Mukhanov, who published the Notes of Zholkevsky in 1835, appended to them a selection of testimonies about the death of Skopin-Shuisky (304-310), which Karamzin had already used, and including the Manuscripts of Filaret in the above extract, adding only the testimony of Zholkevsky *); but in his analysis he confines himself to the justification of Tsar Shuisky and admits that Skopin died from severe bleeding (Eriviachis, Haetorgia pagin), which they could not stop at that time2). In support of their arguments, they
*) In this edition of the latter’s Notes we read: “Meanwhile, Skopin, at a time when he was conducting his affairs in the best way, died poisoned (as rumors first circulated) according to Shuisky, as a result of the jealousy that was between them; after questioning it turned out that he died of a fever” (63).
*) Perhaps not an uninteresting example in this regard
V. S. IKONNIKOV,
complains about contradictions in sources. However, for the history of the issue, it is necessary to note that Mukhanov came to somewhat different conclusions when his main sources (Filaret’s Manuscript and Zholvevsvogo’s Notes) were published in a more correct form and subjected to a new analysis.
Artsybashev notes only “the absurdity of the news of damage, incompatible with Skopin’s illness” (III, 233).
Buturlin says this: "Is Skopin really poisoned? There was no evidence of the crime, and there could not have been, for naturally no one dared to begin to study the sad incident that had brought suspicion upon persons so close to the tsar. On the other hand, should we blindly believe the masses of the people, always ready to attribute the sudden death of famous men to violence. Of modern writers, only the Pskov the chronicler and German Ber (Bussov) is accused of poisoning Skopin, the first by the tsar himself, and the latter by the wife of Kp. The author of these words, refuting both testimonies with the notes of Zholkiewski, nevertheless adds: “But if indeed Vasily himself was not alien to the insidious plan to destroy Skopin, then God’s judgment was not slow to take place over the criminal crown bearer” (Ist. Time of Troubles. III, 133-35). However, in the Pskov Chronicle, despite all its dislike for Tsar Vasily, it is stated that the cause of Skopin’s death was not he, but his brothers, against whom the indignation of the people was directed (Full. collected years. U,
presents a description of the illness of the prince's son. Nikita Iv. Odoevsky, found in a letter from Ts. Alexei Mikhailovich to the last: “And when the evening meal was gone, the Tsar writes, he got up from the table and decided to groan with his head: his head hurt immensely; and he decided to beat his forehead in order to let him go to Moscow, for a headache. Yes, and he went home... and that night he wanted to go to Moscow in the morning, and that illness decided to inflame him, and a fire appeared... and blood began to flow (on the 18th day of illness) from the nose incessantly... about three buckets came out... and he walked away from sowing wonderful lives." Notes Rus. and Slavin. Archaeol., II, 703 - 704.
share Mikhail Vasilyevich shopnn-shtysshy.
58-59). Thus, unconditional hostility towards Tsar Vasily is not visible in the author of this story’).
S. M. Solovyov limits himself to the same arguments against the accusation, while making an amendment to the Pskov chronicler, who relates the last feast to the Shuiskys and although he leaves the role of the poisoner to D. Shuisky’s wife, he calls her not Ekaterina, but Christina. The author of the History of Russia believes that there was a distortion of the word christening, at which Skopin fell ill (UIII, 318). If this is true, then such a distortion shows that the mistake of the Pskov chronicler occurred as a result of his own oversight, and the role of D. Shuisky’s wife forced him to attribute the feast itself to the Shuiskys. But such a metamorphosis could have happened in another way. In the original source, instead of Katerina, the chronicler could read the name of Christipa, but he correctly calls her the daughter of Malyuta Skuratov. Herkman also makes a mistake regarding the place of the feast (315), based on the same considerations.
N.I. Kostomarov retells the then attitude towards Skopin and the opinions of his contemporaries about his fate (Ist. S'mut. vrem. II, 335 - 338), the spread of which he attributes elsewhere to popular rumor (Russian Ist. I, 675).
These are the opinions on this issue. Let's look at the news about this event.
Modern evidence falls into two groups: Russian and foreign.
Among Russian news, the Legend of Avr should be placed in the foreground. Palitsa, as a person close to the events, who knew Moscow relations well and, moreover, was known for his activities. He says: