Biographies Characteristics Analysis

The beginning of unrest in Rus'. Characteristics of the opposing forces

1598-1613 gg. - period in the history of Russia, called the Time of Troubles .

At the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries Russia was going through a political and socio-economic crisis . The Livonian War and the Tatar invasion, as well as the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible contributed to the aggravation of the crisis and the growth of discontent. This was the reason for the beginning of the Time of Troubles in Russia.

The first period of turmoil characterized by the struggle for the throne of various applicants. After the death of Ivan the Terrible, his son Fyodor came to power, but he was unable to rule and actually ruled brother of the tsar's wife - Boris Godunov. Ultimately, his policies caused popular discontent.

Troubles began with the appearance in Poland False Dmitry (actually Grigory Otrepiev), allegedly the miraculously surviving son of Ivan the Terrible. He lured a significant part of the Russian population to his side. AT 1605 The city of False Dmitry was supported by the governors, and then by Moscow. And already in June he became the rightful king . But he acted too independently than angered the boyars, also he supported serfdom, what caused peasant protest. 17 May 1606 was killed False Dmitry I and ascended the throne IN AND. Shuisky, subject to limited power. Thus, the first stage of the Troubles was marked by the reign of False Dmitry I (1605 - 1606)

The second period of turmoil. In 1606, an uprising arose, the leader of which was I.I. Bolotnikov. The ranks of the rebels included people from different strata of society: peasants, serfs, small and medium-sized feudal lords, servicemen, Cossacks and townspeople. In the battle of Moscow they were defeated. Eventually Bolotnikov was executed.

But dissatisfaction with the authorities continued. And soon appears False Dmitry II.

In January 1608. his army went to Moscow. By June, False Dmitry II entered the village of Tushino near Moscow, where he settled. formed in Russia 2 capitals: boyars, merchants, officials worked on 2 fronts, sometimes even received salaries from both kings. Shuisky concluded an agreement with Sweden , and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth started hostilities. False Dmitry II fled to Kaluga.

Shuisky was tonsured a monk and taken to the Chudov Monastery. In Russia, an interregnum began - the Seven Boyars (a council of 7 boyars). The Boyar Duma made a deal with the Polish interventionists and August 17, 1610 Moscow swore allegiance to the Polish king Vladislav. At the end 1610 G. False Dmitry II was killed, but the struggle for the throne did not end there.

So, the second stage was marked by the uprising of I.I. Bolotnikov (1606 - 1607), the reign of Vasily Shuisky (1606 - 1610), the appearance of False Dmitry II, as well as the Seven Boyars (1610).

Third Period of Troubles characterized fight against foreign invaders. After the death of False Dmitry II, the Russians united against the Poles. The war took on a national character. In August 1612 G. the militia of K. Minin and D. Pozharsky reached Moscow . And on October 26, the Polish garrison surrendered. Moscow was liberated. Troubled time is over.

Results the troubles were depressing: the country was in a terrible situation, the treasury was ruined, trade and crafts were in decline. The consequences of the Troubles for Russia were expressed in its backwardness in comparison with European countries. It took decades to restore the economy.

