Death of Tsarevich Dmitry. Unsolved case of the 16th century. The faithful tsarevich dmitry of uglichsky mother of tsarevich dimitri

May 28 - Blessed Demetrius of Uglich and Moscow, Tsarevich. The holy noble Tsarevich Dimitri is the son of Tsar John IV Vasilyevich the Terrible and his seventh wife, Tsarina Maria Feodorovna Naga. He was the last representative of the Moscow line of the House of Rurikovich. According to the custom of that time, the prince was given two names: Uar, named after St. Huara, on his birthday (October 21) and Demetrius (October 26) - on the day of his baptism. After the death of Tsar Ivan the Terrible, his eldest son, the Christ-loving Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, ascended the throne. However, the de facto ruler of the Russian state was his brother-in-law, the power-hungry boyar Boris Godunov. The good Theodore Ioannovich was completely immersed in spiritual life, and Boris did whatever he wanted; foreign courts sent gifts to Godunov on a par with the tsar. Meanwhile, Boris knew that everyone in the state, starting with Tsar Theodore, recognized Demetrius as the heir to the throne and his name was commemorated in churches. Boris Godunov began to act against the tsarevich, as against his personal enemy, wanting to get rid of the legitimate heir to the Russian throne.

For this, Boris decided to remove the tsarevich from the Moscow royal court. Together with his mother, the dowager Tsarina Maria Feodorovna, and her relatives, Tsarevich Dimitri was sent to his specific town of Uglich. Ancient Uglich was at that time "great and multinational." According to the Uglich chronicles, he had 150 churches, including three cathedrals, twelve monasteries. All residents were forty thousand. On the right bank of the Volga was the Kremlin, surrounded by a strong wall with towers, where the future tsar was to live. Fate, however, decreed otherwise. Trying to avoid dangerous bloodshed, Boris Godunov first tried to slander the young heir to the throne, spreading false rumors through his adherents about the alleged illegitimacy of the prince (referring to the fact that the Orthodox Church considers only three consecutive marriages to be legal), and by forbidding him to remember his name during services. Then he spread a new fiction that Dimitri had inherited the cruel disposition and severity of Ivan the Terrible. Since these actions did not bring what they wanted, the insidious Boris decided to destroy the Tsarevich. An attempt to poison Demetrius with the help of Vasilisa Volokhova, the nurse of Demetrius Ioannovich, was unsuccessful: the deadly potion did not harm him. Then, having decided on an obvious crime, Boris began to look for the killers. And he found in the person of the clerk Mikhail Bityagovsky, his son Danila and nephew - Nikita Kachalov. They also bribed the mother of the Tsarevich Vasilisa Volokhova and her son Osip.

The assassination of Tsarevich Dmitry. Engraving. Early 1870s On the morning of May 15, 1591, the mother took the tsarevich for a walk. The nurse, driven by some vague premonition, did not want to let him in. But the mother resolutely took the hand and led the prince out onto the porch. His killers were already waiting there. Osip Volokhov took his hand and asked: "Do you have a new necklace, sir?" He answered in a low voice: "This is an old necklace." Volokhov stabbed him in the neck, but did not capture his larynx. The nurse, seeing the death of the sovereign, fell on him and began to scream. Danilko Volokhov threw the knife, ran away, and the accomplices, Danilko Bityagovsky and Mikitka Katchalov, beat the nurse to a pulp. The prince was slaughtered like an immaculate lamb and thrown from the porch. At the sight of this terrible atrocity, the sexton of the cathedral church, locked himself in the bell tower, sounded the alarm, summoning the people. People who fled from all over the city avenged the innocent blood of the eight-year-old boy Dimitri, having arbitrarily dealt with the cruel conspirators.

Sergey Blinkov. Tsarevich Dmitry The murder of the Tsarevich was reported to Moscow, and the Tsar himself wanted to go to Uglich to investigate, but Godunov kept him under various pretexts. Boris Godunov sent his people to Uglich, led by Prince V.I. bumped into a knife. This result of the investigation led to severe punishment of the Nagy and the Uglich people, as guilty of rebellion and arbitrariness. The queen mother, accused of a lack of supervision over the prince, was exiled to the remote meager monastery of St. Nicholas on Voskh, on the other side of the White Lake, and tonsured into monasticism with the name of Martha. Her brothers were sent to different places in captivity; the inhabitants of Uglich were executed, some were exiled to a settlement in Pelym, and many were cut off their tongues. Subsequently, by order of Vasily Shuisky, the tongue was cut off (like a man) to the bell, which served as an alarm, and he, together with the Uglich rebels, became the first exiled to Siberia, which had just been annexed to the Russian state. Only at the end of the 19th century, the disgraced bell was returned to Uglich. Currently, it hangs in the Church of Tsarevich Dimitri "On the Blood". A children's cemetery arose around the tomb of the tsarevich and the chapel erected above it.

Tsarevich Demetrius. Ilya Glazunov (1967) However, fifteen years after the assassination of the tsarevich, already being tsar, Shuisky testified before the whole of Russia that "tsarevich Dimitry Ioannovich, according to the envy of Boris Godunov, was like a shepherd without malice, sacrificed." The motivation for this was the desire, in the words of Tsar Vasily Shuisky, "to block the lips of lying and blind the eyes of the unbeliever to those who speak, like a living escape (prince) from murderous hands", in view of the appearance of an impostor who declared himself the true Tsarevich Demetrius. A special commission was sent to Uglich under the leadership of Metropolitan Filaret of Rostov. When the tomb of the tsarevich was opened, "an extraordinary incense" spread throughout the cathedral, and then they found that "in his left hand the tsarevich was holding a towel embroidered with gold, and in the other - nuts", in this form death befell him. On July 3, 1606, he was canonized. The holy relics were solemnly transferred and laid in the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin - the family grand-ducal and royal burial vault, "in the chapel of John the Baptist, where his father and his brothers are."

Cancer of Tsarevich Dimitry of Uglich in the Archangel Cathedral of the Kremlin Immediately after the death of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, rumors appeared that Tsarevich Dmitry was alive. During the reign of Boris Godunov, these rumors intensified, and by the end of his reign in 1604, everyone started talking about the supposedly living prince. It was reported to each other that the wrong child was allegedly killed in Uglich, and the real Tsarevich Dmitry is now coming as an army from Lithuania to take the royal throne due to him by right. The Time of Troubles has begun. The name of Tsarevich Dmitry, which became the symbol of the "right", "legitimate" tsar, was adopted by several impostors, one of whom reigned in Moscow. In 1603, False Dmitry I appeared in Poland (a poor and ignoble Galician nobleman Yuri Bogdanovich Otrepiev, who took monastic vows in one of the Russian monasteries and took the name Gregory in monasticism), posing as the miraculously saved Dmitry. In June 1605, False Dmitry ascended the throne and for a year officially reigned as "Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich"; unprepossessing appearance, he was by no means a stupid person, had a lively mind, knew how to speak well and in the Boyar Duma easily resolved the most difficult questions; the dowager queen Maria Nagaya recognized him as her son, but as soon as he was killed on May 17 (27), 1606, she abandoned him and stated that her son had undoubtedly died in Uglich. In 1606, False Dmitry II (Tushinsky thief) appeared, and in 1608 in Pskov - False Dmitry III (Pskov thief, Sidorka). With the end of the Time of Troubles, the government of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov returned to the official version of the government of Vasily Shuisky: Dmitry died in 1591 at the hands of Godunov's mercenaries. She was also recognized as official by the Russian Orthodox Church. This version was described in the "History of the Russian State" N. M. Karamzin. A.S. also adhered to it at one time. Pushkin. In his drama Boris Godunov, he made Tsar Boris suffer from remorse for his crime. And for 13 years in a row, the tsar has been dreaming of a child killed by his order, and the holy fool throws terrible words in his face: “... Saint Demetrius of Rostov compiled a life and a description of miraculous healings through the prayers of Saint Tsarevich Demetrius, from which it is clear that sick eyes were healed especially often. During the Patriotic War of 1812, the holy relics of the blessed Tsarevich Dimitri were saved from desecration by the priest of the Moscow Ascension Convent, John Veniaminov, who carried them out under his clothes from the Archangel Cathedral and hid them in the altar, in the choirs of the second tier of the Cathedral Church in the Ascension Monastery. After the expulsion of the French, the holy relics were solemnly transferred to their original place - to the Cathedral of the Archangel.

The holy relics of Tsarevich Dimitri in the Archangel Cathedral of the Kremlin Since the 18th century, the image of Tsarevich Dimitri has been placed on the coat of arms of Uglich, and since 1999, on the flag of the city. Also was built "Church of Demetrius on the Blood", erected on the site of his murder.

