Military Review

The myth of the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry Uglitsky

56
The myth of the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry Uglitsky
Tsarevich Dmitry. Painting by Mikhail Nesterov, 1899


Prologue of the Great Troubles


Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich (Dimitri Ioannovich) was born in October 1582 from the sixth wife of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich Maria Naga. At that time, the church considered only the first three marriages legal, so Dmitry could be considered illegitimate and was excluded from the pretenders to the throne.

However, Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich was weak in mind and health, was under the tutelage of the Boyar Duma, and then his brother-in-law Boris Godunov. If he had no male heir left, then Dmitry could become the new king. Therefore, in Moscow, they watched with caution Dmitry and his relatives. After the death of Ivan the Terrible in 1584 and the accession to the throne of Fyodor Ivanovich, the boy and his mother were removed to Uglich by the regency council and received him as an inheritance. Dmitry was considered the ruling prince, he had his own court. However, the real power was in the hands of the "service people" sent from Moscow under the leadership of clerk Mikhail Bityagovsky, who watched over the Uglich court.

The circumstances of the death of Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich are still controversial and not fully clarified. On May 15 (25), 1591, the former Empress Maria Nagaya with her son Dmitry defended mass in the Transfiguration Cathedral in the Kremlin of Uglich. Then Maria with her 8-year-old son and courtiers went to the stone palace. There the prince changed his dress, and he went to play in the courtyard of the Kremlin. Almost at noon the alarm sounded in the Kremlin. The townspeople who fled saw the lifeless body of the prince with a wound in his throat. Maria and her brothers Mikhail and Gregory set the crowd against local officials. They believed that the Uglich prince was stabbed to death by Osip Volokhov (the son of the Tsarevich's mother), Nikita Kachalov and Danila Bityagovsky (the son of the clerk Mikhail, who followed the royal family). That is, in fact, by direct order of the Moscow government. A riot began. The townspeople tore to pieces the alleged killers.

Four days later, a commission of inquiry consisting of Metropolitan Gelasiy, head of the Local Order of the Duma clerk Yelizariy Vyluzgin, okolnichny Andrey Petrovich Lup-Kleshnin and boyar Vasily Shuisky (the future Tsar of Russia) arrived in Uglich. The commission decided that the cause of the death of the prince was an accident.

As a result, the Uglich people were punished in accordance with the degree of participation in the murders. Several dozen people were repressed: some had their heads cut off, others their tongues, 60 families were exiled to Siberia. "Punished" and the bell in the Church of the Savior, which the rioters sounded the alarm. He was publicly whipped, his ear was cut off, his tongue was pulled out and he was exiled to Tobolsk, where he was recorded as "the first inanimate".

In Tobolsk, the bell was installed in the Sofia bell tower. Then, after the fire, he stood on the ground. At the request of the Uglich people, in 1892 the bell was returned to Uglich. The Nagikh brothers, in addition to the riot in Uglich, were accused of setting fire to houses in Moscow and sent to the cities. Maria Naguya was sent to the Nikolovyksinskaya hermitage (monastery) for her lack of contempt for her son. She was tonsured a nun under the name of Martha. Later they were transferred to the Goritsky Resurrection Convent on the Sheksna River.

Actually, on this Uglich history and would have forgotten. Moreover, soon Tsarina Irina suffered again. This time she reported the child. However, Tsar Fyodor had a daughter, Fedosya. She was often ill and died in January 1594. The dynasty was cut short, which became a reason for rumors.


The chambers of the Uglich princes, built in the 1480s by Prince Andrey Vasilyevich in the Uglich Kremlin on the banks of the Volga

Uglich case


The greatest attention to the Uglich case manifested itself in the first half of the XNUMXth century after the publication of "History of the Russian State" by NM Karamzin and the drama of Alexander Pushkin "Boris Godunov". For more than two centuries of disputes, historians and publicists have not come to a consensus on this event. There are three leading versions of the Uglich case.

The Commission of Inquiry interviewed about 150 people who participated in these events. The case was announced by Metropolitan Gelasius at the Consecrated Cathedral. Conclusion - an accident. The prince began epilepsy and was killed during convulsions. According to the nurse Arina Tuchkova:

"She did not save him, as a black disease came to the prince, and at that time he had a knife in his hands, and he stabbed with a knife, and she took the prince in her arms, and the prince in her arms was gone."

These words were repeated with some differences by other witnesses. Many professional historians, researchers of this period of Russian history, in particular, S.F. Platonov and R.G. Skrynnikov, believed that the commission of inquiry had made the correct conclusion.

