Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
There is no HTML version of the work yet.
You can download the archive of the work by clicking on the link below.
Similar documents
History of the Fatherland from ancient times to the present day
DocumentM., 1961-76; Domesticstory. Story Russia from the most ancienttimesbefore 1917. Encyclopedia... 1-3-, M., 1996-97-; Story Siberia from the most ancienttimesbeforeourdays, vol. 1-2, L., 1968-69; Story THE USSR. WITH the most ancienttimesbeforeourdays, t. 1-11, M., ...
-
Shcherbatov. "Russian History". The main culprits of the Troubles were servicemen who wanted to hide the peasants. Hence the disruption of order. B.G. is smart, hardworking, but cunning and evil. False Dmitry - similar virtues, but loves luxury and entertainment too much.
Karamzin ( History of Russian Goverment ) called the Troubles a terrible and absurd result of “depravity” prepared by the tyranny of Ivan the Terrible and the “Uglich murder” organized by Boris Godunov. During the Time of Troubles, writes N.M. Karamzin, the people recognized their strength and “played” with the kings, realizing that they could be elected by his power. Internal enemies carried out outrages in Russia, but they were directed by external enemies, i.e. Poles.
Soloviev ( History of Russia since ancient times ). He put forward the decline in the morality of the people and the development of the Cossacks as the causes of the unrest. Solovyov S.M. saw in the events of the 17th century. a violent break in the organic course of Russian history. In his opinion, after the “turmoil” the movement resumed along the “legal” path, from those borders where in the 16th century. The Rurikovichs stopped. Historian S.M. Solovyov considered the cause of the Russian Troubles to be the struggle between social and anti-social elements, the struggle of zemstvo people, property owners, who benefited from maintaining peace, with the so-called Cossacks, people who separated their interests from the interests of society.
IN. Klyuchevsky(Course of Russian History) for the first time developed an integral concept of the Russian Troubles as the result of a complex social crisis. The reason for it was the painful mood of the people after the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible and the suppression of the Rurik dynasty, and the cause of the Time of Troubles was “the very structure of the state with its heavy tax basis and the uneven distribution of state duties”
Kostomarov, N.I.. (The Time of Troubles of the Moscow State at the beginning of the 17th century) N.I. Kostomarov considered the cause of the Time of Troubles to be the desire of the Catholic Church and Poland to subjugate Russia.
S. F. Platonov ( Essays on the history of the Time of Troubles in the Moscow State of the 16th–17th centuries ) saw the origins of the Troubles in the reign of Ivan the Terrible, who, through unreasonable internal policies, led Moscow society to division into warring groups. The object of hostility was land - the main capital of the country. The unsuccessful Livonian War increased general discontent and accelerated the ferment that ended in the Time of Troubles.
The cause of the Troubles was seen in several factors. One of the main ones was the peculiarities of the formation of the Russian state, created both through the peaceful annexation of appanage principalities and through the forcible seizure of foreign territories. Differences in the political, economic and social structure of different parts of the state became the cause of the upheavals of the Time of Troubles. In the time under study, the researcher identified several periods: 1 - the struggle for the Moscow throne; 2 - destruction of state order, “social turmoil”; 3 - attempts to restore state order, “struggle for nationality.”
Platonov saw the results of the Time of Troubles only in the social sphere: the complete defeat of the old nobility, the formation of a new palace nobility from the middle strata, the defeat of the free Cossacks and the establishment of a serf system.
Soviet historians revised the concept of the Time of Troubles, highlighting the class struggle.
M.N. Pokrovsky believed that there was a powerful explosion of class struggle in Russia, in other words, a peasant revolution, and the appearance of impostors was caused by internal reasons, and not just by Polish intervention.
I. E. Zabelin viewed the Troubles as a struggle between herd and national principles. The representative of the herd principle was the boyars, who sacrificed national interests for the sake of their own privileges.
A.A. Zimin tried to prove that the peasant war lasted in Russia from 1603 to 1614. His periodization received recognition in Soviet historical literature.
Interpreting the events of the Time of Troubles solely as a “peasant revolution,” Marxist historians rejected the very term “Troubles.” M.V. Nechkina stated that this term was adopted in noble and bourgeois historical literature, “emerged in counter-revolutionary circles and contains a negative assessment of the revolutionary movement.” The concept of “Troubles” was supplanted for a long time by the formulation “peasant war under the leadership of Bolotnikov,” which was reflected in the works of Pokrovsky, Smirnov, Grekov, Sakharov, Koretsky and others.
Boris Godunov (1598–1605). Karamzin reports that the first two years of his reign were the best in all of Russian history. A decree was issued to restore the peasants' exit on St. George's Day, schools were built, the free sale of alcoholic beverages was prohibited to combat drunkenness, contacts with Western Europe expanded, from where officials, artisans and doctors began to come to Russia to serve. The reason for the fall of the Godunov dynasty N.M. Karamzin considers external circumstances, i.e. famine 1601–1603 Klyuchevsky also agrees with Karamzin’s assessment, adding that Godunov gained enormous popularity in the country thanks to his concerns for the poor and beggars. Platonov draws attention to the fact that under Godunov, Western customs became widespread, which the head of the Russian church, Patriarch Job, did not like, but he did not dare to oppose it, seeing the tsar’s support for this. Kostomarov also drew attention to this feature of Godunov’s policy, noting that none of the previous Russian rulers was as kind to foreigners as Boris Godunov. Solovyov believes that Godunov, with his balanced policy towards all segments of the population, “brought upon himself the indignation of the boyar class, who expected privileges from Godunov, but did not receive them. Skrynnikov also shares a similar point of view on the pro-Western nature of Godunov’s policy; Godunov showed great interest in Europe, and therefore there were more foreigners in Russia under him than ever before. False Dmitry I (1605–06), who replaced Godunov, made the course even more aimed at rapprochement with Europe. So Karamzin reports that the Pretender, convinced of the superiority of Europe, convinced Russian people to go to study in Europe, restructured the activities of the Boyar Duma following the example of the Polish Sejm and promised that he would rule in a European way, through mercy. Soloviev claims that False Dmitry I issued two decrees that alleviated the situation of slaves and serfs. The first limited the spread of indentured servitude, and the second spoke about the prohibition of returning fugitive peasants to their owners if they could not feed the peasants during famine. Kostomarov adds that under False Dmitry I everyone was given the right to freely travel abroad and return to Russia. The impostor, according to Kostomarov, said that he did not want to embarrass anyone and that his domain would be free. The British noted that False Dmitry I was the first sovereign in Europe who made his state so free. During the six months of his reign, all goods in Moscow became so cheaper that they became available to all those who previously did not have the opportunity to buy them. Thus, Kostomarov believes that the impostor was a man who called Russian society to a new life. He spoke to the Russian people with the voice of freedom, declared complete religious tolerance and declared war on the old Russian way of life. At the same time, False Dmitry I showed by personal example the new European way of life, thereby reminiscent of Peter I, but he tried to act without coercion. Karamzin wrote about Vasily Shuisky (1606–1610) that he wanted good for the fatherland, but even more wanted to please the Russians. Therefore, instead of the old tradition, when the people give the king an oath of allegiance, he himself gave the people an oath to serve him faithfully, not to execute anyone without trial, not to take away property from the relatives of the executed and not to believe slanderers. According to Karamzin, in this way Shuisky wanted to surpass False Dmitry I in his love of freedom, so there was greater freedom in judgment about the tsar, who began to be perceived as a half-tsar. In this regard, Klyuchevsky notes that the reign of Vasily Shuisky constituted an era in Russian history, since it was the first experience of creating a limited monarchy in Russia. In matters of public administration, Shuisky put the solution to the peasant question in the first place. In 1607 he canceled Godunov’s decree on allowing peasants to move on St. George’s Day, and in 1609 – the decree on slaves from 1607, which resulted in their complete enslavement. At the same time, Golovatenko believes that Shuisky’s accession did not bring peace to Russia, since those social forces that came into motion during the struggle of False Dmitry I with Godunov were counting on more serious changes than the division of powers between the Tsar and the Boyar Duma. As for the invitation of the Seven Boyars to the Russian throne of Vladislav, Karamzin reports that his attempt to ascend the throne was accompanied by the same restrictions as the reign of Shuisky, i.e. was evidence of the desire to reform Russia according to the European model by creating a limited monarchy in it, which involved resolving all issues jointly with the Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Sobor.
