The Campaign For The Crown: The Invasion of Russia

The campaign for the crown
The invasion of Russia

The pretender's chosen route for his march on Moscow approached the Rus-
sian capital from the south-west, crossing the frontier near Kiev. In contrast
to the more northerly road, which was barred by the well-fortified border
town of Smolensk, this route passed through the smaller towns of the Seversk
district, and was conveniently close to the territory of the Zaporozhian and
Don cossacks, from whom the pretender still hoped to obtain backing. More
importantly, Dimitry's path to Moscow took him through that south-west
frontier region where the discontent of the service class was greatest, and
where fugitive military bondsmen from the centre had gathered in significant
numbers during the famine years. The pretender was careful to prepare the
ground in advance, sending agents ahead of him to distribute proclamations
and appeals to his Russian subjects.1
At the time when Dimitry's army was preparing to cross the Lithuanian
frontier into Russia, it comprised about 2,500 men, about half of whom were
Ukrainian cossacks.2 These cossacks were mostly servitors of the Polish
crown; the Zaporozhians declined to play a part, and a large detachment of
them went off to fight the Turks on the Black Sea instead.3 The number of
Russians in Dimitry's army at this time was relatively small: only about 200
men, most of whom were apparently from the lower classes rather than the
nobility. The handful of nobles included a certain Ivan Poroshin, and the
brothers Khripunov who had 'recognised' Dimitry in Cracow.4
Before Dimitry crossed the Russian border, he received new envoys from
the Don cossacks, restating their willingness to serve the tsarevich 'as their
natural sovereign'.5 They brought with them a captured Russian nobleman,
Peter Khrushchov, who had been sent to the Don by Boris Godunov to gain
the cossacks' support against the pretender. On his arrival in Dimitry's camp,
1
SIRIO, vol. 137, pp. 248, 260.
2
Nazarov, 'K istorii nacharnogo perioda', p. 185.
3
Skrynnikov, Sotsial'no-politicheskaya bor'ba, pp. 231-2.
4
Ibid., p. 169.
5
SGGiD, vol. 2, no. 81, p. 173.
59
Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

Downloaded from Cambridge Books Online by IP 200.32.101.226 on Mon Nov 15 18:27:20 GMT 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511523465.008
60 The First False Dimitry
RUSSIA
o B elaya o Tushino
Velizh°\
.. . . . o Moscow
Vitebsk0 / Mozhaisk 0
I 0Smolensk o Serpukhov
n Kolomna
OrshaO 1 o Kaluga o Ryazan'
\ o Tula
Mogilev© \ Kozel'sk0 "Krapivnaj|

PropoiskO 1 oBolkhov 'W
Bryansk
° oKarachev W/F
\ Popova jg, °Orel *
ChecherskO 1 Gora oStarodub MB,
Krom 0 0 Elets
Livny
o "Sevsk
POLAND- >S Novgorod
o
Kursk
LITHUANIA /^Chernigov Seversk o R y , . s k °Voronezh
Putivf
Moravsk
o ^__^. °Oskol
KievO
°Belgorod
\
°Valuiki
^^ Ukraina
\
Seversk lands \
>^ Tsarev-Borisov
4BH Komaritskaya district
Map 3 The towns of south-west Russia. This map shows the region most affected by
the campaign of the First False Dimitry in 1604-5, the Bolotnikov revolt of
1606-7 and the campaign of the Second False Dimitry in 1607-8

The campaign for the crown 61
Khrushchov gave the latter a tremendous propaganda coup, by immediately
'recognising' him as the true tsarevich because of his supposed facial simi-
larity to Ivan IV. Dimitry graciously pardoned Khrushchov, and interrogated
him closely about the situation in Russia. The information which Khrushchov
provided was extremely gratifying. He told Dimitry that the propaganda cam-
paign waged by his agents had been very effective in the border regions,
especially in the town of Putivl', where the people, on reading his missives,
had expressed 'great love for the tsarevich'. In addition, one of Boris's com-
manders, Peter Sheremetev, whom Khrushchov had met on his journey to
the Don, had expressed his reluctance to fight against Dimitry, saying, 'it is
difficult to fight against one's natural sovereign'.6
Khrushchov also reported on the reaction at the court in Moscow to the
news of Dimitry's appearance in Lithuania. Tsar Boris was in poor health,
and had not gone out for several weeks; he dragged one leg, which appeared
to be paralysed. He had ordered the execution of two of his noblemen, Vasilii
Smirnov and Men'shoi Bulgakov, whose servants had denounced them for
drinking the health of Tsarevich Dimitry at a private banquet. Mariya Nagaya,
the mother of Dimitry of Uglich, had been brought to Moscow and was held
under close guard in the Novodevichii convent: Boris and the Patriarch had
both interrogated her closely. Finally, Khrushchov reported that Boris's sister
Irina, the widow of Tsar Fedor, had suddenly died in her convent. There
were rumours that Boris had killed her for refusing to acknowledge his right,
and that of his son, to the throne. Dimitry was alive, she had said, and he
was the true heir.7
Undoubtedly Khrushchov told Dimitry what he thought the latter wanted
to hear; there may have been little truth in some of his assertions, but it is
not impossible that Khrushchov was accurately repeating rumours which had
gained currency in Russia since the news of Dimitry's presence in Poland
had spread across the border. There is no reason to believe that Khrushchov's
testimony was invented by Mniszech's aides, as Skrynnikov suggests,
although it undoubtedly contributed to the pretender's propaganda effort.8
Dimitry could have genuine grounds for optimism, when he crossed the Rus-
sian frontier, concerning the likely success of his adventure.
On 13 October 1604 Dimitry's troops crossed the River Dnieper and
entered Russian territory.9 The first Russian border fortress, Moravsk
(Monastyrevskii Ostrog), surrendered without a struggle to the cossack van-
guard of Dimitry's army, the insurgent inhabitants sending Boris's com-
6
Ibid., pp. 173-5.
7
Ibid., pp. 176-8.
8
Skrynnikov, Sotsial'no-politicheskaya bor'ba, pp. 171—2.
9
For a detailed narrative of the initial stages of Dimitry's campaign, see Skrynnikov, Sotsial'no-
politicheskaya bor'ba, pp. 174-216.

manders as prisoners to the tsarevich. In Chernigov, the townspeople recog-
nised the pretender, but the governor, Prince I. A. Tatev, and some of his
lieutenants, at first attempted to resist. After the surrender of the fortress, one
of these officers, N. S. Vorontsov-Veryaminov, refused to acknowledge the
pretender, and was executed on his orders. Prince Tatev and the other captive
commanders were quick to swear the oath of loyalty to their 'true' sovereign.
Dimitry's army then laid siege to Novgorod Seversk, which was well forti-
fied by Godunov's general P. F. Basmanov. The pretender's attempt to take
the fortress by storm was repulsed, causing a crisis of confidence in Dimitry's
camp. Morale was raised, however, by news of the surrender of Putivl', the
most important town in the area. Here, as elsewhere, the fortress garrison,
as well as the townspeople, went over voluntarily to the pretender. The more
easterly Russian towns of Ryl'sk and Kursk soon followed the example of
the Seversk towns. The pretender gained the support, too, of the peasants of
the prosperous Komaritskaya district, and of the rural districts of Kromy and
Okolenki.
On 18 December Boris's general, Prince F. I. Mstislavskii reached Novgo-
rod Seversk and attempted to raise the siege. In a battle on 21 December
Mstislavskii was wounded and his troops were obliged to retreat. Novgorod
Seversk continued to hold out against the besiegers, however, and on 1 Janu-
ary Dimitry's Polish troops mutinied, angered by the pretender's failure to
pay them. On 2 January the majority of the mercenaries deserted the tsarev-
ich's camp. Mniszech himself found urgent reasons to return to Poland. By
this time, however, Dimitry's army included several thousand Zaporozhian
and Don cossacks. Undaunted by the departure of the Polish mercenaries,
Dimitry pressed on towards the heartland of Russia, occupying Sevsk without
opposition. On 21 January 1605, however, he again encountered Mstislav-
skii's army, and suffered a severe defeat at Dobrynichi. After this battle the
Zaporozhian cossacks deserted Dimitry's camp. The pretender himself fled
first to Ryl'sk and then to Putivl', where the local inhabitants persuaded him
to stay and set up his new headquarters.
After his victory at Dobrynichi, Mstislavskii imposed harsh repressions on
his Russian prisoners, and on the peasant population of the Komaritskaya
district that had supported the pretender. But Boris's generals were unable
to follow up their success by recapturing the towns which had gone over to
the pretender. Godunov's army under the command of Mstislavskii concen-
trated all its efforts on the siege of Kromy, a small but strategically placed
fortress which was held for Dimitry by the Don cossack ataman Korela.
Having failed to take it by storm, the government forces settled down for a
long siege. The defenders dug themselves well in, and their ability to hold
out was enhanced when supplies and reinforcements managed to get through
from Putivl'.

