Karamzin about the turmoil in Russian history quotes. Great Russian historians about the Time of Troubles

What role did the turmoil play in Russia in the 17th century? and got the best answer

Answer from Mikhail Bratsilo[guru]
Many famous historians of the past and present have tried to evaluate the facts of the history of the Time of Troubles. The first Russian historians V.N. Tatishchev, M.M. Shcherbatov and N.M. Karamzin saw in the Troubles “a mad feud between noble noble families”, “a people’s riot”, “the debauchery of Russian people from the mob to the nobles”, “a mad rebellion and merciless". N. M. Karamzin called the Troubles “a terrible and absurd thing,” the result of “depravity” prepared by the tyranny of Ivan the Terrible and the lust for power of Boris Godunov, guilty of the murder of Dmitry and the suppression of the legitimate dynasty. S. M. Solovyov believed that the Time of Troubles was a decisive clash between the social (zemstvo) and “anti-social” (tribal) principles of Russian society. V. B. Kobrin defined the Time of Troubles as “a complex interweaving of various contradictions - class and national, intra-class and inter-class.” Foreign historians D. Chesterton and G. Nolte noted that the main thing in the Troubles was “the violent invasion of the broad masses into the spheres of higher politics.” There is also no unity on the question of the causes of the Troubles. Contemporaries viewed the Troubles like this: “The Troubles are God’s punishment for a sinful life.” (“New story about the Russian kingdom”, 1610 – 1611). N.M. Karamzin believed that the Troubles were caused by the intervention of foreign enemies of Russia. N.I. Kostomarov reduced the crisis to the political intervention of Poland, and assigned the impostors the role of conductors of Catholic influence. S. M. Solovyov connected the causes of the Troubles with internal factors - the “dynastic crisis”, as well as with the “bad state of morality in society”, drew attention to the selfishness of the aspirations of various social groups of society, especially the anti-state role of the free Cossacks. V. O. Klyuchevsky built the concept of “times of troubles” as the product of a complex social crisis. According to this concept, the reason for the Troubles was the suppression of the ruling Rurik dynasty, whose representatives the popular consciousness recognized as “natural sovereigns.” V. O. Klyuchevsky saw the causes of the Troubles itself in the system of state duties, which gave rise to social discord. The connection between the classes: service and draft classes was broken. They refused to fulfill their duties to the state. According to Klyuchevsky’s scheme, the boyars began the Troubles, then it was the nobles’ turn, and later the lower classes rose. S. F. Platonov saw the origins of the Troubles in the reign of Ivan the Terrible, whose unreasonable internal policies led to the division of Russian society into warring factions.

Answer from 3 answers[guru]

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.

Sections: History and social studies

Lesson objectives:

Give the concept of troubled times.

Identify the reasons for the troubled times.

Consider the main events of this time, its representatives and their role.

Note the possible consequences of troubled times.

To form an idea of ​​the turning point in the history of Russia - the Troubles of the early 17th century, during which there was a change in the royal dynasty on the throne.

Cultivate cognitive interest in the subject of history.

Education of patriotism using the example of the heroic struggle of the defenders of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra.

Continue to consolidate the skills of working with the primary source, analyze its content, characterize the historical figure, and the ability to express your opinion about the time of troubles.

Lesson equipment:

• textbook “Russia and the World” author O.V. Volobuev;
• wall map “The Troubles in Russia”;
• portraits of representatives of the Time of Troubles: Boris Godunov, False Dmitry I, False Dmitry II, Vasily Shuisky, Marina Mnishek, Mikhail Skopin Shuisky, Kuzma Minin and Dmitry Pozharsky.

Lesson type: combined lesson, with a predominance of learning new material.

DURING THE CLASSES

1. Organizational moment. (Checking the class's readiness for the lesson)

2. Studying a new topic. (The teacher, together with the students, determines the goals and objectives of the lesson)

Teacher's opening remarks:

In historical science there is no precise definition of the Troubles. For a long period of time, this period was called hard times. But historical science has preserved a description of this period. For example, Abraham Palitsin (an eyewitness to these events) said the following about this time: “bears and wolves, having left the forests, lived in empty cities…. everyone is now for himself, the betrayal of one’s own has reached the proportions of a national catastrophe.” Metropolitan John of St. Petersburg and Ladoga characterizes the period of the Troubles in the following way: “The Fatherland and the Church perished, the churches of God were destroyed..., dice were played on icons, monks and priests were scorched with fire, treasures were sought out.”

Historian Karamzin:“The Troubles are an unfortunate accident caused by the weakening of Tsar Feodor, the atrocities of Tsar Boris and the depravity of the people.”

Modern historians call the Troubles of the 17th century the first civil war in Russia, drawing parallels with the civil war of the early 20th century.

In modern language, the word “vague” means unclear, indistinct.

Students and teacher come up with a definition together Troubles - this is the period from 1598 to 1613, which is characterized by frequent changes of rulers on the throne, the appearance of kings- impostors, peasant uprisings, natural disasters and intervention of the Poles and Swedes.

This was the time when Russia was faced with a choice:

Either it will defend its independence, or it will cease to exist. (Students write down the definition in a notebook) The teacher draws the students’ attention to a reproduction of I.E. Repin’s painting “Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan. 1581.”

What does the content of this picture have to do with the history of the Time of Troubles?

a) The murder of Ivan’s son and the tragic death of Tsarevich Dmitry led to the end of the Rurik dynasty - an inter-dynastic crisis. Students find out other reasons for the Time of Troubles using the textbook pp. 142-143.

b) Dissatisfaction of the boyar opposition with the election of Boris Godunov as Tsar;

c) the defeat of Russia in the Livonian War, which negatively affected the country’s economy;

d) Oprichnina, which ruined the country’s economy;

e) Crop failure of 1601–1603, which led to famine in the country;

f) Further enslavement of the peasants in 1550, 1581, 1597 led to a rise in peasant uprisings.

The teacher gives as an example a statement about the turmoil of the Patriarch of Russia (now deceased) Alexy: “The turmoil is a time of difficult trials for the whole society and for every person. The disunity of people, the loss of public trust by the authorities, and its inattention to the needs of citizens lead to a weakening of the state and threaten its independence.

Love of money and envy, selfishness and pride, thirst for profit at any cost; neglect of the sacred gift of human life, moral nihilism - these are the vices that lead to turmoil. When God-ordained love for one’s neighbor becomes scarce in society, when the ideal of national unity is lost, then the decomposition of the state begins.” The teacher asks the students a question: “Do you think a situation of troubled times is possible in our time? What could be its causes? (Students express their judgment)

Teacher:“Let’s go back to the distant beginning of the 17th century and find out the representatives of the troubled times and their role.” Using the textbook (pp. 143–147), students look for the names of representatives of the Time of Troubles and write them down in a notebook.

• Boris Godunov;
• False Dmitry I (Grigory Otrepiev);
• Adam Wyshniowiecki;
• Voivode Yuri Mnishek;
• Marina Mnishek;
• boyar tsar Vasily Shuisky;
• Ivan Bolotnikov;
• False Dmitry 2 (Tushinsky thief);
• Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky;
• Polish king Sigismund III;
• Polish prince Vladislav;
• “Seven Boyars” led by Fyodor Mstislavsky;
• Prokopiy Lyapunov;
• Kuzma Minin;
• Dmitry Pozharsky.

All these people played a certain role in the history of the troubled times.

Teacher: “In 1598, at the Zemsky Sobor, on the initiative of Patriarch Job, Boris Godunov was elected tsar. (Students listen to a message about Boris Godunov)

Conversation with students on the question: “Who and why considered Boris unworthy to be king?” (Three reasons must be given)

Teacher: “Historians evaluate the activities of Boris Godunov differently. Some call him a reformer seeking to improve the country's situation. Others condemn him for illegally taking the throne and plunging the country into turmoil.”

The Russian poet of the Silver Age, Konstantin Balmont, describes the reign of Boris Godunov this way. (Poem read)

In the dark days of Boris Godunov
In the darkness of the Russian cloudy country
Crowds of people wandered homeless
And at night two moons rose.

