The beginning of the 17th century was marked by a series of difficult trials for Russia.

How did the turmoil start?

After Tsar Ivan the Terrible died in 1584, his son Fyodor Ivanovich, who was very weak and sickly, inherited the throne. In view of his state of health, he ruled for a short time - from 1584 to 1598. Fedor Ivanovich died early, leaving no heirs. Younger son Ivan the Terrible was allegedly stabbed to death by minions of Boris Godunov. There were many who wanted to take the reins of government into their own hands. As a result, a struggle for power within the country unfolded. A similar situation served as an impetus for the development of such a phenomenon as the Time of Troubles. The reasons and the beginning of this period were interpreted differently at different times. Despite this, it is possible to single out the main events and aspects that influenced the development of these events.

Main reasons

Of course, first of all, this is the interruption of the Rurik dynasty. From now on central authority, passed into the hands of third parties, loses credibility in the eyes of the people. The constant increase in taxes also served as a catalyst for the discontent of the townspeople and peasants. For such a protracted phenomenon as the Time of Troubles, the reasons have been accumulating for more than one year. This includes the consequences of the oprichnina, the economic devastation after the Livonian War. The last straw was the sharp deterioration in living conditions associated with the drought of 1601-1603. The Time of Troubles was for external forces the most successful moment for the liquidation of the state independence of Russia.

Background from the point of view of historians

Not only the weakening of the monarchy regime contributed to the emergence of such a phenomenon as the Time of Troubles. The reasons for it are connected with the interweaving of aspirations and actions of various political forces and social masses, which were complicated by the intervention of external forces. Due to the fact that at the same time many unfavorable factors were formed, the country plunged into a deep crisis.

For the occurrence of such a phenomenon as Troubles, the reasons can be identified as follows:

1. The crisis of the economy, which falls at the end of the XVI century. It was caused by the decline of peasants in the cities, the increase in tax and feudal oppression. The famine of 1601-1603 aggravated the situation, as a result of which about half a million people died.

2. The crisis of the dynasty. After the death of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, the struggle of various boyar clans for the right to stand in power intensified. During this period, Boris Godunov (from 1598 to 1605), Fyodor Godunov (April 1605 - June 1605), False Dmitry I (from June 1605 to May 1606), Vasily Shuisky (from 1606 to 1610), False Dmitry II (from 1607 to 1610) and the Seven Boyars (from 1610 to 1611).

3. Spiritual crisis. The desire of the Catholic religion to impose its will ended in a split in the Russian Orthodox Church.

Internal turmoil laid the foundation for peasant wars and urban uprisings.

Godunov's board

The difficult struggle for power between representatives of the highest nobility ended in the victory of Boris Godunov, the tsar's brother-in-law. This was the first time in Russian history when the throne was not inherited, but as a result of victory in elections in the Zemsky Sobor. In general, over the seven years of his reign, Godunov managed to resolve disputes and disagreements with Poland and Sweden, and also established cultural and economic relations with the countries of Western Europe.

His domestic politics also brought its results in the form of Russia's advance into Siberia. However, soon the situation in the country worsened. This was caused by crop failures in the period from 1601 to 1603.

Godunov took all possible measures to alleviate such a difficult situation. He organized public works, gave permission to the serfs to leave their masters, organized the distribution of bread to the starving. Despite this, as a result of the abolition in 1603 of the law on the temporary restoration of St. George's Day, an uprising of serfs broke out, which marked the beginning of the peasant war.

Exacerbation of the internal situation

The most dangerous stage of the Peasant War was the uprising led by Ivan Bolotnikov. The war spread to the southwest and south of Russia. The rebels defeated the troops of the new tsar - Vasily Shuisky - proceeding to the siege of Moscow in October-December 1606. They stopped their internal disagreements, as a result of which the rebels were forced to retreat to Kaluga.

The Time of Troubles at the beginning of the 17th century was the right moment for the attack on Moscow for the Polish princes. The reasons for the intervention attempts lay in the impressive support provided to the princes False Dmitry I and False Dmitry II, who were subordinate to foreign accomplices in everything. The ruling circles of the Commonwealth and the Catholic Church made attempts to dismember Russia and eliminate its state independence.

The next stage in the split of the country was the formation of territories that recognized the power of False Dmitry II, and those that remained faithful to Vasily Shuisky.

According to some historians, the main reasons for such a phenomenon as the Time of Troubles lay in lack of rights, imposture, internal split of the country and intervention. This time was the first civil war in Russian history. Before the Time of Troubles appeared in Russia, its causes were formed for more than one year. The prerequisites were associated with the oprichnina and the consequences of the Livonian War. The country's economy was already ruined by that time, and tension was growing in the social strata.

Final stage

Beginning in 1611, there was an increase in patriotic sentiment, accompanied by calls for an end to strife and greater unity. The militia was organized. However, only on the second attempt under the leadership of K. Minin and K. Pozharsky in the fall of 1611, Moscow was liberated. 16-year-old Mikhail Romanov was elected the new tsar.

The Troubles brought colossal territorial losses in the 17th century. The reasons for it mainly consisted in the weakening of the authority of the centralized government in the eyes of the people, the formation of the opposition. Despite this, having gone through years of losses and hardships, internal disunity and civil strife under the leadership of False Dmitry impostors and adventurers, nobles, townspeople and peasants came to the conclusion that strength can only be in unity. The consequences of the Time of Troubles influenced the country for a long time. Only a century later they were finally eliminated.

The Time of Troubles occupies a serious place in the history of Russia. This is the time of historical alternatives. There are many nuances in this topic that are generally important for understanding and assimilation as soon as possible. In this article, we'll take a look at some of them. Where to get the rest - see the end of the article.

Causes of troubled times

The first reason (and the main one) is the suppression of the dynasty of the descendants of Ivan Kalita, the ruling branch of the Ruriks. The last tsar of this dynasty, Fyodor Ioannovich, son, died in 1598, and from the same time the period of the Time of Troubles in the history of Russia begins.

The second reason - more the reason for the intervention in this period - that at the end of the Livonian War, the Muscovite state did not conclude peace treaties, but only a truce: Yam-Zapolsky - with Poland and Plyussky with Sweden. The difference between an armistice and a peace treaty is that the first is only a break in the war, and not its end.

Course of events

As you can see, we are analyzing this event according to the scheme recommended by me and other colleagues, about which you can.

The Time of Troubles began directly with the death of Fyodor Ioannovich. Because this is a period of “kinglessness”, kingdomlessness, when impostors and people, in general, were ruled by chance. However, in 1598 the Zemsky Sobor was convened and Boris Godunov came to power - a man who long and stubbornly went to power.

The reign of Boris Godunov lasted from 1598 to 1605. During this time the following events took place:

1. The terrible famine of 1601-1603, which resulted in the uprising of Cotton Kosolap, and the mass exodus of the population to the south. As well as dissatisfaction with the authorities.
2. Speech of False Dmitry the First: from the autumn of 1604 to June 1605.

The reign of False Dmitry I lasted one year: from June 1605 to May 1606. In his reign the following processes continued:

False Dmitry the First (aka Grishka Otrepyev)

The growth of dissatisfaction with his rule among the boyars, since False Dmitry did not respect Russian customs, married a Catholic, began to distribute Russian lands as estates to the Polish nobility. In May 1606, the boyars, led by Vasily Shuisky, overthrew the impostor.

