases is consid-erably larger.

21. "baptisati.. sunt. . à nostra pastore ultra 55", cf. Rasmussen 1978, p. 46. 22. "Baptizatique ab ipso sunt vltra 50", Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°, f. 9r. 23. "Christnet Vor Predicannter enn ganndsche hob Smaa børnn", cf. Gl. kgl. Samling nr

871 2°, f. 4v. 24. ".. missum id faciamus & Apologiam Livoniensum nuper æditam consulendam indag-

atoribus relinquamus, " cf. Rasmussen 1978, p. 142.

19

found.25 This also meant that Ulfeldt, according to Rasmussen, could not have finished his account earlier than 1584.26

On the question of a source in a different language, instances such as the one Rasmussen referred to are, indeed, frequent in the two accounts. We can, however, also find instances like this, where the similarity is not obvi-ous, unless we compare the texts in detail; but then the conclusion we must draw d i f f e r e n t :

Priest Ulfeldt

Hinc Casan et Astrachan vsque Tartariæ civitates Amplissimas navigatur quarum nunc potitur dux Moscouiæ. Regnum vero Casan una cum civitate et Arce eiusdem nominis ad extremas oras Volga ad 70 miliaria germanica infra Infra Inferiorem Nouogardiam situm est. Astrachan aut præcipuum Emporium non longe distans à fluuij Volgæ extremitate, est Inferius Cazanico regno situm ad decem dierum iter. Inde in mare Caspium traiicitur per fluuium Volga olim Rha dictum, qui urbem Otthoferiam perfluit, dissitem ibi à Moschouia miliar: 36 versus solis occasum: et tenet alias cursum versus solis ortum, cui omnes fluuij reliquæ ad occasum fluant.27

Inde Casan & Astrachan trajicitur, posteaque in mare Caspium per amnem Wolga tenens cursum versus solis ortum.28

25. The 1584 edition of Rüssow's Chronica was republished in 1848, of which a facsimile edition appeared in 1967.

26. Although it is difficult to find information in Ulfeldt's account, which cannot be de-rived from the account of his priest or explained either as Ulfeldt's own recollections or particular points of view he wished to make, Rasmussen did miss one indication that Ulfeldt used Rüssow's Chronica. In Ulfeldt's - but not the priest's - account a Swedish army-leader, Hannibal, appears. Rasmussen assumes Hannibal to be Göran Boije, commander of the Swedish troops at Wenden, cf. Rasmussen 1978, p. 148, 175. In Rüssow, however, we find Hannibal frequently mentioned and also identified with Ivo Schenckenberch: (Iuo Schenckenberch, sonst Hannibal), cf. Rüssow, p. 136. Without knowledge of Rasmussen's identification of Livonian Apology with Rüssow's Chronica, Hugh Graham, in an analysis of the sources of Ivan IV's sacking of Novgorod in 1570, found "a curious reflection of Rüssow" in Ulfeldt's account, cf. Hugh Graham, "How do we know what we know about Ivan the Terrible? (A Paradigm)", in Richard Hellie, ed., Ivan the Terrible: A Quarcentenary Celebration of his Death (= Russian History, Vol. 14), 1987, p. 187.

27. Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°, f. 31r. 28. Rasmussen 1978, p. 86.

20

We see that Ulfeldt's text, word by word, is almost entirely contained in the priest's text.

Or consider these texts:

Priest Ulfeldt

Altero die qui V: erat Junij 5 milliara curribus et equis vecti sumus ad locum inter Pernoviam et Werder Interiectum concomitantibus equitibus 40, et sclopetariis Nonnullis, qui nobis comites et viæ præsidia aduersus Suecos additi erant.29

Altero die qui erat 5, Junij vecti sumus curribus & equis 5 milliara ad locum inter Pernoviam & Werder interjectum concomitantibus 40 equitibus & sclopetariis quibusdam.30

Wisnoiwollatosk oppido prænominato amnis alluit quo ad ciuitatem Othfer traiicitur distantem ab eo 26 miliarib: Adhæc non longe ab eo est fons scaturiens, unde riuulj exuriuntur sese Nouogardiam vsque extendentes q -summis cum difficultatibus in reditu nostra nobis remigio transuehendj.31

Oppido jam nominato alluit amnis, quo Othfer trajicitur, isthinc 26 milliaria: perhibent quoque non longe ab eo esse fontem scaturientem, unde rivulus exoritur, extendens sese Neugardiam usque, navigationi aptus.32

This similarity in the Latin vocabulary shows that Ulfeldt and his priest must have used the same Latin text. But if there is no need to operate with a common source in another language, there is no need at all to operate with a third, now lost account. One of our accounts may simply depend directly on the other. Here our first collation strongly suggests that it must be Ulfeldt who used his priest's account. We can, however, find further evidence to support this view.

The similarity between the two accounts is much larger than meets the eye. But sections with related text are displaced in relation to one another in the two accounts. Consequently they appear in different contexts and are

29. Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°, f. 8r. 30. Rasmussen 1978, p. 44. 31. Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°, f. 30v. 32. Rasmussen 1978, p. 84.

