Trouble important dates. Troubles in Russia in dates

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.

Troubled times in Russia. Causes, essence, stages, results.

Causes:

1 ) The establishment of a 5-year term for the investigation and return of fugitive peasants is another step towards serfdom.

2 ) Three lean years in a row (1601-1603), which led to famine, which aggravated the internal situation in the country to the limit.

3 ) The dissatisfaction of everyone - from peasants to boyars and nobles - with the rule of Boris Godunov.

4 ) The mass of peasants and townspeople of the central and northwestern regions, devastated by war, plague and oprichnina.

5 a) Departure of peasants from villages and cities; the decline of the economy.

6 ) Exacerbation of the class struggle.

7 ) The development of contradictions within the ruling class.

8 ) Deterioration of the international position of the state.

9 ) Crisis in the economic and political life of the country.

First stage (1598-1605)

At this stage, there were the first signs of destabilization of the system, but manageability remained. This situation created the conditions for a controlled process of change through reforms. The absence of a pretender with firm rights to the throne after the death of Fyodor Ioannovich was extremely dangerous in an autocratic, unrestricted power. It was important to ensure the continuity of power. In 1598. the Zemsky Sobor took place, its composition was wide: boyars, nobles, clerks, guests (merchants) and representatives of all the “christians”.

The council spoke in favor of crowning Boris Godunov, who actually ruled the country. The Boyar Duma met separately from the Zemsky Sobor and called for swearing allegiance to the Duma as the highest authority. Thus, an alternative arose: either elect a tsar and live as before, or swear allegiance to the Duma, which meant the possibility of changes in public life. The outcome of the struggle was decided by the street, speaking out for Boris Godunov, who agreed to the kingdom.

The position of the majority of the people was disastrous. At the beginning of the 17th century, agriculture fell into decline, and natural disasters added to this. In 1601, a terrible famine broke out, which lasted three years (only in Moscow were they buried in mass graves more than 120 thousand people). In difficult conditions, the authorities made some indulgences: the Yuriev day organized the distribution of bread to the starving. But even these measures did not relieve the tension. In 1603, the uprisings took on a massive character.

Second stage (1605-1610)

At this stage, the country plunged in the abyss of civil war, there was a collapse of the state. Moscow has lost its significance as a political center. In addition to the old capital, there were new, "thieves": Putivl, Starodub, Tushino. The intervention of Western countries, attracted by the weakness of the Russian state, began. Sweden and Poland were rapidly advancing inland. State power was paralyzed. In Moscow, False Dmitry I, Vasily Shuisky, Boyar Duma, whose reign went down in history under the name "Seven Boyars", were replaced. However, their power was ephemeral. False Dmitry II, who was in Tushino, controlled almost half the country.

At this stage, the possibility The Europeanization of Russia is associated with the name of False Dmitry I. In 1603, a man appeared within the Commonwealth, calling himself the name of the son of Ivan IV Dmitry, who had been considered killed for twelve years. In Russia, it was announced that Grigory Otrepiev, a fugitive monk of the Chudov Monastery, was hiding under this name.

Election as king Mikhail Romanov testified to the fact that the majority in society spoke in favor of the restoration of the Muscovite kingdom with all its features. The Troubles brought an important lesson: the majority was committed to the traditions of community, collectivism, strong centralized power and did not want to give them up. Russia began to slowly emerge from the social catastrophe, restoring the social system destroyed during the Time of Troubles.

Consequences of Troubles:

1 ) Temporary strengthening of the influence of the Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Sobor.

2 ) The positions of the nobility were strengthened

3 ) Lost coast of the Baltic Sea and the land of Smolensk.

4 ) Economic devastation, poverty of the people.

5 ) Saved the independence of Russia

6 ) The Romanov dynasty began to rule.

The beginning of the 17th century was marked by a series of difficult trials for Russia.

How did the turmoil start?

After Tsar Ivan the Terrible died in 1584, his son Fyodor Ivanovich, who was very weak and sickly, inherited the throne. Due to his state of health, he ruled for a short time - from 1584 to 1598. Fedor Ivanovich died early, leaving no heirs. The younger son of Ivan the Terrible was allegedly stabbed to death by minions of Boris Godunov. There were many who wanted to take the reins of government into their own hands. As a result, a struggle for power within the country unfolded. A similar situation served as an impetus for the development of such a phenomenon as the Time of Troubles. The reasons and the beginning of this period were interpreted differently at different times. Despite this, it is possible to single out the main events and aspects that influenced the development of these events.

