How False Dmitry Ruled 1. False Dmitry is a myth: he was the real Tsarevich Dmitry

False Dmitry the First

(encyclopedic dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron)

False Dmitry I - Tsar of Moscow (1605 - 1606). The origin of this person, as well as the history of his appearance and taking on the name of Tsarevich Demetrius, son of Ivan the Terrible, still remain very dark and can hardly even be fully explained given the current state of the sources. The government of Boris Godunov, having received news of the appearance in Poland of a person who called himself Dimitri, set out his story in its letters as follows.

Yuri or Grigory Otrepiev, the son of the Galician son of the boyar, Bogdan Otrepiev, lived in Moscow from childhood as slaves to the Romanov boyars and to the prince. Bor. Cherkassky; then, having attracted the suspicion of Tsar Boris, he took monastic vows and, moving from one monastery to another, ended up in the Chudov Monastery, where his literacy attracted the attention of Patriarch Job, who took him to him for book writing; Gregory's boast about the opportunity for him to be king in Moscow reached Boris, and the latter ordered him to be exiled under supervision to the Kirillov Monastery. Warned in time, Gregory managed to flee to Galich, then to Murom, and, returning again to Moscow, in 1602 he fled from it along with a certain Monk. Varlaam to Kyiv, to the Pechersk Monastery, from there he moved to Ostrog to Prince. Konstantin Ostrozhsky, then entered school in Goshche, and finally entered the service of the prince. Hell. Vishnevetsky, to whom he first announced his supposed royal origin.

This story, repeated later by the government of Tsar Vasily Shuisky, included in most of the Russian chronicles and legends and based mainly on the testimony or “Izveta” of the mentioned Varlaam, was at first completely accepted by historians. Miller, Shcherbatov, Karamzin, Artsybashev identified False Dmitry I with Grigory Otrepyev. Among the new historians, such an identification is defended by S. M. Solovyov and P. S. Kazansky - the latter, however, is not unconditional. Very early on, doubts arose about the correctness of such an identification. For the first time such a doubt was expressed in print by Metropolitan Plato (“Brief Church History,” 3rd ed., p. 141); then the identity of L. and Otrepyev was more definitely denied by A. F. Malinovsky (“Biographical information about Prince D. M. Pozharsky,” M., 1817), M. P. Pogodin and Ya. I. Berednikov (“J. M.N. Pr.,” 1835, VII, 118 - 20). Particularly important in this regard were the works of N. I. Kostomarov, who convincingly proved the unreliability of Varlaam’s Izvet.

Kostomarov suggested that False Dmitry I could come from western Rus', being the son or grandson of some Moscow fugitive; but this is only an assumption, not confirmed by any facts, and the question of the identity of the first False Dmitry I remains open. The only thing that can be considered almost proven is that he was not a conscious deceiver and was only an instrument in the wrong hands, aimed at the overthrow of Tsar Boris. Shcherbatov also considered the true culprits for the appearance of the impostor to be the boyars dissatisfied with Boris; This opinion is shared by most historians, and some of them assign a significant role in the preparation of the impostor to the Poles and, in particular, the Jesuits. The original form was taken by the last assumption of Bitsyn (N. M. Pavlov), according to whom there were two impostors: one (Grigory Otrepiev) was sent by the boyars from Moscow to Poland, the other was trained in Poland by the Jesuits, and the latter played the role of Dimitri . This overly artificial assumption is not justified by reliable facts of the history of False Dmitry I and was not accepted by other historians.

The fact that False Dmitry I was fully fluent in Russian and had little knowledge of Latin, which was then mandatory for an educated person in Polish society, allows us to most likely assume that False Dmitry I was Russian by origin. The reliable history of False Dmitry begins with his appearance in 1601 at the court of Prince. Const. Ostrozhsky, from where he moved to Goscha, to the Arian school, and then to Prince. Hell. Vishnevetsky, to whom he announced his supposed royal origin, prompted, according to some stories, by illness, and according to others, by an insult inflicted on him by Vishnevetsky. Be that as it may, the latter believed False Dmitry, as well as some other Polish gentlemen, especially since at first the Russian people also appeared, recognizing in False Dmitry the supposedly murdered prince.

False Dmitry became especially close friends with the governor of Sandomierz, Yuri Mnishek, with whose daughter, Marina, he fell in love. In an effort to ensure success for himself, False Dmitry tried to establish relations with King Sigismund, on whom, probably following the advice of his Polish well-wishers, he counted on acting through the Jesuits, promising the latter to join Catholicism. The Papal Curia, seeing in the appearance of False Dmitry a long-desired opportunity to convert the Moscow state to Catholicism, instructed its nuncio in Poland, Rangoni, to enter into relations with False Dmitry, investigate his intentions and, having converted to Catholicism, provide him with assistance.

At the beginning of 1604, False Dmitry was presented to the king by the nuncio in Krakow; On April 17, his conversion to Catholicism took place. Sigismund recognized False Dmitry I, promised him 40,000 zlotys of annual support, but did not officially come to his defense, allowing only those who wanted to help the prince. For this, False Dmitry promised to give Smolensk and Seversk land to Poland and introduce Catholicism in the Moscow state.

Returning to Sambir, False Dmitry offered his hand to Marina Mnishek; the proposal was accepted, and he gave the bride a note according to which he undertook not to embarrass her in matters of faith and to give her full possession of Veliky Novgorod and Pskov, and these cities were to remain with Marina even in the event of her infertility. Mniszech recruited a small army of Polish adventurers for his future son-in-law, who were joined by 2,000 Little Russian Cossacks and a small detachment of Donets.

With these forces, False Dmitry opened a campaign on August 15, 1604, and in October crossed the Moscow border. The charm of the name of Tsarevich Dimitri and dissatisfaction with Godunov immediately made themselves felt. Moravsk, Chernigov, Putivl and other cities surrendered to False Dmitry without a fight; Only Novgorod-Seversky, where P.F. Basmanov was the governor, held out. The 50,000 Moscow army, under the command of Mstislavsky, which came to the rescue of this city, was completely defeated by False Dmitry, with his 15,000 army. The Russian people were reluctant to fight against a man whom many of them considered in their souls to be a true prince; The behavior of the boyars, which Boris, at the first news of False Dmitry, accused of setting up an impostor, intensified the beginning of the turmoil: some governors, speaking from Moscow, directly said that it was difficult to fight against a born sovereign.

Most of the Poles, dissatisfied with the delay in payment, left False Dmitry at this time, but 12,000 Cossacks came to him. V.I. Shuisky crashed on January 21. 1605 False Dmitry at Dobrynichi, but then the Moscow army began a useless siege of Rylsk and Krom, and in the meantime False Dmitry, entrenched in Putivl, received new reinforcements. Dissatisfied with the actions of his governors, Tsar Boris sent P.F. Basmanov, who had previously been summoned to Moscow and generously awarded, to the army; but Basmanov could no longer stop the unfolding turmoil.

On April 13, Tsar Boris suddenly died, and on May 7, the entire army, with Basmanov at its head, went over to the side of False Dmitry. On June 20, False Dmitry solemnly entered Moscow; Fyodor Borisovich Godunov, proclaimed tsar before that time, was killed even earlier by the messengers of False Dmitry, along with his mother, and False Dmitry made his surviving sister Ksenia his mistress; she was later tonsured.

