Trouble clash of various contradictions. Tsar Vasily Shuisky. The crisis of Russian statehood

The most severe economic crisis was called "the ruins of the 70-80s of the 16th century." The most developed in economic terms center (Moscow) and northwest (Novgorod and Pskov) of the country. Part of the population fled, the other - died during the years of the oprichnina and the Livonian War. More than 50% of arable land (and in some places up to 90%) remained uncultivated. The tax burden increased sharply, prices rose 4 times. In 1570-1571. plague swept across the country. Peasant farming lost stability, famine began in the country. Under these conditions, the landlords could not fulfill their obligations to the state, and the latter did not have enough funds to wage war and govern the state.

The central government took the path of attaching the main producer - the peasantry - to the land of feudal landowners. At the end of the XVI century. in Russia, in fact, a system of serfdom was established on a state scale.

The actual enslavement of the peasantry at the end of the XVI century. Serfdom is the highest form of incomplete ownership of the feudal lord by the peasant, based on attaching him to the land of the feudal lord (boyar, landowner, monastery, etc.) or the feudal state (in the absence of a private owner of the land, when peasant communities bear duties in favor of the state). Aggravation social relations- one of the reasons for the troubled times.

Oprichnina did not completely resolve the differences within the ruling class. She strengthened the personal power of the king, but there was still a fairly strong boyars. The ruling class has not yet reached a firm consolidation. The contradictions escalated in connection with the termination of the legitimate dynasty, which kept score from the legendary Rurik, and the accession to the throne of Boris Godunov

Political motives of the Time of Troubles:

• 1. The contradictions caused by the struggle for power in the elite of Moscow society escalated (during the period when the composition of the Regency Council under Fedor was unclear).
• 2. By 1587, the court struggle revealed the undisputed winner - Boris Godunov became the de facto ruler of the state (tsar in 1598). This is about "the beginning of the belittling of the co-ruling role of the Boyar Duma and could not but give rise to deep contradictions in the upper layers of the" sovereign's court ".
• 3. The boyars, intimidated and devastated by the oprichnina, were dissatisfied with the fact that after the suppression of the Rurik dynasty, the throne went to the thin-born Boris Godunov, who, moreover, tried to rule autocratically (E.A. Shaskolskaya).
• 4. The death of Dmitry in 1591 and the childless death of Fedor in 1598 meant the end of the hereditary dynasty of Rurikovich.

Economic motives of the Time of Troubles:

The consequences of the oprichnina led to the devastation and ruin of the lands and the further consolidation of the peasantry.

In 1601-1603. crop failures and famine hit the country (three consecutive lean years; only the southern border counties were not affected).

Inside the estate motifs of the Troubles:

There was an increase in the crisis of the feudal class, which was expressed in an increase in the number of service people and a reduction in the fund of manorial lands during the "great ruin" of the 70-80s. 16th century

The crisis also intensified within the feudal class. The petty feudal lords found themselves in a difficult situation, remaining in depopulated estates. The process of enticing peasants from smaller ones by large feudal lords became a natural phenomenon.

Social motives of Troubles:

• 1. The dissatisfaction of the draft population, which had suffered from wars and crop failures, was growing, and was distrustful of the new tsar Boris Godunov, elected to the kingdom by the Zemsky Sobor.
• 2. The Cossacks, which had become a social force by the beginning of the century, resisted the government's attempts to subdue the Cossack lands (E.A. Shaskolskaya).

Thus, the Time of Troubles of the late 16th - early 17th centuries is a period of deep socio-economic, political and spiritual crisis in Russian society.

Trouble. Time of Troubles. This is how we call the time period from 1598 to 1613. And it comes after the death of Fyodor Ivanovich. These 15 years greatly influenced the further development of Russia. During this period, there is a fierce struggle for the throne. It was at this time that the change of dynasties of rulers took place.

In 1598, one of the sons of Ivan IV, Fedor, died. And on the throne, at the initiative of Patriarch Job, at the Zemsky Sobor - a class-representative body, Boris Godunov is elected - the person closest to the former tsar. After coming to power, he takes up foreign policy: He opposes the Crimean Khan Kazy Giray. Khan Kuchum was also defeated, thereby Siberia was finally annexed,. But from 1601 to 1603, natural conditions were not favorable for the inhabitants of Muscovite Rus'. Heavy rains and early frosts led to famine. A lot of people died. In 1601, the tsar's decree was issued on the restoration of St. George's Day, and in 1603 - a decree on the release of serfs from feudal dependence.

But all this was done to alleviate the fate of not ordinary people, but boyars and nobles, who found it difficult to support them. As early as 1601, food riots began. And because of the famine, in 1603 an uprising led by Cotton broke out in the southwestern counties. And if at first the rebels were pursued by success. But at the end of autumn, albeit with great effort, the uprising was crushed. And this uprising came highest point Hunger riots.

Also, during this time period, False Dmitry the man appeared, posing as a miraculously saved Dmitry Ivanovich. Historians believe that it was Grigory Otrepyev. He fled to the Commonwealth, where he posed as a king and found support in the persons of King Sigismund, magnates, gentry and the Catholic clergy. False Dmitry promised his supporters probably everything he could. Also, he met support in Rus' in 1604. Boyars, peasants, serfs, Cossacks and some other strata of society went over to his side. Moravsk, Chernigov, Putivl, Rylsk, Kursk, Kromy, Belgorod, and so on, surrender to False Dmitry one after another... June 20, 1605 False Dmitry enters Moscow. By this time, Boris Godunov was already dead (he died a natural death), and his son Fedor was killed. False Dmitry was recognized as king. As a result, he was crowned on the throne. False Dmitry took several steps in favor of the people who supported him: he gave freedom to those who fell into bondage serfs. Also in the same year, a decree was issued on the beginning of the colonization of Siberia by all comers. The period of lesson years was increased to 5, 5-6 years. But with all this, dissatisfaction with False Dmitry and his entourage grew.

And soon, in 1606, an uprising broke out in Moscow under the leadership of Vasily Shuisky, who himself recognized Dmitry Ivanovich in Otrepyev a year ago. But fate prepared the new ruler by no means a calm reign. The first test for him was the uprising led by Bolotnikov in 1606-1607. Shuisky coped with this test, although a lot of blood was shed. Also in 1607, the New Ruler extended the fixed years to 15 years.

In general, 1607 can be called oversaturated, because this year the second impostor is announced - False Dmitry, respectively, the second. And again people began to support him. In 1608, his troops moved to Moscow. They settled near the village of Tushino. It is also worth mentioning that False Dmitry II and his supporters were nicknamed the Tushino Thieves, as they robbed and robbed the local population. And, if at first False Dmitry was accepted, then from the end of 1608 the Russian people began to rise up against rapists and robbers. The struggle against the Tushintsy began.

Meanwhile, the position of Vasily Shuisky was getting worse and worse. This led to the fact that he had to turn to the Swedish king for help. The Russian-Swedish army began its journey of liberating the lands from the Tushintsy. And soon the Tushino camp disintegrated. And False Dmitry fled to Kaluga.

But the situation in Rus' became more and more difficult. In the autumn of 1609, the troops of Sigismund III moved to Smolensk. False Dmitry II approached Moscow again. In such a situation, the Moscow boyars and the nobility overthrew Vasily Shuisky from the throne, thereby forming a new government, the Seven Boyars. They invited Stanislav Zholkevsky with his detachment to the capital. The impostor fled to Kaluga, where he was killed by Prince Urusov. But the people were not happy. People did not like the Seven Boyars itself, nor the Poles in Moscow.

In March 1611, the first militia was formed, and in the autumn the second militia began to form, led by Minin and Pozharsky. And the situation in the country became more and more acute: Smolensk fell and Sigismund III announced that he himself would become the Tsar of Moscow. Novgorod was captured by the Swedes, whose inhabitants recognized their dependence.

But the second militia made itself felt. In August 1612, the Polish troops of Hetman Khodkevich near Moscow were defeated, which led to her liberation. The "heart" of all Russia was saved.

The “Council of All the Earth”, created by that time, convened a new Zemsky Sobor, and in January 1613 Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov was elected at it. So the dynasty of rulers has changed. The new government had to solve very difficult tasks, as the country was ruined.

Introduction

1. Causes of unrest at the beginning of the 17th century

2. Phenomenon of imposture. Polish-Lithuanian intervention

3. The rise of the liberation movement. Uprising I.I. Bolotnikova

4. Restoration of the estate-representative monarchy. Beginning of the Romanov dynasty

Conclusion

List of sources used

Application

Introduction

Events at the turn of the XVI-XVII centuries. received, with the light hand of contemporaries, the name "Time of Troubles". The time of hard times affected all aspects of Russian life - the economy, power, domestic and foreign policy, ideology and morality. The reasons for the turmoil were the aggravation of social, class, dynastic and international relations at the end of the reign of Ivan IV and under his successors.

The most severe economic crisis was called "the ruin of the 70-80s of the 16th century." The most economically developed center (Moscow) and north-west (Novgorod and Pskov) of the country have become deserted. One part of the population fled, the other - died during the years of the oprichnina and the Livonian war. More than 50% of arable land (and in some places up to 90%) remained uncultivated. The tax burden increased sharply, prices rose 4 times. In 1570-1571. plague swept across the country. Peasant farming lost stability, famine began in the country. Under these conditions, the landlords could not fulfill their obligations to the state, and the latter lacked the means to wage war and govern the state.

The central government took the path of attaching the main producer, the peasantry, to the land of the feudal landowners. At the end of the XVI century. in Russia, in fact, a system of serfdom was established on a state scale.

Serfdom is the highest form of incomplete ownership of the feudal lord over the peasant, based on attaching him to the land of the feudal lord (boyar, landowner, monastery, etc.) or the feudal state (in the absence of a private owner of the land, when peasant communities bear duties in favor of the state).

A number of historians believe that serfdom was introduced by royal decree in 1592 or 1593. However, the text of the decree has not been found, there are only indirect evidence of its existence. Most historians are of the opinion that serfdom developed as a result of the successive issuance of a series of decrees that limited, and then in practice abolished the right of peasants to freely move from one feudal lord to another.