Studying the history of Russia in the period from 1598 to 1613, marked by natural disasters, Polish-Swedish intervention, severe political, economic, government and social crises. Conditions conducive to the Troubles and its consequences.
presentation, added 12/26/2012
A study of the causes of the Time of Troubles - a period in Russian history from 1598 to 1613, marked by natural disasters, Polish-Swedish intervention, and a severe political, economic, state and social crisis. The reign of Boris Godunov.
test, added 09/11/2010
Time of Troubles- a period in the history of Russia, which was characterized by the weakness of state power and disobedience of the outskirts to the center, imposture, civil war, intervention and the great devastation of the Muscovite kingdom. Main events and results of the Troubles.
presentation, added 03/28/2012
The beginning of the Troubles, the rise to power of Boris Godunov and the exile of the boyars. The reasons for the emergence of imposture, False Dmitry I. Vasily Shuisky, Bolotnikov’s uprising. Assessment of the period of unrest by Russian and Soviet historians. Reasons for the Polish-Swedish intervention.
abstract, added 01/12/2012
The Time of Troubles is an interdynastic period in the history of Russia in 1598-1613: natural disasters; Polish-Swedish intervention; political, economic, state and social crises. Seven Boyars; civil uprising. Consequences of the Time of Troubles.
presentation, added 11/25/2012
XVII century - the century of crisis of the Muscovite kingdom, which was characterized by a political struggle for power, Polish-Swedish intervention, national liberation movements during the Time of Troubles and the accession to the royal throne of a new royal dynasty - the Romanovs.
course work, added 09/18/2008
Events in the history of Russia in the 17th century. Characteristics of the Polish-Swedish intervention as an attempt by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to establish its dominance over Russia during the Time of Troubles. Activities of the first and second militia. The beginning of the reign of the Romanov dynasty.
Municipal budgetary educational institution
"Staritsa secondary school"
Research on the topic
“The Time of Troubles in the Assessments of Historians and Historical Songs”
(History section)
Yatsenko Anna,
8a grade student
Supervisor:
Klimova Vera Viktorovna,
history and social studies teacher
Staritsa, 2014
Work plan
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………3
ChapterI.
Historical songs as a historical source…………………..5
ChapterII.
The Time of Troubles is a tragic period in the history of Russia…………7
ChapterIII. Heroes of Troubles………………………………………………………9
§ 1. “The Robber Godun’s Son”…………………………………………………9
§ 2. “Evil Undressed Grishka Otrepiev”………………………………………………………..12
§ 3. Saviors of the Fatherland………………………………………………………16
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...19
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………..21
Introduction
In the first years of the 17th century, the Moscow state experienced a terrible shock that shook its deepest foundations. This period is known in national history under the name "Troubles", or "Time of Troubles".
Signs of the Troubles appeared after the death of the last king of the Rurik dynasty, Fyodor Ioannovich, the son of Ivan the Terrible. The Troubles ended in Moscow at the beginning of 1613, when representatives of the estates, who gathered at the Zemsky Sobor, elected the founder of the new dynasty, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, to the throne.
Thus, the years from 1598 to 1613 are considered to be the Troubled Period of our history, during which Boris Godunov (1598-1605), Fyodor Godunov (April-June 1605), False Dmitry I (1605- 1606), Vasily Shuisky (1606-1610), Seven Boyars (1610-1613) - representatives of the boyars who invited the Polish heir, Prince Vladislav, to the throne. Among the persistent contenders for the throne are False Dmitry II, who fought with Vasily Shuisky, and some other little-known impostors. The rulers were on the throne for a short time, the throne was occupied precariously.
The fragility of the succession to the throne was felt by the people. The throne was obtained by deception, lies, and excessive lust for power.
Historian R.G. Skrynnikov calls the Time of Troubles a “civil war,” which was caused by two reasons: the mysterious suppression of an ancient dynasty and then its artificial resurrection in the person of the first impostor. During the Time of Troubles, various factors and elements of historical phenomena appear in a wide variety of combinations: civil war, foreign intervention, anti-feudal struggle, the war of the Cossacks with the centralizing policy of the state, the struggle within the ruling class - all this multifaceted nature complicates the analysis of the Time of Troubles.
Contemporaries and historians have repeatedly tried to comprehend the essence and significance of the Troubles. Opinions in assessing historical events are often polar, but in the Time of Troubles all researchers are unanimous in one thing: the Time of Troubles is a tragedy for Russia. The people inspired by Dmitry Pozharsky and Kuzma Minin acted as the savior of the Fatherland. History and folk tradition have forever united these two names, and as a symbol of this inseparability, national unity, there is a monument to them on Red Square of the Moscow Kremlin, and on November 4, Russia celebrates National Unity Day.
The people also contributed to the fact that in the records of the early 17th century. Historical songs have reached us relating to all the main moments of the Troubles. These songs also preserve traces of the people's assessment of events.
Relevance This study is obvious: analysis of historical, especially tragic, experience can never be useless; The events of the 17th century turned out to be connected with modernity, the memory of their bright end is marked by a holiday. The role of the individual in history is still relevant; it is useful to trace the line of behavior of historical figures, dictated by personal qualities, objective circumstances in which a person becomes a pawn, a puppet in the wrong hands, a hero, an author or a performer. It is interesting to study the events and heroes of the era on the basis of a unique historical source - historical songs. Why were historical songs chosen as a source, since they can be accused of subjectivism, partiality, and fantasy? But the authors of studies can also be biased and subjective, and comparing the opinions of researchers and popular judgments can help to comprehend the truth. It is also important that historical songs are a collective opinion, the result of experience.
Purpose The work is covering the events of the Time of Troubles, studying the images of heroes based on a comparison of the assessments of historians and historical songs.
Tasks research:
Determine the essence of the Time of Troubles as a historical era;
Present the features of historical songs as a historical source;
To trace the character of the individual, the specifics of the activities of the leading characters of the period and the reflection of these aspects in historical songs;
Compare the assessments of historians and the position of the authors of historical songs.
The topic of the Time of Troubles worried contemporaries, historians, and creative people; evidence of this is the drama of A.S. Pushkin's "Boris Godunov", opera by M.P. Mussorgsky "Boris Godunov". The work is based on the analysis of research by classical historians (N.M. Karamzin, N.I. Kostomarov, V.O. Klyuchevsky), modern educational literature (N.I. Pavlenko, I.L. Andreev, L.M. Lyashenko and others), monographic works (R.G. Skrynnikov), historical songs.
ChapterI. Historical songs as a historical source
Sources define historical songs as “epic Russian folk songs (poems), the content of which is historical events, uniquely refracted in folklore transmission.” Historical songs are familiar to all peoples; they were also created in the Slavic environment; this is an integral part of their culture.
The geography of song creation is quite wide, but most of them are composed in the northern part of Russia. Perhaps because here, for example, in the Arkhangelsk and Olonets provinces there was no serfdom, people lived freely, allowed themselves to fearlessly express their emotions and think out loud.
