The terrible Troubles of the beginning of the 17th century became a real disaster for Russia. Our state was destroyed to the ground. It was torn apart, crushed and ruined. The fact that he managed to rise from the ashes is a real miracle. Therefore, it is impossible to see only one political dimension in the bloody years of the Time of Troubles. One should also see the mystical and moral dimensions.

Slime and rock crystal

God allowed an ocean of disasters for our ancestors. If you carefully look into the life of Russian society preceding the Time of Troubles, it is easy to see: all these misfortunes were acquired by the country and people deservedly. The military service class, and especially its top - the aristocracy - before the Time of Troubles and in its initial years, sank to the very bottom of moral decline. Perverted, messed up! Selfishness, betrayal, cruelty, exorbitant pride and unrestrained self-interest have become commonplace.

And the cleansing came through the pain. So big that the whole Russian state shuddered from it to its very roots. But this pain brought with it healing.

The country seemed to be tested in the cruelest way: are there any righteous left? Is faith, love, honor, diligence and selflessness left, or has everything sunk in filth? And the moral foundation of the people perished, is it worth it to exist such?

That is why the series of trials that came to our land turned out to be so long and difficult. Extreme suffering forced the people to present the core of his soul.

The flames of the Great Troubles dried up the Russian sea and made it possible to see what was there, at the very bottom of it. What human types live at the very base. What truth is contained in their words and actions. They, who live at the very foundation of the Russian element, in essence, determine it ...

There was found a stinking mucus with amphibians - cruel-hearted mercenaries, traitors, apostates Fyodor Andronov, Ivan Sheremetev, Mikhail Saltykov ... Is it worth talking a lot about them? If all our people were like that, they would have died out so long ago, they would have destroyed themselves.

There were found leaders filled with bubbling energy, eloquent, furiously active and infecting others with their activity - for good and for evil: Kozma Minin, Prokofy Lyapunov, Ivan Zarutsky.

There were found brave ambitious people, smart intriguers, sometimes gifted politicians or good governors, cautious and prudent natures, but not able to see the great mystical truths of that time. Such are our sovereigns Boris Fyodorovich Godunov and Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky. Such is the leader of the First Zemstvo militia, Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy, and even the commander, Prince Boris Lykov-Obolensky, undeservedly overlooked by descendants.

And, thank God, there, in the layers on which everything else rests, there were special personalities. Such persons, by their very existence, give remarkable strength to the whole nation, the whole civilization. These are… living stones. It is the living cornerstones - unprecedentedly hard, heavy, resistant to all kinds of trials, resistant to temptations. The elements - sometimes a merciless flame, and sometimes water boiling with rebellious violence - beat at them, hoping to crush, but retreat, exhausted. They are transparent, like rock crystal. They are true to their word, they strongly believe, they do not know how to change. And therefore, having taken an oath, they keep it in any circumstances - even if they have to give their lives for the sake of this oath. They stand when everything around them scatters in horror. Between a dishonorable, shameful act and death, they always choose death without hesitation. They are slow but steady. And when such individuals find themselves at the head of a great cause, others, feeling their stability, cling to them, acquiring this property from them. They are not capable of acting slyly, they, by and large, do not know how, and do not want to calculate the consequences of their actions for a long time ahead. A simpler knowledge is enough for them: what act at the moment is right, proper. Their deeds and words never have a second meaning, they never provide ground for intricate interpretations, for seeking out hidden motives. Everything that comes from them is simple and direct. With such people, everything is in plain sight, everything is clear, everything obeys the only possible meaning. They are guided by duty, otherwise they cannot. Either a straight road or none. Either loyalty or death.

Such is Patriarch Hermogenes. Such is Prince Dmitry Pozharsky.

Patriarch Hermogenes

Two years - from the summer of 1610 to the autumn of 1612 - the darkest period of the Troubles. It was then that Russia found itself in a deep whirlpool. There, in the whirling of icy streams, risking their lives and prosperity, people quickly and easily show their essence: whether virtue remained in them, or everything rotted ...

Full-fledged statehood on the territory of the former Russian state does not exist. The service hierarchy is rapidly disintegrating. The metropolitan authorities have no control over the provinces. Russia is torn to shreds, and its separate regions are controlled by different forces. It seemed that the Muscovite state had disappeared. Northern regions the Swedes will take it, the central ones will be under the rule of the Commonwealth, and the south will be hopelessly depopulated under the onslaught of the Tatars ...

There is a Polish-Lithuanian garrison in Moscow. His interests are served by the apostate administration, obedient in everything to the will of the Polish king Sigismund III, as well as the powerless and powerless boyar government. Tsar Vasily Shuisky - captured by the Poles. And there is no force, no public "party" capable of clearing the capital of the invaders.

“Oh, grief and fiercely for the Muscovite state! - the chronicler exclaims in horror. - How not to be afraid of God, not to remember your kiss on the cross and not to be ashamed of the shame of the whole universe, not to pity for the house of God of the Most Pure Mother of God and for the kiss of the cross to your sovereign! With their self-will, the Muscovite state in Latin and its sovereign captured! Woe to us! How can we appear at the righteous Judgment to our Redeemer Christ? How can we answer for such sins?”

Hope seemed to be lost. But faith remained, and a new force emerged from faith, morally purifying Russian society and uniting those who wanted to restore the Russian state.

At first, it consisted of one single person. But Patriarch Hermogenes himself became this person. It can be said with all certainty: the entire zemstvo liberation movement flowed out of his moral firmness, like a full-flowing big river from a quiet forest stream.

Hermogenes proceeded in their activities from considerations of the duty of an Orthodox pastor. He opposed the Poles, because he saw in their aspirations a great danger to the Russian Church. The boyar government agreed to accept Prince Vladislav, the son of Sigismund III, as sovereign. But only on the condition that he accepts Orthodoxy. No one thought of submitting to a Catholic monarch. However, the Polish king was in no hurry to give his young son to the “Muscovites”. He himself wanted to become the successor of Vasily Shuisky, not allowing even the thought of changing his faith. In the Kremlin, in the former courtyard of the Godunovs, it was decided to erect a church.

Hermogenes was indignant and called on the Poles to resist, who brought Catholicism to Russia with an importunity worthy of surprise.

The patriarch had to suffer severely for his firmness. He was intimidated, and then, seeing the futility of their efforts, they simply put him under lock and key, dispersing the ministers and robbing the patriarchal treasury.

Hermogenes requires the provincial bishops to send out "educational letters" to commanding people and to the troops "... so that they stop robbery, preserve brotherhood and, as they promised to give their souls for the house of the Most Pure One and for miracle workers, and for the faith, they would do so." Hermogenes asks the flock to observe bodily and spiritual purity, blesses them to stand for the faith “immovably”. His messages bring to life faith, which was extinguished in the Time of Troubles, and with it patriotic feelings.

The spiritual firmness of Hermogenes aroused in Muscovites and residents of provincial cities a desire to resist "Latinism". And if "Latin", then the Poles, who brought it on the tips of sabers. The nobility was ready to be Polonized. The people are not.

Not immediately - weeks passed, and then months - but gradually the Russian world began to swell with a new "party", seeking to resist Catholicism, the invaders and, ultimately, restore the old state order. In the next year, 1611, this new truly conservative social movement matured.

The head of the Russian Church was kept in isolation, moreover, apparently, he had to live in harsh conditions. At the beginning of 1612, according to the chronicle, the patriarch was "starved to death."

Prokofy Lyapunov

But his denunciations were listened to in different cities and regions of Russia. In the winter of 1611/1612, the First Zemstvo militia began to gather. Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky was associated with him. However, he was not the leader of the Zemstvo “first draft”.

At the dawn of the movement, the most active and most courageous among the leaders of the Zemstvo was Prokofy Petrovich Lyapunov, a Ryazan nobleman.

Lyapunov is one of the "star" figures of the Troubles. Both her hero and anti-hero at the same time. A person who is almost directly opposite Pozharsky in terms of personality.

Fury of nature and furious speed of action were combined in Lyapunov with sincere faith and great lust for power. He could show selfish motives almost simultaneously with disinterested patriotism. Lyapunov knew how to attract people to himself and reasonably dominate them - in his character lay some kind of charm of magnetic brightness. But an excess of vitality made this man extremely changeable. He didn't succeed long time stick to one thing. And unevenness in the manner of action repelled adherents, depriving them of their recent inspiration ... A living clot of contradictions, Lyapunov, becoming the leader of a great cause, could raise him high and hopelessly destroy him.

Under Boris Godunov, Lyapunov turned out to be a kind of "oppositionist". He soon joined the banner of False Dmitry I. After the death of the Pretender, he fought against Shuisky along with the Bolotnikovites, but became disillusioned with them and went over to the side of Tsar Vasily Ivanovich. Then Lyapunov received the high rank of Duma nobleman, honestly fought with the "Tushinos", with the Poles. Then he began to intrigue against the sovereign. Favored by Shuisky, he was one of the "authors" of the conspiracy that deprived Vasily Ivanovich of power. Prokofy's brother, Zachary, acted more actively than all the other conspirators. The election of Vladislav to the kingdom did not meet with any objections from Lyapunov, he was on friendly terms with the Moscow "Seven Boyars". At first, Prokofy Petrovich sent carts with provisions to Moscow. Moreover, he sent his son Vladimir to the hetman Zholkevsky - to report that the people of Ryazan swore allegiance to the prince. But the friendship continued ... only up to a certain limit.

The treacherous policy of the Poles aroused Prokofy Petrovich's anger. He heard the voice of Hermogenes and became his first adherent. In the Ryazan region, Russian forces began to gather, which promised to come to Moscow in the near future.

Redundant in everything, in evil and good, in rightness and injustice, Lyapunov, even under Shuisky, declared himself a "white tsar"! Apparently, he was leading the matter to the election of a new sovereign from among the Russians, and he thought of himself as his temporary "locum tenens". With a favorable set of circumstances, Lyapunov would not refuse to become a real tsar, he had enough ambition for such an action. So be it, but at least his cause, the cause of the national liberation struggle, has gone the right way.

Prince Dmitry Pozharsky

How different are these two personalities! Lyapunov is a revolutionary, orgy, changeable element of fire. Pozharsky is a conservative, a tactician, an indestructible firmament of stone. And so they joined. The Orthodox faith is what underlies the conservatism of Dmitry Mikhailovich and what Prokofy Petrovich does not allow his revolutionary spirit to. Lyapunov, perhaps, dreams of some new social order, or simply surrenders to the will of circumstances: where the swift fire of the Troubles flows, he will arrive there with his courage, abilities and ambition. Pozharsky is more direct: for him there is a social norm - the world of service, family honor and royal mercy. This world is falling, and the Poles, with their two-faced policy, contribute to its destruction. So one must resist them without thinking what the balance of forces is! God help the right.

At the first stage of the Zemstvo movement, the role of Lyapunov is more noticeable. In the spring of 1611, an uprising broke out in Moscow against the invaders. Pozharsky turned out to be one of the military leaders who led the battle for the capital until he fell ill from severe wounds. The rebels were defeated. But soon after that, Lyapunov appeared with a large army under the walls of Belokamennaya and began to clear it of the Poles.

Ivan Zarutsky

The first zemstvo militia fought for Moscow for a year and a half - until the autumn of 1612. Now strengthening, then losing ground to the Poles, it generously paid with its blood for the confrontation with the formidable enemy. However... still failed to defeat the Polish garrison of the capital.

