COXE’s TRAVELS IN RUSSIA.

745

of the report ? “ But even allowing the fact,” continues Muller, “ the conclufion byfio means follows, as the ftrongeft refemblance has been frequently obferved betweentwo different perfons; and it is likewife poffible, that the falfe Demetrius might haveimitated a wart in his face, and have feigned a defed in his arm.” It is barely poffible,indeed, to account for thefe circumftances in this manner; Hill, however, they muff beconfidered, though not as pofitive, yet as prefumptive evidence in his favour, efpecially■when joined to collateral proofs.

3. The fuccefs of his enterprize, and condud upon the throne, feem to prove that heWas the real Demetrius. He entered Ruffia with an inconfiderable force, which in-creafed as he advanced ; and though totally defeated, and almoft deferted by the Poles,yet his army was foon recruited, and became more formidable than before his difcom-fiture. Perfons of the firft diftindion joined him from all quarters, and the more hebecame perfonally known to the Ruffians, the greater number of partizans flocked tohis ftandard. Nor did this feem owing to any want of popularity in Boris Godunof,whofe adminiftration was greatly refpeded for vigour and wifdom; it rather proceededfrom a general convidion that he was Demetrius. When feated upon the throne hedid not ad like an impoftor. Had he been one, he would fcarcely have pardoned Vaf-fili Shuilki, who had thrown doubts upon the reality of his defcent. Inftead of dif-believing the ftrong reports of an impending jnfurredion, he would have turned a readyear to flighteft rumours of plots and machinations, and have taken every precautionagainft them. In a word, his general charader was as thoughtlefs and inconfiderate asit was open and fincere; but above all, his freedom from fufpicion and jealoufy wereincompatible with the principles of an ufurper *.

4. The condud of Maria Feodorofna muff be admitted as fupporting the fame fideof the queftion. After having openly acknowledged him for her fon, fhe is faid to havepublicly difowned him. If both the avowal and denial were equally public, they bothmight have been extorted by fear, and her teftimony mull be confidered as null. Forwhat credit can that woman deferve who at one time admitted a perfon to be her fon,and at another rejeded him ? We may obferve, however, this difference, that in one in-ftance fhe. owned him in perfon ; in the other, fhe was not confronted with him, but heranfwer was brought by Vaffili Shuifki f, who was moll interefted to prove him an im-poftor. It therefore follows, that if (as feems to be the cafe) her avowal was public,and her denial was not, the former is more to be depended upon than the latter, and herteftiftiony muft be admitted in his favour

5. The

* ,l Puis parlous,” fays Margaret, “ de fa clemence, envers un chacun apres qu’il fut receu en Mofco,et principalenient envers Vacilli Choutfqui, Iequel fut convaincu de trabifon, &c. et mefmes futledit Deme-trius prie par tous les affiftans de le faire mourir, vu qu’.ils s’eftait toujours trouve preturbateur du repospublic. Je parle comme ayant ouy et veu le tout de mes oreilles. Ce non obftant il luy pardonna, com.bien que Demetrius fgavoit bien que nul n’ofoit afpirer a la couronne que la dite maifon de Chouitfqui.H pardonna auffi a plulieurl! autres ; car il eftoit fans foupfon,” p. 171.

‘ Si il fe fut fenty coupable en aucune cbofe, il euft eu jufte fujet de croire les machinations et trahifonscomplottfies et-trammets contre fa perfonne, des. quelles il etoit aifez adverty, et y euft pu remedier avecgrande facilite,” p. 174.

f Mr. Muller fays, Vaffili Shuifki tool the trouble of repairing bimfelf to the convent. Gab fich feblft dietnuche.

X The Ruffian authors affert, that at the time when the relics were conveyed to Mofcow, fhe publicly"etra&ed her former teftimony in his favour, upon their firft interview near Mofcow ; confeffing that filebad been induced by threats, as well as from a defire of procuring her liberty, to acknowledge an alien forher fon. But how are we certain that fhe really made this public confeffion ? Its truth entirely reftsupon the Ruffian papers, which cannot, in this in fiance, be tfteemed authentic records. Why was her

von, vi. 5 c public