The reign of Vasily Shuisky lasted from 1606 to 1610. Shuisky was not even elected at the Zemsky Sobor. His name was simply "shouted", so he "enlisted" the support of the people. In addition, he gave the so-called cross-kissing oath that he would consult with the boyar thought in everything. The following events took place during his reign:

1. Peasant war led by Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov: from the spring of 1606 to the end of 1607. Ivan Bolotnikov acted as the governor of "Tsarevich Dmitry", the Second False Dmitry.
2. Campaign of False Dmitry II from the autumn of 1607 to 1609. During the campaign, the impostor could not take Moscow, so he sat down in Tushino. There was a dual power in Russia. Neither side had the means to defeat the other side. Therefore, Vasily Shusky hired Swedish mercenaries.
3. The defeat of the "Tushinsky thief" by the troops of Swedish mercenaries led by Mikhail Vasilyevich Skopin-Shuisky.
4. Intervention of Poland and Sweden in 1610. Poland and Sweden were at this time in a state of war. Since Swedish troops, albeit mercenaries, ended up in Moscow, Poland got the opportunity to start an open intervention, considering Muscovy an ally of Sweden.
5. The overthrow of Vasily Shuisky by the boyars, as a result of which the so-called "seven boyars" appeared. The boyars de facto recognized the power of the Polish king Sigismund in Moscow.

The results of the Time of Troubles for the history of Russia

First result The unrest was the election of a new reigning Romanov dynasty, which ruled from 1613 to 1917, which began with Michael and ended with Michael.

Second result was the withering away of the boyars. Throughout the 17th century, it was losing its influence, and with it the old tribal principle.

Third result- devastation, economic, economic, social. Its consequences were overcome only by the beginning of the reign of Peter the Great.

Fourth Outcome- instead of the boyars, the authorities relied on the nobility.

PS.: Of course, everything you read here is available on a million other sites. But the purpose of the post is concise, briefly talk about the Troubles. Unfortunately, all this is not enough to complete the test. After all, there are many nuances left behind the scenes, without which the second part of the test is unthinkable. Therefore, I invite you.

Sincerely, Andrey Puchkov

Chronologically, the events of the Time of Troubles cover the period from 1598 to 1613. In 1598, the childless Tsar Fedor dies, and thus the reign of the ruling Rurik dynasty ends. In 1613, the Zemsky Sobor elected a representative of the new dynasty - Mikhail Romanov.

Between these two events, which determined the beginning and end of the Time of Troubles, there is a kaleidoscope of the most complex events related to the political struggle for power, peasant uprisings, and external intervention that fell upon Russia in this relatively short period.

So, the beginning of the Time of Troubles was laid by the termination of the ruling dynasty of Rurikovich after the death of its last representative, Tsar Fedor. This event came main reason Troubled times. The dynastic crisis caused "general confusion and ferment", which gave rise to demoralization in the minds of the masses.

But it is impossible to understand the course of the Troubles without taking into account the previous development of the Moscow state. It is no coincidence that most pre-revolutionary historians believe that the Time of Troubles is “a product of the previous

16th century"*.

The prerequisites for the Time of Troubles arose during the reign of Ivan IV (1547-1584). The oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible led to the economic ruin of most of the central districts of the country. The economic crisis was aggravated by the protracted Livonian War (1558-1582), which resulted not only in the defeat of Russia, but also in huge casualties and material losses. The severe crisis within the state was supplemented by the mass exodus of peasants to the regions of the Volga region, the Urals, Western Siberia, open to Russian colonization after the defeat of the Kazan (1552) and Siberian (1582) khanates. Under these conditions, the government, under pressure from the nobility, was forced to issue decrees temporarily abolishing St. George's Day (i.e., the right of peasants to transfer from one owner to another) and increasing the term for detecting fugitives **.

In addition, the oprichnina of Ivan IV shook the traditional way of life, increased general discontent and demoralization, because it was during this period, according to S.M. It is no coincidence that V.O. Klyuchevsky calls the troubled period "a distant consequence of the oprichnina."

* According to S.F. Platonov, "The Troubles in its origin is the work of the previous 16th century, and the study of the Troubled Epoch without connection with the previous phenomena of our life is impossible."

* * In the 1580s. Decrees were issued temporarily canceling St. George's Day. In 1597, the Decree on "Lesson Years" was issued, according to which fugitive peasants were subject to investigation, trial and return "back to where someone lived" for 5 years.

Thus, the political and social prerequisites for the Time of Troubles and its very atmosphere were gradually prepared.

In 1584, Ivan the Terrible dies, leaving to his descendants a country devastated by the Oprichnina and exhausted by the Livonian War. Two sons remained his heirs: Fedor, the youngest son from his first marriage, and Dmitry, from the last wife of Grozny, Maria Nagoy *. According to the general statement, Fyodor Ioanovich, weak, sickly, distinguished by his softness of character and deep religiosity, was not capable of independent government **. Therefore, Boris Godunov, whose sister the tsar was married to, becomes the actual ruler.

Although the period of Fedor's reign (1584-1598) was short-lived, it was marked by success in the field of domestic and foreign policy. The country began an unprecedented construction of cities, fortifications, development Western Siberia. New cities appeared on the southern borders of the state: Samara, Saratov, Tsaritsyn, Kursk, Belgorod, Yelets; in the east - Tyumen, Tobolsk, Berezovo, Surgut, Obdorsk. In the field of foreign policy, Godunov sought to strengthen relations with Poland and Sweden. After a short war with Sweden, Russia managed to return the cities lost during the Livonian War on the Baltic coast: Yam, Koporye, Ivangorod.

The successes of the Muscovite state were associated not with the activities of Tsar Fedor, but with his brother-in-law, Boris Godunov***. It is no coincidence that he received an assessment given to him by the lips of the Russian diplomat Luka Novoseltsev: “God filled his mind with a great sorrower about the earth.”

After the death of Fyodor (1598), the ruling dynasty of the Ruriks ended. With the end of the dynasty of "natural sovereigns", the state in

* The eldest son of Ivan IV was killed by his father in a fit of blind anger in 1581. After the death of Ivan the Terrible, his young son Dmitry was exiled to Uglich with his mother. In 1591 he died under strange circumstances. The commission of inquiry, headed by Prince V. Shuisky, came to the conclusion that the death was accidental: the prince stabbed himself to death in a fit of epilepsy while he was playing with a knife.

** The court chroniclers portrayed Fedor as a “pious” king (he began his day with a prayer: “God forbid, do nothing bad to anyone”), but not too well versed in earthly affairs.

The English ambassador Fletcher described Fedor as follows: “He is simple and feeble-minded, but very kind and good in handling, quiet, merciful, has no inclination for war, is little capable of political affairs and is extremely superstitious.” That is, judging by the words of contemporaries, Fedor Ivanovich was the complete opposite of his father, Ivan

*** True, during the reign of Fedor, an event occurred that largely influenced the events of the Time of Troubles. In 1591 Tsarevich Dmitry died in Uglich. Although the tragic death of the prince was an accident, popular rumor accused Boris Godunov of being involved in it. This position was shared by some pre-revolutionary historians, in particular N.M. Karamzin, believing that the death of the prince was beneficial to B. Godunov for political reasons.

popular understanding turned out to be "nobody's"; "the earth was confused and went into ferment", marking the beginning of the Troubles.