1586 June 17 Patriarch Joachim of Antioch in Moscow. The equerry, the governor of Kazan, the tsar's brother-in-law Boris Godunov, "by the verdict" of Sovereign Feodor Ioannovich, intercedes through Patriarch Joachim to the eastern patriarchs for the "blessing of the Patriarchate of Moscow."
1586 Vatican support for the plan to conquer Russia by the Polish king Stefan Batory (compiled with the participation of the Jesuit Anthony Possevin). Pope Sixtus V promises the king of Poland 25,000 skudi a year for the conquest of Muscovy and the introduction of Catholicism in it. The sessions of the Sejm begin, at which a decision should be made on the invasion of Russia.
1586 November In the boyar duma, Godunov accuses the boyars (the Shuiskys, in particular) of treasonous ties with Lithuania. The Shuiskys justify themselves and inspire riots in Moscow directed against Godunov.
1586. December 2 Death of King Stefan Batory.
1588 June 24 Arrival of the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II in Russia, in Smolensk. Then he is in Moscow. Works of Boris Godunov on the establishment of the Patriarchate in Rus'.
1589 January 17 The conciliar establishment of the Patriarchate in the Russian Orthodox Church. The first Patriarch of Moscow - St. Job.
1589 January 26 Enthronement of St. Job, Patriarch of Moscow (commemorated April 5 and June 19).
1589 July 21 Royal charter for the Kyiv Metropolis to Archimandrite Mikhail Ragoza of Minsk; later he headed the episcopate that betrayed Orthodoxy, the first Metropolitan of Kyiv Uniate.
1590 Urgent reprinting in Krakow of the book of the Jesuit Peter Skarga-Povnosky "On the unity of the Church of God" (first edition 1577) with a dedication to King Sigismund III. Program book of the union.
1590 June 20 Cathedral in Brest, which was attended by six Orthodox bishops, headed by Metropolitan of Kyiv Mikhail Ragoza. Recognition of the deplorable state of the metropolis, external persecution and internal disorder. Decision on the annual council in Brest.
1591 – Government pressure on Orthodox bishops in Lithuania. Lutsk head Alexander Semashko illegally seizes the estate of Bishop Kirill Terletsky, etc.
1591 May 15 The murder of St. Right-Believing Tsarevich Dimitry in Uglich.
One of the modern researchers, Doctor of Law L. Kolodkin notes some important points in the "case of Tsarevich Dimitri". He writes: about the violation of the procedural norms of that time during the investigation; that there was an intrusion into the materials of the investigation file shortly after the Time of Troubles; about the fact that there is still no clarity even on the question of the murder weapon – “a knife or a pile?”; that the events of May 15, 1591 had "their director, troupe and extras."
The commission of inquiry arrived on the evening of May 19, and the day before, on the evening of May 18, the former Astrakhan governor Temir Zasetsky arrived in Uglich from Moscow and left on the morning of the 19th. I spent the whole night talking with Nagimi and with someone else. Question: Whose emissary is he? If Godunov had been the murderer, then his name would not have come from the lips of those who were the perpetrators of the crime. Especially if the criminals are immediately killed after the confession. Consequently, they were sent by those who were interested in the fact that the name of Godunov sounded from the lips of the killers.
1591 June 24 cathedral in Brest. Bishops of Lutsk and Ostroh Kirill Terletsky, Lvov Gedeon Balaban, Pinsky Leonty Pelchitsky, Kholmsky Dionysius Zbiruysky sign a letter to King Sigismund III on their recognition of the primacy of the pope and with a petition for the approval of their "liberty" - the first document on the consent of the bishops to the union.
1592. May 18 Royal "privilege" for four bishops who agree to the union. Birth of the daughter of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich Theodosia; died in 1593.
1593 February 13 Approval of the Russian Patriarchate by the Council in Constantinople.
1594 February 12 Bishops of Vladimir-Volynsk Ipaty Potey and Lutsk Kirill Terletsky sign a decree accepting the union. Later, in 1595, this act was signed by other bishops, except for Gideon Baloban of Lviv and Przemysl Mikhail Kopystensky.
1595. June Metropolitan of Kyiv Mikhail Ragoza, together with the bishops of Vladimir, Lutsk and Pinsk, signs the terms of the union for presentation to the pope and king. The Metropolitan and the bishops signed a conciliar letter to Pope Clement VIII expressing their consent to the union.
1595. June 24 Appeal of Prince Konstantin Ostrozhsky to the Orthodox of Lithuania and Poland with a call to resist the bishops deviating into the union.
1595. Cyrus Ignatius appears in Moscow, the former bishop of Elisso and the Holy Mountain, who secretly accepted the union in Rome.
1595. Sigismund III, by letter, asserts rights for the metropolitan and Uniate bishops equal to those of the Latin clergy.
1595. December 23 Bishops of Lutsk Kirill Terletsky and Vladimir-Volynsky Ipatiy Potey in Rome at an audience in the Vatican read the “confession of faith” (as when the Greeks were received by the Latins), take oaths to the pope and kiss the shoe of Pope Paul V.
1596. January Sejm in Warsaw. The Orthodox, led by Prince Konstantin Ostrozhsky, denounce the union.
1596. May 29 The Royal Manifesto on the "Unification of the Churches" and the Universal on the Convocation of the Council.
1596. October 6-10 Historical cathedral in Brest, split into two cathedrals: Uniate and Orthodox.
1596. October 9 By the decision of the Orthodox Council, Metropolitan Mikhail Ragoza of Kyiv and the bishops of Vladimir-Volynsk Ipatiy Potey, Lutsk Kirill Terletsky, Polotsk Herman, Pinsky Iona Gogol, Kholmsky Dionysius Zbiruysky, who deviated into the union, were deposed and deprived of any spiritual dignity and church authority; union rejected. Sobor's request to the king for permission to elect a new metropolitan and bishops to replace those who have declined. The Uniate Council anathematized those who rejected the union. The union was accepted by the definition of the schismatics. The Kyiv Metropolitanate was divided into two - faithful to Orthodoxy and Uniates.
1596. October 10 District charter of Michael Ragoza on the curse of the clergy and laity faithful to Orthodoxy.
1596. November 10 District message of the Exarch of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Archdeacon Nicephorus on the occasion of the union. The acts of the Orthodox Council were sent to the locum tenens of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Meletius, Patriarch of Alexandria (approved by him in a letter to Prince Konstantin Ostrozhsky dated April 27, 1597)
1596. December 15 Royal universal to the Orthodox with support for the decisions of the Uniate Council, with a ban on obeying Orthodox clergy, an order to accept the union (in violation of the law on freedom of religion in Poland). The beginning of an open persecution of Orthodoxy in Lithuania and Poland.
1597 February General Sejm in Warsaw. The demands of the Orthodox on the observance of laws and the royal oath.
1598. January 01 The death of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich. The rumor that Tsarevich Dimitri is alive is spreading in Moscow for the first time
1598 February 22 The consent of Boris Godunov to accept the royal crown after much persuasion and the threat of excommunicating Patriarch Job from the Church for disobedience to the decision of the Zemsky Sobor.
1598. March 09 Crowning the kingdom of Boris Feodorovich Godunov.
1600 Bishop Ignatius Grek becomes the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Moscow.
Bishop Ignatius Grek becomes the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Moscow.
1601 Great famine in Rus'.
Two contradictory rumors are spreading: Tsarevich Dimitri was killed on the orders of Godunov, and the second is about a "miraculous salvation." Both rumors were taken seriously, despite the contradiction, spread and provided anti-Godunov forces with help among the "masses".
1602 Escape to Lithuania of Hierodeacon of the Chudov Monastery Grigory Otrepiev.
1603 Ignatius Grek becomes Archbishop of Ryazan.
According to the message about Pavel Pierling, with reference to a letter known to him by Yuri Mnishko to Bishop of Reggia Claudio Rangoni, papal nuncio in Poland, the “Muscovite” (i.e., the Moscow candidate for Pretenders, Grigory Otrepiev, a cover for the main candidate) was “executed” (i.e. secretly killed) in Sambir by Yuri Mnishkom (9, p. 229).
1604 False Dmitry I in a letter to Pope Clement VIII promises to spread the Catholic faith in Russia.
(A. S. Pushkin. "Boris Godunov." IMPOSTER: "I swear that before two years, all my people, the entire northern church will recognize the authority of the vicar of Peter.")
1604 October 10 False Dmitry I enters the Russian borders with the army.
1605 April 13 The death of Tsar Boris Feodorovich Godunov. Muscovites' oath to Tsarina Maria Grigorievna, Tsar Feodor Borisovich and Princess Xenia Borisovna.
1605 June 03 Public murder on the fiftieth day of the reign of the sixteen-year-old Tsar Feodor Borisovich Godunov (killed "in the most disgusting way" - the words of S.M. Solovyov) and his mother, Tsarina Maria Grigoryevna, by princes Vasily Vasily. Golitsyn and Vasily Mosalsky, Mikhail Molchanov, Sherefedinov and three archers.
1605 June 20 False Dmitry I in Moscow; a few days later Ignatius the Greek - patriarch.
1606 May 17 Conspiracy under the leadership of the book. Vasily Shuisky, the deposition and death of False Dmitry I.
1606 June 01 Married to the kingdom of Prince. Vasily Shuisky.
1606 June 03 Transfer of relics and canonization of St. Right-Believing Tsarevich Dimitry of Uglich.
1606 June 03 The supply of microwave Hermogenes, Patriarch of Moscow (Comm. 12 May).
1607 Feral 14 Arrival in Moscow at the tsar's command and at the request of Patriarch Hermogenes "byvago" Patriarch Job.
1607 Feral 16 “Letter of Permit” is a conciliar ruling on the innocence of Boris Godunov in the death of Tsarevich Dimitry of Uglich, on the legal rights of the Godunov dynasty, and on the guilt of Moscow people in the murder of Tsar Fyodor and Tsarina Maria Godunov.
1607 Feral 20 Reading of the petition of the people and the "letter of permission" in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin in the presence of Sts. Patriarchs Job and Hermogenes.
1607 June 19
1607 June 19 The end of St. Job Patriarch of Moscow in the Staritsky Assumption Monastery.
1607 June 19 The end of St. Job Patriarch of Moscow in the Staritsky Assumption Monastery.

