The reign of False Dmitry I. The time of the reign of False Dmitry

Makhnev Dmitry Grigorievich

Abstract on the topic: "Personality in history. False Dmitry 1" was completed by a student of the 7th grade Makhnev Dmitry. In his work, he studied the personality of False Dmitry 1, his role in the history of the state, the period of the Time of Troubles. He expressed his attitude to the personality of False Dmitry 1.

Download:

Preview:

All-Russian competition of abstract works of students

Municipal educational institution

Shaiginskaya secondary school

Full address: 606940 Nizhny Novgorod region, Tonshaevsky district, Shaigino village

Vokzalnaya st., 55 G t.88315194117

Abstract work:

The role of personality in history. False Dmitry 1.

7th grade

Supervisor : Rusinova Lyudmila Anatolyevna,

history teacher.

2012-2013 academic year

The role of personality in history. False Dmitry 1

Introduction _______________________________________________ 1

The country after the death of Ivan the Terrible and the reign of Fyodor Ioannovich____________________________________________ 1

Who is False Dmitry 1_________________________________ 3

What Grigory Otrepiev said in Lithuania__________________ 4

The beginning of the trip to Moscow________________________________5

The accession of the impostor __________________________________________6

The reign and death of Otrepiev ____________________________8

Conclusion ______________________________________________8

References ____________________________________________9

1. Introduction.

The Time of Troubles was the most difficult period in the history of Russia, heavy blows fell on it from all sides: boyar feuds and intrigues, Polish intervention, adverse climatic conditions almost put an end to the history of the Russian state. I think everyone is free to decide for himself how he feels about this or that. acting person and his actions. In this essay, I tried to reflect the brief course of events and the attitude of historians to the appearance of the first impostor, who took the name of Dmitry (later called False Dmitry 1), especially since different historians portray him differently. For example, Ruslan Skrynnikov portrays him as a kind of monster who did not find himself in ordinary life and therefore decided on an adventure. It should be noted that the concept imposture belongs not only to Russian history. Back in the VI century. BC, the Median priest Gaumata took the name of the Achaemenid king of Bardia and ruled for eight months until he was killed by the Persian conspirators. Since then, for thousands of years, different people, inhabitants different countries took the names of the killed, dead or missing rulers. The fates of the impostors were dissimilar, but most of them had a sad end - the punishment for deceit most often was execution or imprisonment. We were told about this in history class. Already in the biography of the first Russian impostor, False Dmitry I, elements of a religious legend about the deliverer king, the redeemer king, are manifested. But it should be noted that the huge role that impostors play in national history XVII-XVIII centuries, this is the restoration of this phenomenon at the end of the XX century.

The main course of events is described according to the books by Ruslan Skrynnikov "Minin and Pozharsky" and "Boris Godunov". After reading this book, I drew for myself the course of events. He is.

2. The country after the death of Ivan the Terrible and the reign of Fyodor Ioannovich.

The Muscovite state at the turn of the 16th - 4th centuries was going through a severe political and socio-economic crisis, which was especially manifested in the position of the central regions of the state.

As a result of the opening for Russian colonization of the vast southeastern lands of the middle and lower Volga region, a wide stream of peasant population rushed there from the central regions of the state, seeking to get away from the sovereign and landlord "tax", and this drain of labor led to a shortage of workers in central Russia . The more people left the center, the harder the state landowner tax pressed on the remaining peasants. The growth of landlordism gave everything large quantity peasants under the rule of the landowners, and the lack of labor forced the landowners to increase peasant taxes and duties, and also to strive by all means to secure the available peasant population of their estates. The position of “full” and “enslaved” serfs has always been quite difficult, and at the end of the 16th century the number of indentured serfs was increased by a decree that prescribed that all those formerly free servants and workers who had served their masters for more than six months be converted into indentured serfs.

In the second half of the 16th century, special circumstances, external and internal, contributed to the intensification of the crisis and the growth of discontent. The difficult Livonian War, which lasted 25 years and ended in complete failure, demanded huge sacrifices from the population in people and material resources. The Tatar invasion and the defeat of Moscow in 1571 significantly increased casualties and losses. The oprichnina of Tsar Ivan the Terrible, which shook and shook the old way of life and habitual relationships, increased the general discord and demoralization; in the reign of Ivan the Terrible "a terrible habit was established not to respect the life, honor, property of one's neighbor" (Soloviev).

While the sovereigns of the old customary dynasty, direct descendants of Rurik and Vladimir the Holy, were on the Moscow throne, the vast majority of the population meekly and unquestioningly obeyed their "natural sovereigns". But when the dynasty ended, the state turned out to be "no one's", the population was confused and went into ferment. The upper layer of the Moscow population, the boyars, economically weakened and morally humiliated by the policy of Grozny, began the turmoil by the struggle for power in a country that had become "stateless".

After the death of Ivan the Terrible in 1584, Fyodor Ioannovich, who was distinguished by a weak physique and mind, was named tsar. He could not rule, so it was to be expected that others would do it for him - and it was. The new tsar was under the influence of his wife-sister, the close boyar Boris Fyodorovich Godunov. The latter managed to remove all his rivals and, during the reign of Fyodor Ioannovich (1584-1598), in essence, it was he who ruled the state. It was during his reign that an event occurred that had a huge impact on the subsequent course of history. This is the death of Tsarevich Dimitri, the younger half-brother of Tsar Fedor, adopted by Grozny from his seventh wife, Marya Nagoya. An illegitimate canonical marriage also made the fruit of this marriage questionable in terms of legality. However, after the death of his father, the little Prince Dimitry (he was then titled so) was recognized as the “specific prince” of Uglich and sent to Uglich, to the “lot”, together with his mother and uncles. At that time, agents of the central government lived and acted near the specific palace, Moscow officials - permanent (clerk Mikhailo Bityagovsky) and temporary ("city clerk" Rusin Rakov). There was a constant enmity between the Nagis and these representatives of state power, since the Nagis could not give up the dream of “specific” autonomy and believed that the Moscow government and its agents were violating the rights of the “specific prince”. The state power, of course, was not inclined to recognize specific claims and constantly gave the Nagim pretexts for insults and slander. In such and such an atmosphere of constant anger, abuse and quarrels, he died little Dmitry. On May 15, 1591, he died from a wound inflicted with a knife in the throat while playing pile with the guys in the courtyard of the Uglich Palace. Eyewitnesses of the event showed to the official investigators (Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky and Metropolitan Gelasy) that the prince stabbed himself with a knife in a sudden epileptic fit. But at the moment of the event, Dmitry's mother, distraught with grief, began to shout that the prince had been slaughtered. Her suspicion fell on the Moscow clerk Bityagovsky and his relatives. The crowd, summoned by the tocsin, inflicted pogrom and violence on them. Bityagovsky's house and office ("prikazba") were looted and more than ten people were killed. After the "investigation" of everything that happened, the Moscow authorities admitted that the prince died from an accidental suicide, that the Nagy were guilty of incitement, and the Uglichites of murders and robbery. The perpetrators were exiled to various places, the “tsarina” Marya Nagaya was tonsured in a distant monastery, and the prince was buried in the Uglich Cathedral. His bodies were not brought to Moscow, where they usually buried persons of the grand-ducal and royal families - in the “Archangel” with “blessed royal parents”; and Tsar Fedor did not come to his brother's funeral; and the grave of the prince did not become memorable and was so imperceptible that it was not immediately found when they began to search in 1606. It seemed that in Moscow they did not grieve for the “prince”, but on the contrary, they tried to forget him. But it was all the more convenient for dark rumors to spread about this unusual case. Rumors said that the prince was killed, that his death was necessary for Boris, who wanted to reign after Tsar Fedor, that Boris first sent poison to the prince, and then ordered him to be killed when the boy was saved from poison.