Two suns shone from the sky in the morning,
Looking at the distant world with ferocity.
And a prolonged cry: “Bread! Of bread! Of bread!" -
From the darkness of the forests he rushed towards the king.

Withered skeletons on the streets
They greedily plucked the stunted grass,
Like cattle - brutalized and undressed,
And the dreams came true.

Coffins, heavy with rot,
They gave stinking hellish bread to the living,
Hay was found in the mouths of the dead,
And every house was a gloomy den...

Death and anger wandered among the people.
Seeing the comet, the earth trembled.
And these days Demetrius rose from the grave,
I moved my spirit to Otrepyev.

Teacher: “What do you think, under the impression of what assessments was Balmont’s poem born?” (Students' answers are listened to)

Teacher: “On April 13, 1605, Boris Godunov unexpectedly dies. False Dmitry I approaches Moscow. On July 30, 1605, he is crowned king. (Message about False Dmitry I and working with the text of the textbook, pp. 143–144.)

Conversation on questions:

1. What was the impostor's goal?
2. Who helped him achieve this goal and why?
3. Why did False Dmitry lose the trust of Muscovites?

The impostor was killed by the conspirators because... he fulfilled his mission - he helped remove Boris Godunov's son from the throne. A few days later, a small group of boyars called out for the kingdom of Vasily Shuisky, who was on the throne for 4 years. (Students listen to a message about Vasily Shuisky)

Teacher: “What quality was especially unpleasant in this person?”

Students work with the textbook text on pp. 144, 145 and solve the problematic question: “What was the negative role of Vasily Shuisky in the history of the Time of Troubles”?

The country found itself in the fire of a peasant war;

Intensified intervention of Poles and Swedes in the country began. (Teacher's addition)

During the fight between Vasily Shuisky and Ivan Bolotnikov, an impostor was again declared on the territory of Poland, who was also supported by the Poles and recognized by Marina Mnishek. He was unable to occupy Moscow and settled in Tushino with his army. “False Dmitry was a rude man, with disgusting customs, foul-mouthed in conversations, and in manners the complete opposite of his predecessor.”

He was not interested in the struggle for the throne; he only sought to enrich himself, taking advantage of the situation of troubled times. His troops robbed and killed Russian people, which changed the attitude of the Russian people towards themselves. If at first they saw him as a “legitimate” king, now militia units began to be created in cities. But, unfortunately, Vasily Shuisky did not dare to rely on the strength of the people in the fight against the impostor, but used the help of the Swedes, putting Russia on the brink of losing state independence. And only the Russian people and the Orthodox Church came out in defense of their Motherland and the Orthodox faith. For example, the defenders of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra held the defense for 16 months.

(Viewing a fragment of the film “Difficult Time” - 8 min.)

Teacher: “And again, in the summer of 1610, a conspiracy matured among the Moscow nobility.

Seven boyars, led by Fyodor Mstislavsky, removed Vasily Shuisky from the throne and elevated the Polish prince Vladislav to the throne and swore allegiance to him. By doing this they betrayed their people, their state, their faith. The country was on the verge of disaster. Why? (Working with the map “Time of Troubles in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century”)

Which Russian cities in the north-west and west of Russia came under the rule of the Swedes and Poles? What threat hangs over the Russian state?

And only the people and the Russian Orthodox Church understood that the government had betrayed the interests of the state and that it needed to be saved.

In 1611, a people's militia was created in Ryazan, led by Prokopiy Lyapunov. But they failed to liberate the capital.

In the fall of 1612, Nizhny Novgorod became the center of the liberation movement. Kuzma Minin addresses the residents of Nizhny Novgorod with an appeal. (The text of the appeal is taken from Shklovsky’s book “Minin and Pozharsky”)

The student reads the text of the address expressively.

Conversation: What events caused concern among the residents of Nizhny Novgorod?

1. What appeal did Kuzma Minin make at the gathering?
2. What role did Kuzma Minin play in the history of Russia?
3. What event can be compared with the victory of the Russian people in troubled times?

Viktor Bondarev said: “And it wasn’t so much that our ancestors defeated the Poles, but rather they united and put an end to internal war and devastation, turned the tide and began to revive the country. That victory was no less important than the victory of 1945.”

A new topic is consolidated using a test. (Test attached)

a) Tsarevich Dmitry was killed;

b) Boris Godunov was proclaimed tsar;

c) Ivan IV died.

2) Place the following historical figures in chronological order.

a) Fyodor Ioannovich;

b) False Dmitry I;

c) Boris Godunov;

3) Fill in the missing word.

The end of the Rurik dynasty is the __________ cause of the Time of Troubles.

4) Which state supported False Dmitry I?

a) Poland;

b) Türkiye;

c) Sweden.

5) Find the extra word.

d) Dmitry.

6) What event happened first?

The death of Tsarevich Dmitry or the rise to power of the “Seven Boyars”.

8) Match the event and the name.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

Chapter 1. XVIII century. V.N. Tatishchev, M.M. Shcherbatov

Chapter 2. N.M. Karamzin

Chapter 3. First half of the 19th century. CM. Soloviev, N.I. Kostomarov

Chapter 4. Second half of the 19th century. IN. Klyuchevsky. P.N. Miliukov. S.F. Platonov

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The deepest crisis that covered all spheres of life of Russian society at the beginning of the 17th century. and which resulted in a period of bloody conflicts, the struggle for national independence and national survival, was called “The Troubles” by contemporaries. The concept of “Troubles” entered historiography from the popular vocabulary, meaning anarchy and extreme disorder in public life. In Russia at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries, “turmoil” affected the economy, domestic and foreign policy, ideology and morality.

This meant “confusion of minds,” 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 sectors of society, foreign intervention, etc., which brought Russia to the brink of a national catastrophe.

In the last quarter of the 16th century. In Russia there was a sharp aggravation of the deep socio-political crisis that had emerged in the previous period. The situation in the country became more complicated due to the ongoing struggle for power under the successors of Ivan the Terrible. The energetic measures taken by the government of Boris Godunov only allowed to soften the crisis for a while, but could not ensure its overcoming, because they were carried out at the expense of strengthening feudal-serf oppression.

Contemporaries very keenly felt the severity of the events of the late 16th and especially the early 17th centuries. This time has long been designated by the term “Lithuanian ruin.” A few decades later, the Moscow clerk Grigory Kotoshikhin, who fled to Sweden, in his description of the Moscow state “On Russia during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich,” first used the term “Times of Troubles,” which was firmly established in pre-revolutionary historiography. Despite widespread coverage in historiography, no general work on the causes of the Time of Troubles has been created, which updates this study.

So, the topic of the work is “ Russia is on the verge of turmoil. Reasons and prerequisites" - is relevant.

Coursework problem: Russia is on the threshold of the Time of Troubles.

Object of course work: historiography of the Troubles.

Subject of course work: how the views of historians of the 18th-19th centuries on the causes and prerequisites of the Troubles developed.

Targetcourse work - consider the historiography of the Troubles from the point of view of various authors.

Coursework objectives:

1. Consider the views of V.N. Tatishchev and M.M. Shcherbatov on the Time of Troubles;

2. Explore the ideas of N.M. Karamzin about the causes and prerequisites of the Troubles.

3. Analyze the opinion of public school historians about the causes and prerequisites of the Troubles.

4. Explore the ideas of V.O. Klyuchevsky, P.N. Milyukova, S.F. Platonov about the causes and prerequisites of the Troubles.

Research methods- analysis, synthesis, comparative analysis of literature.

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.

CM. Solovyov saw the main content of “The Troubles” in the struggle of the state principle with anarchy, represented by the Cossacks.

A more comprehensive approach was characteristic of S.F. Platonov, who defined it as a complex interweaving of the 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 “Troubles” was rejected, and the events of the early 17th century. characterized as “the first peasant war with an anti-serfdom orientation, complicated by the internal political struggle of feudal groups for power and the Polish-Swedish intervention.”

