The end of the 16th and the beginning of the 17th centuries were marked in Russian history by turmoil. Starting at the top, it quickly went down, captured all layers of Moscow society and put the state on the brink of death. The Troubles lasted more than 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 it was not accidental that its roots were hidden deep in the state organism. But at the same time Time of Troubles strikes with its vagueness, 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 the existence of political motives in turmoil cannot be denied; this is not a social upheaval, since, again, the turmoil did not arise from a social movement, although in its further development the aspirations of some sections of society for social change intertwined with it. "Our turmoil is the fermentation of a diseased state organism, striving to get out of those contradictions to which the previous course of history had led it and which could not be resolved in a peaceful, ordinary way." All previous hypotheses about the origin of the turmoil, despite the fact that each of them contains a grain of truth, must be left as not fully solving the problem. There were two main contradictions that caused the Time of Troubles. The first of these was political, which can be defined in the words of Professor Klyuchevsky: "The sovereign of Moscow, whom the course of history led to democratic sovereignty, had to act through a very aristocratic administration"; both of these forces, which grew up together thanks to the state unification of Rus' and worked together on it, were imbued with mutual distrust and enmity. The second contradiction can be called social: the Moscow government was forced to strain all its forces for the better organization of the highest defense of the state and "under the pressure of these higher needs to sacrifice the interests of the industrial and agricultural classes, whose labor served as the basis National economy, the interests of serving landowners, "the consequence of which was a mass flight of the hard-working 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 appanages by Moscow. The annexation of appanages did not have the character of a violent, exterminating war. Moscow government left a lot in the management of his former prince and was content with the fact that the latter recognized the power of the Moscow sovereign, became his servant. The power of the Moscow sovereign, in the words of Klyuchevsky, did not take the place of the specific princes, but above them; "The new state order was a new layer of relations and institutions, which lay on top of the previous one, without destroying it, but only imposing new duties on it, pointing out new tasks to it." The new princely boyars, pushing aside the old Moscow boyars, occupied the first places in terms of their genealogical seniority, accepting only a very few of the Moscow boyars into their midst on an equal footing with themselves. Thus, around the Moscow sovereign formed vicious circle boyar princes, who became the pinnacle of his administration, his main council in governing the country. The authorities formerly ruled the state one by one and in parts, but now they began to rule the whole earth, occupying a position according to the seniority of their breed. The Moscow government recognized this right for them, even supported it, contributed to its development in the form of parochialism, and thereby fell into the above-mentioned contradiction. The power of the Moscow sovereigns arose on the basis of patrimonial law. The great Moscow prince was the patrimony of his inheritance; all the inhabitants of his territory were his "serfs". The whole preceding course of history has led to the development of this view of territory and population. Recognition of the rights of the boyars Grand Duke betrayed his ancient traditions, which in reality he could not replace by others. The first to understand this contradiction was Ivan the Terrible. The Moscow boyars were strong mainly because of their land patrimonial possessions. Ivan the Terrible planned to carry out a complete mobilization of boyar land ownership, taking away from the boyars their habitable ancestral nests, giving them other lands in return in order to break their connection with the land, to deprive them of their former significance. The boyars were defeated; it was replaced by the lower court layer. Simple boyar families, like the Godunovs and Zakharyins, seized the primacy at court. The surviving remnants of the boyars became embittered and prepared for turmoil. On the other hand, the 16th century was an era foreign wars ending in the acquisition of vast spaces in the east, southeast and west. To conquer them and to consolidate new acquisitions, an enormous amount of military forces was required, which the government recruited from everywhere, in difficult cases without disdaining the services of serfs. The service class in the Muscovite state received, in the form of a salary, land on the estate - and land without workers had no value. The land, which was far from the borders of military defense, also did not matter, since a serviceman could not serve with it. Therefore, the government was forced to transfer to service hands a vast expanse of land in the central and southern parts of the state. Palace and black peasant volosts lost their independence and passed under the control of service people. The former division into volosts inevitably had to be destroyed in case of small use. The process of "reclaiming" the lands is exacerbated by the above mobilization of lands, which was the result of persecution against the boyars. Mass evictions ruined the economy of the service people, but even more ruined the taxpayers. The mass resettlement of the peasantry to the outskirts begins. At the same time, a huge area of the Zaoksky black soil is opened up for resettlement to the peasantry. The government itself, concerned about strengthening the newly acquired borders, supports resettlement to the outskirts. As a result, by the end of the reign of Grozny, the eviction takes on the character of a general flight, intensified by crop shortages, epidemics, and Tatar raids. Most of the service lands remain "in the void"; there is a severe economic crisis. The peasants lost the right to independent land ownership, with the use of service people on their lands; the townspeople turned out to be ousted from the southern towns and cities occupied military force: former trading places take on the character of military-administrative settlements. The townspeople are running. In this economic crisis, there is a struggle for workers. The stronger ones win - the boyars and the church. The service class remains the passive element, and even more so the peasant element, 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-time residence (see), begins to lose personal freedom, to approach the serf. In this struggle, enmity grows between separate classes - between the big landlords, the boyars, and the church, on the one hand, and the service class, on the other. The hard-working population harbors hatred for the classes that oppress it, and, being irritated against state institutions, 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 was preserved in the hands of the black volosts, remains calm during the advancing state "devastation".
In the development of unrest in the Moscow state, researchers usually distinguish three periods: dynastic, during which there is a struggle for the Moscow throne between various applicants (until May 19, 1606); social - the time of the class struggle in the Muscovite state, complicated by interference in Russian affairs of foreign states (until July 1610); national - the fight against foreign elements and the choice of a national sovereign (until February 21, 1613).
First period of Troubles
The last minutes of the life of False Dmitry. Painting by K. Wenig, 1879
Now the old boyar party found itself at the head of the board, which elected V. Shuisky as king. "The boyar-princely reaction in Moscow" (the expression of S. F. Platonov), having mastered the political position, elevated his most noble leader to the kingdom. The election of V. Shuisky to the throne took place without the advice of the whole earth. The Shuisky brothers, V.V. Golitsyn with his brothers, Iv. S. Kurakin and I. M. Vorotynsky, having agreed among themselves, brought Prince Vasily Shuisky to the place of execution and from there proclaimed him king. It was natural to expect that the people would be against the "shouted out" tsar and that the minor boyars (Romanovs, Nagye, Belsky, M. G. Saltykov, and others) would also be against him, which gradually began to recover from the disgrace of Boris.
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 someone 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 the seniority of 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 cross-kissing note, which undoubtedly has the character of a limitation. royal power. The tsar admitted that he was not free to execute his serfs, that is, he abandoned the principle that Grozny so sharply put forward and then accepted by Godunov. The record satisfied the boyar princes, and even then not all of them, but it could not satisfy the minor boyars, the small service people and the masses of the population. The confusion continued. Vasily Shuisky immediately sent out followers of False Dmitry - Belsky, Saltykov and others - to different cities; with the Romanovs, the Nagis, and other representatives of the minor boyars, he wanted to get along, but then several dark events occurred that indicate that he did not succeed. Filaret, who was elevated to the rank of metropolitan by an impostor, V. Shuisky thought to raise to the patriarchal table, but circumstances showed him that it was impossible to rely on Filaret and the Romanovs. He failed to rally the oligarchic circle of princes-boyars: it partly disintegrated, partly became hostile to the tsar. Shuisky hurried to get married to the kingdom, not even waiting for the patriarch: he was crowned by the Metropolitan of Novgorod Isidore, without the usual pomp. In order to dispel the rumors that Tsarevich Dmitry was alive, Shuisky came up with the solemn transfer to Moscow of the relics of the Tsarevich, canonized by the church as a saint; he resorted to official journalism. But everything was against him: anonymous letters were scattered around Moscow stating that Dmitry was alive and would return soon, and Moscow was worried. On May 25, Shuisky had to calm down the mob that was raised against him, as they said then, by P. N. Sheremetev.
Tsar Vasily Shuisky
A fire broke out in the southern outskirts of the state. As soon as the events of May 17 became known there, the Seversk land rose, and behind it the Zaoksky, Ukrainian and Ryazan places; the movement moved to Vyatka, Perm, and captured Astrakhan. Unrest also broke out in Novgorod, Pskov and Tver places. This movement, which embraced such a vast 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 wore social character and was directed against the boyars. Putivl became the center of the movement here, and at the head of the movement were Prince. Grieg. Peter. Shakhovskaya and his "big governor" 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; Dmitri's name was only a pretext. Bolotnikov called the people to him, giving hope for social change. The original text of his appeals has not been preserved, but their content is indicated in the charter of Patriarch Hermogenes. Bolotnikov's appeals, says Hermogenes, inspire the mob "all sorts of evil deeds for murder and robbery", "they order the boyar serfs to beat their boyars and their wives, and their patrimonies, and estates, and they promise them; and thieves and nameless thieves are ordered to beat guests and all merchants and plunder their stomachs; and they call their thieves to themselves, and they want to give them boyars and voivodeship, and roundabouts, and deaconship. In the northern zone of the Ukrainian and Ryazan cities, the service nobility arose, which did not want to put up with the boyar government of Shuisky. Grigory Sunbulov and the Lyapunov brothers, Procopius and Zakhar became the head of the Ryazan militia, and the Tula militia moved under the command of the boyar son Istoma Pashkov.
Meanwhile, Bolotnikov defeated the tsarist commanders 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 up against him, the rebellious forces besieged Moscow, and he did not have troops not only to pacify the rebellion, but even to defend Moscow. In addition, the rebels cut off the access to bread, and famine was discovered in Moscow. Among the besiegers, however, discord was revealed: the nobility, on the one hand, serfs, fugitive peasants, on the other, could live peacefully only until they knew each other's intentions. As soon as the nobility got acquainted with the goals of Bolotnikov and his army, they immediately recoiled from them. Sunbulov and the Lyapunovs, although they hated the established order in Moscow, preferred Shuisky and came to him with confession. Other nobles began to follow them. At the same time, militia from some cities arrived in time to help, 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 out from Shuisky. The number of their troops exceeded 30,000 people. In the spring of 1607, Tsar Vasily decided to act energetically 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 rebellious cities along the way and destroying the rebels: by the thousands they put "prisoners in the water", that is, they simply drowned. A third of the state territory was given to the troops for robbery and ruin. The siege of Tula dragged on; it was possible to take it only when they came up with the idea of arranging it on the river. Upe the dam and flood the city. Shakhovsky was exiled to Lake Kubenskoye, Bolotnikov to Kargopol, where they drowned him, False Peter 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 lining 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 showed dissatisfaction with its position and sought to change it. By issuing such decrees, Shuisky recognized the existence of unrest, but, trying to defeat it with one repression, he discovered a misunderstanding of the actual state of affairs.
