Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin
"History of Russian Goverment"
The reign of Boris Godunov. 1598-1604
Moscow meets the Tsar. Oath to Boris. Cathedral charter. Borisov's activities. Ceremonial entrance to the capital. The famous militia. Khan's Embassy. Treating the troops. Speech of the Patriarch. Addition to the electoral certificate. Royal wedding. Mercy. New Tsar Kasimovsky. Incidents in Siberia. Death of Kuchyum. The Matter of Foreign Policy. The fate of the Swedish Prince Gustav in Russia. Truce with Lithuania. Relations with Sweden. Close connection with Denmark. Duke of Denmark, Xenia's fiancé. Negotiations with Austria. Persian Embassy. Incidents in Georgia. The disaster of Russians in Dagestan. Friendship with England. Hansa. Embassy of Rome and Florence. Greeks in Moscow. Nogai affairs. Internal matters. Letter of commendation to the Patriarch. Law on Peasants. Drinking houses. Borisov's love for enlightenment and for foreigners. A word of praise to Godunov. Borisov's ardor towards his son. The beginning of disasters.
The clergy, the Synclite and state officials, with the banners of the Church and the Fatherland, at the sound of all the Moscow bells and the exclamations of the people, intoxicated with joy, returned to the Kremlin, having already given the Autocrat of Russia, but still leaving him in his cell. On February 26, 1598, on Cheese Feast Week, Boris entered the capital: he was met before the walls of the wooden fortress by all the guests of Moscow with bread, silver, gold, sable, pearls and many others. gifts of the Royal, he affectionately thanked them, but did not want to take anything but bread, saying that wealth in the hands of the people was more pleasant to him than in the treasury. The guests were met by Job and all the Clergy; for the Clergy Synclite and the people. In the Church of the Assumption, funeral service, Patriarch secondary blessed Boris for the State, overshadowing him with the cross of the Life-Giving Tree, and the Choirs sang many years both to the Tsar and to the entire House of the Sovereign: Queen Maria Grigorievna, their young son Theodore and daughter Xenia. Then hello all Russians to the new Monarch; and the Patriarch, raising his hands to heaven, said: “We praise You, Lord: for You did not despise our prayer, heard the cry and sobbing of Christians, turned their sorrow into joy and gave us the King, whom we asked from You day and night with tears! » After the Liturgy, Boris expressed gratitude to the memory of the two main culprits of his greatness: in the Church of St. Michael, he fell prostrate before the tombs of John and Theodore; He also prayed over the ashes of the most ancient famous crown bearers of Russia: Kalita, Donskoy, John III, may they be his heavenly accomplices in the earthly affairs of the Kingdom; went into the palace; visited Job at the Chudovskaya monastery; talked with him for a long time alone; told him and all the Bishops that he could not until the Light Christ's Resurrection leave Irina in her grief, and returned to the Novodevichy Convent, ordering the Boyar Duma, with his knowledge and permission, to manage state affairs.
Meanwhile, all the people serving with zeal kissed the cross in fidelity to Boris, some before the glorious Vladimir icon of the Virgin Mary, others at the tomb of the holy Metropolitans Peter and Jonah: they swore not to betray the Tsar either in deed or in word; do not intend to harm the life or health of the sovereign, do not harm him either with a poisonous potion or with sorcery; do not think about enthroning the former Grand Duke of Tver Simeon Bekbulatovich or his son; not to have secret relations or correspondence with them; report on all sorts of things ospreys And conspiracies, without pity for friends and neighbors in this case; do not go to other lands: to Lithuania, Germany, Spain, France or England. Moreover, the Boyars, Duma and Ambassadorial officials pledged to be modest in matters and state secrets, judges not to bend their souls in litigation, treasurers not to take advantage of the Tsar’s property, clerks not to covet. They sent letters to the region informing them of the happy election of the Sovereign, ordered them to be read publicly, to ring bells for three days and to pray in churches first about Queen-Nun Alexandra, and after about her sovereign brother, his family, the Boyars and the army. The Patriarch (March 9) by the Council ordered to solemnly ask God to grant the blessed Tsar to place a crown and purple on himself; ordered for ever and ever to celebrate in Russia February 21, the day of Boris's accession to the throne; finally proposed to the Zemstvo Duma to approve the Council oath given to the Monarch with a charter, with an obligation for all officials not to shirk any service, not to demand anything beyond the dignity of birth or merit, and to always obey in everything Tsarsky's decree and Boyarsky's sentence, to in matters of discharge and zemstvo, do not bring the sovereign to grief. All members of the Great Duma responded unanimously: “We vow to lay down our souls and heads for the Tsar, Queen and their children!” They ordered the first literates of Russia to write a charter, in this sense.
This extraordinary matter did not interfere with the flow of ordinary state affairs, which Boris dealt with with excellent zeal both in the cells of the monastery and in the Duma, often coming to Moscow. They didn’t know when he found time to calm down, to sleep and to eat: they constantly saw him in council with the Boyars and Deacons, or next to the unfortunate Irina, comforting and grieving day and night. It seemed that Irina really needed the presence of the only person still dear to her heart: struck by the death of her husband, who was sincerely and tenderly loved by her, she yearned and cried inconsolably to the point of exhaustion, obviously fading away and already carrying death in her chest, tormented by sobs. The saints and nobles tried in vain to convince the Tsar to leave the sad monastery for him, to move with his wife and children to the Kremlin chambers, to reveal himself to the people wearing a crown and on the throne: Boris answered: “I cannot be separated from the great empress, my unfortunate sister,” and even again, tireless in hypocrisy, he insisted that he did not want to be the Tsar. But Irina is secondary ordered him to fulfill the will of the people and God, to accept the scepter and reign not in the cell, but on the throne of Monomakh. Finally, on April 30, the capital moved to meet the Emperor!
This day belongs to the most solemn days of Russia in its history. At one o'clock in the morning the Clergy with crosses and icons, the Synclite, the courtyard, the orders, the army, all the citizens were waiting for the Tsar at the stone bridge, near the Church of St. Nicholas of Zaraisk. Boris was traveling from the Novodevichy Convent with his family in a magnificent chariot: seeing the church banners and the people, he went out and bowed to the holy icons; graciously greeted everyone, both noble and ignorant; introduced them to the Queen, long known for her piety and sincere virtue, a nine-year-old son and a sixteen-year-old daughter, angelic in beauty. Hearing the exclamations of the people: “you are our Sovereigns, we are your subjects,” Theodore and Ksenia, together with their father, caressed the officials and citizens; just as he, having taken bread and salt from them, rejected the gold, silver and pearls presented to them as a gift, and invited everyone to dine with the King. Uncontrollably pressed by a countless crowd of people, Boris followed the Clergy with his wife and children, like a good father of the family and people, to the Church of the Assumption, where the Patriarch laid the Life-giving Cross of St. Peter the Metropolitan on his chest (which was already the beginning of the Royal Wedding) and third time blessed him for the Great State of Moscow. After listening to the Liturgy, the new Autocrat, accompanied by the Boyars, walked around all the main Kremlin churches, prayed everywhere with warm tears, heard the joyful cry of citizens everywhere and, holding his young heir by the hand, and leading the lovely Ksenia with the other, entered the Royal Chambers with his wife. On this day, the people dined with the Tsar: they did not know the number of guests, but everyone was invited, from the Patriarch to the beggar. Moscow did not see such luxury even in John’s time. - Boris did not want to live in the rooms where Theodore died: he occupied that part of the Kremlin chambers where Irina lived, and ordered to build a new wooden palace for himself.
Among the most difficult and complex eras, both in the history of Russia and in the history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, is the Time of Troubles - the thirtieth anniversary of late XVI centuries to the 20s. XVII century, a time that became a turning point in the destinies of the country. We can say that the period of the Muscovite kingdom ended, and the Russian Empire began to take shape.
Before we begin to consider the “Karamzin” version of the Troubles, we must first understand what the Troubles are and identify the main events related to it.
The period of the Time of Troubles itself is quite extensive; it includes a number of events, starting with the death of Ivan the Terrible on March 18, 1584 and until the accession of the Romanovs in 1612. Historian A.A. Radugin in his work “History of Russia: Russia in World Civilization” divides this period of history into two stages - the first, dynastic crisis, when in 1590, after the death of Tsarevich Dmitry, Tsar Fedor dies. He had no direct heirs, and thus, with his death, the Rurik dynasty was interrupted. Russia found itself facing a dynastic crisis. This is a very dangerous moment in the history of any country, fraught with social upheaval and the country is gradually sliding into the abyss of civil war. They tried to resolve this dynastic crisis in a way unprecedented in Russia - by electing a tsar at the Zemsky Sobor. In 1595, Boris Godunov (1595-1605) was elected.
After the death of Boris Godunov, the second stage of the crisis of power in Russia begins - social (1605-1609), when False Dmitry 1 appeared in Poland and invaded Russia /56, p. 91/.
This chapter will examine the second stage; it is the most confusing, mysterious and contradictory in the entire history of the Time of Troubles.
N.M. himself Karamzin in his “History of the Russian State” also pays more attention to the personality of False Dmitry I, after him a number of impostors appeared. N.M. Karamzin, giving only strict facts of history, endowing them with his subjective assessments, does not allow the reader to go beyond the scope of this sentence. Even now, historians cannot come to a consensus about the events of this period. The roots of this problem should be sought back in 1591, in the tragic events of the death of the last son of Ivan the Terrible from his seventh wife, Tsarevich Dmitry. The circumstances of his death remained unclear, although this was dealt with by an investigative commission headed by Vasily Shuisky. It was officially stated that the prince died as a result of an accident: he fell on a knife during an epileptic fit. However, V. Shuisky stated that the commission’s conclusion was dictated by B. Godunov, who was trying to hide his involvement in the murder of the prince. V. Shuisky changed his testimony many times, so now it is impossible to find out when he was lying and when he was telling the truth. The truth was unknown to contemporaries, therefore, in their writings, the versions and interpretations are very contradictory.