The second version - Dmitry remained alive and was hidden by Nagimi so that he would not be killed. In 1605, False Dmitry, who proclaimed himself a "miraculously saved" tsarevich, seized the Moscow throne and reviewed the Uglich case. Maria Nagaya recognized him as her son, the other participants in the investigation immediately changed their testimony. The reunion of the mother with the "son" took place in the village of Taininskoye in front of a huge crowd. The "Tsar" jumped off his horse and rushed to the carriage, and Martha, throwing back the side curtain, embraced him, and both were sobbing. The rescue of the Uglich prince was explained by the intervention of a certain doctor.

The third version - the assassination of Dmitry Uglichsky by order of Boris Godunov - was accepted already during the reign of Vasily Shuisky. The new government sought to blame all the troubles of the Troubles on the Godunov family. The new ruling dynasty, the Romanovs, also supported this version. It became official. This was also supported by the church. The classic plot was outlined in Karamzin's History of the Russian State. Then in "History" S. M. Solovyov. Westerners who "created" a classic, pro-Western version of Russian history. There are other versions as well. For example, it is possible that it was a negligent homicide.


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

Truth Is Out There


Obviously, the version of "miraculous salvation" is the most unlikely. In Uglich, almost everyone knew the prince by sight. Numerous mothers, other mongrels, comrade boys, nobles, and representatives of the administration could not be identified.

And the commission of inquiry from Moscow?

The naked obviously could not bribe or somehow convince the investigators from the capital to assist in their deception. The intellectual ceiling of their "team" was low to play such a long-term political game with far-reaching goals. It is clear that after the murder of the dummy child "will be followed by exile or imprisonment of the Naked. How then to prove that the prince is true? The Moscow government will declare him an impostor and impale him.

The version about the conspiracy of Boris Godunov is more plausible. According to her, the villain Godunov planned to kill the Uglich prince. As the historian S.M. Solovyov wrote, at first they planned to poison Dmitry, but it did not work out. Then they conceived an evil deed. Clerk Mikhail Bityagovsky took over. His son Danila, nephew Nikita Kachalov, son of Tsarevich mother Osip Volokhov went with him to Uglich. Tsarina Maria felt that something was wrong and began to take care of the prince even more. But on May 15, at noon, for some reason she weakened her attention, and Volokhova's mother, who was in the conspiracy, took the child into the yard. The killers were already on the porch. Volokhov stabbed him in the throat with a knife and ran away. The nurse tried to protect the prince and began to shout. Bityagovsky with Katchalov beat her to a pulp and finished off the child. Then there was a commotion, the conspirators were killed. The members of the commission allegedly knew what actually happened. But, having arrived in Moscow, Shuisky and his comrades told the tsar that Dmitry had stabbed himself.

It should be remembered that although Godunov had great power in the Russian state under Tsar Fyodor, he was not an absolute ruler. He had his supporters, but most of the Boyar Duma, including the ancient Shuisky family, were happy for any reason to overthrow the powerful temporary worker. And here is such a scandal! The murder of the prince, in which supporters of Godunov are implicated. The naked had not to kill possible performers, but to take them alive for interrogation in order to reach the customer. However, Bityakovsky and his comrades were killed, that is, they hid the ends in the water.

It is also obvious that in 1591 Godunov did not need to kill Dmitry. Tsar Fyodor was 34 years old, that is, he still had time to give birth to an heir. In the same year, Queen Irina became pregnant, but the girl Fedosya was born. Interestingly, Godunov was also blamed for her death. In addition, Boris had more convenient methods than direct murder. Poison. Link, after accusing the Naked of high treason or witchcraft, etc. Dmitry would be isolated, put under the care of faithful people in a quiet place, and he would soon give his soul to God.

The prince died in an accident


Thus, the most reasonable version is an accident.

Dimitri Uglichsky suffered from epilepsy. There were severe seizures. The last attack lasted several days and ended with the death of the prince on May 15, 1591. Another important detail - the prince loved playing with weapons... At that time, the children of feudal lords, princes from an early age played with real weapons, this was an element of military education. Almost the entire life of the nobility is a war. In European museums, there are a lot of children's weapons - knives, daggers, swords, sabers, axes, etc. By the way, in the Middle Ages, even tournaments and fights were held among children and adolescents. Deaths in such fights were commonplace.

On May 15 (25), the Uglich prince played the "poke" game. The rules of the game are simple - you need to take the edge with the blade up and throw it into a circle outlined on the ground. Suddenly Dimitri, who was holding a knife, had an attack of "epilepsy". The boy fell and stabbed his throat. On the neck, under the skin, are the carotid artery and the jugular vein. If damaged, their death is inevitable.

Another option is also possible - during an attack, the patient throws himself with a weapon at loved ones or attempts to commit suicide. Therefore, eyewitnesses of the event were somewhat confused in the testimony: they could not determine when the prince wounded himself, when he fell, or when he was convulsing on the ground. They said one thing - Dmitry wounded himself in the throat.

