Troubled times are short and understandable. Troubles (Time of Troubles) - briefly

Start Time of Troubles in Russia put a dynastic crisis. In 1598, the Rurik dynasty was interrupted - the childless son of Ivan the Terrible, the feeble-minded Fyodor Ioannovich, died. Earlier, in 1591, under unclear circumstances, the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible, Dmitry, died in Uglich. Boris Godunov became the de facto ruler of the state.

In 1601-1603, Russia was hit by 3 lean years in a row. The country's economy was affected by the consequences of the oprichnina, which led to the devastation of the land. After a catastrophic defeat in the protracted Livonian War, the country was on the verge of collapse.

Boris Godunov, having come to power, was unable to overcome public unrest.

All of the above factors became the causes of the Time of Troubles in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century.

At this tense moment, impostors appear. False Dmitry I tried to impersonate the "resurrected" Tsarevich Dmitry. He relied on the support of the Poles, who dreamed of returning to their borders the Smolensk and Seversk lands, conquered from them by Ivan the Terrible.

In April 1605, Godunov died, and his 16-year-old son Fyodor Borisovich, who replaced him, could not hold on to power. The impostor Dmitry entered Moscow with his retinue and was married to the kingdom in the Assumption Cathedral. False Dmitry agreed to give the Poles the western lands of Russia. After marrying the Catholic Marina Mnishek, he proclaimed her queen. In May 1606, the new ruler was killed as a result of a conspiracy of the boyars, headed by Vasily Shuisky.

The royal throne was taken by Vasily Shuisky, but he could not cope with the seething country. The bloody turmoil resulted in a people's war led by Ivan Bolotnikov in 1606-1607. A new impostor False Dmitry II appeared. Marina Mnishek agreed to become his wife.

With False Dmitry II, Polish-Lithuanian detachments went on a campaign against Moscow. They got up in the village of Tushino, after which the impostor received the nickname "Tushinsky thief." Using discontent against Shuisky, False Dmitry in the summer - autumn of 1608 established control over significant territories to the east, north and west of Moscow. Thus, a significant part of the country fell under the rule of the impostor and his Polish-Lithuanian allies. A dual power was established in the country. In fact, there were two tsars in Russia, two Boyar Dumas, two systems of orders.

The Polish army of 20,000 under the command of Prince Sapieha besieged the walls of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery for a long 16 months. The Poles also entered Rostov the Great, Vologda, Yaroslavl. Tsar Vasily Shuisky called on the Swedes to help in the fight against the Poles. In July 1609 Prince Sapieha was defeated. The outcome of the battle was decided by joining the Russian-Swedish militia units. "Tushinsky thief" False Dmitry II fled to Kaluga, where he was killed.

The treaty between Russia and Sweden gave the Polish king, who was at war with Sweden, a reason to declare war on Russia. A Polish army led by hetman Zolkiewski approached Moscow and defeated Shuisky's troops. The king finally lost the confidence of his subjects and in July 1610 was deposed from the throne.

Fearing the expansion of the newly flared up peasant unrest, the Moscow boyars invited the son of the Polish king Sigismund III, Vladislav, to the throne, and surrendered Moscow to the Polish troops. It seemed that Russia ceased to exist as a country.

However, the "great devastation" of the Russian land caused a broad upsurge of the patriotic movement in the country. In the winter of 1611, the first people's militia was created in Ryazan, headed by the Duma nobleman Prokopiy Lyapunov. In March, the militia approached Moscow and began the siege of the capital. But the attempt to take Moscow ended in failure.

And yet there was a force that saved the country from foreign enslavement. The entire Russian people rose up in an armed struggle against the Polish-Swedish intervention. This time, the center of the movement was Nizhny Novgorod, headed by its zemstvo head Kuzma Minin. Prince Dmitry Pozharsky was invited to head the militia. Detachments were marching towards Nizhny Novgorod from all sides, and the militia was rapidly increasing its ranks. In March 1612, it moved from Nizhny Novgorod to. On the way, new detachments poured into the militia. In Yaroslavl, they created the “Council of All the Earth” - a government of representatives of the clergy and the Boyar Duma, nobles and townspeople.

After four months in Yaroslavl, the militia of Minin and Pozharsky, which by that time had become a formidable force, headed for the liberation of the capital. In August 1612 it reached Moscow, and on November 4 the Polish garrison capitulated. Moscow was liberated. The confusion is over.

After the liberation of Moscow, letters were sent around the country on the convocation of the Zemsky Sobor to elect a new tsar. The cathedral opened in early 1613. It was the most representative in the history of medieval Russia, the first all-class cathedral in Russia. Even representatives of the townspeople and part of the peasants were present at the Zemsky Sobor.

The cathedral elected 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov as tsar. Young Mikhail received the throne from the hands of representatives of almost all classes of Russia.

At the same time, it was taken into account that he was a relative of Ivan the Terrible, which created the appearance of a continuation of the former dynasty of Russian princes and tsars. The fact that Mikhail was the son of an influential political and church leader, Patriarch Filaret, was also taken into account.

From that time on, the reign of the Romanov dynasty began in Russia, which lasted a little over three hundred years - until February 1917.

Consequences of the Time of Troubles

The time of troubles led to a deep economic decline. The events of this period led to the devastation and impoverishment of the country. In many districts of the historical center of the state, the size of arable land has decreased by 20 times, and the number of peasants by 4 times.

The consequence of the turmoil was that Russia lost part of its lands.

Smolensk was lost for many decades; western and a significant part of eastern Karelia were captured by the Swedes. From these territories, not resigned to national and religious oppression, almost the entire Orthodox population, both Russians and Karelians, left. The Swedes left Novgorod only in 1617, only a few hundred inhabitants remained in the completely devastated city. Rus' lost access to the Gulf of Finland.

The greatly weakened Russian state, as a result of the events of the Time of Troubles, found itself surrounded by strong enemies in the person of Poland and Sweden, and the Crimean Tatars revived.

• The Time of Troubles began with a dynastic crisis. On January 6, 1598, Tsar Fedor Ioannovich died - the last ruler from the family of Ivan Kalita, who did not leave an heir. In the X-XIV centuries in Rus', such a dynastic crisis would have been resolved simply. The most noble prince Rurikovich, a vassal of the Moscow prince, would ascend the throne. The same would have been done in Spain, France and other countries of Western Europe. However, the princes Rurikovich and Gediminovich in the Muscovite state for more than a hundred years ceased to be vassals and associates of the Grand Duke of Moscow, but became his serfs. The famous Rurik princes Ivan III killed in dungeons without trial or investigation, even loyal allies, to whom he owed not only the throne, but also his life. And his son, Prince Vasily, already publicly could afford to call the princes smerds and beat them with a whip. Ivan the Terrible staged a grand massacre of the Russian aristocracy. The grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the appanage princes, who were in favor under Vasily III and Ivan the Terrible, signing letters derogatoryly distorted their names. Fedor signed Fedka Dmitry - Dmitry or Mitka, Vasily - Vaskom, etc. As a result, in 1598, these aristocrats in the eyes of all classes were serfs, albeit high-ranking and rich. This brought to power Boris Godunov, a completely illegitimate ruler.

