History of the Fatherland from ancient times to the present day

M., 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., ...

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

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

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

Introduction

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

Chapter 2. N.M. Karamzin

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

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

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

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

This meant “confusion of minds,” i.e. a sharp change in moral and behavioral stereotypes, accompanied by an unprincipled and bloody struggle for power, a surge of violence, the movement of various sectors of society, foreign intervention, etc., which brought Russia to the brink of a national catastrophe.

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

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

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

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

Object of course work: historiography of the Troubles.

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

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

Coursework objectives:

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

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

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

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

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

Scientists have explained the causes and nature of these tragic events in different ways.

N.M. Karamzin drew attention to the political crisis caused by the suppression of the dynasty at the end of the 16th century. and the weakening of the monarchy.

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

A more comprehensive approach was characteristic of S.F. Platonov, who defined it as a complex interweaving of the actions and aspirations of various political forces, social groups, as well as personal interests and passions, complicated by the intervention of external forces.

In Soviet historical science, the concept of “Troubles” was rejected, and the events of the early 17th century. characterized as “the first peasant war with an anti-serfdom orientation, complicated by the internal political struggle of feudal groups for power and the Polish-Swedish intervention.”

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

historiography political unrest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historians recognize the main cause of the Troubles as the people's view of the old dynasty's attitude towards the Moscow state, which made it difficult to get used to the idea of ​​an elected tsar. This is what caused the need to resurrect the lost royal family and ensured the success of attempts to restore the dynasty artificially, i.e. by imposture. An equally important factor is the very structure of the state with its heavy tax base and uneven distribution of state duties, which gave rise to social discord, as a result of which dynastic intrigue turned into socio-political anarchy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Similar documents

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

course work, added 04/28/2010


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

abstract, added 01/28/2013


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

abstract, added 01/29/2015


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

course work, added 12/01/2014


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

test, added 11/10/2010


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

abstract, added 12/03/2008


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

scientific work, added 02/05/2011


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

abstract, added 01/12/2012


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

abstract, added 02/21/2011


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

Time of Troubles 1. Discussions about the causes of the Time of Troubles 2. Boris Godunov 3. The first impostor “It was the most unfortunate period! Our Fatherland looked more like a dark forest than a state." Karamzin N. M. Homework: § 17 -18, in 4 - in pairs © Kovalkova N. N.

Know the terms: Troubles, impostors, crisis of power, seven-boyarshina Know the dates: 1601 -1613. - Time of Troubles 1605 -1606. - reign of False Dmitry I 1606 -1610. - reign of Vasily Shuisky 1606 -1607. - uprising of I. Bolotnikov 1611 - 1612 - first and second militia Know personalities: False Dmitry I, False Dmitry II, V. Shuisky, I. Bolotnikov, K. Minin, D. Pozharsky

Name the most crisis phenomena in the state under Ivan the Terrible. Explain why you highlighted these phenomena. Highlight the main semantic units of the oprichnina, arrange them graphically

Who? Ivan IV When? 1565 -1572 Method? Terror Oprichnina Contents Zemshchina Consequence Troubles Consequence Power Consequence Economics. devastation

Find the cause-and-effect relationship between oprichnina and unrest. Guess what words can replace the term “unrest”, write them down in notebooks. Assume events that could have happened at this time

Read an excerpt from the source and answer the questions From the work of the historian V. O. Klyuchevsky. ". . . The basis for it was the painful mood of the people, carried out by the people from the reign of Ivan the Terrible and strengthened by the rule of Boris Godunov. The reason for the Troubles was given by the suppression of the dynasty and subsequent attempts to restore it in the form of imposture. The root causes of the Troubles must be recognized as the people's view of the attitude of the old dynasty towards the Moscow state, which made it difficult to get used to the idea of ​​an elected tsar, and then the very structure of the state with its heavy tax basis. . . Other circumstances also contributed to the Troubles: the actions of the rulers who became heads of state after Tsar Feodor, boyar disgrace, famine, and pestilence. . . » Questions: 1. To what century of Russian history do the events described in the passage belong? 2. What did the historian mean when he spoke about the suppression of the dynasty and the election of a king? 3. Based on the text of the document and knowledge from the history course, name the main causes of the Troubles.

What was the alternative for the development of the country after the death of Ivan IV? Was the Troubles natural?