Maria and her brothers, in their minds, should not have called for reprisals against possible murderers. On the contrary, grab them and carry out a "righteous search." The naked do everything to hide the traces of the accident and "bring Godunov and his people under the monastery." Indeed, according to the Nagikh version, Osip was the prince's killer. If he really killed Demetrius, then he would have faced the most severe torture, and then a painful execution. This was well known to all. But Maria Nagaya and her brothers are doing everything to hide the traces of the incident. They make a riot, eliminate unwanted bystanders.

The Boyar Duma appointed Vasily Shuisky to lead the investigation in Uglich. By this time, he was removed from disgrace and he returned to the Boyar Duma. Vasily was the most cunning and resourceful of the Shuisky family. Previously, he was in charge of the Judgment Order. Obviously, he did not support Godunov. Metropolitan Gelasiy of Krutitsky was also not a servant of Godunov. Andrei Kleshnin had a good relationship with Godunov, but at the same time was then Mikhail Nagy. The head of the Local Order, Vyluzgin, occupied one of the main places in the then "government".

The members of the commission belonged to different court groups, everyone watched each other, intrigued. Obviously, if there was an opportunity to accuse Godunov, the Shuisky and other boyars would use this chance.

The members of the commission interviewed many people. First of all, they carefully examined the bodies of the prince and the victims of lynching. No one had a shadow of doubt that it was Dimitri Ivanovich, and not a dummy boy.

The funeral service was conducted personally by the Metropolitan. It quickly became clear that the knives and clubs on the corpses of the Bityakovskys and their comrades had been planted on the orders of the Nagikhs. Mikhail Nagoy did not want to confess, but he was exposed. Grigory Nagoy immediately confessed to the preparation of "evidence".

Investigators quickly established the names of all direct witnesses. Volokhova's mother, nurse Arina Tuchkova, Kolobov's bed-bed and four boys who played knives with Dmitry gave evidence. The boys accurately and well described everything: during the game of "poke" the prince fell ill and he cut himself. Osip Volokhov and Danila Bityagovsky were not in the backyard at that time (the Bityagovsky were having dinner at home at that time). This testimony was confirmed by Kolobova, the mother of Volokhov and Tuchkova. The nurse was especially killed for the prince and blamed herself for everything.

Then an eighth witness was found. The key keeper Tulubeev reported that the lawyer Yudin, who stood in the upper chambers and looked out the window, had told him about the death of the prince, the lawyer Yudin, as the boys played. Yudin himself saw how the prince was killed. But he knew that the Naked were insisting on the murder, so he decided to avoid testifying.

Testimony was given even before the repression. Investigators did not pursue witnesses to the death of the tsarevich and the riot.

The Church Council on June 2, 1591 unanimously confirmed that Tsarevich Dmitry had perished by "God's judgment." And the Naked are guilty of organizing a riot and the death of innocent people.
Author:
Photos used:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/
56 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Olgovich
    Olgovich 26 May 2021 06: 02
    +6
    In today's language, there was an accident as a result of a safety violation ...

    The exiled Uglich bell, the alarm bell, “executed” by cutting off its tongue and “exiled” to Siberian Tobolsk in 1591, informed the inhabitants of the city of Uglich about the death of Tsarevich Dmitry: it was returned to its place only after more than two centuries. ..
    1. Egoza
      Egoza 26 May 2021 06: 44
      +3
      But how delightfully A.S. Pushkin suffering Godunov !!! "And the boys are bloody in their eyes." For some reason, Pushkin wants to believe more than any of the historians.
      1. Konstantin Shevchenko
        Konstantin Shevchenko 26 May 2021 07: 41
        +5
        Issak Massa, unlike Pushkin, lived at this time in Moscow. In his ego memoirs, Godunov suffered, accuses Godunov of the contract murder of Dmitry. What spoils most of all is that Moss is a Russophobe, reading him you realize that this author sometimes gives away wishful thinking. Although Moss saw the first False Dmitry alive and dead and confirmed that this Dima was an impostor. But Pushkin needs to check where he dug up the information :) in contrast to historians.
      2. Galleon
        Galleon 27 May 2021 10: 43
        +2
        I think you are far from alone in this. I always want to believe the one who lies the most beautiful of all. smile
  2. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 26 May 2021 07: 08
    +3
    As a child, they told me with a knife - this is not a toy! And the scar on his fingers "earned" already at the age of sixteen!
    We were "practicing" with a comrade a technique against a knife strike. As seen in the movies. Moreover, the knife was natural. Well, and "worked" ...
    Until now, a whitish strip passes through the thumb.
  3. bober1982
    bober1982 26 May 2021 07: 37
    -9
    The author, in my opinion, continues to engage in myth-making.
    When the tomb of the prince was opened in 1606, his body was incorruptible, and healings and miracles began to take place at his tomb, he was canonized.
    The prince was killed by order of Godunov.
    1. qQQQ
      qQQQ 26 May 2021 08: 55
      +6
      Quote: bober1982
      The prince was killed by order of Godunov.

