Karamzin about the turmoil in Russian history quotes. Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich

The ideals that illuminated my path and gave me courage and courage were kindness, beauty and truth. Without a sense of solidarity with those who share my convictions, without the pursuit of the ever-elusive objective in art and science, life would seem absolutely empty to me.

End of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries. marked in Russian history by troubles. Having started at the top, it quickly went down, captured all layers of Moscow society and brought the state to the brink of destruction. The Troubles lasted for more than a quarter of a century - from the death of Ian the Terrible until the election of Mikhail Fedorovich to the kingdom (1584-1613). The duration and intensity of the unrest clearly indicate that it did not come from outside and not by chance, that its roots were hidden deep in the state organism. But at the same time, S. time amazes with its obscurity and uncertainty. This is not a political revolution, since it did not begin in the name of a new political ideal and did not lead to it, although the existence of political motives in the turmoil cannot be denied; this is not a social revolution, since, again, the turmoil did not arise from a social movement, although in its further development the aspirations of some sections of society for social change were intertwined with it. “Our turmoil is the fermentation of a sick state organism, striving to get out of the contradictions to which the previous course of history led it and which could not be resolved in a peaceful, ordinary way.” All previous hypotheses about the origin of the turmoil, despite the fact that each of them contains some truth, must be abandoned as not completely solving the problem. There were two main contradictions that caused S. time. The first of them was political, which can be defined in the words of Prof. Klyuchevsky: “The Moscow sovereign, whom the course of history led to democratic sovereignty, had to act through a very aristocratic administration”; both of these forces, which grew together thanks to the state unification of Rus' and worked together on it, were imbued with mutual distrust and enmity. The second contradiction can be called social: the Moscow government was forced to strain all its forces to better organize the highest defense of the state and “under the pressure of these higher needs, sacrifice the interests of the industrial and agricultural classes, whose labor served as the basis of the national economy, to the interests of service landowners,” as a consequence of which There was a mass exodus of the tax-paying population from the centers to the outskirts, which intensified with the expansion of state territory suitable for agriculture. The first contradiction was the result of the collection of inheritances by Moscow. The annexation of destinies did not have the character of a violent war of extermination. The Moscow government left the inheritance in the management of its former prince and was content with the fact that the latter recognized the power of the Moscow sovereign and became his servant. The power of the Moscow sovereign, as Klyuchevsky put it, became not in the place of appanage princes, but above them; “the new state order was a new layer of relations and institutions, which lay on top of what was in effect before, without destroying it, but only imposing new responsibilities on it, showing it new tasks.” The new princely boyars, pushing aside the ancient Moscow boyars, took first place in the degree of their pedigree seniority, accepting only a very few of the Moscow boyars into their midst on equal rights with themselves. Thus, a vicious circle of boyar princes formed around the Moscow sovereign, who became the pinnacle of his administration, his main council in governing the country. The authorities previously ruled the state individually and in parts, but now they began to rule the entire earth, occupying positions according to the seniority of their breed. The Moscow government recognized this right for them, even supported it, contributed to its development in the form of localism, and thereby fell into the above-mentioned contradiction. The power of the Moscow sovereigns arose on the basis of patrimonial rights. Karamzin about the time of troubles. The Grand Duke of Moscow was the owner of his inheritance; all the inhabitants of his territory were his “slaves.” The entire previous course of history led to the development of this view of territory and population. By recognizing the rights of the boyars, the Grand Duke betrayed his ancient traditions, which in reality he could not replace with others. Ivan the Terrible was the first to understand this contradiction. The Moscow boyars were strong mainly because of their family land holdings. Ivan the Terrible planned to carry out a complete mobilization of boyar land ownership, taking away from the boyars their ancestral appanage nests, giving them other lands in return in order to break their connection with the land and deprive them of their former significance. The boyars were defeated; it was replaced by the lower court layer. Simple boyar families, like the Godunovs and Zakharyins, seized primacy at court. The surviving remnants of the boyars became embittered and prepared for unrest. On the other hand, the 16th century. was an era of external wars that ended with the acquisition of vast spaces in the east, southeast and west. To conquer them and to consolidate new acquisitions, a huge number of military forces were required, which the government recruited from everywhere, in difficult cases not disdaining the services of slaves. The service class in the Moscow state received, in the form of a salary, land on the estate - and land without workers had no value. The land, which was far from the borders of military defense, also did not matter, since a serving person could not serve with it. Therefore, the government was forced to transfer a huge expanse of land in the central and southern parts of the state into service hands. The palace and black peasant volosts lost their independence and came under the control of service people. The previous division into volosts inevitably had to be destroyed with small changes. The process of "possession" of lands is exacerbated by the above-mentioned mobilization of lands, which was the result of persecution against the boyars. Mass evictions ruined the economy of service people, but even more ruined the tax collectors. The mass relocation of the peasantry to the outskirts begins. At the same time, a huge area of ​​Zaoksk black soil is being opened up for resettlement for the peasantry. The government itself, taking care of strengthening the newly acquired borders, supports resettlement to the outskirts. As a result, by the end of the reign of Ivan the Terrible, the eviction took on the character of a general flight, intensified by shortages, epidemics, and Tatar raids. Most of the service lands remain “empty”; a sharp economic crisis ensues. The peasants lost the right of independent land ownership, with the placement of service people on their lands; The townspeople population found themselves forced out of the southern towns and cities occupied by military force: the former trading places took on the character of military-administrative settlements. The townspeople are running. In this economic crisis, there is a struggle for workers. The stronger ones win - the boyars and the church. The suffering elements remain the service class and, even more so, the peasant element, which not only lost the right to free land use, but, with the help of indentured servitude, loans and the newly emerged institution of old-timers (see), begins to lose personal freedom, to approach the serfs. In this struggle, enmity grows between individual classes - between the large owner-boyars and the church, on the one hand, and the service class, on the other. The oppressive population harbors hatred for the classes that oppress them and, irritated by government dispositions, are ready for open rebellion; it runs to the Cossacks, who have long separated their interests from the interests of the state. Only the north, where the land remained in the hands of the black volosts, remains calm during the advancing state “ruin.”

