Karamzin history of the Russian state during troubled times. Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich

Sections: History and social studies

Lesson objectives:

Lesson equipment:

• textbook “Russia and the World” author O.V. Volobuev;
• wall map “The Troubles in Russia”;
• portraits of representatives of the Time of Troubles: Boris Godunov, False Dmitry I, False Dmitry II, Vasily Shuisky, Marina Mnishek, Mikhail Skopin Shuisky, Kuzma Minin and Dmitry Pozharsky.

Lesson type: combined lesson, with a predominance of learning new material.

DURING THE CLASSES

1. Organizing time. (Checking the class's readiness for the lesson)

2. Study new topic. (The teacher, together with the students, determines the goals and objectives of the lesson)

Teacher's opening remarks:

In historical science there is no precise definition of the Troubles. For a long period of time, this period was called hard times. But historical science has preserved a description of this period. For example, Abraham Palitsin (an eyewitness to these events) said the following about this time: “bears and wolves, having left the forests, lived in empty cities…. everyone is now for himself, the betrayal of one’s own has reached the proportions of a national catastrophe.” Metropolitan John of St. Petersburg and Ladoga characterizes the period of the Troubles in the following way: “The Fatherland and the Church perished, the churches of God were destroyed..., dice were played on icons, monks and priests were scorched with fire, treasures were sought out.”

Historian Karamzin:“The Troubles are an unfortunate accident caused by the weakening of Tsar Feodor, the atrocities of Tsar Boris and the depravity of the people.”

Modern historians call the Troubles of the 17th century the first civil war in Russia, drawing parallels with the civil war of the early 20th century.

In modern language, the word “vague” means unclear, indistinct.

Students and teacher come up with a definition together Troubles - this is the period from 1598 to 1613, which is characterized by frequent changes of rulers on the throne, the appearance of kings- impostors, peasant uprisings, natural disasters and intervention of the Poles and Swedes.

This was the time when Russia was faced with a choice:

Either it will defend its independence, or it will cease to exist. (Students write down the definition in a notebook) The teacher draws the students’ attention to a reproduction of I.E. Repin’s painting “Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan. 1581.”

What does the content of this picture have to do with the history of the Time of Troubles?

a) The murder of Ivan’s son and the tragic death of Tsarevich Dmitry led to the end of the Rurik dynasty - an inter-dynastic crisis. Students find out other reasons for the Time of Troubles using the textbook pp. 142-143.

b) Dissatisfaction of the boyar opposition with the election of Boris Godunov as Tsar;

c) defeat of Russia in Livonian War, which had a negative impact on the country’s economy;

d) Oprichnina, which ruined the country’s economy;

e) Crop failure of 1601–1603, which led to famine in the country;

f) Further enslavement of the peasants in 1550, 1581, 1597 led to a rise in peasant uprisings.

The teacher gives as an example a statement about the turmoil of the Patriarch of Russia (now deceased) Alexy: “The turmoil is a time of difficult trials for the whole society and for every person. The disunity of people, the loss of public trust by the authorities, and its inattention to the needs of citizens lead to a weakening of the state and threaten its independence.

Love of money and envy, selfishness and pride, thirst for profit at any cost; neglect of the sacred gift of human life, moral nihilism - these are the vices that lead to turmoil. When God-ordained love for one’s neighbor becomes scarce in society, when the ideal of national unity is lost, then the decomposition of the state begins.” The teacher asks the students a question: “Do you think a situation of troubled times is possible in our time? What could be its causes? (Students express their judgment)

Teacher:“Let’s go back to the distant beginning of the 17th century and find out the representatives of the troubled times and their role.” Using the textbook (pp. 143–147), students look for the names of representatives of the Time of Troubles and write them down in a notebook.

• Boris Godunov;
• False Dmitry I (Grigory Otrepiev);
• Adam Wyshniowiecki;
• Voivode Yuri Mnishek;
• Marina Mnishek;
• boyar tsar Vasily Shuisky;
• Ivan Bolotnikov;
• False Dmitry 2 (Tushinsky thief);
• Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky;
• Polish king Sigismund III;
• Polish prince Vladislav;
• “Seven Boyars” led by Fyodor Mstislavsky;
• Prokopiy Lyapunov;
• Kuzma Minin;
• Dmitry Pozharsky.

All these people played a certain role in the history of the troubled times.

Teacher: “In 1598, at the Zemsky Sobor, on the initiative of Patriarch Job, Boris Godunov was elected tsar. (Students listen to a message about Boris Godunov)

Conversation with students on the question: “Who and why considered Boris unworthy to be king?” (Three reasons must be given)

Teacher: “Historians evaluate the activities of Boris Godunov differently. Some call him a reformer seeking to improve the country's situation. Others condemn him for illegally taking the throne and plunging the country into turmoil.”

Russian poet silver age Konstantin Balmont describes the reign of Boris Godunov this way. (Poem read)

In the dark days of Boris Godunov
In the darkness of the Russian cloudy country
Crowds of people wandered homeless
And at night two moons rose.

Two suns shone from the sky in the morning,
Looking at the distant world with ferocity.
And a prolonged cry: “Bread! Of bread! Of bread!" -
From the darkness of the forests he rushed towards the king.

Withered skeletons on the streets
They greedily plucked the stunted grass,
Like cattle - brutalized and undressed,
And the dreams came true.

Coffins, heavy with rot,
They gave stinking hellish bread to the living,
Hay was found in the mouths of the dead,
And every house was a gloomy den...

Death and anger wandered among the people.
Seeing the comet, the earth trembled.
And these days Demetrius rose from the grave,
I moved my spirit to Otrepyev.

Teacher: “What do you think, under the impression of what assessments was Balmont’s poem born?” (Students' answers are listened to)

Teacher: “On April 13, 1605, Boris Godunov unexpectedly dies. False Dmitry I approaches Moscow. On July 30, 1605, he is crowned king. (Message about False Dmitry I and working with the text of the textbook, pp. 143–144.)

Conversation on questions:

1. What was the impostor's goal?
2. Who helped him achieve this goal and why?
3. Why did False Dmitry lose the trust of Muscovites?

The impostor was killed by the conspirators because... he fulfilled his mission - he helped remove Boris Godunov's son from the throne. A few days later, a small group of boyars called out for the kingdom of Vasily Shuisky, who was on the throne for 4 years. (Students listen to a message about Vasily Shuisky)

Teacher: “What quality was especially unpleasant in this person?”

Students work with the textbook text on pp. 144, 145 and solve the problematic question: “What was the negative role of Vasily Shuisky in the history of the Time of Troubles”?

The country found itself in the fire of a peasant war;

Intensified intervention of Poles and Swedes in the country began. (Teacher's addition)

During the fight between Vasily Shuisky and Ivan Bolotnikov, an impostor was again declared on the territory of Poland, who was also supported by the Poles and recognized by Marina Mnishek. He was unable to occupy Moscow and settled in Tushino with his army. “False Dmitry was a rude man, with disgusting customs, foul-mouthed in conversations, and in manners the complete opposite of his predecessor.”

He was not interested in the struggle for the throne; he only sought to enrich himself, taking advantage of the situation of troubled times. His troops robbed and killed Russian people, which changed the attitude of the Russian people towards themselves. If at first they saw him as a “legitimate” king, now militia units began to be created in cities. But, unfortunately, Vasily Shuisky did not dare to rely on the strength of the people in the fight against the impostor, but used the help of the Swedes, putting Russia on the brink of losing state independence. And only the Russian people and the Orthodox Church came out in defense of their Motherland and the Orthodox faith. For example, the defenders of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra held the defense for 16 months.

(Viewing a fragment of the film “Difficult Time” - 8 min.)

Teacher: “And again, in the summer of 1610, a conspiracy matured among the Moscow nobility.

Seven boyars, led by Fyodor Mstislavsky, removed Vasily Shuisky from the throne and elevated the Polish prince Vladislav to the throne and swore allegiance to him. By doing this they betrayed their people, their state, their faith. The country was on the brink of disaster. Why? (Working with the map “Time of Troubles in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century”)

Which Russian cities in the north-west and west of Russia came under the rule of the Swedes and Poles? What threat hangs over the Russian state?

And only the people and the Russian Orthodox Church understood that the government had betrayed the interests of the state and that it needed to be saved.

In 1611, a people's militia was created in Ryazan, led by Prokopiy Lyapunov. But they failed to liberate the capital.

In the fall of 1612, Nizhny Novgorod became the center of the liberation movement. Kuzma Minin addresses the residents of Nizhny Novgorod with an appeal. (The text of the appeal is taken from Shklovsky’s book “Minin and Pozharsky”)

The student reads the text of the address expressively.

Conversation: What events caused concern among the residents of Nizhny Novgorod?

1. What appeal did Kuzma Minin make at the gathering?
2. What role did Kuzma Minin play in the history of Russia?
3. What event can be compared with the victory of the Russian people in troubled times?

Viktor Bondarev said: “And it wasn’t so much that our ancestors defeated the Poles, but rather united and put an end to internal war and devastation, turned the tide and began to revive the country. That victory was no less important than the victory of 1945.”

A new topic is consolidated using a test. (Test attached)

a) Tsarevich Dmitry was killed;

b) Boris Godunov was proclaimed tsar;

c) Ivan IV died.

2) Place the following historical figures in chronological order.

a) Fyodor Ioannovich;

b) False Dmitry I;

c) Boris Godunov;

3) Fill in the missing word.

The end of the Rurik dynasty is the __________ cause of the Time of Troubles.

4) Which state supported False Dmitry I?

a) Poland;

b) Türkiye;

c) Sweden.

5) Find the extra word.

d) Dmitry.

6) What event happened first?

The death of Tsarevich Dmitry or the rise to power of the “Seven Boyars”.

8) Match the event and the name.

Current page: 1 (book has 53 pages in total)

Great Russian historians about the Time of Troubles

Vasily Tatishchev

EXTRACT FROM HISTORY SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE KINGDOM OF TSAR THEODOR IOANNOVICH

Before the death of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, the Kazan Tatars betrayed Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, beat the governor, the archbishop and other Russian people.

1583. The sovereign sent regiments with different governors of the Tatars, Chuvash and Cheremis to fight and return Kazan, but the Tatars, partly on campaigns, partly in the camps, defeated many governors, and were forced to retreat.

1584. A comet was seen in winter. In the same year, on March 19th, Tsar John Vasilyevich reposed. Before his death, having taken monastic vows, he bequeathed to his eldest son Theodore to be the king of all Rus', and to the younger Dmitry and his mother, Tsarina Maria Feodorovna, to take possession of the city of Uglich and other cities, along with everything that pertains to them; and ordered the boyars Prince Ivan Petrovich Shuisky, Prince Ivan Fedorovich Mstislavsky and Nikita Romanovich Yuryev, aka Romanov, to have oversight and rule. And on the same day, Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich was kissed on the cross. Boris Godunov, seeing the Nagi, who were with the sovereign, in force, incited treason against them with his advisers, and that same night they and others who were in the mercy of Tsar John Vasilyevich, having caught them, sent them to different cities in prisons, and took their property and gave it away. Soon after the repose of the sovereign, Tsarevich Dmitry was released to Uglich with his mother Tsarina Marya Fedorovna, and her brothers Fedor, Mikhail and others, and his mother Marya with her son Daniil Volokhova, and Mikita Kochalov. On May 1, Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich was crowned, for which the best people from all cities were convened.

