One cannot, of course, fail to notice the slowness in the movement of the Allies (10 months); but it is explained by the conditions of war at that time, when the besieged could stay within the walls of the city for a long time; constant skirmishes and sieges on the city, and, as we have seen, opponents did not always easily give in to their innovations; the disagreements that existed between the Soviet Union, and, finally, the incessant worries about material support. It goes without saying that a significant distance, given the then state of roads and food conditions, especially in such difficult times, should take place in explaining this side of the issue *)• S. M. Solovyov rightly notes that, “during the entire campaign, Skopin did not mark himself with one of those victories that so amaze the imagination of the people and remain in their memory for so long” (IGO, 307). What is the glory of his name based on? - It is again based on the circumstances of the era itself. Society was looking for a person who would unite the necessary forces for a common goal. Whatever the conditions that accompanied his aspirations, Skopin’s case gave a well-known, obvious result. Moreover, his name was constantly on everyone’s lips. It is enough to read one correspondence of cities to see that everything in it is concentrated on this name. Finally, the mysterious, non-
') There are direct indications of this (Chronograph. Kubasov in Izborn. Popov, ZOO; vov. o ^bzhevin Smoi. ib. 382; Gervman n Wedekind).
LOOK FOR MIKHAIL VASILIEVICH SKOPIN-SHUISKY.
the fate that befell him, soon after the first charm of fame, did the rest - and he remained an unsullied hero in a short episode of the whole drama. But both modest writers of everyday life and fleeting political news have left you evidence that this short episode was not devoid of the same stormy passions that this entire era is rich in.
At the very time when the disintegration of the Tushino camp took place and the struggle was already reduced to the struggle between Moscow and the king, a rumor spread in the enemy camp that a disagreement had arisen between Skopin and the king, which Sigismund IP could take advantage of in order to win Skopin over to his side *). This rumor was based on the fact that messengers from Lyapunov, who constantly became the head of all the crises of the troubled era, came to Skopin in Alexandrovskaya Sloboda and offered Skopin the throne. The letters submitted to the latter were filled with insulting expressions against the tsar. But Skopin, having read them, tore them up, and ordered those sent with them to be seized and sent to Moscow. However, then he allowed himself to be appeased and allowed them to return to Ryazan *). This incident served as a signal for
*) Letter from Rozhinsky to Sig. III (Soloviev VIII, 305). And Sigismund, in a letter dated March 1610, notified his senators that there were strong discords in Moscow, since serious misunderstandings had arisen between Tsar Vasily and Skopin (Noetovchgisg, Oya. ray. 2ud., II, pr. Dv X).
*) The chronicle also characterizes Prokofy Lyapunov’s method of action. Those sent told Skopin “Prokofiev’s life and his violence to himself” (New Years. 108; Years of Rebellion. 166; Nik. Years. VIII, 123 - 124).
This dispatch had the appearance of a political demonstration: Lyapunov sent a whole “stanitsa” (detachment) from himself; in the letter he called Skopin “not a prince, but a king”; and describing the gift itself in bad terms, he wanted “to arouse pride in his nephew and arm him against Tsar Vasily” (New Years. ib.).
The chronicle explains the forgiveness of the envoys as follows: “He is a merciful boyar, without regard for their blood, he ordered them to be released again to Ryazan.” (. Iet. about the rebellion. and Nikoi, years. іь.). In view of the upcoming feat, Skopim could really not want extra “blood”; but, in connection with his condition in the Swedish treaty to spare Russian prisoners of the contrary
V. S. Ikonnikov.