Of these, Mukhanov and S.M. Soloviev refute Bussop and attach importance to Zolkiewski. Bussov says: “The brave Skopin, who saved Russia with the help of the Germans, received poison as a reward from Vasily Shuisky. The Tsar ordered him to be poisoned, annoyed that the Muscovites respected Skopin for his intelligence and courage more than himself” (Tale of the Self-Proclaimer I, 114). The author of the history of Russia explains this testimony by Bussov’s dislike of Shuisky; Mukhanov - Bussov’s dislike for Russians in general, his favor towards Skopin, who relied on foreigners, and the author’s stay outside Moscow. But we know from the Fuck Diary. Sigismund, what
') Wed. another legend with a song about Skopin in Ancient. Ross. poem K. Danilova, No. XXVII. However, in Palitsyn, rhymed prose is also found in places (pp. 175 - 176, 183. Cf. also the conclusion in Hand. Philaret).
') The author of the "Tale" with great sympathy portrays the care of his mother for Skopin and the devotion of his wife. It was published by Mr. Poiov in the Collection of articles extracted from Russian. chronograph, in 1869; according to N.I. Kostomarov used it in his hand. Rome. museum (Ist. troubled times. II, 338). Meanwhile, despite the fact that both in the story and in the fragment of the thought placed in IAmyat. old rus. lit. IIt., ed. under his editorship, Skopin-Shuisky’s wife is constantly called Alexandra Vasilievna, in her Ist. vague time he calls her Anastasia Vasilyevna (Ib. II, 245, probably following the Genealogy book of Prince Peter Dolgorukov, III, 107). Skopin’s wife was called Anastasia already in monasticism, and in the world she bore the name Alexandra (see Russian genealogy book, ed. editor of Russian Starina, St. Petersburg, 1873. 34).
Skopin's mother, after his death, also became a monk, and was named Anisia. She died in 1631 and was buried along with the Tatev family in Troitsk. Serg. monastery (list of tombstones of the Trinity. Serg. monastery. Reading. Moscow. general history. Year I, book II, 37). In the list of tombstones on the day of the death of A. II. Skopina marked July 19; but her “memory” was preserved in the village of Ivanovo at the mill of the Suzdal Intercession Monastery (Vladimir. Collection, 140), which the peasants wanted to take according to the record, marked on November 10, 1631. The prince’s wife was buried in the Intercession Monastery. Dm. Shuisky, Ekaterina, under her worldly name (About the city of Judgment. Times. XXII, 182).
KOPIN-SHUISKY.
rumors about this event soon spread throughout Russia and that the Yen were reported by the Russians themselves, who had recently served Shuisky, and the news discussed above convinces that Bussov’s message was not invented by him personally, but was drawn from an environment closer to the events. The same should be said about the accusations against Tsar Vasily in this case; such a suspicion really existed. For many, it was even logically true: everyone knew the displeasure expressed to Skopin by the Tsar, Lyapunov’s proposal, etc. facts. Bussov was an echo of these opinions and, due to his dislike for the c. Shuisky, only gave his news a sharper character.
Zolkiewski does not aim for such an effect. Zolkiewski’s caution and moderation in judgments and opinions are generally known, which gives such value to his Notes on Russia at that time. Perhaps the same argument could exist against him as against Bussov, i.e., that he was not in Moscow at that time. Zholkiewski arrived there only in September 1610, when rumors about the event had subsided to a certain extent. But here comes a new consideration. We are renting the place of Zholkiewski's Notes from the 1st edition of Mukhanov that already belongs here. From it we can conclude that Zholkiewski was well aware of the suspicions against Shuiski; but other data he received on the spot in Moscow forced him to say that Skopin’s death was due to fever. It is known that Skopin was ill for some time, and his illness should have been accompanied by fever: here is the motive for the explanation. But, in addition, upon arrival in Moscow, Zholkiewski necessarily became very close to the Shuiskys. With them he went to both Smolensk and Warsaw: this is where and who had the full opportunity for Zolkiewski to obtain certain information about the incident that interested everyone.
But even with such an important source as Zolkiewski’s Notes, almost the same transformation occurred as with Rukop. Philareta. In one of their lists (belonging to the St. Petersburg Publ. Library, from the Zalusski Library) even Zolkiewski’s news about the initial testimony (i.e., Skopin’s violent death) is omitted, and only says: “died of a fever0.” From here it is clear that the manuscript was subject to changes. In the second edition of the Notes (St. Petersburg, 1871 d.) Fly-