The legend about the murdered Tsarevich Dmitry. Literary and historical notes of a young technician Who killed Tsarevich Dmitry

In October 1582, Ivan the Terrible had a son, Dmitry, who had the fate of becoming the last offspring (male line) of the royal Rurik dynasty. According to accepted historiography, Dmitry lived for eight years, but his name hung as a curse over the Russian state for another 22 years.

Russian people often have the feeling that their Motherland is under some kind of spell. “Everything is different with us - not like normal people.” At the turn of the 16th-17th centuries in Rus' they were sure that they knew the root of all troubles - the curse of the innocently murdered Tsarevich Dmitry was to blame.

Alarm in Uglich

For Tsarevich Dmitry, the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible (from his last marriage with Maria Naga, who, by the way, was never recognized by the church), everything ended on May 25, 1591, in the city of Uglich, where he, in the status of appanage prince of Uglich, was in honorable exile . At noon, Dmitry Ioannovich threw knives with other children who were part of his retinue. In the materials of the investigation into the death of Dmitry, there is evidence of one youth who played with the prince: “... the prince was playing poke with a knife with them in the backyard, and an illness came upon him - an epileptic illness - and attacked the knife.” In fact, this testimony became the main argument for investigators to classify Dmitry Ioannovich’s death as an accident. However, the residents of Uglich would hardly be convinced by the investigation’s arguments. Russian people have always trusted signs more than the logical conclusions of “people”. And there was a sign... And what a sign! Almost immediately after the heart of the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible stopped, the alarm sounded over Uglich. The bell of the local Spassky Cathedral was ringing. And everything would be fine, only the bell would ring by itself - without a bell ringer. This is the story of the legend, which the people of Uglich for several generations considered to be reality and a fatal sign. When residents learned about the death of the heir, a riot began. The Uglich residents destroyed the Prikaznaya hut, killed the sovereign clerk with his family and several other suspects. Boris Godunov, who actually ruled the state under the nominal Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, hastily sent archers to Uglich to suppress the rebellion. Not only the rebels suffered, but also the bell: it was torn from the bell tower, its “tongue” was pulled out, its “ear” was cut off and it was publicly punished in the main square with 12 lashes. And then he, along with other rebels, was sent into exile to Tobolsk. The then Tobolsk governor, Prince Lobanov-Rostovsky, ordered the corn-eared bell to be locked in the official hut, with the inscription “first exiled inanimate from Uglich” written on it. However, the massacre of the bell did not rid the authorities of the curse - everything was just beginning.

The end of the Rurik dynasty

After the news of the death of the prince spread throughout the Russian Land, rumors spread among the people that boyar Boris Godunov had a hand in the “accident.” But there were brave souls who suspected the then Tsar, Fyodor Ioannovich, the older half-brother of the deceased Tsarevich, of the “conspiracy.” And there were reasons for this.

40 days after the death of Ivan the Terrible, Fedor, the heir to the Moscow throne, began to actively prepare for his coronation. By his order, a week before the crowning, the widow-Tsarina Maria and her son Dmitry Ioannovich were sent to Uglich - “to reign.” The fact that the last wife of Tsar John IV and the prince were not invited to the coronation was a terrible humiliation for the latter. However, Fyodor did not stop there: for example, the maintenance of the prince’s court was sometimes reduced several times a year. Just a few months after the beginning of his reign, he ordered the clergy to remove the traditional mention of the name of Tsarevich Dmitry during services. The formal basis was that Dmitry Ioannovich was born in his sixth marriage and, according to church rules, was considered illegitimate. However, everyone understood that this was just an excuse. The ban on mentioning the prince during divine services was perceived by his court as a wish for death. There were rumors among the people about failed attempts on Dmitry's life. Thus, the Briton Fletcher, while in Moscow in 1588–1589, wrote down that his nurse died from poison intended for Dmitry.

Six months after the death of Dmitry, the wife of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, Irina Godunova, became pregnant. Everyone was waiting for the heir to the throne. Moreover, according to legend, the birth of a boy was predicted by numerous court magicians, healers and healers. But in May 1592, the queen gave birth to a girl. There were rumors among the people that Princess Theodosia, as the parents named their daughter, was born exactly a year after Dmitry’s death - on May 25, and the royal family delayed the official announcement for almost a month. But this was not the worst sign: the girl lived only a few months and died the same year. And here they began to talk about Dmitry’s curse. After the death of his daughter, the king changed; he finally lost interest in his royal duties, and spent months in monasteries. People said that Fyodor was making amends for his guilt before the murdered prince. In the winter of 1598, Fyodor Ioannovich died without leaving an heir. The Rurik dynasty died with him.

Great Hunger

The death of the last sovereign from the Rurik dynasty opened the way to the kingdom of Boris Godunov, who was actually the ruler of the country even when Fyodor Ioannovich was alive. By that time, Godunov had gained a popular reputation as the “killer of the prince,” but this did not bother him much. Through cunning manipulations, he was nevertheless elected king, and almost immediately began with reforms. In two short years, he carried out more changes in the country than previous kings had done in the entire 16th century. And when Godunov already seemed to have won the people’s love, a catastrophe struck - from unprecedented climatic cataclysms, the Great Famine came to Rus', which lasted for three whole years. The historian Karamzin wrote that people “like cattle plucked grass and ate it; the dead were found to have hay in their mouths. Horse meat seemed like a delicacy: they ate dogs, cats, bitches, and all sorts of unclean things. People became worse than animals: they left their families and wives so as not to share the last piece with them. They not only robbed and killed for a loaf of bread, but also devoured each other... Human meat was sold in pies in the markets! Mothers gnawed at the corpses of their babies!..” In Moscow alone, more than 120,000 people died of hunger; Numerous gangs of robbers operated throughout the country. Not a trace remained of the people's love for the elected tsar that had been born - the people again talked about the curse of Tsarevich Dmitry and about the “damned Boriska”.

The end of the Godunov dynasty

The year 1604 finally brought a good harvest. It seemed that the troubles were over. It was the calm before the storm - in the fall of 1604, Godunov was informed that the army of Tsarevich Dmitry, who miraculously escaped from the hands of Godunov’s murderers in Uglich back in 1591, was moving from Poland to Moscow. “The Slave Tsar,” as Boris Godunov was popularly called, probably realized that Dmitry’s curse was now embodied in an impostor. However, Emperor Boris was not destined to meet face to face with False Dmitry: he died suddenly in April 1605, a couple of months before the triumphant entry of the “saved Dmitry” into Moscow. There were rumors that the desperate “damned king” had committed suicide by poisoning. But Dmitry’s curse also spread to Godunov’s son, Fyodor, who became king, who was strangled along with his own mother shortly before False Dmitry entered the Kremlin. They said that this was one of the main conditions for the “prince” to return triumphantly to the capital.