Troubles. In the development of the turmoil in the Moscow state, researchers usually distinguish three periods: dynastic, during which there was a struggle for the Moscow throne between various contenders (until May 19, 1606); social - the time of class struggle in the Moscow state, complicated by the intervention of foreign states in Russian affairs (until July 1610); national - the fight against foreign elements and the choice of a national sovereign (until February 21, 1613).

I period

With the death of Ivan the Terrible (March 18, 1584), the field for unrest immediately opened up. There was no power that could stop or contain the impending disaster. The heir of John IV, Theodore Ioannovich, was incapable of governing affairs; Tsarevich Dmitry was still in his infancy. The government was supposed to fall into the hands of the boyars. The secondary boyars came onto the scene - the Yurievs, the Godunovs - but there were still remnants of prince-boyars (Prince Mstislavsky, Shuisky, Vorotynsky, etc.). Nagy, his maternal relatives, and Belsky gathered around Dmitry Tsarevich. Now, after the accession of Fyodor Ioannovich, Dmitry Tsarevich was sent to Uglich, in all likelihood, fearing the possibility of unrest. The board was headed by N.R. Yuryev, but he soon died. A clash occurred between Godunov and the others. First, the Mstislavsky, Vorotynsky, Golovin, and then the Shuisky suffered. Palace turmoil led Godunov to the regency he aspired to. He had no rivals after the fall of the Shuiskys. When news of the death of Tsarevich Dmitry arrived in Moscow, rumors spread throughout the city that Dmitry had been killed on the orders of Godunov. These rumors were recorded primarily by some foreigners, and then found their way into 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 recently this view has been significantly undermined, and there is hardly any modern historian who would decisively lean towards the side of legends. In any case, the role that fell to Godunov was very difficult: it was necessary to pacify the earth, it was necessary to fight the above-mentioned crisis. It is beyond dispute that Boris managed to alleviate the difficult situation of the country at least temporarily: all modern writers talk about this, pointing out in agreement that “the Moscow people began to be consoled from their former sorrow and live quietly and serenely,” etc. 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 appear as a pacifier for the nobility in a political crisis: this was not in his interests. Foreign and Russian writers note that in this regard, Godunov was a continuator of Grozny’s policies. In the economic crisis, Godunov took the side of the service class, which, as it turned out during the further development of the turmoil, was one of the most numerous and powerful in the Moscow state. In general, the situation of the drafters and walking people under Godunov was difficult. Godunov wanted to rely on the middle class of society - service people and townspeople. Indeed, he managed to get up with their help, but failed to hold on. In 1594, Princess Theodosia, 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 nominated 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. An interregnum opened. There were 4 candidates for the throne: F.N. Romanov, Godunov, Prince. F. I. Mstislavsky and B. Ya. Belsky. The Shuiskys occupied a lowly position at this time and could not appear as candidates. Karamzin about the time of troubles. The most serious contender, according to Sapieha, was Romanov, the most daring was Belsky. There was a lively fight between the contenders. In February 1598, a council was convened. In its composition and character it was no different 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 Godunov’s main support - simple service nobles - was few in number, and Moscow was best and most fully represented, that is, those layers of the Moscow aristocratic nobility who were not particularly favored to Godunov. 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 is clear that most of the Moscow boyars and princes, with F.N. Romanov and Belsky at their head, planned to place Simeon Bekbulatovich on the throne (see). This explains why in the “cross-record” given by the boyars after Godunov’s crowning, it is said that they should not want Simeon to reign. The first three years of Godunov’s reign passed calmly, but from 1601 there were setbacks. A terrible famine ensued, which lasted until 1604 and during which many people died. A mass of hungry people scattered along the roads and began to plunder. 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 emergence of rumors about the impostor, there is a disgrace that befell first Belsky, and then the Romanovs, of whom Fyodor Nikitich enjoyed the most popularity. In 1601, they were all sent into exile, Fyodor Nikitich was tonsured under the name of Philaret. Together with the Romanovs, their relatives were exiled: Prince. Cherkasy, Sitsky, Shestunov, Karpov, Repin. Following the exile of the Romanovs, disgraces and executions began to rage. Godunov, obviously, was looking for threads of the conspiracy, but found nothing. Meanwhile, the anger against him intensified. The old boyars (boyar-princes) gradually recovered from the persecutions of Ivan the Terrible and became hostile to the unborn tsar. When the impostor (see False Dmitry I) crossed the Dnieper, the mood of Seversk Ukraine and the south in general could not have been more favorable to his intentions. The above-mentioned economic crisis drove crowds of fugitives to the borders of the Moscow state; they were caught and forced into the sovereign's service; they had to submit, but remained silently irritated, especially since they were oppressed by service and tithe arable land for the state. There were wandering bands of Cossacks around, which were constantly replenished with people from the center and service fugitives. Finally, a three-year famine, just before the appearance of the impostor within Russian borders, accumulated many “evil bastards” who wandered everywhere and with whom it was necessary to wage a real war. Thus, the flammable 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 boyar-princes in Moscow turned against the Godunovs and the latter died. The impostor triumphantly headed towards Moscow. In Tula he was met by the flower of the Moscow boyars - princes Vasily, Dmitry and Ivan Shuisky, Prince. Mstislavsky, book. Vorotynsky. Immediately in Tula, the impostor showed the boyars that they could not live with him: he received them very rudely, “punishing and barking,” 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 they immediately began to act against him. On June 20, the impostor arrived in Moscow, and on June 30, the trial of the Shuiskys took place. Thus, not even 10 days had passed before the Shuiskys began to fight against the impostor. This time they hurried, but soon they 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 lasted six months. On May 17, 1606, up to 200 boyars and nobles burst into the Kremlin, and the impostor was killed. Now the old boyar party found itself at the head of the board, which chose V. Shuisky as king. “The boyar-princely reaction in Moscow” (the expression of S. F. Platonov), having mastered the political position, elevated its most noble leader to the kingdom. Election to the throne V. Shuisky happened 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 execution site and from there proclaimed him tsar. It was natural to expect that the people would be against the “shouted out” tsar and that the secondary boyars (Romanovs, Nagiye, Belsky, M.G. Saltykov, etc.), which gradually began to recover from Boris’s disgrace, would also turn out to be against him.