Who became the heroes of these works? Genuine historical characters are why songs are called historical. Of course, these are well-known characters in the history of the state; they belonged to various social strata, including Ivan the Terrible, Ermak Timofeevich, Stepan Razin, Boris Godunov and many others. The songs tell not only about specific people, but also about important historical events that left an indelible mark on the people's memory, for example, the Streltsy revolt of the time of Peter the Great. Typically, historical songs trace two main thematic lines: military and social. The first includes, for example, songs about wars and commanders, for example, A.V. Suvorov, for the second - songs about Stepan Razin and Emelyan Pugachev.
The songs are interesting for their content, and the content is not a list of facts, but necessarily their interpretation, an expression of attitude towards events and characters. The deep meaning in the songs is that it was a way to express their feelings for the Motherland, worries about its fate, compassion for the martyrs, and admiration for the heroes. The general character of all historical songs is pronounced patriotism and love for Russia.
The historical song reaches its culmination in the 17th-18th centuries, this is the heyday of the Cossack freemen, the time of expression of free will, although still not realized.
The main advantage of a historical song is a reflection of the essence of the era, its color, uniqueness, and originality. Songs are called epics, which means they must contain a well-thought-out narrative. “The epic character is manifested in the story of events that are depicted objectively, but without a clear recording of events, life historical characters. The songs contain symbolism, hyperbole, emotional and evaluative elements, national identity, and a kind of mentality. N.V. Gogol introduced the concept of “historical song” into Ukrainian folklore in his article “On Little Russian Songs” (1833). He points out the defining feature of this genre: “They do not break away from life for a moment and ... always correspond to the present state of feelings.” Among the features of historical songs it is also worth noting: showing important social events and historical figures; short story about them; the presence of outdated words and expressions; strophic or couplet construction."
Some comparison of historical songs with epics is appropriate. But if epics are works of the “large form genre,” then historical songs are smaller in volume than epics. Songs are similar to epics in terms of fluency of speech, but differ in the greater dynamism of the narrative; events in them develop faster. Sometimes the plot in them comes down to one event or even an episode. The story is often devoid of developed descriptions and so-called epic rituals: narrative decoration, constant formulas, slowdowns, stable beginnings and endings, although some of their types are included in historical songs from epics. At the center of the event are usually the people's struggle for independence and their socio-political struggle. “Due to their specific historical nature, historical songs reflect the movement of history, as it is perceived folk art". At the center of the event are usually the people's struggle for independence and their socio-political struggle.
The value of historical songs lies not only in the fact that they tell about the past, but also in the fact that they were often composed soon after past events. Some songs could have been composed by participants or witnesses of events, “... the subject of historical songs is modern history, and not the more or less distant past,” writes B.N. Putilov. And further: “A historical song does not refer to the past, it lives in the present.” But time passes, and for subsequent generations the events and persons depicted in the song become history. The transmission of a song from generation to generation is accompanied by a weakening of the correct reproduction of events and persons, and sometimes even the spirit of the times. She sometimes allows inaccurate interpretations of events and assessments of the actions of historical figures, since she does this from the point of view of modern times. Fiction plays a significant role in the creative process. But in historical songs it does not have the character of fantasy. The historical song, unlike the epic, does not use increased hyperbolization.
An important feature of historical songs is that in them the people act or are present at the events, who sometimes express their attitude to these events. Finally, they often contain explanations of events and behavior of characters. Researchers also note the manifestation of acute journalisticism, especially in songs of such socially tense periods as the Time of Troubles.
Thus, in the study of historical events, one cannot neglect such a source as historical songs; in combination with other sources, they help to comprehend the meaning and significance of the historical past.
ChapterII. The Time of Troubles is a tragic period in the history of Russia
“The disasters of the Time of Troubles shook the mind and soul of the Russian people. Contemporaries blamed everything on the damned impostors who poured out of the bag onto the country. The impostors were seen as Polish henchmen, an instrument of foreign intervention. But that was only a half-truth. The ground for imposture was prepared not by Russia's neighbors, but by a deep internal illness that struck Russian society", notes R.G. Skrynnikov.
A time of troubles like any other historical event or phenomenon, has its causes. Agreeing with the position of R.G. Skrynnikov, the causes of the Troubles should be sought not outside of society, but within it, and external circumstances were only a catalyst for internal events. Foreigners, seeing the instability of Russia's internal political situation, wanted to take advantage of it to realize their goals.
On what historical time scale did the causes of the Troubles mature? The starting point could be considered 1584 - the year of the death of Ivan IV the Terrible and the dynastic crisis that arose in connection with this: Ivan IV did not leave a strong successor. But the causes of a phenomenon mature on the basis of prerequisites. R.G. Skrynnikov calls the oprichnina, which divided the nobility in two and set one half against the other, a prerequisite for the Troubles.
Were deep political reasons Troubles. Finally, during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, they were shaken, according to V.O. Klyuchevsky, “spiritual bonds of society” are moral and religious feelings. Extrajudicial executions and disgraces normalized violence and arbitrariness. Human blood was shed with extraordinary ease; servility, dexterity and unscrupulousness were valued. It is no coincidence that all the main characters of the Troubles, in one way or another, went through the school of the oprichnina.”
The prologue to the Troubles was the events of 1591, which we present in the presentation of S.F. Platonov. “On May 15, 1591, at noon, the prince’s mother, running out of her chambers in response to a scream, found her son in the courtyard of the Uglitsky Palace with a mortal wound in his throat. In a frenzy, Queen Marya accused Bityagovsky [royal official, clerk] of the death of the prince. The people who came running killed Bityagovsky. The event was reported to Moscow. From there, very soon an investigative commission arrived in Uglich, headed by the patriarchal vicar (Metropolitan Gelasius of Krutitsa) and the Duma boyar, Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky. Having examined the case, the commission reported to Moscow that the prince and his peers were playing with a knife with a knife, at that time the usual attack of epilepsy came upon him, the prince, in convulsions, stumbled upon the knife and inflicted an unexpected mortal wound on himself. The clergy headed by the patriarch and the boyars, after listening to the report of the commission, accused the Nagikhs of arbitrariness and exiled them, and Queen Marya was tonsured as a nun, and the Uglichites were also punished. The prince was buried in Uglich near the cathedral church. Popular rumor did not believe the Tsarevich’s accidental suicide and repeated the accusations that the Tsarevich’s mother had made at the moment of his death. Boris Godunov was quietly named as the main culprit of the crime. They thought that Boris sent assassins to the prince and wanted to kill him in every possible way so that he himself could become king after the death of childless Fyodor.”
Popular opinion is more categorical.
...The dog was raised - a damask knife,
He fell neither on the water nor on the ground,
He fell on the prince's white chest,
Is it that Tsarevich Dimitri
They killed Tsarevich Dimitri,
They killed him on Uglishi,
On Uglishi for games.
The historical song “The Death of Tsarevich Dmitry” does not present the details of the drama, but the death of the royal heir is called a “murder”, a planned action. Moreover, the one who planned this murder is also named, with an explanation of the motives for the insidious plan - to seize the throne.
...It’s just like in that palace on a black night
The kite has built a nest with kites!
Just like that eagle Dimitri Tsarevich,
Like that kite Boris Godunov,
Having killed the prince, he sat on the kingdom himself...
Whatever version of the causes of Dmitry’s death turns out to be correct, one thing is clear: the death of Tsarevich Dmitry, which gave rise to a lot of rumors, had tragic consequences for the entire country. Russia found impostors who tried to take the “rightful” place of the sovereign, and since the right was truly controversial, this entailed a bloody struggle in which foreigners intervened.
Events of the late XVI - early XVII centuries. became the result of a complex interweaving of various contradictions: economic, dynastic, class, spiritual and moral. All this diversity manifested itself in different ways during the course of the events of the Time of Troubles and in the actions of its heroes.