There is an opinion that, as part of the investigative commission, Godunov sent faithful people to Uglich, who cared not about finding out the truth, but about drowning out the rumor about the violent death of the Uglich prince. However, Skrynnikov refutes this opinion, believing that this does not take into account a number of important circumstances. The investigation in Uglich was led by Vasily Shuisky, perhaps the smartest and most resourceful of Boris' opponents. One of his brothers was executed by order of Godunov, the other died in the monastery. And Vasily himself spent several years in exile, from which he returned shortly before the events in Uglich. Agree, it would be strange if he gave false evidence in favor of Boris. Over Russia hung the threat of an invasion by Swedish troops and Tatars, possible popular unrest, in which the death of Dmitry was undesirable and extremely dangerous for Boris.

3. Who is False Dmitry 1.

At the end of 1603-beginning of 1604, a man appeared in the Commonwealth, declaring himself "Miraculously saved Tsarevich Dmitry". At the end of 1604, he, with a small (about 500 people) detachment of Poles, invaded the Russian state.

In Moscow, it was announced that under the guise of a self-proclaimed prince, a young Galich nobleman, Yuri Bogdanovich Otrepyev, was hiding, who after taking the tonsure took the name Grigory. Before escaping to Lithuania, the black Gregory lived in the Miracle Monastery in the Kremlin.

Under Tsar Vasily Shuisky, the Ambassadorial Order compiled a new biography of Otrepiev. It said that Yushka Otrepyev "was in the serfs of the boyars of the Mikitins, the children of Romanovich and Prince Boris Cherkassky, and, having stole, he was tonsured." Otrepyev was forced to retire to a monastery.

Only early embassy orders depicted young Otrepiev as a dissolute scoundrel. Under Shuisky, such reviews were forgotten, and during the time of the Romanovs, writers were surprised at the extraordinary abilities of the young man, but at the same time expressed a pious suspicion that he had entered into an alliance with evil spirits. Teaching was given to him with amazing ease, and in a short time he became "greatly literate." However, poverty and artistry did not allow him to count on a brilliant career at the royal court, and he entered the retinue of Mikhail Romanov, who had known his family for a long time. Therefore, the disgrace into which the Romanov family fell under Boris Godunov. In November 1600, they were accused of an attempt on the life of the king, the elder brother Fyodor was imprisoned in a monastery, four younger brothers were exiled to Pomorie and Siberia.

Archimandrite Pafnutiy of Chudov took George, condescending to his "poverty and orphanhood." From that moment on, his meteoric rise began. Having suffered a catastrophe in the service of the Romanovs, Otrepyev surprisingly quickly adapted to the new conditions of life.

Within months, he learned what others spent their lives on. He finds himself a new patron in the person of Patriarch Job. However, his service did not satisfy Gregory. In the winter of 1602, he fled to Lithuania, accompanied by two monks, Varlaam and Misail. In the Dermansky monastery, located in the possession of Ostrozhsky, he left his companions. According to Varlaam, he fled to Goshcha, and then to Brachin, the estate of Adam Vishnetsky, who took the future False Dmitry under his wing.

Among some historians, there is an opinion about the impostor, as about a Moscow man, prepared for his role among the Moscow boyars hostile to Godunov and allowed into Poland by them. As proof, they cite his letter to the pope, allegedly indicating that it was written not by a Pole (although composed in excellent Polish), but by a Muscovite who poorly understood the manuscript that he had to copy cleanly from the Polish draft. I am attracted by the traditional version of False Dmitry 1, as a very talented adventurer who was looking for the best place under the sun. choosing the right time and place for it.

4. What Grigory Otrepiev said in Lithuania.

Sigismund 111 became interested in the fugitive and asked Vishnevetsky to write down his story. This entry has been preserved in the royal archives. The impostor claimed that he was the rightful heir to the Russian throne, the son of Ivan 4 the Terrible, Tsarevich Dmitry. He claimed that his prince was saved by a kind educator, but he did not tell his name, having learned about the villainous plan of Boris. On a fateful night, this teacher put another boy of his own age into the bed of the Uglich prince. The baby was slaughtered, and his face was covered with a lead-gray color, because of which the queen mother, having appeared in the bedroom, did not notice the substitution and believed that her son had been killed.

After the death of the educator, the deceiver said, he was sheltered by a certain noble family, and then, on the advice of an unnamed friend, for the sake of safety he began to lead a monastic life and, like a monk, bypassed Muscovy. All this information completely coincided with the biography of Grigory Otrepyev. This can be explained by the fact that in Lithuania he was in the public eye and, in order not to be considered a liar, he was forced to stick to the facts in his story. For example, he admitted that he appeared in Lithuania in a monastic cassock, accurately described his entire journey from the Moscow border to Brachin. The Lithuanian statement was not the first. For the first time, he revealed his “Royal Name” to the monks of the Kiev Caves Monastery. They threw him out the door. While in Ostrog, Grishka and his companions won the favor of the owner of this place, Prince Konstantin, who presented him with a book with a dedicatory inscription: “The years from the creation of the world 7110 August on the 14th day gave us Gregory brother with Varlaam and Misail Konstantin Konstantinovich, by the grace of God, the most radiant Prince Ostrozhsky, voivode of Kyiv. Under the word "Gregory" an unknown hand signed an explanation: "to the Tsarevich of Moscow." However, the prince also expelled Otrepyev, as soon as he hinted at his royal origin.

