Minin and Pozharsky are the deliverers of troubles. The end of troubled times. K. Minin and D. Pozharsky Minin’s activities in troubled times

Chapter two. Dmitry Pozharsky

Dmitry Mikhailovich was born on November 1, 1578, he came from an ancient family of Pozharskys, who owned the Starodub appanage principality, but under Ivan the Terrible they lost part of their possessions.

During the reign of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, fifteen-year-old Dmitry entered the palace service, first receiving the rank of “solicitor with a dress”; later, under Boris Godunov, he was promoted to steward. At the same time, Dmitry’s mother Maria Fedorovna was appointed “supreme noblewoman” under the tsar’s daughter Ksenia Godunova.

When the war with Poland began in 1604 and the troops of False Dmitry I invaded the Russian state, Pozharsky went to war. At this time, his main qualities were formed - determination and loyalty to military duty.

However, apparently he did not escape the traps that the impostor set; it is known that for some time Pozharsky acted as steward under him. As historian Ruslan Skrynnikov writes, “Nobody knows what Pozharsky was thinking and feeling then”.

When the Moscow elite overthrew False Dmitry I and ascended the throne, Dmitry Mikhailovich swore allegiance to him. The first battle with the detachment of the Tushinsky thief near Kolomna showed Pozharsky’s military abilities - the Lithuanian detachment was completely defeated. The next victory on the Vladimir road brought Dmitry Pozharsky the title of governor, he received an appointment to Zaraysk, an estate in Suzdal district and royal gratitude .

Despite the fact that Vasily Shuisky was an extremely unpopular politician, Pozharsky refused to participate in the conspiracy against him, which Prokopiy Lyapunov tried to organize. He understood that a change of power in the midst of war would lead to devastating consequences.

After the establishment of the power of the Seven Boyars, Pozharsky participated in the First Militia and, together with Prokopiy Lyapunov, stood at the origins of its creation. He supported the residents of the capital during the March uprising of 1611, fought with the Poles on the streets of Moscow, and was seriously wounded during the battle at Lubyanka.

His ally Lyapunov failed to rally the noble camp; he was killed as a result of a conspiracy. When Pozharsky, who was undergoing treatment in the Mugreevsky estate, was informed about the death of Lyapunov and the failure of the first militia, for a long time he could not believe that everything that had been done was in vain.

Therefore, with some hesitation, he accepted the offer of the Nizhny Novgorod delegation to lead a new militia to fight the invaders and traitors. At the beginning of March 1612, the militia under the leadership of Pozharsky and the Nizhny Novgorod zemstvo elder Kuzma Minin set out for Moscow. During the campaign, new detachments joined it, and by joint efforts at the end of October 1612, the Poles and Lithuanians were squeezed out of the capital.

In the decisive battle on Devichye Pole with the troops of Hetman Khodkevich, the governor was on the front line and encouraged the Russian soldiers by personal example.

The prince's services to the Fatherland were appreciated during his lifetime. At the crowning of Mikhail Romanov in 1613, Prince Pozharsky was granted boyars and lands; during the coronation he carried the symbol of Russian statehood - the power.

After his military exploits, Dmitry Mikhailovich served in the sovereign’s service for a long time. In honor of the miraculous intercession of the icon of the Kazan Mother of God (a copy of which was made at the insistence of Dmitry Mikhailovich before the march on Moscow) during the battles of the Second Militia with the Poles for Kitay-gorod and the Kremlin, the prince built a wooden Kazan temple on Red Square, which became the prototype of the future Kazan Cathedral .

Dmitry Mikhailovich died on April 20, 1642, at the sixty-fourth year of his life. He was buried in the family tomb of the Spaso-Evfimevsky Monastery in Suzdal. Thanks to the selfless heroism of Pozharsky, who managed to lead the people’s militia at a crucial moment, our state managed to maintain its statehood.

Troubles

By the beginning of the 17th century. contradictions accumulated in the Russian state, resulting in a severe crisis that engulfed the economy, the socio-political sphere and public life. This crisis is called Troubles. The Time of Troubles is a period of anarchy, chaos and social upheaval.

The prerequisite for the Troubles was the end of the period of the ruling Rurik dynasty. The struggle for the royal throne, started by the Moscow boyars, led to the destruction of state order, which made Russia an easy prey for foreign conquerors.

The son of Ivan the Terrible, Tsar Fyodor, nicknamed the Blessed (1584-1598), was incapable of government activities, had poor health and was not completely mentally normal. He was under the guardianship first of the Boyar Duma, and then of his brother-in-law (wife's brother) Boris Fedorovich Godunov, who from 1587 became the sole ruler of the state.

In 1591, the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible, Tsarevich Dmitry, died in Uglich. Many boyars and residents of Moscow accused Tsarevich B. Godunov of the murder. Sources neither confirm nor deny his guilt. B. Godunov benefited from the death of the Tsarevich: after the death of the childless Tsar Feodor, the Zemsky Sobor in 1598 elected B. Godunov as Tsar. This was the first time in the history of Russia that a person was elected tsar who did not belong to the Rurik dynasty and had no rights to the Russian throne.

At the beginning of his reign, Boris Godunov (1598-1605) abandoned the policy of terror characteristic of Ivan the Terrible. The government continued the policy of enslaving the peasants: indentured servants were deprived of the right to be freed from dependence, even after paying off the debt. They could gain freedom only after the death of their owner. In 1593, a decree was issued that forever prohibited peasants from going out on St. George's Day.

In 1589, the patriarchate was established in Russia. The Russian Metropolitan Job received the rank of patriarch, and the archbishops became metropolitans. Thus, the Russian Church freed itself from the remnants of formal dependence on the Patriarchs of Constantinople. The establishment of the patriarchate strengthened the international prestige of the Russian church and state.

To increase treasury revenues, B. Godunov introduced a state monopoly on the trade in vodka, prohibiting its sale to private individuals.

In 1601, famine broke out due to crop failure. The price of bread has increased 100 times. “Hunger riots” began in the country - peasants, serfs, and townspeople killed and robbed the owners of grain reserves.

The culmination of the “hunger riots” of 1601-1603. there was an uprising led by Khlopko (1603). The uprising swept across a significant part of the country, and rebel troops moved towards Moscow. In the fall of 1603, an army led by governor I.F. Basmanov was sent against Khlopko. In the battle of Moscow, I. Basmanov died, but the rebels were also defeated. Khlopko was captured and executed.

Despite the suppression of the uprising, the situation in the country remained tense. The government of B. Godunov was extremely unpopular among the people. In the last years of his reign, B. Godunov, in fear of possible conspiracies and assassination attempts, stopped leaving the palace and appearing in front of a large number of those close to him.

From the very beginning of B. Godunov’s reign, rumors circulated throughout the country that Tsarevich Dmitry did not die in 1591, but remained alive and was hiding abroad. In 1601, the monk Grigory Otrepiev, who had fled from Russia, appeared in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and declared that he was the son of Ivan IV, miraculously saved by Tsarevich Dmitry. G. Otrepiev went down in history under the name of False Dmitry, or “Undressed” (a man who abandoned monasticism).

In 1504, news of the impostor reached the Polish king Sigismund III (1587-1632). Sigismund III agreed to recruit volunteers in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for a campaign against Russia. In return, False Dmitry promised, after ascending the Russian throne, to give the Smolensk and Chernigov-Seversk lands to the Polish crown, to introduce Catholicism in the Russian lands, and after that to carry out a joint campaign against Sweden.

In 1604, the troops of False Dmitry began an attack on Russian lands. On the territory of Russia, the army of False Dmitry was replenished with the local population - peasants, serfs, townspeople, servicemen and Don Cossacks. Those who joined the impostor’s army were dissatisfied with the rule of B. Godunov and wanted to return the “legitimate” king to the throne. It was they who played a decisive role in the successes of False Dmitry. Many nobles and boyars also supported the impostor in order to receive lands and privileges from the new king.

The rapid advance of False Dmitry's troops towards Moscow was also facilitated by the death of B. Godunov in April 1605. His 16-year-old son Fedor ascended the throne. This was the reason why many governors went over to the side of False Dmitry. In May 1605, the royal army near Kromy (present-day Oryol region) betrayed Tsar Fyodor Borisovich and swore allegiance to the “true Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich.” In June, an uprising began in Moscow. The capital went over to the side of False Dmitry, Tsar Fedor and his mother were killed.