ChapterIII. Heroes of Troubles
§ 1."The Robber Godunov's Son"
Boris Godunov is the most important character in historical reality, one of the main heroes of the Time of Troubles. He took the throne not by inheritance, but by elections at the Zemsky Sobor. According to popular opinion, there was no promising start with the accession of Boris Godunov:
How our Orthodox Tsar passed away
Fedor Ivanovich. So Rosseyushka fell into villainous hands,
Villainous hands, boyar-lords...
“The story about Boris Fedorovich Godunov is a story about the lack of demand for a talented statesman. A man who made his way to the throne thanks to his family connections and business qualities, who knew several foreign languages, who had an excellent library, he hoped to establish peace and prosperity in Russia. Perhaps he even knew the ways to this, but they were suitable for ordinary times, but in late XVI- early XVII V. fate, it seemed, set out to prevent Godunov’s hopes from coming true. Instead of establishing social balance, he was forced to further enslave the peasants, instead of organizing proper industry and trade, he was forced to fight hunger and devastation in post-oprichnaya Rus', and instead of promoting enlightenment, he was forced to fight. Born to build, teach and learn, being alien to inertia and prejudices, this reasonable, balanced king spent all his strength fighting envy, ignorance, epidemics - and lost, dying either from a nervous breakdown or from poison. He had a wonderful gift of words and was smart.”
In such characteristics, historians clearly favor Tsar Boris, emphasizing the merits of the individual and statesman. There are other similar testimonies.
“Nature also endowed Boris with the talent of a ruler. He held power in his hands skillfully and firmly. Having gained influence and power at a time when the state was shaken and devastated by the oprichnina and heavy wars, Godunov directed all his abilities to calm the country and improve its well-being. According to contemporaries, he achieved significant success in this matter. Under him, trade increased, arrears decreased, and the royal treasury was filled. Instead of executions and orgies in Grozny, there was silence and calm, people “began to be consoled from their former sorrow and live quietly and serenely.” Attributing such grace to the holy prayers of Tsar Feodor, the Russian people gave justice to the talents of Boris Godunov. They unanimously praised him as a skillful ruler." This characteristic of S.F. Platonov is interesting not so much for its positive assessment of Godunov as for the fact that the emphasis here is on the opinion of his contemporaries. But it is in this case that not everything is so simple, including the assessment of contemporaries.
The rise of Boris Godunov begins with the accession of Fyodor Ioannovich (1584). Immediately after the crowning of Fyodor, Boris tried to strengthen his financial position, received the title of a neighbor of the sovereign's boyar and the title of governor of the kingdoms of Kazan and Astrakhan. Boris was closest to the Tsar, since he was the brother of the Tsar's wife Irina.
The boyars could not come to terms with the rise of Boris Godunov: he seemed to them both young and not noble enough (albeit ancient, but from the modest Tatar family of Murza-Chet). And the opinion of the people on this matter is as follows, and it differs from the opinion of the historian:
This Godun has already deceived all the boyars.
The crazy Rosseyushka has already decided to rule,
He took possession of all of Russia and began to reign in Moscow.
Having consolidated his position in power, Godunov became the sovereign's regent.
Godunov’s victory was greatly facilitated by the fact that he had military force- “yard” and, above all, “yard” Streltsy orders, which guarded the Kremlin.
All these facts confirm the presence of prudence in Godunov’s personality, perhaps a penchant for intrigue in order to strengthen his position. “All the goals of his activity tended towards his own interests, towards his enrichment, towards strengthening his power, towards the elevation of his family. What is undeniable is that he took over a country that was in a very difficult situation. He maintained good peaceful relations with his neighbors, and in order to revive and develop the economy, he freed many areas from taxes for 3-5 or more years. Godunov also tried to develop Russian industry, eliminate the arbitrariness of local authorities, and provided trade benefits to foreigners.
Attracts attention from the point of view of a special event of its kind, which happened back in the reign of Feodor, but in which the role of Boris Godunov is indisputable, the visit to Moscow of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which led to a certain influx of Greeks of spiritual rank in the Moscow state, to a greater rapprochement with the Orthodox East, and in ultimately the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia. An event unprecedented in its significance: the Russian Orthodox Church became independent, independent (1589).
He calculated that at first it was necessary to win over the people, teach them to love themselves and obey themselves. For this purpose, he freed the rural people from taxes for one year, and foreigners from paying yasak. Boris gave all trading people the right to duty-free trade for two years, and at the same time gave service people an annual salary. In Novgorod he closed the taverns. Showing himself to be a guardian of morality, Boris pursued disorderly drunkenness, which pleased good people. Those in prison received freedom, those disgraced by the previous reign were given forgiveness; widows, orphans, and the needy received help from the king's generosity. There were no executions. Boris did not even punish thieves and robbers with death.
Tsar Boris did not deserve high praise for his activities among the people, because in the people’s memory he forever remained a cursed murdering tsar, a “robber” who deviated from the Orthodox commandments:
...He has already obtained the kingdom by the death of the king,
To the death of the glorious, holy king
Dimitri the Tsarevich.
How the robber Godunov’s son gathered for himself,
Gathered cursed people, evil robbers,
Having gathered them, he gave them a cursed speech:
“You are robbers, brave fellows,
You go, you kill Tsar Dmitry!
You will come and tell me whether the king was killed.
If you serve me this service, I will serve you
gold and silver."
The people are damned, the robbers are evil,
Let's go to a holy place, to Uglich - a glorious city,
The young prince, Saint Dmitry, was already killed there;
They came and told Boris Godun,
When Boris heard it, he rejoiced in evil...
Only in the first years did Boris's reign proceed peacefully and calmly. Despite Boris's generosity, he was not loved. Distrust in Boris was even caused by the fact that Tsarina Irina, Godunov’s sister, could not give birth to an heir to Tsar Fedor and was called to her to treat “heretics” (English doctors).
Thus, the personality is interpreted ambiguously, and the assessments are quite polar: an immoral intriguer, a talented politician who was not lucky enough to become the pacifier of the state, power-hungry, two-faced.
The opinion of N.M. is interesting. Karamzin about the personality and results of Godunov’s reign: “He (Boris) was not, but he was a tyrant, he was not inactive, but he was evil, eliminating his partners or executing his ill-wishers. If for a time Godunov established the state, for a time elevated it in the opinion of Europe, then was it not he who plunged it into the abyss of almost unheard-of misfortune - he handed it over to the Poles and vagabonds as a prey.”
“Only one had a drawback: he had an indomitable desire for power and attempted to kill the kings who came before him, and therefore accepted retribution,” noted in the chronicle book of S. Shakhovsky. People in whispers continued to accuse Boris of murdering the royal child Dmitry. A trail of suspicion regarding the murder (?) of Tsarevich Dmitry that he “ordered” followed Boris throughout his entire life.
The people awarded him another name - “villain”:
...He, the villain, reigned for exactly seven years...
The fact that Boris Godunov was one of the leaders of the oprichnina policy of Ivan the Terrible was not forgotten, he was married to the daughter of the oprichnina No. 1 Malyuta Skuratov, that is, he was fed and raised in an environment of hypocrisy, anger, and cruelty.
Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov (4 (16) May 1817, Yurasovka Voronezh province-- April 7 (19), 1885) - public figure, historian, publicist and poet, corresponding member of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, author of the multi-volume publication “Russian History in the Lives of Its Figures”, researcher of the socio-political and economic history of Russia , especially the territory modern Ukraine, called Kostomarov's southern Russia and southern region.