Structure course work: the work consists of an introduction, 4 chapters and a conclusion.

historiography political unrest

Chapter 1.HistoriansXVIII centuryand about the Troubles. V.N. Tatishchev, M.M. Shcherbatov

Before we begin to consider the views of historians of the 18th-19th centuries on the causes of the Troubles, let us briefly dwell on the situation at the end of the 16th and beginning. XVII centuries In the last quarter of the 16th century. In Russia there was a sharp aggravation of the deep socio-political crisis that had emerged in the previous period. The situation in the country became more complicated due to the ongoing struggle for power under the successors of Ivan the Terrible. The energetic measures taken by the government of Boris Godunov only allowed to soften the crisis for a while, but could not ensure its overcoming, because they were carried out at the expense of strengthening feudal-serf oppression.

In the 17th century Russia entered into an environment of further growing social crisis. The scale and nature of this crisis were already visible to contemporaries. One of them, the English diplomat Fletcher, who visited the Russian state in 1588 with a special mission from Queen Elizabeth, wrote the famous words that “the general murmur and irreconcilable hatred” reigning in Russian society indicate that “apparently , this must end in no other way than civil war.” As is known, this historical forecast made by Fletcher in his essay “On the Russian State,” published in London in 1591, was brilliantly confirmed by further developments.

End of the 16th - beginning of the 17th centuries. were the time of continuation of the process of formation of a multinational centralized state. This process took place under the dominance of feudal-serf relations.

At the same time, this process of centralization took place in a tense external struggle with neighboring states - Poland, Lithuania, Sweden. Occupying the entire third quarter of the 16th century. during the Livonian War, this struggle resumed at the beginning of the 17th century. The intervention threatened the preservation of state independence and national existence, which caused the rise of the national liberation movement in the country, which played a huge role in the liberation of Moscow from the interventionists.

By the beginning of the 17th century, the process of formation of Russian statehood was not completely complete; contradictions had accumulated in it, resulting in a severe crisis. Covering the economy, the socio-political sphere, and public morality, this crisis was called “The Troubles.” The Time of Troubles is a period of virtual anarchy, chaos and unprecedented social upheaval.

The concept of “Troubles” came into historiography from the popular vocabulary, meaning primarily anarchy and extreme disorder in public life. Contemporaries of the Troubles assessed it as a punishment that befell people for their sins.

Contemporaries very keenly felt the severity of the events of the late 16th and especially the early 17th centuries. This time has long been designated by the term “Lithuanian ruin.” A few decades later, the Moscow clerk Grigory Kotoshikhin, who fled to Sweden, in his description of the Moscow state “On Russia during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich,” first used the term “Times of Troubles,” which was firmly established in pre-revolutionary historiography. Let's begin the analysis of views on the Troubles with historians of the 18th century.

The historiography of the “Time of Troubles” is extensive. The views of noble historians were somewhat influenced by the chronicle tradition. In particular, V.N. Tatishchev looked for the causes of the “Troubles” in the “mad discord of noble noble families.” Footnote Researchers rightly believe that the observation of V.N. Tatishchev laid the foundation for the scientific concept of the Troubles.

Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750) came from a noble noble family. He graduated from the Moscow artillery school, devoting a lot of time to self-education, as a result of which he gained fame as one of the most educated officers of the era. The king paid attention to the educated officer and used him several times in the diplomatic service.

The theoretical basis of the views of V.N. Tatishchev are the concepts of natural law and the contractual origin of the state. When arguing his views, Tatishchev showed great education and knowledge of both ancient and European thinkers. He repeatedly refers to the works of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, as well as the works of Greek and Roman historians and repeatedly quotes European thinkers of modern times: Greece, Hobbes, Locke, Pufendorf.

In his discussions about the origin of the state, the thinker used the hypothesis of a pre-contractual “state of nature” in which a “war of all against all” prevails. The reasonable need of people for each other (Tatishchev was guided by considerations about the division of labor between people) led them to the need to create a state, which he views as the result of a social contract concluded with the aim of ensuring the safety of the people and “the search for common benefit.” Tatishchev tries to introduce historical principles into the process of state formation, arguing that all known human communities arose historically: first, people entered into a marriage contract, then from it a second contract arose between parents and children, then masters and servants. Ultimately, families grew and formed entire communities that needed a leader, and the monarch became him, subjugating everyone just as a father subjugates his children. The result is not one, but several agreements, and their very conclusion, apparently depending on people, is in fact predetermined by nature itself.

Analyzing the causes of the Troubles, Tatishchev spoke primarily about the crisis of statehood. However, he was not consistent on this issue. Although he admitted that “before Tsar Fedor, the peasants were free and lived with whomever they wanted,” but at this time in Russia the freedom of the peasants “does not agree with our form of monastic government and it is not safe to change the ingrained custom of bondage,” however, a significant easing of conditions is urgently required fortresses He called on the landowner, whom Tatishchev recognized as a party to the agreement, to take care of the peasants, to supply them with everything they needed so that they could have strong farms, more livestock and all kinds of poultry. He advocated the introduction of a land tax and generally insisted that the peasantry should receive as much tax relief as possible. This point of view was deeply rooted among Russian noble landowners. The most progressive-minded of them understood the legal inconsistency of serfdom, but were afraid of its destruction and proposed various half-measures to ease the lot of the peasants.

At the same time, he was the first to express the fruitful idea that the “great misfortune” of the early 17th century. was a consequence of the laws of Boris Godunov, which made peasants and slaves involuntary.

Prince M.M. Shcherbatov (1733-1790) was born in Moscow, and as a child received an excellent education at home, mastering several European languages. He began his service in St. Petersburg in the Semenovsky regiment, in which he was enrolled from early childhood. After Peter III announced the Manifesto “On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility” in 1762, he retired with the rank of captain, became interested in literature and history, and wrote a number of works on government, legislation, economics and moral philosophy. In 1762 he began writing Russian History and studied it throughout his life. In 1767, Shcherbatov was elected as a deputy from the Yaroslavl nobility to the Statutory Commission, to which Catherine II set the task of revising the current legislation and creating a new set of laws. For this Commission, Shcherbatov drafted the Order of the Yaroslavl nobility and wrote comments on the Great Order of Catherine II.

His largest works on political and legal topics were: “On the need and benefits of city laws” (1759); “Miscellaneous Discourses on Government” (1760); “Reflections on legislation in general” (1785-1789); and “The Journey to the Land of Ophir of the Swedish Nobleman S.”, as well as “On the Damage of Morals” (80s of the 18th century).

M. M. Shcherbatov did not see any positive changes in the Troubles. He expressed the fruitful idea that the “great misfortune” of the early 17th century. was a consequence of the laws of Boris Godunov, which made peasants and slaves involuntary . If he repeated Tatishchev’s thought, specifically mention this. Researchers rightly believe that the observation of M.M. Shcherbatov, like V.N. Tatishchev laid the foundation for the scientific concept of the Troubles.

Historians recognize the main cause of the Troubles 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. This is what caused the need to resurrect the lost royal family and ensured the success of attempts to restore the dynasty artificially, i.e. by imposture. An equally important factor is the very structure of the state with its heavy tax base and uneven distribution of state duties, which gave rise to social discord, as a result of which dynastic intrigue turned into socio-political anarchy.

The impostors of the Time of Troubles were not the only ones in the history of Russia; with their light hand, imposture in Russia became a chronic disease: in the 17th-18th centuries. It was rare that a reign passed without impostors, and under Peter, due to the lack of one, popular rumor turned the real king into an impostor. The experience of the Troubles taught that such phenomena in the social system are dangerous and threaten to destabilize, so the new government carefully monitored these facts, in every possible way protecting the internal order, restored with great difficulty after the Troubles.

So, historians of the 18th century tried to assess the causes of the Time of Troubles. V.N. Tatishchev, M.M. The Shcherbatovs saw in the Troubles “a mad feud between noble noble families”, “a people’s riot”, “the debauchery of the Russian people from the mob to the nobles”, “an insane and merciless rebellion”. Causes?

N.M. Karamzin called the Troubles “a terrible and absurd thing,” the result of “depravity” prepared by the tyranny of Ivan the Terrible and the lust for power of Boris Godunov, guilty of the murder of Dmitry and the suppression of the legitimate dynasty.

