It was he who helped them to ascend the throne.
False Dmitry I. Defrocked. Impostor. His story is known to everyone from textbooks or - in extreme cases - from Pushkin's "Boris Godunov". Having declared himself in Poland, this man lost the battles, but took possession of the Moscow throne. And after 11 months he was killed. He was gone, but a mystery remained: who really was Tsar Dmitry Ioannovich?
A knife is not a toy for children
Tsarevich Dmitry is the son of Ivan the Terrible, either from the seventh or from the sixth wife. And the Orthodox canons allowed a maximum of three marriages. But when the tsar is called Terrible, everyone, of course, turns a blind eye to such trifles. But when Ivan died, Dmitry was declared illegitimate and even forbidden to mention his name at services. During the Time of Troubles, this did not play any role. If everyone wants to see the son of Ivan the Terrible on the throne, it doesn't matter whether he is even from the twenty-seventh wife.
Dmitry lived with his mother and other relatives in Uglich. In fact - in the link. On May 15, 1591, the eight-year-old prince "amused himself with the robata, played over the line with a knife." And he went so far as to die of a knife wound in the throat.
There are three versions of these events:
- murder by order of Boris Godunov;
- accident;
- the prince escaped.
In principle, a commission of inquiry headed by Prince Vasily Shuisky worked in Uglich. But the trouble is that Shuisky managed to be a supporter of all three versions. First, he confirmed the accident, then, under False Dmitry, he spoke of a miraculous salvation, and then, when he himself became tsar, he accused Boris Godunov of the murder of Dmitry. If the chief investigator changed his testimony with such ease, then the historians, of course, are also in difficulty.
Promotional video:
Immediately after the death of the tsarevich, riots broke out in Uglich. Boris Chorikov "Death of Tsarevich Dmitry" (XIX century).
Investigators and forgers
The first to talk about the murder were the Nagie, the prince's relatives. Mother - Maria Nagaya - grabbed a log and began to beat Dmitry's mother - Vasilisa Volokhova. She beat her hard - "she punched her head in many places." And she shouted that Osip Volokhov, Danilka Bityagovsky and Mikitka Kachalov had killed the prince. Osip is the son of mother Vasilisa, and Danilka is the son of the clerk Mikhail Bityagovsky, who in Uglich was something like an "overseer" appointed by the Moscow authorities.
The naked provoked riots, as a result of which the crowd killed both Osip Volokhov, and both Bityagovskys, and a certain number of people. Then the fervor faded, and the Naked realized that they would have to answer for the riots and murders.
The bodies of those killed lay without burial. It was necessary to prove that they were killed for the cause. The naked acted very clumsy: they put knives and an iron club on the bodies. Say, these are the instruments of crime, with which the criminals finished off Tsarevich Dmitry, although the club is absolutely superfluous, it cannot be cut through the throat. The innocent victim of the Naked was also a chicken that was slaughtered to moisten the knives in its blood.
The falsification was revealed. Naked were issued by the executor - the city clerk Rakov. Maria Nagaya repented: they got excited, they say, they killed innocent people, do not judge strictly.
The commission of inquiry concluded that the prince died in an accident. He suffered from epilepsy and once cut his mother during a seizure. So he could well have stabbed himself.
Naturally, we have the right not to trust the conclusions of the investigation. The authorities ordered to hush up the case - the investigators hushed it up. They forced the witnesses to give the necessary evidence. By the way, torture was never used during the investigation. It is strange, considering that in those days the testimony given under torture was considered the most reliable.
Is Boris guilty?
Of course, the murder of the tsarevich was beneficial to Boris Godunov. Under Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, he was the de facto ruler of the state. And Dmitry, like all the Naked, did not particularly like Boris. The tsarevich sculpted the figures of boyars from the snow and chopped off their heads with a saber. The first in this row was the figure of Godunov. There was no need to expect mercy from Dmitry, but his death opened the way for Godunov to the throne.
The Orthodox Church canonized Tsarevich Dmitry. Mikhail Nesterov "Dmitry, the Slain Tsarevich" (1899).
But there is no evidence of Boris's guilt. The materials of the investigation case that have come down to us justify him, the chronicle tradition and numerous memoirs are accused. But the authors of the memoirs speak from hearsay, and the tradition is based on the official version, which appeared when Vasily Shuisky was king.
Shuisky rightly feared new impostors. And he decided to put an end to, announcing that Dmitry was killed on the orders of Godunov. The innocently murdered prince was numbered among the saints. Now every impostor had to pass himself off not just as a prince, but as a deceased saint - an unheard-of sin. However, this did not stop the impostors, but they put an indelible stigma on Godunov. This is how politics "makes" history.