Church of Tsarevich Dmitry on the Blood. Uglich In 1997, the Order of the Holy Blessed Tsarevich Demetrius was established. It is awarded to persons who have made a significant contribution to the care and protection of suffering children: disabled people, orphans and street children. The order is a cross with rays of pure silver with gilding, in the middle of which there is an image of Tsarevich Dimitri in the medallion with the inscription “For deeds of mercy”. Every year in Uglich, on May 28, the Orthodox holiday of Tsarevich Dimitri's Day is held. With the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, Tsarevich Dimitri's Day acquired in 2011 the status of an All-Russian Orthodox children's holiday.

Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich (Dimitri Ioannovich, direct name (by birthday) Uar; October 19, Moscow - May 15, Uglich) - Prince of Uglitsky, the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible from Maria Feodorovna Naked, the sixth or seventh of his wife (illegal).

He lived only eight years, but the political crisis, largely associated with his mysterious death (Time of Troubles), lasted at least 22 years after his death (see False Dmitry I).

A life

Measured icon of the Tsarevich "Dmitry Solunsky". Moscow Kremlin Museums

Following his birth, a measured icon was painted - the third of the surviving ones. It depicts his patron saint Dmitry Solunsky, in whose honor the newborn was baptized (the name was chosen, possibly in honor of the glorious ancestor Dmitry Donskoy). His princely name was Dmitry, and his direct name was Uar: it is traditionally believed that it was on the day of St. Uar on October 19 that he was born. The day of St. Uar (a rare saint who was not included in the family circle) falls exactly 8 days earlier than St. Dmitry, and the second princely name could well have been given "after eight days of circumcision" in the baptism of a child. However, one cannot completely exclude the version that the prince was born on October 11 or 12, received the name Uar on the 8th day, and Dmitry - as the nearest princely name in the month.

30 years before his birth, Ivan the Terrible already had one son named Dmitry - this was the early deceased firstborn of the tsar, who was also born in October and was somehow connected with Saint Uar. This is one of the mysteries of anthroponymy - according to one version, on October 19, not Dmitry Uglitsky was born, but his older brother. The reason why the younger prince received the same name as the deceased elder is unclear; the coincidence in which they were both born on October 19 is unlikely. “As for Dmitry Uglichsky, he, most likely, was thought of as a direct likeness of his early deceased brother-first-born.” Fyodor Uspensky puts forward the version that “St. Uar became the patron saint of the child, as he was the patron saint of his deceased brother, the firstborn. Thus, Dmitry Uglitsky could have received both names - both Dmitry and Uar - "by inheritance", without a strict connection with the church calendar. If we follow this version, it turns out that the date of birth (October 19) of Dmitry Uglichsky in the annals where it is indicated was calculated retroactively, based on the knowledge of his names. " However, they do not exclude that Uar was still only the youngest, and the fact that both were born in this way in October is a coincidence.

Under Fedor

After the death of his father in 1584 and the accession to the throne of Fyodor (moreover, even before the wedding ceremony on May 24), the boy and his mother were removed by the regency council to Uglich, receiving him into reign (as earlier, the younger brother of Ivan the Terrible, Yuri Vasilyevich and the younger brother of Vasily III - Dmitry Ivanovich Zhilka).

In Uglich, he was considered the ruling prince and had his own court (the last Russian appanage prince), officially - having received it as his inheritance, but apparently, the real reason for this was the fear of the authorities that Dmitry, willingly or unwittingly, could become the center around which all the disaffected would rally. reign of Tsar Fedor. This version is confirmed by the fact that neither the prince himself nor his relatives received any real rights to the "inheritance" except for receiving part of the income of the district. Real power was concentrated in the hands of "service people" sent from Moscow under the leadership of clerk Mikhail Bityagovsky.

Regarding the further, the eyewitnesses are mostly unanimous - Dmitry began an epileptic seizure - in the language of that time - “black sickness”, and during the convulsions he accidentally hit himself with a “pile” in the throat. In the light of modern ideas about epilepsy, this is impossible, since at the very beginning of an epileptic seizure, a person loses consciousness and is unable to hold any objects in his hands. It is quite possible that because of the fear that the prince would not be injured by the "pile" lying under him on the ground, they tried to pull it out from under the prince and accidentally mortally wounded him in the neck or, perhaps, because of this awkward attempt, the prince , at that moment "beating in convulsions", himself came across a "pile".

According to the wet nurse Arina Tuchkova,

The same version with some variations was repeated by other eyewitnesses of the events, as well as by one of the Tsarina's brothers, Grigory Fedorovich Nagoy.

Icon "Tsarevich Dimitry of Uglich in his life". State Historical Museum, XVII century
Left: 1. The prince is taken out of the palace 2. The murder of the prince, the nurse is trying to save Dimitri 3. The Bityagovskys are trying to flee from Uglich on horseback.
Right: 1. The sexton rings the bell. The Bityagovskys try to knock down the door in the bell tower 2. Residents of Uglich stone the killers of Dimitri 3. Grad Uglich

However, the queen and her other brother, Mikhail, stubbornly adhered to the version that Dmitry was stabbed to death by Osip Volokhov (the son of the Tsarevich's mother), Nikita Kachalov and Danila Bityagovsky (the son of clerk Mikhail, sent to oversee the disgraced royal family) - that is, by direct order of Moscow ...

An excited crowd that rose on the alarm bell tore the alleged killers to pieces. Subsequently, by order of Vasily Shuisky, the tongue was cut off (like a man) to the bell, which served as an alarm, and he, together with the Uglich rebels, became the first exiled to the newly founded Pelymsky prison. Only at the end of the 19th century, the disgraced bell was returned to Uglich. Currently, it hangs in the Church of Tsarevich Dimitri "On the Blood".

The body of the tsarevich was taken to the church for the funeral service, Andrei Alexandrovich Nagoy was next to him. On May 19 (29), 1591, 4 days after the death of the tsarevich, a commission of inquiry arrived from Moscow consisting of Metropolitan Gelasiy, the head of the Local Order of the Duma clerk Yelizariy Vyluzgin, the roundabout Andrei Petrovich Lup-Kleshnin and the future Tsar Vasily Shuisky. The conclusions of the Moscow commission at that time were unambiguous - the prince died in an accident.

Investigation

The investigation file drawn up by the commission remained under the name "Uglich case", during which about 150 people were involved in the investigation. The uncles of the prince were interrogated - the Naked, the mother, the nurse, the clergy who were close to the court or who were in the palace at the beginning of the events. The compilation of the white copy was basically completed already in Uglich. “The investigation file has been preserved almost completely, only a few initial pages have been lost. The research has shown that the manuscript is, in the main part, a blank copy of the investigation materials, submitted for consideration by the joint meeting of the Boyar Duma and the Consecrated Council on June 2 (12) " The case was reported by Gelasius at a meeting of the Consecrated Council, by decision of which it was transferred to the discretion of the king.

It should be borne in mind that this commission of inquiry was drawn up on the instructions of Boris Godunov himself, who was accused of the murder of the tsarevich. It is usually believed that the existence of the tsarevich as a pretender to the throne was disadvantageous to the ruler of the state Boris Godunov, who seized absolute power in 1587, but some historians argue that Boris considered the tsarevich illegitimate for the above reason and did not consider it as a serious threat.

"The first stories that set out a different version of events - the murder of the Tsarevich by order of Boris Feodorovich Godunov, are included in the stories written in the spring and summer of 1606, after the deposition and murder of False Dmitry I, surrounded by the new Tsar - Vasily Ioannovich Shuisky."

With the end of the Time of Troubles, the government of Mikhail Fedorovich returned to the official version of the government of Vasily Shuisky: Dmitry died in 1591 at the hands of Godunov's mercenaries. She was also recognized as official by the church. This version was described in the "History of the Russian State" N. M. Karamzin). In 1829, the historian M.P. Pogodin ventured to defend Boris's innocence. The original of the criminal case of the Shuisky commission discovered in the archives became the decisive argument in the dispute. He convinced many historians and biographers of Boris (S.F. Platonov, R.G. Skrynnikov) that an accident was the cause of the death of his son Ivan the Terrible. Some criminologists argue that the testimony recorded by Shuisky's commission gives the impression of being dictation, and an epileptic child cannot injure himself with a knife during a seizure, because at this time his palms are open wide. The version according to which Tsarevich Dmitry survived and disappeared (in this regard, it was assumed, for example, that False Dmitry I was not an impostor, but the real son of Ivan the Terrible), discussed back in the 19th - early 20th centuries, still has supporters.