Thus, the dynastic crisis becomes the main cause of the Time of Troubles. Along with this political reason, there were also social ones, connected with the strengthening of the serfdom system, as well as the dissatisfaction of the boyars with their economic and political greatness, which was shaken during the period of the oprichnina. If the dynastic crisis led to a political struggle for power, then the social crisis gave rise to peasant uprisings and a civil war, in which representatives of all segments of the population took part. The course of the Time of Troubles was complicated by interference in the internal affairs of Russia by Sweden and Poland. Those. it is possible to single out political, social and national causes of troubled times *. Throughout the Time of Troubles, political and social causes were intertwined, predetermining this difficult period in the history of Russia.

The seventeenth century in the history of our country is a turning point, stormy time of the decline of the Middle Ages. Contemporaries called him "rebellious". Russia will survive the peasant war - the first in its history, a series of urban uprisings, "copper" and "salt" riots, performances of archers, a conflict between church and secular power, a church split. And the century will begin in an unusual way - with events that have received the name of the Time of Troubles in history (1598-1613). Trouble in the 17th century as a key event in Russian history is put by researchers in one historical row with the calling of the Varangians, the education Kievan Rus and Moscow State. It is not surprising that she attracted the eyes of famous writers, poets, artists, composers. Suffice it to recall Pushkin's "Boris Godunov", the dramatic trilogy by A.K. Tolstoy ("The Death of Ivan the Terrible", "Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich", "Tsar Boris"), M.I. Glinka "Life for the Tsar".

In the scientific community, interest in the Time of Troubles has never faded. For centuries, historians have been struggling to unravel its causes and meaning. The first Russian historian V.N. Tatishchev looked for the causes of the Time of Troubles in "the insane noble noble families" and the laws of Boris Godunov, which enserfed the peasants and serfs. According to N.M. Karamzin, the Time of Troubles was caused by the intervention of foreigners, the "relaxation" of Tsar Fedor, the "crimes" of Godunov and the "debauchery of the people." It is the result of disharmony between traditional ideas, the principles of Russian statehood and the moral foundations of the people [source 7, p.435]. Solovyov connected the Time of Troubles with internal factors: a bad state of morality, a dynastic crisis and the strengthening of antisocial forces in the person of "thieves' Cossacks". IN. Klyuchevsky defined it as social strife generated by the uneven distribution of state duties [source 3, p.115]. Following him, S.F. Platonov considered the Troubles as the result of dynastic and social crises, as a political struggle for power between the old tribal aristocracy and the new palace nobility [source 13, p. 186]. Soviet historians brought to the fore the factor of the class struggle. They believed that the Troubles began from below - with peasant uprisings. They associated the appearance of impostors not with intervention, but with internal struggle. Subsequently, the concept of "Trouble" was declared bourgeois, and other terms were established in the literature. M.N. Pokrovsky considered the Time of Troubles a peasant revolution, False Dmitry - an instrument of foreign interventionists. This period in history became known as "Bolotnikov's Peasant War and the Polish-Swedish Intervention". In subsequent discussions, A.A. Zimin, V.I. Koretsky, L.V. Cherepnin and others argued that the peasant war did not stop during 1603-1614, being the core of the historical development of Russia in that period [source 8, p. 44]. Modern researchers R.G. Skrynnikov and V.B. Kobrin believe that the Time of Troubles is a civil war that began in 1603-1604. [source 3, p.44]. Its most important prerequisite, according to R.G. Skrynnikov, was the crisis of the nobility, and the main reason was the split that struck the nobility and the armed forces of the state as a whole. The Godunov dynasty fell after the garrisons of the southern fortresses opposed it, and rebellions broke out in the noble militia near Kromy and in the capital. Troubled times at the beginning of the 17th century. - this is a period of extreme weakness of state power, the scope of imposture, insubordination of the outskirts of the civil war and intervention by Poland and Sweden.

Prerequisites for the Time of Troubles in the 16th-17th centuries: A combination of several crises: 1. Dynastic (the Rurik dynasty ended, discontent against B. Godunov, famine, decline) hence the fierce struggle for power. The absence of a claimant with firm rights to the throne. 2. Economic (consequences of the Livonian War and the oprichnina, the famine years of 1601-1603, large casualties) 3. Social (mutinies, uprisings (Bolotnikov), robberies). 4. Moral crisis (perjury). 5. Foreign intervention (the Swedes captured the Novgorod land, the Poles ruled in Moscow). During the Time of Troubles, an alternative appeared: to continue along the path close to the east, or to return to the European path of development, which meant the need to limit power and provide freedom to society. As a result, the struggle of social forces for better life, choice of development path.

A brief chronology of the Troubles is as follows:

1598 - suppression of the Kalita dynasty. The beginning of the reign of Boris Godunov; 1601-1603 - crop failures and mass famine in Russia. Growing social tension in the country; 1605 - death of Tsar Boris Godunov. Accession of False Dmitry I; 1606-1610 - the reign of Vasily Shuisky; 1006-1607 - peasant uprising under the leadership of I. Bolotnikov. False Dmitry II; 1609 Poland and Sweden are drawn into the war. Beginning of the Polish intervention; 1610-1612 - "seven boyars"; 1611-1612 - the first and second militias, the liberation of Moscow from the Polish invaders; 1613 - the beginning of the Romanov dynasty.

The origin of the Time of Troubles is associated with the extinction of the Rurik dynasty. The son of Ivan IV Fedor (1584-1598) was incapable of governing the state. He died childless, his younger brother, young Dmitry, died under very mysterious circumstances in Uglich in 1591. The dynasty of the descendants of Ivan Kalita was cut short. The issue of succession to the throne was decided by the Zemsky Sobor, which elected the brother-in-law of the deceased tsar, the boyar Boris Godunov (1598-1605), to the kingdom. This was the first time in the history of the Muscovite kingdom, not a single tsar had been elected before Godunov, so the desire of the new tsar to emphasize his connection with the former dynasty in every possible way seems natural.

Introduction

Causes and prerequisites of the Time of Troubles

Pretenders to the Russian throne and their reign

Fedor Ivanovich and Boris Godunov

False Dmitry I

False Dmitry II

Vladislav

Mikhail Romanov

3. Results and consequences of the Troubles

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The term "Time of Troubles" accepted in pre-revolutionary historiography, referring to the turbulent events of the beginning of the 17th century, was resolutely rejected in Soviet science as "noble-bourgeois" and replaced by a long and even somewhat bureaucratic title: "Peasant War and Foreign Intervention in Russia". Today, the term "Time of Troubles" is gradually returning: apparently, because it not only corresponds to the word usage of the era, but also quite accurately reflects historical reality.

