1. Board of Boris Godunov 2
2. First signs of crisis 4
3. The appearance of False Dmitry I and the death of Boris Godunov 6
4. The death of Fyodor Godunov and the accession of False Dmitry I 11
5. The overthrow of False Dmitry I 14
6. Accession of Vasily Shuisky 17
7. The uprising of Bolotnikov and the appearance of False Dmitry II 20
8. Polish intervention 22
9. Deposition of Vasily Shuisky and "Seven Boyars" 24
10. The expulsion of the interventionists and the accession of the Romanovs 25
11. End of Troubles
References 27
1. Board of Boris Godunov.
The term "Time of Troubles" in Russian history refers to the period from 1604 to 1613, characterized by a severe political and social crisis of the Moscow kingdom. The political prerequisites for this crisis, however, appeared long before the Time of Troubles, namely, the tragic end of the reign of the Rurik dynasty, and the enthronement of the boyar Boris Godunov.
As you know, Boris Godunov was a close adviser to Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible in the last years of his life, and together with Bogdan Belsky had a great influence on the tsar. Godunov and Belsky were next to the tsar in the last minutes of his life, and they also announced to the people about the death of the sovereign. After John IV, his son, Fedor Ioannovich, became king, weak and weak-willed, unable to rule the country without the help of advisers. To help the king, the Regency Council was created, which included: Belsky, Yuriev, Shuisky, Mstislavsky and Godunov. Through court intrigues, Godunov managed to neutralize his ill-wishers: Shuisky (sent into exile in 1586, where he was killed two years later) and Mstislavsky (expelled from the Regency Council in 1585, and died in disgrace), and take a dominant position in the council. In fact, since 1587, Boris Godunov ruled the country alone.
Godunovna could not understand that his position in power was stable only as long as Tsar Fedor was alive. In the event of the death of Fedor, the throne was to be inherited by his younger brother, the son of John IV, Tsarevich Dimitri, and given the poor health of the king, this could not happen in the very distant future. In all likelihood, Godunov did not expect anything good for himself from the change of sovereign. One way or another, but in 1591, Tsarevich Dimitri died in an accident. The investigation into this case was conducted by the boyar Vasily Shuisky, who came to the conclusion that the prince was playing with his peers in the game when he had an epileptic seizure. Having accidentally dropped a knife, the prince stabbed himself to death with this knife. He lived in the world for a little over eight years.
Godunov's contemporaries had no doubt that this accident was in fact a political assassination in disguise, as it cleared Godunov's path to the throne. In fact, Tsar Fedor had no sons, and even his only daughter died at the age of one. Given his poor health, it was highly likely that the king himself would not live long. As subsequent events showed, this is exactly what happened.
On the other hand, Godunov's guilt in Dimitri's death does not seem so obvious. Firstly, Demetrius was the son of the sixth wife of John IV, and the Orthodox Church, even today, recognizes only three consecutive marriages as legal (“Allowing remarriages of the laity, the Orthodox Church does not equate them with the first, “virginal” marriage. First of all, she limited the frequency of marriage to only three cases, and when one emperor (Leo the Wise) married for the fourth time, the Church did not recognize the validity of his marriage for a long time, although he was needed in state and dynastic interests. categorically forbidding a fourth marriage for the future). For this reason, formally speaking, Demetrius could not be considered the legitimate son of John IV, and therefore could not inherit the throne. Secondly, even in the event of the removal of Dimitri, Godunov's own prospects for taking the throne were vague - he was neither the most noble, nor the richest of possible contenders, and the fact that he eventually became king was largely a fluke.
One way or another, in the eyes of contemporaries, this death was so beneficial to Godunov that few people doubted his guilt. The death of Tsarevich Dimitry became a real mine laid under the regime of Boris Godunov, and this mine was destined to explode twelve years later, in 1603, not without the help of "friends of Russia" from outside.
In 1598, the nominal sovereign, Fyodor Ioannovich, died, and Godunov was left alone with the growing hostility of the nobility. Driven into a corner, he nevertheless managed to find an unexpected solution: he tried to secure the throne for the widow of Tsar Fedor, Irina Godunova, his sister. According to the text of the oath published in the churches, subjects were asked to take an oath of allegiance to Patriarch Job and the Orthodox faith, Tsarina Irina, ruler Boris and his children. In other words, under the guise of an oath to the church and the queen, Godunov actually demanded an oath for himself and his heir.
The matter, however, did not burn out - at the insistence of the boyars, Irina renounced power in favor of the Boyar Duma, and retired to the Novodevichy Convent, where she took vows. Nevertheless, Godunov did not give up. He apparently well understood that it was impossible for him to openly compete with the more noble contenders for the empty throne (primarily the Shuiskys), so he simply retired to the well-fortified Novodevichy Convent, from where he watched the split struggle for power by the Boyar Duma.
Thanks to Godunov's intrigues, the Zemsky Sobor of 1598, at which his supporters were in the majority, officially called him to the throne. This decision was not approved by the Boyar Duma, but the counter proposal of the Boyar Duma - to establish boyar government in the country - was not approved by the Zemsky Sobor. A stalemate situation developed in the country, and as a result, the issue of succession to the throne was brought out of the convents and patriarchal chambers to the square. The opposing parties used all possible means - from agitation to bribery. Going out to the crowd, Godunov swore with tears in his eyes that he did not even think of encroaching on "the highest royal rank." Godunov's motives for refusing the crown are not difficult to understand. First, he was embarrassed by the small size of the crowd. And secondly, he wanted to put an end to the accusations of regicide. In order to achieve this goal more accurately, Boris spread a rumor about his imminent monastic vows. Under the influence of skillful agitation, the mood in the capital began to change.
The patriarch and members of the cathedral tried to use the emerging success. Persuading Boris to accept the crown, the churchmen threatened to resign if their application was denied. The boyars made similar statements.
The general cry created the appearance of a popular election, and Godunov, prudently choosing a convenient moment, generously announced to the crowd his consent to accept the crown. Wasting no time, the patriarch led the ruler to the nearest monastery cathedral and named his kingdom.
Godunov, however, could not accept the crown without an oath in the Boyar Duma. But the elder boyars were in a hurry to express their loyal feelings, which forced the ruler to retire to the Novodevichy Convent for the second time.
On March 19, 1598, Boris for the first time convened the Boyar Duma to resolve the accumulated cases that could not tolerate delay. Thus, Godunov actually began to perform the functions of an autocrat. Having received support from the capital's population, Boris broke the resistance of the feudal nobility without bloodshed and became the first "elective" king. The first years of his reign did not promise anything bad.
“The first two years of this reign seemed to be the best time for Russia since the 15th century or since its restoration: it was at the highest level of its new power, safe by its own strength and the happiness of external circumstances, and internally ruled by wise firmness and with extraordinary meekness. Boris fulfilled the vow of the royal wedding and rightly wanted to be called the father of the people, reducing their hardships; the father of the orphans and the poor, pouring out unparalleled bounties on them; a friend of mankind, without touching the lives of people, without staining the Russian land with a drop of blood and punishing criminals only with exile. Merchants, less constrained in trade; an army showered with awards in peaceful silence; Nobles, orderly people, distinguished by signs of mercy for zealous service; Synclitus, respected by the active and advice-loving Tsar; The clergy, honored by the pious Tsar - in a word, all state states could be satisfied for themselves and even more satisfied with the fatherland, seeing how Boris in Europe and Asia glorified the name of Russia without bloodshed and without the painful strain of her forces; how he cares about the common good, justice, arrangement. And so it is not surprising that Russia, according to contemporaries, loved her crowned bearer, wanting to forget the murder of Demetrius or doubting him!
Nothing foreshadowed trouble, and only six years remained before the beginning of the Time of Troubles.
2. The first signs of a crisis.
The crisis was initiated by successive crop failures in 1601 and 1602. Throughout the summer of 1601, heavy cold rains fell across Eastern Europe, starting in July, mixed with sleet. The entire crop, of course, perished. According to contemporaries, at the end of August 1601, snowfalls and blizzards began, they rode sledges along the Dnieper, as if in winter.
“In the midst of the natural abundance and wealth of a fruitful land inhabited by industrious cultivators; among the blessings of a long-term peace, and in the active, prudent reign, a terrible punishment fell on millions of people: in the spring, in 1601, the sky was overshadowed by thick darkness, and it rained for ten weeks incessantly so that the villagers were horrified: they could not do anything, neither mow nor reap; and on August 15, a severe frost damaged both green bread and all unripe fruits. Even in the granaries and in the threshing floors there was a lot of old bread; but the farmers, unfortunately, sowed the fields with new, rotten, lean ones, and did not see shoots, neither in autumn nor in spring: everything decayed and mixed with the earth. Meanwhile, the reserves ran out, and the fields were already left unsown.
The same, although on a smaller scale, was repeated in 1602. As a result, even the warm summer of 1603 did not help, since the peasants simply had nothing to sow - due to two past crop failures, there were no seeds.
To the credit of the Godunov government, it did its best to mitigate the consequences of crop failures, distributing seeds to farmers for planting, and regulating the price of bread (up to the creation of a kind of “food detachments” that reveal hidden stocks of bread, and force them to be sold at a price set by the government). In order to give work to hungry refugees, Godunov began to rebuild the stone chambers of the Moscow Kremlin (“... he built in 1601 and 1602, on the site of the broken wooden palace of Ioannov, two large stone chambers to the Golden and Faceted, a dining room and a panikhida, in order to deliver work and food to the poor, connecting favor with mercy, and in the days of weeping thinking about magnificence!”). He also issued a decree stating that all serfs left by their masters without means of subsistence automatically receive freedom. But these measures were clearly not enough. About a third of the country's population became victims of the famine. Fleeing from hunger, people fled en masse "to the Cossacks" - to the Don and Zaporozhye. It must be said that the policy of “forcing out” criminal and potentially unreliable elements to the northwestern borders was practiced by John IV, and was continued by Godunov (“Even John IV, wanting to populate the Lithuanian Ukraine, the land of Seversk, with people fit for military affairs, did not interfere in it to take refuge and live peacefully for criminals who were going there from execution: for he thought that, in case of war, they could be reliable defenders of the border.Boris, loving to follow many state thoughts of John, followed this one, very false and very unhappy: in the service of the enemies of the fatherland and their own. Indeed, all this huge mass on the borders of Russia has become a dangerous combustible material, ready to flare up from the slightest spark.
These crop failures naturally ended in a peasant uprising in 1603 led by ataman Khlopok. The peasant army was heading towards Moscow, and it was possible to defeat it only at the cost of heavy losses of government troops, and the voivode Ivan Basmanov himself died in battle. Ataman Khlopok was taken prisoner and, according to some sources, died of wounds, according to others he was executed in Moscow.
In addition to peasant unrest, Godunov's life was constantly poisoned by conspiracies of the nobility, both genuine and imaginary. One might think that Godunov had contracted paranoia from his first patron, Tsar John IV. In 1601, his old colleague and friend Bogdan Belsky was repressed - Godunov ordered him to be tortured, after which he was exiled to "one of the lower cities", where he remained until Godunov's death. The reason for the repression was a trifling denunciation of Belsky from his servants - as if he, serving as governor in the city of Borisov, allowed himself to joke: “Boris is the tsar in Moscow, and I am the tsar in Borisov.” A simple joke cost Belsky very dearly.
In the same year, 1601, a larger-scale trial was launched against the Romanov family, as well as their supporters (Sitsky, Repnin, Cherkassky, Shestunov, Karpov ...). “The nobleman Semyon Godunov, invented a way to convict the innocent of villainy, hoping for general gullibility and ignorance: he bribed the treasurer of the Romanovs, gave him bags filled with roots, ordered him to hide in the pantry of Boyar Alexander Nikitich and report to their masters that they, secretly dealing with the composition of the poison, conspire against the life of the crowned bearer. Suddenly there was an alarm in Moscow: Sinklit and all the noble officials rush to the Patriarch; they send the devious Mikhail Saltykov to search the storeroom of Boyar Alexander; they find sacks there, carry them to Job, and in the presence of the Romanovs they pour out roots, as if magical, made to poison the Tsar. The consequences of this provocation were the saddest for the Romanovs and their supporters - all of them were partly forcibly tonsured monks, partly exiled, their property was confiscated.