Battle of Bolotnikov's troops tsarist army. Painting by E. Lissner
By August 1607, when V. Shuisky was sitting near Tula, the second False Dmitry appeared in Starodub Seversky, whom the people very aptly dubbed the Thief. The Starodubs believed in him and began to help him. Soon a combined team was formed around him, from Poles, Cossacks and all sorts of crooks. It 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 royal army and stopped near Moscow in the village of Tushino, where he founded his fortified camp. From everywhere people flocked to him, thirsting for easy money. The arrival of Lisovsky and Jan 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 powers of his own. There was still hope for the north, which was comparatively calmer and little affected by the turmoil. On the other hand, Vor could not take Moscow either. Both opponents 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 Vasilievich Skopin-Shuisky (see) for help to the Swedes. The Russians ceded the city of Karel with the province to Sweden, abandoned their views on 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 northwest of the Tushinos along the way. Sheremetev was coming from Astrakhan, suppressing the rebellion along the Volga. In Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda they united and went to Moscow. By this time, Tushino ceased to exist. It happened this way: when Sigismund found out about Russia's alliance with Sweden, he declared war on her and laid siege to Smolensk. Ambassadors were sent to Tushino to the local Polish detachments with a demand to join the king. A split began among the Poles: some obeyed the order of the king, others did not. The position of the Thief was difficult before: no one stood on ceremony with him, he was insulted, almost beaten; now it has become unbearable. The thief decided to leave Tushino and fled to Kaluga. Around the Thief during his stay in Tushino, a court of Moscow people gathered who did not want to serve Shuisky. Among them were representatives of very high strata of the Moscow nobility, but the nobility of the palace - Metropolitan Filaret (Romanov), Prince. Trubetskoy, Saltykov, Godunov and others; there were also humble people who sought to curry favor, gain weight and importance in the state - Molchanov, Iv. Gramotin, Fedka Andronov and others. Sigismund suggested that they surrender to the power of the king. Filaret and the Tushino boyars answered that the election of a tsar was not their business alone, that they could do nothing 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 a tsar from "any other boyars of Moscow" and started negotiations with Sigismund so that he would send his son Vladislav to the Moscow kingdom. An embassy was sent from the Russian Tushians, headed by the Saltykovs, Prince. Rubets-Masalsky, Pleshcheevs, Khvorostin, Velyaminov - all great nobles - and a few people of low birth. On February 4, 1610, they concluded an agreement with Sigismund, clarifying the aspirations of "rather mediocre nobility and veteran businessmen." Its main points are as follows: 1) Vladislav is crowned as an Orthodox patriarch; 2) Orthodoxy must be revered as before: 3) the property and rights of all ranks remain inviolable; 4) the judgment is made according to the old days; Vladislav shares legislative power with the boyars and the Zemsky Sobor; 5) execution can be carried out only by court order and with the knowledge of the boyars; the property of relatives of the perpetrator should not be subject to confiscation; 6) taxes are collected in the old way; 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 promote the smaller ones according to their merits; travel to other countries for science is allowed; 9) the serfs 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 regard. Meanwhile, Skopin-Shuisky triumphantly entered liberated Moscow on March 12, 1610.
Vereshchagin. Defenders of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra
Moscow rejoiced, welcoming the 24-year-old hero with great joy. Shuisky also rejoiced, hoping that the days of testing were over. But during these jubilations Skopin suddenly died. There was a rumor that he had been poisoned. There is news that Lyapunov suggested to Skopin that Vasily Shuisky be "deposed" and take the throne himself, but he gives the right to seniority in power. This is the principle of the old boyars (see / p Skopin rejected this proposal. After the tsar found out about this, he cooled off towards his nephew. In any case, Skopin’s death destroyed Shuisky’s connection with the people. The tsar’s brother Dimitry became governor over the army, completely he moved to liberate Smolensk, but near the village of Klushina he was shamefully defeated by the Polish hetman Zolkiewski.
Mikhail Vasilievich Skopin-Shuisky. Parsuna (portrait) of the 17th century
Zholkevsky deftly took advantage of the victory: he quickly went to Moscow, taking possession of the Russian cities along the way and swearing them to Vladislav. Vor hastened to Moscow from Kaluga. When in Moscow they learned about the outcome of the battle at Klushino, a "rebellion is great in all people - fighting against the tsar." The approach of Zholkiewski and Vor hastened the catastrophe. In the overthrow of Shuisky, the main role fell to the lot of the service class, headed by Zakhar Lyapunov. The palace nobility, including Filaret Nikitich, also took a considerable part in this. After several unsuccessful attempts, Shuisky's opponents gathered at the Serpukhov Gate, declared themselves to be the council of the whole land and "put down" the tsar.
Third Period of Troubles
Moscow found itself without a government, and meanwhile, it needed it now more than ever: it was pressed by enemies from two sides. Everyone was aware of this, but did not know where to stop. Lyapunov and the Ryazan service people wanted to appoint Prince. V. Golitsyn; Filaret, the Saltykovs and other Tushinos had other intentions; the highest nobility, headed by F. I. Mstislavsky and I. S. Kurakin, decided to wait. The board was handed over to the boyar duma, which consisted of 7 members. The "seven-numbered boyars" failed to take power into their own hands. They made an attempt to assemble the Zemsky Sobor, but it failed. The fear of the Thief, on whose side the mob took their side, 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 carried out in the usual way, at a real zemstvo sobor, then nevertheless the boyars did not decide to take this step alone, but gathered representatives from different strata of the state and formed something like a zemstvo sobor, which was recognized as the council of the whole earth. After lengthy negotiations, the former agreement was accepted by both parties, with some changes: 1) Vladislav had to convert to Orthodoxy; 2) the clause on the freedom to travel abroad for the sciences was deleted; and 3) the clause on the promotion of lesser 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 great embassy, consisting of almost 1000 people: representatives of almost all classes were included here. It is very likely that most of the members of the "council of the whole earth" that elected Vladislav entered the embassy. Metropolitan Philaret and Prince V.P. Golitsyn were at the head of the embassy. The embassy was not successful: Sigismund himself wanted to sit on the throne of Moscow. When Zolkiewski realized that Sigismund's intention was unshakable, he left Moscow, realizing that the Russians would not accept this. Sigismund hesitated, tried to intimidate the ambassadors, but they did not deviate from the agreement. Then he resorted to bribing some members, which he succeeded in: they left Smolensk to prepare the ground for the election of Sigismund, but the rest were unshakable.
Hetman Stanislav Zolkiewski
At the same time, in Moscow, the "seven boyars" 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 Iv. Mich. Saltykov, Prince. Yu. D. Khvorostinina, N. D. Velyaminova, M. A. Molchanova, Gramotina, Fedka Andronov 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, Rus' risked falling into complete subordination from it. The failed attempt forever put an end to the political significance of the boyars and the boyar duma. As soon as the Russians realized that they had made a mistake in choosing Vladislav, as soon as they saw that Sigismund did not lift the siege of Smolensk and deceived them, national and religious feeling began to awaken. At the end of October 1610, ambassadors from near Smolensk sent a letter about a threatening turn of affairs; in Moscow itself, patriots, in anonymous letters, revealed the truth to the people. All eyes turned to Patriarch Hermogenes: he understood his task, but could not immediately take up its execution. After the assault on Smolensk on November 21, the first serious clash between Hermogenes and Saltykov took place, who tried to persuade the patriarch to the side of Sigismund; but Hermogenes did not yet dare to call on the people to an open struggle against the Poles. The death of the Thief and the collapse of the embassy forced him to "command the blood to dare" - and in the second half of December he began to send letters to the cities. It was open, and Hermogenes paid with imprisonment.
His call, however, was heard. Prokopy Lyapunov was the first to rise from the Ryazan land. He began to gather an army against the Poles and in January 1611 moved to Moscow. The zemstvo squads were coming towards Lyapunov from all sides; even the Tushino Cossacks went to the rescue of Moscow, under the command of Prince. D. T. Trubetskoy and Zarutskoy. The Poles, after a battle with the inhabitants of Moscow and the approaching zemstvo squads, locked themselves in the Kremlin and Kitay-Gorod. The position of the Polish detachment (about 3000 people) was dangerous, especially since it had few supplies. Sigismund could not help him, he himself was unable to put an end to Smolensk. Zemstvo and Cossack militias united and besieged the Kremlin, but dissension 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 discord between the Zemstvo 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 constituted the main core of the zemstvo army, is very extensive: he had to arrange not only the army, but also the state. The supreme power must belong to the whole army, which calls itself "the whole earth"; the governors are only the executive organs of this council, which retains the right to remove them if they misbehave. The court belongs to the governors, but they can execute only with the approval of the "council of the whole earth", otherwise they face death. Then local affairs were regulated very accurately and in detail. All awards of Vor and Sigismund are declared to be of no importance. Cossacks "old" can receive estates and thus become in the ranks of service people. Further, there are decrees on the return of runaway serfs, who called themselves Cossacks (new Cossacks), to their former masters; the self-will of the Cossacks was largely embarrassed. Finally, a prikaz administration was established along the lines of the Moscow model. From this verdict it is clear that the army gathered near Moscow considered itself a representative of the whole earth and that the main role in the council belonged to the Zemstvo service people, and not to the Cossacks. This verdict is also characteristic in that it testifies to the importance that the service class gradually acquired. 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 Zemstvo. The hopes of the Russians for the militia did not come true: Moscow remained in the hands of the Poles, Smolensk by this time was taken by Sigismund, Novgorod - by the Swedes; Cossacks settled around Moscow, who robbed the people, committed atrocities and prepared a new turmoil, proclaiming the son of Marina, who lived in connection with Zarutsky, the Russian Tsar.
The state, apparently, perished; but a popular movement arose throughout the north and northeast of Rus'. This time it separated from the Cossacks and began to act independently. Hermogenes, with his letters, poured inspiration into the hearts of Russians. The center of the movement was the Lower. 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 Nizhny Novgorod Square
Chapter 1. Crisis Russian state and power………………………..3
1.1. The crisis of the state at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries…………………………....5
1.2. Problems of power and princely-boyar opposition…………………..9
Chapter 2
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 the most difficult for the development of the country. In economic terms, the Troubles was a long-term setback for both the city and the countryside. The funds necessary for the development of the country were withdrawn from the population in the form of heavy taxes. Considering that in the 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 abolition of any prohibitions on the transition of peasants was caused by the need to strengthen farms after the Time of Troubles. But when its first and most severe economic consequences began to be overcome, the first thing the government seized on was the restoration of the terms for searching for fugitive peasants and the fundamental prohibition of the right to transfer them. The beginning transformation of the verstan Cossacks into landowners also intensified the development of serfdom.
