b o o k tween the two parties, Ivan and Peter were declared joint
— fovereigns; but as Ivan was judged incapable of governing,
and Peter was in his minority, the adminiftration of affairs
was veiled in the hands of Sophia. Hence conclufions have
been drawn unfavourable to that princefs : ihe is accufed of
having for fome time maintained a fecret intelligence with
the ringleaders of the Strelitz ; of exciting them by falfe reports
to revolt, of ordering money and fpirituous liquors to-
be diftributed among the foldiers, and even of delivering to
them a lift g of forty nobles whom ihe had profcribed. All
her actions are malignantly interpreted : when Ivan Narifkiu
was led to execution, ihe publickly accompanied the tzarina
and the patriarch to intercede for his life,: placed the image
of the Virgin Mary in his hands to flop the fury of fhe
Strelitz, and endeavoured, though in vain, to footh his af-
faffins t. They who judge unfavourably of her conduit,
lay, that this companion was only feigned, and tliat ihe fe-
cretly encouraged his aflaflination, though ihe outwardly a ffected
to intercede for him i.
Upon this fuppofition the whole conduit o f Sophia implies
luch a deep-laid fcheme of hypocrify,- artifice, and re-
venge, as feems rather adapted to a politician grown grey in
iniquity, and long pradifed in the arts* of fedition, than to a
princefs like Sophia,: only in the 25th year of her age.
Upon reviewing, the caufes-which led to this revolution,-
they may be traced from ieveral events in the reign o f Alexey*
* “ Sophie,” fays Voltaire-, “ fait tentively pernfe the account of.the-criftting:
* remettre entre leurs mains tine lifts de maflaere in Gordon, or even in-Voltaire,-
“ 4r a t c fegneurs qu’elle appelle leurs will find that the fury o f the Strelitz, ex-
‘ en em is ,e tceuxd e r a t a l e tq u ’ils-doiven-t- cept againft the Narilkins, was more d i -
mafihcrer. I cannot give credit to this reftfid'hy chance than by defign..
I lit o f forty nobles, which Voltaire refem- f Gorxlon, p. 8 r . .
bles “ aux profcriptions de Sylla et des ; Sumorokof.
“ triumvirs de Rome.” Whoever will at~
5 Michaelovitcli,
Michaelovitch, long before Sophia had the leaft influence in Phap.
political affairs, and particularly from the domeftick feuds in > VU'' ■
the imperial family : it appears alfo that the firft infur-
redion of the Strelitz was cafual; that it was occafioned by
tiie arrears of pay, and the unpopularity of the colonels, and
cannot, with the leaft degree o f probability, be imputed to
the intrigues of Sophia ; and that therefore ihe can only be
accufed, even by the moft malignant interpretation, of her
oondud, of availing herfelf of that mutiny to procure the
eledion of Ivam But there is furely a wide difference between
afferting the injuftice of his exclufion from the throne,,
or, under the mafic of moderation and. candour, inflaming
to madnefs the fury of a difaffetfted foldiery,. and calmly
leading them from aflaflination to affaffination * . And if
any unjuftifiable cabals were really employed on this occa-
fion whyJhould the whole blame he laid upon Sophia?
and why are her faults alone handed down to us with fo-
many heavy aggravations ?
But is it not more reafonable to fuppofe that Ivan Milo—
lafiki, who, as we have before obferved, had formed a ftrong
party againft the Narilkins,.even during the reign of Alexey
Michaelovitch, ihould, in conjunction with his family, take
advantage of this fedition of the Strelitz, with whom he had
long entertained a fecret intelligence,, and that Sophia was-
hut the oftenfible inftrument of their defigns ? in a word,,
that ihe was raifed to the regency by the cabals of a powerful
party, who forefaw their-own ruin and the advancement'
of their rivals in the nomination of Peter ; .and who held forth:
the unalienable rights of Ivan to this licentious body in the
tmdft. of an infurredtion. ' Examples were not wantine
!•» St« llt2 c o m m e n ^ t - ¡„ iU s « . i / » &
■ : cramdre, Ja princeffe.Sophie, crim a crmt> i n . . Voltaire.
tOi