20. THE PERIOD OF THE TIME OF TROUBLES: ITS REASONS, MAIN EVENTS The Time of Troubles refers to the period from the death of Ivan the Terrible (1584) to 1613, when Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov reigned on the Russian throne. This period was marked by a deep socio-economic crisis,

1. Board of Boris Godunov 2

2. First signs of crisis 4

3. The appearance of False Dmitry I and the death of Boris Godunov 6

4. Death of Fyodor Godunov and accession of False Dmitry I 11

5. Overthrow of False Dmitry I 14

6. Accession of Vasily Shuisky 17

7. Bolotnikov’s uprising and the appearance of False Dmitry II 20

8. Polish intervention 22

9. Deposition of Vasily Shuisky and “Seven Boyars” 24

10. Expulsion of the interventionists and accession of the Romanovs 25

11. End of the Troubles

References 27

1.The reign of Boris Godunov.

The term “Time of Troubles” in Russian history refers to the period from 1604 to 1613, characterized by a severe political and social crisis in the Muscovite kingdom. The political prerequisites for this crisis, however, appeared long before the Time of Troubles, namely the tragic end of the reign of the Rurik dynasty, and the enthronement of the boyar Boris Godunov.

As is known, Boris Godunov was a close advisor to Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible in the last years of his life, and together with Bogdan Belsky had great influence on the Tsar. Godunov and Belsky were next to the Tsar in the last minutes of his life, and they secretly announced to the people the death of the Tsar. After John IV, his son, Fyodor Ioannovich, became king, weak and weak-willed, unable to rule the country without the help of advisers. To help the tsar, a Regency Council was created, which included: Belsky, Yuryev, Shuisky, Mstislavsky and Godunov. Through court intrigues, Godunov managed to neutralize his ill-wishers: Shuisky (sent into exile in 1586, where he was killed two years later) and Mstislavsky (expelled from the Regency Council in 1585, and died in disgrace), and take a dominant position in the council. In fact, since 1587, Boris Godunov ruled the country single-handedly.

Godunovna might not have understood that his position in power was stable only as long as Tsar Fedor was alive. In the event of Feodor's death, the throne was to be inherited by his younger brother, the son of John IV, Tsarevich Dimitri, and given the tsar's poor health, this could not happen in the very distant future. In all likelihood, Godunov did not expect anything good for himself from the change of sovereign. One way or another, but in 1591, Tsarevich Dimitri died as a result of an accident. The investigation into this case was led by the boyar Vasily Shuisky, who came to the conclusion that the prince was playing with knives with his peers when he had an epileptic seizure. Having accidentally fallen a knife, the prince stabbed himself to death with this knife. He lived in this world for just over eight years.

Godunov's contemporaries had no doubt that this accident was in fact a disguised political murder, since it cleared the way for Godunov to the throne. In fact, Tsar Fedor had no sons, and even his only daughter died at the age of one. Given his poor health, it was very likely that the king himself would not live long in the world. As subsequent events showed, this is exactly what happened.

On the other hand, Godunov’s guilt in the death of Dimitri does not seem so obvious. Firstly, Demetrius was the son of the sixth wife of John IV, and the Orthodox Church, even today, recognizes only three consecutive marriages as legal (“By allowing remarriages of the laity, the Orthodox Church does not equate them with the first, “virgin” marriage. First of all, she limited the repetition of marriage to only three cases, and when one emperor (Leo the Wise) married for the fourth time, the Church for a long time did not recognize the validity of his marriage, although it was needed in state and dynastic interests.And the long and difficult struggle between the Church and the state because of this marriage ended in categorically prohibiting a fourth marriage in the future." For this reason, formally speaking, Demetrius could not be considered the legitimate son of John IV, and therefore could not inherit the throne. Secondly, even if Demetrius was eliminated, Godunov’s own prospects for taking the throne were vague - he was neither the most noble nor the richest of the possible contenders, and the fact that he eventually became king was largely a happy accident.

One way or another, in the eyes of his contemporaries, this death was so beneficial to Godunov that few doubted his guilt. The death of Tsarevich Dimitri became a real mine laid under the regime of Boris Godunov, and this mine was destined to explode twelve years later, in 1603, not without the help of “friends of Russia” from outside.

In 1598, the nominal sovereign, Fyodor Ioannovich, died, and Godunov was left alone with the growing ill will of the nobility. Driven into a corner, he nevertheless managed to find an unexpected solution: he tried to secure the throne for the widow of Tsar Feodor, Irina Godunova, his sister. According to the text of the oath published in churches, subjects were asked to take an oath of allegiance to Patriarch Job and the Orthodox faith, Queen Irina, ruler Boris and his children. In other words, under the guise of an oath to the church and the queen, Godunov actually demanded an oath to himself and his heir.

The matter, however, did not work out - at the insistence of the boyars, Irina renounced power in favor of the Boyar Duma, and retired to the Novodevichy Convent, where she took monastic vows. Nevertheless, Godunov did not give up. He, apparently, well understood that it was impossible for him to openly compete with more noble contenders for the empty throne (primarily the Shuiskys), so he simply retired to the well-fortified Novodevichy Convent, from where he observed the split struggle for power in the Boyar Duma.

Thanks to Godunov’s intrigues, the Zemsky Sobor of 1598, at which his supporters were in the majority, officially called him to the throne. This decision was not approved by the Boyar Duma, but the counter-proposal of the Boyar Duma - to establish a boyar government in the country - was not approved by the Zemsky Sobor. A stalemate situation developed in the country, and as a result, the issue of succession to the throne was brought to the square by the parliamentary and patriarchal chambers. The opposing parties used all possible means - from agitation to bribery. Coming out to the crowd, Godunov swore with tears in his eyes that he had never thought of encroaching on the “highest royal rank.” Godunov’s motives for refusing the crown are not difficult to understand. Firstly, he was embarrassed by the small size of the crowd. And secondly, he wanted to put an end to the accusations of his regicide. To more accurately achieve this goal, Boris spread a rumor about his imminent tonsure as a monk. Under the influence of skillful agitation, the mood in the capital began to change.

The Patriarch and the members of the cathedral tried to take advantage of the emerging success. Persuading Boris to accept the crown, the churchmen threatened to resign if their petition was rejected. The boyars made similar statements.

The general cry created the appearance of a popular election, and Godunov, prudently choosing a convenient moment, generously announced to the crowd his consent to accept the crown. Without wasting any time, the patriarch led the ruler to the nearest monastery cathedral and named him the kingdom.

Godunov, however, could not accept the crown without taking an oath in the Boyar Duma. But the senior boyars were in a hurry to express their loyal feelings, which forced the ruler to retire to the Novodevichy Convent for the second time.

On March 19, 1598, Boris convened the Boyar Duma for the first time to resolve the accumulated cases that could not tolerate delay. Thus, Godunov actually began to fulfill the functions of an autocrat. Having received the support of the capital’s population, Boris broke the resistance of the feudal nobility without bloodshed and became the first “elected” tsar. The first years of his rule did not promise anything bad.

“The first two years of this Reign seemed to be the best time of Russia since the 15th century or since its restoration: it was at the highest degree of its new power, secure by its own strength and the happiness of external circumstances, and internally controlled by wise firmness and with extraordinary meekness. Boris fulfilled the vow of the royal crowning and rightly wanted to be called the father of the people, reducing their burdens; the father of the orphans and the poor, pouring out unparalleled generosity on them; a friend of humanity, without touching the lives of people, without staining the Russian land with a single drop of blood and punishing criminals only with exile. Merchants, less constrained in trade; an army showered with awards in peaceful silence; Nobles, officials, distinguished by signs of mercy for their zealous service; Synclite, respected by the active and advice-loving Tsar; The clergy, honored by the pious Tsar - in a word, the entire state could be happy for itself and the fatherland even more pleased, seeing how Boris in Europe and Asia exalted the name of Russia without bloodshed and without the painful strain of its forces; how he cares about the common good, justice, order. And so it is not surprising that Russia, according to the legend of contemporaries, loved its Crown Bearer, wanting to forget the murder of Demetrius or doubting it!