• False Dmitry I became in the past millennium the most effective and most famous impostor in the world and the first impostor in Russia.

• That he was not the miraculously saved Tsarevich Dmitry is irrefutably proved by medicine. The prince suffered from epilepsy, and epilepsy never goes away on its own and is not treated even by modern means. And False Dmitry I never suffered from epileptic seizures, and he did not have the intelligence to imitate them. According to most historians, it was a fugitive monk Grigory Otrepiev.

• During his stay in Poland and the Seversk cities of Russia, False Dmitry never mentioned his mother Maria Nagoya, imprisoned in the Goritsky Resurrection Convent under the name of nun Martha. Having seized power in Moscow, he was forced to prove with the help of his “mother” that he was the miraculously saved Tsarevich Dmitry. Otrepiev knew about the hatred of nun Martha for the Godunovs and therefore counted on her confession. Properly prepared, the queen rode out to meet her "son." The meeting took place near the village of Taininskoye, 10 versts from Moscow. It was very well directed and took place on a field where several thousand people gathered. On the high road (Yaroslavl highway), shedding tears, "mother" and "son" rushed into each other's arms.

• The recognition and blessing of the impostor by Queen Mary (nun Martha) produced a huge propaganda effect. Otrepiev wanted to arrange another such show after the coronation - to solemnly destroy the grave of Tsarevich Dimitri in Uglich. The situation was comical - the son of Ivan the Terrible, Tsar Dimitri Ivanovich, reigns in Moscow, and in Uglich in the Transfiguration Cathedral, three hundred miles from Moscow, crowds of citizens pray over the grave of the same Dimitri Ivanovich. It was quite logical to rebury the corpse of the boy who lay in the Transfiguration Cathedral in some seedy cemetery, corresponding to the status of the priest's son, who was allegedly stabbed to death in Uglich. However, the same Martha strongly opposed such an idea, because it was about the grave of the real Dmitry, her only son.

• The militia of Minin and Pozharsky is unique in that it is the only example in Russian history when the fate of the country and the state was decided by the people themselves, without the participation of the authorities as such. She then went bankrupt.

• The people threw their last pennies into arms and went to liberate the land and restore order in the capital. They went to fight not for the king - he was not there. The Ruriks are over, the Romanovs have not yet begun. All estates then united, all nationalities, villages, cities and metropolises.

• In September 2004, the Interregional Council of Russia took the initiative to celebrate November 4 at the state level as the day of the end of the Time of Troubles. The newly appeared “red day of the calendar” was perceived by Russian society not immediately and not unambiguously.

Time of Troubles - Chronology of events

The chronology of events helps to better imagine how events developed in a historical period. The Time of Troubles presented in the article will help students to better write an essay or prepare for a report, and teachers to choose key events that should be told in class.

The Time of Troubles is a designation of the period of Russian history from 1598 to 1613. This period was marked by natural disasters, the Polish-Swedish intervention, the most severe political, economic, state and social crisis.

Chronology of events of troubled times

The prelude to troubled times

1565-1572 - oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible. The beginning of a systemic political and economic crisis in Russia.

1569 - Lublin Union of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Formation of the Commonwealth.

1581 - the murder of Ivan the Terrible in a fit of anger, the eldest son of Ivan Ivanovich.

1584, March 18 - the death of Ivan the Terrible while playing chess, the accession to the throne of Fedor Ivanovich.

1596. October - Schism in the church. Cathedral in Brest, split into two cathedrals: Uniate and Orthodox. The Kiev Metropolitanate was divided into two - faithful to Orthodoxy and Uniates.

December 15, 1596 - Royal Universal to the Orthodox with support for the decisions of the Uniate Council, with a ban on obeying Orthodox clergy, an order to accept the union (in violation of the law on freedom of religion in Poland). The beginning of an open persecution of Orthodoxy in Lithuania and Poland.

The beginning of troubled times

1598 - the death of Fedor Ivanovich, the termination of the Rurik dynasty, the election of boyar Boris Fedorovich Godunov, brother-in-law of the late tsar, as tsar at the Zemsky Sobor.

January 01, 1598. The death of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich, the end of the Rurik dynasty. The rumor that Tsarevich Dimitri is alive is spreading in Moscow for the first time

February 22, 1598. Consent of Boris Godunov to accept the royal crown after much persuasion and threats to excommunicate Patriarch Job from the Church for disobedience to the decision of the Zemsky Sobor.

1600 Bishop Ignatius Grek becomes the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Moscow.

1601 Great famine in Rus'.

Two contradictory rumors are spreading: the first is that Tsarevich Dimitri was killed on the orders of Godunov, the second is about his “miraculous salvation”. Both rumors were taken seriously, despite the contradiction, spread and provided anti-Godunov forces with help among the "masses".

Impostor

1602 Hierodeacon Grigory Otrepyev of the Chudov Monastery escapes to Lithuania. the appearance in Lithuania of the first impostor, posing as the miraculously saved Tsarevich Dmitry.

1603 - Ignatius Grek becomes Archbishop of Ryazan.

1604 - False Dmitry I in a letter to Pope Clement VIII promises to spread the Catholic faith in Russia.

April 13, 1605 - Death of Tsar Boris Feodorovich Godunov. Muscovites' oath to Tsarina Maria Grigorievna, Tsar Feodor Borisovich and Princess Xenia Borisovna.

June 3, 1605 - Public murder on the fiftieth day of the reign of the sixteen-year-old Tsar Feodor Borisovich Godunov by princes Vasily Vas. Golitsyn and Vasily Mosalsky, Mikhail Molchanov, Sherefedinov and three archers.

June 20, 1605 - False Dmitry I in Moscow; a few days later he appoints Ignatius the Greek as patriarch.

Tushino camp

May 17, 1606 - Conspiracy led by Prince. Vasily Shuisky, the uprising in Moscow against False Dmitry I, the deposition and death of False Dmitry I.

1606-1610 - the reign of the "boyar tsar" Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky.

June 03, 1606 - Transfer of relics and canonization of St. Right-Believing Tsarevich Dimitry of Uglich.

1606-1607 - an uprising led by the "voivode of Tsar Dmitry" Ivan Bolotnikov.

February 14, 1607 - Arrival in Moscow at the royal command and at the request of Patriarch Hermogenes "byvago" Patriarch Job.