Meanwhile the rising in Dimitry's favour spread further, to the southern
steppe fortresses. Oskol, Valuiki, Tsarev-Borisov, Voronezh and Belgorod
all acknowledged Dimitry in January and February 1605, followed shortly
afterwards by Elets and Livny. The population of these fortresses consisted
almost entirely of petty military servitors, such as cossacks and strel'tsy.
There were very few urban tradespeople, and the surrounding districts con-
tained hardly any peasants. This demonstrates that Dimitry's support came
not only from the rural and urban lower classes, but also from the military
service class. Only a handful of servicemen in the southern fortresses refused
to acknowledge the pretender.
By claiming to be the true tsarevich, Dimitry was able to denounce the
local representatives of Boris's government - the military governors of the
frontier towns - as traitors to be overthrown by the faithful subjects of the
rightful heir. But Dimitry's appeal was not based on any overt incitement of
class struggle. Nobles, and even Boris's governors and commanders, were
spared, and accepted into the pretender's army, if they acknowledged him
as the true tsar. Some were even given positions of authority: G. B. Dolgoru-
kii and Ya. Zmeev, Boris's voevody at Kursk, were appointed by Dimitry as
voevody at Ryl'sk.10 This suggests that Dimitry based his appeal primarily
on his claim to be the 'true' tsar, rather than on specific appeals to class or
sectional interests. The only proclamation of Dimitry's which survives from
this period, dated November 1604, is addressed to all social groups in the
conventional descending hierarchical order. It makes vague promises of
rewards and honours for those who recognise and serve him, and expresses
his desire that 'all Orthodox Christians' should live in 'peace and quiet and
prosperity'.11
The social composition of Dimitry's support in the autumn and winter of
1604/5 was therefore much more complex than the Soviet formula of an
anti-feudal peasant war implied. In the debate about the 'first peasant war'
in the journal Voprosy Istorii in 1958-61, A. A. Zimin and his supporters
argued that the pretender's campaign for the throne involved a mass popular
uprising of peasants and slaves, under the banner of the 'good tsar' Dimitry.12
1.1. Smirnov, however, continued to assert the older Soviet view that Dimitry
was merely a puppet of Polish interventionists.13 R. G. Skrynnikov rejects
the views of both sides in this debate. He argues, on the one hand, that after
the battle of Dobrynichi the role of Polish intervention forces in Dimitry's
10
Ibid., p. 188.
11
AAE, vol. 2, no. 26, p. 76.
12
Zimin, 'Nekotorye voprosy', p. 99; Ovchinnikov, 'Nekotorye voprosy', pp. 82-3; Skylar, 'O
nacharnom etape', pp. 91-9; 'O krest'yanskoi voine', pp. 111-15.
13
Smirnov, 'O nekotorykh voprosakh', p. 117.

army was negligible.14 On the other hand, Dimitry's Russian supporters were
mainly urban rather than rural, and the participation of so many military
servicemen meant that the movement he led could not be regarded as * anti-
feudal'.15 In relation to the 'ideology' of the movement, however, Skrynnikov
still uses the old Stalinist formula about popular faith in the 'good tsar',
amplified by K. V. Chistov's theory about 'popular socio-utopian legends
about the returning tsar-deliverer'.16
According to Chistov, the extensive popular support that the pretender
attracted on the south-west frontier demonstrated the potency of the 'socio-
utopian legend' about Dimitry: 'thousands of people in these regions knew
the legend, believed in the advent of the tsarevich-deliverer, awaited him and
linked with him their cherished social aspirations'. They viewed Dimitry as
'the realisation of the legend with which were linked extreme hopes, evoked
by despair'.17 Chistov may be correct that the population of the frontier region
saw Dimitry as a potential liberator from the oppression they had suffered
in Boris's reign, although there is no evidence that the pretender promised
to abolish slavery or serfdom. But, contrary to the Soviet scholar's assertions,
Dimitry's proclamations did not contain any detailed account of his escape
from death and subsequent adventures.18 Thus we have no evidence that the
inhabitants of the frontier districts were familiar with the details of the pre-
tender's story that had been spread among his supporters in Poland, nor that
their willingness to accept him as the true tsarevich was based on their accept-
ance of this story as proof of his identity and authenticity.
Dimitry's proclamations to his Russian subjects, issued after he had
invaded Muscovy, describe his escape from death in predominantly religious
terms. In his circular proclamation {okruzhnaya gramota) of November 1604,
for example, he states that he had been saved from Boris's assassins 'by
God's will, shielded by His strong right hand . . . God in His mercy did not
wish [Boris's] wicked design to be implemented, and God covered Me, your
true-born Sovereign, with His invisible hand and preserved Me for many
14
Skrynnikov, Sotsial'no-politicheskaya bo/ba, p. 203.
15
Ibid., p. 325.
16
Ibid., pp. 175, 182. In the revised version of this book, Skrynnikov qualified his previous
acceptance of I. I. Smirnov's assertion that the slogan of the 'good tsar' was 'a peculiar
peasant Utopia': not only the peasants, but also the military service class, Skrynnikov now
argues, believed in the 'good tsar': compare Skrynnikov, Sotsial'no-politicheskaya bo/ba,
pp. 98-9 with Skrynnikov, Rossiya v nachale XVII v., pp. 79-81.
17
Chistov, Russkie narodnye, p. 42.
18
The text of Dimitry's supposed letter to Boris, which Chistov cites to suport his argument
{Russkie narodnye, p. 40), appears to be a Polish literary composition, based on Prince Adam
Vishnevetskii's report to the king, rather than an authentic proclamation issued to the pre-
tender's Russian subjects. Kostomarov dismisses it as a 'pure invention' (Kto byl pervyi
Lzhedimitrii?, pp. 36-7). An extract from this text was published in Kognowicki, Zycia Sapie-
how, vol. 2, pp. 81—2. For the full text in Russian translation, see Kostomarov, Smutnoe
vremya, pp. 84—6.

19
years in His providence (v sudbakh svoikh)'. The emphasis in these procla-
mations on divine rather than human agency, and on the role of God's provi-
dence in saving the tsarevich, implies a miraculous element in his reappearance.
And it seems that popular Russian belief in Dimitry was based not so much on
a secular 'socio-utopian legend' as on a religious-miraculous outlook.
There is little evidence of the popular response within Russia to the spread
of news of Dimitry's appearance in Lithuania. But the evidence that we do
have is very instructive. In a letter to Dimitry of 15/25 November 1603, the
Don cossacks had addressed him as their 'sovereign tsarevich, granted by the
will and blessing of God, risen like Lazarus from the dead'.20 Here the idea
of Dimitry's miraculous 'resurrection' is clearly expressed. And at the end
of 1604, when the Komaritskaya district was rising up in support of the
pretender, it was reported that in Smolensk the townspeople were whispering
that 'if Tsarevich Dimitry is risen (vospryal), we cannot oppose him'.21
There is indirect evidence in Boris Godunov's official propaganda of the
existence of rumours of Dimitry's 'resurrection'. In a letter to King Sigis-
mund of September 1604, Boris denounced the pretender as the renegade
monk Grisha Otrep'ev, but added, 'Even if this rogue is Prince Dimitry of
Uglich risen from the dead, he is [the son] of a seventh unlawful wife.'22 The
comment was presumably intended to be ironic, but it not only undermined
Godunov's previous insistence that the pretender was Grisha Otrep'ev, but
also implied that it was possible for Tsarevich Dimitry to have risen from
the grave.
Apparently to counter such ideas of Dimitry's resurrection, Patriarch Iov
in his gramota of 14 January 1605 stressed that Dimitry of Uglich was dead
and buried, and could not rise from the grave before the Last Judgement and
the general resurrection.23 Viewed in conjunction with the evidence that the
Don cossacks considered Dimitry to have risen like Lazarus from the grave,
this suggests that any 'legend' of Tsarevich Dimitry within Russia at this
time was based on the idea of his miraculous return from the dead, rather
than the more mundane scenario of his rescue by his doctor or teacher.
I. A. Golubtsov has speculated that notions about the 'miraculous escape, or
even resurrection of the tsarevich' might have gained currency amongst the
petty nobility, the townspeople and the monastic clergy of the western border-
19
AAE, vol. 2, no. 26, p. 76. Cf. also no. 3 4 , p. 89; no. 37, pp. 9 2 - 3 .
20
Aleksandrenko, comp., 'Materialy', p. 413. This letter survives only in a corrupt Polish trans-
lation: see Skrynnikov, Sotsial'no-politicheskaya bor'ba, pp. 153—4.
21
Golubtsov, ' "Izmena" smol'nyan', p. 233.
22
SIRIO, vol. 137, p. 178 (my emphasis). Dimitry w a s denied the title o f tsarevich because o f
his presumed illegitimacy. Boris could not o f course acknowledge that Dimitry claimed to
have escaped assassination at Uglich, since the official v i e w w a s that the b o y had died
accidentally.
23
AAE, vol. 2, no. 28, p. 78.

