Soon, however, circumstances changed and Skopan’s affairs took a different turn. Metropolitan Isidore managed to convince the Novgorodians to return Skopin, for whom they even sent an honorable denutation. Skopin returned to the city and concluded a condition with the royal secretary Martenzon that Sweden would field a 5,000-strong auxiliary detachment for 100,000 ef. *) per month, the final approval of which was to take place at the congress in Vyborg (Letter of the revolt. 145; Swedish affairs in Solovyov, VIII, 227). The state of things, however, was such (especially if we take into account those intrigues and intrigues that took place within the very walls of the Trinity Monastery) that even when Skopin reported to Moscow about his first success in the north, they no longer believed it (Let. about the rebellion. 145, 147). This circumstance concerns the attack on Novgorod by a detachment of Cossacks expelled from Tushino under the command of Keriozitsky. We must touch upon this matter in a little more detail, since it finally outlines the relationship between Skopiv and Tatishchev.
Having learned about the expulsion of Keriozitsky’s detachment from Tushpoa, Skopin wanted to prevent him from approaching Novgorod and ordered that troops be sent against him to Bronnitsy. Tatishchev volunteered to be his boss. But, when everything was ready for action, the Novgorodians informed Skopin that Tatishchev was going to betray the government and surrender Novgorod to Kernozitsky. Then Skopin, having gathered military lovers,
KOPIN-SHUISKY.
deY, announced this to them in the presence of Tatishchev; and they, in a fit of indignation, immediately killed the latter. Therefore, the advanced detachment was not sent against Ksrnozptsvogo; many of the nobles went over to the latter, which put Skopin in a very difficult position, and only a detachment that had gathered in the outskirts of Novgorod, and a rumor about the gathering of a large army near Gruzin, forced Kernolitsky to hastily move away from Novgorod. This emergence greatly delighted Skopiv, the metropolitan and the Novgorodians (Letop. about the rebellion. 146-147). Tatishchev, by order of Skopin, was buried in the Anthony Monastery. Karamzin, calling Tatishchev a “cunning courtier,” explains the outcome of this case to the inexperience of Skopin, who was unable to restrain his passions against a man “hardly guilty” (XII, 90). S. M. Solovyov sees Tatishchev’s accusation as a denunciation, which was intended only to suspect him and remove him (IPI, 269). I.I. Kostomarov explains this fact by the suspicion of that time and dislike of Tatishchev in Novgorod, but is not included in the analysis of the motives themselves (Hist. Time of Troubles. II, 172); and in his characteristics of persons of the troubled era, he notes: “The event with Tatishchev in Skopin’s life seems something strange, casts a shadow, as it were, on the impeccability of his actions, but, due to its obscurity and the incompleteness of the reported news, it still cannot lead to conclusions about the personality of a remarkable person.” And, judging by Tatishchev’s previous actions, Mr. Kostomarov does not allow exceptions in this case, that is, treason (Western Heb. 1871, June, 501). Let's try to explain this matter.
Tatishchev, known under Boris Godunov on diplomatic missions (to Lithuania, Georgia, to receive the Swedish Prince Gustav. Karamzin, XI, 20, 38-42, notes 38 and 47) and granted by him to the Duma nobles (Service list in the Drsv. Ross. Vivl. XX, 70), managed to retain this rank during Dmitry the Pretender (ib. 75) and was even his favorite for some time (Margeret, 300). But he was a fan of antiquity and therefore could not tolerate the violation of Moscow customs under the Pretender; in a dispute with him about fried veal, Tatishchev supported Prince Vasily Shuisky, for which he was threatened with exile to Vyatka, but, thanks to Basmanov’s intercession, he was forgiven (ib. 300-301; Tale of what he did, in Reading. Moscow Society.
V. S. IKONNIKOV.