Among the meanings of the word "distemper" given by V.I. Dahl, we meet "uprising, rebellion ... general disobedience, discord between the people and the authorities [source 9]. However, in modern language in the adjective "vague" there is a different meaning - unclear, indistinct. In fact, the beginning of the XVII century. and indeed the Time of Troubles: everything is in motion, everything fluctuates, the contours of people and events are blurred, kings change with incredible speed, often in different parts of the country and even in neighboring cities they recognize the power of different sovereigns at the same time, people sometimes change their political orientation: either yesterday’s allies disperse into hostile camps, or yesterday’s enemies act together ... The Time of Troubles is the most complex interweaving of various contradictions - class and national, intra-class and inter-class ... And although there was foreign intervention, it is impossible to reduce only to it all the variety of events of this and indeed the Time of Troubles.

Naturally, such a dynamic period was extremely rich not only in bright events, but also in various development alternatives. In days of nationwide upheaval, accidents can play a significant role in guiding the course of history. Alas, the Time of Troubles turned out to be a time of lost opportunities, when those alternatives that promised a more favorable course of events for the country did not materialize.

Target term paper- to reveal and reflect as fully as possible the essence of the Time of Troubles.

Consider the causes and preconditions of the Time of Troubles.

To analyze the rule of pretenders to the Russian throne and possible alternatives for the development of Russia.

Consider the results and consequences of the Troubles.

1. Causes and prerequisites of the Time of Troubles and its beginning

The seventeenth century in the history of our country is a turning point, stormy time of the decline of the Middle Ages. Contemporaries called him "rebellious". Russia will survive the peasant war - the first in its history, a series of urban uprisings, "copper" and "salt" riots, performances of archers, a conflict between church and secular power, a church split. And the century will begin in an unusual way - with events that have received the name of the Time of Troubles in history (1598-1613). Trouble in the 17th century as a key event in Russian history is put by researchers in the same historical row with the calling of the Varangians, the formation of Kievan Rus and the Muscovite state. It is not surprising that she attracted the eyes of famous writers, poets, artists, composers. Suffice it to recall Pushkin's "Boris Godunov", the dramatic trilogy by A.K. Tolstoy ("The Death of Ivan the Terrible", "Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich", "Tsar Boris"), M.I. Glinka "Life for the Tsar".

In the scientific community, interest in the Time of Troubles has never faded. For centuries, historians have been struggling to unravel its causes and meaning. The first Russian historian V.N. Tatishchev looked for the causes of the Time of Troubles in "the insane noble noble families" and the laws of Boris Godunov, which enserfed the peasants and serfs. According to N.M. Karamzin, the Time of Troubles was caused by the intervention of foreigners, the "relaxation" of Tsar Fedor, the "crimes" of Godunov and the "debauchery of the people." It is the result of disharmony between traditional ideas, the principles of Russian statehood and the moral foundations of the people [source 7, p.435]. Solovyov connected the Time of Troubles with internal factors: a bad state of morality, a dynastic crisis and the strengthening of antisocial forces in the person of "thieves' Cossacks". IN. Klyuchevsky defined it as social strife generated by the uneven distribution of state duties [source 3, p.115]. Following him, S.F. Platonov considered the Troubles as the result of dynastic and social crises, as a political struggle for power between the old tribal aristocracy and the new palace nobility [source 13, p. 186]. Soviet historians brought the class struggle factor to the fore. They believed that the Troubles began from below - with peasant uprisings. They associated the appearance of impostors not with intervention, but with internal struggle. Subsequently, the concept of "Trouble" was declared bourgeois, and other terms were established in the literature. M.N. Pokrovsky considered the Time of Troubles a peasant revolution, False Dmitry - an instrument of foreign interventionists. This period in history became known as "Bolotnikov's Peasant War and the Polish-Swedish Intervention". In subsequent discussions, A.A. Zimin, V.I. Koretsky, L.V. Cherepnin and others argued that the peasant war did not stop during 1603-1614, being the core of the historical development of Russia in that period [source 8, p. 44]. Modern researchers R.G. Skrynnikov and V.B. Kobrin believe that the Time of Troubles is a civil war that began in 1603-1604. [source 3, p.44]. Its most important prerequisite, according to R.G. Skrynnikov, was the crisis of the nobility, and the main reason was the split that struck the nobility and the armed forces of the state as a whole. The Godunov dynasty fell after the garrisons of the southern fortresses opposed it, and rebellions broke out in the noble militia near Kromy and in the capital. Troubled times at the beginning of the 17th century. - this is a period of extreme weakness of state power, the scope of imposture, insubordination of the outskirts of the civil war and intervention by Poland and Sweden.

Prerequisites for the Time of Troubles in the 16th-17th centuries: A combination of several crises: 1. Dynastic (the Rurik dynasty ended, discontent against B. Godunov, famine, decline) hence the fierce struggle for power. The absence of a claimant with firm rights to the throne. 2. Economic (consequences of the Livonian War and the oprichnina, the famine years of 1601-1603, large casualties) 3. Social (mutinies, uprisings (Bolotnikov), robberies). 4. Moral crisis (perjury). 5. Foreign intervention (the Swedes captured the Novgorod land, the Poles ruled in Moscow). During the Time of Troubles, an alternative appeared: to continue along the path close to the east, or to return to the European path of development, which meant the need to limit power and provide freedom to society. As a result, the struggle of social forces for a better life, the choice of a development path, unfolded.

A brief chronology of the Troubles is as follows:

1598 - suppression of the Kalita dynasty. The beginning of the reign of Boris Godunov; 1601-1603 - crop failures and mass famine in Russia. Growing social tension in the country; 1605 - death of Tsar Boris Godunov. Accession of False Dmitry I; 1606-1610 - the reign of Vasily Shuisky; 1006-1607 - peasant uprising under the leadership of I. Bolotnikov. False Dmitry II; 1609 Poland and Sweden are drawn into the war. Beginning of the Polish intervention; 1610-1612 - "seven boyars"; sixteen 11 -1612 - the first and second militias, the liberation of Moscow from the Polish invaders; 1613 - the beginning of the Romanov dynasty.

The origin of the Time of Troubles is associated with the extinction of the Rurik dynasty. The son of Ivan IV Fedor (1584-1598) was incapable of governing the state. He died childless, his younger brother, juvenile Dmitry, died under very mysterious circumstances in Uglich in 1591 G. The dynasty of the descendants of Ivan Kalita ended. The issue of succession to the throne was decided by the Zemsky Sobor, which elected the brother-in-law of the deceased tsar, the boyar Boris Godunov (1598-1605), to the kingdom. This was the first case in the history of the Muscovite kingdom, not a single tsar was elected before Godunov, so it seems natural to strive leniya the new king in every possible way to emphasize his connection with the former dynasty .