A few days after False Dmitry entered Moscow, the plans of the boyars against him were already revealed. V.I. Shuisky was convicted of spreading rumors about the imposture of the new tsar and, having been handed over by False Dmitry to the court of a council consisting of clergy, boyars and ordinary people, he was sentenced to death. False Dmitry replaced her with the exile of Shuisky, with two brothers, to the Galician suburbs, and then, returning them from the road, he completely forgave them, returning their estates and boyars.

Patriarch Job was deposed and in his place was elevated to the Archbishop of Ryazan, the Greek Ignatius, who on July 21 crowned False Dmitry I as king. As a ruler, False Dmitry, according to all modern reviews, was distinguished by his remarkable energy, great abilities, broad reform plans and an extremely high concept of his power. “I have long tempted myself with the sharpness of meaning and the teachings of books,” the prince says about him. Khvorostinin adds: “autocracy is higher than human customs.” He reorganized the Duma, introducing the highest clergy into it as permanent members; created new ranks according to the Polish model: swordsman, podchashy, podskarbiya; assumed the title of emperor or Caesar; doubled the salaries of serving people; tried to alleviate the situation of serfs by prohibiting entries into hereditary servitude, and peasants by prohibiting the demand back of peasants who fled during the famine year.

False Dmitry I thought of opening his subjects free access to Western Europe for education, and brought foreigners closer to him. He dreamed of forming an alliance against Turkey, from the German emperor, the kings of France and Poland, Venice and the Moscow state; his diplomatic relations with the pope and Poland were aimed mainly at this goal and towards the recognition of his imperial title. The Pope, the Jesuits and Sigismund, who expected to see in False Dmitry I a submissive instrument of their policy, were greatly mistaken in their calculations. He maintained himself completely independently, refused to introduce Catholicism and admit the Jesuits, and ensured that Marina, upon arrival in Russia, outwardly performed the rites of Orthodoxy. Quite indifferent to differences of religions, which may have been influenced by Polish Arianism, he avoided, however, irritating the people.

Likewise, False Dmitry I resolutely refused to make any land concessions to Poland, offering monetary rewards for the assistance provided to him. Deviations from old customs, which False Dmitry I allowed and which became especially frequent since the arrival of Marina, and False Dmitry’s obvious love for foreigners irritated some zealots of antiquity among the tsar’s associates, but the masses treated him kindly, and the Muscovites themselves beat the few who spoke of False Dmitry’s imposture . The latter died solely thanks to the conspiracy arranged against him by the boyars and led by V.I. Shuisky.

The wedding of False Dmitry provided a convenient occasion for the conspirators. On November 10, 1605, the betrothal of False Dmitry I took place in Krakow, who was replaced in the ceremony by Moscow Ambassador Vlasyev, and on May 8, 1606, the marriage of False Dmitry I with Marina took place in Moscow. Taking advantage of the irritation of Muscovites against the Poles, who came to Moscow with Marina and indulged in various outrages, the conspirators, on the night of May 16-17, sounded the alarm, announced to the people who had come running that the Poles were beating the Tsar, and, directing the crowds against the Poles, they themselves broke into Kremlin. Taken by surprise, False Dmitry I first tried to defend himself, then fled to the archers, but the latter, under pressure from boyar threats, betrayed him, and he was shot by Valuev. The people were told that, according to Queen Mary, False Dmitry I was an impostor; They burned his body and, loading a cannon with ashes, fired in the direction from which he had come.

Time of Troubles in Russia. Events after the death of False Dmitry I

The impostor's body was so disfigured that it was difficult to recognize him. According to eyewitness Konrad Bussov, “on the very first day of the rebellion, the Poles spread a rumor that the murdered man was not Tsar Dmitry.”

The Poles' agitation had little chance of success. The population did not forgive the Poles who came to the royal wedding for their arrogance and outrages. During the unrest in Moscow, Mniszek’s secretary wrote in his Diary, the people demanded that the Poles who talked about saving “Dmitry” be handed over for execution.

Gradually, the authorities managed to cope with the crisis. As Marzharet noted, before his departure from the capital in July, rebels from Ryazan, Putivl, Chernigov “sent to Moscow to ask for forgiveness, which they received, excusing themselves by the fact that they were informed that Emperor Dmitry was alive.”

The impostor used the “middle seal” for foreign relations, which was at the disposal of the head of the Ambassadorial Prikaz, Afanasy Vlasyev. There was also a small seal. Letters of various kinds were sealed with it, and carried “on the collar” - in a bag around the neck. This seal, obviously, was in charge of the printer Sutupov. The seal replaced the royal signature.

When messengers began to deliver letters from the resurrected “Dmitry” to the cities, the governors did not have the slightest reason to doubt their authenticity. This circumstance contributed to the success of the conspiracy. The owner of Sambir hoped for support from the Polish authorities. The massacre of the Poles in Moscow served as a pretext for an immediate war with Russia. According to the royal instructions to the sejmiks, the authorities intended to open military operations against Russia at the end of 1606. The Tsar's ambassador Volkonsky, sent by Tsar Vasily to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, was detained on the way. The Mnisheks hoped to use the war to free themselves from captivity and regain lost wealth.

At the beginning of August 1606, the Lithuanian bailiff announced to Volkonsky that he had previously known from rumors, and now he had learned for certain from Efstafy Volovich, that “your sovereign Dmitry, whom you say was killed, is alive and now in Sendomir near the voivode (Mnishek. - R. S.) wife: she gave him both clothes and people.” The information came from the “good gentlemen”, relatives and friends of the Mnisheks.

They started talking about the Sambir “king” in Russia. The rebellious northern cities sent envoys to Kyiv to invite the “tsar” to Putivl. The ambassadors were sure that “Dmitry” was in one of the Polish castles.

The Mnishek possessions were located in Western Ukraine. An Italian merchant who visited these places reported in August 1606 that the Moscow “tsar” fled from Russia with two companions and now lives healthy and unharmed in the Bernardine monastery in Sambir; even former enemies admit that Dmitry escaped death.

In the first days of August, Lithuanian bailiffs told the tsar’s ambassadors that his old comrades-in-arms began to come to Sambir to the sovereign: “and those many people who were with him in Moscow recognized him that he was the direct Tsar Dmitry, and many Russian people pestered him and Polish and Lithuanian people make their way to him; Yes, Prince Vasily Mosalskaya, who was with him in Moscow as a neighbor boyar and butler, came to him.”

The bailiffs clearly wanted to impress the Russian ambassadors. Their information about the appearance of the butler Vasily Rubets-Mosalsky in Sambir did not correspond to the truth. The scar was in exile. The words that many people recognized the king were an exaggeration. The escaped “tsar” occasionally appeared in the state rooms of the Sambir castle in magnificent attire. But only carefully selected people who had never seen Otrepiev in person were allowed to attend such receptions.

At the beginning of September, the Russian ambassador learned from the words of the bailiff that Molchanov began to appear to people no longer in royal robes, but in “senile dress.” He followed in the footsteps of the first impostor who came to Lithuania in monastic attire.

In October 1606, Chancellor Lev Sapieha sent his servant Gridich to Sambir to “examine” the well-known “Dmitry”, “is he really the one or not?” Gridich went to Sambir, but did not see the “thief”, and he was told that “Dmitry” “lives in a monastery, he doesn’t seem to be with anyone.” In October, the former confessor of False Dmitry I visited Sambir. He also returned empty-handed. Then the Catholic Bernardine Order sent one of its representatives to the Mnisheks. Throughout Poland it was interpreted that “Dmitry” was “in Sambir in the monastery in a black dress for the sins of the Kaets.” In this regard, an emissary of the order inspected the monastery. During the inspection, he received assurances from the Sambir Bernardines that “Dmitry” was not in their monastery and that they had not seen the tsar since his departure to Russia. The Catholic Church remained aloof from the dubious adventure.