Burial and relics

Precious cover of the tsarevich's shrine from the Cathedral of the Archangel (fragment). Masters Pavel Alekseev, Dmitry Alekseev, Vasily Korovnikov, Timofey Ivanov, Vasily Malosolets under the direction of Gavrila Ovdokimov. 1628-1630 years. Moscow Kremlin Workshops, Silver Chamber. Contribution of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich to the Archangel Cathedral. (Moscow Kremlin Museums)

Grave and icon in the Archangel Cathedral of the Kremlin

Tsarevich Dmitry was buried in Uglich, in the palace church in honor of the Transfiguration of the Lord. A children's cemetery arose around the tomb of the tsarevich and the chapel erected above it.

Life

The writing of the first life of the saint dates back to the end of the same 1606. It became part of the Chetikh-Minei German (Tulupov), one of whose lists was created in 1607. “The life includes not only a story about the life and death of the saint, close to the story of stories, but also a story "On the acquisition and transfer of honest and many-sided" relics of the tsarevich to Moscow. The story as part of the Life has been preserved in 2 versions - short and lengthy, which differ in detail. In many copies of the Life, the story of the acquisition and transfer of the relics of Dmitry Ivanovich is omitted, but there is a preface and a concluding word of praise. "

“A little later, the Life of Dmitry Ivanovich was created as part of the Chetikh-Minei of John Milyutin. Its main sources were the 1st Life of Dmitry Ivanovich and the New Chronicler. The text of this Life was widespread in ancient Russian writing. The Prognostic Life of D.I. was compiled on the basis of extensive Lives and placed on May 15 in the 1st edition of the March half-year of the Prologue (Moscow, 1643). From the edition of 1662, the Prologue contains the memory of the transfer of the relics of DI on June 3 ”.

Iconography

A gravestone icon was immediately placed over the tsarevich's burial in the Archangel Cathedral, depicting him in a spread - in prayer (an early copy is in the Kaluga Museum). Dmitry is traditionally depicted in rich royal robes and a crown. The icons depicting the saint from the front are distinguished by their characteristically shortened proportions of the figure and a large round face.

A researcher of Ural art writes that “the iconography of the saint was especially widespread in the Stroganov estates in the Urals. The earliest in the Ural group of works is considered to be a shroud from the Solvychegodsk History and Art Museum, dating from 1651-1654. This is a signed and dated shroud with the mention of the name of Dmitry Andreevich Stroganov "

In the early icons with hagiography, there is only a scene of "innocent murder" from hagiographic scenes. “In the future, a complete hagiographic iconography of the holy blessed Tsarevich Demetrius was formed. BV Sapunov writes about twelve copies preserved in museums in central Russia. " The photographer, in his opinion, was the "cell" icon of the early 17th century, ordered by the grandmother of the future Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, Maria Shestova, who was tonsured, by order of Boris Godunov, in the Cheboksary Nikolsky Maiden Monastery, where she soon died. All twelve icons are accompanied by texts from the New Chronicler. "

Monument to Tsarevich Dmitry in the Uglich Kremlin

Veneration

• The prince is revered as a guardian of suffering children: orphans, invalids and street children.
• In its place

Today, the memory of the Holy Blessed Tsarevich Dimitri of Uglich (Moscow) is celebrated

ORTHODOX CALENDAR:

Memorial days: May 15, May 23 (Rostov.), June 3 (Transfer of the relics), October 19
Born October 19, 1582 and was the son of Tsar Ivan the Terrible. During the reign of Theodore Ioannovich, when his brother-in-law was actually the ruler of the Russian state - the power-hungry boyar Boris Godunov, Tsarevich Dimitri, together with his mother, Tsarina Maria Feodorovna, was removed from the Court in the city of Uglich. Wanting to get rid of the legitimate heir to the Russian throne, Boris Godunov began to act against the tsarevich, as against a personal enemy. At first, he tried to slander the young heir to the throne, spreading false rumors about his alleged illegitimate birth. Then he spread a new fiction that it was as if Demetrius had inherited the sovereign's severity from his father. Since these actions did not bring what they wanted, the insidious Boris decided to destroy the Tsarevich. An attempt to poison Demetrius was unsuccessful: the deadly potion did not harm the youth. Then the villains decided on an obvious crime.

On Saturday, May 15, 1591, when the youth was walking with the nurse in the yard, the sent assassins, Osip Volkhvov, Danilo Bityagovsky and Nikita Kachalov, brutally stabbed the tsarevich.

Tsarevich Dimitri was buried in Uglich, in the palace church in honor of the Transfiguration of the Lord. Many miracles and healings began to take place at his tomb, especially sick eyes were healed. And on July 3, 1606, the holy relics of the passion-bearer Tsarevich Demetrius were found incorruptible.

Material from Wikipedia:

A life
Dmitry Ivanovich, direct name (by birthday) Uar (19 (29) October 1582, Moscow - 15 (25) May 1591, Uglich) - Tsarevich, Prince of Uglitsky, the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible from Maria Feodorovna Naked, the sixth or seventh of his wife (unmarried). He lived only eight years, but the political crisis, largely associated with his mysterious death (Time of Troubles), lasted at least twenty-two years after his death. Canonized in 1606 as the faithful Tsarevich Dimitri Uglitsky (Memorial Day - May 15 according to the old style, in the XXI century - May 28 according to the new style).
After the death of his father, he remained the only representative of the Moscow line of the house of Rurikovich, except for his older brother, Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich. However, he was born of at least the sixth marriage of his father, while the Orthodox Church considers only three consecutive marriages legal, and, therefore, could be considered illegitimate and excluded from the number of pretenders to the throne (see, for example, the story of the problems of Emperor Leo VI with an attempt to secure the right to the throne to his son from such "unapproved" 4th wife Zoya - Konstantin Porphyrogenitus). Sent by the regency council together with his mother to Uglich, where he was considered the ruling prince and had his own court (the last Russian appanage prince), officially - having received it as an inheritance, but apparently the real reason for this was the authorities' fear that Dmitry, willingly or unwillingly, could become the center around which all those dissatisfied with the rule of Tsar Fyodor will rally.

This version is confirmed by the fact that neither the prince himself nor his relatives received any real rights to the "inheritance" except for receiving part of the income of the district. Real power was concentrated in the hands of "service people" sent from Moscow under the leadership of clerk Mikhail Bityagovsky.

Death
On May 15 (25), 1591, the tsarevich played "poking", and he was accompanied by the small tenants Petrusha Kolobov and Vazhen Tuchkov - the sons of the bed-bed and wet nurse, who were with the tsarina's person, as well as Ivan Krasensky and Grisha Kozlovsky. The prince was looked after by his mother Vasilisa Volokhova, the nurse Arina Tuchkova and the bed-bed Marya Kolobova.

The rules of the game, which have not changed until now, are that a line is drawn on the ground through which a knife or a sharp nail is thrown, trying to make it stick into the ground as far as possible. The winner is the one who made the farthest throw. According to the testimony of eyewitnesses of the events given during the investigation, the prince had a "pile" in his hands - a sharpened four-sided nail or a pocket knife. The same was confirmed by the czarina's brother Andrei Nagoy, who, however, transmitted the events from hearsay. There is a slightly different version, written down from the words of a certain Romka Ivanov “with comrades” (who also spoke, in all likelihood, from hearsay): the prince amused himself with a pile in the ring.

Regarding the further, the eyewitnesses are mostly unanimous - Dmitry began an epileptic seizure - in the language of that time - "black sickness", and during the convulsions he accidentally hit himself with a "pile" in the throat.

According to the nurse Arina Tuchkova She did not save him, as a black disease came to the Tsarevich, and at that time he had a knife in his hands, and he stabbed with a knife, and she took the Tsarevich in her arms, and she didn’t have the Tsarevich in her arms. became.

The same version with some variations was repeated by other eyewitnesses of the events, as well as by one of the Tsarina's brothers, Grigory Fedorovich Nagoy.

However, the queen and her other brother, Mikhail, stubbornly adhered to the version that Dmitry was stabbed to death by Osip Volokhov (the son of the Tsarevich's mother), Nikita Kachalov and Danila Bityagovsky (the son of clerk Mikhail, sent to oversee the disgraced royal family) - that is, by direct order of Moscow ...

