assessments of the Time of Troubles in historiography

1. Troubles (Time of Troubles) is a deep spiritual, economic, social, and foreign policy crisis that befell Russia at the end of the 16th century. 17th century It coincided with the dynastic crisis and the struggle of boyar groups for power, which brought the country to the brink of disaster. The main signs of unrest are considered to be anarchy (anarchy), imposture, civil war and intervention. According to a number of historians, the Time of Troubles can be considered the first civil war in Russian history.

   Contemporaries spoke of the Troubles as a time of instability, disorder, and confusion of minds, which caused bloody clashes and conflicts. The term turmoil was used in everyday speech in the 17th century. , the paperwork of Moscow orders, is included in the title of the essay by Grigory Kotoshikhin (Time of Troubles). At 7 p.m. 20th century got into research about Boris Godunov, Vasily Shuisky. In Soviet science, phenomena and events of the early 17th century. were classified as a period of socio-political crisis, the first peasant war (I. I. Bolotnikova) and the foreign intervention that coincided with it, but the term turmoil was not used. In Polish historical science, this time is called Dimitriad, since at the center of historical events stood False Dmitry I, False Dmitry II, False Dmitry III Poles or impostors who sympathized with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, posing as the escaped Tsarevich Dmitry.

   The concept of Troubles came into historiography from the popular vocabulary, meaning primarily anarchy and extreme disorder in public life. Contemporaries of the Troubles assessed it as a punishment that befell people for their sins. This understanding of events was significantly reflected in the position of S. M. Solovyov, who understood the crisis of the early 17th century as a general moral decay.

   According to K. S. Aksakov and V. O. Klyuchevsky, at the center of events was the problem of the legality of the supreme power. N.I. Kostomarov reduced the essence of the crisis to the political intervention of Poland and the intrigues of the Catholic Church. A similar view was expressed by the American historian J. Billington; he directly spoke of the Troubles as a religious war. I. E. Zabelin viewed the Troubles as a struggle between herd and national principles. The representative of the herd principle was the boyars, who sacrificed national interests for the sake of their own privileges. Such an idea was not alien to Klyuchevsky.

   A significant block in the historiography of the Troubles is occupied by works where it is presented as a powerful social conflict. S. F. Platonov saw several levels of this conflict: between the boyars and the nobility, between landowners and the peasantry, etc. N. N. Firsov in 1927 spoke about the peasant revolution as a reaction to the development of commercial capital.

   If in pre-revolutionary historiography the political, moral, ethical and social aspects of the Troubles were presented as relatively equivalent, then Soviet historiography made a clear bias towards only social factors, as a rule, absolutizing them. Interpreting the events of the Time of Troubles solely as a peasant revolution, Marxist historians rejected the very term Time of Troubles. M. V. Nechkina stated in 1930 that this term was adopted mainly in noble and bourgeois historical literature, arose in counter-revolutionary circles and contains a negative assessment of the revolutionary movement. The concept of Troubles was for a long time supplanted by the formulation of the peasant war under the leadership of Bolotnikov, which was reflected in the works of M. N. Pokrovsky, I. I. Smirnov, B. D. Grekov, A. M. Sakharov, V. I. Koretsky and others.

   The one-sidedness of approaches and assessments was gradually eliminated. Works have appeared where the entire spectrum of causes and manifestations of the Troubles is analyzed. A large number of works were written by R. G. Skrynnikov, they provide extensive factual material, showing the true role of the individuals who participated in the events, including Bolotnikov.
   V. B. Kobrin defined the Time of Troubles as a complex interweaving of various contradictions - class and national, intra-class and inter-class

The historiography of the “time of troubles” is very extensive. The views of early noble historians were somewhat influenced by the chronicle tradition. V.N. Tatishchev looked for the causes of the “Troubles” in the “mad strife of noble noble families.” At the same time, he was the first to express the idea that the “great misfortune” of the early 17th century was a consequence of the laws of Boris Godunov, which made peasants and slaves involuntary. Tatishchev's observation laid the foundations for the scientific concept of the Troubles.

Noble historiographer N.M. Karamzin did not see a pattern in the popular uprisings of the early 17th century. and argued that at that time “debauchery” affected all levels of society - “from the mob to the noble rank.” According to N.M. Karamzin, to the greatest extent, the “Troubles” were caused by the intervention of foreign enemies of Russia.

The largest bourgeois historian S.M. Soloviev associated the “Troubles” not with external, but with internal factors - with the “bad state of morality,” the dynastic crisis, and especially with the actions of anti-social elements in the person of the Cossacks, landless and wandering people. CM. Solovyov resolutely rejected the opinion of historians who believed that “the prohibition of peasant exit made by Godunov was the cause of the Troubles.”

N.I. Kostomarov emphasized that the Cossacks played a positive role in protecting the borders, but the riots of the Cossacks, who raised the “bloody banner of turning the Russian land upside down,” had only negative consequences, interfering with “the success of the development of Russian public life.”

turmoil russia Godunov false Dmitry

IN. Klyuchevsky was the first to develop an integral concept of the “time of troubles” as the product of a complex social crisis. The reason for the “Troubles,” wrote V.O. Klyuchevsky, the Kalita dynasty was suppressed, but its real reasons were rooted in the very structure of the state, in the uneven distribution of state duties, which gave rise to social discord.

Soviet historians revised the concept of the “Troubles” and highlighted the factor of class struggle. “Troubles,” wrote M.N. Pokrovsky, began not from above, but from below. In Russia there was a powerful explosion of class struggle - the "peasant revolution". The appearance of impostors was not associated with foreign intervention, but with internal struggle. False Dmitry I was a Cossack king who led the Cossack revolution in Russia.

A significant event in historiography was the book by V.I. Koretsky, who comprehensively studied, using vast archival material, the social policy of the state at different stages of the Troubles.

A review of historiography allows us to conclude that the history of the Troubles requires further research. It is important to find out the nature and character of popular uprisings, the role of various population groups in them. When analyzing the events of the "time of troubles" it is necessary to take into account all factors - political, social and economic - in their interaction. This approach can provide a complete concept of the history of the first civil war in Russia.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

Chapter 1. XVIII century. V.N. Tatishchev, M.M. Shcherbatov

Chapter 2. N.M. Karamzin

Chapter 3. First half of the 19th century. CM. Soloviev, N.I. Kostomarov

Chapter 4. Second half of the 19th century. IN. Klyuchevsky. P.N. Milyukov. S.F. Platonov

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The deepest crisis that covered all spheres of life of Russian society at the beginning of the 17th century. and which resulted in a period of bloody conflicts, the struggle for national independence and national survival, was called “The Troubles” by contemporaries. The concept of “Troubles” entered historiography from the popular vocabulary, meaning anarchy and extreme disorder in public life. In Russia at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries, “turmoil” affected the economy, domestic and foreign policy, ideology and morality.

This meant “confusion of minds,” i.e. a sharp change in moral and behavioral stereotypes, accompanied by an unprincipled and bloody struggle for power, a surge of violence, the movement of various sectors of society, foreign intervention, etc., which brought Russia to the brink of a national catastrophe.

In the last quarter of the 16th century. In Russia there was a sharp aggravation of the deep socio-political crisis that had emerged in the previous period. The situation in the country became more complicated due to the ongoing struggle for power under the successors of Ivan the Terrible. The energetic measures taken by the government of Boris Godunov only allowed to soften the crisis for a while, but could not ensure its overcoming, because they were carried out at the expense of strengthening feudal-serf oppression.

Contemporaries very keenly felt the severity of the events of the late 16th and especially the early 17th centuries. This time has long been designated by the term “Lithuanian ruin.” A few decades later, the Moscow clerk Grigory Kotoshikhin, who fled to Sweden, in his description of the Moscow state “On Russia during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich,” first used the term “Times of Troubles,” which was firmly established in pre-revolutionary historiography. Despite widespread coverage in historiography, no general work on the causes of the Time of Troubles has been created, which updates this study.

So, the topic of the work is “ Russia is on the verge of turmoil. Reasons and prerequisites" - is relevant.

Coursework problem: Russia is on the threshold of the Time of Troubles.

Object of course work: historiography of the Troubles.

Subject of course work: how the views of historians of the 18th-19th centuries on the causes and prerequisites of the Troubles developed.

Targetcourse work - consider the historiography of the Troubles from the point of view of various authors.

Coursework objectives:

1. Consider the views of V.N. Tatishchev and M.M. Shcherbatov on the Time of Troubles;

2. Explore the ideas of N.M. Karamzin about the causes and prerequisites of the Troubles.

3. Analyze the opinion of public school historians about the causes and prerequisites of the Troubles.

4. Explore the ideas of V.O. Klyuchevsky, P.N. Milyukova, S.F. Platonov about the causes and prerequisites of the Troubles.

Research methods- analysis, synthesis, comparative analysis of literature.

Scientists have explained the causes and nature of these tragic events in different ways.

N.M. Karamzin drew attention to the political crisis caused by the suppression of the dynasty at the end of the 16th century. and the weakening of the monarchy.

CM. Solovyov saw the main content of “The Troubles” in the struggle of the state principle with anarchy, represented by the Cossacks.

A more comprehensive approach was characteristic of S.F. Platonov, who defined it as a complex interweaving of the actions and aspirations of various political forces, social groups, as well as personal interests and passions, complicated by the intervention of external forces.

In Soviet historical science, the concept of “Troubles” was rejected, and the events of the early 17th century. characterized as “the first peasant war with an anti-serfdom orientation, complicated by the internal political struggle of feudal groups for power and the Polish-Swedish intervention.”

