') The Russian chronicler mentions the mutual hatred and envy of Skopin and the prince. Dmitry (Nikoi, years. 132; Years about the rebellion. 177-178). Of course, Skopin’s caution does not exclude active campaigning by his supporters, and we already know about its successes. In this sense, of course, the instructions of the Details, years., published. Lvov, about Skopin’s plans for the throne. But it is also reported there that even during the latter’s life, out of fear of him, the king entrusted command of the army to Ky. Dmitry Shuisky, and Skopin took this as an insult. If the confusing presentation of this chronicle does not mix up the appointment of Prince as commander of the army. Dmitry after the death of Skopin,. as other sources say, in the given fact one could see the full force of influence on the king of his brother (Let. Lvov, 1799, III, 249). Suspicion did not leave Tsar Vasily even after Skopin’s death. There is modern news that soon after this the tsar persecuted and imprisoned those who served under Skopin and his servants, perhaps with the goal of finding out his plans (Diary of the Campaign of Sigism. 601). But this did not stop Shuisky from declaring his sadness over the death of his nephew...
KOPIN-SHUISKY.
Marrying instructions to the latter from the main authorities: Skopin’s success only finally aroused the external authorities against him. Dmitry. When Skopin entered Moscow, he watched him from afar, standing on the ramparts of the city, and at the same time loudly called him his rival, so that everyone paid attention to this (pp. 313-315). Ever since Lyapunov’s proposal, the tsar and his brothers began to “hold an opinion” against Skopin (Nik. Let., Let. about the rebellion. New Let. 108). But beyond that, upon his arrival in Moscow, the pressure on the tsar of his brothers is already clearly revealed, and the names of ex. D. Shuisky and his wives are constantly mentioned in the description of these disagreements (Nik. Let., Let. about the rebellion., New. Let. 115; Add. v'psvo. l. 58; Said. about Swap. 383; Vndek., Diary. Sigism., Hand. Philar. 25) '). They accused Skopin of unauthorized concession of Bexholm or Korela (Widewind, 139); they excited the tsar, claiming that Skopin was looking for the kingdom, and they were also the actors at the last feast. Having learned about the catastrophe that befell him, the people directly rush to the house of D. Shuisky to end his life, and only a detachment of the royal army saves him from the fury of the crowd 2). Testimony of writers and personally located,
') “Prince Dmntrey Ivan Shuiskaya with his brothers and the princess cherish the malice against him, hoping that he wants to be a king” (New Years) Nikon. years. speaks “about the former reni (quarrel) between Skopin and Dmitry Shuisky and his wife” (132).
The wife of D. Shuisky (Ekat. Grig.) was, apparently, a power-hungry woman and had influence on her husband, imitating in this regard her sister, the wife of Boris Godunov. Contemporaries attribute to the latter even the affirmation in Boris of the thought of seizing the throne, and they say that he himself had to restrain his power-hungry habits (Mass, 36, 134). Following her example, women under Boris began to enjoy greater freedom. The queen loved to ride out, surrounded by women who followed her carriage on horseback (Marger. 268). Marina Mnishek's yard has become even freer. The boyars walked around Moscow arm in arm with their husbands (Ba Edopbe be Ia tie ei be Ia toP be Beteigipz, 1839. Mozsoi). D. Shuisky’s wife already moved in this environment. After a time of troubles, the reaction was reflected in the tower.
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
V. and sweet clover,