Discord in the Russian camp made itself felt. In addition to persons filled with genuine patriotism, among the Zemstvo there were many cunning intriguers and self-interested people. The most prominent of them is the leader of the Cossacks, Ivan Zarutsky. A rabid adventurer, he sought power, profit and glory. A real child of the Time of Troubles, Zarutsky did not hesitate to kill his comrades-in-arms if they interfered with his rise.

As soon as Lyapunov began to restore order in a motley, poorly disciplined army, Zarutsky's Cossacks killed him. Later, Zarutsky organized an assassination attempt on Pozharsky, which, fortunately, failed. And when the Second Zemstvo Militia, led by Minin and Pozharsky, approached Moscow, he fled, taking half of the army with him. The last major figure of the Time of Troubles, who opposed himself to the legal order, for this he eventually accepted a shameful death.

Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy

But the last of the chiefs of the zemstvo army, which appeared near Moscow, was baked from a different dough. This is a young prince Dmitry Timofeevich Trubetskoy - one of the most noble aristocrats of the Moscow state, a descendant of Gediminas.

He appeared in the royal service in 1604 - in the rank of steward he went against False Dmitry I. The same rank was retained by Trubetskoy under Vasily Shuisky. Having defected from Vasily Shuisky to False Dmitry II (June 1608), he immediately received the boyar rank from the “king”: the “Tushins” liked the fact that such a noble person was in their camp ...

However, later he became one of the pillars of resistance to foreign invaders.

The role of Prince D.T. Trubetskoy in the Zemstvo movement is huge. Trubetskoy is worthy of a respectful attitude, because he is the only one out of several dozen of the most distinguished people of the Kingdom! - did not refuse the holy role of the leader in the zemstvo militia. And having accepted it, he went with the Zemstvo until victory.

In 1611, together with Lyapunov and Zarutsky, he formed the regiments of the First Militia, came with them near Moscow, and participated in battles with the interventionists. His military merits before Russia are obvious. Formally, Dmitry Timofeevich was recognized as the eldest of the zemstvo governors - his name was written first on the letters of the militia. Yes, and referring to the leadership of the militia, in letters from the cities he was also called in the first place. Noble nobles easily obeyed the aristocrat Trubetskoy - there was no “spoil” for their family honor in that. But the not so noble Lyapunov, and, moreover, the rootless Zarutsky, were not very suitable for the role of their boss. Without Trubetskoy, the noble part of the militia could simply go home.

At the same time, sources much more often mention the independent role of other leaders - Zarutsky and especially Lyapunov. Dmitry Timofeevich seems to be in the shadows.

But this is an illusion.

Foreigners saw in him the real leader of the Zemstvo. The Swedes, in particular, considered him a "cautious and vigilant commander" who did not allow the disintegration of the militia after the death of Lyapunov. The Russians believed that between the two true leaders of the militia - Lyapunov and Zarutsky - Trubetskoy "did not have any honor." But, in any case, Dmitry Timofeevich was never just a "living banner", was not a toy in the hands of other leaders of the militia. It happened that he disagreed with other governors. So, in the summer of 1612, he did not support Zarutsky, who wished to enthrone the young son of Marina Mnishek from False Dmitry I. Zarutsky left Moscow, having heard about the approach of the Zemstvo Minin and Pozharsky, and Trubetskoy remained, holding half the army. It is clear that this man had an independent significance.

After Zarutsky left, Dmitry Timofeevich single-handedly led the First Zemstvo militia. The prince personally participated in the reflection of Khodkevich. In October 1612, it was his subordinates who stormed Kitai-Gorod. When the detachments of King Sigismund approached Moscow, Trubetskoy, together with Pozharsky, threw them back. Finally, it was he who formally was the senior of the zemstvo governors of Russia until the Zemsky Sobor of 1613.

Kozma Minin

The second zemstvo militia was led by the Nizhny Novgorod meat merchant Kozma Minin and Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky. They gathered an army bit by bit. The devastated land could give few people, few horses, little money. But the high impulse - to stand up for the land, for the faith, with which the Nizhny Novgorod residents caught fire - attracted supporters from different parts of the country to them.

The initiative associated with the formation of a new army belongs to Minin. This man came from a provincial township environment, but managed to do the work that, according to the concepts of that time, a “professional manager” - a nobleman, should have taken on. Minin had two rare talents. He was an excellent orator who knew how to win over the hearts of thousands of people to the noble patriotic cause. And once at the treasury of the militia, he showed a brilliant administrative talent. With his labors, the new Zemstvo army was provided much better than the first.

In August 1612, the new zemstvo army approached Moscow. Together with the regiments of Trubetskoy, she gave battle to the Polish hetman Khodkevich, who was going to help the Kremlin garrison. The strong army of Khodkevich fought the militias for three days and suffered a heavy defeat. Two months later, the Polish garrison in the Kremlin surrendered to her.

Keep people resilient

Victory in the struggle for Moscow is a common zemstvo achievement. In this common cause, Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky played a special role. It is associated not only and even not so much with the manifestations of military leadership talent, but with the special spiritual qualities of the prince. Yes, Pozharsky's tactical gift is impossible to deny. Thanks to the commanding foresight of the prince, the militia was properly strengthened, not relying on a clash in the open field. Thanks to his ability to quickly change the tactical pattern of battle, our army soon learned to meet the Polish cavalry on foot, forcing them, in turn, to dismount, thereby destroying the terrible power of their ramming. It's like that! But did the skill of the voivodship alone ensure the dominance of the Russian regiments over the enemy? No no. There were very few tricks. More often than not, neither Pozharsky nor Khodkevich could conduct a sophisticated maneuvering struggle. More often, both commanders were faced with circumstances in which they could only guess what the outcome of the battle would be. The success of the terrible confrontation for the Russian capital lay elsewhere. The battle lasted so long, went on with such persistence, brought such losses to both the Russians and the Poles, that the most useful property of the leaders who stood at the head of the two armies was the ability to keep the stamina in their people. The warriors of Pozharsky and Khodkevich were ready to go head-on, for many hours they bravely collided in many hours of cabin. They fought for a long time, now hesitating, now building up an offensive impulse. In one Russian military story, the atmosphere that prevailed in those days on the ruins of Belokamennaya was very accurately conveyed: “In a long battle, the regiments of both sides were exhausted, and continued to fight, grabbing each other by the arms ...” The commander leading such a battle does not need tactical tricks so much, how much faith in God, in the rightness of their cause and in the courage of their people. When the end of human strength comes, when everything runs, when the warriors are no longer able to think of anything but salvation, then the commander finds new reserves, then he asks, insists, threatens, bribes those who can still be thrown into the flames of battle, and continues fight. If required, he sends eloquent speakers to inspire the warriors. If necessary, he himself rises into combat formation.

Zemstvo militia bled to death, lost the field to the enemy - one, two, three ... But in the end they won. How many times during the Time of Troubles did our governors leave the troops under much less "emergency" conditions! But Pozharsky kept in his soul a spark of hope for a better outcome of the case and saw the same spark in his people. He went to a holy cause. He was a pious man, a builder of temples and a great "prayer book" - as they said then ... And his militia went to a holy cause. Everyone knew what a formidable enemy they would have to face, everyone could have stayed on the sidelines, no one forced them to join the Zemstvo army. But - they entered, inspired, trusting in God's help. Once you get involved, you can't run. And Pozharsky did not allow flight. By all means, he kept his fighting capacity.

They followed him. He lived up to expectations. Everything happened according to faith, truth and conscience.

Of the two military leaders of the Zemstvo, it was Pozharsky who remained in the memory of the people. Prince Dmitry Timofeevich faded into the background. This is partly due to the heavy disgrace imposed on him under Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich. In disgrace, the prince died.

But there remains another reason for the coldish attitude of contemporaries to D.T. Trubetskoy. It is easy to see it by comparing this nobleman with D.M. Pozharsky. He was direct, simple, transparent. Firm in the oath and serene. Whom he served, he served faithfully. Wherever he was going, there he went on a straight path. Another thing is Dmitry Timofeevich ... Every path is tortuous with him. From Tsar Vasily Shuisky he fled to False Dmitry II. At one time he went under oath to False Dmitry III - the “Pskov thief”, apparently wanting to make him a political puppet, but changed his intention. He fought together with Pozharsky against Khodkevich, but at the decisive moments of the battle he was in no hurry to help his ally. The difference between them is especially clearly visible in the events that unfolded at the Zemsky Sobor in 1613. People who came from all over Russia chose a new tsar. As a result, the young nobleman Mikhail Fedorovich from the family of the Romanov boyars ascended the throne. But before that, a dozen and a half other contenders were named. Among them are two military leaders of the zemstvo militia: princes Trubetskoy and Pozharsky. Trubetskoy wanted to reign in Moscow and with ingenuous cunning started to buy Cossacks with feasts. He took the collapse of his hopes as a great grief and even fell ill for a long time with a serious illness. The prince humbled himself before Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, but later he became involved in some dark matter related to the royal wedding ... Pozharsky, having great popularity, quickly backed down. He understood perfectly well that among the applicants there were many people more distinguished than him. As soon as he, a man of low birth, rises to the throne with the help of sabers and pistols, the entire Russian aristocracy will go against him. Start a new big war against her? Wash the Moscow streets with the blood of noble people? But didn’t he himself put in so much effort, clearing the country from the Time of Troubles?! And Pozharsky did not take up arms against the conciliar elect. He bowed to the young sovereign with a pure heart, and then served him faithfully for a quarter of a century.

What is the result?

Our people figured out very well who is straight and who is crooked.

Time of Troubles is a great teacher for Russian society. For all time.

Dmitry Mikhailovich Volodikhin

Born in Moscow in 1969. Doctor of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, teaches source studies. Specializes in Russian history of the XVI-XVII centuries. Along with scientific and teaching activities, he is engaged in literary criticism, writes fiction.

Introduction

1. The reign of Boris Godunov

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The years from 1598 to 1613 are known in the historical literature under the name of the Time of Troubles or the time of the invasion of impostors. Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, the last of the surviving sons of Ivan the Terrible, died on January 7, 1598 childless. His death ended the dynasty of Rurikovich, who ruled Russia for more than 700 years. On February 22, 1598, a representative of the boyar family ascended the Russian throne, Boris Fedorovich Godunov, the brother of Tsarina Irina Feodorovna, the wife of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich.

Troubles - a deep spiritual, economic, social, and foreign policy crisis that befell Russia in the late 16th - early 17th century. It coincided with the dynastic crisis and the struggle of boyar groups for power, which brought the country to the brink of disaster. The main signs of unrest are kingdomlessness (anarchy), imposture, civil war and intervention. According to a number of historians, the Time of Troubles can be considered the first civil war in the history of Russia.

Contemporaries spoke of the Time of Troubles as a time of “unsteadiness”, “disorder”, “confusion of minds”, which caused bloody clashes and conflicts. The term "troubles" was used in everyday speech of the 17th century, office work of Moscow orders.

The prerequisites for the Troubles were the consequences of the oprichnina and the Livonian War of 1558-1583: the ruin of the economy, the growth of social tension.

The causes of the Time of Troubles as an era of anarchy, according to the historiography of the 19th - early 20th centuries, are rooted in the suppression of the Rurik dynasty and the intervention of neighboring states (especially united Lithuania and Poland, which is why the period was sometimes called "Lithuanian or Moscow ruin") in the affairs of the Moscow kingdom. The totality of these events led to the appearance on the Russian throne of adventurers and impostors, claims to the throne from the Cossacks, fugitive peasants and serfs. Church historiography of the 19th - early 20th century. considered the Time of Troubles as a period of spiritual crisis of society, seeing the reasons in the distortion of moral and moral values.