Structure course work: the work consists of an introduction, 4 chapters and a conclusion.

historiography political unrest

Chapter 1.HistoriansXVIII centuryand about the Troubles. V.N. Tatishchev, M.M. Shcherbatov

Before we begin to consider the views of historians of the 18th-19th centuries on the causes of the Troubles, let us briefly dwell on the situation at the end of the 16th and beginning. XVII centuries In the last quarter of the 16th century. In Russia there was a sharp aggravation of the deep socio-political crisis that had emerged in the previous period. The situation in the country became more complicated due to the ongoing struggle for power under the successors of Ivan the Terrible. The energetic measures taken by the government of Boris Godunov only allowed to soften the crisis for a while, but could not ensure its overcoming, because they were carried out at the expense of strengthening feudal-serf oppression.

In the 17th century Russia entered into an environment of further growing social crisis. The scale and nature of this crisis were already visible to contemporaries. One of them, the English diplomat Fletcher, who visited the Russian state in 1588 with a special mission from Queen Elizabeth, wrote the famous words that “the general murmur and irreconcilable hatred” reigning in Russian society indicate that “apparently , this must end in no other way than civil war.” As is known, this historical forecast made by Fletcher in his essay “On the Russian State,” published in London in 1591, was brilliantly confirmed by further developments.

End of the 16th - beginning of the 17th centuries. were the time of continuation of the process of formation of a multinational centralized state. This process took place under the dominance of feudal-serf relations.

At the same time, this process of centralization took place in a tense external struggle with neighboring states - Poland, Lithuania, Sweden. Occupying the entire third quarter of the 16th century. during the Livonian War, this struggle resumed at the beginning of the 17th century. The intervention threatened the preservation of state independence and national existence, which caused the rise of the national liberation movement in the country, which played a huge role in the liberation of Moscow from the interventionists.

By the beginning of the 17th century, the process of formation of Russian statehood was not completely complete; contradictions had accumulated in it, resulting in a severe crisis. Covering the economy, the socio-political sphere, and public morality, this crisis was called “The Troubles.” The Time of Troubles is a period of virtual anarchy, chaos and unprecedented social upheaval.

The concept of “Troubles” came into historiography from the popular vocabulary, meaning primarily anarchy and extreme disorder in public life. Contemporaries of the Troubles assessed it as a punishment that befell people for their sins.

Contemporaries very keenly felt the severity of the events of the late 16th and especially the early 17th centuries. This time has long been designated by the term “Lithuanian ruin.” A few decades later, the Moscow clerk Grigory Kotoshikhin, who fled to Sweden, in his description of the Moscow state “On Russia during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich,” first used the term “Times of Troubles,” which was firmly established in pre-revolutionary historiography. Let's begin the analysis of views on the Troubles with historians of the 18th century.

The historiography of the “Time of Troubles” is extensive. The views of noble historians were somewhat influenced by the chronicle tradition. In particular, V.N. Tatishchev looked for the causes of the “Troubles” in the “mad discord of noble noble families.” Footnote Researchers rightly believe that the observation of V.N. Tatishchev laid the foundation for the scientific concept of the Troubles.

Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750) came from a noble noble family. He graduated from the Moscow artillery school, devoting a lot of time to self-education, as a result of which he gained fame as one of the most educated officers of the era. The king paid attention to the educated officer and used him several times in the diplomatic service.

The theoretical basis of the views of V.N. Tatishchev are the concepts of natural law and the contractual origin of the state. When arguing his views, Tatishchev showed great education and knowledge of both ancient and European thinkers. He repeatedly refers to the works of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, as well as the works of Greek and Roman historians and repeatedly quotes European thinkers of modern times: Greece, Hobbes, Locke, Pufendorf.

In his discussions about the origin of the state, the thinker used the hypothesis of a pre-contractual “state of nature” in which a “war of all against all” prevails. The reasonable need of people for each other (Tatishchev was guided by considerations about the division of labor between people) led them to the need to create a state, which he views as the result of a social contract concluded with the aim of ensuring the safety of the people and “the search for common benefit.” Tatishchev tries to introduce historical principles into the process of state formation, arguing that all known human communities arose historically: first, people entered into a marriage contract, then from it a second contract arose between parents and children, then masters and servants. Ultimately, families grew and formed entire communities that needed a leader, and the monarch became him, subjugating everyone just as a father subjugates his children. The result is not one, but several agreements, and their very conclusion, apparently depending on people, is in fact predetermined by nature itself.

Analyzing the causes of the Troubles, Tatishchev spoke primarily about the crisis of statehood. However, he was not consistent on this issue. Although he admitted that “before Tsar Fedor, the peasants were free and lived with whomever they wanted,” but at this time in Russia the freedom of the peasants “does not agree with our form of monastic government and it is not safe to change the ingrained custom of bondage,” however, a significant easing of conditions is urgently required fortresses He called on the landowner, whom Tatishchev recognized as a party to the agreement, to take care of the peasants, to supply them with everything they needed so that they could have strong farms, more livestock and all kinds of poultry. He advocated the introduction of a land tax and generally insisted that the peasantry should receive as much tax relief as possible. This point of view was deeply rooted among Russian noble landowners. The most progressive-minded of them understood the legal inconsistency of serfdom, but were afraid of its destruction and proposed various half-measures to ease the lot of the peasants.

At the same time, he was the first to express the fruitful idea that the “great misfortune” of the early 17th century. was a consequence of the laws of Boris Godunov, which made peasants and slaves involuntary.

Prince M.M. Shcherbatov (1733-1790) was born in Moscow, and as a child received an excellent education at home, mastering several European languages. He began his service in St. Petersburg in the Semenovsky regiment, in which he was enrolled from early childhood. After Peter III announced the Manifesto “On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility” in 1762, he retired with the rank of captain, became interested in literature and history, and wrote a number of works on government, legislation, economics and moral philosophy. In 1762 he began writing Russian History and studied it throughout his life. In 1767, Shcherbatov was elected as a deputy from the Yaroslavl nobility to the Statutory Commission, to which Catherine II set the task of revising the current legislation and creating a new set of laws. For this Commission, Shcherbatov drafted the Order of the Yaroslavl nobility and wrote comments on the Great Order of Catherine II.

His largest works on political and legal topics were: “On the need and benefits of city laws” (1759); “Miscellaneous Discourses on Government” (1760); “Reflections on legislation in general” (1785-1789); and “The Journey to the Land of Ophir of the Swedish Nobleman S.”, as well as “On the Damage of Morals” (80s of the 18th century).

M. M. Shcherbatov did not see any positive changes in the Troubles. He expressed the fruitful idea that the “great misfortune” of the early 17th century. was a consequence of the laws of Boris Godunov, which made peasants and slaves involuntary . If he repeated Tatishchev’s thought, specifically mention this. Researchers rightly believe that the observation of M.M. Shcherbatov, like V.N. Tatishchev laid the foundation for the scientific concept of the Troubles.

Historians recognize the main cause of the Troubles as the people's view of the old dynasty's attitude towards the Moscow state, which made it difficult to get used to the idea of ​​an elected tsar. This is what caused the need to resurrect the lost royal family and ensured the success of attempts to restore the dynasty artificially, i.e. by imposture. An equally important factor is the very structure of the state with its heavy tax base and uneven distribution of state duties, which gave rise to social discord, as a result of which dynastic intrigue turned into socio-political anarchy.

The impostors of the Time of Troubles were not the only ones in the history of Russia; with their light hand, imposture in Russia became a chronic disease: in the 17th-18th centuries. It was rare that a reign passed without impostors, and under Peter, due to the lack of one, popular rumor turned the real king into an impostor. The experience of the Troubles taught that such phenomena in the social system are dangerous and threaten to destabilize, so the new government carefully monitored these facts, in every possible way protecting the internal order, restored with great difficulty after the Troubles.

So, historians of the 18th century tried to assess the causes of the Time of Troubles. V.N. Tatishchev, M.M. The Shcherbatovs saw in the Troubles “a mad feud between noble noble families”, “a people’s riot”, “the debauchery of the Russian people from the mob to the nobles”, “an insane and merciless rebellion”. Causes?

N.M. Karamzin called the Troubles “a terrible and absurd thing,” the result of “depravity” prepared by the tyranny of Ivan the Terrible and the lust for power of Boris Godunov, guilty of the murder of Dmitry and the suppression of the legitimate dynasty.

Chapter 2. N.M. Karamzinabout the causes of the Troubles

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin (December 1 (12), 1766, family estate Znamenskoye, Simbirsk district, Kazan province (according to other sources - the village of Mikhailovka (Preobrazhenskoye), Buzuluk district, Kazan province) - May 22 (June 3), 1826, St. Petersburg ) - Russian historian-historiographer, writer, poet. For what?

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was born on December 1 (12), 1766 near Simbirsk. He grew up on the estate of his father, retired captain Mikhail Yegorovich Karamzin (1724-1783), a middle-class Simbirsk nobleman, a descendant of the Crimean Tatar Murza Kara-Murza. He was educated at home, and from the age of fourteen he studied in Moscow at the boarding school of Moscow University professor Schaden, while simultaneously attending lectures at the University.

In 1778, Karamzin was sent to Moscow to the boarding school of Moscow University professor I.M. Schaden.

In 1783, at the insistence of his father, he entered service in the St. Petersburg Guards Regiment, but soon retired. The first literary experiments date back to his military service. After retirement, he lived for some time in Simbirsk, and then in Moscow. During his stay in Simbirsk he joined the Masonic lodge “Golden Crown”, and upon arrival in Moscow for four years (1785-1789) he was a member of the Masonic lodge “Friendly Scientific Society”.

In Moscow, Karamzin met writers and writers: N.I. Novikov, A.M. Kutuzov, A.A. Petrov, and participated in the publication of the first Russian magazine for children - “Children’s Reading for the Heart and Mind.”