“The Romanovs were not alone a monster for Boris's imagination. He forbade Princes Mstislavsky and Vasily Shuisky to marry, thinking that their children, according to the ancient nobility of their kind, could also compete with his son for the throne. Meanwhile, eliminating future imaginary dangers for young Theodore, the timid destroyer trembled with the real ones: worried by suspicions, constantly afraid of secret villains and equally afraid of earning the people's hatred by torment, he persecuted and pardoned: exiled the Governor, Prince Vladimir Bakhteyarov-Rostovsky, and forgave him; removed from affairs the famous Dyak Shchelkalov, but without obvious disgrace; several times removed the Yishuiskys, and again brought them closer to him; caressed them, and at the same time threatened disgrace to anyone who had a relationship with them. There were no solemn executions, but the unfortunate in the dungeons were tortured on denunciations. Hosts of izvetniks, if not always rewarded, but always free from punishment for lying and slander, rushed to the Tsar's chambers from the houses of the Boyarskys and huts, from monasteries and churches: husbands, the very children on their fathers, to the horror of mankind! “And in the wild Hordes (adds the Chronicler) there is no such great evil: the Lord does not dare to look at his slaves, nor his neighbors sincerely speak among themselves; and when they spoke, they mutually undertook a terrible oath not to change modesty. "In a word, this sad time of Boris's reign, yielding to John in blood drinking, was not inferior to him in lawlessness and debauchery"
There is nothing surprising in the fact that Godunov tried so diligently to eliminate, or at least remove those who could challenge the throne from him, that is, the more ancient or noble boyar families. Not sure of his own right to the throne, he did everything possible to ensure the transfer of the throne to his heir, and to create conditions when nothing would threaten the new dynasty founded by him. These motifs were colorfully described by A.K. Tolstoy in his poem "Tsar Boris", and Pushkin in the tragedy "Boris Godunov".
3. The appearance of False Dmitry I and the death of Boris Godunov
Godunov's popularity among the people fell sharply, and a series of disasters revived rumors, already circulating among the people, that Boris Godunov was not a legitimate tsar, but an impostor, and all these troubles result from this. The real tsar, Demetrius, is actually alive, sparkling somewhere from Godunov. Of course, the authorities tried to fight the spread of rumors, but did not have much success. There is also a hypothesis that some boyars, dissatisfied with Godunov's rule, in the first place, the Romanovs, had a hand in spreading these rumors. In any case, the people were mentally prepared for the appearance of the “miraculously resurrected” Demetrius, and he was not slow to appear. “As if by a supernatural action, the shadow of Dimitriev came out of the coffin in order to strike with horror, to madden the murderer and to confuse all of Russia.”
According to the generally accepted version, a certain “poor boyar son, Galician Yuri Otrepyev” tried to impersonate Dimitri, who “... in his youth, having lost his father, named Bogdan-Yakov, a streltsy centurion, stabbed to death in Moscow by a drunken Litvin, served in the house of the Romanovs and Prince Boris Cherkassky; knew literacy; showed a lot of intelligence, but little prudence; he was bored with a low state and decided to seek the pleasures of careless idleness in the rank of Monk, following the example of his grandfather, Zamyatny-Otrepiev, who had long been a monk in the monastery of Chudovskaya. Having been tonsured by the Vyatka Abbot Tryphon and named Gregory, this young Chernets wandered from place to place; lived for some time in Suzdal, in the monastery of St. Euthymius, in the Galician John the Baptist and in others; finally, in the Chudov Monastery, in a cell with his grandfather, under his supervision. There, Patriarch Job recognized him, consecrated him a deacon, and took him into his book business, for Gregory knew how not only to copy well, but even to compose canons of the Saints better than many old scribes of that time. Using the mercy of Job, he often traveled with him to the palace: he saw the splendor of the Tsar and was captivated by it; expressed extraordinary curiosity; eagerly listened to reasonable people, especially when the name of Demetrius Tsarevich was mentioned in sincere, secret conversations; wherever he could, he found out the circumstances of his unfortunate fate and wrote it down on the charter. A wonderful thought had already settled and matured in the soul of the dreamer, inspired in him, as they say, by one evil Monk: the idea that a bold impostor could take advantage of the gullibility of the Russians, touched by the memory of Demetrius, and in honor of Heavenly Justice, execute the sanctuary! The seed fell on the fruitful land: the young Deacon diligently read the Russian chronicles and immodestly, albeit jokingly, sometimes said to the Chudov Monks: “Do you know that I will be Tsar in Moscow?” Some laughed; others spat in his eyes, as if I were lying to an impudent one. These or similar speeches reached the Dorostov Metropolitan Jonah, who announced to the Patriarch and the Tsar himself that "the unworthy Monk Gregory wants to be a vessel of the devil"; The good-natured Patriarch did not respect the Metropolitan's message, but the Tsar ordered his Dyak, Smirnov-Vasilyev, to send the mad Grigory to Solovki, or to the Belozersky hermitages, as if for heresy, to eternal repentance. Smirnoy told another deacon, Evfimiev, about that; Evfimiev, being a relative of the Otrepyevs, begged him to slow down in the execution of the Tsar's decree and gave the disgraced Deacon a way to escape (in February 1602), together with two Monks of Chudovsky, Priest Varlaam and Kryloshanin Misail Povadin. Having sensibly judged how such statements could be fraught with him within Russian borders, Otrepyev decided to flee to where he would be welcome - to Poland (more precisely, the Commonwealth - a powerful state that occupied the current territories of Poland, the Baltic states, Belarus, parts of Ukraine and western regions of Russia). “There, the ancient, natural hatred of Russia has always zealously favored our traitors, from Princes Shemyakin, Vereisky, Borovsky and Tversky to Kurbsky and Golovin.” Thus, the choice of Otrepyev was quite natural, and he expected to find help and support there. IN. Klyuchevsky writes about it like this
:“In the nest of the boyars most persecuted by Boris, headed by the Romanovs, in all likelihood, the idea of an impostor was hatched. Vinilipoliakov that they set it up; but it was only baked in a Polish oven, fermented in Moscow. No wonder Boris, as soon as he heard about the appearance of False Dmitry, directly told the boyars that it was their business, that they set up an impostor. This unknown someone, who sat on the Moscow throne after Boris, arouses great anecdotal interest. His identity remains mysterious until now, despite the best efforts of scientists to unravel it. For a long time the opinion prevailed, coming from Boris himself, that he was the son of a Galician petty nobleman Yuri Otrepyev, Gregory wine. I will not talk about the adventures of this man, you know enough. I will only mention that in Moscow he served as a serf for the boyars of the Romanovs and for Prince Cherkassky, then he became a monk, for his bookishness and for compiling praise for the Moscow miracle workers he was taken to the patriarch as a book writer, and here suddenly from something he began to say that he, perhaps, would be the king on Moscow. He was to die for this in a distant monastery; but some strong people covered him up, and he fled to Lithuania at the very time when the disgrace of the Romanov circle fell.
The life path of Otrepiev from the moment of his flight to the moment he appeared in the Commonwealth at the court of Prince Vishnevetsky is covered in darkness. According to N.M. Karamzin, before declaring himself miraculously saved Tsarevich Dimitry, Otrepiev settled in Kiev, in the Caves Monastery, where “... he led a seductive life, despising the charter of abstinence and chastity; boasted of freedom of opinion, liked to talk about the Law with the Gentiles, and was even in close connection with the Anabaptists.
. But such a monastic life apparently bored him, since he left the Pechersky Monastery to the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks, to Ataman Gerasim Evangelik, where he received military skills. However, he also did not stay with the Cossacks - he left, and showed up at the Volyn school, where he studied Polish and Latin grammar. There he was noticed, and accepted into the service of the wealthy Polish magnate, Prince Adam Vishnevetsky. He probably managed to achieve the location of Vishnevetsky, who appreciated his knowledge and military skills.
Despite Vishnevetsky's good attitude towards Otrepiev, it was unthinkable for him to simply show up to the magnate and tell about his "miraculous salvation" - it is clear that no one would believe in such nonsense. Otrepyev decided to act more subtly.
“Having earned the attention and goodwill of the master, the cunning deceiver pretended to be sick, demanded the Confessor, and said to him quietly:
« I am dying. Commit my body to the earth with honor, as they bury the children of the Tsar. I will not announce my secrets to the grave; when I close my eyes forever, you will find a scroll under my bed, and you will know everything; but don't tell others. God judged me to die in misery." The confessor was a Jesuit: he hurried to inform Prince Vishnevetsky about this secret, and the curious Prince hurried to find out about it: he searched the bed of the imaginary dying; found a paper prepared in advance, and read in it that his servant was Tsarevich Dimitri, saved from being killed by his faithful physician; that the villains sent to Uglich killed one son of the Priest, instead of Demetrius, who was sheltered by the good Grandees and Dyaki Shchelkalov, and then escorted to Lithuania, fulfilling the order of John, given to them on this occasion. Vishnevetsky was amazed: he still wanted to doubt, but could no longer, when the cunning man, blaming the indiscretion of the Confessor, opened his chest, showed a golden cross strewn with precious stones (probably stolen somewhere) and announced with tears that this shrine had been given to him by his godfather Prince Ivan Mstislavsky".
It is not entirely clear whether Vishnevetsky was really deceived, or whether he simply decided to take advantage of the opportunity for his own political purposes. In any case, Vishnevetsky informed the Polish king Sigismund
III to our unusual guest, and he wished to see him personally. Prior to this, Vyshnevetsky also managed to prepare the ground by spreading information about the "miraculous salvation of John's son" throughout Poland, with the help of his brother Konstantin Vyshnevetsky, Konstantin's father-in-law, the Sandomierz governor Yuri Mniszek, and papal nuncio Rangoni.
There is a version, partly confirmed by documents, that the Vishnevetskys originally planned to use Otrepyev in their plans for a palace coup, which had the goal of overthrowing Sigismund
III , and the enthronement of "Demetrius". He, being as a descendant of John IV, Rurikovich, and therefore a relative of the Polish Jagiellonian dynasty, was quite suitable for this throne. But for some reason, it was decided to abandon this plan.
King Sigismund reacted to the "resurrected Demetrius" coolly, like many of his dignitaries. Hetman Jan Zamoyski, for example, spoke about this as follows: “It happens that a dice in a game falls and falls happily, but usually it is not advised to bet on expensive and important items. This is a case of such a nature that it can harm our state and dishonor the king and all the people ours." However, the king nevertheless received Otrepiev, treated him politely (Karamzin wrote that he received him in his office standing, that is, recognizing him as his equal), and assigned him a monetary allowance of 40,000 zlotys annually. Otrepiev did not wait for other help from King, but given the political situation in the then Commonwealth, he could not provide it. The fact is that the king in the Commonwealth was mainly a nominal figure, while the real power belonged to the aristocracy (Vishnevetsky, Pototsky, Radziwills and other rich and noble houses). There was also no royal army in the Commonwealth, as such - only an infantry of 4,000 guards, supported by the personal income of the king. Thus, the recognition of "Demetrius" by the king had only a moral and political significance.
Otrepiev also had other important meetings, including with representatives of the Catholic order of the Jesuits, who had great influence in the Commonwealth. He even wrote a letter to the then Pope, Clement
VIII, in which he promised in the event of his “return to the throne” to join the Orthodox Church to the Catholic Church, and received an answer with “certification of his readiness to help him with the all-spiritual authority of the Apostolic Vicar.” To strengthen relations, Otrepiev gave a solemn promise to Yuri Mnishek to marry his daughter Marina, and even officially turned to King Sigismund for permission to marry.
Encouraged by success, the Vishnevetskys began to gather an army for a campaign against Moscow, which had the goal of enthroning "Demetrius." Karamzin writes: for the exiled Tsarevich, appeared in Sambir and Lvov: vagabonds, hungry and half-naked, rushed there, demanding weapons not for victory, but for robbery, or salaries, which Mniszek generously gave out in the hope of the future. ”In other words, the army consisted mainly of those same refugees, the Zaporizhzhya Idonian Cossacks, who at one time fled from Russia as a result of the policy of John
IV and Boris Godunov, although some Polish gentry with their squads also joined the army being formed. Not everyone, however, was tempted by the opportunity to take revenge on the hated Godunov - as Karamzin writes, there were many who did not want to participate in the intervention, or even actively opposed it. “It is worth noting that some of the Moscow fugitives, the Boyarsky children, full of hatred for Godunov, hiding then in Lithuania, did not want to be participants in this enterprise, because they saw deceit and abhorred villainy: they write that one of them, Yakov Pykhachev, even publicly, and before the face of the King, testified to this gross deceit, together with fellow rasstrigin, Monk Varlaam, alarmed by his conscience; that they did not believe them and sent both chained to Voevoda Mnishka in Sambir, where Varlaamaz was imprisoned, and Pykhachev, accused of intending to kill False Dmitry, was executed.