The impostor intrigue was dying before our eyes. The reason for the failure was that King Sigismund III abandoned plans for war with Russia. A rebellion was brewing in Poland. Having gathered for the congress, the Rokoshans expected that “Dmitry,” who had shown up in Sambir, would appear at the congress any day now and that he would be able to quickly form an army.

The leader of Rokoš Zebrzydowski was a relative of the Mniszeks. Among the Rokoshans, not all were adherents of the Moscow Tsar. The veterans were indignant at the sovereign for not giving them the promised wealth. Others lost relatives during the massacre of Poles in Moscow. The dissatisfied would not remain silent when they saw a new deceiver in front of them.

If the owner of Sambor had managed to borrow money and gather a mercenary army, Molchanov might have risked appearing among the Rokoshans. But after the May events in Moscow, few people wanted to give money for a new adventure. In the end, a small handful of armed men gathered in the Mniszek castle. The imaginary mother-in-law of the “king” “received about 200 people to him.” The most notable of the new impostor’s servants was a certain Moscow nobleman Zabolotsky, whose name cannot be found out.

The rebel gentry decided to postpone the start of hostilities against Sigismund III until next year. The threat of the Rokoshans did not disappear, and the king radically changed his foreign policy course. To deal with the opposition, he needed peace on his eastern borders. The Polish authorities already in mid-July allowed the Tsar's ambassador Volkonsky to enter Poland. The commandants of the border fortresses were forbidden to allow Polish mercenary soldiers into Russia.

The Sambir “thief” appointed Zabolotsky as his chief governor and sent him with military men to Seversk Ukraine. Chancellor Lev Sapega detained the detachment and prevented Zabolotsky from invading Russia.

Yuri Mnishek's wife did not dare show the new impostor either to the Catholic clergy who patronized Otrepiev, or to the king, or to the Rokoshans. The appearance of a “king” among the Rokoshans would have been a direct challenge to Sigismund III, which the Mnisheks could not do. Marina Mniszek and her father were in captivity, and only the intervention of the official authorities of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth could free them.

The king's officials resorted to a simple diplomatic game. They refused to negotiate with Ambassador Volkonsky about the impostor under the pretext that they knew nothing about him: “What, you told us about the one who calls Dmitry, that he lives in Sambir and Sendomir with the voivode’s wife, and we haven’t heard of that.”

The tone of the statements changed when officials started talking about the immediate release of Senator Mniszek and other Poles detained in Russia. Their statements sounded a direct threat: “Only your sovereign will not soon let all the people go, otherwise Dmitry will be, and Peter will be straight, and ours will stand together with them for their own.” Diplomats threatened that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth would provide military assistance to any impostors opposing Tsar Vasily Shuisky.

The first impostor, according to V.O. Klyuchevsky, was baked in a Polish oven, but fermented in Moscow. The new “thief” also did not escape the Polish stove, but his fate was different. It was not finished cooking and was not taken out of the oven. When Otrepyev became convinced that his patron Adam Vishnevetsky was not going to fight with Moscow because of him, he fled from his castle. Molchanov was cut from a different cloth, and the bloody corpse of the first “thief” loomed before his eyes.

The impostor hid in the dark corners of the Sambir palace for a year, not daring to show his face not only to the Poles, but also to the Russian people, who had risen to restore the “legitimate sovereign” to the throne. Twenty-four-year-old Otrepiev did not have to worry about whether he looked like the eight-year-old prince, forgotten even by the few people who saw him in Uglich. For the new impostor, the difficulty was that he was not a double of the murdered man, whose characteristic appearance had not been forgotten in a few months. The role of the resurrected tsar was beyond Molchanov's capabilities. The result was a new and very peculiar historical phenomenon - “impostor without an impostor.”

At the end of 1606, there was a rumor in Moscow that Molchanov was preparing to march with a large army to help the Russian rebels. This time the adventurer had to take on the role of the governor of “Tsar Dmitry”, and not “Dmitry” himself. However, he did not even get to play this role.

The Sambir conspirators did not abandon their attempts to subjugate the Severn cities. Initially, they intended to send one of the nobles to Putivl, and then opted for the Cossack ataman Ivan Bolotnikov.

Makhnev Dmitry Grigorievich

Abstract on the topic: “Personality in history. False Dmitry 1” was completed by 7th grade student Dmitry Makhnev. In his work, he explored the personality of False Dmitry 1, his role in the history of the state, and the period of the Time of Troubles. He expressed his attitude towards 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 str. 55 G t. 88315194117

Abstract work:

“The role of personality in history. False Dmitry 1."

7th grade

Supervisor : Rusinova Lyudmila Anatolyevna,

a 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 campaign against Moscow________________________________5

The accession of the impostor__________________________________________6

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 rained down on it from all sides: boyar feuds and intrigues, Polish intervention, unfavorable climatic conditions almost put an end to the history of the Russian state. I think everyone is free to decide for themselves how they feel about this or that character 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 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 impostor belongs not only to Russian history. Back in the 6th century. BC, the Median priest Gaumata took the name of the Achaemenid king Bardiya and ruled for eight months until he was killed by the Persian conspirators. Since then, over the course of thousands of years, different people, inhabitants of different countries have taken the names of killed, deceased or missing rulers. The fates of the impostors were different, but most of them met a sad end - the penalty for deception was most often 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 the religious legend about the Tsar-Deliverer, the Tsar-Redeemer appear. But it should be noted that the huge role that impostors played in Russian history in the 17th-18th centuries was the restoration of this phenomenon at the end of the 20th century.

The main course of events is described in the books by Ruslan Skrynnikov “Minin and Pozharsky” and “Boris Godunov”. After reading this book, I outlined the course of events for myself. He is like that.

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

The Moscow state at the turn of the 4th - 48th centuries was experiencing a severe political and socio-economic crisis, which was especially evident in the situation in the central regions of the state.

As a result of the opening for Russian colonization of the vast south-eastern 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 escape the sovereign and landowner "tax", and this outflow of labor led to a shortage of workers in central Russia . The more people left the center, the heavier the pressure of the state landlord tax on the remaining peasants. The growth of landownership brought an increasing number of peasants under the power 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 for themselves the existing peasant population of their estates. The position of “full” and “bonded” slaves has always been quite difficult, and at the end of the 4th century the number of enslaved slaves was increased by a decree that ordered the conversion of all those previously free servants and workers who had served their masters for more than six months into enslaved slaves.

In the second half of the 4th century, special circumstances, external and internal, contributed to the intensification of the crisis and the growth of discontent. The difficult Livonian War, which lasted 25 years and ended in complete failure, required enormous sacrifices of people and material resources from the population. 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 undermined the old way of life and familiar relationships, intensified the general discord and demoralization; During the reign of Ivan the Terrible, “a terrible habit was established of not respecting the life, honor, and property of one’s neighbor” (Soloviev).

While on the Moscow throne there were sovereigns of the old familiar dynasty, direct descendants of Rurik and Vladimir the Saint, the vast majority of the population meekly and unquestioningly obeyed their “natural sovereigns.” But when the dynasty ended, the state turned out to be “nobody’s”, the population was confused and fell into ferment. The upper stratum of the Moscow population, the boyars, economically weakened and morally humiliated by the policies of Ivan the Terrible, began a troubled struggle for power in a country that had become “stateless.”