The first stage of the Time of Troubles began with a dynastic crisis caused by the murder of Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible of his eldest son Ivan, the coming to power of his brother Fyodor Ivanovich and the death of their younger half-brother Dmitry (according to many, the de facto ruler of the country, Boris Godunov, was stabbed to death by henchmen). The throne lost the last heir from the Rurik dynasty.

The death of the childless tsar Fyodor Ivanovich (1598) allowed Boris Godunov (1598–1605) to come to power, ruling energetically and wisely, but unable to stop the intrigues of disgruntled boyars.

Reign of Boris Godunov

The path to the throne for Godunov was not easy. In the specific city of Uglich, the heir to the throne Dmitry, the son of the sixth wife of Ivan the Terrible, grew up. May 15, 1591 The prince died under mysterious circumstances. The official investigation was conducted by the boyar V. I. Shuisky. Trying to please Godunov, he reduced the causes of what happened to Nagikh's "neglect", as a result of which Dmitry accidentally stabbed himself with a knife while playing with his peers. The prince was seriously ill with "epilepsy" (epilepsy). Giving such a child a knife in the hands, in fact, was a crime. It is possible that Godunov himself was involved in Dmitry's death: after all, it was enough to allow the sick child to play with a knife through the prince's mother.

The chronicle blames Boris Godunov for the murder, because Dmitry was the direct heir to the throne and prevented Boris from advancing to him. Recent studies provide evidence that Godunov still had nothing to do with this matter.

On February 17, 1598, the Zemsky Sobor elected his brother-in-law Boris Godunov to the kingdom. He was supported because the activities of the temporary worker were highly appreciated by his contemporaries.

The reign of Boris was marked by the beginning of Russia's rapprochement with the West. Before there was no sovereign in Russia who would have been so kind to foreigners as Godunov. He began to invite foreigners to serve, freeing them from taxes. The new tsar even wanted to send scientists from Germany, England, Spain, France and other countries to establish in Moscow high school where would be taught different languages but the church opposed it.

The activities of the Godunov government were aimed at the comprehensive strengthening of statehood. Thanks to his efforts in 1588. the first Russian patriarch was elected, which was Metropolitan Job. The establishment of the patriarchate testified to the increased prestige of Russia. In domestic politics Godunov's government was dominated by common sense and prudence. Unprecedented construction of cities and fortifications unfolded.

Under him, unprecedented innovations entered the life of Moscow, for example, a water pipe was built in the Kremlin, through which water rose with powerful pumps from the Moscow River through the dungeon to the Konyushenny yard.

Godunov sought to alleviate the situation of the townspeople. Previously, big service people kept merchants and artisans in their "white settlements", exempted from paying state taxes. Now, everyone who was engaged in trade and crafts had to become part of the township communities and participate in the payment of duties to the treasury - “pull the tax”. Thus the number of taxable people has increased, and the severity of the charges from each payer has decreased, since the total amount has remained unchanged.

The economic crisis of the 1570s-early 1580s. forced to go to the establishment of serfdom. In 1597 a decree was issued on "lesson years", according to which the peasants who fled from the masters "until this ... year in five years" were subject to investigation, trial and return back. The decree did not apply to those who fled six years ago and earlier, they were not returned to their former owners.

In foreign policy, Godunov proved himself to be a talented diplomat. May 18, 1595 in Tyavzin (near Ivangorod) a peace treaty was concluded between Russia and Sweden. Godunov managed to take advantage of the difficult internal political situation in Sweden - and Russia, according to the agreement, regained Ivangorod, Yam, Koporye and the Korela volost.

The reign of Boris began successfully. However, truly terrible events soon broke out. In 1601 there were long rains, and then early frosts broke out, and crop failure broke out. The next year, the crop failure was repeated. A famine began in the country, which lasted three years. The price of bread has increased 100 times. Boris forbade selling bread more than a certain limit, even resorting to the persecution of those who inflated prices, but he did not achieve success. In an effort to help the starving, he spared no expense, widely distributing money to the poor. But bread became more expensive, and money lost its value. Boris ordered the royal barns to be opened for the starving. However, even their supplies were not enough for all the hungry, especially since, having learned about the distribution, people from all over the country reached out to Moscow, leaving the meager supplies that they still had at home. About 127 thousand people who died of starvation were buried in Moscow, and not everyone had time to bury them. There were cases of cannibalism. People began to think that this was God's punishment. There was a conviction that the reign of Boris is not blessed by God, because it is lawless, achieved by untruth. Therefore, it cannot end well.

In 1601-1602. Godunov even agreed to temporarily restore St. George's Day. True, he did not allow the exit, but only the export of the peasants. The nobles thus saved their estates from final desolation and ruin. The permission given by the Godunovs concerned only small service people, it did not extend to the lands of members of the Boyar Duma and the clergy. But even this step did not increase the king's popularity. People's riots began. The largest was the uprising led by Ataman Khlopok, which broke out in 1603. It was attended mainly by Cossacks and serfs. The tsarist troops were able to defeat the rebels, but they failed to calm the country - it was already too late.

Rumors began to circulate around the country that the real prince was alive. Godunov assessed the threat looming over him: in comparison with the "born" sovereign, he is nobody. It is no coincidence that detractors called him - "worker". At the beginning of 1604 a letter from a foreigner from Narva was intercepted, in which it was announced that Dmitry had miraculously escaped from the Cossacks, and great misfortunes would soon befall the Moscow land. The search showed that the impostor - who fled in 1602. to Poland, Grigory Otrepyev, who came from the Galician nobles.

October 16, 1604 False Dmitry with a handful of Poles and Cossacks moved to Moscow. Even the curses of the Moscow Patriarch did not cool the enthusiasm of the people. In January 1605, government troops nevertheless defeated the impostor, who was forced to leave for Putivl. But the strength of the impostor was not in the army, but in the faith of the people that he was the rightful heir to the throne. Cossacks from all the outskirts of Russia began to flock to Dmitry.

April 13, 1605 Boris Godunov seemed cheerful and healthy, he ate a lot and with appetite. Then he climbed the tower, from which he often surveyed Moscow. Soon he went out of there, saying that he felt faint. They called the doctor, but the king felt worse: blood began to flow from his ears and nose. The king lost his senses and soon died. There were rumors that Godunov poisoned himself in a fit of despair. He was buried in the Kremlin Archangel Cathedral.

2. Tsar Fyodor Borisovich Godunov

Fedor was born in Moscow, the son of Boris Fedorovich Godunov and his wife Maria Grigorievna, daughter of Malyuta Skuratov. Shortly before the birth of Fedor, his father became the de facto sovereign ruler of the state. Fyodor was a full-bodied, very strong, ruddy and black-eyed young man, naturally endowed with intelligence and abilities. Boris Godunov, who himself had almost no education, tried to give his son a completely different education, which, according to custom, was received by the children of Moscow sovereigns. He ordered foreign teachers for his son and early taught the young man to understand government affairs. Judging by the surviving official documents, the father did not neglect anything in order to strengthen the throne for him, and even during his lifetime he called Fedor "the great sovereign." April 14, 1605, the day after the death of Boris, Moscow swore allegiance to Fedor without grumbling and unrest.

The circumstances under which Fyodor Borisovich ascended the Moscow throne turned out to be too unfavorable for his reign to be long and happy. His father died suddenly in the midst of a war with False Dmitry I, who moved to Moscow. The oath taken to the tsar also included the names of his mother Maria and sister Xenia Borisovna, as well as the oath “not wanting to reign” Simeon Bekbulatovich and “the villain who calls himself Dmitry”. Such a wording (where the name of Grigory Otrepyev was not mentioned) gave reason to the people to believe that the Godunovs abandoned the version according to which the impostor is Otrepyev, and to suspect that he is the real Tsarevich Dmitry. Fyodor Borisovich was the only Moscow tsar (not counting Vladislav Sigismundovich, who actually did not rule), over whom the ceremony of crowning the kingdom was not performed.

Fedor removed from command the troops that fought against the impostor, Prince Mstislavsky, who was advancing from Ukraine, and sent Pyotr Fedorovich Basmanov in his place. Hopes were pinned on Basmanov, which he did not justify. On May 7, together with all the troops, the new governor swore allegiance to Dmitry, and on June 1, ambassadors from the applicant arrived in Krasnoye Selo - the nobles Pleshcheev and Pushkin. The people, having learned about this, picked up the messengers and took them to Red Square. The envoys were placed at the Execution Ground, and with a huge gathering of people they read the prince's letter. Dmitry announced his salvation in it, forgave the people of Moscow that they unknowingly swore allegiance to Godunov, recalled all sorts of oppression and violence inflicted on the people by Boris, promised everyone benefits and favors and invited them to send an embassy to him with a petition.

PAGE_BREAK--

The government included princes Fyodor Ivanovich Mstislavsky, Vasily and Dmitry Ivanovich Shuisky, whom the new tsar called back from the army to Moscow; detective affairs, as under Boris, were in charge of Semyon Godunov. In order to ensure the loyalty of the population, the Fedor government handed out huge gifts "for the remembrance of the soul" of Tsar Boris, and also announced an amnesty for those exiled under Boris; among those who returned to Moscow was Fyodor's cousin, Bogdan Belsky, who later played a decisive role in his arrest.

The measures taken did not give the desired results, in particular, the experienced elder of the Boyar Duma F. I. Mstislavsky from the very beginning played a double game, as a result of which Semyon Godunov even ordered to secretly kill him, but this was not carried out due to the rapid collapse of the dynasty.

During the seven weeks of the reign of Fedor, one important domestic measure was taken: the Stone Order (an analogue of the Ministry of Construction) was established, which was in charge of the stone construction of the Moscow state. All masters of stone affairs, lime and brick factories in Moscow obeyed him. The institution controlled the budget of the cities where "the white stone was mined."

On June 10, Prince Vasily Golitsyn and Prince Rubets-Mosalsky arrived in Moscow from Dmitry. They dethroned Patriarch Job and exiled him to the Staritsky Bogoroditsky Monastery. It is not known whether they had any specific orders regarding the royal family. But on the same day, the nobles Molchanov and Sherefedinov came to the Godunovs' house with archers. The prisoners were taken to different rooms and killed. Boris's widow was strangled with a rope. Fedor tried to fight, but he was stunned with a club and also strangled. Only Xenia survived. Golitsyn and Mosalsky announced to the people that Maria and Fedor had poisoned themselves with poison. Their bodies were buried without any honors in the Varsonofevsky Monastery. The coffin with the body of Boris was also transported there from the Archangel Cathedral. Subsequently, under Tsar Vasily Shuisky, the bodies of Boris and Fyodor Godunov were reburied again - in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery.

3. The reign of False Dmitry I (Grigory Otrepiev)

After the death of Boris Godunov, his army near Kromy went over to the side of False Dmitry I. On June 20, False Dmitry I entered Moscow. Having occupied the royal throne, he sought to pursue an independent domestic and foreign policy.

Many believed the impostor, while others stuck to him out of hatred for the Godunovs or for his good deeds, and there were those who probably knew about his deceit, but kept his side out of cowardice or for profit. He generously rewarded the Poles and Cossacks, and they stayed in Moscow to have fun. He received the Germans who served Godunov and wanted to serve him especially affectionately, said that he believed them more than the Russians, and after that he made up three selected squads of 100 people each and gave them a large salary. The Romanovs, their relatives and others, innocently punished under Godunov, were returned from exile by the impostor. Filaret Nikitich Romanov received the rank of metropolitan and again saw his wife and son, who began to live near Kostroma in the monastery of St. Hypatia.