Main reasons

Of course, first of all, this is the interruption of the Rurik dynasty. From this moment on, the central power, which has passed into the hands of third parties, loses its authority in the eyes of the people. The constant increase in taxes also served as a catalyst for the discontent of the townspeople and peasants. For such a protracted phenomenon as the Time of Troubles, the reasons have been accumulating for more than one year. This includes the consequences of the oprichnina, the economic devastation after the Livonian War. The last straw was the sharp deterioration in living conditions associated with the drought of 1601-1603. The Time of Troubles became for external forces the most successful moment for the liquidation of the state independence of Russia.

Background from the point of view of historians

Not only the weakening of the monarchy regime contributed to the emergence of such a phenomenon as the Time of Troubles. The reasons for it are connected with the interweaving of aspirations and actions of various political forces and social masses, which were complicated by the intervention of external forces. Due to the fact that at the same time many unfavorable factors were formed, the country plunged into a deep crisis.

For the occurrence of such a phenomenon as Troubles, the reasons can be identified as follows:

1. The crisis of the economy, which falls at the end of the XVI century. It was caused by the decline of peasants in the cities, the increase in tax and feudal oppression. The famine of 1601-1603 aggravated the situation, as a result of which about half a million people died.

2. The crisis of the dynasty. After the death of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, the struggle of various boyar clans for the right to stand in power intensified. During this period, Boris Godunov (from 1598 to 1605), Fyodor Godunov (April 1605 - June 1605), False Dmitry I (from June 1605 to May 1606), Vasily Shuisky (from 1606 to 1610), False Dmitry II (from 1607 to 1610) and the Seven Boyars (from 1610 to 1611).

3. Spiritual crisis. The desire of the Catholic religion to impose its will ended in a split in the Russian Orthodox Church.

Internal turmoil laid the foundation for peasant wars and urban uprisings.

Godunov's board

The difficult struggle for power between representatives of the highest nobility ended in the victory of Boris Godunov, the tsar's brother-in-law. This was the first time in Russian history when the throne was not inherited, but as a result of victory in elections in the Zemsky Sobor. In general, over the seven years of his reign, Godunov managed to resolve disputes and disagreements with Poland and Sweden, and also established cultural and economic relations with the countries of Western Europe.

His domestic policy also brought results in the form of Russia's advance into Siberia. However, soon the situation in the country deteriorated. This was caused by crop failures in the period from 1601 to 1603.

Godunov took all possible measures to alleviate such a difficult situation. He organized public works, gave permission to the serfs to leave their masters, organized the distribution of bread to the starving. Despite this, as a result of the abolition in 1603 of the law on the temporary restoration of St. George's Day, an uprising of serfs broke out, which marked the beginning of the peasant war.

Exacerbation of the internal situation

The most dangerous stage of the Peasant War was the uprising led by Ivan Bolotnikov. The war spread to the southwest and south of Russia. The rebels defeated the troops of the new tsar - Vasily Shuisky - proceeding to the siege of Moscow in October-December 1606. They stopped their internal disagreements, as a result of which the rebels were forced to retreat to Kaluga.

The Time of Troubles at the beginning of the 17th century was the right moment for the attack on Moscow for the Polish princes. The reasons for the intervention attempts lay in the impressive support provided to the princes False Dmitry I and False Dmitry II, who were subordinate to foreign accomplices in everything. The ruling circles of the Commonwealth and the Catholic Church made attempts to dismember Russia and eliminate its state independence.

The next stage in the split of the country was the formation of territories that recognized the power of False Dmitry II, and those that remained faithful to Vasily Shuisky.

According to some historians, the main reasons for such a phenomenon as the Time of Troubles lay in lack of rights, imposture, internal split of the country and intervention. This time was the first civil war in Russian history. Before the Time of Troubles appeared in Russia, its causes were formed for more than one year. The prerequisites were associated with the oprichnina and the consequences of the Livonian War. The country's economy was already ruined by that time, and tension was growing in the social strata.

Final stage

Beginning in 1611, there was an increase in patriotic sentiment, accompanied by calls for an end to strife and greater unity. The militia was organized. However, only on the second attempt under the leadership of K. Minin and K. Pozharsky in the fall of 1611, Moscow was liberated. 16-year-old Mikhail Romanov was elected the new tsar.