These preparations could not have gone unnoticed by Godunov. Of course, the first thing that came to his mind was the assumption about the next intrigues of his enemies from among the boyars. Judging by his further actions, he was greatly frightened by the "resurrection" of Tsarevich Dimitri. To begin with, he ordered that Dimitri's mother, Martha Naguya, who had long been tonsured a nun and placed in the Novodevichy Convent, be brought to him. He was interested in only one question - is her son alive or dead. Marfa Nagaya, seeing what fear the shadow of her son inspires Godunov, undoubtedly not without pleasure, answered: "I don't know." Boris Godunov became furious, and Marfa Nagaya, wanting to enhance the effect of her answer, began to tell, as if she had heard that her son was secretly taken out of the country, and the like. Soon, nevertheless, he managed to establish the identity of the impostor, and he ordered the publication of the story of Otrepiev, since further silence was dangerous, as it prompted the people to think that the impostor and the truly saved Tsarevich Dimitri. At the same time, an embassy was sent to the court of King Sigismund, headed by the uncle of the impostor Smirnov-Otrepyev, the purpose of which was to expose the impostor
;another embassy, headed by the nobleman Khrushchev, was sent to the Don to the Cossacks to persuade them to retreat. Both embassies were unsuccessful. “The royal nobles did not want to show False Dmitry Smirnov-Otrepyev and answered dryly that they did not care about the imaginary Tsarevich of Russia; and the Cossacks grabbed Khrushchev, chained him up and brought him to the Pretender. Moreover, in the face of imminent death, Khrushchev fell to his knees before the impostor, and recognized him as Tsarevich Dimitri. The third embassy by the nobleman Ogarev was sent by the Godunovs directly to King Sigismund. He received the ambassador, but answered his requests that he himself, Sigismund, did not stand for the impostor and was not going to violate the peace between Russia and the Commonwealth, but he could not be responsible for the actions of individual gentry who supported Otrepyev. Ogarev had to return to Boris Godunov with nothing. In addition, Godunov demanded that Patriarch Job write a letter to the Polish clergy, in which the seals of the bishops made sure that Otrepiev was a fugitive monk. Such a charter was sent to the Kiev governor, Prince Vasily Ostrozhsky. The messengers of the patriarch, who delivered these letters, were probably captured on the way by the people of Otrepyev, and did not reach their goal. “But the messengers of the Patriarchs did not return: they were detained in Lithuania and neither the clergy nor Prince Ostrozhsky answered Job, for the Pretender has already acted with brilliant success.
The invading army was concentrated in the vicinity of Lvov and Sambir, in the possessions of the Mnisheks. Its core consisted of gentry with retinues, well trained and armed, but very few in number - about 1,500 people. The rest of the troops were refugees who joined him, as Karamzin writes, "without a device and almost without weapons." At the head of the army were Otrepiev himself, Yuri Mnishek, the magnates Dvorzhitsky and Neborsky. Near Kiev, they were joined by about 2,000 Don Cossacks and the militia assembled in the vicinity of Kiev. On October 16, 1604, this army entered Russia. At first, this campaign was successful, several cities were taken (Moravsk, Chernigov), and on November 11 Novgorod-Seversky was besieged.
An experienced and courageous military leader Pyotr Basmanov was sent to Novgorod-Seversky by the Godunovs, who managed to organize an effective defense of the city, as a result of which the assault on the city by Otrepyev's army was repulsed, with heavy losses for the attackers. “Otrepyev also sent Russian traitors to persuade Basmanov, but to no avail; wanted to take the fortress with a bold attack and was repelled; I wanted to destroy its walls with fire, but I didn’t have time even in that; I lost many people, and saw disaster before me: his camp was despondent; Basmanov gave time to Borisov's army to take up arms and an example of non-timidity to other city governors.
“An example of non-timidity”, however, was not picked up by other “town governors” - on November 18, the governor of Putivl, Prince Rubets-Mosalsky, together with the deacon Sutupov, went over to the side of Otrepyev, arrested Godunov’s emissary, Mikhail Saltykov, and surrendered Putivl to the enemy. The cities of Rylsk, Sevsk, Belgorod, Voronezh, Kromy, Livny, Yelets also surrendered. Besieged in Novgorod-Seversky, Basmanov, seeing the desperation of his situation, began negotiations with Otrepiev, and promised him to surrender the city in two weeks. In all likelihood, he was trying to play for time, waiting for reinforcements gathered in Bryansk by the governor Mstislavsky.
At this time, clouds continued to gather over Godunov. Neither the evidence of Vasily Shuisky at the Execution Ground in Moscow that Tsarevich Dimitri was truly dead (Shuisky was the head of the commission investigating the death of Dimitri), nor the letters sent to the cities by Patriarch Job helped. “Until 1604, none of the Russians doubted the death of Demetrius, who grew up before the eyes of his Uglich and whom all Uglich saw dead, irrigating his body with tears for five days; consequently, the Russians could not reasonably believe the resurrection of the Tsarevich; but they didn't like Boris!
… Shuisky's lack of conscience was still in his fresh memory; they also knew Job’s blind devotion to Godunov; they only heard the name of the Tsaritsa-Inokini: no one saw her, no one spoke to her, again imprisoned in the Vyksa Desert. More
Purpose: to generalize previously acquired knowledge, identifying alternatives for the social development of Russia in the 17th century, and in the course of the discussion to find out the reasons for their victory or defeat.
- Educational: formation of an idea of the multivariance of historical development; understanding the reasons for the collapse of various alternatives of social development in the 17th century.
- Developing: continue the formation of skills to properly conduct a discussion; argue your point of view; analyze cause and effect relationships.
- Educational: to continue the formation of a respectful attitude to the opinions of others, teamwork skills; continue to form the ability to give their own assessment of historical events; continue to cultivate respect for the historical past of their country.
At the beginning of the study of the topic, the class was divided into 5 groups in accordance with the alternatives of social development, and each group was given the task of developing student presentations that characterize a certain alternative.
This form of work seems to me the most preferable when working with high school students, because it allows you to involve many students in the search for a variety of information and prepare student presentations, allows students to acquire teamwork skills and apply in practice the knowledge and skills gained in computer science lessons.
Problem assignment for the lesson:
Questions for the frontal survey:
Causes of the Time of Troubles;
Were the events of the Time of Troubles inevitable?;
What problems did the Time of Troubles raise?;
Conclusion after the frontal survey:
Russia at the beginning of the 17th century was in a state of deep civilizational crisis, which matured in the country after the reign of Ivan the Terrible and manifested itself in dynastic, political and economic crises. The Time of Troubles brought several development alternatives to the country and raised new questions: about the legitimacy of power, about imposture. After the Time of Troubles, the state and the sovereign were no longer perceived as a single entity, the state is "the people of the Muscovite state", and the tsars can be newcomers.
We listen to the projects of each group and in parallel fill in the table and discuss alternatives.
Table: Alternatives for the development of Russia in the 17th century
| Boris Godunov | False Dmitry I | Vasily Shuisky | Foreign applicants | Mikhail Romanov | |
| Legitimacy of power | "Yesterday's slave, Tatar, Malyuta's son-in-law, The executioner's son-in-law and the executioner himself at heart, Will take Monomakh's crown and barm:" Shouted out to the kingdom at the Zemsky Sobor in February 1598. Formally, the government was ready to function, but its legitimacy was shaken, because. the new king was not a blood relative of the previous dynasty and "sat" in place below the others. The contradiction is the reformer tsar and the impossibility of carrying out reforms due to the lack of legitimacy of power. | False Dmitry pretended to be the son of Ivan the Terrible, therefore, in the eyes of the people, he is legitimate. | Shouted out at an improvised Zemsky Sobor, assembled by his supporters on May 19, 1606. | They are legitimate, because heirs of the royal houses of Sweden, the Commonwealth. They were "born" | Elected at the Zemsky Sobor on February 21, 1613 |
| Reformatory activity. | strengthened the position of the church (the institution of the patriarchate) the first attempt to backwardness from the West (the first nobles went to study abroad) urban planning invited foreigners to serve, promising them the right to duty-free trade, partial permission for peasant transitions, free distribution of bread from the royal bins, suppressed the Cotton revolt of 1603-1604 , "the case of the Romanovs" | Granting land and money to service people and Polish governors, freeing a number of categories of peasants and serfs from dependence, complicating relations with Poland, to which he had obligations, but was in no hurry to fulfill them, the return of the Romanovs from exile, | Deepening of the civil war and the beginning of open intervention | The first years of the reign of Mikhail Romanov passed in an atmosphere of almost continuous activity of the Zemsky Sobors - almost all the most important problems of the state were discussed here. For the development of various crafts, foreign industrialists were invited to Russia on preferential terms - miners, gunsmiths, foundry workers. intensive construction of serif lines against the Crimean Tatars was carried out, further colonization of Siberia took place. In 1624, the government of Tsar Mikhail took measures to limit the power of the governors in the field. In 1642, the beginning of military reforms was laid. Foreign officers taught Russian "military people" military affairs, and "regiments of a foreign system" appeared in Russia. | |
| Reign time | 1598-1605 | 1605-1606 | 1606-1610 | - | !613-1645 |
| Alternative Analysis | In fact, Boris began to rule under Fyodor Ioannovich. He possessed a state mind, he is a talented statesman, although he was not guided in his activities by moral standards. He strove for the consolidation of the ruling class, domestic policy aimed at stabilization, in foreign policy he preferred diplomatic victories. Probably, if Boris had a few more quiet years at his disposal, Russia would have taken the path of modernization more peacefully and a hundred years earlier. And since the way out of the crisis followed the path of serfdom, discontent ripened among the peasants, and Boris did not understand that serfdom was evil. Opportunities missed. The victory of False Dmitry was ensured, according to Pushkin, "by the opinion of the people." | The personality of False Dmitry could be a good chance for the country: brave, resolute, educated, who did not succumb to attempts to Catholicize Russia and make it dependent on the Commonwealth. His trouble is that he is an adventurer who was able to achieve power, but could not keep it. He did not justify the hopes of either the pope, or the Polish king, or the peasants who were waiting for the return of St. George's Day, or the boyars, therefore, not a single force within the country, not a single force outside it supported False Dmitry, he was easily overthrown from the throne. | Shuisky intriguer, a liar, even under oath. But regardless of the personal qualities of the king, his reign could not be a bad alternative for the state. Shuisky swore allegiance to his subjects for the first time, made a sign of the cross, which can be interpreted as limiting power in favor of the boyars, and this is already a step towards limiting autocracy. Klyuchevsky wrote that "Shuisky turned from a sovereign of serfs into a legitimate king of subjects, ruling according to the laws." | Here again the alternative of limiting the power of the monarch by treaty opens up. the boyars in 1610 drew up an agreement. The foreign applicant is "born" and neutral, hence there is no struggle between the boyar factions. | Romanov suited everyone: both those who advanced in the years of the oprichnina, and those who suffered from it, and the supporters of False Dmitry, and the supporters of Shuisky. Maybe for the consolidation of the country, dim personalities were needed, but people who can calmly pursue a conservative policy. After so many missed opportunities, a conservative reaction is inevitable. But this suited the people. autocracy-guarantor against the arbitrariness of the feudal lords. The masses wanted the lack of rights of everyone: from the serf to the boyar. These sentiments pushed for self-isolation, for a model of a closed society. And if modernization begins at the end of the century, then the sprouts of the rule of law, which appeared in the Time of Troubles, are forgotten for a long time. |
General conclusions on the lesson:
The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 voted for the preservation of the autocratic system and traditional orders. The Romanov dynasty ascended the throne under the slogans of antiquity and order. The facelessness of Mikhail played into the hands of the boyars. Some historians assess the situation of the period of Mikhail's election as a unique opportunity to turn Russia's development towards more decisive modernization, towards the rule of law. But this path did not meet the expectations of the majority of the people, for whom unlimited autocracy and the pacification of the boyars were a guarantee against the arbitrariness of the feudal lords. The masses wanted equal disenfranchisement for all. The repetition of the Time of Troubles and anarchy terrified me. Salvation was seen in antiquity and Orthodoxy. For the first time in Russian history, the Time of Troubles drew wider sections of the population into political life.
Questions for written homework:
Time of Troubles - Time of Lost Opportunities?
Why was the problem of the legitimacy of power so acutely perceived in Russia?
How to explain the phenomenon of imposture?
The impoverishment and ruin of Russia under Ivan the Terrible, meanwhile, did not pass in vain . Masses of peasants left for new lands from fortresses and state burdens. The exploitation of the rest intensified. The farmers were entangled in debts and duties. The transition from one landowner to another became more and more difficult. Under Boris Godunov, several more decrees were issued that strengthened serfdom. In 1597 - about a five-year term for the search for fugitives, in 1601 - 02 about limiting the transfer of peasants by some landowners from others. The desires of the nobility were fulfilled. But social tension from this did not weaken, but only grew.
The main reason for the aggravation of contradictions in the late XVI - early XVII centuries. there was an increase in serf burden and state duties of peasants and townspeople (posad people). There were great contradictions between the Moscow privileged and the outlying, especially the southern, nobility. Made up of fugitive peasants and other free people, the Cossacks were a combustible material in society: firstly, many had blood grievances against the state and the boyars-nobles, and secondly, they were people whose main occupation was war and robbery. There were strong intrigues between various groups of boyars.
In 1601-03. an unprecedented famine broke out in the country. First there were heavy rains for 10 weeks, then, at the end of summer, frost damaged the bread. Another crop failure next year. Although the king did a lot to alleviate the situation of the hungry: he distributed money and bread, brought down the price of it, arranged public works, etc., but the consequences were severe. About 130,000 people died in Moscow alone from the diseases that followed the famine. Many, from hunger, gave themselves up as slaves, and, finally, often the masters, unable to feed the servants, expelled the servants. Robbery and unrest of runaway and walking people began (the leader of Khlopko Kosolap), who operated near Moscow itself and even killed governor Basmanov in a battle with the tsarist troops. The rebellion was crushed, and its participants fled to the south, where they joined the troops of the impostor, Bolotnikov and others.