The reign of False Dmitry I, who ascended the Russian throne under the name of Tsar Dmitry I, lasted less than a full year (1505-1506). The position of False Dmitry on the Russian throne was precarious. The introduction of foreigners and Catholics into the number of courtiers, as well as the establishment by the tsar of a foreign guard to ensure personal safety, outraged the boyars, princes and townspeople. The Polish nobles who arrived in Moscow in the motorcade of Marina Mnishek (the bride, later the wife of False Dmitry) rioted, drank, chopped up icons in one of the churches, started street fights in which random passers-by died. In his foreign policy, False Dmitry was oriented towards the West. But neither the Polish king nor the Pope supported him, because, having taken the Russian throne, False Dmitry did not fulfill his earlier promises to cede lands and introduce the Catholic faith.

In May 1606, princes V.I. Shuisky, V.V. Golitsyn, Kazan Metropolitan Hermogenes and Kolomna Bishop Joseph organized and led a conspiracy against False Dmitry, as a result of which he was killed.

On May 19, 1606, a crowd of people on Red Square, without subsequent approval by the Zemsky Sobor, elected the noble boyar Prince Vasily Shuisky (1606-1610) as tsar. He was proclaimed tsar with the participation of several boyar groups, which is why historians call him the “boyar tsar.”

The overthrow of False Dmitry I and the rise to power of V. Shuisky did not lead to normalization of the situation in the country. In the summer of 1606, a major popular uprising began under the leadership of Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov. The reasons for the uprising were the deterioration of the situation of the peasants, political instability in the country and famine. In July 1606, the rebels set out from Putivl to Moscow.

After the defeat near Moscow, I. I. Bolotnikov’s detachments retreated to Kaluga, and then to Tula. In the fall of 1607, I. I. Bolotnikov’s army was weakened, so he began negotiations with Tsar V. I. Shuisky. He agreed to surrender to the authorities on condition that the lives of the participants in the uprising were spared. The tsar did not keep his promise - soon not only the leaders, but also many ordinary participants in the uprising were executed. In terms of its scope, the number of participants and the territory covered by unrest, the uprising of I. I. Bolotnikov is considered the first peasant war in the history of Russia.

The rebels did not set themselves the goal of overthrowing the political system, but limited themselves only to the extermination of the hated representatives of the ruling class.

Fight against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden

The tsarist troops were still fighting with I.I. Bolotnikov near Tula, and in Starodub (in the Bryansk region) a man had already appeared who declared himself the saved “Tsar Dmitry,” who went down in history under the name of False Dmitry II. He was a protege of the Polish king Sigismund III. In January 1608, the impostor's troops moved to Moscow. The bulk of the armed forces of False Dmitry II were Polish nobles. Many peasants and serfs, including the remnants of the defeated army of I. I. Bolotnikov, joined False Dmitry II. By June 1608, False Dmitry II reached the village of Tushino near Moscow and established a fortified camp there. This is where the impostor's nickname came from - “Tushino thief.” Tushino had its own Boyar Duma and laws were issued. Many of the Moscow boyars entered the service of False Dmitry II. The power of the Tushins extended to a significant part of the country. The decisive role in the camp was played by the Polish nobles, who plundered the population of the captured cities.

The position of V.I. Shuisky was greatly complicated by the fact that he turned to the Swedish king for military assistance. The conclusion of this alliance was a serious political mistake: Swedish troops captured Novgorod, and Sigismund III launched a new offensive against Russia to prevent the Swedes from strengthening on Russian lands. In September 1609, Polish troops besieged Smolensk. In December 1609, Polish troops left Tushino and went to the Smolensk camp. Finding himself without support, False Dmitry II fled to Kaluga, where he was killed in December 1610. In March 1610, Russian troops led by boyar M.V. Skopin-Shuisky set up the Tushino camp and lifted the siege from Moscow. But in June 1610 the Poles launched an attack on Moscow.

In July 1610, a conspiracy arose against V.I. Shuisky, led by governor Zakhary Lyapunov. V.I. Shuisky was forced to abdicate the throne, and on the same day he was forcibly tonsured a monk. Power in the state passed to a council of seven boyars (“seven boyars”). To end the Troubles, the leaders of the “Seven Boyars” decided to invite the Polish prince Vladislav to the Russian throne. However, Sigismund III did not let his son go to Moscow.

Russia faced a direct threat of losing its independence: Sigismund III announced that Russia should become part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. There was no all-Russian government. The center of the country was dominated by the Poles, who captured Smolensk and Moscow. Novgorod and the northern regions ended up with the Swedes. Each Russian city lived on its own and defended itself as best it could. Interventionists and robbers mercilessly robbed the population.

The main force that put an end to the Troubles and liberated the country was the Russian people. The impetus for the rise of the popular movement was the letters of Patriarch Hermogenes sent throughout the country with calls to unite to fight the Polish interventionists. For this, the patriarch was arrested by the Poles and died in captivity in 1612.

In the spring of 1611, the first zemstvo militia was formed in the Ryazan land, led by Prokopiy Lyapunov (the head of the Ryazan nobles).

In the fall of 1611, the city mayor of Nizhny Novgorod, Kozma (Kuzma) Minich Minin (?-1616), appealed to the townspeople with an appeal to create a second national militia. Its military leader was Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky (1578-1642).

There were no disagreements in the leadership of the second: the only goal was the liberation of Russia. K.M. Minin created his own office, established connections with many cities and regions of the country, and collected a treasury. The militia government was formed in the winter of 1611-1612. as "Council of all the earth." The government of the second militia had to act in a difficult situation. Not only the interventionists and their supporters, but also the Moscow “Seven Boyars” looked at him with fear. All of them created various obstacles for D. M. Pozharsky and K. M. Minin. But despite everything, relying on all layers of society, the leaders of the militia restored order in the north and northeast of Russia.

In August 1612, the militia of K. M. Minin and D. M. Pozharsky entered Moscow, besieged the Kremlin and Kitay-gorod, where the Polish garrison settled. On October 22, 1612, Russian troops took Kitay-Gorod by storm. Moscow was liberated. Before the revolution of 1917, this day (November 4, new style) was a holiday. Now this tradition has been revived: on November 4, the Russian Federation celebrates National Unity Day.

Sigismund III's attempts to recapture Moscow were unsuccessful. In the fall of 1612, near Volokolamsk, Polish troops were defeated and retreated.

Sweden did not want to lose the captured Russian territories, but the protracted confrontation with Russia completely exhausted it. In 1617, near Tikhvin, the Stolbovo Peace Treaty was signed, according to which Sweden returned to Russia all the lands captured during the Time of Troubles (Novgorod, Ladoga, etc.). The original Russian cities - Ivangorod, Yam, Koporye, Oreshek, etc. - were ceded to Sweden. Russia lost the entire coast of the Gulf of Finland and access to the Baltic Sea.

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth also no longer had the strength to continue military adventures against Russia. In 1618, the Russian-Polish Deulin Truce was signed. The Smolensk, Chernigov, and Seversky lands went to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Polish king, in turn, renounced his claims to the Russian throne.

The Russian people fought against the Polish and Swedish invaders and traitorous boyars to preserve Russian statehood.
The Russian state fell into complete desolation and disorder. In Moscow, in the Kremlin, the Poles were sitting. Bands of armed men—Poles, Swedes, and Ukrainian Cossacks—roamed throughout the country. There was virtually no central authority. Tsars continually replaced the Russian throne; many lands - Smolensk, Seversk, Novgorod, Pskov - were captured by foreigners.
Unlike the Moscow boyars, the Russian people stubbornly resisted the invaders. The defenders of besieged Smolensk held a heroic defense. The Poles managed to capture it at the cost of huge losses and incredible efforts only two years after the start of the siege. The elderly Patriarch Hermogenes himself denounced the betrayal of the Moscow authorities. His speeches awakened patriotic feelings in people and called them to fight. The First Zemstvo Militia was created. However, its attempts to liberate Moscow from the Poles were unsuccessful.
A popular movement arose in Nizhny Novgorod aimed at liberating the Russian land from invaders. It was headed by the Nizhny Novgorod zemstvo elder, merchant Kuzma Minin, who later received nationwide fame as “the man elected from the whole earth.” More than once speaking to Nizhny Novgorod residents on the square in front of the hut in the center of the city, he called on residents to rise up to fight against foreign invaders for the liberation of the Russian state, for the Orthodox faith, not to spare their lives, but to give “all gold and silver and, if necessary, sell property, mortgage your wives and children.” Minin's calls were heard and supported. The city began to raise funds to create a new militia. The tax for these purposes amounted to one fifth of the total property of each citizen.

