b o o k tions befpeak a great deficiency of fatisfaótory arguments i
— „— .they may incline, indeed, the Ruffians to believe him an
sufurper, but do not prove him one in the eyes o f difpaffionate
judges. The truth feems to be, that as he began to lofe thè
affedtion of his fubjeCts by his inconfiderate contempt o f their
cuitoms and religion ; thefe, and many other unfavourable
reports, calculated to raife and encreafe the popular odium,
were circulated by the intrigues of Vaffili Shuifki, who, upon
his aflaffination, was raifed to the throne.
The fame remarks extend, with ftill greater force, to the
■affertion, that the body interred at Uglitz was that of the
real Demetrius from its uncorrupted fiate, and the miracles
it performed. For the uncorrupted fiate o f that body, when
it was firft conveyed to Mofcow, evidently prove it to have
been fuppofititious ; and the miracles it is faid to have performed,
will convert no profelytes without the pale of the
Ruffian church. When every other expedient failed of convincing
the generality of the Ruffians, that the late tzar was
an impoftor, recourfe was finally had to pretended miracles
-and facred relics. And it muft be allowed, that this method
•of convincing an ignorant and fuperftitious people who
doubted (and there were many who doubted) was a ftroke of
•the moft confummate policy ; as by thefe means the afler-
tions of Vaffili Shuiiki were fanflified by an ecclefiaftical decree
; and the impofture of his rival became an article of
publick faith. Indeed, fuch is the fuperftition with which
the ufurpation of Griika is ftill maintained, that even at
this diftance of time no Ruffian hiftorian could venture to
hint that Demetrius was not aflaffinated at Uglitz, and that
the perfon who aflumed his name was not Griika : for it
would be contradicting a fundamental principle of belief,
1 ' and
and rejecting the relicks of a faint much revered in this CHAp.
country. . Vlr- .
But it is time to finiffi this inquiry, which is already too
long. I ffiall, therefore,. conclude in a few words, that
having endeavoured to examine the hiftory of the tzar Demetrius
without prejudice or partiality, I am ftrongly inclined
to believe that he was not an impoftor, but the real perfonage
whofe name he affirmed*.
* For the hiaory o f Demetrius, fee Pe- conciled, as much as poffible, the contra-
treius Mofcov. Chron. Margaret’s Eftat de di&ory accounts o f the different write rs:
la R.uffie, p. 18 and 19.— i i i — 175. Pay. and though he has entirely adopted the
ern in Schmidt. Ruff. Gef. vol. II. and par- Ruffian prejudices, yet he has given the ar-
ticularly Muller’s S. R. G . vol. V . p. 181 guments o f the oppofite party with as much
to 3 Bo. T h a t ingenious author has drawn candour as could be expeited from an au-
together, in one point o f view, the principal thor who wrote in Ruffia.
events o f this troublesome atra, and has re