1. Causes of confusion at the beginning XVII V.

As a state system, serfdom actually took shape at the end of the 16th century. and was finally legally formalized by the Council Code of 1649.

In 1497, Ivan III's "Sudebnik" on a nationwide scale introduced Yuryev's autumn day - November 26 as a time for peasant transitions. At the same time, a fee was set for the "elderly" - for living on the land of the feudal lord. The Sudebnik, adopted under Ivan IV in 1550, confirmed the right of the peasants to move only on St. George's Day and increased the size of the "elderly", which made the transition even more difficult. At the end of the XVI century. the government adopted a number of resolutions that led in practice to the enslavement of the peasants. In 1581, “reserved years” were introduced for the first time - years in which the passage of peasants was forbidden even on St. George’s Day (from the word “commandment” - a ban) It is still not entirely clear whether reserved years were introduced on the territory of all of Russia or in individual lands. The frequency of their introduction is also unclear.

For the 80-90s of the XVI century. account for the compilation of scribe books. By 1592, the entire population was included in special books, and it became possible to establish which of the feudal lords belonged to the peasants. Then, according to a number of historians, a special decree was issued on the prohibition of peasant transitions, which meant the establishment of serfdom.

In 1597, for the first time, a decree was adopted on the search for runaway peasants. Peasants who fled after compiling the cadastral books of 1592 (the investigation period was 5 years) were to be returned to their former owner. E 1607, according to the "Code" of Tsar Vasily Shuisky, the term for detecting fugitives was set at 15 years. Those who received fugitive peasants were fined by the state and compensated to the old owner.

In 1597, bonded serfs (people who fell into slavery for debts) were deprived of the right to become free after paying off the debt and were assigned to their creditor owners. Volunteer serfs (people who served on a freelance basis) turned into complete serfs after six months of work. Both bonded and free slaves became free only after the death of the master.

The state was supposed to ensure the search and return of runaway peasants to their owners. The introduction of the state system of serfdom led to a sharp aggravation of social contradictions in the country and created the basis for mass popular uprisings. The situation in Russia has heated up. The aggravation of social relations is one of the causes of troubled times.

Buganov V.I. The world of history. Russia in X VII century. - M., 2001

2. Phenomenon of imposture. Polish-Lithuanian intervention

Tsar Fedor Ioannovich. Another cause of unrest was the dynastic crisis. Oprichnina did not completely resolve the differences within the ruling class. She strengthened the personal power of the king, but there was still a fairly strong boyars. The ruling class has not yet reached a firm consolidation. The contradictions escalated in connection with the termination of the legitimate dynasty that kept score from the legendary Rurik.

On March 18, 1584, Ivan the Terrible died while playing chess. His eldest son Ivan was killed by his father in a fit of rage (1581), younger son Dmitry was only two years old. Together with his mother, the seventh wife of Ivan IV, Maria Nagoya, he lived in Uglich, given to him as an inheritance. The middle son of Ivan the Terrible, twenty-seven-year-old Fyodor Ivanovich (1584-1598), who was gentle by nature, but incapable of governing the state, ascended the throne.

The personality of Fyodor Ivanovich, who grew up in an atmosphere of medieval cruelty, attracted the attention of many writers and artists. “I am a king or not a king” - the sacramental phrase put into his mouth by A.K. Tolstoy successfully characterizes Fyodor Ioanovich. Realizing that the throne passes to the blessed Fedor, Ivan IV created a kind of regency council under his son.

Boris Godunov. The brother-in-law of the tsar, the boyar Boris Fedorovich Godunov, became the de facto ruler of the state, to whose sister Fyodor was married. Godunov withstood a fierce struggle with the largest boyars for influence on state affairs. Among the boyars who were members of the regency council were Nikita and Fedor Nikitich Romanov, the brother and nephew of the first wife of Ivan the Terrible, and Ivan Petrovich Shuisky, the father of the future Russian tsar.

In 1591, under unclear circumstances in Uglich, the last of the direct heirs to the throne, Tsarevich Dmitry, died, allegedly having run into a knife in a fit of epilepsy. Popular rumor, as well as accusations inspired by Godunov's opponents, attributed to him the organization of the assassination of the prince in order to seize power. However, historians do not have convincing documents that would prove Godunov's guilt.

With the death of the childless Fyodor Ioanovich in 1598, the old dynasty ended. A new tsar was elected at the Zemsky Sobor. The predominance of Boris Godunov's supporters at the council predetermined his victory.

Boris Godunov (1598-1605) 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

Skrynnikov R.G. Boris Godunov. - M., 2000

1595 Tyavzinsky peace was concluded (near Ivan-gorod). Russia regained the lost lands on the Baltic coast - Ivangorod, 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, Earthen City), in the border towns in the south and west of the country.

A major success was the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia. The rank and prestige of the Russian Church has increased, it has become completely equal in relation to others Orthodox churches. Job, a supporter of Godunov, was elected the first Russian patriarch in 1589. Four metropolitans (Novgorod, Kazan, Rostov, Krutitsky) and six archbishops submitted to him.

However, a weakened Russia did not have the strength to conduct large-scale military operations. This circumstance was used by its strengthened neighbors - the Commonwealth, Sweden, Crimea and Turkey. The aggravation of international contradictions will be another reason for the events that erupted during the Time of Troubles.

Cotton Rebellion. the main task the new king and his advisers was to overcome the economic ruin. Having given some privileges to the nobility and townspeople, the government at the same time took the path of further enslavement of the peasantry. This aroused the discontent of the broad masses of the people. The peasants associated the deterioration of their situation with the name of Boris. They claimed that they were enslaved under Tsar Fyodor Ioanovich at the instigation of the boyar Boris Fyodorovich Godunov.

The situation in the country became even more aggravated due to crop failure. In 1601 it rained for more than two months. Then very early, in mid-August, frost hit and snow fell, which led to the death of the crop. Prices rose several times, speculation in bread began. In the following year, 1602, winter crops again failed to sprout. Again, as in 1601, early cold came. Prices have already risen more than 100 times. They ate dogs, cats, tree bark. Mass epidemics began. In Moscow, cases of cannibalism were noted.

Boris Godunov organized state works. He attracted Muscovites and refugees who poured into the capital to build, using the already existing experience in building the Ivan the Great Bell Tower, distributing bread from state bins, he allowed the serfs to leave their masters and look for opportunities to feed themselves. But all these measures were not successful. Rumors spread that the country was punished for violating the order of succession to the throne, for the sins of Godunov.

In the center of the country, an uprising of serfs broke out (1603-1604) led by Khlopko Kosolap. It was brutally suppressed, and Khlopok was executed in Moscow.

Soviet historians explained the troubled hard times primarily

Pavlov A.I. Sovereign court and political struggle under Boris Godunov.2000

class conflicts. Therefore, in the events of those years, the Peasant War of the 17th century stood out first of all, against which the events of the Time of Troubles took place. At present, many experts characterize the events of the late 16th - early 17th centuries. like a civil war.

False Dmitry I. People of that time explained the instability of the economy and social conflicts as God's punishment for the unrighteous actions of the illegal, "rootless" tsar - Boris Fedorovich Godunov. Boris, striving in every possible way to maintain power, did everything to remove potential contenders. So, one of his cousins, Fedor Nikitich Romanov, who was closest in blood to Fyodor Ivanovich, was forcibly tonsured a monk and exiled to the Anthony-Siya Monastery (near Arkhangelsk) under the name Filaret.

Rumors were widely spread that Tsarevich Dmitry, who “miraculously escaped” in Uglich, was still alive. In 1602, a man appeared in Lithuania, posing as Prince Dmitry. He told the Polish tycoon Adam Wisniewiecki that he had been replaced "in the bedroom of the Uglich palace." The patron of False Dmitry was the governor Yuri Mnishek.

According to official version the government of Boris Godunov, the man posing as Tsarevich Dmitry was the monk Grigory (in the world - a petty nobleman Yuri Bogdanovich Otrepyev). Yushka, as he was called in his youth, showed extraordinary abilities - he knew Latin and Polish languages, had a calligraphic handwriting, had a rare ability to quickly navigate in a particular situation. In his youth, he was a servant of Fyodor Nikitich Romanov, after whose exile he took monastic vows. In Moscow, he lived in the Miracle Monastery located in the Kremlin (now does not exist) and served under Patriarch Job.

V. O. Klyuchevsky rightly wrote that False Dmitry was only “baked in a Polish oven, and fermented in Moscow.” Having enlisted the support of the Polish-Lithuanian magnates, False Dmitry secretly converted to Catholicism and promised the Pope to spread Catholicism in Russia. False Dmitry also promised to transfer the Commonwealth and his bride Marina Mniszek, daughter of the Sandomierz governor, Seversky (Chernigov region) and Smolensk lands, Novgorod and Pskov. The adventure of False Dmitry was not his personal affair. False Dmitry appeared in an atmosphere of general dissatisfaction with the government of Boris Godunov on the part of both the nobility and Russian peasants, townspeople, and Cossacks. The Polish magnates needed False Dmitry in order to start aggression against Russia, disguising it with the appearance of a struggle for the return of the throne to the rightful heir. This was a covert intervention.

In 1604, False Dmitry, with the help of Polish magnates, having recruited 2 thousand mercenaries and using the discontent of the Cossacks, undertook a campaign against Moscow. He was supported by many boyars and nobles who were dissatisfied with Godunov. False Dmitry was also supported by the masses, who pinned hopes on him to get rid of oppression and improve their situation.

Boris Godunov in the fight against False Dmitry I made a number of mistakes. He did not believe that the people would support the impostor, he announced a decree late on who was behind the supposedly resurrected Tsarevich Dmitry. Showing indecision, Godunov did not lead the campaign against the impostor. The fate of False Dmitry was decided near the city of Kromy: the route of movement to Moscow was deliberately chosen through the areas where the Cossacks lived and there were many fugitive peasants. Near Kromy, the tsarist troops went over to the side of the impostor.