5. Beginning of the campaign to Moscow.

King Sigismund 3 had long wanted to expand his territory at the expense of Russian lands. In such a situation, Otrepiev's statement came in handy. Sigismund made a secret treaty with him. According to this agreement, for the military assistance provided, Otrepiev had to give him the fertile Chernigov-Seversk land. He promised to hand over Novgorod and Pskov to the Mnishek family, his immediate patrons.

After crossing the border, Gregory went several times to the Zaporozhye Cossacks and asked them to help him in the fight against the "usurper" Boris. The Sich was agitated. The violent freemen have long been sharpening their sabers against the Muscovite tsar. Soon, messengers arrived at the prince, declaring that the Don army would take part in the war with Godunov.

Gregory captured the moment of his speech very well. In the years 1601-1603, events took place that created new reasons for the people's grumbling and excitement. Chief among them was an extreme hunger strike due to three years of crop failures that befell the country. The horrors of the famine years were extreme and the extent of the disaster was amazing. The suffering of the people, who had reached the point of cannibalism, became even more difficult from the shameless speculation in bread, which was engaged not only in market buyers, but also in very respectable people, even abbots of monasteries and wealthy landowners. A political circumstance also joined the general conditions of the famine. The affair of the Romanovs and Volsky began the disgrace of Boris against the boyars. They led, according to Moscow custom, to the confiscation of the boyar estates and to the release of the boyar household with a “commandment” not to take those servants to anyone.

In addition, Tsar Boris was increasingly sick, his death was not far off. Therefore, the population welcomed False Dmitry and joined him. Otrepiev crossed the border with a detachment of about two hundred people, but soon their number increased to several thousand.

So, on October 13, 1604, the impostor crossed the Russian border and approached the Chernigov town of Moravsk. The people surrendered to him without a fight. Encouraged by success, the Cossacks rushed to Chernigov. The governor of Chernigov refused to surrender and used cannons against the impostor, but as a result of an uprising that broke out in the city, the governor was captured, and the city fell into the hands of Gregory. Here one can note the fact that the mercenaries refused to move on until they were paid. Fortunately for Gregory, a fair amount of money was found in the voivodship treasury, otherwise he could have been left without an army.

On November 10, False Dmitry 1 reached Novgorod-Seversky, where the Moscow governor Pyotr Basmanov sat down with a detachment of archers numbering 350 people. The attempt to take the city ended in failure, but at that time the population of the nearest lands, excited by rumors of an uprising in Chernigov and the return of Tsarevich Dmitry, began to go over to the side of the impostor. Revolts flared up in Putivl, Rylsk, Seversk, and the Komaritskaya volost. By the beginning of December, the power of False Dmitry 1 was recognized by Kursk, then Kromy.

In the meantime, the Russian army was concentrated in Bryansk, since Godunov was waiting for Sigismund 111 to act. Convinced that he was not going to act, the army, under the command of the boyar Mstislavsky, headed for Novgorod-Seversky, where Otrepyev's headquarters was located. On December 19, 1604, the armies met, but the impostor decided to negotiate, especially since Mstislavsky had a huge advantage in power.

At the same time, a rebellion was brewing in Otrepiev's army, because the mercenaries again demanded to pay them, and since Grigory had no money, they abandoned him. Otrepiev was forced to head to the Komaritskaya volost, where he managed to add several thousand Komarinets to his fairly thinned army. Despite this, the army of Mstislavsky, who overtook him on January 21, 1605, defeated them and forced False Dmitry to flee. Subsequently, he sat down in Putivl.

6. Accession of the impostor.

Meanwhile, on April 13, 1605, Boris Godunov died in Moscow. There is an opinion that he was poisoned, and the signs of his death are really similar to those of arsenic poisoning. His death had grave consequences for the country. Fyodor Godunov, who came to power, did not have the strength to keep it in his hands.

Unrest continued in the country, reaching even Moscow. The people, excited by the proclamations of False Dmitry, demanded clarifications from the government. The speech of Shuisky, who confirmed that he put the body of Prince Dmitry into the coffin with his own hands and buried it in Uglich, made an impression: the unrest in the capital subsided for a while. However, the uprisings on the southern outskirts grew. Once Boris Godunov founded the Tsarev-Borisov fortress there, designed to control the Don Cossacks. Selected archery units from Moscow were stationed there. However, the archers were not attracted by such service on the outskirts of the steppe, away from their wives and children. Otrepiev's speech gave them a chance for a speedy return to Moscow.

The uprising of the Cossacks and archers in Tsaryov-Borisov led to the collapse of the entire defense system of the southern border. Oskol, Valuyki, Voronezh, Belgorod, and later Yelets and Livny recognized the power of the impostor.

Moral decay also affected the army that laid siege to Krom. The camp, set up in a swampy area, was flooded spring waters. They were followed by an epidemic of myta-dysentery. As soon as the camps reached the news of the death of Boris, many nobles immediately left under the pretext of a royal burial. According to contemporaries, after the death of Boris near Kromy, "a few boyars remained, and with them only the military people of the Seversk cities, archers, Cossacks and military people." The more warriors in sermyagas filled the camp, the more successful was the agitation in favor of the newly-minted Dmitry.

In the meantime, a conspiracy had matured at the top, headed by the Ryazan nobleman Procopius, according to other sources, Prokofy Lyapunov.

The Godunov dynasty was doomed to political loneliness. Friendly ties that held together the palace nobility under Tsar Fedor were broken by a quarrel between the Romanovs and Godunovs in 1598 during the struggle for the royal throne. This quarrel gave rise to the possibility of an impostor conspiracy, turning the name of Tsarevich Dimitri into a weapon of struggle. It was not without connection with this intrigue that the Romanovs were defeated and their alliance of “testamentary friendship” with Boris fell apart. When the impostor appeared, the princely nobility, obeying the personal authority and talent of Boris, served him. But when Boris died, she did not want to support his dynasty and serve his family. In this nobility, all her claims immediately came to life, all grievances spoke, a sense of revenge and a thirst for power developed. The princes were well aware that only the dynasty founded by Boris did not have either a sufficiently capable and fit for business representative, or any influential party of supporters and admirers. She was weak, she was easy to destroy - and she really was destroyed.

