Features of public administration in the Time of Troubles. Influence of the Troubles on public administration in the 17th century

1. Board of Boris Godunov 2

2. The first signs of a crisis 4

3. The appearance of False Dmitry I and the death of Boris Godunov 6

4. Death of Fyodor Godunov and accession of False Dmitry I 11

5. Overthrow of False Dmitry I 14

6. The accession of Vasily Shuisky 17

7. The uprising of Bolotnikov and the appearance of False Dmitry II 20

8. Polish intervention 22

9. Deposition of Vasily Shuisky and the "Seven Boyars" 24

10. The expulsion of the invaders and the accession of the Romanovs 25

11. End of the Troubles

List of used literature 27

1. Board of Boris Godunov.

The term "Time of Troubles" in Russian history refers to the period from 1604 to 1613, characterized by a severe political and social crisis of the Muscovy. The political prerequisites for this crisis, however, appeared long before the beginning of the Time of Troubles, namely, the tragic end of the reign of the Rurik dynasty, and the enthronement of the boyar Boris Godunov.

As you know, Boris Godunov was a close adviser to Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible in the last years of his life, and together with Bogdan Belsky had a great influence on the tsar. Godunov and Belsky were next to the tsar in the last minutes of his life, and from the porch they announced the death of the sovereign to the people. After John IV, his son, Fyodor Ioannovich, became king, weak and weak-willed, unable to rule the country without the help of advisers. To help the tsar, the Regency Council was created, which included: Belsky, Yuryev, Shuisky, Mstislavsky and Godunov. Through court intrigues, Godunov managed to neutralize his ill-wishers: Shuisky (sent into exile in 1586, where he was killed two years later) and Mstislavsky (expelled from the Regency Council in 1585, and died in disgrace), and occupy a dominant position in the council. In fact, since 1587, Boris Godunov ruled the country alone.

Godunov could not help but understand that his position in power was stable only as long as Tsar Fyodor was alive. In the event of Fedor's death, the throne was to be succeeded by his younger brother, the son of John IV, Tsarevich Dimitri, and given the tsar's poor health, this could not have happened in the very distant future. In all likelihood, Godunov did not expect anything good for himself from the change of the sovereign. One way or another, but in 1591, Tsarevich Dimitri died in an accident. The investigation into this case was led by the boyar Vasily Shuisky, who came to the conclusion that the prince was playing with his peers with knives when he had an epileptic seizure. Accidentally falling on a knife, the prince stabbed himself to death with this knife. He lived in the world for a little over eight years.

Godunov's contemporaries had no doubt that this accident was in fact a disguised political murder, since it was clearing the way for Godunov to the throne. Indeed, Tsar Fyodor had no sons, and even his only daughter died at the age of one. Given his poor health, it was very likely that the king himself would not live long. As subsequent events showed, this is exactly what happened.

On the other hand, Godunov's guilt in the death of Dimitri does not seem so obvious. Firstly, Demetrius was the son of the sixth wife of John IV, and the Orthodox Church, even today, recognizes only three consecutive marriages as legal (“By allowing repeated marriages of laity, the Orthodox Church does not equate them with the first,“ virgin ”marriage. , she limited the recurrence of marriage to only three cases, and when one emperor (Leo the Wise) married for the fourth time, the Church did not recognize the validity of his marriage for a long time, although it was needed in the state and dynastic interests. for this marriage ended with an act categorically prohibiting the fourth marriage for the future "). For this reason, formally speaking, Demetrius could not be considered the legitimate son of John IV, and therefore could not inherit the throne. Secondly, even in the case of the removal of Dimitri, the prospects of Godunov himself to take the throne were vague - he was neither the most noble, nor the richest of possible contenders, and the fact that he eventually became king is largely happy accident.

One way or another, in the eyes of contemporaries, this death was so into the hands of Godunov that few doubted his guilt. The death of Tsarevich Dimitri became a real mine laid under the regime of Boris Godunov, and this mine was destined to explode twelve years later, in 1603, not without the help of "friends of Russia" from outside.

In 1598, the nominal sovereign, Fyodor Ioannovich, died, and Godunov was left alone with the growing ill will of the nobility. Driven into a corner, he nevertheless managed to find an unexpected solution: he tried to secure the throne for the widow of Tsar Fyodor - Irina Godunova, his sister. According to the text of the oath promulgated in the churches, the subjects were asked to take an oath of allegiance to Patriarch Job and the Orthodox faith, Queen Irina, ruler Boris and his children. In other words, under the guise of an oath to the church and the queen, Godunov actually demanded an oath to himself and his heir.

The case, however, did not burn out - at the insistence of the boyars, Irina renounced power in favor of the Boyar Duma, and retired to the Novodevichy Convent, where she was tonsured. Nevertheless, Godunov did not give up. He, apparently, well understood that it was impossible for him to openly compete with the more noble contenders for the empty throne (primarily the Shuiskys), so he simply retired to the well-fortified Novodevichy Convent, from where he watched the split struggle for power by the Boyar Duma.

Thanks to Godunov's intrigues, the Zemsky Sobor in 1598, at which his supporters were in the majority, officially called him to the throne. This decision was not approved by the Boyar Duma, but the counter-proposal of the Boyar Duma - to establish a boyar rule in the country - was not approved by the Zemsky Sobor. A stalemate arose in the country, and as a result, the question of succession to the throne was removed from the Duma and Patriarchal Chambers to the square. The opposing parties used all possible means - from agitation to bribery. Going out to the crowd, Godunov, with tears in his eyes, swore that he did not even think of encroaching on "the highest royal rank." The motives behind Godunov's rejection of the crown are easy to understand. First, he was embarrassed by the small size of the crowd. And secondly, he wanted to end the accusations of regicide. To more accurately achieve this goal, Boris spread the rumor about his imminent tonsure as a monk. Under the influence of skillful agitation, the mood in the capital began to change.

The patriarch and members of the council tried to use the emerging success. Persuading Boris to accept the crown, the churchmen threatened to resign if their petition was rejected. The boyars made a similar statement.

The general cry created the appearance of a nationwide election, and Godunov, prudently choosing a convenient moment, generously announced to the crowd his consent to accept the crown. Wasting no time, the patriarch led the ruler to the nearest monastery cathedral and named him the kingdom.

Godunov, however, could not accept the crown without an oath in the Boyar Duma. But the older boyars were in no hurry to express their loyal feelings, which forced the ruler to retire to the Novodevichy Convent for the second time.

On March 19, 1598, Boris convened the Boyar Duma for the first time to resolve the accumulated cases that did not tolerate delay. Thus, Godunov de facto began to fulfill the functions of the autocrat. Having received the support of the capital's population, Boris broke the resistance of the feudal nobility without bloodshed and became the first "elected" king. The first years of his reign did not bode well.

“The first two years of this Reign seemed to be the best time for Russia since the 15th century or since its restoration: she was at the highest level of her new power, secure with her own strength and the happiness of external circumstances, but inside she was ruled with wise firmness and extraordinary meekness. Boris fulfilled the vow of a royal wedding and rightly wanted to be called the father of the people, reducing its burdens; the father of the orphan and the poor, pouring out on them unparalleled generosity; friend of humanity, without touching the life of people, without staining the Russian land with a single drop of blood and punishing criminals only with exile. Merchants less shy in trade; an army showered with awards in peaceful silence; Nobles, commanding people, distinguished by signs of mercy for zealous service; Synclit, respected by the active and loving Tsar; The clergy, honored by the pious Tsar - in a word, all state states could be satisfied for themselves and even more satisfied for their fatherland, seeing how Boris in Europe and Asia exalted the name of Russia without bloodshed and without painful exertion of her strength; how he cares about the common good, justice, order. And so it is not surprising that Russia, according to the legend of contemporaries, loved its Crown-bearer, wanting to forget the murder of Demetrius or doubting it! "

Nothing foreshadowed trouble, and there were only six years left before the Time of Troubles.

2. The first signs of a crisis.

The crisis was initiated by successive crop failures in 1601 and 1602. Throughout the summer of 1601, heavy cold rains fell across eastern Europe, beginning in July, mixed with sleet. The entire crop, of course, was lost. According to the testimony of contemporaries, at the end of August 1601, snowfalls and blizzards began, sleigh rides along the Dnieper, as if in winter.

“Among the natural abundance and wealth of the fertile land, inhabited by hardworking farmers; amid the blessings of a long-term peace, and in an active, prudent Reign, a terrible execution fell on millions of people: in the spring, in 1601, the sky was darkened by thick darkness, and the rains poured down for ten weeks incessantly so that the villagers were horrified: they could not do anything engage in, neither mow nor reap; and on August 15, severe frost damaged both green bread and all unripe fruits. There was also a lot of old bread in the barns and in the threshing floors; but the farmers, unfortunately, sowed the fields with new, rotten, skinny ones, and did not see any shoots, neither in autumn nor in spring: everything rotted away and mixed with the earth. In the meantime, the stocks have run out, and the fields have already remained unseeded. "

This was repeated, albeit on a smaller scale, in 1602. As a result, even the warm summer of 1603 did not help, since the peasants simply had nothing to sow - due to two past crop failures, there were no seeds.

To the credit of Godunov's government, it tried to mitigate the consequences of crop failures as best it could by distributing seeds to farmers for planting, and regulating the price of bread (up to the creation of a kind of "food detachments" that reveal hidden stocks of grain and force them to sell at a price set by the government). To give work to hungry refugees, Godunov began to rebuild the stone chambers of the Moscow Kremlin (“... in 1601 and 1602, on the site of the broken wooden palace of Ioannov, he built two large stone chambers to the Golden and Faceted ones, a dining room and a memorial room to provide them with work and food for people to the poor, combining benefit with mercy, and during the days of crying thinking of greatness! "). He also issued a decree that all slaves, left by their masters without means of food, automatically receive freedom. But these measures were clearly not enough. About a third of the country's population became victims of famine. Fleeing from hunger, people fled en masse "to the Cossacks" - to the Don and to Zaporozhye. It must be said that the policy of "pushing out" criminal and potentially unreliable elements to the north-western borders was practiced by John IV, and was continued by Godunov ("Even John IV, wanting to populate the Lithuanian Ukraine, the land of Severskaya, with people fit for military affairs, did not interfere criminals who escaped execution there to take refuge and live in peace: for he thought that in case of war they could be reliable defenders of the border.Boris, loving to follow many of the Ioannovs' state thoughts, followed this one, which was very false and very unfortunate: for Unknowingly, he made a large squad of villains to serve the enemies of the fatherland and his own. "). Indeed, all this huge mass on the borders of Russia has become a dangerous combustible material, ready to flare up from the slightest spark.

These crop failures naturally ended with the peasant uprising of 1603 under the leadership of Ataman Khlopok. The peasant army was heading for Moscow, and it was possible to defeat it only at the cost of heavy losses of government troops, and the governor himself, Ivan Basmanov, died in battle. Ataman Khlopok was taken prisoner and, according to some sources, died of his wounds, according to others, he was executed in Moscow.

In addition to peasant unrest, Godunov's life was constantly poisoned by conspiracies of the nobility, both genuine and imagined. One might think that Godunov contracted paranoia from his first patron - Tsar John IV. In 1601, his old colleague and friend Bogdan Belsky was repressed - Godunov ordered to torture him, after which he was exiled to "one of the lower towns", where he remained until Godunov's death. The reason for the repression was a trifling denunciation of Belsky from his servants - as if he, serving as a governor in the city of Borisov, allowed himself to joke: "Boris is the Tsar in Moscow, and I am the Tsar in Borisov." An uncomplicated joke cost Belsky very dearly.

In the same year, 1601, a larger-scale process was started against the Romanov family, as well as their supporters (Sitsky, Repnins, Cherkassky, Shestunovs, Karpovs ...). “The grandee Semyon Godunov, invented a way to convict the innocent of villainy, hoping for general gullibility and ignorance: he bribed the treasurer of the Romanovs, gave him sacks filled with roots, ordered him to hide Alexander Nikitich in Boyarin’s pantry and inform their masters that they were secretly working on the composition poison, plotting on the life of the Crown Bearer. Suddenly anxiety arose in Moscow: Synclitus and all the noble officials were hurrying to the Patriarch; send roundabout Mikhail Saltykov for a search in the storeroom at Boyarin Alexander; they find sacks there, carry them to Job, and in the presence of the Romanovs they pour out the roots, as if magic, made to poison the Tsar. " The consequences of this provocation were for the Romanovs and their supporters the most sad - they were all partly forcibly tonsured into monks, partly exiled, their property was confiscated.

“The Romanovs were not the only bogeyman for Borisov's imagination. He forbade the Princes of Mstislavsky and Vasily Shuisky to marry, thinking that their children, according to the ancient nobility of their kind, could also compete with his son for the throne. Meanwhile, eliminating the future imaginary dangers for the young Theodore, the timid destroyer trembled the real ones: worried about suspicions, constantly fearing secret villains and equally fearing to deserve popular hatred by torture, he persecuted and pardoned: he exiled the Voevoda, Prince Vladimir Bakhteyarov forgave him; removed from the affairs of the famous Clerk Shchelkalov, but without obvious disgrace; several times he removed the Shuiskys, and again brought them closer to him; caressed them, and at the same time threatened with disfavor to everyone who had dealings with them. There were no solemn executions, but they killed the unfortunate in dungeons, tortured them on denunciations. A host of well-known people, if not always awarded, but always free from punishment for lies and slander, strove to the Royal Chambers from the Boyars' houses and huts, from monasteries and churches: servants reported on masters, Inoki, Priests, Clerks, maltrels on people of all ranks - the most wives for husbands, the most children for fathers, to the horror of mankind! “And in the wild Hordes (adds the Chronicler) there is no such great evil: the gentlemen did not dare to look at their servants, nor their neighbors sincerely speak among themselves; and when they spoke, they mutually pledged with a terrible oath not to change their modesty. " In a word, this sad time of Borisov's reign, yielding to John in bloodsucking, was not inferior to him in lawlessness and debauchery "

There is nothing surprising in the fact that Godunov so diligently tried to eliminate, or at least remove those who could challenge the throne from him, that is, more ancient or noble boyar families. Unsure of his own right to the throne, he did everything possible to ensure the transfer of the throne to his heir, and to create conditions where nothing would threaten the new dynasty he founded. These motives were colorfully described by A.K. Tolstoy in his poem Tsar Boris, and Pushkin in the tragedy Boris Godunov.

3. The appearance of False Dmitry I and the death of Boris Godunov

The popularity of Godunov among the people fell sharply, and a series of disasters revived rumors, which were already circulating among the people, that Boris Godunov was not a legitimate tsar, but an impostor, and that is why all these troubles arise. The real tsar - Dimitri - is actually alive, and is hiding somewhere from Godunov. Of course, the authorities tried to fight the spread of rumors, but they did not have much success. There is also a hypothesis that some boyars who were dissatisfied with Godunov's rule, primarily the Romanovs, had a hand in the spread of these rumors. In any case, the people were mentally prepared for the appearance of the "miraculously resurrected" Demetrius, and he was not slow to appear. "As if by a supernatural action the shadow of Dimitriev came out of the coffin in order to strike with horror, madden the murderer and confuse the whole of Russia."

According to the generally accepted version, a certain “poor boyar son, Galician Yuri Otrepiev” tried to impersonate Dimitri, who “... in his youth lost his father, in the name of Bogdan-Yakov, a streltsy centurion, stabbed to death in Moscow by a drunk Litvin, served in the house of the Romanovs and Prince Boris Cherkassky; knew literacy; showed much intelligence, but little prudence; bored with a low state and decided to seek the pleasure of careless idleness in the rank of Inok, following the example of his grandfather, Zamyatny-Otrepiev, who had long been a monk at the Chudovskaya monastery. Tonsted by Vyatka Abbot Tryphon and named Gregory, this young Chernets wandered from place to place; lived for some time in Suzdal, in the monastery of St. Euphemia, in the Galician John the Baptist and in others; finally, in the Chudov Monastery, in the cell of his grandfather, under the command. There Patriarch Job recognized him, ordained him to the Deacon and took him to him for the book business, for Gregory was able not only to copy well, but even to compose canons to the Saints better than many old scribes of that time. Taking advantage of Job's grace, he often went with him to the palace: he saw the splendor of the Tsar and was captivated by it; expressed extraordinary curiosity; eagerly listened to reasonable people, especially when the name of Dimitri Tsarevich was pronounced in sincere, secret conversations; wherever he could, he found out the circumstances of his unhappy fate and wrote it down on the charter. A wonderful thought had already settled and ripened in the soul of the dreamer, instilled in him, as they say, by one evil Monk: the idea that a brave impostor can take advantage of the gullibility of the Russians, touched by the memory of Demetrius, and execute a holy killer in honor of Heavenly Justice! The seed fell on the fruitful earth: the young Deacon diligently read the Russian chronicles and immodestly, albeit jokingly, would sometimes say to the Chudov Monks: "Do you know that I will be Tsar in Moscow?" Some were laughing; others spat in his eyes, as if I were lying to an impudent one. These or similar speeches reached the Rostov Metropolitan Jonah, who announced to the Patriarch and the Tsar himself that “the unworthy Monk Gregory wants to be the vessel of the devil”; The good-natured Patriarch did not respect the Metropolitan's answer, but the Tsar ordered his Clerk, Smirnov-Vasiliev, to send the madman Gregory to the Solovki, or to the Belozersk desert, as if for heresy, for eternal repentance. Smirnoy told about this to another Dyak, Evfimiev; Evfimiev, being a relative of the Otrepievs, begged him not to rush to fulfill the Tsar's decree and gave a way for the disgraced Deacon to flee (in February 1602), together with two Monks of Chudovsky, Priest Varlaam and Kryloshanin Misail Povadin. ". Having judiciously judged how such statements could be fraught with him within the Russian borders, Otrepiev decided to flee to where he would be welcome - to Poland (more precisely, the Commonwealth is a powerful state that occupied the current territories of Poland, the Baltic states, Belarus, part of Ukraine and the western regions of Russia ). "There, an ancient, natural hatred of Russia has always zealously favored our traitors, from the Princes Shemyakin, Vereisky, Borovsky and Tverskoy to Kurbsky and Golovin." Thus, Otrepiev's choice was quite natural, and he hoped to find help and support there. IN. Klyuchevsky writes about it this way:

“In the nest of the boyars most persecuted by Boris, with the Romanovs at the head, in all likelihood, the thought of an impostor was hatched. They blamed the Poles for setting him up; but it was only baked in a Polish oven, and leavened in Moscow. It was not for nothing that Boris, as soon as he heard about the appearance of the False Dimitry, directly told the boyars that it was their business, that they had set up the impostor. This unknown someone, who sat on the Moscow throne after Boris, arouses great anecdotal interest. His personality remains mysterious to this day, despite all the efforts of scientists to unravel it. For a long time, the prevailing opinion, coming from Boris himself, was that he was the son of a Galician petty nobleman Yuri Otrepiev, monastic Grigory. I will not tell you about the adventures of this man, which are well known to you. I will only mention that in Moscow he served as a slave for the Romanov boyars and Prince Cherkassky, then took monasticism, was taken to the patriarch as a book-writer for his bookishness and composing praise for the Moscow miracle workers, and here suddenly from something he began to say that he probably would and the king in Moscow. For this he was to die in a distant monastery; but some strong people covered him, and he fled to Lithuania at the very time when disgrace fell on the Romanov circle. "

Otrepiev's life path from the moment of his flight to the moment he appeared in the Commonwealth at the court of Prince Vishnevetsky is covered with darkness. According to N.M. Karamzin, before declaring himself a miraculously saved Tsarevich Dimitri, Otrepiev settled in Kiev, in the Pechersk monastery, where “... led a seductive life, despising the charter of abstinence and chastity; he boasted of freedom of opinion, loved to talk about the Law with the Gentiles, and was even in close connection with the Anabaptists. " But such a monastic life, apparently, bored him, since from the Pechersky monastery he went to the Zaporozhye Cossacks, to the ataman Gerasim Evangelik, where he received military skills. However, he did not stay with the Cossacks either - he left and showed up at the Volyn school, where he studied Polish and Latin grammar. There he was noticed and recruited into the service of a wealthy Polish tycoon, Prince Adam Wisniewiecki. Probably, he managed to achieve the location of Vishnevetsky, who appreciated his knowledge and military skills.

Despite Vishnevetsky's good attitude to Otrepiev, it was unthinkable for that simply to show up to the magnate and tell about his "miraculous salvation" - it is clear that no one would have believed such nonsense. Otrepiev decided to act more subtly.

“Having earned the attention and kind disposition of the master, the cunning deceiver pretended to be sick, demanded a Confessor, and said to him quietly:“ I am dying. Commit my body to the earth with honor, as the children of the Tsars are buried. I will not declare my secret until the grave; when I close my eyes forever, you will find a scroll under my bed, and you will know everything; but don't tell others. God has judged me to die in misfortune. " The confessor was a Jesuit: he was in a hurry to inform Prince Vishnevets of this secret, and the curious Prince was in a hurry to find out it: he searched the bed of the imaginary dying man; found a paper prepared in advance and read in it that his servant was Tsarevich Dimitri, saved from murder by his faithful physician; that the villains sent to Uglich killed one son of the Priest, instead of Demetrius, who was hid by the good grandees and clerks of the Shchelkalovs, and then escorted to Lithuania, fulfilling the order of the Ioannians given to them in this case. Vishnevetsky was amazed: he still wanted to doubt, but could no longer, when the cunning man, blaming the Confessor's immodesty, opened his chest, showed a gold cross strewn with precious stones (probably stolen somewhere) and with tears announced that this shrine was given to him by the Godfather Prince Ivan Mstislavsky ".

It is not entirely clear whether Vishnevetsky was really deceived, or whether he simply decided to take advantage of the opportunity that came up for his political goals. In any case, Vishnevetsky told the Polish king Sigismund III about his unusual guest, and he wished to see him in person. Prior to that, Vishnevetsky also managed to prepare the ground by spreading information about the "miraculous salvation of John's son" throughout Poland, in which he was assisted by his brother Konstantin Vishnevetsky, Constantine's father-in-law, the Sandomierz governor Yuri Mnishek, and the papal nuncio Rangoni.

There is a version, partly confirmed by documents, that initially the Vishnevetskys planned to use Otrepiev in their plans for a palace coup, aimed at the deposition of Sigismund III, and the enthronement of "Demetrius". He, being like a descendant of John IV, Rurikovich, and therefore a relative of the Polish Jagiellonian dynasty, was quite suitable for this throne. But for some reason, it was decided to abandon this plan.

King Sigismund treated the "resurrected Demetrius" coolly, like many of his dignitaries. Hetman Jan Zamoyskiy, for example, spoke about this in the following way: “It happens that the dice in the game falls and happily, but usually it is not advised to put expensive and important items on the line. This is a matter of such a nature that it can harm our state and disgrace the king and all our people. " However, the king nevertheless received Otrepiev, treated him politely (Karamzin says that he received him standing in his office, that is, recognizing him as an equal), and assigned him a monetary allowance of 40,000 zlotys annually. Otrepiev did not receive any other help from the king, but given the political situation in the then Commonwealth, he could not provide it. The fact is that the king in the Commonwealth was mainly a nominal figure, while real power belonged to the aristocracy (Vishnevets, Pototsky, Radziwills and other rich and noble houses). In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth there was also no royal army, as such - only the infantry of 4000 guards, supported by the personal income of the king. Thus, the recognition of "Demetrius" by the king had only moral and political significance.

Otrepiev also had other important meetings, including with representatives of the Catholic Jesuit order, which had great influence in the Commonwealth. He even wrote a letter to the then Pope of Rome, Clement VIII, in which he promised in the event of his "return to the throne" to join the Orthodox Church to the Catholic one, and received a reply with "confirmation of his readiness to assist him with all the spiritual authority of the Apostolic Viceroy." To strengthen relations, Otrepiev made a solemn promise to Yuri Mnishek to marry his daughter Marina, and even officially turned to King Sigismund for permission to marry.

Encouraged by their success, the Vishnevetskys began to gather an army for a campaign against Moscow, with the goal of elevating "Demetrius" to the throne. Karamzin writes: “In fact, it was not an army, but a bastard, who took up arms against Russia: very few noble nobles, to please the King, little respected, or seduced by the thought of brave for the exiled Tsarevich, appeared in Sambir and Lvov: vagabonds were striving there, hungry and half naked, demanding weapons not for victory, but for plunder, or the salary that Mnishek generously gave out in the hope of the future. " In other words, the army consisted mainly of the very refugees, Zaporozhye and Don Cossacks, who at one time fled from Russia as a result of the policies of John IV and Boris Godunov, although some Polish gentry with their squads also joined the army being formed. Not everyone, however, was tempted by the opportunity to take revenge on the hated Godunov - as Karamzin writes, there were many who did not want to participate in the intervention, or even actively opposed it. “It is noteworthy that some of the Moscow fugitives, the Boyarsky children, filled with hatred for Godunov, while hiding in Lithuania, did not want to be participants in this enterprise, because they saw deception and abhorred evil: they write that one of them, Yakov Pykhachev, even publicly, and in the presence of the King, he testified about this gross deception, together with his comrade unstrigin, Monk Barlaam, disturbed by his conscience; that they did not believe them and sent both shackled to Voevoda Mniszka in Sambor, where they imprisoned Varlaam, and Pykhachev, accused of intending to kill False Dmitry, was executed. "

These preparations could not pass unnoticed by Godunov. Of course, the first thing that occurred to him was the assumption about the next intrigues of his enemies from among the boyars. Judging by his further actions, he was greatly frightened by the "resurrection" of Tsarevich Dimitri. To begin with, he ordered to deliver to him the mother of Demetrius, Martha Nagaya, who had long been tonsured as a nun and placed in the Novodevichy Convent. He was interested in only one question - whether her son is alive or dead. Martha Nagaya, seeing what fear the shadow of her son instilled in Godunov, undoubtedly not without pleasure, answered: “I don’t know.” Boris Godunov flew into a rage, and Martha Nagaya, wishing to enhance the effect of her answer, began to say that she had heard that her son was secretly taken out of the country, and the like. Realizing that it was impossible to get any sense out of her, Godunov stepped back from her. Soon he, nevertheless, managed to establish the identity of the impostor, and he ordered the story of Otrepiev to be made public, since further silence was dangerous, as it prompted the people to think that the impostor and truly escaped Tsarevich Dimitri. At the same time, an embassy was sent to the court of King Sigismund, led by the impostor's uncle Smirnov-Otrepiev, whose purpose was to expose the impostor; another embassy, ​​headed by the nobleman Khrushchev, was sent to the Don to the Cossacks to persuade them to retreat. Both embassies were unsuccessful. “The Royal nobles did not want to show False Dmitry Smirnov-Otrepiev and dryly replied that they did not care about the alleged Tsarevich of Russia; and the Cossacks seized Khrushchov, shackled him and brought him to the Pretender. " Moreover, in the face of imminent death, Khrushchov fell to his knees before the impostor, and recognized him as Tsarevich Dimitri. The third embassy with the nobleman Ogarev was sent by Godunov directly to King Sigismund. He received the ambassador, but answered his requests that he himself, Sigismund, did not stand for the impostor and was not going to violate the peace between Russia and the Commonwealth, but he also could not be responsible for the actions of individual gentry who supported Otrepiev. Ogarev had to return to Boris Godunov with nothing. In addition, Godunov demanded that Patriarch Job write a letter to the Polish clergy, in which it was confirmed by the seals of the bishops that Otrepiev was a fugitive monk. The same letter was sent to the Kiev governor, Prince Vasily of Ostrog. The patriarch's messengers who delivered these letters were probably captured on the way by Otrepiev's people, and did not achieve their goal. “But the patriarchs' messengers did not return: they were detained in Lithuania and neither the Clergy nor the Prince of Ostrog answered Job to Job, for the Pretender had already acted with brilliant success. "

The invasion army was concentrated in the vicinity of Lvov and Sambir, in the possessions of the Mnisheks. Its core consisted of gentry with squads, well trained and armed, but very small in number - about 1,500 people. The rest of the army was made up of refugees who joined him, as Karamzin writes, "without a device and almost without weapons." At the head of the army were Otrepiev himself, Yuri Mnishek, the magnates Dvozhitsky and Neborsky. Near Kiev, they were joined by about 2,000 Don Cossacks and the militia gathered in the vicinity of Kiev. On October 16, 1604, this army entered Russia. At first, this campaign was successful, several cities were taken (Moravsk, Chernigov), and Novgorod-Seversky was besieged on November 11.