In the same year, due to the indignation of a certain person, a riot broke out among the entire mob and many service people, which was led by the Ryazan Lipunovs and Kikins, saying that the boyar Bogdan Belsky, a close relative of Godunov, had persecuted Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich and wants to kill Tsar Feodor, from whom the Kremlin barely managed to lock it. They brought guns to the Frolovsky Gate, they wanted to take the city by force, which, seeing, Tsar Theodore sent the boyars Prince Ivan Fedorovich Mstislavsky and Nikita Romanovich Yuryev to persuade them. The rebels, not listening to an apology, persistently asked for Volsky with a great cry. But Godunov, seeing that this matter concerned him more, ordered Volsky to be secretly escorted out of Moscow. And they announced to the rebels that Belsky had been sent to Nizhny in exile, that the rebels, having heard, and more importantly listened to, these boyars, moved away from the city and calmed down. After they were quelled, Godunov and his comrades, the Lipunovs and Kikins, caught them and secretly sent them into exile. A short time later, the uncle of the sovereign and the ruler of the entire state, boyar Nikita Romanovich (Romanov), the brother of the sovereign’s own mother, died. After him, the sovereign's brother-in-law Boris Fedorovich Godunov took over the reign. And with this, partly through gifts, partly through fear, he attracted many people to his will and overcame all the boyars loyal to the sovereign, so that no one dared to convey any truth to the sovereign. The Kazan people, hearing the accession of Tsar Fedor to the throne, sent a confession. Therefore, the sovereign sent a governor to Kazan and ordered cities to be built in the Cheremis mountains and meadows. And in the same year, the governors established Kokshaysk, Tsivilsk, Urzhum and other cities, and thereby strengthened this kingdom.

1585. The boyars, seeing Godunov’s crafty and evil actions, that the boyars had taken away all power from those appointed by Tsar John and were doing everything without advice, Prince Ivan Fedorovich Mstislavsky, with him the Shuiskys, Vorotynskys, Golovins, Kolychevs, guests came to them, much The nobility and merchants began to clearly inform the sovereign that Godunov’s actions were detrimental and to the ruin of the state. Godunov, having copulated with other boyars, clerks and archers, turned money to himself, took Mstislavsky, secretly exiled him to the Kirillov Monastery and tonsured him there, and then sent many others separately to different cities in prison. In which many then, flattering him, not only helped him in silence, but also rejoiced at their death, forgetting the harm to the fatherland and their duties in office. Others, seeing such violence and untruths, although they heartily condoled, but seeing that there were many of them flattering Godunov and his strength, and their own powerlessness, did not dare to talk about it. And both of them brought themselves and the entire state into extreme ruin. Mikhail Golovin was a man of keen intelligence and a warrior, and seeing such persecution of his faithful servants, surviving in his Medyn estate, he left for Poland and died there.

Godunov, seeing the Shuiskys as his opponents, for whom the guests and the whole mob stood and they opposed him a lot, whom he saw as impossible to break by force, for this reason he used cunning, asking the Metropolitan with tears to reconcile them. Therefore, the Metropolitan, having called the Shuiskys, not knowing Godunov’s treachery, asked for the Shuiskys with tears. And they, having listened to the Metropolitan, made peace with him. On the same day, Prince Ivan Petrovich Shuisky, coming to Granovitaya, announced reconciliation to the guests who were there. Hearing this, two people from the merchant class came forward and said to him: “Please know that now it is easy for Godunov to destroy you and us, and do not rejoice in this evil world.” Godunov, noticing this, took both of these merchants that same night, exiled them or executed them suddenly.

1587. Godunov taught the Shuisky slaves to bring them to treason, so he innocently tortured many people. And although no one was guilty of anything, he tortured and sent the Shuiskys and their relatives and friends, the Kolychevs, Tatevs, Andrei Baskakov and his brothers, as well as the Urusovs and many guests: Prince Ivan Petrovich Shuisky, first to his estate, the village of Lopatnitsy, and from there to Belo-Ozero, and ordered Turenin to crush it; his son, Prince Andrei, went to Kargopol, and was also killed there; The guests of Fyodor Nogai and his comrades, 6 people, were executed at the Fire, beheaded. Metropolitan Dionysius and Archbishop Krutitsky stood up for this and began to clearly speak to Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich and expose Godunov’s lies. But Godunov interpreted this to the sovereign as a rebellion, and both of them were exiled to monasteries in Novgorod, and Archbishop Job was taken from Rostov and made metropolitan; and was installed in Moscow by the archbishops, without being sent to Constantinople. Previously, metropolitans were installed in Constantinople.

Tsarevich Malat-Girey came from Crimea to serve the sovereign with many Tatars. And he sent him to Astrakhan, and with him the governor, Prince Fyodor Mikhailovich Troekurov and Ivan Mikhailovich Pushkin. And this prince showed a lot of service there and brought many Tatars under the power of the state.

In the same year, the White Stone City was founded and finished near Moscow. In the same year, Polish ambassadors came with the announcement that King Stefan (Abatur) Batory had passed away, and asked the sovereign to accept the Polish crown. The Emperor sent his ambassadors Stefan Vasilyevich Godunov and his comrades.

After the death of Prince Ivan Petrovich Shuisky, the other Shuiskys and many others were released again.

1588. Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, came.

1588. There was a council in Moscow on church affairs. And on this they decided to have their own separate patriarch in Moscow and dedicated Metropolitan Job as the first patriarch in Moscow. Moreover, they approved henceforth to consecrate patriarchs to bishops in Moscow, only after the elections to write to Constantinople. Metropolitans, archbishops and bishops should be dedicated to the Patriarch in Moscow without unsubscribing. And they appointed the 4th metropolitans in Russia: in Veliky Novgorod, Kazan; Rostov and Krutitsy: 6 archbishops: in Vologda, Suzdal, Nizhny, Smolensk, Ryazan and Tver; yes 8 bishops: 1 in Pskov, 2 in Rzhev Vladimir, 3 in Ustyug, 4 in Beloozero, 5 in Kolomna, 6 in Bryansk and Chernigov 7, in Dmitrov 8. However, many remained not promoted, as written in the charter of this cathedral .

1590. The sovereign himself walked near (Rugodiv) Narva, and did not take it, because it was winter; having made peace, he returned Ivangorod, Koporye and Yama. And he came to Moscow that same winter.

1591. In Poland, Sigismund III, King of Sweden, was elected to the kingdom (Zigimont). He sent envoys and made a truce for 20 years.

In the same year, in Astrakhan, the Tatars poisoned Tsarevich Malat-Girey and his wife and many Tatars loyal to the sovereign, which is why Ostafiy Mikhailovich Pushkin was deliberately sent to look for him. And after searching for the culprits, many Murzas and Tatars were executed and burned alive. The rest of the prince's Tatars, some were given villages, and others were given a salary.

On May 15th, at the instigation of Boris Godunov, Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich was killed in Uglich by Kochalov, Bityagovsky and Volokhov. Bityagovsky was also in the same council with Godunov, having taught him, Andrei Kleshnin sent him. Godunov, having received this news, covering up his deception, reported it to the sovereign with great sadness and advised him to look for it. For this reason he sent Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky and with him his accomplice in his deception, the devious Andrei Kleshnin. When they arrived at Uglich, Shuisky, not fearing the Last Judgment of God and forgetting his kiss on the cross in fidelity to the sovereign, pleasing Godunov, not only closed the former deception, but in addition many of the faithful princes were tortured and executed innocently. Returning to Moscow, they reported to the sovereign that the prince, being ill, stabbed himself to death due to the negligence of his mother and her Nagikh relatives. Therefore, they took her brother Mikhail and the other Nagikhs to Moscow, brutally tortured them and, having taken away all their property, sent them into exile. The Tsarevich's mother, Queen Maria, took monastic vows, was named Martha and was exiled to Empty Lake, and the city of Uglich was ordered to be destroyed for killing the Tsarevich's killers. And the remaining murderers, mother and heirs of the murdered, as faithful servants, were given villages. Godunov, seeing that all the people began to talk about the murder of the prince, and although some were taken, tortured and executed for these words, he, fearing a riot, in June ordered Moscow to be set on fire in different places, and almost all of it burned out, from causing many people to go completely broke. Godunov, wanting to win over the people, gave many money from the treasury for construction.

In the same year, the Crimean Khan came with the Turks near Moscow. And the governors throughout Ukraine, seeing that it was impossible to resist them in the Field, strengthened the cities and went with their troops to Moscow. The Khan, having come to Moscow, stood in Kolomenskoye and destroyed many places near Moscow, and Russian troops stood on the Devichye Field. The Khan moved to Kotly, and the boyars to the Danilov Monastery, and there were many battles, but the Russians could not resist. On August 19th, the Tatars, hearing a great noise in the Russian army, asked the Poloneniks about the reason for it. And they said that supposedly a great army had come from Novgorod to help, which caused confusion in the Tatar camps, and the khan left that same night with his entire army, and although the boyars soon followed him, they could not catch up anywhere. For this, the sovereign granted villages to many boyars, and ordered the chief governor Boris Godunov to write as a servant. On the spot where the convoy stood, the sovereign built the Donskoy Monastery, and on that date an annual procession with crosses was established.

1591. After the Tatars retreated, a wooden city was founded near Moscow and an earthen rampart was added to it, which was completed in 1592. In Siberia, the governors brought many peoples under Russian rule and forced them to pay tribute. In the same year 592 the cities of Tara, Berezov, Surgut and others were built.

In the same year, the Tsarevich of the Cossack Horde, the Tsarevich of Ugra, the Volosh voivodes Stefan Alexandrovich and Dmitry Ivanovich and the Greek princes' relative Manuil Muskopolovich, the Multan voivodes Peter and Ivan, from the city of Selun, Dmitry Selunsky with his children, and many other Greeks came to serve the sovereign.

In the same year, much grumbling arose in Ukrainian cities; supposedly Godunov summoned the Crimean Khan, fearing revenge for the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry. And for this, many people were tortured and executed, and many were sent into exile, which is why entire cities were desolate.

The Finns of the Kayan city, having gathered in large numbers, fought near the White Sea to the Solovetsky Monastery. The Emperor sent Prince Andrei and Grigory Volkonsky to the Solovetsky Monastery. And having arrived, Prince Andrei stayed in the monastery and strengthened it, and Prince Gregory went to the Sumy prison, where, having beaten many Finns, he cleared the prison. Then the Swedes arrived and destroyed the Pechersky Monastery in the Pskov region.

The Volkonsky princes went to Kayany that same winter and burned and destroyed many villages, and chopped up people and took them to the full. In the same year, the sovereign sent Prince Fyodor Ivanovich Mstislavsky and his comrades to Vyborg and, having ruined Finland a lot, without taking Vyborg, due to the scarcity of food, they returned to Lent. In the same year, in the summer, the Tatars came to the Ryazan, Kashira and Tula places and destroyed them.

In the same 1592, Princess Theodosia was born, and Mikhail Ogarkov was sent to Greece with alms.

1593. The Swedish king sent ambassadors to Narva, and the sovereign sent from himself, who, having gathered on the Plus River, made peace, and the Swedes gave the city of Korela back. The first bishop, Sylvester, was consecrated in Korelu (Kexholm).

In the same year, Princess Feodosia Feodorovna died, and after her, the village of Cherepen was given to the Ascension Monastery in the Masalsky district. In Ukraine, due to the Tatar raids, the cities of Belgorod, Oskol, Voluika and others were placed in the steppes, and before them Voronezh, Livny, Kursk, Kromy were established; and they, having strengthened them, populated them with Cossacks.

