1598-1613 - a period in the history of Russia called the Time of Troubles.
At the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries, Russia was going through a political and socio-economic crisis. The Livonian War and the Tatar invasion, as well as the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible, contributed to the intensification of the crisis and the growth of discontent. This was the reason for the beginning of the Time of Troubles in Russia.
The first period of turmoil characterized by the struggle for the throne of various claimants. After the death of Ivan the Terrible, his son Fyodor came to power, but he was unable to rule and was in fact ruled by the brother of the tsar's wife - Boris Godunov... Ultimately, his policies provoked the discontent of the popular masses.
Troubles began with the appearance in Poland of False Dmitry (in reality Grigory Otrepiev), supposedly miraculously surviving son of Ivan the Terrible. He lured over to his side a significant part of the Russian population. In 1605, False Dmitry was supported by the governors, and then by Moscow. And already in June he became the legitimate king. But he acted too independently, which caused the discontent of the boyars, he also supported serfdom, which caused a protest from the peasants. On May 17, 1606, False Dmitry I was killed and V.I. Shuisky, subject to the limitation of power. Thus, the first stage of the Troubles was marked by the reign False Dmitry I(1605 - 1606)
The second period of Troubles... In 1606 an uprising broke out, the leader of which was I.I. Bolotnikov. The ranks of the militants included people from different strata of society: peasants, serfs, small and medium feudal lords, servicemen, Cossacks and townspeople. In the battle of Moscow, they were defeated. As a result, Bolotnikov was executed.
But dissatisfaction with the authorities continued. And soon appears False Dmitry II... In January 1608, his army went to Moscow. By June, False Dmitry II entered the village of Tushino near Moscow, where he settled. In Russia, 2 capitals were formed: boyars, merchants, officials worked on 2 fronts, sometimes they even received salaries from both tsars. Shuisky concluded an agreement with Sweden and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth began aggressive military actions. False Dmitry II fled to Kaluga.
Shuisky was cut into a monk and taken to the Chudov Monastery. An interregnum began in Russia - the Seven Boyars (a council of 7 boyars). The Boyar Duma made a deal with the Polish invaders, and on August 17, 1610, Moscow swore allegiance to the Polish king Vladislav. At the end of 1610, False Dmitry II was killed, but the struggle for the throne did not end there.
So, the second stage was marked by the uprising of I.I. Bolotnikov (1606 - 1607), the reign of Vasily Shuisky (1606 - 1610), the appearance of False Dmitry II, as well as the Seven Boyars (1610).
The third period of Troubles characterized by the fight against foreign invaders. After the death of False Dmitry II, the Russians united against the Poles. The war has gained national character... In August 1612 the militia of K. Minin and D. Pozharsky reached Moscow. And on October 26, the Polish garrison surrendered. Moscow was liberated. Time of Troubles ended.
Results of the Troubles were depressing: the country was in a terrible situation, the treasury was ruined, trade and crafts were in decline. The consequences of the Troubles for Russia were expressed in its backwardness in comparison with European countries. It took decades to restore the economy.
The main stages of design: At the end of the 15th century. - the first steps in state registration. At the end of the XVI century. - a decisive step, but as a temporary measure. Cathedral Code of 1649 - final design. In the course of the restoration of the country after the “turmoil”, the acute struggle of small and large feudal lords for the peasants continues. A huge number of petitions from the "service small fry". It is under their pressure that Cathedral Code 1649, through which crossings were prohibited. The search and return of the fugitive and exported were not limited by any time frame. Serfdom became hereditary. The peasants lost the right to independently appear in court with claims.
The 16th century was a turning point in world history: it marked the final transition from the Middle Ages to the New Age. The bourgeois revolutions in England and the Netherlands became the last page of the Middle Ages.
The cause of the Troubles and foreign expansion
Changes have occurred in Russian history, but unlike European countries, this period was a time of bloody struggle for existence. In 1584, after prolonged physical suffering, Tsar Ivan the Terrible died. Despite the fact that the king was the father of four sons, he could not bring up for himself a worthy receiver of power.
After his death, there was no contender for the throne. The internal turmoil in Russia was taken advantage of by foreign invaders, who began to attempt to expand the Russian lands. After heated disputes, the son of Ivan the Terrible, Fedor, became the reign. His reign was absolutely symbolic: the tsar preferred to go to the monasteries on pilgrimage and read church literature.
He entrusted the administration of the state to his sister's husband, Boris Godunov. At a time when Fedor was busy with spiritual development, Godunov courageously tried to resist foreign invaders, and took upon himself all the discontent of the peasants with the economic situation.
Boris Godunov and his liberal principles
In 1598, Tsar Fyodor died, earlier Tsarevich Dmitry died for seven years, who could have continued the Rurik dynasty. Despite the protests of Boris Godunov, he was nevertheless elected as the new Russian tsar. From that moment on, Troubles in the state is gaining incredible momentum.
Despite the liberal attitude towards the peasantry, its representatives desperately do not accept the liberties granted by the tsar. History has recorded cases of large-scale escapes of entire villages to Siberia: the people saw in the tsar's virtues a hidden subtext of their own benefit.
At this time, the already tense situation in the state is complicated by natural disasters that captivated Russia for three long years. But even in conditions of starvation, the peasants refused to accept free bread from the hands of the tsar, and they considered disasters as punishment from God for the reign of Godunov. In 1605 Boris Godunov died. As a token of gratitude for his mercy, civil uprising killed his entire family.
False Dmitry enters the arena
After Godunov's death, a personality enters the political arena, whose activities became a real tough lesson for the blinded people - False Dmitry. He was a minor Polish nobleman who managed to convince the Russian boyars that he was allegedly the son of Ivan the Terrible, who actually did not die, but hid in Poland.
It took the Russian public a year to expose the impostor. His rule further exacerbated the crisis in the state, adding to the economic instability another attempt to pollinate the population. In times short reign Vasily Shuisky, the Polish intervention is hanging over Russia. After Shuisky, the rule of the country belonged to the boyars - the time of the "seven-boyars".
The turmoil in the state reached its climax: without a twinge of conscience, pursuing personal gain, the boyars betrayed the state interests and actually helped the Poles in the seizure of the country. The result was that the boyars effectively provided Poland with the keys to the Kremlin, which marked the fall of Russia as an independent state.
The Time of Troubles in the Muscovite State was a consequence of the tyrannical rule that shook the state and social order country. Captures end XVI v. and the beginning of the 17th century, began with the end of the Rurik dynasty by the struggle for the throne, led to ferment all layers of the Russian population, exposed the country to extreme danger of being captured by foreigners. In October 1612, the Nizhny Novgorod militia (Lyapunov, Minin, Pozharsky) liberated Moscow from the Poles and convened electives throughout the land to elect the tsar.
Small encyclopedic Dictionary Brockhaus and Efron. SPb., 1907-09
END OF KALITA GENUS
Despite all the unsatisfactory indications contained in investigative case, Patriarch Job was satisfied with them and announced at the council: “Before the sovereign Mikhail and Gregory Nagikh and the Uglitsky townspeople, treason is clear: Tsarevich Demetrius was killed God's judgment; and Mikhail Nagoy ordered the sovereign's clerks, clerk Mikhail Bityagovsky with his son, Nikita Kachalov and other nobles, tenants and townspeople who stood for the truth, ordered to beat in vain, because Mikhail Bityagovsky and Mikhail Nagim often scolded for the sovereign, why did he, Naked, he kept a witch, Andryusha Mochalov, and many other wizards. For such a great treasonous deed, Mikhail Nagoya and his brothers, and the peasants of Uglich, due to their guilt, came to any punishment. But this matter is zemstvo, city, then knows God and the sovereign, everything is in his royal hand, and execution, and disgrace, and mercy, about how God will inform the sovereign; and our position is to pray to God for the sovereign, empress, for their long-term health and for the silence of internecine strife. "
The council blamed the Nagy; but the people blamed Boris, and the people remember and love with the event, which especially struck him, to combine all the others important events... It is easy to understand the impression that the death of Demetrius should have made: before the appanages perished in dungeons, but against them there was an accusation of sedition, they were punished by the sovereign; now an innocent child perished, perished not in strife, not for the fault of his father, not by order of the sovereign, perished by a subject. Soon, in the month of June, a terrible fire broke out in Moscow, White City... Godunov squandered favors and privileges to the burned out: but rumors spread that he deliberately ordered Moscow to be ignited in order to bind its inhabitants to himself and make them forget about Demetrius, or, as others said, in order to force the Tsar, who was with the Trinity, to return to Moscow, and do not go to Uglich to search; the people thought that the tsar would not leave such a great cause without personal research, the people were waiting for the truth. The rumor was so strong that Godunov considered it necessary to refute it in Lithuania through the envoy Islenev, who received the order: “If they ask about the Moscow fires, then they say: I didn’t happen to be in Moscow at that time; the peasants, thieves, the people of the Nagikh, Afanasya and his brothers stole it: it was found in Moscow. If someone says that there are rumors that the Godunovs were kindling, then answer: it was some kind of a thief who was talking about a bum; a dashing person has the will to start. Godunov's boyars are eminent, great. " Khan Kazy-Girey came near Moscow, and rumors spread across the Ukraine that Boris Godunov had let him down, fearing the land for the murder of Tsarevich Dimitri; there was this rumor between common people; alexin boyar's son denounced his peasant; the peasant was taken and tortured in Moscow; he slandered many a multitude of people; They sent to search the cities, many people were intercepted and tortured, innocent blood was shed, many people died from torture, some were executed and their tongues cut, others were killed in dungeons, and many places were desolate.
A year after the Uglitsky incident, the tsar had a daughter, Theodosius, but in next year the child has died; Theodore was sad for a long time, and in Moscow there was a great cry; Patriarch Job wrote a consoling letter to Irina, saying that she could help grief not with tears, not with useless exhaustion of the body, but with prayer, hope, by faith, God would give child-bearing, and cited St. Anna. In Moscow, they cried and said that Boris had killed the tsar's daughter.
Five years after the death of his daughter, at the very end of 1597, Tsar Theodore fell ill with a fatal illness and on January 7, 1598, at one in the morning, he died. The masculine tribe of Kalita was cut short; there was only one woman left, the daughter of the unfortunate cousin Ioannova, Vladimir Andreevich, the widow of the titular Livonian king Magnus, Martha (Marya) Vladimirovna, who returned to Russia after her husband's death, but she was also dead to the world, was a nun; her tonsure, they say, was involuntary; she had a daughter, Evdokia; but she also died in childhood, they say, also an unnatural death. There was still a man who not only bore the name of the tsar and the grand duke, but also really reigned at one time in Moscow at the behest of the Terrible, the baptized Kasimov khan, Simeon Bekbulatovich. At the beginning of Theodore's reign, he is still mentioned in the ranks under the name of the Tsar of Tver and takes precedence over the boyars; but then the chronicle says that he was taken to the village of Kushalino, he did not have many courtyards, he lived in poverty; at last he became blind, and the chronicle directly blames Godunov for this misfortune. Godunov was not spared from the accusation of the death of Tsar Theodore himself.
HORROR OF HUNGER
Let's pay tribute to Boris Godunov: he fought hunger as best he could. Money was handed out to the poor, paid construction works... But the money received instantly depreciated: after all, this did not add bread on the market. Then Boris ordered the distribution of free bread from state storage facilities. He hoped to set a good example for the feudal lords, but the granaries of the boyars, monasteries and even the patriarch remained closed. Meanwhile, to free bread from all sides to Moscow and big cities starving people rushed. And there was not enough bread for everyone, especially since the distributors themselves speculated in bread. It was said that some rich people did not hesitate to dress in rags and receive free bread to sell it at exorbitant prices. People who dreamed of salvation died in cities right on the streets. In Moscow alone, 127 thousand people were buried, and not all of them were buried. A contemporary says that in those years the most well-fed were dogs and crows: they ate unburied corpses. While the peasants in the cities died in vain waiting for food, their fields remained uncultivated and uncultivated. This laid the foundations for the continuation of the famine.
PEOPLE RISES OF THE TIME OF DISORDERS
The rise of popular movements at the beginning of the 17th century was absolutely inevitable in the face of total famine. The famous Cotton uprising in 1603 was instigated by the owners of the slaves themselves. In conditions of famine, the owners drove out the slaves, because it was not profitable for them to keep the slaves at home. The very fact of the death of the governor I.F. Basmanova in the bloody battle of the end of 1603 with slaves speaks of a very significant military organization of the rebels (many slaves, obviously, also belonged to the category of "servicemen"). The authority of the tsarist government and personally of Boris Godunov sharply declined. Servants, especially in southern cities, were waiting for the change of power and the elimination of the monarch of a non-royal family, which they increasingly began to remind of. The true "Troubles" began, in which those who had recently been forced to leave Central Russia and seek their fortune in its border, mainly southern borders, as well as outside Russia, immediately joined in.
MOSCOW AFTER THE KILLING OF THE PALESMAN
Meanwhile, Moscow was littered with corpses, which were taken out of the city for several days and buried there. The body of the impostor lay in the square for three days, attracting the curious and wanting to curse at least the corpse. Then he was buried behind the Serpukhov Gate. But the pursuit of the murdered did not end there either. A week from 18 to 25 May there were severe frosts (not so rare in May-June and in our time), causing great damage to gardens and fields. The impostor has been followed before by whispers of his sorcery. In conditions of extreme instability of life, superstitions spread like a river: something terrible was seen over the grave of False Dmitry, and natural disasters were associated with it. The grave was dug up, the body was burned, and the ashes, mixed with gunpowder, were fired from the cannon, pointing in the direction from which Rasstriga had come. This cannon shot, however, created unexpected problems for Shuisky and his entourage. In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Germany, rumors spread that it was not “Dmitry” who was executed, but some of his servant, while “Dmitry” escaped and fled to Putivl or somewhere in the Polish-Lithuanian lands.
COUNTER-FIGHTING THE SPEECH OF POSPOLITA
The Time of Troubles did not end overnight after the liberation of Moscow by the forces of the Second Militia. In addition to the struggle against internal "thieves", up until the conclusion of the Deulinsky armistice in 1618, hostilities continued between Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The situation in these years can be described as a large-scale border war waged by local governors, relying mainly only on local forces. Characteristic feature military operations on the borderlands during this period are deep devastating raids on enemy territory. These attacks were aimed, as a rule, at certain fortified cities, the destruction of which led to the loss of the enemy's control over the territory adjacent to them. The task of the leaders of such raids was to destroy the enemy's strongholds, devastate villages, and drive away as many prisoners as possible.
The end of the 16th and the beginning of the 17th centuries were marked by turmoil in Russian history. Starting at the top, it quickly descended, captured all strata of Moscow society and put the state on the brink of ruin. The turmoil lasted for over a quarter of a century - from the death of Ivan the Terrible to the election of Mikhail Fedorovich (1584-1613) to the kingdom. The duration and intensity of the turmoil clearly indicate that it did not come from outside and not by chance, that its roots were hidden deep in the state organism. But at the same time, the Time of Troubles is striking in its obscurity and uncertainty. Is not political revolution since it did not begin in the name of a new political ideal and did not lead to it, although one cannot deny the existence of political motives in the turmoil; this is not a social upheaval, since, again, the turmoil did not arise from the social movement, although in its further development the aspirations of some strata of society for social change were intertwined with it. "Our turmoil is the fermentation of a sick state organism, striving to get out of the contradictions to which the preceding course of history led it and which could not be resolved peacefully, the usual way". All previous hypotheses about the origin of the Troubles, in spite of the fact that each of them contains a grain of truth, must be left as not fully solving the problem. There were two main contradictions that caused the Time of Troubles. The first of them was political, which is possible. to define in the words of Professor Klyuchevsky: "The Moscow sovereign, whose course of history led to democratic sovereignty, had to act through a very aristocratic administration"; both of these forces, which grew together thanks to the state unification of Russia and worked together on it, were imbued with mutual mistrust and enmity. can be called social: the Moscow government was forced to exert all its forces to better organize the highest defense of the state and "under the pressure of these higher needs, sacrifice the interests of the industrial and agricultural classes, whose labor served as the basis National economy, the interests of the service landowners ", the consequence of which was a massive exodus of the burdensome population from the centers to the outskirts, which intensified with the expansion of the state territory suitable for agriculture. The first contradiction was the result of the collection of inheritances by Moscow. in the management of his former prince and was content with the fact that the latter recognized the power of the Moscow sovereign, became his servant. The power of the Moscow sovereign, in the words of Klyuchevsky, was not in place of the appanage princes, but over them; state order was a new layer of relations and institutions, which lay on top of the previous one, without destroying it, but only imposing new duties on it, pointing out new tasks to it. ” only very few of the Moscow boyars in their midst on equal terms with themselves. Thus, a vicious circle of princes-boyars formed around the Moscow sovereign, who became the pinnacle of his administration, his main advice in governing the country. and now they began to rule the entire land, occupying a position according to the seniority of their breed.The Moscow government recognized this right for them, supported even it, promoted its development in the form of parochialism, and thus fell into the above contradiction. patrimonial law... The great Moscow prince was the patrimony of his inheritance; all the inhabitants of his territory were his "slaves". The entire preceding course of history led to the development of this view of territory and population. Recognition of the rights of the boyars Grand Duke cheated on his old traditions, which in reality he could not replace with others. The first to understand this contradiction was John the Terrible. The Moscow boyars were strong mainly in their land and clan possessions. Ivan the Terrible decided to make a complete mobilization of the boyar land tenure, taking away from the boyars their long-standing patrimonial appanage nests, giving them other lands in return, in order to break their connection with the land, deprive them of their former significance. The boyars were shattered; it was replaced by the lower court layer. Simple boyar families, like the Godunovs and Zakharyins, seized primacy at the court. The surviving remnants of the boyars became embittered and prepared for the turmoil. On the other hand, the XVI century. was the era external wars that ended in the acquisition of vast areas in the east, southeast and west. To conquer them and to consolidate new acquisitions, it took a huge amount of military forces, which the government recruited from everywhere, in difficult cases not disdaining the services of slaves. The service class in the Moscow state received, in the form of a salary, land on the estate - and land without labor was of no value. Land far from the borders military defense, also did not matter, since a serviceman could not serve with her. Therefore, the government was forced to transfer into service hands a huge area of land in the central and southern parts of the state. Palace and black peasant volosts lost their independence and came under the control of service people. The former division into volosts inevitably had to collapse in small rooms. The process of "enclosing" lands is aggravated by the above-mentioned mobilization of lands, which was the result of persecutions against the boyars. Mass evictions ruined the economy of service people, but ruined the taxpayers even more. Mass resettlement of the peasantry to the outskirts begins. At the same time, a huge area of the Zaoksky black soil is opened for resettlement for the peasantry. The government itself, taking care of strengthening the newly acquired borders, supports the resettlement to the outskirts. As a result, by the end of the reign of Grozny, the eviction takes on the character of a general flight, intensified by crop failures, epidemics, and Tatar raids. Most of the service land remains "empty"; there is a sharp economic crisis. The peasants lost the right to independent land tenure, with the placement of servicemen on their lands; The townspeople were displaced from the southern townships and cities occupied military force: The former trading places take on the character of military-administrative settlements. Posad people are running. In that economic crisis there is a struggle for workers' hands. The stronger ones - the boyars and the church - win. The service class and even more the peasant element remain the suffering elements, which not only lost the right to free land use, but, with the help of enslaving records, loans and the newly emerged institution of old-timers (see), begins to lose personal freedom, approaching the serf. In this struggle, enmity grows between individual classes - between the large boyar owners and the church, on the one hand, and the service class, on the other. The burdensome population harbors hatred of the oppressing estates and, irritated against the state premises, is ready for an open uprising; it runs to the Cossacks, who have long since separated their interests from the interests of the state. Only the north, where the land remained in the hands of the black volosts, remains calm during the oncoming state "devastation".
In the development of the Troubles in the Moscow state, researchers usually distinguish three periods: the dynastic period, during which there is a struggle for the Moscow throne between various pretenders (until May 19, 1606); social - the time of the class struggle in the Moscow state, complicated by interference in Russian affairs of foreign states (until July 1610); national - the fight against foreign elements and the choice of the national sovereign (until February 21, 1613).
The first period of Troubles
The last minutes of the life of False Dmitry. Painting by K. Wenig, 1879
Now the old boyar party was at the head of the board, which elected V. Shuisky as tsar. "Boyar-princely reaction in Moscow" (expression of S. F. Platonov), having mastered political situation, elevated her most generous leader to the kingdom. V. Shuisky was elected to the throne without the advice of the whole land. Shuisky brothers, V.V. Golitsyn with brothers, Iv. S. Kurakin and I. M. Vorotynsky, having conspired among themselves, brought Prince Vasily Shuisky to the place of execution and from there proclaimed him tsar. It was natural to expect that the people would be against the "shouted" tsar and that the minor boyars (the Romanovs, Nagie, Belsky, MG Saltykov, etc.), which gradually began to recover from Boris's disgrace, would also be against him.
Second period of Troubles
After his election to the throne, he considered it necessary to explain to the people why he was elected, and not anyone else. He motivates the reason for his election by descent from Rurik; in other words, it exposes the principle that the seniority of the "breed" gives the right to seniority in power. This is the principle of the old boyars (see Localism). Restoring the old boyar traditions, Shuisky had to formally confirm the rights of the boyars and, if possible, ensure them. He did this in his crucifixion record, which undoubtedly has the character of limiting the royal power. The tsar admitted that he was not free to execute his slaves, that is, he abandoned the principle that Grozny so sharply put forward and then accepted Godunov. The recording satisfied the boyar princes, and even then not all of them, but it could not satisfy the minor boyars, small servicemen and the mass of the population. The turmoil continued. Vasily Shuisky immediately dispatched the followers of False Dmitry - Belsky, Saltykov, and others - to different cities; he wanted to get along with the Romanovs, the Nagi and other representatives of the secondary boyars, but then several dark events happened, which indicate that he did not succeed. Filaret, who was elevated to the rank of metropolitan by the impostor, was thought to be elevated to the patriarchal table by V. Shuisky, but circumstances showed him that it was impossible to rely on Filaret and the Romanovs. He also failed to unite the oligarchic circle of princes-boyars: it partly disintegrated, partly it became hostile to the tsar. Shuisky hastened to marry the kingdom without even waiting for the patriarch: he was crowned by the Novgorod metropolitan Isidor, without the usual pomp. To dispel rumors that Tsarevich Dmitry is alive, Shuisky invented a solemn transfer to Moscow of the relics of the Tsarevich, canonized by the church; he also resorted to semi-official journalism. But everything was against him: anonymous letters were scattered around Moscow that Dmitry was alive and would soon return, and Moscow was worried. On May 25, Shuisky had to calm down the rabble, which PN Sheremetev, as they said at the time, had raised against him.
Tsar Vasily Shuisky
A fire broke out on the southern outskirts of the state. As soon as there it became known about the events of May 17, how the Seversk land rose, and beyond it the Zaoksky, Ukrainian and Ryazan places; the movement moved to Vyatka, Perm, and captured Astrakhan. Excitement also flared up in the Novgorod, Pskov and Tver regions. This movement, embracing such a huge space, carried in different places different character, pursued different goals, but there is no doubt that it was dangerous for V. Shuisky. In the Seversk land, the movement was of a social nature and was directed against the boyars. Here Putivl became the center of the movement, and kn. Grieg. Peter. Shakhovskoy and his "great voivode" Bolotnikov. The movement raised by Shakhovsky and Bolotnikov was completely different from the previous one: before they fought for the trampled rights of Dmitry, in which they believed, now - for a new social ideal; Dmitry's name was just an excuse. Bolotnikov called on the people to him, giving hope for social change. The original text of his appeals has not survived, but their content is indicated in the letter of Patriarch Hermogenes. The proclamations of Bolotnikov, says Hermogenes, inspire the rabble "all evil deeds for murder and robbery," "they tell the boyar slaves to beat their boyars and their wives, and they promise fiefdoms and estates; shopping people beat them and plunder their bellies; and call their thieves to themselves, and they want to give them boyars and voivodeships, and roundabouts, and clergy. "In the northern strip of Ukrainian and Ryazan cities, a service nobility arose, which did not want to put up with the boyar government of Shuisky. At the head of the Ryazan militia were Grigory Sunbulov and the Lyapunov brothers, Procopius and Zakhar, and the Tula militia moved under the command of the boyar son Istoma Pashkov.
Meanwhile, Bolotnikov defeated the tsarist governors and moved towards Moscow. On the way, he joined up with the noble militias, together with them approached Moscow and stopped in the village of Kolomenskoye. Shuisky's position became extremely dangerous. Almost half of the state rose against him, rebel forces besieged Moscow, and he had no troops, not only to pacify the rebellion, but even to defend Moscow. In addition, the rebels cut off the access to grain, and famine was discovered in Moscow. Among the besiegers, however, discord was revealed: the nobility, on the one hand, slaves, fugitive peasants, on the other, could live peacefully only until they knew each other's intentions. As soon as the nobility became acquainted with the goals of Bolotnikov and his army, they immediately recoiled from them. The Sunbulov and Lyapunovs, although they hated the order established in Moscow, preferred Shuisky and confessed to him. Other nobles began to follow them. Then the militia from some cities came to the rescue, and Shuisky was saved. Bolotnikov fled first to Serpukhov, then to Kaluga, from which he moved to Tula, where he sat down with the Cossack impostor False Peter. This new impostor appeared among the Terek Cossacks and pretended to be the son of Tsar Fyodor, who in reality never existed. Its appearance dates back to the time of the first False Dmitry. Shakhovskoy came to Bolotnikov; they decided to lock themselves up here and sit back from Shuisky. The number of their troops exceeded 30,000 people. In the spring of 1607, Tsar Vasily decided to act vigorously against the rebels; but the spring campaign was unsuccessful. Finally, in the summer, with a huge army, he personally went to Tula and laid siege to it, pacifying the insurgent cities along the way and destroying the rebels: they put "prisoners in the water" in thousands, that is, they simply drowned them. A third of the state territory was given to the troops for plunder and devastation. The siege of Tula dragged on; it was possible to take it only when they came up with an arrangement on the river. Upe the dam and flood the city. Shakhovsky was exiled to Lake Kubenskoye, Bolotnikov to Kargopol, where he was drowned, False Petr was hanged. Shuisky triumphed, but not for long. Instead of going to pacify the Seversk cities, where the rebellion did not stop, he disbanded the troops and returned to Moscow to celebrate the victory. The social background of Bolotnikov's movement did not escape Shuisky's attention. This is proved by the fact that by a series of decrees he planned to strengthen in place and subject to supervision that social stratum that discovered dissatisfaction with its position and sought to change it. By issuing such decrees, Shuisky acknowledged the existence of turmoil, but, trying to defeat it with one repression, he discovered a lack of understanding of the real state of affairs.
Battle of Bolotnikov's troops with the tsarist army. Painting by E. Lissner
By August 1607, when V. Shuisky was sitting near Tula, a second False Dmitry appeared in Starodub Seversky, whom the people very aptly dubbed the Thief. The Starodubtsy believed in him and began to help him. Soon a team squad was formed around him, consisting of Poles, Cossacks and all sorts of crooks. It was not a zemstvo squad that gathered around False Dmitry I: it was just a gang of "thieves" who did not believe in royal origin a new impostor and followed him in the hope of prey. The thief defeated the tsarist army and stopped near Moscow in the village of Tushino, where he founded his fortified camp. From everywhere people flocked to him, yearning for easy money. The arrival of Lisovsky and Yan Sapieha especially strengthened the Thief.
S. Ivanov. Camp of False Dmitry II in Tushino
Shuisky's position was difficult. The South could not help him; own forces he didn't have. There remained hope for the north, which was comparatively calmer and suffered little from the turmoil. On the other hand, Vor could not take Moscow either. Both rivals were weak and could not defeat each other. The people became corrupted and forgot about duty and honor, serving alternately one or the other. In 1608 V. Shuisky sent his nephew Mikhail Vasilyevich Skopin-Shuisky (see) to the Swedes for help. The Russians ceded the city of Karel with the province to Sweden, abandoned the views of Livonia and pledged an eternal alliance against Poland, for which they received an auxiliary detachment of 6 thousand people. Skopin moved from Novgorod to Moscow, clearing the north-west of the Tushins along the way. Sheremetev went from Astrakhan, suppressing the rebellion along the Volga. In the Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, they united and went to Moscow. By this time, Tushino had ceased to exist. It happened this way: when Sigismund learned about the alliance of Russia with Sweden, he declared war on her and laid siege to Smolensk. In Tushino, ambassadors were sent to the local Polish troops with the demand to join the king. A split began among the Poles: some obeyed the king's order, others did not. Thief's position was difficult before: no one stood on ceremony with him, he was insulted, almost beaten; now it was unbearable. The thief decided to leave Tushino and fled to Kaluga. During his stay in Tushino, a courtyard of Moscow people who did not want to serve Shuisky gathered around Vor. Among them were representatives of very high strata of the Moscow nobility, but the palace nobility - Metropolitan Filaret (Romanov), Prince. Trubetskoy, Saltykov, Godunov and others; there were also ordinary people who sought to curry favor, gain weight and importance in the state - Molchanov, Iv. Gramotin, Fedka Andronov and others. Sigismund invited them to surrender to the rule of the king. Filaret and the Tushino boyars answered that the election of the tsar was not their own business, that they could not do anything without the advice of the land. At the same time, they entered into an agreement between themselves and the Poles not to pester V. Shuisky and not want the tsar from the "other Moscow boyars" and started negotiations with Sigismund that he should send his son Vladislav to the Moscow kingdom. An embassy was sent from the Russian Tushins, headed by the Saltykovs, Prince. Rubets-Masalsky, Pleshcheevs, Khvorostin, Velyaminov - all great nobles - and a few people of low origin. On February 4, 1610, they entered into an agreement with Sigismund, clarifying the aspirations of "a rather mediocre nobility and profitable businessmen". Its main points are next. : 1) Vladislav is married to the kingdom Orthodox Patriarch; 2) Orthodoxy must be respected as before: 3) the property and rights of all ranks remain inviolable; 4) the trial is carried out according to the old times; Vladislav shares legislative power with the boyars and the Zemsky Sobor; 5) the execution can be carried out only by court and with the knowledge of the boyars; the property of the relatives of the perpetrator should not be subject to confiscation; 6) taxes are collected according to the old times; the appointment of new ones is done with the consent of the boyars; 7) peasant crossing is prohibited; 8) people high ranks Vladislav is obliged not to demote innocently, but to raise the lesser ones according to their merits; travel to other countries for science is permitted; 9) slaves remain in the same position. Analyzing this treaty, we find: 1) that it is national and strictly conservative, 2) that it protects most of all the interests of the service class, and 3) that it undoubtedly introduces some innovations; points 5, 6 and 8 are especially characteristic in this respect. Meanwhile, Skopin-Shuisky with triumph on March 12, 1610 entered liberated Moscow.
