Research on the death of Tsarevich Dimitri

Dimitri Ioannovich, Prince of Uglitsky, son of Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible, was born in 1583, October 19th. His mother, Mary, was from the Nagi clan. Before his death, the king in his will assigned the city of Uglich to Dimitri and his mother as an inheritance, and entrusted his upbringing to his beloved and intelligent prince, Bogdan Belsky 1 . As soon as he ascended the throne, Dimitri's brother Theodore, who was almost under the tutelage of the boyars, sent Dimitri and his mother (in 1584) from Moscow to Uglich; All the Naked were exiled there; Four orders of archers were assigned to honor and protect the Tsarevich, but this removal of the Tsarevich from Moscow could not help but seem like an exile, and Theodore himself wept bitterly when parting with his brother; Belsky, the teacher, remained in Moscow to his death. In 1591, on May 15th, Demetrius died at the hands of assassins. 15 years later (in 1606) the relics of St. Demetrius, and the Tsarevich is glorified as a sufferer, innocently killed by villains. Recently, some have begun to believe that the death of the Tsarevich happened as it is described in the investigative file on the death of the Tsarevich, i.e. that he was not killed, but, in a fit of epileptic illness, stabbed himself 2. This new opinion, which does not agree with the ancient one, forces us to undertake research about the death of Tsarevich Dimitri, Prince of Uglitsky. In researching the death of the Tsarevich, we must pay attention to: 1) reliable ancient stories and chronicles and 2) witnesses to the death of the Tsarevich. 1. Ancient stories and chronicles that speak of the death of Tsarevich Dimitri are of two kinds: domestic and foreign. From among the domestic ones, we present, firstly, the Legend of the Siege of the Lavra, cellarer Abraham Palitsyn. This associate of Pozharsky and Minin represents a contemporary of Dimitrieva’s death. The death of the Tsarevich preceded the time of Palitsyn's exploits with Pozharsky and Minin only twenty years. The first followed 1591, May 15; Palitsyn's exploits against the Poles dated back to 1612. So, the Elder, as the chroniclers call him, both heard and saw what happened under Tsar Theodore Ioannovich, trace., had the convenience of knowing reliably how and why the death of the Tsarevich happened. Abraham could have known about the death of the Tsarevich all the more conveniently because the Lavra, the seat of Abraham, is closer to Uglich than Moscow, and of its many monks, some could know the Uglich matter briefly. For example, it is known that the Trinity Archimandrite was in charge of a monastery, whose lands were located in the Uglitsky and Kashinsky districts, and, consequently, the duty forced some of the Trinity monks to go to Uglich, and at the same time there was an opportunity to learn about the Uglitsky case 3. On the other hand, we have no reason to suspect Palitsyn of hating Godunov. The elder, grateful for the good deeds that Boris did for the Lavra, still spares him; wants to somewhat excuse the guilty person by the attitude of people towards him who are low in soul, although he does not hide the truth. Having spoken about the mind and glory of Boris, Avraamiy says: “Devil, the great troubles of the planners, from many troubles are brought down to this sin (Boris).” Abraham says that the innocent youth himself, when he began to grow up, was embarrassed by those close to him, heard their unreasonable indignation at his removal from the court and his brother, and, embarrassed by the enmity of others, sometimes spoke unfavorable things about Boris. Meanwhile, these reviews about Boris were transferable to Boris. Abraham narrates about the circumstances and manner of death of the Tsarevich: “He (the Tsarevich), the handsomest young man, was sent to eternal rest and unwillingly in the summer of 7099 (1591). When that gentle lamb, Dimitri Tsarevich, was slain, then the whole city of Uglich rose up, and put his murderers, Danilka Bityagovsky and Nikita Kachalov, and Mikhail Bityagovsky himself, to death.” He writes about the events that followed: “Boris killed more than two hundred people in Uglechan, sending them to Siberia, and killing others in prison with cruel deaths; Involuntarily, he ordered his mother, Queen Mary, to be tonsured, and remained in sorrow for fifteen years, but she sent her father, Theodore Nagov, with all his family to the right places, even until his death.” About the fame of such a death, the Tsarevich says this: “This evil rumor went out throughout all of Russia, and many mourned over innocent blood, but without fear, they began to inform each other about this evil deed, and this entered the ears of Boris. When Boris heard a murmur among the people about the murder of Demetrius, he was saddened” 4. This is the information our modern writer provides about the death of Demetrius! He tells us not only what he himself knew, but what was known throughout Russia. He talks about the circumstances of the death briefly but satisfactorily, simply and with clear signs not of indignation, but of disposition and favor towards Boris. The Sergius Monastery also presents another writer about the death of Tsarevich Dimitri. Chernets of the monastery of St. Sergius, German Tulupov, Starichanin (a native of the city of Staritsa), rewriting the lives of the Saints of the month of May with “command,” as he himself says, “and the blessing of the monastery of the lord archimandrite, Dionysius, in the 18th year of Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich,” also places “The Murder of St. and the blessed Tsarevich." After identifying the time of the birth of the Tsarevich and several circumstances of the death of his father, Starichanin writes: “there (Dimitri in Uglich) received much sorrow and persecution from the slave, called Boris Godunov... from there the evil slave began to think how he could pluck out the root, chosen by God as the Tsar, of this namesake, the pious Tsarevich, not even though leave an heir to their father's throne, wanting to improve the kingdom for themselves through him. Inflicting grief and distress on this pious Tsarevich many times over, and mortal poison by tasting, with malicious intent, sending to him, with the desire of evil to betray him to death... He also called some from his only begotten... One of them, named Daniel, known as Bityagovsky, the other Nikita Kachalov, so called, and others... Suddenly I left St. The youth, according to children's custom, went to play, but like wolves of unmercifulness, they attacked the Saint. One of them pulled out a knife from them in vain (suddenly), hit the saint on his neck, and cut his throat,” and so on. After this, the Old Man speaks about the beating of the murderers of Demetrius by the people, about the glorification of the young martyr, and about the fact that although the main murderer received the kingdom for which he coveted, he did not go unpunished. Here, something new that Abraham does not have, we find that Godunov, according to his power-hungry plans, used various measures to deprive the Tsarevich of his life. The same thing must be said about the reliability of Herman’s news as about Abraham. Contemporary Abraham, under Tsar Vasily Shuisky, or shortly after him, who wrote Briefly about the Tsars of Moscow, about their images, and about their age, and about their morals, describes in the most flattering terms the merits of Tsar Boris, his wisdom in ruling and caring for his subjects, but adds: “having only uncorrected behavior and separation from God, an insatiable desire for the love of power and for the former him kings, having boldness to kill; This is why retribution is accepted” 5. Explaining Boris's attempt on the death of the Tsarevich from the dispositions of Borisova's soul, the writer had the right to speak of Boris as a murderer of kings. There is not a trace of prejudice against Boris here. In a manuscript compiled under Patr. Philaret, it is said, among other things, “The relics (of the Holy Tsarevich) were found intact and unharmed, except for the parts taken from the demanding land: and the earth thirsts to enjoy the flesh of the righteous, so that it itself will be sanctified from the foul-killing hands, and not only the flesh of the saint will be intact. The sufferer, but also the vestments. And the traitor was killed by the godless,” etc. We have no need to insist that this was written by the patriarch himself. Filaret; it is enough if a contemporary of Philaret says it, and even better if several contemporaries compiled the manuscript, 6; for even more so will there be people close to the time of the Tsarevich’s death who talk about the Tsarevich’s violent death. The Uglitsky Chronicles, numbering five, are very important, both because their antiquity approaches the time of the death of the Tsarevich, and because they were written on the site of the event itself. The Rostov Chronicle is also important due to its proximity to Uglich, which belonged to the Rostov diocese 7. And they all talk about the murder of Tsarevich Godunov. The choronograph, ending with the accession of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich to the throne, reports a brief but sufficient note about the death of the Tsarevich: “that same summer,” he says, “(7099 = 1591), May 15, the noble Tsarevich Prince Dimitry Ivanovich Uglitsky was killed, by order of the Moscow boyar Boris Godunov” 8. The story of the ruin of the Moscow state, compiled by the cellarer Simon 9 under Tsar Alexei, speaks about the death of the prince as follows: “I have been living there for eight years (in Uglich), with my mother, Maria Feodorovna, to this blessed Tsarevich Dimitri, Boris Godunov is the murderer, having sent evil-speakers to him, supposedly for observance, Mikhalko, and his son, Danilka, Bityagovskikh, Nikita Kachalov, and comrades. The same curse, according to Boris’s order, slaughtered him with a knife