There were no signs of trouble, and only six years remained before the beginning of the Time of Troubles.

2. The first signs of a crisis.

The crisis was initiated by successive harvest failures in 1601 and 1602. Throughout the summer of 1601, heavy cold rains fell across eastern Europe, starting in July, mixed with sleet. The entire crop, of course, died. According to contemporaries, at the end of August 1601, snowfalls and blizzards began, and people rode sleighs along the Dnieper as if in winter.

“Among the natural abundance and wealth of the fertile land, inhabited by hardworking cultivators; Among the blessings of long-term peace, and during the active, prudent reign, a terrible execution fell on millions of people: in the spring, in 1601, the sky was darkened with thick darkness, and the rains poured for ten weeks incessantly so that the villagers were horrified: they could not do anything, neither mow nor reap; and on August 15, a severe frost damaged both the green bread and all unripe fruits. There was also a lot of old grain in the granaries and threshing floors; but the farmers, unfortunately, sowed the fields with new, rotten, skinny crops, and did not see any shoots, neither in autumn nor in spring: everything decayed and mixed with the earth. Meanwhile, the supplies ran out, and the fields were no longer sown.”

The same thing, although on a smaller scale, was repeated in 1602. As a result, even the warm summer of 1603 did not help, since the peasants simply had nothing to sow - due to two previous crop failures, there were no seeds.

To the credit of Godunov’s government, it tried as best it could to mitigate the consequences of crop failures by distributing seeds for planting to farmers and regulating grain prices (even to the point of creating something like “food detachments” that identified hidden reserves of grain and forced them to sell at the price set by the government). To give work to hungry refugees, Godunov began to rebuild the stone chambers of the Moscow Kremlin (“... built in 1601 and 1602, on the site of the broken wooden palace of Ioannov, two large stone chambers to the Golden and Granovitaya, a dining room and a memorial service, in order to provide work and food for the poor people, connecting with mercy and benefit, and in days of mourning thinking about splendor! He also issued a decree that all slaves left by their masters without means of food would automatically receive their freedom. But these measures were clearly not enough. About a third of the country's population became victims of famine. Fleeing from hunger, people fled en masse “to the Cossacks” - to the Don and Zaporozhye. It must be said that the policy of “squeezing out” criminal and potentially unreliable elements to the north-western borders was still practiced by John IV, and was continued by Godunov (“Even John IV, wanting to populate the Lithuanian Ukraine, the Seversk land, with people fit for military service, did not interfere with it to hide and live peacefully for the criminals who were leaving there from execution: for he thought that in case of war they could be reliable defenders of the border. Boris, loving to follow many of the state thoughts of Ioannov, followed this one, very false and very unfortunate: for he unknowingly prepared a numerous squad of villains to serve the enemies of the fatherland and our own." Indeed, this entire huge mass on the borders of Russia has become a dangerous flammable material, ready to burst into flames at the slightest spark.

These crop failures naturally ended with a peasant uprising in 1603 under the leadership of Ataman Khlopk. The peasant army was heading towards Moscow, and it was possible to defeat it only at the cost of heavy losses of government troops, and the governor himself, Ivan Basmanov, died in battle. Ataman Khlopok was captured and, according to some sources, died from his wounds; according to others, he was executed in Moscow.

In addition to the peasant unrest, Godunov’s life was constantly poisoned by conspiracies of the nobility, both real and imaginary. One might have thought that Godunov had contracted paranoia from his first patron, Tsar John IV. In 1601, his old comrade-in-arms and friend Bogdan Belsky was repressed - Godunov ordered him to be tortured, after which he was exiled to “one of the lower cities,” where he remained until Godunov’s death. The reason for the repression was a trivial denunciation of Belsky from his servants - as if he, while serving as a governor in the city of Borisov, allowed himself to joke: “Boris is the Tsar in Moscow, and I am the Tsar in Borisov.” The simple joke cost Belsky very dearly.

In the same year, 1601, a larger-scale process was launched against the Romanov family, as well as their supporters (Sitsky, Repnin, Cherkassky, Shestunov, Karpov...). “The nobleman Semyon Godunov, invented a way to convict innocent people of crime, relying on general gullibility and ignorance: he bribed the treasurer of the Romanovs, gave him bags filled with roots, ordered him to hide in the pantry of Boyar Alexander Nikitich and inform on his masters that they, secretly working on the composition of the poison, plotting the life of the Crown Bearer. Suddenly there was alarm in Moscow: the Synclite and all the noble officials were rushing to the Patriarch; they were sending the devious Mikhail Saltykov to search Boyar Alexander’s storeroom; they find bags there, take them to Job, and in the presence of the Romanovs they pour out roots, as if they were magical, made to poison the Tsar.” The consequences of this provocation were the saddest for the Romanovs and their supporters - all of them were partly forcibly tonsured as monks, partly exiled, their property was confiscated.

“The Romanovs were not the only ones who were the monster of Borisov’s imagination. He forbade the Princes of Mstislavsky and Vasily Shuisky to marry, thinking that their children, due to the ancient nobility of their family, could also compete with his son for the throne. Meanwhile, eliminating future imaginary dangers for young Theodore, the timid destroyer trembled at the present: worried by suspicions, incessantly afraid of secret villains and equally afraid of earning popular hatred through torment, he persecuted and had mercy: he exiled the Voivode, Prince Vladimir Bakhteyarova-Rostov, and forgave him; removed from the famous Dyak Shchelkalov, but without obvious disgrace; several times he removed the Shuiskys and brought them closer to him again; caressed them, and at the same time threatened with disgrace anyone who dealt with them. There were no ceremonial executions, but the unfortunate were starved to death in prison and tortured based on denunciations. Hosts of libelists, if not always rewarded, but always free from punishment for lies and slander, strove to the Royal Chambers from the houses of the Boyars and huts, from monasteries and churches: servants denounced the masters, monks, priests, sextons, mallow workers against people of every rank - the very wives husbands, most children like fathers, to the horror of mankind! “And in the wild Hordes (adds the Chronicler) there is no such great evil: the masters did not dare to look at their slaves, nor their neighbors to speak sincerely among themselves; and when they spoke, they mutually pledged with a terrible oath not to betray their modesty.” In a word, this sad time of Boris’s Reign, while inferior to John’s in blood drinking, was not inferior to him in lawlessness and depravity.”

It is not surprising that Godunov tried so diligently to eliminate, or at least remove, those who could challenge his throne, that is, the more ancient or noble boyar families. Unsure of his own right to the throne, he did everything possible to ensure the transfer of the throne to his heir and to create conditions where nothing would threaten the new dynasty he founded. These motives were colorfully described by A.K. Tolstoy in his poem “Tsar Boris”, and Pushkin in the tragedy “Boris Godunov”.

3. The appearance of False Dmitry I and the death of Boris Godunov

Godunov’s popularity among the people fell greatly, and a series of disasters revived rumors, already circulating among the people, that Boris Godunov was not the legitimate tsar, but an impostor, and that was why all these troubles stemmed. The real king - Dimitri - is actually alive, hiding somewhere from Godunov. Of course, the authorities tried to fight the spread of rumors, but they did not have much success. There is also a hypothesis that some boyars who were dissatisfied with Godunov’s rule, primarily the Romanovs, had a hand in spreading these rumors. In any case, the people were morally prepared for the appearance of the “miraculously resurrected” Demetrius, and he was not slow in appearing. “As if by supernatural action, Dimitriev’s shadow came out of the coffin to strike with horror, distraught the murderer and throw all of Russia into confusion.”