The military side of the movement was led by an experienced governor, Prince Dmitry Pozharsky, who by that time was healing wounds received in previous battles on his family estate Mugreevo. By the time the campaign began in February 1612, many Russian cities and lands declared their support for the movement: Dorogobuzh, Vyazma, Kolomna, Arzamas, Kazan, etc. Military people from many regions of the country with their weapons and convoys joined the militia.
In mid-February 1612, an advanced militia detachment headed for Yaroslavl. At the end of March, the main forces led by Prince Dmitry Pozharsky arrived there. The army’s route ran through the cities of Yuryevets, Kineshma, and Kostroma. The militia stayed in Yaroslavl for four months. During this time, the governing bodies of the movement were formed, the “Council of the Whole Land” and temporary orders (administrative bodies) under it were created.
When the zemstvo army approached the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, its leaders learned for the first time that a corps under the command of Hetman Khodkevich was moving to the aid of the Polish troops entrenched in Moscow. It was decided to hastily continue the march of the militia to the capital. The advanced detachments of the militia approached Moscow a little earlier than the Poles and positioned themselves in a semicircle from the Tverskaya to the Prechistensky Gates. The first clash between the opponents took place on August 22 near the Novodevichy Convent. During this battle, the Poles managed to cross the Moscow River, and only the intervention of the Cossack hundreds of Prince Trubetskoy, who stood near Moscow long before the arrival of Minin and Pozharsky
and those who spoke on their side saved the situation. The Polish companies, not expecting a flank attack, were forced to retreat across the river to Poklonnaya Gora. On the night of August 23-24, a detachment of 500 people sent by Khodkiewicz entered the besieged Kremlin under cover of darkness. Reinforced by this detachment, the Poles settled there made a daring foray out of the gates of Kitai-Gorod, crossed the river and captured the positions of the militia near the Church of St. George. At the same time, Khodkevich moved his regiments to the Donskoy Monastery, trying to get behind the militia’s rear from the unprotected south-eastern side. However, the Zemstvo infantry stopped the advance of the Poles. A stubborn battle ensued, in which there were colossal losses on both sides, but luck still favored the Poles. The militia were forced to retreat to the left bank of the Moscow River. Polish companies began pursuit and also crossed to the left bank.
At this moment, Kuzma Minin again turned to the Cossacks with a request for help in repelling the attack. The Cossacks rushed into battle and overturned the battle formations of the advancing Poles. While this battle was going on, Minin himself, together with a selected noble squad, crossed to the other side of the Moscow River and struck the Polish troops in the rear. Panic arose in Khodkevich’s camp. Abandoning the entire convoy, artillery and provisions, the hetman hastily retreated from the Russian capital. To a large extent, this sealed the fate of the Polish garrison in the Kremlin. On October 26, 1612, convinced of his doom, he capitulated.
The zemstvo army from the Arbat side marched in a solemn march, with unfurled banners, to the noise of a jubilant crowd of townspeople and proceeded to Red Square. There she united with the troops of Prince Trubetskoy who participated in the liberation of the capital. The troops converged near Lobnoye Mesto and entered the Kremlin through the Spassky Gate. Muscovites celebrated the victory.

<…>283. About sending Novaya Gorod from Nizhnev to Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky and about the arrival in Nizhnyaya and about the meeting of military people.
In all the cities of the Moscow state I hear such mental harm near Moscow and I mourn and cry about it and do not kiss the cross in any city, but there is nothing I can do to help them. From all the cities in the single city, which is located in Nizhny Novgorod, the same Nizhny Novgorod residents, jealous of the Orthodox Christian faith, and do not want to introduce the Orthodox faith into Latin, began to think about how to help the Moscow state. One of them, a resident of Nizhny Novgorod who had a meat trade, Kozma Minin, the recommended Sukhoruk, cried out to all people: “We will want to help the Moscow state, otherwise we will not wish our bellies; Yes, not only their bellies, but not the yellowness and their yards to sell and pawn their wives and children and beat with their foreheads, so that they would stand up for the true Orthodox faith and would be our boss.”<…>
284. About the arrival of military men from the cities from the treasury from the cities. In Nizhny, the treasury is becoming scarce.
He began to wander around the city in Pomerania and all the Ponizovs, so that they would help them go to the cleansing of the Moscow state. In the cities, I heard a meeting in Nizhny, for the sake of it, and I sent him for advice and sent a lot of treasury to him and brought to him from the cities a lot of treasury. I hear from the military men in the cities that in Nizhny they are taking all the free ranks, from all the cities. First they brought in the Kolomnichi, then the Rezants, then from the Ukrainian cities many people, both Cossacks and Streltsy, who settled in Moscow under Tsar Vasily. They gave them a salary. God will look upon that army, and will give great advice and love between them, so that there is no enmity between them at all; I bought horses at a lower price, the same horses for a month, the same sellers, I don’t know: so I argue with God for everyone.<…>
311.About coming near Moscow. In the morning, I left the Yauza River for Moscow. Prince Dmitry Pozharsky Timofeevich Trubetskoy and his military men met him and called him to come to his prison. He refused to tell him that he should not join the Cossacks. And he came, stood at the Arbatsky gate and stared at the camp near the Kamennovo city, near the wall, and built a fort and dug a ditch all around and barely fortified himself successfully before Etman’s arrival. Prince Dmitry Timofeevich Trubetskoy and the Cossacks began to hold dislike against Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky and Kuzma Minin and the military men for not going to their camps.

Minin Kuzma Zakharyevich, nicknamed Sukhoruk, was one of the “liberators of the fatherland” from the Poles in 1612. His biography before his speech in 1611 is unknown. A townsman of Nizhny Novgorod, apparently of average income, who sold meat; he, it seems, did not stand out in any way from the ranks of “his brothers,” the townspeople. During the era of unrest under Tsar Vasily Shuisky, when Nizhny was threatened by rebel foreigners and Tushins, Minin, according to some instructions, took part, like other townspeople, in campaigns against enemies, in the detachment of governor Alyabyev. In the fall of 1611, the humble butcher became the first person in his hometown. At this critical time for Russia, when, after the death of Lyapunov, his militia disintegrated, and power over the country was seized by the Cossack governors - Zarutsky and Trubetskoy, when Novgorod was already occupied by the Swedes, Smolensk was taken by Sigismund, and a new “Tsar Dimitri” acted in the Pskov region, when Due to this, despondency, cowardice and despair captured many, and local and personal interests began to take precedence over national ones - Minin deeply mourned the misfortunes of his fatherland and thought about ways to help him. According to him, Saint Sergius appeared to him three times in a dream, urging him to make an appeal, and even punished him for disobedience.

Minin understood his election to the zemstvo elders of Nizhny around the new year (September 1) as an indication of the finger of God. In the zemstvo hut and “the idea, if found,” he began to call on the townspeople to take care of the fatherland and, by personal example, encouraged donations to hire military men. Both the authorities and the entire city joined in the beginning of the settlement that soon followed Minin; a verdict was drawn up on the forced collection of “a fifth of money” from all owners of the city and county, i.e., a fifth of the property, homeless wanderers from Smolny were invited to join the militia, and Prince Dm was elected as governor. M. Pozharsky. At his suggestion, Minin was entrusted with managing the treasury of the militia. With the title of “elected person,” a simple Nizhny Novgorod resident stood next to Prince Pozharsky, and then, near Moscow and in Moscow, and with Prince Trubetskoy, at the head of the militia and the government formed in it. Taking part in all government affairs, Minin was mainly in charge of the treasury and providing the military people with the necessary supplies and cash salaries, which he coped with successfully, despite the difficulties of training in a country devastated by the turmoil. Near Moscow, in the battle with Khodkevich, Minin also showed military valor, deciding the battle with a bold blow from the detachment he himself had chosen. Tsar Mikhail granted Minin on July 12, 1613 the Duma nobility and land in the Nizhny Novgorod district. In 1614, he was entrusted with collecting the first pyatina from guests and merchants in the capital; in May 1615 he was on the boyar board, “in charge of Moscow” during the sovereign’s pilgrimage; in December of the same year he was sent with Prince Gr. P. Romodanovsky to Kazan places “for investigation” regarding the uprising of foreigners that took place here. Soon after this - before May 1616 - Minin died. He was buried in Nizhny, on the lower floor of the Transfiguration Cathedral, where a chapel in the name of Cosmas and Damian, consecrated in 1852, was built in his memory.