innocently, such a young and sinless being, in the summer of 7099. The killers themselves, at the same time, accepted the reward of their lawlessness, and were torn to pieces by the people.” It is further said that Godunov forced the Nagikhs to testify that Demetrius himself had stabbed himself, and that the Uglikhians were subjected to various cruel punishments for rightful testimony 10 . Let us note that Elder German Tulupov, according to the testimony of cellarer Simon, biographer of St. Dionysius, was not only a book writer, but also a teacher of St. Archimandrite. Dionysius, which not only speaks of his contemporaneity with the murder of St. Demetrius, but it suggests an idea, perhaps his own essay, about the murder of St. Demetrius, - did he place between the lives of the Saints? We leave brief news about the death of the Tsarevich, which we find in the story of Prince Shakhovsky in memory of the Tsarevich 11, in the Russian Vremennik 12 and in the Chronicler, written from the old Chroniclers 13. This news dates back to the time of c. Alexey Mikhailovich. We also leave behind the complete news of the Chronicle of the rebellions, the Chronicles: Nikon, Morozov, Rostov, from which Karamzin borrowed a detailed history of the murder of Demetrius. The content of all of them is the same: they all say that Demetrius was killed by the will of Godunov. Thus, Russian notes and chronicles: a) agree with each other that Tsarevich Dimitri died a violent death at the hands of villains; b) they all expose Godunov as a participant in the death of the Tsarevich, and some of these news were written by people who lived at the same time as the death of the Tsarevich; others - by people who lived close to the time of his death, so that they could see and listen to his contemporaries; some news was compiled by people who could recognize the truth in its exact form, both by their external circumstances and by the ability of their minds, and by their moral qualities were disposed to recognize and tell the truth; the impeccability of others is protected, at least, by their agreement with the first. Foreigners Ber 14, Petrei, Margeret 15, Paerele 16, writers of two Polish diaries about the Pretender, Zholkiewski, who were in Russia under Godunov and the Pretenders; Chancellor Zamoyski, King Sigismund, Schaum, a German in the Swedish service, who participated in the Swedes' campaigns in Russia until the end of 1613. De-Tu, who borrowed information partly from the same writers, partly from other sources, Courlander Reitenfels, who lived in Moscow under Alexei Mikhailovich 17, also write about the murder of Dmitry. Margeret arrived in Russia a year after the death of the prince, Ber - in 1600, Petrey - in 1608. Margeret was captain of the False Dmitry's guard. Hetman Zholkiewski, whose notes on the Moscow War are distinguished by both his correct view of objects and impartiality, presents the story of the death of the Tsarevich in accordance with our chronicles, even regarding the details of the case. True, some of these foreigners speak about the fate of Tsarevich Dimitri not in all the same ways. But there were reasons for this, now very well known. So Margeret and Paerle claim that although by the will of Godunov Dimitri was killed in Uglich, it was not the true son of the Terrible John, but a false one, and that it was as if the true Dimitri was saved. This is said by the followers of the Pretender, whom even Zolkiewski denounces 18. Excluding fiction from this news, we read the story of the murder of the Tsarevich. Other contradictions do not constitute contradictions. For example, Ber says that the Tsarevich was stabbed to death in the very place where he was playing; De-Tu heard from various people that Dimitri was waylaid as he was leaving the porch. Is this a contradiction? Petrey writes that it is as if the Tsarevich came out onto the porch on the occasion of a fire. But it is known that as soon as they learned about the death of the Tsarevich, there was a great alarm - the alarm was sounded, many thought and talked about the fire; there is nothing special if Petrei says (his words are repeated by Shaum) that it was on the occasion of this fire that Dimitri came out onto the porch. But even if we didn’t know how to explain the discrepancies between the three narrators: do we have the right not to believe them at all? If we know that foreigners decisively attribute to Godunov a plan for the life of the Tsarevich; that others of them directly speak about the fulfillment of the plan for the son of the Terrible; that for the most part they agree in detail, then why not trust their main news, that the Tsarevich died at the hands of villains? But in order to see whether these writers had grounds for the news of the death of the Tsarevich, we will write out several places from their legends. “Moscow boyars,” writes Paerle, “in 1606, June 6, 15 years after the death of St. Tsarevich, before the Polish ambassadors they read a paper with the following content: “Several years before this, after the death of our V.K. Ivan Vasilyevich, two sons remained: the eldest of them, Theodore, ascended the throne, and the youngest, Dimitri Ioannovich, still young in years, received three appanage principalities as an inheritance from his father and lived in the city of Uglich; but subsequently, for our sins, by the will of the Almighty, Boris Godunov destroyed the Tsarevich, and he himself took possession of the throne of the Great Principality,” and so on. Pan Gonsevsky, at the end of his speech, answered the boyars: “Our Most Gracious Sovereign, several years ago, received news that after the death of V.K. Ivan Vasilyevich, left behind a young son, Dmitry Ivanovich, to whom his father, during his lifetime, granted the Principality of Uglitsky with two others; Then the rumor spread that the Tsarevich was secretly killed by Boris, to the great sorrow of all Poles: we mourn this death out of Christian compassion” 19. The speech of the Moscow boyars was published in the Diary of Ambassador Gonsevsky himself, before whom it was spoken 20 . In the same Diary of Gonsevsky, 1606, May 27, the Polish Ambassador, Pan Velizhsky, by the way, says to our boyars: “We knew that after the death of your Sovereign, Ivan Vasilyevich, a son, Dmitry, remained; Then a rumor spread that Boris Godunov ordered to kill him for his own benefit.” This was said in response to a speech by Nashchokin, who, on behalf of the Russian boyars, told the ambassadors that after Ivan Vasilyevich there was a son, Dmitry, and that evil people took his life 21. In the Diary of Marina Mnishek it is written that on June 23, 1606, Pan Malakhovsky answered our boyars: “It was known among us in Poland that Boris ordered the death of the Tsarevich, which we, the Poles, heartily regretted out of Christian duty” 22 . So, in Russia they knew that Boris Godunov had killed the Tsarevich; in Poland they knew that the Tsarevich had been killed by Boris and mourned his death. Petrey, denouncing the imposture of the first False Dmitry, writes: “The noble Polish nobleman, Jan Sapieha, said that to spite the Russians, Dmitry, the son of Ivan Vasilyevich, who was killed both in Uglich and in Moscow, was resurrected again, and must conquer them, even if they went crazy with frustration.” Sapieha was the commander of the Polish troops that devastated Russia during the Pretenders. In addition, Petrei and De-Tu know about the testimony of Queen Martha, which she said before the death of False Demetrius about the murder of her son in Uglich 23. Ber 24 points to the captive noblewoman Tizenhausen, who served as Queen Martha's midwife and lived with her in Moscow and Uglich, who assured Ber that Dimitri Tsarevich had been stabbed to death in Uglich; In Uglich, a venerable old man, a former servant of the queen, crossed himself and answered: “Ivan’s son was really stabbed to death here in Uglich; I saw him both alive and dead every day; he was stabbed to death by the villains sent in the place where he always played.” It is clear in itself that other foreigners, those who lived in Russia, in a year or 10 years, could learn the truth from many people close to the matter 25. So, the news from foreigners says: a) that Demetrius was killed by the will of Godunov; b) this news was written by people who were in Russia a year, ten years after the death of the Tsarevich, and therefore had the convenience of receiving information about the matter; c) these news were compiled not only by private people, but also by government officials who had the need and means to find out about such political events; d) some of them refer to eyewitness testimony; in others, they are evidenced by diplomatic papers, where both Russia and Poland talk about the violent death of the Tsarevich; e) the differences between some foreign information do not at all prevent one from seeing the truth, but even more reveal it. Therefore, considering Russian and foreign news, we see that it was in vain that they said that the news of the violent death of the Tsarevich was compiled to please the Romanovs. Both Russians and foreigners talk about the murder of Demetrius, and they talk about it long before the accession of Mikhail Feodorovich. They unfairly wrote that the same news was composed of hatred of Boris Godunov, because the murder of Demetrius was known in Poland at a time when no one had yet thought about False Demetrius, so that it would be in vain to accuse Godunov in his favor. In Russia they knew about the same thing at the time of the Tsarevich’s death, when Boris’s previous deeds forced them to love him. And where is this blind hatred of Boris? The people blessed Boris for his beneficent orders. “And for the sake of nation-wide buildings such people should be kind to everyone,” says Palitsyn. Those who write about Boris’s participation in the death of the Tsarevich do not show any hatred towards Godunov, but on the contrary give all due credit to his qualities. All of Russia