In the interests of the Russian feudal lords, the government of False Dmitry I made them up with increased monetary and land salaries, while confiscating money and land from the monasteries. The southern regions of the state were exempted from taxes for 10 years, and the cultivation of "tithe arable land" was also stopped there. Increased taxes, in particular due to sending money to Poland, caused in the spring of 1606. rise in the armed struggle of the masses. Not having time to enlist the full support of all the feudal lords, False Dmitry I had to make concessions to the rebels - he did not go for the suppression of the movement by force and included in the Consolidated Code of Laws, which, however, did not have time to publish, articles on the peasant exit. There was also a deterioration in relations with Poland due to the unwillingness of False Dmitry I to fulfill his obligations. He delayed the introduction of Catholicism and refused to make territorial concessions to Poland, offering money to Sigismund III for his help. The crisis of the domestic and foreign policy of False Dmitry I created the conditions for organizing a conspiracy of the palace nobility, headed by Vasily Shuisky.

At a time when the Polish rebels expected to use False Dmitry I against Sigismund III, the Moscow boyars-conspirators, led by Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, were looking for an agreement with the king in order to overthrow the impostor, who was only needed to depose the Godunovs. Muscovites were dissatisfied with the atrocities of the Polish soldiers, the wedding of False Dmitry I with Marina Mnishek, and the inability of False Dmitry I to behave in accordance with the royal "rank". Taking advantage of the situation, the boyars allegedly revolted against the Poles, who were striving to "kill the tsar and the boyars." During the uprising of the citizens of Moscow against the Poles, who arrived at the wedding celebrations of False Dmitry I with M. Mnishek, the impostor was killed by conspirators.

4. Tsar Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky

From January 1605 V.I.Shuisky was appointed governor of the regiment of the right hand in the campaign against False Dmitry and won the battle of Dobrynichy. However, not much desiring Godunov's victory, by inaction he allowed the impostor to strengthen.

After the fall of Godunov, he tried to carry out a coup, but was arrested and exiled along with his brothers. But False Dmitry needed boyar support, and at the end of 1605 the Shuiskys returned to Moscow.

During the popular uprising on May 17, 1606, False Dmitry I was killed, and on May 19, a group of followers of Vasily Ivanovich "called out" Shuisky as king. He was crowned on June 1 by Metropolitan Isidore of Novgorod.

Vasily Ivanovich gave a cross-kissing note that limited his power. In early June, the Shuisky government declared Boris Godunov the murderer of Tsarevich Dmitry.

Shuisky's coming to power intensified the struggle among the boyars and between the southern and metropolitan nobility, which led to an uprising led by I. Bolotnikov. In the fight against him, Shuisky put forward a program for the consolidation of all strata of the feudal class, taking into account their interests in politics on peasant (the Code of March 9, 1607), servile (decrees of 1607-1608), land and financial issues.

After becoming king, V.I. Hermogenes opposed the oath of the Russian boyars to the Polish king Sigismund III, called for an uprising against the Polish invaders. The Poles imprisoned him in the dungeon of the Chudov Monastery in the Kremlin, where he starved to death.

In 1606 By order of V.I. Shuisky, the remains of the true Dmitry, the son of Ivan the Terrible, were transferred from the city of Uglich to Moscow. When the coffin was opened, it was found that the remains had not been touched by decay for 15 years. The relics were recognized as miraculous, many patients were healed by just touching the coffin. In the same year, the remains of Boris Godunov, his wife and son were transferred to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra.

Shuisky suppressed the peasant uprising I.I. Bolotnikov (1606-1607).

After the defeat near Volkhov (May 1, 1608), Shuisky's government was besieged in Moscow. By the end of 1608 many regions of the country were under the rule of False Dmitry II. February 1609. Shuisky's government concluded an agreement with Sweden, according to which part of the Russian territory was ceded for the hiring of Swedish troops, which led to the Swedish intervention of 1609-1617.

From the end of 1608 a spontaneous popular movement began against the Polish interventionists, which the Shuisky government (in the person of the commander of the Russian-Swedish army, Prince M.V. Skopin-Shuisky) managed to lead only from the end of the winter of 1609. By March 1610 Moscow and most of the country were liberated. But back in September 1609. open Polish intervention began.

The defeat of the troops of Dmitry Shuisky near Klushin from the army of Sigismund III on June 24, 1610. and the uprising in Moscow led to the fall of Shuisky. The weakness of V.I. Shuisky and his inability to rectify the situation led to the fact that on July 17, 1610. he was deposed by the boyars and forcibly tonsured along with his wife. Since there was no candidate for the throne among the boyars who could suit everyone (at least the majority), a boyar government was formed, called the "Seven Boyars".

In Warsaw, the tsar and his brothers were presented as prisoners to King Sigismund. The former tsar died in custody in the Gostynin castle, 130 versts from Warsaw, and his brother Dmitry died there a few days later. The third brother, Ivan Ivanovich Shuisky, subsequently returned to Russia.

5. "Seven Boyars" and Vladislav IV

The defeat of the troops of Vasily Shuisky from the Poles near Klushin (June 24 / July 4, 1610) finally undermined the shaky authority of the "boyar tsar", and a coup took place in Moscow at the news of this event. The nobles, led by Lyapunov, and the townspeople overthrew Vasily Shuisky from the throne and forcibly tonsured him a monk. Moscow began to be in charge of a group of seven boyars, headed by Mstislavsky - "Seven Boyars". In fact, its power did not extend beyond Moscow: in the west of Moscow, in Khoroshevo, the Poles stood at the head of Zholkevsky, and in the southeast, in Kolomenskoye, False Dmitry II returned from Kaluga, with whom was the Polish detachment of Sapieha.

"Seven Boyars" consisted of members of the Boyar Duma - princes F.I. Mstislavsky, I.M. Vorotynsky, A.V. Trubetskoy, B.M. Lykov, as well as I.N. Romanov, F.I. Sheremetev. At the beginning of the work of the government, the prince also took part in it. V.V. Golitsyn. The prince, boyar, governor, an influential member of the Boyar Duma since 1586, was elected head of the Seven Boyars. Fyodor Ivanovich Mstislavsky. In the history of his political activity, he refused to be nominated to the Russian throne three times (1598, 1606, 1610), and agreed to be only the head of the united boyar government in 1610.

The idea of ​​an elected boyar government repeatedly arose in Russian history of the 16th–17th centuries, including under Ivan the Terrible (the Chosen Rada) and Feodor Ivanovich (in 1585 such a government included F.I. Mstislavsky, N.R. Yuryev, S. V. Godunov, princes N.R. Trubetskoy, I.M. Glinsky, B.I. Tatev, F.M. Troekurov), however, it was fully realized only during the Time of Troubles.

Fearing to seek support and help within the country (a peasant war was blazing in the country under the leadership of I.I. Bolotnikov), the Moscow boyars decided to turn to the Poles with a proposal to find a compromise. In the negotiations that began, representatives of the Seven Boyars promised, despite the protests of the Russian Patriarch Hermogenes, not to elect a representative of the Russian clans as king.

August 17 (27), 1610 The Poles agreed to the government of the Seven Boyars to sign the treaty. According to him, the son of the Polish king Sigismund III, Prince Vladislav, who was called to the Russian throne, was recognized as the ruler of the Seven Boyars. Protecting its privileges, the aristocratic government achieved the inclusion of articles that limited the rights of Vladislav (the need for him to adopt Orthodoxy back in Smolensk, the obligation to marry only a Russian, limiting the number of people close to him from Poland, preserving all past orders with unchanged serfdom, etc.). S. Zholkevsky, realizing that the signing of the agreement could be negatively perceived by the Polish king, sent an embassy to that, consisting of Prince V.V. Golitsyn and Metropolitan Filaret Nikitich Romanov (father of Mikhail Romanov). Having accepted the embassy, ​​Sigismund III demanded that not his son, but Semiboryashchina recognize him as the king of Russia. At his request, S. Zholkevsky brought the deposed Tsar Vasily Shuisky to Poland, while the government of Semiboryashchyna on the night of September 21, 1610. secretly let Polish troops into Moscow, stationed in the immediate vicinity of Poklonnaya Hill near the village of Dorogomilov. In Russian historiography, this fact is regarded as an act of national treason.

The governor of Vladislav (because the prince was only 15 years old) Alexander Gonsevsky, who received the rank of boyar, began to autocratically dispose of the country. From October 1610 real power in the capital and beyond was concentrated in the hands of the military leaders of the Polish garrison (A. Gonsevsky and S. Zolkiewski). Ignoring the Russian government of seven boyars, he generously distributed land to supporters of Poland, confiscating them from those who remained loyal to the country. This changed the attitude of the members of the government of the Seven Boyars to the Poles they had called. Taking advantage of the growing discontent, Patriarch Hermogenes began sending letters to the cities of Russia, urging them to resist the new government. For this, he was taken into custody and subsequently executed.

The Seven Boyars nominally functioned until the liberation of Moscow by the People's Militia under the leadership of K. Minin and D. Pozharsky. In Polish historiography, its assessment differs from Russian. It is considered an elected government, on a legal basis (agreement of August 17, 1610) inviting foreigners to govern Muscovy.

Continuation
--PAGE_BREAK--

Vladislav IV Sigismundovich Vase "Polish" - King of Poland since February 6, 1633, (proclamation of election on November 8, 1632), the eldest son of Sigismund III. On August 27 (September 6), 1610, as the Moscow Tsar, he took the oath of the Moscow government and people.

According to the agreement of February 4, 1610, which was concluded near Smolensk between King Sigismund and the Moscow embassy, ​​Prince Vladislav was to take the throne of Moscow after the adoption of Orthodoxy. After the deposition of Vasily Shuisky in the summer of 1610. the Moscow government (Seven Boyars) recognized Vladislav as king and minted a coin on behalf of "Vladislav Zhigimontovich". Vladislav did not accept Orthodoxy, did not arrive in Moscow and was not crowned king. In October 1612, the boyar government of Prince Vladislav was overthrown in Moscow; in 1613 Mikhail Fedorovich was elected tsar. Until 1634, Vladislav continued to use the title of Grand Duke of Moscow.

In 1617, Vladislav, encouraged by the Polish Sejm, unsuccessfully attempted to seize the throne of Moscow, limiting himself to the territorial concessions of Moscow to Poland under the Truce of Deulino. He finally renounced his claims to Moscow according to the Polyanovsky peace in 1634, already being the Polish king.

Conclusion

In the autumn of 1611, on the initiative of K. Minin and D. Pozharsky, invited by him, the Second Home Guard was formed in Nizhny Novgorod. In August 1612, it approached Moscow and on October 26, 1612 liberated it. In 1613, the Zemsky Sobor elected 16-year-old Mikhail Romanov tsar; his father, Patriarch Filaret, returned to Russia from captivity, with whose name the people linked hopes for the eradication of robbery and robbery. In 1617 the Peace of Stolbov was signed with Sweden, which received the fortress of Korela and the coast of the Gulf of Finland. In 1618 the Deulino truce was concluded with Poland: Russia ceded Smolensk, Chernigov and a number of other cities to it. Not reconciled to national and religious oppression, almost the entire Orthodox population, both Russians and Karelians, will leave these territories. Russia lost access to the Gulf of Finland. The Swedes left Novgorod only in 1617, only a few hundred inhabitants remained in the completely devastated city. The territorial losses of Russia were able to compensate and restore only Tsar Peter I almost a hundred years later.