The social base of absolutism was the service feudal lords - the nobility. As a result of the rapid growth of 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 autocratic power. This policy has been consistently implemented great sovereign"and Patriarch Filaret in the reign of Mikhail Romanov (1613 -1645) and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1645 - 1676). On the one hand, they tried to eliminate or at least weaken the existing class-representative institutions (Zemsky Sobor, Boyar Duma), which limited the autocracy, on the other hand, to strengthen the centralized state apparatus (prikaz system) and the standing army.
The next tsar from the Romanov dynasty, Fedor Alekseevich (1676 - 1682), was also an outstanding personality. He continued the political line of his father to strengthen the autocracy, carried out important reforms.
During the Time of Troubles, in which all strata and classes of Russian society took part, the question of the very existence of the Russian state, the choice of the path of development of the country, was decided. It was necessary to find ways for the survival of the people. Trouble 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 Time of Troubles was found in the awareness by the regions and the center of the need for a strong statehood. In the minds of people, the idea won out to give everything for the common good, and not to seek personal gain.
After the Time of Troubles, the choice was made in favor of preserving the largest power in Eastern Europe. In the specific geopolitical conditions of that time, the path for the further development of Russia was chosen: autocracy as a form of political government, serfdom as the basis of the economy, Orthodoxy as an ideology, estate system as a social structure.
The subject of the study is the process of evolution of power during the turmoil.
The main purpose 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 political situation during the Time of Troubles.
3. Analyze the process of evolution of power.
The works of Russian historians Zimin A.A., Kargalov V.V., Klyuchevsky V.O., Platonov S.F., Solovyov S.M., Stashevsky E.D. were used to write the work. and other authors.
CHAPTER 1.CRISIS OF THE RUSSIAN STATE AND POWER
1.1. The crisis of the state at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries
As we know from historical literature, constant raids Crimean Tatars, the protracted Livonian War, the oprichnina "busts" and robberies, repeated crop failures and epidemics led to the ruin of the peasants and townspeople, to the impoverishment of the estate economy, to economic crisis which came in the second half of the 1980s.
The population of the central counties fled in masses to the outskirts of the country. Entire counties were deserted, arable land was 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 in the estates,
The difficult economic situation of the country was exacerbated by political difficulties. The legitimate heir to the throne, Tsarevich Fedor Ivanovich, was incapable of To independent government. Contemporaries called him "blessed", "foolish 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 Fedor, was supposed to govern Russia. The boyars B.Ya, Belsky, I.P. Shuisky, I.F. Mstislavsky, as well as the recently received boyar "rank", the tsar's favorite 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 noble boyar families (Mstislavsky, Shuisky, Romanov).
However, unlike the time of the first “boyar rule” in the early childhood of Ivan IV, there was an influential group of boyars and nobles at court who were ready to continue the policy of centralization. They advanced under Ivan the Terrible, occupied important court, government and military positions and did not want to allow other people. This group was headed by Boris Godunov, the queen's brother, who had great influence on Tsar Fedor.
Relying on the nobility, bureaucracy and archery regiments, he managed to eliminate his rivals. Prince Ivan Mstislavsky and the boyar Fyodor Romanov were forcibly tonsured monks, and Prince Ivan Shuisky was executed. Job, a supporter of Godunov, became the 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 royal 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, assigning peasants to their owners. Finally, around 1592 - 1593. A royal decree was issued on the abolition of the peasant output even on St. George's Day.
The nobles were given "obedient letters", according to which their peasants had to plow the master's arable land and pay dues not "in the old days", as before, but "how they are invented", i.e. by the will of the lord.
Two important decrees that strengthened serfdom were issued in 1597. This was a decree on serfs, according to which any “free man” who worked for six months in the household of a feudal lord turned into a bonded serf. Bonded serfs were deprived of the right to redeem themselves for freedom. Another decree - on "lesson years" - established a five-year period for the search and return of a fugitive peasant to the former owner,
The feudal legislation of the government of Boris Godunov strengthened the landlord economy, but caused deep dissatisfaction among the peasantry. The sad proverb - "Here's to you, grandmother, and St. George's Day!" - the people's consciousness associated with Boris Godunov.
Some of the events of Boris Godunov were carried out in the interests of the township 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 estates.
A great danger to the power of Boris Godunov was represented by the boyars Nagiye, 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 “destiny.” Soon Uglich became the center of attraction for all opposition forces. The boyars were waiting for the death of Tsar Fedor, who was distinguished by poor health, in order to push Godunov from power and rule on behalf of the young prince. However in 1591, the prince suddenly dies under mysterious circumstances.
In 1598, Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich died without leaving an heir. Tsarina Irina became a nun at the Novodevichy Convent. With the death of Fedor, the dynasty of the Moscow Rurikovichs, leading their lineage from the great Moscow princes, was interrupted. The question of power came up again. A struggle for the throne began between influential princely and boyar groups.
However, the attempts of the feudal aristocracy to push the king out of their midst ended in failure. Each boyar group put forward its own candidate for the throne.
In 1598 Boris Godunov was elected tsar at the Zemsky Sobor. The first steps of the new king were very cautious and aimed at softening the internal situation in the country. Vyla, an amnesty was declared, arrears on state taxes were removed, 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 encouraged cultural and trade relations with Western Europe in every possible way.
Boris Godunov, according to contemporaries, was a major statesman, strong-willed and far-sighted, a skilled diplomat. He personally conducted diplomatic negotiations and consistently succeeded,
However, latent processes were going on in the country, which eventually led to a political crisis and the Time of Troubles.
1.2. Problemsauthorities and princely-boyar opposition
As you know, in the last days of his life, Ivan the Terrible created a regency council, which included the boyars. The council was created in order to govern the state on behalf of his son, Tsar Fedor, 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 royal power and strengthening the position of the nobility. Measures were taken to restore the landlord economy. The arable lands of service feudal lords were exempted from state taxes and duties. The official duties of the noble landowners were facilitated. These actions contributed to the strengthening of the government base, which was necessary in connection with the continued resistance of the feudal estates.
A great danger to the power of Boris Godunov was represented by the boyars Nagiye, 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 turned into an opposition center. The boyars were waiting for the death of Tsar Fedor in order to push Godunov out of power and rule on behalf of the young prince. 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 vigorously spread rumors about a deliberate murder on the orders of the ruler. Later, a version appeared that another boy was killed, while the prince escaped and is waiting for adulthood in order to return and punish the "villain". The "Uglitsky case" has long remained a mystery to Russian historians, but recent research suggests that an accident really happened.
In 1598, Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich died without leaving an heir. Moscow swore allegiance to his wife, Tsarina Irina, but Irina renounced the throne and became a monk. While the sovereigns of the old familiar dynasty (direct descendants of Rurik and Vladimir the Holy) 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 layer of the Moscow population, the boyars, began a struggle for power in a country that had become "stateless".
However, the attempts of the aristocracy to nominate the king from their midst failed. Positions of Boris Godunov were strong enough. He was supported by the Orthodox Church, the Moscow archers, the bureaucracy, part of the boyars, nominated by him to important positions. In addition, Godunov's rivals were weakened by internal struggles.
In 1598, at the Zemsky Sobor, Boris Godunov, after a double public refusal, was elected tsar.
His first steps were very cautious and aimed mainly at softening the internal situation in the country. According to contemporaries, the new tsar was a major statesman, strong-willed and far-sighted, and a skilled diplomat. However, latent processes were going on in the country, which 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. rise social tension in the country;
1605 - death of Tsar Boris Godunov. Accession of False Dmitry I;
1606-1610 - the reign of Vasily Shuisky;
1006-1607 - peasant uprising under the leadership of I. Bolotnikov. False Dmitry II;
1609 Poland and Sweden are drawn into the war. Beginning of the Polish intervention;
1610-1612 - "seven boyars";
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 Time of 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 the descendants of Ivan Kalita was cut short. The question of succession was decided Zemsky Cathedral, who elected the brother-in-law of the deceased tsar, the boyar Boris Godunov (1598-1605), to the kingdom. This was the first time in the history of the Muscovite kingdom, not a single tsar had been elected before Godunov, so the desire of the new tsar to emphasize his connection with the former dynasty in every way seems natural. He even launched a clear fiction about the will of Ivan IV, who allegedly "refused" the throne of Moscow to Godunov. Boris Godunov - talented statesman. An excellent orator, he had a sonorous voice and the gift of eloquence, winning the admiration of those around him. Contemporaries noted his excellent manners, friendliness, and dislike for wine. “Cautious and insightful, treacherous and generous, Boris knew how to be everyone, more precisely, the way circumstances required. He owes this to his natural mind, unbending will.
Domestic politics Godunov, reformist in content, was aimed at stabilizing the situation in the country, brought to a crisis by the oprichnina. There was a construction of cities on the Volga (Samara, Saratov, Tsaritsyn, etc.), the position of the settlement was facilitated. 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 noble “rob” were sent abroad to study. Godunov took care of the spread of book printing, printing houses were opened in the 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, Karely. 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 decreed otherwise.
An improvement in the economic situation was only in the offing, and the way out of the crisis was serfdom. 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 on the prohibition of peasant transitions, in 1597 - a decree “on lesson years”: the right of the owner to search for fugitives for five years. All this increased 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 to help the starving: the poor were given money, bread from state stores, free lunches and paid construction work were organized. Boris tried to support 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 the entire Orthodox peasantry”, is looking for “all of you - the whole people to people - ... bread beating, life is not heavy and unharmed peace everyone is equal." Recognition that not only tops! but the lower classes of society - the “popular multitude” - have the right to an abundance of grain, was a new word in the country's domestic policy. Russia was on the verge of major social upheavals, the most far-sighted politicians felt the approach of a catastrophe and sought to prevent it.
However, government measures have not reached the goal. Hunger riots begin, popular unrest covers more and more territories. The king catastrophically loses authority. The Time of Troubles has come.
The first of these were dynastic and socio-economic crises. The old one broke social structure, it was claimed serfdom which had a painful effect on the situation of the people. The feudal estate was also in crisis. At the beginning of the XVII century. the decline of the feudal estates was observed, caused both by their fragmentation and the flight of the peasants. Boyar children, who had neither peasants nor serfs, dropped out of the "composition" of the feudal lords. Combat serfs, losing their privileged status, also expressed dissatisfaction. Relations between the government and the Cossacks escalated. The government understood that the feudal order in the center could not be finally established as long as there were free outskirts. Therefore, from the end of the XVI century. a policy of subjugation of the Cossack regions is being pursued. As a result, it is the Cossacks who will form the core rebel armies False Dmitry I, Bolotnikov, "Tushinsky thief" and will become one of the main driving forces of unrest.