February 16, 1607 - "Letter of Permit" - a conciliar ruling on the innocence of Boris Godunov in the death of Tsarevich Dimitry of Uglich, on the legal rights of the Godunov dynasty and on the guilt of Moscow people in the murder of Tsar Fyodor and Tsarina Maria Godunov.

February 20, 1607 - Reading of the petition of the people and the "letter of permission" in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin in the presence of Sts. Patriarchs Job and Hermogenes.

1608 - False Dmitry II's campaign against Moscow: the impostor besieged the capital for 21 months.

The beginning of the Russian-Polish war, the Seven Boyars

1609 - Vasily Shuisky's agreement with Sweden on military assistance, the open intervention of the Polish king Sigismund III in Russian affairs, the siege of Smolensk.

1610 - the assassination of False Dmitry II, the mysterious death of the talented commander Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky, the defeat of the Polish-Lithuanian troops near Klushino, the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky and his full tonsure as a monk.

1610, August - Hetman Zholkevsky's troops entered Moscow, Prince Vladislav was called to the Russian throne.

militias

1611 - the creation of the First Militia by the Ryazan nobleman Prokopy Lyapunov, an unsuccessful attempt to liberate Moscow, the capture of Novgorod by the Swedes and the Poles of Smolensk.

1611, autumn - the creation of the Second Militia, led by the Nizhny Novgorod townsman headman Kuzma Minin and Prince Dmitry Pozharsky.

1612, spring - The second militia moved to Yaroslavl, the creation of the "Council of All the Earth".

1612, summer - connection of the Second and the remnants of the First militia near Moscow.

1612, August - Hetman Khodkevich's attempt to break through to the Polish-Lithuanian garrison besieged in the Kremlin was repulsed.

1612, the end of October - the liberation of Moscow from the invaders.

The election of the king

1613 - Zemsky Sobor elects Mikhail Romanov as Tsar (February 21). Mikhail's arrival from Kostroma to Moscow (May 2) and his coronation to the kingdom (May 11).

The defeat of Zarutsky and Marina Mnishek near Voronezh.

Troubled times in Russia. Causes, essence, stages, results.

Causes:

1 ) The establishment of a 5-year term for the investigation and return of fugitive peasants is another step towards serfdom.

2 ) Three lean years in a row (1601-1603), which led to famine, which aggravated the internal situation in the country to the limit.

3 ) The dissatisfaction of everyone - from peasants to boyars and nobles - with the rule of Boris Godunov.

4 ) The mass of peasants and townspeople of the central and northwestern regions, devastated by war, plague and oprichnina.

5 a) Departure of peasants from villages and cities; the decline of the economy.

6 ) Exacerbation of the class struggle.

7 ) The development of contradictions within the ruling class.

8 ) Deterioration of the international position of the state.

9 ) Crisis in the economic and political life of the country.

First stage (1598-1605)

At this stage, there were the first signs of destabilization of the system, but manageability remained. This situation created the conditions for a controlled process of change through reforms. The absence of a pretender with firm rights to the throne after the death of Fyodor Ioannovich was extremely dangerous in an autocratic, unrestricted power. It was important to ensure the continuity of power. In 1598. the Zemsky Sobor took place, its composition was wide: boyars, nobles, clerks, guests (merchants) and representatives of all the “christians”.

The council spoke in favor of crowning Boris Godunov, who actually ruled the country. The Boyar Duma met separately from the Zemsky Sobor and called for swearing allegiance to the Duma as the highest authority. Thus, an alternative arose: either elect a tsar and live as before, or swear allegiance to the Duma, which meant the possibility of changes in public life. The outcome of the struggle was decided by the street, speaking out for Boris Godunov, who agreed to the kingdom.

The position of the majority of the people was disastrous. At the beginning of the 17th century, agriculture fell into decline, and natural disasters added to this. In 1601, a terrible famine broke out, which lasted three years (only in Moscow were they buried in mass graves more than 120 thousand people). In difficult conditions, the authorities made some indulgences: the Yuriev day organized the distribution of bread to the starving. But even these measures did not relieve the tension. In 1603, the uprisings took on a massive character.

Second stage (1605-1610)

At this stage, the country plunged in the abyss of civil war, there was a collapse of the state. Moscow has lost its significance as a political center. In addition to the old capital, new, "thieves" appeared: Putivl, Starodub, Tushino. The intervention of Western countries, attracted by the weakness of the Russian state, began. Sweden and Poland were rapidly advancing inland. State power was paralyzed. In Moscow, False Dmitry I, Vasily Shuisky, Boyar Duma, whose reign went down in history under the name "Seven Boyars", were replaced. However, their power was ephemeral. False Dmitry II, who was in Tushino, controlled almost half the country.

At this stage, the possibility The Europeanization of Russia is associated with the name of False Dmitry I. In 1603, a man appeared within the Commonwealth, calling himself the name of the son of Ivan IV Dmitry, who had been considered killed for twelve years. In Russia, it was announced that Grigory Otrepiev, a fugitive monk of the Chudov Monastery, was hiding under this name.

Election as king Mikhail Romanov testified to the fact that the majority in society spoke in favor of the restoration of the Muscovite kingdom with all its features. The Troubles brought an important lesson: the majority was committed to the traditions of community, collectivism, strong centralized power and did not want to give them up. Russia began to slowly emerge from the social catastrophe, restoring the social system destroyed during the Time of Troubles.

Consequences of Troubles:

1 ) Temporary strengthening of the influence of the Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Sobor.

2 ) The positions of the nobility were strengthened

3 ) Lost coast of the Baltic Sea and the land of Smolensk.

4 ) Economic devastation, poverty of the people.

5 ) Saved the independence of Russia

6 ) The Romanov dynasty began to rule.