      The author cited sufficiently strong evidence of the accident, but what confirms the murder, and even on the orders of Godunov?
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 26 May 2021 09: 10
        -4
        Quote: qqqq
        The author provided sufficient evidence of the accident

        I would not say so, what other evidence is there, just a retelling of old myths.
        Quote: qqqq
        and what confirms the murder

        Miraculous healings at the tomb, that is, the prince was martyred.
        1. qQQQ
          qQQQ 26 May 2021 09: 16
          +11
          Nevertheless, the old myths still support the accident from a materialistic point of view. Well, miraculous healings, even if you accept the statement that they were, are not proof of anything at all, let alone murder.
    2. Galleon
      Galleon 27 May 2021 10: 50
      +4
      The traveler Giles Fletcher described Dmitry as follows: “The Tsar's younger brother, a child of six or seven years old (as it was said before), is kept in a remote place from Moscow, under the supervision of his mother and relatives from the house of the Nagy, but (as you can hear) his life is in danger from the attempts of those who extend their views on the possession of the throne in the event of the childless death of the king. The nurse, who had tasted some food 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 (it is said) finds pleasure in watching sheep and livestock in general being slaughtered, seeing his throat cut when blood flows from it (while children are usually afraid of this), and beating geese and chickens with a stick until they will not die. "

      You see, even if such a boy is a saint, you want to stay away from such a "saint." Unfortunately, such a description corresponds to the temper of both papa and mama. request
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 27 May 2021 11: 05
        -4
        Quote: Galleon
        You see

        You see, after his death, Giles Fletcher began to stink very quickly and strongly, unlike the prince.
      2. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 27 May 2021 18: 27
        -1
        Quote: Galleon
        You see, even if such a boy is a saint, you want to stay away from such a "saint." Unfortunately, such a description corresponds to the temper of both papa and mama.

        You see, some European travelers will write this about Russia ... They also need to warm up interest in their people - and here
        - I was in a distant country in the north, a horror-eerie-scary place ...
        - yes nuuu !!! Tell in details!!!!
  4. Undecim
    Undecim 26 May 2021 07: 46
    +13
    Quote: Olgovich
    The exiled Uglich bell, the alarm bell, “executed” by cutting off its tongue and “exiled” to Siberian Tobolsk in 1591, informed the inhabitants of the city of Uglich about the death of Tsarevich Dmitry: it was returned to its place only after more than two centuries. ..

    Not returned. In 1677, a fire that destroyed almost all of Tobolsk did not spare the Uglich bell either. Instead, a new one was cast from the fragments of various bells found after the fire, which in 1892 was returned to Uglich.
    It's just that the Wikipedia article, which was rewritten by the author, is missing this point.
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 26 May 2021 09: 20
      +1
      Quote: Undecim
      Not returned. In 1677, a fire that destroyed almost all of Tobolsk did not spare the Uglich bell either. Instead, a new one was cast from the fragments of various bells found after the fire, which in 1892 was returned to Uglich.

      this is one of the versions, but according to the local historian A.V. Uglich. Kulagin was returned to the original one: in 1983, the Central Factory Laboratory of the Chaika Production Association carried out metallographic and chemical analyzes of the alloys of several bells from the Uglich Museum of History and Art, including the exiled bell. Chemical analysis showed that the composition of the bronze of the exiled bell is as follows: 82,62% copper, 15,83% tin and 1,55% impurities. The mechanical properties were also determined. It is concluded that the bell was cast by a highly skilled caster who worked in Uglich at the end of the XNUMXth century.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 26 May 2021 11: 16
        +4
        and according to the local historian A.V. Uglich. Kulagina

        And according to local historian Uglich Lobashkov, it is not genuine.
        Chemical analysis showed that the composition of the bronze of the exiled bell is as follows: 82,62% copper, 15,83% tin and 1,55% impurities

        Typical bell bronze composition used for 3000 years. How, on the basis of this composition, Kulagin made his conclusions - he himself does not know. But he announced that he was right.
    2. Pane Kohanku
      Pane Kohanku 26 May 2021 09: 34
      +3
      It's just that the Wikipedia article, which was rewritten by the author, is missing this point.

      Victor Nikolaevich, good morning! I have a question for you, a quote from the article:
      Another option is also possible - during an attack, the patient throws himself with a weapon at relatives or attempts to commit suicide.