blames him for the death of the Tsarevich? But what to do when all of Russia knew this sin was Boris’s. It is also unfair that all the news about the violent death of the Tsarevich is based only on popular rumor. Even if some news had not indicated witnesses to the death of the Tsarevich, they would not have had the right to think so about the basis of the news regarding the death of the Tsarevich. People who write about the murder of Demetrius were neither without the means to verify rumors, nor without the love to find out the truth. Palitsyn writes: “This evil rumor (about the murder of Demetrius) spread throughout all of Russia, and many mourned the innocent blood, but without fear they were informed about this evil deed.” And then, following the first news of the death of the Tsarevich, some began to boldly, despite the power of Godunov’s Ruler, inquire about the matter, i.e. they asked others, looked for people who knew the matter briefly, tested it, and verified it. Consequently, they did not blindly believe the rumor and did not stop at it. This happened after death. The same thing happened in subsequent times, no doubt with better consequences. The truth is always dear. Further: the details with which they talk about the death of the Tsarevich, in themselves already prove that the news of the violent death of Demetrius is not the fruit of rumor, but history. We are shown the persons who participated in the death of the Tsarevich, the place, time, instrument of death, victims who died innocently as a result of the same death. How many proper names are there in the story of the Tsarevich’s death! Kachalovs, Bityagovskys, Volokhovs, Nagiye, Zagryazhsky, Chepchugov. Grigory Vasilyevich Godunov is an opponent of violent measures. There are so many special circumstances surrounding the death of Demetrius! Osip Volokhov asks Dimitri on the porch: “You, sir, have a new necklace,” and Dimitri, with childish simplicity, raising his head, answers: “No, it’s old.” Volokhov, having delivered an unsuccessful blow, became timid at the cry of the nurse and rushed to run, while Bityagovsky and Kachalov finished the job of the villains. It's not rumor that speaks here. Everything here is so detailed, and together so natural and simple, that only the story of a true historian of the case is visible. Of course, if such a story had been compiled in the 19th century, they could have recognized it as something similar to a work of art. But it is known that neither under Tsar Shuisky, nor under Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, tragedies or novels were written in our country. Let us turn from the narrators to the content of their news. First of all; Was the death of Tsarevich Godunov, or any of the nobles, necessary when Dimitri, born from Ioannov’s seventh marriage, hardly had the right to the throne? But Demetrius was called Tsarevich, his brother was the Tsar and the entire State, his name was remembered in litanies, and he was surrounded by the royal court. Boris himself pointed out that he was the royal son even to his elder brother, Theodore. When Met. Dionysius and some nobles represented to the Tsar, Theodore, that his wife, Godunov’s sister, was barren, and therefore, for the peace of the State, Theodore could only enter into a new marriage. Boris told M. Dionysius that it would be worse for the State if Theodore had children, since then civil strife would begin between them and his uncle, Dimitri: so Godunov was convinced of Dimitri’s rights to throne Did Godunov show his desire for a royal crown? The same answer from Godunov to the Metropolitan shows that Godunov, quite long before the death of Demetrius, showed a desire to keep the royal throne as close to himself as possible. And how great was the harassment! What terrible sacrifices it made for its unclean goal! The boyars paid Boris dearly for wanting to take away Boris’s hope for the throne. Godunov in 1586 forced the Shuiskys' servant to denounce the Shuiskys for treason against the Tsar. Andrei Ivanovich and Ivan Petrovich, despite their excellent services to their Fatherland, were captured and sent to their homelands; the servants were tortured, but they did not learn anything and, however, the Shuiskys were later sent to Beloozero, where they were strangled. Princes: Tatev, Urusov, Kolychev, Bykasov, adherents of the Shuiskys, were sent to different cities in prison. Dionysius, Metropolitan and Varlaam, Bishop of Krutitsa, were overthrown and imprisoned in Novgorod monasteries. Let Godunov at this time not directly seek the royal crown, but only wanted to keep to himself the power with which he was invested. But how far was it from one desire to another? And in the position of the childless Fyodor Ivanovich, and in the position of Boris, who even then lacked only the name of the tsar, both - power and crown - meant almost the same thing. Defenders of Godunov’s honor say: “Boris, without encroaching on the life of Tsarevich Dimitri, could have reached the throne: he had the clergy, had a strong side among the boyars, attracted the people to himself with good deeds, so that, after the death of Fedorova, Russia begged Boris to accept the royal crown.” But the latter did not happen during the life of the Tsarevich, but rather after death. The Russian people loved their family of kings too much to exchange Demetrius for Boris. We see this clearly in the story of the false Demetrius. As soon as he appeared with the name of the son of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, Boris, born a boyar, was rejected. “Saved innocence spoke for this Demetrius.” But there was imposture against him, which the boyars and the people of the patriarchs assured. Job, consigning the Pretender to damnation. If they did not believe the patriarch in this case, then they would have believed him even less when, in defense of Boris, he pointed out the illegitimacy of John’s son. And let Boris, by whatever means, reach the throne during the life of Tsarevich Dimitri: Boris could not imagine that the true son of the king would allow him to sit quietly on the throne. Boris saw very well and knew that the nobles were always against him; therefore, I could not assume that even in the case when Dimitri himself did not show the disposition to challenge Boris’s right to the throne, the boyars would not begin to restore Dimitri against Boris. “Boris, who knew people so well, the far-sighted Boris, could not consult with many about ways to bring Demetrius to the grave; on the contrary, he is presented as acting in the story of the violent death of the Tsarevich.” But Boris the Ruler could not do without participants and advisers in plans for the life of the Tsarevich; could he really go to Uglich to kill Demetrius? Prudence itself demanded that the ruler not expose his name to the bloody history and communicate with the murderers through others. Attorney Kleshnin was a necessary intermediary for Boris. Moreover, Boris was never brave in his undertakings. This is how he appears in the chronicles about the violent death of the Tsarevich. That is why Palitsyn’s news is so natural that there were people who, exposing the danger that threatened Russia from Dimitri, inclined Boris to sin. Moreover, it is easy to say: kill Chepchugov and Zagryazhsky, who refused to carry out Borisova’s will, kill Tsarevich Dimitri. But it was not easy for Boris to do this, for him, who was forced, as little as possible, to use drastic measures in front of the people for his own purposes. Could Boris have inspired the killers to finish the job at night? But how was it possible to get into the palace of Demetrius at night, which had a large courtyard, which was taken care of by the queen mother? During the day the crime was committed by three persons; and for the night business it was necessary to persuade the guards, bed-maids, etc. Moreover, the point was not how to commit a murder, but how to explain it, without obvious harm to oneself and others. During the day, Dimitri could play, and, in a careless game, fall, prick himself, or lose his life in a thousand other ways; But at night, during peace, the loss of life could depend almost entirely on the villain. Thus, the story of the violent death of the Tsarevich is also imprinted with internal signs of authenticity. “What do witnesses to the death of Demetrius say? Their testimony is different in different ancient monuments. According to the chronicles, when asked by the judges about the death of the Tsarevich, “The people of Uglich cried out unanimously - monks and priests, men and women, old and young, that Mikhail Bityagovsky was killed by his slaves, at the behest of Boris Godunov and his advisors.” But in the investigative paper that has reached us, most of the witnesses say that Dmitry, in an epileptic illness, stabbed himself. According to the chronicles 26, the nurse Irina (Zhdanova, by her husband Zhdan, and Tuchkova, by the fact that her husband was Zhdan Tuchkov) 27 with their own eyes, saw the slaughter of the Tsarevich, and from her hands the villains stole the still trembling victim: in the investigative paper she speaks of his self-slaughter. Who to believe? Let us consider in detail the State Charter. Reading the investigative file, as it was published in the Collection of State Charters 28, first of all we see that it is incomplete: there is no very beginning; There are not even a few lines in the middle, some erased, some torn off, as the publisher notes. One cannot help but pause at this and think whether it is possible to completely trust a paper in which there is neither a beginning nor any middle ground - trust in such an important case, such as a criminal case? But let's see what is contained in the paper that has reached us? Prince Vasily Shuisky, Okolnichy Andrei Kleshnin and Clerk Elizar Vyluzgin are investigating the case of the death of the Tsarevich. Interrogated by them first of all, Mikhail Nagoy, reveals that Dimitry was stabbed to death by