False Dmitry I. False Dmitry I as a possible prospect for the country's development

The Time of Troubles in the Muscovite State was a consequence of the tyrannical rule that shook the state and social order country. Captures the end of the 16th century. and the beginning of the 17th century, began with the end of the Rurik dynasty by the struggle for the throne, led to ferment all layers of the Russian population, exposed the country to extreme danger of being captured by foreigners. In October 1612, the Nizhny Novgorod militia (Lyapunov, Minin, Pozharsky) liberated Moscow from the Poles and convened electives throughout the land to elect the tsar.

Small Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron. SPb., 1907-09

END OF KALITA GENUS

Despite all the unsatisfactory evidence contained in the investigation file, Patriarch Job was satisfied with them and announced at the council: “Before the sovereign Mikhail and Gregory Nagikh and the Uglitsky townspeople, treason is obvious: the death of Tsarevich Dimitri was committed God's judgment; and Mikhail Nagoy ordered the sovereign's clerks, the clerk Mikhail Bityagovsky with his son, Nikita Kachalov and other noblemen, tenants and townspeople who stood for the truth, ordered to beat in vain, because Mikhail Bityagovsky and Mikhail Nagim often scolded for the sovereign, why did he, Naked, he kept a witch, Andryusha Mochalov, and many other wizards. For such a great treasonous deed, Mikhail Nagoya and his brothers, and the peasants of Uglich, due to their guilt, came to any punishment. But this matter is zemstvo, city, then knows God and the sovereign, everything is in his royal hand, and execution, and disgrace, and mercy, about how God will inform the sovereign; and our position is to pray to God for the sovereign, empress, for their long-term health and for the silence of internecine strife. "

The council blamed the Nagy; but the people blamed Boris, and the people remember and love to combine with the event, which especially struck him, to combine all other important events. It is easy to understand the impression that the death of Demetrius should have made: before the appanages perished in dungeons, but against them there was an accusation of sedition, they were punished by the sovereign; now an innocent child perished, perished not in strife, not for the fault of his father, not by order of the sovereign, perished by a subject. Soon, in the month of June, a terrible fire broke out in Moscow, White City... Godunov squandered favors and privileges to the burned out: but rumors spread that he deliberately ordered Moscow to be ignited in order to bind its inhabitants to himself and make them forget about Demetrius, or, as others said, in order to force the Tsar, who was with the Trinity, to return to Moscow, and do not go to Uglich to search; the people thought that the tsar would not leave such a great cause without personal research, the people were waiting for the truth. The rumor was so strong that Godunov considered it necessary to refute it in Lithuania through the envoy Islenev, who received the order: “If they ask about the Moscow fires, then they say: I didn’t happen to be in Moscow at that time; the peasants, thieves, the people of the Nagikh, Afanasya and his brothers stole it: it was found in Moscow. If someone says that there are rumors that the Godunovs were kindling, then answer: it was some kind of a thief who was talking about a bum; a dashing person has the will to start. Godunov's boyars are eminent, great. " Khan Kazy-Girey came near Moscow, and rumors spread across the Ukraine that Boris Godunov had let him down, fearing the land for the murder of Tsarevich Dimitri; there was this rumor among ordinary people; alexin boyar's son denounced his peasant; the peasant was taken and tortured in Moscow; he slandered many a multitude of people; They sent to search the cities, they intercepted and tortured many people, shed innocent blood, many people died from torture, some were executed and their tongues cut, others were killed in dungeons, and many places were desolate.

A year after the Uglitsky incident, the tsar had a daughter, Theodosius, but the next year the child died; Theodore was sad for a long time, and in Moscow there was a great cry; Patriarch Job wrote a consoling letter to Irina, saying that she could help grief not with tears, not with useless exhaustion of the body, but with prayer, hope, by faith, God would give child-bearing, and cited St. Anna. In Moscow, they cried and said that Boris had killed the tsar's daughter.

Five years after the death of his daughter, at the very end of 1597, Tsar Theodore fell ill with a fatal illness and on January 7, 1598, at one in the morning, he died. The masculine tribe of Kalita was cut short; only one woman remained, the daughter of Ioannov's unfortunate cousin, Vladimir Andreevich, the widow of the titular Livonian king Magnus, Martha (Marya) Vladimirovna, who returned to Russia after her husband's death, but she was also dead to the world, she was a nun; her tonsure, they say, was involuntary; she had a daughter, Evdokia; but she also died in childhood, they say, also an unnatural death. There was still a man who not only bore the name of the tsar and the grand duke, but also really reigned at one time in Moscow at the behest of the Terrible, the baptized Kasimov khan, Simeon Bekbulatovich. At the beginning of Theodore's reign, he is still mentioned in the ranks under the name of the Tsar of Tver and takes precedence over the boyars; but then the chronicle says that he was taken to the village of Kushalino, he did not have many courtyards, he lived in poverty; at last he became blind, and the chronicle directly blames Godunov for this misfortune. Godunov was not spared from the accusation of the death of Tsar Theodore himself.

HORROR OF HUNGER

Let's pay tribute to Boris Godunov: he fought hunger as best he could. Money was distributed to the poor, paid construction work was organized for them. But the money received instantly depreciated: after all, this did not add bread on the market. Then Boris ordered the distribution of free bread from state storage facilities. He hoped to set a good example for the feudal lords, but the granaries of the boyars, monasteries and even the patriarch remained closed. Meanwhile, to free bread from all sides to Moscow and big cities starving people rushed. And there was not enough bread for everyone, especially since the distributors themselves speculated in bread. It was said that some rich people did not hesitate to dress in rags and receive free bread to sell it at exorbitant prices. People who dreamed of salvation died in cities right on the streets. In Moscow alone, 127 thousand people were buried, and not all of them were buried. A contemporary says that in those years the most well-fed were dogs and crows: they ate unburied corpses. While the peasants in the cities died in vain waiting for food, their fields remained uncultivated and uncultivated. This laid the foundations for the continuation of the famine.

POPULAR RISES OF THE TIME OF DISORDERS

The rise of popular movements at the beginning of the 17th century was absolutely inevitable in the face of total famine. The famous Cotton uprising in 1603 was instigated by the owners of the slaves themselves. In conditions of famine, the owners drove out the slaves, because it was not profitable for them to keep the slaves at home. The very fact of the death of the governor I.F. Basmanova in the bloody battle of the end of 1603 with slaves speaks of a very significant military organization of the rebels (many slaves, obviously, also belonged to the category of "servicemen"). The authority has dropped sharply royal power and personally Boris Godunov. Service people, especially in southern cities, were waiting for the change of power and the elimination of the monarch of a non-royal family, of which they began to remind more and more often. A true "Troubles" began, in which those who had recently been forced to leave Central Russia and seek their fortune in its border, mainly southern borders, as well as outside Russia, immediately joined in.

MOSCOW AFTER THE KILLING OF THE PALESMAN

Meanwhile, Moscow was littered with corpses, which were taken out of the city for several days and buried there. The body of the impostor lay in the square for three days, attracting the curious and wanting to curse at least the corpse. Then he was buried behind the Serpukhov Gate. But the pursuit of the murdered did not end there either. A week from 18 to 25 May there were severe frosts (not so rare in May-June and in our time), causing great damage to gardens and fields. The impostor has been followed before by whispers of his sorcery. In conditions of extreme instability of life, superstitions flooded like a river: something terrible was seen over the grave of False Dmitry, and the arisen natural disasters... The grave was dug up, the body was burned, and the ashes, mixed with gunpowder, were fired from the cannon, pointing in the direction from which Rasstriga had come. This cannon shot, however, created unexpected problems for Shuisky and his entourage. In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Germany, rumors spread that it was not “Dmitry” who was executed, but some of his servant, while “Dmitry” escaped and fled to Putivl or somewhere in the Polish-Lithuanian lands.

COUNTER-FIGHTING THE SPEECH OF POSPOLITA

The Time of Troubles did not end overnight after the liberation of Moscow by the forces of the Second Militia. In addition to the struggle against internal "thieves", up until the conclusion of the Deulinsky armistice in 1618, military operations continued between Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The situation in these years can be characterized as a large-scale border war waged by local governors, relying mainly only on local forces. Characteristic feature military operations on the borderlands during this period are deep devastating raids on enemy territory. These attacks were aimed, as a rule, at certain fortified cities, the destruction of which led to the loss of the enemy's control over the territory adjacent to them. The task of the leaders of such raids was to destroy the enemy's strongholds, devastate villages, and drive away as many prisoners as possible.

Moskovsky State University instrumentation and informatics

Abstract on history on the topic: Time of Troubles and Lost Opportunities

Passed: 1st year student, group VT-10

Talinsky A.A. (correspondence course)

Accepted: Candidate of Historical Sciences,

Associate Professor of the Department of OP-10

Kushner Vladimir Grigorievich.

Introduction

Events in Russia at the turn of the XVI-XVII centuries were called "Time of Troubles". I chose this topic for the essay because this time had a huge impact on all aspects of life - external and domestic policy, economy, power, as well as morality. The Time of Troubles turned out to be one of the most tragic periods in the history of medieval Russia, a time of lost opportunities and unfulfilled expectations.

.Russia at the origins of the Time of Troubles. Causes of the hard times

TO XVI century in the history of Russia came crucial moment... After overcoming the fragmentation, the principalities united into a single Russian state. This process had a comprehensive impact on the life of the country. Crafts and trade developed, cities grew, and the population increased. The united and increased military power made it possible to solve such a problem as liberation from the Horde yoke. The Russian people paved the way to the Lower Volga region, the Urals and Siberia. A historical meaning the defeat of the Crimean horde lies in the fact that the Turkish conquerors have already settled in the Black Sea region, which could lead to expansion.

Having lost the Livonian War, Russia was deprived of the opportunity to establish itself on the shores of the Baltic and establish relations with Western Europe. This defeat undermined international relations with Russia.

Several transformations took place that contributed to the political rise of the nobility. In the XVI century. The structure of the feudal estate changed markedly. The small and middle nobility strengthened, the monarchy strengthened. The reason for the struggle against the aristocracy was the question of the future structure of the country. Reforms of the mid-16th century limited the power of the nobility, but at the same time created a stable system of command management, formed bodies of estate representation, and also contributed to the emergence of zemstvo councils. However, in the second half of the XVI century. The political development of the country was complicated by the oprichnina.

Oprichnina played a huge role in the history of Russia. Ivan the Terrible hoped to undermine the power of the nobility, which limited his power. This policy of Ivan IV has repeatedly changed its course. First, the oprichnina was directed against the princely nobility, then against the nobles, townspeople and officials. A hundred princely families went into exile in the eastern part of the state. Such persecution had no meaning or justification. All this gave rise to terror, the death of tens of thousands of people and desolation. major cities... The oprichnina led to a split of the feudal nobility into a “courtyard” and a zemstvo. The split became a characteristic feature of the nascent system of autocratic rule. At the beginning of the 17th century. it has arrived " Time of Troubles».

.The beginning of the "rebellious" time. Fyodor Ioannovich

The "rebellious" time began, according to many historians, after the death of Ivan the Terrible in 1584. Having killed his eldest son and grandson, Ivan IV actually doomed the dynasty to extinction. With the coming to power of the youngest son Fyodor Ioannovich, a lot has changed. Despite the softness of the new king, the government continued to adhere to the policy of enslaving the common people. In 1597. A decree was issued on "class years". The essence of the decree was that they were looking for peasants who fled to the south, to the Volga region or to a monastery for five years. As a result, the "reserved years" introduced by Ivan IV (the termination of peasant transitions from one owner to another on St. George's Day) has become a permanent phenomenon. Due to the fact that the fleeing peasants became taxpayers, such a settlement instrument was created primarily to restore the welfare of the nobility. Decree of 1597. proceeds from the fact that all peasants are attached to the land, and not to the owner. Many researchers of the process of enslavement at the end of the 16th century. associated with economic ruin, the consequences of the oprichnina and Livonian War... It was the lectured summer that became the central problem of the development of serfdom.

January 1598 Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich died. The Rurik family did not bring together all the dissatisfied and warring strata of the population. In this difficult transitional time, the boyar Boris Fedorovich Godunov was elected to the throne, who in such a turbulent time tried to create a new dynasty.

.Boris Godunov

Boris Fedorovich Godunov (1552 - April 13, 1605) plays a significant role in the history of Russia. The origin of the Godunovs is reported in the "Legend of the Couple" dating back to the 17th century. According to this source, Tsarevich Chet-Murza became the ancestor of the Saburovs, Godunovs and Velyaminovs. It is believed that Chet came from the Golden Horde to serve during the reign of Prince Ivan Kalita. However, many historians, including academician S.B. Veselovsky, consider this legend about the royal origin to be fictional by the monks of the Kostroma Ipatiev Monastery. Such an idea was prompted by the legend itself, in which there are many incongruities and the fact that in the "Sovereign estate" of 1555 it is indicated that the Godunovs, like the Saburovs and Velyaminovs, are descended from the Kostroma patrimony of Dmitry Alexandrovich Zerno, whose father was killed in Kostroma in the XIV v.

