Translated material
Lev Usyskin: Unfortunate Tsarevich
Leo Uskin 
Sergey Bondarchuk as Boris Godunov in the film "Boris Godunov" (1986)
Sergey Bondarchuk as Boris Godunov in the film "Boris Godunov" (1986)See also:
The great Russian historian Sergei Fedorovich Platonov (1860 - 1933), who wrote fundamental works about the period of Russian history, extending from the accession of Grozny to the end of the turmoil, is still one of the most read authors for those who want to get some general idea of the subject.
Among other such great names (Karamzin, Soloviev, Klyuchevsky) Platonov possessed, among other things, also a magnificent literary gift - to read his works is unusually pleasant, the thought in them is always clearly, evidence, vividly, elegantly, the accents are affected unambiguously, etc. Unfortunately, however, the views of this scientist (as often three other above) in many cases are outdated-in the light of a genuine source-studied revolution that occurred in Russian historiography in the sixties and seventies. Many original concepts of Platonov (as, for example, his concept of oprichnin) could not stand the verification of the actual material, then introduced into scientific circulation. However, this is only a reflection of the general situation in world historical science, which has changed its previous ideas quite strongly from the middle of the 20th century ... In general, according to the formidable and unrest, it is still worth recommending reading more fresh monographs-despite the fact that at least one of them is compared with the works of Sergei Fedorovich in his intellectual and literary brilliance.
However, this is all by the way. It is now important for us that Platonov, who did not have the unequivocally favored Godunov, who did not sting the colors for the image in the winning light of his personal qualities, deeds and intentions, obviously went a little further than the necessary, trying to wash the black male.
Without denying the real advantages of this ruler (more on this a little later), we pay attention to which the argument Platonov assigns from his hero the main accusation, which was already drawn behind him for almost half a thousand years - in the murder in Uglich on May 15, 1591, Tsarevich Dmitry. According to Platonov, Godunov had neither the need or even a significant reason to kill the boy - no one, they say, and did not consider him seriously as a candidate for heirs to Tsar Fedor. Neither the essays of foreigners (in fact, the most free from censorship and formal restrictions on the expression of the then thought), nor other documents do not mention Dmitry anywhere in this context. The seventh marriage of Tsar Ivan is too far from canonical, so that his fruit is considered fully legal and having any dynastic rights.
Along the way, Platonov claims that the elimination of Dmitry, if this would have been done, still did not guarantee anything - Tsar Fedor was not going to die in 1591, the inheritance of the throne himself did not seem to be inevitable to the inevitable future, and the infertility of his marriage in fact turned out to be imaginary (though it turned out only a year later). Say, the risks of the act are great, and the profit is doubtful.
It is clear that such arguments are easily scattered in the eyes of anyone who looks at Godunov with their eyes deprived of love. The inappropriateness of movement in its direction along the optimal path should not at all look beyond the horizon - despite the fact that Boris Fedorovich Godunov was, with obvious, a player, an adventurer, capable of putting a lot on the request for the sake of his ambitions. However, it was surrounded by non -sorceress people - the same players as he was. And they weighed risks significantly differently than in the time of S.F. Platonov.
As for the non-canonicity of the seventh marriage in terms of claims to the throne, then this argument simply refuted at all subsequent events, when several people successfully pretended to be Dmitry Ivanovich, not only born from the seventh marriage, but also truly survivor, and on this basis received the throne, as well as quite sincere and large-scale support of the population. Moreover, opponents of False Dmitry of both of them accused them of the fact that they were not Dmitry Uglitsky, and not at all that the real Dmitry did not have the right to claim something.
In short, public opinion was quite able to come to terms with the non -canonical marriage of the royal parents is just as easy as with the fact that the new king can be chosen at all at the Zemsky Council (by the way, a separate scientific problem is the procedure for the accession of Fedor Ioannovich himself - whether it happened automatically, according to the spiritual literacy of the Grozny, or on the basis of the decision of the convenient in March 158, a special year of special years. Cathedral - the opinions of scientists are diametrically different).
Be that as it may, there are no unequivocal evidence of Godunov’s participation in the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry. As well as evidence of the opposite. Accordingly, the opinions of researchers were divided according to their tastes and intuition. A. A. Zimin, for example, believed that nevertheless Godunov is a killer: too much the operation reminds his favorite manner of terminal reprisal with political opponents. We, however, are hardly the truth-although there is an investigative case at the services of those who wish. More precisely, his rather significant fragments, among which there are quite a few records of primary interrogations.
The investigation led, oddly enough, who returned from the exile, Vasily Shuisky, which, however, does not guarantee the absence of Progodunov bias: imagine that some Luzhkov, having removed from the post of mayor of Moscow, was sent for three years to a harsh link, simultaneously cleaning all his people from the state apparatus and depriving the assets of the relatives. And then, having returned, they sent an investigation of some criminal incident, which could be guilty, or may not be the president who exiled it. How many he will live there against him? Here, that's it: back to the link oh, how reluctance! But the current morals are against the then - just an apotheosis of humanism and legality ...
In general, a modern study of the documents of that investigation urgently leads to the idea that it was carried out not with the aim of clarifying the truth, but for the sake of searching for a reason for repressions regarding the Uglitsky naked (which, however, did not show themselves with angels - and in fact provoked a folk riot with human victims in the Uglich). This goal, of course, was achieved - how long? ..
In general, there are much more options for how it could be in reality. It is possible, for example, to allow this: Boris himself did not give the order to eliminate Dmitry and did not even think of this consciously. But faithful Kholuis, as you know, quite often gain the ability to read the subconscious of their owners.
Suppose, the news of the event in Uglich comes to Godunov, and after that someone tells him confidentially that, they say, this is his hand - such a gift at the cost of sin taken. “So I have never ordered,” Godunov may object. “Well, how can they answer him,“ remember, then you said that way-like it would be good if ...-I took it like a hint. And I, as true, I understand the servant well and immediately accept for execution! ” - "Well, I did not mean this at all!" - "Wow, but I understood just like that!" And there is nothing to be done against such an initiative of performers within the framework of authoritarian rule - it is impossible to even punish a number of considerations. And on the contrary, you should be rewarded without fail! Despite the fact that - the devil knows: maybe he also lies - and did not even really kill anyone.
In general, whether Godunov was killed by Tsarevich Dmitry today we do not know. The contemporaries of the event probably did not know this. It may well be that Boris Godunov himself did not know this for sure.
However, serious doubts about this matter were sown, it seems, quite widely - especially since some events that soon followed the idea of the authorities before God. So, already at the end of May 1591, Moscow once again burned over again. Rumors accused Godunov of arson, supposedly trying to distract the Posad from the Uglich incident. Godunov himself accused the Nagikh what happened - in the framework of the same logic.
As soon as this was settled, a new trouble appeared: in the middle of summer, the border crossed the troops of the Crimean Khan Kaza-Girey. The Tatars reached Moscow, and only here on July 4-5 were repulsed thanks to a very qualified Godunov defense. During the followed persecution, the Tatars suffered serious losses, but the rumor still accused Boris of bringing the Tatars to the capital.
The provisions of the tsarist "servant" (such a title was introduced for the first time - specifically for him) this did not shake, but it still fell into a certain piggy bank of popular discontent ...
On Polit.ru, notes of Leo Usyskin on Boris Godunov ,Vasily Shuisky , Malyuta Skuratov , False Dmitry of the first and second were published .