Kostomarov's reputation as a historian, both during his life and after his death, was repeatedly subjected to strong attacks. He was reproached for his superficial use of sources and the resulting mistakes, one-sided views, and partisanship. There is some truth in these reproaches, although very small. Minor mistakes and mistakes, inevitable for any scientist, are perhaps somewhat more common in Kostomarov’s works, but this is easily explained by the extraordinary variety of his activities and the habit of relying on his rich memory.
In those few cases when partisanship actually manifested itself in Kostomarov - namely in some of his works on Ukrainian history - it was only a natural reaction against even more partisan views expressed in literature from the other side. Not always, further, the very material on which Kostomarov worked gave him the opportunity to adhere to his views on the task of a historian. A historian of the internal life of the people, according to his scientific views and sympathies, it was precisely in his works dedicated to Ukraine that he was supposed to be an exponent of external history.
Anyway, general meaning Kostomarov can, without any exaggeration, be called enormous in the development of Russian and Ukrainian historiography. He introduced and persistently pursued the idea of people's history in all his works. Kostomarov himself understood and implemented it mainly in the form of studying the spiritual life of the people. Later researchers expanded the content of this idea, but this does not diminish Kostomarov’s merit. In connection with this main idea of Kostomarov's works, he had another - about the need to study the tribal characteristics of each part of the people and create a regional history. If in modern science a slightly different view of the national character was established, denying the immobility that Kostomarov attributed to it, it was the work of the latter that served as the impetus, depending on which the study of the history of the regions began to develop.
The book of the outstanding Russian historian Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov is reproduced from the publication 1904 and talks about the Time of Troubles, when Russia, finding itself for some period without traditional legal authority, fell into a disastrous state of internal confrontation and was subjected to external and internal ruin.
“... Our troubled era has not changed anything, has not introduced anything new into state mechanism, into the structure of concepts, into everyday life public life, in morals and aspirations, nothing that, flowing from its phenomena, would move the flow of Russian life onto a new path, in a sense favorable or unfavorable for it. A terrible shake-up turned everything upside down and caused countless disasters to the people; it was not possible to recover so quickly after that Rus'... Russian history proceeds extremely consistently, but its reasonable course seems to jump over the Time of Troubles and then continues its course in the same way, in the same way as before. During the difficult period of the Troubles, there were phenomena that were new and alien to the order of things that prevailed in the previous period, but they were not repeated subsequently, and what seemed to be sown at that time did not increase afterwards.”
N.I. also studied the Troubles. Kostomarov in his work “Time of Troubles in the Moscow State at the beginning of the 17th century.” The author shares the version of the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry on the orders of Boris Godunov. “He was worried about the child Dimitri... He was born from his eighth wife... And the son born from such a marriage was not legitimate. At first, Boris wanted to take advantage of this circumstance and forbade praying for him in churches. Moreover, by order of Boris, a rumor was deliberately spread that the prince of an evil disposition enjoyed watching sheep being slaughtered.
But soon Boris saw that this would not achieve the goal: it was too difficult to convince the Moscow people that the prince was illegitimate and therefore could not lay claim to the throne: for the Moscow people, he was still the son of the king, his blood and flesh. It is clear that the Russian people recognized Dimitri’s right to reign... Boris, having tried this way and that to remove Dimitri from the future reign, became convinced that it was impossible to arm the Russians against him. There was no other choice for Boris: either to destroy Demetrius, or to expect death himself any day now. This man is already accustomed to not stopping before choosing means.” Thus, Dmitry was killed on the orders of Boris Godunov. Here Kostomarov duplicates the version of Karamzin, Solovyov and Klyuchevsky. Consequently, False Dmitry was an impostor, but Kostomarov does not associate the impostor with the name of Grigory Otrepiev. “From the time of the appearance of Demetrius, Tsar Boris fought against him in the way that could be most advantageous...: rumors gradually spread that the newly appeared Demetrius in Poland was Grishka Otrepiev, a defrocked, runaway monk from the Chudov Monastery.” Boris assured everyone that Dmitry was not in the world, but there was some kind of deceiver in Poland and he was not afraid of him. This means, according to Kostomarov, Boris did not know the true name of the impostor, and to calm the people he began to spread rumors. N.I. Kostomarov believes that the place where rumors about the impostor appeared - Polish Ukraine, which was at that time - “the promised land of daring, courage, bold undertakings and enterprise. And anyone in Ukraine who would not call himself the name of Dmitry could count on support: further success depended on the abilities and ability to conduct business.” The author notes that the intrigue arose in the head of the impostor himself, and notes that “he was a wandering Kalika, a wanderer who said that he came from the Moscow land.” The impostor was smart and cunning enough to deceive the Polish lords and use their desires in relation to Moscow to his advantage. Although the author leaves “the question of whether he (False Dmitry) considered himself the real Dmitry or was a conscious deceiver remains unresolved.”
N.I. Kostomarov believes that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth seized on the impostor with the goals of politically weakening Russia and subordinating it to the papacy. It was her intervention that gave the Troubles such a severe character and such a duration.
Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov (5 (17) May 1820, Moscow - 4 (16) October 1879, ibid.) - Russian historian; professor at Moscow University (from 1848), rector of Moscow University (1871-1877), ordinary Academician of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in the Department of Russian Language and Literature (1872), Privy Councilor.
For 30 years Solovyov worked tirelessly on “The History of Russia,” the glory of his life and the pride of Russian historical science. Its first volume appeared in 1851, and since then volumes have been published carefully from year to year. The last one, the 29th, was published in 1879, after the death of the author. In this monumental work, Solovyov showed energy and fortitude, all the more amazing because during his “rest” hours he continued to prepare many other books and articles of various contents.
Russian historiography, at the time when Solovyov appeared, had already emerged from the Karamzin period, having ceased to see its main task in merely depicting the activities of sovereigns and changes in government forms; there was a need not only to tell, but also to explain the events of the past, to grasp the pattern in the sequential change of phenomena, to discover the guiding “idea”, the main “beginning” of Russian life. Attempts of this kind were given by Polev and the Slavophiles, as a reaction to the old trend, personified by Karamzin in his “History of the Russian State.” In this regard, Solovyov played the role of a conciliator. The state, he taught, being a natural product of the people's life, is the people themselves in its development: one cannot be separated from the other with impunity. The history of Russia is the history of its statehood - not the government and its bodies, as Karamzin thought, but the life of the people as a whole. In this definition one can hear the influence partly of Hegel with his teaching about the state as the most perfect manifestation of the rational powers of man, partly of Ranke, who highlighted with particular relief the consistent growth and strength of states in the West; but even greater is the influence of the factors themselves that determined the character of Russian historical life. The predominant role of the state principle in Russian history was emphasized before Solovyov, but he was the first to indicate the true interaction of this principle and social elements. That is why, going much further than Karamzin, Solovyov could not study the continuity of government forms other than in the closest connection with society and with the changes that this continuity brought into his life; and at the same time, he could not, like the Slavophiles, oppose the “state” to the “land,” limiting himself to the manifestations of the “spirit” of the people alone. In his eyes, the genesis of both state and social life was equally necessary.
In a logical connection with this formulation of the problem is another fundamental view of Solovyov, borrowed from Evers and developed by him into a coherent doctrine of tribal life. The gradual transition of this way of life into state life, the consistent transformation of tribes into principalities, and principalities into a single state whole - this, according to Solovyov, is the main meaning of Russian history. From Rurik to the present day, the Russian historian deals with a single integral organism, which obliges him “not to divide, not to crush Russian history into separate parts, periods, but to connect them, to follow primarily the connection of phenomena, the direct succession of forms; not to separate principles, but to consider them in interaction, to try to explain each phenomenon from internal causes, before isolating it from the general connection of events and subordinating it to external influence.” This point of view had a tremendous influence on the subsequent development of Russian historiography. Previous divisions into eras, based on external signs, devoid of internal connections, have lost their meaning; they were replaced by stages of development. “The History of Russia from Ancient Times” is an attempt to trace our past in relation to the views expressed. Here is a condensed diagram of Russian life in its historical development, expressed, if possible, in Solovyov’s own words.
Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov considered the cause of the hard times to be a bad state of morality, which was the result of a clash of new state principles with the old, which manifested itself in the struggle of the Moscow sovereigns with the boyars. He saw another reason for the Troubles in the excessive development of the Cossacks with their anti-state aspirations.
This book by the historian covers events from the beginning of the reign of Fyodor Ioannovich to the liberation of Moscow from foreign invaders and the enthronement of Mikhail Romanov. It also tells about the siege of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery by the Polish-Lithuanian invaders, about the heroism and fortitude of the besieged.
About some personal qualities impostor S.M. Solovyov responded with sympathy, seeing in him talented person, misled by other people seeking to use him for their own political purposes... “False Dmitry was not a conscious deceiver. If he had been a deceiver, and not the deceived one, what would it have cost him to invent the details of his salvation and adventures? But he didn't? What could he explain? The powerful people who set him up, of course, were so careful that they did not act directly. He knew and said that some nobles saved him and protected him, but he did not know their names.” CM. Solovyov was impressed by the benevolent disposition of False Dmitry I, his intelligence in government affairs, and his passionate love for Marina Mnishek. The author was the first among historians to put forward the idea that the boyars, having nominated Grigory Otrepiev for the role of an impostor, were able to so instill in him the idea of his royal origin that he himself believed in that hoax and in his thoughts and actions did not separate himself from Tsarevich Dmitry.
Thus, according to S.M. Solovyov and N.I. Kostomarov, the Troubles began with a boyar intrigue, into which the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was drawn in, pursuing its own goals, and at the head of this intrigue, playing the role of a puppet, Grigory Otrepiev was placed under the name of Dmitry.
HISTORIANS ABOUT THE PROCESSES OF THE PERIOD IN CONSIDERATION
On the causes and essence of the Time of Troubles
“So, neither the suppression of the dynasty, nor the appearance of an impostor could in themselves serve as sufficient reasons for the Troubles; There were some other conditions that gave these events such destructive power. These real causes of the Troubles must be sought under the external reasons that caused it... The hidden causes of the Troubles are revealed by reviewing the events of the Time of Troubles in their consistent development and internal connection. Distinctive feature The Troubles is that all classes of Russian society appear in it successively, and they appear in the same order in which they lay in the then composition of Russian society, as they were placed according to their comparative importance in the state on the social ladder of ranks. At the top of this ladder stood the boyars; it started the Troubles.”
Klyuchevsky V.O. Decree. op. T.3, pp. 26 – 27
“One of these theories is presented in his “History of Russia” by S.M. Soloviev. He considers the first cause of the unrest to be the poor state of popular morality, which was the result of a clash between new state principles and old druzhina. This clash, according to his theory, was expressed in the struggle of the Moscow sovereigns with the boyars. He considers another cause of unrest to be the excessive development of the Cossacks with their anti-state aspirations. Thus, he understands the Time of Troubles as a time of struggle between the social and anti-social elements in the young Principality of Moscow, where the state order met opposition from the squadron principles and the anti-social mood of the populous Cossack environment (Ist. Russia, VII, Chapter II). K.S. holds a different view. Aksakov. Aksakov recognizes the turmoil as an accidental fact, without deep historical reasons. The Troubles were, moreover, a matter of the “state”, and not of the “land”. People of the state, not zemstvo, argued and rushed over her. During the interregnum, the state building of Russia was destroyed and finally crumbled into pieces, says Aksakov: “Under this collapsed building, a strong zemstvo structure opened up... in 1512-13. the earth rose and raised the collapsed state.” It is easy to see that this understanding of the Troubles was made in the spirit of the general historical views of K. Aksakov and that it is fundamentally opposite to the views of Solovyov. The third theory was put forward by I.E. Zabelin (“Minin and Pozharsky”); in its genesis it is a combination of the first two theories, but a very unique combination. He sees the causes of the unrest, like Aksakov, not in the people, but in the “government”, otherwise in the “boyar militia environment” (these terms are equivalent to him). The boyars and the service community in general, in the name of outdated druzhina traditions (here Zabelin takes Solovyov’s point of view), have long been seditious and preparing troubles. A century before the Troubles, the ground was created for her in the desire of the squad to rule the land and feed at its expense. The orphan people played a passive role in the troubles and saved the state at a critical moment. The people, therefore, were not to blame for the unrest, but the culprits were “the boyars and the service class.” N.I. Kostomarov (in various articles and in his “Time of Troubles”) expressed different views. In his opinion, all classes of Russian society are to blame for the turmoil, but the reasons for this violent revolution should be sought not inside, but outside of Russia. Inside, there were only favorable conditions for unrest. The reason lies in the papal power, in the work of the Jesuits and in the views of the Polish government. Pointing to the constant aspirations of the papacy to subjugate the Eastern Church and to the skillful actions of the Jesuits in Poland and Lithuania at the end of the 16th century, Kostomarov believes that they, like the Polish government, seized on the impostor with the goals of politically weakening Russia and its subordination to the papacy. Their intervention gave our troubles such a severe character and such a duration.
This last opinion is already too one-sided: the causes of the unrest undoubtedly lay as much in Moscow society itself as outside it. To a large extent, our unrest depended on random circumstances, but that it was not at all an unexpected fact for contemporaries, some of Fletcher’s testimony tells us: in 1591 he published in London his book about Russia (On the Russian Common Wealth), in which predicts things that seem completely random. In Chapter V of his book, he says: “The younger brother of the Tsar (Theodore Ivanovich), a child of six or seven years old, is kept in a remote place from Moscow (i.e. in Uglich) under the supervision of his mother and relatives from the Nagikh house. But, as we hear, his life is in danger from an assassination attempt by those who extend their ambitions to the throne in the event of the king’s childless death.” This was written and published before the death of Tsarevich Dmitry. In the same chapter, Fletcher says that “the royal family in Russia, apparently, will soon be cut short with the death of the persons currently living, and a revolution will take place in the Russian kingdom.” This news was published seven years before the end of the dynasty. In Chapter IX, he says that the cruel policy and cruel actions of Ivan IV, although they have now ceased, so shocked the state and so aroused general grumbling and irreconcilable hatred that, apparently, this should end in nothing other than a general uprising. This was printed at least 10 years before the first impostor. Thus, in the mind of an educated and observant Englishman, many years before the Troubles, an idea was formed about the abnormality of social life in Russia and the possible result of this - unrest. Moreover, Fletcher is even able to predict that the coming turmoil will end in victory not for the appanage nobility, but for the common nobility. This alone should convince us that indeed at the end of the 16th century. in Russian society the painful processes that gave the turmoil such an acute character of the general crisis were already clear.”
Platonov S.F. Lectures on Russian history. In 2 parts. Part I. – 1994. – P. 247–249.
“At the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Moscow state was experiencing a difficult and complex crisis, moral, political and socio-economic. The position of the two main classes of the Moscow population - servicemen and "taxi" people - was not easy before; but at the end of the 16th century. The situation in the central regions of the state deteriorated significantly.
With the opening for Russian colonization of the vast south-eastern spaces, the middle and lower Volga region, a wide stream of peasant population rushed here from the central regions of the state, striving to escape the sovereign and landowner “traction”, and this drain of labor led to a shortage of workers and to difficult economic crisis within the state. The more people left the center, the heavier the pressure of state and landowner taxes on those who remained. Height local land tenure gave everything large quantity peasants under the rule of the landowners, and the lack of workers forced the landowners to increase peasant taxes and duties and strive by all means to secure for themselves the existing peasant population of their estates.