21

only detected after a careful comparison of all sections in the two accounts with one another. As result of such comparison few sections in each account turn out to be without a counterpart in the other.

The following collations, which are consecutive in the priest's account, are examples of texts that, in this way, are dislocated in relation to the sur-rounding text. For the first section I have added the parallel text of the Diary (to be discussed later), for the second section a text from Balthasar Rüssow's Chronica der Prouintz Lyfflandt:

Priest Ulfeldt Diary

Postquam Jam Nouogardiam venimus ductj sumus ad curiam quandam è regione arcis sitam [quæ olim sedes fratris Moscouitæ veneno Interempti fuerat, veluti et ducis Magni regis Daniæ fratris, quo cum Nupta est Illius filia] exitus nobis simulque legatis Interdictus, quibus, quia necessaria sibi comparare non possent, Valde iniqua dicta videbantur.

Cum eo perventum est, perducti sumus ad curiam, quce olim sedes fuit necati fratris Musvovitæ ex lignis extructam, sicut & tota civitas, aliæque domus totius Russiæ omnes sunt: nobis'que statim interdictum est, ne nostrum quis aliorum ostiis calcibus insultaret, quod ægre admodum tulimus eo quod non liceret ea, quæ erant necessaria nobis comparare,33

.. och Bleffue indførd Vdj en mectig stor gaard Liggenndis Udenn for Slottet, Och haffde Hertug Mogenns samme gaard, Menn hand Var hoß Grotførstenn, och bleff oß Strengelig forbudit, at Inngenn motte gaa Vd, lenger end mand kunde kaste med enn Steenn.34

33. Rasmussen 1978, p. 56-58. 34. Cf. Gl. kgl. Samling nr 871 2° f. 6v.

22

35. Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°, f. 15v-16r. 36. Rasmussen 1978, p. 58. 37. Rüssow, Chronica Der Prouintz Lyfflandt, Rostock 1578, p. 135r.

23

Priest Ulfeldt Rüssow Postridie Aduentus

nostri D: Legatj à Rutenis acceperunt, Tartarum Crim nominatum non procul

à Moscouia cum Numerosa cohorte. Castra constituisse, habereque in animo Russiam vi armisque Inuadere, quod Magno Moscoviæ ducj causam dederit vrbe Moscouia discedendj, et in Arcem Slabodiam se abdendj, vbj ab Ipsius Insultu non multum metuendum esset. Nondum enim animo suo exciderat damnum. Anno 71: supra millesimum, et quingentesimum, 24 Maij, die Ascensionis domini ab eodem acceptum, quo Moscouiam ciuitatem eius principem totam fere combusserat, conflagratis vltra 40000 domibus, Nobilium Curiis et palatiis, Vna cum templis. Necnõ ad trecenta millia hominum. secum et Juuenum pereuntibus, idque infra trium horarum spacium.35

Hic accepimus Tarta-rum Crim nominatum cum copiis in foribus

esse, non procul à Muscovia, stipatum multis millibus Tartarorum, statuisse Russiam vi armisque invadere, quare magno Duci minus consultum videretur Muscoviæ commo-rari, sed potius se in arcem Slabodiam abdere, ubi ab ipsius insultu immunis esse posset

revocans in memoriam damnum ante annos 8. sibi ab ipso illatum: igne namque totam fere Muscoviam infestarat, 40. millibus domorum conflagratis, cæsis & combustis 200. millibus Ruthenorum.36

Anno 1571. den 24. Maij, up Hemmel-farths dach, hefft de Tater dem Muscowiter syne höuetstadt, de Muscow, gantz uthge-brandt, in welckerem brande äuer 40000. Hüser, Heren Häue, unde waningen, sampt allen Kercken unde Spykeren, unde in de dre mahl hundert dusent Minschen, junck unde oldt, vorschmöket unde ummekamen sint, unde disse brandt ys in dren stunden korth unde gudt tho gegahn.37

The fact that "quae olim sedes fratris Moscovitae", in the priest's version of the first section, is part of a digression, the complete content of which is not rendered by Ulfeldt, strongly suggests that it is, indeed, the priest's text that has been used in Ulfeldt's, not vice versa. In the second section we first of all find striking similarities between Rüssow's and the priest's accounts, which shows that the priest also knew Rüssow's Chronica. The priest's much fuller and more correct rendition of Rüssow's text shows that Ulfeldt's account cannot be the priest's source. At the same time the similar-ities between the Latin wording of Ulfeldt's and the priest's accounts show that Ulfeldt's text cannot be the result of independent use of Rüssow.38

Our conclusion based on this admittedly preliminary and incomplete analysis must be that Ulfeldt almost certainly used his priest's account, pos-sibly in addition to notes made during the trip or his later recollections.

If, however, Ulfeldt really used his priest's Latin account when he com-posed his text, how do we then explain that we find different worded texts, such as the one Rasmussen referred to?