The main ideas of the Jesuits, who concocted and implemented the project of usurpation of the Russian Patriarchate and the Tsar’s throne in order to establish a state subject to the Roman throne in place of the Orthodox one, are reflected in a document that was used by our famous historians S. M. Solovyov (in his “History ...”, vol. 8 , ch. 4) and Metropolitan Macarius (“History of the Russian Church”, vol. 10). This document was owned by Prince Mikhail Andreevich Obolensky (1805 - 1873), director of the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs since 1840. The document dates back to 1608. This is a kind of "instruction manual" for the second Pretender. It is quite appropriate to see in it a revision of an earlier document. Its essence is this. In order to create an empire necessary for the Jesuits and Rome on the site of the Moscow state, it is important that the most important positions in the state and in the Church are occupied by “their own”, controlled candidates. It is important that the head of state receive the imperial crown only from the pope. It is also important that the work of the union - the transitional stage in the transfer of the people to Catholicism - be carried out without haste, for sure. Book document. Obolensky, with a few very few exceptions, has not attracted the attention of historians of the Time of Troubles. Note that its authenticity has never been questioned by anyone, although Solovyov did not even quote him, but only outlined the content. About a hundred years ago, the issue of the Pretender and the Jesuits was dealt with by Nikolai Mikhailovich Pavlov, a historian and writer of a national trend (he was friendly with the Aksakov and Khomyakov families). Some of his very interesting letters to Count Sergei Dmitrievich Sheremetev, who headed the Archaeographic Commission of the Academy of Sciences, were recently published. Here are some interesting fragments of these letters. From a letter dated April 8, 1898 (regarding the work of the Jesuit Pavel Pirling “Roma ed Demetrius): “When the legend that the power-hungry Boris killed the prince in Uglich and that Grishka Otrepiev reigned under his name was officially sanctioned in Rus', called by the Latins Demetrius gave no reason to Jesuit literature to gossip about him. The Jesuits were alarmed, writes Pavlov, “when the Russian historical science expressed the opinion that Demetrius was not at all a conscious deceiver, and, moreover, Otrepiev was not, and one of two things comes out: either this is a true prince, the Uglitsky baby himself who grew up in obscurity, or, tertium non datur, such an impostor who was set up and educated in Lithuania by the Jesuits according to Possevin's idea” (12, p. 6). In a letter dated April 21, 1898, it is said: “Pearling assures that Demetrius only got along with the Jesuits because questions about the salvation of the soul were not alien to him, and that on this issue the Jesuits are the best advisers. But after all, the Tushinsky thief, the second False Dmitry, also used the advice of the Jesuits (for example), not to rush to introduce Latinism, because this had already “harmed before”: wouldn’t Pirling say that the Jesuits were also sticking to the Tushinsky thief, because. questions about the salvation of the soul greatly occupied him” (12, 9). The first strong voice about the Jesuits, as the initiators of the appearance of the Pretender, belonged to the Metropolitan of Moscow Platon (Levshin). In his “Brief Russian Church History” (2, pp. 178-179) he writes: “It remains to understand who of the people could invent such a cunning and unusual plan? In my opinion it seems that this invention was the Jesuits. And this is proven.” Metropolitan Platon quotes the “Reasonings of Hoffmann, a German writer close” (Lexicon of Hoffmann. Leiden, 1698): “They say that the Jesuits in Poland dared to undertake this atrocity. They had in a certain Collegium of their young man, a Russian (Otrepiev boyar from a certain city of Galich, a son, whose name is Grigory Otrepiev.) They pretty much instructed him, from the youngest years to the future (power? - Auth.), And the rules of how to govern, so drunk that for some time he deceived all of Russia. But the candidacy of Grigory Otrepiev does not seem to be proven by Metropolitan Platon. Under the guise of an impostor. “Grishka or not Grishka, but who else,” writes Metropolitan Platon.

And he also writes the following: “The first impostor is someone dummy, invented and set up by some cunning villains, a foreigner or a Russian, perhaps Grishka Otrepiev himself, the son of a Galician petty nobleman, but long ago prepared, disposed and processed by intruders, and not the one our chroniclers know.” The murder of Tsarevich Dimitri on behalf of Boris Godunov was the work of those who needed to steal the name of the son of Ivan the Terrible for the Pretender. Here, the interests of a part of the boyar aristocracy, those who were ardent opponents of Godunov's state (and church) construction, converged with the plans of external enemies. They did not need to kidnap the prince, it was dangerous. His name was stolen, and at the same time slander against Godunov was erected. The murder contributed to the destruction of the Rurik dynasty, helped to fight Godunov. The real result of the work of the investigation in the Uglich case, headed by Prince. Vasily Shuisky is as follows: the official version of the accident, as well as the rumor about the murder on the orders of Boris, plus a thin loop of the rumor "about miraculous salvation." This rumor will be aroused in difficult times for the authorities in Moscow, for example, in 1598 immediately after the death of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich. Even during the life of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich, the struggle around the throne was fought between the tsar's relatives Godunovs and Romanovs.

But more ancestral than them, in an earlier, distant blood connection with the Rurikoviches, were some princes, a kind of “princes of the blood” - the Shuiskys, for example. Both the Romanovs and the Godunovs were not princely families, they did not belong to the Rurikovichs or Gediminoviches. Both families were small, belonged to the new aristocracy. The old aristocracy under the Godunovs or under the Romanovs had no chance of power. It was clear that under Godunov's policy she had no prospects for absolute power. It was clear that the Romanovs (sons of Nikita Romanovich Zakharyin-Yuriev, who, dying, gave Godunov his place near Tsar Theodore Ioannovich), would not be guided by the well-born nobility. Therefore, the Romanovs were moved in every possible way against Godunov, and even compromised by the fact that the boyar impostor - Grigory Otrepyev - was taken "from their court." Without knowing it, the Romanovs, like the Godunovs they hated, became victims of boyar intrigues. The ties of the boyar aristocracy (political and related) with Lithuania were so close, the example of the oligarchic power of the gentry aristocracy in the Polish Republic was so attractive that the unification of forces hostile to Godunov in Russia and abroad became a reality and led to incredible political intrigue. Sophisticated Jesuits kept its threads in their hands until the accession of the Pretender. It seemed that the monstrous undertaking had succeeded. But the Pretender began to show signs of independence, and the boyar aristocracy, satisfied that the Godunovs were no more, and the Romanovs had previously been eliminated from the struggle for the throne, felt their moment and, led by Vasily Shuisky, dealt with their recent allies. The West clearly underestimated the abilities of the "Muscovites". It should be noted that the opinion of N. M. Pavlov about the exceptional merits of the Jesuits in the success of the first Pretender is somewhat exaggerated. Although they have a dominant role in this matter, but without the secret actions of a strong anti-Godunov boyar party, the Pretender could not have been successful. At the very end of the 19th century, when S. F. Platonov seriously took up the history of the Time of Troubles, and N. M. Pavlov set about searching for new sources abroad, the work of Fr. Pavel Pirling "Rome and Demetrius". This wise Jesuit began to write regularly on the themes of the Pretender and the Troubles. His works were published and distributed in Russia. Father Pavel Pirling was absolutely sure that in Russia they would not get to the truth, and therefore he allowed himself arrogant passages similar to mockery: writes about a phenomenon “which in Petrine Rus' should not be too surprised”: “first the history of the turmoil came out, and then they began to study the sources.” Pirling has in mind the dominance of his opinions, established since the time of Karamzin, which took the form of "scientific" officialdom. This, unfortunately, is generally true. Since then, the situation has not changed. In Russia, to this day, it is believed that Godunov killed the prince, and Grigory Otrepyev came to Moscow and ruled for almost a year under the name of Demetrius. This accepted version was ahead of the actual study of the problem. More precisely, the problem was simply removed, elevating the strong-willed decision of Tsar Vasily Shuisky to the level of the final result, without taking into account the fact that it actually lived only until the cathedral on February 16, 1607. That for our science and for our cultural society the historical truth was not interesting - in this the Jesuit Pearling is right. But, all the more so, despite the prescription, now it is not worth leaving the problem. N. M. Pavlov carefully studied Pirling's works, and his conclusions are relevant even today. Letter to Count S. D. Sheremetiev dated March 4, 1901: “all for one purpose: to divert the reader’s eyes from the true breeders of the reigning False Dmitry” (12, p. 14). Pirling was cunning, saying: "The mechanical comparison of domestic and foreign news cannot be considered satisfactory." He did not like that Russian historians were trying to restore the true outline of events and "go out" to the true culprits of the murder and the Time of Troubles. It is no coincidence that earlier the authenticity of documents from the Vatican archives published by A.I. Turgenev was questioned. The reason is precisely that these materials were not in favor of the Jesuits, the Roman Curia and the Holy See. Oddly enough, in his writings, Pirling often lets slip, and in some cases provides direct evidence against the Jesuits in the case of the Pretender. In the article Posseviana (this article should be considered the answer of the Jesuits to the unsuccessful searches by N. M. Pavlov in Venice for the Possevina archive, documents from which a certain “Russian”, most likely Prince Obolensky, or someone from his entourage, got acquainted with the documents back in 1860 Pirling reports the following about the Venetian archive of Antonio Possevino. The archive of Possevin (who was in correspondence with Savitsky, a Jesuit, confessor of Demetrius, and with the head of the Polish Jesuits, Decius Skrivri) was entrusted by the owner on May 7, 1604 (then Demetrius's campaign in Russia was already a decided matter, and the result was still problematic) to the care of the general of the order, Claudio Acquaviva. Pierling writes that the Possevin archive is poorly preserved, “most of the papers have been lost. The Russian historical part was especially affected.” He does not report the place of its location, and also does not report the contents of the inventory of the archive that has been preserved, according to him (10). Pavlov to Sheremetyev: “The enemies of Orthodoxy, having stolen his (prince’s) name and abused him, wanted to set up a false self-proclaimed dynasty in Rus' for the coming generations from century to century” (12, p. 11). Metropolitan Platon Levshin: “They call Possevin, who wanted to catch the young children of the Russian nobles in some way, so that they would learn from them in Poland and Vilna the sciences, de them most disposed to the Papal faith, and through them, de, it will be possible in Russia to be successful." (metropolitan Platon (Levshin))