The struggle for the throne resumed. The aristocracy strove for revenge, for strengthening its position under the new political alignment. The power of the nobility was shaken, but not broken by the oprichnina. Now she decided that her hour had struck.
Intra-class disagreements between different strata of the boyars, between the Moscow and provincial nobility, escalated, 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. In the end, everyone was dissatisfied. To this was added 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, able to save the people from oppression and social injustice.
The impostors will be used by various social and political forces of the country for their own purposes. Imposture will become a convenient form of organizing a mass anti-government movement. The first pas of the impostors - the fugitive monk of the Chudov Monastery, the “defrocked” Grishka Otrepyev - will declare himself the son of Ivan IV Dmitry, who allegedly escaped by a miracle. Supported by service people, Cossacks, small estate nobles, gentry, 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 tsar, a significant part of the army followed their example, then the Moscow boyars.
June 20, 1605 he solemnly entered Moscow. Even before that, all the relatives of Boris Godunov were killed, including his son Fyodor, who succeeded him. The remains of Godunov were removed from the Archangel Cathedral - the tomb of the Moscow tsars in the Kremlin - and buried in one of the remote Moscow cemeteries.
The accession of Shuisky 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 also be taken into account that for contemporaries Shuisky's right to the throne was in great doubt. 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 serf Ivan Bolotnikov, the second - Istoma Pashkov, the son of a boyar. In October 1606, the rebel 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). The historians of the Soviet school designated this period of the Troubles as the Peasants' War, highlighting Bolotnikov's campaign as its central demand. 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” participating in the Time of Troubles.
R.G. Skrynnikov, proving that popular movements beginning of the 17th century. were not a peasant war, in particular, he claims that Bolotnikov pursued, first of all, political goals, and not social ones. The author believes that the strength of this movement as one of the most important stages of the civil war was that it united different layers and groups 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, who was located far from Moscow, in Tushino. In the winter of 1608-1609. Tushino camp turned into a real fortified city with the royal palace. More and more detachments from Poland come here, which, formally obeying the impostor, were engaged in robbing the local population. Along with them, the Russians also looted. Cities passed from the hands of the impostor, nicknamed the "Tushinsky thief", into the hands of Tsar Vasily, either voluntarily or during military battles.
Seeing no other way to deal with the Tushins, who were tacitly 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, led by the boyar Mikhail Saltykov, disillusioned with the "Tushino king", concluded an agreement with the Polish king on the conditions for the accession to the Moscow throne of his son Vladislav. The document provided for guarantees of Russia from absorption by the Commonwealth, reflected the personal rights of subjects.
The idea of calling Prince Vladislav to the Russian throne found its supporters in Moscow as well. The boyars and nobles in July 1610 overthrew Shuisky and forced him to take the veil as a monk. Power temporarily passed into the hands of a government of seven boyars (“seven boyars”), who decided to place Vladislav on the Russian throne. Some historians believe that in this way it became possible to strengthen Russia's ties with 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 robbing the holy fool and monasteries. The Cossacks did the same. In fact, there was no central authority. The country faced the threat of loss of independence.
In this extremely difficult time, the patriotic forces managed to unite and repulse the claims of the invaders. The troops of the first national militia, led by Prokopy Lyapunov, threw back the army of the Polish king and laid siege to Moscow. The militias were joined by Cossacks - Tushintsy, led by Ivan Zarutsky and Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy. The siege had no results. The Cossacks, having quarreled with the nobles, dispersed their militia. The second militia began (to be published in Nizhny Novgorod, headed by K. Minin and D. Pozharsky. The princes Pozharsky and Trubetskoy agreed on joint actions. In October 1612, the militia 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 gradually subside.
CHAPTER 2. STATE POWER IN THE PERIOD OF TROUBLES
2.1. Political regimes during the Time of Troubles
The period of unrest in the Russian state is characterized by the instability of state power and the frequent change of political regimes: Dynastic stage (1598 - 1605), Social stage (1605 - 1610).
During this period, the figures of False Dmitry I and False Dmitry II appear.
In the winter of 1608 - 1609. False Dmitry II was located near Moscow in Tushino. The Tushino camp turned into a real fortified city with a royal palace. "Tushinsky thief" established control over significant territories to the east, north and north-west of Moscow.
The Tushino camp developed its own management system: the Boyar Duma, which consisted of boyars who had gone over to the side of the impostor, and orders. Metropolitan Filaret (Fyodor Romanov) was brought from Rostov, captured by the Tushins, and proclaimed patriarch.
In February 1610, the embassy, headed by the boyar Mikhail Saltykov, concluded an agreement with the Polish king on the conditions for the accession to the Moscow throne of his son Vladislav.
The boyars and nobles in July 1610 overthrew Shuisky and forced him to take the veil as a monk. Power temporarily passed into the hands of a government of seven boyars (Boyar Duma as the Provisional Government - 1610. The Boyar Duma, headed by F.I. Mstislavsky, began to rule the country. The Duma consisted of 7 people, and its rule during the interregnum was called "seven boyars" ), 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 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 loss of independence.
In January 1613, the Zemsky Sobor, the most representative in history, gathered in Moscow. medieval Rus'. It was attended by the boyars, and the higher clergy, and the nobility, and townships, for the first time Cossacks and black-haired peasants were represented. 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, the Zemsky Sobor was held in Moscow, at which the question of choosing a new Russian tsar was raised. As candidates for the Russian throne, the Polish prince Vladislav, the son of the Swedish king Karl-Philip, the son of False Dmitry II and Marina Mnishek Ivan, nicknamed "Vorenok", as well as representatives of the largest boyar families were proposed. On February 21, the cathedral chose Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, the 16-year-old great-nephew of Ivan the Terrible's first wife, Anastasia Romanova. An embassy was sent to the Ignatievsky Monastery near Kostroma, where Mikhail and his mother were at that time. On May 2, 1613, Mikhail arrived in Moscow, and on July 11 he was married to the kingdom. Soon the leading place in the government of the country was taken by his father, Patriarch Filaret, who "mastered all the royal and military affairs." Power was restored in the form of an autocratic monarchy. The leaders of the fight against the interventionists received modest appointments. D. M. Pozharsky was sent as governor to Mozhaisk, and K. Minin became a duma governor.
The turmoil 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 a class-representative monarchy. The Boyar Duma and Zemsky Sobors were actively involved in governing the country.
Zemsky Sobors, which sat almost continuously, were engaged in legislation, finding funds to replenish the treasury, church and foreign policy affairs.
The Boyar Duma still remained the supreme body in charge of legislation, administration and courts. The composition of the Boyar Duma was replenished with close associates and relatives of the tsar, duma nobles and duma clerks. For the 17th century characteristic is the close connection of the personnel of the Boyar Duma with the order system: many of its members performed the duties of judges of orders, governor, were in the diplomatic service, etc.
2.2. Analysis of the evolution of power
The boyars were the top layer of the emerging ruling elite of the Muscovite state. The real social support of power was also made up of new social groups that were taking shape during this period: the nobility, military people (professional military), the Cossacks, etc.
An estate of nobles, which has a long origin, is being formed. The first service category, from which the nobility later grew, were the “youths” (junior combatants of the prince). Then the prince's "courtyard" servants appeared, which included both free people and serfs. All these categories were combined into a group of "children of the boyars", who never grew up to be boyars, but formed the social base of the nobility.
The emerging nobility also included a large number of palace servants (tyuns, 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. Rus' adopted from Byzantium the attributes of an Orthodox power, state and religious symbols. The emerging concept of autocratic power meant its absolute independence and sovereignty. The formation of the state apparatus was carried out according to the principle of localism.
Localism - the system of the feudal hierarchy in Russia, which officially regulated relations between members of service families in the 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), replaced national interests with class interests.
When appointing service people to positions, the surnames to which they belonged were taken into account as the official significance, i.e. official nobility of this kind, and the genealogical position of the applicant within his family name. This conditional and complicated order was based on official, service achievements not of an individual, but of the whole family, i.e. on the fatherland.
Fatherland was established along 2 lines:
by genealogy (the criterion is the nobility of the origin of the clan and the person himself); by categories (records stored in the Discharge Order, which indicated the list of appointments to the highest government positions for a certain period of the past time - 80-100 years).
When appointing to a position, a precedent was used, a situation borrowed from past years (according to the records of 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 similar) position.
Localism singled out the boyars as a special group, the purpose of which was to participate in the supreme administration of the state. The Boyar Duma became the personification of this aristocratic order of power.
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 a professional (noble) bureaucracy.
The competence of the Duma included the formation of legislation, administration and judicial activities. 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 consisted of specific princes. As the supreme governing body, the Duma linked itself with the orders.
Orders are central government bodies that existed from the end of the 15th to the 18th centuries. At various times there were about 100 orders.
Unlike palace departments, orders are more bureaucratic, technical bodies.
The working apparatus in the clerk's "hut" were "comrades", headed, as a rule, by a 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 bodies of state administration ..
2) within the palace departments, independent institutions appeared, headed by clerks who received a special assignment (“hut” or “order”).
3) the command administration finally turned into a system of central state administration.
Since that time, orders have become monopoly central government bodies (Ambassadorial, Local, Robbery, Treasury, etc.), combining administrative and judicial functions and consisting of a boyar (head of the order), ordering clerks and scribes. Special commissioners were on the ground. Later, along with sectoral orders, territorial orders arose that were 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 parts: suburbs and lands. Whole lands were divided into volosts, camps, thirds and quarters. The volost remained as the main economic unit.
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 volosteli (smaller feudal lords).
Governors and volostels did not receive remuneration for managing a county or volost, but the local population had to supply them with “food” with natural products several times a year. In addition, they received part of the fees and duties from auctions, shops, ships, etc.
By the middle of the XVI century. the main state and political institutions of the estate-representative monarchy were formed.
A special place in the system of state bodies was occupied by Zemsky Sobors, held from the middle. 16th to 17th centuries Their convocation was announced by royal charter. The composition of the Cathedral included: the Boyar Duma, the Consecrated Cathedral (church hierarchies) and elected from the nobility and towns. Zemsky Sobors resolved the main issues of foreign and domestic policy, legislation, finance, and state building. Questions were discussed by class ("by chambers"), but were accepted by the entire composition of the Cathedral.
Estate-representative bodies on the ground (in the middle of the 16th century) became zemstvo and labial huts. The establishment of these bodies limited and replaced the feeding system: elected self-governing huts assumed financial and tax (zemstvo) and police and judicial (labial) functions. The competence of these bodies was enshrined in lip charters and zemstvo charters signed by the tsar. The staff of these bodies consisted of the "best people", sots, fifties, elders and clerks.
