V. S. IKONNIKOV,
now even states that the list of St. Petersburg. bib. there are actually exclamations from his list, with some omissions and changes, about which he says: “One can unmistakably conclude that these changes and omissions were made by Zolkiewski to soften some expressions, which are quite harsh” (preface by UII). In this edition, Mukhanov conveys the translation of the passage we cited differently, closer to the original: “meanwhile, if you start asking questions, it turns out that he died of a fever” (2nd ed. 38) 1). At the same time, placing a detailed extract from the Philaret Manuscript, Mukhanov declares that, mainly as a result of the incompleteness of the text of the said passage in Karamzin, he expressed doubt about the violent death of Skopin, and, citing a dispatch from a French agent from Moscow known to us (see Chapter 2), he even concludes: “In this document we find news of high popularity, which Prince Skopin-Shuisky then used in Russia, as well as about the general opinion that was then in Russia regarding his upcoming elevation to the throne; this last circumstance makes us think even more that his death was violent" (appendix, pp. 49-50, 58). Thus, Mukhanov’s remaining objections no longer have any place.
The author of the Diary of the Campaign of Sigismund III says: “D. Shuisky’s wife poisoned him at the christening, how it is not yet known, but he was sick for two weeks and could not recover” (584). This news was recorded before others and is contemporary with the event itself. It deserves attention in its agreement with those news about the events that accompanied Skopin’s death (christening, participation of D. Shuisky’s wife, duration of illness), which are accepted as reliable, and this information was received in the king’s camp from the Moscow boyars, transmitted to the Poles in Mozhaisk, and confirmed by Slizny, already known to us from his relations with Moscow (578, 585-86).
The Swedes were also convinced of Skopin’s violent death2);
1) Więc i to przypadło, że Skopin, kiedy najlepiej miał rzeczy popierać, umarł struty, jako zrazu udawano, z porozumieniem Szujskiego, z emulacyi, która była między nimi; pytając się jednak o tém, jak się znajduje, że febrą umarł [And so it happened that Skopin, when he was best able to advance matters, died poisoned, as was initially claimed, with the connivance of Shuisky, out of the rivalry that existed between them; however, upon inquiring about this, it turns out that he died of a fever] (1st ed. p. 63; cf. 2nd ed. appendix 59–60).
*) Procul dubio jussu Suiskii, cui ob excellentem virtutem invisus erat, clam veneno sublatus interiit [Without a doubt, by the order of Shuisky, to whom he was hateful on account of his excellent virtue, he perished, secretly removed by poison]. (Videk. 139).
KOPIN-SHUISKY.
and from “The Tale of Skopin” it is clear that, having learned about the latter’s illness, Delagardne sent Swedish doctors to him, whose help, to their common regret, turned out to be useless (p. 383).
This is the news of Skopin's death.
Gerkman, who was in Moscow under Mikhail Fedorovich, reports that at that time songs about Skopin’s death were widespread among the people. One of them has come down to us in a collection of songs recorded for the Oxford bachelor Richard James, * who served as a priest at the English embassy in Russia in 1618-20. (Hamel, The British in Russia in the XVI - XVII centuries. 242-245). In this song of folk sadness about the death of a hero, the gloating of the boyars is contrasted: not only Muscovites are crying, but also “great Germans,” and the princes Mstislavsky and Vorotynsky, laughing, say:
The falcon rose high and hurt himself on the damp ground.
Another song is dedicated to the disaster that befell Skopin. Prince Vorotynsky’s son was baptized: the godfather was Prince Skopin, “the ruler of the kingdom of Moscow,” and the godfather was D. Shuisky’s wife. At dinner, the boyars boasted, some of their strength, some of their wealth. Skopin, although not very drunk, boasted that he had cleansed the Moscow state. This offended the boyars, and they poured potions into a glass of sweet mead, which D. Shuisky’s wife, who knew about it, brought to Skopin. The further outcome is known. But from this song we also learn that praises of Skopin and his exploits were sung at feasts by singers (see Izvest. Academician Sciences on 2 parts. vol. I; Collected songs. Kirsha Danilov; cf. Buslaeva, Essays on Literature. I, 519 - 525; Galakhova, Iet. Liter. I, 268; Polevoy, Ist. Liter. 209-210. Variations in Letop. Russian ed. Tikhonravov, IV, 23-27).
Thus, both songs correctly convey some historical and everyday features: the disposition of Russians and foreigners towards Skopin, a feast at Vorotynsky’s, praise at feasts for Skopin.