Be that as it may, Minin and Pozharsky still expelled the Poles from Moscow (among whom there were much more German mercenaries than Poles and Lithuanians). True, this sacred cause was not without annoying incidents: when the wives and daughters of the boyars who were sitting under siege with the Poles left the city, the Cossacks were going to rob them and, when Pozharsky began to calm them down, they seriously threatened to knock the prince down. Somehow it worked out, but the Cossacks, in search of moral satisfaction, killed some of the prisoners, violating their own word of honor to save all those who surrendered their lives.

E. Lissner. "Expulsion of Polish invaders from the Moscow Kremlin"

By the way, it was under the pressure of the Cossack part of the militia - about which there are unequivocal mentions - that Mikhail Romanov was elected tsar. It is possible that another candidate could have passed: many, including Pozharsky, were "nominated", vague mentions have survived that at first Prince Trubetskoy was nevertheless chosen, and only a few days later, under pressure from the Cossacks, they settled on Mikhail ...

Before proceeding to summing up, it is imperative to mention one thoroughly mythical figure, without any reason, made into folk heroes ...

The Hero Who Wasn't

The Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary of 1964 speaks of this heroic personality with all respect: “Susanin Ivan Osipovich (died 1613) - peasant s. Domnino Kostroma u., Bunk bed the hero, tortured to death by the Polish invaders, the detachment he led into the impenetrable wilderness. Heroic. S.'s act formed the basis of many others. bunk bed legends, poetic. and muses. manuf. ".

The 1985 encyclopedic dictionary is even more respectful and downright epic: “Susanin Ivan Osipovich (? -1613) - the hero will free you. struggle rus. people early. 17th century, a peasant in the Kostroma district. In the winter of 1613 he started a detachment of Polish. invaders into an impenetrable forest swamp, for which he was tortured. "

Perhaps the author who wrote in '85 cared much more about reliability than his colleague from '64. "Swamps", it must be admitted, look much more convincing than the "wilderness", from which the "damn Poles" for some reason did not find a way out - any normal person in such a situation, getting lost in the forest in winter, would come out of there following his own footsteps in the snow ... Detachment should have left such a track behind him that the way back can be found at night ...

Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich. Figure 19 c.

Well, even children know that this villainous detachment was sent to inform the young Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, who had just been elected to the kingdom. It is much less known that this entire beautiful story is fiction from start to finish. The authors of encyclopedic dictionaries are right about one thing: for a long time there have been known "many folk legends" depicting how Susanin led the Poles into the swamps, about how the heroic Ivan Osipovich even hid the tsar in a hole in his own courtyard, and disguised the hole with logs ... The trouble is that there is some difference between folklore and real history ...

Actually, the authors of the above articles themselves did not think of anything, which, in general, excuses them. They only faithfully rewrote paragraphs from the works of much earlier "researchers". The "classical version" appears for the first time, perhaps, in the textbook of Konstantinov (1820) - the Polish interventionists set out on a campaign to destroy the young tsar, but Susanin, sacrificing himself, leads them into the thicket. Further, this story is developed in the textbook Kaidanov (1834), in the works of Ustryalov and Glinka, in the "Dictionary of memorable people in Russia", compiled by Bantysh-Kamensky. And the pit, where Susanin allegedly hid the tsar, first appeared in the book of Prince Kozlovsky "A Look at the History of Kostroma" (1840): "Susanin took Mikhail to his village Derevishchi and hid the barn in the pit", for which later "the tsar ordered to transport Susanin's body in the Ipatiev Monastery and bury there with honor. " The prince, in support of his version, referred to some old manuscript that he had - only then, no one outsider saw this manuscript ...

It is clear that the salvation of the tsar from the villainous Poles is such a significant event that it inevitably should have remained not only in the people's memory, but also in the chronicles, chronicles, and state documents. However, oddly enough, there is not a single line about the villainous attempt on Mikhail's life either in official papers or in private memoirs. In the famous speech of Metropolitan Filaret, where all the troubles and devastations caused to Russia by the Polish-Lithuanian invaders are scrupulously listed, not a word is mentioned either about Susanin, or about any attempt to capture the tsar in Kostroma. Equally stubborn silence with regard to Susanin is kept by the "Order to the Ambassadors", sent in 1613 to Germany, - an extremely detailed document that includes "all the lies of the Poles." And, finally, Fyodor Zhelyabuzhsky, sent as ambassador to Zhech Pospolita in 1614 to conclude a peace treaty, for some reason kept silent about the attempt on the life of Mikhail by the Polish-Lithuanian soldiers, as well as about the self-sacrifice of Susanin. Meanwhile, Zhelyabuzhsky, trying to make the Poles "very possibly guilty", in the most scrupulous way listed to the king "all sorts of insults, insults and ruin brought to Russia", up to very microscopic incidents. However, for some reason, he did not hint at the attempt on the king's life ...

And, finally, there is not a single line about the alleged burial of Susanin in the Kolomna Ipatiev Monastery in the extremely detailed monastic chronicles that have survived to our time ...

Such a friendly silence can be explained simply - none of this happened. Neither the feat of Susanin, nor the notorious "assassination attempt on the Tsar", nor the burial of the hero in the Ipatiev Monastery. It has been irrefutably established: in 1613, in the areas adjacent to Kostroma generally there were no "devilish Poles" - no royal detachments, no "foxes", not a single invader or foreign fortune-hunter. It is equally irrefutably proven that at the time when he was allegedly "assassinated", the young Tsar Mikhail was together with his mother in the well-fortified Ipatiev Monastery, which looked more like a fortress, near Kostroma, guarded by a strong detachment of noble cavalry, and Kostroma itself was well fortified and full of Russian troops. For a more or less serious attempt to capture or kill the tsar, an entire army would have been needed, but it was neither near Kostroma, nor in nature at all: Poles with Lithuanians sat in winter quarters in accordance with the customs of that time. True, in Russia, in great numbers, bandit gangs roamed: deserters from the royal army, adventurers thirsty for booty, "thieves" Cossacks, coupled with "walking" Russian people. However, these gangs, preoccupied only with prey, even drunk would not risk approaching the fortified Kostroma with its powerful garrison.

These gangs will be discussed ...

The only one the source from which all subsequent historians and writers drew information is the letter of commendation from Tsar Mikhail from 1619, at the request of his mother, issued by him to the peasant of the Kostroma district of the village of Domnino "Bogdashke" Sobinin. And it says there the following: “How we, the great sovereign, the tsar and the grand duke Mikhail Fedorovich of All Russia, were in Kostroma last year, and in those years Polish and Lithuanian people came to the Kostroma district, and his father-in-law, Bogdashkov, Ivan Susanin, Lithuanian people seized him, and they tortured him with great unmeasured tortures, and tortured him, where at that time we, the great sovereign, the tsar and the great prince Mikhail Fedorovich of all Russia were, and he, Ivan, knowing about us, the great sovereign, where we were in those there were times, enduring immeasurable torture from those Polish and Lithuanian people, about us, the great sovereign, to those Polish and Lithuanian people where we were at that time, he did not say, and the Polish and Lithuanian people tortured him to death. "

The royal mercy consisted in the fact that Bogdan Sobinin and his wife, Susanin's daughter Antonida, were granted the eternal possession of the village of Korobovo, which for eternity was freed from all taxes, serfdom and military duty. True, already in 1633 the rights of Antonida, who had by that time been widowed, were insolently violated by the archimandrite of the Novospassky monastery - for some reason he did not consider the "privilege" too important. And this is very strange if you remember that Antonida is the daughter of a brave hero who saved the life of the tsar ...

Antonida complained to Mikhail. He reasoned with the archimandrite and gave the widow a new "certificate of merit" - but in it, Susanin's feat was spoken of in exactly the same words as in the previous one. Exclusively that Susanin was "asked", but he did not say anything to the villains. Only. The tsar, a complete impression, and had no idea that his person was attempted, but Susanin took the "thieves" into the swamps ...

And, by the way, in both letters it is written in black and white: "We, the great sovereign, were in Kostroma." That is, behind the walls of a mighty fortress, surrounded by a large army. Susanin, in fact, could, without the slightest damage to the crown bearer, give the “Lithuanian people” this Punchinel's secret, which changed nothing at all ...

And one more mystery: why did the "Lithuanian people" torture about the tsar? one Susanin? If the enemies had the intention to get to the king, in spite of everything, they would certainly torture and torture not one single peasant, but everyone living in the area. Then the privileges would have been given not only to Susanin's relatives, but also to the relatives of the rest of the victims ...

However, about others the victims of the raid on the village of Domnino are nowhere mentioned at all. By the way, in the "notes" of the archpriest of the village Domnino Alexei it is written like this: "... FOLK TRADITIONS that served as sources for compiling a story about Susanin."

Conclusions? The most plausible hypothesis is as follows: in the winter of 1613, a gang of robbers attacked the village of Domnino - either Poles, or Lithuanians, or Cossacks (let me remind you that almost all "walking" people were called "Cossacks" then). The tsar did not interest them at all - but the prey was much more interested. In the annals of such raids, which were extremely numerous in those days, it is reported as follows: "... the Cossacks steal, all sorts of people passing by on the roads and peasants in the villages and villages beat, rob, torture, burn with fire, break, beat to death."

One of the victims of the robbers - and perhaps the only victim - was just Ivan Susanin, who lived, in fact, not in the village itself, but "in the settlements", that is, in a remote farm. The fact that the raiders "tortured Susanin about the Tsar" is known from a single source - Bogdan Sobinin ...

Most likely, a few years after the death of his father-in-law, killed by robbers, the cunning Bogdan Sobinin figured out how to turn such a grievous loss to his own advantage, and turned to the Tsar's mother, Martha Ivanovna, known for her kind heart. The old woman, without going into details, was moved and begged her son to release Susanin's relatives from taxes. There are many similar examples of her kindness in history. The tsar's letter of gratitude says so: "... according to our royal mercy and according to the advice and request of our mother, the Empress, the great elder nun Martha Ivanovna." It is known that the tsar issued many such letters with a formulation that has become downright classic: "In consideration of the devastation suffered during the Time of Troubles." Who in 1619 would conduct a thorough investigation? The cunning Bogdashka presented the kind-hearted nun with a convincingly composed fairy tale, and her crowned son, out of the kindness of his soul, waved a letter of honor ...