However, the long and severe crisis was resolved, although economic consequences Troubles - the ruin and desolation of a vast territory, especially in the west and southwest, the death of almost a third of the country's population continued to affect another decade and a half. In many districts of the historical center of the state, the size of arable land has decreased by 20 times, and the number of peasants by 4 times. In the western counties (Rzhevsky, Mozhaysky, etc.), cultivated land ranged from 0.05 to 4.8%. The lands in the possessions of the Joseph-Volokolamsky Monastery were “everything ruined to the ground and the peasant woman with their wives and children was cut down, and the worthy ones were brought to full capacity, and five or six dozen peasant women after the Lithuanian devastation were shed, and they still don’t know how to make bread from ruin and bread.” In a number of areas, and by the 20-40s of the 17th century, the population was still below the level of the 16th century. And in the middle of the 17th century, the "living arable land" in the Zamoskovskiy Territory accounted for no more than half of all lands recorded in cadastral books.

The Time of Troubles also resulted in changes in the system of government. The weakening of the boyars, the rise of the nobility, who received estates and the possibility of legislatively assigning peasants to them, resulted in the gradual evolution of Russia towards absolutism. The reassessment of the ideals of the previous era, the negative consequences of the boyars' participation in the government of the country, and the severe polarization of society led to the growth of ideocratic tendencies. They expressed themselves, among other things, in the desire to justify the inviolability of the Orthodox faith and the inadmissibility of deviations from the values ​​of the national religion and ideology (especially in opposition to the “Latinism” and Protestantism of the West). This intensified anti-Western sentiments, which aggravated the cultural and, as a result, the civilizational isolation of Russia for many centuries.

Bibliography

Alekseev N.N. False Dmitry I. - M .: AST, 2001. - 560 p.

Berdyshev S. Time of Troubles. – M.: Mir knigi, 2007. – 240 p.

Bussov K., Elassonsky A., Gerkman E. Chronicles of the Time of Troubles. - M .: S. Dubov Fund, 1998. - 608 p.

Valishevsky K. Time of Troubles: a historical chronicle. - M.: AST, 2007. - 509 p.

Zakharevich A.V. Russian tsars. - Rostov n / D .: Phoenix, 2008. - 576 p.

Massa I., Petrey P. On the beginning of wars and unrest in Muscovy. – M.: Rita-Print, 1997. – 560 p.

Morozova L.E. Troubles at the beginning of the 17th century through the eyes of contemporaries. – M.: RAS, Institute Russian history, 2000. - 400 p.

Skrynnikov R.G. Ivan the Terrible. Boris Godunov. Vasily Shuisky. - M.: AST, 2005. - 1005 p.

Tolstikov A. Russian tsars. Moscow: Bely Gorod, 2008. 304 p.

Ulyanovsky V. I. Time of Troubles. - M.: Europe, 2006. - 448 p.

Links:
www.zone-x.ru/DispetchShowPage.asp?Group_Id=ba272705www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/2302607/#personswww.xxlbook.ru/tags.aspx?author=Zakharevich+A.V.www.ozon .ru/context/detail/id/2303724/#personswww.zone-x.ru/DispetchShowPage.asp?Group_Id=ba346135www.zone-x.ru/showTov.asp?Cat_Id=255161bearbooks.ru/catalog/author.asp? name=%D3%EB%FC%FF%ED%EE%E2%F1%EA%E8%E9+%C2%2E+%C8%2E

The Time of Troubles in Russia is one of the key pages of our history. In fact, it was an introduction to the 17th century, which went down in history under the name "Rebellious". And the Time of Troubles, no matter how much we were told about its short historical period, was not suppressed and it "left" Russia for the entire 17th century. It was actually completed only after the creation of the regime of Peter 1. It was he who finally strangled the process that rotted the entire 17th century.

The Time of Troubles is an era of social, political, economic, dynastic and spiritual crisis. It was accompanied by popular uprisings, class and interclass struggle, impostors, Polish and Swedish intervention, and the almost complete ruin of the country.

Historical guide

Concepts of Troubles

In Russian historiography, there were 2 schemes of the Time of Troubles: Klyuchevsky and Platonov. Here is what Klyuchevsky wrote - “All classes of Russian society consistently act in the Time of Troubles and they act in the same order in which they lay in the then composition of Russian society, as they were placed on the social ladder. At the top of this ladder stood the boyars, and it was they who started the turmoil. Therefore, the first phase is boyar, then noble and then nationwide.

By the way, the Time of Troubles of the beginning of the 20th century, which led to the fall of the Empire, developed absolutely according to the same pattern. The Time of Troubles also began, the first phase of which was Perestroika. That is, the first phase of all three Russian Troubles is the boyar phase, when the elite begins to share power.

The second scheme of the Time of Troubles in Russia belongs to the historian Platonov, who singled out three periods in the history of the Troubles: dynastic, noble, and socio-religious. But in essence, this is the same as that of Klyuchevsky:

1. Dynastic. Boyars and nobility are fighting for power.
2. Noble. Less wealthy and powerful people are getting involved in these squabbles.
3. National-religious. The people are included in the Troubles

The main reasons for the Time of Troubles in Russia can be expressed as follows:

• economic reasons. As a result of weather conditions, the famine of 1601-1603 occurred. The population died en masse. Trust in the current government was falling.
• dynastic crisis. After the death of Tsarevich Dmitry in Uglich and Fyodor Ivanovich in Moscow, the Rurik dynasty was interrupted.
• social crisis. Almost all segments of the population of Russia in the late 16th - early 17th centuries were dissatisfied with their position.
• political crisis. In Russia, there was an active struggle for power between boyar groups.
• Poland and Sweden intensified and actively showed their claims to Russian lands and the throne.

More detailed causes of the Troubles are given in the following diagram:

Beginning of Troubles in Russia

The Time of Troubles in Russia actually began with the death of Ivan the Terrible. In 1598, Fedor died and events take place that can be called the “Latent Stage of the Troubles”. The fact is that Fedor did not leave a will, and formally Irina was supposed to sit on the throne. But at this time she clears the way for her brother Boris Godunov and voluntarily goes to the monastery. The Boyar Duma is splitting as a result. The Romanovs attacked Boris, and as a result, he stopped going to the Duma.

Ultimately, the Zemsky Sobor elected Godunov to reign, but the Boyar Duma opposed this. There was a split. This is a classic feature of the Time of Troubles in Russia - dual power. Zemsky Sobor against the Boyar Duma. Dual power will arise later after the February coup of 1917. It will be the "Provisional Government" against the "Petrosoviet" or the "Reds" against the "Whites". The dual power at the end of the 20th century will be the following - first Gorbachev against Yeltsin. Then Yeltsin against the Supreme Council. That is, the Time of Troubles always splits power into 2 opposing camps.

Ultimately, Boris Godunov outplayed the Boyar Duma and became tsar. Learn more about how this happened.

Driving elements of the Time of Troubles

It must be understood that the Time of Troubles is a mass phenomenon, in which almost all segments of the population and social groups took part. Nevertheless, there were three major estates that played an exceptional role in those events, and which need to be told separately. These are the following groups:

1. Sagittarius.
2. Cossacks.
3. "Battle thugs".

Let's take a closer look at each of these groups.

Battle serfs

The problem in Russia after the famine of 1601-1603 was that the growth in the number of service people overtook the growth of the land fund. The country (even strange to say this about Russia) did not have the resources to provide all the children of the nobility with land. As a result, a layer of "Combat serfs" began to appear in Russia.

These were those nobles who did not have land, but who had weapons (they say little about this, but Ivan Bolotnikov was one of the Battle serfs), and who went into the service as a military service to some boyar or rich nobleman. The percentage of Battle serfs in Russia at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th century was +/-10%. Now think about this... The events of the 90s (the collapse of the USSR). Then those who serve in various private and security firms, in the army, and all armed people in the country - these are just those same 10%. That is, it is social dynamite that can explode at any moment.

What are combat serfs at the beginning of the 16th century? For 25 thousand nobles in the militia, there were up to 5 thousand fighting slaves.

For example, after the shelling of Ivangorod in 1590, the governors led 350 archers, 400 Cossacks and 2382 combat slaves to storm. That is, there were a lot of combat slaves, and their share in the army changed its structure for the use of these people. And these people were extremely dissatisfied with their position.

It was from the fighting serfs that the leader of the largest uprising of the lower classes of the times of 1602-1603, Khlopko Kosolap, came. In 1603, he approached Moscow, and in order to defeat him, he had to send a regular army.

archers

Archers, as a military unit, were created in the middle of the 16th century. The undoubted advantage of its creation was that it was thanks to the archery army that Kazan was taken. In Moscow, there were 10 thousand archers (that is, a fairly large social stratum). In other large cities up to 1 thousand people. The salary for archers ranged from 7 rubles in Moscow to 0.5 rubles in the outskirts. They also received a grain salary.

The problem was that they received money in full only during hostilities. In addition, the archers received money with a long delay, since those who handed out the money, according to Russian tradition, stole. Therefore, the archers, who lived in township settlements, kept gardens, were engaged in trade, some even banditry. Therefore, they felt social kinship with the townspeople, because. their lifestyle and priorities were identical.

Cossacks during the Time of Troubles

Another group that played an extremely important role in the Time of Troubles in Russia, and which was also dissatisfied with the authorities, was the Cossacks. The total number of Cossacks at the end of the 16th century from the Dnieper to the Yaik River (the modern Ural River) is estimated at 11-14 thousand people. The Cossack organization was as follows: In Russia it was a village, in Ukraine it was a hundred. The free villages were not part of the government troops, but actually served to protect the border.

After impoverishment, fighting slaves fled to the Don, the government demanded to withdraw them, but there was a rule - "There is no issue from the Don!" Hence the anti-Cossack measures of Godunov, who tried to return the fighting serfs, since the wealthy nobility put pressure on him. Naturally, this caused discontent and the Cossacks. As a result, Godunov found himself in a situation where whatever he did did not solve the problem, but exacerbated it.

The Cossacks were associated with the southern counties, in which social contradictions were already acute, because those who were offended by the authorities fled to the southern counties. That is, the Cossacks are such a separate layer, which has always considered itself superior to the rest.

The beginning of the open stage of the Troubles

Thus, we can say that at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries an explosive situation developed in Russia:

1. aggravated almost all possible contradictions between the estates and within them.
2. confrontations within the country intensified - "South" against "Center".

A lot of "social dynamite" was worked out, and all that remained was for the interested parties to light the fuse. And it was lit simultaneously in Russia and Poland. At the beginning of the 17th century, a situation developed in Russia, which contributed to the transition of the Time of Troubles from a latent (hidden) state to an open state.

The first stage of the Troubles

A man appeared in Poland who called himself Tsarevich Dmitry, a survivor of Uglich. Of course, he declared his rights to the throne and began to gather an army in Poland in order to go and return “his” throne by force. I will not now dwell on this man and the elements of his attempt (and successful) to seize power. We have a whole article on our website, where all the events of this stage are considered in detail. You can read it at this link.

I will only say that at this stage Poland did not support False Dmitry. He recruited an army of mercenaries there, but the Polish king Sigismund 3 distanced himself from this campaign. Moreover, he even warned Godunov that "a man is coming after his soul."

At this stage:

1. There was a dynastic struggle for power.
2. False Dmitry 1 appeared.
3. The scale of the Time of Troubles was still small. In fact, only the elite were involved in them so far.
4. The murder of False Dmitry 1.