Upon returning from a trip to Europe, Karamzin settled in Moscow and began working as a professional writer and journalist, starting the publication of the Moscow Journal 1791-1792 (the first Russian literary magazine, in which, among other works of Karamzin, the story that strengthened his fame appeared. Poor Liza"), then published a number of collections and almanacs: “Aglaya”, “Aonids”, “Pantheon of Foreign Literature”, “My Trinkets”, which made sentimentalism the main literary movement in Russia, and Karamzin its recognized leader.

Emperor Alexander I, by personal decree of October 31, 1803, granted the title of historiographer to Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin; 2 thousand rubles were added to the rank at the same time. annual salary. The title of historiographer in Russia was not renewed after Karamzin’s death.

From the beginning of the 19th century, Karamzin gradually moved away from fiction, and from 1804, having been appointed by Alexander I to the post of historiographer, he stopped all literary work, “taking monastic vows as a historian.” In 1811, he wrote “A Note on Ancient and New Russia in its Political and Civil Relations,” which reflected the views of conservative layers of society dissatisfied with the liberal reforms of the emperor. Karamzin’s goal was to prove that no reforms were needed in the country. His note played an important role in the fate of the great Russian statesman and reformer, the main ideologist and developer of the reforms of Alexander I, Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky. Whom, a year after the “note”, the emperor exiled him to Perm for 9 years.

“A Note on Ancient and New Russia in its Political and Civil Relations” also played the role of an outline for Nikolai Mikhailovich’s subsequent enormous work on Russian history. In February 1818, Karamzin released the first eight volumes of “The History of the Russian State,” the three thousand copies of which sold out within a month. In subsequent years, three more volumes of “History” were published, and a number of translations of it into the main European languages ​​appeared. Coverage of the Russian historical process brought Karamzin closer to the court and the tsar, who settled him near him in Tsarskoe Selo. Karamzin's political views evolved gradually, and by the end of his life he was a staunch supporter of absolute monarchy.

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin in “History of the Russian State” talks in detail about the tragic events of the early 17th century, the reasons for the Great Troubles, its main events and figures. The author devoted more than 60 pages of “History” to the siege of the Trinity - Sergius Monastery in 1610 - 1610.

Karamzin describes the Time of Troubles as “the most terrible phenomenon in its history.” He sees the causes of the Troubles in “the frantic tyranny of the 24 years of John, in the hellish game of Boris’s lust for power, in the disasters of fierce hunger and all-out robbery (hardening) of hearts, the depravity of the people - everything that precedes the overthrow of states condemned by providence to death or painful revival.” Thus, even in these lines one can feel the monarchical tendentiousness and religious providentialism of the author, although we cannot blame Karamzin for this, since he is a student and at the same time a teacher of his era. But, despite this, we are still interested in the factual material that he placed in his “History...” and his views on the “history” of the early 17th century, refracted in the 19th century.

N.M. Karamzin exposes and defends throughout his entire narrative only a single line of events, in which he, apparently, was completely confident: Tsarevich Dmitry was killed in Uglich on the orders of Godunov, to whom “the royal crown seemed to him in a dream and in reality” and that Tsarevich Dmitry the fugitive monk of the Chudov Monastery named himself Grigory Otrepiev (the official version of Boris Godunov). Karamzin believes that a “wonderful thought” “settled and lived in the soul of a dreamer in the Chudov Monastery, and the path to realizing this goal was Lithuania. The author believes that even then the impostor relied on “the gullibility of the Russian people. After all, in Russia the crown bearer was considered an “earthly God.”

In “The History of the Russian State,” Karamzin gives a sharply negative characterization of Boris Godunov as the murderer of Tsarevich Dmitry: “Arrogant with his merits and merits, fame and flattery, Boris looked even higher and with impudent lust. The throne seemed like a heavenly place to Boris.” Footnote But earlier, in 1801, Karamzin published in the Vestnik Evropy an article “Historical Memoirs and Remarks on the Path to the Trinity,” which spoke in some detail about the reign of Godunov. Karamzin could not yet unconditionally agree with the version of the murder; he carefully considered all the arguments for and against, trying to understand the character of this sovereign and evaluate his role in history. “If Godunov,” the writer reflected, “had not cleared the path to the throne for himself by killing himself, then history would have called him a glorious king.” Standing at Godunov’s tomb, Karamzin is ready to reject accusations of murder: “What if we slander these ashes, unfairly torment a person’s memory, believing false opinions accepted into the chronicle senselessly or hostilely?” In “History...” Karamzin no longer questions anything, since he follows the assigned tasks and the order of the sovereign.

But you can be sure of one thing: the decisive role played by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in promoting the “named” Dmitry to the Moscow throne. Here in Karamzin one can discern the idea of ​​​​concluding a union between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Moscow state: “never before, after the victories of Stefan Batory, has the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth come so close to the Moscow throne.” False Dmitry I, “having an ugly appearance, replaced this disadvantage with liveliness and courage of mind, eloquence, posture, nobility.” And, indeed, you need to be smart and cunning enough to (taking into account all the above versions about the origin of False Dmitry), when you come to Lithuania, get to Sigismund and use the border disputes between Boris Godunov and Konstantin Vishnevetsky, the “ambition and frivolity” of Yuri Mnishko. “We must do justice to Razstrici’s mind: having betrayed himself to the Jesuits, he chose the most effective means of inspiring the careless Sigismund with jealousy.” Thus, the “named” Dmitry found his support in the secular and spiritual world, promising all participants in this adventure what they most wanted: the Jesuits - the spread of Catholicism in Russia, Sigismund III, with the help of Moscow, really wanted to return the Swedish throne. All authors call Yuri Mnishka (N.M. Karamzin is no exception) and describe him as “a vain and far-sighted person who loved money very much. Giving his daughter Marina, who was ambitious and flighty like him, in marriage to False Dmitry I, he drew up a marriage contract that would not only cover all of Mnishk’s debts, but would also provide for his descendants in the event of the failure of everything planned.

But throughout the entire narrative N.M. Karamzin at the same time calls False Dmitry “the most terrible phenomenon in the history of Russia.” Footnote

At the same time, “the Moscow government discovered excessive fear of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for fear that all of Poland and Lithuania wanted to stand for the impostor.” And this was the first of the reasons why many princes (Golitsyn, Saltykov, Basmanov) together with the army went over to the side of False Dmitry. Although here another version arises that all this happened according to the plan of the boyar opposition. Having become king, Dmitry “having pleased all of Russia with favors to the innocent victims of Boris’s tyranny, he tried to please her with common good deeds...”. Footnote Thus, Karamzin shows that the tsar wants to please everyone at once - and this is his mistake. False Dmitry maneuvers between the Polish lords and the Moscow boyars, between the Orthodox and Catholicism, without finding zealous adherents either there or there.

After his accession, Dmitry does not fulfill his promises to the Jesuits, and his tone towards Sigismund changes. When, during the stay of the Ambassador of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in Moscow, “letters were handed over to the royal clerk Afanasy Ivanovich Vlasyev, he took it, handed it to the sovereign and quietly read his title. It didn't say "to the Caesar". False Dmitry I did not even want to read it, to which the ambassador replied: “You were placed on your throne with the favor of his royal grace and the support of our Polish people.” After which the conflict was settled. Thus, we will subsequently see that Sigismund will leave False Dmitry.

Karamzin also points out that the first enemy of False Dmitry I was himself, “frivolous and hot-tempered by nature, rude from poor upbringing - arrogant, reckless and careless from happiness.” He was condemned for strange amusements, love for foreigners, and some extravagance. He was so confident in himself that he even forgave his worst enemies and accusers (Prince Shuisky - the head of the subsequent conspiracy against False Dmitry).

It is unknown what goals False Dmitry pursued when he married Marina Mnishek: maybe he really loved her, or maybe it was just a clause in the agreement with Yuri Mnishek. Karamzin doesn’t know this, and most likely we won’t know either.

On May 17, 1606, a group of boyars carried out a coup, as a result of which False Dmitry was killed. The boyars saved Mnishkov and the Polish lords, apparently by agreement with Sigismund, to whom they spoke about the decision to depose the “tsar” and “possibly offer the throne of Moscow to Sigismund’s son, Vladislav.”

Thus, the idea of ​​union arises again, but we know that it is not destined to come true. It can be noted from all of the above that the whole situation with False Dmitry I represents the culmination of the power of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the moment when the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, under favorable circumstances, could dominate in a union with Moscow.

N.M. Karamzin describes the events of the Time of Troubles quite tendentiously, following the state order. He does not set a goal to show different versions of ambiguous events, and, on the contrary, leads the reader into a story in which the latter should not have a shadow of doubt about what he has read. Karamzin, through his work, was supposed to show the power and inviolability of the Russian state. And in order not to plunge the reader into doubt, he often imposes his point of view. And here we can raise the question of the unambiguity of Karamzin’s positions when considering the events of the Time of Troubles.

Events of the beginning of the 17th century. occupy a special place in the history of medieval Rus'. It was a time of unprecedented contradictions and contrasts in all areas of life, according to researchers, unprecedented contrasts even in comparison with the most acute upheavals of the second half of the 16th century. In the events of the late XVI - early XVII centuries. intertwined are the angry protest of the people against hunger, the abolition of St. George's Day, extortion and tyranny, and the heroic defense of their native land from encroachments by foreign invaders. Why is this here? Put this in the introduction or the beginning. 1 chapter

The situation of the Russian land was catastrophic in the first decades of the 17th century, when the unity of the country, achieved at great cost, was destroyed, and the most difficult problem of returning Novgorod and Smolensk arose. It is not necessary.