1594. The sovereign sent Prince Andrei Ivanovich Khvorostinin with an army to the Shevkal land and ordered the cities of Kosa and Tarki to be established. And they, having come, established a city on Kos, left the governor of Prince Vladimir Timofeevich Dolgoruky. And in Tarki, having arrived, the mongrels with the Kumyks and other Circassians defeated the governors, where the Russians were beaten with 3,000 people and little came back. Circassians came to Kos from with great power and attacked brutally, but seeing Dolgoruky in a satisfied fortification, retreating and leaving him alone. The Georgian king sent his ambassadors to accept him for Russian protection and to establish the Christian faith. Therefore, the sovereign sent many clergy and skilled people with icons and books to Georgia. They, having taught and approved them, returned with satisfied wealth. And from that time on, the sovereign began to be described as the owner of these kings. The mountain, Kabardian and Kumyk princes sent to ask the sovereign to accept them into his protection. And the sovereign ordered the Terek governor to protect them, and to be faithful, to take the princely children into amanates. And soon after that, Prince Suncheley Yangolychevich arrived with many people to Terki, where he set up settlements and, while alive, showed many services to the sovereign. And these are also included in the title. Until now, they wrote the title without these possessions, as in the charter of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich on the delivery of the 1st Patriarch it is written: “By the grace of God we, the Great Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Theodore Ioannovich of all Great Russia, Vladimir, Moscow, Novgorod, Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Sovereign of Pskov and Grand Duke of Smolensk, Tver, Yugorsk, Perm, Vyatka, Bulgarian and others, Sovereign and Grand Duke of Novgorod of the Nizovsky land, Chernigov, Ryazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Bel Lake Kiy, Udora, Obdorsky, Kondinsky and the owner of all Siberian land, Seversk land and many other sovereign and autocrat. Summer 7097, our states are 6, and the Russian kingdoms are 43, Kazan 37, Astrakhan 35, the month of May.”

1595. All of China burned down, and Prince Vasily Shchepin and Vasily Lebedev and his comrades set fire in many places, wanting to plunder the sovereign’s great treasury. But when they were convicted of this, they were executed at the Fire and their heads were cut off. Many of their comrades were hanged and sent into exile.

From Shah Abas of Persia there were ambassadors with many gifts, and eternal peace, or friendship, was made. And according to this, the sovereign also sent envoys to the Shah, who negotiated agreements with the merchants. Tsar Simeon Bekbulatovich of Kazan lived on his allotment in Tver in great reverence and silence, but Godunov, hearing that he grieved for Tsarevich Dmitry and often mentioned with regret, fearing that he would not be disturbed in the future by first taking the allotment of Tver from him, and instead gave him the village of Klushino with its villages, and then soon blinded him with treachery. From the Caesar of Rome there were ambassadors Abraham the Burgrave and his comrades, whose bailiff was Prince Grigory Petrovich Romodanovsky. And having sent them away with great honor, he sent ambassadors from himself with many gifts.

The Emperor sent Boris Fedorovich Godunov with many people to Smolensk and ordered to build a stone city. During this campaign, he showed great favors to the military people, for which everyone loved him, for which this campaign was deliberately made by him. Having mortgaged the city at his own discretion, he returned to Moscow with great honor. To build it, masons, brickmakers and potters were taken from many cities. Well, the sovereign had ambassadors from the Pope, the kings of Denmark, Sweden and England, Dutch, Bukhara, Georgian, Ugra and others at different times.

Envoy Daniil Islenev returned from the Turkish land, and with him an envoy from the Khan came from Crimea, and peace was established.

At the same time, there was a pestilence in Pskov and Ivangorod, and then they were filled from other cities. The Tatars came to Kozepsky, Meshchevsky, Vorotynsky, Przemysl and other places and destroyed them. The sovereign sent the governor Mikhail Andreevich Beznin with an army, who, having gathered in Kaluga and converged on the Vysa River, beat all the Tatars and captured their governor with many Tatars.

1596. In Nizhny Novgorod, at noon, the earth gave way and the Ascension Monastery, called Pechersky, with its entire structure, which was three miles from the city, fell through, and the elders, hearing the noise, all ran out. And instead of it, a monastery was erected near the city. However, this was not due to an earthquake, but because the mountain was washed away by water and collapsed.

1598. Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, having become seriously ill and seeing his death, summoned Tsarina Irina Feodorovna, bequeathed to her after him, leaving the throne, to accept the monastic rank. The Patriarch and the boyars cried and asked him to tell them who he wanted to appoint as king after himself. But he said that that is not in his, but in God's will and their consideration. And he reposed on January 1st, having reigned for 14 years, 9 months and 26 days.

After the burial of the sovereign, the queen, without going to the palace, simply ordered herself to be taken without an escort to the Novodevichy Convent and there she accepted the monastic rank, from where she did not leave until her death. The boyars immediately sent decrees to the entire state so that they would come to the election of the sovereign. Because of this, many people gathered, gathered to see the patriarch, and on the advice of everyone, they first asked the queen to take the throne, knowing that she was a man of keen intelligence and great virtues. But she really refused them and forbade them to come to her place. After which, according to reasoning, and especially the common people, to whom Godunov showed many favors, agreed to elect Boris Fedorovich Godunov, expecting from him in the future the same merciful and prudent rule as he had previously deceived them with mercy and generosity. And with that they sent him to ask. He, like a wolf, dressed in sheep's clothing, having searched for so long, now began to refuse and, after several petitions, went to the queen in the Novodevichy Convent. The reason for this was that the boyars wanted him to kiss the cross to the state according to the letter prescribed to him, which he did not want to do or clearly refuse, hoping that the common people would force the boyars to choose him without an agreement. Seeing this denial and stubbornness of his, the Shuiskys began to say that it was indecent to ask him anymore, since such a big request and his denial may not be without harm, and they imagined choosing someone else, and especially because they, knowing his secretive anger, They really didn’t want to let him in. After which everyone dispersed, and Godunov remained in danger. But the patriarch, at the prompting of Godunov’s well-wishers, early in the morning of February 22nd summoned all the boyars and those in power and, taking the holy icons from the church, went himself to the Novodevichy Convent and, when he arrived, asked the queen to let her brother go. She answered them: “Do as you want, but as an old lady, I don’t care about anything.” (Some say that the queen, thinking that her brother was the cause of death of the sovereign Tsar Theodore Ioannovich, did not want to see him until his death.) And then they began to ask Godunov, who accepted without any denial. And on the same date they kissed the cross for him, but he remained in the monastery, and went to the palace on March 3rd.

In the same year, before the coronation, he went to Serpukhov with his regiments, imagining that the Crimean Khan was coming, and moreover, he did it in order to please the people in the army, because in that campaign he showed many favors. Under Serpukhov, Russian envoys Leonty Ladyzhensky and his comrades came from Crimea and said that peace had been approved. Ambassadors from the khan also came with them. On June 29, he received the Crimean ambassadors with great decorations in tents. The army was all stationed near the road in the best decoration, which stretched for 7 miles. And, having given gifts to these ambassadors, he released them. After the ambassadors' leave, having sent a certain number of troops for protection to Ukraine, disbanding the rest, he returned to Moscow on July 6th.

In the same year, in Siberia, governors from Tara went against Tsar Kuchum, his army was defeated and his 8 wives and 3 sons were taken, who were sent to Moscow. And for this, these governors and servants were given gold, and the Stroganovs were given great lands in Perm. The princes were provided with generous food and fair maintenance.

1598. On September 1, Tsar Boris Fedorovich was crowned by the patriarch, Mstislavsky carried the crown and showered it with gold. In Siberia, the city of Mangazeya was built by Prince Vasily Masalsky-Rubets in 1599.

1599. The Swedish prince Gustav, son of King Eric 14 of Sweden, came to Moscow at the call, who had the intention of marrying the daughter of Tsar Boris. But seeing that there would be war with the Swedes because of this, Tsar Boris gave him Uglich as an inheritance and sent him there with all his servants. He, without accepting the Greek law, died on the 16th in Uglich. After his arrival, this prince was at the sovereign’s table, and they sat at the same table, only the dishes were different, and they ate from gold. And the prince of the Cossack Horde Bur-Mamet, who arrived under Tsar Theodore, granted the city of Kasimov with volosts, and the Tatars who came with him and other princes settled there. Tsar Boris heard that near Astrakhan the Nogai horde was multiplying and the Khan’s children were divided, fearing future harm from them, he wrote to the governors in Astrakhan so that they would quarrel between those brothers. Which was done in such a way that they, attacking each other, killed many among themselves and there were few of them left; many children were sold to the Russians for a ruble or less, and more than 20,000 of them died.

Tsar Boris, being the thief of the Russian throne, was always afraid that he would not be removed from the throne and someone else would not be chosen, and began to secretly find out what was being said about him, but he was most afraid of the Shuiskys, and Romanovs, and other noble people, he intended to bribe people and teach them to bring their boyars to commit treason. And the first to appear was Voinko, a servant of Prince Fyodor Sherstunov. And although he, hiding his anger, did nothing to that boyar, he ordered his servant in the square to declare nobility and gave villages, writing around the city. This caused many servants to become agitated and, in agreement, many began to accuse their masters, presenting their brothers as witnesses, the same thieves. And in this many innocent people were tortured, and especially slaves who, remembering the fear of God, spoke the truth and affirmed the innocence of their masters, in which the servants of the Shuiskys and Romanovs showed themselves best. The informers, even if they were not brought to light, were treated throughout the cities as boyar children, which caused great unrest, many houses were ruined after such cruel and insidious machinations. At the house of Alexander Nikitich Romanov, the servant of the Second Bakhteyarov, who was his treasurer, having intended deception, collected a bag of all sorts of roots, according to the teachings of Prince Dmitry Godunov, put it in the treasury and went to bring it, said about the roots, supposedly his master had prepared it for the royal killing. Tsar Boris sent the devious Mikhail Saltykov and his comrades. They came to the government office, without looking, and according to the deceiver’s testimony, they took these roots, brought them and announced them in front of all the boyars, and they brought Fyodor Nikitich and his brethren at the same time and put them under strong guard with great abuse. They also sent to Astrakhan for Prince Ivan Vasilyevich Sitsky, who was a close relative of the Romanovs, and ordered him to be brought in chained. And both the Romanovs and their nephew, Prince Ivan Borisovich Cherkassky, were repeatedly brought to torture, and their best people were tortured. And although many died from torture, no one said anything about them. And seeing that they could not prove anything, they sent them into exile: Fyodor Nikitich Romanov to the Siysky Monastery and, having tonsured his hair there, they named him Philaret; Alexander Nikitich Romanov in the Kola Pomerania, the village of Luda, and there Leonty Lodyzhensky strangled him; Mikhail Nikitich Romanov to Perm, 7 versts from Cherdyn, and there they starved him, but since the men secretly fed him, they strangled him for his sake; Ivan and Vasily Nikitich Romanov went to Siberia to the city of Pelym, and Vasily was strangled, and Ivan was starved, but the man secretly fed him; their son-in-law, Prince Boris Kanbulatovich Cherkassky, with him the children of Fyodor Nikitich Romanov, son and daughter, sister Nastasya Nikitishna and wife of Alexander Nikitich in Beloozero; Prince Ivan Borisovich Cherkassky to prison in Yerensk; Prince Ivan Sitsky to the Konzheozersky monastery, and his princess to the desert, and there, having tonsured them, they strangled them; Fyodor Nikitich Romanov, having tonsured his wife Ksenia Ivanovna, named her Martha and, exiled to the Zaonezhsky churchyard, was ordered to starve to death, but the peasant secretly impregnated her. These peasants, who saved Ivan Nikitich in Siberia, still do not pay any taxes to their heirs. Their relatives, the Repnins, Sitskys and Karpovs, were sent to the cities, and their villages were all distributed, their belongings and yards were sold. After some time, Godunov remembered his sin, ordered Ivan Nikitich Romanov and his wife, Prince Ivan Borisovich of Cherkassy, ​​children and sister of Fyodor Nikitich to bring to Romanov’s estate, the village of Klin in Yuryevsky district, and live here behind the bailiff, where they were until the death of Tsar Boris. Having released the Sitskys, he ordered the governors to go to Niza in the cities, and Prince Boris Konbulatovich Cherkassky died in prison. Prince Ivan, son of Vasily Sitsky, ordered to be brought to Moscow, but the messenger crushed him along the way. The informers cut each other off and they all disappeared.