The end of the people's trust

Historians still argue whether the “tsar was not real.” However, we will probably never know about this. Now we can only say that Dmitry never managed to revive the Rurikovichs. And again the end of spring became fatal: on May 27, the boyars under the leadership of Vasily Shuisky staged a cunning conspiracy, during which False Dmitry was killed. They announced to the people that the king, whom they had recently idolized, was an impostor, and they staged a public posthumous humiliation. This absurd moment completely undermined people's trust in the authorities. Ordinary people did not believe the boyars and bitterly mourned Dmitry. Soon after the murder of the impostor, at the beginning of summer, terrible frosts struck, which destroyed all the crops. Rumors spread throughout Moscow about the curse that the boyars had brought upon the Russian Land by killing the legitimate sovereign. The cemetery at the Serpukhov Gate of the capital, where the impostor was buried, became a place of pilgrimage for many Muscovites. Many testimonies appeared about the “appearances” of the resurrected Tsar in different parts of Moscow, and some even claimed to have received a blessing from him. Frightened by popular unrest and a new cult of the martyr, the authorities dug up the corpse of the “thief,” loaded his ashes into a cannon and fired in the direction of Poland. False Dmitry's wife Marina Mnishek recalled when her husband's body was dragged through the Kremlin gates, the wind tore the shields from the gates, and installed them unharmed in the same order in the middle of the roads.

The end of the Shuiskys

The new tsar was Vasily Shuisky, the man who in 1598 initiated an investigation into the death of Tsarevich Dmitry in Uglich. The man who concluded that the death of Dmitry Ioannovich was an accident, having put an end to False Dmitry and receiving royal power, suddenly admitted that the investigation in Uglich had evidence of the violent death of the prince and direct involvement in the murder of Boris Godunov. By saying this, Shuisky killed two birds with one stone: he discredited his personal enemy Godunov, even if he was already dead, and at the same time proved that False Dmitry, who was killed during the conspiracy, was an impostor. Vasily Shuisky even decided to reinforce the latter with the canonization of Tsarevich Dmitry. A special commission headed by Metropolitan Philaret of Rostov was sent to Uglich, which opened the grave of the prince and allegedly discovered the incorruptible body of a child in the coffin, which exuded a fragrance. The relics were solemnly brought to the Archangel Cathedral of the Kremlin: a rumor spread throughout Moscow that the boy’s remains were miraculous, and the people went to Saint Dmitry for healing. However, the cult did not last long: there were several cases of death from touching the relics. Rumors spread throughout the capital about false relics and Dmitry's curse. The crayfish with the remains had to be placed out of sight in a reliquary. And very soon several more Dmitri Ioannovichs appeared in Rus', and the Shuisky dynasty, the Suzdal branch of the Rurikovichs, who for two centuries were the main rivals of the Danilovich branch for the Moscow throne, was interrupted by the first tsar. Vasily ended his life in Polish captivity: in the country towards which, on his orders, the ashes of False Dmitry I were once shot.

The Last Curse

The Troubles in Rus' ended only in 1613 - with the establishment of the new Romanov dynasty. But did Dmitry’s curse dry up along with this? The 300-year history of the dynasty says otherwise. Patriarch Filaret (in the world Fyodor Nikitich Romanov), the father of the first “Romanov” Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, was in the thick of the “passion for Dmitry.” In 1605, he, imprisoned by Boris Godunov in the monastery, was freed as a “relative” by False Dmitry I. After Shuisky’s accession, it was Philaret who brought the “miraculous relics” of the prince from Uglich to Moscow and planted the cult of St. Dmitry of Uglitsky - in order to convince Shuisky that False Dmitry, who once saved him, was an impostor. And then, standing in opposition to Tsar Vasily, he became the “nominated patriarch” in the Tushino camp of False Dmitry II.

Filaret can be considered the first of the Romanov dynasty: under Tsar Mikhail, he bore the title “Great Sovereign” and was actually the head of state. The Romanov reign began with the Time of Troubles and the Time of Troubles ended. Moreover, for the second time in Russian history, the royal dynasty was interrupted by the murder of the prince. There is a legend that Paul I locked in a casket for a hundred years the prediction of Elder Abel concerning the fate of the dynasty. It is possible that the name of Dmitry Ioannovich appeared there...

“The Uglich case is an investigative case carried out by a special commission (boyar Prince V.I. Shuisky, Okolnichy A.P. Kleshnin, Duma clerk E. Vyluzgin, as well as Metropolitan Gelasy) in the 2nd half of May 1591 in connection with the death of Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich and the popular uprising in Uglich on May 15, 1591. About 150 people were brought into the investigation. The prince's uncles were interrogated - Nagiye, mother, nurse, clergy close to the court or who were in the palace at the initial moment of events. Compiling a white copy of “U. d." was mostly completed in Uglich. On June 2, it was reported by Gelasius at a meeting of the Consecrated Council, by whose decision it was transferred to the discretion of the king. The death of the prince was recognized as having occurred during an epileptic fit, when he fell and stabbed himself with a knife. His mother was tonsured a nun, his relatives were disgraced, and a significant number of townspeople, participants in the uprising, were sent “to live” in Siberia.” Great Soviet Encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet encyclopedia 1969-1978

"Uglich case"

The “Uglich case” to this day is one of the unresolved and, most likely, insoluble mysteries of Russian history. Modern criminologists jokingly call him the oldest “hanging man” or “grouse wood grouse” in Russian criminology. Researchers who have studied the multi-volume materials of this investigation far and wide have been debating for several centuries: what actually happened in Uglich on May 15, 1591? Is it possible to trace the beginning of the Time of Troubles in the Russian state to precisely this date? Was the prince killed? Died in an accident? Maybe on the Russian throne in 1605-1606. was not an impostor, but the last representative of the Rurik dynasty?

Dmitry Tsarevich killed M.V. Nesterov, 1899

Alas, modern historical science does not have a clear answer to any of these questions.

Only the official interpretation of the “Uglich drama” changed three times at the end of the 16th - first half of the 17th centuries. The investigative commission of V. Shuisky in 1591 announced an “accident.” In 1605, when False Dmitry I appeared in Moscow, all the “witnesses” and investigators unanimously spoke about the forgery and murder of the double. And a year later they 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 accession of V. Shuisky "murdered youth" Dmitry was urgently recognized as a saint and 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 lies in this tomb? Is it really Tsarevich Dmitry?