Chapter 3.Historians of the first half of the 19th centurycenturies about the Time of Troubles. CM. Soloviev. N.I. Kostomarovwhy first

Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov (May 4 (16), 1817, Yurasovka, Voronezh province - April 7 (19), 1885) - public figure, historian, publicist and poet, corresponding member of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, author of the multi-volume publication “Russian History” in the biographies of its figures,” a researcher of the socio-political and economic history of Russia, especially the territory of modern Ukraine, called by Kostomarov southern Russia and the southern region.

Kostomarov's reputation as a historian, both during his life and after his death, was repeatedly subjected to strong attacks. He was reproached for his superficial use of sources and the resulting mistakes, one-sided views, and partisanship. There is some truth in these reproaches, although very small. Minor mistakes and mistakes, inevitable for any scientist, are perhaps somewhat more common in Kostomarov’s works, but this is easily explained by the extraordinary variety of his activities and the habit of relying on his rich memory.

In those few cases when partisanship actually manifested itself in Kostomarov - namely in some of his works on Ukrainian history - it was only a natural reaction against even more partisan views expressed in literature from the other side. Not always, further, the very material on which Kostomarov worked gave him the opportunity to adhere to his views on the task of a historian. A historian of the internal life of the people, according to his scientific views and sympathies, it was precisely in his works dedicated to Ukraine that he was supposed to be an exponent of external history.

In any case, the general significance of Kostomarov in the development of Russian and Ukrainian historiography can, without any exaggeration, be called enormous. He introduced and persistently pursued the idea of ​​people's history in all his works. Kostomarov himself understood and implemented it mainly in the form of studying the spiritual life of the people. Later researchers expanded the content of this idea, but this does not diminish Kostomarov’s merit. In connection with this main idea of ​​​​Kostomarov's works, he had another - about the need to study the tribal characteristics of each part of the people and create a regional history. If in modern science a slightly different view of the national character has been established, denying the immobility that Kostomarov attributed to it, then it was the work of the latter that served as the impetus, depending on which the study of the history of the regions began to develop.

The book of the outstanding Russian historian Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov is reproduced from the publication 1904 and talks about the Time of Troubles, when Russia, finding itself for some period without traditional legal authority, fell into a disastrous state of internal confrontation and was subjected to external and internal ruin.

“... Our troubled era did not change anything, did not introduce anything new into the state mechanism, into the structure of concepts, into the way of social life, into morals and aspirations, nothing that, flowing from its phenomena, would move the flow of Russian life onto a new path, in a favorable or unfavorable sense for her. A terrible shake-up turned everything upside down and caused countless disasters to the people; it was not possible to recover so quickly after that Rus'... Russian history proceeds extremely consistently, but its reasonable course seems to jump over the Time of Troubles and then continues its course in the same way, in the same way as before. During the difficult period of the Troubles, there were phenomena that were new and alien to the order of things that prevailed in the previous period, but they were not repeated subsequently, and what seemed to be sown at that time did not increase afterwards.”

N.I. also studied the Troubles. Kostomarov in his work “Time of Troubles in the Moscow State at the beginning of the 17th century.” The author shares the version of the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry on the orders of Boris Godunov. “He was worried about the child Dimitri... He was born from his eighth wife... And the son born from such a marriage was not legitimate. At first, Boris wanted to take advantage of this circumstance and forbade praying for him in churches. Moreover, by order of Boris, a rumor was deliberately spread that the prince of an evil disposition enjoyed watching sheep being slaughtered.

But soon Boris saw that this would not achieve the goal: it was too difficult to convince the Moscow people that the prince was illegitimate and therefore could not lay claim to the throne: for the Moscow people, he was still the son of the king, his blood and flesh. It is clear that the Russian people recognized Dimitri’s right to reign... Boris, having tried this way and that to remove Dimitri from the future reign, became convinced that it was impossible to arm the Russians against him. There was no other choice for Boris: either to destroy Demetrius, or to expect death himself any day now. This man is already accustomed to not stopping before choosing means.” Thus, Dmitry was killed on the orders of Boris Godunov. Here Kostomarov duplicates the version of Karamzin, Solovyov and Klyuchevsky. Consequently, False Dmitry was an impostor, but Kostomarov does not associate the impostor with the name of Grigory Otrepiev. “From the time of the appearance of Demetrius, Tsar Boris fought against him in the way that could be most advantageous...: rumors gradually spread that the newly appeared Demetrius in Poland was Grishka Otrepiev, a defrocked, runaway monk from the Chudov Monastery.” Boris assured everyone that Dmitry was not in the world, but there was some kind of deceiver in Poland and he was not afraid of him. This means, according to Kostomarov, Boris did not know the true name of the impostor, and to calm the people he began to spread rumors. N.I. Kostomarov believes that the place where rumors about the impostor appeared - Polish Ukraine, which was at that time - “the promised land of daring, courage, bold undertakings and enterprise. And anyone in Ukraine who would not call himself the name of Dmitry could count on support: further success depended on the abilities and ability to conduct business.” The author notes that the intrigue arose in the head of the impostor himself, and notes that “he was a wandering Kalika, a wanderer who said that he came from the Moscow land.” The impostor was smart and cunning enough to deceive the Polish lords and use their desires in relation to Moscow to his advantage. Although the author leaves “the question of whether he (False Dmitry) considered himself the real Dmitry or was a conscious deceiver remains unresolved.”

N.I. Kostomarov believes that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth seized on the impostor with the goals of politically weakening Russia and subordinating it to the papacy. It was her intervention that gave the Troubles such a severe character and such a duration.

Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov (5 (17) May 1820, Moscow - 4 (16) October 1879, ibid.) - Russian historian; professor at Moscow University (from 1848), rector of Moscow University (1871-1877), ordinary Academician of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in the Department of Russian Language and Literature (1872), Privy Councilor.

For 30 years Solovyov worked tirelessly on “The History of Russia,” the glory of his life and the pride of Russian historical science. Its first volume appeared in 1851, and since then volumes have been published carefully from year to year. The last one, the 29th, was published in 1879, after the death of the author. In this monumental work, Solovyov showed energy and fortitude, all the more amazing because during his “rest” hours he continued to prepare many other books and articles of various contents.

Russian historiography, at the time when Solovyov appeared, had already emerged from the Karamzin period, having ceased to see its main task in merely depicting the activities of sovereigns and changes in government forms; there was a need not only to tell, but also to explain the events of the past, to grasp the pattern in the sequential change of phenomena, to discover the guiding “idea”, the main “beginning” of Russian life. Attempts of this kind were given by Polev and the Slavophiles, as a reaction to the old trend, personified by Karamzin in his “History of the Russian State.” In this regard, Solovyov played the role of a conciliator. The state, he taught, being a natural product of the people's life, is the people themselves in its development: one cannot be separated from the other with impunity. The history of Russia is the history of its statehood - not the government and its bodies, as Karamzin thought, but the life of the people as a whole. In this definition one can hear the influence partly of Hegel with his teaching about the state as the most perfect manifestation of the rational powers of man, partly of Ranke, who highlighted with particular relief the consistent growth and strength of states in the West; but even greater is the influence of the factors themselves that determined the character of Russian historical life. The predominant role of the state principle in Russian history was emphasized before Solovyov, but he was the first to indicate the true interaction of this principle and social elements. That is why, going much further than Karamzin, Solovyov could not study the continuity of government forms other than in the closest connection with society and with the changes that this continuity brought into his life; and at the same time, he could not, like the Slavophiles, oppose the “state” to the “land,” limiting himself to the manifestations of the “spirit” of the people alone. In his eyes, the genesis of both state and social life was equally necessary.

In a logical connection with this formulation of the problem is another fundamental view of Solovyov, borrowed from Evers and developed by him into a coherent doctrine of tribal life. The gradual transition of this way of life into state life, the consistent transformation of tribes into principalities, and principalities into a single state whole - this, according to Solovyov, is the main meaning of Russian history. From Rurik to the present day, the Russian historian deals with a single integral organism, which obliges him “not to divide, not to crush Russian history into separate parts, periods, but to connect them, to follow primarily the connection of phenomena, the direct succession of forms; not to separate principles, but to consider them in interaction, to try to explain each phenomenon from internal causes, before isolating it from the general connection of events and subordinating it to external influence.” This point of view had a tremendous influence on the subsequent development of Russian historiography. Previous divisions into eras, based on external signs, devoid of internal connections, have lost their meaning; they were replaced by stages of development. “The History of Russia from Ancient Times” is an attempt to trace our past in relation to the views expressed. Here is a condensed diagram of Russian life in its historical development, expressed, if possible, in Solovyov’s own words.

Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov considered the cause of the hard times to be a bad state of morality, which was the result of a clash of new state principles with the old, which manifested itself in the struggle of the Moscow sovereigns with the boyars. He saw another reason for the Troubles in the excessive development of the Cossacks with their anti-state aspirations.

This book by the historian covers events from the beginning of the reign of Fyodor Ioannovich to the liberation of Moscow from foreign invaders and the enthronement of Mikhail Romanov. It also tells about the siege of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery by the Polish-Lithuanian invaders, about the heroism and fortitude of the besieged.

About some personal qualities of the impostor S.M. Solovyov responded with sympathy, seeing in him a talented person misled by other people seeking to use him for their own political purposes... “False Dmitry was not a conscious deceiver. If he had been a deceiver, and not the deceived one, what would it have cost him to invent the details of his salvation and adventures? But he didn't? What could he explain? The powerful people who set him up, of course, were so careful that they did not act directly. He knew and said that some nobles saved him and protected him, but he did not know their names.” CM. Solovyov was impressed by the benevolent disposition of False Dmitry I, his intelligence in government affairs, and his passionate love for Marina Mnishek. The author was the first among historians to put forward the idea that the boyars, having nominated Grigory Otrepiev for the role of an impostor, were able to so instill in him the idea of ​​​​his royal origin that he himself believed in that hoax and in his thoughts and actions did not separate himself from Tsarevich Dmitry.