The family of Fyodor Ivanovich Godunov, nicknamed Krivoy, had three children - Vasily, Boris himself and his sister Irina. After his death in 1569. Uncle Dmitry Ivanovich Godunov took Boris into his family. It is believed that not only family feelings and the death of his own children prompted Dmitry to do this. The fact is that Fyodor and Dmitry Godunov together owned a small fiefdom in Kostroma. Therefore, it was important for Dmitry to prevent the division of the estate. During the years of the oprichnina of Vyazma, the possessions of Dmitry Ivanovich passed to the oprichnina possessions. Dmitry Godunov was enrolled in the oprichnina corps, then received the rank of head of the Bed order at the court.

At the age of 15, Boris was introduced to Tsar Ivan the Terrible. The career of the young man began with the position of solicitor of the Postelnich order, he began to serve and receive the clothes of the sovereign. Thus, the constant closeness to the tsar, good manners and intelligence of young Boris contributed to a quick promotion in the service. From the age of seven, his sister Irina was brought up in the royal chambers, which later also played a certain role. In 1570. Boris Fedorovich became the oprichnik. In many ways, he was helped by the fact that in 1571. Boris married the daughter of the executor of the most cruel orders of the tsar Malyuta Skuratov, Maria Grigorievna Skuratova-Belskaya.

After the abolition of the oprichnina and the death of Malyuta Godunov, they prepared for the worst, but they still managed to stay at court thanks to their persistence and resourcefulness. Dmitry Godunov married his niece Irina to the youngest son of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich.

In 1578. Boris becomes kravchim, and in 1582. two years before the death of Ivan the Terrible, he received the title of boyar. At the age of 30, he is one of the most influential people in the state.

According to the will of Ivan IV, his confidants Nikita Romanovich Zakhariev-Yuriev, Ivan Mstislavsky, Bogdan Belsky Ivan Shuisky and Boris Godunov were to take care of the sick son, Fyodor Ioannovich after the death of the tsar. May 31, 1584 on the day of the coronation of the new tsar, Boris Godunov received the rank of equestrian and the rank of a close great boyar.

At the court there was a stubborn struggle between the groups of the Godunovs, Romanovs, Shuisky, Mstislavsky. In 1584. Bogdan Belsky was accused of treason and exiled. In 1585. Nikita Romanov died, and Prince Ivan Mstislavsky was forcibly tonsured a monk. Thus, by 1588. all rivals were eliminated. It is believed that for 13 of the 14 years of Fyodor Ioannovich's reign, the state was ruled by Boris Godunov.

It should be noted that during this period, urban planning is actively developing. In 1585. the fortress of Voronezh was built, in 1586-Livny. In 1586. built Samara, in 1589 - Tsaritsyn, in 1590. -Saratov, in 1592. Yelets was restored, in 1596. Belgorod was built, and in 1604. Tomsk was founded. To protect the western borders from Poland, it was on the initiative of Boris Godunov, in the period from 1596 to 1602. the Smolensk fortress wall was built, which would later be called "the stone necklace of the Russian Land."

In 1589. with Boris's help, the first Russian patriarch, Metropolitan Job of Moscow, was elected. The establishment of the patriarchate strengthened the prestige of the Russian Church and became a support for Godunov.

After the death of Fyodor Ioannovich, the contradictions between Godunov and the top of the boyars intensified. Boris wanted to keep his leading role in the state. He handed over the throne to his sister Irina, but she ruled for a little over a week, after which she faced the opposition of the Boyar Duma. Unable to withstand the pressure, she renounced the throne and tonsured a nun in the Novodevichy Convent under the name of Alexandra, although according to some reports, she continued to conduct state affairs for some time.

(27) February 1598 The Zemsky Sobor elected Boris Godunov as tsar. 1 (11) September 1598 he was married to the kingdom. Godunov strove to smooth over the cruelty of the past. But still, his activities had a vivid antiboyar character. Boris knew that many princes and boyars opposed him. To attract the nobles to his side, the king gave them salaries. Some were given the title of boyar, others - deviousness, servicemen - a double salary. Merchants could trade duty-free for two years, and landowners were exempted from taxes for a year.

Boris Godunov led an active foreign economic policy. He restored the church's tax privileges, which had been abolished by Ivan the Terrible. Godunov raised the ignorant, but talented people... He opened almshouses for the poor and ordered to help the poor with clothing and food. Godunov also considered construction to be an integral part of the development of the state. By his order, the first stone bridge was built across the Neglinka River. During his reign, many churches and other buildings were erected, including the Ivan the Great Bell Tower and the Astrakhan Kremlin. The first water supply system was created in the Kremlin, water from the Moskva River was raised by powerful pumps.

During the coronation, Godunov vowed that he would rule justly and mercifully, however, over the course of two or three years, all who opposed the election of the king fell into disgrace or were demoted. The first victim of the political litigation was Bogdan Belsky. The king was more and more afraid of conspiracies, and in 1600. he punished the Romanov family. Fyodor Nikitich was tonsured a monk under the name Filaret, and his children Mikhail and Tatiana were sent to prisons. All the Romanov brothers were imprisoned in dungeons, three of them soon died.

Thus, Boris Godunov dealt a strong blow to the Boyar Duma, and at the same time became an enemy of the numerous family of the Romanovs. But do not forget that the king was sick and his strength was fading away.

.Great hunger

The relative calm was short-lived and, as it turned out later, became the calm before the storm. Since 1601 a terrible famine fell upon the central part of Russia. In the summer of 1601. heavy rains prevented the grain from ripening. In addition, early frosts came, which aggravated the situation. In winter fields, the bread either did not germinate or gave poor shoots. The village had nothing to plant the fields with. In the spring, bread began to rise in price. Already in the fall, there was a lack of food. The famine struck primarily the lower strata of the population. Bread prices have risen sharply. Princes, boyars, merchants, clergy and in general those who possessed grain reserves wanted to cash in on the disaster and raised the price. Speculators and resellers have become active. A year later, prices increased 6 times, and then three times more. Soon, not only the poor, but also the middle strata of the population could not buy bread. Having exhausted all supplies, people began to eat cats and dogs, they stripped and boiled linden bark, ate quinoa and hay. There was also cannibalism. A cholera epidemic began. The corpses of the dead did not have time to be taken out to the field, where they were buried in common pits. According to some reports, about 120 thousand people died in Moscow alone.

Godunov's government tried to mitigate the impact of the natural disaster and spared no expense in fighting hunger. Fixed prices for bread were introduced, speculators and second-hand dealers were punished, grain was sold from the royal granaries. Money was given to the population, but it was losing value day by day. And yet, all these measures did not apply to the peasants, since Godunov supported only townspeople and townspeople. Rumors of royal charity quickly spread throughout the country. And then huge crowds of people poured into the city and filled all the streets. They stormed the state granaries, which were already empty. The hunger did not abate.

Godunov November 28, 1601 restored the earlier canceled St. George's Day, thereby allowing the peasants to leave their masters themselves. But, fearing to cause resentment among the boyars, Godunov introduced several restrictions. As a result, the order forbade the Moscow peasants to leave their owners; they were still serfs. Rich landowners could not invite peasants to their place; provincial nobles could take out no more than two peasants at a time. The provincial nobility, in contrast to the Moscow nobility, became indignant, since they began to lose their peasants.

In 1603. the law on St. George's Day was not confirmed. Boris Godunov admitted the failure of his policy. In the eyes of the petty nobility, Godunov was losing his popularity, which undoubtedly contributed to the success of the impostor.

Do not forget about the unusual position of the Cossacks. Peasants, serfs and townspeople who fled from central Russia to the outskirts were part of the Cossack communities. Don Cossacks repelled frequent attacks of the Tatars and moved to the mouth Seversky Donets... The Don became a haven for fugitives, so the serfdom in the center could not finally come, which, naturally, irritated Godunov. In relation to free people, the ruler was merciless. His attempts to restrain the Cossacks soon turned against him.

The second decree of 1603. about the possibility of slaves expelled from their yards to be released, contributed to the formation of robber bands. Thousands of homeless and hungry slaves united in gangs near Moscow. Robberies and robberies spread throughout the country. The robbers blocked the roads and attacked the grain carts. It became dangerous even in Moscow. In 1601-1602. Boris Godunov created special detachments for guarding and guarding the streets. Moscow was soon cut off from the rest of the country. This was the result of the actions of the robbers who blocked the Smolensk, Tverskaya and Ryazan roads. So, gradually fermentation within the lower strata of the population turned into robberies, robberies and attacks. These people, as the source of their troubles, considered the supreme power. Robberies and robberies in Moscow excelled in the district cities. The government was much more afraid of an uprising in the city than an attack by gangs. Therefore, Boris Godunov put the responsibility on the Boyar Duma. Everything changed when the gangs united into a large rebel detachment led by Khlopko Kosolap. In September 1603. Khlopko acted on the Smolensk and Tverskaya roads. His squad united with others in the semblance of a real army. Boris Godunov sent the governor Ivan Basmanov to pacify them. A real battle unfolded near Moscow. Five hundred rebels took up the fight. Basmanov was killed. Only after receiving reinforcements did the government troops defeat the detachment. Cotton and other prisoners were hanged in Moscow. The rest of the rebels fled to the southwestern outskirts of the country.

Thus, the events of 1603. showed that the fighting slaves, which, of course, included fleeing boyar slaves, can become the core of the insurrectionary movement. This circumstance forced the government to make concessions to the slaves to the detriment of the interests of the nobles.

All these events were the harbingers of civil war.

.False Dmitry I

During these years, Boris Godunov is faced with a more dangerous problem. Popular riots and conversations paved the way for the appearance of an impostor. He identified himself as Tsarevich Dmitry, the son of Ivan the Terrible, who had escaped the assassins. Most historians believe that it was a twenty-year-old Galician nobleman Grigory Otrepiev. Otrepiev's path is long. He appeared in the house of the Romanovs as a servant, then took monastic vows and lived in monasteries, then ended up in the Moscow Chudov Monastery, served at the court of the Patriarch as a copyist of books. In 1602. Gregory fled to Lithuania, where he declared himself Tsarevich Dmitry.

Such a person could appear exactly when the state was disintegrating. Thanks to the fact that Poland had long had plans to crush Russia, Otrepiev found refuge there. He ended up at the court of the Sandomierz governor Yuri Mnishek, who used False Dmitry for his own selfish purposes. Otrepiev fell in love with the governor's 16-year-old daughter Marina Mnishek and became engaged to her. Despite her youth, she was a fanatical Catholic and dreamed of taking the Russian throne and helping Catholics advance their interests in Russia.

False Dmitry began the implementation of his insidious plan. The papal ambassador to Poland secretly (so that the Russian Orthodox did not turn away from the newly-made "tsarevich") converted him to Catholicism.

There is an opinion that if the rumors about the new "tsarevich" were spread by the Romanovs in order to overthrow Godunov from power, he would have dealt with them immediately, but it turned out to be more difficult. False Dmitry, having enlisted the support of Poland, won the sympathy of the population hostile to the government. The impostor army began to form in Zaporizhzhya Sich... The Cossacks were eager to take revenge on Moscow. Ambassadors from the Don came to him, who promised support from their side. And among the people more and more rumors were spreading about the "tsarevich" who is kind, just and so necessary for the people. But in order for the impostor's mechanism to work, Otrepiev left many promises in Poland. In case of capture, the Polish king promised, in addition to the royal treasures, to give the Chernigov-Seversky lands. He also pledged to give Novgorod and Pskov to the Mnisheks, and to some Polish magnates to reimburse the costs of maintaining the mercenaries.

Inside the country, any talk about the impostor was suppressed, but it became impossible to keep silent after the invasion of False Dmitry into the country. In October 1604. the army of False Dmitry appeared in the Russian lands. At the first clash with government forces, the army was defeated. It was defeated near Novgorod-Seversky. The mercenaries and Yuri Mnishek himself fled. But Otrepiev did not stop there. His army quickly recovered and grew every day. The number of troops was, according to some sources, 15 thousand people, which included not only Don Cossacks, peasants and serfs, but also noble detachments and archers. Southern cities surrendered without a fight. False Dmitry was again defeated by the tsarist army near the village of Dobrynichi near Seversk. However, it should be noted that the governors of the government army hated Godunov. And False Dmitry restored his army again. Soon, almost all cities in the south and southwest recognized his authority. Inside the tsarist army, fermentation began, and the number of defectors increased.

Boris Godunov's health failed and deteriorated with the arrival of disappointing news. April 13, 1605 during lunch, after another attack, Boris Godunov died.

The boyars and the clergy named Godunov's son Fyodor to the throne three days after the death of Boris. The oath did not calm down, but further exacerbated the situation. The dynasty had little chance of surviving the civil war. Fedor, at 16, had a good education, but lacked political skill. And Tsarina Maria Grigorievna was unpopular. Despite the fact that during his reign Godunov filled the Boyar Duma with his relatives, by the beginning of 1605. more and more significant people left the game. As a result, Fedor had no support. A few days after Fyodor's accession to the throne, the powerlessness of the government manifested itself more and more. The key to the collapse of power was the lack of good military strength. In May, the tsarist regiments went over to the side of False Dmitry I. Fedor and Maria were deprived of their lives.