After the death of Ivan the Terrible in 1584, Fyodor Ioannovich, distinguished by his weak physique and reason, was named Tsar. He could not rule, so it was to be expected that others would do it for him - and so it was. The new tsar was under the influence of his wife, the sister of a nearby boyar, Boris Fedorovich 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 Fyodor, adopted by the Terrible from his seventh wife Marya Naga. An illegal canonical marriage made the fruit of this marriage questionable in terms of legality. However, after the death of his father, little Prince Dimitri (he was called that way) was recognized as the “appanage prince” of Uglich and was sent to Uglich, to his “appanage,” along with his mother and uncles. At the same time, agents of the central government lived and acted next to the appanage palace, Moscow officials - permanent (clerk Mikhailo Bityagovsky) and temporary (“city clerk” Rusin Rakov). There was constant hostility between the Nagi and these representatives of state power, since the Nagi could not give up the dream of “appanage” autonomy and believed that the Moscow government and its agents were violating the rights of the “appanage prince.” The state power, of course, was not inclined to recognize appanage claims and constantly gave the Naked people reasons for insult and slander. It was in such an atmosphere of constant anger, abuse and quarrels that little Dmitry died. On May 15, 1591, he died from a wound inflicted with a knife in the throat while he was playing matchmaking with the children in the courtyard of the Uglich Palace. Eyewitnesses to the official investigators (Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky and Metropolitan Gelasius) showed that the prince stabbed himself with a knife in a sudden fit of epilepsy. But at the moment of the event, Dmitry’s mother, distraught with grief, began to shout that the prince had been stabbed to death. Her suspicion fell on the Moscow clerk Bityagovsky and his relatives. The crowd, called by the alarm, committed pogrom and violence against them. Bityagovsky’s house and office (“official hut”) were robbed and over 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 Nagiye were guilty of incitement, and the Uglichites were guilty of murder and robbery. The culprits were exiled to various places, the “queen” Marya Nagaya was tonsured in a distant monastery, and the prince was buried in the Uglich Cathedral. His body was not brought to Moscow, where members of the grand ducal and royal families were usually buried - in the “Archangel” with the “blessed royal parents”; and Tsar Fedor did not come to his brother’s funeral; and the prince’s grave did not become memorable and was so unnoticeable that it was not immediately found when they began to look for it in 1606. It seemed that in Moscow they did not mourn 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 matter. 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 stabbed when the boy was saved from the poison.

There is an opinion that as part of the investigative commission, Godunov sent loyal people to Uglich who were not concerned about finding out the truth, but about drowning out the rumors about the violent death of the Uglich prince. However, Skrynnikov refutes this opinion, believing that a number of important circumstances are not taken into account. The investigation in Uglich was led by Vasily Shuisky, perhaps the most intelligent and resourceful of Boris’s 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 bore false witness in favor of Boris. Over Russia loomed the threat of 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 and the beginning of 1604, a man arose in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth who declared himself “The miraculously saved Tsarevich Dmitry.” At the end of 1604, he and 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 was hiding a young Galich nobleman, Yuri Bogdanovich Otrepiev, who after being tonsured took the name Grigory. Before escaping to Lithuania, the monk Gregory lived in the Chudov Monastery in the Kremlin.

Under Tsar Vasily Shuisky, the Ambassadorial Prikaz compiled a new biography of Otrepyev. It said that Yushka Otrepyev “was a slave to the boyars of the Mikitins, the children of Romanovich and Prince Boris of Cherkassy and, having stolen his hair, took monastic vows.” Otrepiev was forced to go to a monastery.

Only early ambassadorial orders portrayed young Otrepyev as a dissolute scoundrel. Under Shuisky, such reviews were forgotten, and during the time of the Romanovs, writers were surprised at the young man’s extraordinary abilities, but at the same time expressed pious suspicion that he had entered into an alliance with evil spirits. Teaching came to him with amazing ease, and in a short time he became “very good at reading and writing.” 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 Tsar, their elder brother Fyodor was imprisoned in a monastery, and their four younger brothers were exiled to Pomerania and Siberia.

The Chudovsky archimandrite Paphnutius took George, condescending to his “poverty and orphanhood.” From that moment his rapid rise began. Having suffered a disaster in the service of the Romanovs, Otrepyev amazingly quickly adapted to new living conditions.

Over the course of months, he learned what others spent their lives on. He finds himself a new patron in the person of the patriarch Job. However, Gregory was not satisfied with his service. In the winter of 1602, he fled to Lithuania, accompanied by two monks - Varlaam and Misail. In the Dermansky monastery, located in the possessions 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 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, which supposedly indicates that it was written not by a Pole (although it was composed in excellent Polish), but by a Muscovite who poorly understood the manuscript that he had to rewrite completely from a 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 in the sun. who chose the right time and place for this.

4.What Grigory Otrepyev said in Lithuania.

Sigismund 111 became interested in the fugitive and asked Vishnevetsky to write down his story. This recording is preserved in the royal archives. The impostor claimed that he was the legitimate heir to the Russian throne, the son of Ivan 4 the Terrible, Tsarevich Dmitry. He claimed that his prince was saved by a certain kind teacher, but he did not reveal his name, having learned about Boris’s villainous plan. On the fateful night, this teacher put another boy of the same age into the bed of the Uglich prince. The baby was stabbed to death, and his face became lead-gray, which is why the queen mother, when she came into the bedroom, did not notice the substitution and believed that her son had been killed.

After the death of the teacher, the deceiver said, he was sheltered by a certain noble family, and then, on the advice of a nameless friend, for the sake of safety, he began to lead a monastic life and, as a monk, walked around Muscovy. All this information completely coincided with the biography of Grigory Otrepyev. This can be explained by the fact that in Lithuania he was visible and, in order not to be branded a liar, was forced to stick to the facts in his story. For example, he admitted that he came to Lithuania in a monastic robe, and 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-Pechersk Monastery. They kicked him out the door. While in Ostrog, Grishka and his companions gained the favor of the owner of this town, Prince Konstantin, who gave him a book with a dedicatory inscription: “The year from the creation of the world 7110 of the month of August on the 14th day was given to us by Gregory's brothers with Varlaam and Misail, Konstantin Konstantinovich, by the grace of God, the most illustrious Prince Ostrozhsky, voivode of Kiev.” Under the word “Gregory” an unknown hand signed the explanation: “to the prince of Moscow.” However, the prince also kicked out Otrepiev as soon as he hinted at his royal origin.

5. The beginning of the campaign against Moscow.

King Sigismund III has long wanted to expand his territory at the expense of Russian lands. In such a situation, Otrepyev’s statement was appropriate. Sigismund concluded a secret agreement with him. According to this agreement, for military assistance provided, Otrepiev had to give him the fertile Chernigov-Seversk land. He promised to transfer Novgorod and Pskov to the Mnishek family, his immediate patrons.

After crossing the border, Grigory went to the Zaporozhye Cossacks several times and asked them to help him in the fight against the “usurper” Boris. The Sich became agitated. The violent freemen had long sharpened their sabers against the Moscow Tsar. Soon messengers arrived to the prince, declaring that the Don army would take part in the war with Godunov.