An excited crowd that rose on the alarm bell tore the alleged killers to pieces. Subsequently, by order of Vasily Shuisky, the tongue was cut off (like a man) to the bell, which served as an alarm, and he, together with the Uglich rebels, became the first exiled to Siberia, which had just been annexed to the Russian state. Only at the end of the 19th century, the disgraced bell was returned to Uglich. Currently, it hangs in the Church of Tsarevich Dimitri "On the Blood". The body of the tsarevich was taken to the church for the funeral service, Andrei Alexandrovich Nagoy was next to him. On May 19 (29), 1591, four days after the death of the tsarevich, a commission of inquiry arrived from Moscow consisting of Metropolitan Gelasiy, the head of the Local Order of the Duma clerk Yelizariy Vyluzgin, the roundabout Andrei Petrovich Lup-Kleshnin and the future Tsar Vasily Shuisky. The conclusions of the commission at that time were unambiguous - the prince died in an accident.

It is usually considered that he was disadvantageous to the ruler of the state, Boris Godunov, who seized absolute power in 1587 as a contender for the throne; however, many historians argue that Boris considered him illegitimate for the above reason and did not view him as a serious threat.

Research
With the end of the Time of Troubles, the government of Mikhail Fedorovich returned to the official version of the government of Vasily Shuisky: Dmitry died in 1591 at the hands of Godunov's mercenaries. She was also recognized as official by the church. This version was described in the "History of the Russian State" N. M. Karamzin). In 1829, the historian M.P. Pogodin ventured to defend Boris's innocence. The original of the criminal case of the Shuisky commission discovered in the archives became the decisive argument in the dispute. He assured many historians and biographers of Boris (S.F. Platonov, R.G. Skrynnikov) that an accident was the cause of the death of his son Ivan the Terrible. Some criminologists argue that the testimony recorded by Shuisky's commission gives the impression of being dictation, and an epileptic child cannot injure himself with a knife during a seizure, because at this time his palms are open wide.

Veneration
The veneration of the faithful Tsarevich Dimitri as a saint is preserved; since the 18th century his image has been placed on the coat of arms of Uglich, and since 1999 on the flag of the city. The Church of Demetrius on Blood was also built, erected on the site of his murder.

In 1997, the Russian Orthodox Church, together with the Russian Children's Fund, on the initiative of the chairman of the writer's fund, Albert Likhanov, established the Order of the Holy Right-Believing Tsarevich Dimitri. According to the statute of the order, it is awarded to persons who have made a significant contribution to the care and protection of suffering children: disabled people, orphans and street children. The order is a cross with rays of pure silver with gilding, in the middle of which there is an image of Tsarevich Dimitri in the medallion with the inscription “For deeds of mercy”. Annually in Uglich on May 28 (date for XX-XXI centuries) the Orthodox holiday Tsarevich Dimitri's Day is held.

Notes (edit)
1 Kobrin, V. B. Tomb in the Moscow Kremlin // Who are you dangerous, historian? / Vladimir Borisovich Kobrin. - M .: Moscow worker, 1992 .-- 224 p.
2 Dal V. I. Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language. - M .: 1955 T. 4. - S. 446-447.
3 Skrynnikov, R.G. Impostors in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century. Grigory Otrepiev. - P. 14
4 In 1823, Karamzin wrote to M.P. Pogodin that he was able to make a discovery that would overturn the existing ideas about the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry on the orders of Godunov. Karamzin was going to inform the readers about his new version in the forthcoming X volume of "History of the Russian State". Pogodin was surprised to receive this volume and did not find any innovations in the specified plot. Cm.
5 See MP Pogodin, "On the participation of Godunov in the assassination of Tsarevich Dimitri" // "Moskovsky Vestnik", 1829 on the website Orthodoxy and the World
6 Krylov IF There were also legends of criminalistics. - L .: Publishing house of Leningrad State University, 1987

Mass I. about the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry in Uglich. OK. 1611

Isaac Massa is a Dutch merchant and resident in Russia. He lived in Moscow in 1601-1609 and 1612-1634, studied Russian and collected a lot of materials on the history of the country. Around 1611, Massa wrote an essay on the events in Russia at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th centuries. He considered Godunov to be the culprit of the Uglich tragedy.

Boris consults with his friends on how to ascend the throne and exterminate Dmitry

When everyone calmed down, Boris began to implement his intention, conferring with his friends and relatives, who numbered up to 70 houses, namely: the Godunovs, over whom Boris was the head, although some of them were older than him, the Velieminovens and the Saburovs ( Soboroven) - two genera, so called; with them he consulted daily on how to attain the crown; First of all, it was necessary to get rid of the young Tsarevich Dmitry, for they were very afraid that a convenient time had been missed, because Dmitry was ten years old and by his age he was very smart, often saying: “What a bad king, my brother. He is incapable of managing such a kingdom ", and often asked what kind of person Boris Godunov was, who held all the government in his hands, saying:" I myself want to go to Moscow, I want to see how things are going there, for I foresee a bad end , if they will trust unworthy nobles so much, therefore it is necessary to take care in advance ”.

These and similar speeches were passed on to Boris and his followers, who feared that if they did not fulfill their intentions in time, they themselves would fall into the trap prepared for others. Therefore, they decided to cheat.

Under Tsarevich Dmitry, the clerk Mikhail [S. 40] Mikhailovich Bityagovsky (Petoegoffsci), whom the prince considered his best friend; he was bribed to lime Dmitry, to which he agreed and instructed his son Daniil Bityagovsky, who had a friend, Nikita Catsaloff, to commit the murder; both of them were first in Moscow with Boris, who promised to provide for them and entrust them with important posts; After receiving communion and receiving blessing and complete absolution from the priest Borisov, they went to Uglich with a letter from Boris Godunov to his father [Bityagovsky].

The treacherous murder of Dmitry

The father, knowing well what should be done, on that day ordered his son Daniel, together with Nikita, to hide in the yard, believing that on the same day it should be done; and after dinner the clerk invited two or three young nobles to arrange a game of nuts, in which, according to him, Dmitry wanted to take part; and the clerk at the appointed hour, when he knew that the game was in full swing, sent everyone out with various assignments, and himself, in order to deflect any suspicion of the people from himself, went to the office to go about his business in the presence of a large crowd of people who had gathered to solve difficult cases ... And in the meantime, in the midst of the game, two of the aforementioned murderers cut the prince's throat, out of great embarrassment forgetting to kill other children, [and] immediately fled; they had time to gallop away on horses prepared in advance for them.

As soon as this happened, the young nobles raised a strong cry in the courtyard. And the news immediately reached the office, and then spread throughout the city. Everyone shouted: "Robbery, wipe out the king!" And many jumped on their horses and themselves did not know what to do; others rushed into the courtyard, seized everyone here: both nobles and non-nobles, and imprisoned them until Moscow learned about the murder; meanwhile, in the midst of a terrible confusion, many were killed.

When this news came to Moscow, great confusion seized both the people and the courtiers, and the tsar was so frightened that he wanted death; he was comforted as best they could; the queen was also deeply grieved and wanted to retire to the monastery, for she suspected that the murder had been committed at the instigation of her brother, who wanted to rule the kingdom and own the crown; but she was silent and kept everything that she heard in her heart, not telling anyone anything.

Moreover, they feared confusion and strong unrest in Moscow, but the presence of the tsar deterred from that, however they secretly whispered that everything was arranged by the Godunovs, whom they were very afraid of, because the number of their adherents was [S. 41] is very great, and the Godunovs were afraid that everything would be revealed and that the search would be carried out very carefully; but Boris, with extreme dexterity, managed to influence the tsar in such a way that he instructed him to search, and Boris accepted this assignment.

Then one could rightly say: the sheep was entrusted to the wolf, but Boris made such a search that everyone who was at the Tsarevich's court was seized as traitors and all of them were subjected to the tsar's disgrace and were sent into exile in Ustyug, a city on the Dvina River, two hundred miles from Moscow, where they spent a long time in dire calamities; some who incurred suspicion were executed; so many good people with their wives and children perished so completely innocently.

The funeral of the prince

From Moscow they sent the noble boyar Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky (Solscy) and the boyar, or lord, Andrei Klesnin (Clesnin) to be present at the burial; they examined the body of the prince, whom they knew well, and with their own hands placed it in the coffin in the presence of the old queen, his mother, the widow of the deceased tyrant. And so the prince was buried in that city of Uglich, with a great howl and weeping, according to their custom.

Then the old queen Martha was imprisoned in a monastery, all her surviving relatives from the Nagy clan were, as already mentioned, exiled. Throughout the country there was a lot of talk among noble people who did not dare to act against the Godunovs while the tsar lived with the tsarina, Godunov's sister; but the common people, merchants and other common people talked among themselves about the Godunovs, secretly saying that they were traitors and were striving to seize the tsar's crown, so Boris used all kinds of means in order to divert these rumors from himself.

