Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

State educational institution of higher professional education "Kamchatka State Pedagogical University named after Vitus Bering"

Department of History of Russia and Foreign Countries

Russian Orthodox Church in the XIV-XV centuries.

test

on the history of Russia

female students

socio-economic faculty

2 courses, gr. Out-0911

Kisilenko Irina Valerievna

Checked:

Ilyina Valentina Alexandrovna,

Associate Professor of the Department of History of Russia and Foreign Countries,

Candidate of Historical Sciences

Petropavlovsk - Kamchatsky 2010

Plan

Introduction

I. The role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the unification of Russia in the XIV-XV centuries

1.1 The appearance in Russia of prominent church figures, beacons of morality and patriotism

1.2 Support by the church of the grand-ducal power as a strong defense of Orthodoxy and a leader in the fight against the hated Horde

II. The role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the political life of Russia in the XIV-XV centuries

2.1 Clashes between secular and spiritual authorities during the formation of a single state

2.2 The Orthodox Church as an inspirer in the struggle for the independence of Russia

Conclusion

List of sources and literature

Introduction

Having experienced a flourishing in the XI-XII centuries, Russia disintegrated into many principalities and after the Batu invasion it lost its national independence. Two centuries passed before the Moscow princes managed to unite the Russian lands and put an end to foreign oppression. And, of course, the Orthodox Church played an invaluable role in the revival of the people and their statehood.

Kievan Rus' of Moscow left a great legacy: majestic church churches and the richest monastic libraries that stored both translated Greek and original Russian manuscripts. Outstanding figures of the church took part in the compilation of the annals, lives, legends, which had a profound influence on the development of the spiritual culture of Russia as a whole. In fact, during this difficult period, the church was an institution of government and sanctified the order of the feudal state.

In the vast expanse of the East European Plain, where several million inhabitants of Rus lived, who were mainly engaged in agriculture, the role of the church was determined by the fact that it united its long-suffering people with a single faith.

The church hierarchy was organized according to the secular type. Boyars and armed servants served the Metropolitan. The Church possessed large land resources and participated in the political life of the country. She exerted an even greater influence on the moral and spiritual life of society. The church organization had, as it were, two faces, facing in different directions. The princes of the church were as close to the feudal elite of society as the parish priests were close to the people. Not a single important step in a person's life was complete without the participation of the clergy. Marriage, birth and christening, fasting and holidays, death and funeral - in this circle of life everything was done under the guidance of spiritual shepherds. In the church, people prayed for the most vital - deliverance from ailments, salvation from natural disasters, pestilence and hunger, for the expulsion of foreign conquerors.

In the XIV century, the Russian Church found itself, as it were, in a double subordination. Byzantium was still in charge of the affairs of the Russian metropolis. Russian metropolitans were appointed primarily from the Greeks. All appointments to the highest ecclesiastical posts in Russia went through Constantinople, which brought considerable income to the patriarchal treasury. At the same time, the church was subject to the authority of the Golden Horde. The domination of the Mongol conquerors brought disaster and ruin to the Russian people. And amid all these strife, internecine strife, general savagery and Tatar men, the church reminded the people of its former greatness, called for repentance and heroism. "The Lord made us great," wrote Bishop Serapion in 1275, "but by our disobedience we have transformed ourselves into insignificant ones."

The Golden Horde perfectly understood the importance of the Church in the life of Russia, and therefore, instead of persecuting the Orthodox clergy, its rulers freed the Church from tributes and declared its estates inviolable. Like princes, Russian metropolitans had to travel to the khan's headquarters for labels confirming the rights of the church.

At the decisive moment, the saints blessed the people for the Battle of Kulikovo, but their blessing, firstly, was legendary, and secondly, "an atypical episode, uncharacteristic for the allied line with the Horde held by the Russian metropolitanate." The political doctrine of church hierarchs, according to the same concept, was determined by the constant desire to put Russia on the rails of theocratic development, that is, "to lead the Russian Church to victory over secular power." In this work, we will try to find out how solid these conclusions are.

The main task of our work is to find out what role the church played in the political history of Russia in the XIV-XV centuries.

The goals of our work: to show the role of the church in the revival of the spirituality of the people and its statehood, as well as to show the merits of the outstanding figures of the church in the development of the spiritual culture of the people, who at the cost of their own lives inspired the people to feat in the name of the independence of the motherland. Later, thanks to all these factors, in the 15th century with the formation of a single state, the country gained national independence.

The role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the life of Russia in the period of the XIV-XV centuries is described in detail by R.G. Skrynnikov.

The book is dedicated to the turning points in Russian history from the Battle of Kulikovo to the Time of Troubles. It examines the role of the clergy in these events, reveals the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical authorities. Choosing a biographical genre, the author gives vivid biographies of prominent church leaders in Russia.

N.M. Nikolsky in his book "History of the Russian Church" sheds light on the history of the Russian Church in historical science. The book traces the history of the origin of religion and atheism.

The prominent Soviet scientist A.I. Klibanov. The author critically analyzes the attempts of theologians to embellish the past of Russian Orthodoxy, to present it as the sole custodian of historical and cultural traditions.

P.V. Znamensky tells in great detail and interestingly about the history of the Russian Church. in his book "History of the Russian Church". The author tells in detail on the pages of the book about the origins of Christianity in Russia, about the ways of formation and development of Orthodoxy throughout the vast state, about close interaction and disagreements between secular and spiritual authorities. The book covers the activities of the metropolitans, leaders of large monasteries, who provided powerful support to the grand dukes and were engaged in educational activities.

Now let's start our exploration.

I ... The role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the unification of Russia in X IV - XV centuries

1.1 The appearance in Russia of prominent church figures, beacons of morality and patriotism

The Russian Orthodox Church played an important role in the unification of the Russian lands around Moscow, in the struggle of Russia against foreign invaders. This was expressed in the fact that church leaders - metropolitans, leaders of large monasteries provided powerful moral support to the Moscow princes, spared no money on organizing the Russian army, inspired Russian princes, governors, ordinary soldiers to defend their native lands.

It is no coincidence that the emergence of church leaders, enlighteners and clergymen who, by their own example of life and work, encouraged the Russian people to consolidate and heroic deeds, in the name of liberation from foreign invaders.

Thus, Metropolitan Peter, the first to move to Moscow, and his successors provided great support to Moscow in its unifying efforts. Their activities were inextricably linked with the activities of Ivan Kalita and his sons. Metropolitan Alexy (about 1293-1378) stood next to Dmitry Ivanovich when he took the parental throne as a boy. He supported Dmitry in all his patriotic affairs. He was an intelligent, educated person with a strong character. And at the same time he was distinguished by piety and modesty in his personal life. Alexy was a real shepherd of human souls. Metropolitan Alexy used the authority of the church to prevent princely strife in Nizhny Novgorod. The head of the church tried to influence the warring members of the Nizhny Novgorod - Suzdal dynasty, using the mediation of the Suzdal Bishop Alexy. When Alexy refused to fulfill the will of the head of the church, the latter resorted to decisive action. He announced the withdrawal of Nizhny Novgorod and Gorodets from the bishopric and took the name of the city under his control. Soon the Suzdal bishop lost his see. There is information that the Metropolitan sent a personal emissary, Abbot Sergius, to Nizhny, who closed all the churches in the city.

When the Russian - Lithuanian war threatened to finally split the all - Russian church, the leadership of the universal Orthodox church resolutely sided with Moscow. In 1370, Patriarch Philotheus confirmed the decree "that the Lithuanian land should not be deposited or separated from the power and spiritual administration of the Metropolitan of Kiev under any guise" (Alexy).

In June of the same year, at the height of the Russian - Lithuanian war, the patriarch addressed extensive messages to Metropolitan Alexei and the Russian princes. Philotheus fully approved of Alexei's activities and advised him to continue to turn to Constantinople for church and state affairs in view of the fact that the Russian "great and numerous people" also requires great care: he "depends entirely on you (Metropolitan Alexy. - RS) and therefore try as much as you can to teach and instruct him in everything. "

1960 - At the request of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, Archbishop Hermogen (Golubev) was removed from the administration of the Tashkent and Central Asian Diocese.

Vladyka courageously defended the Church, preventing the closure of parishes in his diocese.

The council accused him of "taking over the functions of religious societies for the repair and protection of prayer buildings, creating a special apparatus under the diocesan administration, headed by a civil engineer." In the decree on the dismissal of the bishop, a peculiar formulation was used: not “to retire,” as usual, but “with the granting of leave for him,” the period of which, however, was not limited by the Synod. The leave lasted until June 1962, when Vladyka Ermogen was appointed to the Omsk cathedra. His Holiness the Patriarch and the members of the Synod highly appreciated this archpastor, and his popularity among lay believers was great.