June 1605 False Dmitry solemnly entered Moscow. The capital greeted him with a bell ringing. Now the impostor had to keep his promises, but this proved to be impossible. And yet the new ruler was active. First, he established relations with the Boyar Duma and promised the boyars to preserve their fiefdoms. He returned to Moscow the disgraced boyars, clerks and the surviving Romanovs.

However, some of the Moscow boyars headed by V.I.Shuisky were hostile. They began to denounce the connection between the tsar and the Poles, moreover, they behaved defiantly and arrogantly. They insulted Muscovites, entered churches with weapons and offended women. Soon, the conspiracy led by Shuisky failed. False Dmitry, in order to demonstrate his charity, pardoned Shuisky, who was sentenced to death. The boyars were preparing for a new struggle.

The Tsar calculated the Cossacks and ordered them to return to the Don, which aroused their displeasure. The impostor's people's army disintegrated as a result of the dismissal of slaves and peasants from the army.

False Dmitry wanted to win the confidence of the clergy, but they were wary of the tsar, who contacted the Catholic Poles.

False Dmitry also did not want to give Smolensk and the Seversk land, in return he offered Sigismund III a monetary ransom. He cut payments to Polish tycoons and refused to allow Catholics to build churches in Russia. All this led to an aggravation of relations with the Commonwealth.

The constant communication of False Dmitry with the Poles, in fact, ruined the tsar.

At the beginning of May 1606. the wedding of False Dmitry with Marina Mnishek took place. The celebrations, held in accordance with Polish custom, and the insulting attitude of the Pole, sparked outrage. Taking advantage of this situation, the conspirators on May 17, 1606. killed the impostor.

Three days later, an impromptu Zemsky Sobor was created on Red Square, at which Shuisky's people shouted his name, and on the other hand, his supporters picked up this cry. So the conspirators imposed a new king. It was Prince Vasily Shuisky (1552-1612). This fifty-year-old, intelligent and nosy ruler, being Rurikovich, considered himself worthy of Godunov.

.Bolotnikov's uprising

God’s vague hunger, he’s an impostor

The coming to power of the boyar tsar did not end the turmoil, but on the contrary intensified it. Not everyone recognized the legitimacy of Shuisky's election. The disgraced supporters of False Dmitry, the governor of Putivl, Prince Shakhovskoy, and the city of Chernigov, Prince Telyatevsky, spoke out against Shuisky. The clan of the Lyapunovs and Sumbulovs from Ryazan, as well as Yelets, Venev and other cities, came out in support of Putivl.

A powerful uprising soon swept the south and southwest of the country. In the summer of 1606. the movement became organized. Its leader was Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov. Researchers believe that he was once a provincial nobleman, and then changed his status to a lackey. There is information that Bolotnikov was in Crimean captivity and (as some believe), returning from captivity through Italy, Germany and Poland, he managed to fight against the Turks.

In 1606. a civil war broke out in Russia. The country was split into pieces. There were two opposing center - Putivl and Moscow. After a successful battle in August 1606. near Kromy, the rebels occupied Tula, Kaluga, Kashira and Yelets. December 20, 1606 Bolotnikov's army was defeated. The detachments of Lyapunov in November and Pashkov in December went over to the side of Shuisky. Bolotnikov retreated to Tula. Shuisky opposed the rebels in June 1607. went up to Tula. The rebels defended the Tula Kremlin for four months. The tsarist governors took an extreme step: they blocked the Upa River and flooded the Kremlin. Famine began in the city. For the surrender of the city, the king promised to release the soldiers. But both Bolotnikov and False Peter were captured. The false Peter was hanged, and Bolotnikov was sent north, where six months later he was blinded and drowned.

However, the rebels with the government continued for a long time. The participants in the performance (peasants and slaves) did not want so much to destroy social system, how many to change persons and groups in it.

It was a difficult and controversial struggle.

.False Dmitry II

Bolotnikov's defeat could not have been Shuisky's complete triumph. His position was precarious.

In the summer of 1607. a new impostor has appeared. It was a wandering teacher, very similar to False Dmitry I. And then the Polish gentry decided on a new adventure. The Polish king called on the gentry to support new hike to Moscow, led by False Dmitry II. Detachments of Lisovsky, Rozhinsky and Sapieha have already joined the impostor. The defeated detachments of Bolotnikov, the Zaporozhye and Don Cossacks also went over to him. By the spring of 1608. his army consisted of 30 thousand people.

May 1608 the impostor moved to Moscow. He stopped near Moscow in the village of Tushino (hence the nickname "Tushinsky thief"). Thus, a dual power was established in the country. Parallel control systems existed for two years: Moscow and Tushino. There were two rulers: Shuisky and False Dmitry II, two patriarchs: Hermogenes and Metropolitan Philaret.

In search of material wealth, boyars and nobles several times moved from Moscow to Tushino and vice versa. They were called "flights". This, of course, testified to their immorality.

Shuisky still lacked the strength to end the war with False Dmitry. Then the king calls for help from Sweden, which has long been hostile towards Poland. Shuisky concluded an agreement between Russia and Sweden, as a result of which the Swedes promised to give a five-thousandth corps to help the young commander Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky, in exchange for the town of Korela and the renunciation of the rights to Livonia. In the spring of 1609. tsarist and Swedish troops, starting from Novgorod, liberated the city and the Trinity-Sergius monastery from the siege. But not having received money from the Moscow Tsar, the Swedes violated the treaty and began to ravage Russian territory. Thus, now the Russians had to fight off not only the Poles, but also the Swedes. The arrival of the Swedes complicated relations with Poland. The treaty gave Sigismund III a reason for open intervention.

Soon the "Tushino thief" became unnecessary for the Poles. In the autumn of 1609. the impostor, dressed in peasant clothes, fled to Kaluga.

Now there are three centers of power in Russia: Moscow, Tushino and Kaluga. In February 1610. Tushintsy, headed by M.G. Saltykov signed an agreement with Sigismund III on the calling of his son Vladislav to the throne. However, the prince's power was limited by a number of conditions. One of which was the conversion of Vladislav from Catholicism to Orthodoxy. His power was also limited to the Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Sobor. However, the prince's father was strongly against the conversion of his son to Orthodoxy.

In March 1610. Skopin-Shuisky solemnly entered Moscow. He was very popular and never lost a battle in his life. But in April he died.

In July 160. the brother of the tsar Dmitry Shuisky lost the battle with the Poles. Klushino near Mozhaisk. The Swedish corps went north.

And at this time False Dmitry II left Kaluga. July 17, 1610. boyars and nobles, led by Zakhary Lyapunov, overthrew Shuisky from the throne, and then he was forcibly tonsured a monk. Later, he and his brothers were killed in captivity by the Poles.

Power passed to a new government of seven boyars, to the "seven boyars". However, the impostor continued to threaten to seize Moscow. Seven Boyars was looking for support. In August 1610. an agreement was concluded on the calling of the prince Vladislav to the throne. This treaty allowed the Seven Boyars to bring Polish troops into the capital. On the night of September 21, 16010. the Poles secretly occupied the Kremlin.

False Dmitry II with Marina Mnishek retreated to Kaluga. The impostor was killed by his associates while hunting.

The Polish king continued to fight with Russia. He refused to lift the siege of Smolensk and did not want Vladislav to convert to Orthodoxy.

In such a difficult and tragic moment, the church played a huge role. First of all, the unyielding old man, Patriarch Hermogenes. He led the national-religious movement. The idea of ​​which was the defense of Orthodoxy and the restoration of the Orthodox kingdom. The key moment was the performance of the Zemsky Peace. Zemshchina united not only patriotic forces, but also Cossacks who could expel foreigners. Detachments of "free Cossacks" led by Zarutsky and Trubetskoy formed the first militia and approached Moscow.

In the spring of 1611. the militia laid siege to Moscow. And on the eve of March 19, an uprising broke out in the capital, an active participant in which was Prince D.M. Pozharsky. The Poles burned out Moscow. Pozharsky was wounded and then taken to his estate near Nizhny Novgorod.

In Smolensk, the Poles made a breach with cannonballs and attacked. Due to scurvy, killed and wounded, the defenders became less and less, but still the garrison defended every street all day. July 3, 1611 the defenders, who did not want to surrender to the enemy, locked themselves in the Cathedral of the Holy Mother of God and blew themselves up.

The first militia was elected by the government of the Council of All Lands. This council was led by Trubetskoy, Zarutsky and Lyapunov on June 30, 1611. adopted the "Sentence of the whole land", which spoke about the restoration of the previous order in relation to the peasants, boyars, nobles and Cossacks. However, the agreement did not suit the Cossacks. On July 22, Lyapunov was killed. His death led to the disintegration of the first militia. The detachments of Trubetskoy and Zarutsky continued the siege, but they did not have the strength to cope with the Polish garrison.

After the fall of Smolensk, Sigismund III openly declared his desire to ascend the throne. On July 16, the Swedes occupied Novgorod. Zaretsky, sensing that his position had become vulnerable, together with Marina Mnishek and her son from False Dmitry II "vorenok" Ivan fled to the south.

The idea of ​​national unity has not died. In provincial cities, a movement began to organize a second militia. And in the fall of 1611. in Nizhny Novgorod, Kuzma Minin called for sacrificing everything for the liberation of Russia. Minin headed the new Council of the Whole Earth. He was supported by Pozharsky, who was elected voivode.

Gathering strength in August 1612. the second militia approached Moscow. On the 20th of August, the militia repulsed an attempt by Chodkiewicz to free the besieged Poles. They hoped for the help of the king, but Sigismund III feared autocracy from the king. Then he backed off. October 26, 1612 the Polish garrison capitulated. Moscow was liberated.

.Election of the Romanovs. The aftermath of the Time of Troubles

At the end of 1612. elected representatives of all classes arrived at the Zemsky Sobor in Moscow. In history, this Zemsky Sobor became the most representative and numerous. It was attended by boyars, nobles, church ministers, townspeople and Cossacks. The Council faced the question of choosing a new sovereign. As a result, the most acceptable was the candidacy of the young Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov. Basically, an emphasis was placed on generosity, the possibility of returning to antiquity and the embodiment of old traditions of Russian culture.

February 1613 Mikhail Romanov ascended the throne. At the same time, he promised to rule only with the participation of the Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Sobor. The new ruler was young, inexperienced and trusting. Russia, after such events, needed a steady hand. A large group of supporters immediately formed around Mikhail, and later Mikhail's father, Patriarch Filaret, returned from captivity, who became the support and co-ruler of his son. The new ruler faced a difficult task to restore the state.

Thanks to Filaret, old orders were recreated and new ones created. The government pursued a very cautious policy. None of the boyars, clerks and noblemen were avenged, there were no disgraced. They were forgiven for their connection with the "Tushino thief" and retained their lands and ranks.

The position of the Cossacks turned out to be difficult. Mikhail Fedorovich in 1615. defeated the movement of the chieftain Balovnya, which threatened the stabilization of the state. Some of the Cossacks were transferred to the category of service people.

The tsarist detachments pushed back the detachments of Zarutsky, who tried to repeat the path of the impostor and defeated them near Voronezh. Zarutsky and Ivan were executed, and Marina Mnishek was imprisoned in a dungeon, where she died a year later.

Still, the main problem was the completion of the liberation of Russian lands from foreigners. In 1615. the Swedes who besieged Pskov were defeated. The government of the Swedish king Gustav II Adolf pushed Russia away from the Baltic Sea and forced the signing of the Stolbovsk peace treaty in 1617, as a result of which the coast of the Gulf of Finland became the possession of Sweden.

Relations with Poland were more complicated. The hostilities did not end in any way. In 1618. Vladislav was about to reclaim the throne. On the night of October 1, the Poles tried to capture the White City. The royal army with great effort managed to fight off the attack. In December 1618. the Deulinsky truce was concluded near the Trinity Monastery. As a result, Russia lost Smolensk, Seversk and Chernigov land.

The main tasks of the new government were the elimination of devastation, the creation of favorable conditions for the life and development of all segments of the population.

In 1619. the tsar convened the Zemsky Sobor, the purpose of which was to develop measures to restore the country. As a result, the government has simplified the tax apparatus. It was decided to introduce a new taxation, which took into account the income of the population and the state of the counties. A law was passed, as a result of which all the lands illegally seized during the Troubles were taken away. The landowners were provided with lands in accordance with their service. As a result of another reform, the boyars were forbidden to "waste" their farms, and land was taken from bad owners.

The government reinstated the term of the fugitive peasants (15 years) and the ban on the transition from one owner to another. In the mid-1930s, a search was announced for fugitive townspeople.

The government also fought against drunkenness, which was very common during the turmoil. Now it was forbidden to open drinking establishments in large cities. As a result, during the reign of Mikhail Romanov, "great sobriety" appeared in Russia.