Vereshchagin. Defenders of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra
Moscow was jubilant, welcoming the 24-year-old hero with great joy. Shuisky was also jubilant, hoping that the days of testing were over. But during these rejoicing Skopin suddenly died. There was a rumor that he had been poisoned. There is news that Lyapunov offered Skopin to "put down" Vasily Shuisky and take the throne himself, but gives him the right to the seniority of power. This is the principle of the old boyars (see / p Skopin rejected this proposal. After the tsar learned about this, he lost interest in his nephew. In any case, the death of Skopin destroyed the connection of Shuisky with the people. He set out to liberate Smolensk, but near the village of Klushina he was shamefully defeated by the Polish hetman Zholkevsky.
Mikhail Vasilievich Skopin-Shuisky. Parsuna (portrait) of the 17th century
Zholkevsky deftly took advantage of the victory: he quickly went to Moscow, seizing Russian cities on the way and swearing them in to Vladislav. Thief also hurried to Moscow from Kaluga. When Moscow learned about the outcome of the battle at Klushino, "the rebellion is great in all people - fighting against the tsar." The approach of Zholkiewski and Vor hastened the catastrophe. In the overthrow of Shuisky from the throne, the main role fell to the lot of the service class, headed by Zakhar Lyapunov. The palace nobility, including Filaret Nikitich, also took part in this. After several unsuccessful attempts, Shuisky's opponents gathered at the Serpukhov Gate, declared themselves the council of the whole land and "put down" the tsar.
The third period of Troubles
Moscow found itself without a government, and meanwhile, it needed it now more than ever: from both sides it was pressed by enemies. Everyone was aware of this, but did not know where to stop. Lyapunov and the Ryazan service people wanted to make Prince Prince. V. Golitsyn; Filaret, Saltykovs and other residents of Tushin had other intentions; the highest nobility, headed by F. I. Mstislavsky and I. S. Kurakin, decided to wait. The board was transferred into the hands of the boyar duma, which consisted of 7 members. The "seven-numbered boyars" were unable to take power into their own hands. They made an attempt to collect the Zemsky Sobor, but it failed. The fear of the Thief, on whose side the rabble was taking, forced them to let Zholkevsky into Moscow, but he entered only when Moscow agreed to the election of Vladislav. On August 27, Moscow swore allegiance to Vladislav. If the election of Vladislav was not accomplished in the usual way, at a real zemstvo council, nevertheless, the boyars did not dare to take this step alone, but gathered representatives from different layers of the state and formed something like a zemstvo council, which was recognized as the council of the whole land. After lengthy negotiations, both sides adopted the previous agreement, with some changes: 1) Vladislav had to convert to Orthodoxy; 2) the clause on freedom of travel abroad for the sciences was crossed out and 3) the article on the promotion of smaller people was destroyed. These changes show the influence of the clergy and boyars. The agreement on the election of Vladislav was sent to Sigismund with a grand embassy, which consisted of almost 1000 persons: representatives of almost all classes were included here. It is very likely that the majority of the members of the "council of the whole earth", who elected Vladislav, entered the embassy. The embassy was headed by Metropolitan Filaret and Prince V.P. Golitsyn. The embassy was not successful: Sigismund himself wanted to sit on the Moscow throne. When Zolkiewski realized that Sigismund's intention was unshakable, he left Moscow, realizing that the Russians would not reconcile with this. Sigismund hesitated, tried to intimidate the ambassadors, but they did not back down from the treaty. Then he resorted to bribing some of the members, which he succeeded: they left Smolensk to prepare the ground for the election of Sigismund, but the rest were unshakable.
Getman Stanislav Zholkevsky
At the same time, in Moscow, the "seven-numbered boyars" have lost all meaning; power passed into the hands of the Poles and the newly formed government circle, which betrayed the Russian cause and surrendered to Sigismund. This circle consisted of Yves. Micah. Saltykov, Prince. Yu. D. Khvorostinina, ND Velyaminova, MA Molchanov, Gramotin, Fedka Andronova and many others. etc. Thus, the first attempt of the Moscow people to restore power ended in complete failure: instead of an equal union with Poland, Russia risked falling into complete submission from her. The failed attempt put an end to the political significance of the boyars and the boyar duma forever. As soon as the Russians realized that they had made a mistake in choosing Vladislav, as soon as they saw that Sigismund was not lifting the siege of Smolensk and was deceiving them, national and religious feelings began to awaken. At the end of October 1610, ambassadors from near Smolensk sent a letter about the threatening turn of affairs; in Moscow itself, patriots revealed the truth to the people in anonymous letters. All eyes turned to Patriarch Hermogenes: he understood his task, but he could not immediately take up its fulfillment. After the storming of Smolensk on November 21, the first serious clash between Hermogenes and Saltykov took place, who tried to persuade the patriarch to side with Sigismund; but Hermogenes still did not dare to call on the people to openly fight the Poles. The death of the Thief and the disintegration of the embassy made him "dare to command the blood" - and in the second half of December he began to send letters to the cities. It was discovered, and Hermogenes paid the price with imprisonment.
His appeal, however, was heard. The first to rise from the Ryazan land was Procopius Lyapunov. He began to collect an army for the Poles and in January 1611 moved to Moscow. Zemstvo squads marched towards Lyapunov from all sides; even the Tushino Cossacks went to the rescue of Moscow, under the command of Prince. D.T. Trubetskoy and Zarutsky. The Poles, after a battle with the inhabitants of Moscow and the approaching zemstvo squads, locked themselves in the Kremlin and Kitai-Gorod. The position of the Polish detachment (about 3000 people) was dangerous, especially since it had few reserves. Sigismund could not help him, he himself was not able to put an end to Smolensk. Zemstvo and Cossack militias united and surrounded the Kremlin, but strife immediately broke out between them. Nevertheless, the army declared itself the council of the land and began to rule the state, since there was no other government. As a result of the intensified strife between the Zemstvo people and the Cossacks, it was decided in June 1611 to draw up a general decree. The verdict of the representatives of the Cossacks and service people, who made up the main nucleus of the Zemstvo army, is very extensive: it had to arrange not only the army, but also the state. Supreme authority must belong to the entire army, which calls itself "the whole earth"; voivods are only the executive bodies of this council, which retains the right to remove them if they do badly. The court belongs to the governors, but they can only execute with the approval of the "council of the whole earth", otherwise they face death. Then the local affairs were settled very precisely and in detail. All awards of the Thief and Sigismund are declared irrelevant. Cossacks "old" can receive estates and become, thus, in the ranks of service people. Then there are decrees on the return of fugitive slaves, who called themselves Cossacks (new Cossacks), to their former masters; the willfulness of the Cossacks was largely ashamed. Finally, an order management was established according to the Moscow model. From this verdict it is clear that the army gathered near Moscow considered itself the representative of the whole land and that the main role at the council belonged to the zemstvo servants, and not the Cossacks. This sentence is also characteristic in that it testifies to the importance that the service class was gradually acquiring. But the predominance of service people was short-lived; the Cossacks could not be in solidarity with them. The case ended with the murder of Lyapunov and the flight of the Zemshchina. The hopes of the Russians for the militia did not come true: Moscow remained in the hands of the Poles, Smolensk by this time had been taken by Sigismund, Novgorod by the Swedes; Cossacks settled around Moscow, robbing the people, rampaging and preparing a new turmoil, proclaiming the son of Marina, who lived in connection with the Zarutskiy, the Russian tsar.
The state, apparently, was perishing; but a popular movement arose throughout the north and north-east of Russia. This time it separated from the Cossacks and began to act independently. Hermogenes, with his letters, infused animation into the hearts of Russians. Nizhny became the center of the movement. Kuzma Minin was placed at the head of the economic organization, and power over the army was handed over to Prince Pozharsky.
K. Makovsky. Minin's appeal on the square of Nizhny Novgorod
P. ten
Express your opinion on the actions of Tsar Boris Godunov.
The actions of Tsar Boris Godunov can be called humane. He fought with all his might against hunger, helped the starving and forced the boyars to do so. Unfortunately, the king's resources were limited.
P. eleven
Why did the boyars side with the impostor?
The boyars took the side of the impostor because they were dissatisfied with the rule of Boris Godunov, they were ready to plant not the Russian throne of anyone, only "not the Borisov clan." In addition, the boyars hoped that the king whom they would proclaim would be obedient to their will and would do what was beneficial to the boyars.
P. 12.
What mistakes did False Dmitry I make during his reign?
False Dmitry I made mistakes during his reign: he did not fulfill his promises given to the people, for example, to give freedom to serfs, did not observe Russian traditions and customs, married a Polish girl Marina Mnishek, did not stop the Poles' disrespectful attitude towards the Russian Orthodox Church and traditions.
P. 13.
Name the main forces that participated in the uprising of Ivan Bolotnikov.
The main forces that participated in the uprising of Ivan Bolotnikov: provincial nobles, peasants, serfs, Cossacks, archers.
P. 15.
Express your opinion about the Tushino boyars.
Tushino boyars can be called dishonest, greedy people. For the sake of profit, they were ready to betray. The opinion of such people can only be disapproving.
P. 18. Questions and tasks to the text of the paragraph
1. What are the reasons for the economic difficulties of the early 17th century?
The reasons for the economic difficulties of the early 17th century:
Oprichnina, which caused economic devastation in the country
Lean years 1601 - 1603
2. What event can be called the beginning of the Troubles? Why was the people's discontent directed against the king? Who could take advantage of such a situation?
The beginning of the Troubles can be called the uprising led by Khlopko. The discontent of the people was directed against the tsar because the tsar brutally suppressed this uprising, and Khlopko himself was executed. In addition, the boyars took advantage of this situation and fueled popular discontent in every possible way.
3. How do you explain the emergence of imposture? Can it be called one of the important signs of the Troubles?
The emergence of imposture can be explained by the fact that in Russia there was no legal heir to the throne from the Rurik dynasty. The incumbent Tsar Boris Godunov was disliked by the people and boyars, therefore, rumors about the impostor were so easily believed. The emergence of imposture can be called one of the important signs of the Troubles.
4. Who supported the campaign of False Dmitry I against Moscow and why?
The campaign of False Dmitry I to Moscow was supported by provincial nobles, peasants, serfs, Cossacks, archers, because he promised every class group relief, and the serfs - freedom.