This event was preceded by the unexpected death of Boris Fedorovich Godunov at the age of 54. On the morning of April 13, 1605, he received ambassadors. After dinner and a short walk, blood gushed from his nose and ears, the king died. A day later, an oath ceremony was held to the new tsar - the son of Boris, sixteen-year-old Fyodor Borisovich.

Tsar Fyodor Borisovich and his mother, at the request of the impostor, were arrested and secretly killed, and Patriarch Job was exiled to a monastery. On June 20, 1605, False Dmitry, at the head of an army that had gone over to his side, triumphantly entered Moscow and was proclaimed tsar. Moreover, he began to call himself emperor. The new patriarch, "the crafty and dodgy Greek" Ignatius crowned him king. Filaret (F. N. Romanov) was appointed Metropolitan of Rostov.

Once in Moscow, False Dmitry was in no hurry to fulfill the obligations given to the Polish magnates, realizing that if he tried to introduce Catholicism or give native Russian lands to the Polish feudal lords, he would not be able to stay in power. At the same time, False Dmitry confirmed the legislative acts adopted before him, which enslaved the peasants (the decree on a five-year search for fugitives).

The continuation of the feudal policy, new requisitions in order to obtain the funds promised to the Polish magnates, the discontent of the Russian nobility, which especially intensified after the marriage of False Dmitry to Marina Mnishek, led to the organization of a boyar conspiracy against him. In May 1606, an uprising broke out against False Dmitry. The alarm bell struck. Muscovites, led by the boyars Shuisky, killed more than a thousand Poles. Marina Mnishek was saved by the boyars. She and her entourage were exiled to Yaroslavl. False Dmitry, pursued by the rebels, jumped out of the window of the Kremlin Palace and was killed. Contemporaries counted more than 20 wounds on the body of False Dmitry. Three days later, his corpse was burned, the ashes were laid in a cannon, from which they fired in the direction from which the impostor had come.

Vasily Shuisky. After the death of False Dmitry, the boyar tsar Vasily Shuisky (1606-1610) came to the throne. He gave an obligation in the form of a cross-kissing record (kissed the cross) to preserve the privileges of the boyars, not to take away their estates and not to judge the boyars without the participation of the Boyar Duma. The nobility now tried to resolve the created deep internal and external contradictions with the help of the boyar tsar.

Patriarch Ignatius was deprived of his rank for supporting False Dmitry I. The patriarchal throne was taken by an outstanding patriot, the 70-year-old Kazan Metropolitan Hermogenes.

Skrynnikov R.G. Impostors in Russia at the beginning of X VII in., 2001

In order to suppress rumors about the rescue of Tsarevich Dmitry, his remains were transferred, by order of Vasily Shuisky, three days after the coronation from Uglich to Moscow. The prince was canonized as a saint.

By the summer of 1606, Vasily Shuisky managed to gain a foothold in Moscow, but the outskirts of the country continued to seethe. The political conflict, generated by the struggle for power and the crown, grew into a social one. The people, finally losing faith in the improvement of their situation, again opposed the authorities. In 1606-1607. an uprising broke out under the leadership of Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov, which many historians consider to be the peak of the Peasant War of the early 17th century.

3. The rise of the liberation movement. The uprising of I. I. Bolotnikov

Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov was a combat (military) serf of Prince Telyatevsky. From him he fled to the Don Cossacks, was captured by the Crimean Tatars and sold into slavery as a rower on a Turkish galley. After the defeat of the Turkish fleet by German ships, I. I. Bolotnikov ended up in Venice, from where he got to Putivl through Germany and Poland. In Putivl, I. I. Bolotnikov arrived as governor of Tsar Dmitry.

This happened after the meeting of I. I. Bolotnikov in Sambir in the Mnishkov castle with Mikhail Molchanov, who looked like False Dmitry I, who fled from Moscow and pretended to be the surviving tsar. I. I. Bolotnikov received from Molchanov a letter, sealed with the state seal, in which he was appointed governor of the tsar (the seal was stolen from Moscow by Molchanov), a saber, a fur coat and 60 ducats.

I. I. Bolotnikov’s support was the Komaritskaya volost. Here, in the area of ​​​​the city of Kromy, many Cossacks accumulated, supporting False Dmitry I, who freed this region from taxes for 10 years. Having become the head of the Cossack detachments, I. I. Bolotnikov from Krom moved to Moscow in the summer of 1606. Soon Bolotnikov’s small detachment turned into a powerful army, which included peasants, city dwellers and even detachments of nobles and Cossacks, dissatisfied with the boyar government, led by P Lyapunov, G. Sumbulov, I. Pashkov, the Governors of Putivl (Prince G. Shakhovskoy) and Chernigov (Prince A. Telyatevsky), associated with False Dmitry I, submitted to the “royal governor”. Acting as the governor of Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich, the rumor of whose salvation revived again during the reign of Vasily Shuisky, I. I. Bolotnikov defeated government troops near Yelets, captured Kaluga, Tula, Serpukhov.

In October 1606, the army of I. I. Bolotnikov laid siege to Moscow, located near the village of Kolomenskoye. At that time, on the side of the rebels was

more than 70 cities. The siege of Moscow lasted two months. At the decisive moment, the betrayal of the noble detachments, who went over to the side of Vasily Shuisky, led to the defeat of the army of I. I. Bolotnikov. Seeking the support of the boyars and nobles, Vasily Shuisky in March 1607 issued the Code of Peasants, which introduced a 15-year term for the search for fugitives.

Kovalenko G.M. Troubles in Russia through the eyes of an English condoter / / Questions of history. - 1999. No. 1

I. I. Bolotnikov was driven back to Kaluga and besieged by the tsarist troops. With the help of the rebel army of "Tsarevich Peter" (that was the name of the serf Ilya Gorchakov - Ileika Muromets), who came from the Terek along the Volga, I. I. Bolotnikov escaped from the siege and retreated to Tula. The three-month siege of Tula was led by Vasily Shuisky himself. The Upa River was blocked by a dam and the fortress was flooded. After the promise of V. I. Shuisky to save the life of the rebels, they opened the gates of Tula. The king brutally cracked down on the rebels. I I. I. Bolotnikov was blinded and then drowned in an ice-hole in the city of I Kargopol. Ileyka Muromets was executed in Moscow.

Representatives of different social strata took part in the uprising of I. I. Bolotnikov - peasants, serfs, townspeople, Cossacks, nobles and other service people. The Cossacks played an important role at all stages of the uprising. Possessing weapons, having military experience, a strong organization, it formed the core of the army of the rebels.

In addition to the oppressed sections of the population, nobles and service people also participated in the campaign against Moscow. Their participation in the peasant uprising can be explained by the fact that they used it for their own purposes. At the decisive moment, the nobles, having betrayed the rebels, went over to the side of the First Government. There were also boyars-adventurers in the ranks of the rebels.

Together with the Russians, the Mordovians, Mari, Chuvashs and other peoples of the Volga region, which became part of Russia, took part in the uprising of I. I. Bolotnikov.

We learn about the demands of the rebels from the documents that came out of the government camp. They cite the so-called "charming letters" ("sheets") that came from the army of I. I. Bolotnikov - proclamations that called on the population of cities and villages to go over to the side of the rebels. So, the Moscow Patriarch Hermogenes wrote: “... and those people stand near Moscow, in Kolomenskoye, and write their cursed sheets to Moscow, and order the boyar serfs to beat their boyars and their wives; and estates and estates are promised to them ... and they call on their thieves to come to them and want to give them boyars, and voivodeship, and okolnichestvo, and deaconship ... "

The ideological representations of the rebels, despite the categorical nature of their demands, had a tsarist character. Naive monarchism, faith in the "good" tsar underlay the views of the Cossacks and the peasantry on state structure. The peasantry and the Cossacks saw the goal of the uprising in a return to the old communal order.

Historians assess the powerful popular uprisings of the early 17th century in different ways. Some of them believe that they delayed the legalization of serfdom for 50 years, others believe that, on the contrary, they accelerated

the process of legal registration of serfdom, which ended in 1649 (this point of view seems to be more correct).

Kobrin V.B. Time of Troubles: lost opportunities // History of the Fatherland: people, ideas, decisions. Part 1-M., 2001

False Dmitry II. At the time when Vasily Shuisky was besieging I. I. Bolotnikov in Tula, a new impostor appeared in the Bryansk region (Starodub). In agreement with the Vatican, the Polish gentry, opponents of King Sigismund III (hetmans Lisovsky, Ruzhitsky, Sapieha), united with the Cossack ataman I.I. Externally, this man looked like False Dmitry I, which was noticed by the participants in the adventure of the first impostor. Until now, the identity of False Dmitry II causes a lot of controversy. Apparently, he came from a church milieu.

False Dmitry II, in response to the call of I. I. Bolotnikov, moved to Tula to join the rebels. The connection did not happen (Tula was taken by Shuisky's troops), and in January 1608 the impostor undertook a campaign against the capital. In the summer of 1608, False Dmitry approached Moscow, but attempts to take the capital ended in vain. He stopped 17 km from the Kremlin, in the town of Tushino, received the nickname "Tushinsky Thief". Soon Marina Mnishek also moved to Tushino. The impostor promised her 3,000 gold rubles and income from 14 Russian cities after his accession to Moscow, and she recognized him as her husband. A secret wedding was performed according to the Catholic rite. The impostor promised to promote the spread of Catholicism in Russia.

False Dmitry II was an obedient puppet in the hands of the Polish gentry, who managed to take control of the northwest and north of the Russian lands. The fortress of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery fought valiantly for 16 months, in the defense of which the surrounding population played a significant role. Actions against the Polish invaders took place in a number of major cities North: Novgorod, Vologda, Veliky Ustyug.

If False Dmitry I spent 11 months in the Kremlin, then False Dmitry II unsuccessfully besieged Moscow for 21 months. In Tushino, under False Dmitry II, from among the boyars dissatisfied with Vasily Shuisky (the people aptly called them “Tushino flights”), their own Boyar Duma and orders formed. Captured in Rostov, Metropolitan Filaret was named Patriarch in Tushino.

