') About the fate of the Vazhsko-Dvinsk region, Ethnographic. collection, iad. Geogr. General V, dept. 1.
The joint ownership of Vaga, Charanda, Totma, and Reshma by D. Shuisky and Skopin is mentioned in a letter from Mykh. Saltykov to Sapieha, in which he reports that in good times they yielded an income of 9,000 rubles ("when there were taverns and the tamga"), and in the Time of Troubles barely 3,000 rubles. But Saltykov says this in his own defense; others calculated the income from them, besides grain supplies, at more than 60,000 rubles (Ak. istor. II, 864). According to Fletcher, Vaga brought Borys Godunov 32,000 rubles, and according to Horsey, 35,000 rubles of annual income.
V. S. IKONNIKOV,
Vali that Iv. Sheremetev asked not by deed * that they were with ext. Suleshev, and their honor is no worse than Sheremetev, who dishonors them with his petitions. Suleshev, for his part, stated that “not only Buturlina or Sheremetev, but at least who is better, but the sovereign’s mercy and my fatherland can be with me wordlessly; Tsar Vasily divorced Prince Peter Urusov (made him equal) from the boyar Prince Mikh. Vas. Skopin-Shuisky, and our parents in the Crimea are much more honest. The Urusovs, and therefore, sir, Ivan Sheremetev did not have to hit me with your slave in the fatherland.” Sheremetev objected that “Prince II Urusov and Prince Yuri Suleshev are Crimean clans in the Moscow state, their fatherland is unknown, and who is more or less than whom is in his sovereign will, he wants the sovereign to make foreigners honest and great, but the sovereign will do it, and so far with Prince Yuri no one is in his haven't been a mile." Having listened to these petitions, the tsar ordered to announce to Sheremetev that he could be with Suleshev “due to his foreignness.” In another list of this tale, it is expressed even more clearly: “Prince Yuri Enshin is greater than Ivan Sheremetev and the sovereign ordered him to reserve something in the rank” (Palace ranks, I, 109-113).
Thus, the case of Urusov with Skopin-Shuisky served as an example in the decision of another grandfather, but with the difference that in the first case, the importance of Skopin was not diminished by the “foreignness” of his opponent.
At the age of 21, Skopan married, with the consent of the tsar, Alexandra Vasilievna Golovina’); but he did not live with her for even three months, when he had to go to conclude an alliance with Charles IX of Sweden to defend Russia (the legend of Skopin in Izberi. Popova, 381). This was in 1608. The then parochial rights
O Alexandra Vasilievna’s father, Vasily Petrovich Golovin, was treasurer under Dchitri the Pretender and Tsar Shuisky, with the rank of okolnichy, and in 1609 he was elevated to the rank of boyar (Service List in Ancient Russia. Vivl. XX, 76, 80,.83). In a memorial note kept by an unknown Pole in Moscow, he is noted among Shuisky’s “friends” (Memories of the 17th century, ed. Mukhanov, 263-64). Died on January 12th. 1612, having accepted monasticism (Dolgorukov,.!!!, 106).
PRINCE MIKHAIL VASILYIVICH SKOPIN-SHUISKY.
■ relationship with the tsar was a sufficient reason to give Skopin a prominent place in the official hierarchy. But the time itself was also in his favor - a troubled era in the Moscow state, and it is known how events grow, amid general danger, in the eyes of his contemporaries, and how often the first success, among a long series of failures, becomes the fortune of a person if he managed to move forward in the difficult time of general expectations and disappointments that suddenly follow them. This was the case in the present case with Skopin. While the main commanders suffered failures, young Skopin emerged with success at the beginning, and then he did not suffer at least such failures that make one forget about previous successes.