The young Tsar Fyodor Borisovich recalled the princes Mstislavsky and Shuisky from the army to Moscow and sent other princes Basmanov and Katyrev to replace them. However, later boyar Andrei Telyakovsky was appointed to replace Basmanov. Changes in the composition of the governor were probably made out of caution, but they served to the detriment of the Godunovs. Basmanov was mortally offended by the sovereign. Thus, the king himself pushed his overthrow. The troops stationed near Kromy were under the influence of the Golitsyn princes, the most distinguished and prominent of all governors, and P. F. Basmanov, who had popularity and military happiness. Moscow, on the other hand, should naturally follow V. I. Shuisky, whom she considered an eyewitness to the Uglich events of 1591 and a witness, if not death, then the salvation of little Dimitri. The boyar princes became masters of the situation both in the army and in the capital, and immediately declared themselves against the Godunovs and for "Tsar Dimitri Ivanovich." The Golitsyns and Basmanov drew the troops to the side of the impostor. Prince Shuisky in Moscow not only did not oppose the overthrow of the Godunovs and the triumph of the impostor, but, according to some reports, he himself testified at hand when he was addressed that the true prince was saved from murder; then he, among other boyars, went from Moscow to Tula to meet the new Tsar Demetrius. This is how the representatives of the princely nobility behaved at the decisive moment of the Moscow drama. Their behavior dealt a mortal blow to the Godunovs, and V. V. Golitsyn, as they said, did not even have the pleasure of being present at last minutes Boris's wife and Tsar Fyodor Borisovich.

So, as a result of a conspiracy led by Lyapunov, with the participation of princes Basmanov, Shuisky, Golitsyn and others, on May 7, 1605, the tsarist army went over to the side of the impostor.

Now the way to Moscow was open to Otrepiev. And he did not fail to take advantage of it, especially since all the cities on his way surrendered without a fight. Moscow also surrendered to him without a fight. Moreover, in early June, the people themselves defeated the Kremlin and locked up the Godunov family.

On June 3, 1605, Ivan Vorotynsky took to Tula, where the headquarters of False Dmitry was now located, a "deed of guilt", in which "the legitimate tsar of all Russia was invited to take the Russian throne." Gregory naturally accepted this invitation. On June 16, he reached the village of Kolomenskoye and announced that he would not enter Moscow while Fyodor Godunov was alive. As a result, Fedor and his mother were strangled. On June 20, 1605, Grigory Otrepyev, who later became False Dmitry 1, entered Moscow.

7. The reign and death of Otrepiev.

But False Dmitry did not last long on the throne. But everything that False Dmitry began to do destroyed the hopes of the people for a "good and just king." The boyars who initiated the appearance of the impostor no longer needed him. Wide layers of Russian feudal lords were dissatisfied with the privileged position of the Polish and Lithuanian gentry, who surrounded the throne, received huge rewards (money for this was seized by the impostor even from the monastery treasury). The Orthodox Church followed with concern the attempts to spread Catholicism in Russia. False Dmitry wanted to start a war against the Tatars and Turks. Service people met with disapproval the preparations for the war with Turkey, which Russia did not need.

They were dissatisfied with "Tsar Dmitry" in the Commonwealth. He did not dare, as he had promised earlier, to transfer Western Russian cities to Poland and Lithuania. The persistent requests of Sigismund 3 to speed up the entry into the war with Turkey had no result.

In addition, Gregory established ties with Sigismund, more and more insistently reminded him of the promise to give part of the Russian lands of the Commonwealth, and the overthrow of Sigismund was beneficial for the impostor.

As a result, a new conspiracy arose, in which persons who enjoyed the full confidence of False Dmitry took part: Vasily Golitsyn, Maria Nagaya, Mikhail Tatishchev and other thoughtful people. The conspirators established contact with Sigismund 3. Through reliable people, they spread a rumor that was murderous for the impostor, organized a whole series of assassination attempts on him. Otrepyev felt that his position, which was already precarious. He was forced to again seek support in Poland, and remembered his former "commander-in-chief" Yuri Mniszek and his fiancee Marina. In addition, there is a version that Gregory really loved Marina and they had an agreement on this matter.

On May 2, 1606, the royal bride and her retinue arrived in Moscow. With her arrived Polish troops under the command of Yuri Mniszek. On May 8, the wedding was played. Although Marina was a Catholic, she was crowned with the royal crown of the Orthodox state. In addition to this, the violence and robberies of the roaming gentry, who had gathered for the wedding, worried the population. Moscow boomed. On the night of May 16-17, the conspirators sounded the alarm and announced to the fleeing people that the Poles were beating the tsar. Having sent the crowds to the Poles, the conspirators themselves broke into the Kremlin. The people who had gathered in Red Square demanded a tsar. Basmanov tried to save the situation and reason with the people, but was stabbed to death by Mikhail Tatishchev. The murder of Basmanov served as a signal to storm the palace. Otrepiev tried to run, but when he tried to jump from the second floor, he broke both legs. There, under the window of the Stone Chambers, he was overtaken and killed.

From May 18 to May 25, it was cold in Moscow. These quirks of nature were attributed to the impostor. They burned his body and, mixing the ashes with gunpowder, fired from a cannon in the direction from which the impostor had come to Moscow. Thus ended the reign of False Dmitry I - the first Russian impostor, who was also the only one who managed to reach the throne.

8. Conclusion.

False Dmitry did his service in the history that his creators wrote for him. From the moment of his triumph, the boyars no longer needed him. He has become a tool that has served its purpose and is no longer needed by anyone, an extra burden that would need to be removed, and if it is removed, the path to the throne will be free for the worthiest in the kingdom. And the boyars have been trying to remove this obstacle from the very first days of his reign. False Dmitry 1 was alone, he lost the support of all his former allies, and given the uncertainty of the situation in which he was, this was tantamount to political and physical death. The death of False Dmitry shocked me, like that time in the history of our state.