The activities of the huts were controlled by various branch orders. There was, quite often, a reorganization of the order system, sequential disaggregation or merging of orders. In the work of these bodies, a real bureaucratic style was developed: strict subordination (vertically) and strict adherence to instructions and regulations (horizontally). In the 17th century local government is being reorganized: zemstvo, labial huts and city clerks began to obey the governors appointed from the center, who assumed administrative, police and military functions. The governors relied on a specially created apparatus (prikazba) of clerks, bailiffs and clerks.
Politically, the time of troubles - when the Earth, having gathered its strength, itself restored the destroyed state - showed with its own eyes that the Moscow state was not the creation and "patrimony" of its "owner" - the sovereign, but was a common cause and common creation of "all cities and all the ranks of the people of the whole great Russian Tsardom".
CONCLUSION
17th century historians consider the beginning of the "new period" of Russian history. At this time, while maintaining the dominant feudal relations, the first elements of the capitalist order arise. Hence the complexity and inconsistency of all socio-economic and political processes taking place in Russia, sharp social and ideological conflicts. It is not for nothing that the seventeenth century of Russian history is called the "rebellious age."
The Polish-Lithuanian-Swedish intervention, the robberies of the Cossack chieftains, the Tatar raids that resumed during the period of "distemper" caused enormous damage to 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.
Concerning political development Russia in the 17th century, the main content of this process was a gradual transition from a class-representative to an absolute monarchy, that is, unlimited and uncontrolled power. This process ended in early XVIII century, under Peter I, when the Russian Empire took shape.
The social base of absolutism was the service feudal lords. As a result of the rapid growth of 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 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 eliminate or at least weaken the existing class-representative institutions (Zemsky Sobor, Boyar Duma), which limited the autocracy, on the other hand, to strengthen the centralized state apparatus (prikaz system) and the standing army.
In international relations, too, there were changes; after the Time of Troubles, Russia's place in the system of European political and economic ties became different in many ways. The geopolitical foundations remained, but the forces and military potential were too weak. There was a long break in relations with a number of states. In Europe, on the eve thirty years war split into two camps, Russia was involved in the anti-Habsburg coalition. But within the framework of this coalition, Russia occupied secondary places. It took half a century to overcome the most negative consequences of the Troubles in international position 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, internal development, foreign policy, in progress took the lives of two or three generations (although in terms of trust in the authorities, we have not changed much).
Under Aleksey Mikhailovich, the Boyar Duma ceased to be a purely estate body of the feudal aristocracy, it was constantly replenished with “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 bureaucracy.
Zemsky Sobors gradually withered away. The last Zemsky Sobors that played an important role in the life of the country were the Council of 1649, which adopted the Council 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 XVII 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 between 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. ridge 2. L.
3. Zimin A.A. On the eve of terrible upheavals. - M., 1986
4. Zimin N. A. Oprichnina 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. - Ch. 3 Works. - T. 3. - M., 1988.
7. Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history. - M., 1993. Prince. 2. p. 176
8. Kotoshikhin G.K. About Russia in the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. - St. Petersburg, 1884.
9. Nosov N.E. Formation of class representation in Russia in the first half of the 16th century // Historical Notes. ... 8. Class-Representative Institutions (Zemsky Sobors) in Russia in the 16th century / Questions of History, No. 5, 1958.
10. Platonov S.F. Articles on Russian history. - St. Petersburg, 1912.
11. Rumyantsev. N.P. Collection No. 381. L. 2, 10v.; L. 32 about. - 33.
12. Skrynnikov R.G. Russia at the beginning of the 17th century "Trouble". - M., 1988. S. 44
13. Solovyov S. M. History of Russia since ancient times. - M.: Enlightenment, 2002.
14. Stashevsky E. D. Essays on the history of the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich. Part 1. - Kyiv. 1913.
15. Steshenko L.A. On the premises of absolutism in Russia // Bulletin of Moscow State University. 1965. Series X. Law. No. 3. Pskov Chronicles. - M; L., 1941. Issue. 1.
16. Tikhonravova N.I. Collection No. 557. L. 239v. (OR RSL. F. 247. Rogozhskoe collection. No. 84. L. 855.)
17. Torke H.I. The so-called zemstvo councils in Russia//Voprosy istorii. - No. 11, 1991.
18. Khutorsky V. Ya. History of Russia. From Rurik to Yeltsin. - M., 2000.
19. Cherepnin L. V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian state in the XVI-XVII centuries. - M. 1978.
20. Chicherin B.N. About popular representation. - M., 1866.
1. Board of Boris Godunov 2
2. First signs of crisis 4
3. The appearance of False Dmitry I and the death of Boris Godunov 6
4. The death of Fyodor Godunov and the accession of False Dmitry I 11
5. The overthrow of False Dmitry I 14
6. 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 "Seven Boyars" 24
10. The expulsion of the interventionists and the accession of the Romanovs 25
11. End of Troubles
References 27
1. Board of Boris Godunov.
The term "Time of Troubles" in Russian history the period from 1604 to 1613 is indicated, characterized by a severe political and social crisis of the Muscovite kingdom. The political prerequisites for this crisis, however, appeared long before 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 they also announced to the people about the death of the sovereign. After John IV, his son, Fedor Ioannovich, became king, weak and weak-willed, unable to rule the country without the help of advisers. To help the king, the Regency Council was created, which included: Belsky, Yuriev, 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 a 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 as long as Tsar Fedor was alive. In the event of the death of Fedor, the throne was to be inherited by his younger brother, the son of John IV, Tsarevich Dimitri, and given the poor health of the king, this could not happen in the very distant future. In all likelihood, Godunov did not expect anything good for himself from the change of sovereign. One way or another, but in 1591, Tsarevich Dimitri died in an accident. The investigation into this case was conducted by the boyar Vasily Shuisky, who came to the conclusion that the prince was playing with his peers in the game when he had an epileptic seizure. Having accidentally dropped 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 political assassination in disguise, as it cleared Godunov's path to the throne. In fact, Tsar Fedor 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 subsequent events showed, this is exactly what happened.
On the other hand, Godunov's guilt in Dimitri's death 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 (“Allowing remarriages of the laity, the Orthodox Church does not equate them with the first,“ virgin ”marriage. First of all, she limited the frequency 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 he was needed in state and dynastic interests. categorically forbidding a 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 event of the removal of Dimitri, Godunov's own prospects for taking the throne were vague - he was neither the most noble, nor the richest of possible applicants, and the fact that he eventually became king was largely a fluke.
One way or another, in the eyes of contemporaries, this death was so beneficial to Godunov that few people doubted his guilt. The death of Tsarevich Dimitry 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 hostility 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 Fedor, Irina Godunova, his sister. According to the text of the oath published in the churches, subjects were asked to take an oath of allegiance to Patriarch Job and the Orthodox faith, Tsarina 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 for 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 took vows. 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 of 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 boyar government in the country - was not approved by the Zemsky Sobor. A stalemate situation developed in the country, and as a result, the issue of succession to the throne was brought out of the convents and patriarchal chambers to the square. The opposing parties used all possible means - from agitation to bribery. Going out to the crowd, Godunov swore with tears in his eyes that he did not even think of encroaching on "the highest royal rank." Godunov's motives for refusing the crown are not difficult to understand. First, he was embarrassed by the small size of the crowd. And secondly, he wanted to put an end to the accusations of regicide. In order to achieve this goal more accurately, Boris spread a rumor about his imminent monastic vows. Under the influence of skillful agitation, the mood in the capital began to change.
The patriarch and members of the cathedral tried to use the emerging success. Persuading Boris to accept the crown, the churchmen threatened to resign if their application was denied. The boyars made similar statements.
The general cry created the appearance of a popular 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 his kingdom.
Godunov, however, could not accept the crown without an oath in the Boyar Duma. But the elder 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 for the first time convened the Boyar Duma to resolve the accumulated cases that could not tolerate delay. Thus, Godunov actually began to perform the functions of an autocrat. Having received support from the capital's population, Boris broke the resistance of the feudal nobility without bloodshed and became the first "elective" king. The first years of his reign did not promise anything bad.
“The first two years of this reign seemed to be the best time for Russia since the 15th century or since its restoration: it was at the highest degree of its new power, safe by its own strength and the happiness of external circumstances, and internally ruled by wise firmness and with extraordinary meekness. Boris fulfilled the vow of the royal wedding and rightly wanted to be called the father of the people, reducing their hardships; the father of the orphans and the poor, pouring out unparalleled bounties on them; a friend of mankind, without touching the lives of people, without staining the Russian land with a drop of blood and punishing criminals only with exile. Merchants, less constrained in trade; an army showered with awards in peaceful silence; Nobles, orderly people, distinguished by signs of mercy for zealous service; Synclitus, respected by the active and advice-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 the fatherland, seeing how Boris in Europe and Asia glorified the name of Russia without bloodshed and without the painful strain of her forces; how he cares about the common good, justice, arrangement. And so it is not surprising that Russia, according to contemporaries, loved her crowned bearer, wanting to forget the murder of Demetrius or doubting him!
Nothing foreshadowed trouble, and only six years remained before the beginning of 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 to Eastern Europe there were heavy cold rains, starting from July, mixed with sleet. The entire crop, of course, perished. According to contemporaries, at the end of August 1601, snowfalls and blizzards began, they rode sledges along the Dnieper, as if in winter.
“In the midst of the natural abundance and wealth of a fruitful land inhabited by industrious cultivators; among the blessings of a long-term peace, and in the active, prudent reign, a terrible punishment fell on millions of people: in the spring, in 1601, the sky was overshadowed by thick darkness, and it rained continuously for ten weeks, so that the villagers were horrified: they could not do anything, neither mow nor reap; and on August 15, a severe frost damaged both green bread and all unripe fruits. Even in the granaries and in the threshing floors there was a lot of old bread; but the farmers, unfortunately, sowed the fields with new, rotten, lean ones, and did not see shoots, neither in autumn nor in spring: everything decayed and mixed with the earth. Meanwhile, the reserves ran out, and the fields were already left unsown.
The same, although on a smaller scale, was repeated in 1602. As a result, it didn't even help. warm summer 1603, since the peasants simply had nothing to sow - due to two past crop failures, there were no seeds.
