From the biography
- The Time of Troubles is a period in the history of Rus', during which the country experienced a crisis in all spheres of society. And this was due to the fact that a dynastic crisis began. This happened after the death of Ivan the Terrible in 1584.
- Ivan the Terrible killed his first son in a fit of anger in 1581. The second son, Fyodor Ioannovich, ruled for a short time (from 1584 to 1598), and even then he was not very intelligent, and politics on his behalf was carried out by Boris Godunov, the brother of Fyodor’s wife, Irina. And the third son, Dmitry, died under mysterious circumstances in Uglich, where he lived with his mother, Maria Naga. It was this situation that False Dmitry 1 took advantage of, declaring himself the miraculously saved son of Ivan the Terrible, Dmitry.
- From 1601 he lived in the Chudov Monastery. In 1602 - fled to Poland, converted to Catholicism and found supporters, setting the goal of returning to Russia, becoming its tsar.
- In 1604, Dmitry gathered an army, enlisting the support of Tsar Sigismund Z. and the help of governor Yuri Mnishek, promising to marry his daughter Marina; in the fall of 1604, with an army of three thousand, he entered Russian territory.
- False Dmitry 1 devoted most of his time to amusements, fun, hunting, and was practically not involved in political affairs. Thus, he managed to alienate almost all segments of the population of Rus'.
- He was overthrown on May 17, 1606; the rebels were led by the boyar Vasily Shuisky. The corpse was burned, and the ashes were shot from a cannon towards Poland, where it came from.
- There is still no consensus on who False Dmitry 1 was. So Karamzin supported the point of view that it was the monk of the Chudov Monastery Grigory Otrepiev. This opinion formed the basis for the portrayal of the impostor in A.S. Pushkin’s tragedy “Boris Godunov.” Kostomarov believed that he was a Polish protege. A. Tolsto adhered to this point of view when he created his work - the play “Tsar Boris”.
- Outwardly, False Dmitry was ugly, short in stature, but had great physical strength - he could easily bend a horseshoe. Contemporaries claim that he really looked like Tsarevich Dmitry.
False Dmitry, despite his mostly negative policies, left behind at least some positive memory. Here are some interesting facts from his reign.
- False Dmitry fought against bribery. The bribe-taker was subjected to both physical and mental torture. He was taken around the city with the clothes in which he took bribes hung around his neck. For example, a bag with money, even fish beads. And at this time the convoy also beat him with sticks. It's painful and embarrassing. But the nobles and boyars were not subjected to such torture; they paid a fine.
- It was under False Dmitry that the game of chess was allowed. Before this, the church opposed it, equating the game with gambling and even drunkenness.
- It is also interesting that it was False Dmitry who first began to use cutlery during receptions in the Chamber of Facets. Such cutlery was served to guests during his wedding to Marina Mnishek.
Yes, this ruler left at least some good memory of himself.
Reasons for the overthrow of False Dmitry 1
- Loss of support from almost all segments of the population
- Failure to fulfill promises to both the Poles and various segments of the population in Russia
- Disdainful attitude towards Russian customs and etiquette, behaved “inappropriately for a Russian Tsar.”
- The people's rejection of the fact that a Catholic is in power (False Dmitry converted to Catholicism in Poland).
Historical portrait of False Dmitry I
Activities
1.Domestic policy
| Activities | results |
| 1. The desire to strengthen one’s position, to achieve recognition by all layers of society. |
5. Confirmed the important role of the Boyar Duma in the country, and relied on it.
|
| 2. Inconsistent solution to the peasant question. |
2.Increased the term of lesson years |
|
|
| 4. Further development of culture. |
|
2. Foreign policy
RESULTS OF ACTIVITY
- He was unable to strengthen his power, aroused the hatred of almost all segments of the population, and lost the support of the Poles because he did not fulfill his promises.
- He brought the country to economic ruin, disorder, hunger, and a deterioration in the situation of the majority of the population.
- He led an unsuccessful foreign policy that did not express the interests of Russia.
Chronology of the life and activities of False Dmitry I
| 1601 | Fled from Russia to Poland |
| 16 October 1604 | Invaded Russian territory with a small army. |
| 21 January 1605 | Defeat from the tsarist troops near Dobrynichi and flight to Putivl |
| April 13, 1605 | The sudden death of Boris Godunov and the accession of his son Fedor. |
| June 1605 | Unrest among townspeople in Moscow. The murder of Fedor and his mother, the deposition of Patriarch Job. Filaret was appointed Patriarch. |
| 20 June 1605 | False Dmitry entered Moscow. |
| February 1606 | Decree reinstating the five-year search for runaway peasants and allowing unauthorized departure only under threat of starvation |
| June 1605 | Crowning of False Dmitry to the kingdom under the name of Dmitry 1. |
| February1606 | Poland demands territory for assistance in accession to the throne: Smolensk, Seversk land, Novgorod, Pskov, Velikiye Luki, Vyazma, Dorogobuzh. |
| 8 May 1606 | Marriage to Marina Mnishek. |
| 17 May 1606 | The uprising in Moscow against the Poles, which was led by V. Shuisky, the murder of False Dmitry 1. |
An impostor who posed as the “miraculously saved” Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich, Tsar and Grand Duke of Moscow and All Rus' (1605-1606).
The origins of False Dmitry I are unclear. In historical science, the most common official version of the government is that he is the fugitive deacon of the Moscow Chudov Monastery Grigory Otrepiev, the son of the Galich nobleman Bogdan Otrepiev.
False Dmitry I appeared in 1601-1602 in Poland, where he posed as a “miraculously saved” son. Was supported by Polish magnates and the Catholic clergy. In 1603-1604, preparations were launched for his elevation to the Russian throne. False Dmitry I secretly converted to Catholicism and promised, after his accession, to give the Seversk and Smolensk lands to Poland, to participate in the anti-Turkish alliance, to assist the king in his fight against Sweden, to introduce him to Catholicism, to marry the daughter of the Sandomierz governor, Senator E. Mnischka, and to hand her over as a “vena” "and pay E. Mniszko 1 million zlotys.
In the fall of 1604, False Dmitry I crossed the Russian border with a Polish-Lithuanian detachment in the Chernigov region (now in Ukraine). The success of his adventure was facilitated by the peasant unrest that unfolded in the southern regions of the Russian state. Despite the defeat under, False Dmitry I managed to gain a foothold in the south (in Putivl, now in Ukraine).
After the sudden death of Boris Godunov, his army went over to the side of False Dmitry I. On June 1, 1605, an uprising took place in Moscow, overthrowing Tsar Feodor II Borisovich. On June 20 (30), 1605, the impostor entered the kingdom, and on June 21 (July 1) he was crowned king in the Moscow Kremlin.
Having taken the royal throne, False Dmitry I tried to pursue an independent domestic and foreign policy. In an effort to rely on the provincial nobility, he increased their cash and land salaries through the confiscation of financial resources from the monasteries and the planned revision of their rights to land holdings.
False Dmitry I attempted to reorganize the army. He made a number of concessions to peasants and slaves (decrees of January 7 and February 1, 1606). The southern regions were exempt from taxes for 10 years, and the cultivation of “tithe arable land” was stopped in them. However, politics and an increase in taxes (in particular, due to the need to send money to Poland) caused the strengthening of the peasant-Cossack movement in the spring of 1606. Unable to attract all layers of feudal lords to his side, False Dmitry I made concessions to the rebels: he did not use force to suppress the movement and included articles on peasant secession in the Consolidated Code of Law that was being prepared.
Due to False Dmitry I's failure to fulfill his promises about the introduction of Catholicism, territorial concessions and military assistance to Poland against Sweden, relations with Sigismund III worsened. The crisis of domestic and foreign policy created the conditions for organizing a conspiracy of the nobility led by the prince. During the uprising of the townspeople against the Poles who arrived at the wedding celebrations of False Dmitry I and, the impostor was killed by conspirators in the Moscow Kremlin.
After the desecration at Lobnoye Place, the body of False Dmitry I was buried outside the Serpukhov Gate of Moscow. Later, his body was dug up, burned and, after mixing the ashes with gunpowder, they fired from a cannon towards Poland.
May 2006 (17th century) marks the 400th anniversary of the nationwide uprising in Moscow, as a result of which False Dmitry 1 was overthrown and killed. The pan-European intrigue aimed at the complete enslavement and Catholicization of Russia was thwarted.
If the 11-month reign of the Jesuit agent False Dmitry 1 had lasted even a little longer, the consequences for Russia could have become irreparable.
However, the history of the Time of Troubles has long been presented to us not in tragic and heroic, but in ambiguous tones. For example, the “Februaryist” A. Kartashev in his “History of the Russian Church,” published by the American Lodge in Paris in 1959 (M., 1991), paints an almost positive portrait of the impostor. False Dmitry allegedly decided to use Rome for good purposes: “...Instead of hopeless Latinization, carry out educational “Occidentalization” (Westernization - N.S.), i.e., as if to anticipate the reform of Peter the Great, under the pretext of the necessary preparation for the unification of churches" (vol. 2, p. 58).
Kartashev even accuses our ancestors of refusing the proposals of the Polish Chancellor Sapieha at the very beginning of the Time of Troubles. He proposed allowing the free entry of Poles and Lithuanians into Russia, accepting them into our civil service, and giving them the right to build churches in Russian cities: “Moscow remained deaf to the idea of a federal merger. It understood its state body as monolithically one of the same faith, with a unique Orthodox soul” ( p. 54).
Our historian D.I. Ilovaisky wrote: “The idea of imposture flowed almost by itself from the circumstances in which Muscovite Rus' was then. This idea had already been in the air since the tragic death of Tsarevich Dimitri, which no doubt continued to serve as the subject of various rumors among the people and gossip. It was not far from them before the appearance of the legend of a miraculous salvation, which every crowd of people is so inclined to believe, especially dissatisfied with the present, thirsting for change and, above all, of course, a change in government officials. We know that Boris Godunov and by his character , and due to various other circumstances, it was not possible to acquire popular favor, nor to reconcile the old boyar families with the unusual elevation of their family."
Ilovaisky clearly said about the causes of the Troubles: “The infernal plan against the Moscow state - the plan, the fruit of which was imposture - arose and was realized among the hostile Polish and polarized Western Russian aristocracy.”
But did imposture give rise to the Troubles, or did the Troubles give rise to imposture? Our Byzantinist F.I. Uspensky reveals the plan for the conquest of Russia back in 1585-1586, i.e. immediately after the death of Ivan the Terrible and during the life of St. Tsarevich Demetrius of Uglich. In his work “The Eastern Question”, Uspensky writes about the plan of the Polish king Stefan Batory (1576-1586) “... to establish a base from Muscovy for resolving the Eastern Question, which included the conquest of the Caucasus and Armenia, the annexation of Persia and the movement to Constantinople” (F. I Uspensky, History of the Byzantine Empire, Eastern Question, M., 1997, p. 677).
This plan, presented by Batory to two popes - Gregory 13 and Sixtus 5, received the full approval of both, and the latter even sent money to the Poles to conquer Russia. Uspensky did not make calculations, but having done the calculations, we can conclude that Rome, for all its passionate lust for power, did not have a huge amount for the war with Russia. Uspensky’s conclusion is important: “...Batory’s plan did not die along with its culprit. It is enough to refer to the history of the Time of Troubles... with the first impostor, Poland implemented the famous project of Stefan Batory in the part that envisaged a Catholic sovereign on the Moscow throne” (p. 681, 695).
The famous Greek elder Athos Archimandrite George (Kapsanis) in his voluminous work “The Struggle of the Monks for Orthodoxy” (Athos, 2003) notes that Meletius Pigas, later the Patriarch of Alexandria, wrote an essay against the pope in 1582 and sent his work to the king as a “fighter and defender of Orthodoxy." In 1584, “at the request of the autocrat of all Rus',” Meletius Pigas arrived in Moscow to translate a book about the Council of Florence sent from Rome to Moscow (pp. 318, 321).
And no matter how hard Rome tried, Moscow did not give up, and the Orthodox Greeks helped it in this. Is this not the reason for the Troubles, prepared by Rome much later? The beginning of the Time of Troubles in Rus' - 1603. In Europe at that time - after long wars - a rare calm was established, which completely disappeared later, during the years of the fierce pan-European Thirty Years' War (1618-1648). In other words, although tsarist Russia on the eve of the Time of Troubles did not find itself in complete isolation, we were somehow imperceptibly left alone with the events carefully prepared in the depths of Europe.
The luminaries of our historical science - N. M. Karamzin (followed by A. S. Pushkin, who dedicated the drama "Boris Godunov" to Karamzin) and S. M. Solovyov - believed that the first impostor was Otrepiev. V. O. Klyuchevsky was more careful in determining the identity of False Dmitry: “This unknown someone, who sat on the Moscow throne after Boris, arouses great anecdotal interest. His identity still remains mysterious, despite all the efforts of scientists to unravel it...” ( V. O. Klyuchevsky, Course of Russian History, Part 3, Moscow, 1988, p. 30).
Metropolitan of Moscow Platon (Levshin) (1812) and one of his successors in the department - Bishop Macarius (Bulgakov) (1882) - believed that the Troubles were more cunning than is commonly thought. Bishop Macarius admitted that False Dmitry could be either Grishka Otrepiev or “someone else,” but that in any case, the impostor resorted to the help of the Jesuits (“History of the Russian Church.” Book 6, M., 1996, p. 75).
Church historian of the ROCOR N.D. Talberg (1967) in his “History of the Russian Church” wrote: “The impostor was supported by the Polish lords and, in particular, the Jesuits. Who he really was still remains unclear... An impostor for greater success in his enterprise, he accepted the Latin faith, which he promised to introduce throughout Russia" (Part 1, p. 309).
Historian N.M. Kostomarov provided convincing evidence that Grishka Otrepiev and False Dmitry 1 are two different people: “1) If the named Dmitry (i.e. False Dmitry 1. - N.S.) was a runaway monk Otrepiev, who fled from Moscow in 1602, then in just two years he could not have mastered the techniques of the then Polish nobleman. We know that the one who reigned under the name of Demetrius rode excellently, danced gracefully, shot accurately, deftly wielded a saber and knew the Polish language perfectly ; even in his Russian speech one could hear a non-Moscow accent. Finally, on the day of his arrival in Moscow, while applying himself to the images, he aroused attention by his inability to do this with such techniques as were customary among natural Muscovites.
2) The said Tsar Dimitri brought Grigory Otrepiev with him and showed him to the people... 3) In the Zagorovsky monastery (in Volyn) there is a book with the handwritten signature of Grigory Otrepiev; this signature does not have the slightest resemblance to the handwriting of the named Tsar Demetrius" (N. M. Kostomarov. Russian history in the biographies of its main figures. Book 1., M., 1995, p. 506).
Here is Ilovaisky’s conclusion: “Who was the first impostor who took on the name of Tsarevich Dimitri, perhaps over time will be explained by some lucky find, or perhaps will forever remain a mystery to history. There is old news that calls him the bastard son of Stefan Batory , - the news in itself is worthy of attention; but we can neither accept it nor reject it for lack of more positive data. We can only conclude that, according to various signs, he was a native of Western Rus' and, moreover, of noble origin "(much later than Ilovaisky to English writer R. Sabatini returned to the explanation - the impostor is the illegitimate son of Stefan Batory in a series of his historical clues. By the way, the words of the impostor are known to the Poles who warned him about the conspiracy in May 1606: “How cowardly you Poles are!” can be understood in different ways. If the impostor was Otrepiev, then they are understandable. But if he was not Otrepiev and not a Pole, then who?).
Ilovaisky’s words are very important that False Dmitry is not Grishka Otrepiev: “This identity, after a thorough reconsideration of the issue, turns out to be false. Nevertheless, Otrepiev’s flight from Moscow and his direct participation in the impostor’s case can hardly be doubted; although not yet opportunity is enough to find out his true role in this matter."
Ilovaisky's conclusions are convincing. Moreover, if we remember Uspensky’s data about the plan of the Troubles in 1585 (the project of Batory, the Jesuits and the pope), the statements of Metropolitan Macarius and Talberg. The researcher of antiquity N.M. Pavlov believed that “it was not Russian, but some kind of mixed Slavic nationality that was visible in the Pretender. Some directly called him a Pole, others a Transylvanian, and a Volokh, and an Italian, or more correctly, an Illyrian.”
The impostor could not necessarily be a Polish nobleman, he could be a native of Transylvania (where there is still a mixed Hungarian, Romanian and German population), and an Italian, and an “Illyrian”, that is, a native of the Balkans, from the Adriatic coast, which belonged to Venice.
Pavlov does not explain this. Something else is important to him - “it becomes impossible to merge Otrepiev’s biography into one with the biography of this mysterious person. Both, without contradicting themselves separately, mutually destroy each other.” Referring to the famous denouncer of the Jesuits, Yu. F. Samarin, Pavlov writes that the Jesuit Anthony Possevin, having failed in his attempts to persuade Ivan the Terrible to the papal faith, even then expressed the idea of the possibility of introducing a union in Russia, setting up an impostor for this. Samarin himself found direct evidence of the existence of such a plan in the Jesuit literature that was well known to him.
It is known that False Dmitry was crowned king in Moscow on July 21, 1605, and the Jesuit Chernikovsky in the Assumption Cathedral delivered a welcoming speech to the impostor in Latin! The historian Nechvolodov adds that the impostor boasted to the Jesuits that he chose the day of his royal wedding to be the day of memory of Ignatius of Loyola.
Let us add that this is not boasting, but the pure truth. The founder of the Jesuit order, Ignatius (Iñigo) Loyola, as assumed in the West, was a Jew from Spain who converted to papism, died on July 31, 1556. It was this day, July 31, that the Jesuits celebrated and celebrate as “the day of St. Ignatius.” In the 17th century our July 21st is their July 31st! But in 1605, Loyola was a “saint” only among the Jesuits - Pope Paul 5 declared him “blessed” only on September 27, 1609 (at the height of the Time of Troubles in Russia), and Pope Gregory 15 declared him a “saint” on March 12, 1622.
The famous Greek historian Archimandrite Basil (Stephanidis) (1958) in his “Church History from the Beginning to the Present” (Athens, 6th ed., 1998, pp. 702-703) wrote: “The Jesuits tried to take possession of Great Russia,” and False Dmitry was only “their organ.” Then “a period of internal unrest followed until Mikhail Romanov was elected as the legitimate king (1613) and a limit was set to the success of the Catholics.” Stefanidis's opinion only confirms the fact of the Jesuit conspiracy.
All the more carefully we must treat the voluminous and extremely cynical book of the German Jesuit Pierling “Dimitri the Pretender” (Russian translation of the Sphinx publishing house, M., 1911). On the Internet, Pearling is a “Russian Jesuit.” It's a lie. He was a German, born in St. Petersburg and quickly left Tsarist Russia, where since the time of Emperor Alexander 1 both the Jesuits and their fellow Freemasons were banned. Pierling wrote in French and published in Paris. Without any criticism, he became an indisputable authority for Kartashev, for G. Florovsky, a native of Odessa, an American ecumenist (“priest” at Princeton and Harvard), and finally, for modern “Russians” who are “rethinking” the Time of Troubles.
The impression from Pearling's book is that two layers are cleverly intertwined here. The first is intended for our deception (such as statements about the “gullibility” of the popes, about the “social” causes of the Troubles). The second is for dedicated specialists in the fight against Russia. It is not without reason that in the preface, Pearling thanked the Secretary of State (in 1887-1903) of the Vatican, the Sicilian Cardinal Rampolla, a diplomat known for his secularism and sophisticated cunning, for his assistance.
Pierling writes that Dimitri (this is what he always calls the impostor) arrived in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, met with the Krakow governor Zebrzydowski and the papal nuncio (ambassador) Rangoni, wanted to understand the “misconceptions” of the Orthodox Church and entered into a dispute with the Jesuits Savitsky and Grodzicki. Savitsky was “a famous theologian, a fashionable confessor, and a secular man.”
Isn't it too grand a reception for a fugitive monk from Moscow? After the meeting, both Jesuits left the impostor “two books - a treatise on the Pope and a guide to the debate about the Eastern faith. Demetrius himself asked for the resumption of this debate” (pp. 105-106).
It’s strange - everything in papism revolves around the pope, but Pearling did not mention either the name or the author of the treatise about the pope. What “guide to the debate about the Eastern faith” did the Jesuits use? A mysterious inaccuracy, or is the whole “debate about faith” a fiction? Pearling admitted that “no one thought to write down the details of this dispute.” So that the Jesuits, with their general informing, surveillance of everyone, including each other, with the collection of everything that could be used to incriminate a person, would not write anything down?
The conclusion suggests itself - there was no “transition” of Grishka Otrepiev to papism. Grishka Otrepyev was there. But from the very beginning, the Jesuit Order chose someone else to play the role of False Dmitry, which is why they left no trace of his alleged “conversion” to Latinism.
And then the most mysterious thing. Nuncio Rangoni sends Pope Clement 8 a report on the appearance of the “escaped” prince “Dimitri.” Clement 8 writes on the nuncio’s report: “This is like the resurrected King of Portugal.” Ilovaisky considers such a mark a sign of the pope’s distrust. Pearling, on the contrary, is ridicule. It seems to me that Ilovaisky is closer to the truth.
Clement 8 (Aldobrandini), although he imposed the Union of Brest “with fire and sword,” did not trust the Jesuits. Moreover, in 1602 he ordered the Inquisition to take up a Jesuit innovation - their requirement that penitents bring a written description of their sins to confession. Clement 8 maneuvered all his life between the Spanish and anti-Spanish parties. In 1580, shortly after the mysterious death of the Portuguese King Sebastian, a student of the Jesuits, in North Africa, Spain captured Portugal by force. The false “Portuguese” Sebastians, who arose one after another, alarmed Spain.
Clement 8 married his beloved niece in 1600 to the Duke of Parma, Rainuccio 1 Farnese, great-great-grandson of Pope Paul 3 Farnese (his portrait with his grandchildren by Titian, see "RV", v 20, 2005) and (on his mother's side) great-grandson of the Portuguese king Emmanuel 1 great. Both geopolitical and family interests forced Pope Clement 8 to suspect some kind of Jesuit intrigue in the “Demetrius” impostor, possibly connected with the Portuguese. Clement 8 (1592-1605) began to help the impostor, but not as zealously and assertively as his successor Paul 5 (1605-1621).
Pirling has evidence of the impostor’s rare knowledge of oceanic and trade affairs: “If necessary, he made references to Herodotus. Even during the march, flat balls were laid out on his table. He knew how to use them. Bending over the map, he showed the chaplains the way to India through the Muscovite kingdom. He compared it with the sea route around the Cape of Good Hope, and gave preference to the first" (p. 177).
These are the arguments of a Portuguese, a Spaniard, an Italian, a Dutchman, but not the fugitive monk Otrepiev! There is another testimony, later, belonging to a member of the Dutch embassy in Russia, Nicholas Witsen: “They (the royal bailiffs - N.S.) really liked the spices, but when we said that they were brought from [East] India, someone asked what country it was, how far from Russia and how to get there, they were surprised when they were told that on a ship" (N. Witsen. Travel to Muscovy 1664-1665. St. Petersburg, 1995, p. 90). If under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich our embassy employees did not know where India was and how to get there, then how, 60 years earlier, did the “fugitive monk Otrepiev” discuss with Jesuit chaplains about the profitability of the land route to India through Russia, and not around the whole Africa - through the Cape of Good Hope - and further across the Indian Ocean?
According to the French historian F. Braudel "Time of the World" (M., 1992, pp. 509-510), a journey through the Cape of Good Hope required, at best, a year and a half there and back. Braudel writes that by the end of the 16th century. Portuguese power was strongest in India. The Dutch tried to bypass India by penetrating Indonesia (1599), but then “Jews of Portuguese origin” spread “tales” in Amsterdam that the Dutch acquired a rich cargo with 400% of the profit through violence and fraud (p. 211). The Dutch reached Ceylon in 1603, India in 1605-1606. (p. 214).
By the first years of the 17th century. includes the founding of the huge Dutch East India Company, the much more modest English one, and the French East India Company. Of course, trade routes to India could not interest the Poles; with the help of False Dmitry, they wanted what was before their eyes - Smolensk, Seversk land, Novgorod, Pskov, Moscow.
So, False Dmitry 1 could be a Portuguese or a native of Portugal, and this was associated with the strange note of Pope Clement 8 on the first report of Nuncio Rangoni about the “escaped” imaginary prince. It is also known from Russian sources that False Dmitry was dark-skinned. Pierling writes that Anthony Possevinus believed that “Demetrius may appear as a new Solomon. He will erect a temple better than the Jerusalem sanctuary” (p. 231).
But he could also be from Italy. Pierling lists the agents who followed the impostor according to reports from his persistent companions - the Polish Jesuit chaplains. The main agent here turns out to be the same seasoned Jesuit Anthony Possevin (a long-time leader of anti-Russian intrigues since the time of Ivan the Terrible). Possevin sat in Venice and “maintained constant relations with Italian princes and French diplomats. Henry IV’s transition to Catholicism contributed to the rapprochement of the two sides” (p. 230). Jesuit chaplains wrote to the General of the Jesuit Order, Acquaviva, in Rome. The head (“provincial”) of the Polish Jesuits, Striveri, wrote to Possevin, and Savitsky, the impostor’s “confessor,” also wrote to him.
The ambassador of the French king Henry IV, F. Canet-de-Fresne, was also in Venice, who became a friend of the Jesuit Possevin and wrote directly to the adviser to the French king in Paris. Also acting in conjunction with them was La Blanc, an informant for France in the “northern countries,” whose profession, as Pierling evasively writes, was “international correspondence.” The reports of the Polish Jesuits about False Dmitry were read by both the Duke of Parma's agent F. Roncaroni and the Venetian ambassador in Prague F. Soranzo. Possevin tried to involve both the Duke of Urbino Francesco Maria 2 and the Grand Duke of Tuscany Ferdinand in the matter (pp. 230-236).
Let's sort out this tangle of intrigue. If the Duke of Parma Rainuccio 1, a relative of Pope Clement 8 and a descendant of Pope Paul 3, got involved in our Troubles, this is understandable. The interest of Venice, always a predatory and cosmopolitan trading power, is also clear. But what does the Dukes of Urbino and Tuscany have to do with it? The first was a neighbor of the papal state and the head of the mercenary troops of the same Venice, and the second was a former cardinal, who later resigned his rank and got married. He was also the uncle of the then French queen Marie de' Medici. Everything was logical in its own way and against us.
The murder of Tsar Boris Godunov, whose sudden and mysterious death (stroke or poison?) shocked his contemporaries and remained a mystery to historians, seems certain from the book of the same Pierling. Marshal of the Krakow Court Myszkowski corresponded with Cardinal Aldobrandini (a relative of Pope Clement 8) and the Duke of Mantua (i.e. Vincenzo 1 Gonzaga). In a letter dated January 6, 1604, Myshkovsky described in detail the murder of Tsar Boris Godunov, who, as is known, died only on April 13, 1605 (pp. 192-193). Pierling found Myshkovsky's letter in Italian archives (Gonzaga and Borghese).
The sudden death of Tsar Boris Godunov caused the betrayal of the governors, who defected to the recently defeated impostor, and the quick overthrow of the young Tsar Fyodor Godunov. In an effort to justify the impostor, Pearling falsely claims that Tsar Fedor and his mother Maria allegedly took the poison themselves. But it is common knowledge that they were killed by scoundrels sent by the impostor. Pearling writes about Boris’s daughter, Ksenia Godunova, in extremely cheeky and cynical terms, denying another terrible fact - she was made the impostor’s concubine. Pierling repeats the lies from the laudatory Jesuit pamphlet about False Dmitry, published in Venice, Florence, Prague, Graz, Madrid and Paris in 1605-1609.
Ilovaisky gives details of the negotiations of the already enthroned impostor with the ambassador of Pope Paul 5: “Then he (the impostor - N.S.) expressed a desire for the pope to send him experienced secular persons who could take the place of secretaries and advisers in government affairs, in addition, several skilled engineers, military technicians and instructors."
If False Dmitry was a Pole, then why did he ask the Italian pope to send him Italians to replace the Russians in matters of administration and in the troops? Ilovaisky further writes: “Moreover, False Dmitry asked the pope to facilitate his diplomatic relations not only with the Roman Emperor (i.e. Rudolf II of Habsburg - N.S.), but also with the kings of Spain and France. In general, in negotiations with the papal ambassador he has discovered some diplomatic skill."
Pierling, citing the Venetian ambassador in Prague Soranzo, claims that the Habsburgs treated Boris Godunov coolly, but they began to offer the impostor brides, the daughters of Archduke Charles of Styria (i.e., the uncle of Emperor Rudolf). This was a family raised by Jesuits, and the son of Charles of Styria - the future Emperor Ferdinand 2 - later showed himself to be a Catholic fanatic. If False Dmitry was Otrepyev, a fugitive monk, then would the Austrian Emperor Rudolf 2 offer him one of his cousins as a wife?
And if False Dmitry was a Pole, then why did he need relations with the Spanish king and with the Austrian ("Roman") emperor, with the French king? For an Italian, this is natural - let us remember the many years of bloody Franco-Spanish wars over Italy in the 16th century, the fights between France and Spain for the votes of cardinals when electing each pope.
The behavior of False Dmitry 1 in Moscow, which he captured, amazed Muscovites. If his passion for carousing and dancing revealed that he was a Pole, then his palace with underground passages and the built educational fortress resembled castles of the Italian Renaissance. On the training fortress, protrusions were made in the form of devils’ heads, from which squeaks protruded, and the impostor’s built palace was “decorated” by a copper statue of the infernal Cerberus with movable jaws. False Dmitry's depravity even reached the point of sodomy - he seduced the young prince I. A. Khvorostinin, later an ardent heretic.
But French roots are also possible here. The French king Henry III of Valois (previously, in 1573-1574, he was the elected king of Poland) had young, beautiful noblemen as his favorites, they were called “minions”; a “feast of travesties” was held in the gardens - none of the invitees wore clothes, corresponding to his gender." At another feast, “the guests were served by one hundred of the most beautiful young women of the court. Brantome (a contemporary of the events - N.S.) writes that they were “half-naked and with flowing hair, like brides.” The feast ended with bacchanalia in the groves: contemporaries saw in them revival of orgies from the times of the decline of the Roman Empire" (I. Klula. Catherine de Medici. Rostov-on-Don (Russian translation), 1997, pp. 287-288, 297).
False Dmitry 1 was closely associated with France. He amazed the Russian people by the fact that he composed a personal guard of French and Germans (not even Poles!). The Frenchman Margeret commanded a hundred mounted riflemen, and the Dane and Scots (?!) commanded two hundred foot soldiers armed with halberds. They never left the impostor.
The murder of False Dmitry on May 17, 1606 became possible thanks to the cunning of V. Shuisky, who, secretly from the impostor, removed most of the German halberdiers from the palace. At the same time, our armed nobles entered Moscow, blocking all the gates of the city. The houses where the Poles lived with their retinues were marked in advance, and the streets were blocked with slingshots. Of course, such a perfectly organized conspiracy was possible only with the then homogeneous Moscow population - Russian and Orthodox.
The impostor's friend Captain Margeret is a political agent of France. In 1606 he returned to France and compiled a report for King Henry IV of Bourbon. Margeret calls the impostor only Dimitri Ivanovich, the son of Tsar Ivan the Terrible. Margeret writes that the impostor “decided to send his secretary to France on an English ship to greet the most Christian king (Henry IV. - N.S.) and make acquaintance with him: Demetrius often talked to me about the king with great respect. Christianity ( i.e., the papal world. - N.S.) lost a lot with the death of Demetrius, if only he died, although his death seems quite plausible. But I say this because I did not see him dead with my own eyes, being sick then "(Margeret. The state of the Russian State and the Grand Duchy of Moscow in 1606. M., 1913, p. 87).
It is curious that the first edition of Margeret’s report was published in Paris in 1607, the year of the appearance of False Dmitry 2, who allegedly “saved” during the uprising in Moscow on May 17, 1606. Margeret’s doubts about the murder of False Dmitry 1 turned out to be very timely for the Jesuits.
The confessor of Henry IV from 1603 was the Jesuit Coton. Was it not he who dictated to Margeret this florid ambiguity that distinguishes the Jesuits - either the impostor was killed in 1606 or not? Margeret's entire report is written in clear language, with a detailed description of Russian weapons, troops, worship, attitude towards non-believers, our holidays and customs. All Russian money was carefully converted into the then French livres, sous and deniers. And suddenly - a shadow on a clear day, when we are talking about May 1606. It is not surprising that Margeret again found himself in Russia, served both False Dmitry 2 and the Poles, helped them burn Moscow in 1611, tried to impose himself on Prince D.M. Pozharsky, but received a categorical refusal. Margeret is a spy-agent, as Prince Pozharsky considered him to be.
Could False Dmitry 1 be an English (Scottish) Jesuit (Mason)? Quite. There were Jesuits in England already at the end of the 16th century. It was the impostor who allowed the British to trade completely freely and duty-free in Russia, immediately entering into close relations with the English merchant diplomat J. Merrick. The Russian historian S. F. Platonov in his work “Russia and the West” (Berlin, 1925) writes that by 1612 the English invasion should have been added to the Polish and Swedish invasion. England wanted to capture the Russian north, then the Volga with access to the Caspian Sea. The author of this project was the same Merrick: “There is news that King James 1 of England “was carried away by the plan to send an army to Russia to rule it through his authorized representative” (p. 56). This plan was thwarted by the election of Tsar Mikhail Romanov.
Could False Dmitry be German? I could too. The confession of his accomplice Basmanov (killed on May 17, 1606) to the German pastor Baer is known: “You Germans have a father and a brother in him; he favors you above all previous sovereigns.” For the sake of placing German halberdiers near the Kremlin, the impostor even evicted all Russian priests from Arbat and Prechistenka. Pierling mentions: “In Poland, a whole caravan of merchants joined the convoy of the queen (i.e. Marina Mniszech - N.S.). Another company of them quickly formed in Augsburg. Its head bore the Jewish name Nathan" (p. 334).
Let's open "Capital" by K. Marx to find out the secret history of finance that is well known to him. Marx writes: “... Closer partnerships were founded with specific goals, like... the German society of Augsburg merchants - Fugger, Welser, Fehlin, Hoechstetter and others... which, with a capital of 66,000 ducats and three ships, took part in Portuguese expedition of 1505-1506 to India, receiving 150%, and according to other sources - 175% of net profit" ("Capital". M., 1978. T. 3, book 3, part 2, p. 982-983).
Marx is complemented by Braudel. He believes that the Fuggers from Augsburg, being in “conspiracy” with the Portuguese king, sent him silver in exchange for goods from India. They also lent money to the Spanish king in 1558. But even later, until 1641, the agents of the Fuggers and Welsers, sitting in the Portuguese colonial capital of India, in Goa, knew in advance about any attempts by the British or Dutch to penetrate India (Braudel, pp. 146, 148, 151, 215).
So, Augsburg, which immediately sent a large delegation to the impostor, was at that time the center of money, formally an “imperial city,” i.e., a city-state. Therefore, the impostor’s special connections with Augsburg could also have a still little-known background.
Was False Dmitry 1 a Dutch agent? Hardly. When False Dmitry captured Moscow in June 1605, the Dutch merchant-infiltrator Isaac Massa was already operating there. He later sent his report on events in Russia to Prince Moritz of Orange, ruler of the Netherlands. With all his hostility towards the Russians, Massa hated False Dmitry and rejoiced at the murder of the impostor: “There is no doubt that if [False Dmitry], on the advice of the Jesuits, had carried out his plans, he would have done a lot of evil and would have caused it with the help of the Roman [curia] - the culprit of all his actions - great misfortunes for the whole world" (Tales of Massa and Herkman about the Time of Troubles in Russia. St. Petersburg, 1874, p. 207).
Massa writes about the enormous expenses of the impostor: “All the ancient treasures, preserved for a hundred years or more, were transferred and distributed at the discretion of [the king]. He bought many valuable things from the British, Dutch and other foreigners. Many Jews came from Poland to trade expensive things.” (p. 171). Massa provides a list of jewelry and cash sent by the impostor to Poland. According to his calculations, this was equal to 784,568 florins (i.e., large Dutch silver coins) or 130 thousand Russian rubles. “In addition, many valuable things were secretly sent to Poland..., and dad was not forgotten” (p. 216-217).
Ilovaisky cites Polish news that False Dmitry, when he seized the throne, managed to waste up to 7.5 million rubles. At an exchange rate of 6 livres 12 sous for 1 ruble (Margeret’s data), it turns out that the impostor spent 49.5 million French livres in a matter of weeks. While, according to the French historians E. Lavisse and A. Rambaud, King Henry 4 managed, by strictly cutting down all expenses, to save by the end of his reign (1610) only 12 million livres! It is not surprising that the Jesuit adventure completely ruined the Russian state.
Rubens, a Dutch diplomat and painter in the service of the Spanish king, wrote in 1627 to the French nobleman Dupuis: “... I find it very strange that all the Christian kings simultaneously found themselves in such a hopeless situation. Not only are they all in debt, and their incomes are pledged, but, in addition, it is extremely difficult for them to find new ways to take a break and maintain their credit... Returning to the poverty of monarchs, I will say that I cannot explain it with anything other than the transfer of the treasures of the world into the hands of the great number of individuals" (Peter Paul Rubens. Letters. Documents. Judgments of contemporaries. M., 1977, pp. 195-196).
Who made up this circle of secret money changers? And didn’t they also warm their hand to our Time of Troubles?
Everything cannot be reduced only to Polish intervention, although the constant Polish violence against our women and the desecration of our churches clearly showed, according to the correct remark of S. F. Platonov, that “the population of Moscow has ceased to feel like the master of their city.”