List of used literature:

1. R. Skrynnikov. Minin and Pozharsky. Moscow 1981.
2. History of Russia end of 16-18 century. M., Enlightenment. 2009
3. Alekseev Lzhetsarevich. Moscow 1995.
4. V. Artyomov, Yu. Lubchenkov. The history of homeland. Moscow 1999
5. Shokarev Pretenders. 2001.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

At the beginning of the 17th century, great troubles fell upon Russia. The lean years caused famine, in Russia there was a time of troubles in full swing.

In an atmosphere of general indignation at the government in Russia, rumors spread about the miraculous salvation of Tsarevich Dmitry, son.

Rogues and all sorts of swindlers, who wanted to take the Russian throne in hard times and profit from the troubles of the Russian people, could not help but take advantage of this.

In 1601, a man appeared in Poland who began to impersonate Tsarevich Dmitry. The impostor went down in history as False Dmitry I, who mainly sought to gain support in the West, secretly converted to Catholicism and promised the Pope of Rome to spread Catholicism in Russia if he succeeded in taking the Russian throne.

False Dmitry I turned for help to the Polish king Sigismund, promising him excessive gratitude and Russian lands. Sigismund did not openly support the impostor, but allowed the gentry of their own free will to join the detachment of False Dmitry I.

At the end of the summer of 1604, False Dmitry I, together with his detachment of 4 thousand people, landed near the Dnieper. Through the south-western regions, runaway serfs, peasants and townspeople flocked under his command. Significantly increasing his detachment, he moved to Moscow.

In May 1605, after the sudden death of Boris Godunov, the tsarist troops also went over to the side of False Dmitry I. In June, the impostor solemnly entered Moscow, where he was crowned king under the name of Dmitry Ivanovich. He called himself emperor. The ease of his victory can be explained by a combination of circumstances.

Taking advantage of hunger and dissatisfaction with the authorities, the impostor's detachment quickly increased many times over at the expense of peasants, serfs, and disgruntled boyars. They saw in him a kind of savior from the troubles that fell on Russia.

Once anointed to the throne, False Dmitry I was in no hurry to fulfill his obligations, which he gave, seeking support from different segments of the population and the West. He never returned St. George's Day to the peasants, but he flirted with the nobility, increasing the investigation of the runaways from 5 to 6 years. False Dmitry was also in no hurry to introduce Catholicism in Russia.

The promise made to the Pope from the beginning could never be fulfilled. But the impostor richly presented the Poles. Soon the treasury was empty, False Dmitry I began to introduce new taxes and requisitions in order to patch holes in the treasury. This caused great discontent among the people, which intensified after the marriage of False Dmitry I to Marina Mnishek.

On May 17, 1606, an uprising broke out in Moscow. At the head of the people's anger were the Shuisky boyars. False Dmitry I was killed, and Marina Mnishek miraculously escaped ...

False Dmitry I, in fact, was a former serf of the Romanov boyars. His real name is Grigory Otrepiev.

The biography of False Dmitry 1 still excites the minds of historians. The impostor who managed to seize the throne was an amazing person. Taking advantage of the turmoil in Russia, False Dmitry, under the auspices of the Polish ruler Sigismund, became the king of a great power.

Grigory Otrepiev is the real name of False Dmitry the First. He came from slaves. Gregory received a good education, and his father chose a spiritual order for his son. Gregory decided not to submit to fate and fled from the Chudov Monastery in 1601. A fortunate combination of circumstances helped the failed monk. He found support in the Pope and the ruler of Poland. He promised the first to spread the Catholic faith in Russia, and the second was lured by the thought that domestic politics strong power will be in his hands.

The campaign of False Dmitry 1 against Moscow was well thought out. And the difficult period for Russia, when the people suffered from hunger, and the aristocracy was dissatisfied with the political views of the current government, played into the hands of the impostor. With a small detachment of soldiers, Grigory Otrepyev entered the Russian land. And since he called himself the rightful heir to the throne, the miraculously surviving Tsarevich Dmitry, his detachment was constantly replenished at the expense of peasants passing into the number of his troops. Sudden death was a happy sign for Gregory. Therefore, the overthrow of Fedor, who had not yet managed to gain a foothold on the throne, was an easy task. On June 30, 1605, False Dmitry entered Moscow. His coronation took place the next day. This is how the accession of False Dmitry 1, the first of the impostors in Russian history, happened.

The years of the reign of False Dmitry 1 were short-lived. He stayed on the throne for 11 months. He began his reign by "forgetting" to fulfill the promises he had made to the Pope. It is difficult to imagine how the Russian people, brought up in the Orthodox faith for centuries, could say goodbye to her. This impostor understood. And so he tried his best to thank his Polish patrons. He not only devastated the Russian treasury by returning his debts, but also married Maria Mnishek. The Russian boyars did not tolerate this.

The reign of False Dmitry 1 ended as quickly as it began. The boyars, headed by the Shuiskys, organized a conspiracy. They could not calmly watch how the newly-minted ruler devastates the treasury, giving money abroad. And since money was sometimes not enough, the monthly requisitions were most worried about the peasants. After all, they were promised to return St. George's Day, which, of course, False Dmitry did not revive. And in addition, he also increased the period of search for runaway peasants from five to six years. Discontent surrounded the royal throne from all sides. Therefore, when another impostor appeared in Poland - False Dmitry 2, he was gladly supported by all segments of the population. May 17, 1607, as a result of a conspiracy of the Shuisky boyars, False Dmitry 1 was killed. And to show how the people treat the impostors, his ashes were not allowed to rest in peace. The body of the false king was burned, and the ashes were mixed with gunpowder. And the remains of the former ruler were tucked into a cannon and flew towards Poland, to where the impostor came from.

Theory

"Time of Troubles in Russia"

Troubles (Time of Troubles)

Causes of Troubles

1598 - 1605 – Boris Godunov

1603- The uprising of Khlopko Kosolap.

April–May 1605 – Fyodor Godunov.

1605 - 1606 – Marina Mnishek

Reasons for the success of False Dmitry

1606 - 1610 – Vasily Shuisky (Vasily IV)

crucifixion record

From June 1606 new patriarch Hermogenes.

1606 - 1607 Ivan Bolotnikov

1607–

June 1608 -

February 1609

Intervention

1610 - 1612

September 1610

January–February 1611 council of all the earth

militia

Consequences of the Troubles

1. Terrible ruin and desolation of the country: economic ruin, great human losses, financial problems, impoverishment of the people.