Notes:

I. Massa is mistaken: Tsarevich Dmitry was eight years old.

Wed other evidence. K. Bussov: “Soon they noticed in this Tsarevich a fatherly hard-heartedness: once he ordered his comrades, young nobles, to make several images out of the snow, named them after famous boyars, put them next to them and began to chop: cut off the head of one of them, beat off an arm and a leg to another, he pierced another through and through, saying: “This is such a boyar, such a prince; so they will be in my reign "" (Legend of contemporaries about Dimitri the Pretender. Edition 2. Part 1. - SPb., 1837. S. 3.). Also P. Petrei: “According to the words and the children's games of Dimitri, it was noticeable that he had a cruel nature, the influence of his father, especially when he was doing something and playing with his boys. Once, having fun on the ice with noble children in the winter, he ordered to make several human statues out of snow and ice, then he gave each figure the name of some Moscow prince and a great boyar and said: “This is the prince, this is the governor, this is the Duma boyar , this is the chancellor, this is the treasurer, this is Boris “, and so on, up to twenty people. After that, he ordered to bring a saber and said: "When I will be the Grand Duke, then this is what I will do with the great boyars," and first he cut off the head of the figure representing Boris Godunov, then the other hand, the third thigh, the fourth stabbed, and so on, one after another, until not one is left ”(Ibid. p. 170). Avraamy Palitsyn also speaks about these rumors: Dimitri "often in childish mockery speaks and acts absurd about his closest brothers si, even more so about this Boris" (The Legend of Abraham Palitsin // Russian Historical Library. T. XIII. S. 970.).

Bityagovsky, Mikhail served in Kazan in 1581; then he was the ruler of the zemstvo hut in Uglich. M. Bityagovsky was in charge of the palace economy of the queen-widow Maria Nagoya and her son Dmitry. On May 15, 1591, together with his son Danila, he was killed by the people as an accomplice in the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry.

Massa's news is similar to some Russian sources. See, for example, Collection of State Letters and Treaties. Part II. - M., 1819. No. 60, as well as V. Klein. Uglich investigation of the death of Tsarevich Dimitri on May 15, 1591 // Notes of the Moscow Archaeological Institute. T. XXV. - M., 1913. In an investigative case, Dmitry died from an accident. Foreigners and Russian sources who came out of the Shuisky camp give a version about the murder of Dmitry. P. Petrei claims that Dmitry was killed at night: “One night they set fire to the palace, when it began to burn and everyone was in fright and confusion, the traitors ran to the palace, woke him up, knowing his habit of getting out of bed and watching how it burned and how the people put out the fire. When he got out of bed and went down the stairs from the palace, four treacherous nobles attacked him, stabbed him with long, poisoned knives and ran to Moscow to Boris, thinking to receive from him great favors and gifts for their faithful service "(Legend of contemporaries about Demetrius The Pretender, 2nd edition, Part 1. - St. Petersburg, 1837, p. 171.).

Veliky Ustyug is a city in the Vologda lands. Located on the left bank of the Sukhona River opposite the confluence of the Yug River.

Kleshnin was a falconer, not a boyar (Collection of state letters and treaties. Part II. - M., 1819. No. 60. S. 108.).

They tried on the guise of a young, miraculously escaped king.

The little heir to a large state was the first in line to the throne after the death of his older half-brother. And he would undoubtedly become king if he lived up to this moment. Fyodor died in 1598, while Dmitry died in 1591. On May 15, 1591, the church bell sounded the alarm, thereby announcing the entire Uglich about the death of the little heir. The rumor of death spread with great speed in the crowd, with the same speed in the same crowd the version spread that Dmitry was killed.

The death of little Tsarevich Dmitry in Uglich

At the time of his death, Dmitry was seven years old and almost seven months old. The circumstances of his death are worth examining more closely. For to this day they raise doubts among many historians. He was engaged in the investigation of the drama in Uglich, he indicated in the manifesto that the boy had died. This later became the basis for the canonization of Dmitry to the canon of saints.

The death of little Dmitry in the city of Uglich gave rise to two versions of what happened on May 15, 1591:

1. Boris Godunov sent assassins to Uglich. When Dmitry was in the garden with a nurse, one of the murderers stabbed the boy in the throat, and his accomplices finished off later. Maria Nagaya, Dmitry's mother, immediately ran into the garden and began to scream. But no one heard her, since it was afternoon. Many were in their bedrooms. Only the church watchman saw what happened and sounded the alarm. A crowd came running, the alleged killers were caught and beaten to death.
2. Another version says that the prince was playing with legs and accidentally ran into one of them. The commission of inquiry issued a verdict that confirmed this version.

No matter how much they tried to declare the boy the murderer, then it was not profitable and not expedient for him. Boris may have wanted to get the throne, but during that period not only Dmitry was an obstacle. Fedor was alive, his wife Irina was healthy and they were waiting for the addition to the family. All reports about that event contradicted each other, they bore exactly the opposite character. Do not forget about the person from whom this data was mainly received - this.

Dmitry and his mother were resettled by Fedor to Uglich several years ago. Together with them, the guards arrived at the palace. The family felt her hostility towards them. Despite his young age, Dmitry also felt it. The boy himself had a violent and sometimes even cruel disposition. There is evidence that he willingly watched how rams and bulls were slaughtered. And once, in one of the winter months, he asked to mold several people out of the snow, he gave them the names of Fyodor's close associates, and then chopped them up with shouts. Then Dmitry did not forget the name of Boris Godunov.

The murder of Dmitry in Uglich

The murder of Dmitry in Uglich, if it took place, does not at all speak of Godunov's guilt. Even the appointment of Shuisky as the main one in the investigation speaks rather of the opposite. Shuisky was from an influential family that originates from Alexander Nevsky. And Vasily would be the last person from whom he would seek support. Shuisky's appointment to the investigation rather speaks of Boris's attempt to make the investigation as transparent as possible.

So, Dmitry began to fall ill until his death. He was found to have epilepsy. The boy is now believed to have suffered from epilepsy. After lunch, the boy with his mother and a wet nurse went to the backyard, with him there were also four local children. According to the testimony of the mother (namely, her testimony was taken as a basis by the investigation), Dmitry and the children played with knives, the so-called "poke" - they threw knives at the target. Again the question arises: How was a boy with epilepsy entrusted with playing with knives? According to the testimony of witnesses, when the prince got hurt, Maria Nagaya came running to the mother's cry. According to testimony, the mother did not rush to her son, and the boy did not die right away, instead Maria grabbed a piece of wood and began to beat the mother with it, because she allegedly did not watch the boy. In addition, those people who still came running later and the boys who played with Dmitry, for some reason, did not help him. Very strange behavior.

The murder of Tsarevich Dmitry or an accident

A crowd gathered at the scene, and the brothers of the queen, Gregory and Michael, came running. Osip Volokhov was accused of attempted murder (and Dmitry was still alive), and Mikhail Bityagovsky and his son were attributed to accomplices. They were pointed out by Mikhail Nagoy. The crowd pounced on the young people. They were killed.

Dmitry Ivanovich suffered for a long time after being wounded, the nurse held him in her arms. At the same time, there is no information or testimony of witnesses about when the boy died. If you study the protocol of the investigation, then the evidence and testimony of witnesses there are so diverse and incompatible with themselves that it resembles some kind of absurdity. The following conclusions can be drawn from the investigative actions:

• The boy killed himself by accident;
• Dmitry was killed, possibly by order of Boris Godunov.

The man who sounded the alarm in the church didn't actually see anything. He did not see how Dmitry died. At the time of the incident, he was generally at home. And he began to ring the alarm at someone's order. But the investigation did not find out the name of this person.

On the basis of what has been said, two reliable conclusions can be drawn:

1. Tsarevich Dmitry suffered from epileptic seizures, this is certain;
2. On May 15, 1591, the prince died - this happened either by an absurd accident, or as a result of a crime.

Whether the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry was an accident or whether he did not die at all on May 15 is still not clear.

The end of the investigation about the death of the tsarevich

With all this situation, the behavior of Dmitry's mother Maria Nagoya looks strange. Seeing her son in convulsions after being wounded, she does not try to help him. Is it possible that the feeling of anger, which for some reason poured out on mother Vasilisa Volokhova, began to prevail over maternal feelings. Maria prefers to attack her mother instead of helping her son. This behavior is difficult to explain.