Thus, the cleansing of the episcopate was not limited to the elimination of Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich). In March 1960, Archbishop Job (Kresovich) was removed from the administration of the Kazan diocese and dismissed. He traveled to towns and villages and urged his flock to stand firm for the temples of God, not to allow the abolition of parish communities. Archbishop Job was arrested and charged with hiding income and tax evasion. In June 1960, the Supreme Court of the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic sentenced him to imprisonment and confiscation of property for non-payment of taxes on the so-called "representative sums", which, according to the law, were not subject to taxation. It was just an excuse, and Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich) did not hide this in his conversation with Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein) of Brussels: “Archbishop Job offered to pay everything that was demanded of him. Nevertheless, he was sentenced to three years! " Ten years later, Vladyka Job himself, who at that time occupied the Ufa See, told the same Archbishop Vasily: “You know, when I went to prison, everyone abandoned me, everyone disowned me ... They were frightened. Metropolitan Nicholas alone was not frightened. Both before the trial and after the conviction, he supported me as much as he could, he wrote to me. He is alone! "

1965 September 15 - December 7 - The fourth session of the Second Vatican Council was held in Rome.

From May 30 to June 15, Bishop John of Willebrands of Maurian and Fr. Peter Dupre was in the Soviet Union. During their visit, they visited Moscow, Yerevan, Echmiadzin, Tbilisi, Kiev, Pskov, Leningrad.

The main purpose of Bishop Willebrands' visit was to convey an invitation to the Russian Church from Cardinal Bea, Chairman of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, to the participation of our observers in the work of the fourth session of the Second Vatican Council.

A positive decision on this issue was given in the definition of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of August 5, 1965:

"1. To appoint Professor Archpriest Vitaly Borovoy and Archimandrite Yuvenaly (Poyarkov) as observers of the Moscow Patriarchate at the fourth session of the Second Vatican Council.

2. Observers at the fourth session of the Second Vatican Council, as in the past sessions, systematically make reports to the Right Reverend Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations, who will inform the Holy Synod about the work of the Second Vatican Council. Observers receive instructions from him regarding their positions and activities. "

The emphasis on obligatory reporting in the Synod's definition is primarily due to the tension that the Orthodox had after the decisions of the third session of the Council.

In total, 11 schemes were adopted at the fourth session of the Council, which received final approval as 2 Constitutions, 6 decrees and 3 declarations (all in all, 4 Constitutions, 9 decrees and 3 declarations were adopted at the Second Vatican Council). Constitutions had a doctrinal (doctrinal) significance for the Roman Catholic Church.

Conciliar decrees, while not bearing doctrinal significance, were rather of practical importance. As for the declarations, they were statements of the Council on certain issues that did not have a primary doctrinal character.

All observers present at the Council noted the fact that, leaving the individual and the community the right to seek, choose and accept faith, the Roman Catholic Church defended the principle of finding the truth only in herself: “For by the will of Christ, the Catholic Church is a teacher in truth, and her duty is to proclaim the Truth, which is Christ, to teach her authentically and at the same time with her power to proclaim and affirm moral principles that flow from human nature itself. "

For the Orthodox world, the Second Vatican Council became a significant milestone in the history of relations with Catholicism. Previously, this relationship was either absent or hostile. Over the centuries, the Catholic Church has carried out extensive proselytizing work, trying to subordinate the Orthodox Churches to its influence. The Second Vatican Council changed the situation. The goals of the Roman Church remained the same, but the methods and tactics were adapted to modern conditions. Hence - the creation of the Secretariat for unity, the solemn conciliar recognition of the reality of the Orthodox hierarchy, the apostolic succession and the Sacraments of the Orthodox. Throughout all four sessions of the Council, the pope's speeches, discussions and resolutions emphasized an ardent love for Orthodoxy, acknowledgment of its historical merits and even partial correctness in observing ancient Christian traditions and a special place that the Orthodox occupy in the history of the Church and at the present time as the closest of the "separated brothers." This special emphasis and emphasized advantage over the Protestants indicated, first of all, the main direction of the future activities of the Vatican in relation to the Orthodox. Rome by any means will try to separate the Orthodox from the alliance with the Protestants and bring them closer to itself. This is possible because most of the Orthodox Churches existed in states dominated by atheistic ideology. As for the Eastern Patriarchates, they experienced constant pressure from the surrounding Muslim world. The Greek Church was the only one among the Orthodox Churches enjoying the support of the state, but her internal problems did not allow her to take a leading position in the Orthodox world.

There was also Constantinople. He always had primacy among the Orthodox Churches, and this was used by Patriarch Athenagoras to increase his prestige. The Russian Church in this "Khrushchev" period of its existence could resist Constantinople as it did in the post-war decade. The situation of Patriarch Athenagoras himself in Turkey was also extremely difficult. Until 1917, the Russian Empire defended and protected Orthodoxy in the East and especially in Constantinople by its might.

The East was looking for help. The United States could have provided it, but as a military ally of Turkey, they did not want to lose such an ideal strategic base and spoil relations with Turkey. The World Council of Churches could help morally by influencing public opinion. And then Patriarch Athenagoras chooses Rome as an allies. The Catholic Church is strong, it successfully influences public opinion and international organizations headed by the UN, can use diplomatic channels to put pressure on the Turkish government and force it to make concessions in relation to the Church of Constantinople. An alliance is formed: "Constantinople - Rome". In this alliance, the Vatican can serve Constantinople with its power, support and protection, and Constantinople is ready to use its historical primacy in the Orthodox world in order to draw along other Orthodox Churches along its path to Rome. On this basis, all the events of the described time unfolded, and this became the main direction of Roman policy towards the Orthodox in the coming decades.

The path to rapprochement with Rome was difficult for the Patriarchate of Constantinople. During the preparation of the Second Vatican Council, Patriarch Athenagoras still hoped for Greece as a guarantor in the conflict with Turkey. Given the opposition of the Greeks to the Catholic Church, he did not even send his observers to the first session of the Second Vatican Council, although he wanted to do so and persuaded others, including the Russian Church. (Our observers were brought to Rome by the pressure of the Khrushchev leadership.) As soon as the pressure of the Turks on the Patriarchate of Constantinople increased from the second session, which turned into direct persecution of Patriarch Athenagoras, he decided to seek protection from a more reliable ally than Greece and the WCC. Rome became it. And then everything becomes clear: both the proclamation of a dialogue with Rome on Rhodes, and the sending of observers from Constantinople to the Council, and the appointment of the "personal representative" of Patriarch Athenagoras in Rome, and the visits to Rome of Metropolitans Athenagoras of Thyatira from London and Meliton of Iliopolis and Chrysostomus of Myra from Constantinople (chairman and secretary of the Rhodes conferences), and the emergence of the question of lifting the anathemas of 1054.

When Rome and Constantinople acted, the rest of the Orthodox Churches were silent. This silence was a very important proof that Patriarch Athenagoras acts on behalf of all Orthodox Christians as their head and spokesman for common opinion. The Vatican knew the position of the Russian Church: it was clearly stated by our observers through Willebrands. But at the same time, it was perceived as an unofficial opinion, which can be known, but which does not have to be reckoned with. If this opinion were expressed by all Orthodox Churches at their pan-Orthodox conference, then Patriarch Athenagoras would not have been able to act as he did.

For Paul VI, the lifting of the anathemas of 1054 was also a winning one. This beautiful act blocked both the compromise of many council decisions and the lack of courage of most of its decisions. The Pope began his conciliar activity with a meeting with the Patriarch of Constantinople in Jerusalem and ended the Council with a concrete act - “reconciliation” between Christians.

Nevertheless, the most important lesson of the Second Vatican Council for Orthodoxy was the need for like-mindedness and unity of the Orthodox Churches, so that Constantinople would not have the right to administer Orthodox affairs alone.

As for contacts with Moscow, Rome will try to carry them out through the mediation of Constantinople, while assuring that he wants to deal with all of Orthodoxy. There will be talks that, knowing the importance of pan-Orthodox unity and harmony, the Vatican advises Patriarch Athenagora to consult with all Orthodox Churches before each of his unilateral actions. And if this does not happen, then the Russian Church will express regret about the "disorganization" and "spontaneity" of the actions of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Friendly contacts with the Russian Church will be maintained, high assessments of the activities of our hierarchs will sound, who will not commit to anything. All business contacts will be conducted only through Constantinople. Further events will confirm the correctness of these forecasts, the Russian Church will do everything possible to oppose the alliance of Rome and Constantinople.

One of the important consequences of the Second Vatican Council for the Russian Church was the activation of Catholics in the USSR. On the one hand, the Vatican, and on the other, the "Soviet" Catholics themselves, will make cautious efforts to normalize their activities. And a lot has already been achieved in the course of the Council's work: the trip of Lithuanian and Latvian Catholics to the meetings of the Council, the pilgrimage from Lithuania and the reception of pilgrims by the Pope (second session), the appointment of a bishop for Latvia (third session), the consecration in Rome of a new bishop for Lithuania (fourth session ). There were open conversations in Rome about a Catholic bishop in Moscow, projects for the revival of Catholic churches in Kiev and other cities where there is a significant number of Catholic believers. And the discussion of these issues proceeded without any official negotiations with the Soviet leadership.

All this could not but worry the Russian Orthodox Church. But the main events after the Council could unfold in Ukraine, in its western regions. It was clear: a significant part of the former Uniate clergy, who had not been reunited with Orthodoxy, and a certain number of "secret Uniates", as well as open adherents of the Union, would begin active activities to legalize Catholics and Uniates in Ukraine. Information will be spread about the imminent formation of the "Kiev Patriarchate", about Slipyi's return to his flock, about the upcoming treaty between the USSR and the Vatican. (Life has shown that these predicted events also took place in real life.) All this will affect the normal and quiet life in the Orthodox parishes of Western Ukraine. In the West, the next escalation of the question of the "Uniates" will begin, communication with the activists of the Uniate movement in the USSR will be carried out through secret channels. And local Orthodox Christians will have to pay for it. (And these predictions, only in a more severe form, were confirmed by life.)