Table: Alternatives for the development of Russia in the 17th century

Boris Godunov	False Dmitry I	Vasily Shuisky	Foreign applicants	Mikhail Romanov
Legitimacy of power	"Yesterday's slave, Tatar, Malyuta's son-in-law, The executioner's son-in-law and the executioner himself at heart, Will take Monomakh's crown and barm:" Shouted out to the kingdom at the Zemsky Sobor in February 1598. Formally, the government was ready to function, but its legitimacy was shaken, because. the new king was not a blood relative of the previous dynasty and "sat" in place below the others. The contradiction is the reformer tsar and the impossibility of carrying out reforms due to the lack of legitimacy of power.	False Dmitry pretended to be the son of Ivan the Terrible, therefore, in the eyes of the people, he is legitimate.	Shouted out at an improvised Zemsky Sobor, assembled by his supporters on May 19, 1606.	They are legitimate, because heirs of the royal houses of Sweden, the Commonwealth. They were "born"	Elected at the Zemsky Sobor on February 21, 1613
Reformatory activity.	strengthened the position of the church (the institution of the patriarchate) the first attempt to backwardness from the West (the first nobles went to study abroad) urban planning invited foreigners to serve, promising them the right to duty-free trade, partial permission for peasant transitions, free distribution of bread from the royal bins, suppressed the Cotton revolt of 1603-1604 , "the case of the Romanovs"	Granting land and money to service people and Polish governors, freeing a number of categories of peasants and serfs from dependence, complicating relations with Poland, to which he had obligations, but was in no hurry to fulfill them, the return of the Romanovs from exile,	Deepening of the civil war and the beginning of open intervention	The first years of the reign of Mikhail Romanov passed in an atmosphere of almost continuous activity of the Zemsky Sobors - almost all the most important problems of the state were discussed here. For the development of various crafts, foreign industrialists were invited to Russia on preferential terms - miners, gunsmiths, foundry workers. intensive construction of serif lines against Crimean Tatars, further colonization of Siberia took place. In 1624, the government of Tsar Mikhail took measures to limit the power of governors in the field. In 1642, the beginning of military reforms was laid. Foreign officers trained Russian "military people" in military affairs, and "regiments of a foreign system" appeared in Russia.
Reign time	1598-1605	1605-1606	1606-1610	-	!613-1645
Alternative Analysis	In fact, Boris began to rule under Fyodor Ioannovich. He possessed a state mind, he is a talented statesman, although he was not guided in his activities by moral standards. He strove for the consolidation of the ruling class, domestic policy aimed at stabilization, in foreign policy he preferred diplomatic victories. Probably, if Boris had a few more quiet years at his disposal, Russia would have taken the path of modernization more peacefully and a hundred years earlier. And since the way out of the crisis followed the path of serfdom, discontent ripened among the peasants, and Boris did not understand that serfdom was evil. Opportunities missed. The victory of False Dmitry was ensured, according to Pushkin, "by the opinion of the people."	The personality of False Dmitry could be a good chance for the country: brave, resolute, educated, who did not succumb to attempts to Catholicize Russia and make it dependent on the Commonwealth. His trouble is that he is an adventurer who was able to achieve power, but could not keep it. He did not justify the hopes of either the pope, or the Polish king, or the peasants who were waiting for the return of St. George's Day, or the boyars, therefore, not a single force within the country, not a single force outside it supported False Dmitry, he was easily overthrown from the throne.	Shuisky intriguer, a liar, even under oath. But regardless of the personal qualities of the king, his reign could not be a bad alternative for the state. Shuisky swore allegiance to his subjects for the first time, made a sign of the cross, which can be interpreted as limiting power in favor of the boyars, and this is already a step towards limiting autocracy. Klyuchevsky wrote that "Shuisky turned from a sovereign of serfs into a legitimate king of subjects, ruling according to the laws."	Here again the alternative of limiting the power of the monarch by treaty opens up. the boyars in 1610 drew up an agreement. The foreign claimant is "natural" and neutral, hence there is no struggle between the boyar factions.	Romanov suited everyone: both those who advanced in the years of the oprichnina, and those who suffered from it, and the supporters of False Dmitry, and the supporters of Shuisky. Maybe for the consolidation of the country, dim personalities were needed, but people who can calmly pursue a conservative policy. After so many missed opportunities, a conservative reaction is inevitable. But this suited the people. autocracy-guarantor against the arbitrariness of the feudal lords. The masses wanted the lack of rights of everyone: from the serf to the boyar. These sentiments pushed for self-isolation, for a model of a closed society. And if modernization begins at the end of the century, then the sprouts of the rule of law, which appeared in the Time of Troubles, are forgotten for a long time.

2. Applicants to the Russian throne and their reign

2.1 Fedor Ivanovich and Boris Godunov

In 1584, Ivan the Terrible died, and as a legacy to his successors, the tsar left a country devastated by oprichnina and unrestrained exploitation, which, moreover, lost the exhausting Livonian war that lasted a quarter of a century. With Ivan IV, the dynasty of the descendants of Ivan Kalita actually came to naught. The eldest son of the king, similar to his father both in cruelty and erudition, Ivan Ivanovich died from an unsuccessful blow from his father's staff. The throne passed into the hands of the second son - Fedor Ivanovich. Unlimited autocratic power over huge country was in the hands of a man who was simply not able to rule. Naturally, under Tsar Fedor, a government circle of several boyars was created, a kind of regency council. However, real power was soon concentrated in his hands by one of the participants in this council - the boyar Boris Fedorovich Godunov, the tsar's brother-in-law - the brother of his wife, Tsaritsa Irina.

Annalistic texts hostile to Godunov often call him a "crafty slave", but they do not mean at all the slavish origin of Boris, but the fact that he, like all subjects of the Russian tsars, was considered a serf, i.e. the sovereign's slave. From this point of view, both Shuisky himself and Vorotynsky, who was talking with him, were the same "slaves".

Godunov's position strengthened quickly. In the summer of 1585, just over a year after Fyodor Ivanovich's accession to the throne, the Russian diplomat Luka Novosiltsev got into a conversation with the head of the Polish church, Archbishop Karnkovsky of Gniezno. Who knows what they actually talked about - Novosiltsev reported to Moscow, of course, about those words of his that corresponded to the official position. Wishing to say something pleasant to his guest, the archbishop remarked that the former sovereign had a wise adviser, Alexei Adashev, "and now in Moscow God has given you such a man with a narrow (smart) mind." Novosiltsev considered this compliment to Godunov insufficient: confirming that Adashev was reasonable, the Russian envoy declared about Godunov that he was "not Alekseev's mile": after all, "it great man- a boyar and a stable boy, and behold, our sovereign is a brother-in-law, and our sovereign is a brother, and God filled his mind with a great sorrower about the earth.

The last word meant patron, guardian. No wonder English observers, translating this expression into English, called Godunov "Lord Protector." Recall that after more than 60 years, the all-powerful dictator of England, Oliver Cromwell, used this very title ...

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

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

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

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

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

The methods of Boris Godunov differed sharply from the methods of Tsar Ivan (although Godunov himself went through the school of the oprichnina). Godunov was shameless and cruel in eliminating his political opponents, but only real, not fictional opponents. He did not like to arrange executions in the squares, solemnly and loudly curse the traitors. His opponents were quietly arrested, quietly sent into exile or to a monastery prison, and there they quietly, but usually quickly died, some from poison, some from a noose, and some from no one knows what.

At the same time, Godunov strove for unity, for the consolidation of the entire ruling class. This was the only correct policy in the conditions of the general ruin of the country.

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

The question of the reasons for the transition to serfdom, of how serious the alternative was for a different variant of the development of feudal relations, without serfdom, is one of the not only not yet resolved, but also clearly insufficiently studied .. According to B.D. Grekov, the development of commodity-money relations in Russia in the second half of the 16th century. was so great that the grain trade turned into a profitable source of income. These circumstances pushed the feudal lords to move to a corvée economy, which is impossible without the enslavement of the peasants.