The death of Tsarevich Dmitry was closely connected with the issue of succession to the throne. The fact is that Tsar Fyodor, “weak not only in spirit, but also in body” /9, p.73/, had no direct heirs: his only daughter died at the age of two, and Fyodor’s wife, Tsarina Irina, remained on the throne a very short period of time, because she decided to become a nun. The main contenders for the throne were: the queen’s brother Boris Godunov, who “knew how to gain the special favor of the tyrant (Ivan the Terrible); was the son-in-law of the vile Malyuta Skuratov” /9, p. 7/. Tsar Fedor's maternal relatives were the Romanovs, the most noble and well-born princes of Shuisky and Mstislavsky. But by the time of Fyodor’s death in January 1598, only Boris Godunov “was no longer a temporary worker, but the ruler of the kingdom” / 9, p. 13/. He could actually take power, since he had been the king’s co-ruler for a long time. On February 17, 1598 it was convened Zemsky Sobor, who elected Boris as the new king. If during the reign of Fyodor Godunov’s reign was very successful, then his own reign was unsuccessful (the famine of 1601-1603 caused by significant crop failures), persecution of representatives of the most noble families and other adversities. Despite the fact that “... the disaster stopped, its traces could not be quickly erased: the number of people in Russia and the wealth of many have noticeably decreased, and, without a doubt, the treasury has also become impoverished...” / 10, p. 68/.
But the biggest threat to B. Godunov’s power was the appearance in Poland of a man calling himself Tsarevich Dmitry, who allegedly escaped to safety in Uglich. This led to confusion and confusion in all sections of society. The commission to establish his identity decided that the fugitive monk of the Chudov Monastery, Grigory Otrepiev, called himself a prince, “the time has come for the execution of the one who served Divine justice in the earthly world, hoping, perhaps, by humble repentance to save his soul from hell (as John hoped) and by deeds praiseworthy to atone for people the memory of their iniquities... Not where Boris was wary of danger, sudden power appeared. It was not the Rurikovichs, not the princes and nobles, not persecuted friends or their children, armed with revenge, who planned to overthrow him from the kingdom: this deed was planned and carried out by a despicable tramp in the name of a baby who had long been lying in the grave... As if by a supernatural action, Dmitry’s shadow came out of the coffin, so that in horror to strike, to madden the murderer and to engulf all of Russia in confusion”/10, p.72/.
It seemed that providence itself was on the side of False Dmitry I: on April 13, 1605, Tsar Boris died. Boris's sixteen-year-old son Fyodor was unable to retain power in his hands. By order of the impostor, he and his mother Maria were killed. The sister, Princess Ksenia, was tonsured a nun. On June 20, 1605, False Dmitry entered Moscow “solemnly and magnificently. In front are the Poles, kettledrum players, trumpeters, a squad of horsemen, beepers, chariots with gears, royal riding horses, richly decorated, then drummers, regiments of Russians, clergy with crosses and False Dmitry on a white horse in magnificent clothes in a shiny necklace worth 150,000 chervonovyh, around him 60 boyars and princes, followed by a Lithuanian squad, Germans, Cossacks and archers. All the Moscow bells were ringing, the street was filled with countless people” /10, p.122/.
But, despite attempts to appear merciful and generous by introducing some reforms, the impostor did not manage to stay on the throne for long. The dominance of the Poles caused discontent in public circles and on May 17, 1606, an uprising broke out in Moscow, leading to the death of False Dmitry I. One of the organizers of the uprising, Prince V.V. Shuisky, “the flattering courtier Ioannov, at first an obvious enemy, and then the flattering saint and still secret ill-wisher of Borisov” /11, p.1/ was elected tsar. This caused a surge of discontent and a rumor spread that Dmitry was alive and was gathering an army, headed by Ivan Bolotnikov. A new impostor appeared in Starodub - False Dmitry II, who did not even outwardly resemble False Dmitry I. An army began to gather around him. In 1608, False Dmitry II and his army settled in Tushino. In the Tushino camp, the leading place was occupied by the Poles, whose influence especially intensified with the arrival of the army of Jan Sapieha.
Thanks to the smart actions of M.V. Skopin-Shuisky Tushino camp disintegrated. The impostor fled to Kaluga. On June 17, 1610, V. Shuisky was overthrown from the throne. Power in the capital passed to the Boyar Duma, headed by seven boyars - “Seven Boyars”.
The situation was further complicated by the desire of some boyars to place the Polish prince Vladislav on the Russian throne. On September 21, 1610, Moscow was occupied by Polish interventionist troops. The Poles' actions caused outrage. The anti-Polish movement was led by the Ryazan governor T. Lyapunov, princes D. Pozharsky and D. Trubetskoy. At the same time, a third impostor appeared - False Dmitry III, but his impostor became obvious and he was arrested. Thanks to patriotic forces, by the end of 1612 Moscow and its environs were completely cleared of Poles. Attempts by Sigismund, who sought to take the Russian throne, to change the situation in his favor, led nowhere. M. Mnishek, her son from False Dmitry II and I. Zarutsky were executed.
In 1613, with the accession of Mikhail Romanov, a new dynasty began, which put an end to the “mortal time”
Karamzin describes the Time of Troubles as “the most terrible phenomenon in its history” /10, p.71/. 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” /10 , p.72/. 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” / 10, p. . 71/ and that the fugitive monk of the Chudov Monastery, Grigory Otrepyev, called himself Tsarevich Dmitry (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” /10. p.74/.
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 to Boris a heavenly place /9, p.74/. 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 Godunov’s reign. 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?” /43, p.13/. 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, bearing, nobility” / 10, p. 76/. And, indeed, you need to be smart and cunning enough to (taking into account all the above versions about the origin of False Dmitry), having come to Lithuania, get to Sigismund and use the border disputes between Boris Godunov and Konstantin Vishnevetsky, “ambition and frivolity” / 10, p. 80 / Yuri Mnishka. “We must do justice to Razstrici’s mind: having betrayed himself to the Jesuits, he chose most effective remedy to inspire careless Sigismund with jealousy” /10, p.79/. Thus, the “named” Dmitry found his support in 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, and all authors call Yuri Mnishka (N.M. Karamzin is no exception) as “a vain and far-sighted man who loved money very much, giving his daughter Marina, who was ambitious and flighty like him” /10, p.81/ in marriage to False Dmitry I, drew up a marriage contract that would not only cover all Mnishk’s debts, but also ensure would be his descendants in case of 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” /10, p.7/.
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” /52, p.170/. 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...”/10, p.125/. 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 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, gave it to the sovereign and quietly read his title... It was not written “to the Caesar” /21, p. 48/. 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” / 21, p. 49/.After which the conflict was finally resolved. 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” /10, p.128/. 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” /21, p.49/. 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.
The events of the Time of Troubles are very multifaceted
The tragic events in Uglich in 1591, the appearance of the allegedly saved Tsarevich Dmitry, the role of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the Time of Troubles - all these aspects are so contradictory that they have become the goal of study by many authors. Undoubtedly, the events of the Time of Troubles shocked contemporaries. Many of them left their memories of their experience, expressing their attitude towards it. All this was reflected in numerous chronicles, chronographs, legends, lives, lamentations and other written sources.
Of interest is the opinion of contemporaries of the events of the Time of Troubles. This issue was developed by L.E. Morozova, Candidate of Historical Sciences, who reviewed a number of works by participants in these events and came to the conclusion that “their content differs significantly from each other. To determine whose events are closer to the truth, it is necessary to find out the personality of the writer, his likes and dislikes” /49, p.3/. The authors of the works, being participants in the events, “tried to influence others with their writings, assessing what was happening in accordance with their political convictions” /40, p. 4/, not forgetting and glorifying yourself. The work considered by L.E. Morozova and of interest for studying the personality of False Dmitry I are: “The Tale of Grishka Otrepiev.” The exact time of creation and its author are unknown. Its goal is to discredit Boris Godunov, and “the author, wanting to discredit the tsar, did not care too much about historical truth” /49 p.21/. The author immediately calls the impostor Grigory Otrepiev, a fugitive monk who, “by devilish instigation and heretical intent,” called himself by the name of the prince. The same version, that is, that False Dmitry I was Grigory Otrepiev, is pursued by “The Tale of Kako Revenge” and its edition, “The Tale of Kako Admiration,” glorifying V. Shuisky and discrediting B. Godunov. In another work by L.E. Morozova notes that “the author of “History in Memory of Existence” does not attribute the death of Tsar Fedor to Boris Godunov and considers his accession to the throne to be completely legitimate, since many wanted him to become king” /49, p.30/. The impostor Grishka Otrepiev and “the author are inclined to blame the Poles for creating the impostor adventure. In his opinion, they were also deceived, like many ordinary Russian people. Those representatives of the ruling class who knew that Grishka Otrepiev called himself Dmitry were to blame: Marfa Nagaya, Varvara Otrepieva, etc.” /49, p.33/.
Thus, considering the works of the Time of Troubles, we can conclude that their authors could have been eyewitnesses of the events or themselves were their direct participants, and the authors’ attitude to certain events and to certain persons was constantly changing, depending on the changing situation in the country. But what they had in common was the idea that False Dmitry I was Grigory Otrepiev.
Very contradictory information about the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry in Uglich, about the personality of False Dmitry 1 and about the role of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the Time of Troubles is contained in the works of foreign authors, participants and witnesses of the events. The nature of these works was also imprinted by the politics and personality of the authors.
So, for example, in the work of the French mercenary, retired captain of the guard of False Dmitry I, Jacques Margeret “The State of Russian Empire and the Grand Duchy of Moscow,” the author convinces his readers that Boris Godunov, “cunning and very shrewd,” sent Dmitry to Uglich - “a city 180 miles away from Moscow... According to his mother and some other nobles, clearly foreseeing the goal to which strived and knowing about the danger that the baby could be exposed to, because it had already become known that many of the nobles sent into exile were poisoned on the road, they found a means to replace him and put another in his place. Thus, Margeret puts forward a new version that Dmitry was replaced, and when Boris Godunov sent an assassin to Uglich, the latter killed the child and the false prince was buried very modestly” / 22, p. 234/. After the uprising in Moscow against False Dmitry I, Margeret believes the rumors that the king did not die, but was able to escape and cites a number of facts in favor of this version. Further, Jacques Margeret gives a number of arguments that it was not Dmitry who was killed in Uglich, but another boy. And the author ends his work with the following words: “And I conclude that if Dmitry were an impostor, then it would be enough to tell the pure truth to make him hated by everyone, that if he felt guilty of anything, he had every right to was inclined to believe that intrigues and betrayals were being plotted and built around him, about which he was sufficiently aware and could prevent them with great ease. Therefore, I believe that since neither during his life nor after his death it was possible to prove that he is someone else, then because of the suspicion that Boris had towards him, then because of differences in opinion about him, then because of confidence and others the qualities he had that were impossible for a fake and usurper, and also from the fact that he was confident and free from suspicion, I conclude that he was the true Dmitry Ivanovich, the son of Ivan Vasilyevich, nicknamed the Terrible” /22, p.286/.