Volokhov, Kachalov and Danila Bityagovsky; that the townspeople killed his killers, and that they will in vain pay for him, Mikhail, as if he ordered the collection and placement of various weapons on the bodies of the murdered. Andrei Nagoy says that when he ran to the palace, they told him that the Tsarevich had been stabbed to death, although he himself did not see the culprits; He, Nagoy, adds that the Tsarevich had previously suffered from epilepsy. The Resurrection archimandrite, Theodorit, and the Alekseevsky abbot Savvaty, testify that the Tsarevich was killed, explaining that the monastery servants told them about this, who they sent specially to the city and learned about this from the townspeople and pososhny people (recruits) 29 . The abbot adds that the queen herself told him personally that the Tsarevich was stabbed to death, namely: Kachalov, Bityagovsky and Volokhov. The groom Danila, by the way, mentioned that when he and his father ran to the city to the Dyachya Izba (Prikaz), the townspeople said that in this hut were the killers of the Tsarevich - Bityagovsky and Kachalov. Contrary to this testimony, the clerk, Rakov Rusin, testifies that the Tsarevich himself sacrificed himself, in an epileptic illness, that Mikhail Narofi ordered deadly weapons to be laid on the dead; and to the question; Why did he do this? - Mikhail Nagoy spoke in order to show that these people were definitely the killers of the Tsarevich. Grigory Nagoy, confirming Rusin’s words, says that, having run to the palace, he saw the Tsarevich lying, stabbed himself in epilepsy; at the same time he also mentions that at that time they said that the Tsarevich was stabbed to death. Volokhova's mother, in her lengthy testimony, explains that the Tsarevich had previously been subjected to attacks of epilepsy, and in this attack he killed himself while playing with a knife with the residents; that the queen, the mother of the Tsarevich, seeing him dead, beat her, calling her son and his comrades murderers. The tenants, or boyar children, who, according to them, played with the Tsarevich, the nurse Irina and the bed-wife Marya also testified to the self-immolation of the Tsarevich. The attorney, Yudin, who, according to him, was standing at the supplier’s office at the time, presented himself as an eyewitness to the same death. Many others also show behind these, but they all spoke by ear. These are the testimonies of two opposing sides! Which side is the truth on? Speaking about the investigative paper, first of all, of course, we must ask, who carried out and recorded the investigations? If the judges to whom testimony was given about the death of the Tsarevich do not deserve complete confidence in themselves, then, of course, the case, which so much depended on their orders, cannot be considered among those beyond doubt. Who are these judges? Deacon Vyluzgin is unknown; We only see that the following year he was the first Secretary of the Duma. But A. Kleshnin could not judge in favor of the truth. The chronicles indicate in him the most zealous minion of Borisov and a participant in plans against the Tsarevich. With Godunov’s accession to the throne, A. Kleshnin is a defender against those who did not want to see a non-crimson king; We see this in Grimavsky’s speeches. Prince V Shuisky, as a family enemy of Godunov, can, apparently, vouch for the fidelity of the investigation; he can even say more against Godunov than he ever had, in order to take revenge on the long-time enemy of his family: but the hope is in vain! Godunov had already made peace with Shuisky, and even became related to them. Vasily Shuisky’s younger brother, Dimitry, had recently been married to Godunov’s brother-in-law and in 1591 received the rank of Boyar. Prince Vasily, more cunning than brave, always took advantage of circumstances; Now there was no hope for him to destroy Boris, even if he had not concealed the traces of the murder; The ruler could do anything before the Tsar, he could accuse Shuisky himself: the well-known fate of the Shuiskys and Metropolitan Dionysius with Bishop Varlaam is proof of this. Moreover, Prince Vasily is connected with the comrade of the okolnichy Kleshnin in the investigation; and Kleshnin had already arranged the matter in advance as it was necessary for Godunov. It happens that the crafty conscience, completely occupied with hiding the traces of the injustice of others and its own, at the very first step makes mistakes that expose its other untruths, and on the very first line writes evidence for itself. a) Interrogation of Mihaile Naroma. This very first interrogation in the investigative paper is proposed as follows: “Which custom of the Tsarevich did not become? And what is his illness? And why did he order Bityagovsky to be killed? If you have already asked: how did the Tsarevich die? then the question is: “and what is his illness?” or superfluous, or it indicates the special intentions of the judges. If we wanted to clarify the first with a second question, then it would be necessary to ask: did the Tsarevich die of illness or by violence? By asking only about the illness of the judges, they make you think that they want them not to talk about the violent death of the Tsarevich, but only to confirm that he stabbed himself in a fit of illness, known to them, the judges. Whatever you want, these questions are suspicious. b) But here is another suspicion of the investigators being untruthful, aroused by the very beginning of their case. The investigators begin, first of all, to interrogate Mikhail Nagoy, and interrogate not only about the death of the Tsarevich, but also about why Nagoy ordered the death of Bityagovsky and others; why did he order to put knives on the dead; Why did he gather people and swear in Rusin Rakov? It is clear to everyone that the essential matter, the matter of the greatest importance, which the investigators had to deal with, is the death of the Tsarevich; and they, for the very first time, pose questions that are completely irrelevant to the main issue. It is clear to everyone that the essential matter, the matter of the greatest importance, which the investigators had to deal with, is the death of the Tsarevich; and they, for the very first time, pose questions that are completely irrelevant to the main issue. Whether Nagoy ordered or did not order to place knives on the corpses of the dead, this not only has no connection with the death of the Tsarevich, but also does not serve to accuse or justify Nagoy in relation to the death of Bityagovsky and others. Whether Nagoy ordered or did not order the murder of Bityagovsky and others is a separate matter, the case for which should have taken place only at the end of the investigation into the death of the Tsarevich, and not at the very beginning. Otherwise, the investigators already show with their very first interrogation that they do not want to bring the main case to clarity, but decided to confuse it and, if possible, present it in a different form. c) The same beginning of the investigation and the circumstances of the case fully justify the news of the chronicle that a correct report was received about the events in Uglich in Moscow, but, instead of this report, Godunov presented to the Tsar another, prepared in advance, about the self-immolation of the Tsarevich in an epileptic illness. Why do the investigators begin their interrogations by interrogating not only about the Tsarevich’s illness, but also about various circumstances? After the death of the Bityagovskys, Kachalov, Tretyakov, the city remained in the power of the Nagikhs, who, without a doubt, wrote neither about the illness of the Tsarevich, nor about the fact that Mikhail Nagoy ordered the murder of the Bityagovskys. Where did this news come from in the very first interrogation? If we assume that the investigators, upon arrival in Uglich, first of all listened to the city clerk, Rusin Rakov, and from his testimony they took their questions to M. Nagoy, then again this is not in order, why is the denunciation of people so important, such as Nagiy, relatives of the Tsarevich, at the very beginning of the case brought into suspicion, and the denunciation of a person of so little significance is preferred to him? Everyone will agree that, preferring the denunciation of some mayor to the denunciation of the Nagikhs, the investigators reveal, at least, some kind of hostility towards the Nagikhs and their denunciation - hostility, which itself exposes the unclean course of the case. In the interrogations and investigation of the case, we find a strong bias towards the side of the witnesses to the self-immolation; on the opposite side - inattention. How is the investigation carried out? Not openly, but secretly: judges call one or two people. Meanwhile, the punishment for killing the supposedly slandered killers of the Tsarevich will fall on the entire Uglich - up to 200 people will be punished with death, others will be sent to Siberia. Was it possible to accuse and punish the guilty without asking them themselves whether they were guilty? The investigators definitely didn’t want to back down the first time. from order. They, as the above passages of the chronicle show, gathered the clergy and citizens. And after? It is safer to secretly force one or the other to confirm a fictitious lie. Now the will to call on those whom they want and do whatever they wanted: threats, caresses, punishments were easy to use. Most noticeable in this study is a predilection for false witnesses and coldness towards the opposing side. Investigators are not at all trying to find and question those who spoke and could speak about the killing of Dmitry. On the contrary, with all zeal they strive to strengthen the opposing side, at least many witnesses. As soon as they hear that one or the other allegedly saw or heard something related to self-immolation, they immediately call and interrogate about the details that are only harmless 30. On