To the credit of the Godunov government, it did its best to mitigate the consequences of crop failures, 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 be sold at a price set by the government). In order to give work to hungry refugees, Godunov began to rebuild the stone chambers of the Moscow Kremlin (“... he built in 1601 and 1602, on the site of the broken wooden palace of Ioannov, two large stone chambers to the Golden and Faceted, a dining room and a panikhida to deliver work and food to the poor, connecting favor with mercy, and in the days of weeping thinking about magnificence!”). He also issued a decree stating that all serfs left by their masters without means of subsistence automatically receive freedom. But these measures were clearly not enough. About a third of the country's population became victims of the famine. Fleeing from hunger, people fled en masse "to the Cossacks" - to the Don and Zaporozhye. It must be said that the policy of “forcing out” criminal and potentially unreliable elements to the northwestern borders was practiced by John IV, and was continued by Godunov (“Even John IV, wanting to populate the Lithuanian Ukraine, the land of Seversk, with people fit for military affairs, did not interfere in it hide and live peacefully for criminals who went there from execution: for he thought that in case of war they could be reliable defenders of the border.Boris, loving to follow many state thoughts of John, followed this one, very false and very unfortunate: in the service of 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 in a peasant uprising in 1603 led by ataman Khlopok. The peasant army was heading towards Moscow, and it was possible to defeat it only at the cost of heavy losses of government troops, and the voivode Ivan Basmanov himself died in battle. Ataman Khlopok was taken prisoner and, according to some sources, died of 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 had contracted paranoia from his first patron, Tsar John IV. In 1601, his old colleague and friend Bogdan Belsky was repressed - Godunov ordered him to be tortured, after which he was exiled to "one of the lower cities", 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 governor in the city of Borisov, allowed himself to joke: “Boris is the tsar in Moscow, and I am the tsar in Borisov.” A simple joke cost Belsky very dearly.
In the same year, 1601, a larger-scale trial was launched against the Romanov family, as well as their supporters (Sitsky, Repnin, Cherkassky, Shestunov, Karpov ...). “The nobleman 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 bags filled with roots, ordered him to hide in the pantry of Boyar Alexander Nikitich and report to their masters that they, secretly dealing with the composition of the poison, conspire against the life of the crowned bearer. Suddenly there was an alarm in Moscow: Sinklit and all the noble officials rush to the Patriarch; they send the devious Mikhail Saltykov to search the storeroom of Boyar Alexander; they find sacks there, carry them to Job, and in the presence of the Romanovs they pour out roots, as if magical, made to poison the Tsar. The consequences of this provocation were the saddest for the Romanovs and their supporters - all of them were partly forcibly tonsured monks, partly exiled, their property was confiscated.
“The Romanovs were not alone a monster for Boris's imagination. He forbade Princes 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 future imaginary dangers for young Theodore, the timid destroyer trembled with the real ones: worried by suspicions, incessantly afraid of secret villains and equally afraid of earning the people's hatred by torment, he persecuted and pardoned: he exiled the Governor, Prince Vladimir Bakhteyarov-Rostovsky, and forgave him; removed from affairs the famous Dyak Shchelkalov, but without obvious disgrace; several times removed the Yishuiskys, and again brought them closer to him; caressed them, and at the same time threatened disgrace to anyone who had a relationship with them. There were no solemn executions, but the unfortunate in the dungeons were tortured on denunciations. Hosts of izvetniks, if not always rewarded, but always free from punishment for lying and slander, rushed to the Tsar's chambers from the houses of the Boyarskys and huts, from monasteries and churches: husbands, the very children on their fathers, to the horror of mankind! “And in the wild Hordes (adds the Chronicler) there is no such great evil: the Lord does not dare to look at his slaves, nor his neighbors sincerely speak among themselves; and when they spoke, they mutually undertook a terrible oath not to change modesty. "In a word, this sad time of Boris's reign, yielding to John in blood drinking, was not inferior to him in lawlessness and debauchery"
There is nothing surprising in the fact that Godunov tried so diligently to eliminate, or at least remove those who could challenge the throne from him, that is, the more ancient or noble boyar families. Not sure 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 when nothing would threaten the new dynasty founded by him. These motifs 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
Godunov's popularity among the people fell sharply, and a series of disasters revived rumors, already circulating among the people, that Boris Godunov was not a legitimate tsar, but an impostor, and all these troubles result from this. The real tsar, Demetrius, is actually alive, sparkling somewhere from Godunov. Of course, the authorities tried to fight the spread of rumors, but special success did not have. There is also a hypothesis that some boyars, dissatisfied with Godunov's rule, in the first place, the Romanovs, had a hand in spreading 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, to madden the murderer and to confuse all of Russia.”
According to the generally accepted version, some “poor boyar son, Galician Yuri Otrepyev” tried to impersonate Dimitri, who “... in his youth, having lost his father, named 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; he was bored with a low state and decided to seek the pleasures of careless idleness in the rank of Monk, following the example of his grandfather, Zamyatny-Otrepiev, who had long been a monk in the monastery of Chudovskaya. Having been tonsured 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, in a cell with his grandfather, under his supervision. There, Patriarch Job recognized him, consecrated him a deacon, and took him into his book business, for Gregory knew how not only to copy well, but even to compose canons of the Saints better than many old scribes of that time. Using the mercy of Job, 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 reasonable people, especially when the name of Demetrius Tsarevich was mentioned in sincere, secret conversations; wherever he could, he found out the circumstances of his unfortunate fate and wrote it down on the charter. A wonderful thought had already settled and matured in the soul of the dreamer, inspired in him, as they say, by one evil Monk: the idea that a bold impostor could take advantage of the gullibility of the Russians, touched by the memory of Demetrius, and in honor of Heavenly Justice, execute the sanctuary! The seed fell on the fruitful land: the young Deacon diligently read the Russian chronicles and immodestly, albeit jokingly, sometimes said 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 a vessel of the devil"; The good-natured Patriarch did not respect the Metropolitan's advice, but the Tsar ordered his Dyak, Smirnov-Vasilyev, to send the mad Grigory to Solovki, or to the Belozersky hermitages, as if for heresy, to eternal repentance. Smirnoy told another deacon, Evfimiev, about that; Evfimiev, being a relative of the Otrepyevs, begged him to slow down in the execution of the Tsar's decree and gave the disgraced Deacon a way to escape (in February 1602), along with two Monks of Chudovsky, Priest Varlaam and Kryloshanin Misail Povadin. Having sensibly judged how such statements could be fraught with him within Russian borders, Otrepyev decided to flee to where he would be welcome - to Poland (more precisely, the Commonwealth - a powerful state that occupied the current territories of Poland, the Baltic states, Belarus, parts of Ukraine and western regions of Russia). “There, the ancient, natural hatred of Russia has always zealously favored our traitors, from Princes Shemyakin, Vereisky, Borovsky and Tversky to Kurbsky and Golovin.” Thus, the choice of Otrepyev was quite natural, and he expected to find help and support there. IN. Klyuchevsky writes about it like this
:“In the nest of the boyars most persecuted by Boris, headed by the Romanovs, in all likelihood, the idea of an impostor was hatched. Vinilipoliakov that they set it up; but it was only baked in a Polish oven, fermented in Moscow. No wonder Boris, as soon as he heard about the appearance of False Dmitry, directly told the boyars that it was their business, that they set up an impostor. This unknown someone, who sat on the Moscow throne after Boris, arouses great anecdotal interest. His identity remains mysterious until now, despite the best efforts of scientists to unravel it. For a long time the opinion prevailed, coming from Boris himself, that he was the son of a Galician petty nobleman Yuri Otrepyev, Gregory wine. I will not talk about the adventures of this man, you know enough. I will only mention that in Moscow he served as a serf for the boyars of the Romanovs and for Prince Cherkassky, then he became a monk, for his bookishness and for compiling praise for the Moscow miracle workers he was taken to the patriarch as a book scribe, here suddenly from something he began to say that he, perhaps, would be the king on Moscow. He was to die for this in a distant monastery; but some strong people covered him up, and he fled to Lithuania at the very time when the disgrace of the Romanov circle fell.
The life path of Otrepiev from the moment of his flight to the moment he appeared in the Commonwealth at the court of Prince Vishnevetsky is covered in darkness. According to N.M. Karamzin, before declaring himself miraculously saved Tsarevich Dimitry, Otrepiev settled in Kyiv, in the Caves Monastery, where “... he led a seductive life, despising the charter of abstinence and chastity; boasted of freedom of opinion, liked 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 he left the Pechersky Monastery to the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks, to Ataman Gerasim Evangelik, where he received military skills. However, he also did not stay with the Cossacks - he left, and showed up at the Volyn school, where he studied Polish and Latin grammar. There he was noticed, and accepted into the service of the wealthy Polish magnate, Prince Adam Vishnevetsky. He probably managed to achieve the location of Vishnevetsky, who appreciated his knowledge and military skills.
Despite Vishnevetsky's good attitude towards Otrepiev, it was unthinkable for him to simply show up to the magnate and tell about his "miraculous salvation" - it is clear that no one would believe in such nonsense. Otrepyev decided to act more subtly.
“Having earned the attention and goodwill of the master, the cunning deceiver pretended to be sick, demanded the Confessor, and said to him quietly:
« I am dying. Commit my body to the earth with honor, as they bury the children of the Tsar. I will not announce my secrets 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 judged me to die in misery." The confessor was a Jesuit: he hurried to inform Prince Vishnevetsky about this secret, and the curious Prince hurried to find out about it: he searched the bed of the imaginary dying; found a paper prepared in advance, and read in it that his servant was Tsarevich Dimitri, saved from being killed by his faithful physician; that the villains sent to Uglich killed one son of the Priest, instead of Demetrius, who was sheltered by the good Grandees and Dyaki Shchelkalov, and then escorted to Lithuania, fulfilling the order of John, given to them on this occasion. Vishnevetsky was amazed: he still wanted to doubt, but could no longer, when the cunning man, blaming the indiscretion of the Confessor, opened his chest, showed a golden cross strewn with precious stones (probably stolen somewhere) and announced with tears that this shrine had been 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 for his own political purposes. In any case, Vishnevetsky informed the Polish king Sigismund
III to our unusual guest, and he wished to see him personally. Prior to this, Vyshnevetsky also managed to prepare the ground by spreading information about the “miraculous salvation of John's son” throughout Poland, with the help of his brother Konstantin Vyshnevetsky, Konstantin's father-in-law, the Sandomierz governor Yuri Mniszek, and papal nuncio Rangoni.
There is a version, partly confirmed by documents, that the Vishnevetskys originally planned to use Otrepyev in their plans. palace coup, which had the goal of the deposition of Sigismund
III , and the enthronement of "Demetrius". He, being as 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 reacted to the "resurrected Demetrius" coolly, like many of his dignitaries. Hetman Jan Zamoyski, for example, spoke about this as follows: “It happens that a dice in a game falls and falls happily, but usually it is not advised to put expensive and important items on the line. This is such a thing that it can harm our state and dishonor the king and all the people ours." However, the king nevertheless received Otrepiev, treated him politely (Karamzin says that he received him in his office standing, that is, recognizing him as his equal), and assigned him a monetary allowance of 40,000 zlotys annually. Otrepiev did not wait for other help from 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 the real power belonged to the aristocracy (Vyshnevetsky, Pototsky, Radziwills and other rich and noble houses). There was also no royal army in the Commonwealth, as such - only an infantry of 4,000 guards, supported by the personal income of the king. Thus, the recognition of "Demetrius" by the king had only a 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, Clement
VIII, in which he promised in the event of his "return to the throne" to attach Orthodox Church to the Catholic, and received an answer with "a confirmation of his readiness to help him with the all-spiritual authority of the Apostolic Vicar." To strengthen relations, Otrepiev gave a solemn promise to Yuri Mnishek to marry his daughter Marina, and even officially turned to King Sigismund for permission to marry.