The act of Bogdashka fully corresponded to the morals there. Evasion of "tax" - taxes and taxes - at that time became a downright national sport. The chroniclers left a lot of evidence of the ingenuity and cunning of the "taxable people": some tried to "ascribe" to the monastic and boyar possessions, which significantly reduced taxes, others bribed scribes to get into the lists of "beneficiaries", others simply did not pay, others escape, and the fifth ... just sought benefits from the king, referring to any services to the throne that could only be remembered or thought of. The authorities, of course, prevented this "rampant non-payment" as best they could, periodically arranged checks and cancellations of "privileged letters", but they were left in the hands of those who enjoyed "special" merits. The cunning Bogdan Sobinin probably thought only of momentary profit, he hardly foresaw that the last time the privileges of his descendants (again “for eternal times”) would be confirmed by Nicholas I in 1837. By that time, the version of the "feat of Susanin" had already firmly established itself in school textbooks and the works of historians.

However, not in all. Soloviev, for example, believed that Susanin was tortured "not by the Poles or Lithuanians, but by the Cossacks or, in general, by their Russian robbers." After a painstaking study of the archives, he also proved that there were no regular interventionist troops in that period near Kostroma. NI Kostomarov wrote no less decisively: “In the history of Susanin, it is only reliable that this peasant was one of the countless victims killed by robbers who roamed Russia in the Time of Troubles; whether he really died because he did not want to say where the newly elected Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich is, remains in doubt ... "

Since 1862, when Kostomarov's extensive work was written, dedicated to the imaginary "feat of Susanin", these doubts turned into confidence - no new documents were found to confirm the legend. Which, of course, does not obliterate either the beautiful legends or the merits of the opera A Life for the Tsar. Another Tounipandi, that's all ...

By the way, a certain prototype of Susanin did exist - in Ukraine. And his feat, unlike Susanin, is confirmed by documentary evidence of that time. When in May 1648 Bogdan Khmelnitsky pursued the Polish army of Pototsky and Kalinovsky, the South Russian peasant Mikita Galagan volunteered to go to the retreating Poles as a guide, but led them into the thickets, holding them until the arrival of Khmelnitsky, for which he paid with his life.

Another fact looks like a frank tragicomedy. With the advent of Soviet power, the region, which included the village of Korobovo, was renamed into Susaninsky. At the end of the 20s. the regional newspaper reported that the first secretary of the Susaninsky district committee of the CPSU (b) got lost and drowned in a swamp. However, the times were harsh, collectivization was underway, and the peasants could simply help their fellow secretary dive deeper ...

But seriously, the deep-rooted legend about "the savior of Tsar Susanin" clearly smacks of a certain perversion. Many people have never heard of real fighters against the interventionists who did a lot for Russia - about Procopius and Zakhar Lyapunov, Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky. But every second person has heard about the mythical "savior of the king", not counting every first one.

It is your will, there is something perverted in this state of affairs.

"This is the sad result ..."

The impostors were eventually roused out to the last man. Ataman Zarutsky was impaled. The four-year-old son of Marina Mnishek and False Dmitry II was hanged in Moscow with a large crowd of people. Marina herself suspiciously quickly died either in prison or in a monastery. However, there is no evidence that her death was violent. It is quite possible that Zhelyabuzhsky, who was sent by the ambassador to Krakow, completely sincerely grieved over her death, declaring that she would be an invaluable testimony to the "Polish lies". There is a reason for this: in those days they were already perfectly able to knock out the necessary testimony, a living Marina could indeed become a valuable trump card in the hands of the Russian side ...

Perhaps the most bizarre of all, fate hurled the "foxes". After the death of their leader in battle, under the pressure of Mikhail's troops, they left for Zhech, where they were not at all happy - King Sigismund not so long ago with great difficulty suppressed another gentry revolt, and an organized freewoman with such a bad reputation, ready to join in any turmoil, was decidedly not to court ... Somehow, with great efforts, the "foxes" were able to push out of Zhecha, into the service of the German emperor. For twenty years, gradually decreasing in number, they fought in Italy and Germany, the remnants of the once formidable mob returned to their homeland only after 1636 - and most of them immediately fell into the tenacious clutches of the law for all sorts of arts ...

And what about Minin and Pozharsky? How did the Motherland reward them for their faithful service?

Alas, their further fate can only provide a reason for sad philosophical reflections on human ingratitude and the vicissitudes of fate.

Those who, undoubtedly, gained more than anyone else as a result of the Great Troubles, became (if, of course, not counting Tsar Mikhail) Prince Dmitry Timofeevich Trubetskoy ... an associate of first the Tushinsky thief, and then the ataman Zarutsky! He remained with the boyar title granted to him by False Dmitry II, and retained the richest patrimony, the whole Vagu region, which once constituted the main personal property of Godunov, and then Shuisky. Vagu prince generously defined "six-boyars". The young tsar, who was still quite fragile on the throne, simply did not quarrel with such an influential and wealthy tycoon - since Trubetskoy managed to jump over to the Nizhny Novgorod camp in time (just like the former members of the CPSU Central Committee, who overnight became prominent democrats). In addition to Trubetskoy, a great many people received from Michael confirmation of their titles and estates, acquired by unknown and slippery ways in the Time of Troubles.

Minin received not especially the great rank of the Duma nobleman, a small estate and died three years after Mikhail was elected to the kingdom. The historian Kostomarov will best tell about the future fate of Pozharsky: “With the capture of Moscow, the primary role of Pozharsky ends ... Throughout the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, we do not see Pozharsky either as an advisor especially close to the tsar, nor as the main military leader: he corrects more minor assignments. In 1614, he fights against Lisovsky and soon leaves the service due to illness. In 1618, we meet him in Borovsk against Vladislav, he is not the main person here, he lets enemies through, does nothing out of the ordinary, although he does nothing that should be blamed on him especially. In 1621, we see him running a Rogue Order. In 1628 he was appointed governor of Novgorod, but in 1631 he was replaced there by Prince Suleshev, in 1635 he was in charge of the Judgment Order, in 1638 he was a governor in Pereyaslavl-Ryazan and the next year he was replaced by Prince Repnin. The rest of the time we meet him for the most part in Moscow. He was invited to the tsar's table along with other boyars, but it cannot be said that very often, months passed when his name was not mentioned among those invited, although he was in Moscow ... We see in him a noble man, but not one of the first, not of the influential among the nobles. Already in 1614, on the occasion of parochialism with Boris Saltykov, the tsar, “speaking from the boyars, ordered the boyar Prince Dmitry Pozharsky to take him out into the city and ordered him to give up the boyar Boris Saltykov to Boris Saltykov for the dishonor of the boyar Boris Saltykov.”

It must be said that this “head-on delivery” was not such a terrible undertaking. However, from which side to look ... This "extradition" consisted in the fact that the issued person appeared in the courtyard to the one to whom he was "given out by his head" and meekly stood there without a hat, and the one to whom the poor man was given away, in every possible way reviled him at the top of his lungs, until I got tired and exhausted the set of abusive epithets ...

Let's go back to Kostomarov. “No matter how strong the customs of parochialism were, it is still clear from this that the tsar did not consider Pozharsky any special great merits to his fatherland, which would have taken him out of a number of others. At one time they did not consider him, just as they do in our time, the main character, liberator and savior of Russia. In the eyes of his contemporaries, he was an “honest” person in the sense that this adjective had at that time, but one of many honest. No one noticed or conveyed the year of his death; only because from the fall of 1641 the name of Pozharsky ceased to appear in the palace ranks, we can conclude that around that time he was gone. Thus, keeping strictly to the sources, we must imagine Pozharsky not at all the person we are used to imagining him; we did not even notice that his image was created by our imagination due to the paucity of sources. This is nothing more than an obscure shadow, similar to many other shadows, in the form of which our sources passed on to the posterity of historical figures of that time. "

Perhaps these lines can shock someone, but Kostomarov can hardly be suspected of Russophobia even by the most “nationally concerned” professional patriots ...

And finally, let us turn again to one of the most mysterious figures in Russian history - the man known as False Dmitry I. This "Iron Mask", or rather, its mystery, began to captivate inquisitive minds immediately after the murder of False Dmitry - the first attempts to find a clue date back to the beginning of the 17th century ...

"Named Demetrius"

Discussions and disputes about the identity of the first impostor developed in the broadest possible way in Russia only in the second half of the 19th century. The reasons are clear: first, until that time, Russian historiography was mainly concerned with creating general paintings of Russian history, figuratively speaking, the construction of a building, which can only be furnished and furnished after the completion of the construction (although in the second half of the 18th century Mileler was engaged in False Dmitry I and was inclined to believe that the prince was real). Secondly, the severe reign of Nicholas, which did not allow "mental vacillation", was not particularly conducive to such exercises of imagination ...

Many Russian historians a hundred years ago believed that the impostor was indeed the son of Ivan the Terrible, miraculously escaping death. This point of view dates back to the 17th century, when many foreign authors adhered to it (Paerle, Barezzo-Barezzi, Thomas Smith, etc.). However, the first to put forward the version of Dmitry's authenticity and ardently defended it was the Frenchman Jacques Margeret.

Tsarevich Dmitry. Icon 17 - early. 18th century

Margeret, an eyewitness and participant of the Troubles, is a very curious figure. He was born in the 50s. XVI century in Franche-Comte, participated in religious wars on the side of the Protestants, then left for the Balkans, where he fought against the Turks, served in the armies first of the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, then the Transylvanian prince, King of the Rzecz Pospolita, in 1600 he enlisted to serve in Russia, where he commanded an infantry company "foreign system". He fought against False Dmitry I, after the latter entered Moscow, he went into his service, became the head of one of the detachments of the palace guard. After the murder of False Dmitry, he returned to his homeland, where he published the book "The State of the Russian Empire and the Grand Duchy of Muscovy." He returned to Russia, served False Dmitry II and then Hetman Zhulkevsky, participated in some mysterious operations of British intelligence in the north of Russia, for the last ten years was a French resident in Poland and Germany.