The government of Vasily Shuisky, realizing that they were not able to cope with False Dmitry II, in Vyborg (1609) concluded an agreement with Sweden. Russia abandoned its claims to the Baltic coast, and the Swedes gave troops to fight False Dmitry P. Under the command of the talented 28-year-old commander M.V. Skopin-Shuisky, the tsar's nephew, successful operations began against the Polish invaders.

In response, the Commonwealth, which was at war with Sweden, declared war on Russia. The troops of King Sigismund III in the fall of 1609 laid siege to the city of Smolensk, which was defended for more than 20 months. The king ordered the gentry to leave Tushino and go to Smolensk. The Tushino camp crumbled, the impostor was no longer needed by the Polish gentry, who had switched to open intervention. False Dmitry P fled to Kaluga, where he was soon killed. The embassy of the Tushino boyars went to Smolensk Danilov A.A., Leonov S.V. Russian history. In 2 volumes. –M., 2000

at the beginning of 1610 and invited the son of the king, Vladislav, to the Moscow throne.

In April 1610, with mysterious circumstances M. V. Skopin-Shuisky died. Rumor has it that he was poisoned. In the summer of 1610, leaving behind the fighting Smolensk, the Polish army moved to Moscow. In June 1610, the Russian troops under the command of the brother, the tsar, the cowardly and mediocre Dmitry Shuisky, were defeated by the Polish troops. The way to Moscow was open. The Swedes thought more about capturing Novgorod and other Russian lands than about defending them: they left Shuisky's army and began to plunder the northwestern Russian cities.

In the summer of 1610, a revolution took place in Moscow. The nobles, led by P. Lyapunov, overthrew Vasily Shuisky from the throne and forcibly tonsured him a monk. (Shuisky died in 1612 in Polish captivity, where he was sent as a hostage along with his brothers). Power was seized by a group of boyars led by F. I. Mstislavsky. This government, which consisted of seven boyars, was called the “seven boyars”.

In August 1610, the Seven Boyars, despite the protests of Patriarch Hermogenes, concluded an agreement on calling Vladislav, the son of King Sigismund, to the Russian throne, and let the interventionist troops into the Kremlin. August 27, 1610 Moscow swore allegiance to Vladislav. This was a direct betrayal of national interests. The country faced the threat of loss of independence.

First militia. Only relying on the people, it was possible to win back and preserve the independence of the Russian state. In 1610, Patriarch Hermogenes called for a fight against the invaders, for which he was arrested. At the beginning of 1611, the first militia was created in the Ryazan land, which was headed by the nobleman P. Lyapunov. The militia moved to Moscow, where in the spring of 1611 an uprising broke out. The interventionists, on the advice of the traitors of the boyars, set fire to the city. The troops fought on the outskirts of the Kremlin. Here, in the Sretenka area, Prince D. M. Pozharsky, who led the forward detachments, was seriously wounded.

However, the Russian troops could not build on the success. The leaders of the militia called for the return of the fugitive peasants to their owners. Cossacks did not have the right to hold public office. Opponents of P. Lyapunov, who sought to establish a military organization | militia, began to sow rumors that he allegedly wants to exterminate the Cossacks. * They called him into the Cossack "circle" in July 1611 and killed him.

The first militia broke up. By this time, the Swedes captured Novgorod, and the Poles, after a months-long siege, captured Smolensk. The Polish king Sigismund III announced that he himself would become the Russian tsar, and Russia would enter the Commonwealth.

Second militia. Minin and Pozharsky. In the autumn of 1611, the township elder Nizhny Novgorod Kozma Minin appealed to

to the Russian people about the creation of a second militia. With the help of the population of other Russian cities, the material base of the liberation struggle was created: the people raised significant funds for waging war against the interventionists. The militia was headed by K. Minin and Prince Dmitry Pozharsky.

Wert N. History Soviet state.1999

In the spring of 1612, the militia moved to Yaroslavl. Here the provisional government of Russia "Council of All the Earth" was created. In the summer of 1612, from the side of the Arbat Gates, the troops of K. Minin and D. M. Pozharsky approached Moscow and joined with the remnants of the first militia.

Almost simultaneously, along the Mozhaisk road, Hetman Khodkevich approached the capital, who was moving to help the Poles who had settled in the Kremlin. In the battle near the walls of Moscow, Khodkevich's army was driven back.

On October 22, 1612, on the day of finding the icon of Our Lady of Kazan, who accompanied the militia, Kitay-gorod was taken. Four days later, the Polish garrison in the Kremlin surrendered. In memory of the liberation of Moscow from the invaders on Red Square, a temple was erected in honor of the icon of Our Lady of Kazan at the expense of D. M. Pozharsky. The victory was won as a result of the heroic efforts of the Russian people. The heroism of the Kostroma peasant Ivan Susanin, who sacrificed his own life in the fight against the Polish invaders, forever serves as a symbol of loyalty to the Motherland. Grateful Russia erected the first sculptural monument in Moscow to Kozma Minin and Dmitry Pozharsky (on Red Square, sculptor I.P. Martos, 1818). The memory of the defense of Smolensk and the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, the struggle of the inhabitants of the city of Korela against the Swedish invaders has been preserved forever.

4. Restoration of the estate-representative monarchy. Beginning of the Romanov dynasty

In 1613, the Zemsky Sobor was held in Moscow, at which the question of choosing a new Russian tsar was raised. As candidates for the Russian throne, the Polish prince Vladislav, the son of the Swedish king Karl-Philip, the son of False Dmitry II and Marina Mnishek Ivan, nicknamed "Vorenok", as well as representatives of the largest boyar families were proposed. On February 21, the cathedral chose Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, the 16-year-old great-nephew of Ivan the Terrible's first wife, Anastasia Romanova. An embassy was sent to the Ignatievsky Monastery near Kostroma, where Mikhail and his mother were at that time. On May 2, 1613, Mikhail arrived in Moscow, and on July 11 he was married to the kingdom. Soon the leading place in the government of the country was taken by his father, Patriarch Filaret, who "mastered all the royal and military affairs." Power was restored in the form of an autocratic monarchy. The leaders of the fight against the interventionists received modest appointments. D. M. Pozharsky was sent as governor to Mozhaisk, and K. Minin became the Duma governor.

Orlov A.S., Georgiev V.A. Georgieva N.G., Sivokhina T.A. Russian history. - M., Prospekt.2002

End of intervention. The government of Mikhail Fedorovich faced the most difficult task - the elimination of the consequences of the intervention. A great danger to him was represented by detachments of Cossacks, who roamed the country and did not recognize the new king. Among them, the most formidable was Ivan Zarutsky, to whom Marina Mnishek moved with her son. The Yaik Cossacks handed over I. Zarutsky in 1614 to the Moscow government. I. Zarutsky and "Vorenok" were hanged, and Marina Mnishek was imprisoned in Kolomna, where she probably died soon after.

The Swedes posed another danger. After several military clashes, and then negotiations, in 1617 the Stolbovsky peace was concluded (in the village of Stolbovo, not far from Tikhvin). Sweden returned to Russia Novgorod land, but retained the Baltic coast and received monetary compensation. King Gustav-Adolf after the Stolbovsky peace said that now “Russia is not a dangerous neighbor ... it is separated from Sweden by swamps, fortresses, and it will be difficult for Russians to cross this“ streamlet ”(Neva River).

The Polish prince Vladislav, who sought to obtain the Russian throne, organized in 1617-1618. march on Moscow, He reached the Arbat Gates of Moscow, but was repulsed. In the village of Deulino near the Trinity-Sergius Monastery in 1618, the Deulino truce was concluded with the Commonwealth, which left the Smolensk and Chernihiv lands. There was an exchange of prisoners. Vladislav did not renounce his claims to the Russian throne.

Thus, in the main, the territorial unity of Russia was restored, although part of the Russian lands remained with the Commonwealth and Sweden. These are the consequences of the events of the Time of Troubles in Russia's foreign policy. In the internal political life of the state, the role of the nobility and the top tenants has grown significantly.

During the Time of Troubles, in which all strata and classes of Russian society took part, the question of the very existence of the Russian state, the choice of the path of development of the country, was decided. It was necessary to find ways for the survival of the people. Trouble settled primarily in the minds and souls of people. In the specific conditions of the beginning of the XVII century. the way out of the Time of Troubles was found in the awareness by the regions and the center of the need for a strong statehood. In the minds of people, the idea won out to give everything for the common good, and not to seek personal gain.

After the Time of Troubles, the choice was made in favor of preserving the largest power in Eastern Europe. In the specific geopolitical conditions of that time, the path was chosen further development Russia: autocracy as a form of political government, serfdom as the basis of the economy, Orthodoxy as an ideology, estate system as a social structure.

Klyuchevsky O.V. Russian history course. - M., 1999

Lukutin A.V. Russian history. M., 1999

Conclusion

Overcoming the "great Moscow ruin", the restoration process after the Time of Troubles took about three decades and ended by the middle of the century. The general line of Russian history followed the path of further strengthening the feudal order and the estate system.

Territory and population. Territory of Russia in the 17th century. in comparison with the 16th century, it expanded due to the inclusion of new lands of Siberia, the Southern Urals and the Left-Bank Ukraine, and the further development of the Wild Field. The borders of the country now stretched from the Dnieper to the Pacific Ocean, from White Sea to the possessions of the Crimean Khan, the North Caucasus and the Kazakh steppes.

The territory of the country was divided into counties, the number of which reached 250. The counties, in turn, were divided into volosts and camps, the center of which was the village. In a number of lands, especially those that were recently included in Russia, the former system of administrative structure was preserved. The 17th century is the heyday of the command system.

By the end of the XVII century. the population of Russia totaled 10.5 million people. According to the number of inhabitants, Russia within the borders of the 17th century. ranked fourth among European states (20.5 million people lived in France at that time, 13.0 million people lived in Italy and Germany, and 7.2 million people lived in England).