Metropolitan Platon gives an exhaustive description of the Jesuits as the doers of papal policy, and also points to Ivan the Terrible, who gave them a reason to participate in "Russian affairs": to spread their faith and the very papal and their power”; “They were and are always the tools of the Pope, who did not sleep, and never sleeps, in order to conquer all the kingdoms of his power, for this they consider all methods and all lawless means to be lawful”; “The first tsar, John Vasilievich, unfortunately opened the Pope and the Jesuits free entry into Russia” (2, 178-179). Those who prepared the Pretender and the Union of Brest, and the union was prepared not only for Maly and Bely, but above all for Great Russia, had the same leaders. In 1605, Pope Paul V wrote to Cardinal Bernard Maciejowski of Krakow that “Demetrius, imbued from childhood with the teachings of the Roman Catholic faith through the care of Cardinal Maciejowski, will keep it hopefully even after ascending to the throne of his parents” (3, p. 162). Back in 1588, the then Bishop of Lutsk, Bernard Maciejowski, and Brest judge Adam Potei, the future Uniate Bishop Ipatiy, began preparing the union during the visit of Patriarch Jeremiah to Russia. The impostor was legalized in the house of the Mnishkovs, relatives of Cardinal Maciejovsky, in 1603, when a certain “Muscovite”, the boyar impostor Grigory Otrepiev, who was brought there by “Latin monks”, was “executed” there.

N. M. Pavlov wrote gr. S. D. Sheremetev: “Grishka Otrepiev, whose wanderings from Moscow to Kyiv can be traced with the accuracy of a diary, was in Kyiv with “Latin monks”, after which he disappeared - an undeniable fact” (12, p. 8). Evidence in favor of Pirling's message about the execution of the "Muscovite" is the "repentant letter" of the monk Varlaam, who was arrested together with Otrepiev and imprisoned in the Mnishkov castle separately from the Moscow fugitive. This letter was first published in one collection of acts with a "permit". Varlaam can be seen as an agent of the Moscow conspirators who brought Otrepiev to Lithuania and there "surrendered" him to the "Latin monks" (1). (Note that the purpose of sending Grigory Otrepyev from Moscow was to create an official version of the Moscow government about the impostor Otrepyev, and then to refute it when the "real prince" appeared in Moscow - this was quite successful - and also, incidentally, to discredit the Romanovs, from whose "yard" was Otrepyev to the Chudov Monastery). So, from childhood, the Jesuit pupil was under the supervision of the Cardinal of Krakow, and this was known in Rome. Cardinal Bernard Maciejowski of Krakow was also at the origin of contacts with the infidel Western Russian episcopate in preparation for the union. His relative's house became the starting point for preparing the Pretender's invasion of Russia. And the second Pretender is of the same origin. Mikhail Molchanov, one of the murderers of Feodor Godunov, immediately after the death of Demetrius, flees from Moscow to Krakow, spreading the news of the "salvation" of the Pretender. The second Pretender appears only a year later, but preparations have been going on for his appearance all this time. Bolotnikov, recently the much-praised leader of the so-called "peasant war", arrived in Russia from Krakow from Molchanov, and before that he had been to Venice. Bolotnikov's business was to set the stage for the second Pretender. The first Pretender relied in Russia on the boyar opposition; after the first one was destroyed by the boyars, the second Pretender had to be popular among the social rank and file, "lean" on them. Nuncio Claudio Rangoni, Cardinal Borghese from Rome to Poland, wrote about the second Pretender as early as the end of 1606 (these are only four known letters). The Jesuit entourage of the Second Pretender (Tushinsky thief) is also known. And the first Demetrius certainly had an understudy, and maybe more than one. (See Acts ... collected by A. I. Turgenev. S. 136-137. Act LXXVIII, letters dated September 30, October 7, October 21, December 9, 1606) Let's return to the “Letter of Permit”. Without assistance in Moscow, enemies from outside would not have achieved anything. The betrayal of the boyars and the people who swore allegiance to the son of Tsar Boris, the public murder of Tsar Theodore and his mother opened Moscow to the Pretender and opened the Time of Troubles. If then the Russian people had remained faithful to the young Tsar, there would have been no Time of Troubles. But even the cautious Karamzin wrote about the petition of the Moscow people, read out on February 20, 1607 in the Assumption Cathedral before the “letter of permission”: “In this paper, the people - and only one people - prayed Job to forgive him in the name of God all his sins before the Law, demanded forgiveness for the living and the dead, blamed himself for all the disasters sent down by God on Russia, but did not blame himself for the regicides, attributing the murder of Theodore and Mary to Rastriga alone ”(13, p. 47). Indeed, the text of the petition says: “and we sinned in that, we violated the oath and the kiss of the cross, and they were given out to the evil and impious murderer Grishka Otrepyev, and the thief Grishka painfully did what he wanted to, our Sovereign Theodore and his mother betrayed to death, and He sent Princess Xenia into a monastic image, and to you our father was torn away from us, and us from you. (1.3, p.158) In a word, everything is like the first time: it’s not my fault, but my wife’s; it's not my fault, but the snake seduced. As is repentance, so is forgiveness. The "Letter of Permit" about the guilt of the Russian people says directly:
“Orthodox Christians Tsarina Marya and Tsarevich (inaccuracy, follows: Tsar, - ed.) Theodora and Tsarevna Xenia overthrew from the royal throne, and from the royal chambers from the royal chambers, and strangled by an evil death (Xenia was not killed. These mistakes are a clear consequence of speed preparation of the document, but they do not change its essence) and the holy catholic and apostolic church of the Most Pure Mother of God (Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin) is disgraced. A multitude of the people of the reigning city of Moscow entered the holy cathedral and apostolic church, with weapons and dracoli; during the holy and divine singing, and not allowing the divine liturgy to be performed, and entering the holy altar, and I, Ieva the Patriarch, took from the altar and in the church and around the square, carrying disgrace with many shames, and in the royal skirts the likeness of Christ's body and the Most Pure Mother of God and Archangels, who were prepared for the Lord's shroud under golden chased images, and then crushed the enemy with hatred and, sticking up into spears and horns, carrying through hail and through the market place, disgracefully, forgetting the fear of God "(1, 2, 154). The Holy Sepulcher was subjected to blasphemy and pogrom; a majestic shroud - a relic built towards the end of the reign of Boris Godunov for the alleged Church of the Resurrection in the Kremlin and located in the royal chambers. There is a significant work by A.L. Batalov (18) about this shrine, and its significance, as well as about the elevation with the establishment of the patriarchate of the Moscow Tsar to an equal degree with the Byzantine basileus. He points out that already the coronation rank of Boris Godunov - the rite of crowning the kingdom on September 3, 1598 - was consciously oriented towards the Byzantine rank "with the desire to become like the emperor of the Ecumenical Orthodox Empire." The work of A. L. Batalov is very valuable for understanding the Godunov era, the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bstate building under Feodor Ioannovich and the Godunovs. Archbishop Arseniy of Arkhangelsk (i.e. the Cathedral of the Archangel in the Kremlin - "at the royal tombs") b. Elassonsky writes in his memoirs: “All the people of Moscow, having heard about this poison-filled message (of the Pretender, - author), immediately, like wild animals, like robbers with knives, clubs and stones, rushed to the palace to Tsar Theodore and Queen Mary, pulled out them from the palace and imprisoned them in his father's old house. The quickly stupid people forgot the great kindness of his father Boris and the innumerable alms that he distributed to them. The body of Boris was taken out of the coffin, which was in the cathedral church of the Archangels, for the sake of desecration. Five days later, Tsar Theodore and his mother Mary were killed and buried near Tsar Boris in the Varsonofevsky Monastery, and his sister, Princess Xenia, was tonsured a nun five months later, they named her Olga nun and exiled to the Belozersky monastery. Oh, the madness and lawlessness of the people, what did they do, although later they themselves, with their wives and children, drank the cup that they had prepared” (6, p. 99). Metropolitan Platon (Levshin): “Tsar Theodore was not in the kingdom for more than a month; and so blessed, like a quiet ram, having no malice, died. About him, secretly cry in your hearts, for his innocent life, and death innocent from the villain and from his subjects of traitors ”(2, p. 144). Muscovites repented of the crime of kissing the cross - and this sin is forgiven. And they did not take the blame for regicide and sacrilege - and it remained with the people of Moscow. In this part, the conciliar and patriarchal letter sounds harsh - guilty! Here are some thoughts about it. In an article published relatively recently in Lithuania, its author, a writer, writes with vehemence, but not without reason: “They don’t say anything about the canonization of the really innocently murdered Tsar Fyodor Borisovich”; "The brutally murdered king. Shamelessly slandered by his father. The introduction of the people into the sin of lynching over people and the state. ". (15). The first defender of Boris Godunov was once N. M. Karamzin himself, who played the main role in strengthening the slander against Godunov. But these words of his are true even now: “What if we slander this ashes, if we unjustly torment the memory of a person, believing false opinions accepted in the annals by nonsense or enmity? ; And this monarch, whose name Tsar Michael himself ordered to be preserved on Ivan the Great, despite the fact that his parent was persecuted by Boris, our chroniclers are not ashamed to describe this Monarch as an insane villain; for the likelihood of this villainy, it is necessary to prove its connection with the benefits of lust for power; his crimes seem to me absurdities worthy of rude ignoramuses who wanted to flatter the reigning family of the Romanovs with slander. “Eager piety also belongs to the character of Godunov; her sincerity cannot be doubted. Karamzin gives examples of the faith and piety of Boris Godunov, in particular, tells how he ordered his sick son to be carried to the temple in the cold, and also that “none of the Russian tsars more often than Boris visited the Trinity and other holy monasteries” ( 14, pp. 305-318). Even St. Job, the first Patriarch of Moscow and All Great Russia, wrote about Godunov as a great temple builder and builder: and their eyesight is worthy of great wonder.”