lands.24 The monks in particular, he suggests, being accustomed to the idea

of miracles, could easily 'accommodate the idea of a tsarevich resurrected or
miraculously saved from death'.25
The imagery used by the pretender's supporters may also be interpreted as
a poetic metaphor for death and rebirth or resurrection. When Dimitry crossed
the Russian frontier in October 1604, he was greeted as the 'bright sun'
(krasnoe solnyshko), and when he entered the fortress of Moravsk, the inhabi-
tants cried out, 'Our sun is rising; it has long been set; Dimitry Ivanovich is
restored to us.' 26 This image associated Dimitry not only with Ivan the Ter-
rible and with Prince Vladimir of Kiev, who are compared to the sun in
Russian folklore, but also with the depiction of Christ in liturgical texts as
'the sun of righteousness'.27
Popular support for the pretender therefore assumed the form of a quasi-
religious messianic or millenarian movement in which Dimitry was viewed
as the true tsarevich, miraculously risen, Christ-like, from the grave.28 Some
of his adherents had a quite fanatical belief in him, and were prepared to
suffer martyrdom for his sake. According to Massa, the tortures and
executions that Boris's troops inflicted on the people of the Komaritskaya
district were counter-productive, since: 'the more the executioners went about
tormenting the inhabitants, the more these persisted in recognising Dmitry as
their legitimate master. No suffering could induce them to deny him. They
remained staunch and unshakeable unto death.'29 And the Augsburg merchant
Georg Peyerle, describing the atrocities committed by Boris's troops in the
Seversk district, commented that '[i]t was impossible not to be amazed by
the joyful manner in which innocent people endured torment and torture for
the sake of Dimitry, whom they had never seen, considering death itself a
24
Golubtsov, ' " I z m e n a " smornyan', p. 232. Emphasis in the original.
25
Ibid., p. 246. On popular miracle cults in sixteenth-century Russia, see Bushkovitch, Religion
and Society, chs. 4—5.
26
Pirling, Iz smutnogo vremeni, p. 139; Pierling, La Russie et le Saint-Siege, vol. 3, p. 129.
Pierling's source appears to b e the unpublished diary of the Polish Jesuit Father Andrzej
Lawicki, w h o accompanied the pretender on his march to Moscow.
27
O n the significance of the term ' s u n of righteousness' (pravednoe solntse) see Uspenskii,
'Tsar' i samozvanets', p . 2 0 3 . Cf. the Old Testament prophecy (Malachi, 4.2): 'But for you
who fear m y name the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings.'
28
Yves-Marie Berce has argued that although the image of the mythical 'returning king' in
early modern Europe may be based on that of Christ, it involves no miraculous resurrection
{Le roi cache, pp. 2 2 8 - 9 ) , and in so far as popular hopes vested in these kings can be described
as messianic, it is a messianism of a purely secular character (ibid., p . 312). K. V. Chistov
also makes a clear distinction between 'religious-messianic legends' about 'saviours' and
'legends of a socio-political character' about 'returning tsar(evich)-deliverers' (Russkie narod-
nye, p . 24, cf. pp. 224—5, 3 3 8 - 9 ) . M y argument here is that Dimitry w a s believed, at least
by some, to have been miraculously resurrected from the dead, and to that extent his support
had elements of religious messianism. For discussion of millenarianism and messianism see,
for example, Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium', Worsley, The Trumpet Shall Sound.
29
Massa, A Short History, p. 77.

blessing, if they perished for his sake!730 Massa too states that in the Seversk
lands, as in the Komaritskaya district, the inhabitants 'repudiated the tsar of
Moscow, and despite intensified tortures, they would maintain to their dying
breath that Dmitry was their true sovereign. Even some who had not seen
him affirmed that they knew him, and held to this despite the most terrible
torments.'31
In spite of the improbabilities it contained, Vishnevetskii's report to King
Sigismund had been an attempt to provide a 'scientific' explanation of Dimi-
try's reappearance, based on the sort of rational assumptions about evidence
that were likely to be held by the pretender's potential patrons in the Rzeczpo-
spolita. The 'witnesses' who had attested to Dimitry's royal identity also
provided a scientific form of evidence. It is worthy of note that the physical
characteristics by which the pretender was 'recognised' in Poland were ordi-
nary identifying marks which he supposedly shared with Dimitry of Uglich:
a wart on his cheek beside his nose, and one arm that was longer than another.
These are very different from the mystical 'royal signs', such as crosses or
stars on the body, which were exhibited by some later Russian pretenders as
'proof of their identity.32 One contemporary source, however, attributes such
'royal marks' to Dimitry. The Pole Martyn Stadnicki claims that when the
pretender declared himself to Prince Adam Vishnevetskii, he 'proved' his
identity by displaying not only a diamond cross which had been given to the
tsarevich at his christening, but also a depiction of the Muscovite eagle on
his arm. (Stadnicki adds, however, that the Russian government claimed that
this mark was evidence of corporal punishment inflicted upon the impostor.)33
Another foreign source affirms that Dimitry proved his identity to Jerzy
Mniszech by showing him 'a certain mark that was branded with a red-hot
iron on the shoulders of all those of the Muscovite blood royal'.34
In the historical song about the First False Dimitry, the pretender is
described as having the mark of a cross on his chest - the sign of a true
tsarevich - but he is said to have falsely acquired this sign by means of his
magic powers. In one version of this song, Mariya Nagaya explains to the
boyars, after the pretender's marriage to Marina Mniszech, that he is not her
son. Tsarevich Dimitry, she says, is dead and buried,
But this is Grisha-Rosstrizhka, the son of Otrep'ev,

He sat in prison for a full thirty years,
He grew a cross on his white breasts,
30
Paerle, 'Zapiski', p. 167.
31
32
Uspenskii, 'Tsar' i samozvanets', pp. 205-6.
33
Stadnitskii, 'Dnevnik', p. 133.
34
Berce, Le roi cache, pp. 94, 385, citing G. Tomasi, Delle guerre e rivolgimenti del regno di
Ungheria, Venice, 1621.

So the dog called himself therightfultsar,
The rightful tsar, Tsar 'Mitry,
Tsarevich 'Mitry of Moscow.35
A peasant who sang a variant of this song for the folklorist P. N. Rybnikov
in the nineteenth century provided the following explanation of this passage:
'Grishka spent thirty years in prison and in that time he deliberately grew a
cross on his white breasts, in order to resemble Tsarevich Dimitry. For the
real tsarevich, when he was born, had a cross on his white breast.'36 Thus
even if Dimitry himself did not claim to have 'royal signs' on his body as
a mark of his divine preordination as a true tsar, it seems that the popular
consciousness attributed such signs to him. The belief in his 'royal marks'
survived his discrediting as an impostor and sorcerer: but it was subsequently
explained in the folklore that he had acquired the marks by magical means.
Vishnevetskii's report to King Sigismund, and the 'recognition' of the pre-
tender by various witnesses who claimed to have known the young Tsarevich
Dimitry of Uglich, had represented attempts to provide proof of the pre-
tender's identity. However clumsy and fraudulent these efforts might appear
to us, they were nevertheless based on rational assumptions about evidence,
such as those that might be required in a contemporary European court of
law:37 the pretender was expected to provide a plausible explanation of his
escape from death and of his subsequent fate prior to his arrival in Brahin;
and to provide witnesses to testify that he bore some physical resemblance
to Dimitry of Uglich. In Poland, Dimitry had attempted to supply his patrons
with such proofs of his identity, tailored for an educated foreign audience.
Addressing himself to the Russian population of the south-west frontier
region, however, with its religious and magical mentality, he was content to
appeal to the role of Divine Providence, implying a miraculous aspect to his
reappearance which was not inconsistent with the idea of resurrection. The
35
Istoricheskie pesni XVII veka, no. 8, p. 33; cf. no. 10, p. 35; no. 15, p. 39.
36
Ibid., p. 336.
37
Compare Natalie Zemon Davis's account of the type of proof of identity required by sixteenth-
century French courts such as that which tried the famous case of the false Martin Guerre
(Davis, The Return of Martin Guerre, p. 63):
But how, in a time without photographs, with few portraits, without tape recorders,
without fingerprinting, without identity cards, without birth certificates, with parish
records still irregular if kept at all - how did one establish a person's identity beyond
doubt? You could test the man's memory, though there was always the possibility
that he had been coached. You could ask witnesses to identify him, and hope that
they were accurate and truthful. You could consider special marks on his face and
body, but their significance could only be established by witnesses who recollected
the earlier person. You could look to see whether he resembled other members of
the family. You could check his handwriting, but only if he and the earlier person
could both write and you had samples of the latter's work. The court of Rieux had
to try to extract some kind of truth from such evidence . . .