II period of unrest

After his election to the throne, Vasily Shuisky considered it necessary to explain to the people why he was elected and not anyone else. He motivates the reason for his election by his origin from Rurik; in other words, it sets forth the principle that the seniority of the “breed” gives the right to seniority of power. This is the principle of the ancient boyars (see Localism). Restoring the old boyar traditions, Shuisky had to formally confirm the rights of the boyars and, if possible, ensure them. He did this in his crucifixion record, which undoubtedly had the character of limiting royal power. The Tsar admitted that he was not free to execute his slaves, that is, he abandoned the principle that Ivan the Terrible so sharply put forward and then accepted by Godunov. The entry satisfied the boyar princes, and even then not all of them, but it could not satisfy the minor boyars, minor service people and the mass of the population. The turmoil continued. Vasily Shuisky immediately sent the followers of False Dmitry - Belsky, Saltykov and others - to different cities; he wanted to get along with the [[Romanov]s, Nagis and other representatives of the minor boyars, but then several dark events occurred that indicate that he did not succeed. V. Shuisky thought about elevating Filaret, who was elevated to the rank of metropolitan by an impostor, to the patriarchal table, but circumstances showed him that it was impossible to rely on Filaret and the Romanovs. He also failed to unite the oligarchic circle of boyar princes: part of it disintegrated, part of it became hostile to the tsar. Shuisky hurried to be crowned king, without even waiting for the patriarch: he was crowned by Metropolitan Isidore of Novgorod, without the usual pomp. To dispel rumors that Tsarevich Dmitry was alive, Shuisky came up with the idea of ​​a solemn transfer to Moscow of the relics of the Tsarevich, canonized by the church; He also resorted to official journalism. But everything was against him: anonymous letters were scattered around Moscow that Dmitry was alive and would soon return, and Moscow was worried. On May 25, Shuisky had to calm down the mob, which was raised against him, as they said then, by P.N. Sheremetev. A fire was breaking out on the southern outskirts of the state. As soon as the events of May 17 became known there, the Seversk land rose, and behind it the Trans-Oka, Ukrainian and Ryazan places; The movement moved to Vyatka, Perm, and captured Astrakhan. Unrest also broke out in Novgorod, Pskov and Tver. This movement, which embraced such a huge space, had a different character in different places and pursued different goals, but there is no doubt that it was dangerous for V. Shuisky. In the Seversk land the movement was social in nature and was directed against the boyars. Putivl became the center of the movement here, and the prince became the head of the movement. Grieg. Peter. Shakhovskoy and his “big governor” Bolotnikov. The movement raised by Shakhovsky and Bolotnikov was completely different from the previous one: before they fought for the trampled rights of Dmitry, in which they believed, now - for a new social ideal; Dmitry's name was only a pretext. Bolotnikov called the people to him, giving hope for social change. The original text of his appeals has not survived, but their content is indicated in the charter of Patriarch Hermogenes. Bolotnikov’s appeals, says Hermogenes, instill in the mob “all sorts of evil deeds for murder and robbery”, “they order the boyar slaves to beat their boyars and their wives, and votchinas, and estates they are promised; and they order the thieves and unnamed thieves to beat the guests and all merchants and rob their bellies; and they call their thieves to themselves, and they want to give them boyarships and voivodeships, and deviousness, and clergy.” In the northern zone of Ukrainian and Ryazan cities, a serving nobility arose who did not want to put up with the boyar government of Shuisky. The Ryazan militia was headed by Grigory Sunbulov and the Lyapunov brothers, Prokopiy and Zakhar, and the Tula militia moved under the command of the boyar’s son Istoma Pashkov. Meanwhile, Bolotnikov defeated the tsarist commanders and moved towards Moscow. On the way, he united with the noble militias, together with them he approached Moscow and stopped in the village of Kolomenskoye. Shuisky's position became extremely dangerous. Almost half of the state rose up against him, rebel forces were besieging Moscow, and he had no troops not only to pacify the rebellion, but even to defend Moscow. In addition, the rebels cut off access to bread, and famine emerged in Moscow. Among the besiegers, however, discord emerged: the nobility, on the one hand, slaves, fugitive peasants, on the other, could live peacefully only until they knew each other’s intentions. Karamzin about the Time of Troubles As soon as the nobility became acquainted with the goals of Bolotnikov and his army, they immediately recoiled from them. Sunbulov and Lyapunov, although they hated the established order in Moscow, preferred Shuisky and came to him to confess. Other nobles began to follow them. Then the militia from some cities arrived to help, and Shuisky was saved. Bolotnikov fled first to Serpukhov, then to Kaluga, from which he moved to Tula, where he settled down with the Cossack impostor False Peter. This new impostor appeared among the Terek Cossacks and pretended to be the son of Tsar Fedor, who in reality never existed. Its appearance dates back to the time of the first False Dmitry. Shakhovskoy came to Bolotnikov; they decided to lock themselves here and hide from Shuisky. The number of their troops exceeded 30,000 people. In the spring of 1607, Tsar Vasily decided to act energetically against the rebels; but the spring campaign was unsuccessful. Finally, in the summer, with a huge army, he personally went to Tula and besieged it, pacifying the rebel cities along the way and destroying the rebels: thousands of them put “prisoners in the water,” that is, they simply drowned them. A third of the state territory was given over to the troops for plunder and destruction. The siege of Tula dragged on; They managed to take it only when they came up with the idea of ​​setting it up on the river. Up the dam and flood the city. Shakhovsky was exiled to Lake Kubenskoye, Bolotnikov to Kargopol, where he was drowned, and False Peter was hanged. Shuisky triumphed, but not for long. Instead of going to pacify the northern cities, where the rebellion did not stop, he disbanded the troops and returned to Moscow to celebrate the victory. The social background of