Hence, thoughts may arise that the boy did not die at all, that it was not a son at all. In 1606 Dmitry's body was removed from his burial in Uglich. A certain Isaac Massa was present. His testimony suggests that the child was holding a handkerchief, and in the other a handful of nuts. These objects in the boy's hands indicate that his body was buried in the same state as Dmitry and died. Does this mean that Dmitry did not play "jab" because his hands were busy. Or it was not Dmitry at all ... Probably it will never be possible to recreate the picture of Dmitry's death for sure.

The death of Tsarevich Dmitry video

"Uglich business"

The "Uglich affair" to this day is one of the unsolved and, most likely, unsolvable mysteries of Russian history. Modern criminologists jokingly call him the oldest "hangman" or "wood grouse" of Russian forensic science. Researchers who have studied the multivolume materials of this investigation up and down have been breaking their spears in disputes for several centuries: what actually happened in Uglich on May 15, 1591? Is it possible to trace the beginning of the Troubles in the Russian state from this date? Was the prince killed? Died in an accident? Maybe on the Russian throne in 1605-1606. was there not an impostor, but the last representative of the Rurik dynasty?

Alas, modern historical science does not have an unambiguous answer to any of these questions.

Only the official interpretation of the "Uglich drama" at the end of the 16th - first half of the 17th centuries changed three times. V. Shuisky's commission of inquiry in 1591 announced an "accident". In 1605, when False Dmitry I appeared in Moscow, all the "witnesses" and investigators unanimously started talking about forgery and the murder of a double. And a year later they also recognized the son of Ivan IV the Terrible, Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich "Killed in Uglich", and the monarch sitting on the throne is an impostor. Immediately after the overthrow of False Dmitry I and the reign of V. Shuisky "Slain lad" Dmitry was urgently recognized as a saint, canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church. His ashes were just as urgently delivered from Uglich and buried in the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin - the tomb of the Russian tsars.

But who rests in this tomb? Is Tsarevich Dmitry really?

There is no answer either.

All domestic and foreign historians, one way or another in their research in contact with the subjects of the early 17th century (Time of Troubles), could not ignore the "Uglich affair".

Most researchers noted the fact that the materials of the investigation, as if on purpose, were selected so that any decision could be made on their basis. Many fragments of the case have been confused or disappeared as a result of the reshaping of the "columns" characteristic of the 16th century office work into "notebooks" that are more familiar to us.

At the beginning of the 19th century, with the light hand of N.M. Karamzin, the version about the murder of the tsarevich by order of Godunov gained the greatest popularity in society. It was this interpretation that inspired A.S. Pushkin to create the drama "Boris Godunov", A.K. Tolstoy - the tragedies Tsar Boris and Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich.

Subsequent researchers (SM Solovyov, SF Platonov, VK Klein) were more inclined towards the "accident", although they pointed out that the investigation was carried out by the Moscow commission of V. Shuisky extremely dishonestly. N.I. Kostomarov, K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, I.S.Belyaev and other highly respected historians of the 19th century adhered to the version about the possible "replacement" of the tsarevich with a double and his subsequent appearance as False Dmitry I.

The surviving documents of the "Uglich case" leave many doubts about the accidental suicide of the tsarevich, but at the same time they do not give any grounds for accusing B. Godunov of premeditated murder.

That is why the discussion about the events in Uglich continued and continues to this day. New versions appear, each of which has many adherents and opponents.

Prehistory of the "Uglich drama"

In 1584 Ivan VI the Terrible died. His son Fyodor Ioannovich ascended the throne. Suspecting that the narrow-minded and poor health prince would not be able to rule on his own, Grozny established under him something like a regency council, which included Fyodor's uncle Nikita Yuryevich Romanov, boyars Bogdan Belsky (Velsky), Ivan Mstislavsky, Ivan Shuisky and the king's brother-in-law, the brother of Tsarina Irina Boris Godunov.

"Guardians" very quickly quarreled among themselves. Godunov, having eliminated all his competitors, completely subjugated the weak-willed monarch and in fact became the first person in the state.

Meanwhile, a dynastic crisis was brewing in the country. Fyodor Ioannovich had no heir. His only daughter (Princess Theodosia) died in early childhood.

The last son of Ivan the Terrible - Tsarevich Dmitry - was born from the seventh, unrecognized by the church, marriage of Ivan IV with the artistic boyar Maria Feodorovna Naga, and therefore could not be considered a legitimate contender for the throne. The tsarevich was given Uglich as his inheritance - a city that was often owned by the appanage princes of the Moscow house. However, neither Dmitry nor his family actually became appanage rulers. The dispatch to Uglich was in fact the exile of dangerous rivals in the struggle for power. The specific rights of the prince were limited to receiving part of the income of the county. Administrative power belonged to the servicemen sent from Moscow, and first of all to the clerk Mikhail Bityagovsky. The young prince was brought up by his mother, numerous relatives - Naked and an extensive court staff.

In the event of the death of Fyodor Ioannovich, Dmitry (albeit an illegitimate, but a tsar's son) had more chances to occupy the Russian throne than the boyars Godunov, Shuisky, or any of the Romanovs. Everyone understood this. But in 1591, Tsar Fedor was still alive, and no one could guarantee that he would definitely not have an heir.

Uglich events: three versions

On May 15, 1591, the prince returned from the church with his mother. Maria Nagaya let Dmitry play in the yard with four boys. They were watched by a nanny, a wet nurse and a bed-woman. During the game, the prince fell to the ground with a knife wound in his throat and died immediately. The townspeople ran into the courtyard of the Uglich Kremlin. The Tsarevich's mother and her relatives were accused of killing people sent from Moscow, who were torn to pieces by the crowd on the same day.

On May 19, a commission arrived from Moscow consisting of Metropolitan Gelasiy of Sarsk and Podonsk, boyar Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, round-robin Andrei Petrovich Kleshnin and clerk Yelizari Danilovich Vyluzgin. The commission conducted an investigation and came to the conclusion that the prince, who suffered from epilepsy, played with a knife and in a seizure stabbed him.

In 1605, a young man reigned in Moscow, who claimed that he was Dmitry, who escaped the murderers thanks to a substitution. Vasily Shuisky, the main figure of the Uglich commission, who became king after his overthrow, said that Dmitry was killed in Uglich on the orders of Boris Godunov. It was then that the tomb of Tsarevich Dmitry appeared in the Archangel Cathedral, and Dmitry himself was declared a saint.

From those distant days, we are left with three mutually exclusive versions of what happened:

the prince died in an accident;

the tsarevich was killed by order of Boris Godunov;

They wanted to kill the prince, but he escaped.

Accident?

The basis of this version is the investigation file drawn up by the commission in Uglich. This is how what happened draws out from this document.

Mother Vasilisa Volokhova told the investigation that the prince suffered from epilepsy, “black sickness”. On May 15, the queen went with her son to mass, and then let him go for a walk in the courtyard of the palace. With the prince were mother Vasilisa Volokhova, nurse Arina Tuchkova, bed-bed Marya Kolobova and four peers, including the sons of the wet-nurse and bed-bed. The children played "butts" - they stuck a knife into the ground with a throw, trying to get as far as possible. During the game, the prince began to have a seizure. According to the nurse, "and threw him to the ground and then the prince stabbed himself in the throat with a knife, and beat him for a long time, but he was gone."

The murder of Tsarevich Dmitry, engraving by B. Chorikov, XIX century

Mikhail Fedorovich Nagoy, brother of the queen: "The Tsarevich was stabbed to death by Osip Volokhov, and Mikita Kachalov, and Danilo Bityagovskaya."

Grigory Fyodorovich Nagoy, another brother of the tsarina: "And they ran into the courtyard, even Tsarevich Dmitry is lying down, he stabbed himself with a knife in an epileptic disease."

Dmytro's playmates: "An illness came to him, a falling ailment, and he threw himself on the knife."

Nurse Arina Tuchkova: “And she did not save him, as a black disease came to the tsarevich, and at that time he had a knife in his hands, and he stabbed with a knife, and she took the tsarevich in her arms, and she had the tsarevich in her arms and is gone. "

Andrei Alexandrovich Nagoy: "He ran to the tsarina there, and the tsarevich is dead in the arms of the nurse, and they say that he was stabbed to death."

Dmitry died, as they would now say, “at lunchtime,” when practically the entire Uglich “courtyard” went to eat at their farmsteads. The tsarina's brothers left, the head of the Uglich administration Mikhail Bityagovsky left the clerks' hut. Following him, his subordinates, the clerk and clerk, also dispersed. Preparing for dinner and in the palace of the prince, when the son of the bed-makers Petrusha Kolobov came running with the news of Dmitry's death.