the contrary, as soon as anyone speaks about the murder of Demetrius, about the circumstances of this case, about the consequences, there is silence. So, Andrei Nagoy says: “and they say that this (Dimitri) was stabbed to death.” Grigory Nagoi mentions: “and they began to say, who knows who, that it was as if Tsarevich Dimitri was stabbed to death by Danila Bityagovsky and his comrades.” But are they asking both of them who said that the Tsarevich was stabbed to death? No! Archimandrite Theodorit and Abbot Savvaty convey a rumor about the death of Demetrius and say that this rumor was brought to them by their monastic servants, and these heard about it from the townspeople. Shouldn't the monastery servants have been interrogated: did they convey the news of the murder of the Tsarevich to the archimandrite and the abbot, and if it was conveyed to them, then where did they get the news from? Who were the townspeople from whom they heard about the murder of Dmitry? It would also be necessary to find and interrogate those townspeople from whom the rumor was received, did they say, and on what basis did they say that their Prince was killed? But they don't care about all this. Hegumen Savvaty adds that the queen herself named the Tsarevich’s killers to him; Volokhov’s mother points out to the queen that she called her son, Osip, Danila Bityagovsky and Nikita Kachalov the murderers; but will they learn from the queen herself why she accused the named persons of killing her son? Not at all! Meanwhile, from whom should one first of all have asked about the fate of the Tsarevich, if not from the tender, vigilant mother, who, according to the testimony of Volokhova herself and others, was the first to come to her son, who was struggling with death? It’s funny to think that they don’t ask the queen, as if out of respect for her: we see what respect there was for this mother of the Tsarevich when they sent her into captivity! The sexton Ogurets, who sounded the alarm, is clearly confused and lying: he says that he was in the house when Maxim Kuznetsov sounded the alarm at the Savior, and that he was ordered, under Gregory the Nag, to sound the alarm by the solicitor Saturday, on the orders of the queen. Grigory Nagoy replies that he did not hear at all that the queen ordered the alarm to be sounded, and Cucumber only told him that Saturday ordered him to sound the alarm bell, and that Mikhail Bityagovsky ran to the bell tower, but he locked himself in and did not let him in. The investigators are not looking for the truth - they are not interrogating a) Ogurets: why did he know that Kuznetsov was sounding the alarm, and did Bityagovsky really resort to the bell tower, but he did not let him in? nor b) Kuznetsov: did he really sound the alarm, and if he did, when and why? c) no Saturday: did you order the Cucumber to sound the alarm? The investigators' efforts not to reveal the truth are as clear as day; however, despite all their efforts, a trace of truth remained: the news of the violent death of the Tsarevich was tried to be extinguished by those who were accused of this death. The chronicles reveal to us the whole truth, showing that the cathedral sexton of Spassky himself saw how the Tsarevich was killed and hastened, locking himself in the bell tower, to strike. to the alarm, and the killers tried to kill him for that. And since the fidelity of the news to the chronicle in this case is justified in part by the clear words of the investigative case itself, it is obvious what the conscience of the investigators was. Thus, it is clear that the investigators are not trying to expose the guilty, justify innocence, but to present the villains as right, to confuse all the networks of the victim with secret malice, to hide the true course of the case and give it a completely different appearance. But, despite the fact that the investigators, according to the investigative paper, tried to support the side of the imaginary witnesses of the self-immolation, the testimonies of these witnesses partly do not have the proper strength, partly are filled with contradictions and lies - yet in the aggregate they prove a useless effort to hide the truth. It is clear in itself how much power they have: a) the testimony of people who, as can be seen from their own words, shared bread and salt with Bityagovsky, a participant in the murder of Dmitry, and, perhaps, with others; This is, for example, the testimony of priest Bogdan. b) The testimony of the nurse Irina and the bedmaid Maria Samoilova, who, according to Volokhova, were at the death of the Tsarevich, is brief, which makes them suspicious. Irina’s testimony, as recorded by investigators, is even strange to the extreme. She says to witnesses: “Tsarevich Dimitri walked around the yard on Saturday, playing with the tenant with a knife, and she didn’t save him, when a black illness came to the Tsarevich.” Why this self-accusation: “and she didn’t save that one?” She was not the only one with the Tsarevich, and if anyone should take care of the Tsarevich, then especially Volokhov’s mother. Why not, why didn’t they demand and write down this consciousness not only from Osipova, but also from Volokhova? Here again we can see confirmation from the news of the chronicle that Irina did not show what she wanted: for this they present her as a repentant culprit in the death of the Tsarevich. c) The testimony of young children 31 with whom the Tsarevich allegedly played before his death has no force at all: if fear could force those of age to change the truth, then what can be said about the children? They repeated what Irina and Marya said. The investigators asked them: who else was at the death of the Tsarevich? And they pointed to the nurse, Irina, and the bed-maid, Maryo, but missed the mother, Vasilisa Volokhova. The investigators did not pay attention to this omission of the most important person, while the mother is more important than the nurse and bed-maid. What does this all mean? The children spoke in fear, not knowing what they were saying, taught by a not entirely clever trickery that sought to hide their mother, the mother of the murderer Osip Volokhov, from view; and the investigators did not care about the truth. Then, whose children were these? One of them, Tuchkov, was the son of the mentioned nurse, Irina Tuchkova-Zhdanova; another, Pyotr Samoilov Kolobov, son of the bed-wife Samoilova-Kolobova, who also confirmed the lie; the third, Grigory Aidreev Kozlov, the son of Andrei Kozlov, although he was not at the death of Demetrius, but testified to his self-immolation. Meanwhile, with the testimony of the children, they most of all think to confirm the side of the witnesses to the self-immolation, precisely because these boys said that while the Tsarevich was dying, there was no one except the nurse and the bed-maid, neither Bityagovsky, nor Volokhov. d) According to the investigative paper, another witness is presented as an eyewitness to the self-immolation of the Tsarevich, Solicitor Semyon Yudin, who, according to him, stood at the supplier and himself saw how the Tsarevich was stabbed with a knife. Can't you see who this lawyer Yudin is? But it is very doubtful that, standing at the supplier, who, of course, was standing in the house near the table at which the Tsarina was dining, and not in the courtyard, he could see that the Tsarevich had stabbed himself in the courtyard. All the other witnesses who say in the investigative paper that the Tsarevich stabbed himself during the game speak about this from hearsay, from the words of others. At the same time, the testimonies of the alleged witnesses to the self-immolation are extremely inconsistent with each other, and this disagreement of evidence was left unexplained by the investigators. Almost all of these witnesses testify that the weapon of self-immolation was a knife, but, however, they report in the petition to the Tsar himself that Demetrius was playing with his peers with a piledriver, and when illness struck, he fell and stabbed himself 32. Curious to know what caused this disagreement? It seems that it was like this: Volokhova announced during the interrogation that the Tsarevich once, in a fit of epileptic illness, impaled his mother with a pile. The ignoramuses did not have time to solidify this invention and transferred the past to the present, giving the old lie a new look; Without communicating with the others, they said that the Tsarevich impaled himself with a pile and died from it. Shuisky, of course, would not have allowed this absurdity to be recorded when taking the testimony; but this is shown in the petition, which was submitted to the king. Almost all witnesses to the self-immolation allow Demetrius, who is lying down, to stab himself. But the boyar’s son, Kozlov, says that the Tsarevich “stabbed himself to death with a knife.” This feature of ignorance was not considered necessary to correct. The priest Bogdai, who carried bread and salt with Bityagovsky, says that Mikhaila Bityagovsky was still at home, having dinner, when the Savior’s bell suddenly rang, and he, Mikhaila, having sent to find out about the cause of the alarm, heard in the house about the death of the Tsarevich; after that he immediately went to the courtyard of the Tsarevich, where he was killed; Mikhail's son, Danila Bityagovsky, was also at home having dinner when the news of the Tsarevich's death was received. But the Uglitsky messengers, although they talk about the self-immolation of the Tsarevich, show that Mikhail Bityagovsky, having heard the alarm, went with his son to Dyachyo’s hut (next, not directly and not immediately to the palace), and here Mokhovikov told him (next, not in the house) that the Tsarevich was sick with epilepsy (still only about the illness), after which Bityagovsky went to the queen, and his son remained in the Dyachiya Izba. How many contradictions are there! To clarify, one would have to ask the watchman of the Dyachya Izba, Evdokim