False Dmitry or Dmitry?
Stabbed or stabbed himself - both versions agree on one thing: in 1591, Tsarevich Dmitry died. But is it?
In False Dmitry I, historians are struck by one detail: he was very confident and easily violated etiquette. No gravity or importance. “Tsar Dmitry Ioannovich” (let's put the quotes anyway) did not ride in a carriage, but rode on horseback. He did not pace, supported under the arms of the boyars, but ran from room to room. I didn’t sleep after dinner, I easily communicated with people.
Impostors - for example, Emelyan Pugachev - tried to behave like a tsar. And False Dmitry broke stereotypes, although the ceremonial of the Moscow court, of course, knew in general terms.
One more point. The Boyar Duma passed the death sentence on Vasily Shuisky, and False Dmitry pardoned him. And soon he returned from exile altogether. What for? After all, Shuisky, the head of the commission of inquiry, knew best of all that the real Tsarevich Dmitry was dead. It would seem that the first step is to eliminate such a witness. And False Dmitry keeps him alive. Too rash for an impostor.
Finally, "Tsar Dmitry" was recognized by his mother. They rushed to embrace, and so sincerely that people did not have any suspicions. Yes, False Dmitry was a wonderful actor, but was Maria Nagaya too?
After the murder of False Dmitry, Mary was asked "whether he is her son." She replied: "You should have asked me about this when he was alive, and now, as you killed him, he is no longer my son." The answer is more than ambiguous. As you want, understand it.
In a Polish stove
And yet, in the story of the miraculous salvation of Tsarevich Dmitry, there is so much incredible that it is very difficult to believe in it. In addition, False Dmitry clearly did not know the circumstances of the death of the tsarevich. He assured that he was replaced in bed, and at night the villains killed another boy. But Dmitry died in the yard, in broad daylight - there is no doubt about that.
And in general, too many witnesses saw the death of the tsarevich. Even Pyotr Basmanov, who would die defending False Dmitry, admitted that "he was a reasonable sovereign, but he was not the son of Grozny."
So be it. Let the one who pretended to be Dmitry an impostor. A new question arises: who was behind it?
Considering, to put it mildly, the difficult relations between Russia and Poland, one would like to say: the Poles started this whole mess. Many historians have said just that. False Dmitry is a Polish puppet.
The Poles, of course, benefit from their protégé in the neighboring state. And distemper is even more profitable. And if through the impostor it is possible to plant Catholicism in Russia, then it’s just fine. After all, the Polish king Sigismund III, the son of the Swedish king, fought so fiercely for the Catholic faith that he lost his crown in Protestant Sweden.
False Dmitry promises the Polish king Sigismund III to introduce Catholicism in Russia. The impostor did not keep his promise. Nikolay Nevrev (1874).
False Dmitry announced his royal origin in Poland. And Konrad Bussov, a German mercenary and eyewitness to the events of the Time of Troubles, generally believed that False Dmitry was a Pole. And not just a Pole, but the illegitimate son of King Stefan Batory.
False Dmitry actually perfectly rode horseback, hunted and danced. Which is not typical for the "Muscovite", but very typical for the Polish gentry. The problem is that he wrote Polish with mistakes. And in Latin, which any educated nobleman knew, not to mention the son of the king.
Yes, and Sigismund hesitated for a long time whether to support the Moscow "tsarevich". And in the end he supported him conditionally - he allowed the Poles to join his army. The Polish "intervention" will begin later, when the Russian boyars themselves summon the prince Vladislav.
False Dmitry I was definitely not a Polish puppet. At first he promised the Poles with three boxes: the Smolensk land, and Chernigov-Severskaya, and the conversion of Russia to Catholicism. But when he came to power, he did not even think to fulfill his promises. On the contrary, he quarreled with the ambassadors of Sigismund and caused obvious disappointment in the Polish king.
As the historian Vasily Klyuchevsky aptly noted, False Dmitry "was only baked in a Polish oven, but fermented in Moscow."
Whose slave are you?
And here we come to the most common version: False Dmitry is a fugitive monk of the Chudov Monastery, Grigory Otrepiev.