According to the generally accepted version, a certain “poor boyar son, Galician Yuri Otrepiev” tried to impersonate Dimitri, who “... in his youth, having lost his father, the name of Bogdan-Yakov, a Streltsy centurion, stabbed to death in Moscow by a drunken Litvin, served in the house of the Romanovs and Prince Boris Cherkassky; knew to read and write; showed a lot of intelligence, but little prudence; was bored by his low state and decided to seek the pleasure of careless idleness in the rank of Monk, following the example of his grandfather, Zamyatni-Otrepiev, who had long been a monk in the Chudovskaya monastery. Tonsured by the Vyatka Abbot Tryphon and named Gregory, this young Chernets wandered from place to place; lived for some time in Suzdal, in the monastery of St. Euthymius, in Galician John the Baptist and in others; finally in the Chudov Monastery, in my grandfather’s cell, under the leadership. There Patriarch Job recognized him, ordained him as a Deacon, and took him in for book work, for Gregory knew how not only to copy well, but even to compose canons of the Saints better than many old scribes of that time. Taking advantage of Job’s mercy, he often traveled with him to the palace: he saw the royal splendor and was captivated by it; expressed extraordinary curiosity; I listened greedily to intelligent people, especially when the name of Dimitri Tsarevich was spoken in sincere, secret conversations; Wherever he could, he found out the circumstances of his unfortunate fate and wrote it down on the charter. A wonderful thought had already settled and matured in the soul of the dreamer, inspired in him, as they say, by one evil Monk: the idea that a brave impostor could take advantage of the gullibility of the Russians, touched by the memory of Demetrius, and in honor of Heavenly Justice, execute the holy murderer! The seed fell on fertile ground: the young Deacon diligently read the Russian Chronicles and immodestly, although jokingly, sometimes used to say to the Chudov Monks: “Do you know that I will be Tsar in Moscow?” Some laughed; others spat in his eyes, as if he were a daring liar. These or similar speeches reached the Pre-Rostov Metropolitan Jonah, who announced to the Patriarch and the Tsar himself that “the unworthy Monk Gregory wants to be a vessel of the devil”; the good-natured Patriarch did not respect the Metropolitan’s message, but the Tsar ordered his clerk, Smirnov-Vasiliev, to send the madman Gregory to Solovki, or to the Belozersk hermitage, as if for heresy, for eternal repentance. Smirnoy told another clerk, Evfimyev, about this; Evfimiev, being related to the Otrepievs, begged him to take his time in carrying out the Tsar’s decree and gave the disgraced Deacon a way to escape by flight (in February 1602), together with two Chudov Monks, Priest Varlaam and Kryloshanin Misail Povadin.” Having sensibly considered what such statements could mean for him within Russian borders, Otrepyev decided to flee to where he would be welcome - to Poland (more precisely, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - a powerful state that occupied the current territories of Poland, the Baltic states, Belarus, part of Ukraine and the western regions of Russia). “There, ancient, natural hatred of Russia has always zealously favored our traitors, from Princes Shemyakin, Vereisky, Borovsky and Tverskoy to Kurbsky and Golovin.” Thus, Otrepiev’s choice was quite natural, and he expected to find help and support there. IN. Klyuchevsky writes about it like this:

“In the nest of the boyars, most persecuted by Boris, with the Romanovs at their head, in all likelihood, the idea of ​​an impostor was hatched. Vinilipolyakov, that they set it up; but it was only baked in a Polish oven and fermented in Moscow. It was not for nothing that Boris, as soon as he heard about the appearance of False Dmitry, directly told the boyars that it was their business, that they had framed the impostor. This unknown someone, who ascended the Moscow throne after Boris, arouses great anecdotal interest. His identity still remains mysterious, despite all the efforts of scientists to unravel it. For a long time the prevailing opinion, coming from Boris himself, was that this was the son of a Galician minor nobleman, Yuri Otrepyev, wine holder Grigory. I will not talk about the adventures of this man, which are well known to you. I will only mention that in Moscow he served as a serf for the Romanov boyars and the prince of Cherkassy, ​​then he became a monk, for his bookishness and writing praises for Moscow miracle workers, he was taken to the patriarch as a book writer, from here suddenly for some reason he began to say that he, perhaps, would be the tsar in Moscow. He was to die for this in a distant monastery; but some strong people covered him up, and he fled to Lithuania at the very time when disgrace fell on the Romanov circle.”

Otrepiev’s life path from the moment of his flight until he showed up in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at the court of Prince Vishnevetsky is covered in darkness. According to N.M. Karamzin, before declaring himself miraculously saved by Tsarevich Dimitri, Otrepiev settled in Kyiv, in the Pechersky Monastery, where “... he led a seductive life, despising the rules of abstinence and chastity; he boasted of free-thinking, loved to talk about the Law with people of other faiths, and was even in close contact with the Anabaptists.”

. But he apparently became bored with such a monastic life, since he left the Pechersk Monastery to join the Zaporozhye Cossacks, to Ataman Gerasim Evangelik, where he acquired military skills. However, he did not stay with the Cossacks either - he left and showed up at the Volyn school, where he studied Polish and Latin grammar. There he was noticed and accepted into the service of the wealthy Polish magnate Prince Adam Vishnewiecki. He probably managed to win the favor of Vishnevetsky, who appreciated his knowledge and military skills.

Despite Vishnevetsky’s good attitude towards Otrepiev, it was unthinkable for him to simply show up to the tycoon and tell about his “miraculous salvation” - it is clear that no one would believe such nonsense. Otrepiev decided to act more subtly.

“Having earned the attention and goodwill of the master, the cunning deceiver pretended to be sick, demanded the Confessor, and said to him quietly:

« I am dying. Intermit my body with honor, as the Tsar’s children are buried. I will not reveal my secret until the grave; when I close my eyes forever, you will find a scroll under my bed, and you will know everything; but don't tell others. God destined me to die in misfortune.” The confessor was a Jesuit: he was in a hurry to inform Prince Vishnevetsky about this secret, and the curious Prince was in a hurry to find out about it: he searched the bed of the supposedly dying man; he found a paper prepared in advance, and read in it that his servant was Tsarevich Dimitri, saved from murder by his faithful physician; that the villains sent to Uglich killed one son of Iereisky, instead of Demetrius, whom the good nobles and clerks of the Shchelkalovs hid, and then escorted to Lithuania, fulfilling the order of John given to them for this case. Vishnevetsky was amazed: he still wanted to doubt, but he could no longer when the cunning man, blaming the immodesty of the Spiritual Father, opened his chest, showed a golden cross sprinkled with precious stones (probably stolen somewhere) and announced with tears that this shrine was given to him by his godfather Prince Ivan Mstislavsky".

It is not entirely clear whether Vishnevetsky was really deceived, or whether he simply decided to take advantage of the opportunity for his own political purposes. In any case, Vishnevetsky informed the Polish king Sigismund

III familiarized himself with the unusual guest, and he wanted to see him in person. Before this, Vishnevetsky also managed to prepare the ground by disseminating information about the “miraculous salvation of John’s son” throughout Poland, in which he was helped by his brother Konstantin Vishnevetsky, Konstantin’s father-in-law of Sandomierz, voivode Yuri Mniszech, and the papal nuncio Rangoni.

There is a version, partly confirmed by documents, that the Vishnevetskys initially planned to use Otrepyev in their plans palace coup whose goal was the overthrow of Sigismund

III , and the enthronement of “Demetrius”. He, being as a descendant of John IV, Rurikovich, and therefore a relative of the Polish Jagiellon dynasty, was quite suitable for this throne. But for some reason it was decided to abandon this plan.

King Sigismund reacted coolly to the “resurrected Demetrius,” as did many of his dignitaries. Hetman Jan Zamoyski, for example, spoke about this as follows: “It happens that a dice in a game falls fortunately, but it is usually not advised to bet expensive and important objects. This is of such a nature that it can cause harm to our state and dishonor to the king and all the people ours." However, the king nevertheless accepted Otrepiev, treated him politely (Karamzin writes that he received him in his office standing, that is, recognizing him as his equal), and assigned him a salary of 40,000 zlotys annually. Otrepiev did not receive any other help from King Otrepiev, but given the political situation in the then Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, he could not provide any more. The fact is that the king in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was mainly a nominal figure, while real power belonged to the aristocracy (the Vishnewiecki, Potocki, Radziwills and other rich and noble houses). In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth there was also no royal army as such - only an infantry of 4,000 guardsmen, supported by the king’s personal income. Thus, the king’s recognition of “Dimitri” had only moral and political significance.

