:) In the notes to the 2nd edition of the Philaret Manuscript (Mukhavov Collection, 1866), and a comparison of the amendments to the Manuscript with Philaret’s letters published by the prince. Obolensky (in Letters of Russian Sovereigns, where lists of vacations or draft letters are attached, in which, however, only a small part was written by his hand, and the rest by his clerks), the publisher notes: “In the handwriting of the corrector, whom we call the first, there is some similarity with the handwriting of Philaret. We say some, because we cannot say that there is perfect similarity. Corrections had to be made in the margins. or between the lines, and in both cases, there was little space, and this forced him to write in small letters; Filaret usually wrote in large letters, which could not but affect the change in handwriting. Meanwhile, it was the first corrector who took a greater part in correcting the manuscript and, moreover, its most important places, for example, about the death of Skopip-Shuisky (sheets 22 and 23), about the Klushino battle (sheet. 26). This circumstance is all the more worthy of attention since his amendments are interrupted on page 31, after which it speaks of the departure of Metropolitan Philaret and other ambassadors from Moscow to Smolensk" (pp. XXXIII - XXXIV of the notes of the 2nd edition and the preface to the 1st edition).
Recently (in the Journal of Min. Nar. IIrosv. 1878, Sept., 22-83, article by Mr. A. Kondratiev: About the so-called Leader. Philaret) this view is signified
V. O. IKONNIKOV,
than it was replaced after viewing. In the copy of it that Baramzvn had, the amendments were omitted, including very important passages about the death of Skopin-Shuisky. And Mukhanov, who used it in the 1st building. From the same extract, Zholkiewski’s notes made a hasty conclusion, saying that neither the author nor the correction said anything about the poisoning of Skopin. But two years later (in 1837) he himself published the Manuscript and should have been dissuaded from such a conclusion. “What the chronicler tells about Skopin’s death,” says Mukhanov in her edition, “is especially remarkable and will hardly help resolve the question: did Skopin-Shuisky die of natural death, or from poison” (preface, p. U).
Here is a complete presentation of this event according to the Philaret Manuscript, and we mark the crossed out places in it with a discharge:
“Tsar Vasily was filled with envy and anger and did not love him (i.e. Skopin) for this former victory, as in ancient times
The engraved monument was refuted. But, denying the participation of Patr. Filaret in compiling or correcting the Manuscript, the author nevertheless recognizes it as an official chronicle and, moreover, compiled under his patriarchate (82 - 83). Some of the author’s instructions (about the relationship of the Manuscript to Kubasov’s chronograph, the New Chronicler, official sources, etc.) can be considered very interesting and even thorough (however, Mukhanov also noted that the source for the Hand. Phil. probably served as some modern chronicles, although he did not pose this question that way); but the author has doubts about the influence on the compilation of the Patr. Filaret, given the stated formulation of the question, are not entirely convincing. Moreover, the attitude of the compiler and corrector of the Manuscript to the events of the king remains unclear. Vasily Shuisky: since the source for it was a chronograph that was very unfavorable to Shuisky. Kubasov, and yet in the Manuscript the view of him is significantly softened, despite the fact that the compiler is imbued with full sympathy for Skopin. Sometimes the author himself feels as if some contradictions are irreconcilable (66 and 75). In relation to Skopin, he disputes the fact of violent death. It seems to us that in the presentation of these events (302 - 303) Kubasov himself comes close to Palitsyn’s story (202 - 205, 230-33), which we pointed out even earlier in our study (Ancient and New. Ros. 1875, No. 7, p. 222'.
KOPIN-SHUISKY.
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
Saul envied the kindly David when he killed Goliath... Ole of envy and zeal, the soul of the pious rushes into wickedness and destruction and brings him down to hell and betrays him to endless torment.
“A little time has passed, this brave and prudent governor, Prince Mikhail Vas. Shuisky, fell ill, and now they say that he was poisoned, at the christening feast of Prince Ivan Mikhail Vorotynsky, when he was baptizing his son Oleksey, from Prince Dmitry’s wife, Ivanovich Shuisky, from Princess Catherine, in wine for overdrinking. And so he barely reached the monastery’s bosom, then ore came out of his nose and mouth and remained *).