The Troubles brought colossal territorial losses in the 17th century. The reasons for it were mainly in the weakening of the authority of the centralized government in the eyes of the people, the formation of the opposition. Despite this, having gone through years of losses and hardships, internal disunity and civil strife under the leadership of False Dmitry impostors and adventurers, nobles, townspeople and peasants came to the conclusion that strength can only be in unity. The consequences of the Time of Troubles influenced the country for a long time. Only a century later they were finally eliminated.

The year 1598 for Rus' was marked by the beginning of the Time of Troubles. The prerequisite for this was the end of the Rurik dynasty. The last representative of this family, Fedor Ioannovich, died. A few years earlier, in 1591, the youngest son of Tsar Ivan the Terrible, Dmitry, died in the city of Uglich. He was a child and left no heirs to the throne. A summary of the events of the time period known as the Time of Troubles is set out in the article.

• 1598 - the death of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich and the reign of Boris Godunov;
• 1605 - the death of Boris Godunov and the accession of False Dmitry I;
• 1606 - boyar Vasily Shuisky becomes king;
• 1607 - False Dmitry II begins to rule in Tushino. The period of dual power;
• 1610 - the overthrow of Shuisky and the establishment of the power of the "seven boyars";
• 1611 - the first people's militia gathers under the command of Prokopy Lyapunov;
• 1612 - the militia of Minin and Pozharsky gathers, which liberates the country from the power of the Poles and Swedes;
• 1613 - the beginning of the Romanov dynasty.

The beginning of the Troubles and its causes

In 1598, Boris Godunov became Tsar of Russia. This man had a significant impact on the political life in the country during the life of Ivan the Terrible. He was very close to the king. His daughter Irina was married to Grozny's son, Fyodor.

There is an assumption that Godunov and his allies were involved in the death of Ivan IV. This was described in the memoirs of the English diplomat Jerome Horsey. Godunov, together with his ally Bogdan Belsky, was next to Ivan the Terrible in the last minutes of the tsar's life. And it was they who told the subjects the sad news. Later, people began to talk about the fact that the sovereign was strangled.

Important! Much in order to bring the country to a crisis of power, was done by the rulers themselves. Tsar Ivan III brutally killed the princes of his kind, the Rurikovichs, at his own request, not even sparing his close associates. This line of behavior was continued by his children and grandchildren.

In fact, by 1598, representatives of the aristocracy had become serfs and had no authority. Even the people did not recognize them. And this despite the fact that the princes were rich and high-ranking people.

The weakening of power, according to many historians, is the main cause of the Troubles. Godunov took advantage of this situation.

Since the heir Fyodor Ioannovich was weak-minded and could not independently rule the state, a regency council was assigned to him.

Boris Godunov was also a member of this body. As mentioned earlier, Fedor did not live long, and the board soon passed to Boris himself.

These events led to Troubles in the country. The people refused to recognize the new ruler. The situation was aggravated by the beginning of the famine. The years 1601–1603 were lean years. Oprichnina had a negative impact on life in Russia - the country was ruined. Hundreds of thousands of people died because they had nothing to eat.

Another reason was the long Livonian War and the defeat in it. All this could lead to the imminent collapse of the once powerful state. Society said that everything that happened was a punishment from
higher powers for the sins of the new king.

Boris began to be accused of both the murder of Grozny and involvement in the death of his heirs. And Godunov was unable to correct this situation and calm the popular unrest.

During the Time of Troubles, individuals appeared who proclaimed themselves in the name of the late Tsarevich Dmitry.

In 1605, False Dmitry I tried to seize power in the country with the support of the Commonwealth. The Poles wanted the Smolensk and Seversk lands to return to them.

Previously, they were annexed to the Russian state by Ivan the Terrible. That is why the Polish invaders decided to take advantage of the difficult time for the Russian people. So the news appeared that Tsarevich Dmitry had miraculously escaped death and now wants to regain the throne. In fact, the monk Grigory Otrepiev pretended to be the prince.

The capture of the territory of Rus' by the Swedes and Poles

In 1605 Godunov died. The throne passed to his son, Fyodor Borisovich. At that moment he was only sixteen, and he could not hold on to power without support. I came to the capital with my entourage False Dmitry I was proclaimed tsar.

At the same time, he decided to give the western lands of the state of the Commonwealth and married a girl of Catholic origin, Marina Mnishek.

But the reign of "Dmitry Ioannovich" did not last long. Boyar Vasily Shuisky conspired against the impostor, and he was killed in 1606.

The next king who ruled in the difficult Time of Troubles was Shuisky himself. Popular unrest did not subside, and the new ruler could not calm them down. In 1606-1607, a bloody uprising broke out, led by Ivan Bolotnikov.