The well-known historian and collaborator of Pushkin, Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin, writes about Karamzin in his article “On Godunov’s Participation in the Murder of Tsarevich Dimitri”: his opinion, without showing the reasons that prompted him to do so. (16, p. 126). In the preface to his articles on Godunov and the Pretender, Pogodin rightly says: “It is necessary to publish, collate and evaluate critically all our and foreign evidence about the confused period of Boris and False Dmitry - a period in which much remains dark even for those who accept the main positions of Karamzin” ( 16, p. 147). That is, back in 1829, Pogodin spoke of a necessary condition, which, even after 70 years, could not suit the Jesuit Pearling. It has not been observed to this day. Karamzin, in his "History", followed the path of officialdom, dating back to Shuisky, probably after he saw that a conscientious study would be unusually scandalous for some strong families in his time - let's name only the Golitsyn princes, and the Jesuits in Russia were then very influential in the highest circles of society. The “Godunov case” also presented significant difficulties for the reigning dynasty, for none of the Romanovs returned to the issue of revising the results of the activities of the commission of Vasily Shuisky on the basis of the opinion of the Church, expressed in the “permit” of the Council of 1607. Under the Romanovs, two contradictory attitudes to the death of Tsarevich Dimitri were established, both false - an accident, by the decision of the Shuisky commission, and the victim of the “killer Godunov”, as recorded in the life of the faithful passion-bearer “at the suggestion” of the same Vasily Shuisky with the conscious connivance of Godunov's opponent, Metropolitan Filaret Romanov, who led the canonization in 1606. Undoubtedly, the great historiographer lost heart and gave in to the demands of truth. The time of the Godunovs covers three reigns: Theodore Ioannovich, Boris Feodorovich and the fifty-day one - Theodore Borisovich, and one pontificate - on the metropolitan, then on the patriarchal throne - St. Job. It was the time of the real embodiment of the idea of ​​a symphony of spiritual and secular power. This is not some kind of idyll, but mutual understanding and unity in overcoming contradictions. Such was the relationship between Godunov and the Patriarch in connection with the decree of 1590 on abuse of land contributions to monasteries and in connection with the revision of monastic land ownership in 1593-4. Saint Job was the true spiritual head of Russia. Godunov's measures against abuses that corrupted society, the people, and the clergy did not meet with his opposition, although they were perceived by the interested part of society and part of the clergy as anti-church (even the famous Abraham Palitsyn condemned Godunov). But the holy Patriarch Job was not a weak-willed "well-wisher" Godunov, who allegedly "kept" him on the throne for this. Back in 1871, N. Sokolov, the author of a study on St. Job wrote: “We would have had a university not from the time of Elizabeth, but from the very beginning of the 17th century, if Job and his clergy had not opposed the great thought of Boris, had not prevented its implementation. Consider Job's opposition to Boris' intention. We find in the patriarch a man who strictly preserved the purity of the faith and fearfully looked at all attempts to subject it to foreign influence. It seemed dangerous, imprudent and untimely to entrust public education to people alien to our faith. At the council, Job said that “Russia prospers in the world through the unity of faith and language. Differences in language can also lead to differences in thought. It is imprudent to entrust the education of youth to Catholics and foreigners. The patriarch was by no means an opponent of enlightenment, he himself was an educated person, and had an excellent command of the pen. But being very sharp-sighted, St. Job understood the danger of prematurely establishing a university in Russia. And Tsar Boris unconditionally accepted the opinion of the Holy Patriarch and the Council. (17, p. 31 - 33)

Is this not evidence of genuine, active consent? It is not surprising when the Holy Patriarch is at the head of the Church, and a truly pious monarch is at the head of the state. (Unfortunately, these episodes did not find a place in the Life of St. Job, see ZhMP 1990 No. 2) It is not surprising that the malice of this world took up arms against them. Russian society and the Russian people were unworthy of God's gift, which is such a power for people. They went the way of crimes against God and power, followed the invisible initiators of these crimes. Boris and his family were not punished as criminals. This is Russia, its people were so severely punished. Only the martyrdom of Patriarch Hermogenes, and then the feat of Susanin, standing in the faith and truth of the few (Holy Trinity Sergius Monastery, St. Dionysius, Prince Dimitry Pozharsky) became the basis for its revival. Hegumen Feofilakt (Moiseev), in a recent work about St. Job, quotes Avraamy Palitsyn's words about the Time of Troubles: "The entire Russian state is driven into madness" (7). This is the time from which the lawless sentence to Tsar Boris and his family came out. But it has not been canceled to this day.