There is no answer either.

All domestic and foreign historians, who in one way or another came into contact in their research with the plots of the early 17th century (Time of Troubles), could not ignore the “Uglich case”.

Most researchers noted the fact that the investigation materials, as if on purpose, were selected so that any decision could be made on their basis. Many fragments of the file have been mixed up or disappeared as a result of the reorganization of the “columns” characteristic of 16th-century office work into the “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 prince on the orders 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 - tragedies “Tsar Boris” and “Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich”.

Subsequent researchers (S.M. Solovyov, S.F. Platonov, V.K. Klein) were more inclined towards an “accident,” although they pointed out that the investigation was carried out by the Moscow commission of V. Shuisky in extremely bad faith. N.I. Kostomarov, K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, I.S. Belyaev and other highly respected historians of the 19th century adhered to the version of the possible “replacement” of the prince 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 prince, but at the same time they do not provide 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 are emerging, each of which has many adherents and opponents.

Background of the “Uglich drama”

In 1584, Ivan VI the Terrible died. His son Fyodor Ioannovich ascended the throne. Suspecting that the short-sighted and weakly healthy 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 tsar's brother-in-law, brother of Queen Irina - Boris Godunov.

The “guardians” very quickly quarreled among themselves. Godunov, having eliminated all his competitors, completely subjugated the weak-willed monarch and actually became the first person in the state.

Meanwhile, a dynastic crisis was brewing in the country. Fyodor Ioannovich did not have an 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 noble noblewoman Maria Fedorovna Naga, and therefore could not be considered a legitimate contender for the throne. The Tsarevich was allocated Uglich as an appanage - a city that was often owned by the appanage princes of the Moscow House. However, neither Dmitry nor his family actually became appanage rulers. Sending to Uglich was actually the exile of dangerous competitors in the struggle for power. The prince's appanage rights were limited to receiving part of the county's income. Administrative power belonged to service people sent from Moscow, and first of all to clerk Mikhail Bityagovsky. The young prince was raised by his mother, numerous relatives - Nagiye and an extensive court staff.

In the event of the death of Fyodor Ioannovich, Dmitry (albeit illegitimate, but the royal son) had a better chance of taking 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 and his mother returned from church. Maria Nagaya let Dmitry go play in the yard with four boys. They were watched by a nanny, a nurse and a bed-maid. During the game, the prince fell to the ground with a knife wound in his throat and died immediately. The townspeople came running to the courtyard of the Uglich Kremlin. The Tsarevich's mother and her relatives accused people sent from Moscow of murder, who were torn to pieces by a crowd that same day.

On May 19, a commission consisting of Metropolitan Gelasius of Sarsk and Podonsk, boyar Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, okolnichy Andrei Petrovich Kleshnin and clerk Elizariy Danilovich Vyluzgin arrived from Moscow. The commission conducted an investigation and came to the conclusion that the prince, who suffered from epilepsy, was playing with a knife and, in a fit, impaled himself on it.

In 1605, a certain young man reigned in Moscow who claimed that he was Dmitry, who had escaped from the murderers thanks to a substitution. Vasily Shuisky, who became king after his overthrow, the main figure in the Uglich commission, stated 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 prince was killed on the orders of Boris Godunov;

They wanted to kill the prince, but he escaped.

Accident?

The basis of this version is the investigative file compiled by the commission in Uglich. This is how what happened appears from this document.

Vasilisa Volokhova’s mother 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 his mother Vasilisa Volokhova, nurse Arina Tuchkova, bed-maid Marya Kolobova and four peers, including the sons of the nurse and bed-maid. The children played “poke” - throwing a knife into the ground, trying to get as far as possible. During the game, the prince began to have a seizure. According to the nanny, “and he was thrown to the ground and then the prince stabbed himself in the throat with a knife, and they beat him for a long time, and then he was gone.”

The murder of Tsarevich Dmitry, engraving by B. Chorikov, 19th century.

Mikhail Fedorovich Nagoy, the queen’s brother: “The Tsarevich was stabbed to death by Osip Volokhov, Mikita Kachalov, and Danilo Bityagovskaya.”

Grigory Fedorovich Nagoy, another brother of the queen: “And they ran to the courtyard, even as Tsarevich Dmitry was lying, he attacked himself with a knife in epilepsy.”

Dmitry's playmates: “An illness came upon him, an epilepsy, and he attacked him with a knife.”

Nurse Arina Tuchkova: “And she didn’t save him, when a black illness came to the prince, and at that time he had a knife in his hands, and he pricked himself with a knife, and she took the prince in her arms, and she had the prince in her arms and gone."

Andrei Aleksandrovich Nagoy: “I immediately ran to the queen, and the prince was lying dead in the nurse’s arms, and they said that he was stabbed to death.”

Dmitry died, as they would say now, “at lunchtime,” when almost the entire Uglich “yard” went to their courtyards to eat. The queen's brothers left, and the head of the Uglich administration, Mikhail Bityagovsky, left the deacon's hut. Following him, his subordinates—the clerks and clerks—dispersed. They were preparing for dinner in the prince's palace, when the son of the bed servants, Petrusha Kolobov, came running with the news of Dmitry's death.

Queen Maria Nagaya jumped out into the yard, grabbed a log and began to beat the nanny Volokhova with it. It was then that the names of the alleged killers of the prince were first named: the queen “began to say to her, Vasilisa, that her son, Vasilisin, Osip with Mikhailov’s son Bityagovsky and Mikita Kachalov killed Tsarevich Dmitry.”

The alarm sounded. The entire population of the city came running to the palace. Mikhailo Nagoy, who had already gotten drunk, rode up on a horse. Andrei and Gregory Nagy appeared.

When clerk Mikhail Bityagovsky and his assistants arrived, the crowd, incited by the Nagimi brothers, attacked them. They tried to hide in a “timber hut” standing in the middle of the courtyard, but the Uglich residents broke down the 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 they were saved by the intervention of the priests.

Soon sobering set in. It was clear that an investigative commission was about to arrive from Moscow. There was an urgent need to find evidence of the guilt of those killed. Mikhailo Nagoy took up the matter. By his order, weapons smeared with chicken blood were placed on the bodies of the Bityagovskys, Kachalov, Volokhov and other killed (a total of 14 people died).

On the evening of May 19, an investigative commission arrived in Uglich. Formally, it was headed by Metropolitan Gelasius, but in fact the investigation was led by boyar Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, the future tsar, a scion of one of the most noble families of the Russian state.