Tsarina Maria Nagaya jumped out into the yard, grabbed a log and began to beat her nanny Volokhova with it. It was then that the names of the alleged murderers of the tsarevich were first named: the tsarina "gave her, Vasilisa, the sentence that her son, Vasilisin, Osip and Mikhailov's son of Bityagovsky and Mikita Kachalov had killed Tsarevich Dmitry."

The alarm went off. The entire population of the city fled to the palace. Mikhailo Nagoy, already drunk, rode on a horse. Andrey and Grigory Nagie appeared.

When the clerk Mikhail Bityagovsky came with his assistants, the crowd, urged on by the Nagi brothers, pounced on them. They tried to hide in a "log hut" standing in the middle of the courtyard, but the Uglians knocked out doors and windows, pulled out the hiding officials and killed them. Then they killed Osip Volokhov and Danila Bityagovsky. They wanted to kill Bityagovsky's wife and daughters, but the intervention of the priests saved them.

Soon there was a sobering up. It was clear that a commission of inquiry was about to come from Moscow. It was necessary to urgently find evidence of the guilt of those killed. Mikhailo Nagoy got down to business. By his order, a weapon smeared with chicken blood was put on the bodies of the Bityagovskys, Kachalov, Volokhov and other killed (and in total 14 people died).

In the evening of May 19, a commission of inquiry arrived in Uglich. Formally, it was headed by Metropolitan Gelasiy, but in fact, the investigation was led by the boyar Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky - the future tsar, the offspring of one of the most noble families of the Russian state.

For a long time, supporters of the "accident" version had the opinion that Godunov deliberately sent Shuisky to Uglich, his enemy and rival in the struggle for the throne. Thus, he seemed to want to emphasize his innocence in the death of Tsarevich Dmitry. This point of view was shared by S.F. Platonov, R.G. Skrynnikov, V.K. Klein, the Soviet historian I.S. Polosin. Later studies proved that, in fact, the legend of V.I. Shuisky and Godunov was invented by Shuisky himself after his accession to the throne. The new tsar wanted to distance himself from his unpopular predecessor and somehow cling to the military glory of his relative, Ivan Shuisky, a very popular military leader and hero of the Livonian War, who was repressed under Fedor Ioannovich.

The Shuisky and Godunovs took an active part in the oprichnina. They were "cousins" - brother V.I. Shuisky Dmitry was married to the sister of Boris Godunov's wife. In 1591 Shuisky tried not to quarrel with his "brother-in-law" and the all-powerful ruler Godunov, and would not have missed an opportunity to please him.

It is because of the behavior of V.I. Shuisky, historians have never taken the documents of the investigation file seriously. As the head of the commission of inquiry, he confirmed that the prince had stabbed himself in an epileptic seizure. Then that was exactly what Godunov needed. When False Dmitry I ascended the throne, Shuisky at first did not recognize the new tsar, but then announced that he had not seen the body of the murdered tsarevich in Uglich. Having seized the tsar's throne, the same Shuisky announced solemnly: Tsarevich Dmitry was “slain by” from the “crafty slave Boris Godunov,” and established the veneration of the new holy martyr.

N.I. Kostomarov wrote: "The investigation matter for us matters no more than one of the three testimonies of Shuisky, and, moreover, such testimony, whose force was destroyed twice by himself.".

Suspicions of falsification increased when analyzing the case itself: the sheets were confused, there were no records of the interrogations of many important witnesses. Perhaps even members of Shuisky's commission cut out some testimonies from him and pasted others? However, a thorough study carried out at the beginning of the 20th century by an experienced archivist K. Klein rejected this kind of suspicion: just over many centuries, some of the sheets turned out to be damaged and lost, and some were confused.

In the case, there is no testimony from the mother of the deceased Tsarevich Maria Nagoya and one of her older brothers, Afanasy Fedorovich Nagy. According to the well-known version, Afanasy Nagoy was in Yaroslavl during the investigation and could not be interrogated. But it is not known exactly where he was during the incident on May 15, and none of the defendants in the case mentions him a word. Neither the boyars, nor even the patriarch had the right to interrogate the queen. But only she alone could tell why she immediately called Danila Bityagovsky, Nikita Kachalov and Osip Volokhov murderers.

On June 2, 1591, the “Consecrated Cathedral” and the Boyar Duma decided: “For Tsarevich Dmitry, death was caused by God's judgment,” and no one is to blame for the death of the last Rurikovich.

Killed by order of Godunov?

This version has surfaced three times, and under completely different circumstances.

On May 15, 1591, the Nagy was accused of the death of Tsarevich Boris Godunov, calling the Bityagovsky and Volokhovs, the Bityagovskys and Volokhovs, the direct perpetrators of the crime in Uglich. In intent (albeit unsuccessful) to murder Dmitry, he accused Godunov of False Dmitry I. On May 17, 1606, False Dmitry I was dethroned and two days later Vasily Shuisky was "called out" by the Tsar, who solemnly announced that Tsarevich Dmitry had been killed by Godunov's order.

Soon new impostors appeared, claiming: yes, the tsar who was killed in Moscow was indeed “the thief and heretic Grishka Otrepiev,” but he is the real Dmitry. To prove the imposture of any possible contender for the role of Dmitry, the "murdered" in Uglich the Tsarevich was declared a holy martyr. "Could a Russian man of the 17th century risked doubting what the" life "of the tsarevich said and what he heard in the rank of service to the new miracle worker?" - wrote S. Platonov.

Through the efforts of several generations of researchers, it has been found out how gradually, from legend to legend, from story to story, from year to year the version of the murder of the prince on the orders of Godunov acquired conflicting details. The oldest of these monuments - the so-called Tale of 1606 - came from circles close to the Shuisky, interested in presenting Dmitry as a victim of Boris Godunov's love of power. The authors of the later "legends" were already linked in their concept by the life of the holy Tsarevich Dmitry. Hence the disagreement. In one legend, the circumstances of the murder itself are not described at all; in the other, the murderers attack the prince in the courtyard, openly; in the third, they come up to the porch, ask the boy to show him the necklace, and when he lifts his head, they stab him with a knife; in the fourth, the villains hide under the stairs in the palace, and while one of them is holding the prince by the legs, the other kills.

Sources reporting the murder of Dmitry are contradictory, based on the official version, which could not be disputed or even questioned without falling into heretics.

The investigative case, as we have already mentioned, is not a more reliable source than legends, lives and chronicles. Who prevented the investigators from writing anything, given the illiteracy of most of the witnesses?

The Tsarevich's death was witnessed by the mother of Vasilisa Volokhova, the bed-bed Marya Kolobova, the nurse Arina Tuchkova and four of Dmitry's peers. It is unlikely that these people were literate and had the opportunity to control what exactly the clerk wrote down for them.

Another circumstance is suspicious - the obsessive repetition of all bystanders: "I stabbed myself with a knife." During the investigation, not only direct eyewitnesses speak about this, but also those who know about Dmitry's death from the words of other people. But all the townspeople then believed in the violent death of the prince and exterminated his alleged murderers.

It is often argued that Godunov was not interested in the death of the Tsarevich, whose death brought him more disaster than the living Dmitry could bring. They remind that the son of the seventh (or sixth) wife of Ivan the Terrible did not officially have the right to the throne, and Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich could well have had an heir even after the murder of the Tsarevich. All this is outwardly logical. But when, fourteen years later, someone appeared on the outskirts of the Russian state, posing as the son of Ivan the Terrible, the name of Dmitry shook a huge country. Many stood under his banner, and no one remembered from what marriage he was born.

Meanwhile, Godunov was seriously afraid of the tsarevich and his relatives. Even if a son was born to Tsar Fyodor, it is unlikely that the son of a feeble-minded Tsar would rule on his own. Boris would remain the sovereign's guardian and de facto ruler. For such an heir, his uncle Dmitry would be a real rival, for in Uglich, as eyewitnesses testify, an ardent enemy of the tsar's brother-in-law was growing up.

Dutchman Isaac Massa says: “Dmitry often asked what kind of person Boris Godunov was, saying:“ I myself want to go to Moscow, I want to see how things are going there, for I foresee a bad end if they trust unworthy nobles so much. ”

The German landsknecht Konrad Bussov reports that Dmitry once sculpted several figures out of snow, each gave the name of one of the boyars and then began to cut off their heads, legs, pierce through, saying: “With this I will do this when I am king, but this way ". The first in the row was a figure depicting Boris Godunov.

