The Finest Diplomat: Olearius In Muscovy

I had some fun writing this piece; it's similar to that of one I did about a year ago on the subject of a scholar I regarded as a Tsarist apologist (if I remember correctly) in that his writings were easy to tear to shreds. Holsteinian diplomat Adam Olearius fares no better: I found him to be hypocritical, ignorant and far too self-righteous to even consider himself vaguely diplomatic, let alone an actual diplomat.

---

Adam Olearius was a German ambassador, secretary and translator who traveled Eurasia during the seventeenth century per the request of Duke Frederick III of Holstein-Gottorp. He was tasked with, essentially, the future of the new German settlement “Friedrichstadt”: a locale founded by Dutch settlers with Frederick III’s blessing in hopes of fostering international trade within the territorial bounds of Holstein-Gottorp. As the lead diplomat, Adam Olearius was tasked with forging trade routes and completing monetary agreements with powers that would have links to lucrative trade to the East such as Persia and Muscovy. Despite years of effort on the part of Olearius, Friedrichstadt would not garner the sort of economic activity that Frederick III hoped it would achieve and the diplomat returned to work as the duke’s archivist.

Olearius’s real contributions were historical works, most notably his narrative “Moskowitische und Persische Reise: die Holsteinische Gesandtschaft beim Schah, 1633-1639“which described the foreign peoples he encountered while traveling with his entourage across Eurasia. His entertaining commentary on the state of the Russian people under Muscovite rule, including physical features and social behavior, is very detailed and useful for a scholar hoping to garner foreign views of the Eastern Slavs throughout their historical journey. Outside of this context, however, the writings of Olearius on the subject of the Muscovites can be seen as fairly bigoted: despite the necessity that Muscovy plays in his diplomatic task, he shows little appreciation or understanding of the people or their culture. Olearius directs much criticism and abject insults upon the population of Muscovy which includes – as he sees it – rowdy and murderous slaves, sex-crazed peasants and hypocritical, foul-mouth authority figures. As will be displayed in this piece, Adam Olearius’s work is extensive and well-written yet remains uninformed as a result of the author’s inability to make sense of or draw comparisons to Russian culture. Several examples of this will be investigated, but by no means can the entire document be analyzed and picked apart: it would require a piece of at least the length of Olearius’s to do so.

The biggest flaw put forth by the German diplomat in his dealings with the Muscovites is his stark inability to regard them as possessors of a legitimate and unique way or life. The first example of this can be seen only sentences into the work when Olearius labels the Russians as having skin pigmentation similar to that of ‘other Europeans’ – an interesting statement on the base level that, with the continued exposure of Western Europeans to the Russians and the insurmountable level of difference between them, a Holy Roman diplomat would consider Russians to be Europeans . It is notable that the scholar Olearius is willing to consider the widely-reviled Muscovites as fellow Europeans – especially notable due to the history of hostility between the Russians and Western Christians observable in events such as the Baltic Crusades (in which the Germans Teutonic Order faced the Poles, who Olearius repeatedly compares to the Muscovites).

In equating the Russians with ‘other’ Europeans, Olearius seems to ignore the uniqueness of Russian culture and development that unquestionably sets Russians apart from their counterparts to the West. Russian culture is not truly European: although it is influenced by European sources such as Rurik and his Varangians who founded the famed Rus’ trading center Novgorod, Russian culture is influenced by much more. The steppe – a region that originated a way of life that can be seen as the polar opposite of settled Western Europe – had a major impact on Russian culture in that it delivered unto the divided Rus’ new military techniques, court behavior, a revamped geographical dispersion of its people as well as new concepts for taxation and legal statues. As reasoned by the historian Isabel de Madariaga, the infamous Oprichnina of Muscovy’s Ivan IV can be seen as one of the many continuing legacies of the steppe’s influence upon the Russian people – in this case, through the influence of Ivan’s second wife, Maria Temrjukovna . The influence of Byzantine culture can be seen readily in Muscovite art by observing their use of traditionally Byzantine religious icons and the Muscovite adherence to Orthodox Christianity which possesses intense historical and cultural links to the Byzantine Empire. Olearius himself notes this, but does it demeaningly by stating that the Russians go out of their way to imitate the Greek way of life in an effort to give themselves legitimacy as a people. Olearius cites the Russian practices of mimicking Byzantine appearances in the practices of wearing ‘traditional’ Greek clothing and growing out ones’ hair in order to express shame. In contrary to Olearius’s accusations, it is worth noting that within the general Christian tradition the growing of a man’s hair was considered a sign of dismay – thus, it was mostly certainly not a practice limited to the Byzantines .

“(7) For man ought not to have his head covered, as he is in God’s image and glory…
(14) Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him…”

Olearius continues to display his incomprehension of Russian culture throughout the piece. It is true that the Russians have what may be considered an aversion to outside culture – an almost humorous observation when one considers the large amount of foreign substance that the Rus’ have adapted to their own use and added into the sphere of their own society. Olearius’s view on the subject of Russian xenophobia seems to shift drastically throughout the piece: for example, at one point he is stern in his accusations of the Russians as mimics of the Greeks (as seen above). Later in the piece, he states that the Russians have few similarities with them especially in terms of language or art . This is entirely incorrect: while the Russians did conform the Byzantine religious practices to their own dialect, that would not insinuate that the Russians have ignorance to the Greek language but would actually suggest the utter opposite. The Russian Orthodox Church and Russian culture in general adapted much from Byzantine art, drawing from influences such as Christian icons and architectural practices. In stating that the Russians did not regard Greek culture, he seems to try to convince the reader that the residents of Muscovy are undeserving of carrying on the Roman and Greek legacies in the form of Orthodox Christianity, Byzantine-esque court politics and ‘Eastern’ design. In the same section of his narrative, Olearius cites examples of the Russian aversion to Classical avenues of effort such as the sciences: a Russian chancellor misunderstands the scholar’s attempts to stave off boredom through scientific antics as sorcery and brand a musically-inclined Dutch barber in a windy chamber as a heretic when the skeleton on his wall begins to move under ‘supernatural’ influence . These examples of Russian ignorance to foreign behavior are in contrast to Olearius’s constant branding of almost every Russian behavior he mentions as against the will of God and shameful to not only themselves but to their divine lord – a woefully hypocritical viewpoint from the learned Holsteinian.