Among supporters of the “accident” version, there has long been an opinion that Godunov deliberately sent Shuisky, his enemy and competitor in the struggle for the throne, to Uglich. Thus, he seemed to want to emphasize his non-involvement in the death of Tsarevich Dmitry. This point of view was shared by S.F. Platonov, R.G. Skrynnikov, V.K. Klein, and the Soviet historian I.S. Polosin. Later research proved that in fact, the legend about the “bad” relationship of V.I. Shuisky and Godunov was invented by Shuisky himself after his accession to the throne. The new tsar wanted to dissociate 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 Fyodor Ioannovich.

The Shuiskys and Godunovs took an active part in the oprichnina. They were “in-laws” - 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 miss an opportunity to please him.

It was precisely because of the behavior of V.I. Shuisky historians have never taken the investigative documents seriously. As the head of the investigative commission, he confirmed: the prince stabbed himself in an epileptic fit. Then this is exactly what Godunov needed. When False Dmitry I ascended the throne, Shuisky at first did not recognize the new tsar, but then stated that he had not seen the body of the murdered prince in Uglich. Having taken possession of the royal throne, the same Shuisky solemnly announced: Tsarevich Dmitry was “slain quickly” from the “evil servant Boris Godunov”, and established the veneration of the new holy martyr.

N.I. Kostomarov wrote: “The investigative case matters to us no more than one of the three testimonies of Shuisky, and, moreover, such a testimony, the power of which was destroyed twice by himself.”.

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

The case does not contain the testimony of the mother of the deceased Tsarevich Maria Nagoy and one of her older brothers, Afanasy Fedorovich Nagoy. According to the well-known version, Afanasy Nagoy was in Yaroslavl during the investigation and could not be interviewed. But it is not known exactly where exactly he was during the incident on May 15, and none of the defendants in the case mentions him at all. Neither the boyars nor even the patriarch had the right to interrogate the queen. But she alone could tell why she immediately called Danila Bityagovsky, Nikita Kachalov and Osip Volokhov the murderers.

On June 2, 1591, the “Consecrated Cathedral” and the boyar duma decided: “Tsarevich Dmitry’s death was inflicted by God’s judgment,” and no one is to blame for the death of the last Rurikovich.

Killed on Godunov's orders?

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

On May 15, 1591, Nagiye was accused of the death of Tsarevich Boris Godunov, naming his “agents” in Uglich - the Bityagovskys and Volokhovs - as the direct perpetrators of the crime. False Dmitry I accused Godunov of intent (albeit unsuccessfully) to kill Dmitry. On May 17, 1606, False Dmitry I was overthrown from the throne and two days later Vasily Shuisky was “called out” by the tsar, who solemnly announced that Tsarevich Dmitry was killed on the orders of Godunov.

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

Through the efforts of several generations of researchers, it was revealed 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 grew overgrown with contradictory details. The oldest of these monuments - the so-called Tale of 1606 - came from circles close to the Shuiskys, interested in presenting Dmitry as a victim of Boris Godunov’s lust for power. The authors of later “tales” were already connected in their concept by the life of the holy Tsarevich Dmitry. Hence the disagreements. In one tale, the circumstances of the murder itself are not described at all; in another, the murderers attack the prince in the courtyard, openly; in the third, they approach the porch, ask the boy to show him the necklace, and when he raises 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 holds the prince by the legs, the other kills him.

The sources reporting the murder of Dmitry are contradictory, based on the official version, which could not be challenged or even questioned without falling into heresy.

The investigative file, as we have already mentioned, is not a more reliable source than legends, lives and chronicles. Who prevented the investigators from writing whatever they wanted, given that most of the witnesses were illiterate?

Eyewitnesses to the death of the prince were mother Vasilisa Volokhova, bed-maid Marya Kolobova, 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 suspicious circumstance is the obsessive repetition by all the witnesses: “I stabbed myself with a knife.” During the investigation, this was spoken about not only by direct eyewitnesses, but also by 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 killers.

It is often argued that Godunov was not interested in the death of the prince, whose death brought him more disasters than the living Dmitry could bring. They remind you that the son from the seventh (or sixth) wife of Ivan the Terrible officially did not have the right to the throne, and Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich could well have born an heir even after the murder of the prince. All this is superficially logical. But when, fourteen years later, someone appeared on the outskirts of the Russian state posing as the son of Ivan the Terrible, Dmitry’s name alone shook up 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 prince and his relatives. Even if Tsar Fedor had a son, it is unlikely that the son of a weak-minded tsar would have ruled independently. Boris would remain the sovereign's guardian and de facto ruler. For such an heir, his uncle Dmitry would have been a real rival, for in Uglich, as eyewitnesses testify, an ardent enemy of the Tsar’s brother-in-law was growing up.

The 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, because I foresee a bad end if they trust unworthy nobles so much.”

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

It is hardly accidental that Nagiye immediately blamed Godunov’s agents for the death of the Tsarevich. They waited and feared this hour.

But does all this mean that Godunov really sent killers to the prince, that Bityagovsky and Kachalov cut his throat? Most likely no. Cautious Godunov would not have taken such a stupid risk. If the killers were captured and interrogated with passion, it is unlikely that they would remain silent about the “customer” of the crime.

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

But here we should remember the morals of the aristocracy of that time. None of the noble men of the 16th century parted with weapons under any circumstances. Losing a weapon 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 the children's game of poke. Not a single woman, not even the queen herself, would dare to take the knife from the king’s son.

From the point of view of modern medicine, the prince’s accidental suicide is unlikely: epileptic convulsions would not have allowed him to hold any object in his hand. And it’s almost impossible to pierce your own throat even with the sharpest knife lying on the ground.

In the investigative file, there was no description of the knife, no detailed description of the scene of the incident, no mention of which of the boys was next to the prince at the moment when he began to have a seizure. Investigators did not interrogate all the children, limiting themselves only to the testimony of the eldest, Petrusha Kolobov. It could have happened that the knife on which Dmitry was impaled was in the hands of one of his playmates. For example, the same Petrusha Kolobov or the son of the nurse Tuchkova. If this fact had come to light during the investigation, it is unlikely that the child would have been left alone. Perhaps that is why all the eyewitnesses of the incident tried to emphasize in their testimonies that the prince “pounced on the knife himself.”

Is it an impostor?