Some evil tongues accused him of involvement in Shuisky's rebellion, which ended in the murder of False Dmitry I. It is only known for certain that on that day Margeret was not present at the service due to illness. In my opinion, these accusations are completely groundless, since they are in no way consistent with the position taken by Margeret. Perhaps, the French fortune-seeker is the most ardent and stubborn supporter of the authenticity of False Dmitry.

Of course, not all of his arguments should be taken seriously. Take, for example, this: “... regarding other objections that he did not speak Russian correctly, I will answer that I heard him a little time after his arrival in Russia and I find that he spoke Russian as well as possible, except that to decorate the speech, sometimes inserted Polish phrases. "

It is unlikely that a foreigner who has lived in Russia for only five years could know the Russian language so impeccably as to judge with all certainty whether this or that person is a native Russian ...

On the other hand, Margeret's other theoretical constructions cannot be refuted or accused of being superficial ...

“They also say that he did not observe their religion. But many Russians whom I knew do the same, among others someone named Posnik Dmitriev, who, having visited the embassy of Boris Fedorovich in Denmark, having learned partly what religion is, openly ridiculed the ignorance of Muscovites among his close friends ”.

Better than Margeret, in my opinion, no one has yet refuted the version that False Dmitry was ahead of time prepared by Poles and Jesuits, several years brought up by them.

“What consideration could have compelled the instigators of this intrigue to undertake such a deed when Russia did not doubt the murder of Dmitry? Further, Boris Fedorovich ruled the country with greater prosperity than any of his predecessors, the people revered and feared him as much as possible; moreover, the mother of the named Dmitry and numerous relatives were alive and could testify who he was ... The war would not have been started with 4000 people and said Dmitry would have received, I believe, several advisers and experienced people from the Polish nobles, authorized by the king, to advise him in this war. Further, I believe that they would have helped him with money; it is also improbable that when he lifted the siege of Novgorod-Seversky, most of the Poles would have left him ... "

About the Jesuits who allegedly "educated" Dmitry: "I also think that they could not have brought him up in such a secret that someone from the Polish Sejm, and therefore the Sandomierz governor, would not have known in the end ... and if he was brought up by the Jesuits, they, no doubt, would have taught him to speak and read in Latin ... he also would have liked the Jesuits said more than he did ... "

The argument is impenetrable. Indeed, above we have already examined in detail how False Dmitry "assisted" the Pope and the Polish king - a prepared puppet would never have behaved like that. It is reliably known that False Dmitry did not know Latin, and when signing letters to the king and the pope, even in his name and title, he made gross mistakes: instead of imperator - in Perator, instead of Demetrius - Demiustri ...

And then Margeret examines in detail the most mysterious circumstance in this whole story: the fact that False Dmitry I always, in everything he behaved as if he firmly believed that he was the real son of Ivan the Terrible and the legitimate sovereign ...

“His righteousness seems to be sufficient to prove that with so few people that he had, he dared to attack a huge country when it flourished more than ever, ruled by a sovereign that was shrewd and awe-inspiring to his subjects; take into account the fact that Dmitry's mother and numerous surviving relatives could have said the opposite, if this is not so ... Then we will consider his situation when most of the Poles left him; he surrendered himself into the hands of the Russians, in whom he could not yet be quite sure, moreover, their forces did not exceed eight or nine thousand people, most of whom were peasants, and decided to resist an army of more than one hundred thousand ... "

Of course, one can argue with these theses - but it's damn difficult ... Moreover, they are supported by no less strange subsequent events - the extremely strange GREAT-Soul of False Dmitry.

What should a cunning impostor do, who knows perfectly well about himself that he is deceiving everyone around him - when he enters Moscow, having loyal troops and, in the heat of the first days of accession, can easily take off more than one head?

Execute right and left, knocking out all potential troublemakers ... But none of this happened. No executions. Moreover, when Shuisky began to weave intrigues, spreading the rumor that an impostor was sitting on the throne, False Dmitry did not deal with him with his will, but gave him to the boyars and the council from representatives of all classes for judgment.

But this was a terrible risk - despite the fact that, in fact, Dmitry's mother was still alive, numerous relatives of the tsarevich, who could turn the course of the trial in no way in favor of the impostor. However, he acted like a man utterly confident in his righteousness. And he was not afraid of anything from this side ...

When the Astrakhan Archbishop Theodosius, at a personal meeting with False Dmitry, began to denounce him of imposture, saying that the real prince had died long ago, False Dmitry limited himself to ... sending the Archbishop under house arrest. This, again, could only be done by a person confident in his authenticity, this fact cannot be explained by "flirting with the church" - by that time False Dmitry's protege had become the patriarch of All Russia, and a crowd of Muscovites dragged the former patriarch to Execution ground and almost killed him. Most of the bishops recognized the new tsar (the former patriarch Job, by the way, is a rather repulsive figure. and supported the wedding of Godunov to the kingdom).

Finally, the overthrow and murder of False Dmitry again bear the imprint of a strange, incomprehensible haste. I have already written about what has been irrefutably proven: Grishka Otrepiev and False Dmitry I are completely different people. For the first time Godunov called the impostor "Grishka Otrepiev" only in January 1605 - when the existence of the impostor was already known several years, when he and his troops were in Russia for four months. The complete impression is that Godunov almost did not know until the very last moment who the impostor was ...

A word to N. I. Kostomarov: “The very method of his deposition and death proves as clearly as possible that it was impossible to convict him not only of being Grishka, but even of imposture in general. Why kill him? Why didn't they treat him exactly as he asked: why didn't they take him out to the square, didn't they summon the one he called his mother? Why did they not present their accusations against him to the people? Why, finally, did they not summon Otrepiev's mother, brothers and uncle, gave them a confrontation with the tsar, and caught him? Why was not Archimandrite Pafnutius summoned (hegumen of the Chudovsky monastery, where Otrepiev had previously been a monk - A. B.), did not collect the Chudov monks and generally everyone who knew Grishka and did not catch him? That is how many extremely powerful means were in the hands of his killers, and they did not use any of them! No, they distracted the people, spurred him on to the Poles, they themselves killed the tsar in a crowd, and then announced that he was Grishka Otrepiev, and explained everything dark, incomprehensible in this matter with black magic and devilish seduction. But Shuisky made a mistake in his calculation, as often rogues are mistaken, skillful enough to, as they say, fail the mechanics, but short-sighted in order to see the consequences. "

Finally, there are direct reports that Grishka Otrepiev arrived in Moscow with the army of False Dmitry, but he was subsequently exiled to Yaroslavl for drunkenness and dissolute behavior ...

It is well known that almost any act or fact can be interpreted in two ways. Be that as it may, this strange confidence of False Dmitry in his royal origin, all his actions, subordinate to this conviction - as the Poles put it, "a nut to crack" ... Pretenders do not behave like that! Do not lead, period!

Then? "A certain greatness shone in him, which cannot be expressed in words, and unprecedented before among the Russian nobility and even less among people of low birth, to which he inevitably should have belonged if it were not for the son of Ivan Vasilyevich" (Margeret).

This is not written by an exalted girl or a young poet - a fifty-year-old condottiere, alien to any sentiment. We have to admit that the impostor really had a certain charm - let us recall Basmanov, who selflessly defended him, the Vishnevetsky brothers who were confident in his authenticity, did not pursue any material benefits, a long line of others who remained loyal even after the murder of "Dmitry" ...

In my opinion, this strange confidence of False Dmitry in its authenticity confused to varying degrees all historians without exception, because it was too obvious, confused all the cards and demanded serious virtuosity in constructing more or less logical explanations ...

And therefore, already in the 19th century. a hypothesis was born, according to which False Dmitry became an unconscious tool in the hands of a certain boyar group, which, having found a suitable youth, assured it is that he is the son of Ivan the Terrible who miraculously escaped the murderers, sent him to Lithuania, and after finely calculated maneuvers paralyzed the resistance of the government troops, prepared Muscovites, killed Godunov along with his wife and son, well, and later, after “Dmitriy” killed him in a terrible hurry ...

Here it much more like the truth than babbling about the "Jesuit conspiracy." V this the hypothesis fits perfectly and the terror unleashed by Godunov against the noblest boyar families - without bothering to search for convincing accusations, Boris executed right and left, as if desperately inflicting powerful blows on some invisible person who was giggling close to his ear. And that ease with which the highest boyars went over to the side of the impostor. And his murder. And the conviction of "Dmitry" himself in his authenticity.

Indirect evidence that Godunov did not die a natural death, but was poisoned by the boyars, is a rather strange remark of the impostor. When the murderers burst into the Kremlin, False Dmitry, according to surviving evidence, leaned out of the window and, shaking his saber, shouted:

I'm not Boris!

What could he mean? What is not going, like Godunov, meekly, like a calf in a slaughterhouse, to wait for death? But excuse me, Godunov did not expect the final uncomplainingly! Quite the opposite - he fought in the most fierce way to the end, he, having gone through the bloody school of the oprichnina, fought for the throne like a wolf with a paw in a trap - he tortured, executed, ordered the troops to fiercely exterminate all who deserted the impostor. And yet this phrase sounded: "I am not Boris for you!"

Then? Perhaps False Dmitry knew perfectly well that Boris did not die a natural death, but was killed, and wanted to assure that he would try to fight off the killers? It is very possible ...

In this case, the question arises: who? From whose submission was the operation "The Escaped Tsarevich" carried out?

Shuisky? It is not excluded, but unlikely - this version does not agree well with Shuisky's contacts with the Poles, their direct complicity in the murder of False Dmitry and the extermination of his people. In my opinion, if Shuisky were at the head of the whole affair, he would not have so actively sought from Sigismund the nomination of the prince Vladislav to the Russian throne ... Most likely, Shuisky only caught fish in troubled water according to his usual habit, and nothing more.

By the way, many Polish nobles for some reason were convinced that False Dmitry was the bastard son of the famous king Stefan Batory ...