The second stage of the Troubles

After the overthrow of False Dmitry, Vasily Shuisky became king. By the way, far from the last role in the murder of the impostor was played by the future king himself. Most historians agree that it was his conspiracy, which he brilliantly implemented. The accession of Shuisky, according to the historian Platonov, is the beginning of the entry of the Time of Troubles into the second period (nobility), marked not only by a dynastic struggle for power, but also by deep social conflicts. Although Shuisky's reign began very well, with the suppression of the Bolotnikov uprising. In general, Bolotnik's uprising is an extremely important thing for understanding the essence of the Time of Troubles in Russia. Again, we will not consider this issue in detail in this topic, since this topic has already been discussed by us. Here is a link for review.

It is important to understand that the Bolotnikov uprising is not a peasant war, as they often try to present it to us, but a struggle for power in the Time of Troubles. Bolotnikov was a man of False Dmitry 1, always acted on his behalf and pursued a specific goal - power.

The Time of Troubles in Russia was characterized by the following phenomenon. Free Cossacks, especially on final stage Troubles, claimed to replace the nobility in its function of military defense of the country. That is, the Time of Troubles had many dimensions, but a very important dimension was the struggle of the nobility and the Cossacks for who would become the main military estate of the country. The Cossacks did not fight for freedom. It is they who later, under Razin, 50 years after the end of the Time of Troubles, will fight for freedom. Here they fought to take the place of the nobility. This became possible due to the fact that Oprichnina, having shaken the situation in the country, left some voids.

Tushintsy and their role in the Time of Troubles

For a long time, dual power remained in Russia. On the one hand, there was the legitimate Tsar Vasily Shuisky in Moscow, and on the other hand, there was False Dmitry 2 with the Tushino camp. In fact, this camp became a breeding ground for banditry and all kinds of wickedness that plundered the country. It is no coincidence that the people then called this man "Tushinsky thief." But such a situation was possible only as long as the forces were equal. As soon as Shuisky received Swedish troops to help, and the Polish king Sigismund 3 began a campaign against Smolensk, the Tushino camp disintegrated automatically. The intervention of the Polish king and the collapse of the Tushino camp became an important stage in the development of all the events of the Time of Troubles.

At this stage, the following happened:

• The victory of the tsarist troops over Bolotnikov.
• Appearance of False Dmitry 2.
• The confusion is gaining momentum. An increasing number of people are getting involved in events.
• Formation of the Tushino camp as an alternative to the current government.
• Lack of elements of intervention.

The third stage of the Time of Troubles in Russia

The death of the Tushinsky thief and the beginning of the Poles' housekeeping in Moscow was the beginning of the 3rd phase of the Time of Troubles in Russia - national-religious or general social. The situation has been greatly simplified. If before 1610 the situation was very difficult, because some Russian forces called on foreigners to their side, other Russians called on other foreigners, i.e. such a mixed situation. Now the situation has become very simple: the Poles are Catholics, but the Russians are Orthodox. That is, the struggle became national-religious. And the Zemstvo militias became the striking force of this national struggle.

The ultimate heroes of these events were Minin and Pozharsky, who drove the Poles out of the country. But again, one should not idealize the images of these people, since we know little about them for certain. It is only known that Pozharsky was a descendant of Vsevolod the Big Nest, and his campaign against Moscow was a family coat of arms, which directly indicates his attempt to seize power. But that is another story. You can read in this article about the events of those years.

At this stage:

• Polish and Swedish intervention in Russia began.
• The murder of False Dmitry 2.
• The beginning of the Zemsky militias.
• Capture of Moscow by Minin and Pozharsky. Liberation of the city from the Polish invaders.
• The convocation of the Zemsky Sobor in 1613 and the accession of a new ruling dynasty - the Romanovs.

End of the Time of Troubles

Formally, the Time of Troubles in Russia ended in 1613-1614, with the beginning of the reign of Mikhail Romanov. But in fact, at that moment, only the following was done - the Poles were thrown out of Moscow and ... And that's all! The Polish question was finally resolved only in 1618. After all, Sigismund and Vladislav actively claimed the Russian throne, realizing that the local government there is extremely weak. But in the end, the Deulino truce was signed, according to which Russia recognized all the gains of Poland during the Time of Troubles, and peace was established between the countries for 14.5 years.

But there was also Sweden, which Shuisky called for. Few people talk about it, but Sweden owned almost all the northern lands, including Novgorod. In 1617, Russia and Sweden signed the Treaty of Stolbov, according to which the Swedes returned Novgorod, but retained the entire coast of the Baltic.

Consequences of the Time of Troubles for Russia

The Time of Troubles is always a difficult phase that hits the country very hard, and from which it then takes a very long time to get out. So it was in Russia. The Troubles formally ended with the accession of the Romanovs, but in fact it was not so. For many years, the Russian tsars actively fought against the passive, but still with the elements of the Time of Troubles in the country.

If we talk about the consequences of the Time of Troubles in Russia, then the following main consequences can be distinguished:

1. Russia retained its independence and the right to be a state.
2. Creation of a new ruling Romanov dynasty.
3. Terrible economic ruin and depletion of the country. Ordinary people fled en masse to the outskirts.
4. The fall of the authority of the church. People could not understand how the church could allow such passivity in the fight against the interventionists.
5. There was a complete enslavement of the peasants, which had not happened before.
6. Russia lost part of its territory (Smolensk, the Baltic Sea (the access to which Peter 1 would then so persistently seek) and the northern regions of the country).
7. The military potential of the country was actually destroyed.

These are the main consequences that were extremely important for the country, but most importantly, Russia retained its statehood and continued to develop. Attempts by Poland and Sweden to seize power in Russia ended in nothing.

The complexity of the interpretation of the Troubles

The Time of Troubles was very inconvenient for Soviet historians. Pre-revolutionary historiography did not create a strict concept of turmoil. There are schemes of Klyuchevsky and Platonov (we will talk about them later) - they empirically reflect reality very well, but they do not give the concept of the Time of Troubles. Because in order to develop the concept of the Time of Troubles in Russia, you must first develop the concept of Russian history and the concept of autocracy. But it wasn't. For Soviet historians, things were very bad with the concept of the Time of Troubles. Actually, Soviet historians did not study any Time of Troubles. Example of Professor Andrey Fursov:

when I handed over Russian history, or rather the history of the USSR, there was no question "Time of Troubles" in the tickets. There were two completely different questions on the tickets: "The uprising under the leadership of Ivan Bolotnikov" and "Foreign intervention at the beginning of the 17th century."

Andrey Fursov, historian

That is, the Troubles were dispelled, as if it did not exist. And it's understandable why. The fact is that in the Time of Troubles for Soviet historians, literally everything came into conflict. From a class point of view, the Soviet historian had to stand on the side of Ivan Bolotnikov, because he fought against the exploiters. But the fact is that Ivan Bolotnikov was a man of False Dmitry 1 (we will talk about this below), and False Dmitry was associated with the Poles and Swedes. And it turns out that Bolotnikov's uprising is an element of the activity of False Dmitry to betray the country. That is, it is what hits state system Russia. From a patriotic point of view, the Soviet historian could not have been on the side of Bolotnikov. Therefore, we decided to make it very simple. The Time of Troubles was integrally cut: the Bolotnikov uprising is one thing, and the intervention is another. False Dmitry is generally the third. But it was an absolute fake. Everything was much more difficult. And all this was very closely connected, and there would be no Bolotnikov without False Dmitry and the Time of Troubles.

What actually was the Time of Troubles in the history of Russia

The turmoil was certainly a revolutionary event. How is revolution fundamentally different from insurrection? Who knows, by the way, when the term "revolution" appeared as a political one? Hint - is there any connection between the word "revolution" and "revolver"? In addition to the fact that revolutions use revolvers ... Is there any connection between the names "revolution" and "revolver"? The point is that the drum is "spinning". First, the revolution appeared in 1688 during the so-called "Glorious Revolution" in England, when, as it were, everything returned to normal. That is, initially the revolution was called a 360-degree turn. They made a turn and returned to their places with some changes. But from the time french revolution In 1789-1799, revolutions began to be called a turn not by 360 degrees, but by 180. That is, they turned around, but did not return to the previous point.

Any popular movement can be divided into 3 categories:

1. palace revolutions. This is a showdown of the elite.
2. uprisings and riots. The population takes an active part.
3. revolution. When revolutions occur, the following happens - part of the elite enters into an alliance with part of the population, and throws it against another part of the elite. So at some point, the very top begins to express the interests of society, and not just their own. Therefore, for a short moment of revolution, there is unity. Then, in most cases, the elite deceives society.

And in the Time of Troubles of the beginning of the 17th century, of course, some revolutionary features are visible, especially since after the Time of Troubles the autocratic-feudal system finally stood on its feet, which had not existed in Russia before.

History abstract

student class 10-7

Khasina Anton

on the topic:

People and events of the Time of Troubles in Russia

I. Introduction

The purpose of the abstract

Reasons for choosing a topic

II. Main part

Introduction

Prerequisites for the emergence of Troubles in Russia

The reign of Fyodor Ivanovich and Boris Godunov

False DmitryI

Vasily Shuisky

Rebellion of Ivan Bolotnikov

False DmitryII

palace coup

First Zemstvo Militia

Second Zemstvo militia of Minin and Pozharsky

10. Election of a new tsar from the Romanov dynasty

Contemporaries about the Troubles

The most famous personalities of the Time of Troubles

III. Conclusion

Conclusion on the influence of this period on the further development of Russia

Bibliography

Appendix

Images of people of the Time of Troubles

I.Introduction

1. Purpose of the abstract: Describe the role and consequences of the Time of Troubles for the development of Russia.

2. Reasons for choosing the topic:

Russia experienced a tragic time at the beginning of the 17th century. Pestilence and famine, bloody civil strife, enemy invasions ravaged the country to the ground. It seemed that there would be no end to troubles and misfortunes, Russia would never rise from its knees. And yet in Russia there were forces that managed to revive her good name. The movement for the liberation and restoration of the country embraced all sectors of society, from the boyar to the common man. Today, in our country, people are also gradually recovering from a protracted period of confusion and are beginning to cautiously look to the future with fragile optimism. I think that approximately the same mood prevailed in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century. The history of the formation of Russian statehood, in my opinion, can be useful both for analyzing the recent past of our country and for designing the future.

II.Main part

Introduction

By the end of the 16th century, the Muscovite state was going through a difficult time. Constant raids of the Crimean Tatars and the defeat of Moscow in 1571; the protracted Livonian War, which lasted 25 years: from 1558 to 1583, exhausted the country's forces and ended in defeat; the so-called oprichnina "busts" and robberies under Tsar Ivan the Terrible, which shook and shook the old way of life and habitual relationships, intensifying the general discord and demoralization; constant crop failures and epidemics. All this eventually led the state to a serious crisis.

1. Prerequisites for the emergence of Troubles in Russia

CRISIS OF POWER AND PRINCE-BOYAR OPPOSITION

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

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

A great danger to the power of Boris Godunov was represented by the boyars Nagiye, relatives of the infant Tsarevich Dmitry, the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible. Dmitry was expelled from Moscow to Uglich, which was declared his lot. Uglich soon turned into an opposition center. The boyars were waiting for the death of Tsar Fedor in order to push Godunov out of power and rule on behalf of the young prince. However, in 1591, Tsarevich Dmitry died under mysterious circumstances. The commission of inquiry, led by the boyar Vasily Shuisky, concluded that it was an accident. But the opposition began to vigorously spread rumors about a deliberate murder on the orders of the ruler. Later, a version appeared that another boy was killed, and the prince escaped and is waiting for adulthood in order to return and punish the "villain". The “Uglitsky case” has long remained a mystery to Russian historians, but recent research suggests that an accident really happened.