An experienced and brave military leader Pyotr Basmanov was sent to Novgorod-Seversky Godunov, who managed to organize an effective defense of the city, as a result of which the storming of the city by Otrepiev's army was repulsed, with heavy losses for the storming forces. “Otrepiev also sent Russian traitors to persuade Basmanov, but it was useless; wanted to take the fortress with a bold attack and was repelled; I wanted to destroy its walls with fire, but did not manage to do that either; he lost many people, and saw the calamity before him: his camp was sad; Basmanov gave time to Borisov's army to take up arms and an example of unkindness to other city governors. " "An example of unkindness", however, was not picked up by other "mayors" - on November 18, the Putivl governor, Prince Rubets-Mosalsky, together with the clerk Sutupov, went over to Otrepiev's side, arrested Godunov's emissary of the devious Mikhail Saltykov, and surrendered Putivl to the enemy. The cities of Rylsk, Sevsk, Belgorod, Voronezh, Kromy, Livny, Yelets also surrendered. Besieged in Novgorod-Seversky Basmanov, seeing the despair of his situation, began negotiations with Otrepiev, and promised him to surrender the city in two weeks. In all likelihood, he was trying to stall for time, waiting for reinforcements gathered in Bryansk by the voivode Mstislavsky.

At this time, clouds continued to gather over Godunov. Neither the testimony of Vasily Shuisky on the Execution site in Moscow helped that Tsarevich Dimitri was for certain dead (Shuisky was the head of the commission that investigated the death of Dimitri), nor the letters sent to the cities by Patriarch Job. “Until 1604, none of the Russians doubted the murder of Demetrius, who was growing up in front of his Uglich’s eyes and whom he saw all of Uglich dead, sprinkling his body with tears for five days; consequently, the Russians could not reasonably believe the resurrection of the Tsarevich; but they didn’t like Boris! ... Shuisky's shamelessness was still in fresh memory; they also knew Job's blind devotion to Godunov; they only heard the name of the Tsarina-Nun: no one saw her, no one spoke to her, again imprisoned in the Vyksinskaya Desert. Still not having an example in the history of the Pretenders and not understanding such a daring deception; loving the ancient tribe of Kings and eagerly listening to secret stories about the imaginary virtues of False Dmitry, the Russians secretly conveyed to each other the idea that God, by some miracle worthy of His justice, could save John's son for the execution of the hated predator and tyrant. " As a last resort, by order of Godunov, Patriarch Job ordered in all churches to read memorial prayers for Tsarevich Dimitri, while Grigory Otrepiev was ordered to be excommunicated and damned. However, apparently not too much hoping for the effectiveness of these means, Godunov ordered to announce something like mobilization - from every two hundred quarters of the cultivated land to put up a fully armed equestrian warrior - threatening to confiscate land and property for failure to comply with his order. "These measures, threats and punishments in six weeks united up to fifty thousand horsemen in Bryansk, instead of half a million, in 1598, militia with the invocation of the Tsar, whom Russia loved!" In other words, these measures were not successful either.

It is interesting that the king of Sweden, who was at war with the Commonwealth, offered military assistance to Godunov. To this Godunov replied that Russia does not need "the help of foreigners", and that under John, Russia successfully fought against Sweden, Poland, and Turkey, and was not afraid of the "contemptible rebel". He probably reasoned that a handful of Swedish soldiers would not help in this war anyway.

On December 18, the Russian army reached from Bryansk to Novgorod-Seversky, where Otrepiev's army besieged the city, but did not dare to attack outright, and camped nearby. For three days, neither Otrepiev nor the Russian commanders dared to make the first move; finally, on December 21, a battle took place. During the battle, the Polish cavalry managed to break through the line of Russian troops in the center, the voivode Mstislavsky was seriously wounded, and only his personal squad saved him from being captured. The situation was straightened out by the blow of German mounted mercenaries who attacked from the left flank, and finally saved the Russian army from defeat by the governor Basmanov, who left the city with an army and struck the enemy in the rear. Otrepiev, seeing that this battle could no longer be won, ordered his troops to withdraw from the battle.

The next day, the Russian army withdrew to Starodub-Seversky for regrouping. The impostor's army, also badly battered, retreated to Sevsk, taking up defenses in it. The situation again became a stalemate - no one could decide to be the first to resume hostilities. For a long time the Russian commanders did not dare to inform Godunov about the results of the battle, and when he learned about its results from others, he sent his close chaplain Velyaminov to the wounded Mstislavsky to declare personal gratitude to Mstislavsky. “When you, having completed the famous service, see the image of the Savior, the Mother of God, the Miracle Workers of Moscow and our Tsar's eyes: then we will grant you beyond your hopes. Nowadays, a skilled doctor is sent to you, so that you will be healthy and again on horseback. " , and 2000 rubles, a lot of silver vessels from the Kremlin treasury, a profitable estate and the dignity of Boyar Dumny ").

Basmanov's removal from the army may have been a serious mistake by Godunov. Instead of Basmanov, Prince Vasily Shuisky was appointed, who “had neither the mind nor the soul of a true, decisive and courageous leader; Convinced of the vagabond's imposture, he did not think to betray his fatherland to him, but, pleasing Boris as the flattering courtier, he remembered his disgrace and saw, perhaps, not without secret pleasure, the torment of his tyrannical heart, and wishing to save the honor of Russia, he wished the Tsar. " On January 21, a new battle took place, after which Otrepiev's army retreated to Rylsk, and then to Putivl, taking up defenses there.

The siege by Russian troops of Putivl and others that had gone over to the side of the impostor of the cities, skirmishes and sluggish fighting lasted until the spring of 1605, when on April 13, Boris Godunov unexpectedly died. The exact cause of death remains unknown. “Boris, on April 13, at one in the morning, judged and lined up with the nobles in the Duma, received noble foreigners, dined with them in the golden chamber and, as soon as he got up from the table, he felt sick: blood gushed from his nose, ears and mouth; flowed like a river. The doctors they loved so much could not stop her. He lost his memory, but managed to bless his son to the Russian State, to perceive the Angelic Image with the name of Bogolep, and two hours later gave up his ghost, in the same temple where he feasted with Boyars and with foreigners. Unfortunately, the offspring does not know anything more about this death. " There are suggestions that Godunov could have been poisoned by conspirators from among personal enemies - such assumptions were expressed by V.O. Klyuchevsky and N.I. Kostomarov. It is curious that literally a few days after Boris's death, according to the ineradicable Russian tradition, rumors spread that instead of Godunov there was a “wrought iron angel” in the coffin, and the tsar himself was alive and was hiding somewhere or wandering. True, these rumors very quickly died out by themselves.

4. Death of Fyodor Godunov and accession of False Dmitry I

After the death of Boris Godunov, his son Fyodor took the throne. Since he was very young (16 years old), it was decided to withdraw from the army to help him experienced nobles - the princes of Mstislavsky, and Vasily and Dmitry Shuisky. Also, restoring justice, Bogdan Belsky was returned from exile. Pyotr Basmanov was appointed chief commander "for there were no doubters either in his military talents, or in loyalty, proved by his brilliant deeds." This turned out to be the first serious mistake Fedor and his advisers made. It is still not clear what could have pushed Basmanov, treated kindly by the Godunovs, to the path of treason, but the facts are such that, after returning to the army, he entered into negotiations with Otrepiev, and, in the end, went over to his side.

“Surprising contemporaries, Basmanov’s case also surprises posterity. This man had a soul, as we shall see in the fateful hour of his life; did not believe the Pretender; so zealously denounced him and so courageously struck him under the walls of Novgorod Seversky; was showered with the favors of Boris, was awarded the entire power of attorney of Theodore, was chosen to be the savior of the Tsar and the Kingdom, with the right to their unlimited gratitude, with the hope of leaving a brilliant name in the annals - and fell at the feet of the defrocked in the form of a vile traitor? Can such an incomprehensible action be explained by the poor disposition of the army? Let's say that Basmanov, foreseeing the inevitable triumph of the Pretender, wanted to save himself from humiliation by accelerating treason: he wanted to give up both the army and the Kingdom to the deceiver, rather than be given to him by the rebels? But the regiments still swore by the name of God in fidelity to Theodore: with what new zeal could the Voevoda of goodness inspire them, by the power of his spirit and law, curbing the evil-minded? No, we believe the legend of the Chronicler that it was not a general betrayal that attracted Basmanov, but Basmanov made a general betrayal of the army. This ambitious without the rules of honor, greedy for the pleasures of the temporary worker, thought, probably, that the proud, envious relatives of Theodorovs would never yield to him the closest place to the throne, and that the Rootless Pretender, who was elevated to the Kingdom by him (Basmanov), would naturally be tied by gratitude and his own benefit. to the main culprit of their happiness: their fate became inseparable and who could outshine Basmanov with personal virtues? He knew other Boyars and himself: he didn’t only know that the strong in spirit fall like babies on the path of lawlessness! Basmanov probably would not have dared to betray Boris, who acted on the imagination with the long-term domination and brilliance of the great state mind: Theodore, weak in his youth and the news of statehood, instilled courage in a traitor armed with superstition to calm his heart: he could think that treason saves Russia from the hated oligarchy of the Godunovs, handing over the scepter to the Pretender, albeit to a man of low birth, but to a brave, intelligent, friend of the famous Polish Crown-bearer, and, as it were, chosen by Fate to perform a worthy revenge on the family of the holy-killer; could think that he would direct False Dmitry on the path of goodness and mercy: he would deceive Russia, but he would atone for this deceitful happiness! "

After Basmanov's betrayal, all hope of keeping Fyodor Godunov on the throne was lost. On June 1, 1604, messengers sent from Otrepiev were received in Moscow, where they read from the Execution Ground the impostor's appeal "to the Synclite, to the great nobles, dignitaries, clerks, military, merchant, middle and black people":

“You swore to my father not to betray his children and posterity forever and ever, but you took Godunov as Tsar. I do not reproach you: you thought that Boris killed me in my infancy; they did not know his cunning and did not dare to oppose the man who had already ruled under the rule of Theodore Ioannovich - he gave and executed whoever he wanted. Deceived by him, you did not believe that I, saved by God, was coming to you with love and meekness. Precious blood flowed ... But I regret that without anger: ignorance and fear excuse you. Fate has already been decided: the cities and my army. Will you dare to fight internecine to please Maria Godunova and her son? They do not feel sorry for Russia: they do not own theirs, but they own someone else's; they have fed the land of Severskaya with blood and want to ruin Moscow. Remember what happened from Godunov to you, Boyars, Voevods and all famous people: how much disgrace and unbearable dishonor? And you, Nobles and Boyarsky Children, what did you not endure in the burdensome services and in exile? And you, merchants and guests, how much oppression did you have in trade, and what immoderate duties did you burden? We want to bestow upon you unparalleled: Boyars and all dignitaries of honor and new fathers, Nobles and people ordered by mercy, guests and merchants with privilege in a continuous course of peaceful and quiet days. Do you dare to be adamant? But you will not get away from our Royal hand: I go and sit on my father's throne; I am going with a strong army, my own and Lithuanian, for not only Russians, but also foreigners willingly sacrifice my life. The most unfaithful Nogai wanted to follow me: I ordered them to stay in the steppes, sparing Russia. Fear death, temporary and eternal; fear the answer on the day of God's judgment: humble yourself, and immediately send the Metropolitans, Archbishops, Duma men, Great Nobles and Clerks, military and merchant people, to beat us with your foreheads, as your legitimate Tsar. "

The appeal, read from the Execution Grounds, caused great confusion among the people, and a pogrom began in Moscow. The rebels seized the Kremlin and imprisoned Fyodor Godunov, his sister Xenia, and Boris Godunov's widow Maria. The palace was plundered, like many wealthy houses in Moscow. The rebellion was pacified only after the rioters were threatened with disfavor of “Tsar Demetrius”. Supporters of the Godunovs were captured and sent to prisons in remote cities, including Patriarch Job, who was deposed and sent to the Staritsky Monastery. On June 10, Fyodor and Maria Godunov were secretly killed, and the people were told that they had committed suicide. Their bodies were buried in the monastery of St. Prokofy on Sretenka. The further fate of Ksenia Godunova is not exactly known, there are two versions. One by one, Xenia was killed along with her mother and brother; according to the second, she was imprisoned in the Vladimir monastery, where she remained until her death.

On June 20, False Dmitry entered Moscow. All the way to Moscow he was greeted by crowds of people who brought him bread and salt and rich gifts. Apparently, the people were quite sure that this was really Tsarevich Demetrius, their rightful king. After arriving in Moscow, False Dmitry demonstratively visited the Church of the Archangel Michael, in which John IV was buried, where “he shed tears and said:“ O kind parent! You left me orphaned and persecuted; but with your holy prayers I am whole and dominate! " In an effort to secure the support of the nobility by taking the throne, he first of all restored and rewarded many of those who had been repressed during the reign of Boris Godunov.

Strange as it may seem, the further actions of False Dmitry least of all resemble the actions of an adventurer concerned only with stuffing his pockets. He began to carry out government reforms.

The reforms carried out by False Dmitry were very extensive, and as far as can be judged, reminded the later reforms of Peter I. He declared freedom of trade, trades and crafts, canceling all previous restrictions. Following this, he eliminated "all sorts of constraints" for those who wanted to leave Russia, enter it or move freely around the country. There are testimonies of disinterested persons, the British, who wrote that "this was the first sovereign in Europe who made his state to such an extent free." Many were returned to the estates selected by John IV. Other princes were allowed to marry, which was forbidden at one time by the Godunovs for fear that there would be too many of those in whom the blood of Rurik was flowing. Penalties for bribes for judges were toughened, and legal proceedings were made free of charge. Foreigners who know crafts that may be useful to the state began to be invited to Russia in large numbers. In some ways, False Dmitry went even further than his predecessors: under the previous tsars, the highest Orthodox clergy was invited to the Boyar Duma only in exceptional cases, but False Dmitry gave the patriarch and bishops permanent positions there. According to the recollections of his contemporaries, the impostor presided over the Duma with visible interest and pleasure, where he solved complicated matters not without wit, and at the same time was not averse to reproaching the boyars for ignorance and offered to go to Europe to learn something useful there.

The new laws on servitude were very important. Under Godunov, a man who sold himself to be a slave, "by inheritance", along with other property, passed to the heirs of his master, moreover, all his offspring automatically became slaves. According to the decree of False Dmitry, this practice was canceled - with the death of the lord the servant received freedom, and only himself could sell himself into "bondage", his children remained free. In addition, it was decided that the landowners, who did not feed their peasants during the famine, did not dare to keep them on their lands any longer; and the landowner, who failed to catch his fugitive serf for five years, loses all rights to him.

It was False Dmitry who first began to make plans for the conquest of Crimea, which by that time had turned into a source of constant disasters for Russia. The accelerated production of weapons began, maneuvers were arranged - but with the death of False Dmitry, these plans were postponed for a long time.

Contrary to the assertions of pre-revolutionary official Russian historiography, it does not appear that False Dmitry was a puppet in the hands of Polish magnates. After False Dmitry took the throne, the Polish ambassador Gonsevsky arrived in Moscow, officially - to congratulate the new tsar on his accession to the throne. Unofficially, to remind him of the obligations given to Sigismund. However, False Dmitry refused from the territorial concessions that were once promised to the king, claiming that "he is still not firmly seated in the kingdom to make such decisions." Moreover, the impostor expressed his displeasure with the fact that the king titled him "Grand Duke" and demanded that in further correspondence he be called "the king of the emperor." In the diplomacy of the time, this was extremely important, and meant that Russia lay claim to a higher hierarchical position than the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Not surprisingly, this "little thing" has become the subject of heated debate. “Upon learning of such a proud demand, Sigismund expressed annoyance, and the Noble Pans reproached the recent tramp with ridiculous arrogance, evil ingratitude; and False Dmitry wrote to Warsaw that he had not forgotten the good offices of the Sigismundovs, that he honored him as a brother, as a father; wants to establish an alliance with him, but will not cease to demand the title of Caesar, although he does not think of threatening him with war for that. Prudent people, especially Mnishek and the Papal Nuncio, vainly argued to the Pretender that the King called him as the Polish Sovereigns always called the Sovereigns of Moscow, and that Sigismund could not change this habit without the consent of the ranks of the Republic. Others, no less prudent people, thought that the Republic should not quarrel for an empty name with a boastful friend who could be her instrument for pacifying the Swedes; but the Pans did not want to hear about the new title ... "

The same disappointment befell the emissaries of Pope Paul V, whose predecessor False Dmitry once promised the reunification of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. And in response to the Pope's letter, in which he reminded the impostor of the promises made to his predecessor Clement VIII, he completely ignored questions of faith, and instead offered the Pope a joint campaign against the Turks. “... The pretender in a courteous answer, boasting of the wonderful goodness of God to Him, having destroyed the villain, his patricide, did not say a word about the unification of the Churches, he spoke only of his magnanimous intention to live not in idleness, but together with the Emperor to go to the Sultan in order to erase the Power infidels from the face of the earth, convincing Paul V not to allow Rudolph to make peace with the Turks, for which he wanted to send his own Ambassador to Austria. False Dimitri also wrote to the Pope a second time, promising to bring security to his Missionaries on their way through Russia to Persia and to be faithful in the fulfillment of the word given to him; negotiations about the Turkish war, which he really conceived, captivated in the imagination by its glory and benefits. " It is clearly seen that False Dmitry, in a completely uncharacteristic manner for a temporary adventurer, thinks about the welfare of his state, and is actively involved in international politics. He is completely pragmatic, and questions of faith for him in second, if not in tenth place. “The Pope… but he had reason not to trust the Pretender’s zeal for the Latin Church, seeing how he avoids any clear word about the Law in his letters. It seems that the Pretender has grown cold in his zeal to make the Russians Papists, for, despite his inherent recklessness, he saw the danger of this ridiculous plan and would hardly have dared to start fulfilling it if he had reigned longer. "

5. Overthrow of False Dmitry I.

The reign of False Dmitry lasted less than a year, namely, 331 days. During his reign, a serious conspiracy was gossiped against him, led by Prince Shuisky and his brothers Dmitry and Ivan. It is noteworthy that this conspiracy was promptly revealed, and the conspirators were arrested, put on trial and sentenced, but then False Dmitry for some reason pardoned them, replacing the death penalty with exile and confiscation of property. The impostor's mercy cost him dearly in the future. “Here the whole area boiled in an indescribable movement of joy: they glorified the Tsar, as on the first day of his solemn entry into Moscow; the faithful adherents of the Pretender rejoiced, too, thinking that such mercy gives him a new right to love in common; only the most far-sighted of them were indignant, and they were not mistaken: could Shuisky have forgotten the torture and the chopping block? " To complete his mistake, after six months from the date of the verdict, False Dmitry returned Shuisky and others from exile, taking from him a "written commitment of fidelity." Shuisky, of course, did not forgive him the fear and humiliation he had experienced, and embarked on conspiracies with renewed vigor. Peter Basmanov, loyal to False Dmitry to the end, repeatedly informed him of the signs of an impending rebellion, but he did nothing in response. “On Thursday, May 15, some Russians reported to Basmanov about the conspiracy. Basmanov reported to the tsar. “I don’t want to hear that,” said Demetrius, “I don’t tolerate informers and will punish them themselves.”

On May 17, 1606, a rebellion began in Moscow, led by Prince Vasily Shuisky. “On May 17, at four o'clock in the afternoon, the most beautiful of spring, the rising sun illuminated the terrible alarm of the capital: they first struck the bell at St. Elijah, near the courtyard of the living room, and at one time the alarm went off in whole Moscow, and residents rushed from their houses to Krasnaya square with spears, swords, samopalami, Noblemen, Boyarsky children, archers, clerks and merchants, citizens and the mob. There, near the place of execution, Boyars were sitting on horses, in helmets and armor, in full armor, and representing their fatherland, they were waiting for the people. " False Dmitry was blocked in the Kremlin, Basmanov with a small detachment of German mercenary bodyguards tried to protect him. According to eyewitnesses, in despair he turned to False Dmitry with the words: “It's all over! Moscow is rebelling, they want your head, save yourself! You didn't believe me! "

“The False Dimitri himself, showing courage, snatched the reed from Schwarzgof's bodyguard, opened the door in the hallway and, threatening the people, shouted:“ I’m not Godunov for you! ” Shots were answered and the Germans locked the door again; but there were only 50 of them, and also, in the inner rooms of the palace, 20 or 30 Poles, servants and musicians: other defenders, in this terrible hour, did not have the one to whom millions had obeyed the day before! But False Dmitry had another friend: not finding the opportunity to resist force by force, at that moment when the people were beating off the doors, Basmanov went out to him a second time - he saw Boyar in the crowd, and between them the closest people were unstripped: Princes Golitsyn, Mikhail Saltykov, old and new traitors; wanted to convince them; talked about the horror of rebellion, treachery, anarchy; convinced them to change their minds; vouched for the King's mercy. But he was not allowed to say much: Mikhailo Tatishchev, who was saved by him from exile, yelled: “villain! go to hell with your King! " and stabbed him in the heart. Basmanov gave up his ghost, and the dead was thrown from the porch "

Trying to escape, False Dmitry jumped out the window, but broke his leg and was discovered by the guard archers. Apparently, the archers and other people who turned out to be at the same time were not so sure that he was really an impostor, because they helped him: “... they took the uncut, planted on the foundation of Godunovsky's broken palace, poured water, expressed pity . " However, False Dmitry did not lose his presence of mind, and demanded from the people gathered around him, among whom were the participants in the conspiracy, to bring the widow of John IV Martha Nagoya, who would testify that he really was Demetrius. He also demanded that he be taken to Execution Ground, and there he was publicly accused of imposture. “Noise and scream drowned out the speeches; they only heard how they assure that the defrocked to the question: "who are you, the villain?" answered: "you know: I am Demetrius" - and referred to the Tsarina-Nun; We heard that Prince Ivan Golitsyn objected to him: "We already know her testimony: she is putting you to death." We also heard that the Pretender said: "Take me to the place of execution: there I will declare the truth to all people." Impatient people were pounding at the door, asking if the villain was to blame? He was told that he was guilty - and two shots ended the interrogation along with Otrepiev's life. "

CM. Soloviev sets out the following version of what happened: "While waiting for an answer from Martha, the conspirators did not want to be left alone and, with curses and beatings, asked False Dmitry:" Who are you? Who is your father? Where are you from? " He answered: "You all know that I am your king, the son of Ivan Vasilyevich. Ask my mother about me or take me to Execution Ground and let me explain." Then Prince Ivan Vasilyevich Golitsyn appeared and said that he had been with Queen Martha, asked: she says that her son was killed in Uglich, and this is an impostor. These words told the people with the addition that Demetrius himself was guilty of his imposture and that the Naked confirmed the testimony of Martha. Then shouts were heard from everywhere: "Hit him! Cut him!" The boyar's son Grigory Valuev jumped out of the crowd and shot at Demetrius, saying: "What to interpret with a heretic: here I will bless the Polish whistler!" Others killed the unfortunate man and threw his corpse from the porch onto Basmanov's body, saying: "You loved him alive, do not part with the dead either." Then the rabble took possession of the corpses and, exposing them, dragged them through the Spassky Gate to Red Square; Having caught up with the Ascension Monastery, the crowd stopped and asked Martha: "Is this your son?" She replied: "You would have asked me about this when he was still alive, now he is, of course, not mine."

After the murder of False Dmitry, a pogrom of foreigners, primarily Poles, began in Moscow. More than a thousand people were killed, not only Poles, but also Germans, Italians, and Russians who turned up at the wrong time. The pogrom ended only the next day, at 11 o'clock in the morning.

“Then Basmanov was buried at the church of St. Nicholas the Mokroi, and the impostor was buried in a wretched house outside the Serpukhov Gate, but there were various rumors: they said that severe frosts were due to the magic of the uncut, that miracles were happening over his grave; then they dug his corpse, burned it in the Cauldrons and, having mixed the ashes with gunpowder, fired them from a cannon in the direction from which he came. " Thus ended the short reign of False Dmitry.

According to the testimony of the German pastor Ber, a certain old man who was in Uglich a servant at the Tsarevich's court, when asked whether the murdered one was really Tsarevich Dimitri, answered this way: “The Muscovites swore allegiance to him and broke their oath: I do not praise them. A reasonable and brave man was killed, but not the son of Ioann, who was really stabbed to death in Uglich: I saw him dead, lying in the place where he always played. God is the judge of our Princes and Boyars: time will tell whether we will be happier. " Happier, however, did not become, as further events showed.

Who was False Dmitry really? The generally accepted version, it is also the official one, is that the fugitive deacon Otrepiev was posing as Tsarevich Dimitri. However, for example, N.I. Kostomarov objects to this in the following way: “First, if the named Dimitri was a fugitive monk Otrepiev, who fled from Moscow in 1602, then he could not have learned the techniques of the then Polish nobleman for two years. We know that the one who reigned under the name of Dimitrius rode excellently, danced gracefully, shot well, deftly wielded a saber and perfectly knew the Polish language: even in Russian, he could not hear a Moscow accent. Finally, on the day of his arrival in Moscow, applying himself to the images, he aroused the attention by his inability to do this with such methods as were customary among natural Muscovites. Secondly, the named Tsar Demetrius brought Grigory Otrepiev with him and showed him to the people. Subsequently, they said that this was not the real Gregory: some explained that it was a monk of the Krypetsky monastery, Leonidas, others that it was the monk Pimen. But Grigory Otrepiev was not at all such a little-known person that one could substitute another in his place. Grigory Otrepiev was a clerk of the cross (secretary) of Patriarch Job, with him he went with papers to the tsarist duma. All the boyars knew him by sight. Gregory lived in the Chudov Monastery, in the Kremlin, where Paphnutius was the archimandrite. It goes without saying that if the named tsar were Grigory Otrepiev, he would most of all have to avoid this Paphnutius and, above all, would try to get rid of him. But the Chudovsky Archimandrite Paphnutius during the entire reign of the named Demetrius was a member of the Senate he established and, therefore, saw the tsar almost every day. And finally, thirdly, in the Zagorovsky monastery (in Volhynia) there is a book with the signature of Grigory Otrepiev; this signature has not the slightest resemblance to the handwriting of the named Tsar Demetrius. " And further: ““ The very method of his deposition and death proves as clearly as possible that it was impossible to convict him not only of being Grigory Otrepiev, but even of imposture in general. Why kill him? Why didn't they treat him exactly as he asked: why didn't they take him out to the square, didn't they summon the one he called his mother? Why did they not present their accusations against him to the people? Why, finally, did they not summon Otrepiev's mother, brothers and uncle, gave them a confrontation with the tsar, and caught him? Почему не призвали архимандрита Пафнутия, не собрали чудовских чернецов и вообще всех знавших Отрепьева и не уличили его? That is how many extremely powerful means were in the hands of his killers, and they did not use any of them! Instead, they distracted the people, spurred him on to the Poles, they themselves killed the tsar in a crowd, and then announced that he was Grishka Otrepiev, and explained everything dark, incomprehensible in this matter by witchcraft and devilish seduction. "

The captain of foreign mercenaries Jacques Margeret, who personally knew False Dmitry, wrote about him in his memoirs: “He shone with a certain greatness that cannot be expressed in words, and never before seen among the Russian nobility and even less among people of low origin, to whom he inevitably had to belong, if it were not for the son of John Vasilyevich. " This means that he doubted that False Dmitry was Grigory Otrepiev.

Later, in the 19th century, a hypothesis appeared that False Dmitry was an unconscious tool in the hands of a certain boyar group (most likely - the Romanovs), which, having found a young man approximately suitable in age, assured him that he was the son of John who had miraculously escaped from the murderers. IV, sent him to Poland, after which she paralyzed the resistance of the government troops with finely calculated maneuvers, prepared the Muscovites, killed Godunov along with his wife and son, and later, when False Dmitry began to interfere with them, eliminated him. This hypothesis is supported by the actions taken by False Dmitry during his reign - absolutely everything in them says that he was going to rule seriously and for a long time, that he himself was confident in his rights to the throne. Even his phrase “I’m not Godunov for you!”, Shouted out by him in the heat of the battle, may mean that, unlike Godunov who appeared out of nowhere in the kingdom of Godunov, he himself has all the rights to the throne and is not going to give them to anyone. And even falling into the hands of the rebels, he does not lose his presence of mind, does not beg for mercy, but firmly demands that he be given the opportunity to turn to the people, to his mother, and to other people who could confirm his rights.

But, probably, now no one will ever know exactly how everything was in reality.