The city of Smolensk was completed under Tsar Boris, and stone was transported from Ruza and Staritsa, and lime was burned in Belsky district. Great ambassadors came from Poland. Lev Sapega and his comrades, and made a truce for 20 years. The city of Tsarev Borisov was built, built by Bogdan Yakovlevich Volsky with his army. And since he showed great mercy to the military men, and the army boasted about them, for this reason he was brought into suspicion by Tsar Boris, and without any reason, having robbed him, he was sent into exile, and he died in prison. Others say that Belsky supposedly repented to his spiritual father about the death of Tsar John and Tsar Fyodor, which he did according to the teachings of Godunov, which the priest told the patriarch, and the patriarch told Tsar Boris, after which he immediately ordered Belsky to be taken and exiled. And for a long time no one knew where they were exiled and for what. Ambassadors Mikhail Glebovich Saltykov and Vasily Osipovich Pleshcheev were sent to Poland.

On August 15 there was a great frost, everything in the fields froze, and there was a great famine for three years, and then pestilence. Then, in the place where the mansions of Tsar John were, stone chambers were built to feed the people, which is now the Embankment Yard, and many other buildings were built to feed the people, through which many people were fed and saved from death. Then there were Persian ambassadors with great gifts. There were also English ambassadors who asked that they be allowed to trade in Persia, and this was agreed upon with them. Prince Fyodor Boryatinsky was sent to Crimea, but since his affairs were dishonest, they sent Prince Grigory Volkonsky, who returned with peace treaties, and was given their ancient estate on the Volkonka River.

The clerk Afanasy Vlasyev was sent to the Danish land to ask the royal brother Johann, the son of King Frederick II, for whom Tsar Boris promised to give his daughter Ksenia Borisovna; according to which, having agreed, the prince went to Russia with many people, and Vlasyev arrived in advance. The prince was received in Ivangorod by Mikhail Glebovich Saltykov and brought him to Moscow with great honor and joy on both sides, and all the Russian people loved the prince. But this created great envy and fear in Tsar Boris, for this reason he hated the evil of the prince; Having despised his daughter's tearful petition for him, he inflicted many annoyances on him, after which he soon died, or rather was killed. He was buried in the German Settlement, and his people were all released.

One Russian historian says this: In 1602, Tsar Boris, seeing the great love of all the people for the prince, extreme envy, or rather fear, had the idea that after his death the people, remembering his tyrannical deeds, that he had eradicated the name of his sovereigns and after them all noble families, past his son the prince was not elected, he ordered his nephew Semyon Godunov to kill him. Having heard or found out this, the queen, his wife, as well as his daughter, asked him with tears that if he displeased him, he would let him go home; but he was even more afraid to let go. After which the prince soon fell seriously ill. Semyon called the sovereign’s doctor, who was assigned to treat him, and asked what the prince was like. And he announced that it was possible to cure. Semyon Godunov, looking at him like a ferocious lion and without saying anything, went out. The doctor and healer, seeing that this news was not acceptable, did not want to treat. And so the king’s son died that night of October 22nd, at the age of 19, and was buried in the German Settlement. His people were released to the Danish land. All the boyars and noble people were present at his funeral, at which many could not hold back their tears. But the Almighty God did not want to leave this crime of theirs unpunished, and this retribution, or rather a sword, was especially obvious on the heads of the Godunovs on the same day. After the burial of the prince, Semyon Godunov came from Sloboda, supposedly with good news, and accidentally noticing one from Poland who had arrived with letters, accepted, went to Tsar Boris and was the first to tell him about the burial. Then, having opened these letters, I saw in one that a man had appeared who was called Tsarevich Dmitry. And then Boris immediately came into great sadness and immediately sent several people to see what kind of person he was. One, returning, said that this was Yuri Otrepyev, who was tonsured, and was a deacon in the Chudov Monastery, and was named Gregory.

This one, called Rasstriga, was born in the Galician district. His grandfather was a nobleman, Zamyatya Otrepyev, who had 2 sons, Smirna and Bogdan. Bogdan gave birth to this son, named Rasstriga, Yuri, who was sent to Moscow to the Chudov Monastery to learn writing, where he studied with great diligence and was superior to his peers in this. When his father arrived, he lived in the Basmanovs’ house, where he often came from the monastery. The archimandrite saw his great witticisms in the letter and persuaded him to take a haircut in his youth, calling him Gregory. But he soon left that place, went to Suzdal to the Evfimyev Monastery and lived here for a year; from there to the monastery on Kuksu and lived for 12 weeks. Having learned that meanwhile his grandfather Zamyatya had taken monastic vows at the Chudov Monastery, he came to him and they made him a deacon. Patriarch Job, hearing that he was quite proficient in reading and writing, took him in to write books, since seals had not yet been used. He, living with the patriarch, was always thoroughly notified of the murder of the prince. And somehow the Metropolitan of Rostov heard about this, and besides, he said this: “If I were a tsar, I would rule better than Godunov,” and reported this to Tsar Boris. The Tsar ordered the clerk Smirny to immediately take him and exile him to Solovki. But Smirnoy, without fulfilling this, said in a conversation to clerk Efimiev, who was also a friend of Otrepiev and immediately let him know. He, seeing his misfortune, fled from Moscow to Galich, from there to Murom, where a friend of his grandfather was a builder. And having stayed with him for a short time, and taking a horse, he went to Bryansk, where he became friends with the monk Mikhail Povadin, with whom they came to Novgorod Seversky and lived with the archimandrite in his cell. From there he asked for leave with a friend to Putiml, supposedly to visit his relatives for a while, and the archimandrite, giving them horses and a guide, let them go. The same Grishka wrote the card like this: “I am Tsarevich Dmitry, the son of Tsar John Vasilyevich, and when I am in Moscow on the throne of my father, then I will welcome you.” He put that card on the pillow of the archimandrite in his cell. And while driving, they came to the Kyiv road, turned towards Kyiv, and told the conductor to go home; who, having arrived, said to the archimandrite. The archimandrite, seeing this card on the pillow of his bed, began to cry, not knowing what to do, and hid this from all the people.

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin (December 1 (12), 1766, family estate Znamenskoye, Simbirsk district, Kazan province (according to other sources - the village of Mikhailovka (Preobrazhenskoye), Buzuluk district, Kazan province) - May 22 (June 3), 1826, St. Petersburg ) - Russian historian-historiographer, writer, poet. For what?

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was born on December 1 (12), 1766 near Simbirsk. He grew up on the estate of his father, retired captain Mikhail Yegorovich Karamzin (1724-1783), a middle-class Simbirsk nobleman, a descendant of the Crimean Tatar Murza Kara-Murza. He was educated at home, and from the age of fourteen he studied in Moscow at the boarding school of Moscow University professor Schaden, while simultaneously attending lectures at the University.

In 1778, Karamzin was sent to Moscow to the boarding school of Moscow University professor I.M. Schaden.

In 1783, at the insistence of his father, he entered service in the St. Petersburg Guards Regiment, but soon retired. The first literary experiments date back to his military service. After retirement, he lived for some time in Simbirsk, and then in Moscow. While in Simbirsk he joined the Golden Crown Masonic Lodge, and upon arrival in Moscow for four years (1785-1789) he was a member Masonic lodge"Friendly Scientific Society".

In Moscow, Karamzin met writers and writers: N. I. Novikov, A. M. Kutuzov, A. A. Petrov, and participated in the publication of the first Russian magazine for children - “ Children's reading for the heart and mind."

Upon returning from a trip to Europe, Karamzin settled in Moscow and began working as a professional writer and journalist, starting the publication of the Moscow Journal 1791-1792 (the first Russian literary magazine, in which, among other works of Karamzin, the story that strengthened his fame appeared. Poor Lisa"), then published a number of collections and almanacs: "Aglaya", "Aonids", "Pantheon of Foreign Literature", "My Trinkets", which made sentimentalism the main literary movement in Russia, and Karamzin as its recognized leader.

Emperor Alexander I, by personal decree of October 31, 1803, granted the title of historiographer to Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin; 2 thousand rubles were added to the rank at the same time. annual salary. The title of historiographer in Russia was not renewed after Karamzin’s death.

WITH early XIX century, Karamzin gradually moved away from fiction, and from 1804, having been appointed by Alexander I to the post of historiographer, he stopped all literary work, “taking monastic vows as a historian.” In 1811, he wrote “A Note on Ancient and New Russia in its Political and Civil Relations,” which reflected the views of conservative sections of society who were dissatisfied liberal reforms Emperor. Karamzin’s goal was to prove that no reforms were needed in the country. His note played important role in the fate of the great Russian statesman and reformer, the main ideologist and developer of the reforms of Alexander I, Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky. Whom, a year after the “note”, the emperor exiled him to Perm for 9 years.

“A Note on Ancient and New Russia in its Political and Civil Relations” also played the role of an outline for Nikolai Mikhailovich’s subsequent enormous work on Russian history. In February 1818, Karamzin released the first eight volumes of “The History of the Russian State,” the three thousand copies of which sold out within a month. In subsequent years, three more volumes of “History” were published, and a number of translations of it into the main European languages ​​appeared. Covering the Russian historical process brought Karamzin closer to the court and the tsar, who settled him near him in Tsarskoye Selo. Karamzin's political views evolved gradually, and by the end of his life he was a staunch supporter of absolute monarchy.

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin in “History of the Russian State” talks in detail about the tragic events of the early 17th century, the reasons for the Great Troubles, its main events and figures. The author devoted more than 60 pages of “History” to the siege of the Trinity - Sergius Monastery in 1610 - 1610.

Karamzin describes the Time of Troubles as “the most terrible phenomenon in its history.” He sees the causes of the Troubles in “the frantic tyranny of the 24 years of John, in the hellish game of Boris’s lust for power, in the disasters of fierce hunger and all-out robbery (hardening) of hearts, the depravity of the people - everything that precedes the overthrow of states condemned by providence to death or painful revival.” Thus, even in these lines one can feel the monarchical tendentiousness and religious providentialism of the author, although we cannot blame Karamzin for this, since he is a student and at the same time a teacher of his era. But, despite this, we are still interested in the factual material that he placed in his “History...” and his views on the “history” of the early 17th century, refracted in the 19th century.

N.M. Karamzin exposes and defends throughout his entire narrative only a single line of events, in which he, apparently, was completely confident: Tsarevich Dmitry was killed in Uglich on the orders of Godunov, to whom “the royal crown seemed to him in a dream and in reality” and that Tsarevich Dmitry the fugitive monk of the Chudov Monastery named himself Grigory Otrepiev (the official version of Boris Godunov). Karamzin believes that a “wonderful thought” “settled and lived in the soul of a dreamer in the Chudov Monastery, and the path to realizing this goal was Lithuania. The author believes that even then the impostor relied on “the gullibility of the Russian people. After all, in Russia the crown bearer was considered an “earthly God.”