Otrepiev also had other important meetings, including with representatives of the Catholic Jesuit order, which had great influence in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. He even wrote a letter to the then Pope, Clement

VIII, in which he promised, in the event of his “return to the throne,” to annex the Orthodox Church to the Catholic Church, and received a response with “certification of his readiness to assist him with the entire spiritual authority of the Apostolic Vicar.” To strengthen relations, Otrepiev made a solemn promise to Yuri Mnishek to marry his daughter Marina, and even officially turned to King Sigismund for permission to marry.

Inspired by the success, the Vishnevetskys began to gather an army for a campaign against Moscow, with the goal of placing “Dimitri” on the throne. Karamzin writes: “In fact, it was not the army that took up arms, but the bastard against Russia: very few noble Nobles, to please the King, who is little respected, or seduced by the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bto be brave for the exiled Tsarevich, appeared in Sambir and Lvov: vagabonds, hungry and half-naked, flocked there, demanding weapons not for victory, but for robbery, or a salary that Mniszech generously gave out in the hope of the future.” In other words, the army consisted mainly of those same refugees, Zaporozhye Idonian Cossacks, who at one time fled from Russia as a result of the policies of John

IV and Boris Godunov, although some Polish nobles with their squads also joined the newly formed army. Not everyone, however, was tempted by the opportunity to take revenge on the hated Godunov - as Karamzin writes, there were many who did not want to participate in the intervention, or even actively opposed it. “It is worthy of note that some of the Moscow fugitives, the children of the Boyars, filled with hatred of Godunov, then taking refuge in Lithuania, did not want to be participants in this enterprise, because they saw the deception and abhorred the crime: they write that one of them, Yakov Pykhachev, even publicly, and before the face of the King, testified to this gross deception, together with his comrade, the monk Varlaam, alarmed by his conscience; that they did not believe them and sent both chained to Voivode Mnishka in Sambir, where Varlaam was imprisoned, and Pykhachev, accused of intending to kill False Dmitry, was executed.”

These preparations could not go unnoticed by Godunov. Of course, the first thing that came to his mind was the assumption of the next intrigues of his enemies from among the boyars. Judging by his further actions, he was greatly frightened by the “resurrection” of Tsarevich Dimitri. To begin with, he ordered Demetrius’s mother, Martha Nagaya, who had long been tonsured a nun and placed in the Novodevichy Convent, to be brought to him. He was interested in only one question - whether her son was alive or dead. Martha Nagaya, seeing what fear her son’s shadow inspired in Godunov, undoubtedly not without pleasure, answered: “I don’t know.” Boris Godunov flew into a rage, and Marfa Nagaya, wanting to enhance the effect of her answer, began to say that she had heard that her son had been secretly taken out of the country, and the like. Realizing that she could not get any sense from her, Godunov abandoned her. Soon, however, he managed to establish the identity of the impostor, and he ordered Otrepiev’s story to be made public, since further silence was dangerous, as it encouraged the people to think that the impostor was really the saved Tsarevich Dimitri. At the same time, an embassy was sent to the court of King Sigismund, led by the impostor's brother-in-law Smirnov-Otrepyev, whose goal was to expose the impostor

;Another embassy, ​​led by the nobleman Khrushchev, was sent to the Don to the Cossacks to convince them to retreat. Both embassies were unsuccessful. “The Royal nobles did not want to show False Dimitry to Smirnov-Otrepyev and simply responded that they did not care about the imaginary Tsarevich of Russia; and the Cossacks grabbed Khrushchev, shackled him and brought him to the Pretender.” Moreover, in the face of imminent death, Khrushchov fell to his knees before the impostor and recognized him as Tsarevich Dimitri. The third embassy by the nobleman Ogarev was sent by Godunov directly to King Sigismund. He received the ambassador, but responded to his requests that he himself, Sigismund, did not stand for the impostor and was not going to violate the peace between Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but also could not be responsible for the actions of individual nobles supporting Otrepiev. Ogarev had to return to Boris Godunov with nothing. In addition, Godunov demanded that Patriarch Job write a letter to the Polish clergy, in which the seals of the bishops certified that Otrepiev was a fugitive monk. The same letter was sent to the Kyiv governor, Prince Vasily Ostrozhsky. The patriarch's messengers who delivered these letters were probably captured on the way by Otrepiev's people and did not achieve their goal. “But the Patriarch’s messengers did not return: they were detained in Lithuania and neither the Clergy nor the Prince of Ostrog answered Job, for the Pretender had already acted with brilliant success.”

The invading army was concentrated in the vicinity of Lvov and Sambir, in the possessions of the Mnisheks. Its core consisted of noblemen with squads, well trained and armed, but very small in number - about 1,500 people. The rest of the army was made up of refugees who joined him, as Karamzin writes, “without organization and almost without weapons.” At the head of the army were Otrepiev himself, Yuri Mnishek, and the magnates Dvorzhitsky and Neborsky. Near Kiev, they were joined by about 2,000 Don Cossacks and the militia collected in the vicinity of Kyiv. On October 16, 1604, this army entered Russia. At first, this campaign was successful, several cities were taken (Moravsk, Chernigov), and Novgorod-Seversky was besieged on November 11.

Godunov sent an experienced and brave military leader Pyotr Basmanov to Novgorod-Seversky, who managed to organize an effective defense of the city, as a result of which the assault on the city by Otrepiev’s army was repulsed, with heavy losses for the attackers. “Otrepiev also sent Russian traitors to persuade Basmanov, but it was useless; wanted to take the fortress with a bold attack and was repulsed; he wanted to destroy its walls with fire, but he didn’t have time to do that either; he lost many people, and saw disaster before him: his camp was sad; Basmanov gave Borisov’s army time to take up arms and an example of timidity for other city leaders.”

“An example of timidity,” however, was not picked up by other “city governors” - on November 18, the Putivl governor, Prince Rubets-Mosalsky, together with clerk Sutupov, went over to Otrepiev’s side, arrested Godunov’s emissary, the devious Mikhail Saltykov, and surrendered Putivl to the enemy. The cities of Rylsk, Sevsk, Belgorod, Voronezh, Kromy, Livny, and Yelets also surrendered. Besieged in Novgorod-Seversky, Basmanov, seeing the despair of his situation, began negotiations with Otrepiev, and promised him to surrender the city in two weeks. In all likelihood, he was trying to play for time, waiting for reinforcements collected in Bryansk by governor Mstislavsky.

At this time, clouds continued to gather over Godunov. Neither the testimony of Vasily Shuisky at the Lobnoe Place in Moscow that Tsarevich Dimitri was truly dead (Shuisky was the head of the commission investigating the death of Dimitri), nor the letters sent to the cities by Patriarch Job, helped. “Until 1604, none of the Russians doubted the death of Demetrius, who grew up before the eyes of his Uglich and whom all of Uglich saw dead, watering his body with tears for five days; consequently, the Russians could not reasonably believe in the resurrection of the Tsarevich; but they didn’t like Boris!

… Shuisky's dishonesty was still fresh in his memory; They also knew Job’s blind devotion to Godunov; they only heard the name of the Queen-Nun: no one saw, no one spoke to her, again imprisoned in the Vyksinskaya Hermitage. More

There were several reasons for the turbulent events of the early 17th century: dynastic crisis, ruin of the people, natural disasters, but the main one was the attempt to forcibly impose absolutism - a system of state power for which society was not yet ready. The consequence of this was the dramatic events of the early 17th century, known as the “Time of Troubles,” when all the signs of a national catastrophe were evident:

crisis of power and the absence of a contender with firm rights to the throne, the emergence of impostors.

a severe economic crisis: crop failure, famine, thousands of people doomed to starvation.

popular riots and uprisings; weakening and collapse of the state; foreign intervention. In essence, this was a severe crisis of statehood, but it was during this period that the country had an alternative: to abandon the autocratic power of the Eastern type and, by developing the sprouts of civil society, to return to the path of development of the progressive European civilization. However, this chance was missed.

In 1584, the son of Ivan IV Fedor ascended the Russian throne, but his relative, the boyar Boris Godunov, a cautious and intelligent politician who enjoyed the full trust of the tsar, became the de facto ruler. B. Godunov's opponents attributed to him the organization of the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry, the youngest son of Ivan IV, with the aim of seizing power. The primary tasks that faced the government of Tsar Fedor were: restoring the economic life of the country after the Livonian War and the oprichnina, strengthening the economic situation and increasing the dependence of the peasants on the landowners.

