Information educational and cognitive materials. Writing on the board

Plan for an open lesson on the history of Russia for 7th grade students “Time of Troubles.”

Zakharov Denis Vasilievich, teacher of history and social studies, State Budgetary Educational Institution Sanatorium Boarding School No. 9 Samara
Lesson type: combined
Description: An open lesson on the history of Russia for 7th grade students, the knowledge gained is not aimed at systematization, analysis and generalization of previously acquired knowledge in the process of teaching history.
Item: Russian history
Subject: Time of Troubles
The purpose of the lesson: Study the events preceding the Time of Troubles, the course of historical events and results, for systematization and a more complete picture of this period.
Tasks: I. Educational:
1. Expand the concept of the Troubles, as well as identify a number of reasons contributing to the onset of the Time of Troubles in Rus'.
2. Consider the main events and results of the Time of Troubles.
3. Decide what the consequences of the Time of Troubles were.
II. Developmental:
1. To develop in students the ability to work with historical sources (documents), with a map, a textbook for a more accurate generalization and analysis of the knowledge gained.
2. To help students develop the ability to analyze historical sources independently or in a group and give a detailed answer to the question posed.
3. Develop in students the ability to systematize acquired historical knowledge and competently form conclusions on the proposed topics.
III. Educational:
1. To promote the development in students of a sense of patriotism and respect for the history of their state.
2. To form a civic and humanistic position among students, despite the current world conflicts.
3. To promote students’ understanding of the role of personality in historical events of different times.
Basic concepts:
1. Time of Troubles
2. Civil War
3. Imposture
4. Tushinsky thief
5. Kissing cross recording
6. "Seven Boyars"
7. Intervention
8. First militia
9. Second militia
Main dates:
1. 1533 1584 - Reign and reign of Ivan IV the Terrible
2. 1584 - 1589 - Reign of Fyodor Ivanovich
3. 1598 - 1605 - Reign of B. Godunov
4. 1601 - 1603 - Famine and crop failure in Rus'
5. 1603 -1604 - Uprising of the Cossacks under the leadership of Kh. Kosolap
6. 1605 - 1606 - Reign of False Dmitry I
7. 1606 - 1610 - Reign of V. Shuisky
8. 1606 - 1607 - The Uprising of I. Bolotnikov
9. 1607 - 1610 - The appearance of False Dmitry II in Rus'
10. 1609 - Beginning of the intervention
11. 1611 - First militia
12. 1612 - Second militia
13. 1613 - Zemsky Sobor. Election of M. F. Romanov as Tsar. The beginning of a new dynasty.
Lesson equipment: Computer, map “The Time of Troubles in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century,” textbook History of Russia in the 17th–18th centuries, grade 7. Pchelov E.V. M.: 2012. - 240 p.
Lesson plan:
1. Causes of the Troubles.
2. The appearance of imposture in Rus'. Board of B. Godunov
3. V. Shuisky’s rise to power. "Seven Boyars"
4. Formation of the First Militia. Results
5. The role of the Second Militia in the liberation of Russia from foreign intervention
6. Zemsky Sobor of 1613
During the classes I. Organizational moment II.Checking homework (oral conversation on the following questions)?
1. The main directions of the foreign and domestic policies of Ivan the Terrible?
2.When and for what reasons did the Rurik dynasty cease to exist?
3. Results of the Oprichnina policy?
Summary: Thus, by the beginning of the 17th century, many contradictions had accumulated in Russia. The Time of Troubles became for Russia a period of social conflicts, political and economic crises and wars. At the beginning of the 17th century, the question of the existence of Russian statehood itself was being resolved.
III. Learning new material
Plan
1. Causes of the Troubles 5.IV, V stages of the Troubles. Creation of the First and Second Militia. 6. Consequences and lessons of the Troubles. 1. Causes of the Troubles Teacher: The topic of our lesson today is the Time of Troubles in Russia; before we start studying new material, we must identify the reasons for the emergence of the Time of Troubles.
Writing in a notebook from the board. Causes of the Troubles
1.Dynastic crisis (the death of Ivan the Terrible and his two sons Fyodor and Dmitry led to the suppression of the ruling Rurik dynasty);
2. Economic (famine and crop failure of 1601 - 1603 led);
3. Social (dissatisfaction of some classes with their difficult situation);
4. Crisis of power (the desire of boyar groups to rule the country)
Teacher: Thus, Russia in the 17th century found itself on the verge of a grandiose social explosion. Western neighbors - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden - hastened to take advantage of the unstable situation in the country. They were interested in conquering the western lands of Russia.
2. Stage I of the Troubles (1604 – 1605)
Teacher: In 1598, Fyodor Ivanovich, the last representative of the Rurik dynasty, died. Thus, the legitimate ruling dynasty was stopped. The main contender for the throne was Boris Godunov (the brother of Fyodor Ivanovich’s wife), who had real power during the reign of Tsar Fyodor.
Writing in a notebook from the board
1598 – 1605 – Board of B. Godunov
Teacher: Godunov tried to attract as many people as possible to his side. Weekly feasts were held for the common people, and the salaries of the boyars and nobles were increased several times. Prisoners were released from prisons and the death penalty was abolished.
Fearing for the precarious position of his illegitimate power, Boris Godunov forcibly tonsured Fyodor Nikitich Romanov (in monasticism he took the name Filaret), a maternal relative of Tsar Fyodor, who could lay claim to the throne. Other Romanovs faced a different fate (disgrace, exile).
In 1601 - 1603 Russia was struck by terrible natural disasters: rains and frosts led to massive crop failures. The Tsar ordered the opening of state granaries and the distribution of bread free of charge. Popular unrest and uprisings began to break out in the country. One of the largest was the uprising led by the Cossack Kh. Kosolap.
Writing in a notebook from the board
1603 - 1604 - Uprising led by the Cossack Kh. Kosolap.
Teacher: All internal events in the country gave rise to increasing dissatisfaction with Tsar Boris Godunov among the people.
3. Stage II of the Time of Troubles (1606 – 1607) Rebellion of I. I. Bolotnikov Teacher: Foreign states, and above all the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, decided to take advantage of the current situation.
Here rumors began to appear about the escaped Tsar Dmitry (the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible). In fact, it was the fugitive monk of the Chudov Monastery, Grigory Otrepiev. Which received support from the magnates (Polish-Lithuanian nobility), the king and the Catholic Church.
The impostor began to recruit an army to march against Rus'. In the fall of 1604, the army of False Dmitry I crossed the Russian border. The people wanted to see him as a just king who would change their lives for the better. One after another, Russian cities swore allegiance to the impostor.
The death of B. Godunov on April 23, 1605 accelerated the rise of False Dmitry I to power. In 1605 he solemnly entered the capital. But soon the people saw that neither their lives nor the situation in the country had changed.
The situation was complicated by the fact that False Dmitry I married the daughter of a Polish tycoon, Marina Mnishek, and the wedding celebrations took place in complete violation of the Orthodox order accepted in Rus'.
Writing in a notebook from the board: 1605 - 1606. - Board of False Dmitry
On May 19, 1606, on Red Square, the boyar Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky was “cried out” as tsar. Other princely-boyar families sitting in the Duma wanted to get a promise from the tsar that he would not turn into a tyrant like Ivan the Terrible. Therefore, upon accession to the throne, he gave a kissing sign, i.e. a written oath sealed by kissing the cross.
Teacher: Working with the document “an excerpt from the Kissing Record of Tsar Vasily Shuisky” (1606).
“By the grace of God, we, the great Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich of All Rus', through the generosity and love of mankind of the glorified God and through the prayer of the entire consecrated council, and at the petition and request of all Orthodox Christianity, became king and great in the fatherland of our ancestors, in the Russian state prince, whom God gave to our ancestor Rurik, who was from the Roman Caesar, and then for many years until our ancestor Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, my ancestors were in this Russian state, and therefore they were divided into the Suzdal inheritance, not by taking away and not from captivity, but by kinship, as large brethren used to sit in large places. And now we, the great sovereign, being on the throne of the Russian kingdom, want Orthodox Christianity to be our royal government in peace, quiet and prosperity...”
Question to the document: Why did V. Shuisky constantly refer to his blood relationship with Rurik and A. Nevsky in his cross-kissing record?
Teacher: Rebel groups began to gather again in the southwestern districts against the government of Vasily Shuisky. The nobles and townspeople of the center and north of Russia remained loyal to him. The head of the fugitive serfs, Cossacks, peasants and nobles of the southern districts was a former military serf - Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov.
Writing from the board into a notebook. 1606 - 1607 - The Uprising of I. Bolotnikov

Questions for the map:
1. Where and when did the uprising of I. Bolotnikov begin?
2. Name the cities that were occupied by the rebels?
Teacher: At the end of October 1606, rebel armies besieged Moscow. It lasted 5 weeks - until the beginning of December. Gradually, the superiority of forces passed to the governors of Shuisky. In the Battle of Kolomenskoye on December 2, they defeated the rebels.
Working with the map: “The Time of Troubles in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century.” Using the map in the textbook (page 16)
Show me the city to which, after the defeat near Moscow, the center of the uprising was moved?
Bolotnikov in Kaluga quickly organized its defense and replenished the army. Government troops placed the city under siege, but did not completely blockade the city, and Bolotnikov received help from neighboring cities. In May 1607, Bolotnikov defeated the tsar's army near Kaluga. The rebels left for Tula.
Working with the map: “The Time of Troubles in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century.” Using the map in the textbook (page 16)
Show me where I. Bolotnikov’s uprising ended?
4.III stage of the Troubles (1608 – 1610) Teacher: At the third stage, the troops of Poland and Sweden intervened in the events of Russia.
Question: For what reasons did foreign troops intervene in events in Russia?
Using the textbook text (pages 24 - 25)
July 17, 1610 - power passed into the hands of the Seven Boyars. An agreement was concluded with the Poles on the election of the Polish prince Vladislav to the Russian throne.
5. IV, V stages of the Troubles. Creation of the First and Second Militia.
The first to oppose the Polish invaders were the people of Ryazan. A people's militia was created in Ryazan, led by Prokopiy Lyapunov, joined by Trubetskoy and Zarutsky. Over time, Lyapunov's supporters began to leave his militia. In the summer of 1611, the country found itself in a terrible and difficult state. In the fall of 1611, Nizhny Novgorod became the center of the liberation movement. Trade man Kuzma Minin appealed to the people to help with all their might and means in creating a new militia to liberate Russia from foreign invaders. Armed militia groups from all over the world began to gather in Nizhny Novgorod. Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky became an associate of Kuzma Minin. It was these people who liberated Russia from foreign invaders.
We will talk in detail about the First and Second Militia in the next lesson.
Students answer the questions:
1) Name the historical figures characterizing the Time of Troubles?
2) Specify the main reasons for the Time of Troubles?
3) Why was this period of Russian history called “The Troubles”?
6. Consequences and lessons of the Troubles.
Teacher: To end the Time of Troubles, the country needed a legitimate monarch recognized by all layers of society. To this end, the leaders of the Second Militia already at the end of 1612 sent letters to the cities demanding that representatives of the estates be sent to the Zemsky Sobor.
In January 1612, elected representatives of all classes of Russia came to the Zemsky Sobor in Moscow - boyars, nobles, Church leaders, townspeople, Cossacks, black-sown and palace peasants. The interests of serfs and serfs were represented at the Council by land owners. Never before has there been a representative body of such a wide composition in the country.
The Council had one task - the election of a monarch.
There were several contenders for the throne, ranging from foreigners (Swedish and Polish princes), the son of Marina Mnishek and False Dmitry II, and ending with Russian contenders: F.I. Mstislavsky, V.V. Golitsyn, D.M. Trubetskoy, D. Pozharsky, M. Romanov, D.M. Cherkassky, P.N. Pronsky et al.
Initially, the members of the Council decided not to elect a foreign representative to the Russian throne and rejected the candidacy of the son of Marina Mnishek and False Dmitry II, Ivan.
As a result of heated debates, the candidacy of 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov turned out to be the most acceptable. The son of the Tushino Patriarch Filaret, behind him stood the halo of his father - a martyr who was in Polish captivity. Perhaps Mikhail Romanov’s proximity to the Rurik dynasty also played a role, since he was the grand-nephew of Ivan the Terrible’s first wife Anastasia Romanova (Family tree of M. Romanov).
Thus, the election of the Romanovs to the kingdom promised universal consent and peace; this happened on February 21, 1613.
The Zemsky Assembly sent ambassadors to the Ipatiev Monastery (near Kostroma), where Mikhail Romanov and his mother were. The nun Martha, who feared for the fate of her son, agreed to his accession only after much persuasion. Russia has gained a legally elected monarch.
The Polish detachments remaining on Russian soil, having learned about the election of Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom, tried to seize him in his ancestral Kostroma possessions in order to free up the Russian throne for their king. Making their way to Kostroma, the Poles asked the peasant of the village of Domnino, Ivan Susanin, to show the way. According to the official version, he refused and was tortured by them, and according to popular legend, Susanin agreed, but sent a warning to the king about the impending danger. And he himself led the Poles into a swamp, from which they were unable to get out. Realizing the deception, they killed Susanin, but they themselves died in the thicket from hunger and cold. The legend of Susanin’s feat served as the plot for M. Glinka’s opera “A Life for the Tsar.”
Susanin's feat seemed to crown the general patriotic impulse of the people. The act of electing a tsar and then crowning him king, first in Kostroma and then in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, meant the end of the Time of Troubles.
Thus ended the Time of Troubles - a severe shock at the beginning of the 17th century, which, in its nature, the severity of socio-political confrontation and the methods of resolving contradictions, many researchers equate to a civil war.
Thus, basically the territorial unity of Russia was restored, although part of the Russian lands remained with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden.
After the Time of Troubles, a choice was made in favor of preserving the largest power in eastern Europe.
Consequences of the Troubles:
1. Economic devastation: agriculture and crafts were ruined, trading life died out
2. Impoverishment of the people
3. Deterioration of the international situation and loss of a number of territories
4. The accession of a new dynasty
IV. Homework
§ 4 -5. Fill out the table on page 2

Potemin I.V.