Thus, according to S.M. Solovyov and N.I. Kostomarov, the Troubles began with a boyar intrigue, into which the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was drawn in, pursuing its own goals, and at the head of this intrigue, playing the role of a puppet, Grigory Otrepiev was placed under the name of Dmitry.

Chapter 4. Second half of the 19th century. IN. Klyuchevskiy. P.N. Miliukov. S.F. Platonov

Considering the historiography of the Time of Troubles, it should be noted the St. Petersburg scientist Sergei Fedorovich Platonov. Of more than a hundred of his works, at least half are devoted specifically to Russian history at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries.

Sergei Fedorovich Platonov (June 16 (28), 1860, Chernigov - January 10, 1933, Samara) - Russian historian, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1920).

According to Platonov, the starting point that determined the features of Russian history for many centuries to come was the “military character” of the Moscow state, which arose at the end of the 15th century. Surrounded almost simultaneously on three sides by enemies acting offensively, the Great Russian tribe was forced to adopt a purely military organization and constantly fight on three fronts. The purely military organization of the Moscow state resulted in the enslavement of the classes, which predetermined the internal development of the country for many centuries to come, including the famous “Troubles” of the early 17th century.

The “emancipation” of the classes began with the “emancipation” of the nobility, which received its final formalization in the “Charter of Grant to the Nobility” of 1785. The last act of “emancipation” of the classes was the peasant reform of 1861. However, having received personal and economic freedoms, the “liberated” classes did not receive political freedoms, which was expressed in “mental fermentation of a radical political nature,” which ultimately resulted in the terror of the “Narodnaya Volya” and the revolutionary upheavals of the early 20th century.

The work of Sergei Fedorovich Platonov analyzes the causes, nature and consequences of the events of the Time of Troubles in the Moscow State of the 16th - 17th centuries.

A story about the second people's militia led by Minin and Pozharsky, as well as the moral and patriotic role of the Trinity Monastery during the Time of Troubles. A major role in this activity belonged to Archimandrite Dionysius.

S.F. Platonov believes that “the causes of the Troubles, undoubtedly, flew as much within Moscow society itself as outside it.” On the issue of the death of Tsarevich Dmitry, Platonov takes neither the side of the official version of an accidental suicide, nor the side of the accuser Boris Godunov of murder. “Remembering the possibility of the origin of the charges against Boris and considering all the confusing details of the case, it must be said as a result that it is difficult and still risky to insist on Dmitry’s suicide, but at the same time it is impossible to accept the prevailing opinion about the murder of Dmitry by Boris... A huge number of dark and unresolved issues lie in circumstances of Dmitry's death. Until they are resolved, the charges against Boris will stand on very shaky ground, and before us and the court he will not be an accused, but only a suspect...”

The author believes that “The impostor was really an impostor, and, moreover, of Moscow origin. Personifying the idea that was fermenting in Moscow minds during the tsar's election in 1598 and equipped with good information about the past of the real prince, obviously from informed circles. The impostor could achieve success and enjoy power only because the boyars who controlled the state of affairs wanted to attract him.” Therefore, S.F. Platonov believes that “in the person of the impostor, the Moscow boyars tried once again to attack Boris.” Discussing the identity of the impostor, the author points to different versions of the authors and leaves this question open, but emphasizes the indisputable fact that “Otrepiev participated in this plan: it could easily be that his role was limited to propaganda in favor of the impostor.” “It can also be accepted as the most correct that False Dmitry I was a Moscow idea, that this figurehead believed in his royal origins and considered his accession to the throne to be a completely correct and honest matter.”

Platonov does not give her much attention to the role of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the impostor intrigue and points out that “in general, Polish society was reserved about the impostor’s case and was not carried away by his personality and stories... The best parts of Polish society did not believe the impostor, and the Polish Sejm did not believe him 1605, which forbade the Poles to support the impostor... Although King Sigismund III did not adhere to those resolutions of the Sejm, he himself did not dare to openly and officially support the impostor.”

“...Our Troubles are rich in real consequences that have affected our social system and the economic life of its descendants. If the Moscow state seems to us the same in its basic outlines as it was before the Time of Troubles, then this is because in the Time of Troubles the same State order that was formed in the Moscow state in the 16th century remained victorious, and not the one that its enemies would have brought to us - Catholic and aristocratic Poland and the Cossacks; living in the interests of predation and destruction, cast in the shape of an ugly “circle.” The Troubles did not occur by chance, but was the discovery and development of a long-standing disease that previously plagued Rus'. This illness ended with the recovery of the state body. After the crisis of the Time of Troubles, we see the same organism, the same state order. Therefore, we are inclined to think that the Troubles were only an unpleasant incident without any special consequences.” - S.F. Platonov “Lectures on Russian history”

“In the Troubles there was not only a political and national struggle, but also a social one. Not only did the pretenders to the throne of Moscow fight among themselves and the Russians fought with the Poles and Swedes, but also some sections of the population were at enmity with others: the Cossacks fought with the sedentary part of society, tried to prevail over it, to build the land in their own way - and could not. The struggle led to the triumph of the settled strata, a sign of which was the election of Tsar Michael. These layers moved forward, supporting the state order they saved. But the main figure in this military celebration was the city nobility, who benefited most of all. The Troubles brought him a lot of benefit and strengthened his position. The Troubles accelerated the process of the rise of the Moscow nobility, which without it would have happened incomparably more slowly. ...As for the boyars, on the contrary, they suffered a lot from the Time of Troubles.

But the above does not exhaust the results of the Troubles. Getting acquainted with the internal history of Rus' in the 17th century, we will have to trace every major reform of the 17th century to the Troubles and condition them. If we add to this those wars of the 17th century, the necessity of which flowed directly from the circumstances created by the Time of Troubles, then we will understand that the Time of Troubles was very rich in results and by no means constituted an episode in our history that appeared by chance and passed without a trace. We can say that the Troubles determined almost our entire history in the 17th century.” - S.F. Platonov "Lectures on Russian history".

Thus, S.F. Platonov rejects Karamzin’s categorical attitude towards Boris Godunov as a villain and the undoubted killer of Dmitry, and also questions the identification of the impostor with Otrepyev.

A similar point of view was shared by the historian V.O. Klyuchevsky. He notes in his course “Russian History” that False Dmitry I “was only baked in a Polish oven, and fermented in Moscow,” thereby indicating that the organizers of the impostor intrigue were Moscow boyars.

Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (January 16 (28), 1841, Voskresenovka village, Penza province - May 12 (25), 1911, Moscow) - Russian historian, ordinary professor at Moscow University; ordinary academician of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (extra staff) in Russian history and antiquities (1900), chairman of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University, Privy Councilor.

IN. Klyuchevsky, reflecting on the identity of the impostor, does not categorically assert that it was Otrepyev, as N.M. does. Karamzin. “...This unknown someone, who ascended the 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 from Boris himself was that it was the son of the Galician minor nobleman Yuri Otrepiev, monastically Grigory. It is difficult to say whether this Gregory or another was the first impostor.”

The author leaves the question of how it happened that False Dmitry I “... behaved like a legitimate natural king, completely confident in his royal origin.” “But how False Dmitry developed such a view of himself remains a mystery, not so much historical as psychological.” Discussing the death of Tsarevich Dmitry in Uglich, V.O. Klyuchevsky notes that “... it is difficult to imagine that this matter was done without Boris’s knowledge, that it was arranged by some overly helpful hand that wanted to do what pleased Boris, guessing his secret desires.” Thus, it can be noted that, unlike N.M. Karamzina, S.M. Soloviev and V.O. Klyuchevsky were not as categorical in their judgments about the personality of False Dmitry I as Otrepyev. And they believed that the main culprits of the intrigue were the Russian boyars, and not the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky dedicated the 41st, 42nd and 43rd lectures of his famous “Course of Russian History” to the Troubles.

“... At the heart of the Troubles was a social struggle: when the social ranks rose, the Troubles turned into a social struggle, into the extermination of the upper classes by the lower.” - V.O. Klyuchevsky

“... This is the sad benefit of troubled times: they rob people of peace and contentment and in return give them experiences and ideas. Just as in a storm the leaves on the trees turn inside out, so troubled times in people’s life, breaking down the facades, reveal the back streets, and at the sight of them, people, accustomed to noticing the front side of life, involuntarily think and begin to think that they have not seen everything before. This is the beginning of political reflection. His best, although difficult, school is popular upheavals. This explains the usual phenomenon - the intensified work of political thought during and immediately after social upheavals.” - V.O. Klyuchevsky.

It seems appropriate to add to the information reported in it what has recently become the property of historical science. Scientists for a long time could not, and even now cannot, form an idea of ​​the time of False Dmitry’s stay on the throne, his policies. The fact is that after his overthrow, the authorities ordered to burn all letters and other documents associated with his name. But fortunately, it turned out that not all of them were destroyed. R.G. Skrynnikov managed to discover a letter from False Dmitry I dated January 31, 1606 to “servicemen and all kinds of people” of the city of Tomsk with a salary of “royal favors,” which indicates the attempts of False Dmitry I to create among the people an idea of ​​himself as a “good king” who cares about the good population of Russia. This is confirmed by the testimony of foreigners - contemporaries who then lived in Moscow.

...