The position of “full” and “bonded” slaves, of course, has always been quite difficult, and at the end of the 16th century. the number of enslaved slaves was increased by a decree, which ordered the conversion into enslaved slaves of all those previously free servants and workers who had served their masters for more than ½ year.
In the 2nd half of the 16th century. special circumstances, external and internal, contributed to the intensification of the crisis and the growth of discontent. The difficult Livonian War (which lasted 25 years and ended in complete failure) required huge sacrifices from the population in people and material means. The Tatar invasion and the defeat of Moscow in 1571 significantly increased casualties and losses. The oprichnina of Tsar Ivan, which shook and undermined the old way of life and customary relationships (especially in the “oprichnina” areas), intensified the general discord and demoralization; During the reign of Ivan the Terrible, “a terrible habit was established of not respecting the life, honor, and property of one’s neighbor” (Soloviev).
While the rulers of the old familiar dynasty, the direct descendants of Rurik and Vladimir the Saint and the builders of the Moscow state, sat on the Moscow throne, the vast majority of the population meekly and unquestioningly obeyed their “natural sovereigns.” But when the dynasty ended and the state turned out to be “nobody’s,” the earth was confused and went into ferment.”
Pushkarev S.G. Review of Russian history. – M. – 1991. – S. 151, 152.
On the impact of the Time of Troubles on relationships
society and authorities
“During the Time of Troubles, society, left to its own devices, involuntarily learned to act independently and consciously, and the idea began to arise in it that it, this society, the people, was not a political accident, as Moscow people were used to feeling, not aliens, not temporary inhabitants in whose -that state, but that such a political accident is rather a dynasty: in the 15 years following the death of Tsar Feodor, four unsuccessful attempts were made to found a new dynasty and only the fifth was successful. Next to the sovereign's will, and sometimes in its place, another one now more than once stood political force, called to action by the Time of Troubles - the will of the people, expressed in the verdicts of the Zemsky Sobor, in the Moscow people's gathering that shouted out Tsar Vasily Shuisky, in congresses of elected representatives from the cities who rose up against the thief of Tushino and the Poles. Thanks to this, the idea of a sovereign-master in Moscow's minds gradually, if not receded, was complicated by the new political idea of a sovereign - the chosen one of the people. So the basic elements began to change in consciousness, to come into a different relationship public order: sovereign, state and people. Just as before, because of the sovereign, they did not notice the state and the people and could rather imagine a sovereign without the people than a state without a sovereign, so now we have become convinced by experience that a state, at least for some time, can be without a sovereign, but neither the sovereign nor the state cannot do without the people.”
Klyuchevsky V.O. Decree. op. – T.3, – P. 64.
“But the events of the troubled times, unusual in their novelty for the Russian people and difficult in their consequences, forced our ancestors to suffer from more than just personal sorrows and think about more than just personal salvation and peace. Seeing the suffering and death of the entire earth, observing the rapid change of old political orders at hand and their own and other people's stewards, getting used to the independence of local worlds and the entire zemshchina, deprived of leadership from the center of the state, the Russian people acquired new concepts for themselves: a sense of national and religious unity grew stronger in society , a clearer picture of the state was formed. In the 16th century it was not yet conceived as a form of public life, it seemed to be the sovereign’s patrimony, and in the 17th century, according to the ideas of the Moscow people, this was already “land”, i.e. state. General benefit, a concept not entirely characteristic of the 16th century, is now in the foreground for all Russian people: they express this in a peculiar language when, in a stateless time, they are concerned about saving the state and think about what “the zemstvo cause will be useful” and “how would the zemstvo cause It was more profitable." The new power established by the “earth” of Mikhail Fedorovich fully assimilates this concept of common zemstvo benefit and is a power of a completely state nature.
These new, acquired during the turmoil, concepts of state and nationality did not change the profile and visible image of the political life of our ancestors, but resonated throughout the entire structure of life in the 17th century. and told her a color very different from the old order. Therefore, it is important for the historian to note the appearance of these concepts. If, studying the Moscow state of the 16th century, we are still arguing about whether its life can be called completely state-like, then about the 17th century. There cannot be such a dispute, because the Russian people themselves of the 17th century. they became aware of their state, internalized state ideas, and learned it precisely during the time of unrest, thanks to the novelty and importance of its events. There is no need to explain how significant the consequences of unrest in this sphere of social thought and self-awareness should be recognized.”
Platonov S.F. Lectures on Russian history. In 2 parts. Part I. 1994. – P. 345, 346.
QUESTIONS ON THE TOPIC
Try to answer the question: The Time of Troubles is a consequence reform activities Ivan the Terrible or did it begin under the influence of other reasons?
How can we explain the reasons for the election of B. Godunov at the Zemsky Sobor in February 1598, contrary to the opinion of the Boyar Duma? What were his services to Russia?
Why, just a few years after his election, rumors began to circulate among the people that B. Godunov was an illegitimate tsar and God was punishing Russia and Russians for this?
How can we explain the appearance of impostors in Russia during the Time of Troubles, who were supported by a significant part of the population?
What methods of promoting successive monarchs to the throne were tested during the Time of Troubles (using the example of B. Godunov, F. Godunov, False Dmitrievs I and II, V. Shuisky, the Polish prince Vladislav)?
What measures did the temporary monarchs take to stabilize the situation in the country, and why did the socio-political and political situation in the country, despite this, steadily worsen until the beginning of such a phenomenon as foreign intervention?
How can one explain the beginning of the first peasant war in Russian history under the leadership of I. Bolotnikov? Composition and goals of the rebels.
Why accepted first By the Zemstvo militia, “The Verdict of the Russian Land” led to discord among its participants and the collapse of the militia?
What factors influenced the success of the second Zemsky militia under the leadership of K. Minin and Prince D. Pozharsky?
How did the relationship between the bulk of the population and state power represented by monarchs change during the Time of Troubles?
What political, social, economic consequences were caused by Troubles in the life of each class and the country as a whole?
LITERATURE
Vovina, V.G. Patriarch Filaret (Fedor Nikitich Romanov) / V.G. Vovin // Questions of history. – 1991. – No. 7, 8.
Zabelin, I. General outline of the Time of Troubles / I. Zabelin // Motherland. – 1990. – No. 1.
Zimin, A.A. On the eve of terrible upheavals: Prerequisites for the first peasant war in Russia. / A. A. Zimin - M., 1986.
Morozova, L.E. Boris Fedorovich Godunov / L. E. Morozova // Questions of history. – 1998. – No. 1.
Nolte, G.G. Russian peasant wars as an uprising of the outskirts / G. G. Nolte // Questions of history. – 1994. – No. 11.
Petrukhintsev N.N. The reasons for the enslavement of peasants in Russia at the end of the 16th century. / N. N. Petrukhintsev //Questions of history. – 2004. – No. 7.
Skrynnikov, R.G. Boris Godunov. / R. G. Skrynnikov - M., 1978.
Skrynnikov, R.G. Hard times. Moscow in the XVI– XVII centuries. / R. G. Skrynnikov - M., 1988.
Skrynnikov, R.G. Russia at the beginning of the 17th century. "Troubles." / R. G. Skrynnikov - M., 1988.
Skrynnikov, R.G. Controversial issues Bolotnikov uprising / R. G. Skrynnikov // History of the USSR. – 1989. – No. 5.
Troubles in the Moscow State. Russia of the early 17th century in the notes of contemporaries. – M., 1989.
REIGN OF THE FIRST ROMANOVS
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
...from the history of Russia
WHITE LAND – lands of secular and spiritual feudal lords in the 16th – 17th centuries, which were exempt from paying state taxes.