By the middle of the XVII century. the devastation and ruin of the Time of Troubles were overcome. And there was something to restore: in 14 districts of the center of the country in the 40s, the plowed land was only 42% of the previously cultivated land, and the number of the peasant population, who fled from the horrors of stagnation, also decreased. The economy recovered slowly in the conditions of preservation of traditional forms of farming, a sharply continental climate and low soil fertility in the Non-Black Earth Region - the most developed part of the country.

The leading branch of the economy was Agriculture. The main tools of labor were a plow, a plow, a harrow, a sickle. The three fields prevailed, but the undercut also remained, especially in the north of the country.

In the 17th century there was a further increase in feudal land ownership. After the turbulent events of the turn of the XVI-XVII centuries. there was a kind of redistribution of land within the ruling class. The new Romanov dynasty, strengthening its position, widely used the distribution of land to the nobles. In the central regions of the country, the landownership of black-sown peasants has practically disappeared. Noble landownership widely penetrated into the Volga region, and by the end of the 17th century, into the developed areas of the Wild Field.

A new phenomenon in comparison with the previous time in the development of the economy was the strengthening of its connection with the market. Nobles, boyars and especially monasteries were increasingly involved in trade and fishing activities. Trade in bread, salt, fish, production for the sale of wines,

leather, lime, resin, handicraft products in a number of estates have become commonplace.

Zaichkin I.A., Pochkarev I.N. Russian History: A Popular Essay. IX - middle XVII V. - M., 2004

In the 17th century the development of craft (production for a specific customer) into small-scale production continued. This process began long before the 17th century, but in the 17th century. it has become widespread. By the end of the XVII century. in Russia there were at least 300 cities. The largest was Moscow, where up to 200 thousand inhabitants lived. It had 120 specialized trading rows.

The development of small-scale production prepared the basis for the emergence of manufactories. A manufactory is a large enterprise based on the division of labor and handicraft techniques. In the 17th century in Russia there were approximately 30 manufactories.

In the 17th century the role and importance of the merchants in the life of the country increased. The constantly gathering fairs acquired great importance: Makaryevskaya near Nizhny Novgorod, Svenskaya near Bryansk, Irbitskaya in Siberia, the fair in Arkhangelsk, etc., where merchants conducted wholesale and retail trade that was large for those times.

The upper class in the country was the boyars, which included many descendants of the former great and specific princes. About a hundred boyar families owned estates, served the tsar and held leadership positions in the state. By the end of the XVII century. the boyars were increasingly losing their power and drawing closer to the nobility.

The nobility significantly strengthened its position at the end of the turmoil and became the mainstay of royal power. This layer of feudal lords included persons who served at the royal court (stewards, solicitors, Moscow nobles and residents), as well as urban, i.e., provincial nobles and boyar children.

The lowest stratum of service people included service people according to the device or according to the recruitment. It included archers, gunners, coachmen, serving Cossacks, government masters, etc.

The rural peasant population consisted of two main categories. The peasants who lived on the lands of estates and estates were called possessory or privately owned. Another large category of the peasant population was the black-haired peasantry. It lived on the outskirts of the country (Pomorsky North, Urals, Siberia, South), united in communities.

The middle position between the black-eared and privately owned peasants was occupied by the peasants of the palace, who served the economic needs of the royal court. They had self-government and were subordinate to palace clerks.

The top of the urban population were merchants. The richest of them (there were about 30 such people in Moscow in the 17th century) were declared "guests" by the tsar's command. Many wealthy merchants united in two Moscow hundreds - "living room" and "cloth".

Summing up the consideration of socio-economic development

Sakharov A.N., Novoseltsev A.P. History of Russia from ancient times to the end XVII in 1999

Russia in the 17th century, it should be said that in Russia the feudal-serf system dominated in all spheres of economic, social and cultural life countries.

New phenomena in the economy (the beginning of the formation of the all-Russian market, the growth of small-scale production, the creation of manufactories, the emergence of large capital in the sphere of trade and usury, etc.) were under the strongest influence and control from the feudal system. And this was at a time when at its most developed countries In the West (Holland, England) bourgeois revolutions took place, in others a capitalist economic structure based on personal freedom and private property took shape.

Even V. O. Klyuchevsky believed that the XVII century. opens a “new period of Russian history”, linking this with the establishment of a new dynasty after the Time of Troubles, new borders, the triumph of the nobility and serfdom, on the basis of which both agriculture and industry developed.

One section of Soviet historians unjustifiably associated the beginning of the "new period" with the rise of capitalism in Russia and the emergence of bourgeois relations in the country's economy. Another part of them believed that the XVII century. was the time of "progressive feudalism" and until the second half of the XVIII century. in Russia there were no stable bourgeois relations and no capitalist structure in the economy.

IN last years it has become fashionable to say that Russian civilization seems to be drifting between East and West and is being modernized by borrowing Western European experience. It seems that it is more correct to look for an answer in the ways of explaining what features were inherent in the Russian historical process within the framework! global patterns of development of human civilization.

Let us pay attention to the role of the natural-geographical factor in our history. Sharp continental climate, a short agricultural season under conditions of extensive farming predetermined a relatively small total social surplus product.

The vast, but sparsely populated and poorly developed territory of Russia with a multinational ethnic composition adhering to different religious denominations, in the context of an ongoing struggle against external danger, the last of which was foreign intervention during the Time of Troubles, developed at a slower pace than the countries of the West. The lack of access to non-freezing seas also affected the development of the country, which became one of the tasks of foreign policy.

List of sources used

1. Buganov V.I. The world of history. Russia in the 17th century. - M., 2001

2. Werth N. History of the Soviet state. 1999

3. Danilov A.A., Leonov S.V. Russian history. In 2 volumes. - M., 2000

3. Zaichkin I.A., APochkarev I.N. Russian History: A Popular Essay. IX- mid XVII V. - M., 2004

2. Kobrin V.B. Time of Troubles: lost opportunities // History of the Fatherland: people, ideas, solutions. Part 1. - M., 2001

3. Kovalenko G.M. Troubles in Russia through the eyes of an English condottiere // Questions of history. - 1999. - No. 1

Klyuchevsky O.V. Russian history course. - M., 1999

Lukutin A.V. Russian history. M., 1999

4. Orlov A.S., Georgiev V.A., Georgieva N.G., Sivokhina T.A. Russian history. - M., Prospect. 2002

5. Pavlov A.I. Sovereign court and political struggle under Boris Godunov. 2000

Sakharov A.N., Novoseltsev A.P. History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century.

6. Skrynnikov R.G. Pretenders in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century. 2001

7. Skrynnikov R.G. Boris Godunov. - M., 2000

State Institution of Higher Professional Education

Ural State Economic Institute

Department of Economics. Department of Labor and Personnel Management

Group UP-15-1

In the discipline "History" On the topic: "Time of Troubles as a manifestation of the crisis of Russian statehood"

Completed by: Agranat. K. V

Head: Stozhko. D.K

Yekaterinburg, 2015

Content Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 Prerequisites and causes of Troubles……………… ………………………………………………4 Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich……………………………………………………………………….5 Boris Godunov……………………………………………………………………………......6 The first period of the Time of Troubles………………………… ……………………………………………7 The Second Period of the Time of Troubles………………………………………………..10 The Third Period of the Time of Troubles…………………… ………………………………..12 The end of the Troubles and the election of a new king……………………………………………….16 Conclusion…………………… ……………………………………………………………………..18

Introduction The deepest crisis that engulfed all spheres of life in Russian society at the beginning of the 17th century. and resulted in a period of bloody conflicts, the struggle for national independence and national survival was called "Troubles" by contemporaries. At the same time, first of all, "confusion of minds" was meant, i.e. a sharp change in moral and behavioral stereotypes, accompanied by an unprincipled and bloody struggle for power, a surge of violence, the movement of various sections of society, foreign intervention, etc., which brought Russia to the brink of a national catastrophe.

Events in the early seventeenth century in fact, they were a civil war, in which one part of society, quite heterogeneous in its social composition (service people "according to the fatherland" and "according to the instrument" of the southern and southwestern regions, townspeople, Cossacks, fugitive serfs, peasants and even representatives of the boyars) , opposed another, no less socially diverse, inhabiting the central and northern counties. At the same time, there was no impassable line between them, and even a kind of exchange of "cadres" took place. A significant part of the population, primarily the peasantry, acted as a passive mass, suffering from the actions of both groups.

Scientists have explained the causes and nature of these tragic events in different ways. N. M. Karamzin drew attention to the political crisis caused by the suppression of the dynasty at the end of the 16th century. and the weakening of the monarchy. S. M. Solovyov saw the main content of The Troubles in the struggle between the state and anarchy represented by the Cossacks. More A complex approach was inherent in S.F. Platonov, who defined it as a complex interweaving of actions and aspirations of various political forces, social groups, as well as personal interests and passions, complicated by the intervention of external forces.

In Soviet historical science, the concept of "Trouble" was rejected, and the events of the early seventeenth century. were characterized as "the first peasant war, having an anti-serfdom orientation, complicated by the internal political struggle of feudal groups for power and the Polish-Swedish intervention.

3 Background and causes of the Troubles. Events at the turn of the XVI-XVII centuries. called the Time of Troubles.

This term quite accurately reflects the historical reality of this period, which was characterized by a sharp aggravation of social, class, dynastic, international relations at the end of the reign of Ivan the Terrible and his successors.

The main prerequisite for the Time of Troubles was a severe economic crisis that engulfed the country as a result of the huge costs of the Livonian War and the ruin of the country during the establishment of authoritarian power during the oprichnina period.

Peasant economy has lost stability. This weakened the control of the country by state power. To overcome this situation, the state took the path of further strengthening the feudal dependence of the peasants. But the introduction of the state system of serfdom led to a sharp aggravation of social contradictions in the country and created the basis for mass popular unrest. The aggravation of social relations became one of the reasons for the "Time of Troubles".

With the death of Tsar Fyodor, the legitimate dynasty, coming from the Ruriks, ceased. This led to a dynastic crisis, which became another cause of the Time of Troubles. The ruling class has not yet achieved complete unity. Sharp contradictions remained within it, which intensified in connection with the accession to the throne of B. Godunov. His death only exacerbated dynastic disputes, which weakened states.

The interweaving of economic, social and political contradictions has brought the country to the brink of disaster. It was about the very existence of the country. The situation was also complicated by the fact that not only opposing internal forces, but also foreign conquerors were involved in solving problems about the future of the Russian state.

During the Time of Troubles, the country faced widespread social discontent among the masses, expressed in uprisings led by Khlopok (1603–1604), I. I. Bolotnikov (1606–1607), and a number of other speeches.

Instability in the country and social conflicts of that time were perceived as God's punishment for the unrighteous actions of B. Godunov.

In such an environment, the struggle for power in the country between various political groups intensified.

It was also complicated by the fact that during this period the activity of self-proclaimed pretenders to the Russian throne, the False Dmitrys, supported by foreign interventionists, intensified.

Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich.

After the death of Ivan the Terrible on March 18, 1584, the middle son of Ivan the Terrible, twenty-seven-year-old Fyodor Ivanovich (1584-1598), ascended the throne. The reign of Fyodor Ivanovich was a time of political caution and calming down the people after the oprichnina. Gentle by nature, the new king did not have the ability to govern the state. Realizing that the throne passes to the blessed Fedor, Ivan the Terrible created a kind of regency council under his son. Thus, it turned out that behind the back of the dependent Fyodor was his brother-in-law, the boyar Boris Godunov, performing regency functions and actually ruling the state.

Boris Godunov.

After the death of the childless Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich (in January 1598), there were no legitimate heirs to the throne. The Zemsky Sobor elected Godunov, whose popularity was unstable for a number of reasons: 1) he was of Tatar origin; 2) son-in-law of Malyuta Skuratov; 3) was accused of murdering the last direct heir to the throne, Tsarevich Dmitry, who in 1591 died under unclear circumstances in Uglich, allegedly having run into a knife in an epileptic fit; 4) illegally ascended the throne.

But, in turn, Godunov tried to take measures to ease discontent, as he constantly felt the precariousness of his position. On the whole he was an energetic, ambitious, capable statesman. In difficult conditions - economic ruin, difficult international situation - he was able to continue the policy of Ivan the Terrible, but with less cruel measures.

The beginning of the reign of Boris Godunov brought many good hopes to the people. Domestic policy was aimed at social stabilization in the country, overcoming economic ruin. The colonization of new lands and the construction of cities in the Volga region and in the Urals were encouraged.

A number of contemporary publications attempt to present Godunov as a reformer on the sole ground that he was an elected ruler. It is difficult to agree with this, since it was during the reign of Boris Godunov that serfdom appeared in Russia. Tsar Boris strengthened the privileges of the boyars, although one cannot help but see such a motive in attaching the peasants to the land as the desire on the part of the state authorities to prevent the desolation of the central districts of the country as a result of expanding colonization and the outflow of the population to the outskirts. In general, the introduction of serfdom, of course, increased social tension in the country. It - along with the aggravation of the dynastic problem, the strengthening of boyar self-will, foreign interference in Russian affairs - contributed to the decay of morality, the collapse of traditional relations.

5 In 1598, Godunov abolished arrears in taxes and taxes, gave some privileges to servicemen and townspeople in the performance of state duties. But a crop failure in the country in 1601-1602 led to famine and increased social tension. And in this environment of chaos, Godunov tried to prevent a popular uprising. He set the maximum price for bread, in November 1601 he allowed the peasants to move (on St. George's Day, the only day of the year when peasants could freely move from one owner to another), began distributing bread from state barns, intensified the repression of robbery cases and allowed to leave the serfs from their masters if they could not feed them. However, these measures were not successful. The people were in poverty, and the nobility arranged the division of wealth and privileges, viciously competing in search of personal well-being. Stocks of grain, hidden by many boyars, would be enough for the entire population for several years. Among the poor, there were cases of cannibalism, and speculators withheld bread, anticipating a rise in prices for it. The essence of what was happening was well understood by the people and was defined by the word "theft", but no one could offer quick and easy ways out of the crisis. Feeling of belonging to public issues each individual person turned out to be insufficiently developed. In addition, considerable masses of ordinary people were infected with cynicism, self-interest, oblivion of traditions and shrines. The decomposition came from above - from the boyar elite, which had lost all authority, but threatened to overwhelm the lower classes as well.

In 1589, the patriarchate was introduced, which increased the rank and prestige of the Russian Church, it became completely equal in relation to others. Christian churches. The first patriarch was Job, a man close to Godunov. Boris Godunov somewhat strengthened the country's international position. After the war with Sweden in 1590, the lands at the mouth of the Neva, lost by Russia after the Livonian War, were returned. In 1600 Godunov signed a truce with Poland for 20 years. The attack of the Crimean Tatars on Moscow was prevented. In 1598, Godunov, with a 40,000-strong noble militia, opposed Khan Kazy-Girey, and he retreated. But basically the situation in Russia was disastrous. The magnates and the gentry wanted to seize the Smolensk and Seversk lands, which a hundred years ago were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

The situation was also worsened by the dissatisfaction of the broad masses of the people, caused by the further enslavement of the peasantry, who associated the worsening of their position with the name of Boris. They claimed that they were enslaved under Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich at the instigation of the boyar Boris Fyodorovich Godunov.

As a result, an uprising (1603-1604) of serfs led by Khlopko Kosolap broke out in the center of the country. It was brutally suppressed, and Khlopok was executed in Moscow. The Time of Troubles was full of all sorts of conflicts and unpredictability of events. 6

The first period of the Time of Troubles. The death of Ivan the Terrible (March 18, 1584) immediately opened the field for confusion. There was no power that could stop, contain the impending disaster. The heir of John IV, Theodore Ioannovich, was incapable of affairs of government; Tsarevich Dmitry was still in his infancy. The board was to fall into the hands of the boyars. Secondary boyars - the Yuryevs, Godunovs - were put forward on the stage, but there are still remnants of the boyar princes (Prince Mstislavsky, Shuisky, Vorotynsky, etc.). Around Dmitry Tsarevich gathered Nagy, his relatives on the mother's side, and Belsky. Immediately after the accession of Fyodor Ioannovich, Dmitry Tsarevich was sent to Uglich, in all likelihood, fearing the possibility of unrest. At the head of the board was N. R. Yuriev, but he soon died. There was a clash between the Godunovs and the rest. First, Mstislavsky, the Vorotynskys, the Golovins suffered, and then the Shuiskys. Palace turmoil led Godunov to the regency for which he aspired. He had no rivals after the fall of the Shuiskys. When the news of the death of Tsarevich Dmitry came to Moscow, rumors spread around the city that Dmitry had been killed on the orders of Godunov. These rumors were written down first of all by some foreigners, and then they got into the legends, compiled much later than the event. Most historians believed the legends, and the opinion about the murder of Dmitry Godunov became generally accepted. But in Lately this view has been greatly undermined, and there is hardly any modern historian who would decisively lean on the side of legends. In any case, the role that fell to Godunov's lot was very difficult: it was necessary to pacify the earth, it was necessary to fight the crisis indicated above. There is no doubt that Boris managed to alleviate the difficult situation of the country at least for a while. But, of course, Godunov could not resolve the contradictions to which the entire course of previous history had led Russia. He could not and did not want to be the calmer of the nobility in a political crisis: it was not in his interests. In the economic crisis, Godunov took the side of the service class, which, as it was discovered during the further development of the unrest, was one of the most numerous and strongest in the Muscovite state. In general, the position of drafters and walking people under Godunov was difficult. Godunov wanted to rely on the middle class of society - the service people and the townspeople. Indeed, he managed to get up with their help, but could not resist. In 1594, Princess Theodosia, the daughter of Theodore, died. The king himself was not far from death. There are indications that as early as 1593, Moscow nobles were discussing candidates for the Moscow throne and even outlined the Austrian Archduke Maximilian. This indication is very valuable, as it depicts the mood of the boyars. In 1598, Fedor died without appointing an heir. The entire state recognized the power of his widow Irina, but she renounced the throne and took her hair. Interregnum opened. There were 4 candidates for the throne: F. N. Romanov, Godunov, Prince. F. I. Mstislavsky and B. Ya. Belsky. The Shuiskys at that time occupied a lowered position and could not be candidates. The most serious contender, according to Sapieha, was Romanov, the most impudent - Belsky. There was a lively struggle between the contenders. In February 1598 a council was convened. In its composition and character, it did not differ in any way from other former cathedrals, and no fraud on the part of Godunov can be suspected; on the contrary, in terms of its composition, the cathedral was rather unfavorable for Boris, since the main support of Godunov - simple service nobles - was few in it, and Moscow was best and most fully represented, that is, those layers of the Moscow aristocratic nobility who were not particularly favored to Godunov. 7 At the council, however, Boris was elected king; but soon after the election, the boyars started an intrigue. From the report of the Polish ambassador Sapieha, it can be seen that most of the Moscow boyars and princes, with F. N. Romanov and Belsky at the head, planned to put Simeon Bekbulatovich on the throne. This explains why in the "undersigned entry" given by the boyars after the wedding of Godunov to the kingdom, it is said that they should not want Simeon to reign. The first three years of Godunov's reign passed quietly, but from 1601 setbacks began. A terrible famine set in, which lasted until 1604, during which many people died. The mass of the hungry population dispersed along the roads and began to rob. Rumors began to circulate that Tsarevich Dmitry was alive. All historians agree that the main role in the appearance of the impostor belonged to the Moscow boyars. Perhaps, in connection with the appearance of rumors about an impostor, there is a disgrace that befell first Belsky, and then the Romanovs, of whom Fyodor Nikitich was the most popular. In 1601 they were all sent into exile, Fyodor Nikitich was tonsured under the name Filaret. Together with the Romanovs, their relatives were exiled: Prince. Cherkassky, Sitsky, Shestunov, Karpov, Repin. Following the exile of the Romanovs, disgrace and executions began to rage. Godunov, obviously, was looking for the threads of the conspiracy, but found nothing. In the meantime, anger against him intensified. The old boyars (boyars-princes) gradually recovered from the persecution of Grozny and became hostile to the unborn tsar. When the impostor (see False Dmitry I) crossed the Dnieper, the mood of the Seversk Ukraine and the south in general was most favorable to his intentions. The above-mentioned economic crisis drove crowds of fugitives to the borders of the Muscovite state; they were caught and unwittingly recorded in the sovereign's service; they had to submit, but retained dull irritation, especially since they were oppressed by service and tithe arable land for the state. There were wandering gangs of Cossacks around, who were constantly replenished with people from the center and service fugitives. Finally, a three-year famine, just before the appearance of the impostor in Russian borders, accumulated many "villainous reptiles" who roamed everywhere and with whom it was necessary to wage a real war. Thus, combustible material was ready. The service people recruited from the fugitives, and partly the boyar children of the Ukrainian strip, recognized the impostor. After the death of Boris, the princely boyars in Moscow became against the Godunovs and the latter perished. The impostor marched triumphantly towards Moscow. In Tula, he was met by the color of the Moscow boyars - princes Vasily, Dmitry and Ivan Shuisky, Prince. Mstislavsky, prince. Vorotynsky. Immediately in Tula, the impostor showed the boyars that they could not live with him: he received them very rudely, "punishing you and layash", and in everything he gave preference to the Cossacks and other small brothers. The impostor did not understand his position, did not understand the role of the boyars, and it immediately began to act against him. On June 20, the impostor arrived in Moscow, and already on June 30, the trial of the Shuiskys took place. Thus, less than 10 days had passed before the Shuiskys started a fight against the impostor. This time they hurried, but they soon found allies. The clergy were the first to join the boyars, followed by the merchant class. Preparations for the uprising began at the end of 1605 and dragged on for six months. On May 17, 1606, up to 200 boyars and nobles broke into the Kremlin and the impostor was killed. (Read also the articles Pretender of False Dmitry and The reign and murder of False Dmitry) 8 Now the old boyar party found itself at the head of the board, which elected V. Shuisky as king. "The boyar-princely reaction in Moscow" (the expression of S. F. Platonov), having mastered the political position, elevated his most noble leader to the kingdom. The election of V. Shuisky to the throne took place without the advice of the whole earth. The Shuisky brothers, V.V. Golitsyn with his brothers, Iv. S. Kurakin and I. M. Vorotynsky, having agreed among themselves, brought Prince Vasily Shuisky to the place of execution and from there proclaimed him king. It was natural to expect that the people would be against the "shouted out" tsar and that the minor boyars (Romanovs, Nagye, Belsky, M. G. Saltykov, and others) would also be against him, which gradually began to recover from the disgrace of Boris.

The second period of the Time of Troubles. The second period (1606-1610) is characterized by the internecine struggle of social classes and the intervention of foreign governments in this struggle. In 1606-1607. there is an uprising led by Ivan Bolotnikov.

In the meantime, in Starodub (in the Bryansk region) in the summer of 1607, a new impostor appeared, declaring himself "Tsar Dmitry" who had escaped. His personality is even more mysterious than his predecessor. Some consider False Dmitry II to be Russian by origin, a native of the church environment, others - a baptized Jew, a teacher from Shklov.

According to many historians, False Dmitry II was a protege of the Polish king Sigismund III, although not everyone supports this version. The bulk of the armed forces of False Dmitry II were Polish gentry and Cossacks - the remnants of P. Bolotnikov's army.

In January 1608 he moved to Moscow. Having defeated Shuisky's troops in several battles, by the beginning of June, False Dmitry II reached the village of Tushina near Moscow, where he settled in a camp. In fact, dual power set in in the country: Vasily Shuisky sent his decrees from Moscow, False Dmitry from Tushin. As for the boyars and nobles, many of them served both sovereigns: either they went to Tushino for ranks and lands, or they returned to Moscow, expecting awards from Shuisky.

The growing popularity of the Tushinsky Thief was facilitated by the recognition of her husband by the wife of False Dmitry I, Marina Mniszek, who, obviously, not without the influence of the Poles, took part in the adventure and arrived in Tushino.

In the camp of False Dmitry, as already noted, the Poles-mercenaries initially played a very large role. The impostor asked the Polish king for open help, but in the Commonwealth itself there were then internal troubles, and the king was afraid to start a frank big war with Russia. Covert interference in Russian affairs Sigismund III continued. In general, in the summer - autumn of 1608, the successes of the Tushino people were growing rapidly. Almost half of the country - from Vologda to Astrakhan, from Vladimir, Suzdal, Yaroslavl to Pskov - supported "Tsar Dmitry". But the atrocities of the Poles and the collection of "taxes" (it was necessary to support the army and, in general, the entire Tushino "court"), which were more like robberies, led to the enlightenment of the population and the beginning of a spontaneous struggle against the Tushino thief. At the end of 1608 - beginning of 1609. protests began against the impostor, initially in the northern lands, and then in almost all cities on the middle Volga. Shuisky, however, was afraid to rely on this patriotic movement. He sought help abroad. The second period of the Time of Troubles is associated with the split of the country in 1609: two tsars, two Boyar Dumas, two patriarchs, territories recognizing the authority of False Dmitry II, and territories remaining faithful to Shuisky were formed in Muscovy.

In February 1609, Shuisky's government concluded an agreement with Sweden, counting on help in the war against the "Tushino thief" and his Polish detachments. According to this agreement, Russia gave Sweden the Karelian volost in the North, which was a serious political mistake. The Swedish-Russian troops under the command of the tsar's nephew, Prince M.V. Skopin-Shuisky, inflicted a number of defeats on the Tushino people. 10

This gave Sigismund III an excuse to move to open intervention. The Commonwealth began hostilities against Russia. Taking advantage of the fact that the central government in Russia was virtually absent, the army did not exist, in September 1609, Polish troops besieged Smolensk. By order of the king, the Poles who fought under the banner of "Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich" were to arrive at the Smolensk camp, which accelerated the collapse of the Tushino camp. False Dmitry II fled to Kaluga, where in December 1610 he was killed by his bodyguard.

Sigismund III, continuing the siege of Smolensk, moved part of his troops under the leadership of Hetman Zolkiewski to Moscow. Near Mozhaisk near the village. Klushino in June 1610, the Poles inflicted a crushing defeat on the tsarist troops, which completely undermined the prestige of Shuisky and led to his overthrow.

Meanwhile, the peasant war continued in the country, which was now being waged by numerous Cossack detachments. The Moscow boyars decided to turn to the Polish king Sigismund for help. An agreement was signed on calling Prince Vladislav to the Russian throne. At the same time, the conditions of the "cross-kissing record" of V. Shuisky were confirmed and the preservation of the Russian order was guaranteed. Only the question of Vladislav's acceptance of Orthodoxy remained unresolved. In September 1610, Polish detachments led by the "viceroy of Tsar Vladislav" Gonsevsky entered Moscow.

Sweden also launched aggressive actions. Swedish troops occupied a significant part of the north of Russia and were preparing to capture Novgorod. In mid-July 1611, Swedish troops captured Novgorod, then laid siege to Pskov, where the power of their emissaries was established.

During the second period, the struggle for power continued, while external forces (Poland, Sweden) were included in it. In fact, the Russian state was divided into two camps, which were ruled by Vasily Shuisky and False Dmitry II. This period was marked by fairly large-scale military operations, as well as the loss of a large amount of land. All this took place against the backdrop of internal peasant wars, which further weakened the country and intensified the crisis.

The third stage of the Time of Troubles. The third period of the Time of Troubles (1610-1613) is, first of all, the time of the struggle of Moscow people with foreign domination before the creation of a national government headed by M.F. Romanov. On July 17, 1610, Vasily Shuisky was deposed from the throne, and on July 19 he was forcibly tonsured a monk. Prior to the election of a new tsar, a government of "Prince F.I. Mstislavsky and his comrades" was established in Moscow from 7 boyars (the so-called "Seven Boyars"). The boyars, led by Fedor Mstislavsky, began to rule Russia, but they did not have the people's trust and could not decide which of them would rule. As a result, the Polish prince Vladislav, the son of Sigismund III, was called to the throne. Vladislav needed to convert to Orthodoxy, but he was a Catholic and was not going to change his faith. The boyars begged him to come "look", but he was accompanied by the Polish army, which captured Moscow. It was possible to preserve the independence of the Russian state only by relying on the people. In the autumn of 1611, the first people's militia was formed in Ryazan, headed by Prokopiy Lyapunov. But he failed to negotiate with the Cossacks and he was killed in the Cossack circle. Tushino Cossacks again laid siege to Moscow. Anarchy frightened all the boyars. On August 17, 1610, the Russian boyars concluded an agreement on calling Prince Vladislav to the Russian throne. A great embassy was sent to King Sigismund III near Smolensk, headed by Metropolitan Filaret and Prince Vasily Golitsyn. During the period of the so-called interregnum (1610-1613), the position of the Muscovite state seemed completely hopeless.

From October 1610 Moscow was under martial law. The Russian embassy near Smolensk was taken into custody. On November 30, 1610, Patriarch Hermogenes called for a fight against the interventionists. The idea of ​​convening a national militia for the liberation of Moscow and Russia is maturing in the country.

Russia faced a direct threat of loss of independence. The catastrophic situation that developed at the end of 1610 stirred up patriotic sentiments and religious feelings, forced many Russian people to rise above social contradictions, political differences and personal ambitions. The weariness of all sectors of society from the civil war, the thirst for order, which they perceived as the restoration of traditional foundations, also affected. As a result, this predetermined the revival of tsarist power in its autocratic and Orthodox form, the rejection of all innovations aimed at transforming it, and the victory of conservative traditionalist forces. But only on this basis, it was possible to rally society, get out of the crisis and achieve the expulsion of the occupiers.

