Stones on the Prairie: Acculturation in Texas

The Richest Place in the World: An Early 17th-Century English Description and Military Assessment of Solovetskii Monastery

Rude & Barbarous Kingdom Revisited: Essays in Russian History and Culture in Honor of Robert O. Crummey. Chester S. L. Dunning, Russell E. Martin, and Daniel Rowland, eds. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, 2008, 309–25.       The Richest Place in the World: An Early 17th-Century English Description and Military Assessment of Solovetskii Monastery Chester S. L. Dunning In  The  British  National  Archives  at  Kew  is  a  curious,  undated  and  unsigned   document  containing  a  unique  and  valuable  description  and  military  assess-­‐‑ ment  of  “the  richest  place  this  daie  in  the  worlde,”  the  fortress-­‐‑like  Solovetskii   (or  Solovki)  Monastery  of  the  Transfiguration  located  in  Russia’s  far  north  on   a  small  group  of  islands  in  the  White  Sea.1  The  document,  written  in  English   and  dating  from  the  early  17th  century,  has  been  known  to  scholars  for  about   100  years;  it  has  been  published  twice  and  continues  to  be  mined  as  a  useful   source  by  historians  interested  in  Solovki  and  in  Russian  military  and  diplo-­‐‑ matic  history.  For  example,  in  1999  Jennifer  Spock  completed  a  fine  disserta-­‐‑ tion  about  the  Solovetskii  Monastery  in  which  she  made  extensive  use  of  the   Solovki  document  and  ably  demonstrated  the  remarkable  accuracy  of  much   of  its  unique  information.2  Nevertheless,  in  spite  of  the  attention  the  Solovki   document   has   so   far   received,   there   is   still   no   accurate   transcription   of   the   original  text  in  print.  Nor  has  anyone  attempted  to  date  the  document  pre-­‐‑ cisely,   identify   its   author,   or   carefully   examine   the   context   in   which   it   was   written.  Furthermore,  several  errors  have  crept  into  scholarship  as  a  result  of   flawed   efforts   to   use   the   document   as   a   historical   source.   This   essay,   dedi-­‐‑ cated  to  my  friend  and  mentor  Bob  Crummey,  will  attempt  to  correct  these   problems.   Professor   Vasilii   N.   Aleksandrenko   was   the   first   scholar   to   study   the   Solovki   document,   and   his   transcription   of   it   was   published   in   1911.3   But   Aleksandrenko  made  a  serious  mistake  at  the  outset  that  has  greatly  compli-­‐‑ cated  use  of  the  document  ever  since.  He  rashly  concluded  that  a  pencil  in-­‐‑ scription  (“Russia  Eliz.”)4  written  on  the  back  of  an  otherwise  blank  sheet  of   paper  which  served  as  the  document’s  cover  proved  that  the  description  of                                                                                                                             1  The   National   Archives   of   the   United   Kingdom:   Public   Record   Office,   State   Papers   Foreign  [hereafter  cited  as  S.P.]  91  [Russia],  pt.  1,  fol.  250–250v.   2  Jennifer  Baylee  Spock,  “The  Solovki  Monastery  1460–1645:  Piety  and  Patronage  in  the   Early  Modern  Russian  North”  (Ph.D.  diss.,  Yale  University,  1999).  See  esp.  37,  49,  106,   and  156.     3  V.  N.  Aleksandrenko,  ed.,  “Zapiska  neizvestnago  avtora  o  Solovetskom  monastyre,”   Starina  i  novizna  14  (1911):  193–95.   4  S.P.  91,  pt.  1,  fol.  251v.   310 CHESTER S. L. DUNNING Solovetskii  monastery  dated  from  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  I  (r.  1558–1603).5  That   led  some  historians  to  erroneously  conclude  that  Queen  Elizabeth  had  pur-­‐‑ sued  cordial  relations  with  the  tsars  while  simultaneously  plotting  to  plunder   north  Russia.  In  fact,  the  incorrect  pencil  notation  was  written  by  a  naïve  ar-­‐‑ chivist   sometime   after   the   document   was   added   to   the   Conway   Papers   but   before  the  renowned  family’s  archive  was  donated  to  the  British  government   in   1857.6   Internal   evidence   makes   it   clear   that   the   Solovki   document   dates   from  the  reign  of  James  I  (r.  1603–25)  and  that  it  was  connected  to  the  king’s   half-­‐‑baked  plan  to  intervene  in  Russia’s  Time  of  Troubles  (1598–1613).7  But  as   20th-­‐‑century  scholars  explored  King  James’s  pipedream  of  empire  in  northern   Russia,   they   generally   ignored   the   Solovki   document   because   of   Aleksan-­‐‑ drov’s  conclusion  that  it  dated  from  no  later  than  1603.8  To  their  credit,  a  few   historians  suspected  that  there  was  a  connection  between  the  Solovki  docu-­‐‑ ment  and  the  English  plan  for  intervention  in  Russia,  but  they  were  hesitant   to  say  any  more  than  that  and  failed  to  examine  the  document  carefully.9   Another  serious  problem  facing  scholars  making  use  of  Aleksandrenko’s   transcription   of   the   Solovki   document   was   the   poor   job   he   did   deciphering   early  modern  English  handwriting.10  In  preparing  the  document  for  publica-­‐‑ tion,  Aleksandrenko  made  many  mistakes.  For  example,  he  wrote  “guestes”                                                                                                                             5  Aleksandrenko,  “Zapiska,”  193n.   6  British  government  archivists  who  inventoried  the  Conway  Papers  and  distributed   them  (by  1858)  to  their  proper  new  locations  ignored  the  pencil  notation  “Eliz.”  on  S.P.   91,  pt.  1,  fol.  251v,  and  placed  the  Solovki  document  among  official  state  papers  from   the  reign  of  James  I.   7  On   the   aborted...