Now a few words about the problem of direct contacts between Rome and Moscow. The main aspirations of the Vatican were directed towards the Church of Constantinople. But to implement far-reaching plans - to improve the position of Catholics and legalize the Uniate Church in the USSR - Rome needed contacts with the Soviet leadership, and at least formal relations with the Russian Orthodox Church. At the same time, no question was raised about any of our representation in Rome. In one of the last conversations with Metropolitan Nikodim before his departure from Rome (after the end of the Council), Villebrands directly told him that the Vatican sees further contacts in the form of exchange of information, publications, letters, mutual visits and visits, and, if necessary, direct contacts by urgent and important matters, you can use our representative in Geneva and contact him. For Rome in 1965, Constantinople was more important, for here success was more realistically achievable. As for Moscow, we can wait until the situation changes, including the “Uniate” one. Wait and maintain "friendly contact", preparing for real action when the time is right.

This is how difficult and sad were the results of the Second Vatican Council for the Orthodox. But the Russian Orthodox Church, even in these most difficult conditions, resisted Catholic pressure. And, as it was already in the post-war decade of Soviet history, it acted in parallel with the state, which fought with the Vatican as an imperialist enemy.

1990 - In the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral of Tallinn, His Holiness the Patriarch, co-served by the bishops, celebrated the Divine Liturgy and the consecration of Archimandrite Korniliy as Bishop of Tallinn.

During all the days of His Holiness's stay in the capital of Estonia, services were performed in the Church Slavonic and Estonian languages. His Holiness the Patriarch presided over the reception, which was attended by the clergy of the Estonian diocese, representatives of Christian confessions, and people's deputies.

1991 September 15-19 - His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II paid a visit to the Kursk diocese.

- 221.00 Kb

Origins Kievan Rus came into contact with Christianity through Byzantium. Saint Prince Vladimir was baptized from Constantinople, and all Kiev residents were baptized with him - this was a political decision. Thus, Kievan Rus and later state structures - the heirs of the union of ancient Russian principalities - grew into Byzantine culture. From here - with the division into the Byzantine East and the Latin West - a special development of Eastern Europe begins, influencing the fate of all of Europe to this day. There were Christians in Russia even before the baptism of Prince Vladimir in Kiev. The Grand Duchess Olga, the grandmother of Saint Vladimir, was baptized already in 957 in Constantinople, but her son Svyatoslav remained a pagan. Thus, Olga's baptism remained an episode. It is noteworthy that after her baptism Olga asked in 959 to send bishops for missionary work - but she turned not to Byzantium, but to the Roman-German emperor Otgon I (912-973). The emperor sent Bishop Adalbert from Trier to Kiev, but when the bishop arrived in Kiev in 962, Svyatoslav was already Grand Duke and Adalbert was forced to return. So a missionary bishop from Germany, a Latin, in Kiev also remained an episode.

On the other hand, Muslim sources speak of the successful Islamization of Kievan Rus. They report that Prince Vladimir first converted to Islam, which at that time was rapidly spreading from Central Asia to the West. So, the Volga Bulgars, neighbors of the ancient Russian principalities, converted to Islam a few decades before the baptism of Vladimir. Geopolitically or geostrategically, the Islamization of Kievan Rus would be more likely than its Christianization.

Just as Christians lived in Kievan Rus before the baptism of Vladimir, so the Slavic pagan gods lived for a long time in the minds of the Eastern Slavs. The coexistence of the Christian and pagan worldview, the so-called "dual faith", is most clearly represented in the "Lay of Igor's Host" (XII-XIII centuries), in which it is the main poetic background of the epic. The "Tale of Bygone Years" tells about conflicts with pagan ideas, which sometimes apparently took the character of riots, as, for example, in 1024 and 1071.

The priests who carried out the Christianization of Kievan Rus, for the most part, were probably Bulgarians. The Bulgarian people adopted Christianity (864) a century earlier than Kievan Rus. By that time, Bulgarians widely used the Slavic script created by Saints Cyril and Methodius of Thessaloniki (Thessaloniki) and the language formed on the basis of the South Slavic Solunian dialect. Therefore, in addition to its functional name - "Old Church Slavonic language", in the West the linguistic term "Old Bulgarian" is used. The Gospels and the main church texts, especially the liturgy, had already been translated into Church Slavonic and, together with later translations from Greek, contributed significantly to the penetration of Byzantine culture, Byzantine-Greek thinking and worldview into Kievan Rus. Among the figures of spiritual culture that developed in the Kiev cradle, especially in the Kiev-Pechersky Monastery, we can name only the names of the great Kiev princes Yaroslav the Wise (1019-1054) and Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1124).

From the very beginning, business writing developed parallel to spiritual literature, where, although Church Slavonic forms were used, the Eastern Slavic living speech was reflected to a greater or lesser extent (depending on the genre), as, for example, in Novgorod birch bark letters of the 11th – 15th centuries.

There are still many unclear questions about the organization of the Church in the first centuries after baptism. In all likelihood, at first all the bishops were Greek and were appointed by Constantinople. Later, it is likely that only the Metropolitan of Kiev was appointed by the Patriarch of Constantinople from the Greek clergy, and sometimes from the Slavs, while the Slavs became bishops in the localities in most cases. Apparently, the strict control of the Kiev Metropolis by Constantinople was impossible, on the one hand, because of the great distances, and on the other, because of the growing pressure not only from the Ottoman Turks, but from the 13th century and the Latin West (recall the conquest of Constantinople by the Latins as a result fourth crusade, "Latin Empire", 1204-1261). Thus, the Kyivan Metropolitanate soon acquired a certain degree of independence from the Mother Church and had great internal autonomy. According to a Byzantine document, in the middle of the 13th century, the following dioceses were subordinate to the Kiev Metropolis: Novgorod the Great, Chernigov, Suzdal, Rostov, Vladimir the Great (on the Klyazma), Pereyaslavl, Belgorod, Yuryev, Polotsk, Ryazan, Tver, Smolensk. After the conquest of Kievan Rus by the Tatars, even in the capital of the Golden Horde, Sarai (near present-day Volgograd), a diocese was formed in 1261.

After the conquest of Kievan Rus by the Tatars throughout the entire period of the Tatar yoke (1240-1480), the Orthodox Church had to solve a problem that could not be called anything other than national. Compared to the Kiev and appanage princes, the Church was in a privileged position: it became the only interregional functioning Slavic institution during the Tatar rule and therefore enjoyed great prestige among the princes. Kiev and appanage princes had to dutifully ask for confirmation of their princely powers from the Khan of the Golden Horde in Sarai, supporting their requests with luxurious gifts (never knowing whether they would return alive or not), while the appointment of church hierarchs was accepted by the Khan of the Horde, as a rule, unconditionally: the new bishop did not need to go to bow to Sarai. After the conquest of Kievan Rus, the Tatars no longer touched monasteries, outside the walls of which spiritual culture could be preserved (but not developed): the monks were engaged in constant rewriting and distribution, mainly of church literature, thus preserving the cultural heritage of Kievan Rus for posterity.

Under the constant threat of ruin and burning, the central territories of Kievan Rus fell into desolation - people left these lands. In the border areas of Kievan Rus, two centers were formed where refugees were concentrated: Vladimir, Tver and Moscow in the northeast and the Galicia-Volyn and Polotsk princedoms in the west. Thus, the division of the Eastern Slavs began, from which the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples were formed.

During the XIII-XV centuries, the Moscow princes subjugated all the Slavic principalities between the White Sea, Novgorod and Chernigov - the so-called "gathering of Russian lands". The Muscovites, thus, soon became the most significant force of the Eastern Slavs. At the same time, the Polish-Lithuanian state strengthened on the western borders and became a force to be reckoned with. The lands of the Galicia-Volyn and Polotsk princes already in the XIV century became Orthodox provinces in the Catholic Polish-Lithuanian state. The transfer of the metropolitan residence from Kiev to Vladimir by Metropolitan Maxim (1299), and then to Moscow by Metropolitan Peter (1326) speaks of the shift of the center of power to the northeast.

The great merit of the Church is that its best representatives could not come to terms with Tatar enslavement and encouraged the princes who paid tribute to the khan of the Golden Horde to fight. So, St. Sergius of Radonezh inspired and blessed Prince Dimitri to accept a battle with the Tatars in 1380 on the Kulikovo field, which ended in an important victory for the Moscow army, which was of great importance for the national consciousness of the Russians. The Church left secondary positions and began to play a partner, in the national sense, leading role in relation to the princes.