Similar documents

A review of the views of foreign historians on the beginning of the Time of Troubles in Russia, and its main causes - the murder of Tsarevich Dimitri by Boris Godunov. Features of the political situation in Russia before the start of the Time of Troubles, its historical events. Analysis of the results of the time of troubles.

course work, added 04/28/2010


Analysis of the opinions of historians of the 19th - early 20th centuries. in relation to the period of formation of the Moscow Kingdom. Views of V.O. Klyuchevsky, S.F. Platonov and S.M. Solovyov for the period of the reign of Ivan III and Vasily III. Political concept of the Moscow autocracy.

abstract, added 01/28/2013


The causes, course and consequences of the Troubles according to R.G. Skrynnikova. Sources of the social crisis that gave rise to it. Analysis of events related to the actions of False Dmitry I and II. Foreign policy situation of Russia. Historians' views on the events of the Time of Troubles.

abstract, added 01/29/2015


Views of foreign historians on the crusades of the 11th–12th centuries: Western and Eastern. Reasons and prerequisites for this historical phenomenon. Domestic historians about the Crusades, features of the reflection of the image of “Friend - Alien” in the works of recent authors.

course work, added 12/01/2014


Western Europe and Russia on the threshold of the New Age. The beginning of the Great Troubles in Russia, its main causes, new phenomena in the socio-political life of the state. Features of the culmination of events in the time of troubles. The role and historical significance of the Time of Troubles.

test, added 11/10/2010


"Time of Troubles". Polish-Swedish intervention. Prerequisites and causes of unrest. False Dmitry and False Dmitry II. Polish-Swedish intervention during the Time of Troubles. Domestic policy of the first Romanovs. Uprising led by Stepan Razin.

abstract, added 12/03/2008


Studying the history of Russia during the “Time of Troubles”, the main problems of this stage. Study and comparison of the works of contemporaries of the Time of Troubles and current historians in order to identify their attitude to the concept of “Divine Power” and the personalization of power in Russia.

scientific work, added 02/05/2011


The beginning of the Troubles, the rise to power of Boris Godunov and the exile of the boyars. The reasons for the emergence of imposture, False Dmitry I. Vasily Shuisky, Bolotnikov’s uprising. Assessment of the period of unrest by Russian and Soviet historians. Reasons for the Polish-Swedish intervention.

abstract, added 01/12/2012


Events of the Time of Troubles. Display of these events in the "History of the Russian State" N.M. Karamzin. Study of the Troubles by historian N.I. Kostomarov. Analysis of the interpretation of the role and authenticity of False Dmitry I by some historiographers of different times.

abstract, added 02/21/2011


A comparative analysis of the personality and activities of Peter I based on the scientific works of historians V. Klyuchevsky, S. Solovyov, N. Karamzin. An assessment of government reforms and their consequences, the foreign policy of Emperor Peter I, his way of life, thoughts, and character.

Municipal budgetary educational institution

"Staritsa secondary school"

Research paper on the topic

“The Time of Troubles in the Assessments of Historians and Historical Songs”

(History section)

Yatsenko Anna,

8a grade student

Supervisor:

Klimova Vera Viktorovna,

history and social studies teacher

Staritsa, 2014

Work plan
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………3
ChapterI. Historical songs as a historical source…………………..5
ChapterII. The Time of Troubles is a tragic period in the history of Russia…………7
ChapterIII. Heroes of Troubles………………………………………………………9

§ 1. “The Robber Godun’s Son”…………………………………………………9

§ 2. “Evil Undressed Grishka Otrepiev”………………………………………………………..12

§ 3. Saviors of the Fatherland………………………………………………………16
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...19

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………..21

Introduction
In the first years of the 17th century, the Moscow state experienced a terrible shock that shook its deepest foundations. This period is known in Russian history as the “Time of Troubles,” or “Time of Troubles.”

Signs of the Troubles appeared after the death of the last king of the Rurik dynasty, Fyodor Ioannovich, the son of Ivan the Terrible. The Troubles ended in Moscow at the beginning of 1613, when representatives of the estates, who gathered at the Zemsky Sobor, elected the founder of the new dynasty, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, to the throne.

Thus, the years from 1598 to 1613 are considered to be the Troubled Period of our history, during which Boris Godunov (1598-1605), Fyodor Godunov (April-June 1605), False Dmitry I (1605- 1606), Vasily Shuisky (1606-1610), Seven Boyars (1610-1613) - representatives of the boyars who invited the Polish heir, Prince Vladislav, to the throne. Among the persistent contenders for the throne are False Dmitry II, who fought with Vasily Shuisky, and some other little-known impostors. The rulers were on the throne for a short time, the throne was occupied precariously.

The fragility of the succession to the throne was felt by the people. The throne was obtained by deception, lies, and excessive lust for power.

Historian R.G. Skrynnikov calls the Time of Troubles a “civil war,” which was caused by two reasons: the mysterious suppression of an ancient dynasty and then its artificial resurrection in the person of the first impostor. During the Time of Troubles, various factors and elements of historical phenomena appear in a wide variety of combinations: civil war, foreign intervention, anti-feudal struggle, the war of the Cossacks with the centralizing policy of the state, struggle within the ruling class - all this multifaceted complexity complicates the analysis of the Time of Troubles.

Contemporaries and historians have repeatedly tried to comprehend the essence and significance of the Troubles. Opinions in assessing historical events are often polar, but in the Time of Troubles all researchers are unanimous in one thing: the Time of Troubles is a tragedy for Russia. The people inspired by Dmitry Pozharsky and Kuzma Minin acted as the savior of the Fatherland. History and folk tradition have forever united these two names, and as a symbol of this inseparability, national unity, there is a monument to them on Red Square of the Moscow Kremlin, and on November 4, Russia celebrates National Unity Day.

The people also contributed to the fact that in the records of the early 17th century. Historical songs have reached us relating to all the main moments of the Troubles. These songs also preserve traces of the people's assessment of events.

Relevance This study is obvious: analysis of historical, especially tragic, experience can never be useless; The events of the 17th century turned out to be connected with modernity, the memory of their bright end is marked by a holiday. The role of the individual in history is still relevant; it is useful to trace the line of behavior of historical figures, dictated by personal qualities, objective circumstances in which a person becomes a pawn, a puppet in the wrong hands, a hero, an author or a performer. It is interesting to study the events and heroes of the era on the basis of a unique historical source - historical songs. Why were historical songs chosen as a source, since they can be accused of subjectivism, partiality, and fantasy? But the authors of studies can also be biased and subjective, and comparing the opinions of researchers and popular judgments can help to comprehend the truth. It is also important that historical songs are a collective opinion, the result of experience.

Purpose The work is covering the events of the Time of Troubles, studying the images of heroes based on a comparison of the assessments of historians and historical songs.

Tasks research:

Determine the essence of the Time of Troubles as a historical era;

Present the features of historical songs as a historical source;

To trace the character of the individual, the specifics of the activities of the leading characters of the period and the reflection of these aspects in historical songs;

Compare the assessments of historians and the position of the authors of historical songs.

The topic of the Time of Troubles worried contemporaries, historians, and creative people; evidence of this is the drama of A.S. Pushkin's "Boris Godunov", opera by M.P. Mussorgsky "Boris Godunov". The work is based on the analysis of research by classical historians (N.M. Karamzin, N.I. Kostomarov, V.O. Klyuchevsky), modern educational literature (N.I. Pavlenko, I.L. Andreev, L.M. Lyashenko and others), monographic works (R.G. Skrynnikov), historical songs.

ChapterI. Historical songs as a historical source
Sources define historical songs as “epic Russian folk songs (poems), the content of which is historical events, uniquely refracted in folklore transmission.” Historical songs are familiar to all peoples; they were also created in the Slavic environment; this is an integral part of their culture.

The geography of song creation is quite wide, but most of them are composed in the northern part of Russia. Perhaps because here, for example, in the Arkhangelsk and Olonets provinces there was no serfdom, people lived freely, allowed themselves to fearlessly express their emotions and think out loud.

Who became the heroes of these works? Genuine historical characters are why songs are called historical. Of course, these are well-known characters in the history of the state; they belonged to various social strata, including Ivan the Terrible, Ermak Timofeevich, Stepan Razin, Boris Godunov and many others. The songs tell not only about specific people, but also about important historical events that left an indelible mark on the people's memory, for example, the Streltsy revolt of the time of Peter the Great. Typically, historical songs trace two main thematic lines: military and social. The first includes, for example, songs about wars and commanders, for example, A.V. Suvorov, for the second - songs about Stepan Razin and Emelyan Pugachev.

The songs are interesting for their content, and the content is not a list of facts, but necessarily their interpretation, an expression of attitude towards events and characters. The deep meaning in the songs is that it was a way to express their feelings for the Motherland, worries about its fate, compassion for the martyrs, and admiration for the heroes. The general character of all historical songs is pronounced patriotism and love for Russia.

The historical song reaches its culmination in the 17th-18th centuries, this is the heyday of the Cossack freemen, the time of expression of free will, although still not realized.

The main advantage of a historical song is a reflection of the essence of the era, its color, uniqueness, and originality. Songs are called epics, which means they must contain a well-thought-out narrative. “The epic character is manifested in the story of events that are depicted objectively, but without a clear recording of events, the lives of historical characters. The songs contain symbolism, hyperbole, emotional and evaluative elements, national identity, and a kind of mentality. N.V. Gogol introduced the concept of “historical song” into Ukrainian folklore in his article “On Little Russian Songs” (1833). He points out the defining feature of this genre: “They do not break away from life for a moment and ... always correspond to the present state of feelings.” Among the features of historical songs it is also worth noting: showing important social events and historical figures; a short story about them; the presence of outdated words and expressions; strophic or couplet construction."

Some comparison of historical songs with epics is appropriate. But if epics are works of the “large form genre,” then historical songs are smaller in volume than epics. Songs are similar to epics in terms of fluency of speech, but differ in the greater dynamism of the narrative; events in them develop faster. Sometimes the plot in them comes down to one event or even an episode. The story is often devoid of developed descriptions and so-called epic rituals: narrative decoration, constant formulas, slowdowns, stable beginnings and endings, although some of their types are included in historical songs from epics. At the center of the event are usually the people's struggle for independence and their socio-political struggle. “Due to their specific historical nature, historical songs reflect the movement of history, as it is recognized in folk art.” At the center of the event are usually the people's struggle for independence and their socio-political struggle.

