and 3rd - Chronicle of riots and ruin. Moscow state 2nd ed. 1788), presents his own account of the event in question. We already know his indications of enmity between Shuisky and Skopin, suspicions about Skopip’s aspirations for the throne, and Delagardie’s advice to Skopin to hurry up and leave Moscow. "In a little time, it is said further in the 1st ed., he fell into a serious illness, even bleeding from the nose, which is why he passed away. Those who were in Moscow created great lamentation for him... Many people said that he was given poison by his aunt Katerina, Prince Dmitriyeva, the wife of Ivanovich Shuisky" (Vrem. 114). And so, the poor chronicler only reports that Skopin’s illness was accompanied by bleeding (“that’s why he died”), and that in Moscow many attributed his death to poison; he adds nothing of his own. But before that, he hinted at the possibility of such an outcome, pointing out the Shuiskys’ enmity towards their nephew. The 2nd and 3rd editions agree with each other, and we have given an extract from the latter (Letop. on Mathematical Sciences) above. But, after presenting the present event, the author of this story adds the following reflection on his own: “Is it really true, only God knows that all people, because of the hatred that is sin for the sake of our plows, hate each other and envy each other, seeing to whom God gives courage and intelligence, and those who do not love, no one can take any title from God by force He will receive honor from God, and God gives power to whomever He wants" (178, Nikon. 132). At first, it is as if the chronicler is inclined to explain the criticism of the Shuiskys as envy of them; but the preliminary remarks about the latter’s machinations against Skopin, which we also cited in our place, convince us that he does not spare the Shuiskys at all, and the further conclusion completely confirms his disposition towards Skopgin: “Likewise, this brave prince Mikhail Vasilyevich was given (that) by God, and not by man.” It is clear that the chronicler indicates that the enmity of D. Shuisky and Skopin alone served for many as a sufficient basis for accusing the Shuiskys of a violent act, as if as a moral lesson to those who envy “whom God gives courage and intelligence,” the chronicler adds: “no one can take the strength of God from God.” Thus, the glory remained with Skopin, which the chronicler wanted and had the right to say when a series of events took place in which the Shuiskys fell so
V. S. Ikonnikov)
sad role: this is the meaning of this moral teaching. But, due to his religiosity, the chronicler, who risked lifting the mysterious veil, still had to protect his doubts with more infallible authority: “is this truly known to God alone.” This open conversation with the reader reveals the author, and the conditions of the century explain to us his motives. We already know that the cellarer of the Trinity Monastery, Palitsyn, also resorts to this method of self-purification, expressing that “the only one who created us knows the truth”; This is how Muscovites, convinced of a violent act, console themselves ("if God permits, then the will of the Lord be done." Tale of Skopin, Izborn. 387); in the same way, Patriarch Job announced at the council that Tsarevich Dmitry “death was inflicted by God’s judgment.”