Kiev and appanage princes also borrowed the principle of symphony from Byzantium - the idea of equality between the state and the Church, the emperor and the patriarch, the prince and the bishop. In Byzantium itself, this principle was implemented quite rarely, since the emperor almost always himself determined the course of the development of the Church. In Russian history, one can find several metropolitans who placed themselves above their contemporary Grand Duke or Tsar. Examples include Metropolitan Macarius and Tsar Ivan the Terrible, Patriarch Filaret (Fyodor Romanov) and his son Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, the first in the Romanov dynasty, Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

The same is the reason for the most significant - and at the same time the most tragic - schism in the Russian Church: as a result of the struggle between the state power and the church, the Old Believers appeared. Patriarch Nikon (1652-1660), with his tough reforms, first provoked a protest, then a split. The state by secular (for example, military, economic and other) means, the church with spiritual (for example, anathema) measures persecuted the schismatic Old Believers. In essence, the Old Believers became reformers: in a three-century struggle with the state and ecclesiastical authorities, they completely separated from the state - something that the "New Believer" Church has not succeeded in so far.

The autocephaly of the Russian Church (1448), more than a century later (1589), was followed by the recognition of the Moscow metropolis by the patriarchate by the old patriarchates - Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The self-awareness of the Church grew. It became almost a state within a state and turned out to be, in the person of some of the first hierarchs (for example, Patriarch Nikon, 1652-1660, Patriarch Joachim, 1674-1690), a destabilizing factor in politics, which caused the monarch to have enlightened absolutism, which undoubtedly was Peter I, indignation. The enormous wealth of the Church (she owned one third of all arable land), with the constantly empty state treasury, aroused the desire to take possession of them, which Catherine II was able to accomplish to a large extent. In any case, collisions with the Church were inevitable for Peter I.

In the "Spiritual Regulations" (1721) - the regulation on the administration of the Church, oriented towards the Protestant structure of the state Church (Staatskirche), the "tsar-patriarch" balance is no longer observed. The patriarch is replaced by the "Theological College" (later called the "Most Holy Governing Synod"). This collegium had the same status as all other collegia, that is, ministries. The secretary of the Synod, the chief prosecutor (layman), actually became in the 19th century the head of the Church, eloquently called the "eye of the king." Bishops were required to swear allegiance to the king.

By no means the only reaction to this situation was the revival of the monastic ideal, especially the elders (Optina Pustyn '), at the beginning of the last century. 50 years later, secular theology developed in Russia, which in its essence has not yet been adequately appreciated to this day (V. Soloviev, K. Leontiev, A. Khomyakov, N. Berdyaev and others). Russian literature, which had deeply Christian foundations, entered its "golden age" (F. Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy, A. Chekhov and others). Finally, in the depths of the church, a critical attitude arose to the internal state of the Church, which was reflected in journalism - in this sense, the study of the church press from 1870 to the First World War is of extremely great interest. The demand for a general renewal of the Church from top to bottom eventually became so widespread that Emperor Nicholas II agreed to convene a Local Council, which had not been convened for 200 years. At the Council it was necessary to consider all the questions that had accumulated by that time and make a decision on the restoration of the patriarchate. The pre-council commission in 1906 prepared the Local Council in a few months; however, the First World War prevented its convening. Nevertheless, the materials of the pre-joint commission formed the basis for the work of the Local Council, which took place after the February Revolution of 19! 7. Only under the Provisional Government of AF Kerensky (1886-1970> the separation of the Church from the state was carried out, and the long-awaited Local Council was convened in August 1917. Its most important result was the restoration of the Patriarchate and the election of Metropolitan Tikhon (Bellavin) as Patriarch of Moscow and Other decisions (on the structure of the Church, on strengthening the parish, on the role of the laity in the Church in the sense of conciliarity, etc.) were never implemented due to the October Revolution. The members of the Council were forced to disperse.

When in 1921-1922 the Soviet government demanded the issuance of church valuables to help the starving population due to the 1921 crop failure, it came to a fatal conflict between the Church and the new government, which decided to use the situation to destroy the Church.

During these years, many hierarchs, priests and laity, who resisted the confiscation of church values, died a martyr's death. The Soviet leadership presented the resistance to the confiscation of values as a reactionary struggle against the Soviet government and, in accordance with this, persecuted all those who resisted with the corresponding consequences.

The loyalty to the Soviet state, demonstrated in Patriarch Tikhon's "repentance", averted the most terrible threat from the Church and allowed, over time, to overcome the Renovationist schism, whose representatives from the mid-1920s even the Bolsheviks refused to support. This victory strengthened the long tradition of Russian Orthodoxy, based on spiritual, ecclesiological and liturgical principles to this day.

In these words, the political loyalty of the Church towards the Bolsheviks is formulated more clearly and sharply than that of Patriarch Tikhon, however, the loyalty of Metropolitan Sergius was expressed to the state, which more and more actively sought the final destruction of religion and the Church with the help of legislation (1929), which prohibited almost all church and parish life , which suppressed any manifestation of religious life, including through brutal persecution.

Internal church quarrels and schisms became a characteristic and tragic phenomenon of the second half of the 1920s and 1930s. At first, a discussion broke out whether Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens, was a usurper of church power. Archbishop Gregory (Yatskovsky) of Yekaterinburg strongly denied the canonicity of the position of the Deputy Locum tenens of the Patriarchal See. His supporters ("Grigorievites") created the "Provisional Supreme Church Council" (12/22/1925). Due to such canonical reasons, Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov) of Kazan, appointed by Patriarch Tikhon Locum Tenens, separated from Metropolitan Sergius, Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens (Doc. 97-101, 108). Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov) became the head of a significant schism of those who do not remember, who in litanies commemorated not the name of Metropolitan Sergius, but the name of the Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky).

The current assessment of the 1927 Declaration by the Moscow Patriarchate (in the sense that it gave the Church the opportunity to survive in these difficult times) is not convincing. By 1925, the structure of the Church was destroyed. And the church administration, which the Soviet government allowed Metropolitan Sergius to create, was only a temporary church administration.

Work description

Outline of the history of relations between the Church and the State History does not begin from any definite point, it always has a prehistory. Thus, the history of the Church in the Soviet state does not begin with the October Revolution of 1917. It is the attempt to describe the relationship between the state and the Church in Soviet times that makes us turn to the church history of the past centuries.
Origins Kievan Rus came into contact with Christianity through Byzantium. Saint Prince Vladimir was baptized from Constantinople, and all Kiev residents were baptized with him - this was a political decision.

The Russian Church played a significant role in the unification process. After the election as Metropolitan in 1448, Bishop Jonah of Ryazan, the Russian Church became independent (autocephalous).

In the western lands of Russia, which became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia, in 1458 a metropolitan was installed in Kiev. The Russian Orthodox Church split into two independent metropolises - Moscow and Kiev. Their unification will take place after the reunification of Ukraine with Russia.

The internal church struggle was associated with the emergence of heresies. In the XIV century. in Novgorod, the heresy of the strigolniks arose. On the head of a person accepted as a monk, the hair was cut crosswise. The strigolniki believed that faith would grow stronger if it was based on reason.

At the end of the 15th century. in Novgorod, and then in Moscow, the heresy of the Judaizers spread (the Jewish merchant was considered its initiator). The heretics denied the authority of the priests and demanded the equality of all people. This meant that monasteries were not allowed to own land and peasants.

For a while, these views coincided with those of Ivan III. There was also no unity among the churchmen. Militant clergymen, led by the founder of the Assumption Monastery, Joseph Volotsky (now the Joseph-Volokolamsky Monastery near Moscow), sharply opposed the heretics. Joseph and his followers (the Josephites) defended the church's right to own land and peasants. The opponents of the Josephites also did not support the heretics, but objected to the accumulation of wealth and land holdings of the church. The followers of this point of view were called non-possessors or Sorians - by the name of Nil Sorsky, who retired to a skete on the Sora River in the Vologda region.

Ivan III at the church council in 1502 supported the Josephites. The heretics were executed. The Russian Church became both state and national. Church hierarchs proclaimed the autocrat to be the king of the earth, his power similar to God. Church and monastic land tenure was preserved.

7.Russian state in the 16th century

In the late 15th and early 16th centuries, the formation of the Russian state was completed, which developed along with world civilization. This was the time of the Great Geographical Discoveries (America was discovered in 1493), the beginning of the era of capitalism in European countries (the first bourgeois revolution in Europe, 1566-1609, began in the Netherlands). But the development of the Russian state took place in rather peculiar conditions. There was a process of developing new territories in Siberia, the Volga region, Wild Field (on the Dnieper, Don, Middle and Lower Volga, Yaik rivers), the country had no access to the seas, the economy was in the nature of a subsistence economy based on the dominance of the feudal orders of the boyar patrimony. On the southern outskirts of Russia in the second half of the 16th century, Cossacks (from fugitive peasants) began to appear.
By the end of the 16th century, there were approximately 220 cities in Russia. The largest of them was Moscow, and the most important and developed were Novgorod and Vologda, Kazan and Yaroslavl, Kaluga and Tula, Astrakhan and Veliky Ustyug. Production was closely related to the availability of local raw materials and had a natural geographical character, for example, leather production developed in Yaroslavl and Kazan, a large amount of salt was produced in Vologda, Tula and Novgorod specialized in metal production. In Moscow, stone construction was carried out, the Cannon Yard, the Cloth Yard, and the Armory were built.
An outstanding event in the history of Russia in the 16th century was the emergence of Russian book printing (in 1564 the book "Apostle" was published). The church had a great influence on the spiritual life of society. In painting, the work of Andrei Rublev was a model; the architecture of that time was characterized by the construction of tent-roofed temples (without pillars, holding only on the foundation) - St. Basil's Cathedral in Moscow, the Church of the Ascension in the village of Kolomenskoye, the Church of John the Baptist in the village of Dyakovo.
The 16th century in the history of Russia is the century of the reign of the "talented villain" Ivan the Terrible.
In the late 15th and early 16th centuries, Ivan III, the great-grandson of Dmitry Donskoy (1462-1505), ruled. He called himself the "Sovereign of All Russia" or "Caesar." Took a two-headed eagle in Russia. The two heads of the eagle said that Russia was turned to the East and West, and the eagle was standing with one mighty paw in Europe, and the other in Asia.
Ivan III believed that Moscow should become the third Rome, and all the Russian lands that were previously part of Kievan Rus should unite around it.
In 1497, Ivan III publishes the first Russian Code of Law, a set of basic laws of Russia. In the Sudebnik, the position of the peasantry was consolidated (the peasants had the right to change their place of residence on St. George's Day (November 26), but in fact the peasants were attached to the land. Since it was possible to buy 14 poods of honey for a ruble in the 15-16th century, it was not easy to collect it. in the 16th century, almost all peasants became serfs.