First, Ulfeldt could not use the priest's text as it stood. With its solid em-phasis on church matters, it would hardly serve Ulfeldt's purpose, even if it appeared under Ulfeldt's name. Two other factors should, however, be tak-en into consideration: that Ulfeldt's account contains 30% less text than his priest's, and that Ulfeldt says he wrote his text in great haste (celeriter). This may, of course, be just a stock phrase to avert criticism on style and contents. However, what could Ulfeldt do, if he felt he had quickly to pro-duce a text he could use in the situation in which he found himself in 1588 after the accession to the throne of Kristian IV? He could shorten his

38. The study of Ivan Groznyi's Russia are impeded by the fact that many Western treatis-es or pamphlets contain similar and clearly interrelated information, cf. Kappeler, Ivan Groznyj im Spiegel. In this case, there is no reason to doubt that it is indeed Rüssow's chronica that influenced our two accounts. This book reached a wider audience than other relevant works and has been described as a bestseller. Its first edition was reis-sued in 1578 before the enlarged edition appeared in 1584, cf. Arved von Taube, "Der Untergang der livländischen Selbständigkeit: Die livländische Chronistik des 16. Jahrhunderts", in Georg von Rauch (Hg.), Geschichte der deutschbaltischen Geschichtsschreibung, Köln-Wien 1986, pp. 30-33. The Royal Library holds no less than three volumes of the 1578 edition and one of the 1584 edition. Of the former one belonged to the Chancellor Niels Kaas, who was closely associated with Ulfeldt, cf. Ulfeldt's eulogy to him in the preface (col. 488) to his translation of the Danish History, cf. n. 39 below. Rüssow's book may even have been acquired by Ulfeldt or members of the Embassy, since the 1578 edition came out in Rostock, which the Embassy passed through the last days of 1578.

24

priest's text by paraphrasing it and add from his own recollections, stressing those points that could help his case. Such a procedure could to a large ex-tent produce a text with the contents we find in Ulfeldt's account. It would explain the many places where the wording is not exactly the same, where an active verb in the priest's text appears in passive or in substantive form in Ulfeldt's text and vice versa, with simple synonyms intermittently re-placing an original word,39 - all, perhaps, with a wish on Ulfeldt's part to disguise dependence on another person's work.40 Here, of course, we must keep in mind the close personal relationship between Ulfeldt and Andreas, who may not only have been Ulfeldt's personal priest but could also have functioned as his personal secretary, unlike the Embassy's official secretary, Paul Vernike. In any case, Andreas seems, judging from his account, to have been present at all the same places and events Ulfeldt attended, or at least those Ulfeldt chose to include or comment upon in his account. This strongly suggests that Andreas was commissioned to take notes for Ulfeldt and, back in Denmark, perhaps, even commissioned to make his own ac-count, based on these notes 41

Both the interrelationship between our two accounts and their possibly joint dependence on a third, Rüssow's already published account, of course, raises doubts concerning their relative value as fresh travellers' accounts.

39. Here it must be kept in mind that Ulfeldt had full command of the Latin language. He was able to translate from Danish an account of Danish history 1332-1559, which he dated 1585. - He did not compose this work, as Rasmussen claims (cf. Rasmussen 1978, p. 18), since it is known in a primary Danish version. The translation was pub-lished in Ernest. Joach. de Westphalen, Monumenta inedita Rerum Germanicarum præcipue Cimbricarum et Megapolensium III, Lipsiæ 1743, cols 485-502. Here the work appears under Ulfeldt's name: Jacobi Vlefeldii Eqvitis Dani, consiliarii regni Danici &c. Historia Danica ab anno 1332. ad annvm 1559, with the postscript, "Ex Musæo sedis meæ Wlfeldsholmianæ I. Kalend. Sept. Anno 1585".

40. Even the one feature (the general disobedience of the Russian population towards Ivan Groznyi and the authorities) that, according to Nørretranders, Kappeler and Rasmussen (Nørretranders, The Shaping of Czardom, p. 150; Kappeler, Ivan Groznyj im Spiegel, p. 186; Rasmussen, Das Hodoeporicon Ruthenicum, pp. 181-82), distinguished Ulfeldt's account from other contemporary western accounts of Russia (in which the absolute power of the Grand Prince is stressed) is found word by word in the priest's account, cf. Rasmussen 1978, pp. 86-88; Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°, f. 31v.

41. It is interesting that Klevenfeldt seems to have shared this opinion, since in his note on how he found the manuscript of Andreas' account (cf. n. 19 above) he also wrote, "NB. Dette er Autographum og Rette Original, som Jacob Uhlfelts Legationß=Prest paa den Russiske Ambassade har sammenskrefven. Differer i meget fra den tröckte Hodoeporicon", cf. Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°, f. ir.

25

In this connection it is not only Ulfeldt, who, with the reference to the Livonian Apology, openly acknowledged having used at least one secon-dary work on the period and events he described. So did Andreas. Apart from the suggested use of Rüssow's Chronica,42 Andreas twice refers to Paulus Jovius.43 At a first glance the reference to Jovius is surprising, be-cause it is difficult to see what exactly Andreas can have borrowed from Jovius. The explanation is, however, not difficult to find. In 1579 Sigmund Feyerabendt published the second edition of his Die Moscouitische chroni-ca, in which German translations of Jovius' and Herberstein's texts were joined, so that it is necessary to scrutinize the small print in the introduction to the book to see that Jovius was not author of the whole text.44 In fact it is to Herberstein's text that Andreas refers. - The moment Herberstein enters as a possible source to any travelers' account of Russia, its freshness as description becomes suspect. In this respect, NN's Diary is, undoubtedly, superior to the others.