In “History of the Russian State” Karamzin gives sharply negative characterization Boris Godunov as the murderer of Tsarevich Dmitry: “Arrogant with his virtues and merits, glory and flattery, Boris looked even higher and with impudent lust. The throne seemed like a heavenly place to Boris.” Footnote But earlier, in 1801, Karamzin published in the Vestnik Evropy an article “Historical Memoirs and Remarks on the Path to the Trinity,” which spoke in some detail about the reign of Godunov. Karamzin could not yet unconditionally agree with the version of the murder; he carefully considered all the arguments for and against, trying to understand the character of this sovereign and evaluate his role in history. “If Godunov,” the writer reflected, “had not cleared the path to the throne for himself by killing himself, then history would have called him a glorious king.” Standing at Godunov’s tomb, Karamzin is ready to reject accusations of murder: “What if we slander these ashes, unfairly torment a person’s memory, believing false opinions accepted into the chronicle senselessly or hostilely?” In “History...” Karamzin no longer questions anything, since he follows the assigned tasks and the order of the sovereign.

But you can be sure of one thing: the decisive role played by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in promoting the “named” Dmitry to the Moscow throne. Here in Karamzin one can discern the idea of ​​​​concluding a union between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Moscow state: “never before, after the victories of Stefan Batory, has the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth come so close to the Moscow throne.” False Dmitry I, “having an ugly appearance, replaced this disadvantage with liveliness and courage of mind, eloquence, posture, nobility.” And, indeed, you need to be smart and cunning enough to (taking into account all the above versions about the origin of False Dmitry), when you come to Lithuania, get to Sigismund and use the border disputes between Boris Godunov and Konstantin Vishnevetsky, the “ambition and frivolity” of Yuri Mnishko. “We must do justice to Razstrici’s mind: having betrayed himself to the Jesuits, he chose the most effective means of inspiring the careless Sigismund with jealousy.” Thus, the “named” Dmitry found his support in secular and spiritual world, promising all participants in this adventure what they most wanted: the Jesuits - the spread of Catholicism in Russia, Sigismund III, with the help of Moscow, really wanted to return the Swedish throne. All authors call Yuri Mnishka (N.M. Karamzin is no exception) and describe him as “a vain and far-sighted person who loved money very much. Giving his daughter Marina, who was ambitious and flighty like him, in marriage to False Dmitry I, he drew up a marriage contract that would not only cover all of Mnishk’s debts, but would also provide for his descendants in the event of the failure of everything planned.

But throughout the entire narrative N.M. Karamzin at the same time calls False Dmitry “the most terrible phenomenon in the history of Russia.” Footnote

At the same time, “the Moscow government discovered excessive fear of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for fear that the whole of Poland and Lithuania wanted to stand for the impostor.” And this was the first of the reasons why many princes (Golitsyn, Saltykov, Basmanov) together with the army went over to the side of False Dmitry. Although here another version arises that all this happened according to the plan of the boyar opposition. Having become king, Dmitry “having pleased all of Russia with favors to the innocent victims of Boris’s tyranny, he tried to please her with common good deeds...”. Footnote Thus, Karamzin shows that the tsar wants to please everyone at once - and this is his mistake. False Dmitry maneuvers between the Polish lords and Moscow boyars, between the Orthodox and Catholicism, without finding zealous adherents either there or there.

After his accession, Dmitry does not fulfill his promises to the Jesuits, and his tone towards Sigismund changes. When, during the stay of the Ambassador of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in Moscow, “letters were handed over to the royal clerk Afanasy Ivanovich Vlasyev, he took it, handed it to the sovereign and quietly read his title. It didn't say "to the Caesar". False Dmitry I did not even want to read it, to which the ambassador replied: “You were placed on your throne with the favor of his royal grace and the support of our Polish people.” After which the conflict was settled. Thus, we will subsequently see that Sigismund will leave False Dmitry.

Karamzin also points out that the first enemy of False Dmitry I was himself, “frivolous and hot-tempered by nature, rude from poor upbringing - arrogant, reckless and careless from happiness.” He was condemned for strange amusements, love for foreigners, and some extravagance. He was so confident in himself that he even forgave his worst enemies and accusers (Prince Shuisky - the head of the subsequent conspiracy against False Dmitry).

It is unknown what goals False Dmitry pursued when he married Marina Mnishek: maybe he really loved her, or maybe it was just a clause in the agreement with Yuri Mnishek. Karamzin doesn’t know this, and most likely we won’t know either.

On May 17, 1606, a group of boyars carried out a coup, as a result of which False Dmitry was killed. The boyars saved Mnishkov and the Polish lords, apparently by agreement with Sigismund, to whom they spoke about the decision to depose the “tsar” and “possibly offer the throne of Moscow to Sigismund’s son, Vladislav.”

Thus, the idea of ​​union arises again, but we know that it is not destined to come true. It can be noted from all of the above that the whole situation with False Dmitry I represents the culmination of the power of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the moment when the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, under favorable circumstances, could dominate in a union with Moscow.

N.M. Karamzin describes the events of the Time of Troubles quite tendentiously, following the state order. He does not set a goal to show different versions of ambiguous events, and, on the contrary, leads the reader into a story in which the latter should not have a shadow of doubt about what he has read. Karamzin, through his work, was supposed to show the power and inviolability of the Russian state. And in order not to plunge the reader into doubt, he often imposes his point of view. And here we can raise the question of the unambiguity of Karamzin’s positions when considering the events of the Time of Troubles.

Events of the beginning of the 17th century. occupy a special place in history medieval Rus'. It was a time of unprecedented contradictions and contrasts in all areas of life, according to researchers, unprecedented contrasts even in comparison with the most acute upheavals of the second half of the 16th century. In events late XVI- beginning of the 17th century intertwined are the angry protest of the people against hunger, the abolition of St. George’s Day, extortion and tyranny, and the heroic defense native land from attacks by foreign invaders. Why is this here? Put this in the introduction or the beginning. 1 chapter

The situation of the Russian land was catastrophic in the first decades of the 17th century, when the unity of the country, achieved at great cost, was destroyed, and the most difficult problem of returning Novgorod and Smolensk arose. It is not necessary.

The ideals that illuminated my path and gave me courage and courage were kindness, beauty and truth. Without a sense of solidarity with those who share my convictions, without the pursuit of the ever-elusive objective in art and science, life would seem absolutely empty to me.

End of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries. marked in Russian history by troubles. Having started at the top, it quickly went down, captured all layers of Moscow society and brought the state to the brink of destruction. The Troubles lasted for more than a quarter of a century - from the death of Ian the Terrible until the election of Mikhail Fedorovich to the kingdom (1584-1613). The duration and intensity of the unrest clearly indicate that it did not come from outside and not by chance, that its roots were hidden deep in the state organism. But at the same time, S. time amazes with its obscurity and uncertainty. This is not a political revolution, since it did not begin in the name of a new political ideal and did not lead to it, although the existence of political motives in the turmoil cannot be denied; this is not a social revolution, 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 were intertwined with it. “Our turmoil is the fermentation of a sick state organism, striving to get out of the contradictions to which the previous course of history 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 some truth, must be abandoned as not completely solving the problem. There were two main contradictions that caused S. time. The first of them was political, which can be defined in the words of Prof. Klyuchevsky: “The Moscow sovereign, whom the course of history led to democratic sovereignty, had to act through a very aristocratic administration”; both of these forces, which grew together thanks to the state unification of 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 to better organize the highest defense of the state and “under the pressure of these higher needs, sacrifice the interests of the industrial and agricultural classes, whose labor served as the basis of the national economy, to the interests of service landowners,” as a consequence of which There was a mass exodus of the tax-paying population from the centers to the outskirts, which intensified with the expansion of state territory suitable for agriculture. The first contradiction was the result of the collection of inheritances by Moscow. The annexation of destinies did not have the character of a violent war of extermination. The Moscow government left the inheritance in the management of its former prince and was content with the fact that the latter recognized the power of the Moscow sovereign and became his servant. The power of the Moscow sovereign, as Klyuchevsky put it, became not in the place of appanage princes, but above them; “the new state order was a new layer of relations and institutions, which lay on top of what was in effect before, without destroying it, but only imposing new responsibilities on it, indicating new tasks to it.” The new princely boyars, pushing aside the ancient Moscow boyars, took first place in the degree of their pedigree seniority, accepting only a very few of the Moscow boyars into their midst on equal rights with themselves. Thus, a vicious circle of boyar princes formed around the Moscow sovereign, who became the pinnacle of his administration, his main council in governing the country. The authorities previously ruled the state individually and in parts, but now they began to rule the entire earth, occupying positions 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 localism, and thereby fell into the above-mentioned contradiction. The power of the Moscow sovereigns arose on the basis of patrimonial rights. Karamzin about the time of troubles. The Grand Duke of Moscow was the owner of his inheritance; all the inhabitants of his territory were his “slaves.” The entire previous course of history led to the development of this view of territory and population. By recognizing the rights of the boyars, the Grand Duke betrayed his ancient traditions, which in reality he could not replace with others. Ivan the Terrible was the first to understand this contradiction. The Moscow boyars were strong mainly because of their family land holdings. Ivan the Terrible planned to carry out a complete mobilization of boyar land ownership, taking away from the boyars their ancestral appanage nests, giving them other lands in return in order to break their connection with the land and 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 primacy at court. The surviving remnants of the boyars became embittered and prepared for unrest. On the other hand, the 16th century. was an era external wars, which ended with the acquisition of vast spaces in the east, southeast and west. To conquer them and to consolidate new acquisitions, a huge number of military forces were required, which the government recruited from everywhere, in difficult cases not disdaining the services of slaves. The service class in the Moscow state received, in the form of a salary, land on the estate - and land without workers had no value. Land far from the borders military defense, also did not matter, since a serving person could not serve with her. Therefore, the government was forced to transfer a huge expanse of land in the central and southern parts of the state into service hands. The palace and black peasant volosts lost their independence and came under the control of service people. The previous division into volosts inevitably had to be destroyed with small changes. The process of "possession" of lands is exacerbated by the above-mentioned mobilization of lands, which was the result of persecution against the boyars. Mass evictions ruined the economy of service people, but even more ruined the tax collectors. The mass relocation of the peasantry to the outskirts begins. At the same time, a huge area of ​​Zaoksk black soil is being opened up for resettlement for the peasantry. The government itself, taking care of strengthening the newly acquired borders, supports resettlement to the outskirts. As a result, by the end of the reign of Ivan the Terrible, the eviction took on the character of a general flight, intensified by shortages, epidemics, and Tatar raids. Most of the service lands remain “empty”; a sharp economic crisis ensues. The peasants lost the right of independent land ownership, with the placement of service people on their lands; The townspeople population found themselves forced out of the southern towns and cities occupied by military force: the former trading places took 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 suffering elements remain the service class and, even more so, the peasant element, which not only lost the right to free land use, but, with the help of indentured servitude, loans and the newly emerged institution of old-timers (see), begins to lose personal freedom, to approach the serfs. In this struggle, enmity grows between individual classes - between the large owner-boyars and the church, on the one hand, and the service class, on the other. The oppressive population harbors hatred for the classes that oppress them and, irritated by government dispositions, are ready for open rebellion; it runs to the Cossacks, who have long separated their interests from the interests of the state. Only the north, where the land remained in the hands of the black volosts, remains calm during the advancing state “ruin.”