What testimonies we have about the Godunovs today, now and for all time! Their remains were laid to rest in his monastery by the Abbot of the Russian Land, St. Sergius. Their names are raised over all of Moscow and shine with gold under the dome of Ivan the Great, which has become a monument to a small but great dynasty (remember that its enemies tried to blow it up and could not destroy it in 1812). Through the poetic and at the same time prophetic gift of Pushkin, the denunciation of the Permissive Letter, the holy patriarchs Job and Hermogenes and the entire consecrated cathedral in the final scene of the great tragedy Boris Godunov is repeated. (Pushkin did not know the entire text of the Permissive Letter, only a small fragment of it given by Karamzin). “The people” are “silent” until now, remain indifferent to the desecrated honor of the great Orthodox sovereign, the founder of the Patriarchate in Russia, whom the holy Patriarch Job called a friend. We are still indifferent to the martyrdom of his widow and heir, to the sad fate of his daughter. Due attention to such a significant document, which is the “Letter of Permission” of the two holy patriarchs, can be an incentive for a detailed study and a worthy solution to this long-standing problem that we have neglected.

The turmoil of the beginning of the 17th century, the prerequisites, the stages of which will be discussed below, is a historical period accompanied by natural disasters, deep socio-economic and state-political crises. The difficult situation in the country was aggravated by the Polish-Swedish intervention.

Troubles of the 17th century in Russia: causes

The crisis phenomena were caused by a number of factors. The first problems occurred, according to historians, due to the cessation and struggle between the tsarist government and the boyars. The latter sought to preserve and strengthen their political influence and increase their traditional privileges. The tsarist government, on the contrary, tried to limit these powers. The boyars, in addition, ignored the proposals of the Zemstvo. The role of representatives of this class is assessed by many researchers extremely negatively. Historians point out that the boyar claims turned into a direct struggle with the royal power. Their intrigues had an extremely negative impact on the position of the sovereign. It was this that created fertile ground on which the Time of Troubles arose in Russia. At the beginning of the 17th century, it was characterized only from an economic point of view. The situation in the country was very difficult. Subsequently, political and social problems joined this crisis.

Economic situation

Troubles in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century coincided with the aggressive campaigns of Grozny and the Livonian War. These measures demanded great effort from the productive forces. The ruin in Veliky Novgorod and the forced displacement of service people had an extremely negative impact on the economic situation. This is how the Time of Troubles began to brew in Russia. The beginning of the 17th century was also marked by widespread famine. In 1601-1603, thousands of small and large farms went bankrupt.

social tension

The unrest in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century was fueled by the rejection of the existing system by the masses of fugitive peasants, impoverished townspeople, city Cossacks and Cossack freemen, a large number of servicemen. The introduced oprichnina, according to some researchers, significantly undermined the respect and trust of the people in law and power.

First events

How did the Time of Troubles develop in Russia? The beginning of the 17th century, in short, coincided with a shift in power in ruling circles. The heir to Grozny, Fedor the First, did not have the necessary managerial abilities. The youngest son, Dmitry, was still a baby at that time. After the death of the heirs, the Rurik dynasty came to an end. The boyar families - the Godunovs and the Yuryevs - approached power. In 1598 Boris Godunov took the throne. Period from 1601 to 1603 were fruitless. Frosts did not stop even in summer, and in autumn, in September, it snowed. The outbreak of famine claimed about half a million people. Exhausted people went to Moscow, where they were given bread and money. But these measures only exacerbated the economic problems. The landlords were not able to feed the servants and serfs and drove them out. Left without food and shelter, people began to engage in robbery and robbery.

False Dmitry the First

Troubles in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century coincided with the spread of a rumor that Tsarevich Dmitry had survived. From this it followed that Boris Godunov was on the throne illegally. The impostor False Dmitry announced his origin to Adam Vishnevetsky, the Lithuanian prince. After that, he became friends with Jerzy Mniszek, a Polish magnate, and Ragoni, papal nuncio. At the beginning of 1604, False Dmitry 1 received an audience with the Polish king. Some time later, the impostor converted to Catholicism. The rights of False Dmitry were recognized by King Sigismund. The monarch allowed everyone to help the Russian Tsar.

Entry to Moscow

False Dmitry entered the city in 1605, on June 20th. The boyars, led by Belsky, publicly recognized him as the prince of Moscow and the rightful heir. During his reign, False Dmitry was guided by Poland and tried to carry out some reforms. However, not all boyars recognized the legitimacy of his reign. Almost immediately after the arrival of False Dmitry, Shuisky began to spread rumors about his imposture. In 1606, in mid-May, the opposition of the boyars took advantage of the actions of the population against the Polish adventurers who had come to Moscow for the wedding of False Dmitry, raised an uprising. During it, the impostor was killed. The coming to power of Shuisky, who represented the Suzdal branch of the Rurikovich, did not bring peace to the state. In the southern regions, a movement of "thieves" broke out from which went. Events of 1606-1607 describes R. G. Skrynnikov. "Russia at the beginning of the 17th century. Troubles" is a book created by him on the basis of a large amount of documentary material.

False Dmitry II

Nevertheless, rumors still circulated in the country about the miraculous salvation of the legitimate prince. In 1607, in the summer, a new impostor appeared in Starodub. Troubles in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century continued. By the end of 1608, he achieved the spread of his influence on Yaroslavl, Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, Vologda, Galich, Uglich, Kostroma, Vladimir. The impostor settled in the village of Tushino. Kazan, Veliky Novgorod, Smolensk, Kolomna, Novgorod, Pereyaslavl-Ryazansky remained faithful to the capital.

Seven Boyars

One of the key events that marked the Time of Troubles in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century was the coup. Shuisky, who was in power, was removed. The leadership of the country got a council of seven boyars - the Seven Boyars. As they recognized Vsevolod, the Polish prince. The population of many cities swore allegiance to False Dmitry 2. Among them were those who had recently opposed the impostor. The real threat from False Dmitry II forced the council of the boyars to let the Polish-Lithuanian detachments into Moscow. They were supposed to be able to overthrow the impostor. However, False Dmitry was warned about this and left the camp in a timely manner.

militias

Troubles in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century continued. Began It contributed to the formation of militias. The first was commanded by a nobleman from Ryazan, Lyapunov. He was supported by supporters of False Dmitry II. Among them were Trubetskoy, Masalsky, Cherkassky and others. On the side of the militia was also the Cossack freemen, whose head was Ataman Zarutsky. The second movement began under the leadership of He invited Pozharsky as leader. In the spring, the camp of the First Militia near Moscow swore allegiance to False Dmitry the Third. Detachments of Minin and Pozharsky were unable to perform in the capital at a time when supporters of the impostor ruled there. In this regard, they made Yaroslavl their camp. At the end of August, the militia went to Moscow. As a result of a series of battles, the Kremlin was liberated, the Polish garrison that occupied it capitulated. Some time later, a new king was chosen. They became

Effects

Compare the Time of Troubles in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century in terms of its destructive power and the depth of the crisis in the country can, probably, only be compared with the state of the country during the period of the Tatar-Mongol invasion. This terrible period in the life of the state ended with huge territorial losses and economic decline. The Great Troubles of the early 17th century claimed a huge number of lives. Many cities, arable lands, villages were devastated. The population could not recover to its previous level for quite a long time. Many cities passed into the hands of the enemies and remained in their power for several subsequent decades. Significantly reduced the area of ​​cultivated land.