The Diary, consisting of 23 folios, is anonymous, but the author, NN, did not belong among the Embassy's aristocrats, since he differentiates between "we" and the "Lords". When NN described the journey from Novgorod to Bronnitsy, "we" went over land, while the "Lords" sailed, as Ulfeldt did according to his account.45 NN was, on the other hand, definite-ly one of the persons who were present at the negotiations. For 22 August, the day after the festive reception banquet, which gave both Ulfeldt and his priest occasion to deride Russian manners, neither Ulfeldt nor the priest

42. Not necessarily the 1584-edition, since the information on the Crimean Tatars' attack on Moscow in 1571 was found already in the earlier editions.

43. Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°. f. 13v, 14r. 44. Die Moscouitische chronica. Das ist ein gründliche beschreibung oder historia deß

mechtigen vnd gewaltigen Großfürsten in der Moscauw, Frankfurt am Mayn/ M.D.-LXXIX. Use of this German translation explains that Andreas, in the middle of his Latin text, suddenly names Lake Ilmen "der Ilmer See", cf. Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°. f. 14r and Die Moscouitische chronica f. 67a. We have a further indication that Andreas used a German translation of Herberstein and not the Latin original in this ac-count of the two rivers Tvertsa and Tsna, flowing in different directions from Torzhok: "hic affluit versus occasum Novogardiam, Ille versus Orientem" (f. 30v). Here versus occasum corresponds to the German "gegen Nidergang" (1578, 65b), whereas Herberstein's Latin text has "in Occidentem" (Sigismund Herberstain, Rerum Muscoviticarum Commentarii, Basel 1556, p. 73.)

45. "Samme dag reigste Vy fran Nougaard, om effter middag Klockenn Var fire, och reig-ste Vy thennd dag Ote mile, thil denn første Jam, brøndis, och komme Vy thennd dag offuer iij store Elffue, Men Herrerne komme til schiffs frann Nougaard." Cf. Gl. kgl. Samling nr 871 2°, f. 7r.

26

have any entry. The Diary, in contrast, describes how Bagdonn (Bogdan Bel'skii?) arrived at the Embassy's quarters in the evening to ask the lords, if they had any complaints, promising that everything would be put right, provided they consented to come to an agreement with the Tsar.46

With this in view, a likely author seems to be the Embassy's Russian interpreter, Henrik Olufsen,47 although we can definitely say that the copy we now possess was not written by Henrik Olufsen. In 1580 Henrik trans-lated a letter from Ivan Groznyi to the Danish king. On the back of the copy he added, "this letter I, Hendrik Oluffsen, have translated from Russian to Danish".48 This addition was undoubtedly written in Henrik's own hand, since it differs from the hand that copied the translation. However, there are such striking similarities between the hand that copied Henrik's translation and the hand that wrote the Diary, that the scribe in both cases must be one and the same.49 This means that the copy of the Diary, although now in the Royal Library, originated in the king's German Chancellery50 and must have been composed by somebody normally working there. Henrik Olufsen was one of the few employees of the German Chancellery who wrote in Danish. The professional language there was German.

46. Cf. Gl. kgl. Samling nr 871 2°, f. 12v-13r. For 23 August both Ulfeldt and the priest re-late briefly that a small delegation, 20 servos/ministros at the most, was invited to a brief audience with the Tsar, followed by further negotiations. The author of the Diary was present, recording who the Russian negotiators were, cf. f. 13r.

47. 1 Oct. 1573 King Frederik II ordered Peder Oxe to fix a salary for Henrich Olufsen, "who has hitherto let himself be used as Russian interpreter", cf. Kancelliets brevbøger 1571-1575, ed. L. Laursen, Kbh 1898, p. 335. Henrik is not mentioned by name in any of the three accounts, but his name is entered in the Embassy's protocol as interpreter during the negotiations in Aleksandrovskaia sloboda, cf. Rigsarkivet, TKUA Speciel del. Rusland C. Gesandtskabsarkiver Rusland 92. Rasmussen did not observe that the Embassy had its own Russian-Danish interpreter, and therefore assumed that Ulfeldt, when gathering information, had to use a German interpreter from Livonia: Ulfeldt.. "-mußte sich eines Dolmetschers bedienen, vermutlich eines Deutschen aus Livland". Cf. Rasmussen, Das Hodoeporicon Ruthenicum, p. 179.

48. "thette forschreffne haffuer ieg, Hendrich Oluffsen, fortholmeskett aff ryske paa dansk", cf. Rigsarkivet: TKUA Speciel del. Rusland AII. Akter og dokumenter vedr. det politiske forhold til Rusland. 2: 1577-86 Brevveksling mellem Zarerne Ivan IV Vasilievitsch og Feodor Ivanovitsch og Frederik II.

49. One distinctive feature can be observed in the many double " f f ' s in common words like " a f f ' and "haffue". In Henrik's hand the two vertical lines are strictly parallel with a considerable distance in-between. In the hand that copied the Diary and the transla-tion the " f f ' s start almost from the same spot at the top and then diverge downwards.