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

I period

With the death of Ivan the Terrible (March 18, 1584), the field for unrest immediately opened up. There was no power that could stop or contain the impending disaster. The heir of John IV, Theodore Ioannovich, was incapable of governing affairs; Tsarevich Dmitry was still in his infancy. The government was supposed to fall into the hands of the boyars. The secondary boyars came onto the scene - the Yurievs, the Godunovs - but there were still remnants of prince-boyars (Prince Mstislavsky, Shuisky, Vorotynsky, etc.). Nagy, his maternal relatives, and Belsky gathered around Dmitry Tsarevich. Now, after the accession of Fyodor Ioannovich, Dmitry Tsarevich was sent to Uglich, in all likelihood, fearing the possibility of unrest. The board was headed by N.R. Yuryev, but he soon died. A clash occurred between Godunov and the others. First, the Mstislavsky, Vorotynsky, Golovin, and then the Shuisky suffered. Palace turmoil led Godunov to the regency he aspired to. He had no rivals after the fall of the Shuiskys. When news of the death of Tsarevich Dmitry arrived in Moscow, rumors spread throughout the city that Dmitry had been killed on the orders of Godunov. These rumors were recorded primarily by some foreigners, and then found their way into legends compiled much later than the event. Most historians believed the legends, and the opinion about the murder of Dmitry Godunov became generally accepted. But recently this view has been significantly undermined, and there is hardly any modern historian who would decisively lean towards the side of legends. In any case, the role that fell to Godunov was very difficult: it was necessary to pacify the earth, it was necessary to fight the above-mentioned crisis. It is beyond dispute that Boris managed to alleviate the country’s difficult situation, at least temporarily: everyone is talking about it modern writers , agreeing to point out that “the Moscow people began to console themselves from their former sorrow and live quietly and serenely,” etc. But, of course, Godunov could not resolve the contradictions to which the entire course of previous history had led Russia. He could not and did not want to appear as a pacifier for the nobility in a political crisis: this was not in his interests. Foreign and Russian writers note that in this regard, Godunov was a continuator of Grozny’s policies. In the economic crisis, Godunov took the side of the service class, which, as it turned out during the further development of the turmoil, was one of the most numerous and powerful in the Moscow state. In general, the situation of the drafters and walking people under Godunov was difficult. Godunov wanted to rely on the middle class of society - service people and townspeople. Indeed, he managed to get up with their help, but failed to hold on. In 1594, Princess Theodosia, daughter of Theodore, died. The king himself was not far from death. There are indications that as early as 1593, Moscow nobles were discussing candidates for the Moscow throne and even nominated the Austrian Archduke Maximilian. This indication is very valuable, as it depicts the mood of the boyars. In 1598, Fedor died without appointing an heir. The entire state recognized the power of his widow Irina, but she renounced the throne and took her hair. An interregnum opened. There were 4 candidates for the throne: F.N. Romanov, Godunov, Prince. F. I. Mstislavsky and B. Ya. Belsky. The Shuiskys occupied a lowly position at this time and could not appear as candidates. Karamzin about the time of troubles. The most serious contender, according to Sapieha, was Romanov, the most daring was Belsky. There was a lively fight between the contenders. In February 1598, a council was convened. In its composition and character it was no different from other former cathedrals, and no fraud on the part of Godunov can be suspected; on the contrary, in terms of its composition, the cathedral was rather unfavorable for Boris, since Godunov’s main support - simple service nobles - was few in number, and Moscow was best and most fully represented, that is, those layers of the Moscow aristocratic nobility who were not particularly favored to Godunov. At the council, however, Boris was elected king; but soon after the election the boyars started an intrigue. From the report of the Polish ambassador Sapieha it is clear that most of the Moscow boyars and princes, with F.N. Romanov and Belsky at their head, planned to place Simeon Bekbulatovich on the throne (see). This explains why in the “cross-record” given by the boyars after Godunov’s crowning, it is said that they should not want Simeon to reign. The first three years of Godunov’s reign passed calmly, but from 1601 there were setbacks. A terrible famine ensued, which lasted until 1604 and during which many people died. A mass of hungry people scattered along the roads and began to plunder. Rumors began to circulate that Tsarevich Dmitry was alive. All historians agree that the main role in the appearance of the impostor belonged to the Moscow boyars. Perhaps, in connection with the emergence of rumors about the impostor, there is a disgrace that befell first Belsky, and then the Romanovs, of whom Fyodor Nikitich enjoyed the most popularity. In 1601, they were all sent into exile, Fyodor Nikitich was tonsured under the name of Philaret. Together with the Romanovs, their relatives were exiled: Prince. Cherkasy, Sitsky, Shestunov, Karpov, Repin. Following the exile of the Romanovs, disgraces and executions began to rage. Godunov, obviously, was looking for threads of the conspiracy, but found nothing. Meanwhile, the anger against him intensified. The old boyars (boyar-princes) gradually recovered from the persecutions of Ivan the Terrible and became hostile to the unborn tsar. When the impostor (see False Dmitry I) crossed the Dnieper, the mood of Seversk Ukraine and the south in general could not have been more favorable to his intentions. The above-mentioned economic crisis drove crowds of fugitives to the borders of the Moscow state; they were caught and forced into the sovereign's service; they had to submit, but remained silently irritated, especially since they were oppressed by service and tithe arable land for the state. There were wandering bands of Cossacks around, which were constantly replenished with people from the center and service fugitives. Finally, a three-year famine, just before the appearance of the impostor within Russian borders, accumulated many “evil bastards” who wandered everywhere and with whom it was necessary to wage a real war. Thus, the flammable material was ready. The service people recruited from the fugitives, and partly the boyar children of the Ukrainian strip, recognized the impostor. After the death of Boris, the boyar-princes in Moscow turned against the Godunovs and the latter died. The impostor triumphantly headed towards Moscow. In Tula he was met by the flower of the Moscow boyars - princes Vasily, Dmitry and Ivan Shuisky, Prince. Mstislavsky, book. Vorotynsky. Immediately in Tula, the impostor showed the boyars that they could not live with him: he received them very rudely, “punishing and barking,” and in everything he gave preference to the Cossacks and other small brothers. The impostor did not understand his position, did not understand the role of the boyars, and they immediately began to act against him. On June 20, the impostor arrived in Moscow, and on June 30, the trial of the Shuiskys took place. Thus, not even 10 days had passed before the Shuiskys began to fight against the impostor. This time they hurried, but soon they found allies. The clergy were the first to join the boyars, followed by the merchant class. Preparations for the uprising began at the end of 1605 and lasted six months. On May 17, 1606, up to 200 boyars and nobles burst into the Kremlin, and the impostor was killed. Now the old boyar party found itself at the head of the board, which chose V. Shuisky as king. “The boyar-princely reaction in Moscow” (the expression of S. F. Platonov), having mastered the political position, elevated its 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 execution site and from there proclaimed him tsar. It was natural to expect that the people would be against the “shouted out” tsar and that the secondary boyars (Romanovs, Nagiye, Belsky, M.G. Saltykov, etc.), which gradually began to recover from Boris’s disgrace, would also turn out to be against him.

II period of unrest

After his election to the throne, Vasily Shuisky considered it necessary to explain to the people why he was elected and not anyone else. He motivates the reason for his election by his origin from Rurik; in other words, it sets forth the principle that the seniority of the “breed” gives the right to seniority of power. This is the principle of the ancient 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 kissing cross recording, which undoubtedly had the character of a limitation royal power . The Tsar admitted that he was not free to execute his slaves, that is, he abandoned the principle that Ivan the Terrible so sharply put forward and then accepted by Godunov. The entry satisfied the boyar princes, and even then not all of them, but it could not satisfy the minor boyars, minor service people and the mass of the population. The turmoil continued. Vasily Shuisky immediately sent the followers of False Dmitry - Belsky, Saltykov and others - to different cities; he wanted to get along with the [[Romanov]s, Nagis and other representatives of the minor boyars, but then several dark events occurred that indicate that he did not succeed. V. Shuisky thought about elevating Filaret, who was elevated to the rank of metropolitan by an impostor, to the patriarchal table, but circumstances showed him that it was impossible to rely on Filaret and the Romanovs. He also failed to unite the oligarchic circle of boyar princes: part of it disintegrated, part of it became hostile to the tsar. Shuisky hurried to be crowned king, without even waiting for the patriarch: he was crowned by Metropolitan Isidore of Novgorod, without the usual pomp. To dispel rumors that Tsarevich Dmitry was alive, Shuisky came up with the idea of ​​a solemn transfer to Moscow of the relics of the Tsarevich, canonized by the church; He also resorted to official journalism. But everything was against him: anonymous letters were scattered around Moscow that Dmitry was alive and would soon return, and Moscow was worried. On May 25, Shuisky had to calm down the mob, which was raised against him, as they said then, by P.N. Sheremetev. A fire was breaking out on 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 Trans-Oka, Ukrainian and Ryazan places; The movement moved to Vyatka, Perm, and captured Astrakhan. Unrest also broke out in Novgorod, Pskov and Tver. This movement, which embraced such a huge space, had a different character in different places and pursued different goals, but there is no doubt that it was dangerous for V. Shuisky. In the Seversk land the movement was social in nature and was directed against the boyars. Putivl became the center of the movement here, and the prince became the head of the movement. Grieg. Peter. Shakhovskoy 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; Dmitry'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 survived, but their content is indicated in the charter of Patriarch Hermogenes. Bolotnikov’s appeals, says Hermogenes, instill in the mob “all sorts of evil deeds for murder and robbery”, “they order the boyar slaves to beat their boyars and their wives, and estates, and estates they are promised; and they order the thieves and unnamed thieves to beat the guests and all merchants and rob their bellies; and they call their thieves to themselves, and they want to give them boyarships and voivodeships, and deviousness, and clergy.” In the northern zone of Ukrainian and Ryazan cities, a serving nobility arose who did not want to put up with the boyar government of Shuisky. The Ryazan militia was headed by Grigory Sunbulov and the Lyapunov brothers, Prokopiy and Zakhar, and the Tula militia moved under the command of the boyar’s son Istoma Pashkov. Meanwhile, Bolotnikov defeated the tsarist commanders and moved towards Moscow. On the way, he united with the noble militias, together with them he approached Moscow and stopped in the village of Kolomenskoye. Shuisky's position became extremely dangerous. Almost half of the state rose up against him, rebel forces were besieging Moscow, and he had no troops not only to pacify the rebellion, but even to defend Moscow. In addition, the rebels cut off access to bread, and famine emerged in Moscow. Among the besiegers, however, discord emerged: the nobility, on the one hand, slaves, fugitive peasants, on the other, could live peacefully only until they knew each other’s intentions. Karamzin about the Time of Troubles As soon as the nobility became acquainted with the goals of Bolotnikov and his army, they immediately recoiled from them. Sunbulov and Lyapunov, although they hated the established order in Moscow, preferred Shuisky and came to him to confess. Other nobles began to follow them. Then the militia from some cities arrived to help, and Shuisky was saved. Bolotnikov fled first to Serpukhov, then to Kaluga, from which he moved to Tula, where he settled down with the Cossack impostor False Peter. This new impostor appeared among the Terek Cossacks and pretended to be the son of Tsar Fedor, 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 here and hide 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 besieged it, pacifying the rebel cities along the way and destroying the rebels: they put “prisoners in the water” in thousands, i.e. that is, they simply drowned. A third of the state territory was given over to the troops for plunder and destruction. The siege of Tula dragged on; They managed to take it only when they came up with the idea of ​​setting it up on the river. Up the dam and flood the city. Shakhovsky was exiled to Lake Kubenskoye, Bolotnikov to Kargopol, where he was drowned, and False Peter was hanged. Shuisky triumphed, but not for long. Instead of going to pacify the northern cities, where the rebellion did not stop, he disbanded the troops and returned to Moscow to celebrate the victory. The social background of Bolotnikov’s movement did not escape Shuisky’s attention. This is proven by the fact that with a series of resolutions he decided to strengthen in place and subject to supervision that social stratum that discovered dissatisfaction with its position and sought to change it. By issuing such decrees, Shuisky recognized the existence of unrest, but, trying to defeat it through repression alone, he revealed a lack of understanding of the actual state of affairs. 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 Starodub residents believed in him and began to help him. Soon a team of Poles, Cossacks and all sorts of crooks formed around him. This was not the 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 loot. The thief defeated the royal army and stopped near Moscow in the village of Tushino, where he founded his fortified camp. People flocked to him from everywhere, thirsting for easy money. The arrival of Lisovsky and Jan Sapieha especially strengthened the Thief. Shuisky's position was difficult. The South could not help him; he had no strength of his own. There remained hope in the north, which was comparatively calmer and suffered little from the turmoil. On the other hand, the Thief could not take Moscow. 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 Vasilyevich Skopin-Shuisky (see) for help to the Swedes. The Russians ceded the city of Karel and the province to Sweden, abandoned views of Livonia and pledged an eternal alliance against Poland, for which they received an auxiliary detachment of 6 thousand people. Skopin moved from Novgorod to Moscow, clearing the north-west of the Tushins along the way. Sheremetev came from Astrakhan, suppressing the rebellion along the Volga. In Alexandrovskaya Sloboda they united and went to Moscow. By this time, Tushino ceased to exist. It happened this way: when Sigismund learned about Russia’s alliance with Sweden, he declared war on it and besieged Smolensk. Ambassadors were sent to Tushino to the Polish troops there demanding that they join the king. A split began among the Poles: some obeyed the king's orders, others did not. The Thief’s position had been difficult before: no one treated him on ceremony, they insulted him, almost beat him; 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 palace nobility - Metropolitan Filaret (Romanov), Prince. Trubetskoys, Saltykovs, Godunovs, etc.; there were also humble people who sought to curry favor, gain weight and importance in the state - Molchanov, Iv. Gramotin, Fedka Andronov, etc. Sigismund invited them to surrender under the authority of the king. Filaret and the Tushino boyars responded that the election of a tsar was not their job 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 to desire a king from “any other Moscow boyars” and began negotiations with Sigismund so that he would send his son Vladislav to the kingdom of Moscow. An embassy was sent from the Russian Tushins, headed by the Saltykovs, Prince. Rubets-Masalsky, Pleshcheevs, Khvorostin, Velyaminov - all great nobles - and several people of low origin. 4 Feb In 1610, they concluded an agreement with Sigismund, clarifying the aspirations of “rather mediocre nobility and well-established businessmen.” Its main points are as follows: 1) Vladislav is crowned king by the Orthodox patriarch; 2) Orthodoxy must continue to be revered: 3) the property and rights of all ranks remain inviolable; 4) the trial is carried out according to the old times; Vladislav shares legislative power with the boyars and the Zemsky Sobor; 5) execution can be carried out only by court and with the knowledge of the boyars; the property of the relatives of the perpetrator should not be subject to confiscation; 6) taxes are collected in the old way; the appointment of new ones is done with the consent of the boyars; 7) peasant migration is prohibited; 8) Vladislav is obliged not to demote people of high ranks innocently, but to promote those of lower rank according to their merits; travel to other countries for research is permitted; 9) the slaves remain in the same position. Analyzing this treaty, we find: 1) that it is national and strictly conservative, 2) that it protects most of all the interests of the service class, and 3) that it undoubtedly introduces some innovations; Particularly characteristic in this regard are paragraphs 5, 6 and 8. Meanwhile, Skopin-Shuisky triumphantly entered liberated Moscow on March 12, 1610. 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 celebrations, Skopin suddenly died. There was a rumor that he had been poisoned. There is news that Lyapunov suggested that Skopin “unseat” Vasily Shuisky and take the throne himself, but Skopin rejected this proposal. After the king found out about this, he lost interest in his nephew. In any case, Skopin’s death destroyed Shuisky’s connection with the people. The king's brother Dimitri, a completely mediocre person, became the governor of the army. He set out to liberate Smolensk, but near the village of Klushina he was shamefully defeated by the Polish hetman Zholkiewski. Zholkiewski cleverly took advantage of the victory: he quickly went to Moscow, capturing Russian cities along the way and bringing them to the oath to Vladislav. Vor also hurried to Moscow from Kaluga. When Moscow learned about the outcome of the battle of Klushino, “a great rebellion arose among all the people, fighting against the Tsar.” The approach of Zolkiewski and Vor accelerated the disaster. In the overthrow of Shuisky from the throne, the main role fell to the share of the service class, headed by Zakhar Lyapunov. The palace nobility also took a significant part in this, including Filaret Nikitich. After several unsuccessful attempts, Shuisky’s opponents gathered at the Serpukhov Gate, declared themselves the council of the whole earth and “unseated” the king.