      Do you think this behavior is possible with an epileptic seizure? ... what
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 26 May 2021 10: 21
        +7
        In the special literature it is written that during seizures - very rarely.
        And between seizures or immediately before - manifestations of aggression and depression with suicidal actions are quite possible.
        1. Pane Kohanku
          Pane Kohanku 26 May 2021 10: 23
          +2
          In the special literature it is written that during seizures - very rarely.
          And between seizures or immediately before - manifestations of aggression and depression with suicidal actions are quite possible.

          Got it. Thanks for the enlightenment. hi
      2. ee2100
        ee2100 26 May 2021 10: 33
        +10
        Hi Nikolay!
        How many epileptic seizures I have seen, no one showed aggression towards others, but rather the opposite, the person was calm, bezyadezhen.
        Theoretically, if a person has a knife in his hands, then during convulsions he can injure himself, including falling on the knife.
        One of the doctors' advice is to remove objects that can injure the patient.
        But how many times I saw epileptic seizures, the patients froze, they began to shake with "small tremors" and they fell, as a rule, on their backs.
        1. Pane Kohanku
          Pane Kohanku 26 May 2021 10: 45
          +6
          Theoretically, if a person has a knife in his hands, then during convulsions he can injure himself, including falling on the knife.

          Yes exactly. You are right, Alexander!
          1. depressant
            depressant 26 May 2021 11: 32
            +3
            You know, for me the most unpleasant thing in this whole story is the behavior of Maria Nagoya.
            A loving mother, heartbroken, had to lament over the dead child for days and nights, but she plays politics, excites a crowd of punishers, and makes reprisals.
            It turns out that the son for her was mainly an instrument of coming to higher power?
            Here is the confirmation:

            The reunion of the mother with the "son" took place in the village of Taininskoye in front of a huge crowd. The "Tsar" jumped off his horse and rushed to the carriage, and Martha, throwing back the side curtain, embraced him, and both were sobbing.


            The passage speaks of "reunion" with False Dmitry.

            Only I have a question: is it Martha or Mary?
            Or did I not understand something?
            1. sibiryouk
              sibiryouk 26 May 2021 16: 25
              +4
              Maria Nagaya was tonsured into a nun named Martha (nun Martha).
              1. depressant
                depressant 26 May 2021 16: 28
                +2
                Thank you very much for the clarification, colleague sibiryouk! )))
                1. Richard
                  Richard 26 May 2021 18: 45
                  +4
                  depressant (lyudmila yakovlevna kuznetsova):
                  You know, for me the most unpleasant thing in this whole story is the behavior of Maria Nagoya.

                  Good afternoon, Lyudmila hi
                  Do you know for whom the version of Dmitry's murder was the most relevant?
                  Not for Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, and not for supporters of the parties of Godunov or Shuisky (since Fyodor could still have a legitimate heir), but ..... directly only to Mary Nagoya herself.
                  After the death of Ivan IV, Maria Nagaya, along with the "illegitimate" son, according to church concepts, were exiled to Uglich, which Dmitry received from Fedor into a "neoplastic inheritance". In other words, he could only use the proceeds from him without the right of ownership. On behalf of Fedor, this allotment was managed by the "tsar's man" Mikhail Bityagovsky.
                  Naturally, after the death of Dmitry, this "neoprinous destiny" again returned to the Tsar's oprichin, and Maria Nagoya had only one road prepared - to the monastery.
                  IMHO, this is what caused the version of Nagoya, not about the natural death of the prince, but about his murder, which led to a riot, riots and reprisals over Bityagovsky. What was and was established by the tsarist commission of inquiry
                  At the end of the massacre, the Nagy began to fabricate evidence so that the commission of inquiry recognized the death of the prince as a murder. To do this, they forced the clerk (a certain Rakov) to put knives and sabers smeared with chicken blood near the body in order to show the commission that the perpetrators were involved in the murder. According to the materials of the investigation, Mikhail Nagoy, the main instigator of all these riots, was drunk that day.

                  The results of the commission were reviewed by the Consecrated Council headed by Patriarch Job. During the meeting on June 2, Metropolitan Gelasiy read out an oral statement:
                  Maria Nagoya, who recognized the massacre of the Bityagovskys and other witnesses as a wrong deed and asked for leniency for her relatives. The council accused the Nagyh and the Uglich people of arbitrariness and asked the secular authorities to impose punishment on them.