5. How do you understand the words of the historian V.O. Klyuchevsky about False Dmitry I: “It was only baked in a Polish oven, but fermented in Moscow”?
The words of the historian V.O. Klyuchevsky can be understood as follows: he was born, raised and formed as a man of False Dmitry I in Russia, in Moscow, only at the last stage of his life, when he got to Poland, he decided to implement his ambitious plans with the help of the Polish gentry.
Yes, the boyars can be considered the main culprit in the beginning of the Troubles in The Russian state... The boyars were dissatisfied with the rule of Boris Godunov, they were ready to plant not the Russian throne of anyone, only "not the Borisov clan." In addition, the boyars hoped that the king they would proclaim would be obedient to their will and would do what was beneficial to the boyars. In addition, using the situation of hunger and popular discontent, the boyars fueled popular discontent in every possible way, which led to the beginning of the Troubles.
7. Why was Vasily Shuisky called the "boyar tsar"?
Vasily Shuisky was called the "boyar tsar" because he was "elected" on Zemsky Cathedral, which consisted of residents of Moscow, mainly boyars.
8. Who and why supported the uprising of Ivan Bolotnikov? What caused the defeat of the rebels?
The uprising of Ivan Bolotnikov was supported by provincial nobles, peasants, serfs, Cossacks, archers because they believed in an impostor who promised to make life easier for all the people. The reason for the defeat of the rebels was the inequality of the opposing forces. V. Shuisky managed to collect in short time a large army.
9. Why did Vasily Shuisky increase the period for detecting fugitive peasants? What estates did he want to win over to his side with this step?
Vasily Shuisky increased the term of the search for fugitive peasants because he needed to attract the boyars to his side to fight the uprising of I. Bolotnikov.
10. Why did the people stop supporting the Tushin people?
The people stopped supporting the Tushin people because their actions were considered by the people dishonorable, unworthy, treacherous.
11. How did the entry into the Russian Troubles of external forces - the Poles and the Swedes - affect the state of affairs in the country? What goals were pursued by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden, invading the territory of Russia?
The entry into the Russian Troubles of external forces - the Poles and the Swedes - had an extremely negative impact on the state of affairs in the country. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden, invading the territory of Russia, pursued the goal of capturing Russia, establishing their protege on the throne. In addition, the Catholic Church strove to spread Catholicism on the territory of Russia.
P. 18. Working with the map
Show on the map Russian cities and monasteries that heroically resisted the Polish and Swedish troops. Name the years of defense of these cities (monasteries).
Russian cities and monasteries, which offered heroic resistance to the Polish and Swedish troops and the years of defense of these cities: Smolensk - 1609-1611, Trinity-Sergius Monastery - 1608-1610, Pskov - 1615, Korela - 1610-1611.
P. 19. Examining documents
1. Who is the passage referring to?
The passage is about Tsar Boris Godunov.
2. Do you agree with the opinion of the historian about this person?
One cannot but agree with the opinion of the historian about this man.
P. 19. Examining documents
The goals of the participants in the uprising I. Bolotnikov: to seize power, to reign on the throne of False Dmitry I, in whom they believed
2. Based on this passage, describe the personality of Ivan Bolotnikov.
The personality of Ivan Bolotnikov is characterized on the basis of this passage as an honest, decent, true to his word and courageous man.
P. 20. Thinking, comparing, reflecting
1. Below are the points of view of historians about the causes of the Time of Troubles. Check them out. What causes of the Troubles would you single out? Formulate these reasons in the form of theses ( short statements). Write them down in a notebook.
Causes of the Troubles: one can agree with all the historians, participants in the discussion. Each of them names one side or the other of the conditions that led to the Troubles. The most accurate, which has absorbed all aspects of the causes of the Troubles, can be considered the point of view of S.V. Bushuev. He writes that the Troubles was a very complex process and was a combination of several crises. The first is dynastic (the Rurik dynasty was interrupted, there was no legal heir to the throne). The second is the state (state power after the reign of Ivan the Terrible took shape as absolute monarchy, autocracy, but the appropriate support and structures throughout Russia, this form state power didn't have it yet). The third is social (there was an active process of development, the degeneration of estates from boyars to slaves. Each estate sought to obtain as many rights as possible. Consequently, an acute struggle flared up between them. For example, the boyars sought to enslave the peasants, the peasants actively resisted this).
2. Why Boris Godunov, despite all the measures he took, was unable to prevent popular demonstrations?
Boris Godunov, in spite of all the measures he took, could not prevent popular uprisings because the boyars were dissatisfied with the rule of Boris Godunov, they were ready to plant not the Russian throne, anyone, only "not the Borisov clan." In addition, the boyars hoped that the king they would proclaim would be obedient to their will and would do what was beneficial to the boyars. In addition, using the situation of hunger, the boyars in every possible way fueled popular discontent and incited a riot.
3. Why did Vasily Shuisky fail to stop the Troubles?
Vasily Shuisky did not succeed in stopping the Troubles because he mainly sought to achieve personal goals - to elevate the Shuisky dynasty to the throne. He believed that it was necessary to suppress the uprising of I. Bolotnikov at any cost and retain power, instead of offering options for a social contract between the government and the rebels. In addition, in pursuit of personal goals, Shuisky was unable to reveal the scope of popular discontent, which some historians call civil war and a threat from the outside. In addition, when the mood of the people changed and it was possible to rely on the forces of the people, Shuisky, fearing the people, did not do this.
4. What strata of the population and why did they support False Dmitry I, I. Bolotnikov and False Dmitry II?
False Dmitry I, I. Bolotnikov and False Dmitry II were supported by different strata of the population - nobles, boyars, peasants, serfs, Cossacks, archers, as well as Polish mercenaries (False Dmitry II), because all of these figures promised everyone a better life.
5. Why was there a change in the mood of the people in 1609?
In 1609, there was a change in the mood of the people because the Poles who came with False Dmitry II behaved like conquerors: they robbed, raped, imposed large taxes on the population, and desecrated Orthodox shrines.