In 1597, “fixed summers” were introduced, according to which landowners received the right to search for and return runaway peasants to their previous place of residence within five years.

The measures taken by the government in the 80-90s increased the dependence of the peasants on the landowners and exacerbated the contradictions between them. In 1598, Tsar Fedor died and at the Zemsky Sobor (02/17/1598), where the nobility predominated, he was elected the new tsar

Boris Godunov. Noble boyars - close relatives of Ivan IV, who believed that they had much more rights to the throne, were dissatisfied with his accession and began to wait for the right moment to overthrow him. The successes of the Russian government's foreign policy led to the aggravation of international contradictions with its neighbors. By the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th centuries. Russia's opponents strengthened significantly - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Sweden, Turkey, who sought to expand their territories at the expense of Russia.

This whole complex of contradictions, but above all the contradictions between the boyars and the nobility, feudal lords and the enslaved peasantry, determined the further dramatic development of events in Russia and its fate. The country was on the eve of great social upheaval. Years of the beginning of the 17th century. went down in history as a “time of troubles,” when state power was paralyzed, lawlessness and arbitrariness reigned, when part of the ruling class, in order to maintain its privileges, took the path of betraying national interests, and conditions for external intervention appeared.

The policy of enslaving the peasants caused discontent among the broad masses.

The situation in the country was sharply complicated by the famine of 1601-1603. Measures taken by the government to alleviate the internal situation were unsuccessful.

External political difficulties were added to the internal political difficulties. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth tried to take advantage of the crisis situation in Russia. The Polish-Lithuanian gentry pursued the goal of seizing part of the Russian lands and spreading Catholicism to the east. For this, the adventurer and impostor False Dmitry I (fugitive monk Grigory Otrepiev) was used. The adventure of False Dmitry I was not his personal affair. The impostor appeared naturally in a society of discontent with Boris Godunov, both on the part of the boyar nobility and on the part of the peasantry. The peasant masses pinned their hopes on changes in feudal politics with the advent of the “legitimate Tsar Dmitry.” The name of the “good Tsar” Dmitry became the banner of the flaring up peasant war. The Polish-Lithuanian gentry needed False Dmitry to realize their plans. Since 1604, hidden intervention against Russia begins. In April 1605, B. Godunov unexpectedly died. False Dmitry, with the army that had come over to his side, entered Moscow. However, he was unable to retain power because he was unable to fulfill his promises to those who supported him. The noble boyars, who used False Dmitry to overthrow Boris Godunov, organized a conspiracy and were now waiting for an opportunity to get rid of the impostor and come to power. In May 1606, an uprising broke out in Moscow against the impostor and his Polish supporters. False Dmitry I was killed. The plans of the Polish-Lithuanian gentry were temporarily thwarted. As a result of the uprising in Moscow against False Dmitry I, the boyars came to power, the boyar Tsar Vasily Shuisky (he was not elected at the Zemsky Sobor) ascended the throne, and began to pursue policies in the interests of a narrow circle of the boyar nobility. The situation of the masses during the reign of Vasily Shuisky (1606-1610) worsened. Since 1606, a new wave of peasant war has risen in the country, led by Ivan Bolotnikov. At its initial stage, part of the nobility and Cossacks, led by P. Lyapunov, G. Sumbulov, I. Pashkov, who had previously supported False Dmitry I, joined the peasant movement at its initial stage.

In October 1606, the troops of Ivan Bolotnikov besieged Moscow. But it was precisely at this moment that the weaknesses of the peasant movement and, above all, the social heterogeneity and differences in interests of its participants came to light. The growing anti-feudal sentiments of the majority of the movement's participants forced the leaders of the noble detachments to leave the ranks of the rebels and go over to the side of Vasily Shuisky.

At the beginning of December 1606, the troops of Ivan Bolotnikov were defeated under

Moscow, then near Kaluga and in October 1607 they were forced to surrender near Tula, but the peasant war continued until 1615. The unstable internal situation in Russia made it possible to once again intensify the aggressive plans of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Polish magnates found a new impostor of False Dmitry II (1607-1610). The hope for a “good Tsar” Dmitry again attracted masses of peasants and townspeople to the impostor. Some of the boyars and nobles who were dissatisfied with Vasily Shuisky went over to his side. In a short period of time, the power of the impostor, who received the nickname "Tushino thief", and Polish gentry spread to many regions. The violence of the gentry quickly led to a change in the mood of the peasantry and townspeople and caused an explosion of popular indignation against the interventionists. It was at this moment that the government of Vasily Shuisky could rely on the people. However, this was not done. It was decided to turn to Sweden for help, sacrificing national interests. In February 1609, an alliance was concluded with Sweden, according to which Russia renounced its claims to the Baltic coast, and the Swedes provided troops to fight

False Dmitry II. The Swedish government viewed this agreement as a convenient pretext for interfering in Russia's internal affairs and pursuing its territorial claims. However, the political situation in the country has become even more complicated. In 1609, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which no longer needed False Dmitry II, declared war on Russia. Open intervention began. In 1610, Swedish troops left the Russian army and began plundering northwestern Russia.

By this time, the discontent of the ruling class with the government of Vasily

Shuisky reached his limit. As a result of a conspiracy (July 1610), Moscow nobles and boyars overthrew V. Shuisky from the throne. Power passed into the hands of a government of seven boyars - members of the Boyar Duma, who were in Moscow at that time. This government was called the “Seven Boyars” (1610-1613). To save their power and privileges, the boyars took the path of national treason. One of the first acts of this government was the decision not to elect representatives of Russian clans as tsar. In August 1610, an agreement was concluded with the Poles stationed near Moscow on the recognition of the son of the Polish king Sigismund III Vladislav as the Russian Tsar. Fearing an explosion of popular indignation, this government in September 1610 secretly allowed

Polish troops to Moscow. All real power was concentrated in the hands of Polish military leaders. Difficult times have come for the Russian state. Polish invaders occupied the capital and many cities in the center and west of the country. The Swedes ruled the north-west. During this most difficult period of the Russian state, the people stepped onto the historical stage. From the beginning of 1611, the masses began to rise up to fight for the liberation of the Motherland. Preparations for a nationwide struggle against the invaders began in Ryazan, where the first militia was created. It was headed by the nobleman P. Lyapunov. However, this militia was not successful. As a result of internal disagreements, it disintegrated. In September 1611 in Nizhny Novgorod, the posad elder K. Minin and Prince. Dm. Pozharsky formed a second militia, which in October 1612 liberated Moscow from the invaders. The patriotic movement of the Russian people was crowned with success. The situation in the country was extremely difficult. There was no final end to the intervention. Russia lost access to the Baltic Sea for almost a century.

Conclusions: The consequence of the “time of troubles” was economic ruin. The country's government structures were virtually collapsed and its head was absent.

Thus, the ruling class was objectively faced with a whole complex of priority and long-term internal and external tasks. Firstly, to restore and strengthen state power, secondly, to end intervention and pursue an active foreign policy, thirdly, to promote the development of the country's productive forces, fourthly, to ensure the development and strengthening of feudal relations.