This also explains the mercilessness of the extermination of the Poles on May 17, 1606. They killed not only the Poles, but also anyone who wore Western (“Polish”) dress. According to various sources, from 1,500 to 2,135 Poles and other foreigners were killed then.
But the new Tsar Vasily Shuisky made a fatal mistake. He wanted to delay the war with Poland, not realizing that she had already launched an invasion of Russia. If he had not then ordered to spare Marina Mniszech and a number of Polish magnates who were “staying” in Moscow, there would not have been many tragic events for us in 1607-1612.
If False Dmitry had managed to uncover the Shuisky conspiracy and had survived in May 1606, drowning the Russian resistance in blood, what would have awaited Russia then?
The same as the Czech Republic. The Czech Republic was defeated in 1620-1648. during the Thirty Years' War by the Austrian emperors Ferdinand 2, then Ferdinand 3 of Habsburg, pupils of the Jesuits. Of the 2 million Czechs by 1648, only 800 thousand remained. The Czech lands passed into the hands of the Germans, Italians, and Spaniards. Religion and education are in the hands of the Jesuits.
The bitter fate of the Czech Republic, immured for three centuries in a foreign Catholic monarchy, is not an example of what the papacy and the Jesuits were preparing for Russia?
N. SELISHCHEV, member of the Russian Historical Society
Http://www.rv.ru/content.php3?id=6322
False Dmitry 1(Grigory Otrepyev)
Years of life: ? –1606
Reign: 1605-1606
He was considered an adventurer, an impostor, posing as Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich, his miraculously saved son
Claimed to belong to the Rurikovichs.
6th Russian Tsar June 1 (11), 1605 - May 17 (27), 1606. officially called himself Tsarevich (then Tsar) Dmitry Ivanovich, in relations with foreign states - Emperor Dimitri.
There are many versions about the origin of False Dmitry. According to one of them, he is Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich, who miraculously escaped from assassins sent by Godunov. He was allegedly hidden and secretly transported to Poland. Opponents of this hypothesis note that it is based on pure guesswork, because at the beginning of the 20th century, deposits about the soul of the “murdered Prince Dimitri” made by his mother were found. And the nun Martha, the former Queen Mary, having recognized False Dmitry as her son, later just as quickly renounced him - explaining her actions by the fact that the impostor threatened her with punishment. Sometimes it is suggested that Grigory Otrepiev was one of the illegitimate sons of Grozny, given to be raised in the Otrepiev family.
There is no definitive answer to the question of the identity of the first impostor.
Brief biography of False Dmitry 1
According to the most common version, False Dmitry the First was the son 
Galician nobleman Bogdan Otrepiev. Yushka (Yuri) belonged to the noble but impoverished Nelidov family, immigrants from Lithuania. Born in Galich (Kostroma volost). After serving in one of the Moscow orders, in 1600 Yuri Otrepyev became a monk under the name of Gregory. It is believed that Yuri was 1 or 2 years older than the prince.
Judging by the surviving portraits and descriptions of his contemporaries, he was short in stature, had a round and ugly face, and arms of different lengths. By nature he was gloomy and thoughtful, awkward, but distinguished by remarkable physical strength, he could easily bend a horseshoe. And he, according to contemporaries, really looked like Tsarevich Dmitry.
In 1601, he settled in the Moscow Miracle Monastery, soon received the rank of deacon and became the cell attendant of Archimandrite Paphnutius of the Assumption Cathedral, and was a member of Patriarch Job “for book writing.” In 1602, he fled to Poland, called himself the name of the son of Ivan IV the Terrible - Dmitry, and secretly converted to Catholicism.
In March 1604, King Sigismund III promised support to False Dmitry for his assistance in the war with Sweden and participation in the anti-Turkish alliance. In the event of his accession, he undertook to marry the daughter of the governor E. Mniszka Marina, transfer Novgorod and Pskov to her and pay Mniszko 1 million zlotys.
In the fall of 1604, at the head of a three-thousand-strong detachment of Polish “knighthood,” he entered Russia. On January 21, 1605, False Dmitry I was defeated near the village of Dobrynichi, Komaritsa volost, but fortified himself in the south, in Putivl.
In May 1605, the tsar died and part of the army, led by P.F. Basmanov, sided with the impostor. On June 1, 1605, an uprising broke out in Moscow, which overthrew the Godunov government. Fyodor Godunov (son of Boris) and his mother were killed by order of False Dmitry, and he made his sister Ksenia a concubine. But later, at the urgent request of M. Mnishek’s relatives, Ksenia was tonsured.
Reign of False Dmitry 1
On July 17, 1605, to prove the “royal” origin, the recognition of False Dmitry by Dmitry’s mother, Maria Naga, was staged. On July 21, the Ryazan Greek Archbishop Ignatius crowned False Dmitry as king in the Assumption and Archangel Cathedrals of the Kremlin. Wanting to rely on the provincial nobility, he confiscated funds from the monasteries, reorganized the army, made concessions to peasants and serfs, the southern regions of Russia were exempt from taxes for 10 years.
However, he aroused the discontent of Muscovites by ordering the construction of a large wooden palace with secret passages in the Kremlin, abolishing the general afternoon nap, founding churches, and contributed to the expansion of foreign amusements: storming snow fortresses, the construction of an amusing “walk-city” (a fortress painted with images of devils and “terrible torment” and nicknamed “Hell”).
The indignation of the townspeople was completed by the wedding with M. Mnishek on May 8, 1606, which took place according to the Catholic rite.
He did not show fanaticism in religious matters, he explained this by the fact that everyone believes in one god, the only difference is in the rituals. He surprised those around him with his erudition and knowledge. He knew how to handle horses very well, went on bear hunts, loved a cheerful life and entertainment, and women.
During the multi-day celebration of the wedding of False Dmitry and Marina Mnishek, the visiting Poles in a drunken stupor broke into Moscow houses and robbed passers-by. This was the impetus for the beginning of the boyar conspiracy led by the prince. Vasily Shuisky did not hide his true thoughts, directly expressing to the conspirators that Dmitry was “placed on the throne” for one purpose - to overthrow the Godunovs, and now the time had come to overthrow him himself.
On May 14, 1606, clashes between Muscovites and Poles began. First, Shuisky directed the people against the Poles, allegedly saving the tsar, and then ordered the crowd to “go after the evil heretic” who was violating Russian customs.