Grigory very successfully captured the moment of his speech. In the years 1601-1603, events occurred that created new reasons for popular murmur and excitement. The main one 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 scale of the disaster was amazing. The suffering of the people, who had reached the point of cannibalism, became even more severe from the shameless speculation in grain, which was carried out not only by market buyers, but also by very respectable people, even abbots of monasteries and rich landowners. A political circumstance also added to the general conditions of the time of famine. The affair of the Romanovs and Volsky began Boris' disgrace with the boyars. They led, according to Moscow custom, to the confiscation of the boyar estates and to the release of the boyar servants with the “commandment” not to accept anyone of those servants.

In addition, Tsar Boris was getting sick more and more often, 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 their number soon increased to several thousand.

So, on October 13, 1604, the impostor crossed the Russian border and approached the Chernigov town of Moravsk. The residents surrendered to him without a fight. Encouraged by their success, the Cossacks rushed to Chernigov. The Chernigov governor refused to surrender and used cannons against the impostor, but as a result of the uprising that broke out in the city, the governor was captured, and the city fell into the hands of Gregory. Here we can note the fact that the mercenaries refused to go further until they were paid. Fortunately for Gregory, there was a fair amount of money in the voivodeship 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 settled with a detachment of archers numbering 350 people. The attempt to take the city ended in failure, but at this time the population of the nearby 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. Riots flared up in Putivl, Rylsk, Seversk, and Komaritsa volost. By the beginning of December, the power of False Dmitry 1 was recognized by Kursk, then Kromy.

Meanwhile, the Russian army was concentrated in Bryansk, since Godunov was awaiting the speech of Sigismund 111. Having made sure that he was not going to speak, the army under the command of boyar Mstislavsky headed to 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 superiority 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 Komaritsa volost, where he managed to add several thousand Komarians to his considerably thinned army. Despite this, Mstislavsky’s army, which overtook him on January 21, 1605, defeated them and forced False Dmitry to flee. Subsequently he settled in Putivl.

6. The 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 indeed similar to the signs of arsenic poisoning. His death had dire 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 Moscow. The people, excited by the proclamations of False Dmitry, demanded clarification from the government. Shuisky’s speech, which confirmed that he had laid the body of Prince Dmitry in a coffin with his own hands and buried him 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 rifle units from Moscow were stationed there. However, the archers were not attracted to such service on the steppe outskirts, far from their wives and children. Otrepiev's performance gave them a chance to return to Moscow quickly.

The uprising of the Cossacks and Streltsy in Tsarev-Borisov led to the collapse of the entire southern border defense system. The power of the impostor was recognized by Oskol, Valuiki, Voronezh, Belgorod, and later Yelets and Livny.

Moral decay also affected the army that besieged Crom. The camp, set up in a swampy area, was flooded with spring waters. Following them came an epidemic of dysentery. As soon as the news of Boris's death reached the camp, many nobles left without hesitation under the pretext of the royal burial. According to contemporaries, after the death of Boris near Kromy there remained “few boyars and with them only the military men of the Severn cities, archers, Cossacks and military men.” The more warriors in homespun coats filled the camp, the more successful the campaigning was in favor of the newly minted Dmitry.

Meanwhile, a conspiracy had matured at the top, led by the Ryazan nobleman Procopius, according to other sources Prokofy Lyapunov.

The Godunov dynasty was doomed to political loneliness. The friendly ties that held together the palace nobility under Tsar Fyodor were broken by the 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. Not without connection with this intrigue, the Romanovs were defeated and their union of “testamentary friendship” with Boris disintegrated. When the impostor appeared, the princely nobility, submitting to 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 its claims immediately came to life, all grievances began to speak, a sense of revenge and a thirst for power developed. The princes understood very well that only the dynasty founded by Boris did not have a representative sufficiently capable and fit for business, nor any influential party of supporters and admirers. She was weak, easy to destroy, and she really was destroyed.

The young Tsar Fyodor Borisovich recalled princes Mstislavsky and Shuisky from the army to Moscow and sent other princes Basmanov and Katyrev to replace them. However, subsequently, boyar Andrei Telyakovsky was appointed to replace Basmanov. Changes in the composition of the governors were made, probably 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 came under the influence of the princes Golitsyn, the noblest and most prominent of all the governors, and P.F. Basmanov, who enjoyed popularity and military happiness. Moscow should have naturally followed V.I. Shuisky, whom it considered an eyewitness to the Uglitsky events of 1591 and a witness, if not to the death, then to the salvation of little Dmitry. The prince-boyars 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 attracted 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 news, he himself testified at hand when they turned to him that the true prince was saved from murder; then he, along with other boyars, went from Moscow to Tula to meet the new Tsar Dimitri. This is how 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 the last minutes of 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 royal army went over to the side of the impostor.

Now the way to Moscow was open for Otrepyev. And he did not fail to use it, especially since all the cities on his way surrendered without a fight. Moscow also surrendered to him without a fight. Moreover, at the beginning of June the people themselves destroyed the Kremlin and locked up the Godunov family.

On June 3, 1605, Ivan Vorotynsky took to Tula, where False Dmitry’s headquarters was now located, a “letter of confession” in which “the legitimate Tsar of All Rus' 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 Otrepiev, who later became False Dmitry 1, entered Moscow.

7. The reign and death of Otrepyev.

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

They were also dissatisfied with “Tsar Dmitry” in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. He did not dare, as he had promised earlier, to transfer Western Russian cities to Poland and Lithuania. Sigismund III's persistent requests to speed up entry into the war with Turkey had no result.

In addition, Gregory established connections with Sigismund, more and more persistently reminded him of the promise to give up part of the Russian lands to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the overthrow of Sigismund was beneficial for the impostor.

As a result, a new conspiracy arose, in which people who enjoyed the full confidence of False Dmitry participated: Vasily Golitsyn, Maria Nagaya, Mikhail Tatishchev and other Duma people. The conspirators established contact with Sigismund 3. Through reliable people, they spread a deadly rumor for the impostor, and 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 came Polish troops under the command of Yuri Mniszek. On May 8 the wedding took place. 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 riotous nobles who had gathered for the wedding worried the population. Moscow began to seethe. On the night of May 16-17, the conspirators sounded the alarm and announced to the people who had come running that the Poles were beating the Tsar. Having directed the crowds towards the Poles, the conspirators themselves broke into the Kremlin. The people gathered on Red Square demanded a tsar. Basmanov tried to save the situation and bring the people to reason, but was stabbed to death by Mikhail Tatishchev. The murder of Basmanov served as a signal for the storming of the palace. Otrepiev tried to escape, but when trying 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. His body was burned and, after mixing ashes with gunpowder, they fired from a cannon in the direction from which the impostor came 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 served his purpose in the history that his creators wrote for him. From the moment of his triumph, the boyars no longer needed him. He became a tool that had served its purpose and was no longer needed by anyone, an unnecessary burden that would need to be eliminated, and if eliminated, the path to the throne would be free for the most worthy in the kingdom. And the boyars have been trying to eliminate 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, just 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 late 16th-18th centuries. M., Education. 2009
3. Alekseev False Tsarevich. Moscow 1995.
4. V. Artyomov, Yu. Lubchenkov. The history of homeland. Moscow 1999
5. Shokarev Impostors. 2001.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1. Rejection of Godunov by the majority of the population, since he was not Rurikovich.