In addition to his own observations, Margeret used information obtained from conversations with major officials of the Russian state apparatus. Karamzin also used this work in his “History...”, although he did not pay attention to Margeret’s version of Dmitry’s rescue.
Some information about the events that interest us is given by Jerome Horsey, the envoy of the Queen of England in Moscow, in his work “Abridged Story or Memorial of Travels,” written in the 90s of the 16th century. Jerome Horsey briefly describes the events of the beginning of the 17th century, he narrates that Dmitry was killed as a result of a conspiracy, “and the offspring of the bloodthirsty dynasty died out in blood” / 20, p. 219/.The author says that, finding himself in exile in Yaroslavl, he was awakened one night by Afanasy Nagiy, who said that Tsarevich Dmitry had been stabbed to death in Uglich, and his mother had been poisoned. Garsey gives Nagoy a potion for the poison, after which “the guards woke up the city and told how Tsarevich Dmitry was killed” /19, p.130/. The man who took the throne, according to Garsey, was an impostor; Horsey is silent about his origin. He believes that the Poles started this whole adventure. “The Poles considered the new tsar, Prince Vasily, their vassal, and demanded that he, through a herald, submit to the Polish crown and recognize their rights to the newly conquered monarchy and principality of All Rus' that were annexed to their kingdom. They did not want to immediately and without a fight give up the rights they had assigned, since they still had many Dmitrievs with claims to the Moscow throne. The Poles forged the iron while it was hot and counted on support among the tired boyars and the common people” /20, p.223/. Thus, he is the conductor of the official version. It should be noted that Karamzin also used his work when writing his “History...”.
From the above we can conclude that foreigners (Jacques Margeret, Jerome Horsey), being witnesses and indirect participants in the events associated with the murder of Dmitry and the subsequent events of the Time of Troubles, give conflicting assessments and versions
In contrast to the “History of the Russian State” N.M. Karamzin, created his “History of Russia from Ancient Times” by the bourgeois historian S.M. Soloviev. He developed his own version of the Troubles in the Moscow State. Having critically compared the data of the “New Chronicler” and the “Uglich Investigative Case” about the circumstances of the death of Tsarevich Dmitry in 1591, S.M. Soloviev points out numerous inconsistencies and contradictions contained in the investigative file. As a result, he comes to the conclusion that Dmitry was killed on the orders of Boris Godunov, as stated in the New Chronicler, and the investigative case was rigged to please Boris Godunov. He did not touch upon the versions of substitution and salvation at all, since he considered them completely untenable.
The beginning of the Troubles, according to the researcher, was laid by the boyars, who intrigued against Boris Godunov. “He fell due to the indignation of the officials of the Russian land” /65, p. 387/. The nomination of a new impostor occurred on the initiative of the boyars, who wanted to use him as a simple tool in their fight against Godunov, and then get rid of him. Polish magnates and Jesuits began to help the impostor later, when he ended up abroad. Analyzing the complicated question of the origin of False Dmitry I and leaning towards identifying the impostor with Grigory Otrepyev, S.M. Soloviev noted that “... the question of the origin of the first False Dmitry is of such a kind that it can greatly disturb people in whom fantasy predominates. There is wide scope for the novelist here, he can make anyone he wants an impostor, but it is strange for the historian to break away from solid ground, reject the most probable news and plunge into a mark from which there is no way out for him, for he does not have the right, like a novelist, to create an unprecedented person. Having made False Dmitry a mathematical X, unknown, the historian imposes on himself another mysterious person - Grigory Otrepyev, from whom it is impossible to get rid of easily, because something forced historians to dwell on this particular monk, whose existence cannot be denied; the historian cannot refuse to clarify the role of this monk, cannot help but dwell on how it happened that False Dmitry, being a separate person from Grigory Otrepyev, did not show this Otrepyev to the Moscow people, and thereby did not immediately wash away the stain that lay on him and in the opinion of those who recognized the true prince and under the guise of Grigory Otrepiev, the stain of undress, who arbitrarily cast off his monastic, angelic image” /65, p.390/.
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 were patronizing him, but he did not know their names” /68, p.403/. 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, 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.
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, but fermented in Moscow” /38, p.30/, thereby indicating that the organizers of the impostor intrigue were Moscow boyars. 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” /38, p. thirty/. 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” /38, p.31/. “But how False Dmitry developed such a view of himself remains a mystery, not so much historical as psychological” /38, p.31/. Discussing the death of Tsarevich Dmitry in Uglich, V.O. Klyuchevsky notes that “... it is difficult to imagine that this thing 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” /38, p.28/. 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.
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” /42, p. 137/. 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 waged a struggle against him in the way that could only be most advantageous...: rumors gradually spread that the newly appeared Demetrius in Poland was Grishka Otrepiev, a defrocked, runaway monk from the Chudov Monastery” / 42, p. 118/. 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” /42, p.55/. The author notes that the intrigue arose in the head of the impostor himself, and notes that “it was a wandering Kalika, a wanderer who said that he came from the Moscow land” /42, p.56/. 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 is still unresolved” /41, p.630/.
N.I. Kostomarov believes that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth seized on the impostor with the goals of politically weakening Russia and its subordination to the papacy. It was her intervention that gave the Troubles such a severe character and such a duration.
Further, considering the historiography of the Time of Troubles, we should note 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. S.F. Platonov believes that “the causes of the Troubles, undoubtedly, flew as much within Moscow society itself as outside it” /53, p.258/. 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...” /53, 265/.
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 use power only because the boyars who controlled the state of affairs wanted to attract him” /52, p.162/. Therefore, S.F. Platonov believes that “in the person of the impostor, the Moscow boyars tried once again to attack Boris” /53, p.286/. 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” /53, p.286/.
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” /53, p.287/.
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.
Almost his entire creative life was devoted to the development of issues related to the “Time of Troubles” by the modern historian R.G. Skrynnikov. He devoted numerous studies and monographs to this issue.
R.G. Skrynnikov is inclined to the official version of Dmitry’s accidental suicide. The author cites as proof of his version that Dmitry really suffered from epilepsy, and at the time of the seizure he was playing with a knife. The author relies on eyewitness accounts of the incident, “who claimed that the prince ran into a knife” /61, 17/. In his opinion, even a small wound could lead to death, “since the carotid artery and jugular vein are located on the neck directly under the skin. If one of these vessels is damaged, death is inevitable” /61, p.19/. And after the death of Dmitry Nagiye deliberately spread the rumor that the prince was stabbed to death by people sent by Godunov. R.G. Skrynnikov believes that “the revival of rumors about Dmitry can hardly be associated with the Romanov conspiracy... If rumors about the prince were spread by one or another boyar circle, it would not be difficult for Godunov to put an end to him. The tragedy of the situation was that the rumor about the salvation of the son of Ivan the Terrible penetrated the crowd and therefore no amount of persecution could eradicate it” /61, p.20/. “The name of Dmitry, apparently, was revived by the struggle for the throne and the flight of passion it caused” /62, p.30/. The author emphasizes that the impostor and Grigory Otrepyev are one and the same person. “The exposure was preceded by the most thorough investigation, after which it was announced in Moscow that the name of the Tsarevich was taken by the fugitive monk of the Chudov Monastery Grishka, in the world - Yuri Otrepiev” /60, p.81/. And “it was in the service of the Romanovs and Cherkasskys that the political views of Yuri Otrepiev were formed... But also many signs indicate that the impostor intrigue was born not in the Romanovs’ courtyard, but within the walls of the Chudov Monastery. At that time, Otrepyev had already lost the patronage of powerful boyars and could only rely on his own strength” /60, p.41/. R.G. Skrynnikov believes that “it is difficult to imagine that the monk dared on his own to make a claim to the royal crown. Most likely, he acted on the prompting of people who remained in the shadows” /62, p.60/. But the impostor himself came to Lithuania, not having a sufficiently thought-out and plausible legend about his salvation, therefore, in his homeland they suggested only the idea of royal origin /62, p.57/.
Much attention from R.G. Skrynnikov pays attention to the role of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the development of the Time of Troubles. He believes that it was Polish intervention that served as an external impetus for the development of the civil war in Russia.
One of the most interesting and unexplored by most Russian authors, both noble and bourgeois historiography, and modern, is the idea that False Dmitry I was a real prince who was somehow saved. This is evidenced by Jacques Margeret and a number of other foreign authors. This version has been the basis for some historical narratives. This is the book by Eduard Uspensky, who defends the version of replacing the prince with a yard boy. The true Dmitry accidentally met him, returning from mass, and in a fit of insanity, he plunged a toy dagger into the boy’s throat. The real Dmitry was taken away and hidden, and the news spread throughout Uglich that Dmitry was killed by the clerks.
We, of course, understand that there is a lot of fiction in the literary narrative. Here it is not sources and facts that play a big role, but the author’s imagination. But the version is still interesting and encourages thinking that maybe Dmitry could be saved.
The question of the authenticity of Dmitry, who appeared after the death of Boris Godunov, was studied not only by historians, but also by people involved in clairvoyance. In addition, the medical diagnostics performed on the portrait of False Dmitry I and the prince quite convincingly suggests that they are one person /69, pp.82-83/. Indeed, if you look closely at the icon of Dmitry of Uglich and the lifetime portrait of False Dmitry I, you can find many similar features. But existing, more or less reliable images are clearly not enough to build an anthropological model and identify a person in the context of age-related changes.
One cannot fail to take into account one more fact that radically changes the version of Dmitry’s salvation. Practically, all authors describing the tragic events of 1591 write that the prince suffered from epilepsy or “epileptic disease.” The official version of the death of Tsarevich Dmitry is based on the fact that this disease was the cause of the accident. N.M. Karamzin also points out this disease in his “History...”. And if this is true, then this particular disease can serve as a refutation of the version that Tsarevich Dmitry and False Dmitry I are the same person. Since epilepsy is a chronic disease /27, p.201/, and a person will suffer from it throughout his life. But according to the description, False Dmitry I has no hint of seizures. The version that the prince’s epilepsy was cured can be immediately ruled out, since medicine in the 16th century. was far from modern, and the prince suffered from a severe form of the disease. According to the description of N.M. Karamzin, as well as other authors, False Dmitry I was in excellent physical shape, was an excellent horseman, “and with his own hand, in the presence of the court and people, he beat bears; I myself tested newer guns and fired from them with rare accuracy...” /27, p.208/. This refutes the identity of False Dmitry I and Dmitry. Even if Dmitry lived to be twenty years old, he would clearly not be fit to be the ruler of the state.