Bolotnikov’s movement did not escape Shuisky’s attention. This is proven by the fact that, through a series of resolutions, he decided to strengthen in place and subject to supervision that social stratum that discovered dissatisfaction with its position and sought to change it. By issuing such decrees, Shuisky recognized the existence of unrest, but, trying to defeat it through repression alone, he revealed a lack of understanding of the actual state of affairs. By August 1607, when V. Shuisky was sitting near Tula, the second False Dmitry appeared in Starodub Seversky, whom the people very aptly dubbed the Thief. The Starodub residents believed in him and began to help him. Soon a team of Poles, Cossacks and all sorts of crooks formed around him. This was not the zemstvo squad that gathered around False Dmitry I: it was just a gang of “thieves” who did not believe in the royal origin of the new impostor and followed him in the hope of loot. The thief defeated the royal army and stopped near Moscow in the village of Tushino, where he founded his fortified camp. People flocked to him from everywhere, thirsting for easy money. The arrival of Lisovsky and Jan Sapieha especially strengthened the Thief. Shuisky's position was difficult. The South could not help him; he had no strength of his own. There remained hope in the north, which was comparatively calmer and suffered little from the turmoil. On the other hand, the Thief could not take Moscow. Both opponents were weak and could not defeat each other. The people became corrupted and forgot about duty and honor, serving alternately one or the other. In 1608, V. Shuisky sent his nephew Mikhail Vasilyevich Skopin-Shuisky (see. ) to the Swedes for help. The Russians ceded the city of Karel and the province to Sweden, abandoned views of Livonia and pledged an eternal alliance against Poland, for which they received an auxiliary detachment of 6 thousand people. Skopin moved from Novgorod to Moscow, clearing the north-west of the Tushins along the way. Sheremetev came from Astrakhan, suppressing the rebellion along the Volga. In Alexandrovskaya Sloboda they united and went to Moscow. By this time, Tushino ceased to exist. It happened this way: when Sigismund learned about Russia’s alliance with Sweden, he declared war on it and besieged Smolensk. Ambassadors were sent to Tushino to the Polish troops there demanding that they join the king. A split began among the Poles: some obeyed the king's orders, others did not. The Thief’s position had been difficult before: no one treated him on ceremony, they insulted him, almost beat him; now it has become unbearable. The thief decided to leave Tushino and fled to Kaluga. Around the Thief during his stay in Tushino, a court of Moscow people gathered who did not want to serve Shuisky. Among them were representatives of very high strata of the Moscow nobility, but the palace nobility - Metropolitan Filaret (Romanov), Prince. Trubetskoys, Saltykovs, Godunovs, etc.; there were also humble people who sought to curry favor, gain weight and importance in the state - Molchanov, Iv. Gramotin, Fedka Andronov, etc. Sigismund invited them to surrender under the authority of the king. Filaret and the Tushino boyars responded that the election of a tsar was not their job alone, that they could do nothing without the advice of the land. At the same time, they entered into an agreement between themselves and the Poles not to pester V. Shuisky and not to desire a king from “any other Moscow boyars” and began negotiations with Sigismund so that he would send his son Vladislav to the kingdom of Moscow. An embassy was sent from the Russian Tushins, headed by the Saltykovs, Prince. Rubets-Masalsky, Pleshcheevs, Khvorostin, Velyaminov - all great nobles - and several people of low origin. 4 Feb In 1610, they concluded an agreement with Sigismund, clarifying the aspirations of “rather mediocre nobility and well-established businessmen.” Its main points are as follows: 1) Vladislav is crowned king by the Orthodox patriarch; 2) Orthodoxy must continue to be revered: 3) the property and rights of all ranks remain inviolable; 4) the trial is carried out according to the old times; Vladislav shares legislative power with the boyars and the Zemsky Sobor; 5) execution can be carried out only by court and with the knowledge of the boyars; the property of the relatives of the perpetrator should not be subject to confiscation; 6) taxes are collected in the old way; the appointment of new ones is done with the consent of the boyars; 7) peasant migration is prohibited; 8) Vladislav is obliged not to demote people of high ranks innocently, but to promote those of lower rank according to their merits; travel to other countries for research is permitted; 9) the slaves remain in the same position. Analyzing this treaty, we find: 1) that it is national and strictly conservative, 2) that it protects most of all the interests of the service class, and 3) that it undoubtedly introduces some innovations; Particularly characteristic in this regard are paragraphs 5, 6 and 8. Meanwhile, Skopin-Shuisky triumphantly entered liberated Moscow on March 12, 1610. Moscow rejoiced, welcoming the 24-year-old hero with great joy. Shuisky also rejoiced, hoping that the days of testing were over. But during these celebrations, Skopin suddenly died. There was a rumor that he had been poisoned. There is news that Lyapunov suggested that Skopin “unseat” Vasily Shuisky and take the throne himself, but Skopin rejected this proposal. After the king found out about this, he lost interest in his nephew. In any case, Skopin’s death destroyed Shuisky’s connection with the people. The king's brother Dimitri, a completely mediocre person, became the governor of the army. He set out to liberate Smolensk, but near the village of Klushina he was shamefully defeated by the Polish hetman Zholkiewski. Zholkiewski cleverly took advantage of the victory: he quickly went to Moscow, capturing Russian cities along the way and bringing them to the oath to Vladislav. Vor also hurried to Moscow from Kaluga. When Moscow learned about the outcome of the battle of Klushino, “a great rebellion arose among all the people, fighting against the Tsar.” The approach of Zolkiewski and Vor accelerated the disaster. In the overthrow of Shuisky from the throne, the main role fell to the share of the service class, headed by Zakhar Lyapunov. The palace nobility also took a significant part in this, including Filaret Nikitich. After several unsuccessful attempts, Shuisky’s opponents gathered at the Serpukhov Gate, declared themselves the council of the whole earth and “unseated” the king.