'sacralisation' of the monarchy in the sixteenth century facilitated popular

acceptance of the idea of a martyred tsarevich who could imitate not merely
Lazarus but even Christ by rising from the dead,38 and the concept of the
sacred character of the tsar's power also gave rise to a belief in 'royal signs'
as proof of the divine election of the true tsar.39 The pretender was able to
capitalise on these notions, even if he did not actively promote them.
The rising in the capital

After his retreat to Putivl', Dimitry had had to take stock of his position.40
In an attempt to gain new allies among the Tatars, he sent envoys to the
Crimean khan and to Prince Ishterek of the Great Nogai Horde on the Volga.
Ishterek recognised Dimitry, but no military assistance was forthcoming from
either the Crimean or the Volga Tatars. The pretender also renewed his con-
tacts with Poland, but the Sejm was opposed to breaking the treaty with Boris,
and the pretender had to content himself with the recruitment of a few more
mercenaries.
Two curious episodes at Putivl' enabled Dimitry to reinforce his claim to
be the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible. Peyerle relates how three monks
appeared in the town, sent from Moscow by Boris as secret envoys to
denounce Dimitry to the people as an impostor. When they were exposed as
spies, Dimitry summoned them to appear before him, but he asked one of
his Polish courtiers to play the part of the tsarevich. The monks accused this
supposed Dimitry of being an impostor, but when one of them was granted
a private audience with the 'real' Dimitry, he immediately 'recognised' him
as the true tsarevich, and disclosed that he and his companions were involved
in a plot with two of Dimitry's boyars to poison him. The boyars confessed,
and were condemned to death. Dimitry then graciously acceded to a request
from the people of Putivl' that they should be allowed to execute the traitors.
The townspeople seized the boyars, stripped them naked, tied them to a post
in the public square and shot them to death with their bows and muskets.
The monk who had revealed the plot was generously rewarded by Dimitry,
but his two companions were thrown into prison.41 As Pierling comments,42
38
Sacralisation involved the drawing of an analogy between the tsar and God or Christ: Uspen-
skii, 'Tsar' i samozvanets', pp. 2 0 2 - 3 ; Zhivov and Uspenskii, 'Tsar' i b o g ' .
39
Such notions were not unique to Russia — the Habsburg princes, for example, were popularly
believed to b e born with the mark of a gold cross on their backs - and they reflect, in the
view of Yves-Marie Berce, a popular concept of natural, divinely ordained royal legitimacy:
Le roi cache, pp. 378-401.
40
For a detailed account of the later stages of Dimitry's march on Moscow, see Skrynnikov,
Sotsial'no-politicheskaya bor'ba, pp. 217ff.
41
Paerle, 'Zapiski', pp. 167-9.
42
Pierling, Rome et Demetrius, p. 59.

Peyerle's account has certain 'legendary' features, but it does correspond in
its essentials with the contemporary account of Dimitry's two Jesuit com-
panions, Lawicki and Czyrzowski, who reported in a letter of 7/17 March
1605 that three elderly monks had arrived in Putivl' in order to denounce
Dimitry as an impostor, but had ended up acknowledging him as the true
tsarevich.43
The most probable explanation of this episode is that the pretender himself
had prearranged it in order to bolster his claim to be Tsarevich Dimitry. The
incident of the 'false Grisha Otrep'ev' served a similar function. In a letter
of 26 February/8 March 1605 the Jesuits reported that Grishka Otrep'ev, a
well-known Russian magician and scoundrel {Celebris Magus et nequam per
totam Moschoviam), had arrived at Putivl'. Since Boris had declared that the
pretender was Grisha Otrep'ev, the appearance of this man made it clear to
the Russians that Dimitry and Otrep'ev were two different individuals, and
therefore strengthened the case for Dimitry's authenticity.44 Other sources
too speak of Grisha and the pretender as separate people.45 Jacques Margeret,
who believed firmly that the pretender was Dimitry of Uglich, insisted that
Otrep'ev was an older monk who accompanied the tsarevich on his flight to
Poland, and then returned with him to Russia, where 'everyone who wanted
to could see him'.46 The alternative explanation, as Pierling has pointed out,
is that the Grisha Otrep'ev who appeared at Putivl' was not the real Grisha
(who in his turn was probably the pretender), but was rather a third party
who was playing the part of Grisha, on Dimitry's prompting, in order to
discredit Boris's assertions that the pretender was Otrep'ev.47 Russian sources
suggest that when Grisha declared himself to be Dimitry in Lithuania, he
made one of his companions, the monk Leonid, 'call himself by his own
name, Grishka Otrep'ev'.48 The appearance in Dimitry's camp of a real or
false Grisha was to create problems for Boris's propaganda effort against the
pretender, which had based its entire case on his identification as Otrep'ev.
It has also led a number of historians to conclude that the pretender was not
Grishka Otrep'ev.49
At Putivl' Dimitry began to call himself 'tsar', rather than 'tsarevich' or
'grand prince'. He formed a boyar duma and court from captured nobles and
43
Ibid., pieces justificatives, no. 4, pp. 204-5; Pierling, La Russie et le Saint-Siege, vol. 3,
pp. 156-7. See also Baretstsi, 'Povestvovanie', p. 11.
44
Pierling, Rome et Demetrius, p. 59; pieces justificatives, no. 3, p. 204; Pierling, La Russie et
le Saint-Siege, vol. 3, pp. 42(K1; Frantsev, 'Istoricheskoe i pravdivoe povestvovanie', p. 17.
45
SIRIO, vol. 137, p. 580; Baretstsi, 'Povestvovanie', p. 11; De-Tu, 'Skazaniya', p. 333.
46
Margeret, The Russian Empire, pp. 81-2.
47
Pierling, La Russie et le Saint-Siege, vol. 3, p. 421; Pirling, Iz smutnogo vremeni, pp. 229-33.
48
RIB, vol. 13, cols. 155-6; cf. cols. 48, 797. On Leonid see also Golubtsov, ' "Izmena"
smol'nyan', pp. 235-6.
49
See, for example, Kostomarov, Kto by I pervyi Lzhedimitrii?, pp. 31-4; Kostomarov, Smutnoe
vremya, p. 120; Ilovaiskii, Smutnoe vremya, pp. 329—31.

commanders whom he rewarded generously with titles and honours. In this

way he hoped to persuade other members of the Russian ruling elite to trans-
fer their allegiance to him. Members of the lower classes had been encour-
aged to acknowledge the pretender by their realisation that his identification
of Boris as a traitor and usurper freed them from any obligation to render
dues and taxes to Moscow. The petty nobles of the southern garrison towns
expected to be rewarded for their switch of loyalty by additional grants of
land and money. Dimitry appears to have made little use of terror against
those who opposed him. Apart from the two boyars who were implicated by
the monks in a plot against him, the sources refer only to his execution of
a Russian who had written to Boris offering to capture the pretender alive
and hand him over.50
On 13 April 1605 Boris Godunov died suddenly in Moscow. Godunov's
death was to contribute more to the success of the pretender's cause than
were any of Dimitry's own actions. The boyars in Moscow, the overwhelm-
ing majority of whom had remained loyal to Boris,51 now had to decide
whether their personal ambitions would be better served by recognition of
Dimitry than by allegiance to Boris's young son. Immediately after Godu-
nov's death, however, his courtiers were quick to recognise Fedor Borisovich
and to organise the swearing of the oath of loyalty to the new tsar. The text
of the oath referred to the rival candidate for the throne as 'the rogue who
calls himself Prince Dimitry of Uglich'.52 Unlike the earlier denunciations of
the pretender that had been issued in Boris's lifetime, it did not name him
as Grisha Otrep'ev. Presumably news of the appearance of a Grisha Otrep'ev
at Putivl' had reached Moscow, and Fedor's advisors had decided that it was
best not to mention his name. But their sin of omission made matters worse,
and led to suspicions that the Moscow government no longer knew who the
pretender was. And if he was not Grisha, might he not in fact be Dimitry of
Uglich?53 Rumours spread that Boris himself had been unsure of the pre-
tender's identity, and had killed himself in fear of the return of Tsarevich
Dimitry, thirsting for revenge.54 In an attempt to quash such rumours, Prince
Vasilii Shuiskii, who had headed the commission of enquiry into the events
at Uglich in 1591, declared publicly that Tsarevich Dimitry was truly dead,
and that he himself had placed him in his coffin with his own hands.55
The reign of Tsar Fedor Borisovich began inauspiciously. Doubts about
the stability of his rule gave rise to allegations that he was planning to seek
50
Baretstsi, 'Povestvovanie', p. 11.
51
Pavlov, Gosudarev dvor, p. 78.
52
SGGiD, vol. 2, no. 85, p. 192.
53
Pierling, La Russie et le Saint-Siege, vol. 3, pp. 164-5.
54
RIB, vol. 13, col. 39; Massa, A Short History, pp. 90-1, 93-4.
55