It is now clear that the development of commodity-money relations was exaggerated, that the grain trade was quite small: the urban population was hardly more than 2-3%, and the export of grain had not yet begun. Not observed in the 16th century. and a sharp increase in the corvee, and besides, it was not the peasants who cultivated the lordly plow, but the arable serfs "sufferers"; therefore, the development of corvee was not associated with the emergence of serfdom.

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

However, the right of the peasant transition - albeit with the payment of "old" and only once a year - limited the appetites of the feudal lords, served as a natural regulator of the level of exploitation: a too greedy feudal lord could, like Shchedrin's wild landowner, be left without peasants. The scribe books mention "spread estates", from which the peasants dispersed, after which the landlords "swept" (abandoned) them.

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

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

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

Probably, if Godunov had had a few more quiet years at his disposal, Russia would have been more peaceful than under Peter, and would have taken the path of modernization a hundred years earlier. But these quiet years were not. An improvement in the economic situation was only in the offing, and since serfdom was the way out of the crisis, discontent was ripening among the peasantry. So, in 1593 - 1595. the peasants of the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery fought with the monastic authorities. Who knows, maybe the dull discontent would not have developed into an explosion if the summer of 1601 had not been so rainy. Harvest could not be started. And then, without interruption, early frosts immediately hit, and "beat at once strong all the labor of human deeds in the fields." The next year was again lean, and besides, there was a lack of seeds, and their quality was low. For three years a terrible famine raged in the country.

Of course, the reason for it was not only the weather. Shattered by heavy taxes and strong feudal exploitation, the peasant economy lost stability and had no reserves.

But not only the weather and the instability of the peasant economy led to famine. Many boyars and monasteries had stocks of grain. According to a contemporary, they would be enough for the entire population of the country for four years. But the feudal lords hid stocks, hoping for further price increases. And they grew by about a hundred times. People ate hay and grass, it came to cannibalism.

Let's pay tribute to Boris Godunov: he fought hunger as best he could. The poor were given money, paid construction work was organized for them. But the money received instantly depreciated: after all, bread on the market did not increase from this. Then Boris ordered to distribute free bread from the state storehouses. He hoped to set a good example for the feudal lords, but the granaries of the boyars, monasteries, and even the patriarch remained closed. Meanwhile, to free bread from all sides to Moscow and big cities the hungry rushed in. And there was not enough bread for everyone, especially since the distributors themselves speculated in bread. It was said that some rich people did not hesitate to dress in rags and receive free bread in order to sell it at exorbitant prices. People who dreamed of salvation died in the cities right on the streets. In Moscow alone, 127,000 people were buried, and not everyone was able to be buried. A contemporary says that in those years dogs and crows were the most well-fed: they ate unburied corpses. While the peasants in the cities were dying in vain waiting for food, their fields remained uncultivated and unsown. Thus the foundations were laid for the continuation of the famine.

What are the reasons for the failure of all attempts by Boris Godunov to overcome hunger, despite his sincere desire to help people? First of all, the fact that the king fought the symptoms, and did not treat the disease. The causes of the famine were rooted in serfdom, but even the idea of ​​restoring the right of the peasants to move did not occur to the tsar. The only measure he decided to take was permission in 1601-1602. temporary limited transition of certain categories of peasants. These decrees did not bring relief to the peasants. Hunger killed Boris. Popular unrest covered all large territories. The king was losing his authority catastrophically. The opportunities that the rule of this talented statesman opened up for the country were missed.

2.2 False Dmitry I

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

Judging by the memoirs of contemporaries, False Dmitry I was smart and quick-witted. His associates were amazed at how easily and quickly he solved complicated issues. He appears to have believed in his royal lineage. Contemporaries unanimously note the striking, reminiscent of Peter's courage, with which the young tsar violated the etiquette that had developed at court. He did not pace sedately through the rooms, supported under the arms by close boyars, but quickly moved from one to another, so that even his personal bodyguards sometimes did not know where to find him. He was not afraid of the crowd, more than once, accompanied by one or two people, he galloped along the Moscow streets. He didn't even sleep after dinner. It was proper for the king to be calm, unhurried and important; this one acted with the temperament of the named father, but without his cruelty. All this is suspicious for a prudent impostor. If False Dmitry knew that he was not a royal son, he would certainly have been able to master the etiquette of the Moscow court in advance so that everyone could immediately say about him: yes, this is a real king. In addition, "Tsar Dmitry" pardoned the most dangerous witness - Prince Vasily Shuisky. Convicted of conspiring against the tsar, Vasily Shuisky led the investigation into the death of the true prince in Uglich and saw his dead body with his own eyes. Shuisky was sentenced to death by the cathedral, pardoned by "Tsar Dmitry".

Were the unfortunate young man prepared from childhood for the role of a contender for the throne, had he not been brought up in the belief that he was the rightful heir to the Moscow crown? Not without reason, when the first news about the appearance of an impostor in Poland reached Moscow, Boris Godunov, as they say, immediately told the boyars that this was their work.

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

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

That is why the king did not dare to give False Dmitry full and unconditional support: he only allowed the Polish gentry, if they wished, to join his army. There were just over 1,500 of them. They were joined by several hundred Russian emigrant nobles, and even by Don and Zaporizhzhya Cossacks, who saw in the campaign of False Dmitry a good opportunity for military booty. The pretender to the throne, thus, had only a handful, "a bunch" of warriors - about four thousand. With them he crossed the Dnieper.

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

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

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

The means. which False Dmitry had at his disposal were in fact not adequate to his goals. The hopes that were placed on him different forces, contradicted each other. We have already seen that he did not justify those who were laid upon him in the Commonwealth. To enlist the support of the nobility, False Dmitry generously distributed land and money. But neither is infinite. False Dmitry borrowed money from monasteries. Together with the leaked information about the Catholicism of the king, the loans disturbed the clergy and caused them to grumble. The peasants hoped that the good Tsar Dmitry would restore the right to cross on St. George's Day, taken from them by Godunov. But, without coming into conflict with the nobility, False Dmitry could not do this. Therefore, serfdom was confirmed and only permission was given to the peasants who left their masters in the famine years to stay in new places. This meager concession did not satisfy the peasants, but at the same time caused discontent among some of the nobles. In short: not a single social stratum within the country, not a single force outside its borders had any reason to support the tsar. That is why he was so easily deposed from the throne.

2.3 False Dmitry II

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

Shuisky for the first time in the history of Russia swore allegiance to his subjects: he gave a "record", the observance of which he secured by kissing the cross. This "cross-kissing entry" is sometimes interpreted as a restriction royal power in favor of the boyars and on this basis they see in Shuisky a "boyar tsar". Let's start with the fact that the contradictions between the "tops" and "bottoms" of the ruling class were not at all as significant as traditionally appears. There is nothing bad in the very restriction of autocracy, even if in favor of the boyars: after all, it was with the liberties of the English barons that English parliamentarism began. It is unlikely that unbridled despotism is better than the rule of the king together with the aristocracy. But in the "cross-kissing record" there was no real restriction on the power of the king. Let's get into it.