The main ideas of the Jesuits, who concocted and implemented the project of usurpation of the Russian Patriarchate and the Tsar’s throne in order to establish a state subject to the Roman throne in place of the Orthodox one, are reflected in a document that was used by our famous historians S. M. Solovyov (in his “History ...”, vol. 8 , ch. 4) and Metropolitan Macarius (“History of the Russian Church”, vol. 10). This document was owned by Prince Mikhail Andreevich Obolensky (1805 - 1873), director of the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs since 1840. The document dates back to 1608. This is a kind of "instruction manual" for the second Pretender. It is quite appropriate to see in it a revision of an earlier document. Its essence is this. In order to create an empire necessary for the Jesuits and Rome on the site of the Moscow state, it is important that the most important positions in the state and in the Church are occupied by “their own”, controlled candidates. It is important that the head of state receive the imperial crown only from the pope. It is also important that the work of the union - the transitional stage in the transfer of the people to Catholicism - be carried out without haste, for sure. Book document. Obolensky, with a few very few exceptions, has not attracted the attention of historians of the Time of Troubles. Note that its authenticity has never been questioned by anyone, although Solovyov did not even quote him, but only outlined the content. About a hundred years ago, the issue of the Pretender and the Jesuits was dealt with by Nikolai Mikhailovich Pavlov, a historian and writer of a national trend (he was friendly with the Aksakov and Khomyakov families). Some of his very interesting letters to Count Sergei Dmitrievich Sheremetev, who headed the Archaeographic Commission of the Academy of Sciences, were recently published. Here are some interesting fragments of these letters. From a letter dated April 8, 1898 (regarding the work of the Jesuit Pavel Pirling “Roma ed Demetrius): “When the legend that the power-hungry Boris killed the prince in Uglich and that Grishka Otrepiev reigned under his name was officially sanctioned in Rus', called by the Latins Demetrius gave no reason to Jesuit literature to gossip about him. The Jesuits were alarmed, writes Pavlov, “when the Russian historical science expressed the opinion that Demetrius was not at all a conscious deceiver, and, moreover, Otrepiev was not, and one of two things comes out: either this is a true prince, the Uglitsky baby himself who grew up in obscurity, or, tertium non datur, such an impostor who was rigged and educated in Lithuania by the Jesuits according to Possevin's idea” (12, p. 6). In a letter dated April 21, 1898, it is said: “Pearling assures that Demetrius only got along with the Jesuits because questions about the salvation of the soul were not alien to him, and that on this issue the Jesuits are the best advisers. But after all, the Tushinsky thief, the second False Dmitry, also used the advice of the Jesuits (for example), not to rush to introduce Latinism, because this had already “harmed before”: wouldn’t Pirling say that the Jesuits were also sticking to the Tushinsky thief, because. questions about the salvation of the soul greatly occupied him” (12, 9). The first strong voice about the Jesuits, as the initiators of the appearance of the Pretender, belonged to the Metropolitan of Moscow Platon (Levshin). In his “Brief Russian Church History” (2, pp. 178-179) he writes: “It remains to understand who of the people could invent such a cunning and unusual plan? In my opinion it seems that this invention was the Jesuits. And this is proven.” Metropolitan Platon quotes the “Reasonings of Hoffmann, a German writer close” (Lexicon of Hoffmann. Leiden, 1698): “They say that the Jesuits in Poland dared to undertake this atrocity. They had in a certain Collegium of their young man, a Russian (Otrepiev boyar from a certain city of Galich, a son, whose name is Grigory Otrepiev.) They pretty much instructed him, from the youngest years to the future (power? - Auth.), and the rules of how to govern, so drunk that for some time he deceived all of Russia. But the candidacy of Grigory Otrepiev does not seem to be proven by Metropolitan Platon. Under the guise of an impostor. “Grishka or not Grishka, but who else,” writes Metropolitan Platon.

And he also writes the following: “The first impostor is someone dummy, invented and set up by some cunning villains, a foreigner or a Russian, perhaps Grishka Otrepiev himself, the son of a Galician petty nobleman, but long ago prepared, disposed and processed by intruders, and not the one our chroniclers know.” The murder of Tsarevich Dimitri on behalf of Boris Godunov was the work of those who needed to steal the name of the son of Ivan the Terrible for the Pretender. Here, the interests of a part of the boyar aristocracy, those who were ardent opponents of Godunov's state (and church) construction, converged with the plans of external enemies. They did not need to kidnap the prince, it was dangerous. His name was stolen, and at the same time slander against Godunov was erected. The murder contributed to the destruction of the Rurik dynasty, helped to fight Godunov. The real result of the work of the investigation in the Uglich case, headed by Prince. Vasily Shuisky is as follows: the official version of the accident, as well as the rumor about the murder on the orders of Boris, plus a thin loop of the rumor "about miraculous salvation." This rumor will be aroused in difficult times for the authorities in Moscow, for example, in 1598 immediately after the death of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich. Even during the life of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich, the struggle around the throne was fought between the tsar's relatives Godunovs and Romanovs.

But more ancestral than them, in an earlier, distant blood connection with the Rurikoviches, were some princes, a kind of “princes of the blood” - the Shuiskys, for example. Both the Romanovs and the Godunovs were not princely families, they did not belong to the Rurikovichs or Gediminoviches. Both families were small, belonged to the new aristocracy. The old aristocracy under the Godunovs or under the Romanovs had no chance of power. It was clear that under Godunov's policy she had no prospects for absolute power. It was clear that the Romanovs (sons of Nikita Romanovich Zakharyin-Yuriev, who, dying, gave Godunov his place near Tsar Theodore Ioannovich), would not be guided by the well-born nobility. Therefore, the Romanovs were moved in every possible way against Godunov, and even compromised by the fact that the boyar impostor - Grigory Otrepiev - was taken "from their court." Without knowing it, the Romanovs, like the Godunovs they hated, became victims of boyar intrigues. The ties of the boyar aristocracy (political and related) with Lithuania were so close, the example of the oligarchic power of the gentry aristocracy in the Polish Republic was so attractive that the unification of forces hostile to Godunov in Russia and abroad became a reality and led to incredible political intrigue. Sophisticated Jesuits kept its threads in their hands until the accession of the Pretender. It seemed that the monstrous undertaking had succeeded. But the Pretender began to show signs of independence, and the boyar aristocracy, satisfied that the Godunovs were no more, and the Romanovs had previously been eliminated from the struggle for the throne, felt their moment and, led by Vasily Shuisky, dealt with their recent allies. The West clearly underestimated the abilities of the "Muscovites". It should be noted that the opinion of N. M. Pavlov about the exceptional merits of the Jesuits in the success of the first Pretender is somewhat exaggerated. Although they have a dominant role in this matter, but without the secret actions of a strong anti-Godunov boyar party, the Pretender could not have been successful. At the very end of the 19th century, when S. F. Platonov seriously took up the history of the Time of Troubles, and N. M. Pavlov set about searching for new sources abroad, the work of Fr. Pavel Pirling "Rome and Demetrius". This wise Jesuit began to write regularly on the themes of the Pretender and the Troubles. His works were published and distributed in Russia. Father Pavel Pirling was absolutely sure that in Russia they would not get to the truth, and therefore he allowed himself arrogant passages similar to mockery: writes about a phenomenon "which in Petrine Russia should not be too surprised": "first the history of the turmoil came out, and then they began to study the sources." Pirling has in mind the dominance of his opinions, established since the time of Karamzin, which took the form of "scientific" officialdom. This, unfortunately, is generally true. Since then, the situation has not changed. In Russia, to this day, it is believed that Godunov killed the prince, and Grigory Otrepyev came to Moscow and ruled for almost a year under the name of Demetrius. This accepted version was ahead of the actual study of the problem. More precisely, the problem was simply removed, elevating the strong-willed decision of Tsar Vasily Shuisky to the level of the final result, without taking into account the fact that it actually lived only until the cathedral on February 16, 1607. That for our science and for our cultural society the historical truth was not interesting - in this the Jesuit Pearling is right. But, all the more so, despite the prescription, now it is not worth leaving the problem. N. M. Pavlov carefully studied Pirling's works, and his conclusions are relevant even today. Letter to Count S. D. Sheremetiev dated March 4, 1901: “all for one purpose: to divert the reader’s eyes from the true breeders of the reigning False Dmitry” (12, p. 14). Pirling was cunning, saying: "The mechanical comparison of domestic and foreign news cannot be considered satisfactory." He did not like that Russian historians were trying to restore the true outline of events and "go out" to the true culprits of the murder and the Time of Troubles. It is no coincidence that earlier the authenticity of documents from the Vatican archives published by A.I. Turgenev was questioned. The reason is precisely that these materials were not in favor of the Jesuits, the Roman Curia and the Holy See. Oddly enough, in his writings, Pirling often lets slip, and in some cases provides direct evidence against the Jesuits in the case of the Pretender. In the article Posseviana (this article should be considered the answer of the Jesuits to the unsuccessful searches by N. M. Pavlov in Venice for the Possevina archive, documents from which a certain “Russian”, most likely Prince Obolensky, or someone from his entourage, got acquainted with the documents back in 1860 Pirling reports the following about the Venetian archive of Antonio Possevino. The archive of Possevin (who was in correspondence with Savitsky, a Jesuit, confessor of Demetrius, and with the head of the Polish Jesuits, Decius Skrivri) was entrusted by the owner on May 7, 1604 (then Demetrius's campaign in Russia was already a decided matter, and the result was still problematic) to the care of the general of the order, Claudio Acquaviva. Pierling writes that the Possevin archive is poorly preserved, “most of the papers have been lost. The Russian historical part was especially affected.” He does not report the place of its location, and also does not report the content of the inventory of the archive that has been preserved, according to him (10). Pavlov to Sheremetyev: “The enemies of Orthodoxy, having stolen his (prince’s) name and abused him, wanted to set up a false self-proclaimed dynasty in Rus' for the coming generations from century to century” (12, p. 11). Metropolitan Platon Levshin: “They call Possevin, who wanted to catch the young children of the Russian nobles in some way, so that they would learn from them in Poland and Vilna the sciences, de them most disposed to the Papal faith, and through them, de, it will be possible in Russia to be successful." (metropolitan Platon (Levshin))