The modern picture of the history of our country consists of events of long past years. In numerous historical facts and the destinies of people, one can glean many precedents for solving problems that have arisen, overcoming difficulties and finding ways out of difficult situations. One of the significant turning points in the history of Russia and the Yaroslavl region were the events of the “Time of Troubles,” otherwise called the “Great Moscow Devastation.” A valuable lesson that we should learn from historical experience is the example of the patriotism of Kozma Minin and Dmitry Pozharsky and their like-minded people.

A series of tragic events was predicted by a whole range of factors both within the country and abroad. The death of Tsarevich Dmitry in Uglich in 1591 played a major role in the internal political vicissitudes. You can learn about the tragic events of May 15, 1591 from the interrogation of the Tsarevich’s mother Vasilisa Volokhova: “on Saturday, just before mass, the Tsarina told the Tsarevich to go for a walk in the yard; and with the prince there were: she, Vasilisa, and the nurse Orina, and the little children of the lodgers, and the bed-maid Marya Samoilova, and the prince was playing with a knife, and then the same black illness came to the prince again, and threw him to the ground, and then the prince stabbed himself with a knife he stabbed me in the throat, and it hurt for a long time, but then he was gone.” The investigation into this case was carried out by Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, okolnichy Andrei Petrovich Kleshnin and clerk Elizariy Vyluzgin. As you know, the Commission of Inquiry came to the conclusion that the prince died as a result of an accident. This created a threat of suppression of the reigning Rurik dynasty, since Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich did not have an heir.

At the beginning of the 17th century, a terrible famine struck our country. This is how the cellarer of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra Abrahamy Palitsyn described it: “in the summer of 7109 [ 1601] the outpouring of anger is quick to be from God. The Lord darkened the sky, the clouds and only rain fell, for all men fell into horror and all the work of the earth ceased and all the seed sown grew gray from the immeasurable waters poured from the air; and without the wind blowing over the grass of the earth for ten weeks of days, and before the outstretched sickle, slay the mighty frost of all the labor of human deeds, in the fields and in the gardens and in the oak groves, every fruit of the earth, and as if the whole earth was consumed by fire.”

Having seen numerous difficulties in the Moscow state, Poland, which had claims to the Russian throne, intensified its efforts. The first active actions of the Poles began under Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich. Poland sent Ambassador Jan Sapieha to him, who was to play an active role in the events of the Time of Troubles, including in the Yaroslavl region. Modern researchers note that “as a result of archival research, it was possible to discover thirty documents that cover almost the entire period of Tushino rule in the district from October 1608 to April 1609.” Jan Sapieha, after communicating with Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, made the following conclusion: “Although they say about him that he has little intelligence, I saw both from my own observation and from the words of others that he has none at all.” This news soon reached Poland, which could only wait for the death of Fyodor Ivanovich. His death occurred in 1598, and the last king of the Rurik dynasty was gone. Boris Godunov, the first tsar elected at the Zemsky Sobor, only delayed Poland’s plans to invade.

At this time, the adventure of False Dmitry I (Grigory Otrepyev) begins. He appeared in Kyiv in monastic clothes and then studied “in Goshcha in Volhynia with the masters Gabriel and Roman Goisky” - followers of the Arian school. Then he entered the “orshak” (court servants) of Prince Adam Vishnevetsky and met his brother Konstantin, who was married to the daughter of voivode Yuri Mniszek, voivode of Sandomierz, an influential and wealthy man. False Dmitry fell in love with her sister Marina Mnishek. Now behind False Dmitry there were “weighty” people who “sincerely” believed in his royal origin. The Vishnevetskys and Mniszech let King Sigismund III know about this. The king allowed the impostor to come to him, announced that he believed him, assigned 40 thousand gold a year for his needs and allowed him to use the help and advice of the Poles. As a result of this, Poland begins an invasion with the “legitimate” Russian Tsar, which ensured her support among the people (the cities of Rylsk, Putivl, Kursk, Sevsk, Kromy, Moravsk, Chernigov and others submitted to False Dmitry I).

The Poles saw in False Dmitry a man capable of leading them to power. As a last resort, the Poles could start a war at any moment, since Sigismund III was indirectly the successor of the Rurikovich family, unlike Boris Godunov. Sigismund III was the son of Catherine the Jagiellonian (Polish royal family) and Johan III, who came from the line of the Swedish kings of the Vasa dynasty. This dynasty was connected with the Rurikovichs in the following way - Yaroslav the Wise was married to Ingegerda (daughter of Olav of Sweden), and they had a son, Vsevolod, whose son is Vladimir Monomakh. One of the sons of Vladimir Monomakh Mstislav (in Sweden his name was Harald) was married to Christina, daughter of Inga of Sweden. He went to Sweden, and this branch was related to the Swedish royal house.

Boris Godunov owned this information and tried to secure his power. The potential heir to the Swedish king, Gustav, was prohibited from appearing in Sweden and Finland. He was forced to wander around Europe and often experienced financial difficulties. In 1600, Tsar Boris Godunov lured Gustav to Moscow, hoping to use him for political purposes in relations between Russia and Sweden. But Gustav refused, as a result of which he was arrested and imprisoned. In 1607, he died in the small town of Kashin, 180 km from Moscow, on the banks of the Kashinka River (a tributary of the Volga).

The situation was worse with False Dmitry I, who was supported by Sigismund III. The impostor's army grew quickly and soon numbered about 15 thousand people. On December 20, 1605, these forces defeated the army sent by Boris Godunov under the command of Fyodor Mstislavsky. Tsar Boris could no longer hide the fact of the impostor’s penetration from the people and demanded to know about him. Obviously, Boris Godunov realized that the strength of his enemy lay not in the military force with which he entered the state, but in the willingness of the people to follow him and support him. But Boris Godunov’s plans to fight the impostor were not destined to come true. He died suddenly on April 13, 1605.

False Dmitry I occupied the Russian throne in 1605-1606 (11 months). The surprising thing is that the adventurer’s plan was carried out so relatively easily and quickly. However, his pro-Polish policy caused discontent among the Russian people, and on May 17, 1606, an uprising against False Dmitry and the Poles began in Moscow: “On Saturday morning, May 17, at about two o’clock, the alarm bell sounded first in the Kremlin, and then throughout the city, and there was great excitement... they [the conspirators] persuaded one clerk to do this... and his name was Timofey Osipov... he announced that Dimitri was not the king’s son, but a runaway monk named Grishka Otrepiev... And the conspirators overtook him [Dimitri]... they soon put an end to him , shooting at him and chopping him with sabers and axes, for they were afraid that he would run away.”

The “summoned” Tsar Vasily Shuisky ascended the Russian throne. His main rival was the “newly appeared in Starodub” impostor False Dmitry II. Very contradictory information has been preserved about him. The only obvious thing is that he acted as a pawn in the hands of the Polish party. The cities of Karachev, Orel, and Bryansk were taken by the Poles. From here the army of False Dmitry II moved towards Moscow, and a camp was established nearby in the village of Tushino (between the Moscow River and the Vskhodnya River, which flowed into it). This is how the impostor got his nickname “Tushinsky thief”. "On St. Peter and Paul, which fell on June 29 in 1608, Dimitri set up a large camp in Tushino, 12 versts from Moscow, stood there until December 29, 1609, and during this time there were many fierce battles between the camp and the city and with Many people were killed on both sides.”

The Tushin army was quickly replenished from the number of soldiers brought by gentlemen Mlotsky, Samuil Tyshkevich, Roman Rozhinsky, Alexander Zaborovsky, Vylamovsky, Stadnitsky, Jan Sapieha and others. Among his support were Russian “thieves” who were looking for wealth, increased influence and new government officials - Dmitry Cherkassky, Dmitry Timofeevich Trubetskoy, Alexey Sitsky, Zasekins and others.

Vasily Shuisky decided to make peace with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for 3 years and 11 months. Under its terms, all captured Poles were released to their homeland, and they were provided with everything they needed before reaching the border. Marina Mnishek and her father were summoned from Yaroslavl to Moscow, where she had to renounce the title of Moscow queen, and Mnishek would undertake not to call the impostor her son-in-law. Marina was summoned to Moscow not just for the sake of a formality, but due to the fact that she was very ambitious and could later make claims to the Moscow throne, and could serve as a reason for starting a war. It was important to stipulate any nuances in the contract. Marina called herself the “Queen of Moscow” after the death of False Dmitry I, when she was in Yaroslavl. She called herself that after the call to Moscow.

Marina Mniszech did not fulfill the terms of this agreement, as can be seen from a letter dated January 15, 1610 to the Polish king Sigismund III: “I was deprived of everything by bad luck, only the legal right to the Moscow throne was with me, sealed by a wedding to the kingdom, approved by the recognition of me heiress and double oath of all Moscow state officials.” However, this was already after Marina ended up in the Tushino camp and met False Dmitry II. Not far from the border, Marina Mnishek was detained by a detachment of Zaborovsky and Mosalsky, expelled from Tushino. They went in pursuit so that the Russians would know that the Tsar was sending for his wife. Marina was given “under the protection” of Jan Sapieha and transported to Tushino, where she recognized False Dmitry II as her husband (as R.G. Skrynnikov writes, she recognized it reluctantly, through the persuasion of her father, who “sold” her for 100 thousand rubles and the Seversk land ).

It should be recognized that during the Time of Troubles, some Russian boyars, nobles and service people collaborated with the Poles. This was caused not so much by faith in the truth of the prince, but by self-interest and greed, the desire to get closer to the court. Instead of joining forces, the boyars acted to please their ambitions, which created a lot of disagreement and separated them. Even the pro-Polish party represented by the Mstislavskys and the Romanovs was clearly aware that the people did not want to see a foreign prince on the throne.

The initiative to overthrow Shuisky was taken not by Vladislav’s party, but by the Golitsyn party. Among the Russian contenders for the throne, Vasily Vasilyevich Golitsyn was the most influential figure. He executed Tsar Fyodor Godunov, then led the reprisal against False Dmitry I. Now it was Vasily Shuisky’s turn. In Moscow, Vasily Golitsyn and Ivan Nikitich Saltykov, Zakhar Lyapunov, the Mstislavskys and others supported Trubetskoy, who agitated people to overthrow the hated Shuisky, and then falsely lured with promises of overthrowing Tushino’s False Dmitry II. In the military camp behind the Serpukhov Gate, the Zemsky Cathedral was opened with the participation of the Boyar Duma. Most of its participants supported the deposition of Vasily Shuisky. The conspirators offered this to him, peacefully sending a messenger, but he refused the persuasion. Then he was forcibly expelled from the palace to the old courtyard and taken into custody.

The conspirators mistakenly believed that the same thing would happen to the “Tushinsky Thief”, and then they would jointly elect a sovereign, but they were severely disappointed. When the illusions dissipated, discord began in the choice of candidate. The Mstislavskys opposed the candidacy of Vasily Golitsyn proposed by Gabriel Pushkin and Zakhar Lyapunov. The Shuisky party sought to regain lost positions. Filaret offered his fourteen-year-old Mikhail. The pro-Polish party nominated Vladislav. None of the contenders then achieved majority support in the Duma and the Zemsky Sobor. A weighty argument was that Shuisky was elected without the participation of the province and therefore he was considered a usurper.