Ivan III overthrew the Mongol-Tatar rule (1480) and did it as an experienced politician. He stopped civil strife in Russia, creates a professional army. So, a forged army appears - infantry, dressed in metal armor; artillery (Russian cannons "Unicorn" were the best for three hundred years); squeakers (squeaks - firearms, but they beat close, maximum 100 m).
Ivan III overcame the feudal fragmentation of Russia. The Novgorod Republic, together with the Moscow principality, remained an independent entity, but in 1478 its independence was abolished, in 1485 Tver was annexed to the Russian state, and in 1489 - Vyatka.
In 1510, during the reign of the son of Ivan III, Vasily III (1505-1533), the Pskov Republic ceased to exist, and in 1521 - the Ryazan principality. The unification of the Russian lands under Vasily III was basically completed. According to the German ambassador, none of the Western European monarchs could compare with the Moscow sovereign in the full power over his subjects. Well, the grandson of Ivan III, more than anyone else in the grand ducal family, has earned his nickname - the Terrible.
When Ivan was three years old, in 1533 his father, Grand Duke Vasily III, died. Mother, Elena Glinskaya, the second wife of Vasily III, did not pay attention to her son. She decided to eliminate all pretenders to the Russian throne: the brothers Vasily III - Prince Yuri Ivanovich and Andrei Ivanovich, her uncle Mikhail Glinsky. Prince Ivan Fedorovich Ovchina-Telepnev-Obolensky became the support of Elena. When Ivan was 8 years old, his mother was poisoned (April 3, 1538). Over the next eight years, the boyars (Shuisky, Glinsky, Belsky) ruled instead, they fought for influence over Ivan, but did not particularly burden themselves with caring for the child. As a result, Ivan falls ill with paranoia; from the age of 12 he takes part in torture, and at the age of 16 he becomes the best master of torture.

In 1546 Ivan, not satisfied with the title of grand duke, wished to become tsar. Tsars in Russia before Ivan the Terrible were the emperors of Byzantium and Germany, as well as the khans of the Great Horde. Therefore, having become a tsar, Ivan rose above numerous princes; showed the independence of Russia from the Horde; rose on the same level with the German emperor.
At the age of 16, they decide to marry Ivan. For this, up to one and a half thousand girls were gathered in the tower. Twelve beds were placed in each room, where they lived for about a month, and their lives were reported to the king. After a month, the tsar went around the chambers with gifts and chose Anastasia Romanova as his wife, who smiled at him.
In January 1547 Ivan was crowned king, and in March 1547 he was married to Anastasia. His wife replaced his parents, and he changed for the better.
In 1549, the tsar brought Alexei Fedorovich Adashev, Sylvester, the archpriest of the Annunciation Cathedral closer to him, Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky, who entered the so-called Chosen Rada. They helped initiate reforms.
In 1556, Ivan IV abolished feeding the boyars at the expense of funds from land management, which came to their personal disposal after the payment of taxes to the treasury. Ivan introduces local self-government, the whole state was divided into lips (districts), at the head of the lip was the headman. The laborer could be chosen from among the peasants, nobles, he could be influenced.
The Chosen Rada replaces (duplicates) the Boyar Duma, orders are obeyed to it. The order-"order" turns into an order-institution. Military affairs were supervised by the Razryadny, Pushkarsky, Streletsky orders, the Armory. Foreign affairs were in charge of the Ambassadorial Prikaz, public finances - the order of the Big Parish, state lands - the Local Prikaz, serfs - the Serf Prikaz.
Ivan begins an attack on the boyars, restricts localism (he himself seated the boyars on benches around him), creates a new army of noble cavalry and archers (noblemen serve for a fee). This is almost 100 thousand people - the power on which Ivan IV relied.
In 1550 Ivan IV introduced a new Code of Law. The nobles receive equal rights with the boyars, it confirmed the right of peasants to change their place of residence on St. George's Day, but the payment for the "elderly" was increased. For the first time in the Sudebnik, a punishment for bribery was established.
In 1560, Anastasia dies, the tsar becomes insane and he begins terror against his recent advisers - Adashev and Sylvester, since it is them that the king blames for the sudden death of Anastasia. Sylvester was tonsured a monk and exiled to the Solovetsky monastery. Alexei Adashev was sent as a voivode to the Livonian War (1558-1583), where he died. Repression fell upon other supporters of Adashev. And Ivan IV introduces the oprichnina.
The oprichnina period is the second half of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. The oprichnina terror was announced unexpectedly for both supporters and enemies of Ivan the Terrible.
In 1564, at night with his retinue, children and treasury, the tsar disappeared from the Kremlin. He went to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery and declared that he did not want to rule anymore. A month after his disappearance from Moscow, the tsar sent two letters:

One Boyar Duma, the Metropolitan, in which he accuses them of betrayal, unwillingness to serve him;
- the second to the townspeople, in which he announced that the boyars offend him, but he has no grudges against ordinary people, and the boyars are to blame for everything.
Thus, he wants to show the people who is to blame for all their troubles.
By his sudden departure, he ensured that his opponents were afraid of uncertainty, and the people with tears went to ask the king to return. Ivan the Terrible agreed, but with the terms:
1) the division of the country into two parts - zemstvo and oprichnina;
2) Tsar Ivan the Terrible is at the head of the Zemshchina, and the Grand Duke Ivan the Terrible is at the head of the Oprichnina.
In the oprichnina lands, he singled out the most developed regions and boyar lands. These lands were settled by those nobles who were part of the oprichnina army. The population of the zemshchyna was supposed to support this army. Ivan IV armed the army and within 7 years this army destroys the boyars.
The meaning of the oprichnina was as follows:
- the establishment of autocracy through the destruction of the opposition (boyars);
- the elimination of the remnants of feudal fragmentation (finally conquers Novgorod);
- forms a new social base of autocracy - the nobility, i.e. these were people who were completely dependent on the king.
The destruction of the boyars was a means to achieve all these goals of Ivan the Terrible.
As a result of the oprichnina, Moscow weakened, the Crimean khan in 1571 burned the Moscow posad, which showed the inability of the oprichnina army to fight external enemies. As a result, the tsar canceled the oprichnina, forbade even mentioning this word, and in 1572 transformed it into the "Tsar's court". Before his death, Ivan IV tried to reintroduce the oprichnina, but his guardsmen were dissatisfied with the tsar's policy and wanted stability. Ivan the Terrible destroys his army, and dies at the age of 54, in 1584.
During the reign of Ivan IV, there were also merits. So, the red-brick Kremlin was built, but the builders were killed so that they could not build such beautiful buildings and temples anywhere else.
The results of the reign of Ivan the Terrible.
1. During the reign of Ivan IV, the country was destroyed, he actually started a civil war. The central regions were depopulated, because people died (about 7 million people died an unnatural death).
2. The loss of foreign policy influence by Russia, it has become vulnerable. Ivan IV lost the Livonian War, and Poland and Sweden launched extensive activities to seize Russian territories.
3.Ivan the Terrible doomed not only six wives to death, but also destroyed his children. The heir, the son of Ivan, he killed in a fit of rage in 1581. After the death of the tsarevich, Ivan the Terrible thought to give up the throne and go to a monastery. He had something to worry about. The feeble-minded Fedor, the son of Anastasia Romanova, the first wife of the tsar, became the heir to the throne. In addition to him, there was still Tsarevich Dmitry, the son of the last, sixth wife, Maria Nagoya, who in 1584 turned two years old.
Thus, after half a century of the rule of a tyrant, albeit a talented, but nevertheless a villain, power, unlimited by anyone and nothing, should have passed to a miserable person who was not capable of running the state. After Ivan IV, a frightened, tormented, ruined country remained. The activities of Ivan the Terrible brought the country to the edge of the abyss, whose name is the Time of Troubles.

8.Russia at the turn of the 16th - 17th century

Historical events of this period were called "Time of Troubles". The concept of "turmoil" entered historiography from the popular lexicon, meaning primarily anarchy and the extreme disorder of social life. In Russia, at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries, the "troubles" affected the economy, domestic and foreign policy, ideology and morality.