asylum in England. The report of Sir Thomas Smith's embassy relates that
after Boris's death the English ambassador was anxious to leave Russia as
soon as possible because of the spread of rumours which were 'so innumer-
able and uncertaine, as they were doubtfull and fearefull'. The elaborate pro-
vision which was made for the envoys' journey downriver from Vologda to
Kholmogory, 'especially the large and well builded Boats', led to rumours
that Fedor Godunov was planning to flee to England with them.56
These uncertainties and doubts contributed to the low morale of the
government army besieging Kromy, where there was some reluctance on the
part of the troops to take the oath to Fedor.57 Peter Basmanov, the new com-
mander appointed to lead Godunov's army, soon learned from his spies that
'there were more supporters of Dimitry among the soldiers than there were
of the Muscovites'. According to Isaac Massa, it was this realisation that
persuaded Basmanov himself to join the conspiracy at Kromy in favour of
Dimitry.58 The appointment behind his back of Prince A. A. Telyatevskii
to a senior command position finally destroyed Basmanov's loyalty to the
Godunovs. When the nobility of Ryazan', led by Prokopii Lyapunov, headed
a mutiny in the camp on 7 May, Basmanov, together with the two Princes
Golitsyn, openly went over to the pretender's side. It was only at this stage
that the boyar elite divided and began to defect to Dimitry.59
After the success of the mutiny, its leaders sent Prince Ivan Golitsyn to
Putivl', to report to Dimitry that the government's main army now acknowl-
edged him as tsar. Golitsyn explained the defection of the army in terms of
the suspicious wording of the oath of loyalty to Fedor Godunov. Because it
did not mention Grisha Otrep'ev, the troops had concluded that Dimitry really
was the son of Ivan the Terrible, and they had decided to swear allegiance
to him instead.60 Dimitry sent Prince B. M. Lykov to Kromy with a gracious
proclamation thanking the soldiers for their expression of loyalty to him, and
granting them leave to return to their homes.61
Dimitry himself left Putivl' on 16 May, and arrived at Kromy on 19 May
to find the camp already virtually deserted. He continued his advance to
Moscow via Orel and Tula. En route he was met by delegations from various
towns, reporting their adherence to his cause. They brought with them their
local commanders, most of whom swore allegiance to the 'true tsar'. Those
who refused were imprisoned. The townspeople flocked to welcome him,
greeting him as the true son of Tsar Ivan, 'the sun which had set, which they
56
Smith, Voiage, ffI2-I2v.
57
RIB, vol. 13, col. 40; PSRL, vol. 34, p. 206.
58
Massa, A Short History, p. 9 8 .
59
Pavlov, Gosudarev dvor, pp. 78-9.
60
SGGiD, vol. 2, no. 87, pp. 196-7.
61

desired to see rising, and which, when it shone out, would be seen by all'.62
From Krapivna, near Tula, Dimitry sent two envoys, Gavrila Pushkin and
Naum Pleshcheev, to Moscow with a proclamation calling on the inhabitants
of the capital to acknowledge him as their sovereign. On the morning of
1 June, Pushkin and Pleshcheev entered Moscow and read out Dimitry's
proclamation to the people of the capital assembled on Red Square. This
proclamation was much fuller than the pretender's earlier proclamation of
November 1604 to the townspeople of the Seversk frontier.63 It was addressed
specifically to Prince F. I. Mstislavskii and the Princes V. I. and D. I. Shuis-
kii, as well as to the boyars in general and all the descending ranks of Mus-
covite society, down to the ' merchants and the best trading people, and the
middle and all the common (chernym) people'.64 Dimitry reminded his sub-
jects that after the death of his father, Tsar Ivan, he had been exiled to Uglich
by (unnamed) traitors who had then made various attempts to kill him. God,
however, had saved him from their nefarious intents and had preserved him
till adulthood. The traitors had told the Russian people that the tsarevich had
died and been buried at Uglich. When his brother Tsar Fedor had died, the
people, not realising that Dimitry was still alive, had sworn allegiance to
'our traitor Boris Godunov', who had already become the virtual ruler of
Muscovite state during Fedor's reign, when 'he rewarded and executed
whomever he pleased'.65
Dimitry then indicated that he was willing to pardon the Muscovites for
fighting against him. He recognised that when he had appeared and had
announced that he was willing to reclaim his kingdom without bloodshed,
they had opposed him out of ignorance and out of fear of Boris.66 The pre-
tender then listed all his triumphs and successes. He had a large army, he said,
of Russians and Lithuanians and Tatars. Many towns had sworn allegiance to
him and promised to support him against the traitors. Most recently, he added,
the Volga towns had acknowledged him and were sending their governors
to his camp: even the voevody of distant Astrakhan' were on their way to
Voronezh.67 The Nogai horde under Ishterek had also offered to help him,
but - the pretender assured his audience - as a Christian tsar he did not want
to encourage Tatars to enter the heartland of Muscovy.68
62
Aleksandrenko, comp., 'Materialy', pp. 3 9 8 - 9 , 533 (a report by Lawicki, dated 21 September
1605, to the Jesuit General Claudio Aquaviva).
63
AAE, vol. 2, no. 34, pp. 8 9 - 9 1 ; cf. no. 26, p. 76.
64
Ibid, no. 34, p. 89.
65
Ibid., pp. 89-90.
66
Ibid., p. 90.
67
Skrynnikov points out that at the time this proclamation w a s written, Dimitry's cossacks were
still besieging Astrakhan'. H i s second envoy to M o s c o w , N a u m Pleshcheev, however, had
been the voevoda of Tsaritsyn, which lent credence to the pretender's claims about his support
in the V o l g a towns: Skrynnikov, Sotsial'no-politicheskaya bor'ba, p. 268.
68
AAE, vol. 2, no. 34, p. 90.

Dimitry then began to catalogue the abuses which the country had suffered
at the hands of the Godunovs. The dowager tsaritsa Mariya Grigor'evna and
her son Fedor did not care for the country - which was not surprising, he
added, since it did not belong to them. They had devastated the Seversk lands
and laid waste many towns and districts. However, Dimitry did not hold the
boyars and servicemen responsible for this, since they had acted out of ignor-
ance and in fear of their lives. He addressed each social group, reminding
them of the oppression to which Boris had subjected them. The boyars had
suffered dishonour; the nobles and deti boyarskie had been ruined and exiled;
the merchants and traders had their commercial freedom restricted and had
heavy taxes imposed upon them. The persecution of innocent Orthodox Chri-
stians had been so great that even foreigners had pity on the Russians and,
recognising Dimitry as the true tsar, had gladly served him and spilt their
blood in his cause.69
In conclusion, Dimitry called on the Muscovites of all ranks to swear
allegiance to him. He promised graciously to reward them for their loyalty.
The boyars would be honoured and preferred; not only would they retain their
existing estates, but they could also hope for additional lands. The nobles and
officials would be favoured; the merchants and traders would benefit from
tax reductions; and as for the ordinary people, 'all Orthodox Christians will
live in peace and tranquillity and prosperity'. But if they did not recognise
him as tsar and beg for his pardon, they would have to render their account
to God on the Day of Judgement. They could not hide from God's righteous
anger, nor from Dimitry's royal hand.70
As R. G. Skrynnikov has pointed out,71 Dimitry's most fulsome promises
at this final stage of his campaign for the throne were directed towards the
upper classes, whose support was essential for his success. Many of the
boyars were present on Red Square to hear his proclamation. The English
author of the report of Sir Thomas Smith's embassy claims that their presence
was enforced by the crowd: 'many came; the Commons being resolved, else
to fetch them out'.72 According to Conrad Bussow, the proclamation had an
immediate effect on the ordinary people, who cried out, 'Please God that the
true sun rise again over Russia. Until now we have been sitting in darkness,
but now the true light has dawned.'73 The solar imagery here, as before,
echoes not only the 'good tsar' of folklore, but also Biblical imagery relating
to Christ as Messiah.
69
Ibid.
70
Ibid., pp. 90-1.
71
Skrynnikov, Sotsial'no-politicheskaya bor'ba, p. 275.
72
Smith, Voiage, fK3.
73
Bussov, Moskovskaya khronika, p. 106.

The popular uprising in the capital against the Godunovs began with an
attack on the city jails to release political detainees - Polish prisoners of war
and previous envoys sent earlier by Dimitry to Moscow. Some foreign
accounts state that Dimitry's envoys chided the Muscovites for their impris-
onment and ill-treatment of previous messengers,74 and this may have led to
the release of these men. The English report describes how, before Plesh-
cheev had finished reading the proclamation, some of the crowd rushed into
the Kremlin, where they met two of the newly released messengers. The
graphic account which these men gave of their 'torturing, whipping and roast-
ing' at the hands of the Godunovs' officials served to inflame the people
further.75 Some of the crowd attacked the royal palace, while others raided
the Godunovs' mansions in the suburbs of the city. Subsequently the mob
looted houses belonging to other members of the Godunov family, and to
their kinsmen the Saburovs and Veryaminovs. The movement spread, turning
into a more general attack by the lower orders on the property of the rich.
There are no reports, however, of killings or lynchings: the only victims,
according to some accounts, were looters who died of alcoholic poisoning
after drinking too deeply of plundered wine and spirits.76
In the aftermath of the Moscow rising, Boris's body was disinterred from
its ceremonial resting-place in the Archangel Cathedral in the Kremlin.
Having been subjected to various forms of abuse and defilement, the corpse
of the 'traitor and usurper' was reburied in the grounds of the modest Varsun-
of'ev Convent.77 Various rumours were spread in Moscow about Boris after
his disinterment. According to Isaac Massa: 'Suddenly, most of the people
began to believe that Boris was not dead, even though they themselves had
buried him twice. Some said that he had fled, and someone else had been
put in the tomb in his place.'78 Massa further relates that when the mobs
ransacked Boris's palace some people claimed that they had seen the former
tsar alive and well in the cellars. In the palace they discovered a wax figure
of an angel, which was to have served as the model for a gold statue for a
church. It was said that this figure had been found in Boris's coffin, and so
constituted evidence that he was not dead.79
74
Ibid., p. 105; Smith, Voiage, fK3v.
75
Smith, Voiage, fL.
76
77
Ibid., p. 290.
78
79
Ibid., pp. 106—7. Other contemporary accounts also mention rumours about a statue found in
Boris's palace. According to these sources, Godunov had allegedly booby-trapped his mansion
by placing gunpowder in the cellars, with a fuse attached to a lamp in the hands of a statue.
See Frantsev, 'Istoricheskoe i pravdivoe povestvovanie', pp. 31-2; Moskovskaya tragediya,
p. 36.

According to Massa, the rumours that Godunov was still alive were so
strong that messengers were sent out far and wide to look for him. Some
people said that he had gone to Tatary, and cossacks ostensibly searching
for the fugitive tsar ransacked villages on the Volga. Others claimed that he
had left for Sweden, but most were convinced that the English merchants
had taken him with rich treasures to their own country.80 The foreign
merchants, including Massa himself, who left Moscow at this time for the
White Sea port of Archangel, were in constant fear of attack, since it was
widely believed that they were smuggling Boris and his treasury out of
Russia.81 Massa describes the rumours about Boris as evidence of the 'most
ridiculous blindness' on the part of the credulous Russians.82 His own
account, however, suggests that there was some method in the Russians'
apparent madness, since the rumours clearly served as a pretext for looting
and pillaging by those who claimed to be searching for Boris and his
treasure.
K. V. Chistov, noting the similarity of these rumours to some of the motifs
of the 'socio-utopian legends about returning tsar-deliverers', states that
nevertheless no such legend was formed about Boris, since no-one wanted
him to reappear. Unlike Tsarevich Dimitry, Boris was an all too familiar and
discredited figure, with whom popular socio-utopian expectations could not
be associated.83 Subsequently, however, as we shall see below, the Poles were
to find a use for the rumours about Boris, when they threatened Dimitry with
the spectre of a false Boris.84
Foreign accounts based on reports by the Polish Jesuit Andrzej Lawicki
suggest a possible alternative explanation of these rumours about Boris Godu-
nov. Lawicki states that on his arrival in Moscow the pretender ordered
Godunov's palace to be razed to its foundations, 'fearing spells and magic',
since Boris in his desperation had resorted towards the end of his life to
sorcery as a weapon against the pretender.85 Certainly there is evidence that
Boris had long been interested in magic: Horsey, who knew him before he
became tsar, describes him as 'affected much to necromancy'.86 But, as
B. A. Uspenskii has noted, Dimitry and his supporters would in any case
have regarded Boris as a sorcerer, in so far as they viewed him a false tsar -
80
81
Ibid., p . 107.
82
Ibid., p. 107.
83
Chistov, Russkie narodnye, p. 4 7 .
84
For discussion of the rumours about Boris, see Perrie, ' "Popular Socio-Utopian Legends" ',
pp. 23-6.
85
Aleksandrenko, comp., 'Materialy', pp. 400, 535; Frantsev, 'Istoricheskoe i pravdivoe
povestvovanie', p. 31; Moskovskaya tragediya, pp. 35-6.
86
Berry and Crummey, eds., Rude and Barbarous Kingdom, p. 362.

a usurper or 'pretender on the throne'.87 (This was of course the counterpart
of Boris's own depiction of Grisha Otrep'ev as a black magician.) Rumours
that Boris was not dead may have reflected the popular belief that the earth
would not accept the body of a sorcerer. Similar rumours, as we shall see,
were to surround the death and burial of the First False Dimitry himself in
1606.
After the Moscow rising, Bogdan Bel'skii took over the administration of
the capital in Dimitry's name. Bel'skii, who had been in disgrace since the
Tsarev-Borisov incident in 1600, had returned to Moscow only as a result
of the political amnesty declared on Boris's death. According to the English
report, it was Bel'skii who succeeded in persuading the boyars to acknowl-
edge Dimitry as tsar:
The Nobles ioyning in one Counsell for the present ordering of these suddaine acci-
dents, and for answere to the P[rince] Dem[etrie] Euanich, who suddenly was by
generall consent concluded (by the perticular knowledege of Bodan Belsekey a great
Counseller, that was privie to his departure, and some others) to be their right and
lawfull Emperour.88
In reality, of course, the boyars recognised Dimitry not because they believed
him to be the true tsarevich, but because acknowledgement of the pretender
was the only way they could hope to survive the popular uprising and regain
control of events.
On 5 June Dimitry learned of the rising in Moscow, and left Krapivna in
order to begin his triumphal march on the capital. At Tula, where the new
tsar was welcomed with great pomp, he received a delegation from Moscow.
This was headed not by the chief boyars, but by second-rank figures. The
pretender, clearly feeling slighted by this, snubbed the delegation by receiv-
ing envoys from the Don cossacks ahead of the Moscow notables. The boyars
were mocked and derided by the cossacks, aided and abetted by Dimitry,
who, in the words of the chronicler, 'chastised and cursed them like a real
tsar's son'.89 The lesson was not lost on the leaders of the boyar duma. When
Dimitry reached Serpukhov he was met with great honour by Prince F. I.
87
Uspenskii, 'Tsar' i samozvanets', pp. 2 1 6 - 1 7 . For the same reasons, Vasilii Shuiskii believed
that Dimitry's palace was bewitched. Isaac Massa (A Short History, p . 166) tells us that after
he succeeded to the throne, Shuiskii had a new residence built, because: ' H e had not wished
to live in Dmitry's sumptuous palace for fear of a nocturnal visit from the Demon, for he
still held Dmitry to have been a sorcerer, and all the places he inhabited were thought impure.'
88
Smith, Voiage, fL2. Skrynnikov's account of Bel'skii's role appears to be based on a mistrans-
lation in the Russian edition of this source: Skrynnikov, Sotsial'no-politicheskaya bor'ba,
p. 285. Bel'skii was able to persuade the boyars to recognise Dimitry because he had been
'privy to his departure' from Uglich (see below, p. 80), not because he 'had heard of his
departure from his camp' at Tula.
89
PSRL, vol. 14, p. 65, para. 104.

Mstislavskii and Prince D. I. Shuiskii, and a lavish banquet was arranged to

welcome him.
The pretender had obtained the support of the boyars, but he had not yet
been recognised by the Holy Synod. In proclamations which he had sent to
the provinces on dates when he was still at Tula, but which were written as
if he was already established in Moscow, Dimitry had claimed that he had
been acknowledged as tsar by Patriarch Iov and by the Synod,90 but this was
untrue. Iov had remained loyal to the Godunovs until the end, and had suf-
fered for this in the course of the Moscow rising, when the mob had dragged
him from the altar of the Uspenskii Cathedral in the Kremlin and subjected
him to all kinds of abuse. While Dimitry was still outside the capital, his new
lieutenant P. F. Basmanov stripped Iov of his robes of office. The pretender
nominated as Iov's successor the Archbishop of Ryazan', Ignatii, who had
been the first senior prelate to recognise him. A meeting of the Holy Synod
after Dimitry entered the capital agreed to Iov's retirement on the grounds
of ill-health, and elected Ignatii as the new Patriarch.
At Serpukhov, it seems, the boyars had agreed to Dimitry's demand that
before he entered the city the previous occupant of the throne, and his mother,
should be 'got out of the way'.91 Soon after the boyars returned to Moscow,
it was announced that Tsar Fedor and Tsaritsa Mariya had committed suicide.
When their bodies were publicly displayed, eyewitnesses noticed rope-marks
on their necks, indicating that they had been strangled.92 According to the
New Chronicle, they were murdered on the orders of Prince Vasilii Golitsyn.
Fedor and his mother were buried alongside Boris in the Varsunof ev monas-
tery. Fedor's sister Kseniya survived as a prisoner;93 subsequently she was
allegedly raped by the pretender before being forced to take the veil.94 Much
later, in 1609, a rumour was reported from Poland that Tsar Fedor Borisovich
was alive and living at the court of the Holy Roman Emperor,95 but no false
Fedor appeared in Russia during the Time of Troubles.
Moscow and coronation

Dimitry made his triumphal entry into Moscow on 20 June. The streets were
thronged with his jubilant subjects. Some cried out, 'May He who preserved
Thee in miraculous fashion preserve Thee further in all Thy endeavours!'
90
Proclamation to Sol' Vychegodsk, dated 6 June 1605: AAE, vol. 2, no. 35, p. 92; proclamation
to Pelym, dated 11 June: SGGiD, vol. 2, no. 89, p. 200.
91
92
Petrei, Istoriya, p. 205.
93
PSRL, vol. 14, p. 66, para. 106.
94
95
AI, vol. 2, no. 199, p. 231.

Others greeted him as 'the true sun shining upon Russia'.96 Dimitry entered
the Kremlin, and wept over the graves of his supposed father and brother,
Tsars Ivan and Fedor, in the Archangel Cathedral. At the Cathedral of the
Assumption, the archpriest Terentii greeted him with a flowery speech whose
imagery, reflecting the Church's official view of the new tsar as a sacred
figure, was not dissimilar from that of the voices in the crowd. Terentii
rejoiced that God had blessed Dimitry in his mother's womb, preserved him
with His invisible power from all his enemies, and set him on his royal
throne. Describing the new tsar as the defender of the Orthodox faith, 'shin-
ing more brightly than the sun in the heavens', the archpriest called on him
to imitate Christ in his mercy towards the people.97
Then Bogdan Bel'skii addressed the crowds on Red Square. Bel'skii
claimed to be Dimitry's godfather, appointed as his guardian by Tsar Ivan.
According to Conrad Bussow, Bel'skii ostentatiously swore on the cross
before the citizens that their new tsar was indeed Dimitry Ivanovich, whom
he himself had 'sheltered on his bosom' and was now restoring to them.98
A Russian source also states that Bel'skii claimed to have preserved Dimitry,
and to have suffered for this at Boris's hands.99 What significance should we
attach to Bel'skii's claim to have been Dimitry's saviour?
In his proclamations to the provinces issued after the Moscow rising, Dimi-
try had continued to use the same vague formulae about his escape from
death as had been used in his earlier manifestos: Divine Providence had saved
him from an evil death at the hands of the traitor Boris Godunov, and God
had graciously preserved him in safety until he reached manhood, etc.100 The
version that Bogdan Bel'skii saved Dimitry from death is contained in the
report of Sir Thomas Smith's embassy. The English party left for home from
the White Sea at the beginning of August 1605,101 so that this account must
reflect rumours current in Moscow at the time of Dimitry's first entry into
the capital. The author describes how on Tsar Ivan's death Boris had become
regent for Tsar Fedor Ivanovich, and had exiled Dimitry to Uglich. Bogdan
Bel'skii, Andrei Shchelkalov and Andrei Kleshnin were at first close associ-
ates of Boris, but Godunov, being jealous of their influence, sought to dis-
tance them from positions of power, 'by throwing discontents upon one of
96
Bussov, Moskovskaya khronika, pp. 109, 235. Bussow even attempts to reproduce the Russian
words in his German text: 'Thy brabda Solniska'. Zhivov and Uspenskii ('Tsar' i bog', p. 57)
translate this as solntse pravednoe, i.e. 'sun of righteousness'.
97
AAE, vol. 2, no. 224, pp. 383-5.
98
99
Belokurov, ed., Razryadnye zapisi, p. 5.
100
AAE, vol. 2, no. 37, pp. 92-3; no. 38, p. 93; SGGiD, vol. 2, no. 90, p. 201.
101
Smith, Voiage, fM.

them and a slightly-regarding of the other'.102 Bogdan Bel'skii was forced to

leave Moscow, but his two former colleagues kept him informed of hap-
penings at court. Bogdan then
(knowing the ambitious thirst of Borris to extirpate the race of Evan Vassiliwich
himselfe now but an Usurper) took deliberation with the old Empresse (mother to
Demetre) for the preservation of the child. And seeing afarre off, arrowes aimed at
his life, which could very hardly be kept off, it was devised to exchange Demetre
for the child of a churchman (in yeares and proportion somewhat resembling him)
whilst the other (by this meanes) might live safe, though obscure.
This counterfet Churchmans Sonne being then taken for the lawful Prince, was
attended on and associated according to his State: with whome one day, another child,
(that was appointed to bee his play fellow) disporting themselves, finding faulte that
the collor which the supposed Demetre wore about his necke (as the fashion of the
Countrey is) stood awry, preparing to mende it, with a sharpe knif (provided as seems
of purpose) cut his throat.103
Boris had made a hypocritical show of grief, and had sent a commission of
inquiry to investigate the circumstances of Dimitry's death. The tsarevich's
guardians were imprisoned, and some of them were put to death.
But heaven protected the lawfull, to be an instrument for the Usurpers confusion.
Obscurely livd this wronged Prince, the changing of him being made private to none
but his owne mother (Sister as is said before to Boris) who is now living, and to Bodan
Belskey: but upon what wheele his various fortunes have bin turned, (which of necessity
must needs be strange) came not within the rech of our knowledge being there.104
As the historian Kostomarov pointed out last century, this version of Dimi-
try 's escape from death, in which the substitution took place long before
15 May 1591, is much more convincing than the pretender's own account,
given to Vishnevetskii in Poland, in which the tsarevich's tutor intervened
with a replacement child on the day itself.105 Jacques Margeret too stated that
Dimitry's substitution took place before 1591, but he attributed the ruse to
'Dmitrii's mother and some of the high nobles who were left, like the Rom-
anovs, the Nagois, and others'.106 Foreign contemporaries, such as Margeret
and the author of the English account, believed that the man who was
crowned in Moscow in July 1605 really was Tsarevich Dimitry, saved by
102
Ibid., fM2. Andrei Kleshnin and Vasilii Shchelkalov (the brother of Andrei) were later named
by the Second False Dimitry as allies of Bogdan Bel'skii in thwarting Boris's plans to murder
him at Uglich: Buturlin, Istoriya smutnogo vremeni, vol. 2, prilozheniya no. 7, p. 49.
103
Smith, Voiage, fM2.
104
Ibid., fM2v-[M3]. Dimitry's mother was not of course Boris's sister.
105
Kostomarov, Kto by I pervyi Lzhedimitrii?, pp. 35—40.
106
Margeret, The Russian Empire, p. 81.

the boyars from Boris's attempt to kill him.107 Kostomarov, while rejecting
the view that Dimitry had avoided death at Uglich, suggests that a group of
boyars including Bel'skii was responsible for setting up the pretender.108
Bearing in mind the discrepancy between the English account and the pre-
tender's own story of his escape, however, it is more likely that his supporters
in Moscow, such as Bogdan Bel'skii, tried to provide a more credible version
of his biography, for the benefit of the citizens of the capital, than the vague
talk of Divine Providence which was contained in Dimitry's own procla-
mations. Thus in addition to the 'religious-miraculous' version of the tsarev-
ich's escape from death that circulated in the Seversk region, a new variant of
the 'scientific-rational' explanation was produced for the more sophisticated
inhabitants of Moscow.
The problem of persuading people of his identity as Dimitry Ivanovich
was one which arose particularly acutely for the pretender on his first appear-
ance in the capital. According to the New Chronicle, many Muscovites recog-
nised him immediately as Grisha Otrep'ev and were bitterly disillusioned.109
Some accounts state that Dimitry began secretly to dispose of anyone who
doubted his royal birth. A wave of arrests, tortures, exiles and killings was
instituted.110 Two public executions took place: the nobleman Peter Turgenev
and the townsman Fedor Kalachnik were beheaded on Red Square for refus-
ing to accept the pretender as the son of Tsar Ivan. Kalachnik is said to have
denounced Dimitry on the scaffold not only as 'the emissary of Satan' but
also as 'the image of the Anti-Christ'111 - the direct antithesis of his sup-
porters' view of Dimitry as the Christ-like 'sun of righteousness'.
Soon after Dimitry entered Moscow, the Shuiskii brothers were arrested
and brought to public trial, accused of plotting to kill the new tsar. All three
were found guilty. Prince Vasilii Shuiskii was sentenced to death, but was
reprieved at the last moment and sent into exile with his brothers. It was
widely rumoured that his real offence was to have initiated a whispering
campaign that Dimitry was an impostor. R. G. Skrynnikov makes the plaus-
ible suggestion that Dimitry's prompt removal of the Shuiskiis was not under-
taken in response to any rash action on their part, but was rather a pre-
emptive strike by the pretender against the heads of the princely clan with
the most valid claim to the throne.112
107
For the rather more sceptical v i e w o f a member o f Sir T h o m a s Smith's party, see William
Scott's report to Lord Salisbury: Aleksandrenko, comp., 'Materialy', pp. 2 4 6 - 7 .
108
Kostomarov, Kto by I pervyi Lzhedimitrii?, pp. 41-9.
109
PSRL, vol. 14, p. 67, para. 107.
110
Popov, Izbornik, p. 329; Massa, A Short History, p. 113.
111
Palitsyn, Skazanie, p. I l l ; PSRL, vol. 14, p. 67, para. 111.
112
Skrynnikov, Sotsial'no-politicheskaya bor'ba, pp. 308-9; Skrynnikov, Rossiya v nachaleXVII
v., p. 238. Skrynnikov makes no attempt to reconcile Dimitry's persecution of the Shuiskiis
with his theory that this clan had been responsible for setting up the 'pretender intrigue'.

If anyone doubted his identity, however, the pretender had a trump card
to play. Tsaritsa Mariya Nagaya, the mother of Dimitry of Uglich, was still
living as the nun Marfa in the remote northern convent to which she had
been exiled after the death of her son. As we have noted, the captured noble-
man Peter Khrushchov had told the pretender on the eve of his incursion
into Russia in 1604 of rumours that Boris had summoned Mariya to Moscow
to interrogate her, but there appears to have been no substance to these. In
his proclamations of June 1605 to the Siberian towns of Sol' Vychegodsk
and Pelym, Dimitry had called upon his loyal subjects to pray not only for
himself but also for 'Our mother, the Great Sovereign Tsaritsa and Grand
Princess the nun Marfa Fedorovna of All Russia'.113 According to the text
which was circulated at the same time, the oath of allegiance was to be taken
to Marfa Fedorovna as well as to her son.114 The practice of naming the
dowager tsaritsa in the oath of allegiance had been introduced by Boris Godu-
nov, who derived his claim to the throne from his sister Irina, the widow of
Tsar Fedor Ivanovich. The precedent had been mechanically copied by Tsar
Fedor Borisovich. For Dimitry, as for Boris, it served the additional purpose
of stressing his link with the old dynasty.115
When he reached Moscow, Dimitry sent his trusted boyar Prince Vasilii
Mosal'skii to escort Mariya to the capital. But he had prepared the ground
in advance, having already despatched Semen Shapkin, a relative of the
Nagois whom the pretender had appointed to the rank of chamberlain
(posteVnichii), to persuade Mariya to acknowledge Dimitry as her son.
According to one Russian source, the 'persuasion' was to take the form of
a threat to kill her if she did not recognise him.116 The New Chronicle, how-
ever, admits that no-one knows why Mariya acknowledged the pretender:
from fear of her life, or of her own volition.117 Not surprisingly, after the
murder of the First False Dimitry Mariya herself claimed that she had acted
under duress.118
In reality, the pretender hardly needed to resort to threats to induce Mariya
to recognise him as her son. While he was still encamped at Tula, Dimitry
had sent messengers to the obscure provincial towns where the surviving
senior members of the Nagoi family were serving in the minor posts which
Boris had allowed them to occupy after their years of imprisonment and
exile. Dimitry generously rewarded his closest 'relatives'. Mariya Nagaya's
brother Michael Fedorovich Nagoi was made a boyar and equerry to the tsar;
AAE, vol. 2, no. 35, p. 92; SGGiD, vol. 2, no. 89, p. 200.
AAE, vol. 2, no. 38, p. 94; SGGiD, vol. 2, no. 91, pp. 202-3.
Skrynnikov, Sotsial'no-politicheskaya bor'ba, p. 289; Perrie, 'Female Rule', pp. 4-5.
Belokurov, ed., Razryadnye zapisi, p. 6.
PSRL, vol. 14, p. 67, para. 109.
SGGiD, vol. 2, no. 146, p. 307; no. 147, p. 312; no. 149, p. 317; AAE, vol. 2, no. 48, p.
111.

her other brother, Grigorii, and her cousins Andrei, Afanasii and Michael
Aleksandrovich Nagoi were also made boyars. They were all allocated estates
and mansions which had been confiscated from the Godunovs.119 This dra-
matic improvement in the fortunes of her kinsmen, as well as an under-
standable tendency to wishful thinking, must undoubtedly have influenced
Mariya's attitude towards her supposed son.
In addition to the Nagois, Dimitry generously rewarded members of other
boyar families who had been in exile and disgrace in Boris's reign. The
brothers I. P. and V. P. Golovin were made okol'nichie, as was the d'yak
V. Ya. Shchelkalov. Ivan Nikitich Romanov was made a boyar. His brother
Fedor, whom Boris had obliged to become the monk Filaret, returned to
Moscow from the Antoniev Siiskii monastery, and was appointed Metropoli-
tan of Rostov. The agents who kept watch on Filaret had reported that in
February 1605, when news of the pretender's successes first reached him,
the reluctant elder had undergone a marked change in his behaviour. Filaret
had begun laughing to himself, threatening his jailors, and reminiscing about
his former life as a layman, with his hawks and his hunting dogs - a life to
which he clearly hoped soon to return.120 This evidence has served for some
historians as confirmation of their hypothesis that these boyar families were
responsible for setting up the pretender.121 But it is just as reasonable to
assume that Dimitry, in need of allies in the boyar duma, realised that men
and women who had been exiled by Boris would not require too stringent
proofs of his identity, and would be willing to 'recognise' and support him
in return for their rehabilitation and reinstatement.
On 17 July the nun Marfa reached the village of Taininskoe, on the out-
skirts of Moscow. Dimitry went to meet her there, and a touching scene
ensued in which mother and son were reunited after fourteen years. The next
day Dimitry escorted the dowager tsaritsa into the capital, where they were
greeted by cheering crowds on Red Square and attended a service of thanks-
giving in the Kremlin. Three days later, on 21 July 1605, the pretender was
crowned as tsar in the Uspenskii cathedral. According to the Pole Stanislaw
Niemojewski, when Dimitry was riding to his coronation, the people of
Moscow hailed him as the 'true tsarevich and our legitimate sovereign, our
true sun (prawotne solnyszko nasze)'.122
119
120
AI, vol. 2, no. 54, pp. 64-6.
121
E.g. Kostomarov, Kto byl pervyi Lzhedimitrii?, pp. 48-9; Platonov, Ocherki, pp. 186-7.
122
Nemoevskii, 'Zapiski', p. 114. Although the Russian re-translation is istinnoe solnyshko
nashe, the original was probably pravednoe solnyshko, i.e. 'sun of righteousness'.


The Campaign For The Crown: The Invasion of Russia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Campaign For The Crown: The Invasion of Russia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Campaign For The Crown: The Invasion of Russia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The campaign for the crown

The invasion of Russia

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

Mogilev© \ Kozel'sk0 "Krapivnaj|

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

lands.24 The monks in particular, he suggests, being accustomed to the idea

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

But this is Grisha-Rosstrizhka, the son of Otrep'ev,

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

'sacralisation' of the monarchy in the sixteenth century facilitated popular

The rising in the capital

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

commanders whom he rewarded generously with titles and honours. In this

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

Mstislavskii and Prince D. I. Shuiskii, and a lavish banquet was arranged to

Moscow and coronation

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

them and a slightly-regarding of the other'.102 Bogdan Bel'skii was forced to

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009

You might also like