First of all, Shuisky promised "every person, not condemning by a true judgment from his boyars, will not be put to death." Thus, legislative guarantees were created against extrajudicial disgrace and executions of the oprichnina period. Further, the new king swore not to take property from the heirs and relatives of the convicted, if "they are innocent of that fault", the same guarantees were given to merchants and all "black people". In conclusion, Tsar Vasily undertook not to listen to false denunciations ("arguments") and to resolve cases only after a thorough investigation ("find all sorts of detectives firmly and put them eye to eye").

The historical significance of Shuisky's "cross-kissing record" is not only in limiting the arbitrariness of the autocracy, not only in the fact that for the first time the principle of punishment only by court was proclaimed (which, of course, is also important), but in the fact that this was the first agreement between the tsar and his subjects. Let us remember that for Ivan the Terrible all his subjects were only slaves whom he was free to favor and execute. Even the thought that not his "serfs" to him, but he would swear allegiance to his "serfs", "kiss the cross", could not have occurred to Ivan IV. IN. Klyuchevsky was right when he wrote that "Vasily Shuisky was turning from a sovereign of serfs into a legitimate king of subjects, ruling according to the laws." Shuisky's entry was the first, timid and uncertain, but step towards the rule of law. Of course, to the feudal.

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

There is one more important circumstance. Until 1598, Russia did not know elective monarchs. Ivan IV, opposing himself to the elected king of the Commonwealth, Stefan Batory, emphasized that he was the king "by God's will, and not by the many-rebellious human desire." Now, one after another, tsars appear on the throne, called by the same "multiple human desire": Boris Godunov, elected by the Zemsky Sobor, False Dmitry, not elected, but seized the throne only by the will of the people, Shuisky ... And behind him the figures of new elected sovereigns - Prince Vladislav, Mikhail Romanov. But the election of the monarch is also a kind of agreement between the subjects and the sovereign, which means a step towards the rule of law. That is why the failure of Vasily Shuisky, who was unable to cope with the opposing forces and the beginning of the intervention of the Commonwealth, his overthrow from the throne marked, despite all the antipathy of the personality of Tsar Vasily, another missed opportunity.

The uprising of Ivan Bolotnikov dates back to the reign of Vasily Shuisky. The failure of this movement, which embraced very broad masses, can hardly be attributed to those alternatives that, if realized, could bring good results. And the personality of the leader of the uprising, and the nature of the movement itself in our popular and educational literature significantly deformed. Let's start with Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov himself. They write about him that he was a serf of Prince Telyatevsky. This is true, but an inexperienced reader gets the impression that Ivan Isaevich plowed the land or served his master. However, among the serfs there were completely different social groups. One of them was the so-called servants or military serfs. These were professional warriors who went to work together with their master. In peacetime, they often performed administrative functions in the estates and estates of their owners. They were recruited largely from the impoverished nobles. So, the Nikitichi-Romanovs were arrested on the denunciation of their serf, who came from an old (from the 14th century) noble family of the Bortenevs. Grigory Otrepiev, also a scion of a noble family, as noted above, served as a serf for the same Romanovs. Known care in the serfs in the middle of the XVI century. even one of the Belozersky princes. The fact that we know in the XVI - XVII centuries. the noble family of the Bolotnikovs, makes us assume that Bolotnikov is a ruined nobleman. It is unlikely that Prince Andrei Telyatevsky would have become a governor under the command of his former serf, if he had not been a nobleman.

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

We do not know Bolotnikov's program well; only the presentation of it in documents emanating from the government camp has come down to us. Outlining the appeals of the rebels, Patriarch Hermogenes wrote that they "order boyar serfs to beat their boyars." As if it sounds quite anti-feudal. But let's read the text further: "... and their wives and patrimonies and estates promise them" and promise their supporters "to give the boyars and the voivodeship and the okolism and the deaconship." Thus, we do not find here a call for a change in the feudal system, but only an intention to exterminate the current boyars and take their place ourselves. It is hardly a coincidence that "in the thieves' regiments" the Cossacks (as all the participants in the uprising were called) were given estates. Some of these Bolotnikov landowners continued to own land in the first half of the 17th century.

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

Of course, under the banners of Bolotnikov, and under the banners of other "thieves' chieftains", and, finally, in the camp of the "Tushino thief", who declared himself miraculously saved "Tsar Dmitry", there were many destitute people who did not accept the cruel feudal system, whose protest sometimes poured out in no less cruel, and even robbery forms. And yet, it seems that hatred of the oppressors was only one of several components of a broad movement in early XVII in.

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

2.4 Vladislav

In February 1610, disillusioned with the "Tushino tsar", a group of boyars from his camp went to Sigismund III, who was besieging Smolensk, and invited Vladislav to the throne. An agreement was signed. And six months later, in August, after the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky, the Moscow boyars invited Vladislav. Both Tushino and Moscow boyars are traditionally stigmatized as traitors who are ready to give Russia to foreigners. However, a careful reading of the agreements of 1610 does not give grounds for such accusations.

In fact, both documents provide for various guarantees against the absorption of Russia by the Commonwealth: a ban on appointing immigrants from Poland and Lithuania to administrative positions in Russia, and a denial of permission to erect Catholic churches, and the preservation of all the orders that exist in the state. In particular, serfdom also remained inviolable: "in Russia, there can be no way out between Christians among themselves", "the king does not allow the Russian people to get out among themselves." In the agreement signed by the Tushino people in February 1610, one can also notice an echo of Godunov's times: "And for science, it is free for every people of Moscow to travel to other Khrestian states."

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

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

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

Meanwhile, in Moscow, Gonsevsky, on behalf of Tsar Vladislav, crushed the lands of the supporters of the interventionists, confiscating them from those who did not recognize foreign power. The order documentation of these months makes a strange impression. It seems that the concepts of loyalty and treason suddenly switched places. Here is a certain Grigory Orlov, who calls himself a "loyal subject" not only of Tsar Vladislav, but also of Sigismund, asks the "great sovereigns" to welcome his "traitorous prince Dmitreev, the estate of Pozharsky." On the back of the petition, Gonsevsky is extremely polite and just as firmly, referring to the deacon I.T. Gramotin, writes: "Dear Mr. Ivan Tarasevich!.. Prikgozho... to give the Asudarian letter of complaint." Not all charters call people like Pozharsky traitors, but there are many such charters.

True, all or almost all of these distributions existed only on paper: Polish troops in Moscow they were surrounded first by the first (led by Lyapunov, Trubetskoy and Zarutsky), and then by the second (led by Minin and Pozharsky) militias. There was no central authority. Different cities independently decide whom they recognize as rulers. Detachments of Polish gentry roam the country and besiege cities and monasteries, engaged not so much in military operations as in simple robbery. Their own, native Cossacks do not lag behind them either. This situation could not last too long: the desire for order is getting stronger in the country. Let not to very convenient, not very good, but to order. Whatever we consider the popular unrest of this time - peasant war or civil, - it is clear that large masses of people took part in the events. But no such mass movement can last too long. A peasant (and in any case, it was the peasants who made up the bulk of the participants) cannot turn into a free Cossack for life, his hands are adapted to the plow, plow and scythe, and not to the saber and flail. The horse for him is working cattle, and not a living element of combat equipment. Civil War gradually withered away.