Prerequisites and causes of the turmoil. At the turn of the XVI-XVII centuries, the Moscow state was going through a difficult and complex moral, political and socio-economic crisis, which was especially manifested in the situation of the central regions of the state. With the opening of vast southeastern areas of the middle and lower Volga region for Russian colonization, a wide stream of peasant population rushed here from the central regions of the state, striving to get away from the sovereign and landlord "tax", and this outflow of labor led to a shortage of workers in the center. The more people left the center, the more heavily the state landlord tax pressed on those who remained. The growth of local landownership placed an increasing number of peasants under the rule of the landowners, and the lack of workers' hands forced the landowners to increase peasant taxes and duties and strive by all means to secure the existing peasant population of their estates. The situation of "full" and "bonded" slaves was always rather difficult, and at the end of the 16th century the number of bonded slaves was increased by a decree that ordered to convert into bonded slaves all those formerly free servants and workers who had served their masters for more than six months.

In the second half of the 16th century, special circumstances, external and internal, contributed to the intensification of the crisis and the growth of discontent. The heavy Livonian War, which lasted 25 years and ended in complete failure, demanded huge sacrifices in people and material resources from the population. The Tatar invasion and the defeat of Moscow in 1571 significantly increased the number of casualties and losses. The oprichnina of Tsar Ivan the Terrible, which shook and shook the old way of life and customary relationships, intensified the general discord and demoralization: the terrible habit of not respecting the life, honor, property of a neighbor was established during the reign of Ivan the Terrible.

While the sovereigns of the old, familiar dynasty, the direct descendants of Rurik and Vladimir the Saint, were on the Moscow throne, the vast majority of the population submissively and unquestioningly obeyed their "natural sovereigns." But when the dynasties ceased and the state turned out to be "nobody's", it became confused and began to ferment.

The upper stratum of the Moscow population - the boyars, economically weakened and morally humiliated by the policies of Grozny, began the turmoil with a struggle for power in a country that had become "stateless."

Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich. After the death of Ivan the Terrible on March 18, 1584, the middle son of the Terrible, twenty-seven-year-old Fyodor Ivanovich (1584-1598), ascended the throne. The reign of Fyodor Ivanovich was a time of political caution and the calming down of the people after the oprichnina. Gentle by nature, the new tsar did not have the ability to rule the state. Realizing that the throne was passing to Blessed Fyodor, Ivan the Terrible created a kind of regency council under his son. Thus, it turned out that behind the back of the dependent Fedor was his brother-in-law, boyar Boris Godunov, performing regency functions and actually ruling the state.

Boris Godunov. After the death of the childless Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich (in January 1598), there were no legitimate heirs to the throne. The Zemsky Sobor elected Godunov to the kingdom, whose popularity was fragile for a number of reasons: 1) he was of Tatar origin; 2) Malyuta Skuratov's son-in-law; 3) was accused of the murder of the last direct heir to the throne of Tsarevich Dmitry, who in 1591, under unclear circumstances, died in Uglich, allegedly having run on a knife in a seizure of epilepsy; 4) illegally ascended the throne.

But, in turn, Godunov tried to take measures to weaken discontent, as he constantly felt the fragility of his position. On the whole, he was an energetic, ambitious, capable statesman. In difficult conditions - economic devastation, a difficult international situation - he was able to continue the policy of Ivan the Terrible, but with less brutal measures.

The beginning of the reign of Boris Godunov brought many good hopes to the people. Domestic policy was aimed at social stabilization in the country, overcoming economic devastation. The colonization of new lands and the construction of cities in the Volga region and the Urals were encouraged.

In a number of modern publications, attempts are made to present Godunov as a reformer on the sole ground that he was an elected ruler. It is difficult to agree with this, since it was during the reign of Boris Godunov that serfdom appeared in Russia. Tsar Boris strengthened the privileges of the boyars, although one cannot fail to see such a motive in attaching the peasants to the land, as the desire on the part of the state authorities to prevent the desolation of the country's central districts due to the expanding colonization and the outflow of the population to the outskirts. On the whole, the introduction of serfdom undoubtedly increased social tension in the country. Together with the aggravation of the dynastic problem, the intensification of boyar willfulness, and foreign interference in Russian affairs, it contributed to the decay of morality and the disintegration of traditional relations.

In 1598 Godunov canceled arrears on taxes and taxes, gave some privileges to servicemen and townspeople in the performance of state duties. But the poor harvest in the country in 1601-1602 led to hunger and increased social tension. And in this atmosphere of chaos, Godunov tried to prevent a popular uprising. He set the maximum price for grain, in November 1601 allowed the peasants to move (on St. George's Day, the only day in the year when peasants could freely move from one owner to another), began distributing grain from state barns, intensified the repression of robbery and allowed to leave the slaves from their masters, if they could not feed them. However, these measures were not successful. The people lived in poverty, and the nobility arranged the division of wealth and privileges, viciously competing in the search for personal well-being. The grain reserves hidden by many boyars would be enough for the entire population for several years. Cases of cannibalism were observed among the poor, and speculators held on to bread, anticipating an increase in prices for it. The essence of what was happening was well understood among the people and was defined by the word "theft", but no one could offer a quick and simple way out of the crisis. The sense of involvement in social problems in each individual person turned out to be insufficiently developed. In addition, large masses of ordinary people were infected with cynicism, self-interest, oblivion of traditions and shrines. Decomposition came from above - from the boyar elite that had lost all authority, but it threatened to overwhelm the lower classes as well.

In 1589, the patriarchate was introduced, which increased the rank and prestige of the Russian Church, it became finally equal in relation to other Christian churches. The first patriarch was Job, a man close to Godunov. Boris Godunov somewhat strengthened the country's international position. After the war with Sweden in 1590, the lands at the mouth of the Neva, lost by Russia after the Livonian War, were returned. In 1600 Godunov signed a truce with Poland for 20 years. The attack of the Crimean Tatars on Moscow was prevented. In 1598, Godunov with a 40,000-strong noble militia opposed the khan Kazy-Girey and he retreated. But in the main, the situation in Russia was disastrous. The magnates and the gentry wanted to seize the Smolensk and Seversk lands, which a hundred years ago were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

The situation worsened and the discontent of the broad masses caused by the further enslavement of the peasantry, who linked the deterioration of their situation with the name of Boris. They claimed that they were enslaved under Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich at the instigation of the boyar Boris Fyodorovich Godunov.

As a result, an uprising (1603-1604) of slaves under the leadership of Cotton Kosolap broke out in the center of the country. It was brutally suppressed, and Khlopok was executed in Moscow. The Time of Troubles was full of all kinds of conflicts and unpredictability of events.

False Dmitry I. The people's disappointment in the "rootless" tsar quickly grew into hatred, which predetermined the search for a "legitimate heir" to the throne. At this time (1603), "Tsarevich Dmitry" appeared in Poland - the son of Ivan the Terrible, allegedly miraculously escaped from the murderers. He told the Polish tycoon Adam Vishnevetsky that he had been replaced "in the bedroom of the Uglich palace." Voivode Jerzy Mniszek became the patron saint of False Dmitry. Enlisting the support of the Polish-Lithuanian magnates, False Dmitry secretly converted to Catholicism and promised the Pope to spread Catholicism in Russia. False Dmitry also promised to transfer the Commonwealth and his fiancée Marina Mnishek (daughter of the voivode Jerzy Mnishek) the Seversk (Chernigov region) and Smolensk lands, Novgorod and Pskov. The False Dmitry's adventure was not his personal affair. False Dmitry appeared in an atmosphere of general discontent with the government of Boris Godunov, both on the part of the nobility and on the part of Russian peasants, townspeople, and Cossacks. The Polish magnates needed False Dmitry in order to start aggression against Russia, disguising it with the appearance of a struggle to return the throne to its legitimate heir. It was a covert intervention against the Russian people. But it should be noted that the Moscow boyars played the main role in the appearance of the impostor. None of the impostors would dare to encroach on the throne without the open or secret support of boyar groups. The boyars needed False Dmitry I to overthrow Godunov, in order to prepare the ground for the accession of one of the representatives of the boyar nobility. This scenario was played out.

On June 20, 1605, False Dmitry, at the head of the army that had gone over to his side, solemnly entered Moscow and was proclaimed tsar. Even before that, almost all the relatives of Tsar Boris were secretly killed, including the son of Fyodor who succeeded him, as well as some of those who remained faithful to the April oath (Moscow and the army swore allegiance to Fyodor Borisovich Godunov in April 1605), Patriarch Job was exiled to a monastery. The impostor began to rule the state.

Under the guise of the imaginary son of Ivan IV, the fugitive monk Grigory Otrepiev was hiding. As far as can be judged, this was a man undoubtedly capable, he combined a penchant for adventures with subtle political calculation and state talents. The success of False Dmitry I was ensured, however, not so much by calculation and talents as by the general situation in the country.