50. Which in contrast to the "Danish Chancellery" took care of Denmark's foreign rela-tions, except with Sweden.

27

If indeed Henrik Olufsen was the author, that would explain the many pieces of information not known from other sources and not found in the other two accounts: information that precisely he was able to pick up from local inhabitants during the journey.

The Diary has the full freshness of first-hand experience. In the Diary nothing indicates that the author relied on anything other than what he saw and heard. Although the manuscript is, as we saw, a fair copy made in the Chancellery, the text may have been written already during the journey.51

Back in Tartu, towards the end of his account, NN describes Ivan Groznyi's many attempts to conquer Tallinn; in doing so he dates the last attempt that Ivan made in 1577 to "in this previous year" [i dette forganngenn Aar].52

Consequently the text was written in 1578. The Diary contains much less text than the other two accounts, about

60% of Ulfeldt's text. All information is organized in the day-by-day struc-ture of a diary, and, in accordance with its strictly chronological framework, it usually only reports that the envoys this or that day arrived at this or that place, having travelled so and so far. In most cases it also mentions under which conditions they spent the night, frequently in the open, on the field. In a few cases the Embassy's itinerary according to the Diary contradicts the other two accounts. According to the Diary, the Embassy left Pskov on 28 June and arrived in Novgorod on 2 July. Ulfeldt has 30 June and 3 July; the priest, 29 June and 4 July. In this case both Ulfeldt and the priest give rather vague information on the exact stages of the journey between Pskov and Novgorod, and the Diary's version is undoubtedly to be given prior-ity.53

At a number of points, however, the Diary goes beyond an itinerary with descriptions of the places visited, or past events linked to them. These de-scriptions not only differ from similar descriptions in the other accounts, but in some cases they contradict them.

Although brief, the purely topographical descriptions in the Diary are

51. Still, there are signs of editing at one point. When the author mentions how the Embassy passed Torzhok and Tver' on the way to Moscow, he refers the reader to the end "of the book", that is, to the account of the return journey, back through the same towns, for a description of the two cities. There, such a description is in fact entered, cf. below. This limited piece of editing could, however, easily have been done during the production of the fair copy.

52. Cf. Gl. kgl. Samling nr 871 2°, f. 20r. 53. All three accounts agree that the Embassy left Novgorod on 4 August, having stayed

there at least one month and 5 days.

28

superior to the descriptions of the same places in the other two accounts. This is true of the descriptions of major places like Pskov, Novgorod, and Aleksandrovskaia sloboda. In Ulfeldt's and the priest's accounts these de-scriptions are so general that they could be written at any time and be de-scriptions of almost any Russian town: nothing here makes you exclaim, 'Yes this is Novgorod, this is Pskov'. In the Diary these descriptions are clearly made by an eyewitness.54

On a number of points the Diary gives first hand information - or at least completely new information, which is relevant not only to Russian but also to Danish history.

With the introduction above of the Diary's text on the installation of the Embassy in Novgorod (in the table collating it with the priest's and Ulfeldt's accounts), I have focused on the most noticeable and important difference in contents between the accounts: the frequent allusions in the Diary to the actions and whereabouts of Duke Magnus, King Frederik II's luckless and unpopular brother, who in the 1570s naively hoped to carve out a position for himself in Livonia with the help of Ivan Groznyi. In the other accounts, - except once in the priest's account -, they are not found, even where they otherwise describe exactly the same events.

The first time the Diary reports on Duke Magnus is on 10 June, soon af-ter the Embassy had left Pernau. The Russians then informed the Danes that Duke Magnus was in the vicinity with several hundred horsemen, although they did not know exactly where. The news alarmed the "Lords", who seem to have feared an attack from the Duke and immediately sent an envoy back to Pernau to stop the ships from leaving until further notice.55

While the Embassy stayed in Pskov, where they also, according to the Diary, lived in a house that had belonged to Duke Magnus, NN talked to one of Duke Magnus's nobles, who told how Ivan Groznyi had had two of Duke Magnus' counsellors, by the names of Jørgenn Wild and Folmer Plattennborch, tortured and finally cruelly killed.56

Later, on arrival in Novgorod back from the meeting with Groznyi, our NN relates how they met a group of Livonian prisoners on their way to be sold in Moscow. They seem to have adhered to Duke Magnus, who, NN now learns, had deserted the Tsar and gone over to the Polish King.57

54. Cf. Gl. kgl. Samling nr 871 2° f. 5r, 6r-v, 8v. 55. Cf. Gl. kgl. Samling nr 871 2°, f. 4r. 56. Cf. Gl. kgl. Samling nr 871 2° f. 5r-v. 57. Cf. Gl. kgl. Samling nr 871 2°, f. 17v-18r.