But here another question arises: was this disease invented by Shuisky’s investigative commission to justify the accident? After all, before the investigation, there was no mention of the prince’s illness. Unfortunately, there is currently no answer to this question. You can make many guesses and versions, but they will give rise to more and more new questions that historians will be able to answer only in the future.
To summarize, it must be emphasized that there are many versions about the personality of the named Dmitry and the role of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the events of the Time of Troubles, and often they are radically opposite. But, despite the fact that the period of the Time of Troubles and the personality of False Dmitry I have been the object of study by many historians, there is still a lot of incomprehensible and doubtful things. N.M. Karamzin became practically the first historian who clearly, based on numerous sources, created his own concept of the events being studied, and it was from his work that many other scientists started, despite the fact that his version was constantly criticized.
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.
Problem course work: Russia is on the threshold of the Time of Troubles.
Object of course work: historiography of the Troubles.
Subject of course work: how the views of historians of the 18th-19th centuries on the causes and prerequisites of the Troubles developed.
Targetcourse work - consider the historiography of the Troubles from the point of view of various authors.
Coursework objectives:
1. Consider the views of V.N. Tatishchev and M.M. Shcherbatov on the Time of Troubles;
2. Explore the ideas of N.M. Karamzin about the causes and prerequisites of the Troubles.
3. Analyze the opinion of public school historians about the causes and prerequisites of the Troubles.
4. Explore the ideas of V.O. Klyuchevsky, P.N. Milyukova, S.F. Platonov about the causes and prerequisites of the Troubles.
Research methods- analysis, synthesis, comparative analysis of literature.
Scientists have explained the causes and nature of these tragic events in different ways.
N.M. Karamzin drew attention to the political crisis caused by the suppression of the dynasty at the end of the 16th century. and the weakening of the monarchy.
CM. Solovyov saw the main content of “The Troubles” in the struggle of the state principle with anarchy, represented by the Cossacks.
A more comprehensive approach was characteristic of S.F. Platonov, who defined it as a complex interweaving of the actions and aspirations of various political forces, social groups, as well as personal interests and passions, complicated by the intervention of external forces.
In Soviet historical science, the concept of “Troubles” was rejected, and the events of the early 17th century. characterized as “the first peasant war with an anti-serfdom orientation, complicated by the internal political struggle of feudal groups for power and the Polish-Swedish intervention.”
Structure course work: the work consists of an introduction, 4 chapters and a conclusion.
historiography political unrest
Chapter 1.HistoriansXVIII centuryand about the Troubles. V.N. Tatishchev, M.M. Shcherbatov
Before we begin to consider the views of historians of the 18th-19th centuries on the causes of the Troubles, let us briefly dwell on the situation at the end of the 16th and beginning. XVII centuries In the last quarter of the 16th century. In Russia there was a sharp aggravation of the deep socio-political crisis that had emerged in the previous period. The situation in the country became more complicated due to the ongoing struggle for power under the successors of Ivan the Terrible. The energetic measures taken by the government of Boris Godunov only allowed to soften the crisis for a while, but could not ensure its overcoming, because they were carried out at the expense of strengthening feudal-serf oppression.
In the 17th century Russia entered into an environment of further growing social crisis. The scale and nature of this crisis were already visible to contemporaries. One of them, the English diplomat Fletcher, who visited the Russian state in 1588 with a special mission from Queen Elizabeth, wrote the famous words that “the general murmur and irreconcilable hatred” reigning in Russian society indicate that “apparently , this must end in no other way than civil war" As is known, this historical forecast made by Fletcher in his essay “On the Russian State,” published in London in 1591, was brilliantly confirmed by further developments.
End of the 16th - beginning of the 17th centuries. were the time of continuation of the process of formation of a multinational centralized state. This process took place under the dominance of feudal-serf relations.
At the same time, this process of centralization took place in a tense external struggle with neighboring states - Poland, Lithuania, Sweden. Occupying the entire third quarter of the 16th century. in years 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. By ad Peter III in 1762, the Manifesto “On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility” 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. No less important factor is also 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 Time of Troubles taught that such phenomena in the social system are dangerous and threaten to destabilize, so the new government carefully monitored these facts, protecting them in every possible way. 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. At the time military service These are the first literary experiments. 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 Lisa"), 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, 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 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 history 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.
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 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 life of social life, into morals and aspirations, nothing that, flowing from its phenomena, would move the flow of Russian life to new way, 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 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 the 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 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.
The story of the second people's militia under the leadership of Minin and Pozharsky, as well as about the moral and patriotic role of the Trinity Monastery during the Time of Troubles. A major role in this activity belonged to Archimandrite Dionysius.
S.F. Platonov believes that “the causes of the Troubles, undoubtedly, flew as much within Moscow society itself as outside it.” On the issue of the death of Tsarevich Dmitry, Platonov takes neither the side of the official version of an accidental suicide, nor the side of the accuser Boris Godunov of murder. “Remembering the possibility of the origin of the charges against Boris and considering all the confusing details of the case, it must be said as a result that it is difficult and still risky to insist on Dmitry’s suicide, but at the same time it is impossible to accept the prevailing opinion about the murder of Dmitry by Boris... A huge number of dark and unresolved issues lie in circumstances of Dmitry's death. Until they are resolved, the charges against Boris will stand on very shaky ground, and before us and the court he will not be an accused, but only a suspect...”
The author believes that “The impostor was really an impostor, and, moreover, of Moscow origin. Personifying the idea that was fermenting in Moscow minds during the tsar's election in 1598 and equipped with good information about the past of the real prince, obviously from informed circles. The impostor could achieve success and enjoy power only because the boyars who controlled the state of affairs wanted to attract him.” Therefore, S.F. Platonov believes that “in the person of the impostor, the Moscow boyars tried once again to attack Boris.” Discussing the identity of the impostor, the author points to different versions of the authors and leaves this question open, but emphasizes the indisputable fact that “Otrepiev participated in this plan: it could easily be that his role was limited to propaganda in favor of the impostor.” “It can also be accepted as the most correct that False Dmitry I was a Moscow idea, that this figurehead believed in his royal origins and considered his accession to the throne to be a completely correct and honest matter.”
Platonov does not give her much attention to the role of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the impostor intrigue and points out that “in general, Polish society was reserved about the impostor’s case and was not carried away by his personality and stories... The best parts of Polish society did not believe the impostor, and the Polish Sejm did not believe him 1605, which forbade the Poles to support the impostor... Although King Sigismund III did not adhere to those resolutions of the Sejm, he himself did not dare to openly and officially support the impostor.”
“...Our Troubles are rich in real consequences that have affected our social system and the economic life of its descendants. If the Moscow state seems to us the same in its basic outlines as it was before the Time of Troubles, then this is because in the Time of Troubles the same State order that was formed in the Moscow state in the 16th century remained victorious, and not the one that its enemies would have brought to us - Catholic and aristocratic Poland and the Cossacks; living in the interests of predation and destruction, cast in the shape of an ugly “circle.” The Troubles did not occur by chance, but was the discovery and development of a long-standing disease that previously plagued Rus'. This illness ended with the recovery of the state body. After the crisis of the Time of Troubles, we see the same organism, the same state order. Therefore, we are inclined to think that the Troubles were only an unpleasant incident without any special consequences.” - S.F. Platonov “Lectures on Russian history”
“In the Troubles there was not only a political and national struggle, but also a social one. Not only did the pretenders to the throne of Moscow fight among themselves and the Russians fought with the Poles and Swedes, but also some sections of the population were at enmity with others: the Cossacks fought with the sedentary part of society, tried to prevail over it, to build the land in their own way - and could not. The struggle led to the triumph of the settled strata, a sign of which was the election of Tsar Michael. These layers moved forward, supporting the state order they saved. But the main figure in this military celebration was the city nobility, who benefited most of all. The Troubles brought him a lot of benefit and strengthened his position. The Troubles accelerated the process of the rise of the Moscow nobility, which without it would have happened incomparably more slowly. ...As for the boyars, on the contrary, they suffered a lot from the Time of Troubles.
But the above does not exhaust the results of the Troubles. Getting acquainted with the internal history of Rus' in the 17th century, we will have to trace every major reform of the 17th century to the Troubles and condition them. If we add to this those wars of the 17th century, the necessity of which flowed directly from the circumstances created by the Time of Troubles, then we will understand that the Time of Troubles was very rich in results and by no means constituted an episode in our history that appeared by chance and passed without a trace. We can say that the Troubles determined almost our entire history in the 17th century.” - S.F. Platonov "Lectures on Russian history".
Thus, S.F. Platonov rejects Karamzin’s categorical attitude towards Boris Godunov as a villain and the undoubted killer of Dmitry, and also questions the identification of the impostor with Otrepyev.
A similar point of view was shared by the historian V.O. Klyuchevsky. He notes in his course “Russian History” that False Dmitry I “was only baked in a Polish oven, and fermented in Moscow,” thereby indicating that the organizers of the impostor intrigue were Moscow boyars.
Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (January 16 (28), 1841, Voskresenovka village, Penza province - May 12 (25), 1911, Moscow) - Russian historian, ordinary professor at Moscow University; ordinary academician of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (extra staff) in Russian history and antiquities (1900), chairman of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University, Privy Councilor.
IN. Klyuchevsky, reflecting on the identity of the impostor, does not categorically assert that it was Otrepyev, as N.M. does. Karamzin. “...This unknown someone, who ascended the throne after Boris, arouses great anecdotal interest. His identity still remains mysterious, despite all the efforts of scientists to unravel it. For a long time, the prevailing opinion from Boris himself was that it was the son of the Galician minor nobleman Yuri Otrepiev, monastically Grigory. It is difficult to say whether this Gregory or another was the first impostor.”