Metropolitan Platon gives an exhaustive description of the Jesuits as the doers of papal policy, and also points to Ivan the Terrible, who gave them a reason to participate in "Russian affairs": to spread their faith and the very papal and their power”; “They were and are always the tools of the Pope, who did not sleep, and never sleeps, in order to conquer all the kingdoms of his power, for this they consider all methods and all lawless means to be lawful”; “The first tsar, John Vasilievich, unfortunately opened the Pope and the Jesuits free entry into Russia” (2, 178-179). Those who prepared the Pretender and the Union of Brest, and the union was prepared not only for Maly and Bely, but above all for Great Russia, had the same leaders. In 1605, Pope Paul V wrote to Cardinal Bernard Maciejowski of Krakow that “Demetrius, imbued from childhood with the teachings of the Roman Catholic faith through the care of Cardinal Maciejowski, will keep it hopefully even after ascending to the throne of his parents” (3, p. 162). Back in 1588, the then Bishop of Lutsk, Bernard Maciejowski, and Brest judge Adam Potei, the future Uniate Bishop Ipatiy, began preparing the union during the visit of Patriarch Jeremiah to Russia. The impostor was legalized in the house of the Mnishkovs, relatives of Cardinal Maciejovsky, in 1603, when a certain “Muscovite”, the boyar impostor Grigory Otrepiev, who was brought there by “Latin monks”, was “executed” there.