Mikhailov: was Mikhailo in the hut? When did you come? What did you say or do? When did his son come there? How did Kachalov end up there, along with Danila Bityagovsky? But they didn’t ask about this, they only asked about how Nagogo’s servant smeared the blood of a chicken on the weapon that Rakov placed on the corpses of the Bityagovskys, as if on the orders of Mikhaila Nagogo. The interrogated Mokhovikov did not say that he notified Bityagovsky about the death of the Tsarevich, but only said: when the Tsarevich took a shot and began to ring, Bityagovsky ran to the palace gates, which were locked, and he, Mokhovikov, unlocked them for Mikhail. Here again there is no clarification of the matter about the attitude of the Bityagovskys to the death of the Tsarevich, but a new absurdity is expressed. How were the gates locked when a crowd of people was in the palace, called by the alarm? Isn’t it obvious that these witnesses are trying, at all costs, to present the Bityagovskys as innocent in the death of the Tsarevich, and at the same time to present the death as a consequence of the Tsarevich’s illness? But this effort, because it is too great, confuses itself. It is obvious that the investigators are conducting the investigation in the most dishonest manner: they do not seem to notice obvious contradictions in the testimony and are trying, rushing to collect as much evidence as possible that the Tsarevich stabbed himself to death. They say about death: “a falling illness came upon him, and knocked him to the ground and taught him to beat him; Yes, yes, he was beaten, and at that time he stabbed himself with a knife” 33. So the weapon of death was a knife? Where is he? Where did you go? Why don't they present the main evidence of the case? Further: if the Tsarevich had actually wounded himself in a painful attack, then the wound inflicted by a seven-year-old baby, of course, could not have been deep; and if he just got stabbed, then how did he die immediately? Volokhova says: “he was thrown to the ground, and then the Tsarevich himself was stabbed in the throat, and it beat him for a long time” 34. If the Tsarevich was beaten for a long time before he was injected, then it is strange that his mother did not have time to find out about it. It is a rare, strange case that an epileptic, in the convulsions of epilepsy, could stab himself. It takes a lot of time and effort to find such an example. Shuisky, describing the position in which the relics of the Tsarevich were found in the coffin, says that there was a towel in the Tsarevich’s left hand, and nuts in the right 35. In the manuscript of Filaretova it is written: 36 “whenever he was killed, then he had to keep the ubrus in the shuyts... in another fruit, the verb nuts.” If so, then how could Demetrius play poke and knife together, as witnesses to the self-immolation say? How could he hold a knife and throw it into the ground, with his hands already full of nuts? Here is a circumstance about which there is not even a hint in the investigative paper, and which clearly points to the truth! So, both the proceedings and the decision are marked by traces of crookedness and untruth. Next, the imaginary witnesses to the Tsarevich’s self-immolation tell a lie (if only they spoke). According to the investigative case, it is clear that by the will of the tsar, the Moscow court granted punishment, or pardon, to people who, as a result of the investigation, turned out to be guilty. The consequences of the trial in the present case are all the more important because they were all in the power of Boris Godunov, to whom Tsar Theodore granted control of the Kingdom. They can serve us as material witnesses in the case of the death of the Tsarevich. What were the consequences known from undoubted monuments? a) Following the end of the investigation into the death of the Tsarevich, the nurse, Irina, is brought in chains to Moscow, and the mother, Vasilisa Volokhova, is endowed with rich estates and lands. Why is there such a difference? Why so many favors towards Volokhova and so much displeasure against the first? If they wanted to punish Zhdanova for careless supervision of the Tsarevich, the consequence of which the investigation wants to make the death of the Tsarevich, then we have already said that Vasilisa Volokhova, as a mother, even more than a nurse, was obliged to look after the Tsarevich, and therefore, if Zhdanova was considered guilty of negligence of duty on the occasion of the death of the Tsarevich, then the verdict on Volokhova should have been even stricter. Where does the severity towards Zhdanova come from? It is clear that they were afraid that she would not divulge what was very well known to her, i.e., that the Tsarevich had been killed. According to the chronicles, Volokhova rendered one service in the case of Dmitry: she worked harder than anyone else with his murderers and tried more shamelessly than others, as the investigation shows, to confirm the slander about the self-immolation of the Tsarevich. For this alone they wanted to reward her, as the chronicles say. According to the investigation itself, it was necessary not to reward, but to punish her, moreover, more severely than anyone else. b) Grigory Nagoy, along with Mikhail, is exiled as a rebel. Meanwhile, as a consequence, Grigory Nagoy, on the orders of the queen, beat only Volokhova, and Mikhailo Nagoy killed the Bityagovskys, Kachalov and Tretyakov. Why the same verdict about two guilty people who are not at all equally guilty? Here they were afraid of the witness and punished for the voice, although not entirely firm, given in favor of the truth by Grigory Nagiy. c) The city of Uglich was struck by terrible disgrace after the death of Demetrius: up to 200 people were put to death, others had their tongues cut out, most of the inhabitants were exiled to Siberia, populating Pelyn with them. Why did Uglich fall into such disgrace? If the guilt of the Uglichans consisted only in the fact that they killed Bityagovsky and several others, then the punishment that befell them was completely disproportionate to such guilt. This means that the very fate of the Uglichans makes it clear that ruler Boris Fedorovich knew something else behind them, which concerned him too closely. Isn’t the testimony about Dmitry’s self-immolation confirmed by any other state acts? There is not a word in any government document, not a single story, not a single chronicle, to confirm the news of the self-immolation. Strange! There is not even a word that the Tsarevich ever suffered from epilepsy. How can one consider the review of contemporaries as empty rumor, and present a paper filled with gossip of dishonesty and contradictions of ignorance as undoubted support? The investigation itself shows that even before the investigation, rumors about the violent death of the Tsarevich reached Moscow. From chronicles and papers we undoubtedly know that Godunov, being a king, knew about the rumor that tarnished his honor. Look how he behaves when the Pretender went to Moscow, announcing that he is Tsarevich Dimitri, saved from Godunov’s plans for his life. He announces to his subjects and to the Polish king, who took part in the fate of the Pretender, that the imaginary Dimitri is the defrocked Otrepiev, but does not say a word about how the Tsarevich died. Why didn’t he make public the investigative file about the death of the Tsarevich, if, in his mind, it represents the case in its true form? Why doesn’t he look for witnesses to the death of the Tsarevich and ask about its circumstances? After Dimitri passed away, not much time passed - only 10 years: the Tsarevich’s mother was still alive, his relatives, Nagiye, Grigory and Andrey, and, no doubt, many from Uglichai were still alive. Why did Boris Fedorovich become so carefree to his credit? Why doesn’t he, with a letter to the people, or a letter to his neighbors, the Poles, restore in the memory of his contemporaries the investigative case, nor his questions about the death of the Tsarevich? Agree that this was extremely necessary not only for the honor of Boris Fedorovich, but also for the peace of the whole of Russia. If even at this time not a single State charter says a word to justify Shuisky’s investigative case; doesn’t say a word that the Tsarevich stabbed himself with a knife, then one must be too blind to believe Shuisky’s investigation. If we have few witnesses to the martyrdom of Demetrius according to the investigative paper, then we have many according to other, equally important, state documents. The mother of the Tsarevich, who, during the investigation of the case, was completely left without interrogation, after the murder of False Dmitry, solemnly announced in front of everyone that her son was killed in Uglich, by the will of Godunov. This is what we read in the Polish affairs: “The queen nun Martha was asked by a crowd of people: she confessed, because her son was killed on Uglich by the command of Boris... - She did not dare to confess for a long time - she was possessed by a woman’s power..., and the image of his face was taken from her treasures... Naked, she confessed the same thing.” In the same place: “he denounces him as a thief (Martha stripped his hair) before all the people, that her son was stabbed to death on Uglich and died in her arms 37.” It was May 17, 1606. In the district letter “to the governors of the Siberian cities, sent in 1606, on May 21, the queen herself, Marfa Fedorovna, writes: “Our son Tsarevich Dimitri Ivanovich was killed on Uglich before me and my brother from Boris Godunov, and now he lies on Uglich.” Further, she mentions the confession she made in front of everyone about the Tsarevich being killed in Uglich: “And what happened to him (False Dmitry), according to his deeds, and my brothers and I told all the people of the Moscow State that our son Tsarevich Dmitry was killed by Boris, and buried in Uglich 38.” Another noteworthy letter for us, from the same nun, Queen Martha, was sent to the residents of the city of Yelets with the queen’s brother, Gregory Nagy. In it, the queen informs about the new things she said during the transfer of the relics, the solemn recognition of St. the martyr with her son, and about her repentance for the fact that until then she had not spoken against Otrepiev about the sufferer, her son. Here are the original words, more relevant to our case: “And at the reception of his (Tsarevich’s) relics, in the church of the Archangel Michael, before the metropolitans and archbishops, before the boyars and before all the people, the Tsar and the Grand Duke, Vasily Ivanovich, of all Russia, I beat my forehead that I was guilty before him, the sovereign, and most of all I was guilty before a new martyr, before his son, Tsarevich Dimitri, that he committed his holy relics into oblivion;... and it was done out of poverty, because they killed my son Tsarevich Dimitri, according to his, Borisov, order, Godunov, and after that they kept me in great need... and now I have sent to you my brother, the boyar Grigory Fedorovich Nagoy. And truly believe that the true sovereign, my son Tsarevich Dimitri Ivanovich, was killed on Uglich in 99 (7099), and now his relics are in Moscow.... 