COXE’s TRAVELS IN RUSSIA.

641

ment. Vaflili Galitzin* was banifhed into Siberia , and Sophia imprifoned for life inthe Devitchei nunnery ; Peter alone aflumed the reins of government, and found fuf-ficient fcope for his vaft and enterprizing genius ; while the name of Ivan was ftill in-ferted, as a matter of formality, in the public a£ts until his death, which happened in1696.

Such are the principal circumftances of this extraordinary revolution ; but this is theaccount given by the viftorious party, and the caufe of Sophia has never undergone acandid examination. It may be impoflible to exculpate her entirely from ambitiousviews: flie might be unwilling to relinquilh a power which fhe had long enjoyed, andexercifed with great ability ; fhe might efteem the right of Ivan to the throne as fupe-rior to that of Peter, and confider Peter’s acquifition to the foie fovereignty as thecertain prelude to her own deftruftion; but we have no pofitive evidence f that fheconfpired againft her brother’s life ; and perhaps the whole ftory of the intended aflaf-fmation was feigned by Boris Galitzin j and her enemies. She wanted not opportu-nities of efcaping from Ruflia, and never would have imprudently demanded admittanceinto Peter’s prefence, to aflfert her innocence, had the proofs of her guilt been as flrongas her adverfaries pretended. In a word, the conflict between Peter and Sophia wasthe conflict of two rivals impatient of controul, and ftriving for pre-eminence; the caufeof the fuccefsful party was deemed juft and equitable, and the vanquifhed fadtion loadedwith every fpecies of enormity.

The reftlefs fpirit of Sophia, brooding in the folitude of a convent, is faid to have ex-cited frefh troubles and infurredtions; and, during her life, no confpiracy was formedagainft Peter, in which fhe was not fufpedted of being concerned. She was more par-ticularly accufed of being privy to the rebellion in 1697 > when eight thoufand Strelitz,feizing the opportunity of Peter’s abfence upon his travels, rofein arms on the frontiersof Lithuania , and marched towards Mofcow. The rebels were defeated by the add refsand courage of General Patrick Gordon; many were put to the fword, and the re-mainder furrendered at dilcretion. The Tzar received at Vienna the account of the mu-tiny and defeat of the Strelitz, and inftantly haftened to Mofcow to examine the delin-quents in perfon.

Peter was anxious to difcover the caufes of the rebellion; to learn by whofe intriguesit was excited, and, above all, to convidt Sophia, whom he charged with fomenting thepublic difcontents, and holding a correfpondence with the rebels. But as no perfonscould give immediate and pertinent anfwers to his queftions, he entertained fufpicionsof all his courtiers, and determined to inftitute a court of inquiry at his palace of Preo-brafhenfki, where the inftruments of torture were brought. The Tzar himfelf examinedthe accufed, urged them to confeflion, and ordered thofe who maintained filence to beracked in his prefence. The cruelty of the tortures employed on this occafion was in-expreflibly dreadful; human nature fhudders at the recital; but it is neceflary to men-tion them in juftification of Sophia. Some of the rebels were repeatedly whipped;

* This able minifter furvived his fall twenty-four years j he was releafed from prifon in 1711, and diedat his own ellate in 1713.

f We have no certain proofs that any of the confpirators accufed Sophia of being privy to any defign uponPeter’s life ; and, even if they did name her as an accomplice, their evidence, extorted by the rack, is byno means to be depended on.

4 It appears from the following paflage, that the difcovery of Sophia’s defigns came from that quarter:“ Prince Boris Galitzin, a faithful fubjedt of the Tzar Peter, coming timely to penetrate into his kinf-man’s Prince Bafil’s defigns, put the Tzar upon his guard, advifing him, without d.?lay, to take the go-vernment into his hands.” Gordon, vol. i. p. 89.

4 N

VOL. VI.

others;