Members of the Trouble. Make a list of participants in the events of the Troubles known to you. It can include both individuals and groups of people

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.

Thus, 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 Russia, 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 if 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.

Time of Troubles - Chronology of events

The chronology of events helps to better imagine how events developed in a historical period. The Time of Troubles chronology presented in the article will help students to better write an essay or prepare for a report, and teachers to choose key events that should be told in class.

The Time of Troubles is a designation of the period of Russian history from 1598 to 1613. This period was marked by natural disasters, the Polish-Swedish intervention, the most severe political, economic, state and social crisis.

Chronology of events of troubled times

The prelude to troubled times

1565-1572 - oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible. The beginning of a systemic political and economic crisis in Russia.

1569 - Lublin Union of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Formation of the Commonwealth.

1581 - murder by Ivan the Terrible in a fit of anger, the eldest son of Ivan Ivanovich.

1584, March 18 - the death of Ivan the Terrible while playing chess, the accession to the throne of Fedor Ivanovich.

1596. October - Schism in the church. Cathedral in Brest, split into two cathedrals: Uniate and Orthodox. The Kyiv Metropolitanate was divided into two - faithful to Orthodoxy and Uniates.

December 15, 1596 - 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.

The beginning of troubled times

1598 - the death of Fyodor Ivanovich, the termination of the Rurik dynasty, the election of boyar Boris Fedorovich Godunov, the brother-in-law of the late tsar, as tsar at the Zemsky Sobor.

January 01, 1598. The death of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich, the end of the Rurik dynasty. The rumor that Tsarevich Dimitri is alive is spreading in Moscow for the first time

February 22, 1598. Consent of Boris Godunov to accept the royal crown after much persuasion and threats to excommunicate Patriarch Job from the Church for disobedience to the decision of the Zemsky Sobor.

1600 Bishop Ignatius Grek becomes the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Moscow.

1601 Great famine in Russia.

Two contradictory rumors are spreading: the first is that Tsarevich Dimitri was killed on the orders of Godunov, the second is about his “miraculous salvation”. Both rumors were taken seriously, despite the contradiction, spread and provided anti-Godunov forces with help among the "masses".

Impostor

1602 Hierodeacon Grigory Otrepyev of the Chudov Monastery escapes to Lithuania. the appearance in Lithuania of the first impostor, posing as the miraculously saved Tsarevich Dmitry.

1603 - Ignatius Grek becomes Archbishop of Ryazan.

1604 - False Dmitry I in a letter to Pope Clement VIII promises to spread the Catholic faith in Russia.

April 13, 1605 - Death of Tsar Boris Feodorovich Godunov. Muscovites' oath to Tsarina Maria Grigorievna, Tsar Feodor Borisovich and Princess Xenia Borisovna.

June 3, 1605 - Public murder on the fiftieth day of the reign of the sixteen-year-old Tsar Feodor Borisovich Godunov by princes Vasily Vas. Golitsyn and Vasily Mosalsky, Mikhail Molchanov, Sherefedinov and three archers.

June 20, 1605 - False Dmitry I in Moscow; a few days later he appoints Ignatius the Greek as patriarch.

Tushino camp

May 17, 1606 - Conspiracy led by Prince. Vasily Shuisky, the uprising in Moscow against False Dmitry I, the deposition and death of False Dmitry I.

1606-1610 - the reign of the "boyar tsar" Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky.

June 03, 1606 - Transfer of relics and canonization of St. Right-Believing Tsarevich Dimitry of Uglich.

1606-1607 - an uprising led by the "voivode of Tsar Dmitry" Ivan Bolotnikov.

February 14, 1607 - Arrival in Moscow at the royal command and at the request of Patriarch Hermogenes "byvago" Patriarch Job.

February 16, 1607 - "Letter of Permit" - 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.

February 20, 1607 - 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.

1608 - False Dmitry II's campaign against Moscow: the impostor besieged the capital for 21 months.