2. Help for False Dmitry 1 “from outside” - from interested parties within the country and outside it from Europe.

3. Lack of unanimity in the ruling elite, and the incompetent reign of Godunov.

4. The faith of the Russian people in the “real” “correct tsar”

Reasons for social rejection:

The people were indignant. Absolutely the entire population of the country was angry with the king. Opinions began to appear more and more often among the people that only the overthrow of False Dmitry 1 could stop the disorder in the country. In addition to the common people, noble boyars were also dissatisfied with the tsar, who began to prepare a rebellion to overthrow the unwanted monarch. As a result, a boyar conspiracy was realized. As a result, the overthrow of False Dmitry 1 occurred.

Uprising in Moscow in May 1606

Moscow uprising - an uprising of citizens on May 27, 1606 in Moscow against False Dmitry I. During the uprising, False Dmitry was killed, Vasily Shuisky was proclaimed the new king.

The uprising began after the sound of the alarm on the bell tower of the monastery church of Elijah the Prophet in Kitay-gorod, made on the orders of Shuisky. After the blow, the crowd rushed to the Kremlin and to the courtyards where the Polish gentlemen and their retinue stood. Shuisky, Golitsyn, Tatishchev entered Red Square, accompanied by about 200 people armed with sabers, reeds and spears. Shuisky shouted that “Lithuania” was trying to kill the Tsar, and demanded that the townspeople rise up in his defense. The trick did its job, excited Muscovites rushed to beat and rob the Poles. At this time, Stanislav Nemoevsky was in Moscow, who in his notes gave a list of names of those who fell under the hammer of the Moscow riot; 524 Poles were buried. In the Kremlin, False Dmitry was killed and his body was burned.

5. Civil war and foreign invasion of Russia in 1606-1618.

The reign of V. Shuisky, his domestic and foreign policy.

From 1604 to 1605, Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky was in opposition to False Dmitry I. However, after the death of Boris Godunov in June 1605, he went over to the side of the impostor. At the same time, Shuisky twice led conspiracies against False Dmitry. After the first conspiracy was exposed, Vasily Ivanovich was sentenced to death, but then pardoned - needing support, False Dmitry returned Shuisky to Moscow. As a result of the second conspiracy in 1606, which ended in the Moscow popular uprising, False Dmitry I was killed.

After his death, a party of Moscow boyars “shouted out” Shuisky as king (May 19, 1606). In exchange for this, Vasily IV undertook an obligation to the Boyar Duma to significantly limit his powers.

Domestic and foreign policy of Vasily Shuisky

Almost immediately after Shuisky’s accession, rumors spread that Tsarevich Dmitry was alive. One of his supporters, Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov, raised a popular uprising in the fall of 1606, which swept more than seventy cities in the south and southwest of Russia.

In 1607, Bolotnikov's uprising was defeated. In the same year, Vasily Shuisky, in order to gain further support from the boyars and consolidate the forces of the ruling class, published the “Code of Peasants,” which historians described as “the solid beginning of serfdom.”

However, back in August 1607, a new Polish intervention began. In June 1608, False Dmitry II settled in the village of Tushino near Moscow. This marked the beginning of a new siege of Moscow. Gradually, the power of False Dmitry strengthened, and dual power was actually established in the country.

In order to confront the “Tushino thief,” Tsar Vasily concluded an agreement with Sweden in February 1608, according to which the Swedish troops committed to act on the side of the Russian Tsar in exchange for possession of the Karelian volost. This act caused natural discontent on the part of various segments of the population. In addition, he violated previously concluded agreements with the Poles and gave the Polish king Sigismund III a reason for an open invasion.

At the end of 1608, a people's liberation movement began against the Polish intervention. During this period, Shuisky's position became quite precarious. But thanks to his nephew Skopin-Shuisky, who commanded the Russian-Swedish troops, the tsar was able to repel the Poles. In March 1610, the Tushins were defeated, Moscow was liberated, and False Dmitry II fled.

Overthrow of the Tsar

After the defeat of False Dmitry II, the unrest did not stop. Shuisky's difficult position in Moscow was aggravated by the intensified struggle for power. Vasily Galitsin and Prokopiy Lyapunov attempted to rouse the people against the current tsar. At the same time, under unclear circumstances, Skopin-Shuisky died suddenly.

On June 24, 1610, Shuisky's troops were defeated by the Polish army under the command of Hetman Stanislav Zolkiewsky. There was a danger that the Russian throne would be taken by the Polish prince Vladislav. Shuisky was unable to oppose anything to the Polish onslaught, for which he was deposed by the Moscow boyars in July 1610. Vasily Shuisky was forcibly tonsured together with his wife as a monk, and after Hetman Stanislav Zholkiewski entered Moscow, he was transported to Warsaw, where he died while in custody.

Bolotnikov's uprising

The beginning of the uprising

In the summer of 1606, one of the largest peasant uprisings of feudal Rus' began in Seversk Ukraine. The main force of the uprising were enslaved peasants and slaves. Together with them, the Cossacks, townspeople and archers of the border (Ukrainian) cities rose up against the feudal khnyot.

It was no coincidence that the uprising began in the southwest of the Russian state. Fugitive peasants and serfs gathered here in large numbers, and the surviving participants of the Cotton uprising sought refuge. The population of this area, in particular the population of the vast and populous Komaritsa volost, located not far from the border, had already opposed Godunov and supported False Dmitry I. Boris Godunov responded to this with the complete ruin of the volost. In such a situation, a new uprising could easily arise. An outstanding role in the Bolotnikov uprising was played by the peasants of the Komaritsa volost, which became one of the main centers of the movement. The townspeople also actively participated in it.

Together with the Russian peasantry, the working masses of the multinational population of the Middle Volga region - Mari, Mordovians, Chuvash, Tatars - also opposed the feudal order.

Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov was the military slave of Prince Telyatevsky, which helped him acquire professional skills and knowledge of military affairs. In his youth, Bolotnikov fled from Telyatevsky to the steppe to the Cossacks. He was captured in the Wild Field by the Tatars, who sold him into slavery in Turkey, where Bolotnikov became a slave on a galley. He was freed from slavery during the defeat of the Turks in a naval battle and brought to Venice. From here, through Germany and Poland, he returned to his homeland. In the summer of 1606, he appeared on the “Moscow border” at a time when the popular movement of which he became the leader was rapidly growing in Seversk Ukraine. The surviving testimony of contemporaries portrays Bolotnikov as a courageous, energetic leader, a man capable of sacrificing his life for the people’s cause, and a talented commander.

March to Moscow. The uprising, which began in the summer of 1606, quickly spread to new areas. The population of cities and villages on the southern outskirts of the Russian state joined the rebels.

In July 1606, Bolotnikov began a campaign against Moscow from Putivl through the Komaritsa volost. In August, near Kromy, the rebels won a major victory over Shuisky’s troops; she opened the road to Oryol. Another center of the unfolding military operations was Yelets, which had important strategic importance, which joined the rebels. The attempt of the tsarist troops besieging Yelets to take the city ended in failure. The victory of the rebels at Yelets and Kromy ends the first stage of the campaign against Moscow.

On September 23, 1606, Bolotnikov won a victory near Kaluga, where the main forces of Shuisky’s army were concentrated. This event was of great importance for the further course of the struggle. It opened the way to Moscow for the rebels, caused the uprising to spread to new large areas, and drew new layers of the population into the uprising.