Chapter 2. N.M. Karamzinabout the causes of the Troubles

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin (December 1 (12), 1766, family estate Znamenskoye, Simbirsk district, Kazan province (according to other sources - the village of Mikhailovka (Preobrazhenskoye), Buzuluk district, Kazan province) - May 22 (June 3), 1826, St. Petersburg ) - Russian historian-historiographer, writer, poet. For what?

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was born on December 1 (12), 1766 near Simbirsk. He grew up on the estate of his father, retired captain Mikhail Yegorovich Karamzin (1724-1783), a middle-class Simbirsk nobleman, a descendant of the Crimean Tatar Murza Kara-Murza. He was educated at home, and from the age of fourteen he studied in Moscow at the boarding school of Moscow University professor Schaden, while simultaneously attending lectures at the University.

In 1778, Karamzin was sent to Moscow to the boarding school of Moscow University professor I.M. Schaden.

In 1783, at the insistence of his father, he entered service in the St. Petersburg Guards Regiment, but soon retired. The first literary experiments date back to his military service. After retirement, he lived for some time in Simbirsk, and then in Moscow. During his stay in Simbirsk he joined the Masonic lodge “Golden Crown”, and upon arrival in Moscow for four years (1785-1789) he was a member of the Masonic lodge “Friendly Scientific Society”.

In Moscow, Karamzin met writers and writers: N.I. Novikov, A.M. Kutuzov, A.A. Petrov, and participated in the publication of the first Russian magazine for children - “Children’s Reading for the Heart and Mind.”

Upon returning from a trip to Europe, Karamzin settled in Moscow and began working as a professional writer and journalist, starting the publication of the Moscow Journal 1791-1792 (the first Russian literary magazine, in which, among other works of Karamzin, the story that strengthened his fame appeared. Poor Liza"), then published a number of collections and almanacs: “Aglaya”, “Aonids”, “Pantheon of Foreign Literature”, “My Trinkets”, which made sentimentalism the main literary movement in Russia, and Karamzin its recognized leader.

Emperor Alexander I, by personal decree of October 31, 1803, granted the title of historiographer to Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin; 2 thousand rubles were added to the rank at the same time. annual salary. The title of historiographer in Russia was not renewed after Karamzin’s death.

From the beginning of the 19th century, Karamzin gradually moved away from fiction, and from 1804, having been appointed by Alexander I to the post of historiographer, he stopped all literary work, “taking monastic vows as a historian.” In 1811, he wrote “A Note on Ancient and New Russia in its Political and Civil Relations,” which reflected the views of conservative layers of society dissatisfied with the liberal reforms of the emperor. Karamzin’s goal was to prove that no reforms were needed in the country. His note played an important role in the fate of the great Russian statesman and reformer, the main ideologist and developer of the reforms of Alexander I, Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky. Whom, a year after the “note”, the emperor exiled him to Perm for 9 years.

“A Note on Ancient and New Russia in its Political and Civil Relations” also played the role of an outline for Nikolai Mikhailovich’s subsequent enormous work on Russian history. In February 1818, Karamzin released the first eight volumes of “The History of the Russian State,” the three thousand copies of which sold out within a month. In subsequent years, three more volumes of “History” were published, and a number of translations of it into the main European languages ​​appeared. Coverage of the Russian historical process brought Karamzin closer to the court and the tsar, who settled him near him in Tsarskoe Selo. Karamzin's political views evolved gradually, and by the end of his life he was a staunch supporter of absolute monarchy.

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin in “History of the Russian State” talks in detail about the tragic events of the early 17th century, the reasons for the Great Troubles, its main events and figures. The author devoted more than 60 pages of “History” to the siege of the Trinity - Sergius Monastery in 1610 - 1610.

Karamzin describes the Time of Troubles as “the most terrible phenomenon in its history.” He sees the causes of the Troubles in “the frantic tyranny of the 24 years of John, in the hellish game of Boris’s lust for power, in the disasters of fierce hunger and all-out robbery (hardening) of hearts, the depravity of the people - everything that precedes the overthrow of states condemned by providence to death or painful revival.” Thus, even in these lines one can feel the monarchical tendentiousness and religious providentialism of the author, although we cannot blame Karamzin for this, since he is a student and at the same time a teacher of his era. But, despite this, we are still interested in the factual material that he placed in his “History...” and his views on the “history” of the early 17th century, refracted in the 19th century.

N.M. Karamzin exposes and defends throughout his entire narrative only a single line of events, in which he, apparently, was completely confident: Tsarevich Dmitry was killed in Uglich on the orders of Godunov, to whom “the royal crown seemed to him in a dream and in reality” and that Tsarevich Dmitry the fugitive monk of the Chudov Monastery named himself Grigory Otrepiev (the official version of Boris Godunov). Karamzin believes that a “wonderful thought” “settled and lived in the soul of a dreamer in the Chudov Monastery, and the path to realizing this goal was Lithuania. The author believes that even then the impostor relied on “the gullibility of the Russian people. After all, in Russia the crown bearer was considered an “earthly God.”

In “The History of the Russian State,” Karamzin gives a sharply negative characterization of Boris Godunov as the murderer of Tsarevich Dmitry: “Arrogant with his merits and merits, fame and flattery, Boris looked even higher and with impudent lust. The throne seemed like a heavenly place to Boris.” Footnote But earlier, in 1801, Karamzin published in the Vestnik Evropy an article “Historical Memoirs and Remarks on the Path to the Trinity,” which spoke in some detail about the reign of Godunov. Karamzin could not yet unconditionally agree with the version of the murder; he carefully considered all the arguments for and against, trying to understand the character of this sovereign and evaluate his role in history. “If Godunov,” the writer reflected, “had not cleared the path to the throne for himself by killing himself, then history would have called him a glorious king.” Standing at Godunov’s tomb, Karamzin is ready to reject accusations of murder: “What if we slander these ashes, unfairly torment a person’s memory, believing false opinions accepted into the chronicle senselessly or hostilely?” In “History...” Karamzin no longer questions anything, since he follows the assigned tasks and the order of the sovereign.

But you can be sure of one thing: the decisive role played by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in promoting the “named” Dmitry to the Moscow throne. Here in Karamzin one can discern the idea of ​​​​concluding a union between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Moscow state: “never before, after the victories of Stefan Batory, has the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth come so close to the Moscow throne.” False Dmitry I, “having an ugly appearance, replaced this disadvantage with liveliness and courage of mind, eloquence, posture, nobility.” And, indeed, you need to be smart and cunning enough to (taking into account all the above versions about the origin of False Dmitry), when you come to Lithuania, get to Sigismund and use the border disputes between Boris Godunov and Konstantin Vishnevetsky, the “ambition and frivolity” of Yuri Mnishko. “We must do justice to Razstrici’s mind: having betrayed himself to the Jesuits, he chose the most effective means of inspiring the careless Sigismund with jealousy.” Thus, the “named” Dmitry found his support in the secular and spiritual world, promising all participants in this adventure what they most wanted: the Jesuits - the spread of Catholicism in Russia, Sigismund III, with the help of Moscow, really wanted to return the Swedish throne. All authors call Yuri Mnishka (N.M. Karamzin is no exception) and describe him as “a vain and far-sighted person who loved money very much. Giving his daughter Marina, who was ambitious and flighty like him, in marriage to False Dmitry I, he drew up a marriage contract that would not only cover all of Mnishk’s debts, but would also provide for his descendants in the event of the failure of everything planned.

But throughout the entire narrative N.M. Karamzin at the same time calls False Dmitry “the most terrible phenomenon in the history of Russia.” Footnote

At the same time, “the Moscow government discovered excessive fear of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for fear that the whole of Poland and Lithuania wanted to stand for the impostor.” And this was the first of the reasons why many princes (Golitsyn, Saltykov, Basmanov) together with the army went over to the side of False Dmitry. Although here another version arises that all this happened according to the plan of the boyar opposition. Having become king, Dmitry “having pleased all of Russia with favors to the innocent victims of Boris’s tyranny, he tried to please her with common good deeds...”. Footnote Thus, Karamzin shows that the tsar wants to please everyone at once - and this is his mistake. False Dmitry maneuvers between the Polish lords and the Moscow boyars, between the Orthodox and Catholicism, without finding zealous adherents either there or there.