N. M. Pavlov wrote gr. S. D. Sheremetev: “Grishka Otrepiev, whose wanderings from Moscow to Kiev can be traced with the accuracy of a diary, was in Kiev with “Latin monks”, after which he disappeared - an undeniable fact” (12, p. 8). Evidence in favor of Pirling's message about the execution of the "Muscovite" is the "repentant letter" of the monk Varlaam, who was arrested together with Otrepiev and imprisoned in the Mnishkov castle separately from the Moscow fugitive. This letter was first published in one collection of acts with a "permit". Varlaam can be seen as an agent of the Moscow conspirators who brought Otrepiev to Lithuania and there "surrendered" him to the "Latin monks" (1). (Note that the purpose of sending Grigory Otrepyev from Moscow was to create an official version of the Moscow government about the impostor Otrepyev, and then to refute it when the "real prince" appeared in Moscow - this was quite successful - and also, incidentally, to discredit the Romanovs, from whose "yard" was Otrepyev to the Chudov Monastery). So, from childhood, the Jesuit pupil was under the supervision of the Cardinal of Krakow, and this was known in Rome. Cardinal Bernard Maciejowski of Krakow was also at the origin of contacts with the infidel Western Russian episcopate in preparation for the union. His relative's house became the starting point for preparing the Pretender's invasion of Russia. And the second Pretender is of the same origin. Mikhail Molchanov, one of the murderers of Feodor Godunov, immediately after the death of Demetrius, flees from Moscow to Krakow, spreading the news of the "salvation" of the Pretender. The second Pretender appears only a year later, but preparations have been going on for his appearance all this time. Bolotnikov, recently the much-praised leader of the so-called "peasant war", arrived in Russia from Krakow from Molchanov, and before that he had been to Venice. Bolotnikov's business was to set the stage for the second Pretender. The first Pretender relied in Russia on the boyar opposition; after the first one was destroyed by the boyars, the second Pretender had to be popular among the social rank and file, "lean" on them. Nuncio Claudio Rangoni, Cardinal Borghese from Rome to Poland, wrote about the second Pretender as early as the end of 1606 (these are only four known letters). The Jesuit entourage of the Second Pretender (Tushinsky thief) is also known. And the first Demetrius certainly had an understudy, and maybe more than one. (See Acts ... collected by A. I. Turgenev. S. 136-137. Act LXXVIII, letters dated September 30, October 7, October 21, December 9, 1606) Let's return to the “Letter of Permit”. Without assistance in Moscow, enemies from outside would not have achieved anything. The betrayal of the boyars and the people who swore allegiance to the son of Tsar Boris, the public murder of Tsar Theodore and his mother opened Moscow to the Pretender and opened the Time of Troubles. If then the Russian people had remained faithful to the young Tsar, there would have been no Time of Troubles. But even the cautious Karamzin wrote about the petition of the Moscow people, read out on February 20, 1607 in the Assumption Cathedral before the “letter of permission”: “In this paper, the people - and only one people - prayed Job to forgive him in the name of God all his sins before the Law, demanded forgiveness for alive and dead, blamed himself for all the disasters sent down by God on Russia, but did not blame himself for the regicides, attributing the murder of Theodore and Mary to Rastriga alone ”(13, p. 47). Indeed, the text of the petition says: “and we sinned in that, we violated the oath and the kiss of the cross, and they were given out to the evil and impious murderer Grishka Otrepyev, and the thief Grishka painfully did what he wanted to, our Sovereign Theodore and his mother betrayed to death, and He sent Princess Xenia into a monastic image, and to you our father was torn away from us, and us from you. (1.3, p.158) In a word, everything is like the first time: it’s not my fault, but my wife’s; it's not my fault, but the snake seduced. As is repentance, so is forgiveness. The "Letter of Permit" about the guilt of the Russian people says directly:
“Orthodox Christians Tsarina Marya and Tsarevich (inaccuracy, follows: Tsar, - ed.) Theodora and Tsarevna Xenia overthrew from the royal throne, and from the royal chambers from the royal chambers, and strangled by an evil death (Xenia was not killed. These mistakes are a clear consequence of speed preparation of the document, but they do not change its essence) and the holy catholic and apostolic church of the Most Pure Mother of God (Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin) is disgraced. A multitude of the people of the reigning city of Moscow entered the holy cathedral and apostolic church, with weapons and dracoli; during the holy and divine singing, and not allowing the divine liturgy to be performed, and entering the holy altar, and I, Ieva the Patriarch, took from the altar and in the church and around the square, carrying disgrace with many shames, and in the royal skirts the likeness of Christ's body and the Most Pure Mother of God and Archangels, who were prepared for the Lord’s shroud under golden chased images, and then crushed the enemy with hatred and, sticking up on spears and horns, carrying in hail and in the marketplace, disgracefully, forgetting the fear of God "(1, 2, 154). The Holy Sepulcher was subjected to blasphemy and pogrom; a majestic shroud - a relic built towards the end of the reign of Boris Godunov for the alleged Church of the Resurrection in the Kremlin and located in the royal chambers. There is a significant work by A.L. Batalov (18) about this shrine, and its significance, as well as about the elevation with the establishment of the patriarchate of the Moscow Tsar to an equal degree with the Byzantine basileus. He points out that already the coronation rank of Boris Godunov - the rite of crowning the kingdom on September 3, 1598 - was consciously oriented towards the Byzantine rank "with the desire to become like the emperor of the Ecumenical Orthodox Empire." The work of A. L. Batalov is very valuable for understanding the Godunov era, the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bstate building under Feodor Ioannovich and the Godunovs. Archbishop Arseniy of Arkhangelsk (i.e. the Cathedral of the Archangel in the Kremlin - "at the royal tombs") b. Elassonsky writes in his memoirs: “All the people of Moscow, having heard about this poison-filled message (the Pretender, - author), immediately, like wild animals, like robbers with knives, clubs and stones, rushed to the palace to Tsar Theodore and Queen Mary, pulled out them from the palace and imprisoned them in his father's old house. The quickly stupid people forgot the great kindness of his father Boris and the innumerable alms that he distributed to them. The body of Boris was taken out of the coffin, which was in the cathedral church of the Archangels, for the sake of desecration. Five days later, Tsar Theodore and his mother Mary were killed and buried near Tsar Boris in the Varsonofevsky Monastery, and his sister, Princess Xenia, was tonsured a nun five months later, they named her Olga nun and exiled to the Belozersky monastery. Oh, the madness and lawlessness of the people, what did they do, although later they themselves, with their wives and children, drank the cup that they had prepared” (6, p. 99). Metropolitan Platon (Levshin): “Tsar Theodore was not in the kingdom for more than a month; and so blessed, like a quiet ram, having no malice, died. About him, secretly cry in your hearts, for his innocent life, and death innocent from the villain and from his subjects of traitors ”(2, p. 144). Muscovites repented of the crime of kissing the cross - and this sin is forgiven. And they did not take the blame for regicide and sacrilege - and it remained with the people of Moscow. In this part, the conciliar and patriarchal letter sounds harsh - guilty! Here are some thoughts about it. In an article published relatively recently in Lithuania, its author, a writer, writes with vehemence, but not without reason: “They don’t say anything about the canonization of the really innocently murdered Tsar Fyodor Borisovich”; "The brutally murdered king. Shamelessly slandered by his father. The introduction of the people into the sin of lynching over people and the state. ". (15). The first defender of Boris Godunov was once N. M. Karamzin himself, who played the main role in strengthening the slander against Godunov. But these words of his are true even now: “What if we slander this ashes, if we unjustly torment the memory of a person, believing false opinions accepted in the annals by nonsense or enmity? ; And this monarch, whose name Tsar Michael himself ordered to be preserved on Ivan the Great, despite the fact that his parent was persecuted by Boris, our chroniclers are not ashamed to describe this Monarch as an insane villain; for the likelihood of this villainy, it is necessary to prove its connection with the benefits of lust for power; his crimes seem to me absurd, worthy of rude ignoramuses who wanted to flatter the reigning family of the Romanovs with slander. “Eager piety also belongs to the character of Godunov; her sincerity cannot be doubted. Karamzin gives examples of the faith and piety of Boris Godunov, in particular, tells how he ordered his sick son to be carried to the temple in the cold, and also that “none of the Russian tsars more often than Boris visited the Trinity and other holy monasteries” ( 14, pp. 305-318). Even St. Job, the first Patriarch of Moscow and All Great Russia, wrote about Godunov as a great temple builder and builder: and their eyesight is worthy of great wonder.”