The author leaves the question of how it happened that False Dmitry I “... behaved like a legitimate natural king, completely confident in his royal origin.” “But how False Dmitry developed such a view of himself remains a mystery, not so much historical as psychological.” Discussing the death of Tsarevich Dmitry in Uglich, V.O. Klyuchevsky notes that “... it is difficult to imagine that this matter was done without Boris’s knowledge, that it was arranged by some overly helpful hand that wanted to do what pleased Boris, guessing his secret desires.” Thus, it can be noted that, unlike N.M. Karamzina, S.M. Soloviev and V.O. Klyuchevsky were not as categorical in their judgments about the personality of False Dmitry I as Otrepyev. And they believed that the main culprits of the intrigue were the Russian boyars, and not the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky dedicated the 41st, 42nd and 43rd lectures of his famous “Course of Russian History” to the Troubles.
“... At the heart of the Troubles was a social struggle: when the social ranks rose, the Troubles turned into a social struggle, into the extermination of the upper classes by the lower.” - V.O. Klyuchevsky
“... This is the sad benefit of troubled times: they rob people of peace and contentment and in return give them experiences and ideas. Just as in a storm the leaves on the trees turn inside out, so troubled times in people's life, breaking down the facades, reveal the backyards, 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 the city 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.
...A review of the views of foreign historians on the beginning of the Time of Troubles in Russia, and its main causes - the murder of Tsarevich Dimitri by Boris Godunov. Features of the political situation in Russia before the start of the Time of Troubles, its historical events. Analysis of the results of the time of troubles.
course work, added 04/28/2010
Analysis of the opinions of historians of the 19th - early 20th centuries. in relation to the period of formation of the Moscow Kingdom. Views of V.O. Klyuchevsky, S.F. Platonov and S.M. Solovyov for the period of the reign of Ivan III and Vasily III. Political concept of the Moscow autocracy.
abstract, added 01/28/2013
The causes, course and consequences of the Troubles according to R.G. Skrynnikova. Sources of the social crisis that gave rise to it. Analysis of events related to the actions of False Dmitry I and II. Foreign policy situation of Russia. Historians' views on the events of the Time of Troubles.
abstract, added 01/29/2015
Views of foreign historians on the crusades of the 11th–12th centuries: Western and Eastern. Reasons and prerequisites for this historical phenomenon. Domestic historians about the Crusades, features of the reflection of the image of “Friend - Alien” in the works of recent authors.
course work, added 12/01/2014
Western Europe and Russia on the threshold of the New Age. The beginning of the Great Troubles in Russia, its main causes, new phenomena in the socio-political life of the state. Features of the culmination of events in the time of troubles. The role and historical significance of the Time of Troubles.
test, added 11/10/2010
"Time of Troubles". Polish-Swedish intervention. Prerequisites and causes of unrest. False Dmitry and False Dmitry II. Polish-Swedish intervention during the Time of Troubles. Domestic policy of the first Romanovs. Uprising led by Stepan Razin.
abstract, added 12/03/2008
Studying the history of Russia during the "Time of Troubles", the main problems 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
Comparative analysis the personality and activities of Peter I according to 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.
Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich
Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich (1766–1826) - Russian writer and historian. Born on December 1 (12), 1766 in the village of Mikhailovna, Simbirsk province, in the family of a retired army officer. At the age of 14 he began studying at the Moscow private boarding school of Professor Schaden. After graduating in 1783, he arrived in the Preobrazhensky Regiment in St. Petersburg. After retiring with the rank of second lieutenant in 1784, Karamzin moved to Moscow, where he became one of the active participants in the magazine “Children's Reading for the Heart and Mind,” published by N.I. Novikov, and became close to the Freemasons. He began translating religious and moral works. Since 1787, he regularly published his translations of Thomson’s “Seasons”, “Country Evenings”» Genlis, W. Shakespeare's tragedy "Julius Caesar", Lessing's tragedy "Emilia Galotti».
A few years later, Karamzin founded the Moscow Journal» (1791–1792) - a literary and artistic periodical that published works by modern Western European and Russian authors. The story "Poor Lisa"» (1792) brought him immediate recognition. In the 1790s, he was the head of Russian sentimentalism, as well as the inspirer of the movement for the emancipation of Russian prose, which was stylistically dependent on the Church Slavonic liturgical language. Gradually his interests moved from the field of literature to the field of history. After the accession of Emperor Alexander I to the throne in 1801, he founded a new magazine, “Bulletin of Europe” (1802–1830), the first of numerous Russian literary and political review magazines. In 1804, he resigned as editor, accepted the position of imperial historiographer and began creating the “History of the Russian State.” When writing this work, numerous primary sources were used, previously ignored. Some of them have been lost and have not reached us. The first eight volumes were published in 1818 « Stories» – Karamzin's greatest scientific and cultural feat. In 1821, the 9th volume was published, dedicated to the reign of Ivan the Terrible; in 1824, the 10th and 11th volumes were published about Fyodor Ioannovich and Boris Godunov. Death interrupted work on the 12th volume. This happened on May 22 (June 3, n.s.) 1826 in St. Petersburg.
This text is an introductory fragment. From the book Fornication in Rus' (By the mouth of the people) - 1997 author Manakov AnatolyLITERARY VERSIONS NIKOLAI KARAMZIN Traditions of the centuries (fragment) Having heard a paper about the crimes of Adashev and Sylvester, some of the judges announced that these villains had been convicted and deserved execution; others, with downcast eyes, remained silent. Here the elder, Metropolitan Macarius, with his proximity
author From the book 100 great Russians author Ryzhov Konstantin Vladislavovich From the book Russian History literature of the 19th century century. Part 1. 1800-1830s author Lebedev Yuri Vladimirovich From a KGB book. Chairmen of state security agencies. Declassified destinies author Mlechin Leonid MikhailovichChapter 20 NIKOLAI MIKHAILOVICH GOLUSHKO One of the candidates for the post of Minister of Security instead of Barannikov was journalist Mikhail Nikiforovich Poltoranin, who was then close to the president, former editor of Moskovskaya Pravda, deputy, Minister of Press and Information, Deputy Prime Minister
From the book Great Russian Historians about the Time of Troubles author Klyuchevsky Vasily OsipovichNikolay Karamzin
From the book From the first prosecutor of Russia to the last prosecutor of the Union author“STRONG BOLSHEVIK” Prosecutor of the Republic NIKOLAI MIKHAILOVICH RYCHKOV Nikolai Mikhailovich Rychkov was born on November 20, 1897 in the village of the Belokholunitsky plant, Sloboda district, Vyatka province, into a simple working-class family. His father, Mikhail Rychkov, the son of a serf peasant, with
From the book From the KGB to the FSB (instructive pages of national history). book 1 (from the KGB of the USSR to the Ministry of Security of the Russian Federation) author Strigin Evgeniy Mikhailovich From the book History of Humanity. Russia author Khoroshevsky Andrey YurievichPrzhevalsky Nikolai Mikhailovich (Born in 1839 - died in 1888) An outstanding Russian traveler, explorer of Central Asia. For the first time he described the nature of many of its regions, discovered a number of ridges, basins and lakes in Kunlun, Nanshan and on the Tibetan Plateau. Major General. His
From the book From the KGB to the FSB (instructive pages of national history). book 2 (from the Ministry of Bank of the Russian Federation to the Federal Grid Company of the Russian Federation) author Strigin Evgeniy MikhailovichGolushko Nikolai Mikhailovich Biographical information: Nikolai Mikhailovich Golushko was born in 1937 in Kazakhstan. Higher education, graduated from the Faculty of Law of Tomsk State University in 1959. Worked in the prosecutor's office, then in the authorities
From the book Soviet Aces. Essays on Soviet pilots author Bodrikhin Nikolay GeorgievichSkomorokhov Nikolai Mikhailovich Having received baptism of fire in 1942, Jr. sergeant, Skomorokhov went through the entire war, ended it as a major, soon became a Hero twice, won 46 personal victories, did not lose a single plane in battle, did not receive a single wound... His fatality
From the book St. Petersburg. Autobiography author Korolev Kirill MikhailovichThe legend of the “cursed city”, 1811 Nikolai Karamzin, Vissarion Belinsky, Dmitry Merezhkovsky The legend of the prophecy predicting: “Petersburg will be empty” is widely known. One version attributes these words to the first wife of Peter the Great, who was exiled by him to a monastery
author Zvyagintsev Alexander GrigorievichNikolai Mikhailovich Yanson (1882–1938) “A good, wonderful past...” At the end of the 19th century, not only Russian workers, but also people from the Baltic peoples flocked to St. Petersburg, the largest industrial center of North-West Russia. In the family of one of them, an Estonian, a native of the island
From the book Life and Deeds of Prominent Russian Lawyers. Ups and downs author Zvyagintsev Alexander GrigorievichNikolai Mikhailovich Rychkov (1897–1959) “Strong Bolshevik” Nikolai Mikhailovich Rychkov was born on November 20, 1897 in the village of the Belokholunitsky plant, Sloboda district, Vyatka province, into a simple working-class family. His father, Mikhail Rychkov, the son of a serf peasant, with
From the book Internal Troops. History in faces author Shtutman Samuil MarkovichBYSTRYKH Nikolai Mikhailovich (01/26/1893–02/23/1939) Head of the Main Directorate of Border Guards and Troops of the OGPU USSR (07/30/1931–04/08/1933) Commissioner state security 3rd rank (12/11/1935) Born into the family of a worker at the Motovilikha plant in the Perm province. (After 40 years my father became
From the book Russian Explorers - the Glory and Pride of Rus' author Glazyrin Maxim YurievichPrzhevalsky Nikolai Mikhailovich Przhevalsky Nikolai Mikhailovich (1839–1888), Russian traveler, explorer of Central Asia, major general. 1866. N. M. Przhevalsky voluntarily transferred from Warsaw, where he was a teacher at the cadet school, to the Far East, where
Current page: 1 (book has 53 pages in total)
Before the death of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, the Kazan Tatars betrayed Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, beat the governor, the archbishop and other Russian people.
1583. The sovereign sent regiments with different governors of the Tatars, Chuvash and Cheremis to fight and return Kazan, but the Tatars, partly on campaigns, partly in the camps, defeated many governors, and were forced to retreat.