Agriculture is gradually recovering, new lands are being developed, and plowing along the banks of the Volga is beginning.

Craftsmen began to produce more tools and sell them.

Cattle breeding developed rapidly. Fur trade brought a good profit to the treasury. And fishing has taken on a large scale. In the early 20s. in Moscow, the Printing House was restored. The Cannon Yard started working. In Tula, an arms factory and an arms workshop gained strength again. 20-30s XVII became the stage of revival and development of industry.

In the spring of 1632. after the death of Sigismund III, Poland was temporarily left without a ruler. This event was the impetus for Russia to start the war for Smolensk. The Zemsky Sobor gave its consent. The hike went slowly. The siege, led by Shein, dragged on for eight months. At this time, Vladislav IV was already entrenched on the throne. The position of the Russian army became complicated after the invasion of the Crimean Tatars in the summer of 1633. within the borders of Russia. The nobles left the army to save their estates and families. The Polish army cut the communications of Shein's army. As a result, the negotiations in June 1634. ended with the conclusion of the Polyanovsk peace treaty. The Commonwealth was returned to the towns of Nevel, Starodub, Pochep, Sebezh and some others. Smolensk still remained with the Poles. Also, the treaty provided for the refusal of Vladislav IV to the Russian throne. The perpetrators of the unsuccessful war, Shane and Izmailov, were deprived of their lives.

The defeat in the Smolensk War made it impossible to participate in the war with the Sultan's government in 1637, when the Don Cossacks captured the Turkish fortress of Azov. The newly convened Zemsky Sobor did not approve of such a step. To the Cossacks in 1642. I had to leave Azov.

.Outcome

The Time of Troubles left its mark in all spheres of life. The Troubles caused enormous damage to Russia and threw the country back a decade. However, I cannot but agree with the historian V.O. Klyuchevsky, who believed that the XVII century. opens "a new period of Russian history." Of course, this is a new stage in history, associated with the establishment of a new dynasty, new borders, the triumph of the nobility and serfdom, as well as the development of agriculture and industry.

Bibliography

1.N.I. Pavlenko, I. L. Andreev, V.V. Kobrin, V.A. Fedorov. "History of Russia from ancient times to 1861" 3rd ed., Revised. - M.: Higher. shk. (2004) (pp. 173-178).

.A.N. Sakharov, A.N. Bokhanov, V.A. Shestakov "History of Russia from ancient times to the present day" - M.: Prospect (2010) (pp. 207 - 212)

1 (pp. 215-221)

.R.G. Skrynnikov “Dashing. Moscow in the XVI-XVII centuries "- M.: Mosk. Worker (1989) (pp. 418-431)

.CM. Soloviev "History of Russia since ancient times" -M. (2001) # "justify">. A.S. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev, N.G. Georgieva, T.A. Sivokhina "History of Russia" - M.: Prospect (2010) (pp. 54-62)

.A.S. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev, N.G. Georgieva, T.A. Sivokhina "Reader on the History of Russia" - M.: Prospect (2006) (pp. 93-95)

Kirov Institute for Advanced Studies and Retraining

Education workers

Time of Troubles: Controversial Issues

Abstract on the history of Russia

Chugueva Natalia Mikhailovna

History and social studies teacher,

MOU SOSH No. 2 with UIOP Vostochny

Omutninsky district

Introduction ………………………………………………………………… 3

…… 3

1.1 False Dmitry 1 as a possible perspective

further development of the country ……………………………………… .. 3

1.2 "Kissing of the Cross" by Vasily Shuisky: real

limitation of autocracy or guarantee of protection

from the arbitrariness of the authorities? ……………………………………………… 7

1.3 "Peasant War" or "Civil War"? …………………. eight

1.4 Vladislav Korolevich - another missed opportunity? ……… ten

1.5 The election of Mikhail Romanov: surprise

or regularity? ………………………………………………… 12

1.6 Paying for calming the country …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 14

Conclusion……………………………………………………………… 14

Used Books ……………………………………………… 15

Introduction

The term "Time of Troubles" adopted in pre-revolutionary historiography, referring to the turbulent events of the early 17th century, was resolutely rejected in Soviet science as "noble-bourgeois" and was replaced by a long and even somewhat bureaucratic title: "Peasant War and foreign intervention in Russia".

Today, the term "Time of Troubles" has returned to school history textbooks again: apparently, because it not only corresponds to the word usage of the era, but also accurately reflects historical reality.

Among the meanings of the word "vague" given by V.I. Dahlem, we meet "rebellion, rebellion ..., general disobedience, discord between the people and the government." However, in modern language the adjective “vague” has a different meaning - unclear, indistinct.

And in fact, the beginning of the 17th century is a time of troubles: everything is in motion, everything fluctuates, the contours of people and events are blurred, kings change with incredible speed, often in different parts of the country and even in neighboring cities they recognize at the same time the power of different sovereigns, people sometimes change their political orientation with lightning speed. The Russian people who survived this difficult time called it, namely its last years, "the great devastation of the Moscow state."

This event aroused and still arouses the interest of both historians and contemporaries, in particular Avraamy Palitsyn, the author of the legend about the siege by the Poles of the Trinity Sergius Monastery. Great attention historians V.O. Klyuchevsky, V.B. Kobrin, A.A. Zimin, R.G. Skrynnikov and others. Anyone who studies or is simply interested in history is faced with the question of what possible development prospects were then opening up for the country and why they remained unrealized. To understand these complex intricacies of 17th century Russian history, let us turn to facts.

1. Problematic and debatable issues of the Time of Troubles

False Dmitry I as a possible prospect for the country's development

At the beginning of the 17th century, a man appeared in Poland posing as Dmitry, the son of Ivan the Terrible, who allegedly miraculously escaped in 1591 in Uglich. He went down in history under the name of False Dmitry I.

Many false stereotypes have accumulated about False Dmitry I both in literature and in the mass consciousness. He is usually seen as an agent, a puppet of the Polish king and the gentry, who sought to seize Russia with his help. Who was this “unknown someone” who spent a year on the Russian throne? Was False Dmitry I an outspoken adventurer, a Polish protege, or did he himself believe in his royal origin?

Could the accession of a European educated, Peter's bold False Dmitry become a possible prospect for the country's further development? According to V.O.Klyuchevsky, "his personality remains mysterious to this day, despite all efforts of scientists to unravel it." But for us it is not so much the personality of the impostor that is important as the role he played.

Judging by the memoirs of his contemporaries, he was “a young man, below average height, ugly, reddish, awkward, with a sad, pensive expression on his face; richly gifted, with a lively mind, easily resolving the most difficult issues in the Boyar Duma, with a lively, even ardent temperament, in dangerous moments bringing his courage to daring, malleable to hobbies; he was a master of speaking, and discovered quite a variety of knowledge. " He completely changed the prim order of life of the Moscow sovereigns.

Contemporaries unanimously note the amazing, reminiscent of Peter's boldness, with which the young tsar violated the etiquette prevailing at court. “He did not pace the rooms gravely, supported under the arms of the close boyars, but swiftly passed from one to the other, so that even his personal bodyguards sometimes did not know where to find him. He was not afraid of the crowd, more than once, accompanied by one or two people, he rode along the Moscow streets. He did not even sleep after dinner, did not go to the bathhouse, he treated everyone simply, courteously, not royally. "

All this is suspicious for a calculating impostor, V.B. Kobrin. If False Dmitry knew that he was not a tsar's son, he certainly would have been able to master the etiquette of the Moscow court in advance, so that everyone could immediately say about him: “Yes, this real king».

His best and most loyal servant P.F. Basmanov confessed to foreigners that "the tsar is not the son of Ivan the Terrible, but he is recognized as tsar because they swore allegiance to him, and also because no better tsar can now be found." But False Dmitry himself looked at himself completely differently: he behaved “like a lawful, natural king, quite confident in his royal origin; none of the people who knew him closely noticed on his face not the slightest wrinkle of doubt about it. " He was convinced that the whole earth looked at him in the same way. In addition, "Tsar Dmitry" pardoned the most dangerous witness - Prince Vasily Shuisky, who led the investigation of the death of the real Tsarevich in Uglich and saw him with his own eyes dead body... Shuisky, convicted of a conspiracy, was sentenced by the Council to death, "Tsar Dmitry" pardoned. A tsar, who considered himself a deceiver who stole power, would hardly have acted so risky and trusting.

"Did they prepare the unfortunate young man from childhood to the role of a pretender to the throne, weren't he brought up in the belief that he was the rightful heir to the Moscow crown? " - asks V.B. Kobrin. It was not for nothing that when the first news of the appearance of an impostor in Poland reached Moscow, Boris Godunov, as they say, told the boyars directly that it was their work, that they set up the impostor.

Historians know some interesting facts. According to the servant, Filaret (Fedor Nikitich Romanov), who was exiled to the Anthony-Siysk monastery, lost faith in the future, he thought only about saving his soul and about his unhappy family. But in 1604, Tsarevich Dmitry appeared in Poland, and as soon as the rumor about him reached Filaret in February 1605, his mood changed dramatically: we are no longer a humble monk, but a political fighter who heard the sounds of a battle trumpet. The monastic bailiff reported that Elder Filaret "does not live according to the monastic order, always laughs for no one knows what, and talks about worldly life." To the monks, he arrogantly declared that "they will see what he will be like from now on."

These words turned out to be prophetic. Six months later, False Dmitry, by his own will, appoints monk Filaret as the Rostov Metropolitan. How can this be explained? It's all about the impostor's connections with the Romanov family. As soon as False Dmitry appeared in Poland, Godunov's government announced that he was the impostor Yushka (and in monasticism Grigory) Bogdanov's son Otrepiev, deacon-defrocked Chudov Monastery, who was under Patriarch Job "for writing." Perhaps it was: the government was interested in giving the real name of the impostor. Otrepiev, however, before the tonsure was a serf of the Romanovs and was tonsured a monk, apparently after their exile. Didn't they prepare the young man for the role of an impostor? Didn't they inspire Otrepiev's belief in the royal origin? V.O. was right. Klyuchevsky, when he wrote about False Dmitry, that "it was only baked in a Polish oven, but leavened in Moscow."

Be that as it may, but he did not sit on the throne, because he did not justify the hopes that were pinned on him both in the country and abroad.

Firstly, False Dmitry did not become an obedient instrument in the hands of the boyars, he acted too independently, developed his own special political plans, strove to raise against the Turks and Tatars all the Catholic powers with Orthodox Russia at the head.

Secondly, in order to enlist the support of the nobility, the tsar generously distributed money and land to them. But both are not infinite. False Dmitry borrowed money from monasteries. Together with the leaked information about the Tsar's Catholicism, the loans worried the clergy and caused them to murmur. The peasants hoped that the good Tsar Dmitry would restore the right to go to St. George's Day, taken from them by Godunov. But, without entering into conflict with the nobility, False Dmitry could not do this. That's why serfdom it was confirmed and only given permission to the peasants who left their masters in the years of famine to remain in their new places. This paltry concession did not satisfy the peasants, but at the same time caused discontent among some of the nobles.

Thirdly, the hopes of the Commonwealth did not come true: neither Smolensk nor the Seversk land were given to the king, as promised; Orthodoxy remained the state religion, moreover, the tsar did not allow the construction of Catholic churches in Russia. He even came into conflict with the Commonwealth due to the fact that he began to call himself the Caesar, that is, the emperor. The fact is that in Warsaw they did not recognize the tsar's title for the Russian sovereigns and called them only grand dukes, and False Dmitry began to call himself even the tsar, that is, the emperor. During the solemn audience, False Dmitry for a long time refused to even take from the hands of the Polish ambassador a letter addressed to the Grand Duke. In Poland, they were clearly unhappy with False Dmitry, who allowed himself such independence.

So, as we can see, not a single social stratum within the country, not a single force outside its borders had any reason to support the king, that is why he was so easily overthrown from the throne.

It is of interest, according to V.O. Klyuchevsky, another version of the reasons for the fall of False Dmitry. It was expressed by the head of the boyar conspiracy against the impostor Vasily Shuisky. At a meeting of conspirators on the eve of the uprising, he openly stated that “he recognized False Dmitry only in order to get rid of Godunov. The big boyars had to create an impostor in order to depose Godunov, and then depose the impostor in order to open the way to the throne for one of their midst. They did so, only at the same time they divided the work among themselves: the Romanov circle did the first thing, and the titled circle with Prince V.I. Shuisky performed the second act at the head. Those and other boyars saw in the impostor their dress-up doll, which, having held the throne for a while, was then thrown into the backyard. "

Pondering the possible prospect of False Dmitry's assertion on the throne, it makes no sense to take into account his imposture: monarchical legitimacy cannot be a criterion for determining the essence of a political line. V. Kobrin believes that "the personality of False Dmitry was a good chance for the country: brave and decisive, educated in the spirit of Russian medieval culture and at the same time touching the Western European circle, not giving in to attempts to subjugate Russia to the Commonwealth."