The version of saving the prince 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 prominent specialist in genealogy and the history of writing, S.D., believed in Dmitry’s salvation (or at least accepted this possibility). Sheremetev, professor of St. Petersburg University K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, the prominent historian I.S. Belyaev and other serious historians of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. A book specifically 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 imaginary Dmitry himself, which are recorded in the surviving diaries of Marina Mnishek; some hints scattered in letters from foreigners (in particular, the English diplomat Jerome Horsey), evidence from contemporaries about the behavior of False Dmitry I during his short reign.

The diaries of Marina Mniszech and the 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, Dmitry was saved by a certain foreign doctor Simon. He replaced the prince with another, outwardly similar boy. This boy was strangled in Uglich. Meanwhile, none of the Russian sources mentions any doctor Simon at the court of Maria Nagoya. Dmitry died in broad daylight in front of seven witnesses from a knife wound. The one who claimed that he was the prince was not aware of the Uglich events, therefore he was an impostor. On the other hand, if the real prince was replaced much earlier, then he might not have known about what happened to his “double”.

Jerome Horsey, who was in Yaroslavl in May 1591, left interesting evidence about 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 for this “death” in advance. The “emissary” of Nagikh in Yaroslavl and Moscow was Afanasy Nagiy, about whom there is no mention in the “Uglich case”. Already on the evening of May 15, Afanasy informed Horsey 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. In Yaroslavl the alarm was sounded, but it was not possible to rouse the people to revolt. At the end of May 1591, a series of severe fires occurred in Moscow. The Nagy 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. Tsarist diplomats sent to Lithuania were forced to issue an official refutation of the news that Moscow was “set on fire by Godunov’s 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”; they were subsequently lost, and therefore were never considered by historians in the context of the events associated with the death of the prince.

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

“The situation surrounding the Uglich events was critical for the government. The country was under immediate threat of invasion by Swedish troops and Tatars. The authorities were preparing to fight not only external but also internal enemies. One or two weeks before Dmitry’s death, they placed reinforced military units on the streets of the capital and implemented other police measures in case of popular unrest. The slightest push was enough for the people to rise up in revolt, which for Godunov could have ended in disaster. In such a situation, the death of Dmitry was an undesirable event for Boris and, moreover, extremely dangerous. The facts refute the usual idea that the elimination of the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible was a political necessity for Godunov...” Skrynnikov R. G. Boris Godunov. – M., Nauka, 1978. – 72

Perhaps in 1591 there was no political need for Godunov to eliminate Dmitry. But for his opponents – it was. The imaginary murder of the prince could be part of the plan of the Nagikh brothers, who decided to organize a coup d'etat. If they were successful, they would present their “saved” nephew and become the first persons in the state.

The version of the substitution of the Tsarevich is also supported by the fact that the Tsarina’s relatives deliberately exterminated all “unreliable” persons who could recognize the murdered boy as another boy and tell the Moscow commission about this - Bityagovsky, Volokhov, Kachalov, clerks of the official hut and other “witnesses” who knew Dmitry in the face. According to some testimonies, Queen Maria Nagaya also ordered the death of the “wretched” 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 it was he who was killed.

Opponents of the “Otrepievskaya” version to this day insist that False Dmitry I was non-Russian in origin. Some see him as a Belarusian or Ukrainian who has been subjected to Polishization; others attribute to him Italian, French, German, Portuguese and even Jewish origins. However, at the end of the 19th century, P. Pierling, a researcher of relations between Russia and the papal throne, found a handwritten letter from False Dmitry I in Polish in the Vatican archives. Pierling's apologetic assessment of the impostor's personality can be treated differently, but his graphological and textual studies showed that False Dmitry I did not speak Polish as his native language. Moreover, the designs of many Latin letters clearly revealed in him a person accustomed to writing in Cyrillic.

Contemporaries unanimously note with what amazing, reminiscent of Peter the Great, courage the young Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich violated the etiquette that had developed at the Moscow court. It was fitting for the king to be calm and unhurried, earnest and important. This one acted with the temperament of the named father (without his cruelty). Dmitry did not walk 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 crowds; more than once, accompanied by one or two people, he rode through the streets of Moscow. He didn't even sleep after lunch. All this is extremely unlike a calculating impostor. Let us remember 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, would have tried not to immediately quarrel with the boyars, not to 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 imaginary Dmitry.

The prince's epilepsy is also questionable. A cure for this disease, even with modern developments in medicine, is completely impossible. During his entire reign (almost a year), False Dmitry I did not have a single seizure. Meanwhile, the version about the “epileptic” illness of the real son of Ivan the Terrible can also be questioned. She appeared only in the “Uglich case”. Apart from relatives, nannies and children who played with him - persons interested - no one had ever seen Dmitry's seizures. “Epilepsy” may have been invented by Nagimi to confuse the investigation: an “accident” during a seizure seemed more plausible.

Only in the 20th century did historians discover information that the prince’s mother, Maria Nagaya, nevertheless made funeral contributions for her son. One of them was made on the anniversary of the death of Dmitry - in May 1592, when passions around the Uglich events had already subsided. There was no point in serving “for the repose” of a living person simply to divert attention, 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., Nauka, 1978

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

The death of Ivan the Terrible's youngest son, the young Tsarevich Dmitry, still leaves few people indifferent and causes controversy among historians. So it is not completely clear: how exactly the prince died, and whether he died at all on May 15, 1591. There is no clear official version of the prince’s death. Each time, priority is given to the version that is convenient for the current government. Under the Romanovs, it was believed that the prince was killed on the orders of Godunov. Under Soviet power, they adhered to the version of the prince’s suicide as a result of an attack of epilepsy. And despite the fact that there are several deaths of the prince, even today new readings of this event are appearing.

Versions of the death of Tsarevich Dmitry

On a clear afternoon on May 15, 1591, Tsarevich Dmitry died in Uglich. This was the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible, the last of the Rurikovichs. And for more than 400 years, disputes about the death of the child have not subsided, versions have been put forward and new mysteries have arisen.

The background to the death of the prince

Dmitry was born to Maria Naga, the fifth wife of Ivan the Terrible. According to church canons, he was considered illegitimate, since the Orthodox Church recognizes only three marriages as legal. In addition to the young Dmitry, of the children of Tsar John, only Fyodor, who was weak in health and mind, survived. Fyodor not only could not govern the state, he could not even manage his own life independently. Therefore, during his lifetime, Ivan the Terrible appointed Fyodor’s brother-in-law Boris Godunov as something like a regent for the feeble-minded Tsarevich Fyodor. The king also took care of his youngest son, giving him the Uglich principality as his inheritance. There, to Uglich, the entire family of the former queen was sent along with the young Tsarevich Dmitry after the death of Ivan the Terrible. Clerk Mikhail Bityagovsky and several other service people were entrusted with keeping an eye on the family. The country was actually ruled by Boris Godunov. Fedor was a decorative figure.