At the same time, False Dmitry II appears, in whom Marina Mnishek recognized her husband. The impostor was also supported by the Polish-Lithuanian soldiers. Due to the fact that False Dmitry, along with his associates, stopped near the village of Tushino, he was nicknamed the "Tushinsky thief."

The main trouble of Vasily Shuisky was that he did not have the support of the people. The Poles easily established power over a large Russian territory - to the east, north and west of Moscow. The time for duality has come.

When the Poles went on the offensive, they captured many Russian cities - Yaroslavl, Vologda, Rostov the Great. For 16 months, the Trinity-Sergius Monastery was under siege. Vasily Shuisky tried to cope with the interventionists with the help of Sweden. A little later, the militia came to the aid of Shuisky. As a result, in the summer of 1609, the Poles were defeated. False Dmitry II fled to Kaluga, where he was killed.

At that time the Poles were at war with Sweden. And the fact that the Russian tsar enlisted support from the Swedes led to a war between the Russian state and the Commonwealth. Polish troops again approached Moscow.

They were led by Hetman Zolkiewski. In the battle, the foreigners won, and the people were finally disappointed in Shuisky. In 1610, the king was overthrown and they began to decide who would come to power. The reign of the “seven boyars” began, and popular unrest did not subside.

The unification of the people

The Moscow boyars invited the successor of the Polish king Sigismund III - Vladislav, to the place of the sovereign. The capital was actually given to the Poles. At that moment, it seemed that the Russian state had ceased to exist.

But the Russian people were against such a political turn. The country was devastated and almost destroyed, but it finally rallied people. Therefore, the course of the troubled period turned in the other direction:

• In Ryazan, in 1611, a people's militia was formed under the leadership of the nobleman Prokopy Lyapunov. In March, the troops reached the capital and began to besiege it. However, this attempt to free the country failed.
• Despite the defeat, the people decide to get rid of the invaders at all costs. A new militia is formed in Nizhny Novgorod by Kuzma Minin. The leader is Prince Dmitry Pozharsky. Detachments from different Russian cities rallied under his command. In March 1612, the troops moved towards Yaroslavl. On the way, more and more people became in the ranks of the militias.

Important! The militia of Minin and Pozharsky is the most important moment in history, when the further development of the state was determined by the people themselves.

Everything that he had, the common people gave into service. The Russians fearlessly and of their own free will went to the capital in order to liberate her. There was no king over them, there was no power. But all estates at that moment united for a common goal.

The militia included representatives of all nationalities, villages, cities. A new government was created in Yaroslavl - the "Council of All the Earth". It included people from townspeople, nobles, the Duma and the clergy.

In August 1612, a formidable liberation movement reached the capital, and on November 4, the Poles capitulated. Moscow was liberated by the forces of the people. The Time of Troubles is over, but it is important not to forget the lessons and key dates of the Time of Troubles.

Letters were sent to all corners of the state stating that a Zemsky Sobor would be held. The people had to choose their own king. The opening of the cathedral falls on 1613.

It was the first case in the history of the Russian state when representatives of each class participated in the elections. A 16-year-old representative of the Romanov family, Mikhail Fedorovich, was elected tsar. He was the son of the influential Patriarch Filaret and was related to Ivan the Terrible.

The end of the Time of Troubles is a very important event. The dynasty continued its existence. And at the same time, a new era began - the reign of the Romanov family. Representatives of the royal family ruled for more than three centuries, until February 1917.

What is Troubles in Rus'? In short, this is a crisis of power that led to ruin and could destroy the country. For fourteen years the country fell into decay.

In many counties, the size of agricultural land has been reduced by twenty times. There were four times fewer peasants - a huge number of people simply died of starvation.

Russia lost Smolensk and for decades could not return this city. Karelia was captured from the west and partly from the east by Sweden. Because of this, almost all Orthodox - both Karelians and Russians - left the country.

Until 1617, the Swedes were also in Novgorod. The city was absolutely ruined. Only a few hundred indigenous people remained in it. In addition, access to the Gulf of Finland was lost. The state was greatly weakened. Such were the disappointing consequences of the Time of Troubles.

Useful video

Conclusion

The country's exit from the Time of Troubles has been widely celebrated in Russia since 2004. November 4 is National Unity Day. This is a memory of those events when the Time of Troubles was in the country, but the people, having united, did not allow their Fatherland to be destroyed.