39 ". In the Diary of the Polish Ambassadors, Prince Mstislavsky and others 1606, June 6, pointing to the queen’s brother, Nagoy, said: “Ask him yourself and he will tell you that our true Demetrius was buried in Uglich 40.” It was Mikhail Nagoy 41. Thus, it is clear that: 1. The queen, mother of Demetrius, a) twice solemnly declared her son killed, first in front of the entire capital, then in the church, in front of a host of bishops, a synclite of boyars, the tsar himself and the people. b) I wrote about this to Siberia and Yelets. And after this they don’t want to believe her testimony? They say she also called the Pretender her son? We don’t need to hear about this from anyone else: she herself tells us about this weakness of hers; She herself, with a tight heart, confesses out loud to the Church and Russia that she did not have so much courage to expose the Pretender, who forced him to recognize himself as king with sword and fire. 2. But not only she, but also her relatives, Nagiye, confirmed that the Tsarevich was killed by villains. 3. Grigory Nagy himself, who claimed, according to the investigative paper, that Demetrius had stabbed himself, testified twice about his violent death, the first time, together with Andrei Nagy and others, in Uglich to witness the relics of Demetrius the martyr, and on the other, at the behest of the queen, his sister, going with a written assurance of his suffering death. Tsar Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, as if exposing his previous injustice, left us his solemn recognition of St. Demetrius killed. In a letter of notification written in June 1606 to Perm, to Prince Vyazemsky 42, Tsar Shuisky, announcing the abduction of the royal throne by False Demetrius, his plans against the faith and fatherland, and his death, continues that he ordered all the clergy and people to pray for forgiveness of the regicide; for “for sin,” he says. - “all Orthodox Christianity, the great sovereign, Tsarevich, Dimitri Ivanovich, died after the murder of Boris Godunov... and his villain, the murderers, the merciful God, according to his holy will, gave vengeance to innocent blood, and for his cause gave him (Boris) an evil death; and for their villainous intentions and deeds he sent his righteous anger to the Russian State, to inform the truth, for the patience and suffering of his martyr, the blessed Tsarevich, Prince Dimitri.” So Shuisky no longer hides the crime, does not hide the main culprit, does not call the murderers of the crown bearer innocently killed, but gives them their own name, the name of the villains who suffered a worthy execution. Further: the king, announcing the transfer of the relics, among other things, says: “and we ourselves, seeing such ineffable mercy of God, with joyful tears to the Almighty and glorified God in the Trinity and His martyr, the blessed Tsarevich, Prince Dimitri Ivanovich, gave thanks, and prayed for mercy and forgiveness from him.” We ask: who did you ask for forgiveness, and for what? What kind of feeling is inappropriate at a solemn event? What kind of sorrow, what kind of repentance, when all one had to do was greet oneself and Russia with the mercy of Heaven? Judge, is this not the voice of conscience repenting of a serious crime? In another letter written in Verkhoturye to Stepan Godunov (Boris Fedorovich’s second cousin), Tsar Shuisky, announcing the victory over the Cossacks, says that it “was won by the grace of God, and the Most Pure Mother of God, and the great wonderworkers of Moscow, (and the new martyr of Christ, the blessed Tsarevich, Prince Dimitri Ivanovich Uglitsky, with prayers" 43. In a letter to the Perm governor, Prince Vyazemsky, Shuisky, urging not to believe the new False Dmitry, says: "of blessed memory of the Tsar and Grand Duke, Ivan Vasilyevich and all Russia, there was a son, Tsarevich Dimitri Ivanovich, and he was killed by order of Boris Godunov in Uglich, and now his saint. the relics in Moscow lie in the Church of the Archangel Michael and provide much healing.” And further, announcing the mentioned victory, he again attributes it to the prayers of the newly-minted, in his words, “the passion-bearer of Christ, the blessed Tsarevich, Prince Demetrius” 44. In the same spirit, he announces in the district charter about the capture of the city of Tula, and about the capture of the rebel Ileika: “A new passion-bearer, the blessed Tsarevich, Prince Dimitry Ivanovich, with help and intercession.... Elagin Ileika was sent to us” 45. In a written announcement given through our ambassadors to the Polish senators, Tsar Vasily Ivanovich solemnly announces the murder of Demetrius: “And about that,” he says, “everyone knows, not only in the Moscow State, and in the border states, that Tsarevich Dimitri Ivanovich Ugletsky was killed on Uglich at the behest of Borisov Godunov.” Shuisky presents not just a few individuals, but also border states as being well aware of the death of St. Dimitri. So, five state letters from Tsar Vasily Ivanovich unanimously confirm: a) that the main investigator in the case of Dimitrieva’s death was confident, and assured others, of the martyrdom of St. Tsarevich; b) not only he himself, not only his compatriots, but also entire powers, even those who had the need to prove the opposite, believed and said that the Tsarevich was killed by Boris Godunov in Uglich. Isn't this enough? Let us add one general and necessary remark about the testimony of the Tsarina and Shuisky. It is known that the main purpose of both the letters we have now mentioned and the solemn announcements of the death of St. Demetrius, was to assure the people of the deception of the False Demetrius. If this is so, then it is obvious that Shuisky unnecessarily announces in front of the whole kingdom about the killing of the Tsarevich by villains, and not only unnecessarily, but also to the detriment of his honor; for he mentions his kind of conspiracy against the innocent Demetrius, his shameful injustice. What did circumstances require of him? It was only necessary to announce that Demetrius was not alive: but they announced that the Tsarevich had been killed. It’s as if Shuisky didn’t have the sense to realize that by doing this he was only strengthening the rumor about the salvation of Godunova’s victim. Isn’t it better to ask the Uglichans who remained alive, how the Tsarevich died, or to present the previous investigative paper about his death, and the matter would be resolved without offense to the honor of not one, but two rulers? Then it would be clear that deceivers dare to violate the truth certified by legal justice, and shamelessly vilify the only crowned and wise ruler. For the Russians, devoted to the sceptered state, this reproach would be stronger than all evidence of the deception of dishonest people. And the queen herself, for no reason at all, remains adamant in her previous testimony. Before, let’s say, she feared strict legal condemnation for neglecting her son; Now she could not be afraid of this: the strict guardian of the truth, Boris Fedorovich, was no longer there, and Tsar Shuisky and others would willingly forgive her not too significant guilt, especially since she suffered a lot for it. Meanwhile, by telling the whole (imaginary) truth about the self-immolation of the Tsarevich, she would have justified the two crowned princes in the eyes of the whole of Russia and in the eyes of neighboring powers, and would have achieved the main goal - she would have calmed the minds of the people. Thus, this remark gives new strength to the testimony of the Tsarina and Shuisky. Let us finally add the testimony of the civil and ecclesiastical persons who presided over the above-mentioned investigative paper. Patriarch Job, in a farewell letter written on the threshold of the grave, announces with sorrow the slaughter of Demetrius; Respecting Boris for his wisdom and some good deeds, the elder is silent about his name and only says that Demetrius died at the hands of villains. Here are the words of the patriarch: “And our great sovereign Tsarevich Dimitri died in Uglich in the year 99 (7099–1591); accepted the slaughter innocently at the hands of his traitors "46. This confession refutes the strongest support of those who believe the testimony of self-immolation. After this, we must say that the patriarch, as well as Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, first judged the death of the Tsarevich as it was reported by an imaginary lawful order, and were deceived. Out of their good-heartedness, not suspecting Boris of evil plans, the Tsar and the Patriarch and In this case, even if, perhaps, they had heard about the perpetrators of the death, they did not want to offend the Tsarev’s zealous servant with suspicion (Godunov knew how to seem like that), especially in such a terrible crime as regicide. The consequences revealed the death of Demetrius, and the elder, on the edge of the tomb, saw his error; Everyone else saw him with him, and no one any longer believed, as can be seen from the chronicles, the slander against the righteous: they all said that Demetrius had been slain like a lamb, and they rarely believed about Shuisky’s denunciation: “Prince Vasily came with his comrades to Moscow, and (nothing more than) told the king unrighteously that he had slain himself.” So, at the conclusion of this study, it remains to say: “Prince Shuisky and his comrades told the king unjustly that Dimitri killed himself,” on the contrary, the Tsarevich was killed and died like an immaculate sufferer. Karamzin. East. T. IX, pp. 317, 425, 434. Pogodin. in the article “On Godunov’s participation in the murder of Tsarevich Dimitri.” Kraevsky. In Encycl. Lexicon. 