It is hardly by chance that the Nagy were immediately blamed for the death of the prince, it was the agents of Godunov. They waited and were afraid of this hour.

But does all this mean that Godunov really sent assassins to the Tsarevich, that Bityagovsky and Kachalov cut his throat? Probably not. Cautious Godunov would not risk so stupidly. If the murderers had been caught and interrogated with passion, they would hardly have become silent about the "customer" of the crime.

Russian historian V. B. Kobrin in a number of his works expresses the opinion that the nanny Vasilisa Volokhova was the direct "executor" of Godunov's will. If the boy did indeed suffer from epileptic seizures, then he should not have been allowed to play with sharp objects. From this point of view, the behavior of the teacher can be regarded not as an oversight, but as a crime. That is why, according to Kobrin, the queen attacked the nanny Volokhova, accusing her and her son of Dmitry's murder.

But here we should recall the customs of the then aristocracy. None of the noble men of the 16th century ever parted with weapons under any circumstances. The loss of weapons meant dishonor. The tsarevich, in addition to the knife, amused himself with a saber and a real dagger - a much more dangerous weapon than a knife for a child's "poke" game. Not a single woman, not even the queen herself, would have dared to take the knife away from the tsar's son.

From the point of view of modern medicine, an accidental suicide of a prince is unlikely: epileptic convulsions would not allow him to hold any object in his hand. And to pierce your own throat with even the sharpest knife that lies on the ground is almost impossible.

In the investigation file, neither a description of the knife, nor a detailed description of the scene of the incident, nor a mention of which of the boys was next to the prince at the moment when he began to have a seizure, has not been preserved. The investigators did not question all the children, confining themselves only to the testimony of the eldest, Petrusha Kolobov. It could happen that the knife that Dmitry had stabbed was in the hands of one of his playmates. For example, the same Petrusha Kolobov or the son of a wet nurse Tuchkova. If this fact had surfaced during the investigation, it is unlikely that the child would have been left alone. Perhaps that is why all eyewitnesses of the incident tried to emphasize in their testimony that the prince "threw himself on the knife."

Is it an impostor?

The version about saving the tsarevich by replacing him with a double rarely penetrates the pages of modern literature. Meanwhile, it cannot be considered simply the fruit of idle fiction. A major specialist in genealogy and the history of writing, S.D. Sheremetev, Professor of St. Petersburg University K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, a prominent historian I.S.Belyaev and other serious historians of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. A book specially devoted to the substantiation of this version was published by the famous journalist A.S. Suvorin.

The main sources of the version are the stories of the most imaginary Dmitry, which are recorded in the surviving diaries of Marina Mnishek; some hints scattered in the letters of foreigners (in particular - the English diplomat Jerome Horsey), testimonies of contemporaries about the behavior of False Dmitry I during his short reign.

Marina Mniszek's diaries and testimonies of other Poles give a version of the "rescue" of the prince, which is fundamentally different from what happened in Uglich on May 15, 1591.

According to M. Mnishek, a certain foreign doctor Simon saved Dmitry. He put in the place of the prince another, outwardly similar boy. This boy was strangled in Uglich. Meanwhile, none of the Russian sources mentions any doctor Simon at the court of Mary Nagoya. Dmitry died in broad daylight in front of seven witnesses from a knife wound. He who claimed that he was the prince was not aware of the events in Uglich, therefore, he was an impostor. On the other hand, if the real prince was replaced much earlier, then he might not know about what happened to his "double".

Jerome Horsey, who was in Yaroslavl in May 1591, left interesting evidence of the actions of the Nagikh boyars immediately after the death of the prince. They give the impression that the queen's relatives foresaw and prepared this "death" in advance. The "emissary" of the Nagikhs in Yaroslavl and Moscow was Afanasy Nagoy, about whom there is no mention in the "Uglich affair". On the evening of May 15, Athanasius informed Gorsey that Dmitry had been killed by Godunov's agents, and the queen had been poisoned. The followers of the Nagikh tried to spread this rumor in Yaroslavl, as well as in Moscow. The alarm was sounded in Yaroslavl, but it was not possible to rouse the people to the uprising. At the end of May 1591, a series of severe fires broke out in Moscow. The Nagie brothers actively spread rumors that the Godunovs were guilty not only of the murder of the tsar's son, but also of the villainous arson of Moscow. These rumors spread throughout Russia and penetrated abroad. The tsarist diplomats sent to Lithuania were forced to come out with an official refutation of the news that Moscow was “set on fire by the Godunov people”. The "arsonists" were later found. They turned out to be the slaves of the Nagikh boyars. Materials about the Moscow and Yaroslavl events were not included in the "Uglich case", were subsequently lost, and therefore were never considered by historians in the context of the events associated with the death of the tsarevich.

R.G. Skrynnikov, one of the most famous Soviet experts on the era of "Troubles", wrote:

Perhaps in 1591 there was no political need for Godunov to eliminate Dmitry. But for his opponents - it was. The alleged murder of the prince could have been part of the plan of the Nagikh brothers, who decided to organize a coup d'etat. If they were successful, they would have presented the "saved" nephew and would have become the first persons in the state.

The version of the substitution of the tsarevich is also supported by the fact of the intentional extermination by the tsarina's relatives of all "unreliable" persons who could recognize another boy in the murder and tell the Moscow commission about it - the Bityagovskys, Volokhov, Kachalov, clerks of the clerk hut and other "witnesses" who knew Dmitry's face. According to some testimonies, Queen Maria Nagaya also ordered to kill the “poor” girl who went to the palace to play with the prince and could blurt out too much. After all, none of the visiting Muscovites saw Dmitry, and could not vouch for the fact that he was killed.

Opponents of the "Otrepiev" version to this day insist that False Dmitry I was of non-Russian origin. Some see him as a Belarusian or Ukrainian who has undergone polonisation; others attribute to him Italian, French, German, Portuguese, and even Jewish origins. However, at the end of the 19th century, P. Pearling, a researcher of relations between Russia and the papal throne, found in the Vatican archives a handwritten letter of False Dmitry I in Polish. One can treat Pirling's apologetic assessment of the impostor's personality in different ways, but his graphological and textological studies showed that False Dmitry I did not speak Polish as his native language. Moreover, the outlines of many Latin letters with their heads betrayed in him a person accustomed to writing in Cyrillic.

Contemporaries unanimously note with what amazing, reminiscent of Peter's, courage the young Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich violated the etiquette that had developed at the Moscow court. It was proper for the Tsar to be calm and unhurried, earnest and important. This one acted with the temperament of the named father (without his cruelty). Dmitry did not pace slowly around the palace, but quickly moved from one room to another, so that even his personal bodyguards sometimes did not know where to find him. He was not afraid of the crowd, more than once, accompanied by one or two people, he rode along the Moscow streets. He didn't even sleep after lunch. All this is very unlike the calculating impostor. Let us recall how diligently Pugachev tried to copy the forms of Catherine's court. If False Dmitry considered himself an impostor, he would certainly have been able to master the etiquette and customs of the Moscow court in advance, he would have tried not to quarrel with the boyars right away, not cause bewilderment with his "strange" actions, and in terms of personal safety, he would not have been so careless. False Dmitry I pardoned Vasily Shuisky, the main compiler of the "Uglich case", who was supposed to be the first to convict him of imposture. In gratitude, Shuisky organized a coup d'etat, and his supporters killed the alleged Dmitry.

The prince's epilepsy is also doubtful. A cure for this disease, even with the modern development of medicine, is completely impossible. For the entire period of his reign (almost a year), False Dmitry I did not have a single seizure. Meanwhile, the version about the "epileptic" of the real son of Ivan the Terrible can also be questioned. She only appeared in the "Uglich affair". Except for relatives, nannies and children who played with him - persons interested - no one has ever seen Dmitry's seizures. "Epilepsy" could have been invented by the Nagimi to confuse the investigation: an "accident" during a seizure looked more plausible.

Only in the XX century, historians discovered information that the mother of the prince, Maria Nagaya, still made funeral contributions for her son. One of them was made on the anniversary of Dmitry's death - in May 1592, when the passions around the Uglich events had already subsided. There was no point in serving "for the peace" of a living person just to divert one's eyes, and it is unlikely that in the 16th century anyone could decide on such a blasphemous act ...

Despite the abundance of historical versions, the question of the identity of the first impostor, as well as who actually benefited from the death of Tsarevich Dmitry, remains open.

Elena Shirokova

Based on materials:

Skrynnikov R.G. Boris Godunov. - M., Science, 1978

He's the same. Impostors in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century. Grigory Otrepiev. - Novosibirsk, Science, 1990.