Hunger and other misfortunes exacerbated all contradictions. The people associated the disasters of the country with the murder of Dmitry and the unrighteous accession of Godunov.
Yuri Otrepiev came from a noble family, whose representatives owned estates in the Galician district. Most likely, he was born around 1581, i.e. was a year older than Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich. Yuri's father, the archer centurion Bogdan Ivanovich, was stabbed to death by a drunk Litvin in the German settlement in Moscow. The boy grew up under the supervision of his mother and learned to read and write from her, showing rare abilities. Then he moved to Moscow, where he continued his education, learning the art of writing beautifully. Then, Otrepiev entered the service of the devious Mikhail Nikitich Romanov as a combat serf. It is possible that it was during the service of the Romanovs that Otrepyev had (or was inspired by) the idea to take the name of Tsarevich Dmitry. The defeat of the Romanov dynasty in 1600 forced Otrepiev to flee from the tsar's wrath. The young man left the capital and took the vows as a monk with the name Gregory in one of the provincial monasteries.
For Russia in the 17th century. became a time of difficult trials, great social upheavals, a "rebellious age". The strengthening of the feudal state was accompanied by the strengthening of serfdom, fixed by the Council Code of 1649, the aggravation of the political and class struggle, a vivid expression of which was the Time of Troubles - the civil war of the beginning of the century, urban uprisings in the middle of the century and the peasant war of 1670-1671. under the leadership of S. Razin. Wars with Poland, Sweden, Turkey and the Crimean Khanate cost a lot of money and human losses. The crisis of the autocracy, which caused the change of the ruling dynasty, the split of the church and many other events testify to the difficult path of development of Russia in the 17th century, which began with the famine years of 1601-1603. and ended with a fierce struggle of Peter I with opponents of his transformations, in the blood that drowned the last streltsy rebellion of 1698.
As for Western Europe, the XVII century. was in many ways a turning point for Russia. It was during this period that the foundation was laid for the future reforms of Peter the Great, which contributed to the rapprochement of Russia with Europe. Historically, the Old Russian state developed much later than the states of Western Europe. The era of Kievan Rus was a time when Russia quickly carried out its development. In the field of economy and culture, Russia was in no way inferior to the leading European states. By the beginning of the XII century. Ancient Russia became one of the powerful states of the then world. All the leading European royal families were connected with the Kyiv Grand Duke's house by dynastic marriages.
The Mongol-Tatar invasion delayed the socio-economic and political development of our country for a long time, interrupted, in particular, the development that was outlined at the turn of the XII-XIII centuries. the process of rapid development of commodity-money relations, which unfolded in Western Europe. This contributed to the conservation and deepening of feudal-serf relations in Russia. While Russia fought heroically against the Mongol invaders for 240 years, thereby saving Europe, the West was moving forward. Russia found itself in a long isolation from the progressive trends in the socio-economic and political development of Europe. The liquidation of the Mongol-Tatar yoke and the formation of a single state in the XV-XVI centuries. became the basis for Russia's gradual exit from isolation.
The main direction of this was the struggle for access to the Baltic Sea. In Europe itself, this desire of Russia to catch up with it has given rise to serious opponents. At the very beginning of the XVII century. the country experienced one of the most tragic pages of its history. Taking advantage of the aggravation of the socio-economic and political situation in Russia, Poland and Sweden undertook an intervention, the purpose of which was ultimately not only to throw Russia off the shores of the Baltic, but also to seize a significant part of its territory. In this intervention, the Swedes implemented the historical testament of King Gustavus Adolf II: “Now this enemy cannot launch a single ship into the Baltic Sea without our permission. Large lakes - Ladoga and Peydus - Narva region, thirty miles of vast swamps and strong fortresses separate us from it; the sea has been taken away from Russia, and, God willing, it will now be difficult for the Russians to swim across this stream.
In this respect, the Polish-Swedish intervention was a success for the Swedes in the Baltics. However, the consequences of this Swedish victory will be unexpected for Europe. Noting this circumstance, one of the greatest English historians A. Toynbee wrote the following: “According to the agreement of 1617 concluded between Sweden and Muscovy, Russia was deprived of access to the Baltic Sea. However, pressure on Russia from Poland and Sweden in the 17th century. was so furious that it was bound to evoke a response. The temporary presence of the Polish garrison in Moscow and the permanent presence of the Swedish army on the banks of the Narva and Neva deeply traumatized the Russians, and this internal shock pushed them to practical action, which was expressed in the process of "Westernization" led by Peter the Great.
The trend of gradual rapprochement between Russia and the West was outlined precisely in the process of overcoming the troubled times, from the reign of the first Romanovs. One of the leading Russian historians, V.O. Klyuchevsky, emphasized that the reforms were started by Peter's predecessors, and they only continued them. Describing the era of the reign of the first of the Romanovs - Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, another great Russian historian S.M. Solovyov wrote: “The old customs were still observed in all severity in relations with alien peoples and their representatives who came to Moscow; but the admission of more and more foreigners into the state, the clearly expressed need for them, their clearly expressed superiority in science, the need to learn from them, foreshadowed the imminent revolution of Russian society, the imminent rapprochement with Western Europe. It was under Mikhail Fedorovich, Solovyov noted, that an intensified process of inviting military leaders, artisans, factory owners, scientists, etc. from abroad began.
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/
1. Power struggle. Tsar Boris Godunov and his policy
According to legend, the Godunovs descended from the Tatar prince Chet, who came to Russia during the time of Ivan Kalita. This legend is recorded in the annals of the beginning of the 17th century. According to the sovereign genealogy of 1555, the Godunovs descended from Dmitry Zern. Godunov's ancestors were boyars at the Moscow court. Boris Godunov was born in 1552. His father, Fyodor Ivanovich Godunov, nicknamed Krivoy, was a middle class landowner.
After the death of his father (1569), Boris was taken into his family by his uncle, Dmitry Godunov. During the years of the oprichnina, Vyazma, in which the possessions of Dmitry Godunov were located, passed to the oprichnina possessions. The ignoble Dmitry Godunov was enlisted in the oprichnina corps and soon received the high rank of head of the Bed Order at court.
The promotion of Boris Godunov begins in the 1570s. In 1570 he became a guardsman, and in 1571 he was a friend at the wedding of the tsar with Marfa Sobakina. In the same year, Boris himself married Maria Grigoryevna Skuratova-Belskaya, daughter of Malyuta Skuratov. In 1578, Boris Godunov became a master. Two years after the marriage of his second son Fyodor to Godunov's sister Irina, Ivan the Terrible bestowed the title of boyar on Boris. Godunovs slowly but surely climbed the hierarchical ladder: in the late 1570s - early 1580s. they won several local cases at once, gaining a fairly strong position among the Moscow nobility.
Godunov was smart and cautious, trying to stay in the background for the time being. In the last year of the tsar's life, Boris Godunov gained great influence at court. Together with B.Ya.Belsky, he became one of the close people of Ivan the Terrible.
The role of Godunov in the history of the death of the tsar is not entirely clear. March 18, 1584 Grozny, according to D. Gorsey, was "strangled." It is possible that a conspiracy was drawn up against the king. In any case, it was Godunov and Belsky who were next to the tsar in the last minutes of his life, and from the porch they announced to the people about the death of the sovereign.
Fyodor Ioannovich ascended the throne. The new tsar was not able to govern the country and needed a smart adviser, so a regency council of four people was created: Bogdan Belsky, Nikita Romanovich Yuryev (Romanov), princes Ivan Fedorovich Mstislavsky and Ivan Petrovich Shuisky.
On May 31, 1584, on the day of the coronation of the tsar, Boris Godunov was showered with favors: he received the rank of equerry, the title of a close great boyar and governor of the Kazan and Astrakhan kingdoms. However, this did not mean at all that Godunov had sole power - at the court there was a stubborn struggle between the boyar groups of the Godunovs, Romanovs, Shuiskys, Mstislavskys. In 1584, B. Belsky was accused of treason and exiled; the following year, Nikita Yuryev died, and the aged Prince Mstislavsky was forcibly tonsured a monk. Subsequently, the hero of the defense of Pskov, I.P., also fell into disgrace. Shuisky. In fact, since 1585, 13 of the 14 years of the reign of Fyodor Ioannovich, Boris Godunov ruled Russia.
The activities of Godunov's board were aimed at the comprehensive strengthening of statehood. Thanks to his efforts, in 1589 the first Russian patriarch was elected, which was the Moscow Metropolitan Job. The establishment of the patriarchate testified to the increased prestige of Russia. In the domestic policy of the Godunov government, common sense and prudence prevailed. Unprecedented construction of cities and fortifications unfolded.
Boris Godunov patronized talented builders and architects. Church and city construction was carried out on a grand scale. On the initiative of Godunov, the construction of fortresses began in the Wild Field - the steppe outskirts of Russia. In 1585 the Voronezh fortress was built, in 1586 - Livny. To ensure the safety of the waterway from Kazan to Astrakhan, cities were built on the Volga - Samara (1586), Tsaritsyn (1589), Saratov (1590). In 1592 the city of Yelets was restored. On the Donets in 1596 the city of Belgorod was built, to the south in 1600 Tsarev-Borisov was built. The settlement and development of the lands deserted during the yoke to the south of Ryazan (the territory of the present Lipetsk region) began. The city of Tomsk was founded in Siberia in 1604.
In the period from 1596 to 1602, one of the most grandiose architectural structures of pre-Petrine Russia was built - the Smolensk fortress wall, which later became known as the "stone necklace of the Russian Land." The fortress was built on the initiative of Godunov to protect the western borders of Russia from Poland.
Under him, unheard of innovations entered the life of Moscow, for example, a water pipe was built in the Kremlin, through which water rose with powerful pumps from the Moscow River through the dungeon to the Konyushenny yard. New fortifications were also built. In 1584-91, under the guidance of the architect Fyodor Savelyev, nicknamed the Horse, the walls of the White City were erected, 9 km long (they encircled the area enclosed within the modern Boulevard Ring). The walls and 29 towers of the White City were made of limestone, lined with bricks and plastered. In 1592, on the site of the modern Garden Ring, another line of fortifications was built, a wooden and earthen one, nicknamed "Skorodom" for the speed of construction.
In the summer of 1591, the Crimean Khan Kazy-Girey with a 150,000-strong army approached Moscow, however, being at the walls of a powerful new fortress and under the guns of numerous guns, he did not dare to storm it. In small skirmishes with the Russians, the Khan's detachments were constantly defeated; this forced him to retreat, abandoning the convoy. On the way to the south, to the Crimean steppes, the Khan's army suffered heavy losses from the Russian regiments pursuing him. For the victory over Kazy-Girey, Boris Godunov received the greatest reward of all the participants in this campaign (although it was not he who was the main governor, but Prince Fyodor Mstislavsky): three cities in the Vazh land and the title of servant, which was considered more honorable than the boyar.
Godunov sought to alleviate the situation of the townspeople. By his decision, merchants and artisans who lived in "white" settlements (privately owned, paying taxes to large feudal lords) were included in the population of "black" settlements (paying tax - "tax" - to the state). At the same time, the size of the “tax” levied on the settlement as a whole was left the same, and the share of an individual citizen in it decreased.
The economic crisis of the 1570s - early 1580s forced the establishment of serfdom. On November 24, 1597, a decree was issued on “lesson years”, according to which peasants who had fled from their masters “until this year in five years” were subject to investigation, trial and return “back to where someone lived.” The decree did not apply to those who fled six years ago and earlier, they were not returned to their former owners.
In foreign policy, Godunov proved himself to be a talented diplomat. On May 18, 1595, a peace treaty was concluded in Tyavzin (near Ivangorod), which ended the Russian-Swedish war of 1590-1593. Godunov managed to take advantage of the difficult internal political situation in Sweden, and Russia, according to the agreement, received Ivangorod, Yam, Koporye and Korela. Thus, Russia regained all the lands transferred to Sweden following the unsuccessful Livonian War.
The heir to the throne during the life of Tsar Fedor was his younger brother Dmitry, the son of the seventh wife of Ivan the Terrible. On May 15, 1591, the prince died under unclear circumstances in the specific city of Uglich. The official investigation was conducted by the boyar Vasily Shuisky. Trying to please Godunov, he reduced the causes of what happened to Nagikh's "neglect", as a result of which Dmitry accidentally stabbed himself with a knife while playing with his peers. The prince, according to rumors, was sick with an "epilepsy" disease (epilepsy). The chronicle of the Romanovs blames Boris Godunov for the murder, because Dmitry was the direct heir to the throne and prevented Boris from advancing to him. Isaac Massa also writes that "I am firmly convinced that Boris hastened his death with the assistance and at the request of his wife, who wanted to become queen as soon as possible, and many Muscovites shared my opinion." However, Godunov's participation in the conspiracy to kill the tsarevich has not been proven.