The end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries were marked by turmoil in Russian history. Having started at the top, it quickly went down, captured all layers of Moscow society and brought the state to the brink of destruction. The Troubles lasted for more than a quarter of a century - from the death of Ivan the Terrible until the election of Mikhail Fedorovich to the kingdom (1584-1613). The duration and intensity of the unrest clearly indicate that it did not come from outside and not by chance, that its roots were hidden deep in the state organism. But at the same time, the Time of Troubles amazes with its obscurity and uncertainty. This is not a political revolution, since it did not begin in the name of a new political ideal and did not lead to it, although the existence of political motives in the turmoil cannot be denied; this is not a social revolution, since, again, the unrest did not arise from a social movement, although in further development intertwined with it are the aspirations of some sections of society for social change. “Our turmoil is the fermentation of a sick state organism, striving to get out of the contradictions to which the previous course of history led it and which could not be resolved in a peaceful, ordinary way.” All previous hypotheses about the origin of the turmoil, despite the fact that each of them contains some truth, must be abandoned as not completely solving the problem. There were two main contradictions that caused the Time of Troubles. The first of them was political, which can be defined in the words of Professor Klyuchevsky: “The Moscow sovereign, whom the course of history led to democratic sovereignty, had to act through a very aristocratic administration”; both of these forces, which grew together thanks to the state unification of Rus' and worked together on it, were imbued with mutual distrust and enmity. The second contradiction can be called social: the Moscow government was forced to strain all its forces to better organize the highest defense of the state and “under the pressure of these higher needs, sacrifice the interests of the industrial and agricultural classes, whose labor served as the basis National economy, the interests of service landowners", the consequence of which was the mass exodus of the tax-paying population from the centers to the outskirts, which intensified with the expansion of state territory suitable for agriculture. The first contradiction was the result of the collection of destinies by Moscow. The annexation of destinies did not have the nature of a violent, exterminatory war. Moscow government left the inheritance in the management of his former prince and was content with the fact that the latter recognized the power of the Moscow sovereign and became his servant. The power of the Moscow sovereign, as Klyuchevsky put it, became not in the place of appanage princes, but above them; “the new state order was a new layer of relations and institutions, which lay on top of what was in effect before, without destroying it, but only imposing new responsibilities on it, showing it new tasks.” The new princely boyars, pushing aside the ancient Moscow boyars, took first place in the degree of their pedigree seniority, accepting only a very few of the Moscow boyars into their midst on equal rights with themselves. Thus, a vicious circle of boyar princes formed around the Moscow sovereign, who became the pinnacle of his administration, his main council in governing the country. The authorities previously ruled the state individually and in parts, but now they began to rule the entire earth, occupying positions according to the seniority of their breed. The Moscow government recognized this right for them, even supported it, contributed to its development in the form of localism, and thereby fell into the above-mentioned contradiction. The power of the Moscow sovereigns arose on the basis of patrimonial rights. The Grand Duke of Moscow was the owner of his inheritance; all the inhabitants of his territory were his “slaves.” The entire previous course of history led to the development of this view of territory and population. By recognizing the rights of the boyars, the Grand Duke betrayed his ancient traditions, which in reality he could not replace with others. Ivan the Terrible was the first to understand this contradiction. The Moscow boyars were strong mainly because of their family land holdings. Ivan the Terrible planned to carry out a complete mobilization of boyar land ownership, taking away from the boyars their ancestral appanage nests, giving them other lands in return in order to break their connection with the land and deprive them of their former significance. The boyars were defeated; it was replaced by the lower court layer. Simple boyar families, like the Godunovs and Zakharyins, seized primacy at court. The surviving remnants of the boyars became embittered and prepared for unrest. On the other hand, the 16th century. was an era external wars, which ended with the acquisition of vast spaces in the east, southeast and west. To conquer them and to consolidate new acquisitions, a huge number of military forces were required, which the government recruited from everywhere, in difficult cases not disdaining the services of slaves. The service class in the Moscow state received, in the form of a salary, land on the estate - and land without workers had no value. Land far from the borders military defense, also did not matter, since a serving person could not serve with her. Therefore, the government was forced to transfer a huge expanse of land in the central and southern parts of the state into service hands. The palace and black peasant volosts lost their independence and came under the control of service people. The previous division into volosts inevitably had to be destroyed with small changes. The process of "possession" of lands is exacerbated by the above-mentioned mobilization of lands, which was the result of persecution against the boyars. Mass evictions ruined the economy of service people, but even more ruined the tax collectors. The mass relocation of the peasantry to the outskirts begins. At the same time, a huge area of ​​Zaoksk black soil is being opened up for resettlement for the peasantry. The government itself, taking care of strengthening the newly acquired borders, supports resettlement to the outskirts. As a result, by the end of the reign of Ivan the Terrible, the eviction took on the character of a general flight, intensified by shortages, epidemics, and Tatar raids. Most of the service lands remain “empty”; a sharp economic crisis ensues. The peasants lost the right of independent land ownership, with the placement of service people on their lands; The townspeople population found themselves forced out of the southern towns and cities occupied by military force: the former trading places took on the character of military-administrative settlements. The townspeople are running. In this economic crisis, there is a struggle for workers. The stronger ones win - the boyars and the church. The suffering elements remain the service class and, even more so, the peasant element, which not only lost the right to free land use, but, with the help of indentured servitude, loans and the newly emerged institution of old-timers (see), begins to lose personal freedom, to approach the serfs. In this struggle, enmity grows between individual classes - between the large owner-boyars and the church, on the one hand, and the service class, on the other. The oppressive population harbors hatred for the classes that oppress them and, irritated by government dispositions, are ready for open rebellion; it runs to the Cossacks, who have long separated their interests from the interests of the state. Only the north, where the land remained in the hands of the black volosts, remains calm during the advancing state “ruin.”

In the development of the turmoil in the Moscow state, researchers usually distinguish three periods: dynastic, during which there was a struggle for the Moscow throne between various contenders (until May 19, 1606); social - the time of class struggle in the Moscow state, complicated by the intervention of foreign states in Russian affairs (until July 1610); national - the fight against foreign elements and the choice of a national sovereign (until February 21, 1613).

First period of Troubles

The last minutes of False Dmitry's life. Painting by K. Wenig, 1879

Now the old boyar party found itself at the head of the board, which chose V. Shuisky as king. “The boyar-princely reaction in Moscow” (the expression of S. F. Platonov), having mastered the political position, elevated its most noble leader to the kingdom. The election of V. Shuisky to the throne took place without the advice of the whole earth. The Shuisky brothers, V.V. Golitsyn with his brothers, Iv. S. Kurakin and I.M. Vorotynsky, having agreed among themselves, brought Prince Vasily Shuisky to the execution site and from there proclaimed him tsar. It was natural to expect that the people would be against the “shouted out” tsar and that the secondary boyars (Romanovs, Nagiye, Belsky, M.G. Saltykov, etc.), which gradually began to recover from Boris’s disgrace, would also turn out to be against him.

Second period of Troubles

After his election to the throne, he considered it necessary to explain to the people why he was chosen and not someone else. He motivates the reason for his election by his origin from Rurik; in other words, it sets forth the principle that the seniority of the “breed” gives the right to seniority of power. This is the principle of the ancient boyars (see Localism). Restoring the old boyar traditions, Shuisky had to formally confirm the rights of the boyars and, if possible, ensure them. He did this in his crucifixion record, which undoubtedly had the character of limiting royal power. The Tsar admitted that he was not free to execute his slaves, that is, he abandoned the principle that Ivan the Terrible so sharply put forward and then accepted by Godunov. The entry satisfied the boyar princes, and even then not all of them, but it could not satisfy the minor boyars, minor service people and the mass of the population. The turmoil continued. Vasily Shuisky immediately sent followers of False Dmitry - Belsky, Saltykov and others - to different cities; He wanted to get along with the Romanovs, Nagiys and other representatives of the minor boyars, but several dark events occurred that indicate that he did not succeed. V. Shuisky thought about elevating Filaret, who had been elevated to the rank of metropolitan by an impostor, to the patriarchal table, but circumstances showed him that it was impossible to rely on Filaret and the Romanovs. He also failed to unite the oligarchic circle of boyar princes: part of it disintegrated, part of it became hostile to the tsar. Shuisky hurried to be crowned king, without even waiting for the patriarch: he was crowned by Metropolitan Isidore of Novgorod, without the usual pomp. To dispel rumors that Tsarevich Dmitry was alive, Shuisky came up with the idea of ​​a solemn transfer to Moscow of the relics of the Tsarevich, canonized by the church; He also resorted to official journalism. But everything was against him: anonymous letters were scattered around Moscow that Dmitry was alive and would soon return, and Moscow was worried. On May 25, Shuisky had to calm down the mob, which was raised against him, as they said then, by P.N. Sheremetev.