6. The accession of Vasily Shuisky

It can be assumed that Shuisky started a rebellion not only to settle accounts with False Dmitry, but also with a more far-reaching goal. “It was easy to foresee who would take this spoil by force and right. The bravest denouncer of the Pretender, miraculously saved from execution and still fearless in a new effort to overthrow him: the culprit, the Hero, the head of the popular uprising, the Prince from the tribe of Rurik, St. Vladimir, Monomakh, Alexander Nevsky; the second Boyarin with a place in the Duma, the first with the love of Muscovites and personal virtues, Vasily Shuisky could still remain a simple courtier and, after such courage, with such a celebrity, start a new service of flattery in front of some new Godunov? " In other words, he foresaw in advance that he would be the most likely candidate for the empty throne (as the most noble one, and generally glorified himself by ridding the country of the impostor). “Having strength, having the right, Shuisky also used all sorts of tricks: he gave instructions to friends and adherents, what to say in the Synclite and on the place of execution, how to act and rule minds; he prepared himself, and the next morning, having assembled the Duma, he uttered, as they say, a very clever and crafty speech: he glorified the mercy of God to Russia, exalted by the autocrats of the Varangian tribe; especially praised the mind and conquests of John IV, albeit cruel; boasted of his brilliant service and important State experience, acquired by him in this active reign; depicted the weakness of John's heir, the evil lust for power of Godunov, all the misfortunes of his time and the people's hatred of the holy killer, which was the fault of the False Dmitry's successes and forced Boyars to follow the common movement. " The few voices that said that it was necessary to assemble the Zemsky Sobor, and that it was impossible to elect a new tsar by the Boyar Duma alone, were quickly and effectively silenced. On May 19, Vasily Shuisky was elected king.

Vasily Shuisky, on which both Karamzin and Klyuchevsky agree, was, apparently, an unpleasant person. “He was an elderly, 54-year-old boyar of small stature, nondescript, half-blind, not stupid person, but more cunning than clever, utterly lying and intrigued, having gone through fire and water, having seen the chopping block and did not try it only by the grace of an impostor, against whom he acted surreptitiously, a great head-hunter and very much intimidated by sorcerers. He opened his reign with a number of letters published throughout the state, and each of these manifestos contained at least one lie. ... Nevertheless, the accession of Prince. Basil constituted an era in our political history. Ascending the throne, he limited his power, and the conditions of this limitation were formally stated in a note sent to the regions, on which he kissed the cross on accession. "

The last point is very important - Vasily Shuisky with this "record" limited the power of the autocrat, which was not previously seen in Russian history. Among other things, the tsar undertook in it the obligation "do not lay your disgrace without fault." As an expression of the master's will of the sovereign, the disgrace did not need justification, and under the previous kings it sometimes took the form of wild arbitrariness, turning from a disciplinary measure into a criminal punishment. Under John IV, a mere doubt of dedication to duty could bring the disgraced to the scaffold. Thus, Vasily Shuisky made a bold vow (which later, however, did not fulfill) to apply disciplinary punishments only for specific offenses, which, by the way, still had to be proven through a court.

In addition, the "record" said that anonymous denunciations would no longer be accepted for consideration, that a knowingly false denunciation would be punished "depending on the fault of the accused" (that is, depending on the severity of the false accusation), that cases about criminal offenses (punishable by death and confiscation of property) will be considered by the tsar's court together with the Boyar Duma. In other words, the "record" was aimed at protecting the personal and property security of subjects from arbitrariness from above.

“... Tsar Vasily renounced three prerogatives in which this personal power of the Tsar was most clearly expressed. Those were: 1) "disgraced without guilt", tsarist disfavor without sufficient reason, at personal discretion; 2) confiscation of property from the family and relatives of the criminal not involved in the crime - by renouncing this right, the old institution of political responsibility of the clan for relatives was abolished; finally, 3) an extraordinary investigative and police court on denunciations with torture and slander, but without confrontations, testimony and other means of the normal process. These prerogatives constituted the essential content of the power of the Moscow sovereign, expressed in the words of Ivan III: to whom I want, that I will give reign, and in the words of Ivan IV: we are free to grant our servants and we are free to execute them. Shaking off these prerogatives with an oath, Vasily Shuisky turned from a sovereign of slaves into a legitimate king of his subjects, ruling according to the laws. "

The reason for such a progressive step was, apparently, not the high personal qualities of Vasily Shuisky, but the simple fact that Shuisky's power did not even have the dubious legitimacy that the power of False Dmitry possessed, and certainly not the one that the power possessed. Boris Godunov, called to the kingdom by the Zemsky Sobor. Shuisky was nothing more than a creature of the Boyar Duma, a narrow circle of aristocracy, and he perfectly understood that he could be removed from the throne as easily as he was appointed to it. For this reason, he was forced to seek support in the zemstvo. “Having pledged to his comrades on the eve of the uprising against the impostor to rule by general advice with them, thrown into the earth by a circle of noble boyars, he was a boyar king, a party king, forced to look out of the hands of others. Naturally, he was looking for the Zemstvo support for his incorrect power and in the Zemstvo Cathedral he hoped to find a counterbalance to the Boyar Duma. Swearing an oath to the whole land not to punish without a council, he hoped to get rid of the boyar guardianship, become a zemstvo tsar and limit his power to an institution that was not accustomed to that, that is, to free it from any real limitation. "

In an effort to convince the people of the illegitimacy of the previous reign, Shuisky sent letters to the regions on his own behalf, in which he announced the death of False Dmitry, with an accurate statement of the reasons, in particular, he announced the papers found in the impostor. "Many exiled thieves from Poland and Lithuania about the ruin of the Moscow state were taken in his mansion." However, nothing was said about the content of these "letters" in Shuisky's letters. Shuisky also cites evidence of the impostor's promises given to Mnishek and King Sigismund about territorial concessions to Poland, and concludes: “Hearing and seeing that, we praise the almighty God that we have delivered from such villainy”. Also, on behalf of Martha Nagoya, a second letter was sent out, which said: “He called himself the son of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich with witchcraft and witchcraft, deceived many people in Poland and Lithuania with demonic darkness, and frightened us and our relatives with death; I told the boyars, the nobles to all the people before secretly, but now it is clear to everyone that he is not our son, Tsarevich Dimitri, a thief, apostate, heretic. And when he came from Putivl to Moscow with his witchcraft and witchcraft, knowing his theft, he did not send for us for a long time, but sent his advisers to us and ordered them to take care of them so that no one would come to us and no one with us about him did not speak. And how he ordered us to bring us to Moscow, and he was with us alone at the meeting, but the boyars and other people with him did not order to let us in and told us with a great prohibition so that I would not denounce him, opposing us and our entire family to mortals murder, so that we would not bring our evil death on ourselves and on the whole family, and he put me in a monastery, and assigned his advisers to me, and ordered him to be very careful, so that his theft would not be obvious, and I declare to threaten him among the people obviously did not dare his theft. " It is noteworthy that the names of the "advisers" are not indicated, which may mean the following: either these advisers did not exist at all, or after the coup these advisers became so powerful that it was impossible to reveal their names. It is known that False Dmitry sent Prince Skopin-Shuisky for Martha, who for some reason not only did not undergo any reprisals after the overthrow of False Dmitry, but also continued a successful career at court - for example, he went to the head of the embassy to the King of Sweden, and subsequently commanded the troops that fought with False Dmitry II. Probably, during the reign of False Dmitry, he remained the man of Prince Shuisky, and probably took an active part in the conspiracy directed against him.

Contrary to expectations, these letters not only did not convince the people of anything, but also gave rise to new doubts. “It is easy to imagine what impression these announcements of Shuisky, Queen Martha and the boyars should have made on many residents of Moscow itself, and mainly on residents of the regions! Inevitably, there were many who might have thought it strange how the thief Grishka Otrepiev could deceive all Moscow rulers with his witchcraft and witchcraft? Recently the people were informed that the new king is the true Demetrius; now they are assuring the opposite, they are assuring that Dimitri threatened the destruction of the Orthodox faith, wanted to share Russian lands with Poland, they declare that he died for this, but how did he die? - it remains a secret; announce that a new king has been elected, but how and by whom? - unknown: none of the regional residents was at this meeting, it was committed without the knowledge of the land; Soviet people were not sent to Moscow, who, having arrived from there, could satisfy the curiosity of their fellow citizens, tell them the matter in detail, resolve all perplexities. The strangeness, darkness of the event being announced necessarily gave rise to bewilderment, doubt, distrust, especially since the new tsar sat on the throne secretly from the ground, in violation of the form already consecrated, already become antiquity. Until now, the regions believed Moscow, recognized every word that came to them from Moscow, immutable, but now Moscow clearly admits that the sorcerer deceived her with demonic darkness; the question was necessarily born: are not the Muscovites also overshadowed by Shuisky? Until now, Moscow has been the focal point towards which all regions have been drawn; the link between Moscow and the regions was the trust in the authorities in it; now this trust has been broken, and the connection has weakened, the state has become muddled; faith, once shaken, led inevitably to superstition: having lost political faith in Moscow, they began to believe everything and everything, especially when people began to come to the region, dissatisfied with the coup and the man who made it, when they began to tell that the matter was different than how announced in Shuisky's letters. It was then that, in fact, a demonic overshadowing for the whole state came, the overshadowing produced by the spirit of lies, produced by a dark and unclean deed, perfect secretly from the earth. " In other words, the legitimacy of the established government was a big question for the people, which led to further events, exacerbating the coming turmoil.

7. The uprising of Bolotnikov and the appearance of False Dmitry II.

On the day of the death of False Dmitry, one of his confidants, Mikhail Molchanov, managed to escape from Moscow. On the way, he spread rumors that another person was actually killed in Moscow, but in fact Dimitri escaped, and intends to return to Moscow to punish the usurper Shuisky. These rumors, apparently widespread, were used by another close associate of False Dmitry - Prince Grigory Shakhovskoy, sent by Shuisky into honorary exile by the governor in Putivl. Considering that Putivl had been serving False Dmitry as the main base for a long time, he could not think of anything worse than that. Once in Putivl, Shakhovskoy immediately announced that Demetrius was alive, after which Putivl and many other Seversk cities rebelled against Vasily Shuisky. Unrest began in Moscow itself.

For the success of the rebellion, Shakhovsky absolutely needed a new "Tsarevich Dimitri", who would become the banner for the uprising. Mikhail Molchanov was offered to become the new Dimitri, but he refused, probably because he was too well known among the people. However, it was Molchanov who found the right person - Ivan Bolotnikov, a man of a difficult fate. In his youth, he was Prince Telyatevsky's "fighting slave", that is, a hired soldier in the squad. Somehow he was captured by the Tatars, and was sold by them into slavery to the Turks. For several years he was a rower in a Turkish gallery. In a skirmish with a Venetian warship, his galley was captured, and all Christian rowers were freed. Having received his freedom, Bolotnikov was just making his way from Venice through Poland to Russia, and on the way he got into the camp of Molchanov.

Bolotnikov also did not fit into the “Tsarevich Dimitrii”, possibly because of his age, so it was decided to make him a “Tsar's attorney”. “Bolotnikov ... was introduced to Molchanov, who saw him as a useful person for his cause, gave him a gift and sent him with a letter to Putivl to Prince Shakhovsky, who accepted him as a tsarist attorney and gave command over a detachment of troops. The slave Bolotnikov immediately found a means to increase his squad and strengthen the impostor's cause in a pre-perished ukraine: he turned to his own people, promising will, wealth and honor under the banner of Demetrius, and robbers, thieves who had found refuge in the ukraine, fugitive slaves and peasants, Cossacks, the townspeople and archers joined them, they began to grab the governors in the cities and put them in prisons; peasants and slaves began to attack the homes of their masters, ravaged them, robbed ... ".

An attempt by government troops to restore order was unsuccessful. “Then the boyar prince Ivan Mikhailovich Vorotynsky laid siege to Yelets, the steward prince Yuri Trubetskoy - Kromy, but Bolotnikov came to the rescue of Krom: from 1300 people he attacked 5000 of the tsar's army and utterly defeated Trubetskoy; the winners - the Cossacks mocked the vanquished, called their king Shuisky a fur coat. The Moscow army was not zealous to Vasily anyway, therefore, it was already morally weakened; Bolotnikov's victory took away his last spirit; the service people, seeing the general confusion, general hesitation, did not want to fight for Shuisky anymore and began to disperse to their homes; Voevods Vorotynsky and Trubetskoy, exhausted by this departure, could not do anything decisive and went back. With a state of mind that prevailed then in the Moscow state, with general precariousness, uncertainty, and a lack of a foothold, in such a state the first success, no matter which side it was on, had important consequences, for it carried away the indecisive crowd, eager to get carried away, to stick to something. be that as it may, rely on whatever, just to get out of an indecisive state, which for every person and for society is a grave, intolerable state. As soon as they learned that the tsarist army had retreated, the uprising in the south became widespread. "

The mainstay of Bolotnikov's army was the Komaritskaya volost, where by that time many Cossacks had accumulated, who supported False Dmitry I. From Krom Bolotnikov set off on his campaign to Moscow in the summer of 1606. In his army, like the army of False Dmitry I, in addition to the Cossacks, peasants and townspeople, there were many nobles, led by Prokofy Lyapunov. The governors of Putivl (Shakhovskoy) and Chernigov (Telyatevsky) announced that they were subordinate to the “tsarist governor” Bolotnikov. Acting in this capacity, Bolotnikov defeated government troops near Yelets, occupied Kaluga, Tula, Serpukhov, and in October 1606 came close to Moscow, stopping at the village of Kolomenskoye.

Bolotnikov's position, however, was made difficult by the fact that he was, as it were, a voivode with no one. The appearance of "Tsarevich Demetrius", due to the lack of a suitable candidate, did not happen. “Bolotnikov's position with his comrades was, however, very difficult: the long absence of the proclaimed Demetrius took the spirit away from his conscientious adherents; in vain Shakhovskoy begged Molchanov to appear in Putivl under the name of Dimitri: he did not agree. " Finally, after a battle with government forces, Bolotnikov suffered a heavy defeat and retreated to Kaluga. An important role in this was played by the betrayal of the noble detachments. “Fortunately for Shuisky, a split appeared in the horde of Bolotnikov. The noblemen and boyar children, dissatisfied with the fact that slaves and peasants wanted to be equal to them, not seeing Dimitri, who could resolve disputes between them, began to be convinced that Bolotnikov was deceiving them, and began to retreat from him. The Lyapunov brothers were the first to set an example for this retreat, arrived in Moscow and bowed to Shuisky, although they did not tolerate him. Bolotnikov was recaptured by Skopin-Shuisky and fled to Kaluga. "

He managed to escape from besieged Kaluga with the help of a new ally, "Tsarevich Peter" - another impostor who called himself the son of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, who never existed. He came to Bolotnikov's aid at the head of a detachment of Cossacks. “A new impostor appeared, a native of Muromets, the illegitimate son of the" posadskaya wife, "Ileyka, who used to walk along the Volga in barge haulers. He called himself Tsarevich Peter, the unprecedented son of Tsar Fyodor; with the Volga Cossacks he joined Bolotnikov. "

Having broken the blockade, Bolotnikov, together with "Tsarevich Peter", retreated to Tula, but there he was besieged. After a three-month siege, Tula was taken. “Some Muromets Bag Kravkov made a gat across the Upa River and flooded the whole of Tula: the besieged surrendered. Shuisky, promising Bolotnikov mercy, ordered him to gouge out his eyes and then drown him. They hanged the named Peter; ordinary captives were thrown into the water by the hundreds, but the boyars, princes Telyatevsky and Shakhovsky, who were with Bolotnikov, were left alive. "

"Tsarevich Demetrius", however, continued to multiply. Most of them disappeared without leaving a special trace of themselves. But one of them, later named False Dmitry II or "Tushino thief", almost managed to repeat the success of his predecessor.

“... Instead of the hanged named Peter, several princes appeared. Tsarevich August appeared in Astrakhan, calling himself the unprecedented son of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich from his wife Anna Koltovskaya; then Tsarevich Lavrenty, also the unprecedented son of Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich, who had been killed by his father, appeared there. Eight princes appeared in Ukrainian cities, calling themselves different unprecedented sons of Tsar Fedor (Fedor, Erofei, Clementy, Savely, Semyon, Vasily, Gavrilo, Martyn). All these princes disappeared as quickly as they appeared. But the long-awaited Demetrius finally appeared in the Seversk land and, in the spring of 1608, with the Polish freemen and the Cossacks moved to Moscow. His business was going well. The warriors cheated on Shuisky and fled from the battlefield. The new impostor, at the beginning of July 1608, established his camp in Tushino, from which he received from his opponents the name Tushino thief, which remained behind him in history. Russian cities and lands, one after another, recognized him. His horde increased every hour. "

“A man famous in our history under the name of Tushinsky thief, or just a thief, a thief for the most part, appeared for the first time in the Belarusian town of Propoisk, where he was captured as a spy and sent to prison. Here he announced that he was Andrei Andreevich Nagoy, a relative of Tsar Demetrius who was killed in Moscow, was hiding from Shuisky, and asked to be sent to Starodub. Ragoza, a Chechersk sergeant, with the consent of his Pan Zenovich, the head of Chechersk, sent him to Popova Gora, from where he made his way to Starodub. Having lived for a short time in Starodub, the imaginary Nagoy sent his comrade, who was called the Moscow clerk Alexander Rukin, to divulge through the Seversky cities that Tsar Dimitri was alive and was in Starodub. In Putivl, residents paid attention to Rukin's speeches and sent several boyar children with him to Starodub to show them Tsar Demetrius, and they threatened him with torture if he was lying. Rukin pointed to Naked; At first he began to lock himself up, that he did not know anything about Tsar Demetrius, but when the Starodubtsy threatened him with torture and wanted to take him, he grabbed a stick and shouted: "Oh, you kids, you don’t know me yet: I’m sovereign ! " The Starodubtsy fell at his feet and shouted: "We are guilty, sir, before you."

Having recruited an army with Polish support, in January 1608 False Dmitry II undertook a campaign against Moscow, and in the summer of the same year he approached Moscow, stopping in the village of Tushino. Some time later, Marina Mnishek also arrived there, after long persuasion she nevertheless recognized her husband as a "Tushino thief". Apparently, unlike False Dmitry I, the "Tushino thief" was an obedient puppet in the hands of the Polish gentry. "Standing" in Tushino lasted 21 months.

8. Polish intervention.

Vasily Shuisky, finally convinced that he could not cope with False Dmitry II on his own, in 1609 concluded an agreement with Sweden in Vyborg, according to which Russia renounced its claims to the Baltic coast, and Sweden sent its troops to Russia to fight the impostor.

“At the end of February 1609, steward Golovin and clerk Sydavny Zinoviev concluded an agreement with Charles IX's attorneys: the king undertook to release two thousand cavalry and three thousand infantry of the mercenary army to help Shuisky, and in addition to these mercenaries, he undertook to send an indefinite number of troops as a sign friendship for the king. For this help, Shuisky renounced the rights to Livonia for himself and his children and heirs. Shuisky also pledged for himself and for the heirs to be in permanent alliance with the king and his heirs against Sigismund of Poland and his heirs, and both sovereigns pledged not to conclude a separate peace with Sigismund, but if one of them makes peace with Poland, he must immediately make peace with her. and his ally, "and not to shield each other in a peaceful resolution," Shuisky undertook, in case of need, to send to the king as many military men, hired and penniless, as in the present case the king sends to him, and the wages of the hired should be exactly the same . "

In response, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which was in the war with Sweden, declared war on Russia. In the fall of 1609, the Polish army laid siege to Smolensk, and the Polish troops stationed in Tushino were ordered to withdraw there. The Tushino camp disintegrated, the False Dmitry II was no longer needed by the Polish gentry, who went over to open intervention. False Dmitry II fled to Kaluga.

Without taking Smolensk, which heroically defended for more than 20 months, the Polish army moved to Moscow. A united Russian-Swedish army under the command of Dmitry Shuisky (the king's brother) and De la Gardie (the commander of the Swedish mercenaries) opposed him. The morale of the army was low, in addition, the experienced commander Skopin-Shuisky had died shortly before that under not entirely clear circumstances. Many blamed Vasily Shuisky for this death. “On April 23, Prince Skopin, at the christening of Prince Ivan Mikhailovich Vorotynsky, fell ill with nosebleeds and died after a two-week illness. There was a general rumor about the poison: they knew the hatred of his deceased uncle, Prince Dmitry, and they began to point to him as a poisoner; crowds of people were moving towards the house of the king's brother, but were driven away by the army. As for the fidelity of the rumor about the poison, Russian contemporaries are far from a decisive accusation; the chronicler says: "Many people in Moscow said that his aunt, Princess Catherine, the wife of Prince Dmitry Shuisky (daughter of Malyuta Skuratov, sister of Queen Marya Grigorievna Godunova), ruined him, but truly that only God knows." Palitsyn says in almost the same words: "We do not know how to say whether God's judgment has comprehended him or whether the intent of evil people has been accomplished? The one who created us knows." Zholkevsky, who, while living in Moscow, had all the means to find out the truth, rejects the accusation, attributing Skopin's death to illness. This important testimony refutes the testimony of another foreigner, Bussov, who was not disposed to Tsar Basil. The Pskov chronicler, who for reasons known to us also did not like Shuisky, speaks in the affirmative about the poison, tells in detail how the wife of Dmitry Shuisky at the feast herself brought Skopin a bowl containing the poison. "

On June 23, 1610, a battle took place between the Polish and the united Russian-Swedish armies, in which the Russian army suffered a terrible defeat.

“According to this news, Sigismund sent an army to Moscow under the command of the crown hetman Zolkiewski. Shuisky's army, about thirty thousand, moved to Mozhaisk; with him was De la Gardie with his army, consisting of people of different nations. There were many recruits in the Moscow army who were marching into battle for the first time. No one wanted to protect Tsar Vasily. The enemies met on June 23 between Moscow and Mozhaisk, near the village of Klushino. From the first pressure of the Poles, the Moscow cavalry fled, crushed the infantry: the foreigners, who were under the command of Delagardie, rebelled and began to be handed over to the enemy. Then the commanders of the Moscow army, Dimitri Shuisky, Golitsyn, Mezetsky, fled into the forest, and after them all rushed scatteringly. Zholkiewski got the carriage of Dimitri Shuisky, his saber, mace, banner, a lot of money and furs, which Dimitri intended to distribute to the army of De la Gardie, but did not have time. De la Gardie, abandoned by his subordinates, expressed a desire to talk with Hetman Zolkiewski, and when the Hetman came to him, De la Gardie persuaded him to agree to leave the Moscow state without hindrance. “Our failure,” said De la Gardie, “stems from the inability of the Russians and the treachery of my hired soldiers. The path to Moscow was opened for the Polish invaders; Mozhaisk, Volokolamsk and other cities surrendered without resistance. Among the boyars, the opinion began to grow stronger that Vasily Shuisky was incapable of being a king and should be removed from the throne. Boyarin Zakhar Lyapunov said at a meeting of supporters: “Our state is reaching final ruin. There are Poles and Lithuania, here is a Kaluga thief, but they don't like Tsar Vasily. He has not truly sat on the throne and is unhappy in the kingdom. We will beat him with the forehead so that he leaves the throne, and we will send to the people of Kaluga to tell them that they will betray their thief; and we will jointly choose another king over the whole land and stand with one mind against every enemy. " The entourage of False Dmitry II, in response to the message of the conspirators, promised to extradite him on the condition that Vasily Shuisky would be deposed. "The Russians who were with the thief said:" Take Shuisky, and we will tie up our Dimitri and bring him to Moscow. "

9. Deposition of Vasily Shuisky and the "Seven Boyars".

On July 17, 1610, a delegation of boyars, led by Zakhar Lyapunov, came to the tsar. Lyapunov turned to the tsar as follows: “How long will Christian blood be shed for you? The earth is empty, nothing good is being done during your reign, take pity on our death, put down the royal staff, and we will somehow provide for ourselves. " Shuisky was already accustomed to such scenes, and seeing a crowd of insignificant people in front of him, he thought to scare them with a shout, and therefore answered Lyapunov with swear words: “You dare to say this to me when the boyars don't tell me anything like that,” and he took out a knife. to further terrorize the rebels.

“... Zakhar Lyapunov was difficult to frighten, abuse and threats could only arouse him to something like that. Lyapunov was a tall, strong man; Hearing the abuse, seeing Shuisky's menacing movement, he shouted to him: "Don't touch me: as I take you in my hands, I will doubt everything!" But Lyapunov's comrades did not share his fever: seeing that Shuisky was not frightened and did not voluntarily yield to their demand, Khomutov and Ivan Nikitich Saltykov shouted: "Let's get out of here!" - and went straight to Execution Ground. Moscow had already learned that something was being done in the Kremlin, and crowds after crowds were pouring down to Lobnoye, so when the patriarch arrived there and it was necessary to explain what was the matter, the people no longer fit in the square. Then Lyapunov, Khomutov and Saltykov shouted that everyone should go to a spacious place, beyond the Moskva River, to the Serpukhov gate, and the patriarch was to go there with them. Here the boyars, nobles, guests and the best merchants advised the Moscow state not to be ruined and plundered: Poles and Lithuania came under the Muscovite state, and on the other hand, a Kaluga thief with the Russian people, and the Muscovite state on both sides became cramped. ... The boyars and all sorts of people were sentenced: to beat the Tsar Vasily Ivanovich with a forehead, so that he, the sovereign, would leave the kingdom so that much blood was shedding, and the people say that he, the sovereign, is unhappy and the Ukrainian cities, which retreated to the thief, his, sovereign, they do not want the kingdom. There was no resistance among the people, few boyars resisted, but not for long, the patriarch resisted, but they did not listen to him. The royal brother-in-law, Prince Ivan Mikhailovich Vorotynsky, went to the palace to ask Vasily to leave the state and take Nizhny Novgorod as his inheritance. Vasily had to agree to this request, announced by the boyar on behalf of the entire Moscow people, and went with his wife to his former boyar house. "

On July 19, Zakhar Lyapunov picked up comrades with whom he came to the house of Vasily Shuisky. He was separated from his wife, who was sent to the Ascension Monastery, and Shuisky himself was told that he should be tonsured a monk.

"People of Moscow, what have I done to you," said Shuisky. "What offense did you commit? Is it to me that I took revenge on those who indignant against our Orthodox faith and wanted to destroy the house of God?" He was told that he needed to get a haircut. Shuisky flatly said that he didn’t want to. Then the hieromonks were ordered to perform the ceremony of tonsure, and when, according to the ceremony, they asked him: does he wish? Vasily shouted loudly: "I don't want to"; but Prince Tyufyakin, one of Lyapunov's accomplices, made a promise for him, and Lyapunov held Vasily's hands tightly so that he would not wave it off. They dressed him in monastic dress and took him to the Chudov Monastery "

The supreme government passed to the boyar council under the chairmanship of Prince Fyodor Mstislavsky. This is a government consisting of seven boyars and princes (Prince Fyodor Ivanovich Mstislavsky, Prince Ivan Mikhailovich Vorotynsky, Prince Andrey Vasilyevich Trubetskoy, Prince Andrey Vasilyevich Golitsyn, Prince Boris Mikhailovich Lykov-Obolensky, boyar Ivan Nikitich Romanov, Boyar Fyodor Ivanovich).

10. The expulsion of the invaders and the accession of the Romanovs.

In August 1610, despite the protests of Patriarch Hermogenes, the government signed an agreement on the calling of the Polish prince Vladislav to the Russian throne. The purpose of this vocation was the Polish intervention in Russia. Polish troops were allowed into the Kremlin without a fight. On August 27, 1610, Moscow swore allegiance to Vladislav. It was a direct threat of Russia's loss of independence, and its inclusion in the union with the Commonwealth. Patriarch Hermogenes called for a fight against the invaders, for which he was arrested. His appeals, however, were not in vain - at the beginning of 1611 in the Ryazan region, the first militia was assembled, led by Prokopy Lyapunov. The militia moved to Moscow, where a popular uprising broke out in the spring of 1611. However, the militia failed to build on the success, and Procopius Lyapunov himself was treacherously killed in the negotiations.

The first militia crumbled, by this time the Swedes captured Novgorod, and the Poles - Smolensk. But in the fall of 1611, the mayor of Nizhny Novgorod, Kuzma Minin, appealed to the people to create a second militia. With the help of the population of other Russian cities, the material base for the liberation struggle was created. The militia was led by Minin and Prince Dmitry Pozharsky.

In the spring of 1612, the militia occupied Yaroslavl, where they were preparing for the last dash to the capital. In the summer of 1612, the militia approached Moscow from the Arbat Gate, joining with the remnants of the first militia. The Polish army, marching along the Mozhaisk road to help the Poles who had settled in the Kremlin, was intercepted and defeated.