The Romanovs appear to be much more likely candidates for the role of leaders of the conspiracy that has stretched out for years. It is curious that Godunov himself, according to the surviving testimonies of his contemporaries, directly said: the impostor was the work of the boyars ... It was on the Romanov family that Godunov's main blow fell (and also on Bogdan Belsky) - while Shuisky, in general, was not subjected to any special repressions ... Moreover, the Romanovs had much more reason to claim the throne. If Vasily Shuisky - simply Rurikovich, then the Romanovs - cousins ​​on the mother of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, and in those days it was of great importance. Property with some royal personage outweighed, according to the traditions of that time, even the direct origin of someone from Rurik ...

Not only the Romanovs themselves were repressed, but their relatives, relatives, close friends. Godunov stubbornly hit one point ... Was it only because the Romanovs were the closest of all other families to the throne?

Finally, it's time to ask a somewhat shocking question: was the impostor really real prince?

The story of either the murder or the suicide of young Dmitry in Uglich on May 15, 1591 is confusing and vague. There are too many oddities and incongruities - a crowd of townspeople, in the very first minutes after the murder, set on specific persons, false evidence (like knives smeared with chicken blood, laid next to the corpses of those who allegedly killed the prince). The investigation file, which was drawn up by the people of Shuisky, who personally investigated the death of the tsarevich, already in the 17th century. was considered ungodly falsified. One thing is clear: Pushkin, of course, was a great poet, but it seems that he blamed Godunov for the murder of the Tsarevich in vain. This conclusion follows primarily from the fact that the death of the tsarevich did not at all facilitate Godunov's path to the throne. It didn’t make it easier - you need to remember that there were still many Rurikovichs, starting with the Romanovs and Shuisky, they all had the same, if not much more, rights to the throne than Godunov (or thought they did), and deal with this a noble crowd for Godunov would be an absolutely unreal enterprise ...

And, finally, if we are going to assume that the young prince was nevertheless saved from murderers, hidden by boyars, opponents may ask a question that was raised in the last century: if this happened, why are the saviors were waiting right up to 1604? Why was it not announced that Tsarevich Dmitry was alive, back in 1598, when Fyodor Ioannovich died?

But the trouble is that due to the paucity of documents that have come down to us, it is impossible to draw any conclusion with absolute certainty. Perhaps it was announced. It is known that Godunov, before assuming the throne, spent several weeks outside the capital, in the Novodevichy Convent. This can be explained by his hypocrisy (he was waiting for his agents to sufficiently prepare public opinion for the election of Boris). And it can also be explained by the fact that it was during these days that Dmitry's saviors declared themselves, and some kind of struggle took place, about which no direct evidence has reached us ...

I do not want to put forward versions that cannot be backed up iron evidence. Alas, there are no signs that any additional documents of those times will be found - historians of the 19th century hoped for this, but did not wait. Yes, the investigation into the murder of Dmitry was shamelessly falsified by Shuisky, but this in itself does not prove anything yet. All for the fact that Godunov was killed, and False Dmitry I behaved like a man, completely confident that he was the saved Dmitry. But this is not proof either.

Sadly, but we will never know the truth. The impostor could have turned out to be the real Tsarevich Dmitry. And he could be a victim of a long-term game planned by the Romanovs. Like our democrats of the "first wave" - ​​these blessed ones sacredly believed that it was they, if you please, who "overthrew" the totalitarian system, and at that time, serious people were doing serious business behind their backs ...

The mystery of False Dmitry will forever remain a mystery ...

With a high degree of reliability, one thing can be asserted: False Dmitry, whoever he was, lived for a long time in Western Rus. Numerous little things, which the man of that time had a keen eye for, did not escape the attention of Muscovites, and at the same time they made it possible to conclude that the tsar's behavior clearly reveals details that irrefutably betray in him a man who in recent years has become accustomed to the Western Russian way of life, way of life, rules “Attachments” to icons, etc. That does not prove anything concretely, since it can be applied with equal success to an impostor-native of Western Russia, and to a real prince who lived for a long time far from his homeland, from Eastern Russia ...

Epilogue and virtuality

So, it is pointless to draw categorical conclusions - everything that has been preserved does not bring one hundred percent clarity. The history of both False Dmitry I and the years of the reign of Ivan the Terrible, Fyodor Ioannovich and Godunov that preceded him, gapes with numerous voids and dark places. (True, I do not agree with Academician Fomenko that Ivan the Terrible is supposedly four different king. The argument against this version is weighty: the memoirs of foreign authors who, for some reason, are no "four kings" in Russia in the 16th century. did not see it. It can also be assumed that the set Russians ancient documents were subsequently destroyed, but hardly anyone would believe that the agents of the rewriting of History in the Spirit of the Romanovs that they liked combed Europe, diligently destroying all foreign evidence of the "four kings" ...)

The point is not even a lack of evidence, but the personality of False Dmitry I. Who, in my opinion, was completely undeservedly smeared with mud from head to toe and in Russian historiography is present exclusively in the unsightly role of an "agent of Poles and Jesuits" concerned exclusively with the subordination of Russia to Krakow and To the Vatican.

I repeat, nothing in his activities does not give rise to such harsh assessments. On the contrary, before us is a man who was going to reign seriously and for a long time, and therefore by no means inclined in any way to harm the Moscow state or the Orthodox faith. A smart man, not at all cruel, not arrogant, inclined to reforms and innovations in a European way. At least kill me, I am not able to understand why False Dmitry I is worse than Godunov, spattered with blood to the very top since the days of the oprichnina. Why is he worse than the bloodthirsty paranoid Peter I, in general, any of the Romanovs, who were not distinguished by dove meekness.

His trouble is that he lost. The dead are unable to justify themselves. Once again we are faced with a sad paradox: monarchs are categorically contraindicated to be kind and humane. After all, it was enough for False Dmitry, solemnly entering Moscow, to demolish a couple of dozen heads, not excluding Shuisky's head - and with such a turn of affairs he had every chance of reigning for a long time.

Moreover - to become the ruler of the united Moscow-Polish-Lithuanian state (remember the proposals made to him by the rebellious gentry). Again, as in the variant with Ivan the Terrible-Catholic, we have all the prerequisites for the creation of a vast and powerful Slavic state.

True, in this variant I am not sure of the longevity of such a power - I feel that sooner or later it would have been torn apart again into Burn and Muscovy by serious contradictions: at least a religious patchwork (Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans, Arians). This superpower could survive under the indispensable condition: being firmly cemented one religion.

However, it is still unknown. The Habsburg Empire, at the very least, existed for several hundred years, representing an even more bizarre conglomerate of the most diverse peoples and beliefs ...

Be that as it may, one cannot doubt one thing: the long reign of False Dmitry I on Rus could well have led to the fact that it would have overcome the definitely existing lag behind Western Europe - both in military affairs and in education (there is information that False Dmitry was thinking about opening a university), Russia could avoid all the victims and troubles caused by what is called "Peter's reforms". And in any case, the country would never have fallen into Troubles. And this, in turn, might not have led to the future split of Russian Orthodoxy into "Old Believers" and "Nikonians", which played a terrible role in Russian history.

It just so happened that in Russia all initiatives and changes usually came from above. And False Dmitry could just serve as a "catalyst" for peaceful, evolutionary reforms, which the country, cynically speaking, would have swallowed like a sweet one - in those days, before the Troubles, we can say with confidence, the people would grunt, perhaps scolded among themselves innovations, however would not rebel "in a single impulse." After all, in Russian society, all the innovations introduced by False Dmitry did not cause much rejection - his walks around Moscow without protection, war games that directly anticipated the "fun" of Peter I, a decisive abandonment of the Russian habit of naping after lunch. They grumbled, of course, but accepted. In the same way, without a stretch, one can say that more substantial reforms would be adopted.

If only he had blown off a couple of dozen heads ... It seems that Machiavelli once said that unarmed prophets will certainly die, but the armed ones always win. Alas, False Dmitry was not a tyrant.

Became a tyrant another- a bloody monster that broke so much wood that the consequences were felt a hundred years later. I mean Peter I - he was not afraid to chop off heads, to create the wildest tyranny. He brought Russia innumerable troubles, under the banner of "reforms" having pulled it out of normal development (perhaps forever), however, oddly enough, is still considered one of the most remarkable personalities in Russian history.

Well, let's talk about it in more detail ...

Notes:

"Given for bailiffs" - the then wording of the arrest.

It is possible that the Mnisheks were at first Orthodox because everywhere Yuri was spelled like that - "Yuri" ("Yuri" is "George", but "George" in Polish is always "Jerzy").

Cossack chieftain who became Marina Mnishek's lover.

Under Mikhail, the Tolokontsevites complained to him about Minin, but I did not manage to find out how the matter ended.

During this period, Pozharsky was under investigation on charges of embezzlement of state money, forgery and oppression of the townspeople and volost people who were under his control. The first two accusations were recognized as untrue, but the third was fully confirmed ...

After the first setbacks - A. B.

The Time of Troubles is an acute crisis of statehood that gripped Russia as a result of a confluence of economic, political and social troubles that affected all spheres of the system of relations in feudal society.

If you look at the retrospective of the main figures in the history of the Time of Troubles, then the faces of intriguers and perjurers, conspirators and traitors, murderers and impostors in the upper strata of the elite are more noticeable. But there were, of course, respectable persons, without them the state would have collapsed.

The disharmony of the moral foundations of the people with traditional ideas and renewed principles of building the Russian state led to the Troubles. Other important factors were:

• dynastic crisis;
• enslavement of the peasantry;
• activation of social forces;
• the political struggle of the clan aristocracy and the new palace nobility.

In the process of the merciless struggle "all against all", the characters of the main characters at all stages of the tragic epoch of Russian history were manifested.

Main characters

Each period of the Time of Troubles is personified by the figure of the main character around whom tragic and heroic events unfolded:

Period from 1598 to 1605 personified by Boris Godunov. Having a controversial reputation and a train of suspicions in organizing the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry, he achieved the throne. Tsar Boris carried out a series of effective reforms in foreign and domestic policy. But crop failures that dragged on for years, leading to widespread famine, heated tensions in society to the limit. The unexpected death of Godunov led to the appearance of False Dmitry I.