Tsar Vasily Shuisky

A fire was breaking out on the southern outskirts of the state. As soon as the events of May 17 became known there, the Seversk land rose, and behind it the Trans-Oka, Ukrainian and Ryazan places; The movement moved to Vyatka, Perm, and captured Astrakhan. Unrest also broke out in Novgorod, Pskov and Tver. This movement, which embraced such a huge space, had a different character in different places and pursued different goals, but there is no doubt that it was dangerous for V. Shuisky. In the Seversk land the movement was social in nature and was directed against the boyars. Putivl became the center of the movement here, and the prince became the head of the movement. Grieg. Peter. Shakhovskoy and his “big governor” Bolotnikov. The movement raised by Shakhovsky and Bolotnikov was completely different from the previous one: before they fought for the trampled rights of Dmitry, in which they believed, now - for a new social ideal; Dmitry's name was only a pretext. Bolotnikov called the people to him, giving hope for social change. The original text of his appeals has not survived, but their content is indicated in the charter of Patriarch Hermogenes. Bolotnikov’s appeals, says Hermogenes, instill in the mob “all sorts of evil deeds for murder and robbery”, “they order the boyar slaves to beat their boyars and their wives, and votchinas, and estates they are promised; and they order the thieves and unnamed thieves to beat the guests and all merchants and rob their bellies; and they call their thieves to themselves, and they want to give them boyarships and voivodeships, and deviousness, and clergy.” In the northern zone of Ukrainian and Ryazan cities, a serving nobility arose who did not want to put up with the boyar government of Shuisky. The Ryazan militia was headed by Grigory Sunbulov and the Lyapunov brothers, Prokopiy and Zakhar, and the Tula militia moved under the command of the boyar’s son Istoma Pashkov.

Meanwhile, Bolotnikov defeated the tsarist commanders and moved towards Moscow. On the way, he united with the noble militias, together with them he approached Moscow and stopped in the village of Kolomenskoye. Shuisky's position became extremely dangerous. Almost half of the state rose up against him, rebel forces were besieging Moscow, and he had no troops not only to pacify the rebellion, but even to defend Moscow. In addition, the rebels cut off access to bread, and famine emerged in Moscow. Among the besiegers, however, discord emerged: the nobility, on the one hand, slaves, fugitive peasants, on the other, could live peacefully only until they knew each other’s intentions. As soon as the nobility became acquainted with the goals of Bolotnikov and his army, they immediately recoiled from them. Sunbulov and Lyapunov, although they hated the established order in Moscow, preferred Shuisky and came to him to confess. Other nobles began to follow them. Then the militia from some cities arrived to help, and Shuisky was saved. Bolotnikov fled first to Serpukhov, then to Kaluga, from which he moved to Tula, where he settled down with the Cossack impostor False Peter. This new impostor appeared among the Terek Cossacks and pretended to be the son of Tsar Fedor, who in reality never existed. Its appearance dates back to the time of the first False Dmitry. Shakhovskoy came to Bolotnikov; they decided to lock themselves here and hide from Shuisky. The number of their troops exceeded 30,000 people. In the spring of 1607, Tsar Vasily decided to act energetically against the rebels; but the spring campaign was unsuccessful. Finally, in the summer, with a huge army, he personally went to Tula and besieged it, pacifying the rebel cities along the way and destroying the rebels: thousands of them put “prisoners in the water,” that is, they simply drowned them. A third of the state territory was given over to the troops for plunder and destruction. The siege of Tula dragged on; They managed to take it only when they came up with the idea of ​​setting it up on the river. Up the dam and flood the city. Shakhovsky was exiled to Lake Kubenskoye, Bolotnikov to Kargopol, where he was drowned, and False Peter was hanged. Shuisky triumphed, but not for long. Instead of going to pacify the northern cities, where the rebellion did not stop, he disbanded the troops and returned to Moscow to celebrate the victory. The social background of Bolotnikov’s movement did not escape Shuisky’s attention. This is proven by the fact that, through a series of resolutions, he decided to strengthen in place and subject to supervision that social stratum that discovered dissatisfaction with its position and sought to change it. By issuing such decrees, Shuisky recognized the existence of unrest, but, trying to defeat it through repression alone, he revealed a lack of understanding of the actual state of affairs.

The battle between Bolotnikov's army and the tsarist army. Painting by E. Lissner

By August 1607, when V. Shuisky was sitting near Tula, the second False Dmitry appeared in Starodub Seversky, whom the people very aptly dubbed the Thief. The Starodub residents believed in him and began to help him. Soon a team of Poles, Cossacks and all sorts of crooks formed around him. This was not the zemstvo squad that gathered around False Dmitry I: it was just a gang of “thieves” who did not believe in the royal origin of the new impostor and followed him in the hope of loot. The thief defeated the royal army and stopped near Moscow in the village of Tushino, where he founded his fortified camp. People flocked to him from everywhere, thirsting for easy money. The arrival of Lisovsky and Jan Sapieha especially strengthened the Thief.

S. Ivanov. Camp of False Dmitry II in Tushino

Shuisky's position was difficult. The South could not help him; he had no strength of his own. There remained hope in the north, which was comparatively calmer and suffered little from the turmoil. On the other hand, the Thief could not take Moscow. Both opponents were weak and could not defeat each other. The people became corrupted and forgot about duty and honor, serving alternately one or the other. In 1608, V. Shuisky sent his nephew Mikhail Vasilyevich Skopin-Shuisky (see) for help to the Swedes. The Russians ceded the city of Karel and the province to Sweden, abandoned views of Livonia and pledged an eternal alliance against Poland, for which they received an auxiliary detachment of 6 thousand people. Skopin moved from Novgorod to Moscow, clearing the north-west of the Tushins along the way. Sheremetev came from Astrakhan, suppressing the rebellion along the Volga. In Alexandrovskaya Sloboda they united and went to Moscow. By this time, Tushino ceased to exist. It happened this way: when Sigismund learned about Russia’s alliance with Sweden, he declared war on it and besieged Smolensk. Ambassadors were sent to Tushino to the Polish troops there demanding that they join the king. A split began among the Poles: some obeyed the king's orders, others did not. The Thief’s position had been difficult before: no one treated him on ceremony, they insulted him, almost beat him; now it has become unbearable. The thief decided to leave Tushino and fled to Kaluga. Around the Thief during his stay in Tushino, a court of Moscow people gathered who did not want to serve Shuisky. Among them were representatives of very high strata of the Moscow nobility, but the palace nobility - Metropolitan Filaret (Romanov), Prince. Trubetskoys, Saltykovs, Godunovs, etc.; there were also humble people who sought to curry favor, gain weight and importance in the state - Molchanov, Iv. Gramotin, Fedka Andronov, etc. Sigismund invited them to surrender under the authority of the king. Filaret and the Tushino boyars responded that the election of a tsar was not their job alone, that they could do nothing without the advice of the land. At the same time, they entered into an agreement between themselves and the Poles not to pester V. Shuisky and not to desire a king from “any other Moscow boyars” and began negotiations with Sigismund so that he would send his son Vladislav to the kingdom of Moscow. An embassy was sent from the Russian Tushins, headed by the Saltykovs, Prince. Rubets-Masalsky, Pleshcheevs, Khvorostin, Velyaminov - all great nobles - and several people of low origin. On February 4, 1610, they concluded an agreement with Sigismund, clarifying the aspirations of “rather mediocre nobility and well-established businessmen.” Its main points are as follows: 1) Vladislav is crowned king by the Orthodox patriarch; 2) Orthodoxy must continue to be revered: 3) the property and rights of all ranks remain inviolable; 4) the trial is carried out according to the old times; Vladislav shares legislative power with the boyars and the Zemsky Sobor; 5) execution can be carried out only by court and with the knowledge of the boyars; the property of the relatives of the perpetrator should not be subject to confiscation; 6) taxes are collected in the old way; the appointment of new ones is done with the consent of the boyars; 7) peasant migration is prohibited; 8) Vladislav is obliged not to demote people of high ranks innocently, but to promote those of lower rank according to their merits; travel to other countries for research is permitted; 9) the slaves remain in the same position. Analyzing this treaty, we find: 1) that it is national and strictly conservative, 2) that it protects most of all the interests of the service class, and 3) that it undoubtedly introduces some innovations; Particularly characteristic in this regard are paragraphs 5, 6 and 8. Meanwhile, Skopin-Shuisky triumphantly entered liberated Moscow on March 12, 1610.

