Letters to the Editor

To the Editors:

Tamara Eidelman’s Kremlin Ghosts (May/June 2004) presented an interesting, concise synopsis of Moscow’s/Russia’s history. However, it credits a common but questionable version of certain events during the Time of Troubles. The categorical statement that Tsar Dmitry was the former monk Gregory Otrepyev ignores several other plausible possibilities. Even the term “imposter” may be inappropriate, because there is some reason to conclude that he may have been lead to believe that he actually was Ivan the Terrible’s son and heir. See Chester Dunning’s Russia’s First Civil War, Penn State Univ. Press, 2001, pp. 66, 124, 131, 203-206; also Ervin Brody’s The Demetrius Legend..., Fairleigh Dickinson Univ. Press, 1972, pp. 19-51, which notes (p. 41) that the famed 19th century Russian historian Kostomarov concluded that Dmitry could not have been Otrepyev.

Pushkin reinforced the Otrepyev/ Dmitry connection in the public mind by choosing that version for its dramatic effect in his poem Boris Godunov, and Mussorgsky followed his lead in his famous opera.

Furthermore, there is an indisputable error in the box on p. 28, where it states that “the Polish King Vladislav” also staked a claim to the Muscovite throne (during the Time of Troubles). The Polish king at that time was Sigismund III – his son Vladislav did vie for that throne, but this was in 1616, three years after the inauguration of the Romanov Dynasty in 1613.

Allan F. Chew, PhD

Monument, CO

Tamara Eidelman responds:,

Thank you for your letter and for your remarks.

As for Otrepyev, of course we cannot prove that he really was Dmitry. We know that Otrepyev ran away from the monastery and two years later someone arrived to Poland. These two years are uncertain. But still, it is not only the common, but also the most realistic version of events – not only because of Pushkin, but because it has been supported by many researchers. Kostomarov really had some doubts and not only him, but, also, for example, Sergey Platonov, who may be the most serious historian who wrote about this period. But anyway, in the end, they all had to agree that it was impossible to prove that the Impostor was not Otrepyev and that he was not an Impostor – though some romantic doubts still exist.

As for Vladislav, I think, we were “lost in translation,” as I called him “korolevitch” which means “prince”  – and I suppose it was mis-translated as “king.”

Thank you again for your remarks and for your nice words. Best wishes,

Tamara Eidelman