In the autumn, service landowners joined Bolotnikov’s troops advancing towards the capital. The Ryazan noble landowners came led by Grigory Sumbulov and Prokopiy Lyapunov, and the Tula and Venev nobles came under the leadership of the centurion Istoma Pashkov. The increase in Bolotnikov's army at the expense of the noble squads played a negative role. The nobles joined Bolotnikov only out of a desire to use the peasant movement as a means to fight the government of Tsar Vasily Shuisky. The social interests of the nobility were opposed to the interests of the bulk of the rebels.

Goals of the rebels: The main goal of the uprising was the destruction of serfdom, the elimination of feudal exploitation and oppression. This was the meaning of the appeals that Bolotnikov made in his “lists” (proclamations) to the “boyar slaves” and the poor of Moscow and other cities. Bolotnikov’s calls boiled down to ensuring that the rebel townspeople “beat the boyars... guests and all merchants,” and the peasants would deal with the feudal lords in the countryside, seize their lands and eliminate serfdom. The political slogan of the Bolotnikov uprising was the proclamation of “Tsar Dmitry” as tsar. Faith in him was inherent not only to ordinary participants in the uprising, but also to Bolotnikov himself, who called himself only the “great commander” of “Tsar Dmitry.” This ideal “Tsar Dmitry” had nothing in common with the Polish protege False Dmitry I. The slogan of the “good” Tsar was a kind of peasant utopia.

Expansion of the territory of the uprising. During the campaign against Moscow, new cities and regions joined the rebels. First, Seversky, Polish and Ukrainian cities (located on the southwestern border of the Russian state), and then Ryazan and coastal cities (covering Moscow from the south) joined the rebels; Later, the uprising covered the cities lying near the Lithuanian border - Dorogobuzh, Vyazma, Roslavl, the Tver suburbs, the Zaoksk cities - Kaluga, etc., the lower cities - Murom, Arzamas, etc. By the time Bolotnikov’s army arrived in Moscow, the uprising had covered over 70 cities.

Simultaneously with the Bolotnikov uprising, a struggle was unfolding in the northeast in the cities of the Vyatka-Perm region, in the northwest - in Pskov and in the southeast - in Astrakhan. A common feature of events in the cities of all three districts was the struggle between the higher and lower strata of the town, which was the result of class contradictions within the urban population. In the cities of the Vyatka-Perm region in 1606, the population of the cities dealt with representatives of the tsarist administration, sent here to collect “dacha” people and cash taxes. At the same time, there were protests by townspeople against the top of the settlement, in particular the village elders, who were elected from among the “best people.”

The most intense and vivid struggle was in Pskov. Here it unfolded between “big” and “smaller” people. The struggle of the Pskov “lesser” people had a pronounced patriotic character. The “lesser” people very resolutely opposed the plans of the traitors - the “big” people who intended to give Pskov to the Swedes. The open struggle between “greater” and “lesser” people began in the second half of 1606, but it ended much later than the suppression of Bolotnikov’s uprising.

One of the largest centers of struggle during the Bolotnikov uprising was Astrakhan. The Astrakhan events went far beyond the chronological framework of the Bolotnikov uprising. The government managed to suppress this movement only in 1614, but the beginning of open struggle in Astrakhan dates back to the last year of Godunov’s reign. Astrakhan was one of the most persistent centers of the struggle. The uprising in the city was directed not only against the nobles, but also against merchants. The driving force behind the Astrakhan uprising was the poorest part of the city population (slaves, ryzhki, working people), in addition, archers and Cossacks played an active role in the uprising. The “princes” nominated by the Astrakhan lower classes (one a serf, the other a tilled peasant) were radically different from such impostors as False Dmitry I and subsequently False Dmitry II, who were proteges of foreign interventionists.

The lack of communication between the rebel populations of individual cities once again emphasizes the spontaneous nature of Bolotnikov’s uprising.

Siege of Moscow. Advancing from Kaluga, the rebels defeated the troops of Vasily Shuisky near the village of Troitsky (near Kolomna) and in October approached Moscow. The siege of Moscow was the culmination of the uprising. The situation in the besieged capital was extremely tense due to the aggravation of class contradictions among the population of Moscow. Even before Bolotnikov’s arrival, the government, fearing the masses, locked itself in the Kremlin. The siege further aggravated the situation. In Moscow, proclamations (“sheets”) of Ivan Bolotnikov appeared, in which he called on the population to surrender the city. Bolotnikov sent his faithful people to Moscow, to whom he set the task of rousing the masses to fight. However, already during this period the weak elements of the uprising had an impact, which then led to its decline and suppression.

Bolotnikov’s detachments were neither homogeneous in their class composition, nor unified in their organization. Their main core consisted of peasants, serfs and Cossacks, who remained loyal to Bolotnikov and fought to the end. The nobles who joined Bolotnikov as he advanced towards Moscow changed at a certain stage of the uprising and went over to the side of the government of Vasily Shuiskaya.

Bolotnikov’s army, which besieged Moscow, numbered about 100 thousand people in its ranks. It broke up into semi-independent detachments, headed by their governors (Sumbulov, Lyapunov, Pashkov, Bezzubtsev). Ivan Bolotnikov was the “great voivode” who exercised supreme command.

Shuisky's government took a number of measures to disintegrate Bolotnikov's army. As a result of this, Bolotnikov was betrayed by random fellow travelers and noble-landowner elements - the Ryazan people led by Lyapunov and Sumbulov. Later Istoma Pashkov cheated on Bolotnikov. This was a major success for Vasily Shuisky in the fight against Bolotnikov.

Bolotnikov's defeat near Moscow. On November 27, Vasily Shuisky managed to defeat Bolotnikov, and on December 2, he won the decisive battle near the village of Kotly. Bolotnikov's defeat near Moscow occurred as a result of a change in the balance of forces of the fighting parties. At the end of November, Shuisky received large reinforcements: Smolensk, Rzhev and other regiments came to his aid. Changes also occurred in Bolotnikov’s army that weakened it: the betrayal of Istoma Pashkov, who went over to Shuisky’s side along with his detachment on November 27, dates back to this time. Bolotnikov's defeat on December 2 radically changed the situation in the country: it meant the lifting of the siege of Moscow and the transfer of initiative into the hands of governor Shuisky. The Tsar brutally dealt with the captured participants in the uprising. However, the struggle of the rebel peasants and slaves did not stop.

Kaluga period of the uprising. After the defeat near Moscow, Kaluga and Tula became the main bases of the uprising. The area covered by the uprising not only did not shrink, but, on the contrary, expanded, including the cities of the Volga region. In the Volga region, the Tatars, Mordovians, Mari and other peoples opposed the serfs. Thus, the struggle took place over a large area. The situation was especially acute in the Ryazan-Bryansk region and in the Middle Volga region, and the struggle did not subside in the Novgorod-Pskov region, in the North and in Astrakhan. In addition, the movement that arose on the Terek, led by the impostor “Tsarevich” Peter, the imaginary son of Fyodor Ivanovich (this name was adopted by Ilya Gorchakov, who came from the townspeople of the city of Murom), by the beginning of 1607 had outgrown the framework of a purely Cossack speech and merged with the Bolotnikov uprising. Shuisky's government sought to suppress all centers and hotbeds of the uprising. Bolotnikov was besieged in Kaluga by Shuisky's troops. The unsuccessful siege of Kaluga lasted from December 1606 to early May 1607. “Tsarevich” Peter was in the second most important center of the uprising - Tula.