REBEL AGE - this is what contemporaries called the 17th century, during which peasant wars took place under the leadership of I. Bolotnikov and S. Razin, the “salt” and “copper” riots, as well as many protests in cities and rural areas.
CATORGA is the peak of punishment, combining a particularly strict regime of detention with the involvement of prisoners in hard physical labor, which began to be used from the beginning of the 17th century.
ORPHANS - the name of peasants and other tax-paying people in the 16th - 17th centuries.
CHURCH SCHIPT - a split in the church during the reform of Patriarch Nikon. Raskolniki – official name supporters of the Old Believers.
...from the history of European countries
BILL OF RIGHTS 1689 - a document adopted by the English Parliament to limit the omnipotence of the king. The bill deprived the king of the right to repeal or suspend laws passed by parliament, impose taxes and raise troops without the consent of parliament. He marked the beginning of the formation of a constitutional monarchy in England.
CIVIL WAR is an extreme form of society’s struggle to choose paths further development. As a rule, it is a consequence of revolutions, for example, the English bourgeois revolution XVII century.
NEW NOBLEMS - this was the name in Europe for feudal landowners who were engaged in the production of products for sale on their estates, as well as generating income by renting out land. In terms of interests and lifestyle, they became closer to the bourgeoisie.
PURITANISM (from Lat. - “pure”) is a movement of believers in England in the 17th century for the “purification” of the faith, directed against the domination of the Catholic Church and its episcopate. Supporters of Puritanism demanded the independence of the church from royalty, collegial management of church affairs, rejection of pompous church rituals, glorified worldly asceticism, hard work, and frugality. The movement was a form of struggle against absolutism.
KEY DATES
...from the history of Russia
1613 – 1645 – The reign of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, after his election at the Zemsky Sobor and his crowning on July 11, 1613.
1613 – 1614 – Attempt Cossack chieftain I. Zarutsky and Marina Mnishek to create a special state in the lower reaches of the Volga under the protection of the Persian Shah. Their surrender to the government by the Yaik Cossacks in June 1614.
February 27 – Signing of the Stolbov “Eternal Peace”
Russia and Sweden after lengthy negotiations through
England and Holland. Russia has lost access to the Baltic Sea and
transferred to Sweden the cities of Ivan-gorod, Koporye, Yam, Oreshek.
December 1 – Conclusion of the Deulin Truce of Russia
with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth on 14.5 after the defeat of the Polish troops
Prince Vladislav. The Smolensk, Chernigov and Novgorod-Seversky lands went to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
1619–1633 – Patriarchate of Filaret, father of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, who, after returning from Polish captivity and receiving the title of Great Sovereign, became co-ruler of Tsar Mikhail.
1619 – Decree on the first land census in Russia.
1621 - Invitation to Russia from abroad of masters - “miners”. The beginning of the publication at the royal court of handwritten “Chimes”, a newspaper with translated foreign news.
1627 – Decree on equating established estates with estates.
1631 – 1632 – Formation of 12 regular regiments of the “foreign system” from “dacha” and “hunting” people.
1632, June - 1634, July - War between Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for the return of Smolensk. The conclusion of a peace treaty between Russia and Poland in the village of Semlevo, which confirmed the borders of the Deulin Truce. Refusal of Vladislav IV's claims to the Russian throne.
1634–1635 – Decrees on “fixed summers” and on extending the period of searching for runaway peasants for 10 years.
1637 – Decree increasing the period of investigation of “lesson years” to nine years.
1641 The “lesson years” were increased for runaway peasants to 10 years, for those exported by other feudal lords - to 15.
1639 - Oath of allegiance to the Russian Tsar by the Kakhetian Tsar Teimuraz.
1642, January - Zemsky Council on the fate of the captured Don Cossacks Turkish fortress Azov. Command to the Cossacks to leave Azov.
– 1676 – Reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, son of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov.
– 1647 – General census of the taxable and partly non-taxable population (according to the “living quarter”).
1646, February - Introduction of a tax on salt instead of a direct tax in the form of Yamsky and Streltsy money, and in December 1647. its cancellation due to losses in the treasury and public protests.
June – “Salt riot” in Moscow, June–December – uprising in Solvychegodek, Kursk, Voronezh, Tomsk, Narym, Surgut and other cities.
January 29 – Adoption of a new set of laws of Russia –
The Council Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, which abolished the “lesson years” and finally legally enslaved the peasants.
– 1654 – The struggle of the Ukrainian people under the leadership of B. Khmelnitsky against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
g., October – The Zemsky Sobor adopted a decision on
satisfaction of the request of B. Khmelnitsky and the Zaporozhye Army for
acceptance of the Orthodox people of Ukraine under the supreme hand of the Russian
king
g., January - Decision of the Pereyaslav Great Rada on the reunification of Ukraine with Russia.
The end of 1653 - the beginning of 1654 - the Church Council approved Nikon's reforms, which led to a church schism.
1656, April - May - Excommunication by the Church Council of heretics who did not accept Nikon's reform. The aggravation of relations between Nikon, who claims the supremacy of spiritual power over secular power, and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.
1656–1658 – The war between Russia and Sweden. Conclusion in December 1658 of a truce with Sweden for 3 years in Valiesary with the return of Konenhausen, Dorpat, Marienburg, Syrensk to Russia. In July 1661 – the conclusion of the Treaty of Kardis between Russia and Sweden with Russia’s renunciation of territorial acquisitions, the restoration of the border with Sweden according to the Treaty of Stolbovo of 1617.
1658 - Establishment of the Order of Secret Affairs under the Tsar to increase the efficiency of autocratic rule.
1660–1667 - Monetary crisis due to the minting of copper coins instead of silver.
1662–1664 – Indigenous uprising Western Siberia, Bashkiria and Kazan district against harassment during the collection of yasak.
1662, July 25 – Uprising of the “copper riot” in Moscow against the collection of the Streltsy tax and the “fifth money”.
November - 1667, January - Condemnation by the Church Council with the participation of the Ecumenical Patriarchs, Patriarch Nikon, deprivation of his patriarchal rank with exile to the Belozersky Ferapontov Monastery. Publication of royal decrees on the search and execution of schismatics - Old Believers.
g., January - Andrusovo truce of Russia with Rech
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for 13.5. Return of Smolensk and Chernigov lands to Russia, recognition of the reunification of Left Bank Ukraine with Russia.
1670 – 1671 – Peasant war led by S.T. Razin.
1672 – Embassy of Andrei Andreevich Vinius to England, France, Spain to organize a European coalition against Turkey.
1675–1677 – Unsuccessful Russian embassy led by Nikolai Spafariy to China.
1676–1682 - The reign of Fyodor Alekseevich.
1676–1681 – Russia’s war with Turkey and Crimea for right-bank Ukraine.
1677–1678 – Conducting a house-to-house census.
1679–1681 – Transition from personal taxation to household taxation.
1678, July - Treaty between Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth on the extension of the truce for 13 years, the transfer of Nevel, Sebezh and Velizh with counties to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in exchange for Kyiv.
g., January - Conclusion of the Bakhchisarai truce between
Russia, Turkey and the Crimean Khanate for 20 years, recognition
reunification of Left Bank Ukraine and Kyiv with Russia and Russian
citizenship of the Zaporozhye Cossacks.
g., January - Decree of the Boyar Duma on the abolition of localism and
the final equalization of the rights of individual categories of feudal lords.
Public burning of Class books.
1682, April - Burning in Pustoozersk of the leaders of the schism Avvakum, Lazdia, Epiphanius, Nikephoros.
Document231 Story Russia from the most ancienttimesbeforeourdays in questions and answers. A. A. Danilov In the educational... historical sciences A.A. Danilov, events covered domesticstories With the most ancienttimesbeforeourdays. The material is presented in chronological order...