In 1598, Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich died without leaving an heir. Moscow swore allegiance to his wife, Tsarina Irina, but Irina renounced the throne and became a monk.

While the sovereigns of the old familiar dynasty (direct descendants of Rurik and Vladimir the Holy) were on the Moscow throne, the vast majority of the population unquestioningly obeyed their “natural sovereigns”. But when the dynasties ceased, the state turned out to be "nobody's". The upper layer of the Moscow population, the boyars, began a struggle for power in a country that had become "stateless".

However, the attempts of the aristocracy to nominate the king from their midst failed. Positions of Boris Godunov were strong enough. He was supported by the Orthodox Church, the Moscow archers, the bureaucracy, part of the boyars, nominated by him to important positions. In addition, Godunov's rivals were weakened by internal struggles.

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

His first steps were very cautious and aimed mainly at softening the internal situation in the country. According to contemporaries, the new tsar was a major statesman, strong-willed and far-sighted, and a skilled diplomat. However, latent processes were going on in the country, which led to a political crisis.

PUBLIC DISORT

A difficult situation during this period developed in the central districts of the state and to such an extent that the population fled to the outskirts, abandoning their lands. (For example, in 1584, only 16% of the land was plowed up in the Moscow district, and about 8% in the neighboring Pskov district).

The more people left, the harder the government of Boris Godunov put pressure on those who remained. By 1592, the compilation of scribe books was completed, where the names of peasants and townspeople, owners of yards were entered. The authorities, having conducted a census, could organize the search and return of the fugitives. In 1592-1593, a royal decree was issued on the abolition of the peasant exit even on St. George's Day (reserved years). This measure extended not only to the owner's peasants, but also to the state, as well as to the townspeople. In 1597, two more decrees appeared, according to the first, any free person (free servant, worker) who worked for six months for the landowner turned into a bonded serf and did not have the right to redeem himself for freedom. According to the second, a five-year period was set for the search and return of the runaway peasant to the owner. And in 1607, a fifteen-year investigation of the fugitives was approved.

The nobles were given "obedient letters", according to which the peasants had to pay dues not as before (according to the established rules and sizes), but as the owner wants.

The new “township building” provided for the return of fugitive “taxers” to the cities, the assignment to the townships of the owner’s peasants who were engaged in crafts and trade in the cities, but did not pay taxes, the elimination of courtyards and settlements inside the cities, which also did not pay taxes.

Thus, it can be argued that at the end of the 16th century, a state system of serfdom, the most complete dependence under feudalism, actually took shape in Russia.

Such a policy caused great dissatisfaction among the peasantry, which at that time formed the overwhelming majority in Russia. Periodically, unrest broke out in the villages. An impetus was needed in order for discontent to turn into "distemper". The lean years of 1601-1603 and the famine and epidemics that followed them became such an impetus. The measures taken were not enough. Many feudal lords let their people go free so as not to feed them, and this increases the crowds of the homeless and hungry. Bands of robbers were formed from those released or fugitives. The main center of unrest and unrest was the western outskirts of the state - Seversk Ukraine, where the government exiled criminal or unreliable elements from the center, who were full of discontent and anger and were just waiting for an opportunity to rise up against the Moscow government. Unrest swept the whole country. In 1603 detachments of rebellious peasants and serfs approached Moscow itself. With great difficulty, the rebels were repulsed.

INTERVENTION OF THE SPEECH OF THE COMMON

At the same time, Polish and Lithuanian feudal lords tried to use internal contradictions in Russia to weaken the Russian state and maintained ties with the opposition to Boris Godunov. They sought to seize the Smolensk and Seversk lands, which a century earlier were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Catholic Church wanted to replenish the sources of income by conducting Catholicism in Russia. The Commonwealth did not have a direct reason for open intervention.

2. The reign of Fyodor Ivanovich and Boris Godunov

On the fateful night from March 17 to March 18, 1584. in his Kremlin chambers, exhausted from the terrible pain that had been fettering the spine for a whole year with an iron vise, the omnipotent Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible was dying ... His last days were burdened not only by physical suffering, but also by painful thoughts about his successor. The choice of the king was small. After the tragic death of his eldest son Ivan, who was personally killed by him in a fit of unbridled anger, his second son Tsarevich Fedor or the youngest son Tsarevich Dmitry could inherit the throne. However, the personality of the first made one seriously doubt his ability to govern the state. The latter was still in infancy.

Brought up in the gloomy atmosphere of the Alexander Sloboda, constantly subjected to bullying by his father, the weak-willed Tsarevich Fyodor did not differ either in the makings of a statesman, or in excellent health appropriate for this. Since childhood, he was "weak in the legs" - he suffered from dropsy. A meaningless smile often wandered on his face, plunging everyone into confusion. The main occupations of the prince were long earnest prayers in solitude, visiting monasteries and performing various kinds of church! rituals. Knowing well the nature of the son. Grozny appointed to help him manage the state a regency council from among the most influential representatives of the nobility of that time,

Immediately after the wedding ceremony for the kingdom of the new monarch, who did not have political power, which took place on May 31, 1584, a struggle for influence over the king unfolded in his entourage. In the wake of these palace intrigues, accompanied by insidious conspiracies and bloody skirmishes, one of the first in terms of influence in the Kremlin was a close relative of the new tsar, Boris Godunov. The Godunovs traced their genealogy to the original Kostroma boyars, who had served the Moscow princes since ancient times, but were not among the highest nobility of the Moscow state.

The ascent of Boris Godunov began after he, being a little-known and ignorant nobleman, entered the oprichnina and became close to Ivan the Terrible's favorite, Malyuta Skuratov. Under the patronage of the latter, he received court ranks, first as a "solicitor" under the tsar himself, and then as a "bed keeper" at Grozny. Friendly relations with Malyuta provided him with an excellent match: soon Boris married the daughter of the chief tsar's guardsman. Somewhat later, Tsarevich Fedor chose Godunov's sister Irina as his bride. This only strengthened the position of Skuratov's son-in-law at court and guaranteed him a boyar rank.

And now Tsar Fyodor favored his brother-in-law: Godunov became a close boyar, governor of the Kazan and Astrakhan kingdoms, received large land holdings, exclusive rights to collect various state fees. Gradually, Godunov's influence on state policy grew and strengthened. Many did not like this, especially representatives of the most famous aristocratic families - the princes Mstislavsky and the boyars Shuisky. In the fight that unfolded between them and Boris, not for life, but for death, the latter managed to win. By 1598, all of his most serious opponents were either destroyed or tonsured monks, which was tantamount to political death.

3. False DmitryI

However, the threat to the sole power of the royal brother-in-law, although receded, continued to exist in the person of Tsarevich Dmitry. Born two years before the death of Ivan the Terrible, the young prince with his mother Maria Naga, close relatives and retinue in 1584 was exiled to the inheritance bequeathed by his father - the city of Uglich. There he was under the vigilant supervision of the Moscow authorities. The general supervision of the high-ranking family was carried out by the clerk Mikhailo Bityagovsky, Boris' spy, assigned to the Uglich court as the chief treasurer, who was in charge of the money allocated for the maintenance of the prince.

LYAPUNOVS (THE TIMES OF TROUBLES)

The Lyapunovs, Procopius and Zakhar Petrovich are prominent figures of the Time of Troubles. The Lyapunov family, descendants of Ryazan boyars and large landowners in Ryazan, occupied a leading position in the group of local nobility. Not satisfied with this, the ambitious Lyapunovs tried to break through to the top, to play a role in Moscow. Since the end of the 16th century, the names of representatives of this family have been quite often found in the sources. Under Grozny, the brother of Procopius and Zakhar, Alexander, helped one of the tsar's favorites, the "yard clerk" A. Sherefedinov, seize lands and people in Ryazan. In 1595, Zakhar Lyapunov was punished by prison for refusing to travel in his head with Kikin, motivated by localism; the Lyapunovs and "all sorts" mingled with the princes Zasekins. In 1603, the same Zakhar was beaten with a whip for selling "reserved" potions (gunpowder), lead and wine to the Don Cossacks. There was a rumor that the boyars, dissatisfied with Tsar Boris, sent Procopius Lyapunov's nephew to Poland with a request to help the Pretender. The Lyapunovs, who were hostile to Boris, did not want to serve his son and, near Kromy, were among the first to agree with Basmanov and Golitsyn to go over to the side of the applicant, dragging Ryazan and the nobles of other southern cities with them. When Vasily Shuisky came to the throne, the fear of a boyar-princely reaction, with the closure of access to the Duma to the “new” people, threw the Lyapunovs into opposition to the new government. Procopius, at the head of the Ryazanians, joined Bolotnikov, who was marching in the name of Demetrius to Moscow (see VII, 403 - 404). However, a month-long standing near the capital next to the serfs and peasants gathered under the banner of Bolotnikov was enough to convince the big landlords of Ryazan that the desire of their allies for a social revolution was more dangerous for them than the possibility of the princely policy of Tsar Vasily. On November 15, 1606, the people of Ryazan with "a hail to everyone from those thieves left and came to Moscow", serving this time as an example for others. The king gladly "gave them their guilt." Since then, Procopius, who soon became the tsar's voivode in Ryazan and was granted the Duma nobles (1608), has been tirelessly fighting the "thieves", guided not by love for the tsar, but by the desire to defend the noble way of life. As soon as Skopin-Shuisky moved forward, the Lyapunovs at the end of 1609 turned to him with a proposal to reign in Moscow, which Skopin indignantly rejected. When Skopin died suddenly, Lyapunov declared Tsar Vasily responsible for his death and began to organize an uprising against him in Ryazan. In Moscow, Zakhar Lyapunov campaigned against Shuisky. On July 17, a meeting of Muscovites, in which Zakhar Lyapunov played a prominent role, decided to depose Shuisky, and on the 19th, with the participation of Zakhar, he was tonsured a monk. The Lyapunovs prepared the throne for Prince V. Golitsyn, but the arrival of Zholkevsky near Moscow with an army gave it to Prince Vladislav. Procopius Lyapunov kissed the cross, and Zakhar, as part of the "great embassy", went near Smolensk to Sigismund. The senior ambassadors complained that Zakhar, having left the embassy, ​​frolicked with the pans and laughed at the ambassadors. In fact, he scouted the plans of the king and informed his brother about them. Sigismund's intention to reign in Moscow instead of his son soon echoed in Ryazan with the beginning of organizing an uprising against the Poles. In Moscow, the steward V. Buturlin was captured, accused of providing information to Lyapunov and of inciting the Germans to beat the Poles. The boyars-rulers reported to the king about the role of Zakhar Lyapunov, from whom they "besides the turmoil of no good" did not look forward to, and asked to find out about his betrayal. Probably, as a result of this investigation, Zakhar died; there is no further information about him. The death of the Kaluga Thief (December 1610), which opened up the possibility of unity among the heterogeneous and rapidly growing groups of opponents of the Poles, and the blessing of Patriarch Hermogenes for the struggle for faith and patronymic, inspired Prokopy Lyapunov. His letters openly went around the country with a call for an uprising and a campaign against Moscow; Ryazan established close ties with other centers of the national movement (Nizhny and others). Feeling strength behind him, Lyapunov imperiously demanded from the boyar rulers to alleviate the position of the imprisoned patriarch and managed to get his way for a while. The advanced rati of the militia took part in the battles of Muscovites with the Poles on March 19 and 20, 1611, and soon the main forces appeared near Moscow and settled on the ruins of the White City and Zamoskvorechye burned by the Poles. Military operations against the Poles were successful, but very soon a stratification was discovered in the militia. Concerned about the size of the rati, Lyapunov did not pay due attention to its composition. He united with the recent supporters of the Thief, called the Cossacks to himself with broad promises, and the strength of these two groups, closer to each other, affected in such a way that "triple leaders" were placed at the head of the government, which had to be created for the country: Lyapunov - a support and the leader of the zemstvo people, Trubetskoy - the well-born head of the Tushino people and Zarutsky - the leader of the Cossacks. The energetic and domineering Lyapunov, relying on the majority of the militia and on the sympathy in the country, took a leading position and tried to curb the self-will of the Cossacks, stop their violence and robberies, without stopping before severe punishments. In his concerns about restoring order, he met the opposition of the co-rulers and caused the weakening of the Cossacks. He already had to make additions to government orders so that letters that "learn to come" not behind his hand (signature) would not be believed. The verdict of the rati on June 30, which outlined the program of government activities with a clear preference for the interests of service people and to the detriment of the Cossacks and their hopes, further increased internal friction. Lyapunov's foreign policy, his desire to conclude an alliance with the Swedes in order to stop their movement to Novgorod, to use their help against the Poles, in particular his intention to put the Moscow Swedish prince on the throne, supported by the council of "all the land" and expressed in negotiations with the Swedish commander Delagardie , were also not shared by Zarutsky, Trubetskoy and their like-minded people. On the ground thus prepared, Lyapunov's drastic reprisal against a detachment of Cossack marauders aroused strong excitement against Lyapunov. He left, saving his life, from the militia and returned only at the insistence of the Zemstvo rati. This moment was used by the leader of the besieged, Gonsevsky, who sent to the Cossack camps a letter forged in Moscow on behalf of Lyapunov with a plan for the extermination of the Cossacks. Summoned to the Cossack circle for explanations about this document, Lyapunov died under the sabers of his furious enemies (July 22, 1611). Deprived of a leader, the service people were unable to repulse the Cossacks, who had grown bolder after the death of Lyapunov, and, unable to endure their violence, began to scatter from near Moscow. Created to a large extent by the energy of Lyapunov and held by him, the militia quickly disintegrated, and Lyapunov's task was already carried out by another zemstvo militia. - See general works on the history of the Time of Troubles, especially "Essays on the History of the Troubles" by S.F. Platonov; Kostomarov's general description of Prokopiy Lyapunov, in "Russian History in Biographies"; article by A.E. Presnyakov in the collection "People of the Time of Troubles" (St. Petersburg, 1905); about relations with the Swedes, the latest works of H. Almquist "Die Zarenwahl des Jahres 1613" in "Zeitschr. fur Osteurop. Gesch." (volume III, part 2), and G.A. Zamyatin "On the question of the election of Charles Philip to the Russian throne" (Yuriev, 1913). Letters important for the history of the first militia were issued by S.B. Veselovsky: "New Acts of the Time of Troubles. Acts of the Moscow Region Militias and the Zemsky Sobor of 1611-1613" (M., 1911). P. L.