Boris Godunov From the family of Kostroma nobles Godunov. He was raised by his uncle, guardsman D.I. Godunov. Since 1570 he has been married to Malyuta Skuratov’s daughter Maria. In 1578, he married his sister Irina to Tsarevich Fyodor. From 1581 - boyar. Since 1584 - great neighbor boyar and equerry. Since 1585 - the de facto ruler of the state. Boris Godunov

Tsar Boris In 1598, Tsar Feodor died. Boris Godunov. Hood. S. Prisekin The dynasty of Ivan Kalita came to an end. Candidates for the throne are the cousin of the deceased Tsar Fyodor Nikitich Romanov and Boris Godunov. On Godunov’s side is the support of the patriarch and Tsarina Irina, popularity among the townspeople. The Zemsky Sobor elected Boris to the throne. For the first time, an elected tsar appeared in Russia.

The reign of Boris Godunov Tsar Boris Fedorovich. Portrait from the Titular Book. The reign of Boris Godunov was successful until 1601. In 1601–1603. Russia was struck by crop failure. Famine followed, exacerbated by the lack of supplies in the devastated country. Godunov’s popularity fell sharply, because people considered the famine as God’s punishment for the wrong choice of the king. Godunov turned out to be an unsuccessful tsar, and therefore illegitimate. 1603 - Cotton's rebellion, the beginning of the civil war.

During the reign of Boris Godunov, tax arrears were removed; direct taxes were replaced by indirect ones; partial exit of peasants from one owner to another was allowed; exile of unwanted persons was allowed 1600 -1603. – “hunger riots” 1603 – Khlopok’s uprising The impostor False Dmitry I appeared

In 1604, an impostor calling himself Dmitry appeared in Lithuania - a fugitive monk of the Chudov Monastery, Grigory Otrepiev. Grigory (in the world Yuri) Otrepiev - from a noble family, a slave servant of the Romanovs. False Dmitry I. Miniature n. XVII century He became a monk after the disgrace imposed by Godunov on the Romanovs and the tonsure of the head of the family, Fyodor Nikitich Romanov.

Chronology of events April 13, 1605 - the sudden death of Boris Godunov. June 1 - overthrow of Fyodor Godunov June 20 - False Dmitry's entry into Moscow June 30 - False Dmitry's crowning of the kingdom Vasily Shuisky confirmed that the prince was not killed in Uglich, but instead a popovich was buried. Agents of Dmitry the Pretender recognized Martha Nagai killing the son of B. Godunov. Hood. K. Makovsky

The shadow of the Terrible adopted me, named me Demetrius from the grave, outraged the nations around me, and condemned Boris as a sacrifice to me. A. S. Pushkin Explain the reasons for the success of False Dmitry I. But do you know why we, Basmanov, are strong? Not by army, no, False Dmitry I. not by Polish help, Miniature n. XVII century And by opinion; Yes! popular opinion A. S. Pushkin

Reasons for the victories of False Dmitry I Famine Doubts about the legitimacy of the Tsar Cotton's Rebellion and its suppression Possibility of impostor Mass hostility towards Godunov Appearance of the Impostor Successes of the Impostor

Unusual Tsar Swift, alien to the solemn False Dmitry I Engraving of the 17th century. palace slowness. He himself teaches the archers to shoot cannons and attack. Wears a Polish dress and shaves his beard. Doesn't sleep after lunch. Personally accepts petitions. The Boyar Duma is called the Senate. Criticizes the church for excessive attention to rituals. He tells the boyars about the need for education for the people, he is going to send nobles to study abroad

The fall of False Dmitry Brings Poles and Cossacks closer Didn't restore St. George's Day Didn't introduce Catholicism Pushed away the nobility Pushed away the peasantry Pushed away the Poles No support Doomed Violated customs Pushed away the clergy and Russian people in general

The fall of False Dmitry May 1606 - conspiracy, rebellion, death The last minutes of Dmitry the Pretender. Hood. K. Wenig

Reign of False Dmitry I Period of fixed years from 5 to 6 Peasants and slaves were removed from the army

Turmoil in the souls and heads Tsar Boris Fedorovich Tsar Fedor Borisovich Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich false tsar Frequent change of tsars, absence of a legitimate tsar Fall in the authority of power killed by rebels false tsar, killed by conspirators