On October 22, 1612, Kitay-Gorod was taken. A month later, cut off from the outside world and exhausted by hunger, the Kremlin's Polish garrison surrendered. “Driven to extremes by hunger, the Poles finally entered into negotiations with the militia, demanding only one thing, that their lives be spared, which was promised. First, the boyars were released - Fyodor Ivanovich Mstislavsky, Ivan Mikhailovich Vorotynsky, Ivan Nikitich Romanov with his nephew Mikhail Fedorovich and the mother of the latter, Martha Ivanovna, and all other Russian people. When the Cossacks saw that the boyars had gathered on the Kamenny Bridge leading from the Kremlin through the Neglinnaya, they wanted to rush at them, but were restrained by Pozharsky's militia and forced to return to the camps, after which the boyars were received with great honor. On the next day, the Poles surrendered too: Strus with their regiment fell to the Cossacks of Trubetskoy, who robbed and beat many prisoners; Budzilo with his regiment was taken to the warriors of Pozharsky, who did not touch a single Pole. The stream was interrogated, Andronov was tortured, how many of the royal treasures were lost, how much was left? They also found the ancient tsarist hats, which were given as a mortgage to the Sapezhins who remained in the Kremlin. On November 27, Trubetskoy's militia converged on the Church of the Kazan Mother of God behind the Intercession Gate, Pozharsky's militia - at the Church of John the Merciful on the Arbat and, taking crosses and icons, moved to Kitai-Gorod from two different sides, accompanied by all Moscow residents; the militias converged at the Execution Ground, where the Trinity Archimandrite Dionysius began to serve a prayer service, and from the Frolovskie (Spasskie) Gates, from the Kremlin, another religious procession appeared: the Galasun (Arkhangelsk) Archbishop Arseny was walking with the Kremlin clergy and carried Vladimirskaya: screams and sobs echoed into the people who had already lost hope of ever seeing this image, dear for Muscovites and all Russians. After the prayer service, the army and the people moved to the Kremlin, and here sadness gave way to joy when they saw in what position the embittered Gentiles left the churches: everywhere there is impurity, images are cut, eyes are twisted, thrones are stripped; terrible food is prepared in vats - human corpses! Lunch and prayer service in the Assumption Cathedral ended a great popular celebration similar to which our fathers saw exactly two centuries later. "

In 1613, a Zemsky Sobor was held in Moscow, at which a new Russian Tsar was elected. On February 21, the cathedral chose Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, the 16-year-old grand-nephew of the first wife of John IV, Anastasia Romanova. An embassy was sent to the Ipatiev Monastery, where at that time Mikhail was with his mother, and on May 2, 1613, Mikhail arrived in Moscow. On July 11, he officially ascended the throne.

11. End of the Troubles.

The government of Mikhail Fedorovich was faced with a difficult task - the elimination of the consequences of the Troubles. A great danger was posed by the detachments of the Cossacks, who were still roaming the country, and did not recognize anyone's power. The most dangerous of them was the detachment of Ivan Zarutsky. In 1614, Zarutsky's detachment was destroyed, Zarutsky himself, and the son of Marina Mnishek and False Dmitry II, who was in his detachment, were executed. Marina Mnishek herself was imprisoned in Kolomna, where she soon died.

Another danger was posed by a detachment of Swedish mercenaries, invited to Russia by Tsar Vasily, and who remained there. After several battles, in 1617 in the village of Stolbovo (near Tikhvin), peace was concluded with Sweden. Sweden returned the Novgorod lands to Russia, but retained the Baltic coast. Thus, the territorial unity of Russia was mainly restored, although part of the Russian lands remained with Sweden and the Commonwealth.

During the Time of Troubles, in which all classes of Russian society took part, the question of the very existence of Russia as a state was decided. In the conditions of the beginning of the 17th century, the way out of the Troubles was found in the awareness of the regions and the center of the need for a strong statehood. A path was found that determined the further development of Russia for a long time - autocracy as a form of government, serfdom as the basis of the economy, Orthodoxy as a state religion, and the estate system as a social structure.

List of used literature

1. S.V. Troitsky "Christian Philosophy of Marriage" YMCA-Press, 1935

2. N.M. Karamzin "History of the Russian State" Olma-Press, 2005

3. V.O. Klyuchevsky “Russian history. Full course of lectures "Olma-Press, 2005

4. N.I. Kostomarov "Russian history in the biographies of its main figures" Astrel, 2006

5.S.M. Soloviev “History of Russia since ancient times. Book IV. " AST, 2001

Contents 1. The Board of Boris Godunov 2 2. The first signs of the crisis 4 3. The appearance of False Dmitry I and the death of Boris Godunov 6 4. Death

1. Board of Boris Godunov 2

2. The first signs of a crisis 4

3. The appearance of False Dmitry I and the death of Boris Godunov 6

4. Death of Fyodor Godunov and accession of False Dmitry I 11

5. Overthrow of False Dmitry I 14

6. The accession of Vasily Shuisky 17

7. The uprising of Bolotnikov and the emergence of False Dmitry II 20

8. Polish intervention 22

9. Deposition of Vasily Shuisky and the "Seven Boyars" 24

10. The expulsion of the invaders and the accession of the Romanovs 25

11. End of the Troubles

List of used literature 27

1. Board of Boris Godunov.

The term "Time of Troubles" in Russian history refers to the period from 1604 to 1613, characterized by a severe political and social crisis of the Moscow Kingdom. The political prerequisites for this crisis, however, appeared long before the beginning of the Time of Troubles, namely, the tragic end of the reign of the Rurik dynasty, and the enthronement of the boyar Boris Godunov.

As you know, Boris Godunov was a close adviser to Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible in the last years of his life, and together with Bogdan Belsky had a great influence on the tsar. Godunov and Belsky were with the tsar in the last minutes of his life, and they also announced to the people about the death of the sovereign. After John IV, his son, Fyodor Ioannovich, became king, weak and weak-willed, unable to rule the country without the help of advisers. To help the tsar, the Regency Council was created, which included: Belsky, Yuryev, Shuisky, Mstislavsky and Godunov. Through court intrigues, Godunov managed to neutralize his ill-wishers: Shuisky (sent into exile in 1586, where he was killed two years later) and Mstislavsky (expelled from the Regency Council in 1585, and died in disgrace), and take over the dominant position in the council. In fact, since 1587, Boris Godunov ruled the country alone.

Godunovna could not understand that his position in power was stable only while Tsar Fyodor was alive. In the event of Fedor's death, the throne was to be succeeded by his younger brother, the son of John IV, Tsarevich Dimitri, and given the tsar's poor health, this could not have happened in the very distant future. In all likelihood, Godunov did not expect any good for himself from the change of the sovereign. One way or another, but in 1591, Tsarevich Dimitri died in an accident. The investigation into this case was led by the boyar Vasily Shuisky, who came to the conclusion that the prince was playing with his peers when he had an epileptic seizure. Accidentally falling on a knife, the prince stabbed himself to death with this knife. He lived in the world for a little over eight years.

Godunov's contemporaries had no doubt that this accident was in fact a disguised political murder, since it cleared the way for Godunov to the throne. Indeed, Tsar Fyodor had no sons, and even his only daughter died at the age of one. Given his poor health, it was highly likely that the king himself would not live long. As further events showed, this is exactly what happened.

On the other hand, Godunov's guilt in the death of Dimitri does not seem so obvious. Firstly, Demetrius was the son of the sixth wife of John IV, and the Orthodox Church, even in our days, recognizes only three consecutive marriages legal limited the repeatability of marriage to only three cases, and when one emperor (Leo the Wise) married for the fourth time, the Church did not recognize the validity of his marriage for a long time, although it was needed in state and dynastic interests. , categorically prohibiting the fourth marriage for the future "). For this reason, formally speaking, Demetrius could not be considered the legitimate son of John IV, and therefore could not inherit the throne. Secondly, even in the case of the removal of Dimitri, the prospects of Godunov himself to take the throne were vague - he was not the most noble, the richest of the possible contenders, and the fact that he ended up becoming a king is largely a fluke.

Anyway, in the eyes of contemporaries, this death was so into the hands of Godunov that few doubted his guilt. The death of Tsarevich Dimitri became a real mine laid under the regime of Boris Godunov, and this mine was destined to explode twelve years later, in 1603, not without the help of "friends of Russia" from outside.

In 1598, the nominal sovereign, Fyodor Ioannovich, died, and Godunov was left alone with the growing ill will of the nobility. Driven into a corner, he nevertheless managed to find an unexpected solution: he tried to secure the throne for the widow of Tsar Fyodor, Irina Godunova, his sister. According to the text of the oath promulgated in the churches, the subjects were asked to take an oath of allegiance to Patriarch Job and the Orthodox faith, Tsarina Irina, the ruler Boris and his children. In other words, under the form of an oath of allegiance to the church and the queen, Godunov actually demanded an oath to himself and his heir.

The matter, however, did not burn out - at the insistence of the boyars, Irina renounced power in favor of the Boyar Duma, and retired to the Novodevichy Convent, where she accepted the tonsure. Nevertheless, Godunov did not give up. He apparently well understood that it was impossible for him to openly compete with more noble applicants for the empty throne (first of all - the Shuiskys), so he simply retired to the well-fortified Novodevichy Monastery, from where he watched the split struggle for power by the Boyar Duma.

Thanks to Godunov's intrigues, the Zemsky Sobor in 1598, at which his supporters were in the majority, officially called him to the throne. This decision was not approved by the Boyar Duma, but the counter-proposal of the Boyar Duma - to establish a country boyar rule - was not approved by the Zemsky Sobor. A pathetic situation developed in the country, and as a result, the question of succession to the throne was brought to the square by the fabricated and patriarchal chambers. The opposing parties used all possible means - from agitation to bribery. Coming out to the crowd, Godunov swore with tears in his eyes that he did not even think of encroaching on "the highest royal order." The motives behind Godunov's rejection of the crown are easy to understand. First, he was embarrassed by the small size of the crowd. And secondly, he wanted to end the accusations of his regicide. To more accurately achieve this goal, Boris spread the rumor about his imminent tonsure as a monk. Under the influence of skillful agitation, moods in the capital began to change.

The Patriarch and the members of the cathedral tried to use the emerging success. Persuading Boris to accept the crown, the clergy threatened to resign if their petition was rejected. The boyars made a similar statement.

The general cry created the appearance of a nationwide election, and Godunov, prudently choosing a convenient moment, generously announced to the crowd his consent to accept the crown. Without wasting time, the patriarch led the ruler to the nearest monastery cathedral and named his kingdom.

Godunov, however, could not accept the crown without an oath in the Boyar Duma. But the older boyars were in a hurry to express their loyal feelings, which forced the ruler to retire to the Novodevichy Convent for the second time.

On March 19, 1598, Boris convened the Boyar Duma for the first time to resolve the backlog of cases that could not be delayed. Thus, Godunov de facto began to fulfill the functions of the autocrat. Having received the support of the capital's population, Boris broke the resistance of the feudal nobility without bloodshed and became the first "elected" king. The first years of his reign did not promise anything bad.

“The first two years of this Reign seemed the best time for Russia since the 15th century or since its restoration: she was at the highest level of her new power, secure with her own strength and the happiness of external circumstances, but inside she was ruled by a wise firmness and extraordinary meekness. Boris fulfilled the vow of royal wedding and rightly wanted to be called the father of the people, reducing its burdens, the father of the orphan and the poor, pouring out on them unparalleled generosity; friend of humanity, without touching the life of people, without staining the Russian land with a single drop of blood and punishing criminals only with exile. Merchants less shy in trade; an army showered with awards in peace; Nobles, commanding people, distinguished by signs of mercy for zealous service; Synclitus, respected by the active and conscientious Tsar; The clergy, honored by the pious Tsar - in a word, all states of the state could be satisfied for themselves and even more satisfied with the fatherland, seeing how Boris in Europe and Asia exalted the name of Russia of bloodlessness and without the painful exertion of its forces; how he cares about the common good, justice, order. And so it is not surprising that Russia, according to the legend of the contemporaries, loved its Crown-bearer, wanting to forget the murder of Demetrius or doubting it! "

Nothing foreshadowed trouble, and there were only six years left before the Time of Troubles.

2. The first signs of a crisis.

The initiator of the crisis was the successive crop failures in 1601 and 1602. Throughout the entire summer of 1601, there were heavy cold rains across eastern Europe, beginning in July, mixed with sleet. The entire crop, of course, was lost. According to contemporaries, snowfalls and blizzards began at the end of August 1601, sleigh rides along the Dnieper, as if in winter.

“The average natural abundance and wealth of the fertile land, inhabited by industrious grain-growers; among the blessings of long-term peace, and in the Reign of active, prudent, a terrible execution fell on millions of people: in the spring, in 1601, the sky was darkened by thick darkness, and the rains fell for ten weeks incessantly so that the villagers were horrified: they could not do anything, neither mow nor reap; and on August 15, severe frost damaged both green bread and all unripe fruits. Even in the granaries and in the threshing floors there was a good deal of old bread; but the farmers, unfortunately, sowed the fields with new, rotten, skinny ones, and did not see any shoots, neither in autumn nor in spring: everything rotted away and mixed with the earth. In between, the stocks have run out, and the fields have already remained unseeded. "

This, albeit on a smaller scale, was repeated in 1602. As a result, even the warm summer of 1603 did not help, since the peasants simply had nothing to sow - due to two past crop failures, they did not have seeds.

To the honor of Godunov's government, it tried to mitigate the consequences of crop failures as best it could by distributing seeds to farmers for planting and regulating the price of bread (up to the creation of a kind of "food detachments" that reveal hidden stocks of bread and force them to sell them at a price set by the government). To give work to the hungry refugees, Godunov began to rebuild the stone chambers of the Moscow Kremlin (“... in 1601 and 1602, on the site of the broken wooden palace of Ioannov, he built two large stone chambers to the Golden and favor with mercy, and during the days of crying thinking of greatness! "). He also issued a decree that all slaves, left by their masters without means of food, automatically receive freedom. But these measures were clearly not enough. About a third of the country's population became victims of hunger. Fleeing from hunger, people fled en masse "to the Cossacks" - to the Don and to Zaporozhye. It must be said that the policy of "pushing out" criminal and potentially unreliable elements to the north-western borders was practiced by John IV, and was continued by Godunov ("Even John IV, wanting to populate the Lithuanian Ukraine, the land of Severskaya, criminals who escaped execution there to take refuge in peace: for he thought that, in the event of war, they could be reliable defenders of the border.Boris, loving to follow the many state thoughts of the Ioannovs, followed this one, very small and very unhappy: for without knowing he made a numerous squad of villains to serve the enemies of the fatherland and their own. "). Indeed, all this huge mass on the borders of Russia has become a dangerous combustible material, ready to flare up from the slightest spark.

These crop failures naturally ended with the peasant uprising of 1603 under the leadership of Otaman Khlopok. The peasant army was heading for Moscow, and it was possible to defeat it only at the cost of heavy losses of government troops, and the governor himself, Ivan Basmanov, died in battle. Ataman Khlopok was taken prisoner and, according to some sources, died of his wounds, according to others, he was executed in Moscow.

In addition to peasant unrest, Godunov's life was constantly poisoned by conspiracies of the nobility, both genuine and imaginary. One might think that Godunov contracted paranoia from his first patron - Tsar John IV. In 1601 his old comrade-in-arms and friend Bogdan Belsky was repressed - Godunov ordered to torture him, after which he was exiled to "one of the lower towns", where he remained until Godunov's death. The reason for the repressions was a trifling denunciation of Belsky from his servants, as if he, serving as a governor in the city of Borisov, allowed himself to joke: “Boris is the Tsar in Moscow, and I am the Tsar in Borisov.” This simple joke cost Belsky very dearly.

In the same year, 1601, a larger-scale process was started against the Romanov family, as well as their supporters (Sitsky, Repnins, Cherkassky, Shestunovs, Karpovs ...). “The grandee Semyon Godunov, invented a way to discern the innocent in villainy, hoping for general gullibility and ignorance: he bribed the treasurer of the Romanovs, gave him sacks filled with roots, ordered him to hide in Boyar's pantry Alexander Nikitich and inform on their masters that they, secretly dealing with the composition of the poison, plotting on the life of the Crown Bearer. Suddenly anxiety arose in Moscow: Synclit and all the noble officials hurry to the Patriarch; they send a roundabout Mikhail Saltykov for a search in the storeroom of Boyar Alexander; they find sacks there, carry them to Job and, in the presence of the Romanovs, pour out the roots, as if magic, made to poison the Tsar. " The consequences of this provocation were for the Romanovs and their supporters the most sad - they were all partly forcibly tonsured into monks, partly exiled, their property was confiscated.

“The Romanovs were not a bogeyman for Borisov's imagination. He forbade the Princes of Mstislavsky and Vasily Shuisky to marry, thinking that their children, due to the ancient nobility of their kind, could also compete with his son about the throne. In between, eliminating the future imaginary dangers for the young Theodore, the timid destroyer trembled of the real ones: agitated by suspicion, constantly fearing secret villains and equally afraid to deserve the people's hatred by torture, he persecuted and pardoned: he exiled the Voevoda, Prince Vladimir Bakhteyarov, I forgave him-Rostov; removed from the famous Clerk Shchelkalov, but without obvious disgrace; several times removed the Ishuyskys, and again brought them closer to him; caressed them, and at the same time threatened disfavor with anyone who had dealings with them. There were no ceremonial executions, but the unfortunate morilines in dungeons were tortured on the basis of denunciations. Hosts of famous people, if not always awarded, but always free from punishment for lies and slander, strove to the Royal Chambers from the Boyars' houses and huts, from monasteries and churches: husbands, the very children of fathers, to the horror of mankind! “And in the wild Hordes (adds the Chronicler) there is no such great evil: gentlemen dare not look at their servants, nor neighbors sincerely speak among themselves; and when they spoke, they mutually pledged not to betray modesty with a terrible oath. "

There is nothing surprising in the fact that Godunov so diligently tried to eliminate, or at least remove those who could challenge the throne from him, that is, more ancient or noble boyar surnames. Unsure of his own right to the throne, he did everything possible to ensure the transfer of the throne to his successor, and to create conditions when nothing would threaten the newly founded dynasty. These motives were colorfully described by A.K. Tolstoy in his poem "Tsar Boris", and Pushkin in the tragedy "Boris Godunov".

3. The appearance of False Dmitry I and the death of Boris Godunov

The popularity of Godunov among the people fell sharply, and a series of disasters revived rumors, which were already circulating among the people, that Boris Godunov was not a legitimate tsar, but an impostor, and all these troubles stemmed from that. The real tsar - Dimitri - is actually alive, sparks somewhere from Godunov. Of course, the authorities tried to fight the spread of rumors, but they did not have much success. There is also a hypothesis that some boyars, dissatisfied with Godunov's rule, primarily the Romanovs, had a hand in the spread of these rumors. In any case, the people were morally prepared for the appearance of the "miraculously resurrected" Demetrius, and he did not slow down to appear. "As if by a supernatural action, the shadow of Dimitriev emerged from the grave in order to strike with horror, madden the murderer and confuse the whole of Russia."

According to the generally accepted version, a certain “poor boyar son, Galician Yuri Otrepiev” tried to impersonate Dimitri, who “... in his youth, having lost his father, in the name of Bogdan-Yakov, a streltsy centurion, stabbed to death in Moscow by a drunken Litvin, served in the house of the Romanovs and Prince Boris Cherkassky; knew literacy; showed a lot of intelligence, but little prudence; bored with a low state and decided to seek the pleasure of careless idleness in the rank of Inok, following the example of his grandfather, Zamyatny-Otrepiev, who had long been a monk in the Chudovskaya monastery. Trimmed by the Vyatka Abbot Tryphon and named Gregory, this young Chernets wandered from place to place; lived for some time in Suzdal, in the monastery of St. Euthymius, in the Galician John the Baptist and in others; finally, in the Chudov Monastery, with his grandfather, under the command. There Patriarch Job recognized him, ordained him to the Deacon and took him to him for the book business, for Gregory was able not only to copy well, but even to compose the canons of the Saints better than many old scribes of that time. Taking advantage of Job's grace, he often traveled with him to the palace: he saw the splendor of the Tsar and was captivated by it; expressed extraordinary curiosity; eagerly listened to intelligent people, especially when the name of Dimitri Tsarevich was pronounced in sincere, secret conversations; wherever he could, he found out the circumstances of his unhappy fate and wrote it down on the charter. The dreamer had already settled and was ripening in the soul of the dreamer, instilled in him, as they say, by one evil Monk: the idea that a brave impostor can take advantage of the gullibility of the Russians, touched by the memory of Demetrius, and in honor of Heavenly Justice execute the holy killer! The seed fell on the fruitful earth: the young Deacon read the Russian chronicles with diligence and immodestly, albeit in jest, sometimes used to say to the Chudov Monks: "Do you know that I will be Tsar in Moscow?" Some laughed; others spat in his eyes, as if I were lying to an impudent one. These or similar speeches reached the Dorostov Metropolitan Jonah, who announced to the Patriarch and the Tsar himself that “the unworthy Monk Gregory wants to be the vessel of the devil”; The good-natured Patriarch did not respect the Metropolitan's answer, but the Tsar ordered his Clerk, Smirnov-Vasilyev, to send the maddened Gregory to the Solovki, or to the Belozersk desert, as if for heresy, for eternal repentance. Smirnoy told about this to another Dyak, Evfimiev; Evfimiev, being a relative of the Otrepievs, begged him to take his time in the execution of the Tsar's decree and gave a way for the disgraced Deacon to escape by flight (in February 1602), together with two Monks of Chudovsky, Priest Varlaam and Kryloshanin Misail Povadin. " Having judiciously judged how such statements could be fraught with him within the Russian borders, Otrepiev decided to flee to where they would be happy - to Poland (more precisely, the Commonwealth is a powerful state that occupied the present territories of Poland, the Baltic states, Belarus, part of Ukraine and western regions of Russia). "There, an ancient, natural hatred of Russia has always zealously favored our traitors, from the Princes of Shemyakin, Vereisky, Borovsky and Tversky to Kurbsky and Golovin." Thus, Otrepiev's choice was quite natural, and he hoped to find help and support there. IN. Klyuchevsky writes about it like this

:

“In the nest of the boyars most persecuted by Boris with the Romanovs at the head, in all likelihood, the thought of an impostor was hatched. Vinilipolyakov that they set him up; but it was only baked in a Polish stove, azakvashen in Moscow. It was not for nothing that Boris, as soon as he heard about the appearance of the False Dimitry, directly told the boyars that it was their business, that they had set up the impostor. This unknown someone, who has taken the Moscow throne after Boris, arouses great anecdotal interest. His personality remains mysterious to this day, despite all the efforts of scientists to unravel it. For a long time, the prevailing opinion, coming from Boris himself, that he was the son of a Galician petty nobleman Yuri Otrepiev, the winemaker Grigory. I will not talk about the adventures of this man, which are well known to you. I will only mention that in Moscow he served as a slave for the Romanov boyars and Prince Cherkassky, then took monasticism, for his bookishness and praise for the Moscow miracle workers, he was taken to the patriarch as a book-writer. Moscow. For this he would die out in a distant monastery; but some strong people covered him, and he fled to Lithuania at the very time when the disgrace of the Naromanov circle fell. "

Otrepiev's life path from the moment of his flight until he appeared in the Commonwealth at the court of Prince Vishnevetsky is covered with darkness. According to N.M. Karamzin, before declaring himself a miraculously saved Tsarevich Dimitri, Otrepiev settled in Kiev, in the Pechersk Monastery, where “... led a seductive life, despising the charter of abstinence and chastity; he boasted of freedom of opinion, loved to talk about the Law with the Gentiles, and was even in close contact with the Anabaptists "

. Noah, such a monastic life, apparently, bored him, since from the Pechersk Monastery he went to the Zaporozhye Cossacks, to the ataman Gerasim Evangelik, where he received military skills. However, he did not stay with the Cossacks either - he left, and announced himself at the Volyn school, where he studied Polish and Latin grammar. There he was seen and recruited into the service of a wealthy Polish tycoon, Prince Adam Wisniewiecki. Probably, he managed to achieve the location of Vishnevetsky, who appreciated his knowledge and military skills.

Despite Vishnevetsky's good attitude to Otrepiev, it was unthinkable for that to simply declare to the magnate and preach about his "miraculous salvation" - it is clear that no one would have believed in such nonsense. Otrepiev decided to act more subtly.

“Having earned the attention and kind disposition of the master, the cunning deceiver pretended to be sick, demanded the Spiritual, and said to him quietly:

« I am dying; give my body to the earth with honor, as the children of the Tsars are buried. I will not declare my secret to the grave; when I close my eyes forever, you will find a scroll under my bed, and you will know everything; but don't tell others. God has judged me to die in happiness. " The confessor was a Jesuit: he was in a hurry to inform Prince Vishnevetsky about this secret, and the curious Prince was in a hurry to find out it: he searched the bed of the imaginary dying man; found a paper prepared in advance, and read in it that his servant is Tsarevich Dimitri, saved from murder by his faithful physician; that the villains sent to Uglich killed one son of Priest, instead of Demetrius, who was hid by the good nobles and clerks of the Shchelkalovs, and then escorted to Lithuania, fulfilling the order of John given to them in this case. Vishnevetsky was amazed: he still wanted to doubt, but could no longer, when the cunning man, blaming the immodesty of the Confessor, opened his chest, showed a golden cross strewn with precious stones (probably stolen somewhere) and with tears announced that this shrine was given to him by the Godfather Prince Ivan Mstislavsky ".

It is not entirely clear whether Vishnevetsky was really deceived, or he simply decided to take advantage of the occasion for his political purposes. In any case, Vishnevetsky informed the Polish king Sigismund

III we will master an unusual guest, and he wished to see him personally. Prior to that, Vishnevetsky also managed to prepare the ground by spreading information about the "miraculous salvation of John's son" throughout Poland, in which he was assisted by his brother Konstantin Vishnevetsky, Constantine's father-in-law, the Sandomierz governor Yuri Mnishek, and the papal nuncio Rangoni.

There is a version, partly confirmed by documents, that initially the Vishnevetskys planned to use Otrepiev in their plans for a palace coup aimed at the degradation of Sigismund

III , and the enthronement of "Demetrius". That, being as a descendant of John IV, Rurikovich, and therefore a relative of the Polish Jagiellonian dynasty, was fully suitable for this throne. But for some reason, it was decided to abandon this plan.

King Sigismund reacted coolly to the "resurrected Demetrius", like many of his dignitaries. Hetman Jan Zamoyski, for example, spoke about this as follows: “It happens that the dice in the game falls and is happy, but usually it is not advised to put expensive and important items on the line. ours. ". However, the king nevertheless received Otrepiev, treated him politely (Karamzin says that he received him standing in his office, that is, recognizing him as an equal), and assigned him a monetary allowance of 40,000 zlotys annually. Otrepiev did not receive any other help from the king, but given the political situation in the then Commonwealth, he could not provide it. The fact is that the king in the Commonwealth was mainly a nominal figure, while real power belonged to the aristocracy (Vishnevets, Pototsky, Radziwills and other rich and noble houses). In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth there was also no royal army, as such - only the infantry of 4,000 guards, supported by the king's personal income. Thus, the recognition of "Demetrius" by the king had only moral and political significance.

Otrepiev also had other important meetings, including with representatives of the Catholic order of the Jesuits, who had great influence in the Commonwealth. He even wrote a letter to the then Pope of Rome, Clement

VIII, in which he promised in the event of his "return to the throne" to annex the Orthodox Church to the Catholic, and received an answer with "confirmation of his readiness to assist him with the all-spiritual authority of the Apostolic Steward." To strengthen relations, Otrepiev made a solemn promise to Yuri Mnishek to marry his daughter Marina, and even formally appealed to King Sigismund for permission to marry.