Brief biographical encyclopedia. 2012

See also interpretations, synonyms, meanings of the word and what LYAPUNOVS (WORKERS OF THE TIME OF TROUBLES) are in Russian in dictionaries, encyclopedias and reference books:

• TIME
  WORK RECORDING - see WORKING TIME RECORDING ...
• TIME in the Dictionary of Economic Terms:
  REGULATION OF WORKING HOURS - see REGULATION OF WORKING HOURS ...
• LYAPUNOVS
  The Lyapunovs are a Russian noble family descended from Lyapun Borisovich Osinin, a descendant of Rurik, in the twentieth generation. About Zakhar and Procopius...
• TIME in the Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language Ushakov:
  time, etc. See ...
• RE-OPENING TIME in the Dictionary of Postmodernism:
  - a phenomenon of modern culture associated with the actualization - both in natural science and in the humanities - of the problem of temporality. The term "P.V." …
• GOLITSYN VASILY VASILIEVICH (THE TIME OF TROUBLES) in the Brief Biographical Encyclopedia:
  Golitsyn, Vasily Vasilyevich, prince - one of the largest figures of the Time of Troubles. He was governor in Smolensk, but in 1602 he ...
• RUSSIAN SOVIET FEDERAL SOCIALIST REPUBLIC, RSFSR in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB.
• LYAPUNOV, ROD
  a noble family, which, without sufficient evidence, is considered to be descended from the princes of Galicia. About Zakhar and Prokofy Petrovich L., see Lyapunovs, historical ...
• LYAPUNOVS, HISTORICAL PERSONS in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
  The Lyapunovs Zakhar and Prokofy Petrovich are figures of the Time of Troubles, distinguished by their courage and enterprise, but at the same time by their precariousness...
• CLOCK, TIME MEASUREMENT DEVICE in the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron.
• LYAPUNOVS, ZAKHAR AND PROKOFIY
  (Zakhar and Prokofy Petrovichi L.)? figures of the Time of Troubles, distinguished by courage and enterprise, but at the same time, by unsteadiness ...
• LYAPUNOVS, NOBILITY in the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron:
  ? a noble family, which, without sufficient evidence, is considered to be descended from the princes of Galicia. About Zakhar and Prokofy Petrovich L., see acc. …
• DECAMERON in the Wiki Quote:
  Data: 2008-08-31 Time: 12:16:02 Quotes from the work "Decameron", (by Boccaccio) - * Worthy ladies! There are people who imagine...
• PHENOMENOLOGY OF PERCEPTION in the Dictionary of Postmodernism:
  ("Phеnomеnologie de la perception". Paris, 1945) is the main work of Merleau-Ponty, which explores the problems of the specificity of the existence of existence (see Existence) and ...
• THEATER OF CRULITY in the Dictionary of Postmodernism:
  - the concept of theatrical action, based on the rejection of the traditional (purely verbal) understanding of the means of artistic expression and focus on the plastic-visual range of the performance, ...
• EVENT in the Dictionary of Postmodernism:
  (co-existence) - the concept of philosophy of the 20th century, the introduction of which into disciplinary circulation marked the implementation of cardinal ("turning" ones - from German Kehre, according to ...
• POETIC THINKING in the Dictionary of Postmodernism:
  - a concept, the content of which fixes the way (style, type) of thinking, based on the presumption of fundamental understatement (incompleteness) and metaphor. In terms of content...
• TIME IN DECONSTRUCTION in the Dictionary of Postmodernism:
  - one of the versions of the intelligent time reopening procedure (see Time reopening). The category of time is of fundamental importance for the metaphysics of presence, or ...
• BAUDRIILLARD in Dictionary of Postmodernism.
• GOSYO
  - The Imperial Palace in Kyoto. In the historical part of modern Kyoto there is a huge garden, in the depths of which the old imperial palace is hidden ...
• Azuchi in Encyclopedia Japan from A to Z:
  - a castle built by order of Oda Nobunaga in 1576-1579. in Omi Province (now Shiga Prefecture), in the central part of the island ...
• YUVENALY (POYARKOV)
  Open Orthodox Encyclopedia "TREE". Yuvenaly (Poyarkov) (born 1935), Metropolitan of Krutitsy and Kolomna, patriarchal vicar of the Moscow diocese, permanent ...
• FEODOROVSKAYA ICON OF THE MOTHER OF GOD in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
  Open Orthodox Encyclopedia "TREE". Feodorovskaya - Kostroma Icon of the Mother of God Memory March 14, August 16. According to legend, it was written...
• USOVO in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
  Open Orthodox Encyclopedia "TREE". Usovo, village of Odintsovsky district, Moscow region. According to legend, the name of the village comes from the surname of a noble nobleman ...
• TIKHON MEDYNSKY in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
  Open Orthodox Encyclopedia "TREE". Tikhon Medynsky, Kaluga (+ 1492), miracle worker, shiigumen, reverend. Commemoration June 16
• SOLOVETSKY MONASTERY in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
  Open Orthodox Encyclopedia "TREE". Attention, this article is not finished yet and contains only part of the necessary information. Spaso-Preobrazhensky Solovetsky stauropegial male …
• NICHOLAS II ALEKSANDROVICH in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
  Open Orthodox Encyclopedia "TREE". Attention, this article is not finished yet and contains only part of the necessary information. Nicholas II Alexandrovich Romanov ...
• NIKOLAI (YARUSHEVICH) in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
  Open Orthodox Encyclopedia "TREE". Nikolai (Yarushevich) (1891 - 1961), Metropolitan, b. Krutitsky and Kolomensky. In the world...
• NEKTARIUS (TELYASHIN) in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
  Open Orthodox Encyclopedia "TREE". Nectarius (Telyashin) (1586 / 1587 - 1667) Archbishop of Siberia and Tobolsk, Saint ...
• MOSCOW in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
  Open Orthodox Encyclopedia "TREE". Attention, this article is not finished yet and contains only part of the necessary information. Moscow, state and ...
• MIKHAIL FEDOROVICH in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
  Open Orthodox Encyclopedia "TREE". Mikhail Fedorovich (+ 1645), Russian tsar, from the boyar family of the Romanovs, founder of the royal-imperial dynasty of the Romanovs. Father …
• LISOVSKY ALEXANDER JOSEPH in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
  Open Orthodox Encyclopedia "TREE". Lisovsky Alexander Joseph (Lisowski-Janowicz) (+ 1616) - Western Russian gentry of the Hedgehog coat of arms, a famous Polish rider. …
• VOSTORGOV IVAN IVANOVYCH in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
  Open Orthodox Encyclopedia "TREE". Vostorgov Ivan Ivanovich (1867 - 1918), archpriest, holy martyr. Commemorated on August 23, ...
• RURIKOV in the Brief Biographical Encyclopedia:
  The Rurikoviches are a Russian princely family, which has split over time into many branches. The branching begins with St. Vladimir, and before ...
• RUSSIA, DIV. MOSCOW STATE XVI - XVII CENTURIES in the Brief Biographical Encyclopedia:
  The success of the collective activity significantly changed the political role of the Moscow princes, turning them from specific patrimonies into representatives of the national interests of the Great Russian people. …
• FIRE in the Brief Biographical Encyclopedia:
  The Pozharskys are a princely family, a branch of the princes of Starodubsky, descended from Grand Duke Vsevolod Yuryevich the Big Nest. Descendant of the seventh son...
• Margeret Yakov (MARGERET) in the Brief Biographical Encyclopedia:
  Margeret (Margeret), Jacob - Frenchman, author of a well-known essay about Russia in the Time of Troubles. Information about his life is very fragmentary. He showed...
• LYAPUNOV PROKOPIY PETROVICH in the Brief Biographical Encyclopedia:
  Lyapunov Prokopy Petrovich - see the article Lyapunovs (figures of the Time of Troubles) ...
• LYAPUNOV ZAKHAR PETROVICH in the Brief Biographical Encyclopedia:
  Lyapunov Zakhar Petrovich - see the article Lyapunovs (figures of the Time of Troubles) ...
• BORIS FEDOROVICH GODUNOV in the Brief Biographical Encyclopedia:
  Boris Fyodorovich Godunov, Tsar and Grand Duke of all Russia, born about 1551, ascended the throne on February 21, 1598, ...
• BOLOTNIKOV IVAN ISAEVICH in the Brief Biographical Encyclopedia:
  Bolotnikov, Ivan Isaevich, - the figure of the Time of Troubles, the time of Shuisky. Bolotnikov was a serf of Prince Telyatevsky, as a child he ended up in ...
• LIDIN in the Literary Encyclopedia:
  Vladimir Germanovich is a modern writer. R. in the family of a merchant, was educated at the Lazarev Institute of Oriental Languages. in Moscow. Printing…