However, he failed to gain a foothold, since he was unable to enlist the support of any of the socio-political forces. The impostor was not going to justify his Polish "advances" (Smolensk, Pskov, Novgorod, which he had promised the Poles, being a contender for the throne). Moreover, he did not allow the Poles to build Catholic churches in Russia. Wishing to win over the Russian nobility to his side, Otrepiev generously distributed land and money, but their reserves were not unlimited. He did not dare to restore St. George's Day for the peasants. The Orthodox Church was very wary of the Catholic Tsar. The fall of False Dmitry I became inevitable, and on May 17, 1606, as a result of a boyar conspiracy that merged with the uprising of Muscovites, he was thrown from the throne. At the head of the conspiracy was the powerful clan of the Shuisky princes. On May 17 and 18, they published the alleged testimony of the Buchinskys, Poles-Calvinists, who were close to False Dmitry. According to these testimonies, False Dmitry allegedly wanted to beat up all the boyars and convert Russians to Latinism and the Lutheran faith. Three days after the murder of False Dmitry, his corpse was burned, his ashes were put into a cannon, from which they fired in the direction from which the impostor came.

Vasily Shuisky. After the death of False Dmitry, the boyar tsar Vasily Shuisky (1606-1610) ascended the throne. On May 19, the new tsar gave a kissing record that he would not use the death penalty and confiscation of property in relation to his enemies without the consent of the Boyar Duma. Knowing, thus, all internal and external contradictions could be solved with the help of the boyar tsar.

In the district charter, Shuisky assured that he was asked to the throne by the metropolitans, archbishops, bishops and the entire Consecrated Cathedral, as well as boyars, nobles, boyar children and all sorts of people of the Moscow state. Following the tsar's letter, a letter was sent from the Moscow boyars, nobles and boyar children, which explained the coup on the night of May 17 and said that Tsarevich Dmitry had truly died and was buried in Uglich, with reference to the testimony of the mother and uncle of the tsarevich, on the throne sat Grishka Otrepiev. The mother of the prince, the nun Martha, swore in a special letter that she, out of fear, recognized the impostor for her son. In cities and everywhere these letters penetrated, they excited the minds. In order to suppress rumors about the rescue of Tsarevich Dmitry, his remains were transferred by order of Vasily Shuisky three days after the coronation from Uglich to Moscow. The prince was canonized.

The four-year rule of Shuisky and Boyar Duma brought Russia new trials. The desired stability has not been achieved. The outskirts of Russia continued to boil and worry. The political conflict, generated by the struggle for power and the crown, has grown into a social one. The people, having finally lost faith in improving their situation, again opposed the authorities. In addition, there were rumors about the miraculous rescue of False Dmitry I on the night of May 17. In the midst of the boyars, discord and schism intensified. Boyar Peter Nikitich Sheremetev conspired to overthrow Tsar Vasily in favor of Prince Mstislavsky, for which he was exiled by the governor to Pskov. Fearing unnecessary talk and worries about the alleged salvation of the named Dmitry, Tsar Vasily expelled most of the captured Poles from Moscow to the cities, and some were completely released.

The uprising of I.I.Bolotnikov. Under such circumstances, Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov appeared in the Novgorod-Seversk suburb under Prince Shakhovsky, allegedly sent by Tsar Dmitry. This seasoned man, gifted with remarkable military abilities, intelligence, courage and courage, met in Sambor a certain Molchanov, who played the role of the saved Tsar Dmitry in front of him and sent him with a letter to Prince Shakhovsky, appointing Bolotnikov as voivode. Bolotnikov called the slaves to arms, promising them freedom and honor under the banner of Dmitry. There was such a mass of "combustible material" that a huge fire did not hesitate to break out: the peasants rose up against the landlords, the subordinates against the bosses, the poor against the rich. In the cities, the townspeople were agitated, in the districts - the peasants, archers and Cossacks rose up. The nobles and the children of the boyars began to stir envy of the higher ranks - the stewards, the okolniks, the boyars. The governor and clerks were knitted and sent to Putivl, slaves ravaged the houses of the masters, killed men, raped women. Tsar Vasily sent Prince Trubetskoy against Bolotnikov, but his army was completely defeated at Kromy. The mutiny after Bolotnikov's victory took on enormous proportions. The nobleman Istoma Pashkov angered Tula, Venev, Kashira. Voivode Sunbulov and nobleman Prokofy Lyapunov raised the Ryazan land. Within the provinces of Orel, Kaluga, Smolensk, twenty cities rebelled against Tsar Vasily.

In the summer and autumn of 1606, the troops of Bolotnikov and Pashkov experienced a number of setbacks in field battles, but most of the Seversk fortress cities went over to the side of the rebels. The governors of Shuisky besieged the cities, which had defected to the side of the newly-minted False Dmitry, but were unable to seize the situation in the southern regions of the country. The noble militia of the government was unreliable: Ryazan, Tula, Kaluga nobles often went to serve in the army of the impostor (who still did not appear in Russia).

The government forces were forced to retreat from the areas affected by the uprising to the north (August 1606), and in the fall they had to leave the outskirts of Kaluga and Tula. The detachments of Bolotnikov and Pashkov advanced and after the victory at Troitsk on October 25 (a village 50 versts south of Moscow) approached the capital.

The Moscow posad, in which the influence of the Shuisky family was great even before Vasily's accession to the throne, did not respond to the calls of the rebels to open the gates to "the governors of Tsar Dmitry". The residents of the capital, many of whom saw the corpse of False Dmitry I with their own eyes, did not really believe in his next "miraculous salvation". The rebels did not have enough strength to storm Moscow, in addition, there was not enough unity in their camp. Bolotnikov did not get along too well with Pashkov, and the noble cavalry of the rebels was as unreliable as the nobles who fought on the side of Shuisky. Bolotnikov's attempts to appeal to the "black people" of the capital alarmed the landlords and led to discord in the camp of the anti-government coalition, and not in the besieged city. On November 15, during the battle in Zamoskvorechye, Prokopy Lyapunov went over to Shuisky's side with a detachment of Ryazan landowners. During the general battle in early December, Istoma Pashkov followed the example of the Ryazan people. The detachments loyal to Bolotnikov were defeated and retreated, the Cossacks stood at the walls of Moscow for some time, but they gradually ceased resistance.

Bolotnikov retreated to Kaluga: his position in the besieged city was unenviable. Promised to the people, "Tsar Dmitry" still did not agree to appear in the Moscow state. True, the Bolotnikovites were unexpectedly helped by another impostor, Ileyka Korovin, who, back in April 1606, with the support of the Don Cossacks, declared himself the never-existed "Tsarevich Pyotr Fedorovich." This "son" of the childless Fyodor Ivanovich first fought with his imaginary uncle, False Dmitry I, and then did not recognize the mysterious new impostor. At the beginning of 1607, False Peter moved to join Bolotnikov. This connection took place in Tula, which was soon besieged by Shuisky and surrendered on October 10. Tsar Vasily exiled Bolotnikov, blinding him north, to Kargopol, where he was drowned. The false Peter was hanged in Moscow.

False Dmitry II. Meanwhile, False Dmitry II appeared within the Moscow kingdom (most likely, this was not the person who sent Bolotnikov to Putivl, nothing is known about the identity of this impostor). Another contender for the throne, with the help of Polish troops, occupied several southern cities, but did not manage to provide assistance to Tula, which II Bolotnikov had previously asked for in the hope of reuniting with the impostor. Tula was taken by Shuisky's troops. Nevertheless, a series of victories allowed False Dmitry II to approach Moscow, but attempts to enter the capital ended in failure. He stopped 17 km from the Kremlin, in the town of Tushino, where in early June 1608 he set up a military camp (hence his nickname "Tushinsky thief"). Here were their boyars and governors, their orders and even their own patriarch - such was (as contemporaries say - under duress) the Metropolitan of Rostov Filaret, the former boyar Fyodor Nikitovich Romanov. Many princes and boyars came to the Tushino camp from Moscow, although they knew, of course, that they were going to serve an obvious deceiver and impostor. Soon Marina Mnishek also moved to Tushino. The impostor promised her three thousand gold rubles and income from fourteen Russian cities after his accession to Moscow, and she recognized him as her husband. Their secret wedding was performed according to the Catholic rite. The impostor promised to help spread Catholicism in Russia.

False Dmitry II was an obedient puppet in the hands of the Polish gentry, who managed to take control of the northwest and north of the Russian lands. One of the bright pages of the Russian history of this time was the heroic defense of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, besieged by Poles, Lithuanians and Russian "thieves" (September 1608-January 1610). Attacks against the Polish invaders took place in a number of large cities in the north - Novgorod, Vologda, Veliky Ustyug. In many cases, the victory went to the Russian militias.

Open intervention. The Russian civil war was complicated by intervention: Polish royal troops invaded from the West in 1610, and the Swedes appeared in the northwestern regions. Under these conditions, Russia, abandoning its claims to the Baltic coast, entered into an agreement with Sweden. In gratitude, the Swedes provided military assistance to Russia in its fight against False Dmitry II. At this time, a talented commander, the nephew of Tsar Vasily, Prince Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky, stood at the head of the Moscow troops. With the help of the Swedes and the militias of the northern cities, successful actions began against the Polish invaders. As a result, the north of Russia was liberated. The troops moved towards Moscow.

In response to Sweden's help to Russia, the Polish king Sigismund declared war on the Russian government. In September 1609, he laid siege to the strong Russian fortress of Smolensk, which defended itself for 21 months. Sigismund ordered the Polish troops to leave Tushino and go to Smolensk. The Tushino camp disintegrated, the impostor was left without patrons. In the fall of 1609, he left Tushino and fled to Kaluga. Then the Russian Tushinians, who were left without their "tsar", sent ambassadors to the Polish king Sigismund near Smolensk and concluded an agreement with him in February 1610 on the acceptance of his son, king's son Vladislav.