III period of turmoil

Moscow found itself without a government, and yet it needed it now more than ever: it was pressed by enemies on both sides. Everyone was aware of this, but did not know who to focus on. Lyapunov and the Ryazan servicemen wanted to install Prince Tsar. V. Golitsyna; Filaret, Saltykovs and other Tushins had other intentions; The highest nobility, headed by F.I. Mstislavsky and I.S. Kurakin, decided to wait. The board was transferred to the hands of the boyar duma, which consisted of 7 members. The “seven-numbered boyars” failed to take power into their own hands. They made an attempt to assemble a Zemsky Sobor, but it failed. Fear of the Thief, on whose side the mob was taking their side, forced them to let Zolkiewski into Moscow, but he entered only when Moscow agreed to the election of Vladislav. On August 27, Moscow swore allegiance to Vladislav. If the election of Vladislav was not carried out in the usual way, at a real Zemsky Sobor, then nevertheless the boyars did not decide to take this step alone, but gathered representatives from different layers of the state and formed something like a Zemsky Sobor, which was recognized as the council of the whole earth. After long negotiations, both parties accepted the previous agreement, with some changes: 1) Vladislav had to convert to Orthodoxy; 2) the clause on freedom to travel abroad for science was crossed out and 3) the article on the promotion of lesser people was destroyed. These changes show the influence of the clergy and boyars. The agreement on the election of Vladislav was sent to Sigismund with a great embassy consisting of almost 1000 people: this included representatives of almost all classes. It is very likely that the embassy included most of the members of the “council of the whole earth” that elected Vladislav. At the head of the embassy were Metropolitan. Filaret and Prince V. P. Golitsyn. The embassy was not successful: Sigismund himself wanted to sit on the Moscow throne. When Zolkiewski realized that Sigismund's intention was unshakable, he left Moscow, realizing that the Russians would not come to terms with this. Sigismund hesitated, tried to intimidate the ambassadors, but they did not deviate from the agreement. Then he resorted to bribing some members, which he succeeded in: they left from near Smolensk to prepare the ground for the election of Sigismund, but those who remained were unshakable. At the same time, in Moscow, the “seven-numbered boyars” lost all meaning; power passed into the hands of the Poles and the newly formed government circle, which betrayed the Russian cause and betrayed Sigismund. This circle consisted of Iv. Mich. Saltykova, book. Yu. D. Khvorostinina, N. D. Velyaminova, M. A. Molchanova, Gramotina, Fedka Andronova and many others. etc. Thus, the first attempt of the Moscow people to restore power ended in complete failure: instead of an equal union with Poland, Rus' risked falling into complete subordination from it. The failed attempt put an end to the political significance of the boyars and the boyar duma forever. As soon as the Russians realized that they had made a mistake in choosing Vladislav, as soon as they saw that Sigismund was not lifting the siege of Smolensk and was deceiving them, national and religious feelings began to awaken. At the end of October 1610, ambassadors from near Smolensk sent a letter about the threatening turn of affairs; in Moscow itself, patriots revealed the truth to the people in anonymous letters. All eyes turned to Patriarch Hermogenes: he understood his task, but could not immediately take up its implementation. After the storming of Smolensk on November 21, the first serious clash between Hermogenes and Saltykov took place, who tried to persuade the patriarch to side with Sigismund; but Hermogenes still did not dare to call on the people to openly fight the Poles. The death of Vor and the disintegration of the embassy forced him to “command the blood to be bold” - and in the second half of December he began sending letters to the cities. This was discovered, and Hermogenes paid with imprisonment. His call, however, was heard. Prokopiy Lyapunov was the first to rise from the Ryazan land. He began to gather an army against the Poles and in January 1611 moved towards Moscow. Zemstvo squads came to Lyapunov from all sides; even the Tushino Cossacks went to the rescue of Moscow, under the command of Prince. D.T. Trubetskoy and Zarutsky. The Poles, after the battle with the residents of Moscow and the approaching zemstvo squads, locked themselves in the Kremlin and Kitai-Gorod. The position of the Polish detachment (about 3,000 people) was dangerous, especially since it had few supplies. Sigismund could not help him; he himself was unable to put an end to Smolensk. The Zemstvo and Cossack militias united