Dmitry Pozharsky was born in November 1578 in the family of Prince Mikhail Fedorovich Pozharsky. In 1593, Prince Dmitry began serving at the court of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich. At the beginning of the reign of Boris Godunov, Prince Pozharsky was transferred to stolnik. He received an estate near Moscow, and then was sent from the capital to the army on the Lithuanian border. After the death of Godunov, Pozharsky swore allegiance to Tsarevich Dmitry. Under Vasily Shuisky, Pozharsky was appointed governor. For his good service, the tsar granted him the village of Nizhny Landeh with twenty villages in the Suzdal district. In 1610, the tsar appointed Pozharsky as governor of Zaraysk. There he learned about the deposition of Shuisky by the conspirators led by Zakhary Lyapunov and involuntarily swore allegiance to the Polish prince Vladislav.
Soon a rumor spread that King Sigismund was not sending his son to Russia, but wanted to reign over Russia himself and besieged Smolensk. Then excitement and indignation began to rise throughout all Russian cities. The general sentiments were expressed by the Ryazan nobleman Prokopiy Lyapunov, who in his appeals called for an uprising against the Poles. Pozharsky went to Moscow, captured by the Poles, where he began to prepare a popular uprising. It began spontaneously on March 19, 1611. To stop the rebellion, the Poles set fire to several streets. By evening the flames engulfed the entire city. Pozharsky had to fight the Poles with only a handful of people loyal to him under his command. On the second day, the Poles suppressed the uprising throughout the city. By noon, only Sretenka was holding out. Having failed to take Ostrozhets Pozharsky by storm, the Poles set fire to the surrounding houses. In the ensuing battle, Pozharsky was seriously wounded. He was taken from Moscow to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery.

The entire historical path of Russia is the state’s struggle with troublemakers who were driven by a variety of motives: personal desire for power, personal hatred of rulers, requests from external enemies, absurd “ideas” and “theories.” In the brilliant galaxy of fighters for the independence of the Russian national state, Kuzma Minin and Dmitry Pozharsky have their own special place. Their names are forever associated with the feat that the Russian people accomplished in the name of liberating their homeland in 1612. Russia went through a tragic time at the beginning of the 17th century. Pestilence and famine, bloody civil strife, enemy invasions ruined the country to the ground. But wise heads and brave hearts Kuzma Minin and Dmitry Pozharsky, having gathered a militia, saved Rus' from destruction. What are the reasons for the emergence of the Time of Troubles, which affected all aspects of the life of Russian society without exception and resulted in a period of bloody conflicts, the struggle for national independence and national survival? And how did Russia manage to get out of this deepest state crisis? If earlier, the Russian miracle occurred during periods of clarity of national self-awareness and as a result of reasonable actions by the authorities, now the Russian miracle will be the salvation of Russia from the Time of Troubles, in which we have been living for more than a decade. Overcoming the Troubles of modern times is the main task of generations living in modern Russia.

A series: Russian glory names

* * *

by liters company.

Impostors

First Troubles

The Troubles of the early 17th century were predetermined by the growing pains of Russia as a great power. It expanded spatially and squeezed other large states - Poland, Sweden, the Crimean khans. Russia was turning into a stronghold of primordial Christianity - the Third Rome, which was destined to create a container for a religion that determined the history of mankind for two thousand years.

Ahead were three centuries of the Orthodox kingdom, which seemed unshakable. It was the Troubles that showed the true path of the priesthood - support for sovereign Russian statehood and autocratic power. Above all the tossing and turning of the priesthood in search of their mission rose the figure of Patriarch Hermogenes, who suffered martyrdom from the foreigners who captured Moscow. It was Hermogenes who showed that power of spirit and that direction of thoughts about the state, which helped to overcome the Troubles and return Russia to the “pre-Trouble” state. At the same time, the subordinate position of the priesthood was reflected by the common oath of the new dynasty, in which the priesthood united with other classes in common service.

And yet the main question that was resolved through the expulsion of interventionists and impostors is the question of autocratic power and its nature. It turned out that handing over power to the strongest, who seems the most worthy and capable, does not at all guarantee the stability of a large state.

On the eve of the Time of Troubles, in 1584, the royal throne was inherited by the sickly son of Ivan the Terrible, Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, who, according to his father, was “a faster and a silent person, born more for the cell than for the power of the sovereign,” according to the popular definition - “blessed,” according to the evil slander of foreigners - “fool”. In the prejudices of his ungrateful descendants, Fyodor Ioannovich is considered “feeble-minded.” It would seem that the figure of the last representative of the Rurik dynasty is secondary and even inappropriate. And then there can be no doubt that the accession of Boris Godunov was a blessing - an extra figure was eliminated, power acquired more visible features in the charismatic figure of the leader. But in reality, Godunov’s unauthorized accession to the throne marked the beginning of the Troubles.

Despite all the outward inconspicuousness of Fyodor Ioannovich - especially against the background of Boris Godunov, who was in real control of all the affairs of the state - it was he who was the guarantor of the unity of the people and the government. Only with such unity were Godunov’s large-scale deeds possible: the establishment of the party leadership, the construction of cities and fortresses in the Wild Field (Voronezh, Livny, Belgorod, Samara, Tsaritsyn, Saratov, Tomsk), the restoration of lands devastated after the Horde yoke south of Ryazan, the successful Russian the Swedish war and the return of a number of Russian lands and cities, the construction of the Smolensk fortress wall, the White City in Moscow, repelling the invasion of the Crimean Khan Kazy-Girey in 1591.

Fyodor I Ioannovich (miniature from the Tsar's titular book)

An invisible agreement between the people and the authorities made it possible to overcome the economic crisis by enslaving the peasants and even introduce measures against fugitive peasants - a search for five years and return to their former lands. Contrary to the idle beliefs of our contemporaries, serfdom was not at all an act of violence and enslavement. It was a means of mobilization in conditions of economic crisis, and was taken for granted by the people - as long as the power was perceived by them as legitimate.

Tsarevich Dmitry Ioannovich

After Fyodor Ioannovich, the throne was to be inherited by his younger brother Dmitry. But in 1591 he died under unclear circumstances. For centuries it was believed that this was a murder organized by Boris Godunov. But an open investigation with a public interview of witnesses, which was conducted by the boyar Vasily Shuisky, studied by modern historians, cast doubt on this version. Godunov had no direct reasons to kill Dmitry. Tsar Feodor continued to reign until his death in 1598. Until this moment, there was probably no doubt among the people that Shuisky’s investigation was in good faith, and Dmitry died as a result of an accident - in a child’s game with a knife. Why did these doubts arise? Because power, deprived of divine sanction, loses trust, and any assumptions can arise about it - and all of them are true, if not in fact, then in essence. Even if Boris Godunov did not kill the prince, he acted as if he had deliberately taken his life - he took someone else’s place on the throne.

After the death of Fyodor Ioannovich, the male branch of the Rurik dynasty was cut short; the closest relative of the late tsar was his second cousin Maria Staritskaya, who did not seem to be a noticeable figure in the calculations of the power groups. And the transfer of power through the female line was not accepted and understood then. Inheritance of rights only through the male line seemed indisputable. And since the male line was cut short, then, in terms of external dignity, the throne should have been taken by the one who was superior among the nobility in terms of real power. Boris Godunov, who was Tsar Fedor's brother-in-law, was crowned king. In fact, it was about the transfer of hereditary power through the king's sister.

Boris was supported by the Zemsky Sobor. It would seem that the legitimacy of the government has been respected, the opinion of the people has been taken into account. We can say that “democratic procedures” have been formally carried out. But this turned out to be not enough. The invisible agreement between the people and the authorities was broken. After all, Boris Godunov was not a blood relative of the Rurikovichs. He ruled, but his right to the throne seemed dubious to the common people and not confirmed by anything other than force. Which led to the spread of rumors about the miraculously saved Tsarevich Dmitry and to intrigues against Godunov by his opponents. The orientation of the new tsar to the West and the invitation of foreigners to serve in Russia played a significant role in this. The impostors who appeared, posing as Dmitry, relied either on foreign forces (Poland) or on resistance to them (militia).

Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich puts a gold chain on Boris Godunov (A. Kivshenko)

Tsar Boris himself understood that the Mstislavsky, Shuisky and other famous boyar families could compete with him in terms of the nobility of the family, and therefore in every possible way prevented their influence. Following a denunciation, he exiled and tonsured Fyodor Romanov and his wife as monks. (Which predetermined the negative attitude towards Godunov in the official historiography of the Romanov times). Towards the end of his reign, Godunov locked himself in the Kremlin chambers, refused to accept petitions and demanded that each family read a special prayer and raise a cup of health for the Tsar. Such an imposition of loyalty could not but cause discontent, turning into hatred.

Tsar Boris Fedorovich Godunov

In fact, all influential groups fighting for power acted as troublemakers during this period. Having no principle for resolving disputes over the rights to the throne, they were doomed to a bloody conflict. At the same time, the people also found themselves without the leadership role of the aristocracy and rushed between warring factions, not knowing which one to join.

The lean years contributed to the growth of distrust in government. Despite the fact that Tsar Boris established control over bread prices and opened the royal granaries for the starving. This turned out to be not enough. The boyars also showed distrust of the tsarist power and were in no hurry to share their stored grain with the people. This would be seen as support for Godunov, whose rights to the throne looked increasingly doubtful both in connection with the outbreak of unrest and uprisings of the peasants, and in connection with rumors about the salvation of Tsarevich Dmitry.

During several years of the Troubles, the struggle for power was at the same time a search for lost trust in power, a search for a legitimate ruler. At the same time, the key role began to be played not at all by the leaders of the boyar groups, but by impostors, in whom the common people saw a real king, and the noble intriguers saw a forceful seizure of power.

Historians have repeatedly noted that the appearance of impostors during the Time of Troubles has socio-psychological roots and is associated with the Russian character and the competition of groups vying for power. In fact, we see the same confusion among the people about “elections” that we see now. The impostor acted as the leader (most often imaginary) of one of the “parties”. They created the image of a king for him (they dressed him in magnificent clothes and arranged a magnificent ceremony), and the people were pleased with “election promises” and the distribution of gifts. The people supported one “party”, then another - depending on whether the next impostor succeeded in the “image” of the autocrat, and whether the retinue, made up of adventurers who dreamed of power and profit, was ready to testify to the authenticity of the royal dignity.

An impostor is a “nobody” in the full sense, a person without a biography who, from obscurity, strives to step to the highest level of the social hierarchy. Liberal democracy later turned imposture into a principle - people hitherto unknown to anyone become representatives of the people thanks to a successfully played role. These are political artists! The impostor of the Time of Troubles played the king, the modern politician plays the people's representative - deputy, mayor, president. What is important is not the result of the activity, but the consistency of the role. If society is not able to live apart from the impostor, then his role also involves cruelty: everyone who sees that the “king is naked” must be destroyed.

An impostor is always the product of not only unrest that has upset the people's self-awareness and the mission of power, but also external forces that use the impostor as a false attractive symbol, encouraging them to serve these forces. Lithuania, Poland, and Catholic Rome cherished dreams of putting Rus' under their control, implementing their own imperial projects, and turning Russian lands into their periphery.

The boyar “leaders”, the court “parties”, having given the people the opportunity to “elect a king”, could establish Boris Godunov or False Dmitry (whoever was more successful) on the throne. Or they could have brought the Polish prince Vladislav to the Russian throne - also on the principle of “electivity”. The principle of nationality, as soon as it was forgotten by the authorities, turned it into an instrument of the oligarchy, hiding behind one or another impostor.

Pyotr Basmanov, one of the most devoted associates of False Dmitry I, said: “ Although he is not the son of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, he is still our sovereign now. We accepted him and swore allegiance to him, and we will never find a better sovereign in Rus'.” Something similar was heard today: “There is no alternative to Yeltsin,” “they don’t change horses in midstream,” “we don’t have a better president.”

Oath of False Dmitry I to the Polish King Sigismund III for the introduction of Catholicism in Russia (N. Nevrev, 1874)

False Dmitry I turned out to be a fugitive monk Gregory, nicknamed Otrepiev, from the Nelidov family, who came from Lithuania. Having lost his father early, Yuri (Grigory) was raised by his mother and sent to serve in Moscow with Mikhail Nikitich Romanov. During Godunov's massacre of the Romanovs, fleeing repression, Gregory became a monk. Once in the Chudov Monastery, he was engaged in copying books and was hired as a scribe to the “sovereign Duma.” According to the denunciation, Gregory was supposed to be captured and exiled to a remote monastery, but the king’s will was not fulfilled: the monk fled to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where he declared himself the saved Tsarevich Dmitry, received recognition and salary from King Sigismund, as well as the right to recruit mercenary troops. In exchange for a promise to give Poland a large piece of Russian land with Smolensk and support the spread of Catholicism in Rus'.

“Agents of Dmitry the Pretender kill the son of Boris Godunov” (K. Makovsky, 1862)

In his escape, the impostor clearly used the help of Godunov’s opponents. There is reason to believe that Otrepiev was personally acquainted with Patriarch Job and many of the Duma boyars. That Gregory was preparing to be not only a monk is evidenced by his ability to ride a horse and wield a saber, as well as his European education. The impostor’s courage was predetermined by his confidence in the support of the anti-Godunov forces and his personal hypnotic influence on the crowd.

At the head of a small detachment of Polish mercenaries and Sich Cossacks, False Dmitry I moved towards Moscow. And his plan worked. Along the route of the detachment, he turned into a large army, and the cities, one after another, surrendered to him and swore allegiance. Not only the “black people”, but also the local nobility went over to the side of the impostor. The army sent by Godunov was defeated at Novgorod Seversky, despite a significant numerical advantage. Near the village of Dobynichi, the Moscow army nevertheless defeated the impostor’s troops, skillfully using artillery. The defeat was also due to a quarrel between the Pretender and the Polish mercenaries, most of whom went back to the Polish border.

The victory did not bring relief from the impostor. Terror against the population who swore allegiance to False Dmitry embittered him, and the Moscow nobility split. The impostor was allowed to go to Putivl, where, under the protection of the Don and Sich Cossacks, he began to gather strength again. The death of Boris Godunov in 1605 gave new impetus to the adventure. Muscovites, with the support and approval of the boyars, plundered the palace, killed the heir, Tsar Fyodor Godunov, his wife and mother, and carried the body of Boris Godunov out of the Archangel Cathedral “for desecration.”

The last minutes of the life of False Dmitry I (Carl Wenig, 1879)

Vasily IV Shuisky

The impostor established himself in the Kremlin and began to pursue an independent policy. But rumors about his true origin were already circulating among the people. Less than a year had passed since Vasily Shuisky organized merchants and service people to rebel against False Dmitry I and the Polish presence in Moscow. The rebels cut down the impostor with swords and halberds. His body was subjected to “trade execution” - for three days it lay in the mud in the middle of the market on Red Square and was subjected to abuse, and then was buried. Posthumous rumors that “the earth does not accept” the corpse of the impostor and that over the grave “the demons glorify my undressing”, the body was dug up, burned, and the ashes were shot from a cannon towards Poland.

After the overthrow of False Dmitry I on May 19, 1606, Vasily Shuisky was elevated to the Russian throne. Like most of the highest aristocrats, Shuisky was a Rurikovich. Additional advantages in birth were given to him by his relationship with the older branch, a descendant of Alexander Nevsky. But his authority was fragile. There were many equal in nobility to Shuisky, and Shuisky’s glory was only in the rumors about his torment in the dungeons of the impostor. True, the same impostor pardoned Shuisky and did not take his life. In fact, we see the same path to the throne as in the case of Godunov - a forceful seizure of power, which only for a short period of time could seem expedient and useful for the state. But Shuisky’s reign was short-lived - it did not stop the Troubles, nor did it stop the emergence of new impostors.

The fashion for imposture gave rise to adventures, such as the “appointment” by the Cossacks of “Tsarevich Peter” - the imaginary son of Fyodor Ivanovich. In 1607, Ileika Gorchakov, who was familiar with the life of the capital, was chosen from his circle and gathered an army to seek the favor of the sovereign (False Dmitry I), but the place on the throne was already taken by Vasily Shuisky. The armies of False Peter and the governor of “Tsar Dmitry” approached Moscow, but were defeated. The rebels, famous for their cruelty, were also mercilessly destroyed by Shuisky’s supporters. The remnants of the defeated forces were besieged in Tula.

