“About these, the wise Solomon in the 5th (4) chapter of the book: the righteous will condemn the dying and the living wicked: for they will see his end and do not understand that, having conspired about him, the Lord will cast them into silence and shake them from the foundation, and even to the last they will disappear in illness and their memory will perish; they will come in the thought of their terrible sins and their conscience will convict them, resisting their iniquity.
“In the same chapter he says:
“Then the righteous man will stand in boldness in the face of those who insult him and sweep away his works; having seen, I will be confused with the fear of many and will be horrified at his glorious salvation, and they will all repent and sigh in the distress of their spirit and say: we were once protected by this, but this dishonorable end will come.” co-creator.” (Pages 25 - 26).
The meaning of the above reflections on Skopin’s death is quite clear. It tends to recognize the violent death of the latter. Even having noticed at the beginning that “non-people” are talking about this, the author himself openly expresses a different belief, excluded in the Manuscript, like the previous one. Moreover, other passages about Skopin’s death were subject to the same exclusion, which, as it were,
') Here space was left for one line, in which it was already added by another hand: mortal abduction. Kubasov’s pre-induction story ends with the words: “and I will die” and there is no example about Saul and David (Popov’s selection, p. 303).
V. S. IKONNIKOV,
urgently, more than once they asked to come out: once the author wrote and abide, but they added to him: mortal abduction; another time, expressing sadness about the collapse of the state following the death of Skopin, the chronicler says: “The king was glad to see the great rebellion in Russia, like a great commander,” but again leaves a gap in which it is written: “and the strongest champion of Prince M.V. Skopin-Shuisky was no longer in his stomach” (25) - expression ambiguous, but due to the omission for insertion, it again shows that the chronicler found it difficult to record this fact. How this reminds us of the “retired” boyars of Tsar Ivan the Terrible *)!
In confirmation of how at one time some opinions were replaced by others, in accordance with modern relations, an interesting parallel for Philaret’s Manuscript can be “Another Tale of Impostors” 2). It was written by a contemporary and, moreover, an adherent of Tsar Vasily Shuisky, whom the author constantly calls “the great,” “the sufferer,” and even “the saint” (Vremen. Moscow obshch. ist. XII, pp. 30, 34, etc.). But, regarding the death of the prince. Skopin, he expresses that “for the sake of sin, for the sake of the thorns of our malice, God has taken away from us such a good persecutor of beasts.” This figurative expression freed the author from the need to speak categorically. But in the same legend, later redrawn not in favor of Tsar Shuisky, the article about Skopin was replaced by another, and it is remarkable that it was replaced by an article from Palitsyn’s Legend (Vremennik, 66 and 110). In chronographs of that time, articles relating to the present event were usually taken either from “Another Legend” or from Palitsyn’s Tale (extracted from the chronicle, 2nd edition and chronicle of Kubasov in Popov’s Izborn. pp. 197 - 98 and 303; cf. Onis. manuscript. Rumyants. Museum pp. 770, 772, 775).
The so-called New Chronicler, which has three editions (1st in the Time. Moscow General History vol. ХХІІ; 2nd in the ІІІ volume of the Nikon. legop.
') About the death of Tsarevich Ivan, killed by his father Ivan the Terrible, in one modern note (News of the historical story from Pope Ant. Possevine, Ancient Ros. Vivl. VI, 94) it is expressed as follows: “they were in humble dress, in crimson and black fur coats, so that at that time the sovereign Tsarevich Ivan was gone.”
-) So called because there is a manuscript in one. in the 17th century collection it is placed after Palitsyn’s Legend.
KOPIN-SHUISKY.