29

These are only few of the flashbacks on the relationship between Ivan Groznyi and Duke Magnus, of which we otherwise know far too little, mak-ing the Diary an important source on this neglected subject. The reason for the reticence on the part of the other accounts is not difficult to find. It would do Ulfeldt no good to remind his prospective readers in 1588, mem-bers of the government, about the career of the disgraced, and now de-ceased, Duke Magnus, nor about the contacts there had been between the Duke or his men and the Embassy: before the Embassy left Copenhagen, King Frederik II had categorically forbidden Ulfeldt to have contacts with Duke Magnus after their arrival in Livonia.58

Other historical flashbacks concern internal Russian history and are prompted by the places the Embassy passed. The sacking of Novgorod in 1570 is one event that is related in detail.59

Passing through Tver and Torzhok, on the way back, NN has a lengthy account of the conflict between Ivan Groznyi and his cousin Vladimir Andreevich Staritskii, ending with Vladimir's death and the demolition of the castles in the two towns. This is followed by an account of Simeon Bekbulatovich, in favour of whom the Tsar briefly abdicated in 1575. After Ivan Groznyi decided to resume his title he set Simeon up in Vladimir Andreevich's udel, Tver and Torzhok. This is why NN now, in turn, tells us in details about Simeon's origin.60

The relationship between Ivan Groznyi and the family of his second wife, Mariia, daughter of the Cherkassian or Karbardian ruler, Temriuk, is also given considerable space.61 So is Groznyi's alleged inclination towards cruel and abnormal sexual behaviour, and both of his sons' participation in his atrocities. NN is duly horrified.62

These accounts may not be historical correct in all details, but they do seem to reflect contemporary and, important in any western accounts, Russian views on the recent history of Ivan Groznyi's Russia. Also in this respect our Diary is a valuable and interesting source.

58. Cf. Kancelliets brevbøger 1576-1579, ed. L. Laursen, Kbh 1900, p. 352. Ulfeldt does make three references to Duke Magnus, each time referring to past links between local-ities and the Duke, but only in his account of the return trip. Cf. Rasmussen 1978, pp. 142, 148, 160.

59. Cf. Gl. kgl. Samling nr 871 2°, f. 6v. On Ulfeldt among the sources of this event, cf. Graham, 1987, pp. 179-198.

60. Cf. Gl. kgl. Samling nr 871 2°, f. 16v-17r. 61. Cf. Gl. kgl. Samling nr 871 2°, f. 18r-19v. 62. Cf. Gl. kgl. Samling nr 871 2°, f. 15v-16r.

30

Three features of the Russia with which they were confronted impressed all our three authors equally.

They noted and commented upon the numerous bands of Tatar warriors in Russian service on their way to Livonia or already in Livonia. Judging from our descriptions the Muscovite armies seem mainly to have consisted of Tatars. This was probably a psychological ploy by Groznyi, which, consider-ing the reactions of our three authors, seems to have been quite successful.

They all felt horror and compassion at the plight of the Livonian prison-ers, whom the Embassy met at several points along its route in large groups on their way into exile and slavery.

Finally, all three authors were strongly moved by the frequently reported cruelty of Groznyi, perhaps especially in dealing with his own people.63

Russian church life also earned comments from our three authors, expos-ing them as ardent, first or second generation Lutherans. These comments are, however, much more frequent in Ulfeldt's and, of course, the priest's accounts. They systematically made observations and gathered information during the long stay in Novgorod, which they accounted for in separate sec-tions of their accounts.

In the Diary such comments are few and, as usual, linked to particular places and events. NN does not make the same repeated hostile and specif-ic attacks on doctrines and practices of the Orthodox Church that we find both in the priest's and Ulfeldt's accounts. Still, the icons carried about in the traditional procession on the Feast of SS Peter and Paul, on 29 June, are characterized as idols: the Russians carried their idol with crosses and ban-ners into the church.64 Later, mentioning the many churches in Novgorod, he comments: this is where they practice their idol cult.65

63. In evaluating the reports in foreign sources on Ivan Groznyi's cruelty that sometimes are believed to be exaggerated, we should remember that Groznyi was, so to speak, a self-confessed mass murderer. In 1582/3 he circulated a number of sinodiks to major monasteries that hereafter were to commemorate his victims. The most prominent of these were mentioned by name, but the Tsar eloquently ends by reminding God that he knows the names of the others himself, "Pomjani gospodi i pročich v"pričtinu izbie-nych . vsjakogo vozrasta mužka polu i žen'ska. ichže imena sam vĕsi vladyko". Here quoted from a contemporary copy from the Valamo Monastery, now in the Orthodox Church Museum, Kuopio (Finland), SOKK 67, f. 7r.

64. "Samme tid førde Rydtzerne deris Affgud Ind Vdj Kirckenn, med korß och fauffne", cf. f. 5v.

65. "och der er enn ganndsche hob Kircker och Closter Vdj Byenn, Som de bruge deris Affguderi Vdj", cf. f. 6v.

31

It is hardly surprising that the priest, Andreas, observed and described Russian church life with interest. Ulfeldt, too, was extremely interested in church matters, which is well documented in other of his works. And it was Ulfeldt, not his priest, who directly engaged Russians in heated discussions on religious questions. Ulfeldt's self-righteous attempt - failure and resig-nation - to convince his Russian antagonists of the iniquity of the cult of saints and use of icons, assumes almost farcical proportions, with reminders of the Swedish King Magnus Eriksson's famous but ill-fated attempt in 1347 to convert the Russians to Catholicism by discussing articles of faith in a Birgittine mode.66 These discussions were recorded in both Ulfeldt's and the priest's accounts.