Encouraged by the success, Vishnevetskiy began to gather an army for a campaign against Moscow, with the aim of raising the throne of "Demetrius." Karamzin writes: for the exiled Tsarevich, they appeared in Sambir and Lvov: vagabonds, hungry and half-naked, aspired there, demanding weapons not for victory, but for plunder, or a salary that Mnishek generously gave out in the hope of the future. "In other words, the army consisted mainly of those very refugees, Zaporozhye Idonian Cossacks, who at one time fled from Russia as a result of the policy of John

IV and Boris Godunov, although the formed army was also joined by some Polish gentry with their squads. Not everyone, however, was tempted by the opportunity to take revenge on the hated Godunov - as Karamzin writes, there were many who did not want to participate in the intervention, or even actively opposed it. “It is noteworthy that some of the Moscow fugitives, the Boyarskys' children, filled with hatred for Godunov, while hiding in Lithuania then, did not want to be participants in this enterprise, for they saw deception and abhorred villainy: they write that one of them, Yakov Pykhachev, even publicly, and before the face of the King, testified of this gross deception, together with his comrade rasstrigin, Monk Varlaam, disturbed by his conscience; that they did not believe them and sent both of them shackled to Voevoda Mniszka in Sambor, where Varlaamaz was imprisoned, and Pykhachev, accused of intending to kill False Dmitry, was executed. "

These preparations could not pass unnoticed by Godunov. Of course, the first thing that occurred to him was the assumption about the next intrigues of his enemies from among the boyars. Judging by his further actions, he was greatly frightened by the "resurrection" of Tsarevich Dimitri. To begin with, he ordered to deliver to him the mother of Demetrius, Martha Nagaya, who had long been tonsured as a nun and placed in the Novodevichy Convent. He was only interested in one question - is her son alive or dead. Martha Nagaya, seeing what fear the shadow of her son instilled in Godunov, undoubtedly not without pleasure, answered: “I don’t know.” Boris Godunov was furious, and Martha Nagaya, wishing to enhance the effect of her answer, began to say that she had heard that her son had been secretly taken out of the country, and the like. Realizing that it was impossible to get any sense out of her, Godunov abandoned her. Soon he, nevertheless, managed to establish the identity of the impostor, and he ordered that Otrepiev's story be made public, since further silence was dangerous, since it prompted the people to think that the impostor and truly escaped Tsarevich Dimitri. At the same time, an embassy was sent to the court of King Sigismund, at the head of the imposter's family, Smirnov-Otrepiev, whose purpose was to expose the imposter

;another embassy, ​​led by the nobleman Khrushchev, was sent to the Don by the Cossacks to persuade them to back down. Both embassies were unsuccessful. “The noblemen Royal did not want to show False Dmitry Smirnov-Otrepiev and dryly complied that they did not care about the imaginary Tsarevich of Russia; and Kozakis grabbed Khrushchov, bound him up and brought him to the Pretender. " Moreover, in the face of imminent death, Khrushchov fell to his knees before the impostor, and recognized him as Tsarevich Dimitri. The third embassy by the nobleman Ogarev was sent by Godunov directly to King Sigismund. He received the ambassador, but answered his requests that he himself, Sigismund, did not stand for the impostor and was not going to violate the peace between Russia and the Commonwealth, but he also could not be responsible for the actions of individual gentry who supported Otrepiev. Ogarev had to return to Boris Godunov with nothing. In addition, Godunov demanded that Patriarch Job write a letter to the Polish clergy, in which it was confirmed by the seals of the bishops that Otrepiev was a fugitive monk. Such a literacy was sent to the Kiev governor, Prince Vasily of Ostrozh. The patriarch's messengers, who delivered these letters, were probably captured on the way by Otrepiev's people, and did not achieve their goal. “But the patriarchs' messengers did not return: they were detained in Lithuania and neither the Clergy nor the Prince of Ostrog responded to Job, for the Pretender had already acted with brilliant success. "

The invasion army was concentrated in the vicinity of Lvov and Sambor, in the possession of the Mnisheks. The core of it was formed by the lakhtichi with squads, well trained and armed, but very small in number - about 1,500 people. The rest of the army was made up of refugees who joined him, as Karamzin writes, "without a device and almost unarmed." At the head of the army were Otrepiev himself, Yuri Mnishek, the magnates Dvozhitsky and Neborsky. Near Kiev, they were joined by about 2,000 Don Cossacks and the militia gathered in the vicinity of Kiev. On October 16, 1604, this army entered Russia. Initially, this campaign was successful, several cities were taken (Moravsk, Chernigov), and on November 11 Novgorod-Seversky was besieged.

An experienced and brave military leader Pyotr Basmanov was sent to Novgorod-Seversky by Godunov, who managed to organize an effective defense of the city, as a result of which the storming of the city by Otrepiev's army was repulsed, with heavy losses for the storming forces. “Otrepiev also sent the Russian traitors to persuade Basmanov, but it was useless; wanted to take the fortress with a bold attack and was repelled; I wanted to destroy its walls with fire, but did not succeed in that either; he lost many people, and saw the calamity before him: his camp was depressed; Basmanov gave time to Borisov's army to take up arms and an example of unkindness to other city leaders. "

"An example of unkindness", however, was not picked up by other "mayors" - on November 18, the Putivl governor, Prince Rubets-Mosalsky, together with the clerk Sutupov, went over to Otrepiev's side, arrested the Godunov's emissary of the devious Mikhail Saltykov, and surrendered Putivl to the enemy. The cities of Rylsk, Sevsk, Belgorod, Voronezh, Kromy, Livny, Yelets also surrendered. Besieged in Novgorod-Seversky Basmanov, seeing the despair of his situation, began negotiations with Otrepiev, and promised him to surrender the city in two weeks. In all likelihood, he was trying to play for time, waiting for reinforcements gathered in Bryansk by the voivode Mstislavsky.

At this time, clouds continued to gather over Godunov. Neither the testimony of Vasily Shuisky on the forehead in Moscow that Tsarevich Dimitri was for certain was dead (Shuisky was the head of the commission that investigated the death of Dimitri), nor the letters sent to the townships by Patriarch Job helped. “None of the Russians until 1604 doubted the murder of Demetrius, who was growing in front of his Uglich’s eyes and whom he saw the whole Uglich dead, sprinkling his body with tears for five days; Consequently, the Russians could not reasonably believe the resurrection of the Tsarevich; but they disliked Boris!

… Shuisky's shamelessness was still in fresh memory; they also knew Job's blind devotion to Godunov; they heard only the name of the Tsarina-Nun: no one saw her, no one spoke to her, again imprisoned in the Vyksinskaya Desert. Yet

The end of the 16th and the beginning of the 17th centuries were marked by turmoil in Russian history. Starting at the top, it quickly descended, captured all strata of Moscow society and put the state on the brink of ruin. The turmoil lasted for over a quarter of a century - from the death of Ivan the Terrible to the election of Mikhail Fedorovich (1584-1613) to the kingdom. The duration and intensity of the turmoil clearly indicate that it did not come from outside and not by chance, that its roots were hidden deep in the state organism. But at the same time, the Time of Troubles is striking in its obscurity and uncertainty. This is not a political revolution, since it did not begin in the name of a new political ideal and did not lead to it, although one cannot deny the existence of political motives in the turmoil; this is not a social upheaval, since, again, the turmoil did not arise from the social movement, although in its further development the aspirations of some strata of society for social change were intertwined with it. "Our turmoil is the fermentation of a sick state organism, striving to get out of the contradictions to which the preceding course of history led it and which could not be resolved in a peaceful, usual way." All the previous hypotheses about the origin of the turmoil, despite the fact that each of them contains a grain of truth, must be abandoned as not fully solving the problem. There were two main contradictions that caused the Time of Troubles. The first of them was political, which can be defined in the words of Professor Klyuchevsky: "The Moscow sovereign, whose course of history led to democratic sovereignty, had to act through a very aristocratic administration"; both of these forces, which grew together thanks to the state unification of Russia and worked together on it, were imbued with mutual mistrust and enmity. The second contradiction can be called social: the Moscow government was forced to exert all its forces to better organize the highest defense of the state and "under the pressure of these higher needs, sacrifice the interests of the industrial and agricultural classes, whose labor served as the basis of the national economy, to the interests of the serviced landowners", as a result of which there was a massive exodus of a burdensome population from the centers to the outskirts, which intensified with the expansion of the state territory suitable for agriculture. The first contradiction was the result of the collection of inheritances by Moscow. The annexation of the appanages did not have the character of a violent, destructive war. The Moscow government left the inheritance in the management of its former prince and was content with the fact that the latter recognized the power of the Moscow sovereign and became his servant. The power of the Moscow sovereign, in the words of Klyuchevsky, was not in the place of the appanage princes, but over them; "the new state order was a new layer of relations and institutions, which lay on top of the previous one, not destroying it, but only imposing new responsibilities on it, pointing out new tasks to it." The new princely boyars, pushing aside the old Moscow boyars, took the first places in the degree of their genealogical seniority, accepting only a very few of the Moscow boyars into their midst on equal terms. Thus, a vicious circle of boyar princes formed around the Moscow sovereign, who became the pinnacle of his administration, his main advice in governing the country. The authorities previously ruled the state individually and in parts, but now they began to rule over the entire land, occupying a position in the seniority of their breed. The Moscow government recognized this right for them, even supported it, promoted its development in the form of parochialism, and thus fell into the above contradiction. The power of the Moscow sovereigns arose on the basis of patrimonial rights. The great Moscow prince was the patrimony of his inheritance; all the inhabitants of his territory were his "slaves". The entire preceding course of history led to the development of this view of territory and population. By recognizing the rights of the boyars, the Grand Duke betrayed his old traditions, which in reality he could not replace with others. The first to understand this contradiction was John the Terrible. The Moscow boyars were strong mainly in their land and clan possessions. Ivan the Terrible planned to carry out a complete mobilization of the boyar land tenure, taking away from the boyars their long-standing patrimonial appanage nests, giving them other lands in return in order to break their connection with the land, deprive them of their former significance. The boyars were shattered; it was replaced by the lower court layer. Simple boyar families, like the Godunovs and Zakharyins, seized primacy at the court. The surviving remnants of the boyars became embittered and prepared for the turmoil. On the other hand, the XVI century. was the era of external wars, which ended with the acquisition of vast territories in the east, southeast and west. To conquer them and to consolidate new acquisitions, it took a huge amount of military forces, which the government recruited from everywhere, in difficult cases, not disdaining the services of slaves. The service class in the Moscow state received, in the form of a salary, land on the estate - and land without labor was of no value. The land, far from the boundaries of the military defense, also did not matter, since a serviceman could not serve with it. Therefore, the government was forced to transfer into service hands a huge area of ​​land in the central and southern parts of the state. Palace and black peasant volosts lost their independence and came under the control of service people. The former division into volosts inevitably had to collapse in small rooms. The process of "enclosing" lands is aggravated by the above-mentioned mobilization of lands, which was the result of persecutions against the boyars. Mass evictions ruined the economy of service people, but ruined the taxpayers even more. Mass resettlement of the peasantry to the outskirts begins. At the same time, a huge area of ​​the Zaoksky black soil is opened for resettlement for the peasantry. The government itself, taking care of strengthening the newly acquired borders, supports the resettlement to the outskirts. As a result, towards the end of Grozny's reign, the eviction takes on the character of a general flight, intensified by crop failures, epidemics, and Tatar raids. Most of the service land remains "empty"; there is a sharp economic crisis. The peasants lost the right to independent land tenure, with the placement of servicemen on their lands; The townspeople were ousted from the southern townships and cities occupied by military force: the former trading places took on the character of military-administrative settlements. Posad people are running. In this economic crisis, there is a struggle for workers' hands. The stronger ones - the boyars and the church - win. The service class and even more the peasant element remain the suffering elements, which not only lost the right to free land use, but, with the help of enslaving records, loans and the newly emerged institution of old-timers (see), begins to lose personal freedom, approaching the serf. In this struggle, enmity grows between individual classes - between the large boyar owners and the church, on the one hand, and the service class, on the other. The burdensome population harbors hatred of the oppressing estates and, irritated against the state premises, is ready for an open uprising; it runs to the Cossacks, who have long since separated their interests from the interests of the state. Only the north, where the land remained in the hands of the black volosts, remains calm during the oncoming state "devastation".

In the development of the Troubles in the Moscow state, researchers usually distinguish three periods: the dynastic period, during which there is a struggle for the Moscow throne between various pretenders (until May 19, 1606); social - the time of the class struggle in the Moscow state, complicated by interference in Russian affairs of foreign states (until July 1610); national - the fight against foreign elements and the choice of the national sovereign (until February 21, 1613).

The first period of Troubles

The last minutes of the life of False Dmitry. Painting by K. Wenig, 1879

Now the old boyar party was at the head of the board, which elected V. Shuisky as tsar. "Boyar-princely reaction in Moscow" (expression of S. F. Platonov), having mastered the political situation, elevated to the kingdom of his most noble leader. V. Shuisky was elected to the throne without the advice of the whole land. Shuisky brothers, V.V. Golitsyn with brothers, Iv. S. Kurakin and I. M. Vorotynsky, having conspired among themselves, brought Prince Vasily Shuisky to the place of execution and from there proclaimed him tsar. It was natural to expect that the people would be against the "shouted" tsar, and that the minor boyars (the Romanovs, Nagie, Belsky, MG Saltykov, etc.), which gradually began to recover from Boris's disgrace, would also be against him.

Second period of Troubles

After his election to the throne, he considered it necessary to explain to the people why he was elected, and not anyone else. He motivates the reason for his election by descent from Rurik; in other words, it exposes the principle that the seniority of the "breed" gives the right to seniority in power. This is the principle of the old boyars (see Localism). Restoring the old boyar traditions, Shuisky had to formally confirm the rights of the boyars and, if possible, ensure them. He did this in his crucifixion record, which undoubtedly has the character of limiting the royal power. The tsar admitted that he was not free to execute his slaves, that is, he abandoned the principle that Grozny so sharply put forward and then accepted Godunov. The recording satisfied the boyar princes, and even then not all of them, but it could not satisfy the minor boyars, small servicemen and the mass of the population. The turmoil continued. Vasily Shuisky immediately dispatched the followers of False Dmitry - Belsky, Saltykov, and others - to different cities; he wanted to get along with the Romanovs, the Nagi and other representatives of the secondary boyars, but then several dark events happened, which indicate that he did not succeed. Filaret, who had been elevated to the rank of metropolitan by the impostor, was thought to be elevated to the patriarchal table by V. Shuisky, but circumstances showed him that it was impossible to rely on Filaret and the Romanovs. He also failed to unite the oligarchic circle of princes-boyars: it partly disintegrated, partly it became hostile to the tsar. Shuisky hastened to marry the kingdom without even waiting for the patriarch: he was crowned by the Novgorod metropolitan Isidor, without the usual pomp. To dispel rumors that Tsarevich Dmitry is alive, Shuisky invented a solemn transfer to Moscow of the relics of the Tsarevich, canonized by the church; he also resorted to semi-official journalism. But everything was against him: anonymous letters were scattered around Moscow that Dmitry was alive and would soon return, and Moscow was worried. On May 25, Shuisky had to calm down the rabble, which PN Sheremetev, as they said at the time, had raised against him.

Tsar Vasily Shuisky

A fire broke out on the southern outskirts of the state. As soon as there it became known about the events of May 17, how the Seversk land rose, and beyond it the Zaoksky, Ukrainian and Ryazan places; the movement moved to Vyatka, Perm, and captured Astrakhan. Excitement also flared up in the Novgorod, Pskov and Tver regions. This movement, embracing such a huge space, had a different character in different places, pursued different goals, but there is no doubt that it was dangerous for V. Shuisky. In the Seversk land, the movement was of a social nature and was directed against the boyars. Here Putivl became the center of the movement, and kn. Grieg. Peter. Shakhovskoy and his "great voivode" Bolotnikov. The movement raised by Shakhovsky and Bolotnikov was completely different from the previous one: before they fought for the trampled rights of Dmitry, in which they believed, now - for a new social ideal; Dmitry's name was just an excuse. Bolotnikov called on the people to him, giving hope for social change. The original text of his appeals has not survived, but their content is indicated in the letter of Patriarch Hermogenes. Bolotnikov's appeals, says Hermogenes, inspire the rabble "all evil deeds for murder and robbery," "they tell the boyar slaves to beat their boyars and their wives, and they promise to fiefdoms and estates; and to spy and nameless thieves, they order guests and all merchant people to beat them. and plunder their bellies; and they call their thieves to themselves, and they want to give them boyars and voivodship, and deviousness, and clergy. " In the northern zone of Ukrainian and Ryazan cities, the service nobility rose up, which did not want to put up with the boyar government of Shuisky. At the head of the Ryazan militia were Grigory Sunbulov and the Lyapunov brothers, Procopius and Zakhar, and the Tula militia moved under the command of the boyar son Istoma Pashkov.

Meanwhile, Bolotnikov defeated the tsarist governors and moved towards Moscow. On the way, he joined up with the noble militias, together with them approached Moscow and stopped in the village of Kolomenskoye. Shuisky's position became extremely dangerous. Almost half of the state rose against him, rebel forces besieged Moscow, and he had no troops, not only to pacify the rebellion, but even to defend Moscow. In addition, the rebels cut off the access to grain, and famine was discovered in Moscow. Among the besiegers, however, discord was revealed: the nobility, on the one hand, slaves, fugitive peasants, on the other, could live peacefully only until they knew each other's intentions. As soon as the nobility became acquainted with the goals of Bolotnikov and his army, they immediately recoiled from them. The Sunbulov and Lyapunovs, although they hated the order established in Moscow, preferred Shuisky and confessed to him. Other nobles began to follow them. Then the militia from some cities came to the rescue, and Shuisky was saved. Bolotnikov fled first to Serpukhov, then to Kaluga, from which he moved to Tula, where he sat down with the Cossack impostor Lzhepetr. This new impostor appeared among the Terek Cossacks and pretended to be the son of Tsar Fyodor, who in reality never existed. Its appearance dates back to the time of the first False Dmitry. Shakhovskoy came to Bolotnikov; they decided to lock themselves up here and sit back from Shuisky. The number of their troops exceeded 30,000 people. In the spring of 1607, Tsar Vasily decided to act vigorously against the rebels; but the spring campaign was unsuccessful. Finally, in the summer, with a huge army, he personally went to Tula and laid siege to it, pacifying the insurgent cities along the way and destroying the rebels: they put "prisoners in the water" in thousands, that is, they simply drowned them. A third of the state territory was given to the troops for plunder and devastation. The siege of Tula dragged on; it was possible to take it only when they came up with an arrangement on the river. Upe the dam and flood the city. Shakhovsky was exiled to Lake Kubenskoye, Bolotnikov to Kargopol, where he was drowned, False Petr was hanged. Shuisky triumphed, but not for long. Instead of going to pacify the Seversk cities, where the rebellion did not stop, he disbanded the troops and returned to Moscow to celebrate the victory. The social background of Bolotnikov's movement did not escape Shuisky's attention. This is proved by the fact that by a number of decrees he planned to strengthen in place and subject to supervision that social stratum that discovered dissatisfaction with its position and sought to change it. By issuing such decrees, Shuisky acknowledged the existence of turmoil, but, trying to defeat it with one repression, he discovered a lack of understanding of the real state of affairs.

Battle of Bolotnikov's troops with the tsarist army. Painting by E. Lissner

By August 1607, when V. Shuisky was sitting near Tula, a second False Dmitry appeared in Starodub Seversky, whom the people very aptly dubbed the Thief. The Starodubtsy believed in him and began to help him. Soon a team squad was formed around him, consisting of Poles, Cossacks and all sorts of crooks. This was not a zemstvo squad that gathered around False Dmitry I: it was just a gang of "thieves" who did not believe in the royal origin of the new impostor and followed him in the hope of prey. The thief defeated the tsarist army and stopped near Moscow in the village of Tushino, where he founded his fortified camp. From everywhere people flocked to him, yearning for easy money. The arrival of Lisovsky and Yan Sapieha especially strengthened the Thief.

S. Ivanov. Camp of False Dmitry II in Tushino

Shuisky's position was difficult. The South could not help him; he had no strength of his own. There remained hope for the north, which was comparatively calmer and suffered little from the turmoil. On the other hand, Vor could not take Moscow either. Both rivals were weak and could not defeat each other. The people became corrupted and forgot about duty and honor, serving alternately one or the other. In 1608 V. Shuisky sent his nephew Mikhail Vasilyevich Skopin-Shuisky (see) to the Swedes for help. The Russians ceded the city of Karel with the province to Sweden, abandoned the views of Livonia and pledged an eternal alliance against Poland, for which they received an auxiliary detachment of 6 thousand people. Skopin moved from Novgorod to Moscow, clearing the north-west of the Tushins along the way. Sheremetev went from Astrakhan, suppressing the rebellion along the Volga. In the Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, they united and went to Moscow. By this time, Tushino had ceased to exist. It happened this way: when Sigismund learned about the alliance of Russia with Sweden, he declared war on her and laid siege to Smolensk. In Tushino, ambassadors were sent to the local Polish troops with the demand to join the king. A split began among the Poles: some obeyed the king's order, others did not. Thief's position was difficult before: no one stood on ceremony with him, he was insulted, almost beaten; now it was unbearable. The thief decided to leave Tushino and fled to Kaluga. During his stay in Tushino, a courtyard of Moscow people who did not want to serve Shuisky gathered around Vor. Among them were representatives of very high strata of the Moscow nobility, but the palace nobility - Metropolitan Filaret (Romanov), Prince. Trubetskoy, Saltykov, Godunov and others; there were also ordinary people who sought to curry favor, gain weight and importance in the state - Molchanov, Iv. Gramotin, Fedka Andronov and others. Sigismund invited them to surrender to the rule of the king. Filaret and the Tushino boyars answered that the election of the tsar was not their own business, that they could not do anything without the advice of the land. At the same time, they entered into an agreement between themselves and the Poles not to pester V. Shuisky and not want the tsar from the "other Moscow boyars" and started negotiations with Sigismund that he should send his son Vladislav to the Moscow kingdom. An embassy was sent from the Russian Tushins, headed by the Saltykovs, Prince. Rubets-Masalsky, Pleshcheevs, Khvorostin, Velyaminov - all great nobles - and a few people of low origin. On February 4, 1610, they entered into an agreement with Sigismund, clarifying the aspirations of "a rather mediocre nobility and profitable businessmen". Its main points are as follows: 1) Vladislav is married to the kingdom by an Orthodox patriarch; 2) Orthodoxy must be respected as before: 3) the property and rights of all ranks remain inviolable; 4) the trial is carried out according to the old times; Vladislav shares legislative power with the boyars and the Zemsky Sobor; 5) the execution can be carried out only by court and with the knowledge of the boyars; the property of the relatives of the perpetrator should not be subject to confiscation; 6) taxes are collected according to the old times; the appointment of new ones is done with the consent of the boyars; 7) peasant crossing is prohibited; 8) Vladislav is obliged not to demote people of high ranks innocently, but to raise the lesser according to their merits; travel to other countries for science is permitted; 9) slaves remain in the same position. Analyzing this treaty, we find: 1) that it is national and strictly conservative, 2) that it protects most of all the interests of the service class, and 3) that it undoubtedly introduces some innovations; points 5, 6 and 8 are especially characteristic in this respect. Meanwhile, Skopin-Shuisky with triumph on March 12, 1610 entered liberated Moscow.

Vereshchagin. Defenders of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra

Moscow was jubilant, welcoming the 24-year-old hero with great joy. Shuisky was also jubilant, hoping that the days of testing were over. But during these rejoicing Skopin suddenly died. There was a rumor that he had been poisoned. There is news that Lyapunov offered Skopin to "put down" Vasily Shuisky and take the throne himself, but gives him the right to the seniority of power. This is the principle of the old boyars (see / p Skopin rejected this proposal. After the tsar learned about this, he lost interest in his nephew. In any case, the death of Skopin destroyed the connection of Shuisky with the people. He set out to liberate Smolensk, but near the village of Klushina he was shamefully defeated by the Polish hetman Zholkevsky.

Mikhail Vasilievich Skopin-Shuisky. Parsuna (portrait) of the 17th century

Zholkevsky deftly took advantage of the victory: he quickly went to Moscow, seizing Russian cities on the way and swearing them in to Vladislav. Thief also hurried to Moscow from Kaluga. When Moscow learned about the outcome of the battle at Klushino, "the rebellion is great in all people - fighting against the tsar." The approach of Zholkiewski and Vor hastened the catastrophe. In the overthrow of Shuisky from the throne, the main role fell to the lot of the service class, headed by Zakhar Lyapunov. The palace nobility, including Filaret Nikitich, also took part in this. After several unsuccessful attempts, Shuisky's opponents gathered at the Serpukhov gate, declared themselves the council of the whole land and "put down" the tsar.

The third period of Troubles

Moscow found itself without a government, and meanwhile, it needed it now more than ever: from both sides it was pressed by enemies. Everyone was aware of this, but did not know where to stop. Lyapunov and the Ryazan service people wanted to make Prince Prince. V. Golitsyn; Filaret, Saltykovs and other residents of Tushin had other intentions; the highest nobility, headed by F. I. Mstislavsky and I. S. Kurakin, decided to wait. The board was transferred into the hands of the boyar duma, which consisted of 7 members. The "seven-numbered boyars" were unable to take power into their own hands. They made an attempt to collect the Zemsky Sobor, but it failed. The fear of the Thief, on whose side the rabble was taking, forced them to let Zholkevsky into Moscow, but he entered only when Moscow agreed to the election of Vladislav. On August 27, Moscow swore allegiance to Vladislav. If the election of Vladislav was not accomplished in the usual way, at a real zemstvo council, nevertheless, the boyars did not dare to take this step alone, but gathered representatives from different layers of the state and formed something like a zemstvo council, which was recognized as the council of the whole land. After lengthy negotiations, both sides adopted the previous agreement, with some changes: 1) Vladislav had to convert to Orthodoxy; 2) the clause on freedom of travel abroad for the sciences was crossed out and 3) the article on the promotion of smaller people was destroyed. These changes show the influence of the clergy and boyars. The agreement on the election of Vladislav was sent to Sigismund with a grand embassy, ​​which consisted of almost 1000 persons: representatives of almost all classes were included here. It is very likely that the majority of the members of the "council of the whole earth", who elected Vladislav, entered the embassy. The embassy was headed by Metropolitan Filaret and Prince V.P. Golitsyn. The embassy was not successful: Sigismund himself wanted to sit on the Moscow throne. When Zolkiewski realized that Sigismund's intention was unshakable, he left Moscow, realizing that the Russians would not reconcile with this. Sigismund hesitated, tried to intimidate the ambassadors, but they did not back down from the treaty. Then he resorted to bribing some of the members, which he succeeded: they left Smolensk to prepare the ground for the election of Sigismund, but the rest were unshakable.

Getman Stanislav Zholkevsky

At the same time, in Moscow, the "seven-numbered boyars" have lost all meaning; power passed into the hands of the Poles and the newly formed government circle, which betrayed the Russian cause and surrendered to Sigismund. This circle consisted of Yves. Micah. Saltykov, Prince. Yu. D. Khvorostinina, ND Velyaminova, MA Molchanov, Gramotin, Fedka Andronova and many others. etc. Thus, the first attempt of the Moscow people to restore power ended in complete failure: instead of an equal union with Poland, Russia risked falling into complete submission from her. The failed attempt put an end to the political significance of the boyars and the boyar duma forever. As soon as the Russians realized that they had made a mistake in choosing Vladislav, as soon as they saw that Sigismund was not lifting the siege of Smolensk and was deceiving them, national and religious feelings began to awaken. At the end of October 1610, ambassadors from near Smolensk sent a letter about the threatening turn of affairs; in Moscow itself, patriots revealed the truth to the people in anonymous letters. All eyes turned to Patriarch Hermogenes: he understood his task, but he could not immediately take up its fulfillment. After the storming of Smolensk on November 21, the first serious clash between Hermogenes and Saltykov took place, who tried to persuade the patriarch to side with Sigismund; but Hermogenes still did not dare to call on the people to openly fight the Poles. The death of the Thief and the disintegration of the embassy made him "dare to command the blood" - and in the second half of December he began to send letters to the cities. This was discovered, and Hermogenes paid the price with imprisonment.

His appeal, however, was heard. The first to rise from the Ryazan land was Procopius Lyapunov. He began to collect an army for the Poles and in January 1611 moved to Moscow. Zemstvo squads marched towards Lyapunov from all sides; even the Tushino Cossacks went to the rescue of Moscow, under the command of Prince. D.T. Trubetskoy and Zarutsky. The Poles, after a battle with the inhabitants of Moscow and the approaching zemstvo squads, locked themselves in the Kremlin and Kitai-Gorod. The position of the Polish detachment (about 3000 people) was dangerous, especially since it had few reserves. Sigismund could not help him, he himself was not able to put an end to Smolensk. Zemstvo and Cossack militias united and surrounded the Kremlin, but strife immediately broke out between them. Nevertheless, the army declared itself the council of the land and began to rule the state, since there was no other government. As a result of the intensified strife between the Zemstvo people and the Cossacks, it was decided in June 1611 to draw up a general decree. The verdict of the representatives of the Cossacks and service people, who made up the main nucleus of the Zemstvo army, is very extensive: it had to arrange not only the army, but also the state. The supreme power should belong to the entire army, which calls itself "the whole earth"; voivods are only the executive bodies of this council, which retains the right to remove them if they do badly. The court belongs to the governors, but they can only execute with the approval of the "council of the whole earth", otherwise they face death. Then the local affairs were settled very precisely and in detail. All awards of the Thief and Sigismund are declared irrelevant. Cossacks "old" can receive estates and become, thus, in the ranks of service people. Then there are decrees on the return of fugitive slaves, who called themselves Cossacks (new Cossacks), to their former masters; the willfulness of the Cossacks was largely ashamed. Finally, an order management was established according to the Moscow model. From this verdict it is clear that the army gathered near Moscow considered itself the representative of the whole land and that the main role at the council belonged to the zemstvo servants, and not the Cossacks. This sentence is also characteristic in that it testifies to the importance that the service class was gradually acquiring. But the predominance of service people was short-lived; the Cossacks could not be in solidarity with them. The case ended with the murder of Lyapunov and the flight of the Zemshchina. The hopes of the Russians for the militia did not come true: Moscow remained in the hands of the Poles, Smolensk by this time had been taken by Sigismund, Novgorod by the Swedes; Cossacks settled around Moscow, robbing the people, rampaging and preparing a new turmoil, proclaiming the son of Marina, who lived in connection with the Zarutskiy, the Russian tsar.