III period of turmoil

Moscow found itself without a government, and yet it needed it now more than ever: it was pressed by enemies on both sides. Everyone was aware of this, but did not know who to focus on. Lyapunov and Ryazan service people they wanted to install the prince as king. V. Golitsyna; Filaret, Saltykovs and other Tushins had other intentions; The highest nobility, headed by F.I. Mstislavsky and I.S. Kurakin, decided to wait. The board was transferred to the hands of 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 a Zemsky Sobor, but it failed. Fear of the Thief, on whose side the mob was taking their side, forced them to let Zolkiewski 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 Zemsky Sobor, then nevertheless the boyars did not decide to take this step alone, but gathered representatives from different layers of the state and formed something like a Zemsky Sobor, which was recognized as the council of the whole earth. After long negotiations, both parties accepted the previous agreement, with some changes: 1) Vladislav had to convert to Orthodoxy; 2) the clause on freedom to travel abroad for science was crossed out and 3) the article 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: this included representatives of almost all classes. It is very likely that the embassy included most of the members of the “council of the whole earth” that elected Vladislav. At the head of the embassy were Metropolitan. Filaret and Prince V. P. Golitsyn. The embassy was not successful: Sigismund himself wanted to sit on the Moscow throne. When Zolkiewski realized that Sigismund's intention was unshakable, he left Moscow, realizing that the Russians would not come to terms with 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 from near Smolensk to prepare the ground for the election of Sigismund, but those who remained were unshakable. At the same time, in Moscow, the “seven-numbered boyars” lost all meaning; power passed into the hands of the Poles and the newly formed government circle, which betrayed the Russian cause and betrayed Sigismund. This circle consisted of Iv. Mich. Saltykova, book. Yu. D. Khvorostinina, N. D. Velyaminova, M. A. Molchanova, Gramotina, Fedka Andronova and many others. etc. Thus, the first attempt of the Moscow people to restore power ended in complete failure: instead of an equal union with Poland, Rus' risked falling into complete subordination from it. The failed attempt put an end to the political significance of the boyars and the boyar duma forever. As soon as the Russians realized that they had made a mistake in choosing Vladislav, as soon as they saw that Sigismund was not lifting the siege of Smolensk and was deceiving them, national and religious feelings began to awaken. At the end of October 1610, ambassadors from near Smolensk sent a letter about the threatening turn of affairs; in Moscow itself, patriots revealed the truth to the people in anonymous letters. All eyes turned to Patriarch Hermogenes: he understood his task, but could not immediately take up its implementation. After the storming of Smolensk on November 21, the first serious clash between Hermogenes and Saltykov took place, who tried to persuade the patriarch to side with Sigismund; but Hermogenes still did not dare to call on the people to openly fight the Poles. The death of Vor and the disintegration of the embassy forced him to “command the blood to be bold” - and in the second half of December he began sending letters to the cities. This was discovered, and Hermogenes paid with imprisonment. His call, however, was heard. Prokopiy Lyapunov was the first to rise from the Ryazan land. He began to gather an army against the Poles and in January 1611 moved towards Moscow. Zemstvo squads came to Lyapunov from all sides; even the Tushino Cossacks went to the rescue of Moscow, under the command of Prince. D.T. Trubetskoy and Zarutsky. The Poles, after the battle with the residents of Moscow and the approaching zemstvo squads, locked themselves in the Kremlin and Kitai-Gorod. The position of the Polish detachment (about 3,000 people) was dangerous, especially since it had few supplies. Sigismund could not help him; he himself was unable to put an end to Smolensk. The Zemstvo and Cossack militias united and besieged the Kremlin, but discord immediately broke out between them. However, the army declared itself the council of the earth and began to rule the state, since there was no other government. Due to the increased discord between the zemstvos and the Cossacks, it was decided in June 16 1 1 to draw up a general resolution. The sentence of the representatives of the Cossacks and service people, who formed the main core of the zemstvo army, was very extensive: it had to organize not only the army, but also the state. The highest power should belong to the entire army, which calls itself “the whole earth”; voivodes are only the executive bodies of this council, which reserves the right to remove them if they conduct business poorly. The court belongs to the voivodes, but they can execute only with the approval of the “council of the whole earth”, otherwise they face death. Then local affairs were settled very precisely and in detail. All awards from Vor and Sigismund are declared insignificant. “Old” Cossacks can receive estates and thus join the ranks of service people. Next are the decrees on the return of fugitive slaves, who called themselves Cossacks (new Cossacks), to their former masters; The self-will of the Cossacks was largely embarrassed. Finally, an administrative department was established on the Moscow model. From this verdict it is clear that the army gathered near Moscow considered itself a representative of the entire land and that the main role in the council belonged to the zemstvo service people, and not to the Cossacks. This sentence is also characteristic in that it testifies to the importance that the service class gradually acquired. But the predominance of service people did not last long; the Cossacks could not be in solidarity with them. The matter ended with the murder of Lyapunov and the flight of the zemshchina. The Russians' hopes for the militia were not justified: Moscow remained in the hands of the Poles, Smolensk by this time was taken by Sigismund, Novgorod by the Swedes; Cossacks settled around Moscow, robbed the people, committed outrages and prepared a new unrest, proclaiming the son of Marina, who lived in connection with Zarutsky, Russian Tsar. The state was apparently dying; 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 the Russians. Nizhny became the center of the movement. Minin was placed at the head of the economic organization, and power over the army was given to the prince. Pozharsky. In March 1612, the militia moved to Yaroslavl to occupy this important point, where many roads crossed and where the Cossacks headed, taking an openly hostile attitude towards the new militia. Yaroslavl was busy; the militia stood here for three months, because it was necessary to “build” not only the army, but also the land; Pozharsky wanted to convene a council to elect a king, but the latter failed. Around August 20, 1612, the militia from Yaroslavl moved to Moscow. On October 22, Kitay-Gorod was taken, and a few days later the Kremlin surrendered. After the capture of Moscow, by letter of November 15, Pozharsky convened representatives from the cities, 10 people each, to choose a tsar. Sigismund decided to go to Moscow, but he did not have enough strength to take Volok, and he went back. In January 1613, the electors met. The cathedral was one of the most crowded and most complete: there were even representatives of black volosts, which had never happened before. Four candidates were nominated: V.I. Shuisky, Vorotynsky, Trubetskoy and M.F. Romanov. Contemporaries accused Pozharsky that he, too, strongly campaigned in his favor, but this can hardly be allowed. In any case, the elections were very stormy. A legend has been preserved that Filaret demanded restrictive conditions for the new tsar and pointed to M.F. Romanov as the most suitable candidate. Mikhail Fedorovich was indeed chosen, and undoubtedly, he was offered those restrictive conditions that Filaret wrote about: “Give full justice to justice according to the old laws of the country; do not judge or condemn anyone the highest authority; without a council, do not introduce any new laws, do not burden your subjects with new taxes and do not make the slightest decisions in military and zemstvo affairs." The election took place on February 7, but the official announcement was postponed until the 21st, in order to find out during this time how the people would accept a new tsar. With the election of the tsar, the turmoil ended, since now there was power that everyone recognized and on which one could rely. But the consequences of the turmoil lasted for a long time: they, one might say, filled the entire 17th century.

