C H A P. v i a .
O f tbe princefs Sophia Alexiefna.— Her charaBer mtfrepre-
fented— and from wbat caufes.— Her power and influence
during tbe reign o f Feodor Alexievitch.— Upon bis demife
excluded from all Jbare in tbe adminiftration o f affairs.—
Peter appointed tzar to tbe prejudice o f bis brother Ivan.—
Proofs that be was not raifed to the throne by tbe nomination
o f Feodor, and tbat bis eleBion was not unanimous.— In-
furreBion o f tbe Strelitz.— jtumult and maffacre.— Ivan
and Peter declared joint fovereigns, and Sophia regent.—
Probable caufes o f tbat revolution.— Bhe conduB 0/Sophia
juftified from various afperjions.— Her fa ll and imprifon-
ment.— Unjujlly accufed o f attempting to affaffmate Peter.
— Rebellion o f tbe Strelitz.— Defeated.— Fruitlefs attempts
to conviB Sophia of a correfpondence with tbe rebels.— She
affumes tbe veil.— Her death.
b o o k H E R E is icarcely any portion in the annals of this
HJ~ , -L country more important than the minority of Peter
the Great, and no character more grofsly mifreprefented
than that of his lifter Sophia Alexiefna, who governed
Ruffia during that period. This illuftrious princefs united,
in a very extraordinary degree, a variety of perfonal and
mental accompliihments ; but as Ihe headed a party in op-
polition to Peter, the idolatry, which has been univerfally
paid to his extenfive genius, has greatly contributed towards
diminilhing the luftre of her adminiftration.
S O P H I A A L E X I E F N A .
1 was led into thele reflections from a vifit which I paid cHap.
to the nunnery of Devitz, in the fuburbs of Mofcow, where
Sophia was confined during thè laft feventeen years of her
life ; and as we have fcarcely any knowledge o f her character
but through the medium o f her adverfaries, I Ihall
throw together a few particulars, which induce me to fee her
conduft in a favourable light ; and ihall endeavour to refcue
her name from that obloquy, which has fo unjuftly perfe-
cuted her memory*.
* Three foreign writers have principally
contributed to render the charafter o f Sophia
extremely odious.
1 . T h e firit o f thefe writers is Gordon,
in his JLife o f Peter the Great. But his
teftimony is in this inftance extremely exceptionable,
as well on account o f his notorious
partiality to Peter, as becaufe he was
particularly prejudiced againil prince Vaffili
Galitzin, Sophia’s prime miniiter, for having
degraded his relation and patron general
Patrick Gordon, See Korb Diarium,
p. 216.
2. T h e fecond author is L a Neuville, in
his Relation de la Mofcovie, who dignifies
himfelf with the title o f envoy from the king
o f Poland to the court o f Mofcow; and is
generally fuppofed to have been relident in
that city at the time o f Sophia’s fall. His
authority, therefore, is deemed unqueition-
able ; and the enemies o f this princefs have
not failed to cite it in proof o f their afler-
tions. Any perfon, however, in the leaft
converfant with the hiilOry, o f Ruffia, will
perceive in this work the grofleft contradictions,
and the raoft abfurd tales. T h e
author, after loading the portrait o f Sophia
with more deceit and cruelty than ever dif-
graced a Tiberius, or a C a fa r Borgia,
affeits the moil perfect knowledge o f all the
fecret cabals between her and prince G a litzin
: he declares their intention o f mar-
tying j o f re-uniting the Greek and Latin ■
churches j o f compelling Peter to aiTume
the monaftick habit, o r , i f that failed, o f
aflafliaating him j o f declaring the children
£
Sophia
o f Ivan illegitimate; and o f fectiring
the throne to themfelves and their heirs.
And as i f this chimerical projeft had been
thought fureo f fuccefs, he adds, that prince
Galitzin had Hill further views; he hoped,
that by re-uniting Ruffia to the Roman catholic
church, he ihould be able to
obtain the pope’s permiffion (if, as he flattered
himfelf, he ihould furvive Sophia) to
appoint his own legitimate fon his fuccefior
to the throne, in preference to thofe whom
he ihould have by the princefs, while his
wife was alive. But fuch abfurd accounts
carry their own refutation, and the writer
who retails them imift furely deferve no
degree o f credit, even ihould he be “ le
“ temoin oculaire,” as Voltaire ilyles him,
de ce qui fe pafla.” But the truth is,
that this envoy to Mofcow is a fuppofititious
perfon : the author was one Adrien Bail-
let, who ilyled • himfelf de la Neuville,
from a village o f that name, in which
he was born, and was never in Ruffia.
The Relation de la Mofcovie was publiihed {
at the Hague in 1699 ; and was probably
compiled by the author from the vague accounts
o f fome o f Peter’s adherents, who
accompanied that monarch into Holland-in
the year 1697. I ihall have occaiion to mention
further proofs againft the authenticity
o f this performance.
See Menkeni Bibliotheca, where La Relation
de la Mofcovie is mentioned among
the works o f Adrien Baillet. For an account
o f that author, fee Niceron Hommes
Illuftres; article Ad. Baillet.
e e 1 3- Voltaire