The state, apparently, was perishing; but a popular movement arose throughout the north and north-east of Russia. This time it separated from the Cossacks and began to act independently. Hermogenes, with his letters, infused animation into the hearts of Russians. Nizhny became the center of the movement. Kuzma Minin was placed at the head of the economic organization, and power over the army was handed over to Prince Pozharsky.

K. Makovsky. Minin's appeal on the square of Nizhny Novgorod

Chapter 1. The Crisis of the Russian State and the Power ……………………… ..3

1.1. The crisis of the state at the turn of the 16-17 centuries ………………………… .... 5

1.2. Power problems and the princely-boyar opposition ………………… ..9

Chapter 2. State power during the Time of Troubles ……………………… ..18

2.1. Political regimes during the Time of Troubles ……………………………… 18

2.2. Analysis of the process of evolution of power …………………………………… .20

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………… ... 25

References ……………………………………………………… ..27

INTRODUCTION

The relevance of the topic of the work is due to the following aspects. The consequences of the Troubles were dire for the development of the country. In economic terms, the Troubles was a long-term setback for both the city and the village. The funds necessary for the development of the country were withdrawn from the population in the form of heavy taxes. Considering that in a devastated country the population had almost no money, part of the taxes had to be collected in kind. It was necessary to rebuild not only cities, but also villages, to repopulate them. The actual cancellation of any prohibitions on the transition of peasants was caused by the need to strengthen the farms after the Troubles. But when the first and most severe economic consequences of the crisis began to be overcome, the first thing the government seized upon was the restoration of the timeframes for the search for fugitive peasants and the fundamental prohibition of the right of their transition. The incipient transformation of the layout Cossacks into landowners also intensified the development of serfdom.

The social base of absolutism was the serving feudal lords - the nobles. As a result of the rapid growth of local land ownership, encouraged by the government, most of the land and peasant households passed into the hands of the nobility. Relying on the nobility, the tsars from the Romanov dynasty strengthened the autocratic power. This policy was consistently pursued by the “great sovereign” and Patriarch Filaret during the reign of Mikhail Romanov (1613-1645) and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676). On the one hand, they tried to liquidate or at least weaken the existing estate-representative institutions (Zemsky Sobor, Boyar Duma), which limited the autocracy, on the other, to strengthen the centralized state apparatus (order system) and the standing army.

The next tsar from the Romanov dynasty - Fyodor Alekseevich (1676 - 1682) was also an extraordinary personality. He continued his father's political line to strengthen the autocracy, carried out important reforms.

During the Time of Troubles, in which all strata and estates of Russian society took part, the question of the very existence of the Russian state, of the choice of the path of development of the country, was decided. It was necessary to find ways for the survival of the people. Troubles settled primarily in the minds and souls of people. In the specific conditions of the beginning of the XVII century. the way out of the Troubles was found in the awareness of the regions and the center of the need for a strong statehood. In the minds of people, the idea of ​​giving everything for the common good won out, and not looking for personal gain.

After the Time of Troubles, a choice was made in favor of preserving the largest power in the east of Europe. In the specific geopolitical conditions of that time, the path of further development of Russia was chosen: autocracy as a form of political government, serfdom as the basis of the economy, Orthodoxy as an ideology, the estate system as a social structure.

The subject of the research is the process of the evolution of power during the turmoil.

The main goal of the work is to analyze the crisis aspects of the Russian state and its power during the Time of Troubles.

Work tasks:

1. Determine the problems of power during the Time of Troubles.

2. Describe the political situation during the Time of Troubles.

3. Analyze the evolution of power.

To write the work, the works of Russian historians Zimin A.A., Kargalov V.V., Klyuchevsky V.O., Platonov S.F., Soloviev S.M., Stashevsky E.D. were used. and other authors.

CHAPTER 1.THE CRISIS OF THE RUSSIAN STATE AND POWER

1.1. State crisis at the turn of the 16-17 centuries

As we know from historical literature, the constant raids of the Crimean Tatars, the protracted Livonian war, oprichnina "brute force" and robberies, repeated crop failures and epidemics led to the ruin of the peasants and townspeople, to the impoverishment of the local economy, to the economic crisis that came in the second half of 80 -x years

The population of the central districts fled en masse to the outskirts of the country. Whole counties were deserted, arable lands were abandoned. In 1584, only 16% of the land was plowed up in the Moscow district, and less than 8% in the border Pskov district. Even the "reserved years" could not keep the peasants on the estates,

The country's difficult economic situation was exacerbated by political difficulties. The legal heir to the throne, Tsarevich Fyodor Ivanovich was unable to To independent government. Contemporaries called him "blessed," "weak-minded and weak," who "looked more like an ignorant monk than a grand duke."

Ivan the Terrible was not mistaken in the abilities of his son. But there was no other heir: the youngest - Dmitry - was still a baby. In the last days of his life, the tsar created a regency council, which, on behalf of Tsar Fyodor, was supposed to rule Russia. The council included boyars B. Ya., Belsky, I.P. Shuisky, I.F. Mstislavsky, as well as recently received the boyar "rank", the favorite of the tsar Boris Godunov.

The reign of Fyodor Ivanovich (1584 - 1598) again began with "boyar rule": contrary to the expectations of Ivan the Terrible, there was no agreement in the regency council, a struggle for power began between the noble boyar families (Mstislavsky, Shuisky, Romanov).

However, in contrast to the time of the first "boyar rule" during the youth of Ivan IV, at the court there was an influential group of boyars and nobles who were ready to continue the policy of centralization. other people. This group was headed by Boris Godunov, the tsarina's brother, who enjoyed great influence over Tsar Fyodor.

Relying on the nobility, order bureaucracy and rifle regiments, he managed to eliminate his rivals. Prince Ivan Mstislavsky and boyar Fyodor Romanov were forcibly tonsured into monks, Prince Ivan Shuisky was executed. Job, a supporter of Godunov, became Metropolitan, Boris Godunov actually became the ruler of the state, although he spoke on behalf of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich,

The government of Boris Godunov continued the political line of Ivan the Terrible, aimed at further strengthening the tsarist power and strengthening the position of the nobility. Boris Godunov took measures to restore the landlord economy. Much attention was paid to securing the peasants in the noble estates. Boris Godunov continued the practice of “reserved years”. New "scribe books" were compiled, which assigned the peasants to their owners. Finally, around 1592 - 1593. a tsarist decree was issued to abolish the peasant exit even on St. George's Day.

The nobles were given "obedient letters", according to which their peasants had to plow the landlord's arable land and pay dues not "in the old days", as before, but "with what they would be portrayed", that is, at the behest of the master.

Two important decrees that strengthened serfdom were issued in 1597. This was a decree on slaves, according to which any "free man" who worked for six months in the household of a feudal lord turned into a bonded slave. Bonded slaves were deprived of the right to redeem themselves for freedom. Another decree - on "fixed years" - established a five-year period for the search and return of the fugitive peasant to the previous owner,

The serfdom legislation of the government of Boris Godunov strengthened the landlord economy, but caused deep discontent among the peasantry. The sad proverb - "Here's to you, grandmother, and St. George's Day!" - the popular consciousness associated with Boris Godunov.

Some events of Boris Godunov were carried out in the interests of the posad elite, these events expanded the social base of the government of Boris Godunov, which was very important in connection with the continued resistance of large feudal lords.

A great danger to the power of Boris Godunov was represented by the Nagie boyars, relatives of the young Tsarevich Dmitry, the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible.

Tsarevich Dmitry was expelled from Moscow to Uglich, which was declared his “inheritance.” Soon Uglich turned into a center of gravity for all opposition forces. in 1591 the prince died unexpectedly under mysterious circumstances.

In 1598, Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich died without leaving an heir. Tsarina Irina became a nun of the Novodevichy Convent. With the death of Fyodor, the dynasty of Moscow Rurikovichs, leading their lineage from the great Moscow princes, was interrupted. The question of power was again sharply raised. A struggle for the throne began between influential princely and boyar groups.

However, the attempts of the feudal aristocracy to nominate the tsar from their midst ended in failure. Each boyar group nominated its own candidate for the throne.

In 1598, at the Zemsky Sobor, Boris Godunov was elected tsar. The first steps of the new king were very careful and aimed to soften the internal situation in the country. Howled, an amnesty was announced, arrears on state taxes were lifted, the nobles and townspeople received additional benefits. Many counties were generally exempted from taxes for 3 - 5 years, Boris Godunov declared a fight against the arbitrariness of local authorities, which was met with approval by the townspeople and "black people".

As a result of such a cautious policy, Boris Godunov managed to establish himself on the throne.

Boris Godunov tried to maintain peaceful relations with neighboring states. In 1601, a 20-year truce was signed with the Commonwealth. Godunov strongly encouraged cultural and trade relations with Western Europe.

Boris Godunov, according to his contemporaries, was a major statesman, strong-willed and far-sighted, skillful diplomat. He personally conducted diplomatic negotiations and was consistently successful,

However, there were latent processes in the country, which eventually led to a political crisis and the Time of Troubles.

1.2. Problemsauthorities and the princely-boyar opposition

As you know, even in the last days of his life, Ivan the Terrible created a regency council, which included boyars. The council was created in order to govern the state on behalf of his son, Tsar Fyodor, who was unable to do it on his own. Thus, a powerful group was formed at the court, headed by the influential Boris Godunov, who gradually eliminated his rivals.

Godunov's government continued the political line of Ivan the Terrible, aimed at further strengthening the tsarist power and strengthening the position of the nobility. Measures were taken to restore the landlord economy. The arable lands of the serving feudal lords were exempted from state taxes and duties. The official duties of the noble landowners were eased. These actions contributed to the strengthening of the government base, which was necessary in connection with the continued resistance of the feudal landowners.

A great danger to the power of Boris Godunov was represented by the Nagie boyars, relatives of the young Tsarevich Dmitry, the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible. Dmitry was expelled from Moscow to Uglich, which was declared his destiny. Uglich soon became an opposition center. The boyars expected the death of Tsar Fyodor in order to push Godunov out of power and rule on behalf of the young tsarevich. However, in 1591, Tsarevich Dmitry died under mysterious circumstances. The commission of inquiry, led by the boyar Vasily Shuisky, concluded that it was an accident. But the opposition began to spread rumors about premeditated murder by order of the ruler. Later, a version appeared that another boy was killed, and the prince escaped and was waiting for the age of majority in order to return and punish the "villain". For a long time, the "Uglitskoye Affair" remained a mystery to Russian historians, but recent studies suggest that an accident really happened.

In 1598, Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich died without leaving an heir. Moscow swore allegiance to his wife, Queen Irina, but Irina renounced the throne and took monastic vows. While the sovereigns of the old familiar dynasty (direct descendants of Rurik and Vladimir the Saint) were on the Moscow throne, the vast majority of the population unquestioningly obeyed their “natural sovereigns”. But when the dynasties ceased, the state turned out to be "nobody's". The upper stratum of the Moscow population, the boyars, began a struggle for power in the country that had become "stateless."

However, the attempts of the aristocracy to nominate the tsar from their midst failed. Boris Godunov's positions were strong enough. He was supported by the Orthodox Church, the Moscow archers, the order bureaucracy, and some of the boyars who were nominated by him to important positions. In addition, Godunov's rivals were weakened by an internal struggle.

In 1598, at the Zemsky Sobor, Boris Godunov, after two times public refusal, was elected tsar.

His first steps were very careful and were aimed mainly at softening the internal situation in the country. According to his contemporaries, the new tsar was a major statesman, strong-willed and far-sighted, skillful diplomat. However, there were latent processes in the country that led to a political crisis.

A brief chronology of the Troubles is as follows:

1598 - suppression of the Kalita dynasty. The beginning of the reign of Boris Godunov;

1601-1603 - crop failures and mass famine in Russia. The growing social tension in the country;

1605 - the death of Tsar Boris Godunov. Accession of False Dmitry I;

1606-1610 - the board of Vasily Shuisky;

1006-1607 - peasant uprising led by I. Bolotnikov. False Dmitry II;

1609 - Poland and Sweden are drawn into the war. The beginning of the Polish intervention;

1610-1612 - "seven-boyarshina";

1611-1612 - the first and second militias, the liberation of Moscow from the Polish invaders;

1613 - the beginning of the Romanov dynasty.

The origin of the Troubles is associated with the extinction of the Rurik dynasty. The son of Ivan IV Fedor (1584-1598) was incapable of governing the state. He died childless, his younger brother, young Dmitry, died under very mysterious circumstances in Uglich in 1591. The dynasty of Ivan Kalita's descendants was cut short. The issue of succession to the throne was decided by the Zemsky Sobor, which elected the brother-in-law of the deceased tsar, boyar Boris Godunov (1598-1605), to the throne. This was the first time in the history of the Muscovy, before Godunov not a single tsar was elected, so it seems natural that the new tsar strives in every possible way to emphasize his connection with the previous dynasty. He even put into practice an explicit fiction about the will of Ivan IV, who allegedly "denied" Godunov the Moscow throne. Boris Godunov is a talented statesman. An excellent orator, he possessed a sonorous voice and the gift of eloquence, capturing the admiration of those around him. Contemporaries noted his excellent manners, friendliness, dislike of wine. “Cautious and perceptive, treacherous and generous, Boris knew how to be anything, more precisely, such as the circumstances demanded. This he owes to the natural mind, unyielding will. "

The internal policy of Godunov, reformatory in content, was aimed at stabilizing the situation in the country, brought to a crisis state by the oprichnina. Cities were being built on the Volga (Samara, Saratov, Tsaritsyn, etc.), the situation of the settlement was eased. He made the first attempt before Peter I to overcome the cultural backwardness of Russia from Western Europe, for which foreign specialists were invited to the country, and several young noblemen "robots" were sent abroad to study. Godunov showed concern for the spread of printing, printing houses were opened in cities.

In foreign policy, the tsar strove for victories at the negotiating table: he extended the truce with the Commonwealth, strengthened the southern borders, returned Ivangorod, Yam, Koporye, Karela. Perhaps, if Godunov had had a few more quiet years at his disposal, Russia would have embarked on the path of European modernization long before Peter's reforms. However, history ordered it differently.

An improvement in the economic situation was only outlined, but the way out of the crisis was a feudal way. To keep the peasants on the lands of the former owners, according to the assumption of a number of researchers, in 1592 a decree was issued prohibiting peasant transitions, in 1597 - a decree “on lesson years”: the owner's right to search for fugitives for five years. All this intensified discontent among the peasantry. And then came crop failures and a terrible famine of 1601-1603.

For the first time in Russian history, the government tried to implement a broad program of assistance to the starving: money was distributed to the poor, bread from state storage facilities, free lunches and paid construction work were organized. Boris tried to back up the new measures with new ideas. As stated in the decree on the introduction of fixed prices in Sol-Vychegodsk, the tsar “protects the peasant people in everything”, “regrets all the Orthodox peasantry”, seeks “to all of you - all the people to people - ... all of them are exactly ". Recognition that not only the tops! but the lower strata of society - the "multitude of the whole people" - have the right to an abundance of grain, it was a new word in the country's internal policy. Russia was on the verge of major social upheavals, the most far-sighted politicians felt the approach of a catastrophe and tried to prevent it.

However, the government's measures fell short of the target. Hunger riots begin, popular unrest encompasses more and more territories. The king is catastrophically losing his authority. The Time of Troubles has come.

The first of these were the dynastic and socio-economic crises. The old social structure broke down, serfdom was established, which painfully affected the position of the people. The feudal estate was also in crisis. At the beginning of the 17th century. the decline of the feudal estates was observed, caused by their fragmentation and the flight of peasants. Boyar children, who had neither peasants nor slaves, dropped out of the "composition" of the feudal lords. The fighting slaves, losing their privileged status, also expressed dissatisfaction. The relations between the authorities and the Cossacks worsened. The government understood that the feudal system in the center could not finally establish itself as long as there were free outskirts. Therefore, from the end of the XVI century. a policy of subordination of the Cossack regions is being pursued. As a result, it is the Cossacks who will form the core of the rebel armies of False Dmitry I, Bolotnikov, and the "Tushinsky thief" and become one of the main driving forces of the turmoil.

The struggle for the throne resumed. The aristocracy strove for revenge, to consolidate its position in the new political situation. The power of the nobility was shaken, but not broken by the oprichnina. Now she decided that her hour had struck.

Intra-class disagreements intensified between different layers of the boyars, between the Moscow and provincial nobility, since the latter was denied access to the real government of the country. In the struggle for influence in the army, the interests of the nobility and the Cossacks clashed. As a result, everyone was unhappy. Added to this was the idea of ​​the people that power in the country should belong to the "natural king", a representative of the Rurik dynasty. Thus, the dynastic crisis with iron necessity gave rise to imposture. The impostor turned into an expected hero capable of saving the people from oppression and social injustice.

The impostors will be used for their own purposes by various socio-political forces of the country. Imposture will become a convenient form of organizing a mass anti-government movement. The first pas of impostors - the fugitive monk of the Chudov Monastery, the "defrocked" Grishka Otrepiev - will declare himself the son of Ivan IV, Dmitry, who supposedly survived by a miracle. Supported by the servicemen, the Cossacks, the small landed nobles, the gentry, the peasants, he will go to Moscow.

The impostor was also helped by the death of Boris Godunov in April 1605. Already in May, the governors recognized the impostor as the legitimate king, their example was followed by a significant part of the army, then - the Moscow boyars.

June 20, 1605 he solemnly entered Moscow. Even before that, all the relatives of Boris Godunov were killed, including the son of Fyodor, who succeeded him. Godunov's remains were recovered from the Archangel Cathedral - the tomb of the Moscow tsars in the Kremlin - and buried in one of the distant Moscow cemeteries.

Shuisky's accession did not bring peace to the country. Those social forces that participated in the struggle of False Dmitry for the throne counted on more serious political changes. It should be borne in mind that for his contemporaries Shuisky's right to the throne aroused great doubts. Therefore, when the rumor spread that "Tsar Dmitry" had escaped and appeared in Poland, a large army gathered under the banner of the new impostor. He tried to influence events by sending his proxies to Russia, authorized to organize a campaign against the capital.

One of the leaders of the rebels was the former combat servant Ivan Bolotnikov, the second - Istoma Pashkov, the boyar's son. In October 1606, the rebellious army, consisting of Cossack, noble and peasant detachments, approached Moscow. Later, some of them went over to the side of Shuisky. Bolotnikov retreated from Moscow to Tula, where he was surrounded and captured (1607). Historians of the Soviet school designated this period of Troubles as the Peasant War, highlighting Bolotnikov's campaign as the central requirement. However, Bolotnikov and his associates did not put forward any specific peasant demands. IN. Klyuchevsky generally denied the existence of any socially significant aspirations of the "lower classes" who participated in the Troubles.

R.G. Skrynnikov, proving that popular movements began in the 17th century. were not a peasant war, in particular, claims that Bolotnikov pursued, above all, political goals, not social. The author believes that the strength of this movement as one of the most important stages of the civil war lay in the fact that it united different strata and groupings of society.

When False Dmitry II appeared within the Moscow kingdom, the country was divided: some were for Tsar Vasily, others for a new pretender to the throne, which was located far from Moscow, in Tushino. In the winter of 1608-1609. The Tushino camp turned into a real fortified city with a royal palace. More and more detachments from Poland come here, which, formally obeying the impostor, were engaged in robbery of the local population. Along with them, the Russians also looted. The cities passed from the hands of an impostor, nicknamed the "Tushino thief", into the hands of Tsar Vasily either voluntarily or during military battles.

Seeing no other way to deal with the Tushins, who were secretly supported by the Polish king Sigismund III, Vasily Shuisky turned to the Swedish king for help. He sent an auxiliary detachment. This became a convenient pretext for Poland to interfere in Russian affairs. In September 1609 Sigismund III laid siege to Smolensk. In December, False Dmitry II fled from the Tushino camp to Kaluga (where he would be killed by Prince Peter Urusov).

In February 1610, the embassy headed by the boyar Mikhail Saltykov, disillusioned with the "Tushino tsarka", concluded an agreement with the Polish king on the conditions for his son Vladislav's accession to the Moscow throne. The document provided for guarantees of Russia against absorption by the Commonwealth, reflected the personal rights of subjects.

The idea of ​​calling the prince Vladislav to the Russian throne found its supporters in Moscow. Boyars and nobles in July 1610 overthrew Shuisky and forced him to take the monastic vows. Power temporarily passed into the hands of a government of seven boyars ("seven-boyars"), which decided to put Vladislav on the Russian throne. Some historians believe that in this way an opportunity arose to strengthen ties between Russia and Europe, which was not realized due to the Catholic faith of the prince. Another point of view boils down to the fact that those boyars who swore allegiance to Vladislav and let in on the night of September 21, 1610, Polish troops led by Hetman Gonsevsky to Moscow, who committed an act of national treason.

Sweden, taking advantage of the situation, captured Novgorod and began to plunder the northwestern Russian territories. At the same time, detachments of Polish gentry roamed the country, besieging and plundering holy fools and monasteries. The Cossacks did the same. In fact, there was no central authority. The country faced the threat of losing its independence.

In this extremely difficult time, the patriotic forces managed to unite and rebuff the claims of the invaders. The troops of the first national militia, led by Procopius Lyapunov, threw back the army of the Polish king and laid siege to Moscow. The militias were joined by the Cossacks - Tushinsky, led by Ivan Zarutsky and Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy. The siege yielded no results. The Cossacks, having quarreled with the nobles, dispersed their militia. The second militia began (published in Nizhny Novgorod, headed by K. Minin and D. Pozharsky. Princes Pozharsky and Trubetskoy agreed on joint actions. In October 1612, the militias liberated the Kremlin.

The liberation of the capital from the Poles was the first stage in the struggle for the revival of the Russian state. The civil war begins to subside gradually.

CHAPTER 2. STATE POWER DURING THE PERIOD OF DISCUSSION

2.1. Political regimes during the Time of Troubles

The period of turmoil in the Russian state is characterized by the instability of state power and frequent changes in political regimes: the Dynastic stage (1598 - 1605), the Social stage (1605 - 1610).

During this period, the figures of False Dmitry I and False Dmitry II appeared.

In the winter of 1608 - 1609. False Dmitry II is located near Moscow in Tushino. The Tushino camp turned into a real fortified city with a royal palace. The Tushinsky Thief established control over large areas to the east, north and north-west of Moscow.

The Tushino camp developed its own control system: the Boyar Duma, which consisted of boyars who went over to the side of the impostor, and orders. Metropolitan Filaret (Fyodor Romanov) was brought from Rostov, captured by the Tushinites, and was proclaimed patriarch.

In February 1610, the embassy, ​​headed by the boyar Mikhail Saltykov, concluded an agreement with the Polish king on the terms of his son Vladislav's accession to the Moscow throne.

Boyars and nobles in July 1610 overthrew Shuisky and forced him to take the monastic vows. Power temporarily passed into the hands of a government of seven boyars (the Boyar Duma as a Provisional Government - 1610. The Boyar Duma headed by F.I.Mstislavsky began to rule the country. ), who decided to put Vladislav on the Russian throne.

Sweden, taking advantage of the situation, captured Novgorod and began to plunder the northwestern Russian territories. At the same time, detachments of the Polish gentry roamed the country, besieging and plundering cities and monasteries. The Cossacks did the same. In fact, there was no central authority. The country faced the threat of losing its independence.

In January 1613, the Zemsky Sobor, the most representative in the history of medieval Russia, gathered in Moscow. It was attended by the boyars, and the higher clergy, and noblemen, and posad, for the first time Cossacks and black-haired peasants were presented. After lengthy disputes, on February 21, 1613, Mikhail Romanov (1613-1645), the nephew of the last Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, was elected Russian tsar.

In 1613, a Zemsky Sobor was held in Moscow, at which the question of choosing a new Russian tsar was raised. The candidates for the Russian throne were the Polish prince Vladislav, the son of the Swedish king Karl-Philip, the son of False Dmitry II and Marina Mnishek Ivan, nicknamed "Vorenk", as well as representatives of the largest boyar families. On February 21, the cathedral chose Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, the 16-year-old grand-nephew of the first wife of Ivan the Terrible, Anastasia Romanova. An embassy was sent to the Ignatiev Monastery near Kostroma, where Mikhail was at that time with his mother. On May 2, 1613, Mikhail arrived in Moscow, and on July 11, he was married to the throne. Soon, the leading place in governing the country was taken by his father, Patriarch Filaret, who "owned all the affairs of the royal and military." Power was restored in the form of an autocratic monarchy. The leaders of the struggle against the interventionists received modest appointments. D. M. Pozharsky was sent by the governor to Mozhaisk, and K. Minin became the Duma governor.

The Troubles led to a new way of governing the country. The idea of ​​patrimonial government on the basis of arbitrariness and freely interpreted custom could no longer be revived. Russia embarked on the path of restoring the estate-representative monarchy. The Boyar Duma and Zemsky Sobors in a wide composition were actively involved in governing the country.

Zemsky councils, which met almost continuously, were engaged in legislation, the search for funds to replenish the treasury, church and foreign policy affairs.

The Boyar Duma continued to be the supreme body in matters of legislation, administration and court. The composition of the Boyar Duma was replenished with the tsar's confidants and relatives, the Duma nobles and the Duma clerks. For the XVII century. the close connection of the personnel of the Boyar Duma with the order system is characteristic: many of its members performed the duties of judges of orders, voivods, were in the diplomatic service, etc.

2.2. Analysis of the process of evolution of power

The boyars were the top layer of the emerging ruling elite of the Moscow state. The real social support of power was also made up of new social groups that were emerging during this period: the nobility, military men (professional military), the Cossacks, etc.

A class of nobles, which has a long-standing origin, is being formed. The first service category, from which the nobility later grew, were "youths" (the prince's junior warriors). Then there appeared the prince's "courtyard" servants, which included both free people and slaves. All these categories were combined into a group of "boyar children" who did not grow up to be boyars, but formed the social base of the nobility.

The emerging noble class also included a large number of palace servants (tiuns, clerks, clerks, grooms, clerks, etc.), clerks and artisans of princes and boyars.

Centralization led to significant changes in the state apparatus and state ideology. The Grand Duke began to be called the king by analogy with the Horde khan or the Byzantine emperor. Russia took from Byzantium the attributes of an Orthodox state, state and religious symbols. The concept of autocratic power that had taken shape meant its absolute independence and sovereignty. The formation of the state apparatus was carried out according to the principle of parochialism.

Localism is a system of feudal hierarchy in Russia, which officially regulated relations between members of service families in military and civil services and at court.

Localism, based on the criteria of nobility of origin (the higher the origin of the applicant, the higher the position in the state hierarchy he can occupy), substituted estate interests for national interests.

When appointing service people to positions, they were taken into account as the service meaning of the surnames to which they belonged, i.e. the official nobility of this kind, and the genealogical position of the applicant within his surname. This conditional and complicated order was based on the bureaucratic, service achievements not of an individual, but of the entire clan, i.e. on the fatherland.

The Fatherland was established along 2 lines:

by genealogy (criterion - the nobility of the origin of the clan and the person himself); by ranks (records kept in the Order of the Order, which indicated the list of appointments to senior government positions for a certain period of time - 80-100 years).

When appointing to the position, a precedent was used, a situation borrowed from past years (according to the records of the ranks), in which the ancestors of the applicant for the position occupied one or another official position. If the fact of this was established, then the applicant could also demand his appointment to this (or a similar) position.

Localism singled out the boyars into a special group, the purpose of which was to participate in the supreme government of the state. The Boyar Duma became the embodiment of this aristocratic order of rule.

The Boyar Duma is the highest authority in the Russian state, consisting of secular and spiritual feudal lords, acting constantly on the basis of the principle of parochialism and relying on the professional (noble) bureaucracy.

The competence of the Duma included the formation of legislation, administration and judicial activity. The solution of these issues was carried out not on a legal basis, but on the initiative of the supreme power. A special group in the Duma was made up of appanage princes. As the supreme governing body, the Duma merged with orders.

Orders are central government bodies that existed from the end of the 15th to the 18th centuries. There were about 100 orders at various times.

Unlike palace departments, orders are more bureaucratic, technical in nature.

The working apparatus in the order "hut" were "comrades", headed, as a rule, "by the Duma boyar.