The forces of order that arose against the background of this general fatigue turned out to be, as often happens, rather conservative. It is impossible not to admire the courage, dedication and honesty of Minin and Pozharsky. But the pre-revolutionary historians were right in emphasizing the conservative direction of their activities. The public mood was answered by the reproduction of those orders that existed before the turmoil. It was not for nothing that the second militia, having resumed minting coins, embossed on it the name of the long-dead Tsar Fedor - the last of the kings, whose legitimacy was beyond suspicion for everyone.

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

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

2.5 Mikhail Romanov

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

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

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

So, the Romanovs arranged for everyone. Perhaps, in order to consolidate the country, restore public harmony, the country needed not bright personalities, but people capable of calmly and persistently pursuing a conservative policy. The healthy conservatism of the government of the first Romanovs made it possible to gradually restore the economy, state power, with some losses (Smolensk, the coast of the Gulf of Finland, etc.) to restore the state territory. After so many missed opportunities, a conservative reaction must have been inevitable. And yet another possibility again turned out to be unfulfilled. In electing Michael to the throne, the council did not accompany its act with any treaty. Power acquired an autocratic-legitimate character.

However, obscure information has been preserved about some record that Mikhail Fedorovich gave upon accession to the throne. Was it a repetition of Shuisky's recording? According to other sources, it was an obligation to rule only with the help of Zemsky Sobors. Indeed, until 1653 Zemsky Sobors met regularly, they were really representative and, at least a little, but limited the autocratic power.

The costs of appeasement were great. A stable, but purely traditional life has come. Many of those who were agitated by the whirlwind of turbulent events, the dynamism of change, frequent communication with foreigners, now felt stuffy. Their disappointment poured out sometimes in ugly forms. So, Prince Ivan Andreevich Khvorostinin, who served under False Dmitry I, drank without waking up, not observing fasts, kept “Latin” (i.e., Catholic) icons and complained that “there are no people in Moscow: all people are stupid, there is no one to live with They sow the earth with rye, but they all live on a lie." The prince was twice exiled to monasteries, the last stay in the northern Kirillo-Belozersky monastery somewhat cooled his ardor, and he wrote a completely orthodox history of the Time of Troubles. How many such disappointed, drunken talents, forced conformists tediously pulled the service strap and sadly recalled their stormy youth! Only their grandchildren became guard officers and shipbuilders, prosecutors and governors... The modernization of the country was delayed for almost a century. Serfdom was consolidated, finally fixed in the Code of 1649. Only terrible and cruel riots - urban uprisings, Razin's campaigns reminded of the high price paid by the people for appeasement.

But if the modernization of the country nevertheless began at the end of the century, then the elements of the rule of law, the sprouts of which were born in the Time of Troubles, were forgotten for a long time.

3. Results and consequences of the Troubles

Before ruling class Thus, a whole complex of priority and long-term internal and external tasks has objectively arisen. Firstly, to restore and strengthen state power, secondly, to put an end to intervention and pursue an active foreign policy, thirdly, to promote the development of the country's productive forces, and fourthly, to ensure the development and strengthening of feudal relations.

On February 21, 1613, the Zemsky Sobor voted for the preservation of the autocratic system and traditional orders. The Romanov dynasty ascended the throne under the slogans of antiquity and order. The facelessness of Mikhail played into the hands of the boyars. Some historians assess the situation of the period of Mikhail's election as a unique opportunity to turn Russia's development towards more decisive modernization, towards the rule of law. But this path did not meet the expectations of the majority of the people, for whom unlimited autocracy and the pacification of the boyars were a guarantee against the arbitrariness of the feudal lords. The masses wanted equal disenfranchisement for all. The repetition of the Time of Troubles and anarchy terrified me. Salvation was seen in antiquity and Orthodoxy. For the first time in Russian history, the Time of Troubles drew wider sections of the population into political life.

Thus, the Romanov dynasty, which ruled the country for more than 300 years, was established in Russia.

One of the heroic episodes of Russian history belongs to this time. The Polish detachment tried to capture the newly elected tsar, looking for him in the Kostroma estates of the Romanovs. But the headman of the village of Domnina, Ivan Susanin, not only warned the king about the danger, but also led the Poles into impenetrable forests. The hero died from Polish sabers, but also killed the gentry who got lost in the forests.

The Time of Troubles in Russia is over.

Effects.

The Time of Troubles was not so much a revolution as a severe shock to the life of the Muscovite state. The first, immediate and most difficult consequence of it was the terrible ruin and desolation of the country; in the descriptions of rural areas under Tsar Michael, many empty villages are mentioned, from which the peasants "ran away" or "descended to no one knows where", or were beaten by "Lithuanian people" and "thieves' people". In the social composition of society, the Time of Troubles further weakened the strength and influence of the old well-born boyars, which, in the storms of the Time of Troubles, partly died or were ruined, and partly morally degraded and discredited themselves by their intrigues and their alliance with the enemies of the state.

As for the political, the time of troubles - when the Earth, having gathered its strength, itself restored the destroyed state - showed with its own eyes that the Moscow state was not the creation and "patrimony" of its sovereign, but was a common cause and common creation"of all cities and all ranks of the people of the entire great Russian Kingdom."

Conclusion

At the end of the work, I would like to briefly summarize the material studied in the course of writing the term paper.

Trouble in the 17th century as a key event in Russian history is put by researchers in the same historical row with the calling of the Varangians, the formation of Kievan Rus and the Muscovite state. The origin of the Time of Troubles is associated with the extinction of the Rurik dynasty.

Russia at the beginning of the 17th century was in a state of deep civilizational crisis, which matured in the country after the reign of Ivan the Terrible and manifested itself in dynastic, political and economic crises. The Time of Troubles brought several development alternatives to the country and raised new questions: about the legitimacy of power, about imposture. After the Time of Troubles, the state and the sovereign were no longer perceived as a single entity, the state is "the people of the Muscovite state", and the tsars can be newcomers.

List of used literature

Peasant wars of Russia in the 17th-18th centuries; problems, searches, solutions, M., 1974.

Skrynnikov R.G. Russia at the beginning of the 17th century "Trouble". M., 1988, p. 44.

Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history. M., 1993, book 2, p. 176.

5. shpora.panweb.com/158/2844

6. http://www.zakroma.narod.ru/

7. N.M. Karamzin. History of the Russian state, M., "Eksmo", 2003, v.11-12.

8. Zimin A.A. On the eve of thunderstorms. M., 1986.

9. Dictionary living Great Russian language V. Dahl in electronic version.

10. Vasetsky N.A. Pretenders as a Phenomenon of Russian Life //. Science in Russia. - 1995 - No. 3. – pp.57-63.

11. Denikin A.I. / General /. Essays on the Russian Time of Troubles.//Questions of History. 1994 - No. 10 - p. 99.

12. Bratkevich Y. Troubles in Russia: attempts at estimates and forecasts / / Polis - 1994 - No. 6 - pp. 32-41.

13. Platonov O. Lectures on Russian history.

14. Denikin A.I. Essays on the Russian Time of Troubles.//Questions of History. - 1992. - No. 1. - pp. 101-118.