b o o k ofMr . Muller himfelf can only difcover i l l his Work a few
■—v—-'.trifling errors which are of no moment., It appears then,
that both as to charadter and fitUation, the teftimorty of Margaret
is preferable to that of Petreius ; apd if the qlieftion is-,
to be ultimately decided by one of thefe two writers, whofe
authority is the moil unqueftionable,. the tz.ar who reigned,
under the name of Demetrius was no iuipdftdr, but the real,
fan of Ivan Vaflilieviteh II,
1 fhall. now throw together, a, number, of- particulars, ,
which, in addition to thole already enumerated, .induce me
to efpoufe the opinion that,the tzar-was no impoftor,
i . The condudt'of.Boris Godunof. 2. Suppofed refem-
hlance between the real-Demetrius and the perfon who
reigned in his name. 3. His fuccefs-and condudt upon the
throne. 4. Tefliusony of Maria Feodorofna. 5., Arguments,
ufed by the Ruffians to prove the impofture,
1. The condudt of Boris Godunof plainly demonftrates
that he thought him the real Demetrius. Foie otherwife,
why did he not produce Maria Feodorofna, the mother of',
Demetrius, and obtain her publick avowal that hertfon was:,
not;aliye *-!' Her teflimony at that time would have un-
queftionably afeertained, the impofture, of . the perfon, who.
claimed the, throne as. her, offspring. Probably Boris Go-
dunof examined her privately j-and, .finding her to,, perilfi .
in her- affertion, that-Demetrius had, efcapedffrom.Uglifz,,
he removed her, to a convent at a , conflderable diflance,
from Mofcow,j:hat ihe might not give a fafldtipn to the pre-
tenfions of.his,, rival,
1 . The fuppofed refemblance-hetweon the prince, De me-
trins, whowas educated.atUglitz, and,the perfon.who reigned:
* Puis tantjd'e faufles allegations, ponx . “ terroger la mere en public, pour temoigiv
“ perfuader le peuple, qu’il eiioit un im- 44 ner ^e.quien ^ftoit,” Margaret, p. 171 a
poftep^j ians <^iie j amais^B orij vouluil .
under.
under his name, comes next under confideration. This re- c h a p .
femblance confifted in a wart under the right eye, and inuZ^-i
one arm Ihorter than the other. “ But how is .it known,”
fays Mr. Muller upon this head, “ that the prince had thefe
“ defedts ? for they are not mentioned in the Ruffian narra-
« tives, but are only related by foreigners, who had never
“ feen him., May we not therefore fuppofe them mere in-
“ ventions, calculated to difplay fome refemblance between
41 the true and falfe Demetrius *.’* In anfwer to this we may
reply, thatthe Ruffian accounts, evidently compiled long after i
the period in queftion, and chiefly taken from the mani-
feftos, of government, would never record any circumftance
which might tend, in the flightefli degree,- to favour .any
likenefs between a perfon whom they ftyled an impoftor
and the young prince.. And it may be added, that i f the
tzar alledged the, wart under his-right eye, and the ihortnefs .
of, his arm, as proofs o f his, being the real, Demetrius, who
can fuppofe that the prince had not,thefe defedts, when there
were fo many perfons of -the firft diftkidtion who could con-
tiadidt the truth of the report ? “ But even allowing the
“' ■fail:/ continues Mr.,Muller, “ the concLufian by no. means -
“ follows, .as the.ftrongeft refemblance has been frequently.
‘C-obferved between two differentr.perfons j . and it is like-
“-wife poffible, that the. falfe-Demetrius, might have imk-
“ tated a wart in his face, and have feigned a defedt in his -
“-arm.” It is, poffible, indeed, to account for thefe eircum-
ftancesdn this manner; ftill, however, they muft be conii...
dered, though, not as pofitive, yet as ft rung prefumptive evh -
d«nce in his favour, efpecially when joined to many .other .
collate,ral proofs.
3- The fuccefs of his-enterprise, and his condudt upomthe ■
throne, feem to prove that he was the real Demetrius, . Me;
» s. tu e. wi. v.p. ir^
entered. J