The development of the order system went through several stages:

1) there was an expansion of the functions of the palace departments, which turned into organs of state administration ..

2) independent institutions appeared within the palace departments, headed by clerks who received a special assignment ("hut" or "order").

3) order management finally turned into a system of central government.

Since that time, orders have become monopoly bodies of central government (Posolsky, Pomestny, Razboyny, Kazenny, etc.), which combined administrative and judicial functions and consisted of a boyar (head of the order), clerks and scribes. There were special commissioners in the field. Along with sectoral orders, territorial orders later arose, in charge of the affairs of individual regions.

The main unit of administrative-territorial division in the Russian state was the county, which consisted of large land areas: suburbs and lands. Whole lands were divided into parishes, camps, thirds and quarters. The parish remained as the main economic unit.

The principalities were divided into counties, counties into volosts and camps. The city and the suburban camp were ruled by the governor of the Grand Duke (boyar), and the volosts were ruled by volostels (smaller feudal lords).

Governors and volostels did not receive remuneration for managing a county or volost, but the local population several times a year had to supply them with “fodder” in natural products. In addition, they received part of the fees and duties from trades, shops, ships, etc.

By the middle of the XVI century. formed the main state and political institutions of the estate-representative monarchy.

A special place in the system of state bodies was occupied by Zemsky Sobors, held from the middle. XVI to XVII centuries Their convocation was announced by the royal charter. The structure of the Cathedral included: Boyar Duma, Consecrated Cathedral (church hierarchies) and elected from the nobility and posadov. Zemsky sobors decided the main issues of foreign and domestic policy, legislation, finance, state building. The questions were discussed by estates ("by chambers"), but were accepted by the entire composition of the Council.

Zemstvo and labial huts became estates and representative bodies in the localities (in the middle of the 16th century). The establishment of these bodies limited and replaced the feeding system: elective self-governing huts assumed financial and tax (zemstvo) and police and judicial (lip) functions. The competence of these bodies was enshrined in letters of the lips and zemstvo statutes signed by the tsar. The staff of these bodies consisted of "the best people", sotsky, fifty, elders and clerks.

The activities of the huts were controlled by various branch orders. There was, quite often, a reorganization of the order system, a sequential downsizing or merging of orders. In the work of these bodies, a real bureaucratic style was developed: strict obedience (vertically) and strict management of instructions and regulations (horizontally). In the XVII century. a reorganization of local government took place: zemstvo, labyrinth huts and city clerks began to obey the voivods appointed from the center, who assumed administrative, police and military functions. The governors relied on a specially created apparatus (clerk hut) of clerks, bailiffs and clerks.

In political terms, the time of troubles - when the Earth, having gathered strength, itself restored the destroyed state, showed with her own eyes that the Moscow state was not the creation and "patrimony" of its "master" - the sovereign, but was a common cause and common creation "of all cities and all ranks of people of the entire great Russian Kingdom. "

CONCLUSION

XVII century historians consider the beginning of a "new period" in Russian history. At this time, with the preservation of the dominant feudal relations, the first elements of the capitalist order emerged. Hence - the complexity and contradictions of all the socio-economic and political processes that took place in Russia, acute social and ideological conflicts. It is not for nothing that the seventeenth century of Russian history is called the “rebellious century”.

The Polish-Lithuanian-Swedish intervention, the robberies of the Cossack atamans, the Tatar raids that resumed during the period of the “turmoil” inflicted enormous damage on the country's productive forces. However, after one or two decades, the traces of "ruin" began to gradually disappear. Once again, Russia rose from the ruins.

As for the political development of Russia in the 17th century, the main content of this process was the gradual transition from the estate-representative to the absolute monarchy, that is, unlimited and uncontrolled power. This process ended at the beginning of the 18th century, under Peter I, when the Russian Empire took shape.

The social base of absolutism was the serving feudal lords - nobles. As a result of the rapid growth of local land ownership, encouraged by the government, most of the land and peasant households passed into the hands of the nobility. Relying on the nobility, the tsars from the Romanov dynasty strengthened the autocratic power. This policy was consistently pursued by the "great sovereign" and Patriarch Filaret during the reign of Mikhail Romanov ( 1613 - 1645) and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1645 - 1676). On the one hand, they tried to liquidate or at least weaken the existing estate-representative institutions (Zemsky Sobor, Boyar Duma), which limited the autocracy, on the other, to strengthen the centralized state apparatus (order system) and the standing army.

In international relations, there were also changes, after the Time of Troubles, the place of Russia in the system of European political and economic ties has changed in many respects. The geopolitical foundations were maintained, but the strength and military potential were too weak. There was a long break in relations with a number of states. In Europe, on the eve of the Thirty Years War, which split into two camps, Russia was involved in the anti-Habsburg coalition. But within the framework of this coalition, Russia occupied secondary positions. It took half a century to overcome the most negative consequences of the Troubles in the international position of Russia, and the Baltic issue was resolved only under Peter I.

In cultural and civilizational terms, the isolation of the country has sharply increased, although the orientation towards isolationism has not become dominant. Overcoming the consequences of the Troubles in the economy, domestic development, foreign policy, and progress took the lives of two or three generations (although in terms of trust in the authorities, we have not changed much).

Under Alexei Mikhailovich, the Boyar Duma ceased to be a purely estate organ of the feudal aristocracy; it was constantly replenished at the expense of the "Duma nobles" and "Duma clerks" who did not belong to the titled boyars. In the 70s. almost a third of the Boyar Duma were representatives of the nobility and the order bureaucracy.

Zemsky cathedrals gradually died out. The last Zemsky Councils, which played an important role in the life of the country, were the Council of 1649, which adopted the Cathedral Code, and the Council of 1653, which decided on the reunification of Ukraine with Russia.

The evolution of the state system of Russia in the 17th century. prepared the reforms of Peter I.

Bibliography

1. Goryainov S.G., A.A. Egorov History of Russia 9-18 centuries - Rostov-n-D., 1996.

2. Zamyatin G.A. From the history of the struggle of Poland and Sweden for the Moscow throne at the beginning of the 17th century // OR RSL. F. 618. Archive of G.A. Zamyatin. K. 2. Unit xp. 2.L.

3. Zimin A.A. On the eve of terrible shocks. - M., 1986

4. Zimin N. A. A. Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible. - M. 1964.

5. History of Russia from ancient times to 1917 // Ed. Kargalova V.V. - M .: Russian word, 1998.

6. Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history course. - Part 3 of the Works. - T. 3. - M., 1988.

7. Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history. - M., 1993. Book. 2.P. 176

8. Kotoshikhin G.K. About Russia during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. - SPb., 1884.

9. Nosov N.E. Formation of estate representation in Russia in the first half of the 16th century // Historical notes. ... 8. Estates-representative institutions (zemstvo councils) in Russia in the 16th century / Voprosy istorii, No. 5, 1958.

10. Platonov S.F. Articles on Russian history. - SPb., 1912.

11. Rumyantsev. N.P. Collection No. 381. Sheet 2, 10 rev .; L. 32v. - 33.

12. Skrynnikov R.G. Russia at the beginning of the 17th century "Troubles". - M., 1988.S. 44

13. Soloviev S. M. History of Russia since ancient times. - M .: Education, 2002.

14. Stashevsky ED Essays on the history of the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich. Part 1. - Kiev. 1913.

15. Steshenko L.A. On the premises of absolutism in Russia // Bulletin of Moscow State University. 1965. Series X. Law. № 3. The Pskov Chronicles. - M; Leningrad, 1941. 1.

16. Tikhonravova N.I. Collection No. 557. Sheet 239 rev. (OR RSL. F. 247. Rogozhskoe collection. No. 84. L. 855.)

17. Torke H.I. The so-called zemstvo councils in Russia // Questions of history. - No. 11, 1991.

18. Khutorskiy V. Ya. History of Russia. From Rurik to Yeltsin. - M., 2000.

19. Cherepnin L. V. Zemsky Cathedrals of the Russian State in the XVI-XVII centuries. - M. 1978.

20. Chicherin B.N. On the people's representation. - M., 1866.

MORDOV STATE UNIVERSITY
them. N.P. Ogareva
HISTORICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE
abstract
on the topic:
RUSSIA IN THE PERIOD OF "TIME OF EMERGENCY"
Completed by: Usanova Nastya
1st year student of 104 groups
c / o specialty of regional studies
Checked by: Bulkina L.V.
Saransk, 1999

Introduction
1. Socio-economic and political reasons for the turmoil
1.1. Struggle for power after the death of Ivan the Terrible
1.2. Political roots of the Troubles
1.3. Socio-economic causes of the turmoil
2. Struggle for the throne of boyar groups and political adventurers
2.1. The emergence of imposture in Russia. False Dmitry
2.2. Change of power. The board of Vasily Shuisky. The uprising of I. Bolotnikov
2.3. The appearance of the second Impostor "Tushinsky thief"
2.4. Three political centers. The fall of Vasily Shuisky. "Seven Boyarshina"
3. People's movement led by K. Minin and D. Pozharsky for the salvation of the Fatherland. Zemsky Sobor 1613
3.1. Poland's intervention against Russia. First militia
3.2. Second militia. Liberation of Moscow
3.3. Zemsky Cathedral. Election of Mikhail Romanov
Conclusion

The dramatic events that began with the death of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich and ended only with the election of a new Tsar Mikhail Romanov at the Zemsky Sobor in 1613 were aptly named "Time of Troubles" in Russian historical literature. Here, phenomena of different nature are closely intertwined: the crisis of power and foreign intervention, the struggle between the boyar clans and the growth of national consciousness.

What happened in the country in the first two decades of the 17th century is forever engraved in its historical memory. It was a series of previously unseen and unthinkable. Never before has the political struggle for power in the state become a common thing for the rank and file nobility, and even less so for the social base. Never before has the fierceness of battles for leading positions in society reached the point of systematic persecution, and at times - the extermination of the upper classes by the lower classes. Never before had a runaway defrocked from an ordinary noble family, a former servant, a poor school teacher from Eastern Belarus, encroached on the royal throne. Never before has a hereditary autocratic monarchy turned into an elective monarchy, and never before have several centers existed in parallel in the country, headed by imaginary or real monarchs who claimed national power. Never before has there been such a real threat of Russia's loss of state independence, the dismemberment of its territory between neighboring and non-neighboring countries.

But it would be wrong to call the Time of Troubles exclusively from 1598 to 1613. Troubles, like a latent disease, long before the era of impostors undermined the strength of the Russian state. It was a time of stubborn and fierce struggle between boyar parties, groups of clergy and people involved in conflicts by the opposing sides, the Livonian War and the excesses of the guardsmen ruined the population, the economic decline of peasant farms, supplemented by natural disasters, unprecedented crop failures, hunger and massive epidemics. After the death of Ivan the Terrible, as after the death of any despot, Russia straightened up, and instead of receiving a blessed reign, it was slowly drawn into the whirlpool of anarchy. At the same time, Time of Troubles is a time of the greatest heroism, self-sacrifice, the irresistible strength of the people's spirit. Thousands of Russian people belonging to different classes saved the country from an impending catastrophe, defended its independence and restored statehood.

1.Social, economic and political causes of the Troubles

1.1 The struggle for power after the death of Ivan the Terrible

After the death of Ivan the Terrible, his son Fyodor (1584-1598) was elevated to the throne, who was incapable of independent rule. More inclined towards church life, Fyodor practically gave power to his wife's relative, Boris Godunov. The rapid rise of Godunov, who was not Russian in origin (his ancestor was the Tatar Murza Chet, who adopted the Christian faith and entered the service of the Moscow prince in the 14th century), did not like most of the boyars. The government of Boris Godunov continued the political line of Ivan the Terrible, aimed at further strengthening the tsarist power and strengthening the position of the nobility. However, Godunov abandoned the terror, the cruel methods inherent in the "formidable tsar", in order to rally around the throne as wide a layer of feudal lords as possible. Boris was also supported by the clergy. In 1589 Godunov organized the elevation of the Moscow metropolitan to the rank of patriarch. The establishment of the patriarchate in Russia raised the prestige of the Russian Church in the Orthodox East.

On January 7, 1598, Fedor Ivanovich died: the Rurik dynasty, whose representatives ruled Russia from the 9th century, was suppressed. In order to prevent a dangerous interregnum, the people swore allegiance to his widow, Tsarina Irina, the sister of Boris Godunov, but nine days later the queen cut her hair as a nun in Moscow's Novodevichy Convent. After her, her brother retired to the gate. Power management passed into the hands of Patriarch Job, a loyal supporter of Boris and the Boyar Duma.

The death of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich forced the head of his government, boyar Boris Godunov, to fight for the tsar's crown. The loss of his high position by the favorite in those days most likely meant not only the death of himself, but also severe trials, dishonor for all his numerous relatives. In the struggle with his rivals - representatives of the most prominent aristocratic families, the artistic Godunov showed an extraordinary art of intrigue, dealing with the boyar clans of Shuisky and Belsky who were dissatisfied with his rise. The struggle for power in the Moscow state, which lasted practically from the death of Grozny in 1584, the entire reign of the weak-willed Fyodor, passed into the final stage. On February 17, it ended with Boris's victory: the Zemsky Sobor convened by Patriarch Job, heeding the patriarch's panegyric speech, unanimously decided "to beat Boris Feodorovich with his forehead and, besides him, not to look for anyone on the state." After many entreaties, on February 21, Boris agreed to fulfill the people's request. During the wedding to the throne, the cautious Boris burst out: “Father, great patriarch Job! God is witness to this, no one will be poor or poor in my kingdom! " He shook his shirt by the collar: "And this last I will share with everyone." Boris was religious, cynical acting is difficult to imagine possible at such a moment. The king - who, of course, should not be considered a lamb, since it could hardly be such a person who became, and not born a king - wished real happiness for his people. [ 1 ]

By the time of his accession in 1598, Boris Godunov was about 47 years old. He went through the terrible oprichnaya school at the court of Ivan the Terrible, was married to Maria Lukyanovna, the daughter of Malyuta Skuratov-Belsky. In the year of the marriage of the tsar's son Fyodor to his sister Irina Godunov became a boyar.

Godunov, the tsar, during whose short reign many significant changes took place in the life of Russia: the abolition of the "court" - the remnant of the oprichnina, the rise of the nobles, the abolition of St. Valuyki, Voronezh, Kursk, Narym, Samara, Saratov, Tobolsk, Tyumen, Tsaritsyn, etc.), impressive cathedrals and fortifications (White City in Moscow, a stone fortress in Astrakhan, walls around Smolensk, useful during the Polish intervention).

Boris pursued an extremely cautious policy. He avoided wars with neighboring states in every possible way, sought to ensure the welfare and, accordingly, the political loyalty of all classes of Russia. By his temperament, he himself avoided acute situations, willingly made concessions and compromises. Godunov, who had served at the top of the state apparatus for many years before his accession, overestimated the capabilities of the latter. At the same time, he underestimated the strength of the passive resistance of the aristocracy to any dubious or harmful innovations from its point of view.

The fall of Boris was greatly facilitated by natural disasters: for three years in a row, since 1600, torrential rains fell in spring and summer, frosts changed in early autumn, bread did not ripen. Hunger in the country has reached monstrous proportions. According to some reports, in 1601-1603. died out about 1/3 of the entire population of Russia. The people quickly found the traditional explanation for the calamity that befell them: the wrath of God. According to the ancient Christian concept, God punishes the people not only for their own sins, but also for the sins of their rulers. There was no doubt that Boris had committed some terrible crimes.

Two sins were especially imputed. The first is the murder on May 15, 1591 in Uglich, by order of Godunov, of the "royal branch" - Tsarevich Dmitry. The second is the "election" of Boris himself to the kingdom by the Zemsky Sobor in February 1598 after the death of the last representative of the Moscow dynasty, Tsar Fyodor. The robbery of Boris was doubly sinful: the throne was not just "the destroyer of the royal root", but the "autocratic delight" of the throne.

Such interpretations were good for their versatility. They "conveniently" explained almost any turn in the course of events at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Moreover, they were perfectly linked with the moral condemnation of the "hostile division" of the country during the years of the oprichnina. The concept proved to be tenacious. Even in the classic work of S.F. Platonov about the Time of Troubles, published at the beginning of the 20th century, this scheme is preserved. Soviet historiography predominantly proceeded from a politicized and Marxist understanding of the Troubles as a peasant war in an organic or purely eventual connection with the intervention of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden.

The crisis, of which the Troubles became an open manifestation, had a structural character. It covered the main spheres of state life, reflecting the existence of multidirectional and multi-stage trends in the country.

1.2 Political roots of the Troubles

The political roots of the turmoil were deep. In the process of unification, the Moscow principality turned into a vast state, which advanced strongly towards centralization in the 16th century. The social structure of society, the relationship of various social strata and groups, power and society, the role and place of autocracy changed significantly. It is not only society that has changed. The government also had to meet the new conditions. The main political question of that time - who and how will govern the state, which has already ceased to be a collection of disparate lands and principalities, but has not yet turned into an organic whole.

There were contradictions caused by the power struggle in the elite of Moscow society. The death of Ivan the Terrible was sudden, and therefore the composition of the regency council under Fedor Ivanovich remains unclear. Another thing is important. Firstly, even before the official wedding of Fedor, the one and a half year old Tsarevich Dmitry was removed from Moscow to Uglich with his mother and almost all his relatives. Among other things, this meant the fall of the political role of the Naga clan. The death of the tsarevich in May 1591 turned out to be "no coincidence". Boris Godunov at this moment had no direct interest in Dmitry's death. But the living conditions of the royal son, with epilepsy, were such that the tragic outcome for the prince and the Naked was a foregone conclusion.

Secondly, by 1587, a fierce court struggle had revealed an indisputable winner: Boris Godunov became the de facto ruler of the state. The unusualness of the situation was in particular in the fact that in this capacity some special functions were given to him. In practice, this meant belittling the co-government role of the Boyar Duma and could not but generate deep contradictions in the upper layers of the sovereign's court. It is another matter that the relatively successful course of affairs in the 90s of the 16th century, in the first two years of the 17th century, did not create opportunities for an open manifestation of this deadly rivalry.

Thirdly, the death of Dmitry in 1591, the childless death of Fyodor in 1598 meant the end of the hereditary dynasty of the Moscow Rurikovichs. Justification of the legitimacy of the power of the new monarch and the dynasty he founded needed fresh principles. In 1598, the electoral Zemsky Sobor became, as it were, a mouthpiece for the manifestation of divine choice. Naturally, in the texts of that time, the election of Boris was justified primarily by the preference for higher powers, but also by very real motives: his excellent qualities of a ruler, the results of his activities in ruling the country, his relationship (through his sister, the wife of Tsar Fedor) with the departed dynasty. Be that as it may, the consolidation of the elite, the bulk of the serving nobility around the figure of Godunov in 1598 is beyond doubt.

Successful foreign policy contributed to the growth of Boris's prestige. He managed to extend the truce with Poland, and after a successful war for Russia with Sweden (1590-1593), he returned the cities of Yam, Oreshek, Ivan-gorod and others, having gained access to the Baltic Sea. Significant detachments of archers were sent to Western Siberia, which consolidated the tsar's power over the Siberian lands. Russia has established itself in the North Caucasus; at the mouth of the river. The Terek fortress was built. However, the feudal policy, which helped him to enlist the support of broad layers of feudal lords, especially the nobility, had a defensive side: it caused deep discontent among the peasantry. The feudal nobility, defeated in the dispute for the throne, continued to remain in opposition, waiting for an opportune moment for a new speech against the power of Boris Godunov.

1.3 Socio-economic causes of the turmoil

In the economic field, the cause of the turmoil is the economic crisis caused by the prolonged Livonian War and the oppression of the oprichnina. Even the relatively prosperous rule of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich did not lead to stabilization of the situation. Destructive tendencies generated by acute social and political contradictions were further developed. The economic crisis stimulated the strengthening of serfdom, which led to an increase in social tension in society.

The Livonian War forced the state to increase taxes on the peasants. In addition to the usual taxes, extraordinary and additional taxes were practiced. The oprichnina inflicted enormous material harm on the peasants, the "campaigns" and excesses of the guardsmen ruined the population. Oprichnina is the worst option for resolving national problems of governing the country in the context of the Livonian War and growing financial needs. The economic decline of peasant farms began, supplemented by natural disasters, unprecedented crop failures, famine and massive epidemics that hit the country.

At the end of the century, there were completely underpowered households, and the area of ​​allotments was sharply reduced. There is a sensible aggravation of the exploitation of the peasants by the state and feudal lords. It is also important that in the aggregate feudal rent the centralized state now held the leading position, it prevailed among the monetary obligations of the peasant household. Tsar's taxes, tsarevo tax were named by contemporaries more often than others as a reason for desolation. Thus, to a certain extent, the address of the peasantry's discontent changed - it became the central government.

During the years of economic regression, a new way of overcoming difficulties emerged. The peasants' strategy was expressed in the fact that the main or significant efforts were taken outside the limits of state taxation. The landowners were also interested in this. This happened mainly in two ways. First, the proportion of all kinds of trade and domestic activities has increased. Secondly, and more importantly, the importance of leasing has sharply increased in agriculture. At the end of the 16th century, it was mainly the lease of land from neighboring feudal owners or from the state fund of local wastelands. All these phenomena record in the real course of life the tendencies of non-serf development at the economic level. That is why we have the right to consider the Troubles and as a reflection in the realities of the social, political struggle of two latent, economic directions of development of society. Only the proportion of the tendencies of serf and non-serf evolution is not the same - the former was much more powerful and widespread than the latter.

In society, there were forces besides the peasantry, objectively interested in the turn. These are various categories of instrumental service people (archers, service Cossacks, gunners, etc.), the population of the southern border zone in general. Here, in the areas of new colonization, the social demarcation of the local society was hardly noticeable in comparison with the old-developed areas. Contradictions between this region and the center prevailed over internal conflicts. In addition, the most active socially and economically active elements of Russian society flocked here. The borderlands made it a habit to use arms in difficult situations. The severity of the situation gave rise to a special type of peasant, city dweller, service person. Finally, a significant part of the townspeople were in undoubted opposition to the authorities. This was generated by the traditional set: heavy tax pressure, arbitrariness of local authorities, inconsistency of the government in its urban policy.

Boris Fedorovich Godunov (1552-1605) did not rule for long by historical standards: he died in 1605, seven years after his accession to the throne.

2. Struggle for the throne of boyar groups and political adventurers

2.1. The emergence of imposture in Russia. False Dmitry I

Despite the recognition by the Zemsky Sobor, Boris Godunov, ascending the throne, constantly felt the fragility of his position. He knew that the metropolitan aristocracy, hiding, was waiting for an opportune moment to overthrow him. In other strata of society, the attitude towards the new tsar was ambiguous: many did not have faith in his God-chosenness.

Taking into account the special attitude of the people to the tsarist dynasty as God's chosen and marked by grace, supporters of Boris Godunov in every possible way emphasized his kinship with Tsar Fyodor, spread rumors that Ivan IV had a special affection for Boris. However, even closer kinship with the old dynasty was proud of Boris's main political opponents - the Romanov brothers (of their kind was the first wife of Tsar Ivan IV - the mother of Fyodor). Some representatives of numerous princely families of Russian (Rurikovich) and Lithuanian (Gediminovichi) origin also had views on the throne.

The boyar aristocracy, striving to limit the power of the tsar in their favor, intensified the struggle against Boris Godunov. It was in these opposition circles that the idea of ​​imposture as a way of fighting the tsar was first put forward and tested. The first elements of the legend about the tsarevich-redeemer appeared in the mid-1980s, when rumors began to circulate in Moscow about the replacement of the dead children by Tsarina Irina. At the beginning of the 17th century, this legend was widely circulated not only in the capital, but also in remote corners of the country. And in 1603, “Tsarevich Dmitry”, who had appeared in Poland, who had allegedly miraculously escaped from the murderers, the son of Ivan the Terrible, rose up against Godunov. The real Tsarevich Dmitry died in Uglich on May 15, 1591 at the age of 10 under mysterious circumstances. The idea of ​​imposture was new to the Russian political tradition and clearly bore an "author's" character. It is believed that its creators were the fierce enemies of Godunov, the boyars Romanovs, in whose house the leading actor, the poor Galician nobleman Grigory Otrepiev, lived for some time.

The Otrepievs belonged to the provincial nobility and were a special branch of the old Nelidov family. Gregory's father, a streltsy centurion, died early in a drunken brawl, leaving his young son an orphan. He volunteered for several years in the courtyards of aristocrats, including one of the Romanovs. In 1600, a big "case" of the Romanovs took place: on charges of attempted assassination of Tsar Boris, all members of the family and related clan were arrested and then exiled in disgrace. Its head, Fyodor Nikitich Romanov, was tonsured a monk under the name of Filaret. Most likely in connection with this, the fate of Yuri Bogdanovich Otrepiev changed drastically, monk Gregory in monasticism: having become a novice, he quickly changed several monasteries, ending up in the Kremlin Chudov Monastery, and soon in the next retinue of Patriarch Job.

The impostor had outstanding abilities, extensive, but traditional in Russia, erudition, a sharp mind, a capacious memory and an almost ingenious adaptability to any situation. In Rzecz Pospolita, he consistently went through the circles of the Orthodox nobility and monasticism, anti-Trinitarians and the aristocrats who patronized them, lived in the Zaporizhzhya Sich, and through Prince A. Vishnevetsky came to those representatives of Polish Catholic magnates who were guided by King Sigismund III. In the hands of an experienced politician, voivode Yuri Mnishk, who had ramified marital and family ties, he was formed. And most importantly, he quite "sincerely" promised the key figures what they wanted. The king - the border areas of Russia and active participation in the war against Sweden. Yuri Mniszka and his 16-year-old daughter Marina - the wealth of the Kremlin treasury. The Pope - through his nuncio and the Polish Jesuits - freedom of Catholic propaganda, participation in the anti-Ottoman alliance, freedom of action in Russia of the Order of the Jesuits, etc. To be convincing, he secretly converted to Catholicism in the spring of 1604. As a result, he received the political and moral support of Rome, hidden political and economic assistance from the king and a number of tycoons.

The impostor acquired many fortresses and staunch supporters by the very fact of his appearance on Russian soil, Chernigov, Putivl and many other fortresses surrendered to his vanguard and the name of the tsarevich. The scheme was repeated from time to time: the appearance of a detachment of the Tsarevich's supporters near the city walls quickly led to an uprising against the governors of local residents and the garrison, the arrest of Godunov's military leaders and their sending to False Dmitry. Crowds of people greeted the "tsarevich" with bread and salt on his way from Putivl to Moscow. The people tied with him the hope of restoring a legitimate dynasty and ending the wrath of God. The royal governors suffered defeat after defeat, and in the end went over to the side of the Pretender. Boris Godunov died suddenly on April 13, 1605.

After the death of Boris Godunov (April 1605), Moscow swore allegiance to his 16-year-old son Fedor, who received an excellent education. However, he could not stay on the throne. On June 1, 1605, Fyodor Borisovich and his mother were brutally killed, Patriarch Job was overthrown. The capital swore allegiance to the imaginary Dmitry. On June 30, 1605, the coronation took place in the Kremlin's Assumption Cathedral.

Having entered Moscow at the head of the victorious people's militia, the "tsarevich" soon dismissed his soldiers to their homes and was left alone with the powerful Moscow nobility. To enlist the support of all estates, the new king generously granted everyone. He instructed to draw up a new all-Russian code of laws and personally received complaints from the offended. It is believed that he was going to restore the freedom of the peasant "exit". Even the slaves received some relief from the new sovereign. However, the Boyar Duma took the ruler under its dense tutelage and resolutely extinguished his reformist ardor. The tsar did not have enough strength (and perhaps statesmanship) to curb the boyars. He also failed to become akin to the aristocracy, to get used to its environment. The Tsar's military support was foreign mercenaries, mainly Germans and partly Poles. His strong trump card remained the support of the people, who still believed in the "tsarevich". In an effort to elevate his power, Otrepiev took the title of emperor.

There was a clear split of society and territory into two camps with two centers - Moscow and Putivl. There is an armed struggle for supreme power, parallel and competing institutions of government. During the Pretender's stay in Putivl in February-May 1605, his own Boyar Duma, his own body of representation from the local estates, his orders and clerks functioned under him. From Putivl, False Dmitry sent the governor to the cities.

"Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich" sat on the throne for a little less than a year. His policy was clearly of a compromise nature. He deliberately chose the period of the Chosen Rada as a model for the style of government. A massive distribution of cash salaries to the service nobility was carried out and local salaries were increased. Merchants were encouraged to travel abroad. The verification of property rights was begun in conflicts between church estates and palace estates, as well as black-moss lands. A new legislative code was being prepared, and it summarized legislation for the second half of the 16th century. He intended to gather elected representatives from the district noble corporations outlining the needs. It is significant that under him no mass repressions are visible. The trial of Vasily Shuisky (he organized a conspiracy immediately after the Pretender's arrival in the capital) took place at a council meeting, and his guilt was publicly proven. Shuisky, sentenced to death, was pardoned and sent into exile. However, and from there he was soon returned.

