Full resolution (JPEG) - On this page / på denna sida - Pages ...
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has never been proofread. / Denna sida har aldrig korrekturlästs.
COXE’s TRAVELS IN RUSSIA, 743
the i or call in queftion the fanttity of the relics eftablifhed by a decree of the
church *!
It muft be confeffed, however, that one author is not liable to thefe fufpicions,
** Petreius,” continues Muller, ‘ has given, in many in{tances, the moit exaét intelli-
gence, and has demonitrated the impoilure of the falfe Demetrius with many proofs,
Is it poflible, therefore, to fuppofe him ignorant that Demetrius and Grifka were two
different perfons, if that fact had been well grounded?” Here then the teftimony of
Petreius is put in the oppofite feale again{t that of Margaret; both foreigners, both
prefent at Mofcow at the time of the infurrection, both fuppofed to be unbiaffed by the
civil and religious prejudices of the Ruffians; yet both of different fentiments. Let us ©
therefore examine their character and fituation, and confider whether any circymftances
render one writer more worthy of credit than the other. Margaret wasa Frenchman,
who entered the Ruffian fervice in the reign of Boris Godunof, was prefent in the army
fent again{t Demetrius, and always acted with approved bravery and fidelity. After-
wards, when Demetrius afcended the throne, he was continued in his fervice as captain
of the guards. He poffeffed, therefore, many opportunities of inveftigating his real.
hiftory, and he has recorded it in his “ Eftat de l’Empire de Ruffie, &c.”? which, on his
return to France, he publifhed at the command of Henry IV.
Muller, however, objects to the authenticity of Margaret’s narrative: “* A witnefs of:
this fort would not be admitted in any court of juftice, and cannot, in this inftance, merit
our belief. His judgment might be warped ; partly from confidering it as a difgrace
to have engaged in the fervice of an impoftor, and partly from not being well ufed by
the oppofite party after the death of the falfe Demetrius. Hence he might be enticed,
from motives of refentment, to brand with infamy the enemies of Demetrius, and to
treat as mere falfehoods all the reports of the impoftor’s real origin. We mutt, there-
fore, accufe Margaret either of having advanced a falfehood; or fuppofe that he had
heard of another Otrepief, who was at that time prefent at Mofcow, and whom he
{trangely confounds with Grifkat.’’ ‘This is the only objection which even the inge-
nuity of Muller can urge againft Margaret.
Petreius, whofe authority is fondly preferred to that of Margaret, was minifter { from,
Charles IX. King of Sweden, to the court of Mofcow in the reigns of Boris Godunof,,
Demetrius, and Vaflili Shuifki. The clofe conneétion of Demetrius with Sigifmond
King of Poland, induced Charles IX, to tender his affiftance to Boris Godunof, upon
the firft entrance of the new claimant into Ruffia. Charles is alfo reprefented as greatly
alarmed at the fuccefs of Demetrius, and after his aflaffination concluded a treaty of the
ftri&teft amity with Vaffili Shuifki. It was therefore the intereft of the Swedifh court to.
* It may perhaps be thought by many too bold to fet afide the authority. of all the Ruffian hiftorians,.
who may be fuppofed to have obtained better intelligence than foreigners. But Muller calls in quettion
the teftimony of a Ruffian Ambaffador in favour of Demetrius, becaufe he wrote at a time when he was
upon the throne, and acknowledged by the whole nation; for the fame reafon, therefore, we mult fet
alide the evidence of the Ruffians who wrote after his affaflination, and at a time when his impofture was
made an article of the public faith. ‘
Indeed, if it is confidered the fufpicious documents from which the Ruffian authors drew their materials,,
this mode of reafoning will not appear unjuflifiable. Of all the Ruffian writings relating to the hiftory of
Demetrius, cited by Muller, the principal are the manifefto of Shuifki, and a manufcript account of the trou.
bles, compiled by order of the Tzar Michael, and fent to the King of France asa juftification of the war.
againft Sweden. But fuch documents iffuing from government muft in this inftance be allowed to be ex-
ceptionable. In all affairs, wherein national prejudices are not concerned, the evidence of a native is pre-
ferable to that of foreigners; but the teftimony of foreigners becomes fuperior, when the natives are warped
by fear or prejudice. ;
+ S.R. G, vol, v. p. 182 and 193. t Dalin’s Gefchichte von Schweden, vol, iv. p. 475.
reprefent
1
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