Ulfeldt was, however, not the only prominent member of the Embassy, who engaged Russians on religious matters. The Secretary, Paul Vernike, too, had debates on such themes as sin and saints, icons and lent. They are only recorded by Andreas,67 who blended both Ulfeldt's and Vernike's dis-cussions with his own meticulous observations into a virtual treatise on Russian church life.68

In their criticism of the Orthodox Church, both Ulfeldt and his priest first of all stressed those features they were able to detect as Papistic,69 Only the priest seems to have been aware that doctrinal and liturgical differences ex-isted between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches: the use, for instance, of unleavened bread.70 Both did, however, comment on the fact that priests in the Orthodox Church had to be married, and also that a priest had to relin-quish his office the moment he lost his wife, without being allowed to re-marry, - a fact that duly astonished Ulfeldt.71

The picture Andreas drew of the Russians' religious beliefs and their ex-ternal expressions, based on Ulfeldt's and Paul Vernike's discussions and,

66. Rasmussen 1978, pp. 68-70, 74-78; Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°, f. 20r-22r. On Magnus Eriksson, cf. John Lind, "Magnus Eriksson som birgittinsk konge i lyset af russiske kilder", in: Birgitta, hendes værk og hendes klostre i Norden, Nordiskt Birgitta-symposium i Mariager 1990, Odense 1991, p. 103-28.

67. Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°, f. 17v-18r. 68. Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°, f. 17v-25v. 69. Rasmussen 1978, p. 70-72; Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°, f. 23v, 24v-25v. 70. Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°, f. 25v. He also talk of grecorum et papistarum errores, cf.

f. 23v. 71. Rasmussen 1978, p. 74; Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°, f. 23r-23v.

32

first of all, his own detailed observations, is much fuller than Ulfeldt's. With Andreas' account we have one of the most complete western descriptions of Russian church life in the sixteenth century as it was practiced in Novgorod, by somebody who was actually there.

Ulfeldt's extremely negative attitude towards Russians and Russia as a whole has often been commented upon. A reason for this has been seen in his need to justify himself and the poor results he achieved in Russia. Accordingly, Ulfeldt is thought to have painted a darker picture than he ac-tually observed and experienced. It is, however, a fact that all three ac-counts are quite negative.

The author of the Diary directs his antipathy less against Russia than against the Tsar personally for his cruel treatment, both of his own subjects and those who came into his power. Describing the fate of the small town Bronnitsy, which at Groznyi's hand suffered the same destruction as Novgorod in 1570, our author exclaims: Almighty God, save all true Christians from such tyrants, that they do not come into their power.72

On the surface, the priest Andreas' account contains the same negative attitude towards Russia and the Russians as Ulfeldt's account. If, however, we compare their accounts closely, we notice that Ulfeldt, reading through his priest's account, must have found it too weak in its criticism. Three times, where the priest uses words like verecundia and rubor to describe how the Russians lacked these positive virtues, Ulfeldt systematically adds the word pudor.73

This is not much on which to base the view that Ulfeldt willfully distort-ed the picture. We can add that Ulfeldt let pass at least one opportunity to express his appreciation, if not gratitude, towards at least some individual Russians. All three accounts describe how Ulfeldt personally was in danger of his life, when a fire broke out in the house into which he had just moved

72. "Sammeledis lod Grotførstenn handle med enn Lidenn Kiøpsted, kaldis Brøndis liige-som hand handlet med de Nougaardsche Induonner, Saa schiennckte hand i for diße thend Almectige Barmhiertige Gud beuare alle thro Christne, fra Slig thiranner, at dj iche faa magtt offuer thennem, Som saa thiranscheligenn handler, mod deris fattige Vnndersaatte", cf. f. 7r.

73. "magis omnem pudorem ac verecundiam", cf. Rasmussen 1978, p. 56; Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°, f. 13r; "in altum extollentes, exuti omni pudore ac Verecundia", cf. Rasmussen 1978, p. 68; Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°, f. 26v; "rubore vel pudore", cf. Rasmussen 1978, p. 152; Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°, f. 56v.

33

on arrival at Pernau on June 6. According to the Diary it was a Russian Lord who brought help from the town and saved Ulfeldt.74 Both Ulfeldt and Andreas kept silence on that particular point.

But, if I am correct in assuming that the Diary is a contemporary ac-count, not influenced by secondary literature, then its gloomy picture of the part of Russia the Embassy passed through and the adverse conditions with which the Embassy was met shows that Ulfeldt in his account did not on the whole exaggerate the difficulties he met with in Russia, - as some modern scholars and perhaps his contemporary critics have thought.

It must be remembered that as soon as the Embassy left Danish held Oesel, the envoys travelled through a devastated Livonia, which was still suffering from the last Russian offensive in 1577 and the subsequent Swedish and Polish counteroffensives. Conditions did not improve much when the Embassy left the immediate war zone. The part of Russia they travelled through was equally devastated: they followed the same route as Groznyi had followed, when he sent his terror gangs to sack Klin, Tver, Torzhok, Bronnitsy, Novgorod and Pskov. Armies of soldiers and prisoners also travelled along this route, making it difficult or impossible to obtain water, food, housing and horses.