Otrepiev was born into the family of an impoverished nobleman and served with the boyar Mikhail Nikitich Romanov. Anastasia Romanova is the first wife of Ivan the Terrible, mother of Fyodor Ioannovich. Accordingly, the Romanovs are royal relatives and claimants to the throne. It is not surprising that under Boris Godunov they fell into disgrace. Mikhail Nikitich, Otrepiev's owner, finished his days in the Nyrob earthen prison. Fyodor Nikitich, the father of the future Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich, was forcibly tonsured into a monk under the name of Filaret.
Fyodor Romanov, he is also Patriarch Filaret. As a result of the Troubles, his son will be on the Russian throne. Nikanor Tyutryumov "Patriarch Filaret" (XIX century).
When the boyars were pursued, their servants were not forgotten either - they were threatened with death. Apparently, for this reason, Yuri Otrepiev took the monastic vows, taking the name Gregory.
Monk Gregory showed such abilities that he was taken to Patriarch Job. Probably, the Romanovs also celebrated a talented young man. It is likely that it was they, the mortal enemies of Godunov, who inspired Otrepiev with the idea of a royal origin. No wonder, when the impostor just showed up, Godunov immediately accused the boyars of this.
In 1602, the eldest of the Romanovs - Filaret - thinks only about the salvation of the soul. He is broken, he has given up. Two years pass. False Dmitry appears in Poland. And Filaret is unrecognizable. He lives "not according to the monastic rank, always laughs, no one knows what, and talks about worldly life, about hunting birds and about dogs, how he lived in the world." And haughtily declares to the monks that "they will see what he will be like from now on."
Indeed, False Dmitry I makes Filaret the Metropolitan of Rostov. The servant has not forgotten his former owners, and possibly his ideological inspirers. And under False Dmitry II, Filaret will become patriarch. And so he was drawn to impostors. There is nothing to be surprised if we admit that they are his doing.
One way or another, the Romanovs won the most from the Troubles. The Troubles began with the Romanov servant, and ended with Mikhail Romanov on the throne.
And the grandson of Michael - Peter the Great - will break the established way of life, open the country to the West, flood it with foreign specialists. A hundred years earlier, all this had already been done by a man whom we call False Dmitry I. He even wanted to found an academy and a university. False Dmitry was ahead of his time. Moreover, he lacked, so to speak, legitimacy.
But the main thing is that he lacked the cruelty of Peter I or Ivan the Terrible. And without cruelty we have nowhere. Without cruelty, you will not become a great sovereign - you will forever remain an adventurer.
Interesting Facts
Chronicle of the Time of Troubles
After the death of Ivan the Terrible (1584), his eldest, but feeble-minded son Fyodor Ioannovich reigned. In fact, the country was ruled by Godunov.
Boris Godunov.
In 1598 Fedor died - the Rurik dynasty was cut short. Boris Godunov was elected Tsar.
In the fall of 1604, the Pretender invaded Russia from Poland to seize the Moscow throne. In April 1605, Boris Godunov died unexpectedly, and his successor, Fyodor Borisovich, was overthrown and killed. False Dmitry I became king.
On May 17, 1606, he was also overthrown and killed.
Vasily Shuisky reigned in 1606-1610. He was also overthrown, after which the boyars decided to summon the Polish prince Vladislav to the kingdom. The prince remained in Poland, but Moscow was occupied by the Polish garrison.
Vasily Shuisky.
In the fall of 1612, the Poles were expelled from Moscow, and the following year the Zemsky Sobor elected Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the throne.
Who was overthrown?
On May 17, 1606, False Dmitry I was overthrown and killed as a result of the Muscovites uprising. The most amazing thing is that the uprising was not directed against him. He did not suit the boyars, and ordinary Muscovites were quite loyal to the impostor. The people were outraged by the Poles who flooded Moscow, so the boyars threw a cry: "The Poles are beating the emperor." In the meantime, the people dealt with the Poles, the boyar people killed False Dmitry.
The first Russian emperor
Since the time of Sergei Solovyov, many historians have been talking about the similarity of False Dmitry I and Peter I. By the way, it was not Peter who proclaimed himself emperor (tsesar), but False Dmitry. In those days it was unheard of arrogance. The Poles did not recognize for the Moscow grand dukes even the royal title, which Ivan the Terrible had appropriated to himself. Therefore, by the way, in Poland "Dmitry" was never called a tsarevich.
Because of the title, False Dmitry fell out with Sigismund III. Of course, the Polish king could not recognize his protégé as an emperor, that is, as a person above him in the hierarchy, a simple king. And False Dmitry refused to accept letters with improper titles from the Polish ambassadors. Another argument in favor of the fact that False Dmitry behaved in relation to Poland quite independently.
Author: Gleb Stashkov