And at the same time, this opportunity was also not destined to come true. “The trouble with False Dmitry is that he was an adventurer. We usually have only a negative meaning in this concept. Or maybe in vain? After all, an adventurer is a person who sets goals for himself that exceed the means at his disposal to achieve them. Success in politics cannot be achieved without a share of adventurism. It is simply that the adventurer who has achieved success is what we usually call an outstanding politician. The means that False Dmitry had at his disposal were indeed inadequate to his goals, the hopes placed on him by different forces contradicted each other. "

In the midst of a crisis, with the support of the Poles and all those dissatisfied with the government of Godunov, after his death the throne is seized by False Dmitry I. The interests of various strata of society who supported False Dmitry contradicted each other. Therefore, having satisfied the desires of some, the new king inevitably aroused the discontent of others.

E.A. Shaskolskaya identified the following reasons for dissatisfaction in various strata of society with the policy of False Dmitry I:

“- to enlist the support of the nobility, False Dmitry generously distributed land and money. Soon the money had to be borrowed from monasteries. This worried the clergy. In addition, a rumor spread that False Dmitry had secretly converted to Catholicism;

Land and cash grants to the nobles irritated the boyars. Discontent was also caused by the fact that False Dmitry violated the old customs, the usual order of court life;

The peasants hoped that the new tsar would restore their right to move from one landowner to another on St. George's Day. But, having yielded to them, False Dmitry would inevitably provoke the discontent of the nobles. This happened when, in 1606, the peasants who left their masters in the years of famine were allowed to stay in their new places. " E.A. Shaskolskaya "History of Russia, IX - XX" p. 143

Many false stereotypes have accumulated about False Dmitry I both in literature and in the mass consciousness. He is usually seen as an agent of the Polish king and the gentry, who sought to seize Russia with his help, their puppet. It is natural that it was precisely this interpretation of the personality of False Dmitry that the government of Vasily Shuisky, who sat on the throne after the overthrow and assassination of Tsar Dmitry, was intensively implementing. But today's historian can be more impartial about the activities of a young man who spent a year on the Russian throne.

Judging by the memoirs of contemporaries, False Dmitry I was smart and quick-witted. His confidants were amazed at how easily and quickly he solved complicated issues. It seems that he believed in his royal lineage. Contemporaries unanimously note the amazing, reminiscent of Peter's boldness, with which the young tsar violated the etiquette established at court. He did not pace the rooms gravely, supported under the arms of the close boyars, but swiftly passed from one to the other, so that even his personal bodyguards sometimes did not know where to find him. He was not afraid of the crowd, more than once, accompanied by one or two people, he rode along the Moscow streets. He didn't even sleep after lunch. It was decent for the Tsar to be calm, unhurried and important, this one acted with the temperament of the named father, but without his cruelty. All of this is suspicious of a calculating impostor. If False Dmitry knew that he was not a tsar's son, he certainly would have been able to master the etiquette of the Moscow court in advance, so that everyone could immediately say about him: yes, this is a real tsar. In addition, Tsar Dmitry pardoned the most dangerous witness - Prince Vasily Shuisky. Caught up in a conspiracy against the tsar, Vasily Shuisky led the investigation of the death of the real tsarevich in Uglich and saw his dead body with his own eyes. The council sentenced Shuisky to death, Tsar Dmitry pardoned.

Have the unfortunate young man been prepared from childhood for the role of a pretender to the throne, have they not brought him up in the belief that he is the rightful heir to the Moscow crown? No wonder, when the first news of the appearance of an impostor in Poland reached Moscow, Boris Godunov, as they say, immediately told the boyars that it was their work.

The most important rivals of Godunov on the way to power were the Romanov-Yuriev boyars. The eldest of them - Nikita Romanovich, brother of the mother of Tsar Fyodor - Tsarina Anastasia, was considered an ally of Godunov. It was to him that Nikita Romanovich bequeathed to patronize his children - Nikitich. This testamentary alliance of friendship did not last long, and shortly after Boris's accession to the throne, five Nikitich brothers were arrested on a false charge of trying to poison the king and exiled along with their relatives. The elder and brothers, hunter and dandy Fyodor Nikitich was tonsured a monk under the name of Filaret and sent north to the Anthony-Siya monastery. Back in 1602, Filaret's beloved servant informed the bailiff that his master had come to terms with everything and was thinking only about saving his soul and his needy family. In the summer of 1604, False Dmitry appeared in Poland, and already in February 1605, the reports of the bailiff under Elder Filaret changed dramatically. Before us is no longer a humble monk, but a political fighter who heard the sounds of a battle trumpet. According to the bailiff, Elder Filaret lives "not according to the monastic order, he always laughs, no one knows what, and talks about worldly life, about hunting birds and about dogs, how he lived in the world." Tatishchev Russian History, page 257. To the other monks, Filaret proudly declared that they would see what he would be like from now on. And in fact, they saw. Less than six months after the bailiff sent his denunciation, Filaret from an exiled monk turned into a metropolitan of Rostov: he was elevated to this rank by order of Tsar Dmitry. It's all about the impostor's connections with the Romanov family. As soon as False Dmitry appeared in Poland, the Godunov government announced that he was the impostor Yushka Bogdanov, the son of Otrepiev, the deacon-defrocked of the Chudov Monastery, who was under Patriarch Job for writing. Probably, it was so: the government was interested in giving the real name of the impostor, and it was easier to find out the truth then than it is now, after almost four centuries. Otrepiev, however, before the tonsure was a serf of the Romanovs and was tonsured a monk, apparently after their exile. Didn't they prepare the young man for the role of an impostor? In any case, the very appearance of False Dmitry has nothing to do with foreign intrigues. V.O. was right. Klyuchevsky, when he wrote about False Dmitry that “it was only baked in a Polish oven, but fermented in Moscow” V.O Klyuchevsky “Russian history” p. 123.

Poland not only did not own the initiative of the False Dmitry's adventure, but, on the contrary, King Sigismund III Vasa hesitated for a long time whether it was worth supporting the applicant. On the one hand, it was tempting to have on the Moscow throne a person who was indebted to the king. Moreover, the young man did not skimp on promises. He secretly converted to Catholicism and promised the Pope that all of Russia would follow his example. He promised the king Smolensk and the Chernigov-Seversk land, the father of his bride Marina, the Sandomierz governor Yuri Mnishek - Novgorod, Pskov and a million gold pieces. But still. The story of the miraculous rescue of the prince seemed too incredible. Doubts about the royal origin of the Moscow prince were expressed by almost all the nobles of the Commonwealth, to whom the king turned for advice. And during the discussion in the Diet, the crown hetman Jan Zamoyski said that the whole history of the prince reminds him of the comedies of Plavt or Terentius. Is it a probable thing, - said Zamoysky, - to order someone to kill, and then not to see if that one is killed, who is ordered to be killed? In addition, a tit in the hands - the armistice concluded in 1601 with Russia for a period of 20 years on mutually beneficial terms - seemed preferable to a pie in the sky - an ally of the Commonwealth on the Moscow throne. Sigismund III could not decide on an open military conflict with Russia also because the Rzeczpospolita was waging an exhausting struggle with Sweden for the Baltic states.

That is why the king did not dare to provide False Dmitry with full and unconditional support: he only allowed the Polish gentry, if they wished, to join his army. There were a little more than one and a half thousand of them. They were joined by several hundred Russian émigré nobles, and even the Don and Zaporozhye Cossacks, who saw in the campaign of False Dmitry a good opportunity for military booty. The contender for the throne thus had only a handful of warriors - about four thousand. With them he crossed the Dnieper.

False Dmitry was already expected, but they waited near Smolensk: from there a more direct and short way to Moscow. He preferred the longer route: he crossed the Dnieper near Chernigov. But the troops of False Dmitry had to go through the Seversk land, where a lot of combustible material had accumulated: small servicemen dissatisfied with their position, peasants who were subjected to especially strong exploitation on small estates, the remnants of the Cossacks defeated by Godunov's troops, who raised an uprising under the leadership of Ataman Khlopok, and finally, many fugitives who gathered here in the years of famine. It was these disaffected masses, and not Polish help, that helped False Dmitry reach Moscow and reign there.

In Moscow, False Dmitry did not turn into a Polish henchman either. He was in no hurry to fulfill his promises. Orthodoxy remained the state religion; moreover, the tsar did not allow the building of Catholic churches in Russia. He did not give Smolensk or the Seversk land to the king and only offered to pay a ransom for them. He even came into conflict with the Commonwealth. The fact is that in Warsaw they did not recognize the tsar's title for the Russian sovereigns and called them only grand dukes. And False Dmitry began to call himself even the king, i.e. the emperor. During the solemn audience, False Dmitry for a long time refused to even take from the hands of the Polish ambassador a letter addressed to the Grand Duke. In Poland, they were clearly unhappy with False Dmitry, who allowed himself to act independently.

Pondering the possible prospect of False Dmitry's assertion on the throne, it makes no sense to take into account his imposture: monarchical legitimacy cannot be a criterion for determining the essence of a political line. It seems that the personality of False Dmitry was a good chance for the country: brave and decisive, educated in the spirit of Russian medieval culture and at the same time touching the Western European circle, not giving in to attempts to subjugate Russia to the Commonwealth. But this opportunity was also not given to be realized. The trouble with False Dmitry is that he was an adventurer. We usually have only a negative meaning in this concept. Or maybe in vain? After all, an adventurer is a person who sets goals for himself that exceed the means at his disposal to achieve them. Success in politics cannot be achieved without a share of adventurism. It is simply that the adventurer who has achieved success is what we usually call an outstanding politician.

The means that False Dmitry had at his disposal were in fact not adequate to his goals. The hopes that various powers placed on him contradicted one another. We have already seen that he did not justify those who were imposed on him in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. To enlist the support of the nobility, False Dmitry generously distributed land and money. But both are not infinite. False Dmitry borrowed money from monasteries. Together with the leaked information about the Tsar's Catholicism, the loans worried the clergy and caused them to murmur. The peasants hoped that the good Tsar Dmitry would restore the right to go to St. George's Day, taken from them by Godunov. But, without entering into conflict with the nobility, False Dmitry could not do this. Therefore, serfdom was confirmed and only permission was given to the peasants who left their masters in the years of famine to remain in their new places. This paltry concession did not satisfy the peasants, but at the same time caused discontent among some of the nobles. Not a single social stratum inside the country, not a single force abroad had any reason to support the tsar. That is why he was so easily overthrown from the throne.

My opinion is that False Dmitry I, unlike Boris Godunov, was not so active in state affairs. Of course, he also came to power thanks to his cunning. But still, during his reign, many segments of the population were dissatisfied with his policy. And besides, he secretly converted to Catholicism, which was not acceptable for the ruler of Russia.

“In 1584 Ivan the Terrible died, ended the half-century reign of one of the most disgusting despots in Russian history. As a legacy to his successors, Tsar Ivan left a country devastated by the oprichnina and unrestrained exploitation, which, moreover, had lost the exhausting Livonian War, which had lasted for a quarter of a century. With Ivan IV, the dynasty of the descendants of Ivan Kalita actually came to naught. The eldest son of the tsar, similar to his father in both cruelty and erudition, Ivan Ivanovich died from an unsuccessful blow from his father's staff. The throne passed into the hands of the second son - Fyodor Ivanovich, a feeble-minded dwarf with obvious features of degeneration. The court chronicle created a pious legend about a tsar not very well versed in earthly affairs, but a highly moral tsar - a prayer book for the Russian land. This legend was brilliantly embodied by A.K. Tolstoy in his magnificent drama Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich. Tsar Fedor A.K. Tolstoy says:

What kind of king am I? Me in all matters

And it is not difficult to confuse and deceive.

In only one thing, I will not be deceived:

When, in the meantime, what is white or black,

I must choose - I will not be deceived.

But A.K. Tolstoy understood perfectly well that the real Tsar Fyodor was somewhat different. In his satirical poem "The History of the Russian State from Gostomysl to Timashev," he characterized Tsar Fyodor as follows:

There was no mind not bodor,

To ring only a lot, -

which is more consistent with the assessment of contemporaries. After all, the Swedish king said that "the Russians call him durak in their own language."

Thus, the unlimited autocratic power over the huge country was in the hands of a man who was simply not able to rule. Naturally, under Tsar Fyodor, a government circle of several boyars was created, a kind of regency council. However, soon real power was concentrated in his hands by one of the members of this council - the boyar Boris Fedorovich Godunov, the tsar's brother-in-law - the brother of his wife, Queen Irina.

Everyone remembers how in the very first scene of Pushkin's "Boris Godunov" Prince Vasily Shuisky talks about Boris.

Yesterday's slave, Tatar, Malyuta's son-in-law,

The executioner's son-in-law and the executioner himself in his soul,

Will take the crown and the barmas of Monomakh ...

"Yesterday's slave" ... Yes, chronicles hostile to Godunov often call him "the crafty slave", but they mean not Boris's slave origin, but the fact that he, like all subjects of the Russian tsars, was considered a slave, that is ... the slave of the sovereign. From this point of view, both Shuisky himself and Vorotynsky, who was talking to him, were the same “slaves”.