Ulfeldt's complaints on these points were not something he invented in 1588 to explain his failure in 1578. In this regard our comparative analysis of the three accounts exonerates Ulfeldt. Still, there is no doubt that Ulfeldt and his companions in Aleksandrovskaia sloboda were no match for Groznyi's unique negotiating technique.75

Based on this admittedly preliminary analysis some important conclu-sions can be drawn. Most important is the fact that the Danish account of Russia in 1578, which has for almost four centuries been known and used by scholars, Jacob Ulfeldt's Hodoeporicon Ruthenicum, does not stand alone. Two other accounts still exist in contemporary manuscripts. One, Andreas' account, may even be an autograph. The other, the Diary, is prob-ably a first fair copy, produced soon after the return of the Embassy and based on a text written during the journey by an employee of the German

74. "da kom en aff de Rydsche Herrer med enn ganndsche hob folck aff Stadenn, Wnndfich de Dannsche Herrer", cf. Gl. kgl. Samling nr 871 2°, f. 3v; Rasmussen 1978, p. 44; Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°, f. 8v.

75. On this see for instance, John H. Lind, "Ivan IV's Great State Seal and his Use of some Heraldic Symbols during the Livonian War", Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 33, München 1985, pp. 481-94.

34

Chancellery, possibly the Embassy's Russian-Danish interpreter, Henrik Olufsen.

Of these three accounts, Ulfeldt's is probably the last to have been com-posed. It is the one that has gone through the most complex process of com-pilation, being dependent on both Andreas' account and at least one other secondary work, the Livonian Apology, and possibly Rüssow's Chronica. In addition to the latter there is the possibility that Ulfeldt, while compiling his Hodoeporicon, used still another of the most popular western works to ap-pear at the time, Paul Oderborn's Life of Ivan Groznyi. That can only be de-termined by further close analysis of the two texts, but at least Ulfeldt knew Oderborn's work when, in 1588, he handed over his Hodoeporicon to the government.76 Furthermore Ulfeldt's account may be suspected of having been composed with ulterior motives in mind, which may have guided the selection of material Ulfeldt made from Andreas' account.

Andreas's account stands out as an attempt to compose a learned work according to the traditions of the period, in which his own notes and experi-ences were blended with information gleaned from both Herberstein (Jovius) and presumably Rüssow. The very ambitions Andreas seems to have made his account less valuable to us than a straightforward account of what he had learned and experienced during the journey. We now have to establish by meticulous analysis what in his account represents his own ex-perience, what he borrowed, especially from Herberstein, and where he combined the two.77

As a straightforward account the Diary is superior to the others. If the

76. In his brief relation, which he handed over to the government in 1588 together with his Hodoeporicon, he refers to Paul Oderborn's "recently published" Life of Ivan Groznyi as evidence of Groznyi's cruelty (vt ex eius vita per Paulum oderbornium, in lucem nuper edita claré conspicitur), cf. Rostgaards Samling 48 2°, p. 1. Here Ulfeldt can have had both the original Latin edition Ioannis Basilides Magni Moscoviae Ducis vita (Wittenberg 1585) and the first German edition (Görlitz 1588) in mind.

77. Also in the case of Andreas's account the possiblity exists that he used a so far uniden-tified secondary work. Both Andreas and Ulfeldt, passing Izborsk on the way towards Moscow, mentions a chapel, built in commemoration of the Russian victims of a major Russian defeat at the hands of the Livonians "forty years ago" (ante annos 40). It is impossible to find any mention of such battle in the sources and according to our knowledge of the period, it is difficult to believe that such a battle in the 1530-40s took place at all. It can hardly be any other battle than the famous Livonian victory at Lake Smolino 13 September 1502. That would, however, indicate that Andreas, and hence Ulfeldt, depended on a yet unidentified work written or published in the 1540s. Cf. Rasmussen 1978, p. 52; Ny kgl. Samling nr 2963 4°, f. 11 v.

35

interpreter Henrik Olufsen was indeed the author of the Diary, he was also the person who was in the best position to gather information on his own during the Russian part of the journey.

Although the value of Ulfeldt's account on a number of points may be seen to have been reduced through this analysis, his selection of material and the particular points of view he chose to make are, of course, always of interest. He was after all in command of the Embassy, and, even if much of his information must be considered secondary, he was still in a position to add authentic information on the basis of his own recollections. Therefore his account is not now redundant. On the other hand, it is clear that the first and most important task ahead is to make the other two accounts available to scholars. We cannot go on using Ulfeldt's account as if it is a first hand source, knowing that it is almost certainly secondary to Andreas' account.

What is needed is a parallel edition of all three texts, where Ulfeldt's ac-count is based on the extant manuscript. Such a parallel edition will provide the best opportunities for a further analysis, both of the compilatory process of composition and the determination of where the accounts interrelate, where they contain parallel but independent accounts of the same topic, and where they offer unique information.

36