The well-known historian and collaborator of Pushkin, Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin, writes about Karamzin in his article “On Godunov’s Participation in the Murder of Tsarevich Dimitri”: his opinion, without showing the reasons that prompted him to do so. (16, p. 126). In the preface to his articles on Godunov and the Pretender, Pogodin rightly says: “It is necessary to publish, collate and evaluate critically all our and foreign evidence about the confused period of Boris and False Dmitry - a period in which much remains dark even for those who accept the main positions of Karamzin” ( 16, p. 147). That is, back in 1829, Pogodin spoke of a necessary condition, which, even after 70 years, could not suit the Jesuit Pearling. It has not been observed to this day. Karamzin, in his "History", followed the path of officialdom, dating back to Shuisky, probably after he saw that a conscientious study would be unusually scandalous for some strong families in his time - let's name only the Golitsyn princes, and the Jesuits in Russia were then very influential in the highest circles of society. The “Godunov case” also presented significant difficulties for the reigning dynasty, for none of the Romanovs returned to the issue of revising the results of the activities of the Vasily Shuisky commission on the basis of the opinion of the Church, expressed in the “permit” of the 1607 Council. Under the Romanovs, two contradictory attitudes to the death of Tsarevich Dimitri were established, both false - an accident, by the decision of the Shuisky commission, and the victim of the “killer Godunov”, as recorded in the life of the faithful passion-bearer “at the suggestion” of the same Vasily Shuisky with the conscious connivance of Godunov's opponent, Metropolitan Filaret Romanov, who led the canonization in 1606. Undoubtedly, the great historiographer lost heart and gave in to the demands of truth. The time of the Godunovs covers three reigns: Theodore Ioannovich, Boris Feodorovich and the fifty-day one - Theodore Borisovich, and one pontificate - on the metropolitan, then on the patriarchal throne - St. Job. It was the time of the real embodiment of the idea of ​​a symphony of spiritual and secular power. This is not some kind of idyll, but mutual understanding and unity in overcoming contradictions. Such was the relationship between Godunov and the Patriarch in connection with the decree of 1590 on abuse of land contributions to monasteries and in connection with the revision of monastic land ownership in 1593-4. Saint Job was the true spiritual head of Russia. Godunov's measures against abuses that corrupted society, the people, and the clergy did not meet with his opposition, although they were perceived by the interested part of society and part of the clergy as anti-church (even the famous Abraham Palitsyn condemned Godunov). But the holy Patriarch Job was not a weak-willed "well-wisher" Godunov, who allegedly "kept" him on the throne for this. Back in 1871, N. Sokolov, the author of a study on St. Job wrote: “We would have had a university not from the time of Elizabeth, but from the very beginning of the 17th century, if Job and his clergy had not opposed the great thought of Boris, had not prevented its implementation. Consider Job's opposition to Boris' intention. We find in the patriarch a man who strictly preserved the purity of the faith and fearfully looked at all attempts to subject it to foreign influence. It seemed dangerous, imprudent and untimely to entrust public education to people alien to our faith. At the council, Job said that “Russia prospers in the world through the unity of faith and language. Differences in language can also lead to differences in thought. It is imprudent to entrust the education of youth to Catholics and foreigners. The patriarch was by no means an opponent of enlightenment, he himself was an educated person, and had an excellent command of the pen. But being very sharp-sighted, St. Job understood the danger of prematurely establishing a university in Russia. And Tsar Boris unconditionally accepted the opinion of the Holy Patriarch and the Council. (17, p. 31 - 33)

Is this not evidence of genuine, active consent? It is not surprising when the Holy Patriarch is at the head of the Church, and a truly pious monarch is at the head of the state. (Unfortunately, these episodes did not find a place in the Life of St. Job, see ZhMP 1990 No. 2) It is not surprising that the malice of this world took up arms against them. Russian society and the Russian people were unworthy of God's gift, which is such a power for people. They went the way of crimes against God and power, followed the invisible initiators of these crimes. Boris and his family were not punished as criminals. This is Russia, its people were so severely punished. Only the martyrdom of Patriarch Hermogenes, and then the feat of Susanin, standing in the faith and truth of the few (Holy Trinity Sergius Monastery, St. Dionysius, Prince Dimitry Pozharsky) became the basis for its revival. Hegumen Feofilakt (Moiseev), in a recent work about St. Job, quotes Avraamy Palitsyn's words about the Time of Troubles: "The entire Russian state is driven into madness" (7). This is the time from which the lawless sentence to Tsar Boris and his family came out. But it has not been canceled to this day.

What testimonies we have about the Godunovs today, now and for all time! Their remains were laid to rest in his monastery by the Abbot of the Russian Land, St. Sergius. Their names are raised over all of Moscow and shine with gold under the dome of Ivan the Great, which has become a monument to a small but great dynasty (remember that its enemies tried to blow it up and could not destroy it in 1812). Through the poetic and at the same time prophetic gift of Pushkin, the denunciation of the "Letter of Permit", the holy patriarchs Job and Hermogenes and the entire consecrated cathedral in the final scene of the great tragedy "Boris Godunov" is repeated. (Pushkin did not know the entire text of the Permissive Letter, only a small fragment of it given by Karamzin). “The people” are “silent” until now, remain indifferent to the desecrated honor of the great Orthodox sovereign, the founder of the Patriarchate in Russia, whom the holy Patriarch Job called a friend. We are still indifferent to the martyrdom of his widow and heir, to the sad fate of his daughter. Due attention to such a significant document, which is the “Letter of Permission” of the two holy patriarchs, can be an incentive for a detailed study and a worthy solution to this long-standing problem that we have neglected.

The Time of Troubles (Trouble) is a deep spiritual, economic, social, and foreign policy crisis that befell Russia in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. The turmoil coincided with the dynastic crisis and the struggle of boyar groups for power.

Causes of Trouble:

1. Severe systemic crisis of the Moscow state, largely associated with the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Contradictory domestic and foreign policies have led to the destruction of many economic structures. Weakened key institutions and led to loss of life.

2. Important western lands were lost (Yam, Ivan-gorod, Korela)

3. Sharply escalated social conflicts within the Muscovite state, which engulfed all societies.

4. Intervention of foreign states (Poland, Sweden, England, etc. regarding land issues, territory, etc.)

5. Dynastic Crisis:

1584 After the death of Ivan the Terrible, his son Fyodor took the throne. The actual ruler of the state was the brother of his wife Irina boyar Boris Fedorovich Godunov. In 1591, under mysterious circumstances, the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible, Dmitry, died in Uglich. In 1598 Fedor dies, the dynasty of Ivan Kalita is stopped.

Course of events:

1. 1598-1605 The key figure of this period is Boris Godunov. He was an energetic, ambitious, capable statesman. In difficult conditions - economic ruin, difficult international situation - he continued the policy of Ivan the Terrible, but with less cruel measures. Godunov led a successful foreign policy. Under him, there was a further advance to Siberia, the southern regions of the country were mastered. Strengthened Russian positions in the Caucasus. After a long war with Sweden in 1595, the Treaty of Tyavzinsky was concluded (near Ivan-gorod). Russia regained the lost lands on the Baltic coast - Ivan-gorod, Yam, Koporye, Korela. The attack of the Crimean Tatars on Moscow was prevented. In 1598, Godunov, with a 40,000-strong noble militia, personally led a campaign against Khan Kazy Giray, who did not dare to enter Russian lands. Fortifications were being built in Moscow (White City, Zemlyanoy Gorod), in border towns in the south and west of the country. With his active participation in 1598, a patriarchate was established in Moscow. The Russian Church became equal in relation to other Orthodox churches.