False Dmitry undoubtedly strove for greater openness of the country, for the expansion of political, trade and cultural ties. In this movement of domestic politics, quite chaotic, a tendency towards consolidation of society is clearly visible. It is not excluded that if the Pretender had stayed in power, perhaps, the option of gradually overcoming the split in society through compromises would have been realized. However, the young and not too experienced king made mistakes. First of all, he did not have a support at the top of the political elite.

It was believed that the tsar disdained Russian customs, shied away from Orthodox Russian life, and married a Catholic Marina Mnishek, who did not accept Orthodoxy. The general discontent was intensified by the looting and violence of the Polish gentry, who had come to the wedding. The uprising of Muscovites against the subjects of the Commonwealth, provoked by this, covered up the boyar conspiracy on the life of the tsar.

2.2 Change of government. The board of Vasily Shuisky. The uprising of I. Bolotnikov

On May 17, 1606, the Pretender was killed by conspirators, headed by the powerful clan of the Shuisky princes. His corpse was put up for desecration in Red Square. The eldest of the brothers, Vasily Shuisky, was proclaimed tsar. A representative of the Nizhny Novgorod-Suzdal Rurikovich family, he was part of the circle of the country's most powerful aristocracy. His political biography was full of ups and downs. His moral character can be clearly seen from the comparison of three facts. In 1591, he headed a special commission from the Boyar Duma, which recognized the non-violent, accidental nature of the death of Tsarevich Dmitry. In 1605, he testified to the Muscovites about his salvation in 1591. In 1606, it was on his initiative that Tsarevich Dmitry was canonized as a holy martyr, as innocently killed by Tsar Boris.

On May 19, the new tsar gave a crucifixion record stating that he would not use the death penalty and confiscation of property in relation to his enemies without the consent of the Boyar Duma. Thus, the formula of power changed radically: instead of the emperor, the "direct heir" of Ivan the Terrible, the country received the dictatorship of the highest capital aristocracy. But this decision turned out to be untenable. The four-year reign of Shuisky and Boyar Duma brought Russia only new tests. The desired stability has not been achieved. Shuisky did not have the abilities of a ruler, the people called him "half king". The murder of the Pretender happened so quickly that many believed that the "prince" again, as in 1591, was miraculously saved. Supporters of the "tsarevich", and with them all kinds of "robbery element" that rose from the bottom of the agitated Russian society, united around the fugitive slave Ivan Bolotnikov, who declared himself the governor of "tsarevich Dmitry", allegedly hiding from enemies in a safe place.

Unlike the previous stage of the Troubles, which was marked by a struggle for power in the upper circles of the ruling class, the middle and lower strata of society are drawn into the confrontation. The Troubles took on the character of a civil war. All its signs were evident: the forcible resolution of controversial issues, complete or almost complete oblivion of all legality and custom; the most acute social confrontation, the destruction of the entire social structure of society; power struggle.

The uprising itself began in the summer of 1606 under the slogan of restoration to the throne of Tsar Dmitry, who had miraculously escaped from the boyar conspiracy. The fundamental weakness was that there was no bearer of the name. There was a certain personality in the wife of the arrested Y. Mnishka, posing as Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich. According to some assumptions, it was Mikhail Molchanov, who stood quite close to the Pretender. It was he who handed the order on the voivodship power to I. Bolotnikov, who was returning from Turkish captivity in a roundabout way. The real political center was Putivl, where Prince G. Shakhovskoy, one of the inspirers of the uprising and "breeder of all blood", ruled.

The plurality of centers of power in the country was characteristic of the Troubles throughout its entire length. Putivl retains the significance of an opposition center, but only a regional one. I. Bolotnikov is in charge of the tsar's name, which means that the headquarters moves with him: Kaluga - s. Kolomenskoye (near Moscow) - Kaluga - Tula. But there was not even a hint of a truly metropolitan function. And what is important - both the government and the insurgent camps clearly demonstrate the looseness of administrative levers, the weakness of the central government.

Ivan Bolotnikov proved to be an outstanding military leader. He created a large army. Stern and cruel to enemies, he possessed undeniable military talents and was adamant in the execution of his plans. After the defeat of the detachments in October 1607, Bolotnikov himself was exiled to Kargopol. After about six months, he was blinded, and soon he was drowned. This is how Bolotnikov's uprising ended, and, according to one contemporary, “this is bitter sorrow, it wasn’t such a thing for Nicola…”.

2.3. The appearance of the second Pretender "Tushinsky thief"

The appearance and death of the first Pretender was accompanied by a surge of international interest in what was unfolding in the vastness of Russia. The Bolotnikov uprising was not so popular. But it was precisely this that demonstrated the full depth of the crisis of society and the state. The suppression of the Bolotnikov uprising did not strengthen the position of Vasily Shuisky. The adventure of the second Pretender was born. At the end of the summer of 1607, a person appeared in the border town of Starodub, who seemed to be forced to admit that he was the escaped Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich. Its authenticity was immediately certified by Moscow clerks.

Most likely, he was of Russian origin, who early ended up in the eastern provinces of the Lithuanian principality (now the lands of Eastern Belarus), becoming a wandering school teacher. The local gentry were the first to have a hand in the creation of the new Tsar Dmitry. Some of them accompanied False Dmitry I at the final stage of his march to Moscow. After the appearance and announcement of the Pretender in Starodub (already in Russia), the business was continued by I.M. Zarutsky, a Cossack chieftain from Ternopil. He was in the Crimean and Turkish captivity and has long been involved in Russian affairs. It was not by chance that he was in Starodub: the leaders of the rebels sent him from Tula to the border to collect information about the whereabouts and plans of "Tsar Dmitry".

False Dmitry II, who went to Tula in September, and fled to the border in October, greatly increased his potential during the winter at Orel. In April, False Dmitry defeated the government army under the command of the tsar's brother, Prince D.I. Shuisky. A little over a month later, he was already near Moscow. Soon a second capital arose in the country a few miles from the walls of Moscow - the residence of "Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich" was located in the village. Tushin, hence the nickname of the Pretender - "Tushino thief." This is how two parallel state-political centers arose. In Tushino, everything that was decent for a capital residence developed quite quickly. Under the tsar, the Boyar Duma, the sovereign's court (with an almost complete set of official groups of courtyards), orders, the Grand Palace, the treasury and other institutions functioned. Of course, in high positions were not noble, and sometimes completely "outbred" people. But in the Duma of the Pretender, the Rurikovichs (princes Zasekins, Sitsky, Mosalsky, Dolgorukovs, etc.), Gediminovichs (princes Trubetskoy), aristocrats from the North Caucasus (princes Cherkassky), representatives of the old Moscow boyar families (Salshetykovs), were sitting at the Pretender's Duma. The Kasimov khan served him. In the fall of 1608, Tushino received its “named” patriarch: the local Metropolitan Filaret was brought from Rostov (in the world Fyodor Romanov, who received this see in the last weeks of the reign of the first Pretender).

From May to November 1608, the successes of the Tushins grew rapidly. At the end of the summer, another important event took place, which gave the Pretender additional legitimacy: “Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich” regained “his” wife, who was married and crowned in May 1606. Under the agreement of the summer of 1608, the Polish side undertook to withdraw all mercenaries - subjects of the Commonwealth from the territory of Russia in exchange for the release by the Russian government of all the detained and exiled Poles, including the Mniszk family. The voivode entered into relations with Tushin while still in exile in Yaroslavl. It was agreed where and how the Tushins would be able to intercept the prisoners sent from Moscow to the western border. There was a joyful meeting of the forcibly separated spouses in public, while Marina's wedding with a new bearer of the name of "Tsar Dmitry" took place in secret. From that moment on, Tsarina Marina Yuryevna forever linked her fate not only with the second Pretender, but also with the outcome of the war.

False Dmitry II controlled a huge territory, more and more lands recognized the power of the Tushino king. The outcome of the war was decided not so much by victories on the battlefield as by finances and material support. The Tushino authorities did not have effective local government bodies. So the Tushino detachments themselves had to deal with the collection of money, food and fodder. The parties of the Polish gentry and their servants (pakholkov) did it so professionally that only the presence of legitimate powers differed from “normal” robberies. A few months of the Tushino administration were quite enough for the start of a spontaneous struggle against the Tushin people.

2.4 Three political centers. The fall of Vasily Shuisky. "Seven Boyarshina"

If in the summer and autumn of 1608 the territory controlled by Shuisky shrank like shagreen leather, then in late 1608 - early 1609 the process went in the opposite direction. However, by this time it was no longer False Dmitry II who represented the main danger. The two-pole structure of the civil war turns into a three-pole one. The main factor of such changes is the open interference of the Commonwealth, and later Sweden, in the internal strife of Russia. The king made a lot of efforts in order to drag the main forces of mercenaries from Tushin to his camp. So, already in the fall of 1609, the crisis of the Tushino camp was quite evident. At the end of December 1609, False Dmitry fled to Kaluga, where the Cossack villages, detachments of instrumental officers, and hundreds of noble corporations from the south rushed. Later, in February, Marina runs there. In January-February, there were clashes and battles between Poles and Russian Tushins. Russian Tushin aristocrats from two routes - to Moscow or to Kaluga - preferred the third: to the royal camp near Smolensk. There, in February 1610, an agreement was concluded on the preliminary election to the Russian throne of Sigismund's son, Vladislav, and the main content of the articles of the agreement was reduced to a clear regulation of the activities of the new tsar in the conditions of complete preservation of the Moscow social and political system, the Orthodox faith, etc. ...

So, in the spring of 1610 there were already three centers in the country that had at least formal rights to power - Moscow, Kaluga, the royal camp near Smolensk. In the spring and summer, sluggish hostilities are waged between False Dmitry II and Polish troops. But the main knot was to be cut in the clash between Shuisky's army and the royal army. The authority of Vasily Shuisky among the people was finally undermined after the sudden death of the talented commander Skopin-Shuisky (according to a very likely version he was poisoned at a feast at Prince Vorotynsky), who, according to his contemporaries, was the only person capable of uniting the country. This led to a change of command, the Russian troops marched to Smolensk, having at the head of the tsar's brother, mediocre Dmitry. True, this time he was opposed by one of the best Polish military leaders, crown hetman S. Zolkiewski. Defeat with. Klushin was catastrophic: the Shuisky government lost almost the entire army in a few hours. The forces of False Dmitry II from Kaluga and Zholkevsky's corps rushed to Moscow. On July 17, 1610, Tsar Vasily Shuisky as a result of the coup was dethroned and forcibly tonsured a monk. The Moscow aristocracy created its own government - "Semboyarshchina", behind which there was no real power.

Actually, the choice of the Duma, the existing composition of the sovereign's court, who reached Moscow after Klushin, nobles and archers, the townspeople were presented with two options. The overwhelming majority did not want the impostor, so negotiations with his supporters tended to exchange rulers: Muscovites dethrone Shuisky, former Tushinsky - their tsar. Negotiations were underway with Zholkevsky. The agreement concluded with him in August recognized the fact of the election of Vladislav as the Russian tsar, and the kissing of the cross in his name began almost the next day after signing.

It is significant that the articles of the August treaty were discussed at the meetings of the impromptu Zemsky Sobor. It was the conciliar delegation headed by Filaret and the boyar V.V. The Golitsyns were instructed to negotiate with Sigismund, maintaining constant contact with the Duma, Patriarch Hermogenes, and members of the Council. Against this background of global decisions, seemingly mundane events, caused by a simple expediency, were apparently not very noticeable: Polish troops were first allowed into the city, and in September - into the Kremlin. In fact, this meant the establishment of the Polish commandant's control over the activities of all institutions of power. As a result, by the beginning of next year, the main ambassadors were arrested instead of a negotiating table, and then imprisoned. In December 1610 False Dmitry II perishes. In Kaluga, Tsarina Marina gives birth to her son Ivan ("Tsarevich Ivan Dmitrievich"), whom she gives under the patronage and protection of the townspeople of Kaluga.

The authority of the kings was crumbling. Yesterday's crowned monarchs, to whom they had sworn allegiance, were killed by the rebellious people, and the kings were desacralized. False Dmitry was compared with the Antichrist, actions were performed on his body as on evil spirits, the son of Boris Godunov took a shameful and painful death. In Moscow, seized by the interventionists, cruelty, treason and fratricide raged.

3. People's movement led by K. Minin and D. Pozharsky for the salvation of the Fatherland. Zemsky Sobor 1613

3.1 Poland's intervention against Russia First militia

The state crisis reached its climax in 1610-1611. The completely fragmented state disintegrated. Famine began, the population scattered, government agencies were inactive. Imposture flourished, legislation was inactive. The country was dying.

The civil war in Russia was complicated by intervention: the Polish royal troops invaded from the west in 1610, and the Swedes appeared in the northwestern regions. After the capture of Moscow by the Poles, the country faced the threat of losing its national independence. However, the "great ruin" caused a tremendous patriotic enthusiasm. Insulted in their patriotic and religious feelings, exhausted by the long years of anarchy, people longed for the restoration of the lost state order. Many were ready to fight with arms in hand for the liberation of the country from the invaders.

At the head of the people who had not yet lost faith in the salvation of the country, there was Patriarch Hermogenes, who, in the opinion of his contemporaries, was a man of strong will and strict moral rules, who had a good command of the pen and the word. Having come into conflict with the Polish authorities in Moscow, in December 1610 - January 1611 he sent letters to the cities, urging to send military men to defend the Fatherland and the Orthodox faith, not to swear allegiance either to the Polish king or to the son of Marina Mnishek and False Dmitry II, who received the nickname “ little thorn. " The authorities take into custody his residence, and in mid-March they generally send Hermogenes to prison in the Chudov Monastery, where they put him in a stone basement and starved him there.

The general desire to drive out the invaders turned out to be stronger, albeit temporarily, of the previous strife. Formed in almost twenty cities, detachments from the end of winter are being pulled up to the capital. There, somewhat ahead of the events, on March 19 an uprising of Muscovites against the Poles broke out. Heavy fighting went on for two days, and only after setting fire to houses and buildings in Kitai-Gorod (the fire burned out almost all of the buildings), the garrison managed to suppress the citizens' uprising. It was this event (the capital was a very sad sight) that was designated as "the final ruin of the Muscovy."

Nevertheless, in the days following the uprising, all the detachments approached Moscow. The task of organizing the formation of the first zemstvo militia arose. The highest power - legislative, judicial, partly executive - belonged to the Militia Council, a kind of Zemsky Sobor. The management of the current administration lay with three persons: boyars and governors D.T. Trubetskoy and I.M. Zarutsky, the Duma nobleman P.P. Lyapunov, as well as newly created leading orders. Disagreements soon began between the leaders of the militia. Procopius Lyapunov was hacked to death by the Cossacks, and the noble detachments left Moscow. The militia actually disintegrated. This was facilitated by the lack of a unified plan for the restoration of the state. Meanwhile, the situation became even more complicated. After another assault on Polish troops in June, Smolensk fell; Swedish troops entered Novgorod, and then occupied the Novgorod lands, fixing in the treaty the right of the Swedish prince to the Russian throne or to the Novgorod region. Finally, the crisis in the Cossack camps near Moscow reached an alarming level.

Now let's remember. In the Moscow Kremlin, the Polish administration, troops and the Boyar Duma are sitting under siege, representing the power of Vladislav. The second and main center of this power moved with the king, who took the Shuisky brothers with him as a trophy-symbol of his victories. The government of the first militia remained near Moscow, the authority of which was really few people recognized on the ground. The Swedish administration ruled in Novgorod the Great. This is not counting the many regional centers (like Pskov, Putivl, Kazan, Arzamas, etc.), which practically did not obey anyone. It was in that year that the peasants gathered in the volost tavern elected their "peasant tsar". No wonder: two years earlier, in the vastness of the country, Cossack detachments led more than a dozen "princes" who bore such "familiar" names for the royal family - Laver, Osinovik, Eroshka. The process of territorial disintegration and political disintegration seemed to have reached the point after which there is no longer a return to the unity of society and the state.

3.2 Second Militia Liberation of Moscow

In the fall of 1611, a movement began in Nizhny Novgorod, which gradually consolidated the majority of the estates of Russia with the intention of restoring an independent national monarchy in the country. Under the influence of the letters of Hermogenes and the elders of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, a political platform was formed: not to take Ivan Dmitrievich (Marina's son) as tsar, not to invite any foreign applicant to the Russian throne, the first goal is to liberate the capital with the subsequent convocation of the Zemsky Sobor to elect a new tsar. It is no less significant that the Nizhny Novgorod mayor Kuzma Minin Sukhoruk became the organizer of the militia, and the steward Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky was invited as the military leader. In addition to the corporations of the Middle Volga region, local instrumental servicemen, the core of the second militia was made up of the nobles of the Smolensk land, who were left without estates and means of subsistence. A heavy extraordinary levy, collected from townspeople and villagers at the initiative of Minin, provided finance at the first stage. The campaign itself was preceded by intensive correspondence with the regional councils of many Russian cities.

Much in the organization and intention of the second zemstvo militia contradicted the orders and goals of the first. That is why a roundabout route was chosen: up the Volga to Yaroslavl. All cities and counties along the road joined the militia. Having preempted the actions of the Cossacks of the first militia, the detachments of the second appeared in Yaroslavl in the early spring as an all-Russian force. Several months of stay in this city finally formalized the organization of the second militia. This is how another political center arose in the country. The supreme power belonged to the Militia Council, real elections to it took place, the deputies gathered in Yaroslavl. There were represented: white clergy, serving noblemen, instrumental people, townspeople and, important news, black-wooded and palace peasants. It is clear why: in a common cause it was necessary to unite the main taxpayers and soldiers. Peasants and townspeople played an increasingly prominent role during the Troubles.

In Yaroslavl, the main orders were restored: here from near Moscow, from the provinces, experienced clerks flocked here, who knew how to put the management business on a solid foundation. The leaders of the militia took up diplomacy in earnest. Several months of joint work proved the complementarity of the leaders of the militia: an experienced and successful voivode, a man of strong convictions, Pozharsky entrusted the current management to Minin, who provided the main nerve - finances and supplies.

The threat of a breakthrough by the army led by the Lithuanian hetman K. Chodkiewicz to the Polish garrison in Moscow forced the militia leaders to accelerate their march to the capital. This in turn caused a crisis within the first militia. Zarutsky, at the head of several thousand Cossacks, seizing Marina and his son on the road from Kolomna, went to the Ryazan Territory. The remaining stanitsas and detachments of the nobility, led by Trubetskoy, were at first neutral. Only at critical moments of the battle with Khodkevich's detachment at the end of August did they take part in actions against his forces. The latter's action in the main failed. The garrison in the Kremlin was left without food, supplies and reserves. His fate was a foregone conclusion: on October 27, two regiments of the Polish garrison surrendered, Moscow was liberated. Sigismund's attempt to turn the tide of events with small forces turned out to be belated: the king was stopped at Volokolamsk. Upon learning of the surrender of the garrison, he turned to Poland.

3.3. Zemsky Cathedral. Election of Mikhail Romanov

A special place in the system of state bodies was occupied by Zemsky Sobors, which were held from the middle of the 16th to the middle of the 17th century. Their convocation was announced by the royal charter. The Council included the Boyar Duma, the "Consecrated Cathedral" (church hierarchs) and elected from the nobility and posadov. The spiritual and secular aristocracy represented the elite of society, the tsar in solving the most important issues could not do without her participation. The nobility was the main service class, the basis of the tsarist army and bureaucratic apparatus. The top of the posad population was the main source of cash income for the treasury. These basic functions explain the presence of representatives of all three social groups in the Cathedral. The contradictions that existed between them allowed the monarchical power to balance and strengthen.

Back in September, the gradual merger of both militias began. Following the capture of Moscow, a united Council was formed in it (with its approval, significant letters of gratitude were issued) and orders. The restructuring of the military organization was required and, above all, the re-registration of the Cossack detachments. In December, the bulk of the nobles dispersed to their estates, so that the Cossacks predominated numerically in the capital. The first letters with an appeal to elect deputies to the Zemsky Sobor were sent to cities soon after the cleansing of the capital. In the first decade of January 1613, before the arrival of deputies from the cities, the sessions of the Council opened in the Kremlin's Assumption Cathedral. The norms of representation from cities and population groups were preliminarily determined. It was supposed to be 10 people from the city, while maintaining the list of estates, according to which the Militia Council was called up, including the black peasants. The traditional and leading curiae of the Cathedral - the Consecrated Cathedral, the Duma, the Moscow court ranks (including clerks) - retained their role.

It took a special decision that candidates of foreign origin would not be considered, as well as the candidacy of Marina's son. In total, about a dozen names appeared in the January discussions, representing the color of the Russian titled aristocracy. The most serious were the chances of Prince D.T. Trubetskoy. According to his contemporaries, he spent huge sums on direct and indirect bribery of the Cossack villages. Nevertheless, his claims were blocked. When the selection of the candidate came to a standstill, the name of the Swedish prince Karl-Philip reappeared. As if such a maneuver was undertaken by Pozharsky. His name also figured among the contenders, but was not very popular. As a compromise, the figure of 16-year-old Mikhail Romanov, the son of Metropolitan Filaret (he was imprisoned in Poland), arose. Under strong pressure from the Cossacks, Mikhail's candidacy was specially discussed at a number of council meetings and received preliminary approval on February 7. In his favor was the kinship with the last dynasty (Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich by his mother, Anastasia Romanovna, was Philaret's cousin), young age (which implied his sinlessness before God and unremarkableness in the events of the Troubles), the weakness of a related clan (after the disgrace of 1600 he never rose high during the Time of Troubles), the broad connections of his father (among the Moscow boyars, the higher clergy, various circles of the Tushins). Filaret's conclusion also went a plus: he suffered for a just cause, defending national interests. As a result, almost everything turned out in favor of Mikhail. Although a break of two weeks was taken in order to better find out the acceptability of Mikhail's candidacy on the ground. The specially sent persons have certified their agreement with this decision. On February 21, the solemn act finally confirmed the choice of the new Russian tsar. So a new dynasty, the Romanovs, was established in Russia, which ruled for more than 300 years.

Zarutsky tried in 1612 on the outskirts of the Ryazan region to repeat the already familiar combination of anti-government forces from petty nobles, instrumental servicemen, free Cossacks and some groups of the peasantry. What is important - at his disposal was a real and completely legitimate claimant to the Russian throne (Marina's son from False Dmitry II). And yet his undertaking was largely unsuccessful. He does not find support from these groups of the local population, flees to Astrakhan, tries to create a hotbed of the Cossack movement or surrender to the protection of the Persian Shah, and all to no avail. In the summer of 1614, he and Marina with her son were arrested on Yaik. In the same autumn, Zarutsky and young Ivan were executed in Moscow, and Marina Mnishek (she sacrificed everything, including her son, for the sake of her ambitious dream of becoming a Russian queen) died the following year in prison.

The choice of the Zemsky Sobor was extremely successful. The balance of power in Russian society lost with the death of Tsar Fyodor was restored this time: having received the crown, the boyars Romanovs managed to rise to the realization of national tasks, the main one of which was overcoming anarchy. The country rallied around the throne of the young autocrat. By clearing the Novgorod land of Swedes in 1617 (Stolbovsky Peace) and repelling a new Polish intervention in 1618 (Deulinsky truce), the government of Mikhail Romanov proved its ability to bring Russia out of its deep political crisis.

The troubles of the Time of Troubles lasted more than 10 years. Everyone understood that the revival of the country is possible only if its internal forces are consolidated. Based on this, the government of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich (1613-1645), in which the main role was played by Patriarch Filaret (1619-1633) who returned from Polish captivity in 1619, worked in close cooperation not only with the Boyar Duma, but also with the Zemsky Sobor. which during these years met almost continuously. By the end of the 1610s, the government of Mikhail Romanov completed the military struggle against the legacy of the Time of Troubles - attempts at new intervention by the Poles and Swedes, and the atrocities of all sorts of "thieves" gangs on the outskirts of the country. After that, the people received a decade and a half of peace.

At the beginning of the 17th century, the disintegration of the Russian state took place. At this time, Moscow lost its significance as a political center. In addition to the old capital, new ones appeared - "thieves": Putivl, Starodub, Tushino. The state power found itself in a state of paralysis. In Moscow, as in a kaleidoscope, the authorities were replaced: False Dmitry I, Vasily Shuisky, False Dmitry II, "Seven Boyars". The authority of the kings was crumbling. Yesterday's crowned monarchs, to whom they had sworn allegiance, were killed by the rebellious people, and the kings were desacralized. The causes of the Troubles were both socio-economic and political reasons. The main content of the Time of Troubles is the violation of the internal balance of Russian society due to the loss of one of the most important parts of its structure - the legitimate monarchy. The attempts of various individuals and social groups that supported them to restore the lost stability were unsuccessful for a long time, since the emerging combinations of social forces did not bring the desired result. The situation was aggravated by the destabilizing influence of new factors that had burst into the social life of Russia - intervention, speeches of Cossacks, impostors.

It was the people in the most direct and responsible sense of the word that endured the Troubles. But the people themselves, and not only the policy of the "cruel" Grozny, the "tragically unlucky" Boris, self-serving boyar parties, became the culprit of the country's sliding into an era of anarchy. Russian people, “whoever they serve, whoever they betray! Trouble! Trouble is a root, internal Russian affair. The dynasty was interrupted, the semi-legitimate tsar Godunov appeared, the foundations were shaken ... Plus religious heresies - they also did their job. The shaking of the foundations is followed by their disintegration, breaking all the rules of the game. " [3]

The inglorious end of the Rurik dynasty was at the same time Russia's rush to Europe. False Dmitry was greeted with a bang, as a man from Poland, as a possible reformer, but the time for Peter's reforms has not yet come. And yet the so-called "Time of Troubles" was not just turmoil, as the Romanovs later argued. Russia, tired of the Rurik dictatorship, reached for freedom. Muscovites did not kiss the cross to the Polish king Sigismund under the whip. Kurbsky was not a simple traitor when he left the dictatorship of Grozny after many glorious boyars to Lithuania. The Russian people were not gullible fools when they enthusiastically put Grigory Otrepiev on the throne. They wanted change and reform. Unfortunately, expectations were disappointed. The Poles behaved not as bearers of European civilization and freedom, but as colonialists and robbers. As a result, instead of the dictatorship of the Rurikovichs, Russia received the dictatorship of the Romanovs. [ eight ]

The fight against foreign invaders, Catholics and Protestants, naturally, led to a negative perception of everything that subsequently came from the West. Russia was temporarily deprived of the opportunity to embark on the path of reforms, assimilation of the achievements of European culture. The consequences of the Troubles for a long time determined the main direction of Russia's foreign policy: the return of the lost lands, primarily of Smolensk, the restoration of its positions in Eastern Europe. Trouble has strengthened the idea of ​​autocracy. Figuratively, its results are contained in the following thesis of V.V. Klyuchevsky: “Troubles, feeding on the discord between the classes of the Zemstvo society, ended with the struggle of the entire Zemstvo society with outside forces,” that is, a reconciled popular uprising against foreign interventionists, which saved Russia from collapse. But the Time of Troubles also named the price of this unity: strengthening the state at the expense of the lack of freedom of its subjects. It was at this time that Russia tried itself on the path of enslavement.

LITERATURE:

1. F.
On the eve of the Troubles // "Figures and Faces" supplement to "Nezavisimaya Gazeta" No. 4, February 1998
2. Borisov N.S., Levandovsky A.A., Shchetinov Yu.A.
The key to the history of the Fatherland - M .: Izd-vo Mosk. University, 1993. - 192s.
3. Varlamov A.
Russians during the Troubles (Leonid Borodin "The Queen of Troubles") // "Nezavisimaya Gazeta" 20.06.97.
4. Isaev I.A.
History of state and law of Russia: A complete course of lectures - M .: Jurist, 1994.- 448p.
5. History of the Fatherland in Questions and Answers: Textbook. allowance. Part 1. / N.M. Arsentiev, V.A. Yurchenkov - Saransk: Publishing house of Mordovs. un-that, 1992. - 260s.
6. History of the Fatherland: Textbook. Method. manual / Editorial board: A.P. Lebedev, S.K. Kotkov, L.G. Filatov and others - Saransk: Publishing house of Mordov. un-that, 1998. - 140s.
7. History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century / A.P. Novoseltsev, A.N. Sakharov and V.I. Buganov, V.D. Nazarov. - M .: Publishing house AST, 1996.- 576s.