It is worth highlighting one of the most important diplomatic victories of the pro-Polish party. They managed to push through the decision not to elect any of the Moscow boyars to the state. Messengers rushed to the province with instructions to choose one person from all ranks. According to a long-standing tradition, the Boyar Duma chose seven elected boyars during the interregnum. This is how the Moscow “Seven Boyars” was formed, which included Fyodor Mstislavsky, Ivan Vorotynsky, Vasily Golitsyn, Ivan Romanov, Fyodor Sheremetev, Andrei Trubetskoy, Boris Lykov.

After the signing of the Smolensk Treaty, enough time passed for the Poles to regain their strength, and Russia plunged into the abyss of a struggle for power after the overthrow of Shuisky. The king sent instructions from near Smolensk that threatened to ruin the Moscow negotiations. He ordered that affairs be conducted in such a way that Moscow would swear allegiance to Sigismund III and his son at once. With all this, Sigismund considered it possible to take the Moscow throne by force without any treaties at all, and the initiator of the union was Hetman Zholkiewski. The reason for such a rush was that he did not have the money to pay the army, and the seven-boyars agreed to provide financial assistance, but only after signing the agreement.

On August 16, 1610, Fyodor Mstislavsky, Filaret Romanov, Vasily Golitsyn and cathedral officials brought the final text of the agreement to Hetman Zholkiewsky. Then, on Novodevichy Field, in front of 10 thousand Muscovites, the agreement was solemnly approved. In fact, the agreement was extremely progmatic and was of a compromise nature. The Boyar Duma and the Patriarch did not allow the idea that the Catholic sovereign Vladislav would settle in the Orthodox kingdom. Zolkiewski considered the prospect of baptism according to the Orthodox rite of the prince absurd. Patriarch Hermogenes zealously defended Orthodoxy and even thought of executing those Russians who, “through their weakness,” accepted the papal faith. This agreement confirmed the inviolability of Russia's borders. The Moscow Treaty was based on agreements concluded in the Tushino camp near Smolensk. The Seven Boyars did not secure the final consent of the applicant and his father. However, she gave the order for an immediate oath to Tsar Vladislav.

This agreement served as the basis for the Poles' claims to the Russian throne, and the final resolution of this issue was delayed until the Smolensk War. After his imprisonment, the Seven Boyars began to sharply lose their authority in the eyes of people. Many did not want to swear allegiance to the Catholic sovereign; some of the residents left the capital and moved to the impostor’s camp. In August 1610, unrest swept through Tver, Vladimir, Rostov, Suzdal and Galich. The country was again on the verge of a social explosion. The people have not yet forgotten the uprising of Ivan Bolotnikov in 1606-1607. Fear of the unbridled power of the uprising drove the boyars into the camp of the interventionists. With the help of foreign troops, they hoped to put an end to the peasant-Cossack uprisings. This was another example showing the seven-boyars from the bad side.

The agreement also contained a very important clause, which obligated Zholkiewski to take upon himself the obligation to hunt down thieves' camps until the thief was caught or killed. After the accession of Vladislav, the question of the existence of free Cossacks had to be raised. Finally, after swearing allegiance to Vladislav, Moscow sent envoys to the king in order to complete peace negotiations in his camp near Smolensk. About 50 people, representing all ranks or chambers of the Zemsky Sobor, went to Smolensk with the ambassadors. Muscovites kissed the cross of the heterodox prince in the hope of an immediate end to the war. But their hopes were in vain, inconsolable news arrived on the tormented Russian land. From a diplomatic point of view, this was a miscalculation. The Seven Boyars could not give the country either peace or a dynasty. And the people completely turned away from her. The nobility feasted in the Kremlin palace along with foreigners, and ordinary people worried outside the windows. The act of national betrayal was completed by allowing foreign units to enter Moscow.

Yaroslavl at the beginning of the 17th century was a busy trading city, growing rich and prosperous, which combined a transshipment point for European and Asian goods, as well as a place of residence for Russian and foreign merchants. In the map or "Book of the Great Drawing", composed in 1584-1598. and supplemented in 1680, it was said about Yaroslavl as follows: “The city of Yaroslavl, is very decorated with church buildings and is large, there is no city wall, only stone towers... Near the city of Yaroslavl on the bank of the Kotorosl River is the Monastery of the All-Merciful Savior; church building, and cells, and city [ fortress– I.P.] – everything made of stone is much slimmer.” The city was surrounded by an embankment (528 fathoms) 1 km 280 m long, and there were 12 wooden towers, two of which apparently were already made of stone, which also served as roadways. The population of the city was approximately 10 thousand people.

The Yaroslavl land was drawn into the thick of the events of the Time of Troubles from 1606. Vasily Shuisky, having come to power, sent the Poles to different cities in August 1606. Marina Mnishek, her father, brother and uncle, as well as 375 people from the “queen’s” retinue were exiled to Yaroslavl, some of the Poles (190 people) were exiled to Rostov, and then to Beloozero. Isaac Massa writes about this (the Dutch merchant was in the Moscow state in 1601-1609): “The governor, together with his daughter, the former queen, and the nobles, of whom there were about four hundred, were exiled to Yaroslavl, on the Volga River, and there They gave them a courtyard, which was guarded on all sides by strong guards.” Konrad Bussov also wrote about this: “Marina Yuryevna, together with her father, Voivode Sandomierz, as well as Mr. Skotnitsky and other Polish nobles, together with all their relatives, were sent from Moscow for imprisonment in Yaroslavl.” The prisoners were kept in Yaroslavl until 1608 - the signing of the peace treaty by Vasily Shuisky, under the terms of which the Poles were given the opportunity to return to their homeland.

After this, the time of severe trials continued for Yaroslavl and its inhabitants. From the “Tushino camp” an expedition was organized to the northern lands of Hetman Jan Sapieha and Pan Alexander Lisovsky. At least 2 thousand people died during the defense of Rostov. On Yaroslavl, which surrendered to the interventionists without a fight, the Tushino camp imposed a huge indemnity. According to the calculations of Konrad Bussov, who drew information from foreign merchants who were in Yaroslavl, the townspeople paid the Tushino authorities a huge amount for those times - 30 thousand rubles. and gave out “feed” for 1 thousand horsemen, but this did not satisfy the mercenaries. In despair, the residents of Yaroslavl wrote to Jan Sapieha: “and such, sir, great food cannot be collected, and there is nowhere and no one to get it from.”

The first months of 1609 were characterized by robbery and violence committed by the Tushins in the Yaroslavl region. Punitive raids were constant, but as soon as the intervention troops left one or another populated area, uprisings were repeated in it.

By order of the governor, Prince Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky, on March 16, 1609, the Vologda militia of Nikita Vysheslavtsev moved to Yaroslavl. After the victory over the Poles on April 7, 1609 near the village of Grigorievskoye, this militia entered Yaroslavl. However, Nikita Vysheslavtsev understood perfectly well that a punitive raid would move to Yaroslavl in the very near future. There was a Kremlin and monasteries within the city, but they could not hold back the onslaught of the Poles. Vysheslavtsev set about repairing old and building new city fortifications. The settlements were surrounded by outposts. A fort was built around the settlement [ wooden wall– I.P.]. All these measures were taken on time, because the detachments of Alexander Lisovsky from near Vladimir were transferred to Yaroslavl.

The battles for Yaroslavl began on April 30 (May 10), 1609 and, with interruptions, lasted almost the entire May 1609. It is important to emphasize that most of the city’s fortifications were wooden or earthen. Only the Spassky Monastery had stone walls. On May 1 (11), 1609, the settlement was burned. The enemies entered the city, apparently due to the actions of the traitor who opened the gates. Isaac Massa reported: “The Polish lords moved to Yaroslavl and, with the help of treason, took it by surprise, set it on fire on all sides and completely plundered it along with the beautiful monastery there, also killed many people, and conquered the rest. [Yaroslavl] was betrayed by the governor himself, Prince Fyodor Baryatinsky (Bratinsco), and with him a certain monastery servant, and they let the enemy know, and after the capture of the city they all swore allegiance to Dimitri and [in Yaroslavl] another governor was appointed, and with him was also and the aforementioned Baryatinsky.”

The Spassky Monastery served as the last stronghold of resistance and thanks to the heroic actions of the Yaroslavl people, it was never taken. The people of Yaroslavl resisted the army of Alexander Lisovsky and Pan Budzila 3-4 attacks a day, and on May 4 the attack lasted the whole day and night. Seeing the futility of the attacks, the enemies tried to persuade the Yaroslavl people to surrender peacefully, through persuasion. But nothing had any effect on the Yaroslavl warriors and “people honest to the Fatherland.” Finally, on May 22 (June 1), 1609, the enemy retreated from our city. The last shameful actions of the enemy were the devastation of part of Zemlyanoy Town, the burning of the settlement and the convent of the Nativity and, probably, settlements beyond Kotorosl and the Volga. Lisovsky was well aware that the balance of power had passed to the militia, and he had no chance of besieging the cities for a long time. He pursued the goal of loot as much as possible, as well as harm Russian lands.

Tragic times have unfolded for our entire country. On July 18, 1610, Tsar Vasily Shuisky was overthrown from his reign and placed in a monastery. The time of the so-called seven-boyars began. In 1611, Moscow fell into enemy hands only because there was no formal government in the country.

Of course, there were attempts to break the enemy, for example, the Ryazan militia was formed under the leadership of Prokopiy Lyapunov, but it was not crowned with success. Yaroslavl sent its troops under the command of Volynsky to help the militia, but they were few in number. In addition, the death of Prokopiy Lyapunov significantly weakened the composition of the militia stationed near Moscow. After the failure of the first militia, the situation in the country worsened greatly. The cities swore allegiance: some to Sigismund III, others to Vladislav, his son (including Yaroslavl), others to the Swedish prince Philip, and some to the new impostors.

Then the initiative passed into the hands of national heroes Prince Dmitry Pozharsky and zemstvo elder Kozma Minin. The success of the second militia directly depended on timely funding. In resolving this issue, of course, the zemstvo elder Kuzma Minin played a big role. It is noteworthy that he was not the largest rich man in Nizhny Novgorod; there were much richer representatives. However, in the fall of 1611, the townspeople elected him as headman for his trustworthiness and positive reputation as a person who himself sacrificed his accumulated money for the good of his homeland. Minin was seen as a guarantor that all allocated money would go to work and would not stick to the hands of those in power. The experience that Minin had in finding funding was evident to him even in Nizhny Novgorod, when funds were available for the formation of a second militia, and this experience served well in Yaroslavl. Here the financial system was in complete disorder. The population, seeing constant robberies, hid their property and went into hiding. Minin had to work hard before assuring the population of his authority. Minin called on local merchants in Yaroslavl to make their contributions to the formation of the militia. But they remained deaf. Then Minin decided to take a risky step. He sent for the archers and Nikitnikov and other rich merchants were brought to the voivode's hut to Pozharsky. They announced their guilt to the governors and demanded that they be deprived of all their property. Pozharsky supported his elected person with his authority. And this measure worked. The best people of Yaroslavl fell to their knees, seeing their “untruth” and submitted. One can single out the merchants and salt industrialists Stroganovs, who, at the insistence of Kuzma Minin, lent the militia four thousand rubles. For example, seven other merchant families (three from Moscow and four from Yaroslavl) together were able to collect only a thousand. The zemstvo treasury, formed in Yaroslavl, was constantly replenished by voluntary donations, and the voluntary treasury of other cities was also brought here. The money collected was used to hire and maintain troops.

Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky took over all military leadership. Military power was needed, and this was the nobility that needed to be attracted. The nobles were simply ruined and incapable of fighting. To do this, Pozharsky held a review and divided the nobles into three articles. First-class landowners received up to 20-30 rubles per capita, children of boyars of the third class received 15 rubles. In addition to this salary, the zemstvo hut gave them all a one-time allowance to buy a horse and repair armor. These measures made it possible to attract service people from various outskirts to the militia. The principle formed in Nizhny Novgorod also worked in Yaroslavl, but given its specifics, it is worth noting that, unlike Nizhny Novgorod, Yaroslavl was not primarily a posad city. It was home to a large nobility, the basis for the formation of troops. The core of the militia was well-armed cavalry and rifle infantry. The nobles, archers, and gunners who newly arrived in Yaroslavl were examined by the governors and their salaries were determined, demanding from the landowners guarantors and a written obligation to serve honestly and not run away from service. The question of hiring soldiers overseas was sharply raised. The fact is that Pozharsky sounded the alarm because a messenger from Captain Marzharet arrived in Yaroslavl. This is a French citizen who previously served in Russia. He went first to Holland and then to England. Everywhere talking about the fabulously profitable service in Russia. He didn’t care who he served, as long as he got paid. With all this, Marzharet had a reputation as a cruel man, who earned fame for his “bloody exploits” during the suppression of the uprising in Moscow. Pozharsky referred the question of hiring soldiers overseas to the cathedral officials. The Council decided: “We do not need mercenary German military people.” Thus the issue of foreign assistance was resolved.