Tsar Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky At the head of the conspiracy that overthrew False Dmitry was Vasily Shuisky. At the Zemsky Sobor in 1606, he was elected to the kingdom. Contemporaries: Vasily was called out as king. What does “called out” mean? Tsar Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky

Kissing cross record “I, the great sovereign, shall not put to death every person, without condemning the boyars with the true court, and estates, and households, and the bellies of their brethren... do not take away, also from guests, and from merchants, and from blacks people..., and I, the great sovereign, should not listen to false arguments, but firmly look for them with all sorts of investigations and confront them eye to eye, so that Orthodox Christianity does not perish without guilt, and whoever lies about whom, and, having found him, executes him, depending on the fault: if he was cocked wholeheartedly, he himself will be condemned.”

V. O. Klyuchevsky: “Vasily Shuisky turned from a sovereign of slaves into a legitimate king of his subjects, ruling according to the laws” 1. What is the significance of the cross-kissing record? 2. What similar document do you know in the history of Europe?

The uprising of Ivan Bolotnikov “That same summer, the founder of all evil and the leader of all evil deeds, Ivashka Bolotnikov, came to Kromy from Putivl” Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov - a serf-servant of Prince A. Telyatevsky. Captured by the Crimeans, sold as an oarsman on a Turkish galley. Released when a galley collided with a German ship. I traveled home through Germany and Poland. In Poland he met with the next “Dmitry” and was sent to Russia as the governor of the “Tsar”.

Hood. E. Lissner Bolotnikov's army consisted of Cossacks, peasants, serfs, and servicemen. There were also representatives of the nobility: princes D. Shakhovskoy and A. Telyatevsky. Together with the noble detachments of I. Pashkov, P. Lyapunov and G. Sumbulov, Bolotnikov besieged Moscow, setting up a camp near the village of Kolomenskoye.

Defeat of Bolotnikov Near Moscow, noble detachments went over to the side of V. Shuisky. The interests of the nobles on the one hand, peasants and Cossacks on the other, contradicted each other. The noble leaders were convinced that by fighting for “Tsar Dimitri”, they supported the adventurers

Reign of Vasily Shuisky First declared Russian autocrat - kissing record Obligation not to punish subjects without judicial proof of guilt Course of returning to the previous order Bolotnikov's rebellion, False Dmitry II, intervention of foreigners Seven Boyars 1, 2 militia rule of the "Seven Boyars" on behalf of the Polish king Vladislav

Time of Troubles Crisis of the Russian state Devastation of cities and villages Murder of innocent people Formation of people's militias In Ryazan and Nizhny Novgorod In 1611, under the leadership of D. Pozharsky Threat to national independence The collection of money for the people's militia was organized by the zemstvo elder K. A. Minin on October 26, 1612 . – liberation from the Poles of Moscow

ü Prince Dmitry Pozharsky - (1578 -1642). ü ü Representative of the Nizhny Novgorod nobility. One of the leaders of the first militia. In 1612 he led the second militia and actually led the state. He commanded the militia during the expulsion of the interventionists from Moscow. On his initiative, a Zemsky Sobor was convened in January 1613, at which a tsar was elected. In the period from 1615 to 1618. successfully fought with the Poles in 1619 -1628. led various orders, then they no longer needed him and he was sent into “honorable exile” by the governor in Mozhaisk.

Kuzma Minin ü Kuzma Minich Minin - (? - 1616) - ü ü Nizhny Novgorod townsman, zemstvo elder, traded meat. During the Time of Troubles, he initiated the creation of a second militia. He started collecting money and donated a third of his own fortune. He took an active part in the battles near Moscow, and later became a member of the zemstvo government (1612 -1613) and the Boyar Duma. Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich granted him a noble title and patrimony.

The fight against the invaders The unity of the Russian people The cessation of the Time of Troubles On February 21, 1613, the Zemsky Sobor elected Mikhail Romanov as Russian Tsar. M. Romanov did not strive for power

The struggle for power during the Time of Troubles (1605 -1612) Boris Godunov (1598 -1605) Vasily Shuisky (1606 -1610) False Dmitry I (1605 -1606) Seven Boyars led by Mstislavsky (1610 -1613) False Dmitry II (1607 -1610) ) Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov (1613 -1645)