1605 - 1606 within the Russian borders, "the miraculously escaped Tsarevich Dmitry" operated together with the Poles. According to the ordinary version, False Dmitry I was the fugitive clerk of the Chudov Monastery, Grigory Otrepiev. The former secretary of Patriarch Job, a very intelligent person, skillfully played the role of a "natural prince" who suffered from "the intrigues of Boris Godunov", but neglect of Russian traditions and strong influence at the royal court of Catholics led to the assassination of the self-appointed tsar.

From 1606 to 1610 on the Russian throne was Vasily Shuisky, nicknamed "the boyar tsar". Ascending the throne, he promised not to allow autocracy without borders, fair trial and much more.

But the nobility for the most part refused to support Vasily Shuisky. Many supported the uprising of Bolotnikov and the "Tushinsky thief" (False Dmitry II). The boyars, called "flights" because of the constant rushing from one camp to another, did not become a support for the tsar. Vasily Shuisky himself did not have charisma, was a timeserver and, as usual, an intriguer. As a result, the nobles overthrew Shuisky in July 1610, power passed to the "seven-boyars" headed by Mstislavsky F.I.

1. From 1610 to 1612 a whole galaxy of people from the middle and lower strata of Russian society emerged who took responsibility for saving the Fatherland. The nobleman Prokopiy Lyapunov created the first militia in Ryazan, blockaded the outskirts of Moscow, but was killed by his soldiers. The second militia, assembled in Nizhny Novgorod through the efforts of Kozma Minin and his associates, under the leadership of Prince Dmitry Pozharsky, managed to turn the tide, free Moscow from the Polish invaders and promote the accession of the Romanov dynasty to Russia.

The glory of the Fatherland is above personal success

The Time of Troubles, with its bitter reality, presented every significant figure in Russian power circles with a difficult choice. The European choice of Godunov, continued by False Dmitry I and even the Zemsky Sobor in 1613, turned out to be a dead-end path for Russia. People, in return for calmness and contentment, received devastation and bad experience. The state idea merged with the people’s derisive assessment of those in power:

• Boris Godunov was considered an insidious Tatar;
• False Dmitry I - as a defrocked monk;
• Vasily Shuisky - a coward and an oath-breaker.

For the first time in the history of Russia, the sacredness of power was eroded, but the Power acquired new meanings, for the sake of which the people were ready to fight to the death.

Boris Godunov

The reign of Boris Godunov was accompanied by great upheavals for Russia. In 1601-1603, the country was struck by a severe famine due to a three-year crop failure. Due to the eruption of the Huaynaputin volcano, the summer of 1601 turned out to be extremely damp. It rained so often that according to the monk-writer of everyday life Avraamy Palitsyn, all "people fell into horror." In mid-August, there was a sharp cold snap, which destroyed all the vegetation. The old stocks of grain were only enough for a meager food until spring and for a new sowing. But the seeds did not sprout, drenched in heavy rains. A new crop failure brought "great glory ... people are scanty, just as in the pestilence the pestilence is not scanty ..." Tsar Boris Godunov took a number of measures to reduce hunger. He issued a decree, which set the maximum price for the grain for sale, and ordered the district governors to give out bread to the poor people from the city siege reserves. Hungry people rushed to the county towns. But there was not enough bread for everyone. Especially many walkers rushed to the capital for bread. Tsar Boris ordered that the hungry people be provided with "money" per day, which could buy a third of a pound of bread in Moscow. But even in Moscow there was not enough bread for all the arrivals. The bodies of those who died of hunger were strewn in the streets by the hundreds. In two years and four months, 127,000 dead were buried in Moscow.

The famine of 1601-1603, memorable in the Russian people, did not pass without leaving a trace for the people's consciousness. "To be in trouble" - said the people. And she came. In 1603, an uprising of the poor broke out near Moscow, led by Kholopko. Godunov's troops managed to suppress it with difficulty.

Pretender (Dmitry)

At the end of 1604, a pretender to the royal throne appeared in Russia - the Pretender, a former monk of the Chudov Monastery in Moscow, Grigory Otrepiev. Declaring himself the escaped Tsarevich Dmitry, he, with the assistance of the Polish king Sigismund III, entered the Russian land. False Dmitry I with a support detachment freely reached Novgorod Seversky, but was stopped by the troops of Tsar Boris under the command of princes Trubetskoy and Peter Basmanov. On January 21, 1605, a bloody battle took place and the Pretender's detachment was defeated, and he himself went to Putivl, who sided with him.

On April 13, 1605, Boris Godunov died, and Moscow swore allegiance to his son Fedor. Many cities in Russia followed her example. But Peter Basmanov and his like-minded people embarked on the path of treason and, arriving in Putivl, swore allegiance to False Dmitry I, calling him tsar. Feeling such strong support, the Pretender sent a letter to the inhabitants of Moscow, in which he assured them of his mercy. Moscow, and with it other cities, recognized Grigory Otrepiev as the son of Ivan the Terrible and swore allegiance to the new tsar. At the same time, the Moscow mob invaded the Godunovs' palace, killed Fyodor Godunov and his mother, Maria Grigorievna. The daughter of Boris Godunov, Xenia, was forced by the boyars to leave for a monastery. The body of Boris Godunov was removed from the grave in the church of St. Michael and buried together with the bodies of his wife and son in the monastery of St. Barsanuphius on Sretenka (now the Sretensky monastery).

Semboyarshina

The Polish king Sigismund III decided to change the tactics of capturing Moscow and Russia. In the spring of 1610, he sent the hetmans Zholkevsky and Sapieha with troops to Moscow, which they surrounded. Skopin-Shuisky could not prevent them, as he was poisoned in April 1610 at a feast by his envious people. Before that, the Swedes abandoned the Russian troops and, having robbed Ladoga, left for Sweden. The hetmans secretly sent a letter to the Moscow boyars, in which they wrote that they had come with the intention of stopping the unnecessary bloodshed. And they suggested that the boyars, instead of Tsar Shuisky, elect to the Russian throne the son of Sigismund III, the prince Vladislav, who, according to them, would willingly accept the Orthodox faith. The same letter was sent to the boyars by King Sigismund III. Most of the Moscow boyars and some of the Muscovites wavered in loyalty to Tsar Shuisky, and in July 1610 he was deposed, forcibly tonsured a monk and sent to the Chudov Monastery.

In September 1610, the Muscovites allowed the army of Hetman Zholkevsky into the capital, who, having established his power in Moscow in the person of the Seven Boyars, took possession of the Moscow treasury and the tsar's treasures. After the deposition of Tsar Shuisky to the Russian throne, several contenders had views at once: False Dmitry II, who, although he lost many of his supporters, did not lose hope for the throne; the Polish prince Vladislav, who was called out to the kingdom by the Boyar Duma and part of the Muscovites; Polish king Sigismund III, who had a secret idea to become the Russian tsar himself.

Militias

Initially, Patriarch Hermogenes himself was inclined to agree to the election of Vladislav as Tsar of Moscow, on condition that the prince accepted the Orthodox faith and observed all Russian customs. However, discovering the plans of Sigismund and seeing in this the danger of the enslavement of Russia and the destruction of the Orthodox faith, Hermogenes, ignoring either the convictions of the Boyar Duma or the threats of the Poles, freed Muscovites from the oath to Vladislav and cursed him and the king. From that time on, he began to write and make appeals to the faithful sons of Russia, urging them to stand up for Orthodoxy and the Fatherland.

The end of the Time of Troubles and its meaning

The Time of Troubles lasted more than two years, until February 21, 1613, when the new Russian Tsar, the young Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, was elected at the Zemsky Sobor in 1612-1613. And before his election, a number of important historical events took place, such as: the organization and campaign against Moscow of the first and second people's militias to free it from foreign invaders; convocation of the Zemsky Sobor 1612-1613 and the huge organizational work carried out on it by Prince Pozharsky on the choice of a new Russian tsar.

According to the 19th century historian V.O. Klyuchevsky, the Time of Troubles revealed two fundamental shortcomings that the Moscow state order suffered from. First, it was revealed that the political aspirations and claims of the Moscow boyars did not correspond to the nature of the supreme power and the people's view of it. The boyars wanted to limit the supreme power, but according to the popular view, it should have been unlimited. Secondly, a difficult and uneven distribution of state responsibilities between the classes of society was revealed, which left no room for either personal or class rights and sacrificed all private interests to the state.

Under the influence of these shortcomings, the unrest in its development from the solution of the dynastic question passed into the socio-political struggle of the lower classes of society against the higher ones. However, this socio-political struggle did not lead to the disintegration of society even under the conditions of the country's intervention by foreign invaders and the Cossack "freemen" who joined them. The invasion of the Polish-Lithuanian and Cossack hordes awakened a sense of national and religious unity in all social strata of society. The Time of Troubles ended with the struggle and victory of the entire Russian zemstvo community over foreign invaders and their supporters.

Notes (edit)

Sources of

• Chronicle of many revolts. Second edition. - M .: 1788.
• Malinovsky A.F. Biographical information about Prince Pozharsky. - M .: 1817.
• Glukharev I. N. Prince Pozharsky and Nizhny Novgorod citizen Minin, or the liberation of Moscow in 1612. Historical legend of the 17th century. - M .: 1848.
• Smirnov S.K.Biography of Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky. - M .: 1852.
• Zabelin I.E. Minin and Pozharsky. Straight lines and curves in the Time of Troubles. - M .: 1883.
• Klyuchevsky V.O. A short guide to Russian history. - M .: 1906.
• Shmatov V.E. PUREKH. Historical study of local lore. - Kirov: 2004.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what "Rulers of the Time of Troubles" is in other dictionaries:

The Lyapunovs, Procopius and Zakhar Petrovich are prominent figures of the Time of Troubles. The Lyapunov family, the descendants of the Ryazan boyars and large landowners in Ryazan, held a leading position in the group of the local nobility. Not content with this, the ambitious ... ... Biographical Dictionary

History of Russia ... Wikipedia

History abstract

student in grade 10-7

Hasina Anton

on the topic of:

People and events of the Time of Troubles in Russia

I... Introduction

Purpose of the abstract

Reasons for choosing a theme

II... Main part

Introduction

Prerequisites for the emergence of the Troubles in Russia

The reign of Fyodor Ivanovich and Boris Godunov

False DmitryI

Vasily Shuisky

The uprising of Ivan Bolotnikov

False DmitryII

Palace coup

First Zemsky Militia

Second Zemsky Militia of Minin and Pozharsky

10. Election of a new king from the Romanov dynasty

Contemporaries about the Troubles

The most famous personalities of the Time of Troubles

III... Conclusion

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

Bibliography

Appendix

Images of people of the Time of Troubles

I introduction

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

2. Reasons for choosing a theme:

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

II. Main part

Introduction

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

1.Prerequisites for the emergence of Troubles in Russia

THE CRISIS OF POWER AND THE PRINCE-BOYARSKAYA OPPOSITION

In the last days of his life, Ivan the Terrible created a regency council, which included boyars. The council was created in order to govern the state on behalf of his son, Tsar Fyodor, who was not able to do it on his own. Thus, a powerful group was formed at the court, headed by the influential Boris Godunov, who gradually eliminated his rivals.