The value of historical songs lies not only in the fact that they tell about the past, but also in the fact that they were often composed soon after past events. Some songs could have been composed by participants or witnesses of events, “... the subject of historical songs is modern history, and not the more or less distant past,” writes B.N. Putilov. And further: “A historical song does not refer to the past, it lives in the present.” But time passes, and for subsequent generations the events and persons depicted in the song become history. The transmission of a song from generation to generation is accompanied by a weakening of the correct reproduction of events and persons, and sometimes even the spirit of the times. She sometimes allows inaccurate interpretations of events and assessments of the actions of historical figures, since she does this from the point of view of modern times. Fiction plays a significant role in the creative process. But in historical songs it does not have the character of fantasy. The historical song, unlike the epic, does not use increased hyperbolization.

An important feature of historical songs is that in them the people act or are present at the events, who sometimes express their attitude to these events. Finally, they often contain explanations of events and behavior of characters. Researchers also note the manifestation of acute journalisticism, especially in songs of such socially tense periods as the Time of Troubles.

Thus, in the study of historical events, one cannot neglect such a source as historical songs; in combination with other sources, they help to comprehend the meaning and significance of the historical past.

ChapterII. The Time of Troubles is a tragic period in the history of Russia

“The disasters of the Time of Troubles shook the mind and soul of the Russian people. Contemporaries blamed everything on the damned impostors who poured out of the bag onto the country. The impostors were seen as Polish henchmen, an instrument of foreign intervention. But that was only a half-truth. The ground for imposture was prepared not by Russia’s neighbors, but by a deep internal illness that struck Russian society,” notes R.G. Skrynnikov.

The Time of Troubles, like any other historical event or phenomenon, has its reasons. Agreeing with the position of R.G. Skrynnikov, the causes of the Troubles should be sought not outside of society, but within it, and external circumstances were only a catalyst for internal events. Foreigners, seeing the instability of Russia's internal political situation, wanted to take advantage of it to realize their goals.

On what historical time scale did the causes of the Troubles mature? The starting point could be considered 1584 - the year of the death of Ivan IV the Terrible and the dynastic crisis that arose in connection with this: Ivan IV did not leave a strong successor. But the causes of a phenomenon mature on the basis of prerequisites. R.G. Skrynnikov calls the oprichnina, which divided the nobility in two and set one half against the other, a prerequisite for the Troubles.

The political reasons for the Troubles were also profound. Finally, during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, they were shaken, according to V.O. Klyuchevsky, “spiritual bonds of society” are moral and religious feelings. Extrajudicial executions and disgraces normalized violence and arbitrariness. Human blood was shed with extraordinary ease; servility, dexterity and unscrupulousness were valued. It is no coincidence that all the main characters of the Troubles, in one way or another, went through the school of the oprichnina.”

The prologue to the Troubles was the events of 1591, which we will present in the presentation of S.F. Platonov. “On May 15, 1591, at noon, the prince’s mother, running out of her chambers in response to a scream, found her son in the courtyard of the Uglitsky Palace with a mortal wound in his throat. In a frenzy, Queen Marya accused Bityagovsky [royal official, clerk] of the death of the prince. The people who came running killed Bityagovsky. The event was reported to Moscow. From there, very soon an investigative commission arrived in Uglich, headed by the patriarchal vicar (Metropolitan Gelasius of Krutitsa) and the Duma boyar, Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky. Having examined the case, the commission reported to Moscow that the prince and his peers were playing with a knife with a knife, at that time the usual attack of epilepsy came upon him, the prince, in convulsions, stumbled upon the knife and inflicted an unexpected mortal wound on himself. The clergy headed by the patriarch and the boyars, after listening to the report of the commission, accused the Nagikhs of arbitrariness and exiled them, and Queen Marya was tonsured as a nun, and the Uglichites were also punished. The prince was buried in Uglich near the cathedral church. Popular rumor did not believe the Tsarevich’s accidental suicide and repeated the accusations that the Tsarevich’s mother had expressed at the moment of his death. Boris Godunov was quietly named as the main culprit of the crime. They thought that Boris sent assassins to the prince and wanted to kill him in every possible way so that he himself could become king after the death of the childless Fyodor.”

Popular opinion is more categorical.

...The dog was raised - a damask knife,

He fell neither on the water nor on the ground,

He fell on the prince's white chest,

Is it that Tsarevich Dimitri

They killed Tsarevich Dimitri,

They killed him on Uglishi,

On Uglishi for games.

The historical song “The Death of Tsarevich Dmitry” does not present the details of the drama, but the death of the royal heir is called a “murder”, a planned action. Moreover, the one who planned this murder is also named, with an explanation of the motives for the insidious plan - to seize the throne.

...It’s just like in that palace on a black night

The kite has built a nest with kites!

Just like that eagle Dimitri Tsarevich,

Like that kite Boris Godunov,

Having killed the prince, he sat on the kingdom himself...

Whatever version of the causes of Dmitry’s death turns out to be correct, one thing is clear: the death of Tsarevich Dmitry, which gave rise to a lot of rumors, had tragic consequences for the entire country. Russia found impostors who tried to take the “rightful” place of the sovereign, and since the right was truly controversial, this entailed a bloody struggle in which foreigners intervened.

Events of the late XVI - early XVII centuries. became the result of a complex interweaving of various contradictions: economic, dynastic, class, spiritual and moral. All this diversity manifested itself in different ways during the course of the events of the Time of Troubles and in the actions of its heroes.

ChapterIII. Heroes of Troubles
§ 1."The Robber Godunov's Son"
Boris Godunov is the most important character in historical reality, one of the main heroes of the Time of Troubles. He took the throne not by inheritance, but by elections at the Zemsky Sobor. According to popular opinion, there was no promising start with the accession of Boris Godunov:

How our Orthodox Tsar passed away

Fedor Ivanovich. So Rosseyushka fell into villainous hands,

Villainous hands, boyar-lords...

“The story about Boris Fedorovich Godunov is a story about the lack of demand for a talented statesman. A man who made his way to the throne thanks to his family connections and business skills, knew several foreign languages, and had an excellent library, he hoped to establish peace and prosperity in Russia. Perhaps he even knew the ways to achieve this, but they were suitable for ordinary times, and at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries. fate, it seemed, set out to prevent Godunov’s hopes from coming true. Instead of establishing social balance, he was forced to further enslave the peasants, instead of organizing proper industry and trade, he was forced to fight hunger and devastation in post-oprichnaya Rus', and instead of promoting enlightenment, he was forced to fight. Born to build, teach and learn, being alien to inertia and prejudices, this reasonable, balanced king spent all his strength fighting envy, ignorance, epidemics - and lost, dying either from a nervous breakdown or from poison. He had a wonderful gift of words and was smart.”

In such characteristics, historians clearly favor Tsar Boris, emphasizing the merits of the individual and statesman. There are other similar testimonies.

“Nature also endowed Boris with the talent of a ruler. He held power in his hands skillfully and firmly. Having gained influence and power at a time when the state was shaken and devastated by the oprichnina and heavy wars, Godunov directed all his abilities to calm the country and improve its well-being. According to contemporaries, he achieved significant success in this matter. Under him, trade increased, arrears decreased, and the royal treasury was filled. Instead of the executions and orgies of Grozny, there was silence and calm, people “began to be consoled from their former sorrow and live quietly and serenely.” Attributing such grace to the holy prayers of Tsar Feodor, the Russian people gave justice to the talents of Boris Godunov. They unanimously praised him as a skillful ruler." This characteristic of S.F. Platonov is interesting not so much for its positive assessment of Godunov as for the fact that the emphasis here is on the opinion of his contemporaries. But it is in this case that not everything is so simple, including the assessment of contemporaries.

The rise of Boris Godunov begins with the accession of Fyodor Ioannovich (1584). Immediately after the crowning of Fyodor, Boris tried to strengthen his financial position, received the title of a neighboring sovereign boyar and the title of governor of the kingdoms of Kazan and Astrakhan. Boris was closest to the Tsar, since he was the brother of the Tsar's wife Irina.

The boyars could not come to terms with the rise of Boris Godunov: he seemed to them both young and not noble enough (albeit ancient, but from the modest Tatar family of Murza-Chet). And the opinion of the people on this matter is as follows, and it differs from the opinion of the historian:

This Godun has already deceived all the boyars.

The crazy Rosseyushka has already decided to rule,

He took possession of all of Russia and began to reign in Moscow.
Having consolidated his position in power, Godunov became the sovereign's regent.

To a significant extent, Godunov’s victory was facilitated by the fact that he had military power in his hands - the “yard” and, above all, the “yard” Streltsy orders, which guarded the Kremlin.

All these facts confirm the presence of prudence in Godunov’s personality, perhaps a penchant for intrigue in order to strengthen his position. “All the goals of his activity tended towards his own interests, towards his enrichment, towards strengthening his power, towards the elevation of his family. What is undeniable is that he took over a country that was in a very difficult situation. He maintained good peaceful relations with his neighbors, and in order to revive and develop the economy, he freed many areas from taxes for 3-5 or more years. Godunov also tried to develop Russian industry, eliminate the arbitrariness of local authorities, and provided trade benefits to foreigners.

Attracts attention from the point of view of a special event of its kind, which happened back in the reign of Feodor, but in which the role of Boris Godunov is indisputable, the visit to Moscow of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which led to a certain influx of Greeks of spiritual rank in the Muscovite state, to a greater rapprochement with the Orthodox East, and in ultimately the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia. An event unprecedented in its significance: the Russian Orthodox Church became independent, independent (1589).