Realizing that fundraising alone could not solve the matter, Prince Pozharsky gathered two people from “all ranks and people” in cities to participate in the “Council of the Whole Earth.” It was actually a provisional government, in which wealthy Yaroslavl merchants played a large role. Grigory Nikitnikov, Mikhail Guryev, Nadya Sveteshnikov, Vasily Lytkin contributed large amounts of money to the treasury of the militia, and later for these services they were granted “guests of the sovereign.” Also included in the provisional government were military commanders who came from the Moscow region, Miron Velyaminov, Isak Pogozhiy with many boyar children, clerks and merchants. The senior members of the Council were the boyars Prince Andrei Petrovich Kurakin, Vasily Morozov, Prince Vasily Dolgoruky and the okolnichy Semyon Golovin. These people already had vast political experience behind them. For example, Prince Dolgoruky sat in the Kremlin until March 1611 together with “Lithuania” and took part in government. You can also mention such people as Prince Nikita Odoevsky, Prince Pyotr Pronsky, Prince Ivan Cherkassky, Boris Saltykov, Prince Ivan Troekurov, Prince Dmitry Cherkassky and others. All these influential people played an important role in the functioning of the council. With their authority they persuaded others to take their side. They were recognized abroad as responsible people with whom it was possible to conduct diplomatic negotiations.

One of these diplomatic contacts can be called the negotiations between the Austrian Ambassador Gregory and Prince Dmitry Pozharsky. The result was Gregory’s promise to promote in his homeland the recognition of the “Council of the Whole Earth” as a legitimate government, as well as a letter to the emperor “we beat your crown majesty with the whole earth, so that you .... In our present sorrow they have looked upon us.” Austria was also asked to be a mediator in negotiations with Poland.

Within a short time, a system of governing vast territories was organized. Yaroslavl had its own local order, the Kazan Palace, and the Novgorod Quarter. The local order was engaged in the distribution of lands to impoverished nobles. Minin sent patrolmen to Suzdal, Kineshma, and Torzhok in a matter of hours. Thus, the Yaroslavl Council was able to find out the real possibilities of taxpayers. A Monastic Order was organized, headed by Timofey Vitovtov, a man of impeccable reputation. This was done because Kozma Minin understood the need to use monastic funds to form a militia, and he willingly turned to them for loans (the loans were issued against a receipt, Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky himself signed).

Another important step is the establishment of a new coat of arms. This was necessary, because otherwise no one would have common affairs with the “Council of All the Earth”. The coat of arms meant responsibility for actions, a certain position and views, demonstrated independence in decision-making and acted as a kind of guarantor when signing papers (the official seal was used to certify the most important documents). All impostors, starting with Grigory Otrepiev, performed under banners with a double-headed eagle. The militia chose a different emblem - a lion. The large zemstvo seal bore the image of “two standing lions”, the smaller palace seal bore the image of a “lone lion”. When performing foreign policy functions they used the seal of Prince Pozharsky. It depicted two lions that supported a heraldic shield with the image of a raven pecking the enemy's head. A damaged, dying dragon was placed under the shield. Along the edge was the signature: “Stolnik and voivode and prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky of Starodubsky.”

One of the most important actions was the creation of the Money Court, where silver coins were minted. On the obverse side of the Yaroslavl coins a horseman with a spear and the sign of the Monetary Court were minted - the letters YAR with a small “s” under them, meaning “Yaroslavl.” Their issue became a source of payment of salaries to the militias.

On July 28, 1612, the militia moved from Yaroslavl to Moscow. The army numbered approximately 20 thousand fighters.

All these measures helped to find the strength to resist the Polish intervention in Russia. Poland's aggression constantly increased in 1609-1613. But the danger also came from a former ally - Sweden. The southern borders also remained unprotected from the attacks of the Crimean Tatars.

The activities of truly national heroes Minin and Pozharsky and the role that Yaroslavl played in rallying patriotic forces helped to overcome the current situation with honor and dignity. As stated in the charter of the Zemsky Sobor on February 21, 1613 about the election of Mikhail Fedorovich as Tsar: “May he accept the scepter of the Russian Kingdom to establish our true Orthodox faith, and that the Lord God will correct Him with State charity and unite him in one piety and quench civil strife and all good Arranged for the Moscow State."

At this time, he and his mother took refuge in the Ipatiev Monastery, and it was through Yaroslavl that his path to Moscow and the kingdom lay. On March 21, 1613 he arrived in Yaroslavl. “And having stayed in Kostroma for a few days, the blessed great sovereign king went... to the reigning city... In the city of Yaroslavl, then from all the cities a great many nobles and children of the boyars came to worship the sovereign... In Yaroslavl he stayed for several days... he was elevated to his royal house in summer 7121 (1613)».

There are still interesting memories of foreigners about the election of Mikhail Romanov to the Russian throne. Adam Olearius wrote: “When the Russians again became masters of the country, they elected and crowned Grand Duke Mikhail Fedorovich. This happened in 1613. His father was Feodor Nikitich, a relative of the tyrant Ivan Vasilyevich... by nature he was very pious and God-fearing.” Konrad Bussov: “After they got back the Moscow Kremlin, the seat of the tsars, they elected their compatriot, the noble nobleman Mikhail Fedorovich from the Nikitich family, as tsar, and crowned him... If this new tsar retains his power, then he will be very lucky.”

After the election of the Tsar, Russia again embarked on the path of centralization, protection of sovereignty and preservation of cultural values. The events of the Time of Troubles show numerous examples of patriotism, the courage of ordinary people and the contributions of remarkable individuals. At this time, it became necessary to take control of everything not in the capital, but at the regional level. And Yaroslavl heroically coped with this task, using its example one can see how, despite all the difficulties, one can accumulate all the strength within oneself. The glorious past of Yaroslavl is evidence of its services to the country and contribution to national culture.

All this speaks in favor of the fact that the real power in the state sometimes finds itself in a very precarious position. When a country is strong and united by spiritual unity, unshakable in the face of foreign powers, such situations do not occur not because some of the factors accompanying turning points are missing, but because they all break like sea waves against the mighty rocks of the power. At times when a country is weak, the role of each of its regions, the patriotism of citizens and their choice of a clear position are important.

We can say that turning points do not occur spontaneously, but are preceded by a certain scenario. At the same time, the more developed and complex the political system, the greater the complex of prerequisites that must be taken into account. A number of factors influenced the events of the February and October revolutions of 1917. The crisis also preceded the events of August 1991. It is noteworthy that each time the actions developed completely differently and with a different number of victims and had different consequences, but what unites them is that they were preceded by a number of prerequisites, and their result was a change in systems of power. Experience from past years can provide insight into the conditions under which a dangerous tipping point is formed. It is important that the country can be ready for this. Mistakes made earlier should not be repeated. At turning points, conventional measures were not enough to restore the functioning of the country's governance system.

List of sources and literature used

1. Salme Kotivuori. Eerik XIV and Kaarina Maununtytär.Turun linna, 2000
2. Siarczyński, “Obraz wieku panowania Zygmunta III, zawieràjący opis osòb zyjących pod jego panowaniem.” – Warsaw, 1828.
3. Bussov Konrad. Moscow Chronicle. 1584 – 1613. M. – L., 1961.
4. Genkin L.B. Yaroslavl region and the defeat of the Polish intervention in the Moscow state at the beginning of the 17th century. – Yaroslavl, 1939.
5. Girshberg A. Marina Mnishek / Russian translation with preface. A.A. Titova. – M., 1908.
6. Zimin A.A. On the eve of terrible upheavals: prerequisites for the first peasant war in Russia. – M., 1986.
7. Ierusalimsky Yu.Yu., Fedorchuk I.A. Events of the Time of Troubles on Yaroslavl land // Yaroslavl region during the Time of Troubles at the beginning of the 17th century. Collection of materials from the interregional scientific conference. – Yaroslavl: Publishing House LIYA, 2008.
8. Ierusalimsky Yu.Yu., Fedorchuk I.A. Events of the Time of Troubles on the Yaroslavl Land // Yaroslavl region during the Time of Troubles of the beginning of the 17th century. Collection of scientific seminar materials. – Yaroslavl, 2008.
9. Ierusalimsky Yu.Yu., Fedorchuk I.A. Yaroslavl region in the Time of Troubles // Russian Troubles of the early 17th century: From confrontation to unity. Collection of materials from the interregional scientific conference. – Yaroslavl: Publishing house “Remder”, 2007. – 144 p.
10. Isaac Massa. Brief news about Muscovy at the beginning of the 17th century. – M.: State Socio-Economic Publishing House, 1937.
11. Kozlyakov V.N. Vasily Shuisky. – M.: Mol. Guard, 2007 (ZhZL).
12. Kozlyakov V.N. Marina Mnishek. – M.: Mol. Guard, 2005 (ZhZL).
13. Kozlyakov V.N. Mikhail Fedorovich. – M.: Mol. Guard, 2004 (ZhZL).
14. Kozlyakov V.N. The service “city” of the Moscow state of the 17th century (from the Time of Troubles to the Cathedral Code). – Yaroslavl, 2000.
15. Kozlyakov V.N. Troubles in Russia. 17th century – M., 2007.
16. Kishchenkov M.S. National Relations in the Yaroslavl Territory during the Time of Troubles. Troubles and Yaroslavl region: Youth almanac / Museum of the History of the City. – Yaroslavl, 2008. – 86 p.
17. Kostomarov N.I. Russian history in the biographies of its main figures. – M.: Eksmo Publishing House, 2006. – 1024 pp., ill.
18. Leontyev Ya.V. The history of the confrontation between “Old Man” Lisovsky and governor Davyd Zherebtsov // Yaroslavl region during the Time of Troubles of the early 17th century: Collection of materials from the interregional scientific conference. – Yaroslavl: Publishing House LIYA, 2008.
19. Leontyev Ya.V. The history of the confrontation between “Batka” Lisovsky and the governor Davyd Zherebtsov // Russian Troubles of the early 17th century: From confrontation to unity. Collection of materials from the interregional scientific conference. – Yaroslavl: Publishing house “Remder”, 2007.
20. Marasanova V.M. “The Great Moscow Devastation at the beginning of the 17th century” // Yaroslavl region during the Time of Troubles at the beginning of the 17th century. Collection of materials from the interregional scientific conference. – Yaroslavl: Publishing House LIYA, 2008.
21. Marasanova V.M. “The Great Moscow Ruin” at the beginning of the 17th century // Yaroslavl region during the Time of Troubles of the beginning of the 17th century. Collection of materials from the interregional scientific conference. – Yaroslavl: Publishing House LIYA, 2008.
22. Marasanova V.M. Traditions of people's militias and assistance to the front in the Yaroslavl region // Russian Troubles of the early 17th century: From confrontation to unity. Collection of materials from the interregional scientific conference. – Yaroslavl: Publishing house “Remder”, 2007.
23. Marasanova V.M. Yaroslavl residents and turmoil in the Moscow state. Troubles and Yaroslavl region: Youth almanac / Museum of the History of the City. – Yaroslavl 2008. – 86 p., ill.
24. Olearius Adam. Description of the trip to Muscovy. M., 1996.
25. The story of Abraham Palitsyn. St. Petersburg: Printing house M.A. Alexandrova, Imperial Archaeographic Commission, 1909. Ch. 2.
26. Skrynnikov R.G. Minin and Pozharsky: Chronicle of the Time of Troubles. – M.: Mol. Guard, 1981. – 352s, ill. (ZhZL).
27. Soloviev S.M. Rus' and the Normans. Grand Duke Yaroslav the Wise. – M.: TERRA, 1996. – 480 pp., ill.
28. Soloviev S.M. Essays. Book 4. History of Russia since ancient times. – M., 1990.
29. Tupikova N.A. Tyumentsev I.O., Tyumentseva N.E. Residents of Yaroslavl and Tushino residents in 1608 – 1609 (Based on materials from the Russian archive of Tushino hetman Jan Sapieha) // Yaroslavl antiquity. – Vol. 6. – Yaroslavl, 2006. – P. 3-17.