The period of Russian history from autumn 1598 to 1618 is called the Time of Troubles. During these years, the country was torn apart by a civil war, and neighbors - the Commonwealth and Sweden - torn away from Russia the lands on its western and northwestern borders. Russian statehood was on the verge of its existence - during the years of unrest, it practically collapsed. Impostors appeared, several kings and governments existed at the same time, supported by various parts of the country, and the central government, in fact, disappeared.

The reasons for the turmoil were the aggravation of social, estate, dynastic and international relations at the end of the reign of Ivan IV and under his successors.

· Dynastic crisis - in 1591, Tsarevich Dmitry, the last of the Rurikids, dies in Uglich.

· The election of a new tsar at the Zemsky Sobor - Godunov's accession to the throne of Moscow tsars seemed illegal to many, the consequence - the emergence of rumors that Boris Godunov killed Dmitry, or Tsarevich Dmitry is alive and will soon begin the fight.

· Growing dissatisfaction among the peasant population of the country - the abolition of St. George's Day in 1593, the introduction in 1597 of lesson years - the term for the investigation of fugitive peasants.

· Famine of 1601-1603. => an increase in the number of robbers, economic disorganization (people blame the king, punishment for the murder of Dmitry).

· Oprichnina.

· Intervention of foreign states (Poland, Sweden, England, etc. regarding land issues, territory, etc.) - intervention.

Stages of Troubles:

Stage 1.1598-1606

Boris Godunov on the throne. The establishment of the patriarchate, the change in the nature of domestic and foreign policy (the development of the southern lands, Siberia, the return of the western lands, a truce with Poland). An economic struggle is taking place and a political one is escalating.

1603 - announcement in Poland of False Dmitry 1, support by the Poles.

1604-1605 - the death of Boris Godunov, his son, Fyodor Borisovich, becomes king. False Dmitry solemnly enters Moscow and is married to the kingdom.

1605 – reforms of False Dmitry 1:

Tax cuts;

Cancellation for 10 years of taxes in the poorest lands.

1606 – False Dmitry exposed and killed (Vasily Shuisky). Boyars and Vasily Shuisky did not want to expose Grigory Otrepyev, because they wanted to blackmail him. Grigory is a servant of Fyodor Nikitich, who later becomes patriarch (Filaret), and his son Mikhail Romanov becomes king.

Stage 2.1606-1610.

By decision of Red Square, Vasily Shuisky (a very deceitful person) becomes king, took an oath before his subjects to resolve all matters with the boyars (signed a letter of cross-kissing - a promise not to violate the rights of the boyars). Shuisky was not loved by the people: he was bloodless, unpleasant appearance. At this time, about 30 impostors are announced, and one of them - False Dmitry 2 - rules from Tushino, dual power arises in Russia.

Shuisky summons Swedish troops to overthrow False Dmitry 2 - intervention.

1606-1607 – Bolotnikov uprising (peasant war against the government).

1609 - Poland sends troops to take Russian lands, they rob the population, riots intensify.

1610 - Poles in the capital. Boyars (with the support of Poland) overthrow Vasily Shuisky (to the monastery). False Dmitry 2 was killed, boyar rule begins ( Seven Boyars).

Stage 3.1611-1613.

A large territory of Russia is occupied, there is no tsar.

1611 – led by Prokopy Lyapunov, the First Militia was formed. Pozharsky's detachment broke through to Moscow, but a fire started. The detachment was defeated, Pozharsky was wounded. The Poles hid in Kitay-gorod and the Kremlin. The militia became a camp near Moscow. The Council of the whole earth was created - a provisional government. Discord among the leaders, Lyapunov was killed, his supporters left the camp, the militia poses no threat, and the leader has no power.

Autumn 1611- on the initiative of Minin, the Second Militia was formed. The Council of the whole earth was created - the second provisional government. Zarutsky is against, sends a detachment to prevent the inhabitants of Nizhny Novgorod from entering Yaroslavl, the killer to Porazhsky. The plan fails, Zarutsky leaves for the southern lands of the country, capturing Marina Mnishek and her son. The second militia annexes the counties, collects the tax for the maintenance of the Second militia, the representatives of the counties are part of the Council of the whole land. In August 1612, the militia approached the capital, Trubetskoy joined Pozharsky.

1613- Zemsky Sobor in January. Candidates for the throne: Polish prince Vladislav, Swedish king Karl-Philip, son of False Dmitry 2, M.F. Romanov. In February, a new tsar, Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov (son of Patriarch Filaret), was elected.

Stage 4. 1613-1618.

Massacre with Zarutsky, restoring order in the north.

1617 - The end of the war with Sweden - the Stolbovsky peace, according to which the Swedes return Novgorod, but a number of fortresses on the s-w retreat of Sweden, Russia lost access to the sea.

1617 - Vladislav's speech to Moscow, in the autumn of 1618 in Moscow. Pozharsky threw them away.

1618 - Deulino truce for 14.5 years. Smolensk, Chernigov, Novgorod-Seversk lands were ceded to the Commonwealth, and Vladislav does not renounce his claim to the Russian throne.

Results:

Large territorial losses for Rus'. Smolensk was lost for many decades; western and a significant part of eastern Karelia captured by the Swedes. Not reconciled to national and religious oppression, almost the entire Orthodox population, both Russians and Karelians, will leave these territories. Rus' 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.

· Russia still defended its independence.

· Time of Troubles led to a deep economic decline. In a number of areas, by the 20-40s of the 17th century, the population was below the level of the 16th century.

· The total death toll is equal to one third of the population.

The emergence of a new royal dynasty. They had to solve three main problems - the restoration of the unity of the territories, the state mechanism and the economy.

One of the most difficult periods in the history of the state is the Time of Troubles. It lasted from 1598 to 1613. It was at the turn of the XVI-XVII centuries. there is a severe economic and political crisis. Oprichnina, the Tatar invasion, the Livonian war - all this led to the maximum growth of negative phenomena and increased public indignation.

Reasons for the beginning of the Time of Troubles

Ivan the Terrible had three sons. He killed his eldest son in a fit of rage, the youngest was only two years old, and the middle one, Fedor, was 27. Thus, after the death of the tsar, it was Fedor who had to take power into his own hands. But the heir is a soft person and did not fit the role of a ruler at all. Even during his lifetime, Ivan IV created a regency council under Fedor, which included Boris Godunov, Shuisky and other boyars.

Ivan the Terrible died in 1584. Fedor became the official ruler, but in fact - Godunov. A few years later, in 1591, Dmitry (the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible) dies. A number of versions of the boy's death are put forward. The main version is that the boy himself accidentally ran into a knife when he was playing. Some claimed that they knew who killed the prince. Another version - he was killed by Godunov's henchmen. A few years later, Fedor dies (1598), leaving no children behind.

In this way, historians identify the following main causes and factors for the beginning of the Time of Troubles:

  1. Interruption of the Rurik dynasty.
  2. The desire of the boyars to increase their role and power in the state, to limit the power of the king. The claims of the boyars developed into an open struggle with the top of power. Their intrigues had a negative impact on the position of royal power in the state.
  3. The economic situation was critical. The conquests of the tsar demanded the activation of all forces, including production ones. In 1601-1603 - a period of famine, as a result - the impoverishment of large and small farms.
  4. Serious social conflict. The current system tore away not only numerous fugitive peasants, serfs, townspeople, city Cossacks, but also some parts of the service people.
  5. Domestic policy of Ivan the Terrible. The consequences and result of the oprichnina increased distrust, undermined respect for law and authority.