He calculated that at first it was necessary to win over the people, teach them to love themselves and obey themselves. For this purpose, he freed the rural people from taxes for one year, and foreigners from paying yasak. Boris gave all trading people the right to duty-free trade for two years, and at the same time gave service people an annual salary. In Novgorod he closed the taverns. Showing himself to be a guardian of morality, Boris pursued disorderly drunkenness, which pleased good people. Those in prison received freedom, those disgraced by the previous reign were given forgiveness; widows, orphans, and the needy received help from the king's generosity. There were no executions. Boris did not even punish thieves and robbers with death.

Tsar Boris did not deserve high praise for his activities among the people, because in the people’s memory he forever remained a cursed murdering tsar, a “robber” who deviated from the Orthodox commandments:

...He has already obtained the kingdom by the death of the king,

To the death of the glorious, holy king

Dimitri the Tsarevich.

How the robber Godunov’s son gathered for himself,

Gathered cursed people, evil robbers,

Having gathered them, he gave them a cursed speech:

“You are robbers, brave fellows,

You go, you kill Tsar Dmitry!

You will come and tell me whether the king was killed.

If you serve me this service, I will serve you

gold and silver."

The people are damned, the robbers are evil,

Let's go to a holy place, to Uglich - a glorious city,

The young prince, Saint Dmitry, was already killed there;

They came and told Boris Godun,

When Boris heard it, he rejoiced in evil...
Only in the first years did Boris's reign proceed peacefully and calmly. Despite Boris's generosity, he was not loved. Distrust in Boris was even caused by the fact that Tsarina Irina, Godunov’s sister, could not give birth to an heir to Tsar Fedor and was called to her to treat “heretics” (English doctors).

Thus, the personality is interpreted ambiguously, and the assessments are quite polar: an immoral intriguer, a talented politician who was not lucky enough to become the pacifier of the state, power-hungry, two-faced.

The opinion of N.M. is interesting. Karamzin about the personality and results of Godunov’s reign: “He (Boris) was not, but he was a tyrant, he was not inactive, but he was evil, eliminating his partners or executing his ill-wishers. If for a time Godunov established the state, for a time elevated it in the opinion of Europe, then was it not he who plunged it into the abyss of almost unheard-of misfortune - he handed it over to the Poles and vagabonds as prey.”

“Only one had a drawback: he had an indomitable desire for power and attempted to kill the kings who came before him, and therefore accepted retribution,” noted in the chronicle book of S. Shakhovsky. People in whispers continued to accuse Boris of murdering the royal child Dmitry. A trail of suspicion regarding the murder (?) of Tsarevich Dmitry that he “ordered” followed Boris throughout his entire life.

The people awarded him another name - “villain”:

...He, the villain, reigned for exactly seven years...

The fact that Boris Godunov was one of the leaders of the oprichnina policy of Ivan the Terrible was not forgotten, he was married to the daughter of the oprichnina No. 1 Malyuta Skuratov, that is, he was fed and raised in an environment of hypocrisy, anger, and cruelty.

4. Ancient civilizations of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome.

5. Models of the transition from antiquity to the Middle Ages: French, Byzantine, Arab, etc. 5-11 centuries

6. Old Russian state

The main features of the Old Russian state by the end of the 10th century.

8.Civilization of the medieval West.

9. The struggle of Russian lands and principalities with the conquerors in the 13th century. Rus' and the Horde: problems of mutual influence.

10. Veche and boyar republics. Novogorod.Pskov

11. Stages of unification of lands around Moscow. Ivan 3.

12. Alternatives for the development of the Moscow state in the 16th century. Ivan the Terrible and his policies as assessed by historians.

14. Time of Troubles: chronology, stages, assessment of historians.

15. Russia in the 17th century: economic, social and political development.

16. Great geographical discoveries, their political and economic consequences, influence on the world civilization process.

17. Renaissance. Its significance in the process of transition from medieval to industrial civilization (XIV - XVI centuries)

18 Transition to industrial civilization. Early modern time. The origins of the formation and development of capitalism. "Manufacturing capitalism" (XVI-XVII centuries)

19. Reformation. The significance of Protestantism, its main teachings in the process of transition to an industrial society (XVI-XVII centuries)

20 Absolute monarchy as a form of European statehood during the transition to an industrial society. The significance of the first revolutions of modern times in the transformation of absolutism (XVI-XVII centuries)

21. Modernization as a process. The 18th century in the history of Europe’s transition from the “old” order to the new. The meaning of the Great French Bourgeois Revolution

22.Industrial civilization as a phenomenon of the world civilization process: its development, flourishing, decline. The main features and heritage of industrial society.

2) 19-20 centuries. – the period of development of established relationships and orders.

31. Russian political parties 1905-1917.

32. World War I: prerequisites, progress, results.

1) 1914 - Western Front, Schliefen Plan (capture of France), Battle of Marnia.

33. Revolutionary 1917. In the history of Russia: causes, course of events, consequences. October Revolution 1917

34. Civil war: causes, stages, results.

Participants

36. World economic crisis of 1929 Alternatives for post-crisis development of European and American countries.

37. Main trends in the development of the political system of the USSR (1921-1939)

38. Industrialization in the USSR and the countries of Europe and North America: comparative analysis.

39. Continuous collectivization in the USSR and its consequences.

40. Prerequisites, causes, main stages of the Second World War.

41. USSR in World War II.

42. Anti-Hitler coalition: stages of formation, directions of interaction.

43. Post-war world (1945-1955): main trends in political development.

44. Europe in the 50s - 80s. Formation of the European Union.

45. Main directions of political and socio-economic development of the USSR in 1953-1964.

14. Time of Troubles: chronology, stages, assessment of historians.

Russian history With 1598 By 1613

political, economic, state, dynastic and social crises.

The beginning of the Troubles(various dates)

1584 - year of death of Ivan the Terrible

1591 - death of Tsarevich Dmitry in Uglich

1598 - death of Fyodor Ioannovich or the beginning of the reign of Boris Godunov.

End- 1613, election of Mikhail Romanov (by the Zemsky Sobor)

Stages:

1) Boris Godunov 1598-1605 (suppression of the reigning family, promotion of the boyar families of the Godunovs and Yuryevs)

2) False Dmitry1 1605-1606 (with the support of the Lithuanian state, invades the territory of the Russian state. He was recognized by Queen Martha and the Moscow boyars. As a result of a popular uprising, he was captured and killed.)

3) False Dmitry2 (Vasily Shuisky) 1606-1610 (civil war, ruin. Activation of the Polish-Lithuanian seizure and invasion of the Crimean Tatars. Fighting on several fronts. Beginning of the Russian-Polish war.)

4) Seven Boyars 1610-1613. (The Polish army is in Moscow. Tatars, Poles, Swedes are tormenting Russian lands. A militia is moving towards Moscow: 1st - Lyapunov’s militia, 2nd - Minin and Pozharsky. Moscow is liberated.)

5) Mikhail Romanov 1613-1645 (conditions of government - do not introduce new laws and taxes without the support of the council. Military operations to expel the interventionists.)

Assessment by historians.

17th century classified as a period of socio-political crisis, the first peasant war and foreign conquest (I.I. Bolotnikova)

At the center of events is the problem of the legality of the supreme power (K. S. Aksakov and V. O. Klyuchevsky)

The essence of the crisis is the intervention of Poland and the Catholic Church. (N. I. Kostomarov)

Troubles-religious war (J. Billington)

Troubles-struggle between the herd (boyars) and national principles (I. E. Zabelin)

15. Russia in the 17th century: economic, social and political development.

Economic: increase in the size of payments in kind and cash. (basis taxes: tribute, yam money, pishal money)

the process of separating crafts from agriculture - the growth of cities: centers of craft, trade and administrative activities. (the role of buyers is increasing)

In the first half of the 17th century, the process of developing crafts into small-scale commodity production began, but the development of domestic trade slowed down under the influence of feudal relations. The first manufactories appear.

The Russian state traded with many countries: Scandinavia, the Baltic states, England, Holland, France.

Social: intensive growth of the territory of the Russian state.

During the reign of Ivan III and Vasily III, it increased 6 times (Most of the country was divided into counties, and counties into volosts and camps). The Great Russians were the main and most numerous nationality of Russia, and non-Russian peoples inhabited mainly the outskirts. The population of Russia has grown from 2–3 to 7 million.

Types of settlements: cities, settlements, monasteries, villages, hamlets.

As a result of Russian peasant colonization, new areas were developed: in the south of the country, in the Volga region, Bashkiria, and Siberia.

Political : the predominance of absolutist tendencies (in political teachings about an “enlightened” absolute monarchy, capable of best ensuring the highest good of all its subjects.)

The process of bureaucratization of the state apparatus transformed the Boyar Duma from an organ of the boyar aristocracy into an organ of the administrative bureaucracy - this could not but weaken the independence of the Boyar Duma.

In the practice of legislative activity of the Russian state, the concept of “nominal decree” appeared, i.e. a legislative act given only by the tsar, without the participation of the boyar duma.

CONCLUSION: In general, the socio-economic situation in the country in the 17th century was difficult:

1. There was a process of development of feudalism in depth and breadth, which led to the enslavement of the peasants and the strengthening of the position of feudalism.

2. In Russia there was a rapid growth of commodity-money relations, the transformation of crafts into small-scale commodity production was planned, manufactories arose, the importance of wage labor increased, and exchange between regions and foreign countries increased.

3. The development of feudalism could not stop the development of commodity-money relations, but they also could not prevent the strengthening of feudalism.

4. The sole power of the monarch was strengthened.