After his accession, Dmitry does not fulfill his promises to the Jesuits, and his tone towards Sigismund changes. When, during the stay of the Ambassador of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in Moscow, “letters were handed over to the royal clerk Afanasy Ivanovich Vlasyev, he took it, handed it to the sovereign and quietly read his title. It didn't say "to the Caesar". False Dmitry I did not even want to read it, to which the ambassador replied: “You were placed on your throne with the favor of his royal grace and the support of our Polish people.” After which the conflict was settled. Thus, we will subsequently see that Sigismund will leave False Dmitry.

Karamzin also points out that the first enemy of False Dmitry I was himself, “frivolous and hot-tempered by nature, rude from poor upbringing - arrogant, reckless and careless from happiness.” He was condemned for strange amusements, love for foreigners, and some extravagance. He was so confident in himself that he even forgave his worst enemies and accusers (Prince Shuisky - the head of the subsequent conspiracy against False Dmitry).

It is unknown what goals False Dmitry pursued when he married Marina Mnishek: maybe he really loved her, or maybe it was just a clause in the agreement with Yuri Mnishek. Karamzin doesn’t know this, and most likely we won’t know either.

On May 17, 1606, a group of boyars carried out a coup, as a result of which False Dmitry was killed. The boyars saved Mnishkov and the Polish lords, apparently by agreement with Sigismund, to whom they spoke about the decision to depose the “tsar” and “possibly offer the throne of Moscow to Sigismund’s son, Vladislav.”

Thus, the idea of ​​union arises again, but we know that it is not destined to come true. It can be noted from all of the above that the whole situation with False Dmitry I represents the culmination of the power of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the moment when the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, under favorable circumstances, could dominate in a union with Moscow.

N.M. Karamzin describes the events of the Time of Troubles quite tendentiously, following the state order. He does not set a goal to show different versions of ambiguous events, and, on the contrary, leads the reader into a story in which the latter should not have a shadow of doubt about what he has read. Karamzin, through his work, was supposed to show the power and inviolability of the Russian state. And in order not to plunge the reader into doubt, he often imposes his point of view. And here we can raise the question of the unambiguity of Karamzin’s positions when considering the events of the Time of Troubles.

Events of the beginning of the 17th century. occupy a special place in the history of medieval Rus'. It was a time of unprecedented contradictions and contrasts in all areas of life, according to researchers, unprecedented contrasts even in comparison with the most acute upheavals of the second half of the 16th century. In the events of the late XVI - early XVII centuries. intertwined are the angry protest of the people against hunger, the abolition of St. George's Day, extortion and tyranny, and the heroic defense of their native land from encroachments by foreign invaders. Why is this here? Put this in the introduction or the beginning. 1 chapter

The situation of the Russian land was catastrophic in the first decades of the 17th century, when the unity of the country, achieved at great cost, was destroyed, and the most difficult problem of returning Novgorod and Smolensk arose. It is not necessary.

Chapter 3.Historians of the first half of the 19th centurycenturies about the Time of Troubles. CM. Soloviev. N.I. Kostomarovwhy first

Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov (May 4 (16), 1817, Yurasovka, Voronezh province - April 7 (19), 1885) - public figure, historian, publicist and poet, corresponding member of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, author of the multi-volume publication “Russian History” in the biographies of its figures,” a researcher of the socio-political and economic history of Russia, especially the territory of modern Ukraine, called by Kostomarov southern Russia and the southern region.

Kostomarov's reputation as a historian, both during his life and after his death, was repeatedly subjected to strong attacks. He was reproached for his superficial use of sources and the resulting mistakes, one-sided views, and partisanship. There is some truth in these reproaches, although very small. Minor mistakes and mistakes, inevitable for any scientist, are perhaps somewhat more common in Kostomarov’s works, but this is easily explained by the extraordinary variety of his activities and the habit of relying on his rich memory.

In those few cases when partisanship actually manifested itself in Kostomarov - namely in some of his works on Ukrainian history - it was only a natural reaction against even more partisan views expressed in literature from the other side. Not always, further, the very material on which Kostomarov worked gave him the opportunity to adhere to his views on the task of a historian. A historian of the internal life of the people, according to his scientific views and sympathies, it was precisely in his works dedicated to Ukraine that he was supposed to be an exponent of external history.

In any case, the general significance of Kostomarov in the development of Russian and Ukrainian historiography can, without any exaggeration, be called enormous. He introduced and persistently pursued the idea of ​​people's history in all his works. Kostomarov himself understood and implemented it mainly in the form of studying the spiritual life of the people. Later researchers expanded the content of this idea, but this does not diminish Kostomarov’s merit. In connection with this main idea of ​​​​Kostomarov's works, he had another - about the need to study the tribal characteristics of each part of the people and create a regional history. If in modern science a slightly different view of the national character has been established, denying the immobility that Kostomarov attributed to it, then it was the work of the latter that served as the impetus, depending on which the study of the history of the regions began to develop.

The book of the outstanding Russian historian Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov is reproduced from the publication 1904 and talks about the Time of Troubles, when Russia, finding itself for some period without traditional legal authority, fell into a disastrous state of internal confrontation and was subjected to external and internal ruin.

“... Our troubled era did not change anything, did not introduce anything new into the state mechanism, into the structure of concepts, into the way of social life, into morals and aspirations, nothing that, flowing from its phenomena, would move the flow of Russian life onto a new path, in a favorable or unfavorable sense for her. A terrible shake-up turned everything upside down and caused countless disasters to the people; it was not possible to recover so quickly after that Rus'... Russian history proceeds extremely consistently, but its reasonable course seems to jump over the Time of Troubles and then continues its course in the same way, in the same way as before. During the difficult period of the Troubles, there were phenomena that were new and alien to the order of things that prevailed in the previous period, but they were not repeated subsequently, and what seemed to be sown at that time did not increase afterwards.”

N.I. also studied the Troubles. Kostomarov in his work “Time of Troubles in the Moscow State at the beginning of the 17th century.” The author shares the version of the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry on the orders of Boris Godunov. “He was worried about the child Dimitri... He was born from his eighth wife... And the son born from such a marriage was not legitimate. At first, Boris wanted to take advantage of this circumstance and forbade praying for him in churches. Moreover, by order of Boris, a rumor was deliberately spread that the prince was of an evil disposition and enjoyed watching sheep being slaughtered.

But soon Boris saw that this would not achieve the goal: it was too difficult to convince the Moscow people that the prince was illegitimate and therefore could not lay claim to the throne: for the Moscow people, he was still the son of the king, his blood and flesh. It is clear that the Russian people recognized Dimitri’s right to reign... Boris, having tried this way and that to remove Dimitri from the future reign, became convinced that it was impossible to arm the Russians against him. There was no other choice for Boris: either to destroy Demetrius, or to expect death himself any day now. This man is already accustomed to not stopping before choosing means.” Thus, Dmitry was killed on the orders of Boris Godunov. Here Kostomarov duplicates the version of Karamzin, Solovyov and Klyuchevsky. Consequently, False Dmitry was an impostor, but Kostomarov does not associate the impostor with the name of Grigory Otrepiev. “From the time of the appearance of Demetrius, Tsar Boris fought against him in the way that could be most advantageous...: rumors gradually spread that the newly appeared Demetrius in Poland was Grishka Otrepiev, a defrocked, runaway monk from the Chudov Monastery.” Boris assured everyone that Dmitry was not in the world, but there was some kind of deceiver in Poland and he was not afraid of him. This means, according to Kostomarov, Boris did not know the true name of the impostor, and to calm the people he began to spread rumors. N.I. Kostomarov believes that the place where rumors about the impostor appeared - Polish Ukraine, which was at that time - “the promised land of daring, courage, bold undertakings and enterprise. And anyone in Ukraine who would not call himself the name of Dmitry could count on support: further success depended on the abilities and ability to conduct business.” The author notes that the intrigue arose in the head of the impostor himself, and notes that “he was a wandering Kalika, a wanderer who said that he came from the Moscow land.” The impostor was smart and cunning enough to deceive the Polish lords and use their desires in relation to Moscow to his advantage. Although the author leaves “the question of whether he (False Dmitry) considered himself the real Dmitry or was a conscious deceiver remains unresolved.”

