Considering the historical news of Skopin’s death, first of all it should be noted that they do not contain such contradictions that could be contrasted one with another. The significant disagreement lies in the fact that according to some, the last feast is called by Vorotynsky, according to. “Sim at the Shuiskys.
But this disagreement is understandable if we take into account that everywhere the main role is given to the latter. So n Letop. about the riots (or New Chronicle), which does not mention the feast at all, the execution of the deed is attributed to D. Shuisky’s wife. On the other hand, Palitsyn, who declares the suspicions that the Shuiskys had against Skopin and conveys the news of his violent death, speaks strongly against them by the fact that he passes them over in silence when describing the catastrophe, although he does not spare words on moral reasoning. about this. Isn’t it really strange that a person who was close to them and stood so close to the scene of the action, who did not hide the fact that there were misunderstandings between Skopin and Shuisky, and finally spoke so harshly about D. Shuisky, did not utter a single word in their defense where it was absolutely right? Meanwhile, the very way of expressing his opinion: “but it is impossible to decide whether God’s judgment has come upon us, or whether evil people’s intentions have been accomplished - the only message that created us” is of a dubious nature. It does not even contain that mitigating motive that can be allowed in the expressions “there are none” or “many people swallow.” Palitsyn does not really decide “how to decide”; but we know that such facts as the death of Tsarevich Dmitry were then attributed to “God’s judgment.”
In our history there is a number of news about cases and attempts of violent death, and in particular about poisoning, for political purposes. Some of them are accepted unconditionally, others still require clarification. Let us point out both, limiting ourselves to examples that are closer to our question. Thus, Prince Dmitry Shemyaka, known for his claims to the Moscow throne, died in Novgorod after eating chicken saturated with poison sent from Moscow by the Grand Duke, and clerk Vasily Beda, who rode to Moscow with this news, was granted the position of clerk. And although our chronicles for the most part express themselves about Shemakha: “reposed” (Novgor. 2nd, 141, year 1453; Pskov. 2nd, 31; Pskov. 1st, 215; Tver. 495; Chronograph. 1st ed. in Popov, 83); and some of them are limited to the hint “die a vain death,” with an indication of the award of Trouble (Zeph. 2, 180; Nikonop. U, 278; Resurrection. 144); nevertheless, our historians accept the very fact of violent
KOPIN-SHUISKY.
sing of death (Karamzin, U, 201; Soloviev, GI*, 8R.),). In 1467, the wife of the leader died in Moscow. book Ivana III, I Maria Borisovna (daughter of the Grand Duke of Tver), from a mortal potion, says one chronicler (Sof. let. in the Complete collection of Russian fol. VI, 186; cf. Let. Rus. Lvov, II, 363), as a result of which her body was so swollen that the cover, which was previously large and hung at the edges, could no longer cover for the dead. This happened in the absence of the prince (P.S.R.L. IV,.149, V, 272); and when he found out that the wife of clerk Akeksey Poluektov had previously sent her belt “to the woman,” he became very angry with them and for six years did not let Poluektov see him (VI, 186). In this case, there was a strong suspicion of damage. However, there is an indication that the wife of Ivan III, even in adolescence, “was possessed by a green infirmity” (Tale of the holy fathers, Ios. Volots., Reading. M. ob. history. 1847, No. 7), for healing from which they resorted to Elder Euphrosynus in the Savvatian Desert. The death of Dmitry Ivanovich, his nephew, is great. book Vasily Ivanovich, they suspected malicious intent on the part of the latter, since they were once rivals for the Moscow throne. The chronicle says: “Blessed Prince Dmitry Ivanovich reposed (on February 14, 1509) in need and lamentation, and laid his body in the Church of the Archangel Michael in Moscow, near his father, Grand Duke Ivan Ivanovich” (Ivan the Young, Sof. 2nd, 249). But Herberstein, who was in Moscow shortly after, says directly: “some believe that he died from cold and hunger, others that he was suffocated by smoke” (Records on Muscovy, 19). Despite the fact that illness and death led. book Vasily Ivanovich is described in great detail in the annals of lei (VI, 267-276), however
') “Dasha to him of fierce greatness” (Arkhang. let. in Karamzin, V, 157).