"For our sakes, after two months of his (Skopin's) coming to Moscow, having been ill for a little while, the terrible young man departed to the Lord, but we do not know how to decide whether God's judgment has comprehended us, or whether evil man's plans have been accomplished. The One who created us knows this."
') Concerning further events, he even adds: “And those who dared to lay waste on the king, and scolded him, and betrayed him into filthy hands, were left behind by their people” (U, 61).
V. S. IKONNIKOV,
One can agree with Mukhanov that Palitsyn avoids resolving the question of how the prince died. Skopin. But at the same time, one should not lose sight of the fact that Palitsyn, who suffered under Fyodor Ivanovich along with Godunov’s opponents, the Shuisky party, rose to prominence under the latter, and although he blames Vasily for taking away the Trinity treasury, as a cellarer of this monastery, he retains due respect for Shuisky as a faithful tsar. Palitsyn enjoyed his patronage while in Moscow (cf. Solovyov's story, IIN, 230), and, having been favored by Shuisky, he could not write about him too harshly even when Shuisky was no longer king. However, with such relations and his diplomatic evasiveness, he did not hide the “hatred” in the “pride” of D. Shuisky, he sharply expresses himself about his failure at Klushin (“he went out with many warriors, but returned in shame”) and openly talks about sympathy for Skopin and the intrigue against him of persons close to the tsar1: very transparent hints about the main enemies Skopina. Therefore, Palitsyn’s reluctance to say directly that Skopin died an ordinary death and even the failure to mention that the accusation of his death spread as a result of popular rumor, as other chroniclers say (“many things have been said”), inclines one to the conviction that Palitsyn himself was of the opinion that “the evil man’s intention was accomplished.” His next reflection on Skopin’s death also convinces him of this.
“Ector and Achilles are worthy of praise in Hellenekh,” he writes, “but they did not see on themselves the allowed shooting of the force of ancient times; for death in battle was accomplished on the yardstick, and even if the gigantic fortress soon happened to many, with a single emphasis heard nowhere, if a regiment of people perished in the blink of an eye: Nowadays, the foundations of the mountains and the city walls are like dust blowing, but then the strength and courage of many were preserved, but now even the mind of that misfortune cannot comprehend, and fight with such deaths
') This is how the expression should be understood: “they come up with an oath in the secret thoughts of the autocrat, as if the whole Russian land honors Prince Michael more than you, the great Tsar” (230).
KOPIN-SHUISKY.
flies go underground.... O woe to us who live on earth! (231-32) ').
The so-called “Filaret’s Manuscript” deserves no less attention. It is almost contemporary with the events and written in an official spirit, with the aim of establishing a certain view of the events of the past, upon the approval of a new order of things. B)duchi was compiled from different sources, imbued with different views on the activities and relationships of persons of the troubled era, it attracts attention due to the amendments made in it, which are attributed to the patriarchs. Philaret!). From them it is clear which text served as the basis
') This reflection was not caused by any fact directly related to it, and therefore the literal explanation of this passage, as indicating different methods of war in ancient and modern times, does not exclude the meaning accepted in the text.
Palitsyn's work was finally edited and became famous in 1620: Note. about the siege of Trinity. mon. D. Golokhvastova, Moskvityanin, 1842, IV, 126 - 128.