Events of unrest

The Time of Troubles was a huge shock for the state, which affected the foundations of power and the state system. Historians distinguish three periods of unrest:

  1. Dynastic. The period when the struggle for the Moscow throne took place, and it lasted until the reign of Vasily Shuisky.
  2. Social. The time of civil strife among the popular classes and the invasion of foreign troops.
  3. National. The period of struggle and expulsion of the interventionists. It lasted until the election of a new king.

The first stage of confusion

Taking advantage of the instability and discord in Rus', False Dmitry crossed the Dnieper with a small army. He managed to convince the Russian people that he was Dmitry - the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible.

A huge mass of the population reached out for him. Cities opened their gates, townspeople and peasants joined his detachments. In 1605, after the death of Godunov, the governors sided with him, and after a while, all of Moscow.

The support of the boyars was necessary for False Dmitry. So, on June 1, on Red Square, he proclaimed Boris Godunov a traitor, and also promised privileges to boyars, clerks and nobles, unimaginable benefits to merchants, and peace and tranquility to peasants. An alarming moment came when the peasants asked Shuisky whether Tsarevich Dmitry was buried in Uglich (it was Shuisky who headed the commission investigating the death of the prince and confirmed his death). But the boyar already claimed that Dmitry was alive. After these stories, an angry mob broke into the houses of Boris Godunov and his relatives, destroying everything. So, on June 20, False Dmitry entered Moscow with honors.

It turned out to be much easier to sit on the throne than to stay on it. To assert his power, the impostor consolidated serfdom, which led to the discontent of the peasants.

False Dmitry also did not live up to the expectations of the boyars. In May 1606, the gates of the Kremlin were opened to the peasants, False Dmitry was killed. The throne was taken by Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky. The main condition for his reign was the limitation of power. He vowed that he would not make any decisions on his own. Formally, there was a restriction of state power. But the situation in the state did not improve.

The second stage of confusion

This period is characterized not only by the struggle for power of the upper classes, but also by free and large-scale peasant uprisings.

So, in the summer of 1606, the peasant masses had a head - Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov. Peasants, Cossacks, serfs, townspeople, large and small feudal lords, and servicemen gathered under one banner. In 1606, Bolotnikov's army moved to Moscow. The battle for Moscow was lost, they had to retreat to Tula. Already there, a three-month siege of the city began. The result of the unfinished campaign against Moscow is the capitulation and execution of Bolotnikov. Since that time, peasant uprisings have declined..

The Shuisky government sought to normalize the situation in the country, but the peasants and servicemen were still dissatisfied. The nobles doubted the ability of the authorities to stop the peasant uprisings, and the peasants did not want to accept the feudal policy. At this moment of misunderstanding, another impostor appeared in the Bryansk lands, who called himself False Dmitry II. Many historians claim that he was sent to rule the Polish king Sigismund III. Most of his detachments were Polish Cossacks and gentry. In the winter of 1608, False Dmitry II moved with an armed army to Moscow.

By June, the impostor reached the village of Tushino, where he camped. He was sworn allegiance to such large cities as Vladimir, Rostov, Murom, Suzdal, Yaroslavl. In fact, there were two capitals. The boyars swore allegiance either to Shuisky or to the impostor and managed to receive salaries from both sides.

For the expulsion of False Dmitry II, the Shuisky government concluded an agreement with Sweden. According to this agreement, Russia gave the Karelian volost to Sweden. Taking advantage of this mistake, Sigismund III switched to open intervention. The Commonwealth went to war against Russia. The Polish units abandoned the impostor. False Dmitry II is forced to flee to Kaluga, where he ingloriously ended his "reign".

Letters of Sigismund II were delivered to Moscow and Smolensk, in which he claimed that, as a relative of the Russian rulers and at the request of the Russian people, he was going to save the dying state and the Orthodox faith.

Frightened, the Moscow boyars recognized Prince Vladislav as the Russian Tsar. In 1610, an agreement was concluded in which the main plan for the state structure of Russia was stipulated:

  • the inviolability of the Orthodox faith;
  • restriction of freedom;
  • the division of power of the sovereign with the Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Sobor.

The oath of Moscow to Vladislav took place on August 17, 1610. A month before the events, Shuisky was forcibly tonsured a monk and exiled to the Chudov Monastery. To manage the boyars, a commission of seven boyars was assembled - Seven Boyars. And already on September 20, the Poles entered Moscow without hindrance.

At this time, Sweden openly demonstrates military aggression. Swedish detachments occupied most of Russia and were already ready to attack Novgorod. Russia was on the verge of the final loss of independence. The aggressive plans of the enemies aroused great indignation among the people.

The third stage of turmoil

The death of False Dmitry II greatly influenced the situation. The pretext (the fight against the impostor) to rule Russia by Sigismund disappeared. Thus, the Polish troops turned into occupying ones. Russian people unite for resistance, the war began to acquire national proportions.

The third stage of turmoil begins. At the call of the patriarch, detachments come to Moscow from the northern regions. Cossack troops led by Zarutsky and Grand Duke Trubetskoy. Thus, the first militia was created. In the spring of 1611, Russian troops launched an assault on Moscow, which was unsuccessful.

In the autumn of 1611, in Novgorod, Kuzma Minin addressed the people with an appeal to fight against foreign invaders. A militia was created, headed by Prince Dmitry Pozharsky.

In August 1612, the army of Pozharsky and Minin reached Moscow, on October 26 the Polish garrison surrendered. Moscow was completely liberated. The Time of Troubles, which lasted almost 10 years, is over.

In these difficult conditions, the state needed a government that would reconcile people from different political parties, but could also find a class compromise. In this regard, the candidacy of Romanov suited everyone..

After the grandiose liberation of the capital, letters of convocation of the Zemsky Sobor were scattered throughout the country. The council took place in January 1613 and was the most representative in the entire medieval history of Russia. Of course, a struggle broke out for the future tsar, but as a result they agreed on the candidacy of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov (a relative of the first wife of Ivan IV). Mikhail Romanov was elected tsar on February 21, 1613.

From this time begins the history of the reign of the Romanov dynasty, which was on the throne for more than 300 years (until February 1917).

Consequences of the Time of Troubles

Unfortunately, the Time of Troubles ended badly for Russia. Territorial losses were suffered:

  • loss of Smolensk for a long period;
  • loss of access to the Gulf of Finland;
  • eastern and western Karelia captured by the Swedes.

The Orthodox population did not accept the oppression of the Swedes and left their territories. Only in 1617, the Swedes left Novgorod. The city was completely devastated, there were several hundred citizens left in it.

Time of Troubles led to economic and economic recession. The size of arable land fell 20 times, the number of peasants decreased 4 times. Land cultivation was reduced, the monastic yards were devastated by the invaders.

The death toll during the war is approximately equal to one third of the population of the country.. In a number of regions of the country, the population fell below the level of the 16th century.

In 1617-1618, Poland once again wanted to capture Moscow and elevate Prince Vladislav to the throne. But the attempt failed. As a result, the signing of a truce with Russia for 14 years, which marked the refusal of Vladislav's claims to the Russian throne. Poland remained Northern and Smolensk lands. Despite the difficult conditions of peace with Poland and Sweden, the end of the war and a welcome respite came for the Russian state. The Russian people unitedly defended the independence of Russia.