Skrynnikov R.G. Minin and Pozharsky: Chronicle of the Time of Troubles. - M.: Mol.guard, 1981.-352s, ill. (ZhZL) p. 233

Skrynnikov R.G. Minin and Pozharsky: Chronicle of the Time of Troubles. - M.: Mol. Guard, 1981.-352s, ill. (ZhZL) p243

Kishchenkov M.S. National Relations in the Yaroslavl Territory during the Time of Troubles. Time of Troubles and Yaroslavl Region: Youth Almonk/rep. Ed. V.M. Marasanova; Museum of City History.-Yaroslavl, 2008.-86 p.: ill.

Quoted from: Soloviev, S.M. Works. kN.4 M., 1990. P.651.

Ierusalimsky Yu.Yu., Fedorchuk I.A. Events of the Time of Troubles on the Yaroslavl land.//Yaroslavl region during the Time of Troubles of the early 17th century. Collection of materials from a scientific seminar. Yaroslavl, 2008.

Skrynnikov R.G. Minin and Pozharsky: Chronicle of the Time of Troubles. - M.: Mol.guard, 1981.-352s, ill. (ZhZL) from 241

Marasanova V.M. Traditions of people's militias and assistance to the front in the Yaroslavl region. // Russian Troubles of the early 17th century: from confrontation to unity. Collection of materials from the interregional scientific conference June 26, 2007 - Yaroslavl.

In general, history is not only facts, and far from only facts. Perhaps most importantly, history is lessons for posterity. Actually, this is where the connection between history and modernity occurs. This is why we study history - to learn some lessons and understand how we should move in the future.

The Time of Troubles gave us various lessons: about the causes of the Troubles, and about people - about the actions of people, how to behave during the Troubles. The main, most important, in my opinion, lessons are the lessons of emerging from the Troubles, that is, how Russia was able to overcome the Troubles, which helped Russia emerge from this terrible period. When it seemed that everything was lost. When the Polish prince almost reigned on the throne. When the Poles refused to sign an agreement with the Russian government of that time on the preservation of Orthodoxy in Russia (that the Polish prince should accept Orthodoxy and marry only a Russian Orthodox princess) and actually started a war to turn Russia into a Catholic state and eradicate Orthodoxy from Russia. Everything seemed lost. The peak of this state is 1610–1611. And suddenly, a year later, everything turns the other way, and Russia is saved. Before this, there were 10 years of terrible Troubles, starting with the famine of 1601–1603.

So, lesson one. First of all, the Troubles were perceived by the Russian people as God's punishment for sins - this can be seen in absolutely all documents of the Troubles. Consequently, when they were looking for a way out of the Troubles, they considered two main ways to save Russia from ruin: 1) returning the fear of God to the hearts of people; 2) general repentance. There are two main ways in which the Russian people imagined the salvation of Russia. But he not only thought, but also did.

At the beginning of the Time of Troubles, under False Dmitry, the first Russian Patriarch Job was dethroned and imprisoned in the Spassky Uglich Monastery. There is a version that after Vasily Shuisky had already reigned on the royal throne, Job was invited to return to the patriarchal throne, but he refused because he was ill (he would die in a year). And Hermogenes was chosen. So, in the winter of 1607, Patriarch Hermogenes called the elderly first Patriarch Job and together they held a service in Moscow “for the forgiveness of all the sins of Russia and the Russian people.” This was a very serious act - the first church-state act of the beginning of that very general repentance, which was considered as the main way out of the Troubles.

But the fact is that the Russian people themselves, without an “order” or “order from above,” began to strive for spiritual cleansing. This process was especially clearly manifested in the practice of seeing signs - an unprecedented mass phenomenon that occurred during the Time of Troubles. This has never happened before in Russian history. According to the calculations of modern researcher Boris Kuznetsov, from the end of the 16th to the beginning of the 17th century. Various sources record reports of 80 signs and 45 episodes containing 78 original vision stories.

These, I emphasize, are written signs and visions. At the same time, the visions undoubtedly played a stabilizing role in society (this is a very important point), because most often the Higher Powers that appear to one or another people, although they demanded repentance from the people, also promised their support in the salvation of Russia. And it is interesting that the visions begin in 1606 and continue until 1613 - in the most difficult, Troubled times.

Researchers divide visions (from a rational point of view) into visions, so to speak, of local and national significance. But, in fact, there were several visions that played a huge role. Moreover, they covered all the most significant events of the Troubles: the siege of Moscow by Bolotnikov, and the siege of Moscow by the Tushino thief - False Dmitry, and the siege in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, and the Polish intervention, and the militia, and the liberation of Moscow. And all of them were recorded in literary monuments.

Among the most striking works that recorded visions were “The Tale of a Vision to a Certain Spiritual Man” (this was a vision in Moscow, after which, by order of the Church and Tsar Shuisky, a general all-Russian fast was established), “The Tale of a Miraculous Vision in Nizhny Novgorod” with the adjacent to him “The Vladimir Vision” and, finally, a cycle of visions in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. This cycle is reflected in the “Legend” of Abraham Palitsyn, where there are 18 stories about original visions.

Here is one, perhaps the most important episode. This is the “Nizhny Novgorod vision”. It was revealed to a pious man, Gregory. At night, while in a subtle sleep in the temple, Gregory saw how the dome of the temple suddenly opened on 4 sides and from heaven, illuminated by a great light, the Lord descended in human form, accompanied by a certain man in white robes. Lying on the chest (in the source it is written, “on the perseh”) of Gregory, the Savior pronounced his commandments. First of all, the Lord commanded to establish a strict three-day fast throughout the Russian state, and He promised to accept those who died during the fast into the Kingdom of Heaven, even children. The next commandment is to build a temple in Moscow. In addition, it was necessary to transfer the icon of the Vladimir Mother of God from Vladimir to this temple, place an unlit candle in front of the icon and put an “unwritten” one, that is, a blank sheet of paper. According to the vision, the Savior claimed that on the right day the candle would be lit by the fire of Heaven, and the name of the future Russian Tsar, pleasing to God, would miraculously appear on the paper (as the source says: “according to My heart”). If God's will is not fulfilled, then the entire Russian state will be severely punished. The residents of Nizhny Novgorod will be punished just as severely if they do not report the commandments of the Lord given to Gregory throughout Russia (“I will raise a storm and waves from the Volga River, and sink ships with bread and salt, and break trees and temples...”, so was said in the vision).

If you analyze the text, you can see that the vision is of a brightly optimistic nature: the Lord gives His signs in order to strengthen the faith of the Russian people and show them His mercy.

It is also important that the “Nizhny Novgorod vision” is given an all-Russian significance by the will of the Lord, and in this case the Lord addresses directly the Russian people, and not the rulers. And in fact, the “Nizhny Novgorod vision” testifies to the fact that the Russian people, by the will of the Lord Himself, were called to the feat of self-organization: having cleansed themselves of their sins, the Russian people had to liberate Moscow and elect a king for themselves, whose name will be called by the Lord.

And Russia heard this call. Already in the summer of 1611, the vision was recorded, the “Tale of a Miraculous Vision in Nizhny Novgorod” appeared, and then, in the fall of 1611 - winter of 1612, letters with the text of the “Tale” were sent throughout the country.

Lists of charters have already been definitely found, known in Perm, Vologda, Ustyug, Yaroslavl, Rostov, as well as in the cities of Siberia, right up to Tobolsk (which, by the way, the Troubles did not reach - there were no Poles there). The text of the “Tale” also appeared in the troops stationed near Moscow, in particular in the regiments of the 1st militia under the leadership of Prokopiy Lyapunov. And the “Nizhny Novgorod vision” became a direct catalyst for active popular action. Wherever news of him was received, a strict three-day fast was established. Moreover, what is very important, the post was established on the initiative of the townspeople themselves, without the intervention of any authorities.

Thus, the nationwide cleansing fast became a direct reaction to the “Nizhny Novgorod vision.” And this nationwide fast shows the degree of repentance for sins, becoming an expression of all-Russian repentance, so long awaited in Rus'.

It was general and sincere repentance that was considered at the beginning of the 17th century. as the main way to save Russia from ruin. Consequently, the entire Russian people perceived the message about the miraculous vision in Nizhny Novgorod as a direct guide to action and proved their desire for moral purification. And there were a lot of such examples.

So, the people sought to spiritually cleanse themselves. It is very important.

Lesson two. Who could lead the people in the Time of Troubles? The authority of the existing kings and various contenders for the throne by the beginning of the 17th century. fell a lot. None of them, neither Boris Godunov, nor Vasily Shuisky, not to mention False Dmitry I, corresponded to the Russian Orthodox idea of ​​​​a tsar - what a tsar should be. By the way, they believed, they sincerely believed that False Dmitry was the resurrected prince. The last years of Godunov’s reign were terrible, and, in general, the main cause of the Troubles was considered to be the murder of the prince, i.e., the Lord imposed punishment on the Russian people for this murder in the form of the Troubles.

False Dmitry was accused of spending money on the Poles; sent huge amounts of money to Poland. Shuisky's government published his correspondence with the Pope and the King of Poland, but False Dmitry had the greatest negative impact on the Russian people with just one act: he married a Polish woman, Marina Mniszech. Marina refused to convert to Orthodoxy, and after the wedding they refused Communion. This became the most important catalyst for the overthrow of False Dmitry (the wedding took place on May 8, and on May 17 False Dmitry was already overthrown). The authority of the tsar was falling, and in 1610 it seemed that there was already a complete fall - an interregnum. An oath was taken to the Polish prince and a treaty was sent. The Poles refused to sign this treaty, and under these conditions the Church remained the only authority - the only one in the whole country. And first of all, of course, Patriarch Hermogenes.

It was the Patriarch who allowed the Russian people to swear allegiance to the Polish prince. Special letters about this were sent out from Moscow. This is a very important point. That is, it seemed to provide legal grounds for an uprising against the Poles. It was His Holiness Patriarch Hermogenes, when the Poles approached the city (entered the city), who blessed the militia, blessed the people to rise up. For a Russian person, blessing means the most important thing, that is, it is God’s blessing “for one’s labors.” There were also the famous notes, letters, letters of Hermogenes, which were sent throughout Russia. True, the charters of the 1st militia were not found, but it is interesting that in the detachments, when the sentences were made to gather people for the militia, everywhere they first of all said: “with the blessing of the Patriarch.” This was very important.

But more than that. The fact is that at this moment the Church, precisely the Church and only the Church, became the ideological and organizational center for gathering people for the feat of self-organization. The church helped with funds. And local hierarchs are the first recipients of messages from militia units. That is, they were the ones who were addressed as the main leaders of the state. And, of course, a blessing for the feat of arms of the Monk Irinarch to the Russian army from the 2nd militia.

Lesson three. Having strengthened themselves spiritually and churchly, the Russian people themselves rose up to save the entire Earth. Both the 1st and 2nd militias are the result of folk art. It is no coincidence that in 1611–1612, in fact, the Councils of the Whole Earth became the main state body. This happened in both the 1st militia and the 2nd. The people governed themselves and saved themselves in the absence of state power. It was the people who brought forward national heroes from their ranks: Prokopiy Lyapunov, Kuzma Minin. The people found Prince Dimitry Pozharsky.

So, the main conclusion from the lessons of the Troubles. Strengthened spiritually, surrendering to repentance, under the leadership of the Church, the Russian people themselves rose to the feat of self-development and saved Russia. Our ancestors were able to do this. Could we?

Doctor of Economic Sciences Gavriil Popov, President of the International University (Moscow).

Science and life // Illustrations

The Holy Trinity, painted by Andrei Rublev for the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. Around 1411.

A copper engraving from the 17th century depicts a duel between the Grand Duke of Moscow (left) and the Tatar Khan.

Moscow. Drawing by the German scientist and traveler Adam Olearius, who visited Russia three times in the 17th century.

Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. From a sketch by V. M. Vasnetsov for a painting depicting Ivan IV. 1883-1884.

Noble cavalry from the time of Ivan IV. Drawing by German diplomat Sigmund Herberstein. XVI century.

Russian embassy abroad. (From the series

Polish horsemen with a standard. Drawing from the late 16th - early 17th centuries.

Portrait of Boris Godunov. 17th century

Dmitry I. Ancient miniature.

Marina Mnishek. Antique miniature.

Dmitry II. Antique miniature.

The first tsar of the Romanov dynasty is Mikhail. 17th century image.

Summer 2000. I enter the Solovetsky Monastery. Several decades have passed since the day when I first found myself on Solovki. On the green lawn near the walls of the Transfiguration Cathedral there are white tombstones. They were taken out for the duration of restoration work. I approached the first stone... and froze in shock. The inscription said that this was the tombstone of Abraham Palitsyn.

What struck me was not that Palitsyn was buried here on Solovki. (According to Orthodox custom, a monk is buried exactly where he promised God to be a monk and where he was tonsured. Palitsyn became a monk in the Solovetsky Monastery, and he was buried here.) The slab itself was a surprise. After all, once in the book of historian Sergei Kedrov “Abraham Palitsyn”, published by Moscow University in 1880, I read that Palitsyn’s grave was found “by a lucky chance” in 1872, but “time destroyed the monument.” That is why the meeting 375 years later with the gravestone (Palitsyn died in 1625) seemed to me like some kind of miracle. And my thoughts focused on Abraham Palitsyn.

ABRAHAMIY PALITSYN

It is unknown what the weather was like in Moscow on February 21, 1613. On this day, many people gathered on Red Square. Four people climbed to Lobnoye Mesto. On behalf of the Zemsky Sobor, they announced that the Time of Troubles was over: Mikhail Romanov was elected tsar. One of these four at the Execution Place was Abraham Palitsyn, cellarer of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery.

Abraham Palitsyn was not one of those to whom monuments are erected. Artists don’t depict such people in their paintings either, except perhaps somewhere in the second row. So I call them “second-line figures.”

During the Time of Troubles, the breeding ground for the emergence of “leaders” from the boyars was depleted. First of all, due to the complete exhaustion of the economic base of the boyars - patrimonial farming. The massive “purges” of Ivan the Terrible, who even killed his own son, also had an impact. And finally, the years of the Time of Troubles gradually “grinded” and “knocked out” everyone more or less suitable for the role of Leader (the last among the “weeded out” were the talented Skopin-Shuisky, who was poisoned, and the murdered Prokopiy Lyapunov - a bright personality, leader the first militia that gathered to liberate Moscow).

As the outstanding historian V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote, “The Moscow state emerged from the terrible Time of Troubles without heroes; it was brought out of trouble by kind but mediocre people.” Yes, by the end of the Time of Troubles there were no leaders, although the country certainly had bright and gifted figures of the “second rank”. And Palitsyn is one of the main ones among them. He is from an ancient noble family that moved to Moscow from Western Rus' (which was then part of Lithuania). According to legend, one of his heroic ancestors swung a club weighing one and a half pounds in battles - hence the surname. Despite the antiquity of the family, none of the Palitsyns became a boyar. They served as clerks, clerks... Not only Abraham, but his entire family was from the “second echelon”.

Palitsyn was born in the village of Protasyevo, near Rostov, presumably in 1540-1550. His name in the world was Averky Ivanovich. In 1588, under Tsar Fedor, he fell into disgrace, he was deprived of land and property and exiled to the Solovetsky Monastery, where he became a monk - not by force, but voluntarily.

Palitsyn fell into disgrace probably for two reasons. Most likely, “at the same time” with his patron Shuisky. But the main thing is different. Palitsyn was already considered one of the “serious” people, smart and active. In a moment of crisis, it is better to distance such people just in case. Then Godunov decided to forgive those who were preventively repressed. And Palitsyn was transferred to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery in 1596. Why exactly on Trinity? There was a serious reason for this. The Trinity Lavra began to lose its former role, and then they decided to “strengthen its personnel” - including Palitsyn. (It turns out that he was counted among those who could be “strengthened”!)

Both on Solovki and in Trinity, Palitsyn read a lot. In his youth, he did not study and now he was catching up, becoming the most educated person of his time: he knew church literature very well, which is easy to see from his book, which contains many references to sources.

Under Tsar Vasily Shuisky, Palitsyn was favored and received the post of cellarer of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery in 1608, the second post after the abbot. The cellarer is not a priest, but an administrator. The economy of the Lavra was huge: 250 villages, 500 hamlets, tens of thousands of acres of land and tens of thousands of peasant souls.

Palitsyn quickly adjusted the economy and was soon able to fulfill Shuisky’s request: to actively influence, as they would now say, the market element (not according to Keynes - with money, but with material factors). Moscow life sellers, taking advantage of the confrontation between Shuisky and Dmitry II, decided (very unpatriotically) to “warm their hands” on this. They agreed to buy bread and hold it until the highest prices. Then Palitsyn threw a large amount of rye “measures” from the monastery’s reserves onto the market and brought down the price. The bewildered life-sellers gave up and also began to trade.

At this time, Palitsyn - like the entire Trinity-Sergius Monastery - supported Shuisky against Dmitry II. But on July 17, 1610, Shuisky was overthrown. And already on August 27, the Duma, convened from representatives from all over the country, began the election of a new tsar. Those gathered settled on the son of the Polish king Sigismund, Vladislav, but on the condition that Vladislav would accept the “Greek faith.” Having formed a deputation of more than a thousand people, she was sent to Sigismund near Smolensk to ask “to let her son go.”

Palitsyn agreed with this decision and joined the delegation. However, Sigismund rejected the request, offering himself to the Moscow throne. The delegation was arrested, and the Poles occupied Moscow. The delegation split. Part of it, led by Metropolitan Philaret (father of the future Tsar Mikhail Romanov), decided to firmly follow the instructions received, and the other part - Palitsyn was included in it - swore allegiance to Sigismund, was released and returned to Moscow. However, in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, Palitsyn “forgot” about the oath and, together with Archimandrite Dionysius, began campaigning against the Poles. Behind this agitation was a new strategy for solving the problems of the Moscow state.

STRATEGY FOR GETTING OUT OF THE CRISIS

In the second half of the 15th century, Muscovite Rus' was gripped by a deep crisis. First of all, it was a military crisis. The victors of Mamai, the conquerors of Kazan and Astrakhan, the annexators of Siberia, the conquerors of Novgorod and Pskov turned out to be untenable during the first serious war in the West.

Behind the first crisis arose a more fundamental one - an economic one, as defined by V. O. Klyuchevsky, a crisis of the system of boyar patrimonial management. And finally, there is a political crisis. The eastern tyrannical, despotic, dictatorial models flourishing in Turkey or Persia no longer suited either the boyars, the nobility, or urban circles, or, very importantly, the Orthodox Church.

How to get out of the crisis?

Several centuries ago, Alexander Nevsky made a historic decision - to focus on the Golden Horde, in a broad sense - on the East. To oppose the crusaders, in other words, against the West. Disagree with Western Russia, which, having not submitted to the Horde, began to look for patrons and allies in Western Europe.

For Nevsky, such a decision was understandable: the Horde is a developed state that has mastered the thousand-year-old culture of China, with a powerful military force capable of uniting the appanage principalities of Eastern Rus', mired in civil strife, into one ulus and ensuring the power of princes and the Orthodox Church in it. The unification of the eastern Russian principalities around Moscow is the main result of the course of Alexander Nevsky.

But the Horde, century after century, lost its advantages, and by adopting Islam, it endangered the Orthodox Church and, ultimately, all of Moscow Rus'. Then the top of the Orthodox Church (primarily Sergius of Radonezh) far-sightedly proposed a new course: not only separation from the Horde, but also the fight against it. The result of this course was the Battle of Kulikovo and the formation of the Moscow state, which seized almost the entire inheritance of the Golden Horde.

And now it was necessary to change the line again. The West was clearly ahead of the great but slow East. This means that we need to master the achievements of the West and generally follow its path. But how to implement the new course? The choice of solution was largely determined by two circumstances. First. The closest neighbor in the West was the Polish-Lithuanian state - a kind of example for Muscovite Rus': the diets elect kings; the economy is developing; the army is at the European level, successfully fighting German aggression, the Crimean Khanate, and Turkey. And second. Poland, especially Lithuania, included all those Russian principalities that at one time did not submit to the Horde. In the middle of the 15th century, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania included Smolensk, Bryansk, Kyiv, and Polotsk. For many years, Orthodoxy in Lithuania was the state religion, and Russian was the official state language of the Principality of Lithuania. Unfortunately, historians of the Romanov dynasty zealously pursued the idea that after Kievan Rus there was only one Rus' left, the one that became the ulus of the Golden Horde and, ultimately, Muscovite Russia. Western Rus', which managed to escape the Horde yoke, seemed to not exist. (All this is discussed in the interesting book by A. Bushkov and A. Burovsky, “The Russia that Never Was.”)

The initial strategy of reorienting the Moscow state to the West relied on the force of arms. It would seem that the simplest path is to conquer lands in the West, reach the Baltic Sea and become a European power. However, Ivan the Terrible was unable to implement this strategy; he was defeated in the Livonian War.

Then a second option arose - a union with the West, according to which the Moscow Tsar was elected king of the Polish-Lithuanian state. However, Ivan the Terrible's attempt to become such a king also failed. The chances of his son, Tsar Feodor, seemed more realistic. Great ambassadors were sent from Moscow to the Sejm, which was electing the Polish king, the boyars Stepan Godunov and Fyodor Troekurov with clerk Vasily Shchelkanov. When the embassy was traveling through Lithuania, the Western Russians who came to meet them said: “Now we meet you, the great ambassadors of the Orthodox sovereign; and God would give us the whole earth to welcome your sovereign himself.” The Lithuanian treasurer Fyodor Skumin greeted the representatives of Moscow with these words: “I am a Christian of your Greek faith, both my father and mother were Christians, so I tell you... we all want you and I to be united for centuries, so that your The sovereign served as a master at our masters." But Fedor’s election did not go through.

Finally, a third option for implementing the course “to the West” has appeared. The most difficult: to carry out reforms with the help and under the leadership of the boyars ruling in the Moscow state. As we would say now - by the forces of the old nomenklatura.

However, even the rejection of the degenerate Rurik dynasty and the election of unconditionally gifted representatives of the boyar elite - Boris Godunov and Vasily Shuisky - as kings did not bring success. Their reforms (the most striking of them, Godunov’s abolition of “St. George’s Day”) only intensified the contradictions.

An important conclusion followed: Moscow’s own boyar nomenklatura is not able to implement the course towards Westernizing reforms. And again we returned to the idea of ​​union, but in a new version: not we come to the West, but the West to us - Muscovite Rus' receives a king from the West. This is how the fourth version of the strategy arose - the “foreign sovereign” strategy.

Both Dmitry I and Dmitry II (they went down in history as “False Dmitrys”) were, in essence, “kings from the West.” But there were so many contradictions and difficulties with them that Muscovite Rus' decided to elect a representative of one of the Western European dynasties as king. At first the choice fell on Vladislav, the son of the Polish king Sigismund, then Swedish candidates arose, but an option acceptable to the Orthodox Church and the boyars did not work out. The "foreign sovereign" strategy failed.

The time of troubles for Muscovite Rus' did not begin when it found itself in crisis. And not even when they made the historically overdue decision to focus on the West, carry out Westernizing reforms and follow the path of the West. The Time of Troubles in Rus' began and continued year after year when, time after time, it was not possible to find a successful strategy for implementing the chosen course.

A new strategy was needed. Ideologists found her Orthodox Church, and among them is Abraham Palitsyn. The strategy they developed to overcome the Troubles is an outstanding achievement of Muscovite Rus', a kind of certificate of its maturity, of its right to exist.

NEW STRATEGY - BOTH WESTERNITY AND INDEPENDENCE

She was logical and clear.

lOrthodoxy must remain the leading religion of the state.

lThe concept of “Moscow State” comes first as a fundamental principle. A unified Russian state cannot but be Moscow. And the residents of Nizhny Novgorod, who have suffered a lot from Moscow, “kiss the cross, stand for the Moscow state and invite other cities... to stand together with everyone.”

lThe Moscow state must remain precisely a kingdom. The Russian people fully appreciated the gentry democracy of Poland, the republican structure of Veliky Novgorod, and the ataman self-government of the Don. The conclusion was this, the leaders of the militia wrote about it: “It’s impossible for us to live without a sovereign: you yourself know that such a great state cannot stand for a long time without a sovereign.”

lThe fourth component of the new strategy: compromise within the Moscow state. Compromise within the church hierarchy. The boyars, running from camp to camp, must “make peace” with each other, and the townspeople unite with the nobles. The Cossacks - the armed force of the peasantry and all common people - must also come to an agreement. For the sake of the success of the new strategy, it was decided to forgive each other everything - service to Dmitry or Shuisky, oath to Sigismund, etc. The approach to property acquisitions of the Time of Troubles was exceptionally smart: if the nobleman had nothing else, he was allowed to keep what was given to him by the impostors. And the ranks and titles from them were also preserved.

lAnd finally - the last component of the new strategy - reforms. It is necessary to carry out Western-style reforms. But they must be implemented by the Moscow state itself.

The new strategy - “both Westernism and independence” - was certainly the result of collective efforts, the fruit of intense reflection by the best minds of the Moscow state. But ideas for a new strategy arose in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, in which the traditions of Sergius of Radonezh remained the strongest.

The main support and main potential of the new strategy is the rapidly emerging Russian nation. It was the sorrows and misfortunes of the Time of Troubles that forced Russians in all parts of the Moscow state to realize that they were not only Ryazan or Muscovites, Yaroslavl or Tver residents, but, above all, Russians. How Nizhny and Kazan, Kostroma and Pskov wrote letters to each other to close relatives. The community of interests and the community of goals are realized. The primary role of the general over the particular is comprehended. The confidence was formed that the people themselves, by their own will, can achieve the fulfillment of their desires. As S. M. Solovyov wrote, “the people were ready to act as one person; a continuous series of unrest and disasters did not break the young people, but cleansed society, brought it to the consciousness of the need to sacrifice everything for the sake of saving the faith, threatened by external enemies, and the state outfit, threatened by internal enemies."

I write “new strategy”, although I well understand that it has been formed for many years. Back in August 1610, the Moscow congress voted to invite Vladislav, and already in March 1611 (just six months later), letters outlining the independence strategy were sent in an avalanche to all the cities of Muscovite Rus'. Of course, the scribes of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra were called “borzopists” - then this word meant the ability to write quickly. But the most “greyhound” authors can quickly write down only ideas that have already been thought out and formulated. It is logical to assume that the main ideas of the new strategy appeared long before the beginning of 1611.

PALITSYNA'S FINEST HOUR

It remains “behind the scenes” how Avraamy Palitsyn took part in the development of a new strategy. True, the three subsequent stages of Palitsyn’s efforts are well known. The first is the propaganda of the new strategy through letters that went from the Trinity Lavra throughout the country. The second stage is organizing the implementation of the new strategy. And, finally, his personal contribution, so to speak, “on the battlefields.”

Palitsyn in his book recalls that letters were sent to all cities of the Russian state. And the city is not only the boyars and the authorities. Consequently, the cities were already the main centers, as soon as the authors of the letters addressed them.

What did the letters from the Trinity Monastery say? About the “much-deplorable final ruin” of the Moscow state. (Note: we are talking about a state, and not about the personal fiefdom of the Moscow kings.) They prayed to immediately rush to Moscow to liberate the reigning city from the Poles. (Note: it is not the Tsar’s residence that is being liberated, but the reigning city.) Moscow has already acquired not only imperious, but also moral and ideological authority in the country, and has become a symbol. And what is very important is that the fight against the Poles, against the Catholics, comes first. Nothing is said about Lithuanians and especially Western Russians. A very smart move. The letters called for vengeance for Orthodoxy, they called to stand strong for piety, so that everyone would receive a crown and praise for themselves. (Note: the appeal is not to an “orphan”, not to a “servant”, but to everyone, to an individual.) In Russia there was already someone to turn to with such an appeal. There were already “people of the Moscow state” in Russia. Palitsyn and Dionysius turned to them, to the essence of the Russian person, to the most sacred thing for him - commitment to faith and to the homeland. The letters said which kingdoms perished and for what sins, and which were exalted by God and for what (so to speak, history lessons). And, finally, the right of Moscow Russia itself to choose a king and choose from among its own was put in first place. The letters appealed to consciousness, based on the confidence that we ourselves can choose, that our decision will be the best.

In an amazingly short time, a new strategy took control of Muscovite Russia. And this is in the absence of what we call electronic media, with bad roads, with insufficient literacy. Letters from the Trinity Monastery spread with lightning speed. Feedback was established: new letters included answers to what the recipients of the letters asked or asked about.

Historians have argued and continue to argue about how great Palitsyn’s personal contribution to propaganda by letters was; no one doubts his very participation. But the real finest hour for Abraham Palitsyn came when the implementation of the strategy for exiting the Time of Troubles began. In the Trinity-Sergius Monastery there were “greyhound” scribes, there were deep analysts and far-sighted theorists. But the moment came when it was necessary to go out of the monastery into the streets and squares and talk to specific people, convince, reassure, praise, scare, threaten, in a word - act.

Palitsyn (both from past experience and personal abilities) always found himself “in the right place at the right time.” But the conversation was neither more nor less about activating Muscovite Rus', overcoming purely Russian inertia, or even just laziness. And of course, it is necessary to ensure the main basis for success - the unity of all potential supporters of the new strategy.

It is important to note, first of all, Minin’s activation. A common version: “Minin came out in Nizhny and called...” But Minin himself says that before this he had a vision, the wonderworker Sergius of Radonezh came to him and called on him to gather the people and lead them to the cleansing of Moscow. Sergius is the wonderworker of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. And in his appearance, it is to Minin that some kind of connection between Minin and the Trinity-Sergius Lavra is easily recorded. Moreover, Minin did not come out to the square from the butcher shop; he had already served in the militia of Alyabyev and Repnin.

Next, the nomination of Pozharsky. Minin himself names Pozharsky as a leader. But it is Pozharsky who is well known in Trinity: here he was treated for wounds. And again there is a serious undertone. But the encouragement for the campaign of Pozharsky, who is standing with the militia in Yaroslavl, is especially important. He hesitates and hesitates. And then Palitsyn goes to Yaroslavl.

We don’t know what Palitsyn and Pozharsky talked about. But, as historian S. Kedrov writes, the cellarer was more far-sighted than Pozharsky and persuaded him to rush to Moscow. The historian notes: “Undoubtedly, great strength of mind and will was needed to dispel all Pozharsky’s doubts... It is also unknown how long Pozharsky would have stood in Yaroslavl if not for Palitsyn’s petition... this petition was the main motivation for Pozharsky’s speech from Yaroslavl." On July 26, 1612, Palitsyn came to Pozharsky, and on August 18, Pozharsky set out for Moscow.

Palitsyn understood that without the unity of Moscow Rus' it would be impossible to survive - and not only for the sake of expelling the Poles, but mainly afterwards. It was necessary to “reconcile” the boyars with each other. The boyars make peace with the nobles. Both of them are with the townspeople. Militia from Russian cities - with detachments from Kazan. Russians - with the Tatars and other peoples of the Moscow state who support them... But the main thing is to reconcile the boyars and nobles with the peasants, with their striking force - the Cossacks.

It was necessary to unite everyone who rushed about during the Time of Troubles. I don’t know if the saying was born at this time: “Whoever remembers the past is out of sight,” but they acted in accordance with it. “Don’t be afraid of the Cossacks,” Palitsyn convinced Pozharsky and Minin. “Don’t be afraid of the militias, boyars and nobles,” he convinced the Cossacks. And it is no coincidence that in any dispute, either Pozharsky, then Minin, or the Cossack leader Trubetskoy immediately turn to Abraham Palitsyn. His ability to find consensus is universally recognized : “So that everyone can be in conscience and unity, and not beat each other and not be rude, and not play fools on anyone.”

When, in despair, Trubetskoy asks for help, Palitsyn orders the charges to be removed from the already loaded cannons of the Trinity Monastery and sent to the Cossacks in Moscow. The risk for Trinity was gigantic, but fate was decided in Moscow.

When, at the decisive moment of the battle in Moscow, the Cossacks acted inactively, Pozharsky called Palitsyn from the convoy and said: “We cannot be without the Cossacks.” Palitsyn, almost under fire from the Poles, immediately went to the Cossacks. He got to them and said: “From you, friends, a good deed began. You were the first to firmly stand for the truth and the Orthodox faith. You, and no one else, fighting for the faith and the fatherland, suffered many wounds, endured hunger and poverty. Glory to "Your courage, about your courage, like thunder, roars in states near and far. What then? Do you really want to destroy that good deed that began with you and continued with you in one minute! Are your wounds and your labors really supposed to go to waste now? ? Go, fight, God will help you! " (Palitsyn said a lot of other things, but it’s a pity that there are no complete records left. But even what was written down is a true classic of what is now called PR.)

The cellarer spoke with tears in his eyes, and, touched by his fiery words, the Cossacks rushed into battle, not sparing themselves. Barefoot, naked, in tatters, wearing only shirts, with only one arquebus, and a sword and a powder flask at their belts, they knocked over the Poles. Inspired by the courage of the Cossacks, Kuzma Minin with three hundred “children of the nobles” struck from the other side. And the Poles, brilliantly armed, in iron armor, wavered, and the brave Hetman Khodkevich himself retreated to the Sparrow Hills, and from there to Volokolamsk (as the chronicler writes, “biting his brad with his teeth and scratching his face with his hands”).

The fate of the Kremlin was decided. On October 26 (November 7, new style), 1612, it returned to Russian hands. Truly, November 7 is a fateful date for Russia.

Palitsyn inspired the Cossacks not only with his speeches. He promised them a huge sum - a thousand rubles from the monastery treasury. Trinity did not have that kind of money. And then Palitsyn made a decision that was outstanding in courage for a monk, for a cellarer, and simply for a believer. He ordered the sacristy in the monastery to be removed and sent to the Cossacks: service vessels - gold and silver, vestments, surplices, armbands, shrouds, lined with pearls and decorated with precious stones, etc. All this - as a pledge of the promise to transfer a thousand rubles. Then Peter will remove the bells. The Bolsheviks will take away the gold. But the first was the cellarer Abraham.

The Cossacks, who were very quick to steal, when they saw the sacristy, were so touched that they immediately elected two atamans and sent them back to the monastery with the sacristy and a letter: “We will not leave without taking Moscow.”

It was the Cossacks, or rather, Palitsyn’s consistent course towards an alliance with the Cossacks, that the Kremlin owed to the fact that eighteen months after the capture by the Poles it became Russian again.

And another personal act of Palitsyn was his active participation in the election of Mikhail Romanov as Tsar.

According to official versions, the election of a new tsar took place with almost universal jubilation. In fact, at the Zemsky Sobor, a fierce struggle unfolded between the boyar factions. Intrigues began, promises were made, even bribes were known. A new split and a revival of the Troubles were becoming real... We do not know the whole behind-the-scenes struggle, but it was undoubtedly going on. And those who, together with Palitsyn, nominated Mikhail, won this behind-the-scenes struggle.

The choice of Michael as the best candidate for the throne was the result of very subtle calculations. Supporters of traditions saw in Mikhail a close relative of Tsar Fedor and, therefore, the entire Rurik dynasty. The new tsar was young and, as F. Sheremetev wrote to Prince Golitsyn, “his mind was not far off and he would be familiar to us.” And everyone who made a career under Dmitry I and Dmitry II, not without reason, took into account that Mikhail’s father, Filaret, became a metropolitan under Dmitry I, and under Dmitry II even served as patriarch. The Church did not discount the fact that both the Tsar’s father and his mother (even by force) became a monk and a nun, that is, already “one of our own.”

So in the election of Mikhail there was not spontaneity, but a clear organization of the matter.

THE MOOR MAY LEAVE...

It would seem that the election of the tsar should become the launching pad for a new cycle of Palitsyn’s state activities. Indeed, in 1618 he was part of the delegation that signed the so-called Deulin truce with Poland. Palitsyn was so happy about the end of the war that he built a church in Deulino in the name of St. Sergius.

But during these same years another process was also taking place. Archimandrite Dionysius of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, like Palitsyn, who played an outstanding role in overcoming the Time of Troubles, was declared a heretic and imprisoned in the Novospassky Monastery. And Palitsyn himself retired to Solovki in 1620.

This is the external outline of events. What's behind it? For many years, historians have been trying to answer this question in different ways. And the first thing that is put forward is supposedly traditional ingratitude for Russia.

I think that the tradition of getting rid of those to whom they owe their promotion is inherent in petty figures who grew up according to the servile and lackey laws of the party-Soviet jungle. This does not apply to the Romanovs. There is evidence of this. A document has been preserved: an inventory of all the funds that Nizhny Novgorod residents collected at the call of Minin for the militia. This inventory even mentions a copper cross donated by one beggar (this patriot of Russia had nothing else). The Romanovs settled with everyone year after year - to the last penny. And another example: the remains of Tsar Vasily Shuisky, brought from Poland, were buried by the Romanovs in Moscow with honors. Or this: the new tsar, the very next day after the wedding, elevated the meat and fish seller Kuzma Minin to the Duma nobles and granted him estates. And Prince Pozharsky, who under Godunov was only a “solicitor with a dress”, and under Dmitry I a steward, was elevated to boyar and also endowed with estates.

Thus, the Romanovs mastered the difficult and far-sighted art of “being grateful.” And in relation to Palitsyn there are signs of the Romanovs’ benevolence. When the Solovetsky Monastery asked for permission to bury Abraham “together with the brethren,” an order came from Moscow to bury Palitsyn in a place of honor - not in the cemetery, which was outside the walls, but inside the monastery, near the main Transfiguration Cathedral.

Some historians talk about Filaret resenting Palitsyn, who spent almost seven years in prison in Poland. Palitsyn, together with the other part of the delegation, accepted Sigismund’s demand. It was this “betrayal” that Filaret allegedly did not forgive Palitsyn. But what grievances could the father have if Palitsyn literally “pulled” his son to the throne?

If the Romanovs had no feelings of resentment, then what caused Palitsyn’s departure, and practically exile?

After the victory of the “both Westernism and independence” strategy, three main options for its implementation arose. First: the church becomes the main force of the reformed state (most likely, this option was supported by Dionysius). Was there any basis in the idea of ​​making the church the leader of the Moscow state and subordinating secular power to it? I think she did. After all, the authority of the church by the end of the Time of Troubles was enormous. Both the people and the country are ready to see her “at the helm.” The majority in the church itself was not ready. This is evident from the fact that Dionysius’s action met with resistance not only among the royal-boyars, but also among the church. Even the patriarch spoke out against Dionysius.

I would call the second direction of implementation of the new strategy “royal”, or more precisely, “boyar-noble reformism” (to use our terms, this is the “nomenklatura” version of reforms). Palitsyn, since he was not convicted in the “Dionysius case,” did not join his group, but was he with the “nomenklatura”? The nomenklatura path of reform is being carried out by a minority that has separated from the old nomenklatura.

However, a minority is a minority. It doesn't have enough strength. It is both for reform and at the same time entangled in the old. Hence duality, indecision, inconsistency. At the same time, it sacredly looks after its interests.

Here is a story typical of the nomenklatura path. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was a “Westernizer.” He ordered sculptures of naked gods and goddesses of Greece and Rome to be purchased and brought to Moscow and admired them while walking around the Kremlin. But the patriarch caused a row: disgrace. The king did not abandon his decision, but he took into account the resistance. He ordered the sculptures to be dressed in clothes. So they stood dressed - except for those minutes when the king admired them (here they were undressed). Clothes wore out quickly in the wind, rain and frost, and new ones had to be sewn often. Thus, for many years, a noticeable expense item appeared in the Kremlin budget: “dressing naked women.”

In this example, everything: the introduction of something new, and the payment of a purchase price for this new thing. And another phenomenon typical of nomenklatura reforms is embezzlement. Alexey died. The sculptures disappeared, but the money “to dress naked women” was regularly spent in the Kremlin for a long time.

The unification of all the forces of the people made it possible to overcome the Troubles. And the inevitable accompaniments of nomenklatura reforms carried out at the expense of the people were salt, copper and vodka riots. And in the end - the uprising of Stepan Timofeevich Razin.

However, the main result of the “royal, nomenklatura” path of reform is that it predetermined the formidable reign of Peter I. Peter’s furious mercilessness and uncompromisingness were a reaction to the slowness and inconsistency of his grandfather and father. The “nomenklatura” path of reforms after the Time of Troubles made the cruelties of Peter I inevitable (just as the “nomenklatura” path of reforms after 1861 made the cruelties of the dictatorship of the proletariat inevitable).

Palitsyn did not want to participate not only in the church-led reformation, but also in the tsarist reformation. This means that he stood for some third way. Which one? Four centuries later it is difficult to judge. But there is indirect evidence. Palitsyn was a supporter of the agreement, the agreement of the boyars and nobles with the Cossacks, that is, with the peasantry. But the boyars and nobles wanted a version of the reforms in which they would not lose anything, and the main burdens of the reforms would be transferred to the peasants and townspeople. It is not difficult to guess that Palitsyn could not be satisfied with this version of reforms.

Further. Judging by Palitsyn's active participation in zemstvo councils, he approved of the way of combining royal power with a unique form of representative power. The resolutions of the zemstvo councils, convened annually by the new tsar, bear the signature: “Life-giving to the Trinity of the Sergius Monastery, cellarer Abraham.” Therefore, it is logical to assume: Palitsyn was for reforms with the participation of representative power, and the “nomenklatura” version wanted to concentrate all power in the hands of the Kremlin - the tsar and the boyars.

And finally, the last indirect evidence that Palitsyn was a supporter of a special path of reform. This is the official attitude towards him of historians of the Romanov Empire and historians of the Russian Church. It would seem that he should be, if not praised, then at least remembered kindly by both. But in reality he was often scolded. Things got to the point that the historian Kostomarov considered it necessary to publish the article “A Word for Elder Palitsyn” in the journal “Bulletin of Europe”.

Even on the days of the three hundredth anniversary of the Romanovs in 1913, nothing was said to Palitsyn. However, the tradition of ignoring the role of the Cossacks in establishing the Romanovs on the throne is very ancient; chronicles of the 16th century claim that Minin and three hundred nobles allegedly defeated the Poles, armed to the teeth and clad in steel armor. The reluctance to recognize the merit of the Cossacks also required belittling the role of Palitsyn.

But the obvious silencing of Palitsyn’s merits can also be explained by his special view of reforms. The fact that in those years there could have been a third version of reforms is evidenced by the history of Prince F. F. Volkonsky. Fedor Fedorovich Volkonsky - governor, one of the first Russian commanders of regiments of the “foreign system” (before him they were commanded by foreigners). During the Smolensk War with Poland (1632-1634), Volkonsky’s detachment, consisting of Reitar and dragoon regiments of the “foreign system,” carried out a raid on Ukraine, daring in concept and daring in execution. Hundreds of miles walked without rears. But Volkonsky calculated everything. Little Russians greeted Orthodox Muscovites as long-awaited guests. Polish estates were set ablaze with torches, and partisan detachments were formed in the forests. Volkonsky's cavalry raid pushed the Poles to negotiate. And then, as Andrei Burovsky writes in his fascinating book “The Failed Empire. The Russia That Could Have Been,” Fyodor Fedorovich began to criticize the tsar’s activities and even the tsar himself: “And he’s stupid. And he doesn’t know how to organize our land. And in general he only gets in the way.” ..." The prince was exiled to his own estate to "sit there forever" (until his death in 1665).

We have yet another line of disagreement with the “nomenklatura” version of the reforms: dissatisfaction with the level of the tsar’s personal leadership. It is possible that Palitsyn thought so too.

As we can see, there were supporters of the third way of implementing reforms. It would be correct to call this path all-class, all-people, and in the language of our era - people's democratic. But Palitsyn did not begin to fight for the option that suited him. Why? Palitsyn probably thought as follows. The main work of life is done. The Troubles are over. A new Moscow state emerged. A king has been elected. Long overdue reforms have begun...

Almost everything that was then (and even now) attributed exclusively to Peter was introduced under his grandfather and father. And although Palitsyn could not know the results, he undoubtedly saw the processes themselves. Of course, the reforms are not going well. But they are coming. (I think that this was the primary basis for his decision to return to Solovki in 1620 and leave political life.) He understood that there were no serious supports for a more progressive option for reforms than the nomenklatura at that time. Palitsyn could not help but see the exceptional weakness of the tsarist-boyar reformers, when even the royal chambers became the scene of violent clashes. In such a situation, any attack on the tsarist power would not serve to improve the reforms, but would support their opponents.

Palitsyn probably had one more thing to do. He wanted to leave to his descendants his analysis of the Time of Troubles: “The legend about the siege of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery from the Poles and Lithuania, and about the rebellions that subsequently took place in Russia, composed by the cellarer Abraham Palitsyn of the same Trinity Monastery.” (The Legend was first published in Moscow only in 1784, more than a century and a half later.)

So, Palitsyn’s position is seen as follows: not to personally participate in the nomenklatura reforms, but not to fight against them either. Palitsyn chose non-participation.

Was this position correct? Wouldn't it be better to start an open fight against the "nomenklatura reformers" from the Kremlin? What would happen in this case? Nobody knows. Palitsyn chose non-resistance.

Sailing from Solovki, I again approached the tombstone of Abraham Palitsyn.

He supported the historically overdue reorientation of Russia from East to West.

He participated in developing the strategy for this reorientation - Westernizing reforms and Russian independence.

He fought to overcome the Time of Troubles along the paths of this strategy, to create a launching pad for reforms in the form of a new royal dynasty.

He advocated the all-class, popular version of reforms, which was rejected by the majority. Therefore, he did not accept either the church or the royal-boyar version of the reforms.

Left in isolation, he chose the path of non-participation in nomenklatura reforms and non-resistance to them.

Russian history has left us with exceptional examples, samples, models, in the words of Mayakovsky, “whose life is to be made from.”

One of these examples was the Russian nobleman and Orthodox monk Abraham Palitsyn.

And there is something symbolic in the fact that his tombstone has been preserved for us, breaking through the centuries and storms of history...

After the death of the last Rurikovich, the Russian kingdom plunged into Troubles for many years. In 1598 – 1613, the country was rocked by internal political conflicts, foreign invasions and mass popular uprisings. Due to the lack of a legitimate procedure for the transfer of power, during the Time of Troubles, five kings were replaced on the throne, not related to each other by family ties. Political instability led to a weakening of the state apparatus and aggravated the economic problems that had existed since the oprichnina.

Although in general the Time of Troubles was a difficult stage in Russian history, positive trends were also observed during this period. For example, opposition to the interventionists led to the unification of different classes of the Moscow kingdom and accelerated the formation of national consciousness. Important changes also occurred in the minds of the monarch. The Romanov dynasty, which came to power at the end of the Time of Troubles, although it remained autocratic, ruled its subjects without allowing the degree of arbitrariness that was inherent in Ivan the Terrible and his immediate successors.

Result of the oprichnina	Other reasons
Undermining the unity of the country	Crop failures 1601-1603, economic crisis. Increased influx of peasant population to the southern regions.
The absence of social forces capable of repelling the illegal claims of impostors.	Religious consciousness perceived the disaster as God's wrath.
Patriotic centralization policies were carried out using despotic methods.	The position of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, fanning the conflict.
The presence of interests of all segments of the population that were previously ignored. Society is ripe for real political struggle.	Conflict between the Godunov government and the Cossacks.
A deep crisis of the ruling class, disorganization and fragmentation.	Conflict between the center and the outskirts.
	Exacerbation of dynastic relations.
	Cholera epidemic.
	The complicated land issue, the formation of the serfdom system.

Chronicle of the Time of Troubles and stages

	Died under mysterious circumstances Dmitry (son of Ivan IV)
	The reign of Boris Godunov.
1600, autumn	The Romanovs, accused of plotting to assassinate the Tsar, were sent into exile.
1603, summer	An impostor appeared in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, posing as the miraculously escaped Tsarevich Dmitry (Grigory Otrepyev).
	Invasion of False Dmitry I with the Polish army into the Seversky lands.
	Uprising in Moscow, accession of False Dmitry I.
	Uprising in Moscow against False Dmitry and the Poles, murder of False Dmitry I.
	The reign of Vasily Shuisky.
	Uprising led by I. Bolotnikov.
	False Dmitry II (“Tushinsky Court”)
	Beginning of the Polish-Lithuanian intervention; siege of Smolensk.
	Agreement on the calling of Prince Vladislav to the Russian throne; the entry of Polish troops into Moscow; subordination of the boyar government to the interventionists.
	Formation of the first militia
	Uprising in Moscow against the interventionists
	Formation of the second militia led by K. Minin and Prince D. M. Pozharsky in Nizhny Novgorod.
	Defeat of Hetman Khodkevich's troops near Moscow; union of two militias
	Capitulation of the Polish-Lithuanian garrison in Moscow.
	Zemsky Sobor

Results of the Time of Troubles (Time of Troubles)

Gave impetus to the reforms of the 17th century (modernization explosion)	Confusion and cruelty
The authorities began to manage society in a new way, taking into account the demands of the classes.	Decline of agriculture.
The unification of the nobility and the growth of political activity.	Loss of territories
For the first time, society acted on its own. It made 4 unsuccessful attempts to found a new dynasty: False Dmitry I, False Dmitry II, Shuisky, Vladislav.	Economic devastation, disruption of trade and crafts.
Russia defended its national independence and its self-awareness strengthened.	The idea of ​​unity was formed on a conservative basis.

The reasons for the country's recovery from the crisis of the Time of Troubles:

• The degree of maturity has increased, and the level of society's awareness of its goals has increased.
• Wide sections of the population entered the political struggle.