A difficult period in the history of our country began after the death of the last reigning Rurikovich - Tsar Fedor Ioannovich. The people could not imagine existence without a legitimate king, and the boyars rushed to power, trampling on the interests of the state. The reasons for the Time of Troubles (as it is customary to call it) lie in a deep political crisis caused by the struggle between the contenders for the royal throne. The situation was aggravated by a terrible crop failure and famine. Against the backdrop of a deep internal crisis, Russia became the object of foreign intervention.

Causes of the Time of Troubles and its three stages

The Time of Troubles can be divided into three stages, each of which is due to the causes that gave rise to it.

• The first is dynastic. It is a struggle between contenders for the throne.
• The second is called social. This is a confrontation between various social classes of an economically weakened country. It led to the invasion of foreigners.
• And the third stage is national. It implies the struggle of the people against the invaders.

The end of the Time of Troubles is considered to be the accession to the throne of the young Tsar Mikhail Romanov. Let's dwell on each stage in more detail.

Beginning of the dynastic period

The reasons for the beginning of the Time of Troubles appeared when Boris Godunov, elected by the Zemsky Sobor, ascended the Russian throne. A smart, far-sighted and energetic ruler, he did a lot to strengthen the country and raise the standard of living of Russians. But the terrible crop failure of 1601-1603 was a disaster that brought down the country's economy. Hundreds of thousands died of hunger. Political opponents blamed Godunov for everything. Not having the authority of a hereditary tsar, and being only elected, the ruler lost the respect and support of both the masses and the boyars.

The appearance of False Dmitry

The situation was aggravated by claims to the throne by the impostor False Dmitry. The real heir to the throne, Tsarevich Dmitry, died under unclear circumstances in Uglich. Godunov was unsubstantiatedly accused of his death, thereby finally undermining the foundations of his rule. Taking advantage of the circumstances, False Dmitry with detachments of Poles invaded the territory of Russia, and was even proclaimed king. But he reigned only a year, and in 1606 he was killed. The boyar Vasily Shuisky ascended the throne. This did not bring any tangible normalization of the situation in the country.

social period

The reasons for the Time of Troubles in Russia also included an economic component. It was she who was the reason for the involvement in the struggle of the broadest public masses, including the nobility, clerks and Cossacks. A particularly sharp character of the events was given by mass popular uprisings, which were called peasant wars. The most large-scale among them was the uprising, which was led by Bolotnikov. Having stirred up the entire central part of the country, it choked and was suppressed.

However, this did not stabilize the situation in the country. The rigid serf policy of Shuisky aroused the discontent of the peasants. The upper strata of society accused him of being unable to govern the state. To top it off, another impostor suddenly appeared, claiming the role of tsar, False Dmitry II. The country finally plunged into chaos, called the Time of Troubles. The causes, stages, consequences and driving forces of this historical process have become the subject of many scientific studies, which have shown that Poland's aggressive policy played an important role in the current situation.

Invasion of the interventionists

Under the pretext of protecting the legitimate heir to the throne, which meant False Dmitry II, his troops invaded the territory of Russia. Having made another mistake, Shuisky turned to the Swedish king for help in the fight against the impostor. As a result, in addition to the Polish interventionists, Swedish ones also appeared on Russian soil.

Soon, False Dmitry II, betrayed by the Poles, ended his days on the gallows, but the political causes of the Time of Troubles never found their solution. Shuisky was forcibly tonsured a monk by the boyars, and they themselves swore allegiance to the Polish prince Vladislav. It was a shameful act. The Swedes came close to Novgorod and prepared for the assault. Having betrayed its people, the Duma formed a body to govern the country, which was called the "seven boyars" by the number of its members. In essence, it was a government of traitors.

National period

But the Time of Troubles revealed not only the negative aspects of Russian life. The causes, stages, consequences, as well as the further course of the country's historical development were largely determined by the depth of people's self-consciousness. The people wanted only a legitimate ruler, this largely determined the features of the dynastic struggle of the first period of unrest.

The confrontation with economic and political chaos resulted in peasant wars. And, finally, a wave of patriotism raised the people to fight against the interventionists. Kuzma Minin and Dmitry Pozharsky became the leaders of the national liberation movement. In October 1612, the thousands of militia led by them forced the Polish garrison in Moscow to capitulate.

In January of the following year, Mikhail Romanov was elected tsar. This marked the beginning of a three-hundred-year dynasty. For a long time, the country experienced the difficult consequences of dashing years, but nevertheless this event is considered to be the end of the historical period, referred to as the Time of Troubles, the causes, consequences and significance of which still require in-depth scientific analysis.