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

A great danger to the power of Boris Godunov was represented by the Nagie boyars, relatives of the young Tsarevich Dmitry, the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible. Dmitry was expelled from Moscow to Uglich, which was declared his destiny. Uglich soon became an opposition center. The boyars expected the death of Tsar Fyodor in order to push Godunov out of power and rule on behalf of the young tsarevich. However, in 1591, Tsarevich Dmitry died under mysterious circumstances. The commission of inquiry, led by the boyar Vasily Shuisky, concluded that it was an accident. But the opposition began to spread rumors about premeditated murder by order of the ruler. Later, a version appeared that another boy was killed, and the prince escaped and was waiting for the age of majority in order to return and punish the "villain". For a long time, the "Uglitskoye Affair" remained a mystery to Russian historians, but recent studies suggest that an accident really happened.

In 1598, Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich died without leaving an heir. Moscow swore allegiance to his wife, Queen Irina, but Irina renounced the throne and took monastic vows.

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

However, the attempts of the aristocracy to nominate the tsar from their midst failed. Boris Godunov's positions were strong enough. He was supported by the Orthodox Church, the Moscow archers, the order bureaucracy, and some of the boyars who were nominated by him to important positions. In addition, Godunov's rivals were weakened by an internal struggle.

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

His first steps were very careful and were aimed mainly at softening the internal situation in the country. According to his contemporaries, the new tsar was a major statesman, strong-willed and far-sighted, skillful diplomat. However, there were latent processes in the country that led to a political crisis.

POPULAR DISADLUSION

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

The more people left, the more heavily the government of Boris Godunov put pressure on those who remained. By 1592, the compilation of scribes was completed, where the names of peasants and townspeople, owners of households were entered. The authorities, after conducting a census, could organize the search and return of the fugitives. In 1592 - 1593, a royal decree was issued to abolish the peasant exit even on St. George's Day (reserved years). This measure extended not only to the proprietor peasants, but also to the state ones, as well as to the townspeople. In 1597, two more decrees appeared, according to the first, any free person (free servant, worker) who worked for six months for a landowner turned into a bonded slave and had no right to redeem himself for freedom. According to the second, a five-year period was set for the search and return of the fugitive peasant to the owner. And in 1607, a fifteen-year search for fugitives was approved.

The nobles were issued "obedient letters", according to which the peasants had to pay dues not as before (according to the prevailing rules and amounts), but as the owner wanted.

The new "posad structure" provided for the return of the fugitive "taxpayers" to the towns, an assignment to the townships of proprietor peasants who were engaged in handicrafts and trade in the towns, but did not pay taxes, and the elimination of courtyards and settlements inside the towns, which also did not pay taxes.

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

This policy aroused enormous discontent among the peasantry, which created the overwhelming majority in Russia at that time. Periodically disturbances arose in the villages. An impetus was needed for the discontent to turn into "turmoil." Such an impetus was the lean 1601-1603 years and the famine and epidemics that followed. The measures taken were insufficient. Many feudal lords set their people free so as not to feed them, and this increases the crowds of the homeless and hungry. From the released or fugitives, gangs of robbers formed. The main focus of unrest and unrest was the western outskirts of the state - Severskaya ukraina, where the government exiled from the center criminal or unreliable elements who were full of discontent and anger and were only waiting for an opportunity to rise up against the Moscow government. Riots spread throughout the country. In 1603, detachments of rebellious peasants and serfs approached Moscow itself. With great difficulty, the rebels were repulsed.

INTERVENTION OF SPEECH BY THE POSPOLITA

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

2. The reign of Fyodor Ivanovich and Boris Godunov

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

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

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

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

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

3.PALZHEDMITRII

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

Critical events of the end of the XVI $ - $ the beginning of the XVII century. went down in history as the Time of Troubles. This is the era of the crisis of statehood in Russia, which was accompanied by the struggle of boyar groups for power, popular uprisings, riots, the rule of impostors, foreign intervention, and the decline of the country's economy. Some historians call the Troubles the first civil war in Russia.

The causes of the Troubles were the termination of the Rurik dynasty, the struggle of the boyars with the supreme power, the severe consequences of the oprichnina and the Livonian War (1558–1583), the famine of 1601–1603. $ - $ ruin of the economy, growth of social tension.

After the death of Ivan IV the Terrible in 1584, the throne passed to his son Fedor(1584-1598). The new king, due to his weak health and mind, was not capable of running the state. In the last years of his life, Ivan IV formed a regency council of boyars to govern the state on behalf of Fedor.

Fedor I Ivanovich. Reconstruction by M. Gerasimov

Soon the hardships of ruling Russia were entrusted to his brother-in-law Boris Fedorovich Godunov (1552-1605). Fyodor did not have children, and when in 1591, under unclear circumstances in Uglich, he died (according to the official version, $ - $ due to the "negligence" of the Naked, piercing his throat with a knife during an epileptic seizure while playing "poke") the last son of Ivan IV Dmitry, the Rurik dynasty was cut short.

Dmitry Uglitsky

From the document (S.M.Soloviev.The end of the reign of Fyodor Ioannovich. History of Russia since ancient times):

"The council blamed the Naked; but the people blamed Boris, and the people remember and love to combine all other important events with the event, which especially struck them. It is easy to understand the impression that Demetrius's death should have made: appanages perished in dungeons before, but were against they were accused of sedition, they were punished by the sovereign; now an innocent child died, did not die in strife, not for the fault of his father, not by order of the sovereign, died from a subject. Soon, in June, a terrible fire broke out in Moscow, the entire Bely Godunov wasted favors and privileges to the burned out: but there were rumors that he deliberately ordered to light up Moscow 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 not to go to Uglich for the search; the people thought that the tsar would not leave such a great cause without personal research, the people were waiting for the truth. "

During the reign of Fyodor Ivanovich in 1589 was established patriarchate. The first Russian patriarch was Job, a close associate of Godunov. The establishment of the patriarchate was of great importance, testifying to the increased prestige of the country. B 1590-1595 biennium as a result Russian-Swedish war under the terms Tyavzinsky peace Russia returned the Yam, Ivangorod, Koporye, Korela, lost during the Livonian War. Measures were taken to further enslave the peasants. In 1597... for the first time, a five-year statute of limitations was introduced, before the expiration of which the owners of serfs had the right in court to demand the return of the departed peasants to them, $ - $ the so-called lesson summer. These measures were carried out by the government headed by Godunov.

B. F. Godunov

The beginning of a troubled time

B. F. Godunov was the guardian of Tsar Fyodor until his death in 1598. This year the Zemsky Sobor elected Godunov to the kingdom. His reign (1598–1605) began with rapprochement with the West and boyar opals. Soon natural disasters struck Russia (cold in summer, grain crop failure), in 1601–1603. famine swept the country. Bread prices skyrocketed, money depreciated. The owners drove out the slaves, whom it was not profitable to maintain. The tsar took a series of emergency measures to combat hunger, allowed a partial peasant exit.

From document (A.Kuzmin.The beginning of the Time of Troubles):

"Let's pay tribute to Boris Godunov: he fought hunger as best he could. The poor were given money, paid construction work was organized for them. But the money received was instantly depreciated: after all, this did not add to the bread in the market. Then Boris ordered to distribute bread for free from state storages. I hoped to set a good example for the feudal lords, but the granaries of the boyars, monasteries and even the patriarch remained closed. Meanwhile, starving people rushed to free bread from all sides to Moscow and to large cities. It was said that some rich people did not hesitate to dress in rags and receive free bread in order to sell it at exorbitant prices. A contemporary says that in those years the most well-fed were dogs and crows: they ate unburied corpses. 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. "

The discontent of the peasants resulted in uprising 1603-1604 under the leadership of Cotton Clubfoot, a fighting slave. The rebels captured Vladimir, Vyazma, Volokolamsk, Mozhaisk, Rzhev, Kolomna. In September 1603, when the rioters approached Moscow, Godunov promised to forgive the participants in the uprising. Then, taking advantage of the fact that many peasants decided to go home, he sent troops to the rebels. In the decisive battle with the rebels, voivode I.F. Basmanov died, which testifies to the high military organization of the rebels. The cotton was captured and executed. Meanwhile, there was bread in the country, but the boyars hiding it in their bins were in no hurry to sell it.

False Dmitry I

Rumors spread among the people that misfortunes were sent down to Russia by the will of God as punishment for the sins of the unrighteous Tsar Boris. The Rzeczpospolita took advantage of the difficult situation in the country, supporting the impostor who appeared in the Russian lands, posing as the miraculously saved Tsarevich Dmitry and who received the name False Dmitry I. According to one of the widespread versions, the monk of the Chudov Monastery, Grigory Otrepiev, was the impostor, whose protectors were Prince A. Vishnevetsky and the Sandomierz governor Y. Mnishek. The Polish king Sigismund III Vasa supported him in his claims to the Russian throne in exchange for a promise to transfer Smolensk and part of the Seversk land to Poland, to promote the spread of the Catholic faith in Russia.

At the end of 1604, having converted to Catholicism, False Dmitry I entered the territory of Russia with a small detachment of Poles and Cossacks. After the battle with the tsarist army, many Poles, including Y. Mniszek, left the impostor near Novgorod-Seversky. He fled to Putivl, where he learned that the call to rise to the "illegal" Tsar Boris had been heard, and many border towns of the south-west of Russia, suburban Cossacks, service people, peasants went over to his side. At Kromy, the impostor was detained by the tsarist army. In April 1605 Boris Godunov died suddenly, his son became his heir Fedor(April 13 $ - $ 1 June 1605). In May 1605, Godunov's army rebelled and went over to the side of the impostor. In June the townspeople went on strike. Fedor II and his mother were killed, and False Dmitry I enthroned in June 1605

False Dmitry I

Thus, False Dmitry (June 1, 1605 $ - May 17, 1606) came to power thanks to a popular uprising. He generously endowed the Cossacks, Russian nobles and Polish mercenaries who supported him. However, slaves, townspeople and peasants began to gradually be expelled from the army of False Dmitry. In Yelets, the impostor began to create a base for a campaign either against Turkey with the aim of capturing Constantinople, or against the Commonwealth, which refused to recognize him as emperor. In May 1606, he married a Catholic woman, M. Mnishek, which aroused the outrage of the Orthodox community. The feudal lords were frightened by the demagogic promises of False Dmitry to restore St. George's Day and the master's behavior of the Polish nobility in Moscow. False Dmitry promised the Poles for the support of the Seversk and Smolensk lands, Russia's participation in the anti-Turkish alliance, the spread of Catholicism. However, after accession, he did not fulfill his promises. In an effort to rely on the provincial nobility, he increased monetary and land salaries, confiscating funds from monasteries, tried to reorganize the army, make concessions to the peasants and slaves (decrees of January 7 and February 1, 1606); the southern regions of Russia were exempted from taxes for 10 years.

The domestic and foreign policy of the tsar-adventurer aroused the fears of the boyar elite, who was preparing a conspiracy headed by the boyar Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky. On May 17, 1606, an uprising of Muscovites overthrew False Dmitry I from the throne.

From the document (V.Kobrin.Time of Troubles $ - $ lost opportunities):

"Finally, on Saturday, May 27 (here, as in other places, the new style is meant, although the Russians consider it according to the old style), at six o'clock in the morning, when they least thought about it, the fateful day came when Emperor Dmitry Ivanovich was inhumanly killed and it is believed that one thousand seven hundred and five Poles were brutally killed because they lived far from each other. The head of the conspirators was Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky. Pyotr Fedorovich Basmanov was killed in a gallery against the emperor's chambers and received the first blow from Mikhail Tatishchev, whom he shortly before this asked for freedom, and several shooters from the bodyguards were killed.The Empress $ - $ the wife of Emperor Dmitry, her father, brother, son-in-law and many others who escaped the popular fury, were imprisoned, each in a separate house. The late Dmitry, dead and naked , dragged past the monastery of the Empress $ - $ his mother $ - $ to the square where Vasily Shuisky was supposed to have his head cut off, and put Dmitry on a table about an arshin long, so that bare va hung on one side and $ - $ legs on the other, and Pyotr Basmanov was put under the table. They remained a spectacle for everyone for three days, while the head of the conspiracy, Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky ... ordered Dmitry to be buried outside the city by the high road. "

Two days later, the king was "shouted out" V.I.Shuisky(1606–1610), who gave the crucifixion record to rule with the Boyar Duma, not to impose disgrace and not to execute without trial. This was the first attempt to limit the autocratic power of the monarch.

From the document (Cross-kissing record of Tsar Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, June 1, 1606):

"And you have allowed Yaz, Tsar and Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich of All Russia, to kiss the cross on the fact that I, the great sovereign, every person, without condemning by true judgment from my boyars, do not betray death, and estates, and households, and their brethren, and from their wives and children, do not take away, who will not be in thought with them, also from guests, and from merchants, and from black people, although by court and by search it will endure mortal guilt, and after they will not be taken away from the wives and children of the households and shops, and their bellies will not be taken away, they will be innocent with them in that fault; and I, the great sovereign, will not listen to false arguments, but seek all sorts of detectives firmly and put them from eye to eye, so that Orthodox Christianity did not perish without guilt; but whoever lies about whom, and, having found, execute him, depending on the fault of the fact: that he was not guilty, he himself will be condemned.

And on everything that is written in this entry, the Tsar and Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich of All Russia, kiss the cross to all Orthodox Christians, that I, while favoring them, judge them by a true righteous judgment and without guilt against anyone I have fallen from lay it, and don’t give it to anyone in falsehood, and protect it from all violence. "

The accession of the boyar tsar began with repressions against the supporters of False Dmitry. Having dispersed the Polish friends of the impostor, Shuisky did not take any measures to alleviate the situation of the common people.

V.I.Shuisky

The uprising of I. I. Bolotnikov

The focus of the struggle against the new tsar was the southern Russian outskirts of the Russian state, which supported the impostor. In the summer of 1606, there were rumors about a new miraculous rescue of Tsarevich Dmitry. In the wake of these rumors Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov, a slave of Prince A. Telyatevsky, in Putivl raised a new uprising in July 1606 g. 70 cities took part in the riots. Servicemen led by P. Lyapunov, archers led by I. Pashkov joined the rebellious serfs and peasants. From Putivl, the insurgent army reached Moscow. On October 28, the five-week siege of Moscow by the rebels began. Bolotnikov's army, characterized by social heterogeneity, lack of combat experience, weak weapons, settled in the village. Kolomenskoye.

In November 1606, a detachment of Ryazan nobles led by G. Sumbulov and P. Lyapunov went over to the side of Shuisky. Taking advantage of this help, Shuisky's troops struck at Bolotnikov's camp. On December 2, at the height of the general battle, the detachment of I. Pashkov went over to the side of Shuisky. The tsarist troops defeated the insurgents near Moscow. Bolotnikov retreated to Kaluga, where he defeated the troops of the tsar's brother I.I. Shuisky. To mobilize forces and prepare a new campaign against Moscow, Bolotnikov retreated to the well-fortified Tula, the defense of which he led in June-October 1607. Realizing the futility of the siege of Tula, Shuisky gave the order to flood the city, blocking the river with a dam. Upa. The rebels laid down their arms and opened the gates on October 10, 1607, believing in the promise of royal favor. Bolotnikov was exiled to Kargopol, blinded and drowned in an ice hole. The reasons for the defeat of the uprising were the heterogeneity of the composition, the disunity of individual centers of the uprising, the absence of clear requirements, a unified social program.

Unknown artist. I. I. Bolotnikov confesses to Tsar Vasily Shuisky

False Dmitry II

Having suppressed the Bolotnikov uprising, Shuisky sent punitive detachments to the southern Russian cities, accused of aiding the rebels. Sweden and Poland took advantage of Russia's difficult position in the hope of seizing its border territories. New impostor False Dmitry II with the support of Polish magnates and gentry, he gathered the surviving participants in the Bolotnikov uprising, detachments of the Cossacks led by I. Zarutsky. In June 1608 he settled in the village of Tushino near Moscow, which is why he later received the nickname "Tushinsky thief".

False Dmitry II

The Tushintsy tried to establish a blockade of Moscow, but the connection between the capital and Ryazan could not be interrupted: there was not enough strength. In September 1608, the Tushins began a 16-month siege of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery.

Protection of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra by monks from the Poles. Rice. M.P. Klodta, engraver Baranovsky

Since that time, the Russian state split in two $ - $ one part of the land was under the control of False Dmitry II, the other recognized the power of V. Shuisky. Each tsar had his own Boyar Duma, patriarchs (Hermogenes in Moscow and Filaret in Tushino), armies. Some boyar and noble families ("Tushino flights") got used to visiting both courts, receiving money and estates both there and there. The people of Tushin were guided by the support of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. On the advice of Sigismund III, M. Mnishek appeared in the camp, “recognizing” False Dmitry II and secretly married to him.

S. V. Ivanov, In Time of Troubles (Impostor's Camp)

Their successes forced Shuisky in February 1609 to agree to an alliance with Sweden, hostile to Poland. Having given the Russian fortress Korela to the Swedes, the tsar received military support, and with the help of the Swedes, the Russian army liberated a number of cities in the north of the country. However, the entry of Swedish troops into Russian territory was the reason for Sigismund III to intervene. In autumn 1609 Polish-Lithuanian troops besieged Smolensk, the defense of which was led by the voivode M. B. Shein, occupied a number of Russian cities.

Defense of Smolensk

Under the onslaught of the troops of the king's nephew M.V. Skopin-Shuisky supported by the Swedes, the Tushino camp disintegrated, False Dmitry II fled from Tushino. However, soon the young commander Skopin-Shuisky died unexpectedly. Russian troops, rushing to help Smolensk, were defeated at Klushino. At the beginning of 1610, part of the Tushins concluded an agreement with Sigismund III on the election of his son Vladislav to the Russian throne. False Dmitry II again approached Moscow with his troops. In July 1610, the nobles overthrew Vasily Shuisky from the throne. The Tsar was forcibly tonsured a monk.

Semboyarshina

Power passed to the government Seven Boyars, which agreed to sign in August 1610 an agreement with Sigismund III on the election of Vladislav as tsar, provided that he would accept Orthodoxy. After that, the Polish-Lithuanian troops entered Moscow. The policy of the Seven Boyars was contrary to the interests of Russian society and aroused indignation. The Seven Boyars, which had no real power, could not force the Catholic Vladislav to accept Orthodoxy. Meanwhile, in Kaluga, in the camp of False Dmitry II, detachments of Cossacks, serfs and peasants were gathering. In December 1610 the impostor died, soon M. Mnishek gave birth to a son, Ivan, nicknamed "Vorenk". The remnants of the Tushino detachments were headed by I. Zarutsky.

P. Chistyakov. Patriarch Hermogenes in dungeon refuses to sign the letter of Poles

first militia

Since 1611 In Russia, patriotic sentiments were growing, the expression of which was the patriarch Hermogenes, who called for an end to strife and the restoration of the country's unity. Formed in Ryazan against the Poles First militia the detachments of the former Tushin people were united, led by the prince D. T. Trubetskoy, noble troops P. Lyapunova, Cossacks I. Zarutsky. However, they failed to drive the Poles out of Moscow. On March 19, 1611, Moscow was devastated by the invaders. The main forces of the First Militia entered Moscow after it was burned. The leaders of the militia created a provisional government $ - $ "Council of All Lands". However, disagreements soon arose between the leaders of the militia. In the summer of 1611, after the murder of Lyapunov at the Cossack circle, the First militia broke up. Almost simultaneously with the collapse of the militia, the Poles succeeded in capturing Smolensk after a two-year siege. The Swedes occupied Novgorod, a new impostor appeared in Pskov False Dmitry III, which on December 4, 1611 was "announced" there by the king.

second militia

In the fall of 1611 on the initiative Kuzma Minin-Sukhoruk in Nizhny Novgorod led by the prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky formation began Second militia... To attract military men to the militia, a forced collection of "fifth money" from commercial and industrial people was announced. In March 1612, the militia set out on a campaign against Moscow through Kostroma and Yaroslavl to rule out a surprise attack. In Yaroslavl, the "Council of the Whole Land" and government agencies $ - $ orders were created.

M. I. Scotti. Minin and Pozharsky

From the document (J.Margeret.State of the Russian Empire and the Grand Duchy of Muscovy):

“We know very little about Kuzma Minin before he started collecting the treasury for the people's militia. He was born on the Volga, in the town of Balakhna, not far from Nizhny Novgorod. to his son his patronymic, which for ordinary people served as a substitute for the surname.Mina handed over his business to his eldest sons, and the younger Kuzma, having received no inheritance, had to look for food himself.He moved to Nizhny, bought a yard and began to trade in meat. went well, and Kuzma married a posad resident Tatyana Semyonovna. How many children he had $ - $ is unknown, only one son Nefed survived. Sociability, honesty, business acumen earned Minin a high reputation among the merchants who elected him the townspeople headman. This is almost all that is known about Kuzma Minin before his participation in the Second Militia. "

In August 1612 it approached Moscow and October 26 freed her from the Poles. Hetman Chodkevich, hurrying to help the interventionists, was defeated near Moscow.

E. Lissner. Expulsion of Poles from the Kremlin in 1612

In 1613 Zemsky Cathedral elected sixteen-year-old king Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov(1613-1645). For the first time, the black-haired peasants were present as part of this council, which was a concession to those circles of the population who provided assistance to the militia. Mikhail's father, Metropolitan Filaret of Rostov, was in Polish captivity. Mikhail stayed with his mother at the Ipatiev Monastery near Kostroma. The Polish-Lithuanian detachment, according to legend, tried to find a way to the village in order to capture the young Romanov, who had been proclaimed tsar. Rescuing him, the Kostroma peasant Ivan Susanin led the Polish detachment into an impenetrable swamp.

From the doc (Diploma of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich ):

"By God's mercy, we are the great sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke Mikhailo Feodorovich, autocrat of all Russia, according to our royal mercy, and on the advice and request of the mother of our sovereign, the great old lady, the monks Marfa Ivanovna, have granted me the Kostroma district of our village Domnina Sobinina, a peasant Za Bogdashka service to us both for the blood and for the patience of his father-in-law Ivan Susanin: how we were the great sovereign, the tsar and the grand duke Mikhailo Fedorovich of all Russia in the past in 121 (1612/1613 $ - $ author's note) were in Kostroma, and At that time, Polish and Lithuanian people came to the Kostroma district, and his father-in-law Ivan Susanin, Bogdashkov, at that time, the Lithuanian people seized and tortured him with great unmeasured tortures, and tortured him, where at that time we, the great sovereign, the tsar and the grand duke Mikhailo Fedorovich of all Russia, there were; and he is Ivan, knowing about us the great sovereign, where we were at that time, suffering from those Polish and Lithuanian people unmeasured torture, about us the great sovereign to those Polish and Lithuanian people where we were in those days. ry was, did not say, and the Polish and Lithuanian people tortured him to death. "

A. Kivshenko. Election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the kingdom

During the first six years of the reign of M. Romanov, the Rzeczpospolita continued its attempts to establish its control over the Russian lands. Gradually, the new government managed to restore order and the functioning of the state apparatus in the Russian state. In 1617 G. was signed Stolbovsky peace with Sweden, which received the Korelu fortress and the coast of the Gulf of Finland. Peace was not profitable for Russia, but it provided the necessary respite. In 1618... was concluded Deulinskoe truce with the Commonwealth: Russia ceded Smolensk and Chernigov lands to her, under the terms of the armistice, the exchange of prisoners was carried out. In 1619 he returned to Russia from Polish captivity Filaret$ - $ father of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich. In Moscow, he was elevated to the patriarchate and, in fact, ruled the state until his death. The end of the Time of Troubles is usually associated with the accession of the Romanovs.

Consequences of the Troubles

The economic consequences of the Troubles were the devastation and desolation of a huge territory, especially in the west and south-west of Russia, the death of a significant part of the country's population. These effects have persisted over the years. As a result of the Time of Troubles, the boyar families weakened, and the position of the nobility strengthened. The nobles became the pillars of the new dynasty and were given the opportunity to legally secure their land and the peasants living on them. Under the new conditions, the tendency of the evolution of the estate-representative monarchy towards absolutism was indicated. During the Troubles, the negative aspects of boyar participation in governing the country, the need for the inviolability of the Orthodox faith and the inadmissibility of deviating from the values ​​of national religion and ideology were clearly revealed. Anti-Western sentiments, exacerbated in the course of the struggle against Catholic Poland and Protestant Sweden, exacerbated the cultural and civilizational isolation of Russia.

Historians about the Troubles:

In pre-revolutionary historiography at the beginning of the 17th century. firmly entrenched the name "Troubles", which meant "general disobedience, discord between the people and the government." However, the origin and causes of this phenomenon were determined in different ways. Contemporaries of events, church leaders were looking for the root causes of these tests in the spiritual sphere, the sin of pride, which was the temptation of autocracy that seduced the Orthodox people. According to this point of view, Troubles is a punishment for a godless life and, at the same time, a martyr's crown, which gave the people the opportunity to understand the power of the Orthodox faith.

CM. Soloviev considered the Troubles to be the result of the fall of popular morality and the struggle of the Cossacks as an anti-state force against the progressive state order. K.S. Aksakov viewed the Troubles as an accidental phenomenon that affected the interests of influential people who fought for power after the suppression of the Rurik dynasty.

N.I. Kostomarov drew attention to the social causes of the Troubles, showing that all strata of Russian society were to blame for it, but he considered the main reason to be the intrigues of the papacy, the Jesuits and the Polish intervention. IN. Klyuchevsky studied mainly the social aspects of the Troubles. In his opinion, society was in a state of social instability due to the struggle of all its strata for the best balance between responsibilities and privileges. S.F. Platonov also did not consider the social crisis as the cause and essence of the Troubles. He did not consider the struggle within the ruling class of Russian society to be decisive for understanding these phenomena.

In Soviet historiography, the term "Troubles" was not used. This period was defined as a social conflict, the central place in which was the peasant war led by I. Bolotnikov and foreign intervention.

In modern historical literature, the term "Troubles" is used quite widely, but almost nothing new has been introduced into the interpretation of these events, except for an attempt to connect the events of the early 17th century. with the idea of ​​the first systemic crisis of Russian society, in its development similar to the civil war.

Key dates and events
1589 g.	Establishment of the patriarchate. First Patriarch Job
1590-1593	War with Sweden. Tyazvin world. Returned Yam, Ivangorod, Koporye and Korela
1591 g.	Dmitry Ivanovich (son of Ivan the Terrible) dies in Uglich under strange circumstances. V. Shuisky's commission calls the cause of death that "the youth stabbed himself with a knife" during an epileptic seizure
1597 g.	Ordinance on class years (five-year investigation of fugitive peasants)
1597 g.	Bonded slaves cannot leave their master by paying the debt
1598 g.	Childless Fyodor Ivanovich dies. Zemsky Sobor elects Boris Godunov as Tsar
1601 g.	The head of the Romanov clan Filaret tonsured a monk
1601-1603	Hunger
1603-1604	Rise of the Cotton
1603 g.	Galich nobleman Grigory Otrepiev goes to Sigismund III to become False Dmitry I
1605 g.	False Dmitry I in Moscow
1606 g.	Wedding of False Dmitry I and Marina Mnishek
1606 g.	False Dmitry I was killed, Marina Mnishek was expelled from Moscow, Vasily Shuisky will be “shouted out” at the Zemsky Cathedral
1606 g.	The uprising led by Ivan Bolotnikov (A. Telyatevsky's military servant). The uprising is joined by various segments of the population of the border counties and the former commanders of False Dmitry I
1608 g.	The False Dmitry II ("Tushino thief"), recognized by Marina Mnishek, appears. The beginning of the dual power
1609 g.	The Swedes, in exchange for Korela, provide military support to Shuisky
1609 g.	Smolensk, led by voivode M. B. Shein, besieged by Sigismund III
February 1610	Russian Tushins call Vladislav, son of Sigismund III to the throne
March 1610	Death in Moscow M.V.Skopin-Shuisky
July 1610	Vasily Shuisky was forcibly tonsured a monk. Power passes to the Semboyarshchina
August 1610	Seven Boyars is ready to swear allegiance to Vladislav on the terms of his adoption of Orthodoxy
December 1610	The death of False Dmitry II. Formation of the First militia headed by I. Zarutsky and D. Trubetskoy
spring 1611	The militia laid siege to Moscow. The "Council of All the Earth" is being created
July 1611	The Cossacks kill Lyapunov for creating the "Verdict of All the Earth", calling for the return of the old order. Disintegration of the First Militia
June-July 1611	Smolensk fell. The Swedes take Novgorod
autumn 1611	Dm. Pozharsky and K. Minin create the Second Militia
October 26, 1612	Moscow liberated from the Poles
1613 g.	Zemsky Sobor elects Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov as new Tsar
1617 g.	Stolbovsky peace with Sweden. Gulf of Finland and Korela are lost
1618 g.	Deulinskoe truce with the Commonwealth. Lost Smolensk, Chernigov and Seversk land
1619 g.	Filaret elected patriarch