The beginning of the Russian-Polish war, the Seven Boyars

1609 - Vasily Shuisky's agreement with Sweden on military assistance, the open intervention of the Polish king Sigismund III in Russian affairs, the siege of Smolensk.

1610 - the assassination of False Dmitry II, the mysterious death of the talented commander Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky, the defeat of the Polish-Lithuanian troops near Klushino, the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky and his full tonsure as a monk.

1610, August - Hetman Zholkevsky's troops entered Moscow, Prince Vladislav was called to the Russian throne.

militias

1611 - the creation of the First Militia by the Ryazan nobleman Prokopy Lyapunov, an unsuccessful attempt to liberate Moscow, the capture of Novgorod by the Swedes and the Poles of Smolensk.

1611, autumn - the creation of the Second Militia, led by the Nizhny Novgorod township elder Kuzma Minin and Prince Dmitry Pozharsky.

1612, spring - The second militia moved to Yaroslavl, the creation of the "Council of All the Earth".

1612, summer - connection of the Second and the remnants of the First militia near Moscow.

1612, August - Hetman Khodkevich's attempt to break through to the Polish-Lithuanian garrison besieged in the Kremlin was repulsed.

1612, the end of October - the liberation of Moscow from the invaders.

The election of the king

1613 - Zemsky Sobor elects Mikhail Romanov as Tsar (February 21). Mikhail's arrival from Kostroma to Moscow (May 2) and his coronation to the kingdom (May 11).

The defeat of Zarutsky and Marina Mnishek near Voronezh.

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

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

Historical guide

Concepts of Troubles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beginning of Troubles in Russia

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

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

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

Driving elements of the Time of Troubles

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

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

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

Battle serfs

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

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

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

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

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

archers

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

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

Cossacks during the Time of Troubles

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

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

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

The beginning of the open stage of the Troubles

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

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

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

The first stage of the Troubles

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

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

At this stage:

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

The second stage of the Troubles

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

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

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

Tushintsy and their role in the Time of Troubles

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

At this stage, the following happened:

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

The third stage of the Time of Troubles in Russia

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

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

At this stage:

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

End of the Time of Troubles

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

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

Consequences of the Time of Troubles for Russia

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

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

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

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

The complexity of the interpretation of the Troubles

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

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

Andrey Fursov, historian

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

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

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

Any popular movement can be divided into 3 categories:

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

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

The Time of Troubles occupies a serious place in the history of Russia. This is the time of historical alternatives. There are many nuances in this topic that are generally important for understanding and assimilation as soon as possible. In this article, we'll take a look at some of them. Where to get the rest - see the end of the article.

Causes of troubled times

The first reason (and the main one) is the suppression of the dynasty of the descendants of Ivan Kalita, the ruling branch of the Ruriks. The last tsar of this dynasty, Fyodor Ioannovich, son, died in 1598, and from the same time the period of the Time of Troubles in the history of Russia begins.

The second reason - more the reason for the intervention in this period - that at the end of the Livonian War, the Muscovite state did not conclude peace treaties, but only a truce: Yam-Zapolsky - with Poland and Plyussky with Sweden. The difference between an armistice and a peace treaty is that the first is only a break in the war, and not its end.

Course of events

As you can see, we are analyzing this event according to the scheme recommended by me and other colleagues, about which you can.

The Time of Troubles began directly with the death of Fyodor Ioannovich. Because this is a period of “kinglessness”, kingdomlessness, when impostors and people, in general, were ruled by chance. However, in 1598 the Zemsky Sobor was convened and Boris Godunov came to power - a man who long and stubbornly went to power.

The reign of Boris Godunov lasted from 1598 to 1605. During this time the following events took place:

1. The terrible famine of 1601-1603, which resulted in the uprising of Cotton Clubfoot, and the mass exodus of the population to the south. As well as dissatisfaction with the authorities.
2. Speech of False Dmitry the First: from the autumn of 1604 to June 1605.