In 1829, the historian M.P. Pogodin was the first to take the risk of defending Boris's innocence. The original of the criminal case of the Shuisky Commission, discovered in the archives, became the decisive argument in the dispute. He assured many historians of the 20th century (S.F. Platonov, R.G. Skrynnikov) that the true cause of the death of Ivan the Terrible's son was an accident.
On January 7, 1598, Fyodor Ioannovich died, and the male line of the Moscow branch of the Rurik dynasty was cut short. The only close heir to the throne was the second cousin of the deceased, Maria Staritskaya (1560-1611?)
On February 17 (27), 1598, the Zemsky Sobor elected Fyodor's brother-in-law Boris Godunov as tsar and took the oath of allegiance to him. On September 1 (11), 1598, Boris was married to the kingdom. A close property outweighed the distant relationship of possible contenders for the throne. No less important was the fact that Godunov had long actually ruled the country on behalf of Fedor, and was not going to let go of power after his death.
The reign of Boris was marked by the beginning of Russia's rapprochement with the West. Before there was no sovereign in Russia who would have been so kind to foreigners as Godunov. He began to invite foreigners to serve. In 1604 he sent okolnichiy M.I. Tatishchev to Georgia to marry his daughter to the local prince.
The first tsar not from the Rurikids (except for such a figurehead as Simeon Bekbulatovich), Godunov could not help but feel the precariousness of his position. In his suspiciousness, he was a little inferior to Grozny. Having ascended the throne, he began to settle personal scores with the boyars. According to a contemporary, “he blossomed, like a date, with leaves of virtue, and if the thorn of envious malice had not darkened the color of his virtue, he could have become like the ancient kings. From slanderers, he vainly accepted the slander of the innocent in a rage, and therefore he brought the indignation of the officials of the entire Russian land: from here many insatiable evils rose up against him and his beauty suddenly deposed the flourishing kingdom.
At first, this suspicion was already manifested in the oath record, but later it came to disgrace and denunciations. Princes Mstislavsky and V.I. Shuisky, who, due to the nobility of the family, could have claims to the throne, Boris did not allow them to marry. Since 1600, the suspicion of the king has increased markedly. Perhaps the news of Margeret is not without probability that already at that time dark rumors had spread that Dimitri was alive. The first victim of Boris' suspicion was Bogdan Belsky, who was commissioned by the tsar to build Tsarev-Borisov. According to a denunciation of Belsky’s generosity to military people and careless words: “Boris is the tsar in Moscow, and I am in Borisov,” Belsky was summoned to Moscow, subjected to various insults and exiled to one of the remote cities.
The serf of Prince Shestunov denounced his master. The denunciation was not worthy of attention. Nevertheless, the scammer was told the tsar's word of honor in the square and announced that the tsar, for his service and zeal, would grant him an estate and orders him to serve in the children of the boyars. In 1601, the Romanovs and their relatives suffered under a false denunciation. The eldest of the Romanov brothers, Theodore Nikitich, was exiled to the Siya Monastery and tonsured under the name Filaret; his wife, tonsured under the name of Martha, was exiled to the Tolvuisky Zaonezhsky churchyard, and their young son Michael (the future king) to Beloozero.
The reign of Boris began successfully, but a series of disgrace gave rise to despondency, and soon a real disaster broke out. In 1601, there were long rains, and then early frosts broke out and, according to a contemporary, "beat the scum of the strong all the work of human deeds in the fields." The next year, the crop failure was repeated. A famine began in the country, which lasted three years. The price of bread has increased 100 times. Boris forbade selling bread more than a certain limit, even resorting to the persecution of those who inflated prices, but he did not achieve success. In an effort to help the starving, he spared no expense, widely distributing money to the poor. But bread became more expensive, and money lost its value. Boris ordered the royal barns to be opened for the starving. However, even their supplies were not enough for all the hungry, especially since, having learned about the distribution, people from all over the country reached out to Moscow, leaving the meager supplies that they still had at home. About 127 thousand people who died of starvation were buried in Moscow, and not everyone had time to bury them. There were cases of cannibalism. People began to think that this was God's punishment. There was a conviction that the reign of Boris is not blessed by God, because it is lawless, achieved by untruth. Therefore, it cannot end well.
In 1601-1602 Godunov even went to the temporary restoration of St. George's Day. True, he did not allow the exit, but only the export of the peasants. The nobles thus saved their estates from final desolation and ruin. The permission given by the Godunovs concerned only small service people, it did not extend to the lands of members of the Boyar Duma and the clergy. But this step did not greatly increase the popularity of the king.
Mass famine and dissatisfaction with the establishment of "lesson years" became the cause of a major uprising led by Khlopok (1602 - 1603), in which peasants, serfs and Cossacks took part. The insurrectionary movement covered about 20 districts of central Russia and the south of the country. The rebels united in large detachments that advanced towards Moscow. Boris Godunov sent an army against them under the command of I.F. Basmanov. In September 1603, in a fierce battle near Moscow, the rebel army of Khlopok was defeated. Basmanov died in battle, and Khlopok himself was seriously wounded, captured and executed.
At the same time, Isaac Massa reports that “... there were more grain reserves in the country than all the inhabitants could eat it in four years ... noble gentlemen, as well as in all monasteries and many rich people, barns were full of bread, some of it was already rotted from years of lying, and they didn't want to sell it; and by the will of God the king was so blinded, despite the fact that he could order whatever he wanted, he did not command in the strictest way that everyone should sell their bread.
Rumors began to circulate throughout the country that the "born sovereign", Tsarevich Dmitry, was alive. Detractors spoke unflatteringly about Godunov - "worker". At the beginning of 1604, a letter from a foreigner from Narva was intercepted, in which it was announced that Dmitry, who had miraculously escaped, was with the Cossacks, and great misfortunes would soon befall the Moscow land.
October 16, 1604 False Dmitry I with detachments of Poles and Cossacks moved to Moscow. Even the curses of the Moscow Patriarch did not cool the enthusiasm of the people on the path of "Tsarevich Dmitry". However, in January 1605, government troops at the Battle of Dobrynich defeated the impostor, who, with the few remnants of his army, was forced to leave for Putivl.
The situation for Godunov was complicated due to his state of health. As early as 1599, there are references to his illnesses, and the king was often unwell in the 1600s. April 13, 1605 Boris Godunov seemed cheerful and healthy, ate a lot and with appetite. Then he climbed the tower, from which he often surveyed Moscow. Soon he came down from there, saying that he felt faint. They called the doctor, but the king felt worse: blood began to flow from his ears and nose. The king lost his senses and soon died. There were rumors that Godunov poisoned himself in a fit of despair; the version of natural death is more likely, since Godunov had often been ill before. He was buried in the Kremlin Archangel Cathedral.
The son of Boris, Fyodor, became king, an educated and extremely intelligent young man. Soon there was a rebellion in Moscow, provoked by False Dmitry. Tsar Fedor and his mother were killed, leaving only Boris's daughter Xenia alive. The bleak fate of the impostor's concubine awaited her. It was officially announced that Tsar Fyodor and his mother were poisoned. Their bodies were exposed. Then Boris's coffin was taken out of the Archangel Cathedral and reburied in the Varsonofevsky Monastery near Lubyanka. His family was also buried there: without a funeral service, like suicides.
Under Tsar Vasily Shuisky, the remains of Boris, his wife and son were transferred to the Trinity Monastery and buried in a sitting position at the northwestern corner of the Assumption Cathedral. In the same place in 1622 Xenia was buried, in monasticism Olga. In 1782, a tomb was built over their tombs.
2. Time of Troubles. Beginning of the Polish-Swedish intervention. False DmitryI
The Time of Troubles is a designation of the period in the history of Russia from 1598 to 1613, marked by natural disasters, the Polish-Swedish intervention, the most severe political, economic, state and social crisis.
After the death of Ivan the Terrible (1584), his heir Fyodor Ioannovich was incapable of governing, and the youngest son, Tsarevich Dmitry, was in infancy. With the death of Dmitry (1591) and Fedor (1598), the ruling dynasty came to an end, and minor boyar families, the Yurievs and Godunovs, came to the fore. In 1598, Boris Godunov was elevated to the throne.
Three years, from 1601 to 1603, were lean, even in the summer months frosts did not stop, and in September snow fell. A terrible famine broke out, the victims of which were up to half a million people. Masses of people flocked to Moscow, where the government distributed money and bread to the needy. However, these measures only increased the economic disorganization. The landowners could not feed their serfs and servants and drove them out of the estates. Left without a livelihood, people turned to robbery and robbery, intensifying the general chaos. Individual gangs grew to several hundred people. Ataman Khlopok's detachment numbered up to 600 people.
The beginning of the Troubles refers to the intensification of rumors that the legitimate Tsarevich Dmitry is alive, from which it followed that the reign of Boris Godunov is illegal and not pleasing to God. The impostor False Dmitry I, who announced to the Lithuanian prince Adam Vishnevetsky about his royal origin, entered into close relations with the Polish magnate, governor of Sandomierz Jerzy Mniszek and papal nuncio Rangoni. At the beginning of 1604, the impostor received an audience with the Polish king, and on April 17 he converted to Catholicism. King Sigismund recognized the rights of False Dmitry to the Russian throne and allowed everyone to help the "tsarevich". For this, False Dmitry promised to transfer Smolensk and Seversky lands to Poland. For the consent of the governor Mnishek to the marriage of his daughter with False Dmitry, he also promised to transfer Novgorod and Pskov to his bride. Mnishek equipped the impostor with an army consisting of Zaporozhye Cossacks and Polish mercenaries (“adventurers”). In 1604, the army of the impostor crossed the border of Russia, many cities (Moravsk, Chernigov, Putivl) surrendered to False Dmitry, the army of the Moscow governor F. I. Mstislavsky was defeated near Novgorod-Seversky. At the height of the war, Boris Godunov died (April 13, 1605); Godunov's army almost immediately betrayed his successor, 16-year-old Fyodor Borisovich, who was overthrown on June 1 and killed on June 10 along with his mother.
On June 20, 1605, under general rejoicing, the impostor solemnly entered Moscow. The Moscow boyars, headed by Bogdan Belsky, publicly recognized him as the rightful heir and prince of Moscow. On June 24, Archbishop Ignatius of Ryazan, who back in Tula confirmed Dmitry's rights to the kingdom, was elevated to patriarch. The legitimate patriarch Job was removed from the patriarchal chair and imprisoned in a monastery. On July 18, Queen Martha, who recognized her son as an impostor, was brought to the capital, and soon, on July 30, False Dmitry I was crowned king.
The reign of False Dmitry was marked by an orientation towards Poland and some attempts at reform.
Not all of the Moscow boyars recognized False Dmitry as the legitimate ruler. Almost immediately upon his arrival in Moscow, Prince Vasily Shuisky, through intermediaries, began to spread rumors of imposture. Governor Pyotr Basmanov uncovered the plot, and on June 23, 1605, Shuisky was captured and condemned to death, pardoned only directly at the block.
Shuisky attracted princes V.V. Golitsyn and I.S. Kurakin to his side. Enlisting the support of the Novgorod-Pskov detachment standing near Moscow, which was preparing for a campaign in the Crimea, Shuisky organized a coup.
On the night of May 16-17, 1606, the boyar opposition, taking advantage of the anger of Muscovites against the Polish adventurers who came to Moscow for the wedding of False Dmitry, raised an uprising, during which the impostor was brutally killed.
The coming to power of the representative of the Suzdal branch of the Rurikovich boyar Vasily Shuisky did not bring peace. In the south, the uprising of Ivan Bolotnikov (1606-1608) broke out, which gave rise to the beginning of the movement of "thieves".
time of troubles struggle power
3. Peasant uprisings led by Khlopok and Ivan Bolotnikov
History of the class struggle in Russia in the 17th-18th centuries. is the subject of close attention, on which various judgments are made. There is no unity among historians in assessing the first and second Peasant Wars - their chronological framework, stages, effectiveness, historical role, etc. For example, some researchers reduce the first of them to the uprising of I.I. Bolotnikov of 1606-1607, others include the Khlopok uprising of 1603, the "hunger riots" of 1601-1603, the popular movements of the time of the first and second impostors, both militias, and so on, up to the peasant-Cossack uprisings of 1613-1614 and even 1617-1618. The Moscow uprisings of 1682 and 1698 are called by some authors "reactionary riots" directed against Peter's reforms (although the latter had not yet begun), other historians consider these uprisings to be complex, contradictory, but in general anti-feudal performances.
Serfdom was a heterogeneous social stratum. The top serfs, close to their owners, occupied a fairly high position. It is no coincidence that many provincial nobles willingly changed their status to serfs. I. Bolotnikov, apparently, belonged to their number. He was a military servant of A. Telyatevsky and, most likely, a nobleman by origin. However, one should not attach too much importance to this: the social orientation of a person's views was determined not only by origin. The “nobility” of Bolotnikov can be explained by his military talents and the qualities of an experienced warrior.