2. Strengthening the flight of the population from the center of the country to the outskirts.

3. Loss of a number of territories (Smolensk and Seversk lands - captured by Poland, Novgorod - Sweden, loss of access to the Baltic Sea).

4. Weakening of the military potential of the country.

5. Preservation of national independence and Russian statehood.

6. Beginning of a new dynasty.

7. Weakening of the positions of the tribal boyars and strengthening of the nobility.

8. The rise of self-consciousness of the people.

Fixing material

On the topic "Time of Troubles in Russia"

1. Dates:

Terms

Cross-kissing record (letter), intervention, "seven boyars", militia, Council of All the Earth.

Theory

Reasons for embarrassment. Periodization of troubled times. The main events of the Troubles.

Personalities

Boris Godunov, Fyodor Godunov, False Dmitry I, Yuri Mnishek, Maria Mnishek, Vasily Shuisky, Ivan Bolotnikov, False Dmitry II, Sigismund III, P. Lyapunov, D. Trubetskoy, I. Zarutsky, Patriarch Job, Patriarch Ignatius, Patriarch Hermogen, K. Minin, D. Pozharsky, Prince Vladislav, Patriarch Filaret, Mikhail Romanov.

Topic quiz

"Time of Troubles in Russia"

Part 1 (A)

1. Historians refer to the Time of Troubles ... years:

1) 1598 – 1605

2. The Rurik dynasty ended after death:

1) Ivan the Terrible

2) Fedor Ivanovich

3) Boris Godunov

4) Mikhail Fedorovich

False Dmitry I

1) tried to spread Western customs

2) gave part of the Russian lands of the Commonwealth

3) rules through mass terror

4) destroyed the Boyar Duma

An example of heroic defense against interventionists during the Time of Troubles was given by the city

1) Nizhny Novgorod

2) Novgorod the Great

3) Smolensk

Part 2 (B)

1. As it was called in Russia in the 16th - 17th centuries. central estate-representative institution with legislative functions?

Part 3 (C)

From the "History of the Russian State" N. M. Karamzin:

“In his zealous love for civic education, Boris surpassed all the oldest crowned bearers of Russia, having the intention of starting schools and even universities to teach young Russians European languages ​​​​and sciences: in 1600 he sent the German John Kramer to Germany, authorizing him to search there and bring him to Moscow professors and doctors... This important intention was not fulfilled, as they say, from the strong objections of the clergy... how young Englishmen and Frenchmen then went to Moscow to study Russian....he invited not only healers, artists, artisans from England, Holland, Germany, but also bureaucrats to serve.

He was not, but he was a tyrant; he did not go mad, but acted villainously, like John, eliminating his associates or executing ill-wishers. If Godunov temporarily improved the state, elevated it for a while in the opinion of Europe, then wasn’t it him who plunged Russia into the abyss of misfortune almost unheard of - betrayed the Poles and vagabonds as prey, called a host of avengers and impostors by extermination ancient tribe royal? Didn’t he, finally, most of all contributed to the humiliation of the throne, sitting on it as a murderer of the holy?

1. To what time is the reign of Boris Godunov? What was the peculiarity of his accession?

2. What are, according to the historian, the merits of Boris Godunov? List at least three positions.

3. Using source and knowledge of the course of history, explain why Boris Godunov, despite all his merits, left a contradictory memory of himself in the history of Russia. Give at least three explanations.

4. Review the historical situation and answer the questions.

In January 1613, the Zemsky Sobor was opened, which was attended by representatives of the clergy, boyars, nobles, urban settlements, Cossacks, and even elected from the black-haired peasants. The cathedral decided that it would not look for a king among foreigners, and also rejected the candidacy of Marina Mniszek and the "fun" - the son of Mniszek and False Dmitry II. Mikhail Romanov was elected tsar. Name at least two reasons for the election of Mikhail Romanov to the Russian throne. What is the value for further development countries had this event? List at least three positions.

5. There are debatable problems in historical science, on which different, often opposing points of view are expressed. Below is one of the controversial points of view that exist in historical science.

“The turmoil was a manifestation of a deep internal crisis, one of the long-term consequences of the oprichnina and the defeat in the Livonian War, which led to the ruin of the economy, the growth of social unrest, widespread discontent, and the crisis was intensified by the intervention of external forces.”

Using historical knowledge, give two arguments that can support this point of view, and two arguments that can refute it.

6. Below are three names historical figures of the Time of Troubles. Complete one of them and complete the tasks.

1) Boris Godunov

2) False Dmitry I

3) Vasily Shuisky

Indicate the name, years of life of the historical figure (up to a decade or part of a century). Name the main directions of its activity and give them brief description. State the results of this activity.

List of used literature

1. USE-2014. History: typical examination options: 30 options / ed. A.B. Bezborodko, A.V. Ignatov. Moscow: National Education Publishing House, 2013. 384 p.

2. History. Preparation for the USE-2013: teaching aid/ ed. O.G. Veryaskina. Rostov on Don: Legion, 2012. 304 p.

3. Katsva L.A. History of the Fatherland: a reference book for high school students and those entering universities. M.: AST-PRESS KNIGA, 2012.

4. A short course in the history of Russia from ancient times to the beginning of the XXI century. Ed. Kerova V.V. M: AST: Astrel, 2011.

5. Pazin R.V. History of the development of Russian culture. 10 - 11 classes. Preparing for the Unified State Examination: reference materials, practical tasks and illustrations: a teaching aid. Rostov-on-Don: Legion, 2013.

6. Pazin R.V. Russian history. 10-11 grades. Thematic tests to prepare for the exam. Tasks of a high level of complexity (С4-С7): teaching aid. Rostov-on-Don: Legion. 2010. 312 p.

7. Pazin R.V. Story. Preparation for the exam. 10 - 11 classes. 140 historical figures of national and general history: materials of biographies. Task C6: historical essay: teaching aid. Rostov-on-Don: Legion, 2013.

8. Website of the Federal Institute of Pedagogical Measurements fipi.ru. Open job bank.

Theory

"Time of Troubles in Russia"

Troubles (Time of Troubles)- the period of national history of the beginning of the 17th century, when the country was going through a political, economic and social crisis.