and besieged the Kremlin, but discord immediately broke out between them. However, the army declared itself the council of the earth and began to rule the state, since there was no other government. Due to the increased discord between the zemstvos and the Cossacks, it was decided in June 16 1 1 to draw up a general resolution. The sentence of the representatives of the Cossacks and service people, who formed the main core of the zemstvo army, was very extensive: it had to organize not only the army, but also the state. The highest power should belong to the entire army, which calls itself “the whole earth”; voivodes are only the executive bodies of this council, which reserves the right to remove them if they conduct business poorly. The court belongs to the voivodes, but they can execute only with the approval of the “council of the whole earth”, otherwise they face death. Then local affairs were settled very precisely and in detail. All awards from Vor and Sigismund are declared insignificant. “Old” Cossacks can receive estates and thus join the ranks of service people. Next are the decrees on the return of fugitive slaves, who called themselves Cossacks (new Cossacks), to their former masters; The self-will of the Cossacks was largely embarrassed. Finally, an administrative department was established on the Moscow model. From this verdict it is clear that the army gathered near Moscow considered itself a representative of the entire land and that the main role in the council belonged to the zemstvo service people, and not to the Cossacks. This sentence is also characteristic in that it testifies to the importance that the service class gradually acquired. But the predominance of service people did not last long; the Cossacks could not be in solidarity with them. The matter ended with the murder of Lyapunov and the flight of the zemshchina. The Russians' hopes for the militia were not justified: Moscow remained in the hands of the Poles, Smolensk by this time was taken by Sigismund, Novgorod by the Swedes; Cossacks settled around Moscow, robbed the people, committed outrages and prepared a new unrest, proclaiming the son of Marina, who lived in connection with Zarutsky, Russian Tsar. The state was apparently dying; but a popular movement arose throughout the north and northeast of Rus'. This time it separated from the Cossacks and began to act independently. Hermogenes, with his letters, poured inspiration into the hearts of the Russians. Nizhny became the center of the movement. Minin was placed at the head of the economic organization, and power over the army was given to the prince. Pozharsky. In March 1612, the militia moved to Yaroslavl to occupy this important point, where many roads crossed and where the Cossacks headed, taking an openly hostile attitude towards the new militia. Yaroslavl was busy; the militia stood here for three months, because it was necessary to “build” not only the army, but also the land; Pozharsky wanted to convene a council to elect a king, but the latter failed. Around August 20, 1612, the militia from Yaroslavl moved to Moscow. On October 22, Kitay-Gorod was taken, and a few days later the Kremlin surrendered. After the capture of Moscow, by letter of November 15, Pozharsky convened representatives from the cities, 10 people each, to choose a tsar. Sigismund decided to go to Moscow, but he did not have enough strength to take Volok, and he went back. In January 1613, the electors gathered. The cathedral was one of the most crowded and most complete: there were even representatives of black volosts, which had never happened before. Four candidates were nominated: V.I. Shuisky, Vorotynsky, Trubetskoy and M.F. Romanov. Contemporaries accused Pozharsky that he, too, strongly campaigned in his favor, but this can hardly be allowed. In any case, the elections were very stormy. A legend has been preserved that Filaret demanded restrictive conditions for the new tsar and pointed to M.F. Romanov as the most suitable candidate. Mikhail Fedorovich was indeed chosen, and undoubtedly, he was offered those restrictive conditions that Filaret wrote about: “Give full justice to the old laws of the country; do not judge or condemn anyone by the highest authority; without a council, do not introduce any new laws, do not aggravate subjects with new taxes and not to make the slightest decisions in military and zemstvo affairs." The election took place on February 7, but the official announcement was postponed until the 21st, in order to find out during this time how the people would accept the new king. With the election of the king, the turmoil ended, since now there was power that everyone recognized and could rely on. But the consequences of the turmoil lasted for a long time: one might say, the entire 17th century was filled with them.