To overcome the economic ruin, B. Godunov provided some benefits to the nobility and townspeople, at the same time, taking further steps to strengthen the feudal exploitation of the broad masses of the peasantry. To do this, in the late 1580s - early 1590s. B. Godunov's government conducted a census of peasant households. After the census, the peasants finally lost the right to move from one landowner to another. The scribe books, in which all the peasants were recorded, became the legal basis for their serfdom from the feudal lords. The bonded serf was obliged to serve his master throughout his life.

In 1597, a decree was issued on the search for fugitive peasants. This law introduced "lesson years" - a five-year period for detecting and returning fugitive peasants, along with their wives and children, to their masters, for whom they were listed according to scribe books.

In February 1597, a decree was issued on bonded serfs, according to which one who had served for free hire for more than six months turned into a bonded serf and could be released only after the death of the master. These measures could not but aggravate class contradictions in the country. The masses were dissatisfied with the policies of the Godunov government.

In 1601-1603. there was a crop failure in the country, famine and food riots begin. Hundreds of people died every day in Russia in the city and in the countryside. As a result of two lean years, the price of bread rose 100 times. According to contemporaries, almost a third of the population perished in Russia during these years.

Boris Godunov, in search of a way out of this situation, allowed the distribution of bread from the state bins, allowed the serfs to leave their masters and look for opportunities to feed themselves. But all these measures were not successful. Rumors spread among the population that people were being punished for violating the order of succession to the throne, for the sins of Godunov, who had seized power. Mass uprisings began. The peasants, together with the urban poor, united in armed detachments and attacked the boyar and landlord households.

In 1603, an uprising of serfs and peasants broke out in the center of the country, led by Khlopko Kosolap. He managed to gather significant forces and moved with them to Moscow. The uprising was brutally suppressed, and Khlopko was executed in Moscow. Thus began the first peasant war. In the peasant war of the beginning of the XVII century. three large periods can be distinguished: the first (1603 - 1605), the most important event of which was the uprising of Cotton; the second (1606 - 1607) - a peasant uprising led by I. Bolotnikov; third (1608-1615) - the decline of the peasant war, accompanied by a number of powerful performances by peasants, townspeople, Cossacks

During this period, False Dmitry I appeared in Poland, who received the support of the Polish gentry and entered the territory of the Russian state in 1604. He was supported by many Russian boyars, as well as the masses, who hoped to ease their situation after the "legitimate tsar" came to power. After the unexpected death of B. Godunov (April 13, 1605), False Dmitry, at the head of the army that had gone over to his side, on June 20, 1605 solemnly entered Moscow and was proclaimed tsar.

Once in Moscow, False Dmitry was in no hurry to fulfill the obligations given to the Polish magnates, since this could hasten his overthrow. Having ascended the throne, he confirmed the legislative acts adopted before him, which enslaved the peasants. Having made a concession to the nobles, he aroused the discontent of the boyar nobility. Lost faith in the "good king" and the masses. Discontent intensified in May 1606, when two thousand Poles arrived in Moscow for the wedding of the impostor with the daughter of the Polish governor Marina Mniszek. In the Russian capital, they behaved like in a conquered city: they drank, rioted, raped, and robbed.

On May 17, 1606, the boyars, led by Prince Vasily Shuisky, plotted, raising the population of the capital to revolt. False Dmitry I was killed.

2. 1606-1610 This stage is associated with the reign of Vasily Shuisky, the first "boyar tsar". He ascended the throne immediately after the death of False Dmitry I by decision of the Red Square, giving a cross-kissing record of a good attitude towards the boyars. On the throne, Vasily Shuisky faced many problems (the uprising of Bolotnikov, False Dmitry II, Polish troops, famine).

Meanwhile, seeing that the idea with the impostors failed, and using as a pretext the conclusion of an alliance between Russia and Sweden, Poland, which was at war with Sweden, declared war on Russia. In September 1609, King Sigismund III besieged Smolensk, then, having defeated the Russian troops, he moved to Moscow. Swedish troops seized the Novgorod lands instead of help. So in the north-west of Russia began the Swedish intervention.

Under these conditions, a revolution took place in Moscow. Power passed into the hands of the government of the seven boyars ("Seven Boyars"). When in August 1610 the Polish troops of Hetman Zolkiewski approached Moscow, the boyars-rulers, who were afraid of a popular uprising in the capital itself, in an effort to preserve their power and privileges, went to treason. They invited 15-year-old Vladislav, the son of the Polish king, to the Russian throne. A month later, the boyars secretly let Polish troops into Moscow at night. It was a direct betrayal of national interests. The threat of foreign enslavement hung over Russia.

3. 1611-1613 Patriarch Hermogenes in 1611 initiated the creation of a zemstvo militia near Ryazan. In March it laid siege to Moscow, but failed because of internal disagreements. The second militia was created in autumn, in Novgorod. It was headed by K. Minin and D. Pozharsky. Letters were sent to the cities with an appeal to support the militia, whose task was to liberate Moscow from the invaders and create a new government. The militias called themselves free people, at the head was the Zemstvo Council and temporary orders. On October 26, 1612, the militia managed to take the Moscow Kremlin. By decision of the boyar duma, it was dissolved.

Outcomes of Troubles:

1. The total death toll is equal to one third of the country's population.

2. Economic catastrophe, the financial system was destroyed, transport communications were destroyed, vast territories were taken out of agricultural circulation.

3. Territorial losses (Chernigov land, Smolensk land, Novgorod-Severskaya land, Baltic territories).

4. Weakening of the positions of domestic merchants and entrepreneurs and strengthening of foreign merchants.

5. Emergence of a new royal dynasty On February 7, 1613, the Zemsky Sobor elected 16-year-old Mikhail Romanov. He had to solve three main problems - the restoration of the unity of the territories, the restoration of the state mechanism and the economy.

As a result of peace negotiations in Stolbov in 1617, Sweden returned the Novgorod land to Russia, but retained the Izhora land with the banks of the Neva and the Gulf of Finland. Russia has lost its only outlet to the Baltic Sea.

In 1617 - 1618. another attempt by Poland to seize Moscow and elevate Prince Vladislav to the Russian throne failed. In 1618, in the village of Deulino, a truce was signed with the Commonwealth for 14.5 years. Vladislav did not renounce his claims to the Russian throne, referring to the treaty of 1610. Smolensk and Seversk lands remained behind the Commonwealth. Despite the difficult terms of the peace with Sweden and the truce with Poland, a long-awaited respite came for Russia. The Russian people defended the independence of their Motherland.

Literature

1. History of Russia: textbook / A. S. Orlov [and others]. - M.: Prospekt, 2009. - S. 85 - 117.

2. Pavlenko, N.I. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861: textbook. for universities / N. I. Pavlenko. - M.: Higher. school, 2004. - S. 170 -239.