"Tatar" ... I think, and in the XVI century. Tatar origin would hardly have been blamed on the Russian boyar: the memory that the Horde khans and Murzas ruled in Russia was still alive, and therefore Tatarness was perceived rather as a virtue. The genealogy of the legend of the Saburov family, of which the Godunovs were an offshoot, claimed that their ancestor was the Tatar Murza Chet, who was baptized in 1330. If this legend was even partially true, then, naturally, in 250 years less Tatar would remain in Godunov than in Negro Pushkin, and Scottish in Lermontov. But Godunov really was the son-in-law of the executioner of the oprichnina Malyuta Skuratov. This dubious honor was shared with him by the offspring of the most aristocratic families of the princes Dmitry Ivanovich Shuisky and Ivan Mikhailovich Glinsky, who were related to the all-powerful, albeit ignoble temporary worker.

Godunov's position was quickly consolidated. In the summer of 1585, just a little over a year after Fyodor Ivanovich's accession to the throne, the Russian diplomat Luka Novosiltsev got into a conversation with the head of the Polish church, Archbishop Karnkowski of Gnezno. Who knows what they were really talking about - Novosiltsev reported to Moscow, of course, about those words of his which corresponded to the official position. Wishing to say something pleasant to his guest, the archbishop remarked that the former sovereign had a wise advisor, Alexei Adashev, “and now in Moscow God has given you such a man who is awake [clever].” Novosiltsev considered this compliment to Godunov insufficient: confirming that Adashev was reasonable, the Russian envoy about Godunov declared that he was “not Alekseev's verst”: after all, “that is a great man - a boyar and grooms, and behold our sovereign's brother-in-law, and our empress’s brother, dear, but with his mind God has fulfilled the great sorrowful man about the earth. "

Let's pay attention to the last word: it meant patron, guardian. No wonder the English observers, translating this expression into English, called Godunov "Lord Protector". Let's remember that over 60 years later this title was used by the all-powerful dictator of England Oliver Cromwell ...

Fyodor Ivanovich occupied the royal throne for fourteen years, but Boris Godunov was the de facto ruler of the country for at least 12 or even 13 years. Therefore, it makes no sense to separate the reign of Fyodor from the reign of Boris.

However, on the way to the royal throne, Boris Godunov had to overcome one more obstacle. The youngest son of Ivan the Terrible, Tsarevich Dmitry lived in honorary exile in Uglich as an appanage prince, with his mother Maria Feodorovna from the Nagikh clan and his uncles. If Fyodor had died childless (and that is what happened), then the prince would have been a natural heir. It is widely believed that Dmitry was not a hindrance to Godunov, since the marriage of Ivan IV to Maria Naga, the sixth or seventh in a row, was not legal from a canonical point of view. And yet the tsar's son, albeit not quite legitimate, but officially using the title of tsarevich, had much more rights than the tsar's brother-in-law. When a man who called himself the name of Dmitry claimed the throne, no one asked the question of whose son, according to the account of the wife of the formidable tsar, he was. Yes, Tsarevich Dmitry was blocking Godunov's path to the throne. But eight and a half years old, the prince died mysteriously. According to the official version, modern events, it was an accident: the prince himself "stabbed" with a knife during an epileptic seizure. The official version of a later time, the beginning of the 17th century, claims that the holy prince was stabbed to death by murderers sent by the "crafty slave" Boris Godunov. The question of the guilt of Boris Godunov in the death of the tsarevich is difficult to resolve unambiguously. One way or another, this obstacle has been removed.

In 1598, after the death of Tsar Fyodor, the Zemsky Sobor elected Boris as Tsar. It could not be otherwise. During the years of his reign, Godunov managed to gather around him - both in the Boyar Duma and among the court officials - "his people", those who owed their careers to the ruler and were afraid of the changes that might come with a change of power.

One can relate differently to the personal qualities of Boris Godunov, but even his most severe critics cannot deny him a state mind, and the most zealous apologists cannot deny that Boris Fedorovich not only was not guided by moral norms in his political activities, but also violated them for his own benefit constantly. And yet he was above all a talented political figure, an undoubted reformer. And his fate is tragic, like the fate of most reformers.

An amazing paradox: Ivan the Terrible led the country not to the edge of the abyss, but simply into the abyss. And yet, in the people's memory, he remained sometimes terrifying, disgusting, but bright and strong man... Boris Godunov tried to pull the country out of the abyss. And since he did not succeed, he was eliminated from folklore, and in the mass consciousness he was preserved only by his cunning, resourcefulness and insincerity.

The methods of Boris Godunov were sharply different from those of Tsar Ivan (although Godunov himself went through the school of the oprichnina). Godunov was shameless and cruel in eliminating his political opponents, but only real, not fictional opponents. He did not like to arrange executions in the squares, solemnly and loudly curse the traitors. His opponents were quietly arrested, quietly sent into exile or to a monastery prison, and there they quietly, but usually quickly died, some from poison, some from a noose, and some who knows from what.

At the same time, Godunov strove to rally, to consolidate the entire ruling class. This was the only correct policy in the face of the general ruin of the country.

However, it was during the reign of Boris Godunov that serfdom in Russia was established. The first step was taken during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, when the transfer of peasants from one owner to another on St. George's Day was temporarily prohibited. But during the reign of Fyodor Ivanovich, new serf decrees were adopted. According to the hypothesis of V.I. Koretsky, around 1592 - 1593 the government issued a decree banning the peasant "exit" throughout the country and forever. This assumption is not shared by all researchers, but probably during these years some serf measures were nevertheless carried out: five years later there was a decree on "fixed years" - on a five-year limitation period for petitions about the return of fugitive peasants. This decree does not make a difference between those who left on St. George's Day and not on St. George's Day, in reserved summers and not in reserved summers, it already proceeds from the provision on the attachment of the peasant to the land. And the statute of limitations is counted from 1592.

Both the government of Ivan the Terrible and the government of Boris Godunov went to attach the peasants to the land, guided by pragmatic, momentary considerations, the desire to eliminate and prevent the desolation of the central districts for the future. But these were in reality only reasons, not reasons for the transition to serfdom. The economic crisis of the post-frost years was a consequence of more general social processes. At this time, perhaps more clearly than ever before, there is a tendency to intensify the exploitation of the peasantry both by individual feudal lords and by the state. There were two kinds of reasons for this. Firstly, the number of feudal lords grew faster than the number of peasants: it was not a question of the standard of living, but the fact that, in the conditions of a long war, the government constantly recruited people from the plebeian strata to the "children of boyars", giving them estates with peasants for service. The decrease in the average size of feudal holdings, while the feudal lord retained the living standard of previous years, led to the fact that the peasants' duties steadily increased.

But many feudal lords did not confine themselves to preserving the standard of living, but strove to increase it. If a neighbor received you, treating you from a silver dish, then you are already embarrassed to put "tin courts" on the table. A short, although hardy, home-bred horse becomes not prestigious: the Nogai blood stallion seemed urgently needed. And if a neighbor went on a campaign in imported chain mail from Iran or the Caucasus, then his own, dear, although made by a good craftsman and perfectly protecting from saber strikes, turned into a sign of poverty.

However, the right to a peasant transition - albeit with the payment of the "elderly" and only once a year - limited the appetites of the feudal lords, served as a natural regulator of the level of exploitation: an overly greedy feudal lord could, like a wild landowner of Shchedrina, be left without peasants. Scribe books mention the "porch estates" from which the peasants dispersed, after which the landlords "marked" them (abandoned).

The internal policy of Godunov was aimed at stabilizing the situation in the country. Under him, new cities were being built, especially in the Volga region. It was then that Samara, Saratov, Tsaritsyn, Ufa arose. The position of the townspeople was eased: the large feudal lords no longer had the right to keep artisans and merchants in their "white" (not taxed) settlements; all those who were engaged in trades and trade had to enter the posad communities henceforth and, together with everyone, pay state taxes - "to pull the tax."

In foreign policy, Boris Godunov strove for victories not so much on the battlefield as at the negotiating table. Several times managed to extend the truce with the Commonwealth. Relations with the states of Central Asia developed well. The defense of the southern borders was strengthened. The only war started by Russia during the reign of Boris Godunov was directed against Sweden. As a result of the Livonian War, she got the coast of the Gulf of Finland. After three years of hostilities, the Tyavzinsky Peace Treaty was signed in 1593, which returned to Russia Ivangorod, Yam, Koporye and the Korela volost.

Boris Godunov made the first attempt before Peter to eliminate the cultural backwardness of Russia from the countries Western Europe... Many, much more than before, foreign specialists come to the country - military men and doctors, prospectors of mineral resources ("ore-workers") and craftsmen. Boris Godunov was even accused (like Peter I a hundred years later) of being overly addicted to the "Germans" (this is how Western Europeans were called in Russia). For the first time, several young nobles were sent to England, France, Germany "for the science of different languages ​​and letters". In the Time of Troubles, they did not dare to return to their homeland and "stuck" abroad; one of them in England converted to Anglicanism, became a priest and even a theologian.

Probably, if Godunov had a few more quiet years at his disposal, Russia would be more peaceful than under Peter, and would have taken the path of modernization a hundred years earlier. But these calm years did not exist. An improvement in the economic situation was only outlined, and since the way out of the crisis was a feudal way, discontent was ripening in the peasantry. So, in 1593 - 1595. the peasants of the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery fought with the monastic authorities. Who knows, maybe the dull discontent would not have grown into an explosion if the summer of 1601 had not been so rainy. It was not possible to start harvesting in any way. And then, without a break, the early frosts hit right away, and "beat all the work of human affairs in the field against all the hard work." The next year was again a bad harvest, and besides, there was a lack of seeds and their quality was low. For three years a terrible famine raged in the country.

Of course, the weather wasn't the only reason. Loose by heavy taxes and strong feudal exploitation the peasant economy lost its stability, had no reserves.

But it was not only the weather and the instability of the peasant economy that led to famine. Many boyars and monasteries had grain reserves. According to a contemporary, they would have been enough for the entire population of the country for four years. But the feudal lords hid reserves, hoping for a further rise in prices. And they have grown about a hundred times. People ate hay and grass, it reached the point of cannibalism.

Let's pay tribute to Boris Godunov: he fought hunger as best he could. Money was distributed to the poor, paid construction work was organized for them. But the money received instantly depreciated: after all, this did not add bread on the market. Then Boris ordered the distribution of free bread from state storage facilities. He hoped to set a good example for the feudal lords, but the granaries of the boyars, monasteries and even the patriarch remained closed. In the meantime, starving people were pouring into Moscow and large cities to get free bread from all sides. And there was not enough bread for everyone, especially since the distributors themselves speculated in bread. It was said that some rich people did not hesitate to dress in rags and receive free bread to sell it at exorbitant prices. People who dreamed of salvation died in cities right on the streets. In Moscow alone, 127 thousand people were buried, and not all of them were buried. A contemporary says that in those years the most well-fed were dogs and crows: they ate unburied corpses. While the peasants in the cities died in vain waiting for food, their fields remained uncultivated and uncultivated. This laid the foundations for the continuation of the famine.

What are the reasons for the failure of all attempts by Boris Godunov to overcome hunger, despite his sincere desire to help people? First of all, the king fought with the symptoms, and did not cure the disease. The causes of the famine were rooted in serfdom, but even the idea of ​​restoring the peasants' right to transition did not occur to the tsar. The only measure he decided on was permission in 1601 - 1602. temporary limited transition of some categories of peasants. These decrees did not bring relief to the peasants.

Famine killed Boris. Popular unrest covered all large territories. The tsar was catastrophically losing his authority. The opportunities that the reign of this talented statesman were missed. The victory of False Dmitry was ensured, according to Pushkin, "by the opinion of the people."

Many false stereotypes have accumulated about False Dmitry I both in literature and in the mass consciousness. He is usually seen as an agent of the Polish king and the gentry, who sought to seize Russia with his help, their puppet. It is quite natural that the government of Vasily Shuisky, who sat on the throne after the overthrow and assassination of "Tsar Dmitry", was strenuously introducing precisely this interpretation of the personality of False Dmitry. But today's historian can be more impartial about the activities of a young man who spent a year on the Russian throne.

Judging by the memoirs of contemporaries, False Dmitry I was smart and quick-witted. His confidants were amazed at how easily and quickly he solved complicated issues. It seems that he believed in his royal lineage. Contemporaries unanimously note the amazing, reminiscent of Peter's boldness, with which the young tsar violated the etiquette established at court. He did not pace the rooms gravely, supported under the arms of the close boyars, but swiftly passed from one to the other, so that even his personal bodyguards sometimes did not know where to find him. He was not afraid of the crowd, more than once, accompanied by one or two people, he rode along the Moscow streets. He didn't even sleep after lunch. It was decent for the Tsar to be calm, unhurried and important, this one acted with the temperament of the named father, but without his cruelty. All of this is suspicious of a calculating impostor. If False Dmitry knew that he was not a tsar's son, he certainly would have been able to master the etiquette of the Moscow court in advance, so that everyone could immediately say about him: yes, this is a real tsar. In addition, "Tsar Dmitry" pardoned the most dangerous witness - Prince Vasily Shuisky. Caught up in a conspiracy against the tsar, Vasily Shuisky led the investigation of the death of the real tsarevich in Uglich and saw his dead body with his own eyes. The council sentenced Shuisky to death, "Tsar Dmitry" pardoned.