Encouraged by success, the Vishnevetskys began to gather an army for a campaign against Moscow, which had the goal of enthroning "Demetrius." Karamzin writes: for the exile Tsarevich, appeared in Sambir and Lvov: vagabonds, hungry and half-naked, rushed there, demanding weapons not for victory, but for robbery, or salaries, which Mniszek generously gave out in the hope of the future. ”In other words, the army consisted mainly of those same refugees, the Zaporizhzhya Idonian Cossacks, who at one time fled from Russia as a result of the policy 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, full of hatred for Godunov, hiding then in Lithuania, did not want to be participants in this enterprise, because they saw deceit and abhorred villainy: they write that one of them, Yakov Pykhachev, even publicly, and before the face of the King, testified to this gross deception, together with fellow rasstrigin, Monk Varlaam, alarmed by his conscience; that they did not believe them and sent both chained to Voevoda Mnishka in Sambir, where Varlaamaz was imprisoned, and Pykhachev, accused of intending to kill False Dmitry, was executed.
These preparations could not go unnoticed by Godunov. Of course, the first thing that came to his mind was the assumption of 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 that Dimitri's mother, Martha Naguya, who had long been tonsured a nun and placed in the Novodevichy Convent, be brought to him. He was interested in only one question - is her son alive or dead. Marfa Nagaya, seeing what fear the shadow of her son inspires Godunov, undoubtedly not without pleasure, answered: "I don't know." Boris Godunov became furious, and Marfa Nagaya, wanting to enhance the effect of her answer, began to tell, as if she had heard that her son was secretly taken out of the country, and the like. Soon, nevertheless, he managed to establish the identity of the impostor, and he ordered the publication of the story of Otrepyev, since further silence was dangerous, as it prompted the people to think that the impostor and the truly saved Tsarevich Dimitri. At the same time, an embassy was sent to the court of King Sigismund, headed by the uncle of the impostor Smirnov-Otrepyev, the purpose of which 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-Otrepyev and answered dryly that they did not care about the imaginary Tsarevich of Russia; and the Cossacks grabbed Khrushchev, chained him up and brought him to the Pretender. Moreover, in the face of imminent death, Khrushchev fell to his knees before the impostor, and recognized him as Tsarevich Dimitri. The third embassy by the nobleman Ogarev was sent by the Godunovs 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 could not be responsible for the actions of individual gentry who supported Otrepyev. 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 the seals of the bishops made sure that Otrepiev was a fugitive monk. Such a charter was sent to the Kyiv governor, Prince Vasily Ostrozhsky. The messengers of the patriarch, who delivered these letters, were probably captured on the way by the people of Otrepyev, and did not reach their goal. “But the messengers of the Patriarchs did not return: they were detained in Lithuania and neither the clergy nor Prince Ostrozhsky answered Job, for the Pretender has already acted with brilliant success.
The invading army was concentrated in the vicinity of Lvov and Sambir, in the possessions of the Mnisheks. Its core consisted of gentry with retinues, well trained and armed, but very few in number - about 1,500 people. The rest of the troops were 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 Dvorzhitsky and Neborsky. Near Kiev, they were joined by about 2,000 Don Cossacks and the militia assembled in the vicinity of Kyiv. On October 16, 1604, this army entered Russia. At first, this campaign was successful, several cities were taken (Moravsk, Chernigov), and on November 11 Novgorod-Seversky was besieged.
An experienced and courageous military leader Pyotr Basmanov was sent to Novgorod-Seversky by the Godunovs, who managed to organize an effective defense of the city, as a result of which the assault on the city by Otrepiev's army was repulsed, with heavy losses for the attackers. “Otrepyev also sent Russian traitors to persuade Basmanov, but to no avail; wanted to take the fortress with a bold attack and was repelled; I wanted to destroy its walls with fire, but I didn’t have time even in that; I lost many people, and saw disaster before me: his camp was despondent; Basmanov gave time to Borisov's army to take up arms and an example of non-timidity to other city governors.
“An example of non-timidity”, however, was not picked up by other “town governors” - on November 18, the governor of Putivl, Prince Rubets-Mosalsky, together with the deacon Sutupov, went over to the side of Otrepyev, arrested Godunov’s emissary, the devious Mikhail Saltykov, and handed over Putivl to the enemy. The cities of Rylsk, Sevsk, Belgorod, Voronezh, Kromy, Livny, Yelets also surrendered. Besieged in Novgorod-Seversky, Basmanov, seeing the desperation 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 governor Mstislavsky.
At this time, clouds continued to gather over Godunov. Neither the evidence of Vasily Shuisky at the Execution Ground in Moscow that Tsarevich Dimitri was truly dead (Shuisky was the head of the commission investigating the death of Dimitri), nor the letters sent to the cities by Patriarch Job helped. “Until 1604, none of the Russians doubted the death of Demetrius, who grew up before the eyes of his Uglich and whom all Uglich saw dead, irrigating 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 lack of conscience was still in his fresh memory; they also knew Job’s blind devotion to Godunov; they only heard the name of the Tsaritsa-Inokini: no one saw her, no one spoke to her, again imprisoned in the Vyksa Desert. More
Trouble as a historical phenomenon is characterized by the loss of the authority of power, or the weakness of state power and, as a result, the struggle of various groups for a place in the government of the country, disobedience of the periphery to the center, popular unrest and protests against local and central authorities, imposture, civil war and foreign intervention. Thus, turmoil can be called a deep split in society, affecting the economy, state power, domestic and foreign policy, ideology and morality. Trouble is a multifaceted phenomenon, its structure includes at least the following crises: economic, social, dynastic and political. The origin of the Time of Troubles is associated with the extinction of the Rurik dynasty. A brief chronology of the Troubles is as follows:
- 1598 - suppression of the Kalita dynasty. The beginning of the reign of Boris Godunov; turmoil economic intervention
- 1601-1603 - crop failures and mass famine in Russia. Growing social tension in the country;
- 1605 - death of Tsar Boris Godunov. Accession of False Dmitry I;
- 1606-1610 - the reign of Vasily Shuisky;
- 1006-1607 - a peasant uprising led by I. Bolotnikov, False Dmitry II;
- 1609 - involvement in the war of Poland and Sweden. Beginning of the Polish intervention;
- 1610-1612 - "seven boyars";
- 1611-1612 - the first and second militias, the liberation of Moscow from the Polish invaders;
- 1613 - the beginning of the Romanov dynasty.
IN historical literature events in the early 17th century. It is customary to call "disturbance." This crisis and the crisis of the 60-70s of the XVI century. (oprichnina) had similar reasons. Both were based on the contradiction between the desire of the autocracy for unlimited power and the desire of the leading social forces society to participate in government. The main difference between the Time of Troubles and the oprichnina is that not only the tops of society, the aristocracy, the service nobility and the bureaucracy, but also other social groups became more active.
It should be noted that the comprehensive development of the concept of unrest belongs to V.O. Klyuchevsky, who saw its causes in the difficult socio-economic situation that had developed by the end of the 16th century. And aggravated in connection with the suppression of the Rurik dynasty (the death in 1598 of the childless Tsar Fedor Ivanovich), Klyuchevsky V.O. About Russian history. M .: Education, 1993. S. 325 ..
The turmoil became a war of all against all, dividing Russian society into hostile layers. So, the boyars, intimidated and ruined by the oprichnina, were dissatisfied with the fact that after the suppression of the Rurik dynasty, the throne went to Boris Godunov, who tried to rule autocratically. In addition, the crisis of the feudal estate as a whole was growing, as the number of service people increased, and the fund of manorial lands was sharply reduced.
The crisis also intensified within the feudal class, as the big feudal lords poached the peasants from the smaller ones; the latter, who were sitting on deserted estates, found themselves in a very difficult situation.
In an atmosphere of general dissatisfaction with the reign of B. Godunov, reinforced by the beginning of 1601. famine years, crop failures and a terrible famine. Hunger riots begin, popular unrest covers more and more territories. The tsar is losing his authority catastrophically, and a time of troubles is setting in.
There are rumors about the rescue of the son of Ivan the Terrible, Tsarevich Dmitry, who died under mysterious conditions. The impostor False Dmitry I comes to power, to which all those dissatisfied with the rule of B. Godunov joined. In order to enlist the support of the nobility, False Dmitry generously distributed land and money, which did not suit the boyars. Soon, money had to be borrowed from monasteries, which caused discontent among the clergy.
- On May 17, 1606, the boyars-conspirators killed the impostor and one of the organizers of the conspiracy, Prince Vasily Shuisky, ascended the throne. With the accession of V. Shuisky, the 1st period of unrest ended and the second began.
- On July 17, 1610, the nobles, led by Z. Lyapunov, overthrew Shuisky, forcing him to take the veil as a monk. After that, power temporarily passed into the hands of the Boyar Duma (“seven-byaorshchyna”), which agreed to let Polish troops into Moscow in order to avoid a riot in support of False Dmitry II, who was killed in December 1610. From that moment, the unrest took on the character national wrestling, in which the Russians sought to free themselves from the Polish interventionists. The resulting danger brought national and religious interests to the fore, temporarily uniting the warring classes. As a result of the campaign I (under the leadership of P.L. Lyapunov) and II (led by Prince D.M. Pozharsky and K.M. Minin) of the rebellion against Moscow in the autumn of 1612, the capital was liberated from the Polish garrison, which was housed in it after the signing of an agreement on the calling of the Polish prince.
We highlight the following consequences of confusion:
- 1. Weakening of the positions of the boyars, whose power was undermined during the period of the oprichnina;
- 2. The rise of the nobility, who received new estates and opportunities for the final enslavement of the peasants;
- 3. Economic upheavals and wars of the 17th century;
- 4. The Russian people developed and strengthened a sense of national and religious unity, they began to realize that the government of the state is not only a personal matter of the tsar and his advisers, there is the possibility of choosing a monarch.
- indignation, uprising, rebellion, general disobedience, discord between the government and the people.
Time of Troubles- the era of socio-political dynastic crisis. It was accompanied by popular uprisings, the rule of impostors, the destruction of state power, the Polish-Swedish-Lithuanian intervention, and the ruin of the country.