There is news of Bolotnikov's stay in the Crimean and Turkish captivity, as an oarsman in a galley captured by the "Germans". There is an assumption that, returning from captivity through Italy, Germany, the Commonwealth, Bolotnikov managed to fight on the side of the Austrian emperor as the leader of a mercenary Cossack detachment against the Turks. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain why it was he who received the powers of the “big governor” from a man who pretended to be Tsar Dmitry.
The rebels, gathered under the banner of "Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich", were a complex conglomerate of forces. Here were not only people from the lower classes, but also service people in the instrument and the fatherland. They were united in their rejection of the newly elected king, different in their social aspirations. After a successful battle near Kromy in August 1606, the rebels occupied Yelets, Tula, Kaluga, Kashira, and by the end of the year approached Moscow. There were not enough forces for a complete blockade of the capital, and this made it possible for Shuisky to mobilize all his resources. By this time, a split had occurred in the camp of the rebels, and the detachments of Lyapunov (November) and Pashkov (early December) went over to the side of Shuisky.
The battle near Moscow on December 2, 1606 ended in the defeat of Bolotnikov. The latter, after a series of battles, retreated to Tula, under the protection of the stone walls of the city. V. Shuisky himself spoke out against the rebels and in June 1607. approached Tula. For several months, the tsarist troops unsuccessfully tried to take the city, until they blocked the Upa River and flooded the fortress. Shuisky's opponents, relying on his gracious word, opened the gates. However, the king did not miss the opportunity to deal with the leaders of the movement.
It is rather difficult to assess the nature of the Bolotnikov uprising. It seems one-sided view of the movement exclusively as the highest stage of the peasant war. However, this view exists, and the supporters of this view give the following assessments of the first Peasants' War. (17, 108)
Some of them believe that she delayed the legal registration of serfdom for 50 years, others believe that, on the contrary, she accelerated the process of legal registration of serfdom, which ended in 1649.
Supporters of the view of peasant wars as an anti-serfdom popular movement also believe that the significance of peasant wars cannot be reduced only to their immediate results. In the course of the peasant wars, the masses learned to fight for land and freedom. Peasant wars were one of the factors that prepared the formation of revolutionary ideology. Ultimately, they prepared the transition to a new mode of production. “We have always taught and continue to teach,” wrote V. I. Lenin, “that the class struggle, the struggle of the exploited part of the people against the exploiting one, underlies political transformations and, ultimately, decides the fate of all such transformations” (17, 108).
Some historians express a different view of the events described above. In their opinion, the “program of the movement” remains unknown to us: all the surviving documents that can be used to judge the demands of the rebels belong to the government camp. In the interpretation of Shuisky, the rebels called on the Muscovites to destroy the "nobles and the strong", to divide their property. Patriarch Hermogenes announced that “the Bolotnikovites order the boyar serfs to beat their boyars, and their wives and estates, and promise them estates” (9, 174), promising “to give the boyars, and the voivodship, and the okolnichestvo, and the deacon” (9, 174) . There are cases of the so-called "thieves' dachas", when the estates of the supporters of Tsar Vasily were transferred to the supporters of the "legitimate sovereign Dmitry Ivanovich". Thus, the struggle was aimed not so much at the destruction of the existing social system, but at the change of persons and entire social groups within it. The participants in the speech, former peasants, serfs, sought to be constituted in the new social status of service people, “free Cossacks”. The nobility, dissatisfied with the accession of Shuisky, also sought to improve its status. There was a sharp, rather complex and contradictory social struggle that went beyond the framework outlined by the concept of the peasant war. This struggle naturally complemented the struggle for power - after all, only the victory of one of the contenders ensured the consolidation of the rights of his supporters. This confrontation itself turned into an armed struggle, by whole armies.
The lower classes of society also took part in the social confrontation. However, the anti-serfdom fervor found its expression, first of all, in the weakening, and subsequently in the progressive destruction of statehood. In the context of the crisis of all structures of power, it was increasingly difficult to keep the peasants from leaving. In an effort to enlist the support of the nobility, Shuisky March 9, 1607. issued an extensive serf legislation, which provided for a significant increase in the term of the lesson years. The search for fugitives became the official duty of the local administration, which from now on had to ask each newcomer “hard to ask whose he was, where he was from, and when he fled” (9, 174). For the first time, monetary sanctions were introduced for accepting a fugitive. However, the Code of 1607. was more declarative. In the context of the events for the peasantry, the problem became urgent not of an exit restored without prior notice, but of finding an owner and a place of new residence that would ensure the stability of life.
Events in the early 17th century a number of historians are interpreted as a civil war in Russia. However, not all researchers share this point of view. Emphasizing the absence of clear lines of social and political confrontation, they consider all events within the framework outlined by contemporaries themselves - as a time of trouble - a troubled time.
Literature
1. Soloviev S.M. History of Russia since ancient times. In 18 books, volume 9, Moscow: 1990, chapter 1, 5.
2. Karamzin N.M. Notes of an old Moscow resident. History of Russian Goverment. Volume X, Chapters 1-4, volume X1, chapters 1-3, M.: 1986, pp. 334-506.
3. Kostomarov N.I. Historical monographs and researches. In two books. Book 1, M.: 1989, pp. 52-68.
4. Orlov A.S. etc. History of Russia. Textbook. M.: 2007, pp. 85-92.
5. Chernobaev A.A. et al. History of Russia. Textbook for high schools. M.: 2000, pp. 99-101.
6. Deinichenko P.G. The Complete Encyclopedic Reference. M.: 2004, p. 104-124.
Hosted on Allbest.ru
Similar Documents
Consideration of the causes, prerequisites and consequences of the Time of Troubles. Analysis of the foreign and domestic policy of the reign of contenders for the Russian throne - Boris Godunov, False Dmitry, Vladislav and Mikhail Romanov during a deep civilizational crisis.
term paper, added 09/19/2010
17th century - the century of the crisis of the Moscow kingdom, which was characterized by a political struggle for power, the Polish-Swedish intervention, national liberation movements during the Time of Troubles and the accession to the royal throne of a new royal dynasty - the Romanovs.
term paper, added 09/18/2008
The beginning of the turmoil, the coming to power of Boris Godunov and the exile of the boyars. Causes of imposture, False Dmitry I. Vasily Shuisky, Bolotnikov's uprising. Evaluation of the period of unrest by Russian and Soviet historians. Causes of the Polish-Swedish intervention.
abstract, added 01/12/2012
The beginning of the Time of Troubles in Russia: the struggle for power and the throne of Moscow. Board of Boris Godunov, "False Dmitry". The power of Vasily Shuisky. Activities of Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov. Participation of the lower strata of the population in the Time of Troubles. Election to the throne of Mikhail Romanov
abstract, added 04/22/2013
Domestic policy of Russia during the reign of Fyodor Ioannovich. State activity and main reforms of Boris Godunov. The development of the process of enslavement of the peasants. Causes and consequences of the crisis of the Time of Troubles. Fight against foreign invaders.
test, added 05/18/2009
The history of the Russian throne - from Tsarevich Fedor to Mikhail Romanov. A sharp struggle for power in the Board of Trustees, which ended in the victory of Boris Godunov. Period of "Time of Troubles": economic crisis, increase in tax and feudal oppression.
abstract, added 01/20/2012
Russia during the Time of Troubles from 1598 to 1613. Troubled events. The consequences of the reign of Boris Godunov, False Dmitry 1 and Vasily Shuisky. Palace coup and seven boyars. Rebellion of Ivan Bolotnikov. The main consequences of the Time of Troubles.
presentation, added 11/16/2016
Events in the history of Russia in the 17th century. Characterization of the Polish-Swedish intervention as an attempt by the Commonwealth to establish its dominance over Russia during the Time of Troubles. The activities of the first and second militia. Beginning of the Romanov dynasty.
abstract, added 03/11/2015
"Time of Troubles". Polish-Swedish intervention. Background and causes of confusion. False Dmitry and False Dmitry II. Polish-Swedish intervention during the Time of Troubles. Domestic policy of the first Romanovs. The uprising led by Stepan Razin.
abstract, added 03.12.2008
Domestic policy of Boris Godunov, tasks of the new government. Expansion of foreign trade with the countries of Europe and the East. Gradual enslavement of the peasants. Boris Godunov's measures to overcome the backwardness of Russia. Causes and consequences of the Troubles.
It is considered the most favorable for falsification and is the richest for deceit, treason and political treachery. Politics not only creates, but also offers its own written version, which does not always turn out to be adequate to objective reality.
On the example of the Russian beginning of the 17th century. the created false pages of history are considered, hiding behind another version of the past, which was objectionable to the then Russian authorities.
Keywords: elite, truth, falsification, verification, power, illusions, hoax, political speculation, deceit, turmoil, people of troubled times, folk history, alternative history, "yo-elite".
The history of Russia is a mixture of a memorial service and a criminal case, over which the whole world laughs and the Lord God cries. There is plenty of comic and tragic in the history of Russia, and most of the tragicomic comes from the authorities, more precisely from its elite. Therefore, one wants to laugh at the history of the Russian elites, and cry at the history of the Russian people. If you don't laugh, you can go crazy, if you don't cry, you can lose your conscience. And without conscience, Russia cannot be embraced and understood by reason alone.
The political history of Russia has more of an ethical than a utilitarian dimension. But it is precisely against this that its ruling elite most often opposes, accustomed to measuring everything with its “crooked meters”. The Time of Troubles is when everyone was tied to a lie and fed their illusory hopes for the future with a lie. During the Troubles, everyone is deceived and everyone is deceived by the Troubles.
Therefore, the Time of Troubles is the era of false rulers, when everyone wants to be what they cannot be, but passionately desire. Trouble is a crisis of people's confidence in their power, and a systemic crisis of the power itself, when it is not able to agree on honest rules of political life. Trouble is the realm of lies and betrayal, where everyone was on his own and for himself, and there was no one who was one for all, but everyone was against one, especially if he was the weakest.
During the Troubles, the authorities turn out to be even more vile, as they offer everyone to choose between bad and worse, and not between good and better.
Falsification as a tool of power over history.
The power of history is the history of power using the past to legitimize its present. World history is the arena of a relentless struggle between truth and falsification. The war of truth against lies is not just a struggle between good and evil, but also a political and epistemological confrontation of certain ideas that strive to be established in our minds as basic values. World history is permeated with falsification, and everywhere we see attempts to overcome the myths that have crept into our historical consciousness, which adorn national pride, but humiliate conscience, by trampling on the truth that science serves.
Political history convincingly shows that most often the falsification of history is carried out by the elites, who seek in it justifications for their dubious legitimacy. Falsification is a convenience enjoyed by the elite in justifying their power. But convenience is a secret. When it becomes obvious, the most unpleasant thing for the elites comes - the exposure of the deceitfulness of their elite nature.
That is what they are most afraid of. Falsification is always a loss of truth. The harm it causes can even slow down the development of progress. But most importantly, the loss of truth harms the conscience and gives the mind false optimism. With its shadow, falsification hides the brilliance of Truth from our gaze. Falsification tends to appear to be true. But seeming and being are two different things. To be and to seem, to seem - not to be. Therefore, all the benefits derived from lies are apparent. And they are a deception for those who deceive others themselves.
The problem of hermeneutic interpretation is already inherent in the very contradictory nature of the historical fact. A historical event has as many versions as there were eyewitnesses to it. But eyewitnesses themselves may have problems with hearing, with vision and with conscience when they talk about what they witnessed.
Troubled times give just the greatest number of discrepancies. An example of this is the first all-Russian Time of Troubles at the beginning of the 17th century. At that time, many in the eyes had something that was not in reality. But their sophisticated imagination painted the pictures they liked, ignoring the objective reality. It is interesting to note that the falsifiers of the early 17th century. found support among the falsifiers of the early XXI century. They were united by the same themes - power, treason, cunning deceitful elite, stupid and gullible people, etc. But they agree on one thing - the official history is distorted by the interests of the ruling elite and needs to be cleansed of this lie of hers. Trouble in the distorted mirror of public consciousness. Trouble is always based on an illusory perception and a false assessment of reality.
Such a time can be assessed as a massive clouding of the mind (Avraamiy Palitsyn). Cheating at that time was so contagious that it could only be cured by another betrayal. So they changed everything to each other and to themselves. They changed, firmly believing that they were doing the right thing, right. Distemper has many faces and it is extremely difficult to define it by any one definition. Revealing the obvious signs of confusion, we are approaching the knowledge of its essence. The essence of confusion appears in the state of public spirit, when everyone starts to do the false and refuse the truth. The turmoil opens up endless possibilities for adventurers and rogues, and limits the moral possibilities of people to the limit.
During the Time of Troubles Muscovites (inhabitants of Muscovy) become "Muscovites", i.e. people with hardened hearts and weathered consciences. The testimony of contemporaries must also be evaluated taking into account and correcting for their subjectivity, since two eyewitnesses could already have the most opposite views on the same event. For example, let's cite the production of the entertainment complex "Hell" under False Dmitry I.