Have the unfortunate young man been prepared from childhood for the role of a pretender to the throne, have they not brought him up in the belief that he is the rightful heir to the Moscow crown? No wonder, when the first news of the appearance of an impostor in Poland reached Moscow, Boris Godunov, as they say, immediately told the boyars that it was their work.

The most important rivals of Godunov on the way to power were the Romanov-Yuriev boyars. The eldest of them - Nikita Romanovich, brother of the mother of Tsar Fyodor - Tsarina Anastasia, was considered an ally of Godunov. It was to him that Nikita Romanovich bequeathed to patronize his children - "Nikitich". This "testamentary friendship of friendship" did not last long, and shortly after Boris's accession to the throne, five Nikitich brothers were arrested on a false charge of trying to poison the king and exiled along with their relatives. The elder and brothers, hunter and dandy Fyodor Nikitich was tonsured a monk under the name of Filaret and sent north to the Anthony-Siya monastery. Back in 1602, Filaret's beloved servant informed the bailiff that his master had come to terms with everything and was thinking only about saving his soul and his needy family. In the summer of 1604, False Dmitry appeared in Poland, and already in February 1605, the reports of the bailiff under the "elder Filaret" changed dramatically. Before us is no longer a humble monk, but a political fighter who heard the sounds of a battle trumpet. According to the bailiff, Elder Filaret does not live according to the monastic order, he always laughs, no one knows what, and talks about worldly life, about hunting birds and about dogs, how he lived in the world. To other monks, Filaret proudly declared that "they will see what he will be like from now on." And in fact, they saw. Less than six months after the bailiff sent his denunciation, Filaret from an exiled monk turned into a metropolitan of Rostov: he was elevated to this rank by order of "Tsar Dmitry". It's all about the impostor's connections with the Romanov family. As soon as False Dmitry appeared in Poland, Godunov's government announced that he was the impostor Yushka (and in monasticism - Grigory) Bogdanov, the son of Otrepiev, the deacon-defrocked of the Chudov Monastery, who was under Patriarch Job "for writing." Probably, it was so: the government was interested in giving the real name of the impostor, and it was easier to find out the truth then than it is now, after almost four centuries. Otrepiev, however, before the tonsure was a serf of the Romanovs and was tonsured a monk, apparently after their exile. Didn't they prepare the young man for the role of an impostor? In any case, the very appearance of False Dmitry has nothing to do with foreign intrigues. V.O. was right. Klyuchevsky, when he wrote about False Dmitry, that "it was only baked in a Polish oven, but leavened in Moscow."

Poland not only did not own the initiative of the False Dmitry's adventure, but, on the contrary, King Sigismund III Vasa hesitated for a long time whether it was worth supporting the applicant. On the one hand, it was tempting to have on the Moscow throne a person who was indebted to the king. Moreover, the young man did not skimp on promises. He secretly converted to Catholicism and promised the Pope that all of Russia would follow his example. He promised the king Smolensk and the Chernigov-Seversk land, the father of his bride Marina, the Sandomierz governor Yuri Mnishek - Novgorod, Pskov and a million gold pieces. But still. The story of the miraculous rescue of the prince seemed too incredible. Doubts about the royal origin of the "Moscow prince" were expressed by almost all the nobles of the Commonwealth, to whom the king turned for advice. And during the discussion in the Diet, the crown hetman Jan Zamoyski said that the whole story of the "tsarevich" reminds him of the comedies of Plavt or Terentius. “Is it a probable thing,” Zamoysky said, “to order someone to kill, and then not to see if that person is killed, who is ordered to be killed?” In addition, a tit in the hands - the armistice concluded in 1601 with Russia for a period of 20 years on mutually beneficial terms - seemed preferable to a pie in the sky - an ally of the Commonwealth on the Moscow throne. Sigismund III could not decide on an open military conflict with Russia also because the Rzeczpospolita was waging an exhausting struggle with Sweden for the Baltic states.

That is why the king did not dare to provide False Dmitry with full and unconditional support: he only allowed the Polish gentry, if they wished, to join his army. There were a little more than one and a half thousand of them. They were joined by several hundred Russian émigré nobles, and even the Don and Zaporozhye Cossacks, who saw in the campaign of False Dmitry a good opportunity for military booty. The contender for the throne thus possessed only a handful of "zhmeny" warriors - about four thousand. With them he crossed the Dnieper.

They were already waiting for False Dmitry, but they were waiting near Smolensk: from there a more direct and shorter way to Moscow opened. He preferred the longer route: he crossed the Dnieper near Chernigov. But the troops of False Dmitry had to go through the Seversk land, where a lot of combustible material had accumulated: small servicemen dissatisfied with their position, peasants who were subjected to especially strong exploitation on small estates, the remnants of the Cossacks defeated by Godunov's troops, who raised an uprising under the leadership of Ataman Khlopok, and finally, many fugitives who gathered here in the years of famine. It was these disaffected masses, and not Polish help, that helped False Dmitry reach Moscow and reign there.

In Moscow, False Dmitry did not turn into a Polish henchman either. He was in no hurry to fulfill his promises. Orthodoxy remained the state religion; moreover, the tsar did not allow the building of Catholic churches in Russia. He did not give Smolensk or the Seversk land to the king and only offered to pay a ransom for them. He even came into conflict with the Commonwealth. The fact is that in Warsaw they did not recognize the tsar's title for the Russian sovereigns and called them only grand dukes. And False Dmitry began to call himself even the king, i.e. the emperor. During the solemn audience, False Dmitry for a long time refused to even take from the hands of the Polish ambassador a letter addressed to the Grand Duke. In Poland, they were clearly unhappy with False Dmitry, who allowed himself to act independently.

Pondering the possible prospect of False Dmitry's assertion on the throne, it makes no sense to take into account his imposture: monarchical legitimacy cannot be a criterion for determining the essence of a political line. It seems that the personality of False Dmitry was a good chance for the country: brave and decisive, educated in the spirit of Russian medieval culture and at the same time touching the Western European circle, not giving in to attempts to subjugate Russia to the Commonwealth. But this opportunity was also not given to be realized. The trouble with False Dmitry is that he was an adventurer. We usually have only a negative meaning in this concept. Or maybe in vain? After all, an adventurer is a person who sets goals for himself that exceed the means at his disposal to achieve them. Success in politics cannot be achieved without a share of adventurism. It is simply that the adventurer who has achieved success is what we usually call an outstanding politician.

The means are the same. which False Dmitry had at his disposal were in fact not adequate to his goals. The hopes that various powers placed on him contradicted one another. We have already seen that he did not justify those who were imposed on him in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. To enlist the support of the nobility, False Dmitry generously distributed land and money. But both are not infinite. False Dmitry borrowed money from monasteries. Together with the leaked information about the Tsar's Catholicism, the loans worried the clergy and caused them to murmur. The peasants hoped that the good Tsar Dmitry would restore the right to go to St. George's Day, taken from them by Godunov. But, without entering into conflict with the nobility, False Dmitry could not do this. Therefore, serfdom was confirmed and only permission was given to the peasants who left their masters in the years of famine to remain in their new places. This paltry concession did not satisfy the peasants, but at the same time caused discontent among some of the nobles. In short: not a single social stratum within the country, not a single force abroad had any reason to support the tsar. That is why he was so easily overthrown from the throne.

At an impromptu Zemsky Sobor (out of people who happened to be in Moscow), Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky was elected tsar ("called out", as they said contemptuously then). Difficult to find kind words for that person. A dishonest intriguer, always ready to lie and even back up a lie with an oath on the cross - such was the "crafty courtier"(Pushkin), who came to the throne in 1606. But regardless of the personal qualities of Tsar Vasily, his reign could also become the beginning of good changes in the political structure of the Russian state. The point is in the obligations that he was forced to give upon accession to the throne.

For the first time in the history of Russia, Shuisky swore allegiance to his subjects: he gave a "note", the observance of which he secured by kissing the cross. This "kisses of the cross" is sometimes interpreted as a restriction of the royal power in favor of the boyars, and on this basis they see Shuisky as a "boyar tsar". To begin with, the contradictions between the “top” and “bottom” of the ruling class were not at all as significant as traditionally seems. In the very same restriction of autocracy, even in favor of the boyars, there is nothing wrong: after all, it was with the liberties of the English barons that English parliamentarism began. Unbridled despotism is hardly better than the rule of the king together with the aristocracy. But in the "crucifixion record" there was no real limitation of the tsar's power. Let's get a grasp of it.

First of all, Shuisky promised "no one should be put to death without condemning his boyars by true judgment." Thus, legislative guarantees were created against extrajudicial opals and executions of the time of the oprichnina. Further, the new tsar vowed not to take property from the heirs and relatives of the convicted, if “they are innocent of that fault”, the same guarantees were given to merchants and all “black people”. In conclusion, Tsar Vasily pledged not to listen to false denunciations ("arguments") and to solve cases only after a thorough investigation ("to find all sorts of detectives firmly and put it outright").

The historical significance of Shuisky's "crucifixion" not only in limiting the arbitrariness of the autocracy, even not only in the fact that for the first time the principle of punishment only by court was proclaimed (which, undoubtedly, is also important), but in the fact that it was the first agreement of the tsar with his subjects. Let us recall that for Ivan the Terrible, all his subjects were only slaves, whom he was free to grant and execute. Even the thought that it would not be his "slaves" to him, but he would swear allegiance to his "slaves", "kiss the cross", could not arise in Ivan IV. IN. Klyuchevsky was right when he wrote that "Vasily Shuisky was turning from a sovereign of slaves into a legitimate tsar of subjects who ruled by laws." Shuisky's recording was the first, timid and uncertain, but a step towards the rule of law... Of course, to the feudal.

True, in practice, Shuisky rarely reckoned with his record: apparently, he simply did not know what the sanctity of an oath was. But the solemn proclamation of a completely new principle of exercising power could not pass without a trace: it is not for nothing that the main provisions of the “kissing crucifixion” were repeated in two agreements concluded by the Russian boyars with Sigismund III on the calling of the prince Vladislav to the Russian throne.

One more circumstance is essential. Until 1598 Russia did not know elective monarchs. Ivan IV, opposing himself to the elected king of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Stefan Bathory, emphasized that he was a tsar "by God's will, and not by a multi-revolted human desire." Now, one after another, kings appear on the throne, summoned by the same "multi-rebellious human desire": Boris Godunov, elected by the Zemsky Sobor, False Dmitry, not elected, but seizing the throne only by the will of the people, Shuisky ... And behind him are already looming figures of the newly elected rulers - Prince Vladislav, Mikhail Romanov. But the election of a monarch is also a kind of agreement between subjects and the sovereign, which means a step towards the rule of law. That is why the failure of Vasily Shuisky, who could not cope with the opposing forces and with the beginning of the intervention of the Commonwealth, his overthrow from the throne, despite all the antipathy of Tsar Vasily's personality, was another missed opportunity.

The uprising of Ivan Bolotnikov dates back to the reign of Vasily Shuisky. The failure of this movement, which has embraced very broad masses, can hardly be attributed to those alternatives that, if realized, could bring good results. Both the personality of the leader of the uprising and the nature of the movement itself have been significantly deformed in our popular and educational literature. Let's start with Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov himself. They write about him that he was a serf of Prince Telyatevsky. It is true, but the inexperienced reader gets the impression that Ivan Isaevich plowed the land or served his master. However, among the slaves were completely different social groups... One of them consisted of the so-called servants or military servants. These were professional soldiers who went to the service with their master. V Peaceful time they often performed administrative functions on the estates and estates of their owners. They were recruited largely from the impoverished nobles. So, the Nikitichi-Romanovs were arrested on the denunciation of their servant, who came from the old (from the XIV century) noble family of the Bortenevs. Grigory Otrepiev, also a scion of a noble family, as noted above, served as a slave for the same Romanovs. Known to go to slaves in mid XVI v. even one of the Belozersk princes. The fact that we know in the XVI-XVII centuries. the noble family of the Bolotnikovs, makes us assume that a ruined nobleman is in Bolotnikov. It is unlikely that Prince Andrei Telyatevsky would have become a voivode under the command of his former servant, if he had not been a nobleman.

Always demanded an explanation a large number of nobles in the army of the leader of the peasant war, as Bolotnikov usually portrayed. In many textbooks you can read that the nobles Pashkov and Lyapunov with their detachments, for selfish reasons, first joined Bolotnikov, and then betrayed him when the anti-feudal essence of the movement began to emerge. However, it was hushed up that after the departure of Pashkov and Lyapunov, many other feudal lords remained with Bolotnikov and supported him to the end, including princes Grigory Shakhovskoy and Andrei Telyatevsky.