                  As a result, Maria Nagaya was tonsured into a nun under the name of Martha, her brothers were sent into exile, and the most active Uglian rebels were executed or exiled. Together with them went to Siberia and the Uglich alarm bell.
                  PS Judging by the minuses, you, Luda, also have a personal "fan". I will try to correct your karma a little smile
                  1. depressant
                    depressant 26 May 2021 19: 02
                    +3
                    Dima, thanks for the explanations and karma)))
                    But I just told how this whole story looks from my point of view, that is, from the position of an ordinary person.
                    By the way, they say, Godunov was going to carry out a series of progressive reforms. But he was prevented by natural disasters. Somewhere something massively erupted, the Earth's atmosphere was polluted for several years, cold, crop failures, crop failures, civil unrest, the end of undertakings. It would be very interesting if the respected Author posted an article about this.
                  2. haron
                    haron 27 May 2021 12: 35
                    +4
                    Quote: Richard
                    Do you know for whom the version of Dmitry's murder was the most relevant?
                    Not for Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, and not for supporters of the parties of Godunov or Shuisky (since Fyodor could still have a legitimate heir), but ..... directly only to Mary Nagoya herself.
                    After the death of Ivan IV, Maria Nagaya, along with the "illegitimate" son, according to church concepts, were exiled to Uglich, which Dmitry received from Fedor into a "neoplastic inheritance". In other words, he could only use the proceeds from him without the right of ownership. On behalf of Fedor, this allotment was managed by the "tsar's man" Mikhail Bityagovsky.
                    Naturally, after the death of Dmitry, this "neoprinous destiny" again returned to the Tsar's oprichin, and Maria Nagoya had only one road prepared - to the monastery.
                    IMHO, this is what caused the version of Nagoya, not about the natural death of the prince, but about his murder, which led to a riot, riots and reprisals over Bityagovsky. What was and was established by the tsarist commission of inquiry

                    The fact that at the immediate moment of Dmitry's death the version of his "murder" was beneficial to Naga is not a question, it is a fact that cannot be doubted.
                    The question to whom was his death beneficial? And apparently it was beneficial to everyone. And given the "psychological portrait" of the prince - absolutely everyone, except for Nagoya.
                    Those same Shuisky knew very well about their ability to reign (the Rurikovichs, however), the death of a "competitor" and the simultaneous gaining of the trust of a stronger competitor Godunov (pointing out his innocence in a delicate situation and dealt with later) played into their hands.
                    As a court honey I will say that in a particular case it is possible to consider not an epi seizure, but a state of "aura" or "absence", when the patient's actions are on the verge of controlled and uncontrolled. Dmitry defended himself in the church and then went to play "knives". For a child, standing alone is a strong trigger for an attack. The game itself predetermines the possibility of confrontation and dispute - aggression. At that time, they could not distinguish between the stages of an epi attack. Further "may be then sho may".
                    1. Richard
                      Richard 27 May 2021 13: 32
                      +2
                      IMHO, the best comment in this thread
  5. Moskovit
    Moskovit 26 May 2021 08: 04
    +6
    Indeed, what a chain of accidents. First, one heir to the throne kills himself. Then another dies. His wife leaves for a monastery. And who eventually becomes king? "Innocent" Boris Godunov! After that, there are questions, who benefited from Dmitry's death?
    As for the mechanism of suicide - of course, you can stick a knife into your throat by sticking it into the ground (if you throw it into a rubber mat) or fall strictly on the knife and cut your throat (if the knife lies on the edge and moves forward by itself).
    1. qQQQ
      qQQQ 26 May 2021 08: 56
      +6
      Quote: Moskovit
      As for the mechanism of suicide - of course, you can stick a knife into your throat by sticking it into the ground (if you throw it into a rubber mat) or fall strictly on the knife and cut your throat (if the knife lies on the edge and moves forward by itself).

      You simply did not see what happens during an epileptic seizure, and even something else can happen there.
      1. Moskovit
        Moskovit 26 May 2021 11: 05
        +5
        I have seen epileptic seizures many times. And once I even had to knock the door in the bathroom - a relative of the wife's had an attack when he was shaving in the morning. Therefore, it is difficult for me to imagine that a child could cut his throat. This is taught in the special forces.
        1. qQQQ
          qQQQ 26 May 2021 11: 44
          +1
          Quote: Moskovit
          Therefore, it is difficult for me to imagine that a child could cut his throat.

          Cases are different, from the description I understood that I had stuck it in my throat.
        2. Astra wild2
          Astra wild2 26 May 2021 12: 27
          +5
          Hello, I will support your remark. I have a close relative, my uncle, who suffers from epilepsy and observed his seizures for 10 years. Subsequently, before marriage, she worked in the neuropsychiatric department, but NEVER saw anything like it. Zulfiya. (Vera set a condition for us to introduce ourselves)
          1. Phil77
            Phil77 26 May 2021 13: 18
            +3
            * Jamilya, Zarina, Guzel, Saida, Hafiza, Zukhra, Leila, Zulfiya, Gulchetai ... Gulchetai !!!!! * wink
            1. Astra wild2
              Astra wild2 26 May 2021 16: 25
              +2
              "White sun of the desert" - "Gulchitay, open your face".
              R.
              S
              Zulka appreciated your humor
        3. Phil77
          Phil77 26 May 2021 13: 52
          +2
          Alas ... not only. It is enough to watch modern films of a certain genre orientation. wink
          1. Astra wild2
            Astra wild2 26 May 2021 16: 32
            +1
            What films are you talking about?
            1. Phil77
              Phil77 26 May 2021 17: 08
              0
              Many films / action films / show almost step-by-step instructions for removing the sentry, usually by cutting the throat.
              1. Doliva63
                Doliva63 27 May 2021 18: 04
                +1
                Quote: Phil77
                Many films / action films / show almost step-by-step instructions for removing the sentry, usually by cutting the throat.

                In order for the sentry to be removed with a knife, several conditions are needed: the post is equipped "collective farm" and no one needs a fuck, and at the same time the attackers do not have weapons with PBS. Imagine: on the border of the post there is a small minefield, which is well lit. The sentry watches you dig with the mines, intending to slaughter him, and slowly sips a cigar, telling on the radio to the guardhouse how stupid you are - after all, you could bang an "hour" from a machine gun, calmly (having conditionally 2 hours in reserve) go through the mines and get to the guarded object. Random "crooks" who are in the wrong place and at the wrong time are cut with a knife. You can, of course, use a pistol, but you have to be convinced of the results and, most likely, finish off - and this is time. The main weapons of the special forces are the head and the machine gun, but not the knife.
        4. vladcub
          vladcub 26 May 2021 15: 14
          +1
          In principle, perhaps, modern experts do not exclude such an option.
          I have a different version: Dmitry was struck, his mind went out and he rushed to the "killers" and someone defending himself, his .. ..During self-defense, anything can happen
    2. ANB
      ANB 26 May 2021 18: 22
      0
      ... (if the knife lies on the edge and moves forward by itself).

      On the left is a crackling and on the right is a crackling.
      (c) Instructions for a mousetrap.
    3. ANB
      ANB 26 May 2021 18: 26
      +1
      ... you can stick a knife into your throat by sticking it into the ground (if you throw it into a rubber mat)

      Uh-huh. Taking into account the fact that when playing with knives, the knife holds on to the blade, with the point down, then in case of a seizure you will rather cut your hand than fall into your throat.
      1. Moskovit
        Moskovit 26 May 2021 18: 53
        +2
        Maybe the prince decided to play differently. Anyone who has played with knives considers the version of suicide to be fierce delirium.
        1. ANB
          ANB 27 May 2021 16: 20
          +1
          РўР ° Рє Рё СЏ РїСЂРѕ то же.
  6. Daniil Konovalenko
    Daniil Konovalenko 26 May 2021 11: 19
    +7
    Thank you, the author, for copying articles from Wiki, another time I would not have gone. And then I went to VO and oops, another article from Wiki.
  7. Ilya22558
    Ilya22558 26 May 2021 11: 42
    +2
    As the guide in Uglich said, the appointment of Vasily Shuisky as the head of the commission indirectly testifies to Godunov's innocence. As the article put it mildly, Shuisky disliked Godunov, and according to the guide he could not stand it, so he dug the ground with his nose to find evidence of Godunov's guilt, but he could not find anything.
  8. Astra wild2
    Astra wild2 26 May 2021 12: 12
    +2
    Good day. We read now and we have a question: for what purpose did the Naked "substitute" Godunov? After all, there must be a motive, but no one voiced it.
  9. Khibiny Plastun
    Khibiny Plastun 26 May 2021 13: 15
    +3
    Well, all these facts can be interpreted in the other direction - everyone who saw "correctly" was left alone, and those who saw "incorrectly" were executed and exiled where the raven did not bring bones. Well, and the fact that the Shuisky type could go against the all-powerful brother-in-law of the sick and weak Fedor is a direct path to the chopping block.
    A fake accusation against Godunov and voila Shuisky's head on the stake. And the fact that the death of Dmitry Uglichny is beneficial to Godunov is beyond doubt. True or fiction, Dmitry, playing with dolls, called them by the names of the boyar enemies and said - this is the fourth, this is for a count, etc. Yes, he is not legally born, but Dmitry is the son of Grozny and Godunov, in case of anything, will not compete with him, and the death of Dmitry oh, how into the hands of Boris. And then it is 5 years and it is not known how it would have ended.
  10. vladcub
    vladcub 26 May 2021 14: 23
    +4
    Comrades, I generally like today's Samsonov.
    There is another version, which was not voiced by the author (rami). Really killed, but on the instructions of Vasily Shuisky.
    The death of Dmitry is almost equally beneficial to both Godunov and Shuisky, but Boris could furnish everything "more subtly": "drink potion" with a pillow or set up an accident.
    Shuisky had fewer opportunities, but he had many ambitions. He benefited more from the death of Dmitry: it is easy to "switch the arrows" to Godunov. This was done later.
    I heard this version on the Kultura channel
    1. Daniil Konovalenko
      Daniil Konovalenko 26 May 2021 16: 26
      +4
      Comrades, I generally like today's Samsonov.
      ... Ktozh argues, there are worthy articles on Wiki. smile. Samsonov, threw an article from Vicki, and we are discussing. smile
  11. Al.ru
    Al.ru 26 May 2021 15: 28
    +3
    Yes well-o-o-o-o ...
    Everything that has already been written and expressed more than once is stated here.
    1. An accident?
    There are at least THREE medical reports in which all experts say that the prince could not have stabbed himself.
    2. Murder by order of Godunov.
    Why not Shuisky? Or the Romanovs? Or maybe the customer is Tsar Fyodor? Or - generally foreign gentlemen from Poland, England or the Vatican?
    3. Read the case file.
    Nobody mentions that the prince (it doesn't matter if he was killed, he stabbed himself or fell on a knife) bled. Nobody mentioned this.
    4. The name of Gelasia is not mentioned among the members of the commission. It is not said that he arrived in Uglich with the others.
    5. And why did the author decide that upon examining the corpse, Shuisky and the others realized that before them was Dmitry's body? How did they know him? The Tsarevich was taken away from Moscow at the age of 1,5. Which of the representatives of the investigative group could see him in the royal palace, when the boy, like other royal children, was carefully hidden from prying eyes? ...
    Etc. etc...
    Retelling the versions of historians and mentioning the names of some of them - that's all. Nothing more.
    1. Terran ghost
      Terran ghost 28 May 2021 15: 15
      0
      There are at least THREE medical reports in which all experts say that the prince could not have stabbed himself.

      Compiled by whom and when in time?
  12. Freeman
    Freeman 26 May 2021 18: 46
    0
    Thus, the most reasonable version is an accident.


    But the famous Soviet writer-historian Alexei Kuzmich Yugov disagrees with the author.

    The famous Soviet historian writer Alexei Kuzmich Yugov recently completed a documentary story, a kind of historical and criminal investigation, dedicated to one of the obscure episodes of Russian history - the death of the young Tsarevich Dimitri, the son of Ivan the Terrible.

    The circumstances of the death of the tsarevich have always caused fierce controversy among historians.
    Analyzing the arguments presented by them in defense of their versions, and based on numerous documentary evidence, A. K. Yugov, a doctor by education, who at one time worked as a forensic medical expert, proves that the death of the tsarevich was violent, and did not occur as a result " epilepsy ", as indicated in the official version," confirmed "by the investigation conducted by Prince V. I. Shuisky.
    The writer considers Godunov himself to be the direct organizer of the murder, who is interested in seizing the throne.
    Thus, A. K. Yugov confirms the version underlying the Pushkin's tragedy "Boris Godunov".

    Alexey Yugov. YES, GUILTY!
    Published in the magazine "Man and Law" No. 4 1979

    link to text
    1. Al.ru
      Al.ru 26 May 2021 21: 34
      +1
      Alexey, I read this publication.
      In principle - also a revision of the opinions of historians.
      The main clue is the burial in the Archangel Cathedral.
      Is there really Tsarevich Dmitry there? Well - if yes, but what if Rurikovich is not there? Then where is Dmitry?
      I also wrote a number of publications on this topic, I have been doing this for a long time. The beginning is here [media = https: //www.9111.ru/questions/777777777901165/], the rest are nearby.
  13. ecolog
    ecolog 27 May 2021 01: 06
    0
    they also dabbled in knives. Perhaps the rules were different, but there were injuries. It is true, mainly, in the foot of a comrade who crawled at the wrong time.
  14. Maks1995
    Maks1995 27 May 2021 09: 17
    +1
    Yeah. Nominal king + 8 years old + epileptic.
    The very thing is to give him a sharp (sharp, not dull, like table knives) knife and send him to play unattended.
    And nowhere is it written, but with what attempt did he open his throat so exactly, the first time ??? maybe, like in a criminal joke? times since the 16th?

    And Godunov, not Godunov, ... all of them, including the family of the Tatar, the IO of the Tsar, ended badly.
    And how honest they were .... the turmoil testifies. Oathbreakers and regicides all turned out to be ...
  15. Kunich80
    Kunich80 2 June 2021 16: 30
    0
    I read a detailed analysis in one book about False Dmitry 1 - the most likely death is from an accident (while it is unlikely from a seizure from a medical point of view). Option 2 is much less likely - premeditated murder by conspiracy. Option 2 is less likely because it is very poorly executed. And the fact that Dmitry was cruel is nonsense - the game of who is the first to kill a dug-in or with the wings fastened on a goose is a common game for the children of boyars and princes at that time.