At the same time, False Dmitry II appeared on the Russian-Polish border - a puppet of Polish adventurers, who selected for the role of “tsar” a man who looked similar to False Dmitry I. The new impostor moved with an army of Poles and Cossacks to help False Peter. But I didn’t have time. Tula was surrendered by starving rebels, their leaders were executed.

In 1608, False Dmitry II tried to get close to Moscow again and settled in Tushino along with a multi-tribal mass of adventurers, which is why he received the name Tushinsky Thief. Around Moscow and in the surrounding lands, mass robberies of the population began, carried out by Polish mercenaries and the rabble that joined them, led by Polish governors. Boyar groups were distributed between Moscow and the Tushino camp. The forces opposing Shuisky preferred to recognize the impostor and even formed a Duma under him. The real power was held by Pan Roman Rozhinsky.

In September 1609, the Polish king Sigismund III decided that Moscow was already finished, the impostors had fulfilled their role, and moved his troops to Rus', besieging Smolensk. Another reason for the invasion was Shuisky's alliance with Sweden against Poland. One way or another, a new player appeared on the scene, confusing the plans of the impostor. Tushin's forces began to flow into Sigismund's camp, False Dmitry II fled to Kaluga, where he intended to sit out until new conditions for a march to Moscow developed. Paradoxically, anti-Polish, patriotic forces began to gather around him, who subsequently actively participated in the First and Second Militia.

Shuisky, as Tsar Vasily IV, had even less rights to the throne than Boris Godunov. In fact, he was an impostor, a self-proclaimed king. The reason for the collapse of Shuisky’s power was brutal reprisals against his opponents and the common people, a break with the Romanovs and their leader, Metropolitan Filaret, as well as with other boyar groups. But the main reason for the collapse was illegitimate power, illegal in the eyes of the people.

After the defeat of Shuisky's troops from the Poles in 1610 near Mozhaisk, the troops of Tushinsky Thief approached Moscow and captured the Pafnutyev-Borovsky Monastery. The imminent collapse prompted the nobles to forcibly remove Vasily Shuisky from the throne and tonsure him as a monk, and then hand him over to the Poles to die. An unthinkable situation arose: Russian forces were divided between the impostor and the interventionists. Both were undoubtedly troublemakers.

Against Vor, the Moscow Boyar Duma tried to use the alliance with the Poles - it concluded an agreement on calling Prince Vladislav to the Russian throne. The Moscow “lower classes,” on the contrary, hoped for the impostor as a force directed against the Poles. The advance of False Dmitry II on Moscow was stopped by inviting the Polish army of Hetman Zholkiewski to the capital. The boyars were ready to recognize Vladislov and even approved the minting of coins with his image. The priesthood was already offering prayers to the new ruler. But King Sigismund preferred territorial acquisitions - the capture of Smolensk - to Moscow intrigues. Therefore, Vladislav never appeared in Moscow.

Meanwhile, the Kaluga camp of the impostor began to crumble: the nobility, seeking power and wealth, again began to move to Moscow, replenishing the pro-Polish “party”. The impostor was killed during a hunt by the Nogai prince. But then claims to the throne were made by the new impostor False Dmitry III, who managed to capture Pskov, as well as by the son of False Dmitry II, to whom the cities of the Ryazan land swore allegiance.

A decisive victory over the impostors became possible as a result of the formation of a people's militia led by Prince Dmitry Pozharsky, who called for not recognizing the impostors. But in order for the mood of the people to swing towards the formation of an independent Russian government, the feat of Patriarch Hermogenes was needed, who, perhaps, was the first to understand that the power of foreigners would place a heavy burden on Russian Orthodox people. And he began to send out calls throughout the country for the expulsion of the Poles. There was no longer any faith in secular rulers, so in the squares the Russian people were ready to listen only to the messages of Hermogenes. They were rewritten and distributed everywhere. This is what restored the idea of ​​state sovereignty and sovereign autocratic power in the minds of the people.

“Patriarch Hermogenes in prison refuses to sign the letter of the Poles” (P. Chistyakov, 1860)

The role of the merchant Kuzma Minin - a true national hero - in the formation of the militia was to take upon himself the sin of violence against wealthy Nizhny Novgorod residents, who were in no hurry to help the people who flocked to Pozharsky’s leadership. Minin and people elected by the people captivated the wives and children of the rich, who were trying to stay away from the popular movement and not spend money on the formation of Russian power. Wives and children were put up for sale as slaves, and money was found for ransom from the rich. As a result, the militia was armed and organized.

The militia's campaign against Moscow in November 1612 was successful: the Poles were expelled. Vasily Shuisky had died in Poland by that time, Patriarch Hermogenes was tortured to death by starvation in Polish dungeons in Moscow. It would seem that Pozharsky had every reason to take responsibility for the country and, following the path of Godunov and Shuisky, force the nobility and priesthood to proclaim him the new king. But in this case, the turmoil would continue.

Dmitry Pozharsky renounced his claims to supreme power. And thus he accomplished the greatest feat of self-denial, which saved the country from subsequent unrest, which was inevitable if Pozharsky began to rule as a tsar. Many believed that he would not forgive the former supporters of the impostors who had defected to the militia. Settling scores between the boyar factions, each of which was to blame for the Troubles, would not lead to peace. Pozharsky understood this, and for this reason he should be considered one of the main heroes who ensured the overcoming of the Time of Troubles. According to his dignity, we must value him above the self-proclaimed reigning Godunov and Shuisky - on a par with the most famous Russian sovereigns.

The election of sixteen-year-old Mikhail Romanov as tsar in March 1613, who was not involved in the struggle for power, resolved all disputes about power. The figure of the young tsar symbolized liberation from imposture and deadly battles for power between boyar factions, as well as forgiveness of mutual grievances between them.

Mikhail Romanov was a relative of Tsar Ivan the Terrible through his first wife Anastasia, who bears the shadow of the atrocities of the guardsmen and the royal servants in the later periods of his reign. Mikhail Romanov's grandfather was Anastasia's brother. In addition, the Romanov family suffered greatly from Boris Godunov, who saw in him many competitors in the struggle for power. The father of the future tsar Fyodor Nikitich Romanov, as already mentioned, was separated from his family, forcibly tonsured a monk and imprisoned in a monastery under the name of Philaret.

Mikhail I Fedorovich Romanov

The vicissitudes of the Time of Troubles affected the Romanovs both with favors from impostors and with punishments. False Dmitry I granted Philaret the rank of Metropolitan of Rostov, and his brother Ivan Romanov the boyar rank. Then Filaret found himself on the side of Vasily Shuisky, but was captured by False Dmitry II, who persuaded him to act together and even become a patriarch. Then, when both Shuisky and False Dmitry II left the forefront of history, Filaret headed a delegation that went to Poland with persuasion to give Vladislav to the Russian throne (with his adoption of the Orthodox religion), but found himself in captivity there, and therefore could not influence Moscow affairs .

We see a return of the situation to what it was under Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich - a kind of retrograde movement in Russian history. The first Romanov, with his obvious weakness, but at the same time his innocence, was an analogue of the “weak-willed” Fyodor - the last direct descendant of Rurik. We see the embodiment in Russian history of the biblical principle: The power of God is accomplished in weakness. In the weakness of the ruler before the boyar groups, the Will of God was accomplished: the Russian state received a foundation - legitimate power. The conciliar oath of allegiance to the new dynasty, taken in 1613 at the Zemsky Sobor by all classes, became the Russian “constitution”, the basis for state building and the consolidation of society for three hundred years. It was trampled by the impostors of the 20th century, from whom we have not yet completely gotten rid of.

As for the troublemakers-impostors, characters like the False Dmitry or the False Peter operate in power today, allowing detachments of foreign robbers and gangs of home-grown robbers to roam throughout Rus'. And this will continue until legitimate power is restored, inheriting from previous generations the state tradition of relations between rulers and people. Until people like the ascetic Hermogenes and the hero Pozharsky rise up against the Troubles and troublemakers. They will create a power that follows the invisible laws of God, and not human arbitrariness, looking for great rulers who, in fact, are not capable of state building.