So, according to Isaac Massa, it was a fortress on wheels, with several small cannons and various types of firearms, intended for war with the Tatars. “And verily, it was devised by him very cunningly. In winter, this fortress was put up on the Moscow River on ice, and he [Demetrius] ordered a detachment of Polish horsemen to besiege it and take it by attack, which he could look at from above from his chambers and see everything perfectly, and it seemed to him that this [fortress] was very convenient to fulfill his intention, and it was very skillfully made and all painted; elephants were depicted on the doors, and the windows were like the gates of hell, and they were supposed to spew fire, and below there were windows like the heads of devils, where small cannons were placed.
The author of “The Tale of the Kingdom of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich” describes “Hell” quite differently: “And he created for himself a cursed heretic in this short-term power-hungry life and in the next century the image of his eternal house ... what he loved, then he inherited: he did this directly in front of his chambers beyond the Moscow River there was a great abyss and he placed a great cauldron with pitch, prophesying his future place, and over it he made three heads of great terrible copper; their teeth are made of iron, rattling and sound are arranged inside, by some trick they make the jaws of hell yawn, and the teeth are riveted with property, and the claws, like sharp sickles, are ready for grabbing; and at some time he begins to yawn, like a flame bursts from the larynx, from the nostrils incessantly pour sparks, smoke will certainly come out of the ears, from the inside there is a great sound and rattling, and great fear is seen by people who look at him; and the tongue is great hanging, at the end of the tongue is the head of the aspid, wanting to swallow. Two views of the same event give us a completely different description, resulting in the impression that we are facing two different events.
But the situation is further complicated by the fact that everyone speaks about a specific historical fact to the extent of their perception and understanding. The sources come from a variety of cultures, backgrounds and backgrounds. Therefore, for one (I. Massa), this is a miracle of Russian military technology, and for another (the author of the Tale), this is a demonstration of hellish forces. The very political consciousness of that time was drowning in a sea of false news, rumors and gossip, which were sowed across Russia / Russia by various traitors, thieves and enemies. Even in the letters of the thieves' kings, we very often find references to the unreliability of the information they have and the fact that their enemies are spreading "thieves' speeches" about them. Reliable information was valued by everyone worth its weight in gold. But it was precisely such “epistemological gold” that people of the Time of Troubles just lacked. It was the acute lack of credibility that led them to the fatal mistakes that cost many of their own lives.
Muddy "folk" knowledge. The turmoil causes mass hallucinations, religious and mystical psychoses, when reality takes on a blurry outline, becomes illusory, there are "transitional portals" between objectivity and mysticism (and the latter becomes more important than the first). In such a state of general frenzy, there was simply nowhere for truth to take root. D
there was simply no place for her. Let us give a few examples illustrating our thesis. Late in the evening of February 27, 1607, the church guard at the Archangel Cathedral in Moscow experienced the so-called. “night fear”, “when ordinary objects and phenomena take on the most fantastic and bizarre forms, unknown ghosts appear in the vague outlines of the surroundings, unearthly voices are heard in the vibrations of the air, in the noise of the wind” . That night, the night watch of the cathedral, which consisted of six people, witnessed the following extraordinary incident. In the church where the remains of the great Moscow princes are buried, a candle lit by itself, and someone began to read in a bookish way “for the repose without ceasing.” Then there were voices and visions of three dozen unknown persons who were noisily discussing and laughing, “one of them from all of them has a thick voice, and everyone spoke against him in the opposite direction”: “and the fat-voiced one shouted at them all, and they everyone fell silent before him.
And after that, in the church, among them all taught to be great crying; but according to the church, in those days, the whole world was great ... And that said it was between them, noise and weeping from the fifth hour to the seventh ... ". It was not difficult for a person of troubled times to guess what kind of "bazaar" it was. The “noise” was made by the ancestors of the Grand Duke of Moscow and the Tsar of All Russia, who mourned their Russia, which was mired in turmoil and violence. The hallucinations of the people had a psychological effect on the rulers, making them aware of their sinful nature. In 1606, the German interpreter of the embassy order, Grigory Kropolsky, with his partner, traveled to the cities of Russia to recruit military people into the army of Vasily Shuisky. In an unknown place in the sky, they witnessed a certain phenomenon - the appearance of an image of a lion surrounded by many animals and a snake. The latter soon multiplied and began to threaten all other beasts.
When the vision dissipated (“clouds are still settling in their nature”). Eyewitnesses interpreted this knowledge in this way: the lion is Tsar Vasily Shuisky; the animals surrounding him are his associates, and "the wicked and proud - Tushinsky king is the treacherous, deceitful prince Dimitri, and around him many snakes are companions with him, okyanniya they commemorate the tongues" . Imagination and political order do their job, create the necessary image of the necessary historical and political persons. As a rule, such messages have an anonymous author who did not wish to be named (“open”), i.e. Initially, the source is devoid of personal characteristics. The facelessness of the informant hints at the fact that he deliberately hides him, so as not to cause anger (reprisals) if his lie is discovered. However, from time to time, the name of these liars-writers still pops up on the pages of a vague history.
Remarkable in this regard is the personality of the Annunciation archpriest Terenty, who in 1605 wrote to Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich a petition (a sugary ale of verbiage), which was timed to coincide with his entry into Moscow and became a kind of pastoral greeting to the new Tsar. In his flattery he surpassed the impostor in his lies. D. Uspensky believes that Terenty was a man who did not hesitate to combine his personal interests with a public cause. He turns to Dmitry with a request that he not heed the "unlike rumors" that about him, Terenty, "say wrong": "never create your kingdom of evil power." Some historians believe that suspicion of some kind of political offense fell on Terenty, and in order to get rid of such a suspicion, the crafty priest made up his ornate petition. This, however, did not prevent Terenty, already under Shuisky, faithfully serving the new tsar and shouting at all corners about his mercy of righteousness. He did his best to make everyone forget about this shameful past of his. And for this purpose, he went on a new forgery - he announced a wonderful vision, which said that the new king was a hundred times better than the old one.
Thus, the old flattery gave birth to a lie, which did not rid the flattery of the old lie, but only strengthened it. The vision of Terenty was met with sympathy in the ruling spheres, since the call for popular repentance and prayer was especially appropriate for the Muscovite state, which was dissatisfied with the Shuisky government: it was great." However, the Shuisky government did not imbue the consciousness of its sinfulness that the author of the vision desired and, calling others to prayer and repentance, continued to do their wrong judgment and crooked deeds. As a reward for this service, the liar and sycophant Terenty was removed from the protopopic place and received it back only in 1610, but already from the Polish king Sigismund III. Visions visited and royal persons. So, while in exile in Yaroslavl, Marina Mnishek on the night of February 6, 1608 saw in the sky some “strange pillars and fiery reflections that terrified us. All of us, - writes the polka in her "Diary", - were alarmed, attributing a lot to these phenomena. And the next day, in a beautiful and clear sky, suddenly, in front of everyone, the moon disappeared, no one knows where. This was clearly seen with my own eyes by our guards in the yard, and by the Moscow guard, who stood around the yard; they considered it a bad omen for their king." The case is ridiculously reminiscent of the one told two centuries later by N.V. Gogol in his story "The Night Before Christmas". Apparently, the disappearance of the Moon from the Russian firmament was a severe test for the Polish aristocratic spirit. Political speculation of the yo-elite. Trouble is the breaking of the old in conditions when no one knows what, when and to whom to do?
The revolution has a minimum program (breaking down the old) and a maximum program (building a new one). Troubles has only the first, but no second. No one knows what to build, so they begin to fill this gap with their own fantasies, which become a false fabrication for the rest of the majority. The turmoil, aggravated by falsification, becomes a hundred times more chaotic. Peace and justice are where truth and love are. The confusion of truth and love did not know. One of those tempted by the Troubles was Avraamiy Palitsyn, a monk of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. He succumbed to temptation and decided to catch his "goldfish" in the troubled waters of the Troubles. But the old woman's fate betrayed him, slipping her hole instead of luck. Nevertheless, he entered as the "most truthful" chronicler of the Time of Troubles (however, the text he left sometimes diverges from the context of those events and quite often has a double subtext). He tried to enter the circle of the political elite of Russia at that time, but the elite itself at that time was so amorphous and so insignificant in its composition and number that he had no chance of taking root in it. She rejected him as an alien class element, although he surpassed many of her official members in his elite quality.
Palitsyn defined the Troubles itself as a general clouding of the mind. He put himself above this "dregs", but apparently decided to use it for his own good. From the point of view of historical hermeneutics, the history of the Troubles written by him has a double bottom - one is a description of events, the other is a PR of the writer himself. His role in history was so exaggerated by him that he became almost the main participant in these most important political processes. Having the opportunity to write, he could hope for the role of the first historian who participated in the events he describes. This position allowed him to correct at his own discretion and to his advantage. A. Palitsyn is one in three persons - a participant in the events, a writer and a forger. Moreover, the first two make up approximately 90%, but the last 10% make significant adjustments to our assessment of the activities of this historical figure. It should be noted that during the Time of Troubles a special type of political elite is formed, an elite prone to immeasurable hypocrisy and indecent fornication.
Lies have become a way of political survival for the elite of troubled times. And it was during the Time of Troubles that the Russian elite showed their worst qualities. We could call such a fallen elite the "yo-elite". The letter "ё" is found only in our Russian alphabet. Therefore, the yo-elite is this elite exclusively with a Russian / Russian face, with a local character, and with local lordly manners. There is nothing foreign in it. Nothing extraneous, alien. She is what is in her from her national culture. Such a yo-elite is most clearly manifested in the era of national unrest. And the Time of Troubles at the beginning of the 17th century. is no exception. Political speculations of imperial power. The correct lie about the impostor began to spread even his predecessor Boris Godunov. His successor, Tsar Vasily Shuisky, continued this tradition. As a result, it turned out that both before and after the reign of Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich (aka False Dmitry I), his power and right to the throne was surrounded by a political mythology alien to him.
This king was never allowed to create his own version of history. The turmoil is characterized by the fact that almost everyone in politics begins to lean towards political fornication, and perceive honesty as a vice. Vasily Shuisky entered Russia as the most unfortunate and at the same time the most deceitful ruler, whose power was of very dubious legitimacy, so that many Russian lands refused to swear allegiance to him1. It was this not entirely legitimate government that gave rise to the official version of the history of those years. How could this even happen? And this became possible because the interests of the Shuisky family coincided with the interests of the Romanov family, who willingly inherited from their predecessors their official view of the political of those years. This version was created in the course of events. It was the voice of power, which still failed to establish itself in its legal force in the public opinion of Russians.
It is precisely the lack of legitimacy of power and the lack of elitism in the elite that are the main sources of all the lies about False Dmitry. It is well known that during the Time of Troubles the former selection of the elite is violated and the possibility of a fast and dizzying career opens up for passionaries. The elite is rapidly renewing itself, but at the same time it feels an equally rapid decline in personnel - passionaries die in the crucible of wars, scoundrels are saved in order to continue their kind. As a result, among the reliable witnesses are cowards who managed to "miraculously" survive (as, for example, the same Terenty) or outsiders, indirect witnesses of those events. "Heroes", however, as a rule, perish slandered by those who managed to survive and who themselves wish to be "heroes".
Trouble is a time of triumph and assertion of the power of political fornication and lies. This was the time when, according to the reverend recluse Irinarkh of Rostov (d. 01/13/1616), "The All-Russian kingdom [turned out to be] captured and burned in places." This is the time of desecration of Russia. Trouble is the time of desecrated shrines. But it's one thing when foreigners and non-believers spit on your shrines, and it's a completely different thing when your own people take part in this desecration, suddenly becoming strangers to everyone and everything. Trouble is a war of all against all, when everyone leaves the zone of the social contract and returns back to cave morality. I. Massa, who himself was among the “people of troubled times” as a foreign observer, put it even more specifically: no one “could understand how and how it happened, and they didn’t know who was the enemy and who was the friend, and they were rushing about like dust by the wind uplifted". It was in this "muddy political water" that Vasily Shuisky tried to catch his "goldfish" of luck. And the truth was no help to him.
His main assistant was lies. She elevated him to the throne, and she cut him off from that throne. You can bet on a lie, but in profit it will deceive the deceiver himself. Lies have too short nights to run long distances. During the Troubles, everything (both government and society) is prone to an illusory perception of reality. Everyone (or most) willingly believe falsehood than the truth, which turns out to be an unnecessary requirement of violated morality for no one. This preference continues to this day. And today we (most) believe in sensational reports more than in the routine truth of our everyday life. Folk history: questions without answers. The positive side of folk history is that in their unstoppable criticism of official history, they sometimes find problematic topics and formulate really interesting questions. Indeed, in the history of the Time of Troubles, some oddities are found that academic science does not have a direct answer to. Any statement here can equally claim both reliability and error, because there are no reliable elements of verification. The topic turns out to be a "speculative field" in which any cereal and any weed can grow.