Causes of unrest
The consequences of the ruin of the state during the period of the oprichnina.
Aggravation of the social situation as a consequence of the processes of state enslavement of the peasantry.
The crisis of the dynasty: the suppression of the male branch of the ruling princely-royal Moscow house.
The crisis of power: the intensification of the struggle for supreme power between noble boyar families. Appearance of impostors.
Poland's claims to Russian lands and the throne.
Famine of 1601-1603. The death of people and the surge of migration within the state.
Rule during the Time of Troubles
Boris Godunov (1598-1605)
Fyodor Godunov (1605)
False Dmitry I (1605-1606)
Vasily Shuisky (1606-1610)
Seven Boyars (1610-1613)
Time of Troubles (1598 - 1613) Chronicle of events
1598 - 1605 - Board of Boris Godunov.
1603 Cotton Rebellion.
1604 - The appearance of detachments of False Dmitry I in the southwestern Russian lands.
1605 - The overthrow of the Godunov dynasty.
1605 - 1606 - Board of False Dmitry I.
1606 - 1607 - Bolotnikov's uprising.
1606 - 1610 - The reign of Vasily Shuisky.
1607 - Publication of a decree on a fifteen-year investigation of fugitive peasants.
1607 - 1610 - False Dmitry II attempts to seize power in Russia.
1610 - 1613 - "Seven Boyars".
1611 March - Uprising in Moscow against the Poles.
1611, September - October - Education in Nizhny Novgorod second militia under the leadership of .
1612, October 26 - The liberation of Moscow from the invaders by the second militia.
1613 - Accession to the throne.
1) Portrait of Boris Godunov; 2) False Dmitry I; 3) Tsar Vasily IV Shuisky
Beginning of the Time of Troubles. Godunov
When Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich died and the Rurik dynasty ended, on February 21, 1598, Boris Godunov ascended the throne. The formal act of limiting the power of the new sovereign, expected by the boyars, did not follow. The muffled murmur of this estate caused a secret police supervision of the boyars on the part of the new tsar, in which the main tool was the serfs who denounced their masters. Further tortures and executions followed. The general shaking of the sovereign order could not be adjusted by Godunov, despite all the energy he showed. The famine years that began in 1601 increased the general dissatisfaction with the king. The struggle for the royal throne at the top of the boyars, gradually supplemented by fermentation from below, laid the foundation for the Time of Troubles - the Troubles. In this connection, everything can be considered its first period.
False Dmitry I
Soon, rumors spread about the rescue of the previously considered killed in Uglich and about his being in Poland. The first news about him began to reach the capital at the very beginning of 1604. It was created by the Moscow boyars with the help of the Poles. His imposture was no secret to the boyars, and Godunov directly said that it was they who framed the impostor.
1604, autumn - False Dmitry with a detachment assembled in Poland and Ukraine entered the borders of the Moscow state through the Severshchina - the southwestern border region, which was quickly seized by popular unrest. 1605, April 13 - Boris Godunov died, and the impostor was able to freely approach the capital, where he entered on June 20.
During the 11-month reign of False Dmitry, boyar conspiracies against him did not stop. He did not fit either the boyars (because of the independence and independence of his character), or the people (because of their “Westernizing” policy, which was unusual for Muscovites). 1606, May 17 - conspirators, led by princes V.I. Shuisky, V.V. Golitsyn and others overthrew the impostor and killed him.
Vasily Shuisky
Then he was elected tsar, but without the participation of the Zemsky Sobor, but only by the boyar party and the crowd of Muscovites devoted to him, who “shouted out” Shuisky after the death of False Dmitry. His reign was limited by the boyar oligarchy, which took from the sovereign an oath limiting his power. This reign covers four years and two months; during all this time the Troubles continued and grew.
The first to revolt was Seversk Ukraine, led by the Putivl voivode, Prince Shakhovsky, under the name of the allegedly saved False Dmitry I. The leader of the uprising was the fugitive serf Bolotnikov (), who was, as it were, an agent sent by an impostor from Poland. The initial successes of the rebels forced many to join the rebellion. Ryazan land was outraged by Sunbulov and the Lyapunov brothers, Tula and the surrounding cities were raised by Istoma Pashkov.
The turmoil was able to penetrate other places: Nizhny Novgorod was besieged by a crowd of serfs and foreigners, led by two Mordvins; in Perm and Vyatka shakiness and confusion were noticed. Astrakhan was outraged by the governor himself, Prince Khvorostinin; a gang raged along the Volga, which put up their impostor, a certain Muromet Ileyka, who was called Peter - the unprecedented son of Tsar Fedor Ioannovich.
Minin's Appeal on Nizhny Novgorod Square
1606, October 12 - Bolotnikov approached Moscow and was able to defeat Moscow army near the village of Troitsky, Kolomna district, but soon M.V. Skopin-Shuisky near Kolomenskoye and went to Kaluga, which the tsar's brother, Dmitry, tried to besiege. The impostor Peter appeared in the Seversk land, who in Tula joined with Bolotnikov, who had left the Moscow troops from Kaluga. Tsar Vasily himself advanced to Tula, which he besieged from June 30 to October 1, 1607. During the siege of the city, a new formidable impostor False Dmitry II appeared in Starodub.
False Dmitry II
The death of Bolotnikov, who surrendered in Tula, could not stop the Time of Troubles. , with the support of the Poles and Cossacks, approached Moscow and settled in the so-called Tushino camp. A significant part of the cities (up to 22) in the northeast submitted to the impostor. Only the Trinity-Sergius Lavra was able to withstand a long siege by its detachments from September 1608 to January 1610.
In difficult circumstances, Shuisky turned to the Swedes for help. Then Poland in September 1609 declared war on Moscow under the pretext that Moscow had concluded an agreement with Sweden, which was hostile to the Poles. Thus, internal Troubles were supplemented by the intervention of foreigners. King of Poland Sigismund III went to Smolensk. Sent to Novgorod for negotiations with the Swedes in the spring of 1609, Skopin-Shuisky, together with the Swedish auxiliary detachment of Delagardie, moved to the capital. Moscow was freed from the Tushinsky thief, who fled to Kaluga in February 1610. The Tushino camp dispersed. The Poles who were in it went to their king near Smolensk.
Russian adherents of False Dmitry II from the boyars and nobles, led by Mikhail Saltykov, left alone, also decided to send representatives to the Polish camp near Smolensk and recognize Sigismund's son Vladislav as king. But they recognized him under certain conditions, which were set out in an agreement with the king of February 4, 1610. However, while negotiations were underway with Sigismund, 2 important events who had strong influence on the course of the Time of Troubles: in April 1610, the tsar's nephew, the popular liberator of Moscow, M.V. Skopin-Shuisky, and in June Hetman Zholkevsky inflicted a heavy defeat on the Moscow troops near Klushino. These events decided the fate of Tsar Vasily: Muscovites, under the command of Zakhar Lyapunov, overthrew Shuisky on July 17, 1610 and forced him to cut his hair.
The last period of Troubles
The last period of the Time of Troubles has come. Near Moscow, the Polish hetman Zholkievsky, who demanded the election of Vladislav, was stationed with an army, and False Dmitry II, who again came there, to whom the Moscow mob was located. The Boyar Duma became the head of the board, headed by F.I. Mstislavsky, V.V. Golitsyn and others (the so-called Seven Boyars). She began to negotiate with Zholkiewski on the recognition of Vladislav as the Russian Tsar. On September 19, Zholkievsky brought Polish troops to Moscow and drove False Dmitry II away from the capital. At the same time, an embassy was sent from the capital that had sworn allegiance to Prince Vladislav to Sigismund III, which consisted of the most noble Moscow boyars, but the king detained them and announced that he personally intended to be king in Moscow.
1611 - was marked by a rapid rise in the midst of the Troubles of Russian national feeling. Patriarch Hermogenes and Prokopy Lyapunov were at the head of the patriotic movement against the Poles. Sigismund's claims to unite Russia with Poland as a subordinate state and the assassination of the leader of the mob, False Dmitry II, whose danger made many involuntarily rely on Vladislav, favored the growth of the movement.
The uprising quickly swept Nizhny Novgorod, Yaroslavl, Suzdal, Kostroma, Vologda, Ustyug, Novgorod and other cities. Militias gathered everywhere and were drawn to the capital. Cossacks under the command of the Don ataman Zarutsky and Prince Trubetskoy joined the service people of Lyapunov. At the beginning of March 1611, the militia approached Moscow, where an uprising against the Poles arose with the news of this. The Poles burned the entire Moscow Posad (March 19), but with the approach of the detachments of Lyapunov and other leaders, they were forced, together with their Muscovite supporters, to lock themselves in the Kremlin and Kitai-Gorod.
The case of the first patriotic militia of the Time of Troubles ended in failure, due to the complete disunity of the interests of the individual groups that were part of it. On July 25, the Cossacks killed Lyapunov. Even earlier, on June 3, King Sigismund finally captured Smolensk, and on July 8, 1611, Delagardie took Novgorod by storm and forced the Swedish prince Philip to be recognized there as king. A new leader of the tramps, False Dmitry III, appeared in Pskov.
Expulsion of Poles from the Kremlin
Minin and Pozharsky
Then Archimandrite of the Trinity Monastery Dionysius and his cellarer Avraamiy Palitsyn preached national self-defence. Their messages found a response in Nizhny Novgorod and the northern Volga region. 1611, October - the Nizhny Novgorod butcher Kuzma Minin Sukhoruky took the initiative to collect the militia and funds, and already in early February 1612 organized detachments under the command of Prince Dmitry Pozharsky moved up the Volga. At that time (February 17), Patriarch Germogen, who stubbornly blessed the militia, died, whom the Poles imprisoned in the Kremlin.
In early April, the second patriotic militia of the Time of Troubles arrived in Yaroslavl and, slowly advancing, gradually strengthening its detachments, on August 20, Zarutsky approached Moscow with his gangs and left for the southeastern regions, and Trubetskoy joined Pozharsky. On August 24-28, Pozharsky's soldiers and Trubetskoy's Cossacks repulsed Hetman Khodkevich from Moscow, who arrived with a convoy of supplies to help the Poles besieged in the Kremlin. On October 22, they occupied Kitai-Gorod, and on October 26, the Kremlin was also cleared of Poles. The attempt of Sigismund III to move towards Moscow was unsuccessful: the king turned back from Volokolamsk.
Results of the Time of Troubles
In December, letters were sent everywhere about sending to the capital the best and reasonable people to choose a king. They got together early next year. 1613, February 21 - was elected by the Zemsky Sobor to the Russian tsars, who married in Moscow on July 11 of the same year and founded a new, 300-year-old dynasty. The main events of the Time of Troubles ended with this, but a firm order had to be established for a long time.