Death of False Dmitry the First
At dawn on May 17, 1606, an armed detachment led by V.I. Shuisky entered the Kremlin. With a cry of “Zrada!” (“Treason!”) False Dmitry tried to escape, but was brutally killed. His corpse was subjected to trade execution, sprinkled with sand, and smeared with tar.
Among the residents of Moscow, the regicide caused a mixed reaction; many cried looking at the desecration. He was first buried in the so-called “wretched house,” a cemetery for the frozen or drunk, behind the Serpukhov Gate. Immediately after the funeral, severe frosts struck, which destroyed the grass in the fields and the sown grain.
Rumors spread around the city that the magic of the former monk was to blame. They also said that “the dead man walks” and lights flash and move over the grave, singing and the sounds of tambourines are heard. And the next day after the burial, the body naturally turned up at the almshouse, and next to it sat 2 pigeons, not wanting to fly away.
They tried to bury the corpse of the “undressed heretic” False Dmitry, as legends say, even deeper, but a week later he again found himself in another cemetery, that is, “the earth did not accept him,” however, just as fire did not accept him. Nevertheless, the body of False Dmitry was dug up, burned and, having mixed his ashes with gunpowder, they fired from a cannon in the direction from which he came - towards Poland. According to the memoirs of Marina Mnishek, the “last miracle” happened when the corpse of False Dmitry was dragged through the Kremlin gates, the wind tore off the shields from the gates, and installed them unharmed in the same order in the middle of the road.
In popular memory, the image of False Dmitry is preserved in several ballads and fairy tales, in which he appears as a sorcerer, a warlock who, with the help of evil spirits, seized power over Moscow. Also, the ambiguous image of False Dmitry found a place in Lope de Vega’s play “The Grand Duke of Moscow or the Persecuted Emperor”, in the poetic tragedies of A. P. Sumarokov (1771) and A. S. Khomyakov (1832), bearing the same name (“ Dimitry the Pretender"), in the play by A. N. Ostrovsky "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky" (1886), in the opera by Antonin Dvorak "Dimitri" (1881-1882), in the novels by Harold Lamb The Wolfmaster, Rainer Maria Rilke "Notes of Malta Laurids Brigge" (1910) and the work of Marina Tsvetaeva (the "Marina" cycle).
False Dmitry had no children.
Despite such a dual fate as a ruler, False Dmitry, in accordance with all modern reviews, was distinguished by enormous energy, great abilities, and broad reform plans.
For Rus', the beginning of the 17th century was one of the most difficult periods in history. Crop failures for several years in a row provoked dissatisfaction with the rule of Boris Godunov not only in the circles of the boyar nobility, but also among the common people.
The man who later became known as False Dmitry 1 (and, of course, serious political forces in Poland), took advantage of the most convenient moment and in 1601 declared himself a miraculously saved prince.
It must be said that the origin of False Dmitry 1 has still not been reliably established. However, a short biography of False Dmitry 1 reports that he was the son of Bogdan Otrepyev, a nobleman from Galich. Having taken monastic vows, Grigory Otrepiev became a monk of the Chudov Monastery, from which he presumably fled in 1601.
After 1601, having received serious support from the aristocracy and clergy of Poland, False Dmitry was preparing the return of the “legitimate” ruler to the throne of Russia. During this period, False Dmitry himself generously gives out promises of rewards (to give Poland the Seversk and Smolensk lands) and assistance (in particular to Sigismund 3 against Sweden), and secretly accepts Catholicism.
Only in the fall of 1604 did he, with a Polish-Lithuanian detachment, enter Russian lands near Chernigov. This move was apparently well calculated. Peasant uprisings in the southern lands greatly contributed to the successful outcome of the campaign. False Dmitry 1 was able to gain a strong foothold in Putivl.
Soon after this, Boris Godunov dies. Power passes to his son Fedor. But he was overthrown on June 1, 1605 during the uprising. And the bulk of the army went over to the side of the impostor. Having entered the capital of Russia on June 30, 1605 according to the new style, False Dmitry 1 was crowned king the very next day. The ceremony took place in the Assumption Cathedral.
The reign of False Dmitry 1 began with attempts to pursue an independent policy. He established cash and land salaries in order to gain the support of the nobility. Considerable funds were required for this and they were found by revising the land rights of the monasteries. The peasants also received certain relief. For example, the southern regions were exempt from paying taxes for 10 years. However, these measures did not bring success to False Dmitry. To pay the money, Poland had to significantly increase taxes. And this attracted the Krkstyan-Cossack uprising in the next 1606. To stop it, the impostor had to make great concessions, but military force was not used.
However, False Dmitry 1 was in no hurry to fully fulfill the promises made to Sigismund 3, which noticeably spoiled their relationship. The situation inside the country was also close to a crisis. As a result of the conspiracy that arose, headed by Shuisky, False Dmitry 1 was killed. This happened during a riot that broke out in the capital. The townspeople were extremely negatively opposed to the many Poles who had gathered for the wedding of the impostor and Maria Mniszech. The body was initially buried, but then burned. Ashes were thrown from the cannon towards Poland.
But, already in 167, another impostor appeared in Poland - False Dmitry 2. He is known under the nickname Tushinsky Thief. Very little is known about the biography of this “miraculously saved False Dmitry 1”. Perhaps the only reliably established fact is his incredible similarity to the first impostor. He supported the Bolotnikov uprising that began during that period. However, the two armies failed to unite near Tula, as originally planned.
In 1608, Shuisky’s army was completely defeated, and False Dmitry 2 himself settled in Tushino. He failed to take Moscow, and therefore the army took up robberies and pogroms. It was because of this episode in the biography that False Dmitry received his nickname. This “rule of False Dmitry 2” lasted for 2 years. Unable to change the situation on his own, Shuisky entered into an agreement with the ruler of Sweden, promising to give up Karelians in exchange for help. Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky, the Tsar's nephew, was appointed commander. He turned out to be talented in military affairs and Shuisky’s victories gave Poland a reason to intervene and begin an intervention. However, the path through Russian lands was not easy. Smolensk was able to defend itself for 20 months.
False Dmitry 2, after the appearance of Shuisky’s army, fled and settled in Kaluga. Sigismund Vladislav was crowned king. The hopes placed on Skopin-Shuisky were not justified. In 1610 he died under unclear circumstances. Hoping to retake the throne, False Dmitry 2 and his army moved towards the capital. But soon he again had to flee to Kaluga, where he was killed in August 1610. In 1613, the Time of Troubles for Rus' ended and the first ruler of the Romanov family was crowned king.