6, 359–361. Known, for example, are Starichanin German, teacher. Dionysius and Elder Gury, natives of the city of Rzhev and contemporaries of Kelar, older than him in years. See "Life of St. Dionysius." Description of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra. M. 1842, pp. 147, 148. The Legend of the Siege of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, ed. 1784, 1820, pp. 3, 4. Russian The hon. Part I, p.174. The writer begins his description with Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible and ends with Tsar You. Iv. Shuisky. Stroev. (Materials for historical literature. § 150; 167.) says that this is not Kubasov, but Prince. Khvorostinin. But whoever he was, only his description was not compiled under Tsar Alexei. See Mukhanov's preface to the published manuscript of Filaret, M. 1837. The Uglitsky Chronicle reports that it was in the hands of the city of Kisel (History of Uglich, Yaroslavl, 1844, pp. 258, 239). It is a pity that he did not make extracts from any of them; He didn’t even say what year they ended, but only noted: “they go back in antiquity to the time of the incident itself.” Extracts from Rostov. chronicles from Karamzin. RKP in the Bible. Moscow Spirit. Academy, l. 592. This can be seen from his handwritten corrections on the draft copy of the Tale. The draft and rewritten copies are kept between the manuscripts. Moscow Spirit. Academy. Rukop. “Collection of Lives of the Saints” in the Bible. Sergius Lavra. Manuscript Moscow. Spirit. Academy No. 192. Shakhovskoy was exiled under Ts. Mikhail, and the story was written under Ts. Alexey Mikhailovich. Russian Time, part 2, p. 631. Manuscript Moscow. Spirit. Acad., No. 178. “Several people bribed by him stabbed the Tsarevich to death in the very place where he usually played.” Let's make the story true. about self-proclaimed, p. 4, ed. Ustrilov 5 parts. SPb. 1831–1834. (Notes of Behr, Paerle, Margeret, Moskevich, De-Tu, two diaries). “Boris took action, placed killers; Dimitri was waylaid as he was leaving the porch and stabbed to death.” Page 129. “Godunov... won over several Muscovites to his side and sent them to Uglich to kill Demetrius.” Page 2. De rebus Moscoviticis, 1680. Sl. M. Evgenia Dictionary 2, 148. Schaum’s essay on False Demetrius, ed. in “Readings in General. history and ancient Ross. at Moscow Univ." 1847..No.2. Schaum writes: “Boris Godunov bribed some of Dimitri’s minions to treason and bribed them with gifts to kill their master.” Notes of Zolkiewski, trans. From Polish M., 1835. Confession Cor. Sigismund lies in his Instructions to Ambassador Samuil Grushetsky, given on April 16. 1612. This is what Sigismund says: “In the carelessness of Theodore, who reigned last in our memory, the possession passed to Godon Godunov, a private man. But since this latter did not have the opportunity to enjoy such great happiness, it was due to empty fear that Demetrius, whom he had secretly killed during the reign of Theodore, had revived, and was overthrown from the throne and left an orphaned state. For the one who, under the false name of Demetrius, with the help of Polish troops, invaded the state, was killed a few months later by the Muscovites themselves, who were tired of such deception.” Instructions in translation and to Latinsk. Original edition in “Readings in General. history and ancient Ross." 1848. No. 4. G. Novakovsky, to receive the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, wrote an argument: “De Demetrio 1-mo, magno Russiae Duce, Iwane filio. Berolini 1839". This is nothing more than youthful, i.e. funny attempt. Novakovsky points to reviews from Tovyansky, Maskevich and other adventurers. It is clear that he is not very familiar with the matter. He could also point to the venerable Jesuit fathers: Lavitsky and Chirzhovsky, who went to Moscow to plant and spread Catholicism (Adelung, Uebersicht der Reisenden in Russland, Vol. 1, 10, transl. in “Reader in General History and Ancient Russia,” pp. 13, 14, 1848, No. 9). He seems to not even know that the “Conquista di Demetrio” was written by the venerable Jesuit Possevin, who was so tireless in caring for Muscovy, and that this work was published back in 1605. Another Jesuit, Moskvera, was then translated into Spanish and published in 1606. (“Read in General history and ancient Russia.” 1848. No. 5). Who now, when so many documents are known about the exploits of Father Jesuits in relation to the Russian Church, about the deeds of their worthy pupil, Sigismund, and about the morality of the gentry of those times; Who now, valuing his honor, will dare to prove that False Demetrius was the true son of Ivan the Terrible? Chancellor Zamoyski called the story of the Pretender Terence's Comedy, and this is the most correct name for it. See Sigismund's consciousness in note. 17. Paerle, p. 78, 79, 82. This speech is also included in the collection. Polish diploma. Paper Karam., T.XII, approx. 35. Modern tales. about the Pretender, part 4, page 195. Tale. modern, part 4, pp. 182, 183. Tale. modern, part 4, page 66. In the Assembly of State. Charter, part 3, No. 13, we read the Polish embassy charter of June 9, 1612. The lords of the Rada wrote to Moscow: “It is known to all people, like Boris Theodore. Godunov, the Tsar's son, Velik. He killed Prince Dmitry Ivanovich Uglitsky in Uglich with his advisers.” Then, when mentioning the Pretender, they say that God sent him to take the innocent blood of an innocent baby, Prince Dmitry.” For the tales of King Sigismund, see note. 17.. CHron. Moskov. Lipsiae 1620, pag 373, 348. Approx. 79 to Berova Letop. De-Tu in this case is based on the report of Peter Peterson, who was then in Russia, pp. 157, 158. For example, Shaum writes: “and that there is no doubt about that (the murder of Dmitry), Shuisky himself is a witness. For later, having been elected Grand Duke, he often spoke about this adventure to strangers and local residents, confirming with heavy oaths. Page 6 Chronicle of the rebellion. pp. 23, 24. Nikon and Rost. Karamz. T. X, approx. 238. Investigation case in Sobr. Gram. 2 t. In part 2 No. 60, pp. 103–123. It is in vain that Karamzin says that the archimandrite and the abbot testified to the self-immolation of the Tsarevich. See interrogations Art. 103, 104. 108, 101. Assembly of States. charter, part 2, no. 147. Shuisky adds that it was precisely in this situation that the Tsarevich was killed. In History State Ross. T. XII, approx. 24. Karamz. T. XI, note 345, 346. In the letter (Collected Gram. I, p. 605) about the election of Mikhail Fedorovich to the throne it is also said that the queen then announced that her son “by order of Boris Godunov was quickly slain... and the image of his face was taken from his treasures...; Moreover, there were many boyars and a large crowd at death, and these self-witnesses testified.” Are the Naked Samovidians the only ones the letter has in mind? It seems that others were also known. A Pole who was in Moscow writes that “The Streltsy did not allow the Pretender to be killed and demanded evidence.” They brought the nun queen - “Tell us one word,” said the Sagittarius, “and if he is your son, then we will die for him.” The Queen admitted that she was forced to recognize the Pretender as her son solely through fear and flattery, and that her son died in Uglich in her arms.” The queen's relatives, having been called and questioned, also said that "by returning them from prison to Moscow, they were forced to remain silent about the true Tsarevich." The queen, in order to dispel doubts, took out the portrait of her son, which she wore around her neck, and proved that he did not at all resemble False Demetrius. Maskevich's diary, from Ustryalov. Collection State gram., part 2, pp. 306, 307. Part 2, pp. 316–318 – Collection. State gram. No. 149 Said. Modern about Self-proclaimed part 4, page, 200. Assembled. State gram. Part 2, No. 147, pp. 308–313. It was also published by Berkh: Ancient States. gram., collection in Perm province, St. Petersburg. 1821. The first shows that the letter was written in June 2 hours; Berkh’s letter ends simply: “Summer 7114 June a day.” The letter was sent, no doubt, not on June 2. and perhaps on June 12, because the relics were brought to Moscow on June 3, on the 4th the tsar and the clergy solemnly greeted the relics outside the city and placed them in the Archangel Cathedral; On the 5th they wanted to lower them into the ground, but on the 5th, with the relics, 13 people were healed, and on the 6th, 12 more people recovered. Meanwhile, already on the 3rd, a note was received from Uglich about the miracles performed at the tomb of the Tsarevich, and on the road from Uglich, patients with cancer were healed; Therefore, the shrine with the relics was left in the church. So according to the Tsar’s Charter and the Handbook. Philareta. No. 150 part 2, page 319. Collected. Sovereign gram. State assembled gram. No. 131, pp. 320, 321. Collection State gram. No. 154, p. 323. See Karamz. T. XII, approx. 106, 108.