Having entered the kingdom, Vasily Shuisky achieved a long-desired goal, which he strove for through machinations and intrigue); but his position, even more than that of Boris Godunov, could not be secure*). The new king, in his very first steps, encountered sedition around him and open enemies who came out under the banner of the new Pretender in the center of the state. More than twenty cities have already fallen away from the government; On the Volga and in northern Ukraine, peasants and serfs rose up, finding support among foreigners. The leader of this movement was Bolotnikov, who himself was once a bachelor and then a galley slave in Turkey. It is clear what horror such a leader of the uprising must have brought upon the population: everyone who was ready to assist him was promised freedom and wealth. Many seekers of happiness responded to this call, and their first steps in this field were marked by violence and ruin, to which their masters and commanders became victims. But Bolotnikov also found support in such decisive leaders
’) The throne itself went to him in the same way as Boris: “from the same Bolyar Prince Vasily, many friends and advisers were sent to the people, and it was promised to them that they would elect Prince Vasily to his kingdom. The same people and austesh people... and on that they confirmed the word8 (Chronograph. Kubasova. Izborn. Popov, 294).
The following remark of the chronicler is interesting: “And Prince V. Shuisky began to reign without the election of a zemstvo, for this reason he was not loved by many” (Poly. collected Russian years. IV, 321).
V. s. Ikoippkov,
movements, like Istoma Pashkov, who raised Tula, like Lyapunov and Grieg. Sunbulov, who raised the Ryazan population. The fight against the boyars was the main goal of these people, who, due to their origin, did not have the right to primacy. In the autumn of 1606, Bolotnikov, in alliance with him, had already occupied and devastated Kolomna. But on the Pakhra River, a detachment of Moscow troops, under the command of Skopin, defeated Bolotnikov’s army, while the main army, under the command of Prince. Mstislavsky and other boyars (Dm. Shuisky, Vorotynsky, Golitsyn, Nagikh), there was a slaughter at the Trinity village, in 70 years. from Moscow. Pursuing the vanquished, Bolotnikov reached Moscow and settled in the village of Kolomenskoye (in October). Thus, Moscow was threatened with ruin, and Vasily Shuisky was threatened with deposition from the throne, and only Bolotnikov’s too demagogic aspirations, which sowed discord in his camp and forced the more moderate to go over to the side of the government (Tula and Ryazan detachments under the command of Sunbulov and Lyapunov), changed the outcome of the present defeat. A new battle was being prepared (near the village of Kotlov, in December), in which the prince was already leading from Moscow. Skopin-Shuisky. A new betrayal in the enemy camp (Pashkova with the nobles and boyar children) transferred this victory into his hands, after which Bolotnikov fled to Serpukhov. It is clear that from that time on, Skopin’s importance in the military field was strengthened’). But these advances did little to help the general state of affairs. Having been refused in Serpukhov, Bolotnikov concentrated his forces near Kaluga; and here the actions of the main governors were unsuccessful (Prince Iv. Iv. Shuisky, Mstislavsky, etc.). It is remarkable, however, that some chroniclers single out the detachment of Skopin and Pashkov, who courageously fought off the enemy and retreated from the battlefield in order (Latukhin. Stepey, book, in Karamzin, XII, note 124).
Neither religious means (like the permitting letter of the patriarchs, in which Job, in accordance with the desire of the king, already declared
') Karamzin (XII, 25) attributes Skopin's award as a boyar to this victory, based on his service record, and apech. in Ancient Ross. Vivl. Vol. XX. But it only says that the boyars were granted to Skopin in 1607 (p. 81).
KOPIN-SHUISKY.