Causes of Troubles

1. Dynastic crisis (termination of the Rurik dynasty).

2. Economic crisis (rains, early frosts for three consecutive years → famine of 1601-1603).

3. Struggle for power between boyar factions.

4. Social crisis (dissatisfaction with their position of all classes).

5. Expansion of spheres of influence by military methods of neighboring states (Poland, Sweden).

1598 - 1605 – Boris Godunov. On February 17, 1598, B. Godunov was elected by the Zemsky Sobor. First elected king! September 3, 1598 - the wedding of B. Godunov to the kingdom.

The activities carried out by B. Godunov were ambiguous (the examples given cover examples related both to the period of the reign of Fyodor Ioannovich and the independent reign of B. Godunov):

1. Freed the population from arrears.

2. Encouraged the development of trade and entrepreneurship.

3. The economic revival of the country began.

4. Construction of new cities in Siberia and the Volga region (Samara, Saratov (1589-1590), Tsaritsyn (1589), Tomsk).

5. The establishment of the patriarchate ensured its full autocephaly and raised the international prestige of Russia (the first patriarch Job (the years of the patriarchate 1589-1590)).

6. Took measures to combat hunger.

7. The rapprochement between Russia and the West began (he invited foreigners to serve in Russia, sent noble children to study abroad).

8. Active (successful) foreign policy: January-February 1590 campaign of Russian troops against Narva (capture of Yam, sieges of Narva and Ivangorod); 1598 - the defeat of the troops of the Siberian Khan Kuchum by the Russian governors in the Baraba steppe, the liquidation of the Siberian Khanate; 1601 - the conclusion of the Russian-Polish truce for 20 years

The name of B. Godunov was associated with the Uglich case.

Crop failure and famine in Russia (1601-1603).

The measures of the government of B. Godunov during the famine caused discontent among the population.

B. Godunov's claims to the throne were not supported by a significant part of the boyars, because. considered him to be unimportant.

1603- The uprising of Khlopko Kosolap.

April–May 1605 – Fyodor Godunov.

The Godunovs are already a dynasty on the Russian throne!!!

1605 - 1606 – False Dmitry I (Grigory Otrepiev). Invaded Russia in October 1604. Support of the Polish king Sigismund III and voivode Yuri Mniszek. False Dmitry promised them Russian lands and the introduction of Catholicism in Russia. In October-November 1604, South Russian cities (Chernigov, Putivl, Oskol, Voronezh, Yelets, etc.) went over to the side of False Dmitry. Patriarch Job was deposed (June 1605), the Ryazan Archbishop Ignatius became the new patriarch (until May 1606, then he was exiled to the Chudov Monastery). July 1605 wedding to the kingdom. He was married to the daughter of a Polish magnate Marina Mnishek(marriage May 1606).

Reasons for the success of False Dmitry

1. Support for various strata of society dissatisfied with the rule of B. Godunov

2. Many considered him the rightful heir to the throne, "the natural king." B. Godunov, on the other hand, was a tsar who took the throne not by inheritance, but by election to Zemsky Cathedral, therefore, the boyars used False Dmitry I in their own interests in the fight against the "lawless tsar" B. Godunov.

3. A sharp deterioration in the economic situation in the country caused dissatisfaction with the rule of B. Godunov.

4. The lower classes of society hoped to receive relief from their position from False Dmitry I, and service people, the Cossacks - benefits and privileges.

5. Part of the royal governor, the Cossack troops, given the mood of the masses, went over to the side of False Dmitry I.

Reasons for the overthrow of False Dmitry I.

1. The position of the lower classes of society has not improved: tax oppression and serfdom have been preserved.

2. Attempts to pursue an independent policy led to an aggravation of contradictions with the boyars, headed by V. Shuisky.

3. Many service people did not receive what they expected.

4. By refusing to fulfill his promises to the Polish king and the Catholic Church, he lost the support of outside forces.

5. The clergy and the boyars expressed dissatisfaction with the violation by False Dmitry I of the old Russian customs, the usual order of life.

6. Dissatisfaction with the impostor was associated with the approach of the Polish gentry to the royal court, who felt like real masters in Moscow and offended the national feelings and the Orthodox faith of the Russian people with their behavior.

1606 - 1610 – Vasily Shuisky (Vasily IV)(He was called the "boyar tsar").

On his accession to the throne, he gave crucifixion record- promises not to punish the boyars, not to execute the boyars, not to deprive them of their lands without the consent of the Boyar Duma, will not listen to false denunciations and punish the relatives of the disgraced.

From June 1606 new patriarch Hermogenes.

1606 - 1607- led uprising Ivan Bolotnikov. The goal is to restore the rightful tsar to the throne (Tsarevich Dmitry, because there were rumors that he did not die in Uglich). Bolotnikov called himself the governor of Tsarevich Dmitry. The uprising was attended by Cossacks, nobles, peasants, serfs. Moscow could not be taken because of the betrayal of the nobles. The uprising was crushed, Bolotnikov was executed.

1607– decree on a 15-year term for the investigation of fugitive peasants.

June 1608 - invasion of Russia by the troops of False Dmitry II. They called him the Tushinsky thief, because. it is located near Moscow in the village of Tushino. Had a yard there.

September 1608 - January 1610 - the siege of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery by the troops of the Tushino thief. Russian troops under the command of M.V. Skopin-Shuisky managed to lift the siege.

February 1609- the contract of Tsar V.I. Shuisky with Sweden for help in the fight against the Tushins. Russia undertook to return the Korelsky volost to Sweden in exchange for military assistance to Sweden in the fight against the Tushins. July 1609 the victory of the Russian and Swedish troops under the command of M.V. Skopin-Shuisky near Tver. The union of Russia and Sweden is a pretext for Polish intervention.

Intervention- forcible intervention of one or more states in the internal affairs of another state.

September 1609 - June 1611 - siege by the Poles led by Sigismund III of Smolensk. The defense of Smolensk (624 days) was led by Mikhail Borisovich Shein. Smolensk was taken, Shein was taken prisoner.

1610 - 1612- Seven Boyars. Head - F.I. Mstislavsky.

September 1610 The boyars let the Poles into Moscow.