N.I. Kostomarov believes that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth seized on the impostor with the goals of politically weakening Russia and subordinating it to the papacy. It was her intervention that gave the Troubles such a severe character and such a duration.

Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov (5 (17) May 1820, Moscow - 4 (16) October 1879, ibid.) - Russian historian; professor at Moscow University (from 1848), rector of Moscow University (1871-1877), ordinary Academician of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in the Department of Russian Language and Literature (1872), Privy Councilor.

For 30 years Solovyov worked tirelessly on “The History of Russia,” the glory of his life and the pride of Russian historical science. Its first volume appeared in 1851, and since then volumes have been published carefully from year to year. The last one, the 29th, was published in 1879, after the death of the author. In this monumental work, Solovyov showed energy and fortitude, all the more amazing because during his “rest” hours he continued to prepare many other books and articles of various contents.

Russian historiography, at the time when Solovyov appeared, had already emerged from the Karamzin period, having ceased to see its main task in merely depicting the activities of sovereigns and changes in government forms; there was a need not only to tell, but also to explain the events of the past, to grasp the pattern in the sequential change of phenomena, to discover the guiding “idea”, the main “beginning” of Russian life. Attempts of this kind were given by Polev and the Slavophiles, as a reaction to the old trend, personified by Karamzin in his “History of the Russian State.” In this regard, Solovyov played the role of a conciliator. The state, he taught, being a natural product of the people's life, is the people themselves in its development: one cannot be separated from the other with impunity. The history of Russia is the history of its statehood - not the government and its bodies, as Karamzin thought, but the life of the people as a whole. In this definition one can hear the influence partly of Hegel with his teaching about the state as the most perfect manifestation of the rational powers of man, partly of Ranke, who highlighted with particular relief the consistent growth and strength of states in the West; but even greater is the influence of the factors themselves that determined the character of Russian historical life. The predominant role of the state principle in Russian history was emphasized before Solovyov, but he was the first to indicate the true interaction of this principle and social elements. That is why, going much further than Karamzin, Solovyov could not study the continuity of government forms other than in the closest connection with society and with the changes that this continuity brought into his life; and at the same time, he could not, like the Slavophiles, oppose the “state” to the “land,” limiting himself to the manifestations of the “spirit” of the people alone. In his eyes, the genesis of both state and social life was equally necessary.

In a logical connection with this formulation of the problem is another fundamental view of Solovyov, borrowed from Evers and developed by him into a coherent doctrine of tribal life. The gradual transition of this way of life into state life, the consistent transformation of tribes into principalities, and principalities into a single state whole - this, according to Solovyov, is the main meaning of Russian history. From Rurik to the present day, the Russian historian deals with a single integral organism, which obliges him “not to divide, not to crush Russian history into separate parts, periods, but to connect them, to follow primarily the connection of phenomena, the direct succession of forms; not to separate principles, but to consider them in interaction, to try to explain each phenomenon from internal causes, before isolating it from the general connection of events and subordinating it to external influence.” This point of view had a tremendous influence on the subsequent development of Russian historiography. Previous divisions into eras, based on external signs, devoid of internal connections, have lost their meaning; they were replaced by stages of development. “The History of Russia from Ancient Times” is an attempt to trace our past in relation to the views expressed. Here is a condensed diagram of Russian life in its historical development, expressed, if possible, in Solovyov’s own words.

Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov considered the cause of the hard times to be a bad state of morality, which was the result of a clash of new state principles with the old, which manifested itself in the struggle of the Moscow sovereigns with the boyars. He saw another reason for the Troubles in the excessive development of the Cossacks with their anti-state aspirations.

This book by the historian covers events from the beginning of the reign of Fyodor Ioannovich to the liberation of Moscow from foreign invaders and the enthronement of Mikhail Romanov. It also tells about the siege of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery by the Polish-Lithuanian invaders, about the heroism and fortitude of the besieged.

About some personal qualities of the impostor S.M. Solovyov responded with sympathy, seeing in him a talented person misled by other people seeking to use him for their own political purposes... “False Dmitry was not a conscious deceiver. If he had been a deceiver, and not the deceived one, what would it have cost him to invent the details of his salvation and adventures? But he didn't? What could he explain? The powerful people who set him up, of course, were so careful that they did not act directly. He knew and said that some nobles saved him and protected him, but he did not know their names.” CM. Solovyov was impressed by the benevolent disposition of False Dmitry I, his intelligence in government affairs, and his passionate love for Marina Mnishek. The author was the first among historians to put forward the idea that the boyars, having nominated Grigory Otrepiev for the role of an impostor, were able to so instill in him the idea of ​​​​his royal origin that he himself believed in that hoax and in his thoughts and actions did not separate himself from Tsarevich Dmitry.

Thus, according to S.M. Solovyov and N.I. Kostomarov, the Troubles began with a boyar intrigue, into which the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was drawn in, pursuing its own goals, and at the head of this intrigue, playing the role of a puppet, Grigory Otrepiev was placed under the name of Dmitry.

Chapter 4. Second half of the 19th century. IN. Klyuchevskiy. P.N. Miliukov. S.F. Platonov

Considering the historiography of the Time of Troubles, it should be noted the St. Petersburg scientist Sergei Fedorovich Platonov. Of more than a hundred of his works, at least half are devoted specifically to Russian history at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries.

Sergei Fedorovich Platonov (June 16 (28), 1860, Chernigov - January 10, 1933, Samara) - Russian historian, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1920).

According to Platonov, the starting point that determined the features of Russian history for many centuries to come was the “military character” of the Moscow state, which arose at the end of the 15th century. Surrounded almost simultaneously on three sides by enemies acting offensively, the Great Russian tribe was forced to adopt a purely military organization and constantly fight on three fronts. The purely military organization of the Moscow state resulted in the enslavement of the classes, which predetermined the internal development of the country for many centuries to come, including the famous “Troubles” of the early 17th century.

The “emancipation” of the classes began with the “emancipation” of the nobility, which received its final formalization in the “Charter of Grant to the Nobility” of 1785. The last act of “emancipation” of the classes was the peasant reform of 1861. However, having received personal and economic freedoms, the “liberated” classes did not receive political freedoms, which was expressed in “mental fermentation of a radical political nature,” which ultimately resulted in the terror of the “Narodnaya Volya” and the revolutionary upheavals of the early 20th century.

The work of Sergei Fedorovich Platonov analyzes the causes, nature and consequences of the events of the Time of Troubles in the Moscow State of the 16th - 17th centuries.

A story about the second people's militia led by Minin and Pozharsky, as well as the moral and patriotic role of the Trinity Monastery during the Time of Troubles. A major role in this activity belonged to Archimandrite Dionysius.

S.F. Platonov believes that “the causes of the Troubles, undoubtedly, flew as much within Moscow society itself as outside it.” On the issue of the death of Tsarevich Dmitry, Platonov takes neither the side of the official version of an accidental suicide, nor the side of the accuser Boris Godunov of murder. “Remembering the possibility of the origin of the charges against Boris and considering all the confusing details of the case, it must be said as a result that it is difficult and still risky to insist on Dmitry’s suicide, but at the same time it is impossible to accept the prevailing opinion about the murder of Dmitry by Boris... A huge number of dark and unresolved issues lie in circumstances of Dmitry's death. Until they are resolved, the charges against Boris will stand on very shaky ground, and before us and the court he will not be an accused, but only a suspect...”

The author believes that “The impostor was really an impostor, and, moreover, of Moscow origin. Personifying the idea that was fermenting in Moscow minds during the tsar's election in 1598 and equipped with good information about the past of the real prince, obviously from informed circles. The impostor could achieve success and enjoy power only because the boyars who controlled the state of affairs wanted to attract him.” Therefore, S.F. Platonov believes that “in the person of the impostor, the Moscow boyars tried once again to attack Boris.” Discussing the identity of the impostor, the author points to different versions of the authors and leaves this question open, but emphasizes the indisputable fact that “Otrepiev participated in this plan: it could easily be that his role was limited to propaganda in favor of the impostor.” “It can also be accepted as the most correct that False Dmitry I was a Moscow idea, that this figurehead believed in his royal origins and considered his accession to the throne to be a completely correct and honest matter.”