Events of May 15, 1591 in Uglich

In May 1591, Tsarevich Dmitry was in his ninth year. The events of Saturday, May 15, developed as follows. Maria Nagaya went to church for mass. I took my son with me. When she returned, she went to the palace to have lunch, and let her son go play with the courtyard boys in the courtyard. The prince was to be looked after by nurse Arina Tuchkova, nanny Vasilisa Volokhova and bed maid Maria Kolobova. The boys played with knives. The prince did not have a flat knife, but a pile - a type of stiletto intended for stabbing. Suddenly there was a commotion among the boys. Arina Tuchkova ran up and saw the prince lying dead with a wound on his neck. The boy died in her arms. The eldest of the boys, Petrushka Kolobov, ran to the palace to notify the queen. Maria Nagaya, jumping out into the yard, began in a frenzy to hit the nanny Volokhov on the head with a log and shout that the prince was killed by her son Osip Volokhov. After this, the queen ordered the alarm to sound. The townspeople ran to the palace. Together with others, clerk Bityagovsky came, as well as Osip Volokhov. Maria Nagaya screamed that Osip Volokhov had killed the prince. The crowd became agitated and tried to organize lynching. Deacon Bityagovsky and other people who tried to calm the excited crowd were killed. They also killed Osip Volokhov, who hid in the church, where the prince’s body had already been transferred. A total of 15 people were killed that day.

Consequence

Godunov assembled a commission. She arrived in Uglich on May 19. Considering the speed of that time, we can say that this happened immediately. The commission was led by Vasily Shuisky, one of Godunov’s main opponents. Members of the commission were also Kleshnin - okolnichy, Duma clerk Vyluzgin, and from the church - Metropolitan Gelvasiya. The composition of the commission was chosen very competently. All its members had different political preferences, and there could be no agreement between them. The investigation was carried out very carefully. Hundreds of witnesses were interviewed. The interrogations were conducted publicly in the courtyard of the Uglich Krem. Anyone could attend the commission meeting. Falsification or pressure on witnesses was absolutely excluded. The main witnesses were the boys, the prince’s comrades at his last game, as well as the nanny Volokhova, the nurse Tuchkova and the bed-maid Kolobov. Based on their testimony, the commission concluded that the death of Tsarevich Dmitry occurred as a result of an accident. All the main witnesses testified that during the game Dmitry began to have an attack of epilepsy, which he had suffered from for a long time and which had recently tormented him especially severely. The prince fell to the ground and either during the fall, or already on the ground during convulsions, he himself ran into a knife.

In 1591, all of Russia accepted this version. The Nagikh family was punished for inciting the crowd. Queen Maria Nagaya was tonsured a nun and sent to Beloozero. The Nagy brothers, Mikhail, Andrei and Grigory, are imprisoned. Many Uglich residents were sent to settle in Siberia for reprisals against the sovereign’s people. A bell was also sent there, which called the people of Uglich to the gathering. The bell's tongue was previously torn out.

Using the death of Tsarevich Dmitry against Godunov

And life in Russia went on as usual. But here in 1598 Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich died. The Rurik dynasty ended there. And the Zemsky Sobor elected Boris Godunov as Tsar. The party opposing Godunov immediately became more active. As a regent under an ailing sovereign, they could still tolerate him, but his election to the kingdom aroused their sharp rejection. Godunov was “thin”, i.e. came from humble, small-scale nobles, and the boyars considered him an upstart. In addition, they did not like Godunov’s policy, which was generally correct from the point of view of the development of the state, but infringed on their personal interests. Then rumors spread that Tsarevich Dmitry was killed on Godunov’s instructions. And then False Dmitry showed up in Poland. Thus, several versions of the death of Tsarevich Dmitry arose.

Versions of the death of Tsarevich Dmitry

1. The prince committed suicide.
2. The Tsarevich was killed on Godunov's instructions.
3. The prince was replaced and thereby saved from death.

Let's look at each version in more detail. Let's weigh the pros and cons.

1. The prince's suicide as a result of an accident.

This version is supported by the results of a scrupulous and impartial investigation. But there are also “buts” in this... Firstly, the statistics of deaths during epileptic seizures do not know cases when the patient died as a result of injuries inflicted on himself. Immediately after the onset of an epileptic attack, the patient is unable to hold anything in his hands. In Dmitry’s case, the knife should have immediately slipped out of his hands. In order for the prince to impale himself on the knife with his throat, the knife had to be stuck into the ground with its handle.

The carelessness of the queen and the nannies, who allow a child with epilepsy to play with knives, is also striking. After all, according to their stories, he had already cut his mother with this pile during an attack. It seems that the very last fools that were ever found in the Moscow state were recruited to look after the prince.

What also casts doubt on this is that Vasily Shuisky, having ascended the throne, announced that his own conclusion about the prince’s suicide was incorrect, and that the prince was killed on Godunov’s instructions. The church even declared Tsarevich Dmitry a holy passion-bearer. His relics were transferred to the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin.

1. Godunov “ordered” the murder of the prince.

According to the law of the detective genre, you always need to look at “who benefits.” Only Godunov benefits from the death of the heir to the throne. But there are some nuances here too. Godunov was an intelligent man and understood that he was in power only thanks to Fyodor Ioannovich. Therefore, he took care of it like the apple of his eye. He also understood that his opponents would use Dmitry’s death against him. Godunov’s position was very precarious for him to allow himself to encroach on the heir to the throne. Moreover, despite the fact that Godunov once served as a guardsman and was the son-in-law of Malyuta Skuratov, he was not distinguished by bloodthirstiness. During all the years that he was in power, there was not a single execution for political reasons. In the worst case, Godunov sent his opponents into exile or tonsured them as monks. And the murder of a child somehow does not fit into his reputation as a sane ruler.

But nevertheless, Godunov was considered a usurper of power in Russia, and the version of the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry ordered by Godunov was very popular. Later, this version was supported by the Romanovs. This version is also considered official by the church. Karamzin in “History of the Russian State” also adheres to this version. Following Karamzin, Pushkin writes the tragedy “Boris Godunov”, where Godunov is also guilty of the death of Tsarevich Dmitry. And then, based on the tragedy “Boris Godunov,” Modest Mussorgsky wrote the opera “Boris Godunov.” And now in the minds of every Russian person Boris Godunov is associated with the death of Tsarevich Dmitry...