January–February 1611- the formation of the first militia in Ryazan. Leaders: P.P. Lyapunov (nobleman), D.T. Trubetskoy (prince), I.M. Zarutsky (Cossack chieftain), D.M. Pozharsky (prince, until he played a big role). In Yaroslavl in June 1611 was created council of all the earth- the governing body of the militia. The goal is to liberate Moscow from the Poles. Outcome: due to inconsistency of actions, disputes, failed. P.P. Lyapunov was killed by the Cossacks. The militia broke up in July 1611.

militia- a military formation created from free peasants, nobles, townspeople, etc. during the period of enemy invasions.

The life of False Dmitry I, who was crowned king on July 31, 1605, still causes a lot of controversy. Rumors and conjectures surrounded the false king during his lifetime, with the historical memory of him, everything is also far from unambiguous.

Fool

In the popular mind, False Dmitry is an unambiguously negative character, because it was he who brought the interventionists to Russia. For this reason, his external and moral appearance is not presented in the most favorable light. But if the descriptions of his appearance are true: the imaginary Demetrius was not handsome: his nose is wide, there are warts on his face, his arms are one longer than the other - true, with the addition of stately - then his moral qualities not only distorted, but often turned inside out.

So, for a simple layman, False Dmitry is a kind of fool, a puppet in the hands of the Polish king, Marina Mnishek with her father and the Russian boyars, led by Shuisky. But the king was not really a stupid person. Contemporaries note that his eyes were intelligent and expressive. He was an excellent psychologist and a brilliant artist: False Dmitry quickly managed to win over and even fall in love with the crowd and then skillfully manipulated public opinion. The moment of his meeting with his mother, nun Martha - genuine, as it seemed, sincerity - convinced his contemporaries that the king was real.

He was able to deceive not only ordinary Russian people, but Polish dignitaries, experienced in diplomacy, Jesuits and even the Pope, skillfully dodging promises made to them.

Ignorant

If he is stupid, then he is ignorant. A fugitive monk, defrocked, picking up fragmentary knowledge. And everyone supposedly initially understood that he was not a king at all and deceived him, taking advantage of ignorance.

In reality, Dmitry surprised many contemporaries with his erudition: he often quoted the Bible to the point. He read himself and in every possible way attached to reading those close to him. He turned the Boyar Duma into the Senate and actively participated in its meetings. The imaginary Dmitry even dreamed of universal education - at the beginning of the 17th century. Even on the way to Moscow, he said: “As soon as I become king with God's help, I will now start schools so that they will learn to read and write from me throughout the state; I will establish a university in Moscow, I will send Russians to foreign lands, and I will invite smart and knowledgeable foreigners to my place.

cowardly

Usually, False Dmitry is considered an adventurer and, although he is reckless (after all, he encroached on the kingdom), he is cowardly.
The facts testify not only that the impostor sacredly believed his identity with the son of Ivan the Terrible, but also that he was a brave man. The first of the kings, he did not climb onto a horse, first standing on a bench set up, but daringly jumped on him. Actively participated in the royal hunt. He himself poisoned the most dangerous animals, even bears. Dreaming of dealing with the enemy, disturbing the southern lands with constant raids, with the Crimean Khanate, he actively prepared for war. Apparently, Demetrius himself was going to lead the campaign. In preparation, he held reviews of the troops, which at the same time became both teaching and entertainment.

Pampered and lazy

False Dmitry loved balls, he loved fun and dancing - it's true. But it is wrong to imagine that, having reached the reign, he indulged in debauchery and bliss. The new tsar not only performed his duties: unlike his predecessors, for example, after dinner he walked around the city and talked with merchants and townspeople. A hundred years before Peter I, False Dmitry won the hearts of artisans by working with them on an equal footing, and when he was pushed or even knocked down, he did not get angry and kept himself simple.

Wanted to give the country to the Poles

The next persistent myth is that False Dmitry is a traitor, a defector, and it was he who brought the Poles to Russia and thus began the cruel Time of Troubles.

Indeed, while in Poland and preparing only for a campaign against Moscow, he promised the king of the Commonwealth, Sigismund III, to "return" the northern land and Smolensk. And his future wife allegedly wanted to unsubscribe Novgorod and Pskov. But, having become king, he began to behave independently of Sigismund, demanded that he be called the invincible Caesar. As for the lands, the tsar directly announced to the Polish ambassador: their transfer to the king is impossible.

Relations between Sigismund and False Dmitry after the accession of the latter became strained, if not hostile. At a time when the boyars, headed by Vasily Shuisky, were preparing a conspiracy against the tsar, in Krakow they were thinking about overthrowing the objectionable Sigismund and placing the young Russian sovereign on his throne.

Encroached on the Orthodox faith

And yet - they say - False Dmitry hated the Orthodox faith and wanted to make Catholicism the state religion. And he himself was an apostate.

Dmitry, indeed, was baptized in Poland - he converted to Catholicism. Indeed, he did not have good feelings for the monks, taking away from the monasteries all their wealth, which a century earlier they had defended so long and so stubbornly from non-possessors. Monks he considered loafers.

However, there was no question of changing the state religion. The answers of False Dmitry to the Pope of Rome, who reminded the Moscow sovereign of the promise he had made a year before, were vague. He did not refuse directly, but said that he would not build Catholic churches to the detriment of the Orthodox. He ignored the Pope's complaints about the abundance of Protestants in Muscovy.

Indifferent to religion, the tsar obviously understood that Orthodoxy was one of the pillars of Russian society, and it was dangerous to encroach on it. And at the same time, he was tolerant of other faiths in a modern way.

He is Grigory Otrepiev

Finally, the last well-established, entrenched rumor that the fugitive monk of the aristocratic Chudov Monastery, Grigory (in the world Yuri) Otrepyev, was presented as Tsar Dmitry. Of all the others, this hypothesis seems to be the most plausible, but it also has serious flaws that do not allow identifying Tsar Dimitri with Grishka, who was anathematized under Boris Godunov.

Firstly, False Dmitry himself, in order to dispel doubts, showed the people the true Grigory Otrepyev. When he was no longer needed, he was exiled to Yaroslavl for drunkenness. Since Otrepiev was not a simple monk, but a deacon of the Chudov Monastery, the secretary of the patriarch, he could easily be distinguished from a double. And the deception would inevitably have been exposed in Moscow or another city.

Secondly, he spoke Polish too well, rode, shot, danced, to be a monk, obedient from his youth.

Thus, the identification of Grishka Otrepiev and False Dmitry is most likely false.