IMPOSTER. The unreasonable course of action of the government and society, so sadly supported by nature itself, revealed such a disorder in social relations, such social confusion, with which, after the suppression of the dynasty, it was difficult to cope with ordinary government means. This second cause of the Troubles, socio-political, in combination with the first, dynastic, strongly, although indirectly, supported the Troubles by aggravating the effect of the first, expressed in the successes of the impostors. Therefore, imposture can also be recognized as a derivative cause of the Troubles, emerging from the combined action of both root causes. The question of how the very idea of ​​imposture could arise does not involve any folk psychological difficulty. The mystery that surrounded the death of Tsarevich Dimitri gave rise to contradictory rumors, from which the imagination chose the most desirable, and most of all they wanted a successful outcome, so that the Tsarevich would be alive and eliminate the painful uncertainty that clouded the future. They were inclined, as always in such cases, to unconsciously believe that the crime had failed, that providence, this time too, stood guard over world truth and prepared retribution for the villains. The terrible fate of Tsar Boris and his family was in the eyes of the alarmed people an amazing revelation of this eternal truth of God and most of all helped the success of the impostor. The moral feeling found support in a political instinct, which was as much unconscious as it was accessible by its unconsciousness to the masses. Imposture was the most convenient way out of the struggle of irreconcilable interests, agitated by the suppression of the dynasty: it mechanically, forcibly united under the usual, albeit counterfeit, power the elements of a society ready to disintegrate, between which an organic, voluntary agreement had become impossible.

CONCLUSIONS. This can explain the origin of the Troubles. The basis for it was the painful mood of the people, the general feeling of discontent brought by the people from the reign of Ivan the Terrible and strengthened by the rule of B. Godunov. The reason for the Troubles was given by the suppression of the dynasty, followed by attempts to artificially restore it in the person of impostors. The root causes of the Troubles must be recognized as the people's view of the old dynasty's attitude towards the Moscow state, which made it difficult to get used to the idea of ​​an elected tsar, and then the very structure of the state with its heavy tax base and uneven distribution of state duties, which gave rise to social discord: the first reason gave rise to and supported the need to resurrect the lost royal family, and this need ensured the success of imposture; the second reason turned dynastic intrigue into socio-political anarchy. Other circumstances also contributed to the Troubles: the mode of action of the rulers who became heads of state after Tsar Feodor, the constitutional aspirations of the boyars, which ran counter to the character of the Moscow supreme power and the people’s view of it, the low level of public morality, as portrayed by modern observers, the boyars’ disgraces, famine and pestilence during the reign of Boris, regional discord, intervention of the Cossacks. But all these were not causes, but either only symptoms of the Troubles, or conditions that fed it, but did not give rise to it, or, finally, consequences that were brought into action by it.

Troubles appear at the turn of two adjacent periods of our history, connected with the previous by its causes, and with the subsequent by its consequences. The end of the Troubles was put by the accession to the throne of the king, who became the founder of a new dynasty: this was the first immediate consequence of the Troubles.

SECOND MILITARY. At the end of 1611, the Moscow state presented a spectacle of complete visible destruction. The Poles took Smolensk; a Polish detachment burned Moscow and fortified itself behind the surviving walls of the Kremlin and China Town; the Swedes occupied Novgorod and nominated one of their princes as a candidate for the Moscow throne; to replace the murdered second False Dmitry, a third, some Sidorka, sat in Pskov; The first noble militia near Moscow was upset with the death of Lyapunov. Meanwhile, the country remained without a government. The Boyar Duma, which became its head after the deposition of V. Shuisky, was abolished by itself when the Poles captured the Kremlin, where some of the boyars sat with their chairman, Prince. Mstislavsky. The state, having lost its center, began to disintegrate into its component parts; Almost every city acted independently, only communicating with other cities. The state was transformed into some kind of shapeless, restless federation. But from the end of 1611, when the political forces were exhausted, religious and national forces began to awaken, which went to the rescue of the dying land. Letters of conscription from Archimandrite Dionysius and cellarer Abrahamy, which were sent out from the Trinity Monastery, raised up the people of Nizhny Novgorod under the leadership of their elder, the butcher Kuzma Minin. In response to the call of the Nizhny Novgorod residents, service people, city nobles and boyar children who were left without work and salaries, and often without estates, began to flock, for whom Minin also found a leader, Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky. This is how the second noble militia against the Poles was formed. In terms of combat qualities, it did not stand above the first, although it was well equipped thanks to the abundant cash treasury, selflessly collected by the townspeople of Nizhny Novgorod and other cities that joined them. It took about four months for the militia to get established, for six months it moved towards Moscow, and along the way it was replenished with crowds of service people who asked to be accepted into the zemstvo salary. A Cossack detachment of the prince was stationed near Moscow. Trubetskoy, remnant of the first militia. The Cossacks were more terrible for the Zemstvo noble army than the Poles themselves, and at the proposal of the prince. She replied to Trubetskoy: “We shouldn’t stand together with the Cossacks.” But it soon became clear that nothing could be done without the support of the Cossacks, and during the three months they stayed near Moscow, nothing important was done without them. In the army of the book. Pozharsky there were more than forty initial people, all with well-born service names, but only two people did major things, and even those were not service people: the monk A. Palitsyn and the meat merchant K. Minin. The first at the request of the prince. Pozharsky at a decisive moment persuaded the Cossacks to support the nobles, and the second begged from the prince. Pozharsky 3-4 companies and with them made a successful attack on the small detachment of Hetman Khotkevich, who was already approaching the Kremlin with food supplies for his starving compatriots there. Minin’s bold onslaught emboldened the noble militia, who forced the hetman to retreat, already prepared by the Cossacks. In October 1612, the Cossacks took Kitay-Gorod by storm. But the zemstvo militia did not dare to storm the Kremlin; The handful of Poles sitting there surrendered on their own, driven by hunger to cannibalism. The Cossack atamans, and not the Moscow governors, repulsed King Sigismund from Volokolamsk, who was heading towards Moscow to return it to Polish hands, and forced him to return home. The noble militia here once again showed during the Time of Troubles its unsuitability for the business that was its class craft and state duty.

