REVIEWS 151 than of a published work. Friedman claims that 'Serbian and Croatian paramilitaryforces sought to annex portions of its [Bosnia's] territoryin the springof I992 and Croatian forces began to grab land in April I993' (P. 43). This is already a self-evidently contradictory sentence, yet on the following page she furtherclaims that '[t]he Croatian Army began its ethnic cleansing of Bosnia on April 5 1992 with its seizure of Bosanski Brod, but in I993 Croatia began an open land-grabin Bosnia afterabandoning its alliance with the Muslims'. She mentions 'the recaptureof Krajinain fall 1995 by Croatian forces' (p. 56), yet on the following page she states: 'Alsoin May, however, Croatia easily swept the Serbian forces from West Slavonia and Krajina'. In fact, she is wrong both times:the Croatian recaptureof the so-called Krajina took place in August. This book may serve as an introduction to contemporary BosniaHerzegovina , but as a workof historyit shouldbe takenwith a pinch of salt. Faculty ofHistory MARKO ATTILA HOARE University ofCambridge Poe, Marshall (ed.). EarlyExplorations of Russia. 12 VOls.RoutledgeCurzon, London and New York, 2003. I,oo8 pp. Illustrations. Maps. Tables. Notes. Bibliographies./i 295.00. DR MARSHALL POE has prepared a twelve-volume collection of foreign accounts of Muscovy from the period 1500 to I700. Poe has previously published severalworkson Muscovitica, including an analyticalbibliography of relevanttravelliteratureand the monographA People BorntoSlavey(Ithaca, NY, 2000, reviewed in SEER,8o, 2002, 3, pp. 545-46). Each volume of the series under consideration contains a bibliographic note on a particular account (editions, translations,major studies) followed by a facsimile reproduction of the earliest edition or a translation in a commonly accessible Europeanlanguage. The firstvolume alsoincludesPoe'sintroductoryarticleon foreignaccounts of Russia as a historical source. He points out the paradoxical character of these sources. They tell us about many topics poorly documented in Russian sources, and at the same time, require a great deal of caution. Poe identifies three problems associated with foreign explorations of Muscovy. First, a historian needs to decide which of the numerous accounts should be utilized as a source. Second, there is the problem of bias. A third problem, which is connected with the previous one, is that a scholar always should verify information reported by a foreign observer. Such problems are generally typical of any kind of historicalsources.Despite its focus on foreign accounts, Poe's introduction is thus devoted to important methodological issues which everyhistorianis confrontedwith. According to Poe, selection depends on the aims of a particularhistorical study. For a scholar examining a concrete event, the problem of selection is relatively easy. S/he only needs to identify sources including information on this event. For the pre-modern period of Russian history, such sources are ratherscant and usuallyalreadywell known. Selection of sourcesfor the study 152 SEER, 84, I, 2006 of a particular periodcanbe moreproblematic. Muchdependshereon the lengthoftheperiodunderinvestigation. Finally, inthecaseofthematic studies theproblemof selectionbecomescritical.A historianstudying, forexample, politicalviolence at the Muscovitecourt cannot be expected to review hundreds offoreignaccounts.Somemeasures proposedbyPoewilldefinitely helpourhistorian whomaygetlostinnumerous reports aboutexecutions and exiles(andsomehistorians oftheMuscovite courtdobecomesolostthatthey prefersimplyto ignore such informationreportedby foreignobservers). Selectionofsourcesforathematicstudyrequires theelimination ofderivative texts,theidentification ofgenresofselectedforeignaccountsandthechoosing ofrepresentative accounts,preferably withoutworrisome chronological gaps, byauthors ofvariousbackgrounds. Poesuggestsaddressing theproblemofbiasbyposingthreequestions: did theauthorhavetheopportunity towitnesswhathepretends to describe? Did theauthorhavethemeansto comprehend andportraythesame?Whatwere the author'smotivesin renderinga pictureof Muscovy?To answerthese questions,one needs to considerbiographicaldata, includingdates and conditions ofresidence, andtheauthor's status(diplomatic visitororresident). Althoughtheauthorities triedtostageaspectacle ofpower,allforeignvisitors wereby no meansfooled.Poequotestherevealingexamplesof Bussowand Massawhodidnotbuytheofficial versionofreasons forthedeathofmembers ofBorisGodunov's family.Thecompetenceoftheobserver is alsoimportant for the interpretation of his account,althougheven educatedauthorswere influenced bystereotypical Renaissance perceptions ofothercultures. Nevertheless ,Muscovysharedwith Westernkingdomssuchcommonfeaturesas Christianity, monarchyand the courtelite. Poe thusconcludesthat it was easierfor the EnglishmenGilesFletcherto understand Muscovythan for CaptainJohn Smithto comprehend the NorthAmericanIndians.Perhaps, exceptthatforSmiththeIndianswouldhaveseemednaiveprimitive people who could be convertedto the truefaith.At the same time, the militant Protestant Fletcher sawtheRussians asimmoral idolaters professing corrupted teaching.Regrettably, theissuesofreligious identity,whicharesoprominent inRenaissance travelliterature, remainoutsidethescopeofPoe'sarticle. Poedemonstrates asensitive approach tovariousgenresoftravelliterature. Cosmographies (collections of shortdescriptions of countriesor regions)are usuallyrathercrudecompilations frompreviously published sources,though theremightbe exceptions, liketheworkofMiechova.Poeprovidesa tableof borrowing amongearlycosmographies. Diplomaticreportsareusuallyfullof detailsof traveland negotiation,buttell littleaboutMuscovitelife. Ethnographiesor 'chorographies' weresubjectto Renaissance literaryconvention which demandedinformationto be arrangedinto hierarchically-nested categories(economy,history,government,etc.). Ethnographies thus pretended to be universalaccountsof Russianlife, but establishedliterary patternsoftencausedtheirauthorsto borrowfromothersources...