book aru] even after the election of V.affdi Shuiiki, folemnly pro-
, nL , that the faid Demetrius was the real fon of Ivan Vaf-
filievitch; and that he himfelf was Griika Otrepief, who had
;ConduCled the prince into Poland. Soon afterwards Griika
was conveyed to Mofcow by order of Vaffili Shuiiki, and totally
difappeared *.
If this narrative is authentic, according to the confeffion
of Mr. Muller, it completely refutes the reprefentation of the
oppoiite party. In what manner then does this ingenious
author attempt to difcredit the pofitive teftimony of Margaret
; for upon this the whole queftion feems to turn.
“ But how,” fays he, “ can we imagine, that any one could
u ever hold two perfons to be the fame individual, at a time
u when the contrary could be fo eafily proved ?” The contrary
indeed could be eaiily proved during the reign of Demetrius,
when Griika was at Mofcow or at Yaroilaf, and at a
time when few Ruffians doubted the faCt; but the affer-
tion was not fo eafy to be refuted when Griika was fent no
one knows where, and when no perfon durft contradict the
manifefto of Vaffili Shuiiki., “ Let us fuppofe,” adds Mr.
Muller, ** that the oppoiite party, in defiance of all truth,
o had firft invented fo groundlefs a fable ; let us fuppofe,
« that Griika was immediately banifhed, as foon as the
“ enemies of Demetrius had made the latter pafs for that
« rnonk; how does it happen that no writer, befide Mar-
“ garett, has taken notice of fo remarkable a circumftances?”
* Margaret, 152 to 157. .
•f* Margaret, however, does not ftand Angle
In fuppofing Griika and him who pafled
for Demetrius to be diftin£t perfons. For,
among others, Conrad Buflau, who was
prefent at Mofcow during the troubles, afferts,
that Demetrius was the natural fon of
Stephen Bathori king o f Poland, which is
fufficient to iliow that the report was rife
at that time o f Griika and the other being
different perfons, S. R. G . vol. V. p. tf*.*
It
it is generally allowed that one good evidence dught to 9HAPi
outweigh a croud of prejudiced witneffes, fo that if Marga- ■ .
ret’s credibility is fuperiorto that of his opponents, we mull,
though he Hands fingle, affent to the truth of his account.
And who are the writers whofe authority is preferred to that
‘of Margaret ? The native hiftorians, who wrote after the
:acceffion of Vaffili Shu i i k i. Bu t their teftimony cannot
he admitted in this cafe>, for could any Ruffian venture
to contradict the manifefto of the iovereign, or call in queftion
the fanClity o f the relics eftabliffied by a decree of the
‘church^-?
It muft be cohfeffed, however, that there is one author
who is not liable to thefe fufpicions. “ Petreius,” continues
Mr. Muller, “ has given, in many inftances, the moll exaCl
in telligence $ and he has demonftrated the impofture a£
“ the falle Demetrius with many proofs. Is it poffible,
! | therefore, to fuppofe him ignorant that Demetrius and
Griika were two different perfons, i f that faCt had been
H well grounded r” Here then the teftimony of Petreius
is put in the fcale with that of Margaret, both foreigners,
* It may .perhaps be thought by mafty proceeding wit! hot appear unjuftifiable.
'too1 bold to let afide the authority o f all the O f all thè Ruffian writings relating to the
Ruffian hiftorians, who may be fuppofed to hiftory o f Demetrius, cited by Mr. Muller
rhàve obtained better intelligence than fo- the pffncipal are the manifeftos o f Shuiiki,
'reignets. But M'r. Muller calls in queftion and a manuscript adcpùnfo'f the troubles,
fhe testimony o f a Ruffian embafiadoT in 'compiled by order o f the tfkàr Michael, and
favout o f Demetrius, *becaufe he wrote at a fent to the king o f Francie as a juftificatioh
‘time when the latter was upon the throne', o f the war entered i’hto againft Sweden',
and acknowledged hy the whole nation : But fuch documents iifuing from governfor
the fame reafon, therefore, we muft fet ment muft in this inftarrce be allowed
.afide the evidence.of the Ruffians who wrote to be very exceptionable records.— In all
alter his affaffination, and at a rime when affairs, ' wherein the national prejudices are
»is being a'n impoftof wàs ’made an article not concerned, the evidence o f a native .is
or the public faith. to be preferred to that of foreigners; but
And, indeed, if it is confidered from what the teftimony o f the latter becomes fupe-
mfpicious memorials the Ruffian authors muft rior, when the former are warped by fear
have drawn their materials, this mode o f or prejudice.