ELECTION OF MICHAEL. The leaders of the zemstvo and Cossack militia, princes Pozharsky and Trubetskoy, sent summons to all cities of the state, calling spiritual authorities and elected people from all ranks to the capital for the zemstvo council and state election. At the very beginning of 1613, elected officials from all over the world began to gather in Moscow. We will later see that this was the first indisputably all-class Zemsky Sobor with the participation of townspeople and even rural inhabitants. When the elected representatives gathered, a three-day fast was appointed, with which the representatives of the Russian land wanted to cleanse themselves of the sins of the Time of Troubles before committing such an important matter. At the end of the fast, meetings began. The first question posed at the council, whether to choose a tsar from foreign royal houses, was decided in the negative, the verdict was: neither a Polish, nor a Swedish prince, nor other German faiths, nor from any non-Orthodox states should be elected to the Moscow state, just like “Marinka’s son.” This sentence destroyed the plans of the supporters of Prince Vladislav. But choosing your natural Russian sovereign was not easy. Monuments close to that time depict the progress of this matter at the cathedral in not light colors. There was no consensus. There was great excitement; everyone wanted to do according to his own thoughts, everyone spoke for his own; some suggested this, others that, everyone disagreed; They thought of who to choose, went through the great clans, but could not agree on anyone and thus lost many days. Many nobles and even non-nobles bribed voters and sent them with gifts and promises. After the election of Mikhail, the conciliar deputation, which asked the nun’s mother to bless her son for the kingdom, responded to her reproach that the Moscow people were “faint-hearted,” and replied that they were now “punished,” taught a lesson, came to their senses and came to unite. The conciliar machinations, intrigues and discord did not at all justify the complacent assurance of the conciliar ambassadors. The council broke up into parties between noble seekers, of whom later news names princes Golitsyn, Mstislavsky, Vorotynsky, Trubetskoy, Mikhail. F. Romanova. Prince Pozharsky himself, modest in his fatherland and character, was also said to be looking for the throne and spent a lot of money on intrigues. The most serious candidate in terms of ability and nobility, Prince. V.V. Golitsyn, was in Polish captivity, Prince. Mstislavsky refused; there was no one to choose from among the rest. The Moscow state emerged from the terrible Time of Troubles without heroes; he was brought out of trouble by kind but mediocre people. Book Pozharsky was not Boris Godunov, and Mikhail Romanov was not a prince. Skopin-Shuisky. With a lack of real strength, the matter was decided by prejudice and intrigue. While the cathedral was split into parties, not knowing who to choose, suddenly it received one after another “writings”, petitions for Michael from nobles, large merchants, from the cities of the Seversk land and even from the Cossacks; the latter decided the matter. Seeing the weakness of the noble army, the Cossacks went on a rampage in the Moscow they liberated, doing what they wanted, not embarrassed by the provisional government of Trubetskoy, Pozharsky and Minin. But in the matter of the tsar’s election, they declared themselves patriots, resolutely rebelled against the tsar from among foreigners, outlined, “tried on” real Russian candidates, a child, the son of the Tushino thief, and Mikhail Romanov, whose father Filaret was a protege of both impostors, received the rank of metropolitan from the first and proclaimed patriarch in the second camp near Moscow. The main support of imposture, the Cossacks, naturally wanted to see on the Moscow throne either the son of their Tushino king, or the son of their Tushino patriarch. However, the thief’s son was put into the competition lightly, more out of Cossack decency, and the Cossacks did not insist on this candidate when the Zemsky Sobor rejected him. On his own, Mikhail, a 16-year-old boy who did not stand out in any way, could have little ambition for the throne, and, however, forces such as the nobility and the Cossacks, hostile to each other, came together on him. This unexpected agreement was reflected in the council. In the midst of the struggle between the parties, some nobleman from Galich, where the first impostor was produced, submitted a written opinion to the council, in which he stated that M. F. Romanov was closest in relationship to the previous tsars, and therefore he should be elected tsar . Many members of the council were against Michael, although he had long been considered a candidate and Patriarch Hermogenes pointed to him as a desirable successor to Tsar V. Shuisky. The written opinion of the Galician city nobleman irritated many. Angry voices were heard: who brought such a scripture, where from? At this time, the Don Ataman stood out from the ranks of the elected officials and, approaching the table, also placed the scripture on it. “What kind of scripture did you submit, chieftain?” - the prince asked him. D. M. Pozharsky. “About the natural Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich,” answered the ataman. This ataman seemed to have decided the matter: “read the ataman’s scripture and everyone would agree and be of the same mind,” as one everyday life writer writes. Michael was proclaimed king. But this was only a preliminary election, which only outlined the conciliar candidate. The final decision was given directly to the entire land. They secretly sent loyal people around the cities to find out the people’s opinion on who they wanted as sovereign for the Moscow state. The people were already quite prepared. Those sent returned with a report that all people, young and old, had the same idea: to be the sovereign of M. F. Romanov, and apart from him, not to want anyone in the state. This secret police investigation, combined, perhaps, with agitation, became a kind of electoral plebiscite for the cathedral. On a solemn day, the week of Orthodoxy, the first Sunday of Lent, February 21, 1613, the final elections were called. Each rank submitted a special written opinion, and in all opinions there was one name - Mikhail Fedorovich. Then several clergy, together with the boyar, were sent to Red Square, and before they had time to ask the crowd of people gathered from the Execution Ground who they wanted to be king, everyone shouted: “Mikhail Fedorovich.”

Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich