The tragedy in Uglich still causes heated debate among historians. There are several versions of the development of events in this little-known period of the life of the Russian state.
The last son of Ivan Vasilyevich was born from the seventh marriage, not consecrated by the church, with Maria Naga and was considered illegitimate. During the period of the tsar's grave illness, some boyars openly refused to swear allegiance to the baby, which made Grozny even more suspicious and harsh. After the death of the sovereign, he had two sons: the weak-tempered Fedor and little Dmitry. Fedor turned out to be a controlled man, which was quickly taken advantage of by his close relative from his wife's side, Boris Godunov. The reign of Fedor, in fact, was the beginning of the reign of Godunov - a far-sighted and prudent politician. After the proclamation of Fyodor as tsar and the convocation of the board of trustees, the tsarina, along with an unintelligent youth, was sent to Uglich. The queen herself considered the settlement in the only independent inheritance in the state as an exile and openly hated Godunov. Frequent conversations about Boris, filled with anger, also influenced the boy, forming a fierce hatred for this man. Suddenly the prince died - the day of the boy's death can be safely called the beginning of the Great Troubles.
Tsarevich Dmitry. Painting by M. V. Nesterov, 1899
The first among the official interpretations of the reasons for the death of the last son of Ivan the Terrible and Maria Nagoya - Tsarevich Dmitry is considered an accident. On May 15, 1591, after mass, the boy was busy playing "knives" with his peers in the courtyard of the prince's house. Occupation, by the way, is very strange for a child with epilepsy. The children were looked after by the senior nanny of Volokhova Vasilisa. Suddenly, the prince had an epileptic seizure, and he inflicted a mortal wound on himself. The fact of the accident was established by a specially created commission organized by Godunov, headed by Prince Shuisky. It should be noted that Shuisky was an unspoken opponent of Godunov, therefore, most likely, he had no intentions to find reasons to justify the current mentor of the weak-willed Fedor. Nevertheless, the commission considered that the “judgment of God” was the cause of death, and not the malicious intent of the conspirators, as Nagie claimed. However, in the course of the investigation, everyone, except for Mikhail Nagy, recognized the accident of the tragedy. According to the investigation, it was established that in a seizure the prince cut his throat, and it was impossible to save him.
On the one hand, the interpretation is plausible, but there are several strange, if not contradictory, points in it. According to the testimony of Volokhova and other eyewitnesses of the death, the boy fell on a knife, clamped in his hand, and, having injured his throat, fought for a long time in a seizure. First of all, it is doubtful that with a damaged throat and significant blood loss, the prince was still alive, and the seizure continued. A medical explanation can still be found for this fact. Doctors say that if a vein or artery was damaged under the influence of convulsions, portions of air could enter the bloodstream and the prince died from the so-called air embolism of the heart. The wound, apparently, did not cause much blood loss, so the nanny did not see it as a mortal danger. This statement looks incredible, but doctors insist that such a situation could well have taken place. Further, historians have doubts about the behavior of the queen. The mother, instead of trying to help or simply mourning her son, pounces on the mother and beats her with a log. Then, in the city, someone beats the alarm and a bloody massacre begins, during which the Naked are dealt with all the persons they dislike, somehow connected with Boris. Perhaps the queen's behavior was dictated by a psychological shock, but the subsequent reprisals against Godunov's representatives present in Uglich cannot be justified only by mental trauma. This behavior is more reminiscent of intentional and prepared actions. By the way, the subsequent actions of Maria Nagoya in relation to the first Pretender are also obscure.
Those who investigated the incident did not know the prince by sight, since they saw him for the last time almost in infancy. Apart from the queen and her relatives, no one could reliably identify the corpse of the child. As a result, another version of the miraculously saved Tsarevich arose, which spread with the emergence of False Dmitry I in the political arena. There is an opinion that the Naked, fearing an attempt on the life of a child by Godunov, faked his death, replacing Dmitry with the son of a priest. Hardly anyone will doubt that the assassination attempt would have taken place sooner or later. Given the cunning and cleverness of Godunov, it would certainly have succeeded. Probably, this fact was well understood by the Nagy, so the version about the substitution of the child seems very plausible. Taking advantage of the opportunity, they carried the slightly wounded tsarevich deep into the prince's house, and killed all those who knew Dmitry well. After that, the relatives had time and the opportunity to take the prince to a secluded place and hide him somewhere in the wilderness. Subsequently, arguments were added to this version that the first of the impostors really looked like a prince, had the same birthmarks, good posture and manners. In addition, the adventurer had some papers, as well as jewelry from the royal treasury.
Grigory Otrepiev, presumably, was one of the supporters of False Dmitry, but not himself. Some data have also been preserved about this person. So, by order of Godunov, an investigation was organized at the very first information about the impostor. However, the certificates and documents had many inaccuracies and errors, therefore they are still subject to great doubts today. Despite all its persuasiveness, this point of view has a significant drawback. As you know, False Dmitry I was a healthy and hardy man, while Tsarevich Dmitry suffered from a severe form of epilepsy that threatened his life every minute. Even if we admit the incredible fact of his recovery, which was simply impossible in the sixteenth century, one cannot deny the presence of inconsistencies in characters. The consequences of an epileptic illness, or its presence, is always reflected in the psyche and manifests itself in specific signs.
People suffering from this ailment are suspicious, suspicious and vindictive, while False Dmitry is described as an open and charming person, without a shadow of these features. According to numerous testimonies, the impostor simply charmed the Muscovites, for which he was immediately after his death accused of witchcraft. If we assume that False Dmitry I was still the son of Ivan the Terrible, then most likely it was one of his illegitimate offspring, but not the murdered prince.
Another popular version of Dmitry's death is the assertion that the tragedy was nothing more than a secret order from Godunov to eliminate the pretender to the throne. Karamzin also supports this assumption, although, according to the stories of his friends and colleagues, the point of view described in the works does not coincide with the personal opinion of the historian. The famous monarchist did not dare to debunk the official interpretation, because, in his own words, the established view is holy. However, this view, which later became almost the main one, has its own significant drawbacks. On the one hand, the death of the tsarevich was beneficial to Fyodor's guardian, since his claims to the throne became obvious. The tsarevich clearly showed dislike for Godunov, and his accession to the throne promised severe repression. There is information that among the boy's amusements there were also very perverted ones. For example, he demanded to sculpt snow figures, gave them the names of noble boyars and Godunov himself, and then chopped and quartered the dolls. The cruelty of the child manifested itself in almost everything. He loved to watch the slaughter of cattle, and also personally turned the heads of chickens in the princely kitchen. In a fit of rage, the prince once bitten the daughter of one of his entourage half to death. Dmitry was to become a very stern sovereign, in no way inferior, and perhaps even superior in cruelty to the royal father. Ironically, among the people, Dmitry received the status of good.
So, the fate of Dmitry, it seemed, was a foregone conclusion. However, the method of eliminating the opponent was chosen completely uncharacteristic for Boris. This cunning and very clever figure preferred to destroy people he disliked without unnecessary noise, using more often poisons and other means. Outright murder with such a large number of conspirators who did not even try to hide from the retaliation of indignant relatives does not fit in any way with Godunov's Jesuit methods of struggle. Shuisky's behavior is also surprising, who did not even try to blame his opponent for the death of the prince, but only after a long time made a statement about his atrocities.
Among the main theories concerning the death of little Dmitry, the first seems to be the most plausible. Unfortunately, it is no longer possible to find out exactly what happened in Uglich on May 15, 1591. We can only build various assumptions and try to support them with the arguments that seem to us the most convincing, but it is impossible to insist on the truth of any one version.