Question to point II No. 1. How can you explain the success of False Dmitry I?

Reasons for success:

The people were already convinced of the untruth of the ruling tsar, because for the first time in history he was elected by the Zemsky Sobor, and the famine of 1601-1603 was God's obvious wrath;

The boyars remained dissatisfied with the rule of the "upstart", who was not even a boyar from birth;

Various segments of the population suffered from the ongoing crisis and placed their hopes in the true king;

The peasants suffered from the developing serfdom and pinned their hopes on the true king;

Boris Godunov limited the Don trade, which the Cossacks were greatly outraged by;

Boris Godunov tried to prevent the flight of people to the southern Cossack lands, which the Cossacks were greatly outraged by;

The timely death of Boris Godunov, who called himself a prince, helped a lot;

Maria Nagaya (mother of Tsarevich Dmitry) recognized her son as a pretender to the throne.

Question to point II #2. Why was False Dmitry I unable to retain power?

The new tsar frankly neglected the ancient customs: he did not sleep after dinner, walked quickly, himself received petitions, etc.;

In Moscow, people from the Commonwealth who came with the new tsar were in charge, while in non-Orthodox foreigners people were already accustomed to seeing people from the kingdom of the Antichrist;

The new tsar married a Catholic woman and generally showed pro-Catholic sympathies;

The new king did not make up "his team" - a group of the most trusted adherents, whom he could trust in all the most important posts and assignments;

The new tsar was in no hurry to fulfill the promises given before the campaign in Russia, therefore he was losing allies;

The new tsar was in no hurry to alleviate the fate of the peasants or the Cossacks, therefore he lost the support of the people;

Despite the fact that the new tsar brought people from the Commonwealth closer to himself, he did not remove the boyars from the capital (one of whom led the conspiracy).

Question for point III. How do you see the unusual fact of the king's oath to his subjects? What new trend in the relationship between the monarch and political elite says this episode?

At Tatar-Mongol yoke Grand Duke received a label from the Khan of the Golden Horde. After the overthrow of the yoke, he began to be considered the anointed of God. He never owed anything to his subjects, therefore the oath of Vasily Shuisky is an absolutely new phenomenon in the history of Muscovy. Not in the history of Russia as a whole - in Veliky Novgorod, for example, the prince not only took the oath, but also signed the contract. But Shuisky obviously did not rely on Novgorodian traditions. His oath showed a tendency to establish an oligarchy. Because in fact he did not swear allegiance to all subjects, namely the boyars. A significant part of his letter is devoted to guaranteeing the rights of the boyars. And the boyars were a relatively small and closed estate, their power would have become a classic oligarchy.

Question to point IV. What social groups were primarily protected by the treaty? Imagine how much the governance of Russia could change.

The boyars hoped that the treaty would strengthen their power, because the prince was a baby, and his father would hardly have left the Commonwealth for Moscow. In the Commonwealth, most likely, they hoped more for the return of the disputed lands - Smolensk and Novgorod-Seversky. That is, if successful, the treaty could lead to the fact that in a territorially curtailed Russia the boyar oligarchy would begin to rule.

Question to point V. Spend comparative analysis the first militia and movement under the leadership of Bolotnikov (according to the social composition, the goals of the struggle, etc.).

The social composition of both troops was similar: the backbone was made up of Cossacks and nobles, who were joined by peasants and townspeople. No wonder some of the leaders of the uprising, such as Prokopy Lyapunov, occupied a prominent place in the First Militia. However, the goals were different. The rebels were in favor of a specific contender for the throne, while the militia fought against a specific contender, but not for a specific candidate.

Question to the VI point No. 1. Which of the reasons for the election of Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom seems to you the most significant and why?

The most significant reason was his family closeness to the descendants of Ivan Kalita. That is why he was supported by different classes, and it was him, and not other candidates with similar characteristics. There were quite a few quite young, not showing themselves, offspring of the boyar families (and even the descendants of Rurik). Mikhail was not a candidate exclusively of the boyars, because the petition of the Cossacks, who was crushed with a hilt, became a weighty argument Cossack saber as an unambiguous reference. So it was not the boyars' hopes for an obedient tsar that brought the Romanovs to the throne.

It turns out that after many bloody years of the Troubles, Russia received what it refused at its beginning in the person of the Godunovs - a dynasty elected by the Zemsky Sobor, related to the previous one in the female line. But it was after the Time of Troubles that such an option no longer seemed bad.

Question to the VI paragraph number 2. What do you know about the feat of the headman of the Romanov estate Ivan Susanin?

A detachment of troops of the Commonwealth came to Ivan Susanin with a demand to lead them through forest paths to the village of Domino in the Kostroma patrimony of the Romanovs in order to capture Mikhail and his mother, already elected tsar, who was there. Susanin verbally agreed, but led the enemies in the other direction to the village of Isupov. When the squad discovered the deception, they tortured the hero, but he still did not show the right direction.

Question for paragraph 1. Name the causes of the Time of Troubles. What was the scope and nature of the crisis Russian society at the turn of the century?

Causes of Trouble:

The crisis in the economy that lasted from the reign of Ivan the Terrible and the resulting increase in enslavement;

Dynastic crisis;

The famine of 1601-1603, which convinced many of the untruth of the king;

The appearance at the right time of another contender for the throne, who declared himself the true king.

Thus, at the turn of the century, Russia was engulfed in a double crisis. First, it was a dynastic crisis. Secondly, it was an economic crisis, which caused an aggravation of social contradictions. The scale of these contradictions can be seen from the scale of the Troubles.

Question for paragraph 2. IN. Klyuchevsky noted that False Dmitry I "was only baked in a Polish oven, and fermented in Moscow." How do you understand this statement of the historian?

The historian apparently meant that the assistance provided to the pretender to the throne in the Commonwealth was only the last impetus for the beginning of the unrest. Its deepest causes lie in the contradictions within the very Russian society of the previous period.

Question for paragraph 3. “A true tsar is only natural and at the same time elected; only a natural tsar can be elected” (clerk Ivan Timofeev). What, in your opinion, should have been a true, “natural” tsar in the ideas of the inhabitants of Russia in the 17th century?

According to this statement, the people's choice should only help to reveal the true king, the main criterion in the election should be precisely the truth, and not the personal qualities of the candidate. It was on this principle, most likely, that Mikhail Romanov was elected - as the closest relative of the extinct dynasty.

Question for paragraph 4. What was the rise of the national self-consciousness of the Russian people at the beginning of the 17th century?

Prior to this, supporters of various pretenders to the throne, who were at war with each other, rallied against a common foreign enemy. But this was rather a manifestation of not national, but religious self-consciousness - they rebelled not just against foreigners, but against non-believers. It is not for nothing that one of the main claims against False Dmitry I was marriage with a Catholic, and the successful defense of the monastery (Trinity-Sergius) became a symbol of resistance.

Question for paragraph 5. Write a reasoned essay on the topic "Trouble - a clash of various contradictions."

A civil war is always a tangle of contradictions, even if it takes place between two parties. And the Time of Troubles was a war between many parties, especially at the final stage, when, in addition to the two False Dmitrys (III and IV), who simultaneously acted, many other applicants recruited troops, calling themselves the names of relatives of the last kings who never existed at all.

The reign of Ivan the Terrible was a real disaster for the boyars. Many of them were executed, the estate as a whole was seriously weakened, their influence on the government of the country weakened. The boyars wanted to regain their lost positions, that is, there was a contradiction between them and the tsarist government.

At the same time, the boyars were not homogeneous. There were still ancient families, but at the same time, the nominees of Ivan the Terrible, for example, from the times of the same oprichnina, were also boyars. Hatred for Boris Godunov (just one of these nominees) shows the depth of this contradiction as well. In addition, the struggle for leadership between boyar families, not even ancient and new, but between any boyar families, was indestructible. It manifested itself both in the years of Ivan IV's infancy, and during the Time of Troubles, and, perhaps, at all times from the period when the sources set out events in such detail as to trace it, until the liquidation of the boyars by Peter I - equating the nobility to him.

The reign of Ivan the Terrible is a time of ever-increasing taxes. And the economic crisis left by this king did not allow them to be reduced up to the Time of Troubles. Ordinary people were in poverty because of this, and yet the crisis, even without taking into account taxes, hit them the hardest. Because the townspeople were active participants in many armies during the Time of Troubles. The peasants also actively searched for the truth. The contradiction between them and the privileged classes was caused not only by taxes and requisitions, but also by the intensified serfdom.

Thus, the Time of Troubles was woven from the struggle of contradictions. But in the end, one thing prevailed over all of them - between the Orthodox and the Gentiles. This contradiction was cultivated by the official ideology long before the Troubles, unlike all the others, which remained hidden; because it turned out to be the most powerful in the end.

Question for paragraph 6. What were the consequences of the Time of Troubles and intervention for Russia? What do you see as the main lessons of this time?

Consequences:

Many people were killed, lost relatives or simply property (this was the lesser of evils);

Many cities were seriously affected;

The economy as a whole was seriously affected;

Significant territories had to be ceded to the interventionists;

A new dynasty was established on the throne.

Today, people often try to show that the final stage of the Troubles is an example of national unity in the face of intervention, when the people forgot about class and other differences in the face of a common danger. But the contradictions between the estates remained, as can be seen from the heated disputes and precisely the estate parties at the Zemsky Sobor, which ultimately elected Mikhail Romanov to the throne. Unity was not on a national basis, but on a religious basis - in Russia long before that they were sure that their country was the only truly Christian (Orthodox state), and that the kingdom of the Antichrist surrounded it. Therefore, hatred of foreigners was not something new. The main lesson is elsewhere.

As a result of the Time of Troubles, the Russian people with great joy received what they refused in the person of the Godunovs - the dynasty elected by the Zemsky Sobor, related to the descendants of Ivan Kalita in the female line. Therefore, the main lesson of the Time of Troubles is not to immediately abandon what is in search of the best: it will probably only get worse. That is, according to the old proverb: a titmouse in the hands is better than a crane in the sky.