1. The replacement of the prince and his miraculous salvation.

A separate article should be devoted to this.

To be continued...

The prince did not even live to see his 9th birthday. However, his short life and mysterious death most seriously influenced the fate of the Russian state. The Great Troubles, which cast doubt on the very possibility of the existence of Russia as a single, independent power, is connected from beginning to end with the name of Tsarevich Dmitry.

Illegitimate

Strictly speaking, the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible bore the title “prince” only conditionally, and had no rights to the throne.

His mother Maria Nagaya, was, according to different versions of historians, either the sixth or seventh wife of the king. The Church did not recognize this marriage as legal, which means that the child born on October 19, 1582 could not be the legal heir to the throne.

Dmitry Ivanovich was the full namesake of his older brother, the first-born of Ivan the Terrible. The first Dmitry Ivanovich passed away without even living a year. The exact circumstances of his death are unknown - during his father’s trip on a pilgrimage, the baby either died of illness or drowned as a result of an accident.

The second Dmitry Ivanovich outlived his father - when Ivan the Terrible died, his youngest son was about one and a half years old.

Ascended to the throne Fedor Ivanovich ordered to send his stepmother and brother to Uglich, proclaiming him an appanage prince.

The Great Ambitions of the Naked Clan

Tsarevich Dmitry became the last appanage prince in Russia, and his rights were seriously limited. Uglich was governed by clerk Mikhail Bityagovsky, appointed by the king.

Relations between Fyodor Ivanovich's entourage and Nagimi were, to put it mildly, strained.

By sending the dowager queen and prince to Uglich, they were given to understand that they would not tolerate any claims to the throne on their part. The truth was on the side of Nagikh’s opponents, since, as already said, Dmitry was considered illegitimate.

The Nagikh clan, starting with the queen, was extremely hurt by this state of affairs, hoping to occupy high government positions.

But they still had hope. Fyodor Ivanovich was not in good health and could not produce an heir. And this meant that Dmitry, despite his illegitimacy, remained the only direct heir to the throne.

“He takes pleasure in seeing his throat cut and blood flowing from it.”

Information about Dmitry himself is contradictory. Russian historians, for reasons that will be discussed below, painted the image of a kind of angel endowed exclusively with virtues.

Foreigners wrote somewhat differently. Englishman Giles Fletcher, who wrote a book about his journey to Russia, reported: “The Tsar’s younger brother, a child of six or seven years old (as was said before), is kept in a remote place from Moscow, under the supervision of his mother and relatives from the Nagikh house, but (as is heard) life he is in danger from the attacks of those who extend their sights on possessing the throne in the event of the king’s childless death. The nurse, who had tasted some dish before him (as I heard), died suddenly. The Russians confirm that he is definitely the son of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, by the fact that in his young years all the qualities of his father begin to be revealed in him. He (they say) takes pleasure in watching sheep and livestock in general being killed, in seeing a throat cut while blood flows from it (whereas children are usually afraid of this), and in beating geese and chickens with a stick until they They won’t die.”

In addition to Dmitry’s cruelty, with which he reminded his contemporaries of his father and older brother Ivan, the topic of a possible assassination attempt on the prince also comes up here. This is extremely important in connection with the events that occurred subsequently.

Fatal May 15

On May 15, 1591, Tsarevich Dmitry was found dead in the courtyard of the palace. The boy received a fatal wound to the neck.

The mother of the deceased, Maria Nagaya, as well as her relatives, announced that the prince was stabbed to death by the people of clerk Mikhail Bityagovsky on orders from Moscow. An alarm bell sounded over Uglich. An angry crowd tore apart the alleged murderers - Osipa Volokhova, Nikita Kachalova And Danila Bityagovsky, son of a clerk. Following this, they dealt with Mikhail Bityagovsky himself, who was trying to calm the crowd.

From the point of view of the tsarist authorities, a riot occurred in Uglich. Brother-in-law of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich Boris Godunov, who was at that time the de facto head of government, immediately sent a commission of inquiry to Uglich. A boyar was appointed head of the commission Vasily Shuisky.

The investigation into the death of Tsarevich Dmitry is unique in that the investigation materials have survived to this day. About 150 people were interrogated - almost everyone who was involved in the events of May 15.

The investigation established

As a result of the investigation, the following was established. The prince had long suffered from attacks of “black sickness” - epilepsy. The last seizure occurred on May 12, that is, three days before his death. Then Dmitry felt better, and on May 15, after attending mass, his mother allowed him to take a walk in the courtyard.

Mom and the prince were Vasilisa Volokhova, nurse Arina Tuchkova, bed lady Marya Kolobova and four of Dmitry’s peers, the sons of the nurse and bed-wife Petrusha Kolobov, Ivan Krasensky And Grisha Kozlovsky. The boys played “poke” - this ancient Russian game is most reminiscent of the so-called “knives”, which are still played today. In general terms, the essence of the game is to throw a sharpened metal object (knife or rod) into the ground in a certain way.

In Dmitry’s hand there was either a knife or a pile (a sharpened tetrahedral nail). At this moment, the prince was overtaken by a new attack of epilepsy. During the attack, the boy involuntarily stuck the point into his throat, which became the cause of death.

The final conclusion of the investigative commission was that Tsarevich Dmitry died as a result of an accident. The consecrated cathedral led by Patriarch Job approved the results of the investigation.

Weapons against Godunov

As punishment for the riot, Maria Nagaya was tonsured a nun under the name of Martha, her brothers were sent into exile, and the most active participants in the riot among the townspeople were executed or exiled to Siberia.

But that was just the beginning of the story. In 1598, without leaving an heir, Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich died. The Rurik dynasty came to an end. The Zemsky Sobor elects a new Tsar - Boris Godunov.

For opponents of the new monarch, the “Uglich case” becomes an excellent tool for generating distrust of Godunov among the people. Vasily Shuisky becomes one of the main attackers. The former head of the investigation into the death of Tsarevich Dmitry himself dreams of taking the throne, so he intrigues against Godunov with all his might.

And then he appears on stage False Dmitry I, the prince allegedly miraculously escaped from the murderers. Many people believe him, and as a result, in 1605, after the death of Boris Godunov and the massacre of his son Fedor, the impostor takes the throne. Vasily Shuisky once again changes his testimony and recognizes False Dmitry as the legitimate prince.

Saint vs impostor

But already in 1606, Vasily Shuisky becomes the head of a new conspiracy, as a result of which False Dmitry will be killed, and the ambitious boyar will finally sit on the throne.

However, Shuisky also faces the problem of the “miraculously saved” prince, now in the form False Dmitry II.