It is open to "eternal discussions", because during the Time of Troubles everyone lies and few people tell the truth. Moreover, at this time, everyone is only engaged in outsmarting their neighbor with their lies. As a result, the official version of the Troubles is the one that reflects the point of view of the main winner. We agree that the history of the Time of Troubles was edited by the Romanovs, but we do not agree that they alone had a hand in this edition. The main object of falsification was and remains the personality of Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich, about whom Tsar Boris Godunov, Tsar Vasily Shuisky and the tsars of the Romanov dynasty once spoke. It is they (these kings) who are the main authors of the history of the reign of the false Tsar Dmitry.
According to the version of the "New Chronology" ("Fomenko and Co"), False Dmitry was actually the real Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich, and Grishka Otrepyev was a completely different historical character. There are several inconsistencies in the official version of this story, which may indicate how the objective political reality of those years was falsified. There are 14 such basic inconsistencies, and their totality allows us to say that in the history of the Time of Troubles it was far from what eyewitnesses and even more court historians later wrote. Here is a list of these oddities that do not fit into the official version of events, but may be fragments of another, alternative version of the Time of Troubles. Therefore, we will focus on a detailed analysis of precisely these “alien” facts for the official version of history. (1) Indeed, there is evidence that Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich and Grigory Otrepyev appeared simultaneously in the same place, as two completely different personalities and physical figures. So, the Jesuits recorded that while still in Putivl (02/28/03/08/1605), Grigory Otrepiev, “a sorcerer and libertine known throughout Muscovy ... and it became clear to the Russian people that Dmitry Ivanovich was not at all what Grishka Otrepiev" 1 . (2) The second moment of the “alien truth” was the imminent trial of Vasily Shuisky in the summer of 1605. It was then that the official version of the story was first announced - Tsar Boris ordered the death of Tsarevich Dmitry in Uglich, and Grishka Otrepyev posed as a miraculously saved prince.
For these words, Shuisky was tried, sentenced to death, but then the impostor tsar forgave him. Question: if all this was true, would the Pretender be able to forgive the one who told the truth? I think no. For him, such forgiveness would be disadvantageous. (3) The third element of the "alien truth" is the meeting of Tsarevich Dmitry with his mother, the former Grand Duchess Maria Noga, and at that time the nun Martha (07/17/1605). The last wife of Ivan the Terrible recognized her son in Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich. Modern historians, as a rule, point to the next tricks of the Pretender and the conspiracy that allegedly took place. This does not take into account the opinion of Mary / Martha herself - the nun did not stop lying so brazenly (recognizing her son in Grishka Otrepyev, she committed a mortal sin not only against all of Russia, but also before the Lord). By insisting on this, modern historians make of Martha a sinner, an accomplice of the Pretender. (4) The fourth episode of "matchmaking" to Princess Xenia Borisovna Godunova. According to the official version, Tsar Dmitry dishonored the princess who was in the Novodevichy Convent and even promised to marry her, but then he nevertheless chose a Polish bride. (5) The mysterious murder of Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich who was killed during the palace coup in May 1606 is not entirely clear.
Sources indicate that there was some kind of theatrical mask next to the murdered king. It is possible that this is a hint that they did not kill the one they wanted (mask - mask, false, personality). Yes, and the queen mother, when she was asked if this was her son, answered very evasively and ambiguously. It is also alarming that the body of the alleged Pretender was disfigured beyond recognition and then burned. Did the Shuya falsifiers cover their tracks? . So they were really afraid of him. So... (6) Illegal election of Vasily Shuisky as tsar: he was officially "shouted out" by the crowd on Red Square. In modern terms, the elections were rigged. Shuisky came to power thanks to a political spectacle arranged by him. He himself is a self-proclaimed king. Who screams the most about the thief? Thief! Who talks about falsification the most? Falsifier! And who then was the real "thieves' king"? (7) The personality of the so-called. "Tushinsky thief" or False Dmitry II remains unexplained. He has no past, except for the official version of his miraculous salvation during the Shuya military coup in May 1606. Therefore, historians call False Dmitry II the darkest person of the entire Time of Troubles. What if he was telling the truth? What if by calling him the "Tushinsky thief" the Shuiskys stole the past from his biography? (8) Recognition by Marina Mnishek in False Dmitry II of False Dmitry I, i.e. Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich According to the diary. Marina Mnishek, if she was mistaken about False Dmitry II, then she did it sincerely. On the other hand, the official version of history ascribes to her completely immoral - the falsification of her own husband and even the birth of a child from him is explained by the self-interest of an insidious Polish woman.
(9) The second murder of Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich was killed in December 1610 while hunting by his inner circle, and for some reason they cut off his head? As in the first case with the murder of False Dmitry I, the corpse of the murdered False Dmitry II could not be identified. This is usually staged when they cover their tracks. (10) The story of the disasters of Princess Xenia Borisovna Godunova does not end with the "matchmaking" of Tsar Dmitry. It turns out that in 1610 it was dishonored for the second time by the now ataman I. Zarutsky (!?), who captured the Novodevichy Convent. How could a simple ataman commit such sacrilege, for the people of that time it was simply incomprehensible? The official story has no answer. But if we assume that under the name of I. Zarutsky, the former Tsar Dmitry acted in official history, then everything falls into place. (11) The inhabitants of Astrakhan (August 1613 - May 1614) for some reason believed that Marina Mnishek came to them not with Ataman I. Zarutsky, but with Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich himself, and in their petitions addressed him as if he were Tsar .
At the same time, Astrakhan was ruled by voivode I.D. Khvorostinin, who personally knew Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich and was his zealous supporter. It was simply not possible to make a substitution here. So who then did the Astrakhans call themselves Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich? (12) The execution of Prince I.D. Khvorostinin (09/16/1613), who allegedly opposed M. Mnishek and Ataman I. Zarutsky. The prince decided to go over to the side of the Romanovs and began to weave intrigues against Mnishek, after she asked for help from the Persian Shah and even promised to transfer Astrakhan to him. The fact that the prince was publicly executed, and not killed, suggests that the king administered justice, and not the ataman carried out the massacre. On the other hand, Prince Khvorostinin could also be executed as a result of the fact that he recognized the ataman in Zarutsky, and not the king. But this is unlikely, since the ataman was a well-known person and many knew him. (13) Execution of Ataman I. Zarutsky. Officially, he was impaled. This type of punishment was applied to traitors and adulterers (i.e. the so-called "bloody article").
During the Troubles, everyone was a traitor, and everyone deserved vile punishment. But the case of the execution of I. Zarutsky is practically the only one, when they were executed for lying [..., imposture]. Supporters of folk history believe that under the name of Ivan Zarutsky, the real tsar Dmitry Ivanovich, who was declared the Pretender, was executed. Thus, the Romanovs hid their illegal rise to power, and they themselves, as royal liars, are worthy of a collective stake. (14) The execution of the "thieves' prince" Ivan Dmitrievich (January 1611 - December 1614), the son of Marina Mnishek and False Dmitry II. The Romanovs nicknamed the tsarevich "Vorenok" and executed this three-year-old child as a dangerous state criminal on Red Square, hanging it on the Spassky Gates of the Kremlin. Official historians, as a rule, leave this episode without comment. And they are needed, because a monstrous crime (disproportionate punishment) was committed by the new royal dynasty - a child was killed in the name of certain political goals. So this sacrifice was worth those political goals.
And after all this, what about a baby's teardrop? And why didn't Dostoevsky remind his tsar about this "teardrop"?! And how should we treat the chimes on the Spasskaya Tower after all this? For whom do their bells toll? All these facts, to one degree or another, are knocked out of the general version of the official history and need to be carefully coordinated. But at that time they fit into the unofficial version, according to which the words of Prince Vasily Shuisky that Tsar Dmitry is a fake are false, i.e. the official story turns out to be falsified. The main conclusion is that it is necessary to get rid of the unreliable (false) version of history put forward by Vasily Shuisky in order to justify the legitimacy of his illegal power and take a more neutral position. What is it expressed in? Neutrality is expressed in taking into account all available facts and opinions, and without choosing the “only true one”, misleading oneself and others. By adhering to the version of Vasily Shuisky, we thereby indirectly recognize the legitimacy of his power and the legitimacy of the version of history that this illegitimate government imposes on us all.
Meanwhile, it is clear that an illegitimate government cannot have its own legitimate history. She, too, is questionable. Tsar Shuisky is one of those politicians who cannot be trusted at all, and to believe means to cease to respect the Truth. History is always written in someone's name and in the name of someone's interests. There is history that is written in the name of the state (N.M. Karamzin) and there is history that is written on behalf of civil society (S.M. Solovyov). I think it's time for a second type of story. This is a story of agreement, not discord; history of communication, not separation. Time of Troubles: pro et contra. The phenomenon of unrest goes back to the political disorder of the public consciousness and the inability of the authorities (the elite) to be honest with their duties and be honest with their people. It is the lies of the authorities that most often give rise to confusion. The people pay the authorities the same - disrespect and extreme neglect. Everyone chooses instead of order and hierarchy, chaos and will. How did the Troubles begin in Russia? The turmoil in Russia began when the Lord God spat on her with ardor and in his hearts and waved his hand away from her, they say: “now live as you wish!” And how she wants to live, Russia neither then nor now did not know.
From this "spitting" the king became stupid, the governors became insolent, and the people stumbled on another pothole of their history and severely hurt their souls. From this stumbling, all subsequent troubles arose. Trouble is when a fool (the king of mental darkness) announces the victory of his meanness over the Sun. And everyone really believes and is excited not by the victory of the Sun over darkness, but by this imaginary triumph of darkness over the Luminary ... Politicians of the Time of Troubles are villains, not saints. And we must remember this every time when it comes to the figures of the Time of Troubles. There is no need to idealize anyone here. Heroes of the Time of Troubles are most often disgusting types, the whole meaning of whose heroism lies in the meanness they commit. Trouble knows a minimum of holiness and a maximum of meanness. Many heroes and the heroic were invented later and are of a mythological nature. But it was during this rotten hard times that the true essence of the Russian yo-elite was exposed, all its long-standing vices came out, and most importantly, the complete absence of a positive development prospect was revealed.
And most importantly, the Time of Troubles exposed the lie that was born and developed within the elite that it is actually an elite. It just so happened that the crisis of political power coincided with the crises of the tribal aristocracy, and both of these crises mutually determined each other. In conclusion, we will allow ourselves to make a couple more hooligan remarks about what the Troubles is in its limiting measurement values. 1. Time of Troubles in Russia is a political whore who has gathered all the bastards from all volosts under his shitty banners. And when there are more bastards than the volosts themselves, a feast begins during the plague. 2. Troubles - this is the time when everyone could be accused of treason without exception and provide one drunken lawyer for everyone. The history we have considered testifies to how the ruling elite offers society a version of historical events that is beneficial to it in order to appear in its eyes as a legitimate and fair power. In order not to make the mistakes of the past, we must remember all our troubled times and not just remember, but know the whole truth about them. If we forget, history will forget us.
Bibliography
1. Acts related to the history of Western Russia, collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission: in 5 volumes - St. Petersburg, 1851. - V. 4.
2. Volodikhin D. M. The phenomenon of folk history / D. M. Volodikhin // Domestic history. - 2000. - No. 4. - S. 16-24.
3. Karabuschenko P. L. Astrakhan kingdom: voivodeship and local community of the XVI-XVII centuries. : monograph / P. L. Karabuschenko. - Astrakhan, 2008. - 504 p., illustration. sixteen.
4. Kostomarov N. I. Time of Troubles in the Moscow state at the beginning of the 17th century (1604-1613) / N. I. Kostomarov. - Moscow: Charlie, 1994.
5. Mass, Isaac. Brief news about Muscovy at the beginning of the 17th century. / Mass Isaac; per. and com. A. Morozova. - Moscow: Sotsekgiz, 1937. - 206 p.
6. Nosovsky G. V. The Great Troubles. End of the Empire / G. V. Nosovsky, A. T. Fomenko. - Moscow: Astrel; Vladimir: VKT, 2007. - 383 p.
7. Nosovsky G. V. Expulsion of the kings / G. V. Nosovsky, A. T. Fomenko. - Moscow: Astrel; Vladimir: VKT, 2010. - 254 p.
8. Monuments of the Time of Troubles. Tushinsky thief: personality, environment, time. Documents and materials / comp., entry. Art. and com. V. I. Kuznetsova, I. P. Kulakova. - Moscow: Izdvo MGUK, 2001. - 464 p.
9. Platonov S. F. Old Russian legends and stories about the Time of Troubles of the 17th century. as a historical source / S. F. Platonov // S. F. Platonov. Works. - St. Petersburg, 1913. - T. 2. - S. 73-74.
10. Russian Historical Library, published by the Imperial Archaeographic Commission. - St. Petersburg, 1909. T. XIII. Monuments of ancient Russian writing related to the time of troubles.
11. Skrynnikov R. G. Russia at the beginning of the 17th century. "Trouble" / R. G. Skrynnikov. - Moscow: Thought, 1988. - 283 p.
12. Skrynnikov R. 1612 / R. Skrynnikov. - Moscow: AST, 2007. - 799 p.
- In contact with 0
- Google+ 0
- OK 0
- Facebook 0