IMPOSTER. The unreasonable course of action of the government and society, so sadly supported by nature itself, revealed such a disorder in social relations, such social confusion, with which, after the suppression of the dynasty, it was difficult to cope with ordinary government means. This second cause of the Troubles, socio-political, in combination with the first, dynastic, strongly, although indirectly, supported the Troubles by aggravating the effect of the first, expressed in the successes of the impostors. Therefore, imposture can also be recognized as a derivative cause of the Troubles, emerging from the combined action of both root ones. The question of how the very idea of ​​imposture could arise does not involve any folk psychological difficulty. The mystery that surrounded the death of Tsarevich Dimitri gave rise to contradictory rumors, from which the imagination chose the most desirable, and most of all they wanted a successful outcome, so that the Tsarevich would be alive and eliminate the painful uncertainty that clouded the future. They were inclined, as always in such cases, to unconsciously believe that the crime had failed, that providence, this time too, stood guard over world truth and prepared retribution for the villains. The terrible fate of Tsar Boris and his family was in the eyes of the alarmed people an amazing revelation of this eternal truth of God and most of all helped the success of the impostor. The moral feeling found support in a political instinct, which was as much unconscious as it was accessible by its unconsciousness to the masses. Imposture was the most convenient way out of the struggle of irreconcilable interests, agitated by the suppression of the dynasty: it mechanically, forcibly united under the usual, albeit counterfeit, power the elements of a society ready to disintegrate, between which an organic, voluntary agreement had become impossible.

CONCLUSIONS. This can explain the origin of the Troubles. The basis for it was the painful mood of the people, the general feeling of discontent brought by the people from the reign of Ivan the Terrible and strengthened by the rule of B. Godunov. The reason for the Troubles was given by the suppression of the dynasty, followed by attempts to artificially restore it in the person of impostors. The root causes of the Troubles must be recognized as the people's view of the attitude of the old dynasty towards the Moscow state, which made it difficult to get used to the idea of ​​an elected tsar, and then the very structure of the state with its heavy tax base and uneven distribution of state duties, which gave rise to social discord: the first reason gave rise to and supported the need to resurrect the lost royal family, and this need ensured the success of imposture; the second reason turned dynastic intrigue into socio-political anarchy. Other circumstances also contributed to the Troubles: the mode of action of the rulers who became heads of state after Tsar Feodor, the constitutional aspirations of the boyars, which ran counter to the character of the Moscow supreme power and the people’s view of it, the low level of public morality, as portrayed by modern observers, the boyars’ disgraces, famine and pestilence during the reign of Boris, regional discord, intervention of the Cossacks. But all these were not causes, but either only symptoms of the Troubles, or conditions that fed it, but did not give rise to it, or, finally, consequences that were brought into action by it.

Troubles appear at the turn of two adjacent periods of our history, connected with the previous by its causes, and with the subsequent by its consequences. The end of the Troubles was put by the accession to the throne of the king, who became the founder of a new dynasty: this was the first immediate consequence of the Troubles.

SECOND MILITARY. At the end of 1611, the Moscow state presented a spectacle of complete visible destruction. The Poles took Smolensk; a Polish detachment burned Moscow and fortified itself behind the surviving walls of the Kremlin and China Town; the Swedes occupied Novgorod and nominated one of their princes as a candidate for the Moscow throne; to replace the murdered second False Dmitry, a third, some Sidorka, sat in Pskov; The first noble militia near Moscow was upset with the death of Lyapunov. Meanwhile, the country remained without a government. The Boyar Duma, which became its head after the deposition of V. Shuisky, was abolished by itself when the Poles captured the Kremlin, where some of the boyars sat with their chairman, Prince. Mstislavsky. The state, having lost its center, began to disintegrate into its component parts; Almost every city acted independently, only communicating with other cities. The state was transformed into some kind of shapeless, restless federation. But from the end of 1611, when the political forces were exhausted, religious and national forces began to awaken, which went to the rescue of the dying land. Letters of conscription from Archimandrite Dionysius and cellarer Abrahamy, which were sent out from the Trinity Monastery, raised up the people of Nizhny Novgorod under the leadership of their elder, the butcher Kuzma Minin. In response to the call of the Nizhny Novgorod residents, service people, city nobles and boyar children who were left without work and salaries, and often without estates, began to flock, for whom Minin also found a leader, Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky. This is how the second noble militia against the Poles was formed. In terms of combat qualities, it did not stand above the first, although it was well equipped thanks to the abundant cash treasury, selflessly collected by the townspeople of Nizhny Novgorod and other cities that joined them. It took about four months for the militia to get established, for six months it moved towards Moscow, and along the way it was replenished with crowds of service people who asked to be accepted into the zemstvo salary. A Cossack detachment of the prince was stationed near Moscow. Trubetskoy, remnant of the first militia. The Cossacks were more terrible for the Zemstvo noble army than the Poles themselves, and at the proposal of the prince. She replied to Trubetskoy: “We shouldn’t stand together with the Cossacks.” But it soon became clear that nothing could be done without the support of the Cossacks, and during the three months they stayed near Moscow, nothing important was done without them. In the army of the book. Pozharsky there were more than forty initial people, all with well-born service names, but only two people did major things, and even those were not service people: the monk A. Palitsyn and the meat merchant K. Minin. The first at the request of the prince. Pozharsky at a decisive moment persuaded the Cossacks to support the nobles, and the second begged from the prince. Pozharsky 3-4 companies and with them made a successful attack on the small detachment of Hetman Khotkevich, who was already approaching the Kremlin with food supplies for his starving compatriots there. Minin’s bold onslaught emboldened the noble militia, who forced the hetman to retreat, already prepared by the Cossacks. In October 1612, the Cossacks took Kitay-Gorod by storm. But the zemstvo militia did not dare to storm the Kremlin; The handful of Poles sitting there surrendered on their own, driven by hunger to cannibalism. The Cossack atamans, and not the Moscow governors, repulsed King Sigismund from Volokolamsk, who was heading towards Moscow to return it to Polish hands, and forced him to return home. The noble militia here once again showed during the Time of Troubles its unsuitability for the business that was its class craft and state duty.

ELECTION OF MICHAEL. The leaders of the zemstvo and Cossack militia, princes Pozharsky and Trubetskoy, sent summons to all cities of the state, calling spiritual authorities and elected people from all ranks to the capital for the zemstvo council and state election. At the very beginning of 1613, elected officials from all over the world began to gather in Moscow. We will later see that this was the first indisputably all-class Zemsky Sobor with the participation of townspeople and even rural inhabitants. When the elected representatives gathered, a three-day fast was appointed, with which the representatives of the Russian land wanted to cleanse themselves of the sins of the Time of Troubles before committing such an important matter. At the end of the fast, meetings began. The first question posed at the council, whether to choose a tsar from foreign royal houses, was decided in the negative, the verdict was: neither a Polish, nor a Swedish prince, nor other German faiths, nor from any non-Orthodox states should be elected to the Moscow state, just like “Marinka’s son.” This sentence destroyed the plans of the supporters of Prince Vladislav. But choosing your natural Russian sovereign was not easy. Monuments close to that time depict the progress of this matter at the cathedral in not light colors. There was no consensus. There was great excitement; everyone wanted to do according to his own thoughts, everyone spoke for his own; some suggested this, others that, everyone disagreed; They thought of who to choose, went through the great clans, but could not agree on anyone and thus lost many days. Many nobles and even non-nobles bribed voters and sent them with gifts and promises. After the election of Mikhail, the conciliar deputation, which asked the nun’s mother to bless her son for the kingdom, responded to her reproach that the Moscow people were “faint-hearted,” and replied that they were now “punished,” taught a lesson, came to their senses and came to unite. The conciliar machinations, intrigues and discord did not at all justify the complacent assurance of the conciliar ambassadors. The council broke up into parties between noble seekers, of whom later news names princes Golitsyn, Mstislavsky, Vorotynsky, Trubetskoy, Mikhail. F. Romanova. Prince Pozharsky himself, modest in his fatherland and character, was also said to be looking for the throne and spent a lot of money on intrigues. The most serious candidate in terms of ability and nobility, Prince. V.V. Golitsyn, was in Polish captivity, Prince. Mstislavsky refused; there was no one to choose from among the rest. The Moscow state emerged from the terrible Time of Troubles without heroes; he was brought out of trouble by kind but mediocre people. Book Pozharsky was not Boris Godunov, and Mikhail Romanov was not a prince. Skopin-Shuisky. With a lack of real strength, the matter was decided by prejudice and intrigue. While the cathedral was split into parties, not knowing who to choose, suddenly it received one after another “writings”, petitions for Michael from nobles, large merchants, from the cities of the Seversk land and even from the Cossacks; the latter decided the matter. Seeing the weakness of the noble army, the Cossacks went on a rampage in the Moscow they liberated, doing what they wanted, not embarrassed by the provisional government of Trubetskoy, Pozharsky and Minin. But in the matter of the tsar’s election, they declared themselves patriots, resolutely rebelled against the tsar from among foreigners, outlined, “tried on” real Russian candidates, a child, the son of the Tushino thief, and Mikhail Romanov, whose father Filaret was a protege of both impostors, received the rank of metropolitan from the first and proclaimed patriarch in the second camp near Moscow. The main support of imposture, the Cossacks, naturally wanted to see on the Moscow throne either the son of their Tushino king, or the son of their Tushino patriarch. However, the thief’s son was put into the competition lightly, more out of Cossack decency, and the Cossacks did not insist on this candidate when the Zemsky Sobor rejected him. On his own, Mikhail, a 16-year-old boy who did not stand out in any way, could have little ambition for the throne, and, however, forces such as the nobility and the Cossacks, hostile to each other, came together on him. This unexpected agreement was reflected in the council. In the midst of the struggle between the parties, some nobleman from Galich, where the first impostor was produced, submitted a written opinion to the council, in which he stated that M. F. Romanov was closest in relationship to the previous tsars, and therefore he should be elected tsar . Many members of the council were against Michael, although he had long been considered a candidate and Patriarch Hermogenes pointed to him as a desirable successor to Tsar V. Shuisky. The written opinion of the Galician city nobleman irritated many. Angry voices were heard: who brought such a scripture, where from? At this time, the Don Ataman stood out from the ranks of the elected officials and, approaching the table, also placed the scripture on it. “What kind of scripture did you submit, chieftain?” - the prince asked him. D. M. Pozharsky. “About the natural Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich,” answered the ataman. This ataman seemed to have decided the matter: “read the ataman’s scripture and everyone would agree and be of the same mind,” as one everyday life writer writes. Michael was proclaimed king. But this was only a preliminary election, which only outlined the conciliar candidate. The final decision was given directly to the entire land. Secretly sent to cities faithful people to find out the opinion of the people about who they want as sovereign of the Moscow state. The people were already quite prepared. Those sent returned with a report that all people, young and old, had the same idea: to be the sovereign of M. F. Romanov, and apart from him, not to want anyone in the state. This secret police investigation, combined, perhaps, with agitation, became a kind of electoral plebiscite for the cathedral. On a solemn day, the week of Orthodoxy, the first Sunday of Lent, February 21, 1613, the final elections were called. Each rank submitted a special written opinion, and in all opinions there was one name - Mikhail Fedorovich. Then several clergy, together with the boyar, were sent to Red Square, and before they had time to ask the crowd of people gathered from the Execution Ground who they wanted to be king, everyone shouted: “Mikhail Fedorovich.”