Platonov does not give her much attention to the role of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the impostor intrigue and points out that “in general, Polish society was reserved about the impostor’s case and was not carried away by his personality and stories... The best parts of Polish society did not believe the impostor, and the Polish Sejm did not believe him 1605, which forbade the Poles to support the impostor... Although King Sigismund III did not adhere to those resolutions of the Sejm, he himself did not dare to openly and officially support the impostor.”

“...Our Troubles are rich in real consequences that have affected our social system and the economic life of its descendants. If the Moscow state seems to us the same in its basic outlines as it was before the Time of Troubles, then this is because in the Time of Troubles the same State order that was formed in the Moscow state in the 16th century remained victorious, and not the one that its enemies would have brought to us - Catholic and aristocratic Poland and the Cossacks; living in the interests of predation and destruction, cast in the shape of an ugly “circle.” The Troubles did not occur by chance, but was the discovery and development of a long-standing disease that previously plagued Rus'. This illness ended with the recovery of the state body. After the crisis of the Time of Troubles, we see the same organism, the same state order. Therefore, we are inclined to think that the Troubles were only an unpleasant incident without any special consequences.” - S.F. Platonov “Lectures on Russian history”

“In the Troubles there was not only a political and national struggle, but also a social one. Not only did the pretenders to the throne of Moscow fight among themselves and the Russians fought with the Poles and Swedes, but also some sections of the population were at enmity with others: the Cossacks fought with the sedentary part of society, tried to prevail over it, to build the land in their own way - and could not. The struggle led to the triumph of the settled strata, a sign of which was the election of Tsar Michael. These layers moved forward, supporting the state order they saved. But the main figure in this military celebration was the city nobility, who benefited most of all. The Troubles brought him a lot of benefit and strengthened his position. The Troubles accelerated the process of the rise of the Moscow nobility, which without it would have happened incomparably more slowly. ...As for the boyars, on the contrary, they suffered a lot from the Time of Troubles.

But the above does not exhaust the results of the Troubles. Getting acquainted with the internal history of Rus' in the 17th century, we will have to trace every major reform of the 17th century to the Troubles and condition them. If we add to this those wars of the 17th century, the necessity of which flowed directly from the circumstances created by the Time of Troubles, then we will understand that the Time of Troubles was very rich in results and by no means constituted an episode in our history that appeared by chance and passed without a trace. We can say that the Troubles determined almost our entire history in the 17th century.” - S.F. Platonov "Lectures on Russian history".

Thus, S.F. Platonov rejects Karamzin’s categorical attitude towards Boris Godunov as a villain and the undoubted killer of Dmitry, and also questions the identification of the impostor with Otrepyev.

A similar point of view was shared by the historian V.O. Klyuchevsky. He notes in his course “Russian History” that False Dmitry I “was only baked in a Polish oven, and fermented in Moscow,” thereby indicating that the organizers of the impostor intrigue were Moscow boyars.

Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (January 16 (28), 1841, Voskresenovka village, Penza province - May 12 (25, 1911, Moscow) - Russian historian, ordinary professor at Moscow University; ordinary academician of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (extra staff) in Russian history and antiquities (1900), chairman of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University, Privy Councilor.

IN. Klyuchevsky, reflecting on the identity of the impostor, does not categorically assert that it was Otrepyev, as N.M. does. Karamzin. “...This unknown someone, who ascended the throne after Boris, arouses great anecdotal interest. His identity still remains mysterious, despite all the efforts of scientists to unravel it. For a long time, the prevailing opinion from Boris himself was that it was the son of the Galician minor nobleman Yuri Otrepiev, monastically Grigory. It is difficult to say whether this Gregory or another was the first impostor.”

The author leaves the question of how it happened that False Dmitry I “... behaved like a legitimate natural king, completely confident in his royal origin.” “But how False Dmitry developed such a view of himself remains a mystery, not so much historical as psychological.” Discussing the death of Tsarevich Dmitry in Uglich, V.O. Klyuchevsky notes that “... it is difficult to imagine that this matter was done without Boris’s knowledge, that it was arranged by some overly helpful hand that wanted to do what pleased Boris, guessing his secret desires.” Thus, it can be noted that, unlike N.M. Karamzina, S.M. Soloviev and V.O. Klyuchevsky were not as categorical in their judgments about the personality of False Dmitry I as Otrepyev. And they believed that the main culprits of the intrigue were the Russian boyars, and not the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky dedicated the 41st, 42nd and 43rd lectures of his famous “Course of Russian History” to the Troubles.

“... At the heart of the Troubles was a social struggle: when the social ranks rose, the Troubles turned into a social struggle, into the extermination of the upper classes by the lower.” - V.O. Klyuchevsky

“... This is the sad benefit of troubled times: they rob people of peace and contentment and in return give them experiences and ideas. Just as in a storm the leaves on the trees turn inside out, so troubled times in people’s life, breaking down the facades, reveal the back streets, and at the sight of them, people, accustomed to noticing the front side of life, involuntarily think and begin to think that they have not seen everything before. This is the beginning of political reflection. His best, although difficult, school is popular upheavals. This explains the usual phenomenon - the intensified work of political thought during and immediately after social upheavals.” - V.O. Klyuchevsky.

It seems appropriate to add to the information reported in it what has recently become the property of historical science. Scientists for a long time could not, and even now cannot, form an idea of ​​the time of False Dmitry’s stay on the throne, his policies. The fact is that after his overthrow, the authorities ordered to burn all letters and other documents associated with his name. But fortunately, it turned out that not all of them were destroyed. R.G. Skrynnikov managed to discover a letter from False Dmitry I dated January 31, 1606 to “servicemen and all kinds of people” of Tomsk with a salary of “royal favors,” which indicates the attempts of False Dmitry I to create among the people an idea of ​​himself as a “good king” who cares about the good population of Russia. This is confirmed by the testimony of foreigners - contemporaries who then lived in Moscow.

...

Similar documents

A review of the views of foreign historians on the beginning of the Time of Troubles in Russia, and its main causes - the murder of Tsarevich Dimitri by Boris Godunov. Features of the political situation in Russia before the start of the Time of Troubles, its historical events. Analysis of the results of the time of troubles.

course work, added 04/28/2010


Analysis of the opinions of historians of the 19th - early 20th centuries. in relation to the period of formation of the Moscow Kingdom. Views of V.O. Klyuchevsky, S.F. Platonov and S.M. Solovyov for the period of the reign of Ivan III and Vasily III. Political concept of the Moscow autocracy.

abstract, added 01/28/2013


The causes, course and consequences of the Troubles according to R.G. Skrynnikova. Sources of the social crisis that gave rise to it. Analysis of events related to the actions of False Dmitry I and II. Foreign policy situation of Russia. Historians' views on the events of the Time of Troubles.

abstract, added 01/29/2015


Views of foreign historians on the crusades of the 11th–12th centuries: Western and Eastern. Reasons and prerequisites for this historical phenomenon. Domestic historians about the Crusades, features of the reflection of the image of “Friend - Alien” in the works of recent authors.

course work, added 12/01/2014


Western Europe and Russia on the threshold of the New Age. The beginning of the Great Troubles in Russia, its main causes, new phenomena in the socio-political life of the state. Features of the culmination of events in the time of troubles. The role and historical significance of the Time of Troubles.

test, added 11/10/2010


"Time of Troubles". Polish-Swedish intervention. Prerequisites and causes of unrest. False Dmitry and False Dmitry II. Polish-Swedish intervention during the Time of Troubles. Domestic policy of the first Romanovs. Uprising led by Stepan Razin.

abstract, added 12/03/2008


Studying the history of Russia during the “Time of Troubles”, the main problems of this stage. Study and comparison of the works of contemporaries of the Time of Troubles and current historians in order to identify their attitude to the concept of “Divine Power” and the personalization of power in Russia.

scientific work, added 02/05/2011


The beginning of the Troubles, the rise to power of Boris Godunov and the exile of the boyars. The reasons for the emergence of imposture, False Dmitry I. Vasily Shuisky, Bolotnikov's uprising. Assessment of the period of unrest by Russian and Soviet historians. Reasons for the Polish-Swedish intervention.

abstract, added 01/12/2012


Events of the Time of Troubles. Display of these events in the "History of the Russian State" N.M. Karamzin. Study of the Time of Troubles by historian N.I. Kostomarov. Analysis of the interpretation of the role and authenticity of False Dmitry I by some historiographers of different times.

abstract, added 02/21/2011


A comparative analysis of the personality and activities of Peter I based on the scientific works of historians V. Klyuchevsky, S. Solovyov, N. Karamzin. An assessment of government reforms and their consequences, the foreign policy of Emperor Peter I, his way of life, thoughts, and character.