Vereshchagin. Defenders of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra

Moscow rejoiced, welcoming the 24-year-old hero with great joy. Shuisky also rejoiced, hoping that the days of testing were over. But during these celebrations, Skopin suddenly died. There was a rumor that he had been poisoned. There is news that Lyapunov offered Skopin to “unseat” Vasily Shuisky and take the throne himself, but gives the right to seniority of power. This is the principle of the ancient boyars (see /p Skopin rejected this proposal. After the tsar found out about this, he lost interest in his nephew. In any case, Skopin’s death destroyed Shuisky’s connection with the people. The tsar’s brother Dimitri, completely a mediocre person. He set out to liberate Smolensk, but near the village of Klushina he was shamefully defeated by the Polish hetman Zholkiewski.

Mikhail Vasilievich Skopin-Shuisky. Parsuna (portrait) 17th century

Zholkiewski cleverly took advantage of the victory: he quickly went to Moscow, capturing Russian cities along the way and bringing them to the oath to Vladislav. Vor also hurried to Moscow from Kaluga. When Moscow learned about the outcome of the battle of Klushino, “a great rebellion arose among all the people, fighting against the Tsar.” The approach of Zolkiewski and Vor accelerated the disaster. In the overthrow of Shuisky from the throne, the main role fell to the share of the service class, headed by Zakhar Lyapunov. The palace nobility also took a significant part in this, including Filaret Nikitich. After several unsuccessful attempts, Shuisky’s opponents gathered at the Serpukhov Gate, declared themselves the council of the whole earth and “unseated” the king.

Third period of troubles

Moscow found itself without a government, and yet it needed it now more than ever: it was pressed by enemies on both sides. Everyone was aware of this, but did not know who to focus on. Lyapunov and the Ryazan servicemen wanted to install Prince Tsar. V. Golitsyna; Filaret, Saltykovs and other Tushins had other intentions; The highest nobility, headed by F.I. Mstislavsky and I.S. Kurakin, decided to wait. The board was transferred to the hands of the boyar duma, which consisted of 7 members. The “seven-numbered boyars” failed to take power into their own hands. They made an attempt to assemble a Zemsky Sobor, but it failed. Fear of the Thief, on whose side the mob was taking their side, forced them to let Zolkiewski into Moscow, but he entered only when Moscow agreed to the election of Vladislav. On August 27, Moscow swore allegiance to Vladislav. If the election of Vladislav was not carried out in the usual way, at a real Zemsky Sobor, then nevertheless the boyars did not decide to take this step alone, but gathered representatives from different layers of the state and formed something like a Zemsky Sobor, which was recognized as the council of the whole earth. After long negotiations, both parties accepted the previous agreement, with some changes: 1) Vladislav had to convert to Orthodoxy; 2) the clause on freedom to travel abroad for science was crossed out and 3) the article on the promotion of lesser people was destroyed. These changes show the influence of the clergy and boyars. The agreement on the election of Vladislav was sent to Sigismund with a great embassy consisting of almost 1000 people: this included representatives of almost all classes. It is very likely that the embassy included most of the members of the “council of the whole earth” that elected Vladislav. The embassy was headed by Metropolitan Filaret and Prince V.P. Golitsyn. The embassy was not successful: Sigismund himself wanted to sit on the Moscow throne. When Zolkiewski realized that Sigismund's intention was unshakable, he left Moscow, realizing that the Russians would not come to terms with this. Sigismund hesitated, tried to intimidate the ambassadors, but they did not deviate from the agreement. Then he resorted to bribing some members, which he succeeded in: they left from near Smolensk to prepare the ground for the election of Sigismund, but those who remained were unshakable.

Hetman Stanislav Zholkiewski

At the same time, in Moscow, the “seven-numbered boyars” lost all meaning; power passed into the hands of the Poles and the newly formed government circle, which betrayed the Russian cause and betrayed Sigismund. This circle consisted of Iv. Mich. Saltykova, book. Yu. D. Khvorostinina, N. D. Velyaminova, M. A. Molchanova, Gramotina, Fedka Andronova and many others. etc. Thus, the first attempt of the Moscow people to restore power ended in complete failure: instead of an equal union with Poland, Rus' risked falling into complete subordination from it. The failed attempt put an end to the political significance of the boyars and the boyar duma forever. As soon as the Russians realized that they had made a mistake in choosing Vladislav, as soon as they saw that Sigismund was not lifting the siege of Smolensk and was deceiving them, national and religious feelings began to awaken. At the end of October 1610, ambassadors from near Smolensk sent a letter about the threatening turn of affairs; in Moscow itself, patriots revealed the truth to the people in anonymous letters. All eyes turned to Patriarch Hermogenes: he understood his task, but could not immediately take up its implementation. After the storming of Smolensk on November 21, the first serious clash between Hermogenes and Saltykov took place, who tried to persuade the patriarch to side with Sigismund; but Hermogenes still did not dare to call on the people to openly fight the Poles. The death of Vor and the disintegration of the embassy forced him to “command the blood to be bold” - and in the second half of December he began sending letters to the cities. This was discovered, and Hermogenes paid with imprisonment.

His call, however, was heard. Prokopiy Lyapunov was the first to rise from the Ryazan land. He began to gather an army against the Poles and in January 1611 moved towards Moscow. Zemstvo squads came to Lyapunov from all sides; even the Tushino Cossacks went to the rescue of Moscow, under the command of Prince. D.T. Trubetskoy and Zarutsky. The Poles, after the battle with the residents of Moscow and the approaching zemstvo squads, locked themselves in the Kremlin and Kitai-Gorod. The position of the Polish detachment (about 3,000 people) was dangerous, especially since it had few supplies. Sigismund could not help him; he himself was unable to put an end to Smolensk. The Zemstvo and Cossack militias united and besieged the Kremlin, but dissension immediately began between them. However, the army declared itself the council of the earth and began to rule the state, since there was no other government. Due to the increased discord between the zemstvos and the Cossacks, it was decided in June 1611 to draw up a general resolution. The sentence of the representatives of the Cossacks and service people, who formed the main core of the zemstvo army, was very extensive: it had to organize not only the army, but also the state. The highest power should belong to the entire army, which calls itself “the whole earth”; voivodes are only the executive bodies of this council, which reserves the right to remove them if they conduct business poorly. The court belongs to the voivodes, but they can execute only with the approval of the “council of the whole earth”, otherwise they face death. Then local affairs were settled very precisely and in detail. All awards from Vor and Sigismund are declared insignificant. “Old” Cossacks can receive estates and thus join the ranks of service people. Next are the decrees on the return of fugitive slaves, who called themselves Cossacks (new Cossacks), to their former masters; The self-will of the Cossacks was largely embarrassed. Finally, an administrative department was established on the Moscow model. From this verdict it is clear that the army gathered near Moscow considered itself a representative of the entire land and that the main role in the council belonged to the zemstvo service people, and not to the Cossacks. This sentence is also characteristic in that it testifies to the importance that the service class gradually acquired. But the predominance of service people did not last long; the Cossacks could not be in solidarity with them. The matter ended with the murder of Lyapunov and the flight of the zemshchina. The Russians' hopes for the militia were not justified: Moscow remained in the hands of the Poles, Smolensk by this time was taken by Sigismund, Novgorod by the Swedes; Cossacks settled around Moscow, robbed the people, committed outrages and prepared a new unrest, proclaiming the son of Marina, who lived in connection with Zarutsky, Russian Tsar.

The state was apparently dying; but it rose popular movement throughout the north and northeast of Rus'. This time it separated from the Cossacks and began to act independently. Hermogenes, with his letters, poured inspiration into the hearts of the Russians. Nizhny became the center of the movement. Kuzma Minin was placed at the head of the economic organization, and power over the army was handed over to Prince Pozharsky.

K. Makovsky. Minin's appeal on Nizhny Novgorod Square