The failure of Vasily Shuisky’s attempt to complete the defeat of Bolotnikov’s uprising with one blow showed that, despite the defeat near Moscow, the forces of the rebels were far from broken. Therefore, while continuing the fight against Bolotnikov’s main forces near Kaluga, Shuisky’s government is simultaneously taking measures to suppress the uprising in other areas.

The fight near Kaluga ended in May 1607 with the Battle of the Pchelnya River, where Shuisky’s troops were completely defeated and fled. The defeat of Shuisky's troops and the lifting of the siege of Kaluga meant the enormous success of Bolotnikov's uprising. This led to an acute conflict between the tsar and the boyars, who demanded the abdication of Vasily Shuisky.

After the defeat of Shuisky’s troops at Pchelnya and the lifting of the siege from Kaluga, Bolotnikov moved to Tula and united there with “Tsarevich” Peter.

During this time, Shuisky managed to gather new forces and reach a temporary agreement between the main groups of the ruling class - the boyars and nobles.

Shuisky received the support of the nobility through a number of events. One of the most important among them was legislation on the peasant question. The matter of tracking down fugitive peasants as a result of the contradictory legislation of Boris Godunov and False Dmitry I was in a very confused state. There was a sharp struggle between landowners over the runaway peasants. The Code of March 9, 1607, which was the main legislative act of the Shuisky government on the issue of peasants, was intended to suppress peasant transitions from one landowner to another. The Code established a 15-year period for searching for fugitive peasants. The publication of this law met the demands of landowners and, first of all, landowners. It should have entailed the cessation of the bitter struggle over runaway peasants between separate groups of landowners, and therefore united them to fight Bolotnikov. Shuisky's legislation, while strengthening serfdom, worsened the situation of the peasants. Shuisky's policy towards peasants and slaves was subordinated to the goals of suppressing Bolotnikov's uprising.

On May 21, 1607, Vasily Shuisky began a new campaign against Bolotnikov and “Tsarevich” Peter, who were entrenched in Tula. Troops intended for the siege of Tula were concentrated in Serpukhov, headed by the tsar himself. The first meeting of the tsarist troops with Bolotnikov’s troops took place on the Eight River and ended in the defeat of the rebels. The battle on the Voronya River (7 km from Tula) was also unsuccessful for Bolotnikov. Shuisky began the siege of Tula, the four-month defense of which was the final stage in the history of Bolotnikov’s uprising.

Despite the numerical superiority of Shuisky's troops, the besieged courageously defended Tula, repelling all enemy assaults. In the fall, the besiegers built a dam on the Upa River, which caused a flood. Water flooded the ammunition cellar in Tula and ruined grain and salt reserves. But Vasily Shuisky’s position near Tula was difficult. There was an ongoing struggle between peasants and slaves in the country. A new impostor appeared, declaring himself “Tsar Dmitry” in the city of Starodub-Seversky. This adventurer, put forward by Polish feudal lords hostile to the Russian state, made extensive use of social demagoguery, promising peasants and serfs “liberty.” The name of “Tsar Dmitry” initially attracted the broad masses to the impostor. In September 1607, False Dmitry II began a campaign from Starodub to Bryansk.

Under these conditions, Shuisky negotiated with the defenders of Tula about surrender, promising to preserve the lives of the besieged. The exhausted garrison of Tula surrendered on October 10, 1607, believing the tsar’s false promises. The fall of Tula was the end of Bolotnikov's uprising. Bolotnikov and “Tsarevich” Peter, clad in iron, were taken to Moscow.

Immediately upon Vasily Shuisky’s return to Moscow, “Tsarevich” Peter was hanged. Shuisky decided to deal with the real leader of the uprising, Ivan Bolotnikov, only six months after the capture of Tula. Ivan Bolotnikov was sent to Kargopol and there in 1608 he was first blinded and then drowned.

Historical significance of the uprising of Ivan Bolotnikov. The Bolotnikov uprising, which covered a vast territory, is the first peasant war in Russia. Serfs constituted the main driving force of the uprising. The reasons that caused it were rooted in the relations that existed between the peasantry and the feudal landowners. Bolotnikov's uprising dates back to the time of a sharp increase in the serf exploitation of the peasantry and the legal formalization of serfdom. The implementation of the goals of the peasants and lower classes who rebelled under the leadership of Bolotnikov could lead to significant social changes in the life of the country, to the elimination of the serfdom system.

The peasant uprisings of the era of feudalism (including the Bolotnikov uprising) were spontaneous. This was expressed, in particular, in the fact that the rebels did not have a program for the reconstruction of society. They sought to destroy the existing serfdom, but did not know how to build a new one. Instead, they put forward the slogan of replacing one king with another. The lack of a clear program limited the movement's task to the struggle against specific carriers of oppression in a particular area without establishing any strong connections between the various centers of the uprising, causing organizational weakness of the movement. The absence of a class capable of leading this movement, overcoming its spontaneous nature, developing a movement program and giving it organizational strength determined the very outcome of the uprising. Neither the courage of the participants in the uprising, nor the talents of the leaders could eliminate its weaknesses, due to the very nature of the uprising.

The great merit of the rebels in 1606 was that they launched the first peasant war in Russia against feudal oppression.

False Dmitry II. Tushino camp. Tushino camp is the residence of False Dmitry II and the “named Patriarch Philaret” at the confluence of the Skhodnya River and Moscow in the former village of Tushino. When in 1607 the troops of False Dmitry II approached Moscow, the Muscovites did not believe this man and were not allowed into the city. Therefore, he camped in the village of Tushino (17 km from the Kremlin), engaged in robberies of the surrounding villages and royal convoys (for which he received his name “Tushino thief”). Almost simultaneously, the troops of Hetman Sapieha Ya. began an unsuccessful 16-month siege of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery (23 SN 1608-12 JAN 1610), trying to take the city into complete encirclement. Part of the capital's nobility defected from V.I. Shuisky. to a new contender for the throne. In Tushino, its own Boyar Duma and orders began to operate. Having captured Rostov in the OK 1608, Polish troops captured Metropolitan Filaret Romanov and, bringing him to Tushino, proclaimed him patriarch. After the conclusion of a truce in IL 1608 with Poland for 3 years and 11 months, Marina Mnishek was released. She moved to the Tushino camp.

The impostor promised her three thousand rubles. and income and 14 Russian cities after accession to Moscow. And she recognized him as her husband. According to the truce, prisoners were exchanged. Sigismund III pledged not to support the Pretender, but the Poles remained in the Tushino camp. During this period, a virtual regime of anarchy was established in the country. Detachments of Tushinites controlled a significant territory of the Russian state, robbing and ruining the population. In the Tushino camp itself, the impostor was completely controlled by the leaders of the Polish detachments. Their robbery actions provoked armed resistance from the surrounding peasants and townspeople. The camp existed until False Dmitry II died under unclear circumstances. Attempt by Shuisky V.I. saving besieged Smolensk ended in failure. The army sent to the rescue near the village of Klushino on 3 IN 1610 was defeated by the Polish hetman Zholkiewski S. False Dmitry II again approached Moscow. In 1618, near Tushino near the village of Spas, the Polish prince Vladislav camped, trying to seize the Moscow throne. In modern times, weapons were often found on the territory of the camp and in the surrounding area - sabers, spears, reeds, remains of chain mail, arrows, cannonballs, lead bullets, axes, sickles, hammers, coins, special three-pointed pointed "cats", the so-called. "garlic" that stuck to the horse's hooves. New finds appear here during excavation work.

Mikhail Goldenkov

"Analytical newspaper "Secret Research"