The reign of False Dmitry I lasted one year: from June 1605 to May 1606. In his reign the following processes continued:

False Dmitry the First (aka Grishka Otrepiev)

The growth of dissatisfaction with his rule among the boyars, since False Dmitry did not respect Russian customs, married a Catholic, began to distribute Russian lands as estates to the Polish nobility. In May 1606, the boyars, led by Vasily Shuisky, overthrew the impostor.

The reign of Vasily Shuisky lasted from 1606 to 1610. Shuisky was not even elected at the Zemsky Sobor. His name was simply "shouted", so he "enlisted" the support of the people. In addition, he gave the so-called cross-kissing oath that he would consult with the boyar thought in everything. The following events took place during his reign:

1. Peasant war led by Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov: from the spring of 1606 to the end of 1607. Ivan Bolotnikov acted as the governor of "Tsarevich Dmitry", the Second False Dmitry.
2. Campaign of False Dmitry II from the autumn of 1607 to 1609. During the campaign, the impostor could not take Moscow, so he sat down in Tushino. There was a dual power in Russia. Neither side had the means to defeat the other side. Therefore, Vasily Shusky hired Swedish mercenaries.
3. The defeat of the "Tushinsky thief" by the troops of Swedish mercenaries led by Mikhail Vasilyevich Skopin-Shuisky.
4. Intervention of Poland and Sweden in 1610. Poland and Sweden were at this time in a state of war. Since Swedish troops, albeit mercenaries, ended up in Moscow, Poland got the opportunity to start an open intervention, considering Muscovy an ally of Sweden.
5. The overthrow of Vasily Shuisky by the boyars, as a result of which the so-called "seven boyars" appeared. The boyars de facto recognized the power of the Polish king Sigismund in Moscow.

The results of the Time of Troubles for the history of Russia

First result The unrest was the election of a new reigning Romanov dynasty, which ruled from 1613 to 1917, which began with Michael and ended with Michael.

Second outcome was the withering away of the boyars. Throughout the 17th century, it was losing its influence, and with it the old tribal principle.

Third outcome- devastation, economic, economic, social. Its consequences were overcome only by the beginning of the reign of Peter the Great.

Fourth Outcome- instead of the boyars, the authorities relied on the nobility.

PS.: Of course, everything you read here is available on a million other sites. But the purpose of the post is concise, briefly talk about the Troubles. Unfortunately, all this is not enough to complete the test. After all, there are many nuances left behind the scenes, without which the second part of the test is unthinkable. That's why I invite you to Andrey Puchkov's preparation courses for the Unified State Examination.

Sincerely, Andrey Puchkov

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 Russia.
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 out of the mouths 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 recognizing the primacy of the pope and with a petition for 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-Volyn Ipatiy 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 Russia. 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 Mnishk 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 crafted and implemented the project of usurpation of the Russian Patriarchate and the royal throne in order to establish a state subject to the Roman throne in the place of the Orthodox, 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 Russia, 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, Otrepyev 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 rigged 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: “Pirling 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 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 come up with 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 seduced 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 Rurikovichs, 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 the 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 began to search for new sources abroad, a work appeared on. 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 Russia should not be too surprised": "first the history of the turmoil came out, and then they began to study the sources." Pirling means 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. Sheremetyev 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 the authenticity of documents from the Vatican archives published by A.I. Turgenev was previously 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 content 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 Russia 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 Otrepyev 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 this, we violated the oath and the kiss of the cross, and they were given to the evil and impious murderer Grishka Otrepyev, and the thief Grishka tortured them with what he wanted, betrayed our Sovereign Theodore with his mother 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 from the royal throne overthrew, and from the royal chambers, and 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 dragging disgrace with many shames, and in royal dresses 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 they crushed the enemy with hatred and, sticking up on spears and horns, carrying in hail and in 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 by 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 (the Pretender, - ed.), 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 folly 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. ". (fifteen). 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, in his article “On Godunov’s Participation in the Murder of Tsarevich Dimitri” writes about Karamzin: 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 testimonies 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 Vasily Shuisky commission 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 "murderer of 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 "Letter of Permit", 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.