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin

"History of Russian Goverment"

The reign of Boris Godunov. 1598-1604

Moscow meets the Tsar. Oath to Boris. Cathedral charter. Borisov's activities. Ceremonial entrance to the capital. The famous militia. Khan's Embassy. Treating the troops. Speech of the Patriarch. Addition to the electoral certificate. Royal wedding. Mercy. New Tsar Kasimovsky. Incidents in Siberia. Death of Kuchyum. The Matter of Foreign Policy. The fate of the Swedish Prince Gustav in Russia. Truce with Lithuania. Relations with Sweden. Close connection with Denmark. Duke of Denmark, Xenia's fiancé. Negotiations with Austria. Persian Embassy. Incidents in Georgia. The disaster of Russians in Dagestan. Friendship with England. Hansa. Embassy of Rome and Florence. Greeks in Moscow. Nogai affairs. Internal matters. Letter of commendation to the Patriarch. Law on Peasants. Drinking houses. Borisov's love for enlightenment and for foreigners. A word of praise to Godunov. Borisov's ardor towards his son. The beginning of disasters.

The clergy, the Synclite and state officials, with the banners of the Church and the Fatherland, at the sound of all the Moscow bells and the exclamations of the people, intoxicated with joy, returned to the Kremlin, having already given the Autocrat of Russia, but still leaving him in his cell. On February 26, 1598, on Cheese Feast Week, Boris entered the capital: he was met before the walls of the wooden fortress by all the guests of Moscow with bread, silver, gold, sable, pearls and many others. gifts of the Royal, he affectionately thanked them, but did not want to take anything but bread, saying that wealth in the hands of the people was more pleasant to him than in the treasury. The guests were met by Job and all the Clergy; for the Clergy Synclite and the people. In the Church of the Assumption, funeral service, Patriarch secondary blessed Boris for the State, overshadowing him with the cross of the Life-Giving Tree, and the Choirs sang many years both to the Tsar and to the entire House of the Sovereign: Queen Maria Grigorievna, their young son Theodore and daughter Xenia. Then hello all Russians to the new Monarch; and the Patriarch, raising his hands to heaven, said: “We praise You, Lord: for You did not despise our prayer, heard the cry and sobbing of Christians, turned their sorrow into joy and gave us the King, whom we asked from You day and night with tears! » After the Liturgy, Boris expressed gratitude to the memory of the two main culprits of his greatness: in the Church of St. Michael, he fell prostrate before the tombs of John and Theodore; He also prayed over the ashes of the most ancient famous crown bearers of Russia: Kalita, Donskoy, John III, may they be his heavenly accomplices in the earthly affairs of the Kingdom; went into the palace; visited Job at the Chudovskaya monastery; talked with him for a long time alone; told him and all the Bishops that he could not leave Irina in her sorrow until the Holy Resurrection of Christ, and returned to the Novodevichy Convent, ordering the Boyar Duma, with his knowledge and permission, to manage state affairs.

Meanwhile, all the people serving with zeal kissed the cross in fidelity to Boris, some before the glorious Vladimir icon of the Virgin Mary, others at the tomb of the holy Metropolitans Peter and Jonah: they swore not to betray the Tsar either in deed or in word; do not intend to harm the life or health of the sovereign, do not harm him either with a poisonous potion or with sorcery; do not think about enthroning the former Grand Duke of Tver Simeon Bekbulatovich or his son; not to have secret relations or correspondence with them; report on all sorts of things ospreys And conspiracies, without pity for friends and neighbors in this case; do not go to other lands: to Lithuania, Germany, Spain, France or England. Moreover, the Boyars, Duma and Ambassadorial officials pledged to be modest in matters and state secrets, judges not to bend their souls in litigation, treasurers not to take advantage of the Tsar’s property, clerks not to covet. They sent letters to the region informing them of the happy election of the Sovereign, ordered them to be read publicly, to ring bells for three days and to pray in churches first about Queen-Nun Alexandra, and after about her sovereign brother, his family, the Boyars and the army. The Patriarch (March 9) by the Council ordered to solemnly ask God to grant the blessed Tsar to place a crown and purple on himself; ordered for ever and ever to celebrate in Russia February 21, the day of Boris's accession to the throne; finally proposed to the Zemstvo Duma to approve the Council oath given to the Monarch with a charter, with an obligation for all officials not to shirk any service, not to demand anything beyond the dignity of birth or merit, and to always obey in everything Tsarsky's decree and Boyarsky's sentence, to in matters of discharge and zemstvo, do not bring the sovereign to grief. All members of the Great Duma responded unanimously: “We vow to lay down our souls and heads for the Tsar, Queen and their children!” They ordered the first literates of Russia to write a charter, in this sense.

This extraordinary matter did not interfere with the flow of ordinary state affairs, which Boris dealt with with excellent zeal both in the cells of the monastery and in the Duma, often coming to Moscow. They didn’t know when he found time to calm down, to sleep and to eat: they constantly saw him in council with the Boyars and Deacons, or next to the unfortunate Irina, comforting and grieving day and night. It seemed that Irina really needed the presence of the only person still dear to her heart: struck by the death of her husband, who was sincerely and tenderly loved by her, she yearned and cried inconsolably to the point of exhaustion, obviously fading away and already carrying death in her chest, tormented by sobs. The saints and nobles tried in vain to convince the Tsar to leave the sad monastery for him, to move with his wife and children to the Kremlin chambers, to reveal himself to the people wearing a crown and on the throne: Boris answered: “I cannot be separated from the great empress, my unfortunate sister,” and even again, tireless in hypocrisy, he insisted that he did not want to be the Tsar. But Irina is secondary ordered him to fulfill the will of the people and God, to accept the scepter and reign not in the cell, but on the throne of Monomakh. Finally, on April 30, the capital moved to meet the Emperor!

This day belongs to the most solemn days of Russia in its history. At one o'clock in the morning the Clergy with crosses and icons, the Synclite, the courtyard, the orders, the army, all the citizens were waiting for the Tsar at the stone bridge, near the Church of St. Nicholas of Zaraisk. Boris was traveling from the Novodevichy Convent with his family in a magnificent chariot: seeing the church banners and the people, he went out and bowed to the holy icons; graciously greeted everyone, both noble and ignorant; introduced them to the Queen, long known for her piety and sincere virtue, a nine-year-old son and a sixteen-year-old daughter, angelic in beauty. Hearing the exclamations of the people: “you are our Sovereigns, we are your subjects,” Theodore and Ksenia, together with their father, caressed the officials and citizens; just as he, having taken bread and salt from them, rejected the gold, silver and pearls presented to them as a gift, and invited everyone to dine with the King. Uncontrollably pressed by a countless crowd of people, Boris followed the Clergy with his wife and children, like a good father of the family and people, to the Church of the Assumption, where the Patriarch laid the Life-giving Cross of St. Peter the Metropolitan on his chest (which was already the beginning of the Royal Wedding) and third time blessed him for the Great State of Moscow. After listening to the Liturgy, the new Autocrat, accompanied by the Boyars, walked around all the main Kremlin churches, prayed everywhere with warm tears, heard the joyful cry of citizens everywhere and, holding his young heir by the hand, and leading the lovely Ksenia with the other, entered the Royal Chambers with his wife. On this day, the people dined with the Tsar: they did not know the number of guests, but everyone was invited, from the Patriarch to the beggar. Moscow did not see such luxury even in John’s time. - Boris did not want to live in the rooms where Theodore died: he occupied that part of the Kremlin chambers where Irina lived, and ordered to build a new wooden palace for himself.