Topic: Factoids
Some days ago my attention was drawn to the article (or rather part of an article) in Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon (Swedish Biographical Dictionary) which covers Carl Gustaf Skytte and the Skytte family. About Skytte's career during the first half of GNW the following is stated:
"1697 utnämndes S till kommendant i Dorpat och överste för ett värvat livländskt infanteriregemente. S blev ansvarig för förstärkningen av fästningen i Dorpat, som han framgångsrikt försvarade mot ryska angrepp. 1703 lyckades S besegra en överlägsen rysk styrka vid Wimarski, men följande år blev Dorpat belägrat av ryska trupper. S tvingades efter ett hjältemodigt försvar att kapitulera, och trots löfte om fritt uttåg fördes han till Reval och kvar-hölls en längre tid i rysk fångenskap. Han frigavs och blev 1706 utnämnd till generalmajor i infanteriet och fortsatte att delta i försvaret av Baltikum. Han var 1708 förlagd till Kurland och sändes följande år med sitt regemente till Litauen."
The most interesting part here concerns the Russian attack on Dorpat 1704, which roughly translates as "Skytte was forced to surrender after a heroic defense. Despite promises of free passage he was brought to Reval and kept as a Russian prisoner for a long time. He was released and was in 1706 appointed Major General and continued to take part in the defense of the Baltic provinces."
Now, Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon is generally considered to be the most important Swedish reference work of its kind. It has been published since the late 1910's and the articles have over the years been written by some of the foremost experts we have (and have had). The part about Skytte is, particularly in light of this, absolutely awful. For starters - how could Skytte possibly have been a Russian prisoner of war in Reval in 1704?? The town wasn't captured by them until 1710... What makes things even worse is that Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon works out of the Riksarkivet building in Stockholm - with literally hundreds of Skytte letters right under their feet (to Schlippenbach, to Charles XII, to Governor Generals Dahlbergh and Frölich and so on). In fact, not even this would have been necessary - Skytte's so called "journal" of the siege was printed in 1916 and it contains sufficient information for avoiding such a mistake.
As for Skytte's "heroic defense" there were obviously other opinions (as I have mentioned before), but such opinions are symptomatic of what happens when too much weight is given to works which are based only on the writings of one side - in this case Skytte himself.
