On June 18 (1605), Skopin brought Marfa, and she recognized the Pretender as her son. But then, after you were elected to the kingdom. Shuisky, when they sent out accusatory letters against the Pretender, Martha assured that the latter had sent his advisers after her, who were supposed to not pester anyone to her and not allow anyone to talk to her (Collected State Charters, II, 30 G). True, other boyars were sent for her along with Skopin (IIaerle in the ed. Ustryalov, I, 174); but the work itself was entrusted to him, to which even the Poles drew the attention of the Muscovites (Karamzin, XI, 127, note 381). As the nephew of Vasily Shuisky, who more than once spoke out against the Pretender, almost paid for his protest with his head and finally became the head of the conspiracy against him, Skopin risked his name more than others by carrying out the secret advice of the guarantor. On the other hand, when announcing the sending of foreign advisers to Queen Martha, Tsar Vasily cast a shadow of suspicion on his nephew, since no one had known the other advisers until then, but, on the contrary, everyone knew that Skopin-Shuisky had accompanied the queen to Moscow. Meanwhile, with the accession of Vasily, the latter did not pay anything for his service to the Pretender and soon achieved even the highest honors. These contradictions, irreconcilable in themselves, find an explanation in the spirit of the troubled era. In fact, the spirit of contradiction constitutes a distinctive feature of government acts of that time. And during the reign of Vasily Shuisky, the government rushed to give the desired explanation at a given moment, not caring about the next step to which events pushed it. This falsehood has also penetrated into the environment: these are all the statements and oaths about the death of the prince and the personality of the Pretender (Boris, Vasily Shuisky, Queen Martha, Patriarch Job,
book V. Golitsyn and many others). What yesterday was presented as an immutable truth was today rejected as a blatant deception; and, having once lost confidence in its representatives, society had to lose its very faith in their moral strength: this, without a doubt, lies the root of political unrest.
Be that as it may, Skopin’s rise dates back to this time. In the draft of the new Duma, which Dmitry the Pretender intended to organize on the model of the Polish Senate, among the boyars of the first article a place was allocated for the great swordsman, Prince. M. V. Skopin-Shuisky,). At this time he was only 18 years old. Thus, when his uncle ascended the throne, Skopin’s position was already completely secure.
Throughout the preceding time, the Shuiskys held each other tightly; they together shared the sad fate of their brother’s brave act against the Pretender 2); with the accession to the throne of Vasily Shuisky
') The painting for Moscow senators (from the clergy, boyars of the first article, okolnichy and some nobles) was written in June 1605, by the hand of the secretary of Dmitry the Pretender (in Polish) Jan Buchinsky; but it was hardly fully carried out. It is placed in the Collection. state charters, II, 207 - 210; at Buturlin, East. troubles time, I, no. X; Wed Ustryalov, Foreign Tales. about Dm. Samozv., I, 380 - 381 - Karamzin (XI, p. 126), Ustryalov (іьМ) and Kostomarov (History of Troubles. Times. I, 227 - 228) recognize the project as successful; Solovyov avoids this issue (VIII, 1181. Buturlin’s opinion is almost more fair that since Russian chroniclers do not talk about such a reform and even in 1606 decrees were written on behalf of the boyars, then the painting was actually a project, and if Ber (Bussov) calls the boyars senators, then as a result of imitation of the Poles, who so translated the title of members of the boyar duma (Ist. Troubles. time 1, 152). This opinion is confirmed by the track record of officials of that time (Ancient Ros. Vivliof. XX, 74 - 83). The name of Skopin-Shuisky does not appear among the boyars under the Pretender, but he was elevated to the rank of boyar under Tsar Shuisky (in 1607); but the Poles constantly use the expressions: “senators and Duma boyars” as meaningless and replace one with the other. See Niziogisa Kpzziae Moppepia, II, 118-119, 172.
*) Bussov expresses himself: “The three Shuisky brothers, having secret relations with priests and mops throughout the state, set out to overthrow Dmitry from the throne” (ed. Ustryalov, p. 52).
KOPIN-SHUISKY.