1584. A comet was seen in winter. In the same year, on March 19th, Tsar John Vasilyevich reposed. Before his death, having taken monastic vows, he bequeathed to his eldest son Theodore to be the king of all Rus', and to the younger Dmitry and his mother, Tsarina Maria Feodorovna, to take possession of the city of Uglich and other cities, along with everything that pertains to them; and ordered the boyars Prince Ivan Petrovich Shuisky, Prince Ivan Fedorovich Mstislavsky and Nikita Romanovich Yuryev, aka Romanov, to have oversight and rule. And on the same day, Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich was kissed on the cross. Boris Godunov, seeing the Nagi, who were with the sovereign, in force, incited treason against them with his advisers, and that same night they and others who were in the mercy of Tsar John Vasilyevich, having caught them, sent them to different cities in prisons, and took their property and gave it away. Soon after the repose of the sovereign, Tsarevich Dmitry was released to Uglich with his mother Tsarina Marya Fedorovna, and her brothers Fedor, Mikhail and others, and his mother Marya with her son Daniil Volokhova, and Mikita Kochalov. On May 1, Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich was crowned, for which the best people from all cities were convened.
In the same year, due to the indignation of a certain person, a riot broke out among the entire mob and many service people, which was led by the Ryazan Lipunovs and Kikins, saying that the boyar Bogdan Belsky, a close relative of Godunov, had persecuted Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich and wants to kill Tsar Feodor, from whom the Kremlin barely managed to lock it. They brought guns to the Frolovsky Gate, they wanted to take the city by force, which, seeing, Tsar Theodore sent the boyars Prince Ivan Fedorovich Mstislavsky and Nikita Romanovich Yuryev to persuade them. The rebels, not listening to an apology, persistently asked for Volsky with a great cry. But Godunov, seeing that this matter concerned him more, ordered Volsky to be secretly escorted out of Moscow. And they announced to the rebels that Belsky had been sent to Nizhny in exile, that the rebels, having heard, and more importantly listened to, these boyars, moved away from the city and calmed down. After they were quelled, Godunov and his comrades, the Lipunovs and Kikins, caught them and secretly sent them into exile. A short time later, the uncle of the sovereign and the ruler of the entire state, boyar Nikita Romanovich (Romanov), the brother of the sovereign’s own mother, died. After him, the sovereign's brother-in-law Boris Fedorovich Godunov took over the reign. And with this, partly through gifts, partly through fear, he attracted many people to his will and overcame all the boyars loyal to the sovereign, so that no one dared to convey any truth to the sovereign. The Kazan people, hearing the accession of Tsar Fedor to the throne, sent a confession. Therefore, the sovereign sent a governor to Kazan and ordered cities to be built in the Cheremis mountains and meadows. And in the same year, the governors established Kokshaysk, Tsivilsk, Urzhum and other cities, and thereby strengthened this kingdom.
1585. The boyars, seeing Godunov’s crafty and evil actions, that the boyars had taken away all power from those appointed by Tsar John and were doing everything without advice, Prince Ivan Fedorovich Mstislavsky, with him the Shuiskys, Vorotynskys, Golovins, Kolychevs, guests came to them, much The nobility and merchants began to clearly inform the sovereign that Godunov’s actions were detrimental and to the ruin of the state. Godunov, having copulated with other boyars, clerks and archers, turned money to himself, took Mstislavsky, secretly exiled him to the Kirillov Monastery and tonsured him there, and then sent many others separately to different cities in prison. In which many then, flattering him, not only helped him in silence, but also rejoiced at their death, forgetting the harm to the fatherland and their duties in office. Others, seeing such violence and untruths, although they heartily condoled, but seeing that there were many of them flattering Godunov and his strength, and their own powerlessness, did not dare to talk about it. And both of them brought themselves and the entire state into extreme ruin. Mikhail Golovin was a man of keen intelligence and a warrior, and seeing such persecution of his faithful servants, surviving in his Medyn estate, he left for Poland and died there.
Godunov, seeing the Shuiskys as his opponents, for whom the guests and the whole mob stood and they opposed him a lot, whom he saw as impossible to break by force, for this reason he used cunning, asking the Metropolitan with tears to reconcile them. Therefore, the Metropolitan, having called the Shuiskys, not knowing Godunov’s treachery, asked for the Shuiskys with tears. And they, having listened to the Metropolitan, made peace with him. On the same day, Prince Ivan Petrovich Shuisky, coming to Granovitaya, announced reconciliation to the guests who were there. Hearing this, two people from the merchant class came forward and said to him: “Please know that now it is easy for Godunov to destroy you and us, and do not rejoice in this evil world.” Godunov, noticing this, took both of these merchants that same night, exiled them or executed them suddenly.
1587. Godunov taught the Shuisky slaves to bring them to treason, so he innocently tortured many people. And although no one was guilty of anything, he tortured and sent the Shuiskys and their relatives and friends, the Kolychevs, Tatevs, Andrei Baskakov and his brothers, as well as the Urusovs and many guests: Prince Ivan Petrovich Shuisky, first to his estate, the village of Lopatnitsy, and from there to Belo-Ozero, and ordered Turenin to crush it; his son, Prince Andrei, went to Kargopol, and was also killed there; The guests of Fyodor Nogai and his comrades, 6 people, were executed at the Fire, beheaded. Metropolitan Dionysius and Archbishop Krutitsky stood up for this and began to clearly speak to Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich and expose Godunov’s lies. But Godunov interpreted this to the sovereign as a rebellion, and both of them were exiled to monasteries in Novgorod, and Archbishop Job was taken from Rostov and made metropolitan; and was installed in Moscow by the archbishops, without being sent to Constantinople. Previously, metropolitans were installed in Constantinople.
Tsarevich Malat-Girey came from Crimea to serve the sovereign with many Tatars. And he sent him to Astrakhan, and with him the governor, Prince Fyodor Mikhailovich Troekurov and Ivan Mikhailovich Pushkin. And this prince showed a lot of service there and brought many Tatars under the power of the state.
In the same year, the White Stone City was founded and finished near Moscow. In the same year, Polish ambassadors came with the announcement that King Stefan (Abatur) Batory had passed away, and asked the sovereign to accept the Polish crown. The Emperor sent his ambassadors Stefan Vasilyevich Godunov and his comrades.
After the death of Prince Ivan Petrovich Shuisky, the other Shuiskys and many others were released again.
1588. Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, came.
1588. There was a council in Moscow on church affairs. And on this they decided to have their own separate patriarch in Moscow and dedicated Metropolitan Job as the first patriarch in Moscow. Moreover, they approved henceforth to consecrate patriarchs to bishops in Moscow, only after the elections to write to Constantinople. Metropolitans, archbishops and bishops should be dedicated to the Patriarch in Moscow without unsubscribing. And they appointed the 4th metropolitans in Russia: in Veliky Novgorod, Kazan; Rostov and Krutitsy: 6 archbishops: in Vologda, Suzdal, Nizhny, Smolensk, Ryazan and Tver; yes 8 bishops: 1 in Pskov, 2 in Rzhev Vladimir, 3 in Ustyug, 4 in Beloozero, 5 in Kolomna, 6 in Bryansk and Chernigov 7, in Dmitrov 8. However, many remained not promoted, as written in the charter of this cathedral .
1590. The sovereign himself walked near (Rugodiv) Narva, and did not take it, because it was winter; having made peace, he returned Ivangorod, Koporye and Yama. And he came to Moscow that same winter.
1591. In Poland, Sigismund III, King of Sweden, was elected to the kingdom (Zigimont). He sent envoys and made a truce for 20 years.
In the same year, in Astrakhan, the Tatars poisoned Tsarevich Malat-Girey and his wife and many Tatars loyal to the sovereign, which is why Ostafiy Mikhailovich Pushkin was deliberately sent to look for him. And after searching for the culprits, many Murzas and Tatars were executed and burned alive. The rest of the prince's Tatars, some were given villages, and others were given a salary.
On May 15th, at the instigation of Boris Godunov, Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich was killed in Uglich by Kochalov, Bityagovsky and Volokhov. Bityagovsky was also in the same council with Godunov, having taught him, Andrei Kleshnin sent him. Godunov, having received this news, covering up his deception, reported it to the sovereign with great sadness and advised him to look for it. For this reason he sent Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky and with him his accomplice in his deception, the devious Andrei Kleshnin. When did they come to Uglich, Shuisky, without fear doomsday God and forgetting his kiss on the cross in loyalty to the sovereign, pleasing Godunov, not only closed the former deception, but in addition many faithful princes were tortured and executed innocently. Returning to Moscow, they reported to the sovereign that the prince, being ill, stabbed himself to death due to the negligence of his mother and her Nagikh relatives. Therefore, they took her brother Mikhail and the other Nagikhs to Moscow, brutally tortured them and, having taken away all their property, sent them into exile. The Tsarevich's mother, Queen Maria, took monastic vows, was named Martha and was exiled to Empty Lake, and the city of Uglich was ordered to be destroyed for killing the Tsarevich's killers. And the remaining murderers, mother and heirs of the murdered, as faithful servants, were given villages. Godunov, seeing that all the people began to speak against him about the murder of the prince, and although some were taken, tortured and executed for these words, he, fearing a riot, in June ordered Moscow to different places light it, and almost all of it burned out, causing many people to go completely bankrupt. Godunov, wanting to win over the people, gave many money from the treasury for construction.
In the same year, the Crimean Khan came with the Turks near Moscow. And the governors throughout Ukraine, seeing that it was impossible to resist them in the Field, strengthened the cities and went with their troops to Moscow. Khan, having come to Moscow, stood in Kolomenskoye and destroyed many places near Moscow, and Russian troops stood on the Devichye Field. The Khan moved to Kotly, and the boyars to the Danilov Monastery, and there were many battles, but the Russians could not resist. On August 19th, the Tatars, hearing a great noise in the Russian army, asked the Poloneniks about the reason for it. And they said that supposedly a great army had come from Novgorod to help, which caused confusion in the Tatar camps, and the khan left that same night with his entire army, and although the boyars soon followed him, they could not catch up anywhere. For this, the sovereign granted villages to many boyars, and ordered the chief governor Boris Godunov to write as a servant. On the spot where the convoy stood, the sovereign built the Donskoy Monastery, and on that date an annual procession with crosses was established.
1591. After the Tatars retreated, a wooden city was founded near Moscow and an earthen rampart was added to it, which was completed in 1592. In Siberia, the governors brought many peoples under Russian rule and forced them to pay tribute. In the same year 592 the cities of Tara, Berezov, Surgut and others were built.
