Musketeers and Other Traditional Forces^69that the court factions were uniting against them. On 1.5 May they launched a
three-dav-lonlit po~rom.60
More violent than the riots of 1648 or 1662, it cost the lives of^18 notables,
including six boyars, and several dozen commoners; Matveyev, Dolgorukiy,
and his son were among the victims, and several foreigners were assaulted or
threatened. The property of those killed was seized and distributed. Notables
whose lives had been spared were presented with further demands for money,
and for the next few months the capital was to all intents and purposes under
the musketeers' control. However, they did little or nothing to consolidate
their power. This is understandable, since they saw themselves not as insur-
gents or revolutionaries but as loyal partisans of the established order who had
been forced to act against 'traitors' in high places. This at least was the
justification advanced by the men's elected leaders, who on 6 June successfully
p~titioned that their corps be granted the honorific title of 'court infantry' and
that a column be erected in Red Square to immortalize its achievements.^61
Needless to say, the average musketeer, concerned above all with material
enrichment, will not have bothered much about these transparent political
fictions.
The riots strengthened the Miloslavskys' conviction that they alone could
restore order. The ambitious Tsarevna Sofia was one architect of a curious
compromise, announced on^26 May, whereby her brother Ivan was to rule
jointly with Peter; shortly afterwards she was nominated regent. This solution
to the dynastic problem was tacitly endorsed by the strertsy, whose leaders'
compliance doubtless owed something to the hospitality they received at the
court's expense; ~o regiments were entertained each day.^62 Many musketeers
were also gratified by the appointment to the Streletskiy chancellery of A. I.
Khovansky, a flamboyant demagogue sympathetic to the Old Belief. Among
the 19 units in Moscow at this time nine were affected by religious dissent; it
was strongest in that previously headed by Colonel G. S. Titov. However, this
division of opinion among the troops was a major source of weakness which
the government could turn to its own account.
The Old Believers, clerical and lay, petitioned for the convocation of a
Church council which, they hoped, whould annul the Nikonian reforms and
sanction a return to traditional rites. In the circumstances such a demand was
provocative and utopian. Khovansky seems to have realized this, for he sought
to mediate between the sectarians and members of the religious and political
establishment. After some delay a public discussion was arranged (.5 July)
between partisans of the two viewpoints.^63 Such a confrontation could
not possibly produce a compromise; indeed, neither side wanted one. Sofia in
60 Keep, 'Mutiny', pp. 422-36; Medvedev, Sozertsaniye, pp. 52-7; Buganov, Mosk. vosstaniya,
pp. 144-61.
61 Medvedev, Sozertsaniye, p. 75; Buganov, Mosk. vosstaniya, pp. 236-44; Vosstaniye^1682
g., pp. 36-46.
62 Medvedev, Sozertsaniye, p. 65; Buganov, Mosk. vosstaniya, p. 173.
6l Medvedev, Sozertsaniye, pp. 76-91; Buganov, Mosk. vosstaniya, pp. 210-35.