The Tsar understands that the story of the Tsarevich must be ended, and in such a way that the masses believe that he is dead.

The prince was buried in Uglich, where few people could see his grave. Vasily Shuisky decides to rebury him in Moscow, and not just as a deceased member of the royal family, but as a holy martyr.

This was an elegant solution - in the presence of the venerated relics of a saint, the myth of a “miraculous salvation” would be much more difficult to use.

By order of the Tsar, a special commission was sent to Uglich under the leadership of Metropolitan Philaret- father Mikhail Romanov, the future founder of the new royal dynasty.

When the grave was opened, the relics of the prince were found incorrupt and emitting incense. The dead prince was clutching a handful of nuts in his hand - according to the version of the murder, the criminals caught the child while he was playing with nuts.

The relics were solemnly reburied in the Archangel Cathedral of the Kremlin. Those who came to the prince’s tomb began to claim miraculous healings, and in the same year he was canonized.

What you don't want to believe

Here historians walk around the edge, for the blessed Tsarevich Dimitri of Uglitsky, the miracle worker of Uglich and Moscow and all Rus', is still a revered Russian saint today. Nevertheless, for the sake of historical truth, it is necessary to mention what contemporaries thought about the canonization of the prince.

The political meaning of what was happening was clear and lay on the surface - Vasily Shuisky tried his best to alienate supporters from False Dmitry II. Very bad assumptions have reached our time as to how exactly Dmitry’s remains turned out to be incorrupt. It was alleged that Metropolitan Filaret bought a son from one of the archers, who in age matched the age of death of Dmitry, and ordered him to be killed. The body of this child was presented as an incorruptible relic. I don’t want to believe in this terrible version, but times were very harsh. A little later, during the accession of Mikhail Romanov, the 3-year-old son of the “miraculously saved Tsarevich Dmitry” was publicly hanged, so few people stopped before killing children in that era.

Boris condemned

So, the final version of Vasily Shuisky said that Tsarevich Dmitry was killed by supporters of Boris Godunov on his personal order. The tsar had no reason to rehabilitate Godunov - firstly, he was his political opponent, and secondly, only a murder victim could be canonized, but not a person with epilepsy who died as a result of a seizure.

The canonization of Tsarevich Dmitry Shuisky himself did not save him: he was overthrown and ended his days in a Polish prison.

However, the version that the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible was killed by Boris Godunov’s henchmen survived during the Romanov dynasty. Firstly, the Romanovs were also at enmity with Godunov, and secondly, the version about the guilt of Tsar Boris made him an “illegitimate” monarch, an instigator of the Troubles, which ended with the accession of the “legitimate Romanovs.”

For more than two centuries, Godunov was unconditionally considered the murderer of Tsarevich Dmitry. It was his talent that finally “condemned” him Alexandra Pushkina in the tragedy "Boris Godunov".

Was there a murder?

However, in the 1820s, materials from the “Uglich Case” discovered in the archive became available. Russian historian Mikhail Pogodin questioned the version of the murder of the prince. The investigation materials quite logically substantiated the fact that an accident had occurred.

It is also noteworthy that Boris Godunov himself sent investigators to Uglich, demanding a thorough investigation. It turns out that Godunov was absolutely sure that no evidence would be found against him. Meanwhile, he could not possibly know how exactly the events developed in Uglich and what exactly the witnesses saw. It turns out that Godunov was interested in an objective investigation, knowing that it would confirm his innocence.

Moreover, in 1591, Tsarevich Dmitry was not at all the only obstacle for Godunov on the path to the throne. At that time there was still a reasonable hope that Fyodor would have an heir. In May 1592 Queen Irina gave birth to a girl, and no one could guarantee that this was the last child of the royal couple.

We must not forget that Tsarevich Dmitry was illegitimate from the point of view of the church. With such a competitor, Godunov could compete for the throne without hired killers.

For lack of evidence

Supporters of the murder version have another serious argument - modern doctors believe that a child during an epileptic attack would drop the knife and would not be able to inflict a mortal wound on himself. But there is an answer to this - the wound could have arisen as a result of improper assistance provided by frightened boys or nannies, who provoked the fatal movement.

The reprisal carried out against the murder suspects deprived the investigation of their testimony, which could have become the most important in this case.

As a result, both versions of the death of Tsarevich Dmitry cannot be completely rejected.

Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich (Uglitsky) was born in 1582 and was the son of Maria Naga and Ivan the Terrible. Dmitry was not a legal contender for the royal throne, since his mother was not the legal wife of the king.

During the reign of Fyodor Ivanovich, Dmitry and his mother with the board of directors were exiled to reign in the city of Uglich, but according to one version of historians, Dmitry did not manage the inheritance he received - special people were sent for this purpose, led by Mikhail Bityagovsky (deacon) from Moscow.

After the death of Ivan the Terrible, there remain only two representatives of the main branch of the Rurikovichs - the baby Dmitry and the physically weak eldest son Fyodor.

According to the official version, on May 15, 1591, the prince played “poking” with a sharpened tetrahedral nail or a pocketknife with the courtyard children. During this game, the child had an epileptic attack during which he accidentally hits himself with a “pile” in the throat area and dies from loss of blood in the arms of the nurse. But the Tsarevich’s mother, as well as her brother Mikhail Nagoy, argued that Dmitry himself was killed by servicemen who followed direct orders from Moscow. An uprising immediately breaks out in the city. The so-called “service people” in the person of Danil Bityagovsky, Nikita Kachalov and Osip Volokhov were accused of murdering the prince and were torn to pieces by a riotous crowd.

Four days later, an investigative commission was sent from Moscow, which included clerk Elizariy Vyluzgin, okolnichy Andrei Kleshnin, Prince Vladimir Shuisky and Metropolitan Gelasy.

The following picture emerged from the investigation of what happened in the May days in Uglich. Tsarevich Dmitry, who had long suffered from epilepsy, went with his mother to church two days before the tragic day, and after the service began to play in the yard. On Saturday, May fifteenth, the queen again went with her son to mass, and then sent him out to play with the children in the courtyard of the palace.

Next to the prince was his mother Vasilisa Volokhova, as well as the sons of the bed-maid and nurse (four of the prince’s age), bed-maid Marya Kolobova and nurse Arina Tuchkova. The children started playing poke. Right during the game, the prince begins a new epileptic seizure.

Many residents of Uglich testified about the tragedy that followed.

After a detailed study of all the facts, the commission comes to the conclusion that the death of the prince was the result of an accident resulting from an epileptic fit.