It is possible that the only comparisons of substance Olearius can make are those between the uncivilized Muscovites and his own cultured German people. He cites the example of one ‘Nikita Ivanovich Romanov’, a wealth Russian xenophile whose appreciation for German culture goes misunderstood by Moscow’s Patriarch, who tricks him into removing the his European garb and disavowing it; to start the next paragraph, Olearius brands the Russians as barbarians and later says that the Russian people put little thought into foreigners . He later goes on to discuss the validity of holding skeletons for medical use (a more that Germans engaged in yet one the Russians were wary of, as can be seen above), the persecution of foreigners by Russian judges and the inability of Muscovites to regard foreigners as anything but a victim of their wiles. Going on, the ambassador states in one instance that they are a clever folk who do nothing but attempt to backstab and shame their rivals, be they neighbors or strangers, while gaining as much as possible. In the words of Jakob Ulfeldt as quoted by Olearius, Russians are “divorced… from all virtue”; he goes on for quite some time in his narrative describing the dishonesty of the Russians in attempting to achieve societal esteem and court positions . Further on, Olearius states that the Russians “are by nature cruel and fit only for slavery, [so] they must constantly be kept under a cruel and harsh yoke of restraint…” , regarding Russia’s tendency toward authoritarianism and absolutism as a show of their lack of civility. These qualities are not solely Russian traits but can be seen across the West: even a cursory knowledge of then-contemporary Italian political science piece Il Principe is a prime example, suggesting cruelty and fear as viable methods of rule in what Olearius would call ‘civilized Europe’. In addition, Olearius is not in Muscovy for the simple reason of cultural observation or societal analysis: he is among the Muscovites in order to secure politically-motivated financial matters with their ruling class. In his criticism of the Muscovites as particularly voracious toward foreigners in their attempts to gain things from them, he seems ignores the fact that he is doing the exact same thing and further invalidates himself. Olearius goes on: he compares the Russians’ lack of honor to the Germans in discussing the Muscovite inability to duel honorably as well as the offenses to the senses that no true German could bear that are commonplace in Moscow; the Muscovite tendency to disavow wine for cruder liquors is also discussed as an example of their barbarity . As an aside, he criticizes the Russian tendency to drink several times throughout his piece; he does not mention, however, the lack of refinement that almost every pre-modern society (including the Germans) shows upon the imbibing of illicit substance.

The true hypocrisy and bias of Olearius comes to pass in an observation he makes in one of the many comparisons between Muscovite and European (specifically German) civilization. In this statement, he suggests that the Russians are “very receptive” toward German techniques in the schools of artistic expression and science – a direct noncorrelation to his previous expressed beliefs that the Russians were in no way interested in such things. Olearius continues, assuming that Muscovite observers to Western forging and artwork will do all they can to steal the methods of foreigners . Olearius disregards the Western tendency to mimic technology and artwork throughout history: from the Romans putting to use Greek naval techniques to medieval Europeans copying Chinese and Middle Eastern use of gunpowder, Western Europe has had a massive history of ‘copycat’ behavior. It is possible that this statement is the opus of Olearius’s hypocritical and bigoted beliefs: while the Russian people are entirely unreceptive to all foreigners and lack culture in entirety, they are nevertheless enamored with German civilization and do all they can to plagiarize it for their own use.

Olearius’s work shines in its total inability to even touch upon the legitimacy of Muscovy’s culture outside of it being a copycat amalgamation of most groups that border the Russians. According to Baron’s translation, Moscow is populated by drunks and rogues who do nothing but cheat themselves and others out of money that will only be spent on earthly vices. Every cultural practice of the Muscovites, according to Olearius, seems to be stolen from either Western Europe or the Byzantine Empire – an entity whose legacy the Western Europeans and the Russians were competing to uphold. The German shows complete bias in his piece through constant compliments toward his own people followed by what are essentially insults against even the idea of Russian ‘culture’, stating that barbarians of the Muscovite variety possess little more than the practice of banditry and will leave it as their sole legacy. As can be seen in the provided opposing examples, the exact opposite is true: Muscovite civilization was a unique, non-European way of life that was apparently baffling to the unreceptive and fairly ignorant Olearius.

Works Cited
1 Auty, Robert and Dimitri Obolensky. Companion to Russian Studies, Vol. 1: An Introduction to Russian History. Cambridge University Press: 1976.
2. Trans. New World Translation Committee. New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn, 1984.
3. Olearius, Adam; trans. Samuel H. Baron. The Travels of Olearius in Seventeenth-Century Russia. Stanford University Press: Stanford, 1967.

---


While I value Olearius's observations on cultural and court matters in Muscovy, everything he says has to be taken with a grain of salt because he's extremely prejudiced. His writing has the potential to skew a reader's views on Russian society which, despite its 'frontier' nature to the Europeans, was similar enough to life in most of Europe; essentially, Olearius had no real grounds to insult the Muscovites as he does repeatedly. I would love to get hold of his writings on the Persians with whom he also associated, as the cultural differences must produce even greater nigh-comedic prejudice.