Minor Troubles

Peter the Great continued the reform efforts of his father, multiplying them with the violence of his nature, which became the reason for both his reckless exaltation and criticism of his personality and the results of his reign. There is no doubt that it was Peter’s nature that brought confusion into the state and gave rise to troublemaking.

The very beginning of Peter’s reign is associated with the so-called “small troubles” - the Khovanshchina. His half-brother Fyodor Alekseevich, who inherited the throne at the age of fifteen after the death of Alexei Mikhailovich in 1676, ruled quietly and briefly and died in 1682 childless. This moment became a cause for confusion. The fact is that behind Fyodor Alekseevich stood his mother’s clan - the Miloslavskys, and behind Pyotr Alekseevich - the clan of his mother, the Naryshkins. If the transfer of power from father to son was perceived by these groups as natural and legitimate, then the transfer of power from brother to half-brother meant a possible change in the persons who determined the will of power on behalf of the young king. Therefore, at the funeral of Fyodor Alekseevich, his sister Princess Sophia staged a political performance. It was provoked by Peter's supporters - Patriarch Joachim, who used the Zemsky Council that was taking place at that time, which continued the previous reforms - the equalization of rights by class, but played a role in securing Peter's rights to the throne. The council proclaimed Peter king. In response, Sophia spread a rumor that Tsar Fedor had been poisoned. The archers, the only military force in Moscow that played the ambiguous role of the Roman Praetorian Guard, responded to the call for rebellion: they demanded special treatment and special salaries.

“A scene from the history of the Streltsy revolt. Ivan Naryshkin falls into the hands of the rebels" (Sagittarius drags Ivan Naryshkin out of the palace. While Peter I consoles his mother, Princess Sophia watches with satisfaction) (A. I. Korzukhin, 1882)

On April 30, 1682, the archers burst into the Kremlin demanding that the Naryshkins pay their debts on salaries (and due to the difficult military situation, they were paid irregularly) and eliminate unwanted colonels. The young tsar (or rather the Naryshkins) had to agree to the terms of the Streltsy ultimatum. On May 15, the archers again break into the Kremlin - under the pretext of widespread rumors that Peter’s older brother Ivan was strangled by the Naryshkins. Tsarina Natalya Naryshkina is forced to go out onto the Red Porch with her children. But this turned out to be not enough: in the hands of the archers they found lists of undesirables who should have been given to them. Shouts were heard from the crowd for Peter to hand over the crown to his older brother, who in reality could not rule due to mental illness. The atrocities and murders that began lasted for several days.

“Streltsy Riot” (Tsarina Natalya Kirillovna shows Ivan V to the Streltsy to prove that he is alive and well) (N. D. Dmitriev-Orenburgsky, 1862)

In fact, power in Moscow was seized by the Miloslavskys. They could only question Peter's royal status. The head of the Streletsky Prikaz, Prince Khovansky, took the initiative for the joint reign of Peter and Ivan. Under the threat of a Streltsy rebellion, the Boyar Duma and the Consecrated Council named Ivan Tsar, and Peter got the role of Tsar-Co-ruler. A week later, it was announced that due to the youth of both kings, Princess Sophia would rule on their behalf, then the troublemakers were given letters of commendation, and a pillar was erected on Red Square with the names of the killed “villains” - the murder was declared heroic.

So, relying on the archers, the Miloslavskys established control over power. And they immediately suppressed the uprising of the peasants, who decided to use the unrest in order to achieve for themselves some relief from state duties. The state tradition had already taken root, and the struggle around the throne did not cancel the order established by Alexei Mikhailovich. They were accepted by the ruling strata, but had not yet fully taken root among the people. Therefore, the crowning of Ivan and Peter according to the new church rite was used by supporters of the old rite to organize unrest. Under pressure from schismatics, a “debate about faith” took place in the Kremlin’s Faceted Chamber in the presence of the Patriarch and Princess Sophia. Mutual insults reached the point that the Old Believers demanded that Sophia renounce power and go to a monastery. The expectation that the archers would support the unrest did not materialize in this case. The next day, the leader of the Old Believers, the Suzdal priest Nikita Pustosvyat (the nickname for Father Nikita was given by Patriarch Joachim when he ran out of arguments) was executed, and the rest of the participants in the “debate” were captured and exiled. Later, in April 1682, the recognized leader of the Old Believers, Avvakum Kondratiev, was executed, having cursed the state and church authorities for betraying the old faith.

“Nikita Pustosvyat. Dispute about faith" (“debate about faith” July 5, 1682 in the Faceted Chamber in the presence of Patriarch Joachim and Princess Sophia) (V. Perov, 1881)

The Streltsy turmoil, which made Sophia the ruler of the kingdom, now overwhelmed her too. Prince Khovansky incited the archers to demand the collection of a one-time tax from the palace volosts in favor of the archers. The Boyar Duma refused to do this. Under the threat of rebellion, the Tsar's court and boyars fled from Moscow to the protection of the monastery walls. The New Year celebration on September 1, 1682 did not include the usual celebrations. Princess Sophia from the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery announced the gathering of a militia against the rebel archers. Father and son Khovansky were summoned by the queen to Kolomenskoye, where they were captured and immediately executed. The archers took refuge behind the walls of the Kremlin. But without a leader, they could not withstand the confrontation for long. Sophia returned to Moscow with the regiments of the “foreign system” and the militia, satisfied with the petition from the archers. An attempt to start new unrest among the Streltsy was quickly stopped: the new head of the Streletsky Prikaz, Duma clerk Shaklovity, executed the instigators, and sent those who showed concern to the “Ukrainian cities.” Sophia established herself in power for seven years, without thinking about any new reforms.

Prince Ivan Andreevich Khovansky

Why didn’t the Miloslavskys destroy Tsars Ivan and Peter and install their protege on the throne? It's all about the state tradition laid down by the Council Oath of 1613 and the reforms of Alexei Mikhailovich. Without a big war it was impossible to step over the succession to the throne. While the power of Ivan and Peter - the sons of Alexei Mikhailovich - was undisputed, most of the people remained calm, viewing boyar feuds as a matter of little importance. The army, which was built according to the best examples of European teachers, also remained motionless. If there was an encroachment on the royal power, she, having a numerical and qualitative superiority over the archers, would be able to punish the troublemakers. By that time, the Streltsy were no longer a full-fledged army - they were mainly engaged in trade and participated in the intrigues of the capital. Their fate was sealed by military reform, which was later accelerated by Tsar Peter.

The Miloslavskys had their last chance to prevent autocratic rule at the time of Peter’s sole accession to the throne. In 1689, Sophia's regency ended. Not only the elder Tsar Ivan, but also the younger Peter were already married, and Peter was 17 years old. The formal right to rule belonged to Peter, the real leadership belonged to Sophia, who placed her people in all significant positions. Mutual suspicion reached its limit when Peter was informed of the impending assassination attempt. Peter took refuge in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, where his amusing army also arrived, which had already become fully combat-ready. Patriarch Joachim, sent by Sophia to the Tsar, chose not to return. Peter demanded the Streltsy chiefs to come to him, threatening death in case of disobedience. Sophia responded by forbidding, on pain of death, traveling to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. Confusion began in Sophia's camp, and she decided to try to personally influence the young king. On the way, she and her guard were detained by archers, declaring that the king would not accept her, and any attempt to travel further would be met with the use of force.

In order to weaken the scattering of the camp of Sophia, who was reputed to be the continuer of the reformatory deeds and mentalities of the previous kings, Peter took on the image of a well-meaning and pious ruler who preferred traditionally Russian clothes and shunned foreigners. And he rewarded the boyars, streltsy chiefs and ordinary streltsy who came over to his side. He held long conferences with the boyars and the highest priesthood with great respect. And he showed everyone that now he seriously intended to become the Russian Tsar and leave the scandalous entertainments of the Preobrazhensky period.

Having secured the support of the majority of the boyars and lured the main military force to himself, Peter struck the next blow: he demanded that the archers hand over Sophia’s consistent supporter Shaklovity. And again he threatened with death for disobedience. The Streltsy demanded that Sophia hand over the head of the Streltsy order. She had to give in, and Shaklovity was taken to Trinity, where he was executed for organizing an assassination attempt on the Tsar. Having lost all support, Sophia was forced to obey Peter's order to move to the Novodevichy Convent, where she was kept in custody until the Streltsy riot of 1698, in which troublemakers named her as the legitimate ruler. After the rebellion was suppressed, Sophia was tonsured a nun and died in the monastery a few years later.