In the same year, the Tsarevich of the Cossack Horde, the Tsarevich of Ugra, the Volosh voivodes Stefan Alexandrovich and Dmitry Ivanovich and the Greek princes' relative Manuil Muskopolovich, the Multan voivodes Peter and Ivan, from the city of Selun, Dmitry Selunsky with his children, and many other Greeks came to serve the sovereign.
In the same year, much grumbling arose in Ukrainian cities; supposedly Godunov summoned the Crimean Khan, fearing revenge for the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry. And for this, many people were tortured and executed, and many were sent into exile, which is why entire cities were desolate.
The Finns of Kayana city, having gathered in large numbers, fought around White Sea to the Solovetsky Monastery. The Emperor sent Prince Andrei and Grigory Volkonsky to the Solovetsky Monastery. And having arrived, Prince Andrei stayed in the monastery and strengthened it, and Prince Gregory went to the Sumy prison, where, having beaten many Finns, he cleared the prison. Then the Swedes arrived and destroyed the Pechersky Monastery in the Pskov region.
The Volkonsky princes went to Kayany that same winter and burned and destroyed many villages, and chopped up people and took them to the full. In the same year, the sovereign sent Prince Fyodor Ivanovich Mstislavsky and his comrades to Vyborg and, having ruined Finland a lot, without taking Vyborg, they returned to Lent. In the same year, in the summer, the Tatars came to the Ryazan, Kashira and Tula places and destroyed them.
In the same 1592, Princess Theodosia was born, and Mikhail Ogarkov was sent to Greece with alms.
1593. The Swedish king sent ambassadors to Narva, and the sovereign sent from himself, who, having gathered on the Plus River, made peace, and the Swedes gave the city of Korela back. The first bishop, Sylvester, was consecrated in Korelu (Kexholm).
In the same year, Princess Theodosia Feodorovna died, and after her, the village of Cherepen was given to the Ascension Monastery in the Masalsky district. In Ukraine, due to the Tatar raids, the cities of Belgorod, Oskol, Voluika and others were placed in the steppes, and before them Voronezh, Livny, Kursk, Kromy were established; and they, having strengthened them, populated them with Cossacks.
1594. The sovereign sent Prince Andrei Ivanovich Khvorostinin with an army to the Shevkal land and ordered the cities of Kosa and Tarki to be established. And they, having come, established a city on Kos, left the governor of Prince Vladimir Timofeevich Dolgoruky. And in Tarki, having arrived, the mongrels with the Kumyks and other Circassians defeated the governors, where the Russians were beaten with 3,000 people and little came back. The Circassians came to Kos with great force and brutally attacked, but, seeing Dolgoruky in a satisfied fortification, they retreated and left him alone. The Georgian king sent his ambassadors to accept him for Russian protection and to establish the Christian faith. Therefore, the sovereign sent many clergy and skilled people with icons and books to Georgia. They, having taught and approved them, returned with satisfied wealth. And from that time on, the sovereign began to be described as the owner of these kings. The mountain, Kabardian and Kumyk princes sent to ask the sovereign to accept them into his protection. And the sovereign ordered the Terek governor to protect them, and to be faithful, to take the princely children into amanates. And soon after that, Prince Suncheley Yangolychevich arrived with many people to Terki, where he set up settlements and, while alive, showed many services to the sovereign. And these are also included in the title. Until now, they wrote the title without these possessions, as in the charter of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich about the delivery of the 1st Patriarch it is written: “By the grace of God we, great sovereign king and Grand Duke Feodor Ioannovich of all Great Russia, Vladimir, Moscow, Novgorod, Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Sovereign of Pskov and Grand Duke of Smolensk, Tver, Ugra, Perm, Vyatka, Bulgarian and others, Sovereign and Grand Duke of Novgorod, Nizovsky land, Chernigov, Ryazan, Polotsk , Rostov, Yaroslavl, Bel Lake Kiy, Udorsky, Obdorsky, Kondinsky and all Siberian land, Seversk land owner and many other sovereign and autocrat. Summer 7097, our states are 6, and the Russian kingdoms are 43, Kazan 37, Astrakhan 35, the month of May.”
1595. All of China burned down, and Prince Vasily Shchepin and Vasily Lebedev and his comrades set fire in many places, wanting to plunder the sovereign’s great treasury. But when they were convicted of this, they were executed at the Fire and their heads were cut off. Many of their comrades were hanged and sent into exile.
There were ambassadors from Shah Abas of Persia with many gifts, and eternal peace, or friendship. And according to this, the sovereign also sent envoys to the Shah, who negotiated agreements with the merchants. Tsar Simeon Bekbulatovich of Kazan lived on his allotment in Tver in great reverence and silence, but Godunov, hearing that he grieved for Tsarevich Dmitry and often mentioned with regret, fearing that he would not be disturbed in the future by first taking the allotment of Tver from him, and instead gave him the village of Klushino with its villages, and then soon blinded him with treachery. From the Caesar of Rome there were ambassadors Abraham the Burgrave and his comrades, whose bailiff was Prince Grigory Petrovich Romodanovsky. And having sent them away with great honor, he sent ambassadors from himself with many gifts.
The Emperor sent Boris Fedorovich Godunov with many people to Smolensk and ordered to build a stone city. During this campaign, he showed great favors to the military people, for which everyone loved him, for which this campaign was deliberately made by him. Having mortgaged the city at his own discretion, he returned to Moscow with great honor. To build it, masons, brickmakers and potters were taken from many cities. Well, the sovereign had ambassadors from the Pope, the kings of Denmark, Sweden and England, Dutch, Bukhara, Georgian, Ugra and others at different times.
Envoy Daniil Islenev returned from the Turkish land, and with him an envoy from the Khan came from Crimea, and peace was established.
At the same time, there was a pestilence in Pskov and Ivangorod, and then they were filled from other cities. The Tatars came to Kozepsky, Meshchevsky, Vorotynsky, Przemysl and other places and destroyed them. The sovereign sent the governor Mikhail Andreevich Beznin with an army, who, having gathered in Kaluga and converged on the Vysa River, beat all the Tatars and captured their governor with many Tatars.
1596. In Nizhny Novgorod, at noon, the earth gave way and the Ascension Monastery, called Pechersky, with its entire structure, which was three miles from the city, fell through, and the elders, hearing the noise, all ran out. And instead of it, a monastery was erected near the city. However, this was not due to an earthquake, but because the mountain was washed away by water and collapsed.
1598. Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, having become seriously ill and seeing his death, summoned Tsarina Irina Feodorovna, bequeathed to her after him, leaving the throne, to accept the monastic rank. The Patriarch and the boyars cried and asked him to tell them who he wanted to appoint as king after himself. But he said that that is not in his, but in God's will and their consideration. And he reposed on January 1st, having reigned for 14 years, 9 months and 26 days.
After the burial of the sovereign, the queen, without going to the palace, simply ordered herself to be taken without an escort to the Novodevichy Convent and there she accepted the monastic rank, from where she did not leave until her death. The boyars immediately sent decrees to the entire state so that they would come to the election of the sovereign. Because of this, many people gathered, gathered to see the patriarch, and on the advice of everyone, they first asked the queen to take the throne, knowing that she was a man of keen intelligence and great virtues. But she really refused them and forbade them to come to her place. After which, according to reasoning, and especially the common people, to whom Godunov showed many favors, agreed to elect Boris Fedorovich Godunov, expecting from him in the future the same merciful and prudent rule as he had previously deceived them with mercy and generosity. And with that they sent him to ask. He, like a wolf, dressed in sheep's clothing, having searched for so long, now began to refuse and, after several petitions, went to the queen in the Novodevichy Convent. The reason for this was that the boyars wanted him to kiss the cross to the state according to the letter prescribed to him, which he did not want to do or clearly refuse, hoping that the common people would force the boyars to choose him without an agreement. Seeing this denial and stubbornness of his, the Shuiskys began to say that it was indecent to ask him anymore, since such a big request and his denial may not be without harm, and they imagined choosing someone else, and especially because they, knowing his secretive anger, They really didn’t want to let him in. After which everyone dispersed, and Godunov remained in danger. But the patriarch, at the prompting of Godunov’s well-wishers, early in the morning of February 22nd summoned all the boyars and those in power and, taking the holy icons from the church, went himself to the Novodevichy Convent and, when he arrived, asked the queen to let her brother go. She answered them: “Do as you want, but as an old lady, I don’t care about anything.” (Some say that the queen, thinking that her brother was the cause of death of the sovereign Tsar Theodore Ioannovich, did not want to see him until his death.) And then they began to ask Godunov, who accepted without any denial. And on the same date they kissed the cross for him, but he remained in the monastery, and went to the palace on March 3rd.
In the same year, before the coronation, he went to Serpukhov with his regiments, imagining that the Crimean Khan was coming, and moreover, he did it in order to please the people in the army, because in that campaign he showed many favors. Under Serpukhov, Russian envoys Leonty Ladyzhensky and his comrades came from Crimea and said that peace had been approved. Ambassadors from the khan also came with them. On June 29, he received the Crimean ambassadors with great decorations in tents. The army was all stationed near the road in the best decoration, which stretched for 7 miles. And, having given gifts to these ambassadors, he released them. After the ambassadors' leave, having sent a certain number of troops for protection to Ukraine, disbanding the rest, he returned to Moscow on July 6th.
In the same year, in Siberia, governors from Tara went against Tsar Kuchum, his army was defeated and his 8 wives and 3 sons were taken, who were sent to Moscow. And for this, these governors and servants were given gold, and the Stroganovs were given great lands in Perm. The princes were provided with generous food and fair maintenance.
1598. On September 1, Tsar Boris Fedorovich was crowned by the patriarch, Mstislavsky carried the crown and showered it with gold. In Siberia, the city of Mangazeya was built by Prince Vasily Masalsky-Rubets in 1599.
1599. The Swedish prince Gustav, son of King Eric 14 of Sweden, came to Moscow at the call, who had the intention of marrying the daughter of Tsar Boris. But seeing that there would be war with the Swedes because of this, Tsar Boris gave him Uglich as an inheritance and sent him there with all his servants. He, without accepting the Greek law, died on the 16th in Uglich. After his arrival, this prince was at the sovereign’s table, and they sat at the same table, only the dishes were different, and they ate from gold. And the prince of the Cossack Horde Bur-Mamet, who arrived under Tsar Theodore, granted the city of Kasimov with volosts, and the Tatars who came with him and other princes settled there. Tsar Boris heard that near Astrakhan the Nogai horde was multiplying and the Khan’s children were divided, fearing future harm from them, he wrote to the governors in Astrakhan so that they would quarrel between those brothers. Which was done in such a way that they, attacking each other, killed many among themselves and there were few of them left; many children were sold to the Russians for a ruble or less, and more than 20,000 of them died.