We do not know much about Bolotnikov's program; only its presentation in documents emanating from the government camp has come down to us. Outlining the calls of the rebels, Patriarch Hermogenes wrote that they "order the boyar lackeys to beat their boyars." As if it sounds quite anti-feudal. But let us read the text further: "... and their wives and estates and estates promise them" and promise their supporters "to give boyars and voivodeship and roundabout and clergy." Thus, we find no call for change here. feudal system, but only the intention to exterminate the current boyars and take their place ourselves. It is hardly accidental that "in the thieves' regiments" the Cossacks (as all the participants in the uprising were called) were given out estates. Some of these Bolotnikov landowners continued to own land in the first half of the 17th century.

The attitude of folklore towards Bolotnikov is hardly accidental. How many songs and legends have been composed about Stepan Razin! Legends about Pugachev are recorded in the Urals. But folklore is silent about Bolotnikov, although, according to modern historical science, it was him who should be sung by the people. But the disobedient people preferred the "leader of the masses" to another hero, alas, not impeccable in terms of class - "the old boyar Nikita Romanovich."

Of course, under the banners of Bolotnikov, and under the banners of other "thieves' chieftains", and, finally, in the camp of the "Tushino thief" who declared himself a miraculously escaped "Tsar Dmitry", there were many disadvantaged people who did not accept the cruel feudal system, whose protest sometimes poured out in no less cruel, and even robbery forms. And yet, I think, hatred of the oppressors was only one of several components of the broad movement at the beginning of the 17th century.

"Tushinsky thief", False Dmitry II, who inherited adventurism from his prototype, but not talents, a pitiful parody of his predecessor, often indeed a toy in the hands of representatives of the king of the Commonwealth, did not personify, like Bolotnikov, any serious alternative to the path of development along which Russia went. It may seem unexpected and even annoying, but another missed opportunity was, in my opinion, the failed reign of the son of Sigismund III - the prince Vladislav. To understand the line of reasoning, it is necessary to dwell on the circumstances of his call to the Moscow throne.

In February 1610, disenchanted with the "Tushino tsar", a group of boyars from his camp went to Sigismund III, who was besieging Smolensk, and invited Vladislav to the throne. A corresponding agreement was concluded. And six months later, in August, after the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky, the Moscow boyars invited Vladislav. Both the Tushinites and the Moscow boyars are traditionally branded as traitors who are ready to give Russia to foreigners. However, a careful reading of the agreements of 1610 provides no basis for such accusations.

Indeed, both documents provide for various guarantees against the absorption of Russia by the Commonwealth: both the prohibition to appoint immigrants from Poland and Lithuania to administrative positions in Russia, and the refusal to authorize catholic churches, and the preservation of all orders that exist in the state. In particular, serfdom also remained inviolable: “in Russia, there is no way out for Christians,” “the king does not seem to think of a way out between the Russians”. In the treaty concluded by the Tushins in February 1610, one can also notice an echo of Godunov's times: "And for science, it is free for everybody from the people of Moscow to go to the other state gifts of the Khrestiansky".

However, in both agreements, one significant point remained uncoordinated - about the religion of the future Tsar Vladislav. Both the Tushinites and the Moscow boyars insisted that he convert to Orthodoxy; a militant Catholic, who lost the Swedish throne due to adherence to the Roman faith, Sigismund III did not agree. The recognition of Vladislav as tsar before the solution of this issue is a serious mistake of the Moscow boyars. The point here is not in the comparative merits and demerits of both denominations, but in the elementary political calculation. According to the laws of the Commonwealth, the king had to be a Catholic. The Orthodox Vladislav was thus deprived of his rights to the Polish throne. This would eliminate the danger of first personal and then state union between Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, fraught with the loss of national independence in the future. The hasty recognition of the power of "the Tsar and Grand Duke Vladislav Zhigimontovich of All Russia" by the Boyar Duma opened the way to Moscow for the Polish garrison.

It can be assumed that the accession of the Orthodox Vladislav in Russia would bring good results. It is not a matter of the prince's personal qualities: later becoming the Polish king, Vladislav did not show himself in anything particularly outstanding. Another thing is essential: those elements of contractual relations between the monarch and the country, which were outlined in Vasily Shuisky's "kissing record", received their further development. The very accession of Vladislav was due to numerous articles of the agreement. Vladislav himself would have turned into a Russian tsar of Polish descent, just as his father Sigismund was a Polish king of Swedish descent.

However, this opportunity was also missed, although not through the fault of Russia. After the overthrow of Shuisky and the murder of False Dmitry II by his own supporters, a real intervention against Russia began. Sweden, whose troops were invited by Shuisky to help in the war against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, seized the opportunity to capture Novgorod and a significant part of the North. The Polish garrison was located in Moscow, and the governor of Vladislav (the prince was only 15 years old, and his loving father, naturally, did not let him go without himself to distant and dangerous Moscow, where only recently one tsar was killed and the other was dethroned) Alexander Gonsevsky disposed of in the country. Near Smolensk, besieged by the troops of Sigismund, the Russian embassy headed by Metropolitan Filaret negotiated the conditions for Vladislav's accession to the throne. Since the question of the faith of the future tsar could not be resolved, the negotiations failed, and the Russian delegation found itself in the position of prisoners.

Meanwhile, in Moscow, Gonsevsky, on behalf of Tsar Vladislav, was distributing land to the supporters of the interventionists, confiscating them from those who did not recognize foreign power. The order documentation of these months makes a strange impression. It seems that the concepts of loyalty and betrayal have suddenly changed places. Here is a certain Grigory Orlov, who calls himself a "loyal subject" not only to Tsar Vladislav, but also to Sigismund, and asks the "great sovereigns" to welcome him to "the traitorous princess Dmitriev, the landowner of Pozharsky." On the back of the petition, Gonsevsky is extremely polite and equally firm, addressing the clerk I.T. Gramotin, writes: "Dear Pan Ivan Tarasyevich! .. Prikgozho ... give the diploma of the Asudar salary." Not all of the letters call people like Pozharsky traitors, but there are many such letters.

True, all or almost all of these distributions existed only on paper: the Polish troops in Moscow were surrounded first by the first (led by Lyapunov, Trubetskoy and Zarutsky), and then by the second (led by Minin and Pozharsky) militias. There was no central authority as it were. Different cities independently decide who they recognize as rulers. Detachments of Polish gentry wander around the country and lay siege to cities and monasteries, engaged not so much in military operations as in simple robbery. Their own, native Cossacks are not lagging behind them either. This situation could not continue for too long: the striving for order is gaining momentum in the country. Let it be not very comfortable, not very good, but order. Whatever we consider the popular unrest of this time - a peasant war or a civil war - it is clear that large masses of people took part in the events. But none of that mass movement can't go on too long. The peasant (and in any case, it was the peasants who made up the bulk of the participants) cannot turn into a free Cossack for life, his hands are adapted to a plow, plow and scythe, and not to a saber and flail. A horse is a draft animal for him, not a living element of combat equipment. Civil War gradually faded.

The forces of order that emerged against the background of this general fatigue turned out, as often happens, to be rather conservative. One cannot but admire the courage, dedication and honesty of Minin and Pozharsky. But the pre-revolutionary historians were right in emphasizing the conservative direction of their activities. The public mood was answered by the reproduction of the order that existed before the turmoil. It was not for nothing that the second militia, resuming the minting of the coin, stamped on it the name of the long-dead Tsar Fedor, the last of the tsars, whose legitimacy was beyond suspicion for everyone.

The expulsion of the interventionists from Moscow made it possible to convene the Zemsky Sobor to elect a new tsar. So it was as if the selectivity was getting new impetus. But this was the last electoral council: Mikhail Fyodorovich became tsar as a "relative" of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich and the heir to "the former great noble and noble and God-crowned tsars of Russia."

During the elections, or rather on the sidelines of the cathedral, foreign candidates also surfaced. There was already a negative experience in choosing a tsar from the boyars (Godunov and Shuisky): the authority of such a sovereign was not great. Many of the boyars could consider themselves no worse than the sovereign. In this respect, a foreign king, a "born" sovereign, neutral in relation to clan groups, was preferable. Only one main condition was required - Orthodoxy. Otherwise, as the experience with Vladislav has shown, there is a threat to the country's independence. That is why the candidacy of the Swedish prince was rejected.

So, in the end, the sixteen-year-old son of Metropolitan Filaret Nikitich, Mikhail Fedorovich, became king. One of the boyars wrote to Prince Golitsyn in Poland about this choice: “Misha Romanov is young, he hasn’t got his mind yet and will be used to us”. It seems that the motives for the election were somewhat deeper. Youth had to pass, and behind the back of Misha, who had not reached the mind, who even in his mature years did not have a particularly deep mind, stood his domineering father- Filaret Nikitich. True, he was still in Polish captivity, but his return was a matter of time.

An intelligent person, with a strong will, but without much brilliance and talent, Filaret Nikitich turned out to be convenient for everyone. In this he was helped, in particular, by resourcefulness. He was supported by those who advanced during the years of the oprichnina: after all, the Romanovs are relatives of the first wife of Tsar Ivan, some of their relatives were oprichniks, and Filaret's father, Nikita Romanovich, constantly held a high position at the court of the formidable king. But those who suffered from the oprichnina could also consider Filaret their own: among his relatives there were also those executed during the years of the oprichnina repressions, and Nikita Romanovich had a persistent popularity of an intercessor who knew how to moderate the tsar's anger. It must have been a myth: after all, one who sat quietly and did not intercede for anyone could survive all the twists and turns of the oprichnina and the years after. But the myth is sometimes more important for people's actions than realities.

Supporters of False Dmitry also supported Filaret: after all, Grishka Otrepiev was his servant, and the first thing False Dmitry did was to return Filaret from exile. The supporters of Vasily Shuisky could not be against it either: with this tsar, the same Metropolitan Filaret Nikitich participated in the solemn ceremony of transferring the relics of the innocently murdered Tsarevich Dmitry, an action that should testify that the "Tsar Dmitry" who was killed in Moscow is in fact "defrocked" , an impostor who took upon himself the name of the saint and faithful prince. S.F. Platonov wrote that in this case Tsar Vasily played with a shrine. Filaret helped him well in the game. But for the main opponents of Shuisky, the Tushino Cossacks, Filaret was his own man. In 1608, the troops of the Tushins took Rostov, where Filaret was a metropolitan. Since then, he ended up in the Tushino camp either as a prisoner, or as an honored guest. Filaret in Tushino was even called the patriarch. No wonder the vote cast for Mikhail Fedorovich by the Cossack chieftain was the last decisive vote in favor of the new tsar. True, the consent of the youngest Mikhail was not received immediately. The mother of the future king, the nun Martha, was especially opposed. It can be understood: there was no more dangerous occupation in those years than fulfilling the duties of a king. "The Muscovite state of all ranks, people out of sin became demoralized," said the nun Martha, "having given their souls to the former sovereigns, they did not serve directly." It was only when the future king and his mother were threatened that they would be guilty of the "ultimate ruin" of the country that they finally agreed.

So, the Romanovs arranged for everyone. This is the property of mediocrity. Perhaps, in order to consolidate the country, restore social harmony, the country did not need bright personalities, but people who could calmly and persistently conduct a conservative policy. The healthy conservatism of the government of the first Romanovs made it possible to gradually restore the economy, state power, with some losses (Smolensk, the coast of the Gulf of Finland, etc.) to restore the state territory. After so many missed opportunities, a conservative reaction must have been inevitable. Yet one more opportunity was again unfulfilled. In electing Michael to the throne, the council did not accompany its act with any agreement. Power acquired an autocratic and legitimate character.

However, unclear information about some record that Mikhail Fedorovich gave upon accession to the throne has remained. Was this not a repetition of Shuisky's recording? According to other sources, this was an obligation to rule only with the help of Zemsky Councils. Indeed, until 1653 Zemsky Councils met regularly, were really representative and, at least slightly, but limited the autocratic power.

The costs of tranquility were great. A stable, but purely traditional life has come. Many of those who had been stirred up by the whirlwind of turbulent events, the dynamism of change, and frequent communication with foreigners felt stifling now. Their disappointment sometimes poured into ugly forms. For example, Prince Ivan Andreevich Khvorostinin, who served under False Dmitry I, drank without waking up, without observing fasts, kept “Latin” (ie, Catholic) icons and complained that “there are no people in Moscow: all people are stupid, there is no one to live with ... They sow the land with rye, but they all live with lies. " The prince was twice exiled to monasteries, his last stay in the northern Kirillo-Belozersky monastery somewhat cooled his ardor, and he wrote a completely orthodox history of the Time of Troubles. How many such disappointed, drunken talents, forced conformists tediously pulled the service strap and sadly recalled their stormy youth! Only their grandchildren became guards officers and shipbuilders, prosecutors and governors ... The modernization of the country was delayed for almost a century. Serfdom was strengthened, finally fixed in the Code of 1649. Only terrible and cruel riots - city uprisings, Razin's campaigns reminded of the high price the people pays for pacification ”.