“The morning of the Streltsy execution” (Streletsky riot of 1698) (V. I. Surikov, 1881)

In the Lesser Time of Troubles, the principle of legitimacy of power prevailed over political power. What repeated itself was what led to long-term disasters in the first Time of Troubles - imposture. But in Lesser Troubles, imposture did not lead to the seizure of the throne. And only this preserved relative stability in the state and government. Troubles were not wanted by groups competing over power. They did not risk putting the fate of the country at stake - just to increase their chances of destroying their competitors. Therefore, the Lesser Troubles retreated by itself - over time. Which allows us to conclude that the principles of rule defined in 1613 turned out to be correct and beneficial for the country.

Raskolniki

Imposture is not only an attempt to occupy the royal throne, but an attempt to rise above it. This is what distinguishes church schismatics who fall away from the teachings of Christ and the Orthodox traditions of the relationship between the priesthood and the Kingdom.

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, who ascended the throne in 1645, unlike his father and predecessor, was prepared for reign, and therefore clearly understood the situation in Russia and the tasks facing it. Russia was still a loose and unstable state. This was largely determined by powerful external influences, which could at any moment call into question the very existence of the sovereign status of the power. But there were also internal unrest. On the one hand, it was Alexei Mikhailovich who realized the lag behind the technical development of Europe, and at the same time - weakness in military terms. On the other hand, there is the problem of heterogeneity of interpretations of issues of faith, which were presented differently in the Great Russian, Little Russian and primordial - Greek - traditions. Military and religious reform were an urgent need, but at the same time a risk. New troublemakers could take advantage of the difficult situation and use misunderstanding of the meaning of reforms as a weapon against the autocratic government.

Alexei Mikhailovich managed to carry out his reforms and lay the foundations for transforming Russia into a powerful empire. This great ruler suffered salt and copper riots, plague epidemics and crop failures, military failures and an empty treasury. All this was overcome by the fact that the legitimacy of the government and its actions was confirmed by Zemsky Councils. In 1648, the Zemsky Sobor adopted the Council Code - the foundation of Russian legislation for many years. In 1653, the Zemsky Sobor convened for the last time - it fulfilled its function: the power of the tsar became truly autocratic, that is, absolute within the framework of the spiritual and historical tradition (which was not the case in European absolute monarchies). Russian statehood was finally strengthened, and until now it did not need sanctions from the all-class legislative representation, expressing the “opinion of the land.”

Portrait of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (Unknown Russian artist of the second half of the 17th century)

Russia, in the understanding of people who are aware of its position in world history, can only exist as a great power. Or it will fall apart into many states and cease to be Russia. In conditions when the sovereignty and development of the country are called into question, this understanding requires super-mobilization - the transformation of the people into an army. Similarly, in ancient times, many peoples became invincible. But now the victory had to be embedded in the state mechanism itself, which would subsequently educate what we now call a “political nation” - a community of solidarity that reinforces the supreme power with the unity of its subjects. In fact, this is what made the Russians the best warriors for three centuries to come.

The tsar was able to carry out his reforms and suppress sedition and unrest only because he tied any activity of his subjects to public service. Everyone became “serfs.” Not slaves, but employees in state construction, attached to their service. The peasant was firmly tied to the land, and only this made it possible to allocate funds from his meager production to support the serving nobility. Which was also attached to military service. The townspeople's craft and trade population owed a "tax" - taxes that supported the treasury, and with it all state affairs. This is how a state machine was formed, which provided Russia with a powerful leap forward.

What remained was the priesthood - a class that had been independent from time immemorial, and from time immemorial had sought to interfere in state affairs, or even dictate to the rulers what to do and how to behave. The state reforms of Alexei Mikhailovich could not bypass the Church, which led to an outbreak of religious unrest, the consequences of which we still feel.

The new translation and correction of liturgical books, which was initiated by the joint efforts of the Tsar and Patriarch Nikon, could not meet with understanding among the church “lower classes,” and with them, among the common people, who followed spiritual leaders and symbols of faith, and not at all the texts, nuances of translation that people knew and did not understand. The union of the highest priesthood and the Kingdom dealt a blow to interpretations that were corrupting the integrity of the faith - illiterate interpretations of Scripture and ritual, as well as to imitations of the heretical European Renaissance found in iconography. At the same time, the arrogance and repressive nature of the reforms gave rise to turmoil and protest among religious ascetics, for whom any deviation from the ancient books, by that time already shrouded in religious experience, was perceived as blasphemy. The symbol of the schism was the question of “how to be baptized.” The difference between two and three fingers was eventually recognized by Patriarch Nikon as insignificant. But it was already too late: the schism tore apart Russian society, forming within it a surprisingly stable layer of Old Believers. And in the future, this layer played its role in new unrest - it took full “revenge” on the Romanov dynasty by supporting Bolshevik sedition.

Portrait of Patriarch Nikon with the clergy (D. Wuchters, 1660–1665)

In the history of the church schism, Patriarch Nikon, for all his merits and personal merits, turns out to be a troublemaker who tried to organize the Russian state on the principle of archaic and insignificant communities, where the priest towered over the leader of the tribe. What violated the main principle of imperial power: the ruler is the first priest. So it was in the Roman Empire, so it was in Byzantium.

But, judging by the available historical research, the spirit of the Troubles permeated the entire society. And it was necessary to strictly force the people to discipline and moral behavior. The authorities had to issue decrees banning shameless entertainment and swearing. Somewhere going too far, they decided to ban chess and swinging, and demanded that domras, harps and pipes be burned. Those who disobeyed were entitled to batogs and prison.

Order was also restored to church affairs, which were in complete disorder. The priesthood preferred to remain aloof from the worries of the state, receiving various benefits from it. The difficult and unsuccessful war with Poland required the mobilization of material and human forces. The king had to limit the benefits of the monasteries, imposing taxes on the priesthood and even mobilizing part of the expanded clergy for military work. Of course, the priesthood grumbled, and some bishops reached the point of verbal violence against the authorities. Patriarch Nikon also turned out to be one of the tough opponents of the authorities.

Nikon's personality is marked by a strong, sharp character. It would seem that the pious and gentle Alexei Mikhailovich should have come under his control. But the meek king showed his will and did not allow the patriarch to stand over the king. Believing that he would prevail in the confrontation, Nikon assumed the title of “great sovereign” - that is, the highest ruler, at least equal to the Tsar. Alexey Mikhailovich won this confrontation precisely with his gentleness and righteousness, and Nikon lost his dignity with constant scandals and conflicts.

The trial of Patriarch Nikon (S. D. Miloradovich, 1885)

The decline of church affairs was associated not only with the struggle for power, but also with the schism, which undermined the faith of the Russian people that the priesthood knew the truth. The old truths were refuted, their adherents were called ignorant, it was said about the Council of the Stoglavy that its resolution was “written unreasonably”, “an oath without reasoning and unjustly taken.” The Orthodox patriarchs, who came from Greece and did not know Russia, determined that the “unrighteous and reckless oath” should be destroyed, since it was based on “ignorant speculation.” Such a humiliation of Russian religiosity could not but affect the reputation of the priesthood - both those who ardently followed the reforms and those who opposed them. Official churchism seemed unrighteous; the secretly existing sects interpreted the fundamentals of faith, each in their own way. Only by the power of the Tsar was the Church saved from decay and disintegration.

The Church Council of 1666–1667 determined the primacy of the Sovereign and his primacy over the Patriarch. Which corresponded to the ancient tradition of relations between the priesthood and the Kingdom, coming from Byzantium: the Emperor, the Tsar, is the earthly head of the Church. This decision put an end to the church unrest and gave a principle, adherence to which prevented new unrest. At the same time, the affirmation of the ancient tradition was carried out in such a form that it rejected all those revelations that were considered unshakable before Nikon’s reforms. It turned out that the schism was mutual, and subsequent clarifications that all the decisions of the Council were directed not against two-fingered or other church customs, but against people who used different readings for schism, did not convince anyone. The split stuck in Russian history, giving rise to subsequent unrest.

* * *

The given introductory fragment of the book 1612. Minin and Pozharsky. Overcoming Troubles (A. N. Savelyev, 2013) provided by our book partner -