Tsar Boris, being the thief of the Russian throne, was always afraid that he would not be removed from the throne and someone else would not be chosen, and began to secretly find out what was being said about him, but he was most afraid of the Shuiskys, and Romanovs, and other noble people, he intended to bribe people and teach them to bring their boyars to commit treason. And the first to appear was Voinko, a servant of Prince Fyodor Sherstunov. And although he, hiding his anger, did nothing to that boyar, he ordered his servant in the square to declare nobility and gave villages, writing around the city. This caused many servants to become agitated and, in agreement, many began to accuse their masters, presenting their brothers as witnesses, the same thieves. And in this many innocent people were tortured, and especially slaves who, remembering the fear of God, spoke the truth and affirmed the innocence of their masters, in which the servants of the Shuiskys and Romanovs showed themselves best. The informers, even if they were not brought to light, were treated throughout the cities as boyar children, which caused great unrest, many houses were ruined after such cruel and insidious machinations. At the house of Alexander Nikitich Romanov, the servant of the Second Bakhteyarov, who was his treasurer, having intended deception, collected a bag of all sorts of roots, according to the teachings of Prince Dmitry Godunov, put it in the treasury and went to bring it, said about the roots, supposedly his master had prepared it for the royal killing. Tsar Boris sent the devious Mikhail Saltykov and his comrades. They came to the government office, without looking, and according to the deceiver’s testimony, they took these roots, brought them and announced them in front of all the boyars, and they brought Fyodor Nikitich and his brethren at the same time and put them under strong guard with great abuse. They also sent to Astrakhan for Prince Ivan Vasilyevich Sitsky, who was a close relative of the Romanovs, and ordered him to be brought in chained. And both the Romanovs and their nephew, Prince Ivan Borisovich Cherkassky, were repeatedly brought to torture, and their best people were tortured. And although many died from torture, no one said anything about them. And seeing that they could not prove anything, they sent them into exile: Fyodor Nikitich Romanov to the Siysky Monastery and, having tonsured his hair there, they named him Philaret; Alexander Nikitich Romanov in the Kola Pomerania, the village of Luda, and there Leonty Lodyzhensky strangled him; Mikhail Nikitich Romanov to Perm, 7 versts from Cherdyn, and there they starved him, but since the men secretly fed him, they strangled him for his sake; Ivan and Vasily Nikitich Romanov went to Siberia to the city of Pelym, and Vasily was strangled, and Ivan was starved, but the man secretly fed him; their son-in-law, Prince Boris Kanbulatovich Cherkassky, with him the children of Fyodor Nikitich Romanov, son and daughter, sister Nastasya Nikitishna and wife of Alexander Nikitich in Beloozero; Prince Ivan Borisovich Cherkassky to prison in Yerensk; Prince Ivan Sitsky to the Konzheozersky monastery, and his princess to the desert, and there, having tonsured them, they strangled them; Fyodor Nikitich Romanov, having tonsured his wife Ksenia Ivanovna, named her Martha and, exiled to the Zaonezhsky churchyard, was ordered to starve to death, but the peasant secretly impregnated her. These peasants, who saved Ivan Nikitich in Siberia, still do not pay any taxes to their heirs. Their relatives, the Repnins, Sitskys and Karpovs, were sent to the cities, and their villages were all distributed, their belongings and yards were sold. After some time, Godunov remembered his sin, ordered Ivan Nikitich Romanov and his wife, Prince Ivan Borisovich of Cherkassy, children and sister of Fyodor Nikitich to bring to Romanov’s estate, the village of Klin in Yuryevsky district, and live here behind the bailiff, where they were until the death of Tsar Boris. Having released the Sitskys, he ordered the governors to go to Niza in the cities, and Prince Boris Konbulatovich Cherkassky died in prison. Prince Ivan, son of Vasily Sitsky, ordered to be brought to Moscow, but the messenger crushed him along the way. The informers cut each other off and they all disappeared.
The city of Smolensk was completed under Tsar Boris, and stone was transported from Ruza and Staritsa, and lime was burned in Belsky district. Great ambassadors came from Poland. Lev Sapega and his comrades, and made a truce for 20 years. The city of Tsarev Borisov was built, built by Bogdan Yakovlevich Volsky with his army. And since he showed great mercy to the military men, and the army boasted about them, for this reason he was brought into suspicion by Tsar Boris, and without any reason, having robbed him, he was sent into exile, and he died in prison. Others say that Belsky supposedly repented to his spiritual father about the death of Tsar John and Tsar Fyodor, which he did according to the teachings of Godunov, which the priest told the patriarch, and the patriarch told Tsar Boris, after which he immediately ordered Belsky to be taken and exiled. And for a long time no one knew where they were exiled and for what. Ambassadors Mikhail Glebovich Saltykov and Vasily Osipovich Pleshcheev were sent to Poland.
On August 15 there was a great frost, everything in the fields froze, and there was a great famine for three years, and then pestilence. Then, in the place where the mansions of Tsar John were, stone chambers were built to feed the people, which is now the Embankment Yard, and many other buildings were built to feed the people, through which many people were fed and saved from death. Then there were Persian ambassadors with great gifts. There were also English ambassadors who asked that they be allowed to trade in Persia, and this was agreed upon with them. Prince Fyodor Boryatinsky was sent to Crimea, but since his affairs were dishonest, they sent Prince Grigory Volkonsky, who returned with peace treaties, and was given their ancient estate on the Volkonka River.
The clerk Afanasy Vlasyev was sent to the Danish land to ask the royal brother Johann, the son of King Frederick II, for whom Tsar Boris promised to give his daughter Ksenia Borisovna; according to which, having agreed, the prince went to Russia with many people, and Vlasyev arrived in advance. The prince was received in Ivangorod by Mikhail Glebovich Saltykov and brought him to Moscow with great honor and joy on both sides, and all the Russian people loved the prince. But this created great envy and fear in Tsar Boris, for this reason he hated the evil of the prince; Having despised his daughter's tearful petition for him, he inflicted many annoyances on him, after which he soon died, or rather was killed. He was buried in the German Settlement, and his people were all released.
One Russian historian says this: In 1602, Tsar Boris, seeing the great love of all the people for the prince, extreme envy, or rather fear, had the idea that after his death the people, remembering his tyrannical deeds, that he had eradicated the name of his sovereigns and after them all noble families, past his son the prince was not elected, he ordered his nephew Semyon Godunov to kill him. Having heard or found out this, the queen, his wife, as well as his daughter, asked him with tears that if he displeased him, he would let him go home; but he was even more afraid to let go. After which the prince soon fell seriously ill. Semyon called the sovereign’s doctor, who was assigned to treat him, and asked what the prince was like. And he announced that it was possible to cure. Semyon Godunov, looking at him like a ferocious lion and without saying anything, went out. The doctor and healer, seeing that this news was not acceptable, did not want to treat. And so the king’s son died that night of October 22nd, at the age of 19, and was buried in the German Settlement. His people were released to the Danish land. All the boyars and noble people were present at his funeral, at which many could not hold back their tears. But the Almighty God did not want to leave this crime of theirs unpunished, and this retribution, or rather a sword, was especially obvious on the heads of the Godunovs on the same day. After the burial of the prince, Semyon Godunov came from Sloboda, supposedly with good news, and accidentally noticing one from Poland who had arrived with letters, accepted, went to Tsar Boris and was the first to tell him about the burial. Then, having opened these letters, I saw in one that a man had appeared who was called Tsarevich Dmitry. And then Boris immediately came into great sadness and immediately sent several people to see what kind of person he was. One, returning, said that this was Yuri Otrepyev, who was tonsured, and was a deacon in the Chudov Monastery, and was named Gregory.
This one, called Rasstriga, was born in the Galician district. His grandfather was a nobleman, Zamyatya Otrepyev, who had 2 sons, Smirna and Bogdan. Bogdan gave birth to this son, named Rasstriga, Yuri, who was sent to Moscow to the Chudov Monastery to learn writing, where he studied with great diligence and was superior to his peers in this. When his father arrived, he lived in the Basmanovs’ house, where he often came from the monastery. The archimandrite saw his great witticisms in the letter and persuaded him to take a haircut in his youth, calling him Gregory. But he soon left that place, went to Suzdal to the Evfimyev Monastery and lived here for a year; from there to the monastery on Kuksu and lived for 12 weeks. Having learned that meanwhile his grandfather Zamyatya had taken monastic vows at the Chudov Monastery, he came to him and they made him a deacon. Patriarch Job, hearing that he was quite proficient in reading and writing, took him in to write books, since seals had not yet been used. He, living with the patriarch, was always thoroughly notified of the murder of the prince. And somehow the Metropolitan of Rostov heard about this, and besides, he said this: “If I were a tsar, I would rule better than Godunov,” and reported this to Tsar Boris. The Tsar ordered the clerk Smirny to immediately take him and exile him to Solovki. But Smirnoy, without fulfilling this, said in a conversation to clerk Efimiev, who was also a friend of Otrepiev and immediately let him know. He, seeing his misfortune, fled from Moscow to Galich, from there to Murom, where a friend of his grandfather was a builder. And having stayed with him for a short time, and taking a horse, he went to Bryansk, where he became friends with the monk Mikhail Povadin, with whom they came to Novgorod Seversky and lived with the archimandrite in his cell. From there he asked for leave with a friend to Putiml, supposedly to visit his relatives for a while, and the archimandrite, giving them horses and a guide, let them go. The same Grishka wrote the card like this: “I am Tsarevich Dmitry, the son of Tsar John Vasilyevich, and when I am in Moscow on the throne of my father, then I will welcome you.” He put that card on the pillow of the archimandrite in his cell. And while driving, they came to the Kyiv road, turned towards Kyiv, and told the conductor to go home; who, having arrived, said to the archimandrite. The archimandrite, seeing this card on the pillow of his bed, began to cry, not knowing what to do, and hid this from all the people.