In March 1610, the Tushino camp was abandoned by all its inhabitants, who dispersed in different directions, and Skopin-Shuisky solemnly entered the liberated Moscow. Moscow joyfully greeted the young voivode and expected new feats and successes from him in the fight against enemies, but in April Skopin suddenly fell ill and died (according to rumors, from poison).

Meanwhile, the Polish army under the command of Hetman Zolkiewski was moving from the western border to Moscow. At the village of Klushino, Zholkevsky met and defeated the Moscow army, which was under the command of the tsar's brother, Prince Dmitry Shuisky, and approached Moscow itself. On the other hand, a Tushinsky thief approached Moscow from Kaluga. The city was in alarm and confusion, Tsar Vasily lost all confidence and authority, on July 17, 1610 he was dethroned from the throne, and on July 19 forcibly tonsured a monk.

Seven Boyars. Having removed Vasily Shuisky from power, in the summer of 1610 the Moscow aristocracy created its own government headed by Prince F. I. Mstislavsky. This government consisted of seven boyars and was named "seven-boyars". However, this boyar rule could not be long and lasting. The approach of the Tushinsky thief, followed by the specter of a social upheaval and anarchy, frightened all the boyars and all the "best people". To get rid of the thief and his claims, the boyars decided to elect to the Moscow throne the son of King Sigismund, Vladislav, and let the troops of the interventionists into the Kremlin. On August 27, 1610, Moscow solemnly swore allegiance to the prince Vladislav as its future sovereign, on the condition that he promises to protect the Orthodox faith. Patriarch Hermogenes categorically insisted on the latter condition, who did not allow the possibility of non-Orthodox occupation of the Moscow throne. This was a direct betrayal of national interests. The country faced the threat of losing its independence.

However, Sigismund's plans were different, he did not want to let his young son go to Moscow, all the more did he want to allow him to convert to Orthodoxy. He intended to take the Moscow throne himself, but has not yet revealed his plans. Therefore, the Russian embassy near Smolensk was forced to conduct long and fruitless negotiations, in which the king insisted that the ambassadors induce the "Smolensk prisoners" to surrender.

Meanwhile, Moscow in September 1610, with the consent of the boyars, was occupied by the Polish army of Zholkiewski, who soon left there, handing over the command to Gonsevskiy. The civil government was headed by the boyar Mikhail Saltykov and the "merchant man" Fyodor Andronov, who tried to rule the country on behalf of Vladislav. In the summer (July) of 1611, Novgorod the Great was occupied by the Swedes with almost no resistance from the inhabitants, which adds to the sad picture of the general moral decline and decay in the country.

The Polish occupation of Moscow dragged on, Vladislav did not accept Orthodoxy and did not go to Russia. The rule of Poles and Polish minions in Moscow aroused more and more discontent, but it was tolerated as a lesser evil, for the presence of the Polish garrison in the capital made it inaccessible to the Tushinsky (now Kaluga) thief. But in December 1610, the thief was killed in Kaluga, and this event served as a turning point in the history of the Troubles. Now among the servicemen, and among the "zemstvo" people in general, and among the Cossacks, in whom the national consciousness and religious feeling lived, there was only one enemy left - the one who occupied the Russian capital with foreign troops and threatened the national Russian state and the Orthodox Russian faith.

First militia. Patriarch Hermogenes became the head of the national-religious opposition at this time. He turned to the Russian people with direct calls for an uprising, for the defense of the church and the fatherland, for which he was arrested. But the voice of the patriarch was heard. Already at the very beginning of 1611, a broad patriotic movement began in the country. The cities correspond with each other, so that everyone can join the union, collect military men and go to the rescue of Moscow. "The main engine of the uprising ... was the patriarch, at whose behest, in the name of faith, the Earth rose and gathered."

In the spring of 1611, the zemstvo militia approached Moscow and began its siege. At this time, King Sigismund stopped endless negotiations near Smolensk with Russian ambassadors and ordered to take away Metropolitan Philaret and Prince Golitsyn to Poland as prisoners. In June 1611, the Poles finally took Smolensk, where of the 80,000 inhabitants who were there at the beginning of the siege, only 8,000 people remained alive.

A significant part of Moscow in March 1611 was defeated and burned by the Polish garrison, who wanted to prevent the uprising, and several thousand residents were beaten. The zemstvo militia that came to Moscow consisted of two different elements: firstly, the nobles and boyar children, headed by the famous Ryazan voivode Prokopy Lyapunov, and secondly, the Cossacks, headed by the former Tushino boyars , Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy and Cossack Ataman Ivan Zarutsky.

The militia troops fought bravely for independence already on the outskirts of the Kremlin. Here, in the Sretenka area, Prince D.M. However, the Russian troops were unable to build on the success. The leaders of the militia spoke in favor of the return of the fugitive peasants to their owners. Cossacks were not allowed to hold public office. Antagonism and rivalry arose between the nobles and the Cossacks, personally between Lyapunov and Zarutsky. The matter ended with the fact that the Cossacks, suspecting Lyapunov of hostile intentions, summoned him to their circle for an explanation and killed him. This is how P. Lyapunov, a nobleman, the leader of the Ryazan militia, who managed to establish his military organization well, died.

Left without a leader and frightened by the Cossack lynching, the nobles and boyar children for the most part left from near Moscow to their homes. The Cossacks remained in the camp near Moscow, but they were not strong enough to cope with the Polish garrison. The first militia broke up. Continuing the plunder of Russian lands, the Swedes seized Novgorod at that time, and the Poles, after a siege of many months, captured Smolensk. The Polish king Sigismund III announced that he himself would become the Russian tsar, and Russia would enter the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This is how the first militia ended, but it was of great practical and historical importance.

Second militia. The failure of the first zemstvo militia upset, but did not discourage the zemstvo people. In the provincial cities, a movement soon began again to organize a new militia and a march towards Moscow. This time, the starting point and center of the movement was Nizhny Novgorod, headed by its famous zemstvo head Kuzma Minin, who in September 1611 made a speech in the Nizhny Novgorod zemstvo hut with ardent appeals to help the Moscow state, sparing no funds and no sacrifices. The city council, from representatives of all strata of the population, directed the initial steps - the collection of funds and the call of the military people. The head of the zemstvo militia was invited "steward and voivode" Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky, a capable military leader and a man with an unblemished reputation, the economic and financial part was taken over by the "elected man of the whole land" Kuzma Minin. In November, the movement begun by Nizhny Novgorod covered a significant Volga region, and in January the militia moved from Nizhny, first to Kostroma, and then to Yaroslavl, where it arrived by the beginning of April 1612, meeting the liveliest sympathy and support from the population along the way.

Having learned about the movement of the Nizhny Novgorod militia, M. Saltykov and his henchmen demanded that Patriarch Hermogenes write a letter forbidding the Nizhny Novgorod residents to go to Moscow. To this Hermogenes replied: "May there be mercy for them from God and a blessing from our humility; on us traitors, may wrath be poured out from God and from our humility be damned in this world and in the future"; for this, the apostates "began his death with gladness and died of gladness in February 1612 on the 17th day, and was buried in Moscow in the Chudov Monastery."

The zemstvo militia remained in Yaroslavl for about four months, this time was spent in hard work to restore order in the country, to create central government institutions, to gather forces and funds for the militia itself. More than half of Russia at that time united around the militia, local councils from representatives of all strata of the population worked in the cities, and governors from Yaroslavl were appointed to the cities. In Yaroslavl itself, the Zemsky Sobor, or the Council of All the Land, was formed from representatives from the localities and representatives from the service people who made up the militia. This council was the temporary supreme power in the country.

Remembering the fate of Lyapunov and his militia, Pozharsky was in no hurry to go to Moscow until he gathered enough strength. At the end of July, Pozharsky's militia moved from Yaroslavl to Moscow. Hearing about his movement, the ataman Zarutsky, carrying with him several thousand "thieves" Cossacks, left Moscow for Kaluga, and Trubetskoy with the majority of the Cossack army remained, awaiting the arrival of Pozharsky. In August, Pozharsky's militia approached Moscow, and a few days later the Polish hetman Chodkevich approached Moscow, going to help the Polish garrison in Moscow, but was repelled and forced to retreat.

In September, the governors of Moscow region agreed, "on the petition and sentence of all ranks of the people," so that together they "want to access Moscow and the Russian state in everything without any trick", and do all sorts of things at the same time, and from now on write letters from the single government on behalf of both voivode, Trubetskoy and Pozharsky. On October 22, the Cossacks attacked and took Kitai-Gorod, and a few days later surrendered, exhausted by hunger, the Poles who were sitting in the Kremlin, and both militias solemnly entered the liberated Moscow with the ringing of bells and the jubilation of the people.

The beginning of the royal dynasty of the Romanovs. In February 1613, the Zemsky Sobor took place in Moscow, at which the question of choosing a new Russian tsar was raised. As candidates for the Russian throne, the Polish prince Vladislav, the son of the Swedish king Karl-Philip, the son of False Dmitry II and Marina Mnishek - Ivan, as well as representatives of the largest boyar families were proposed.

They decided to elect one of their own, but then disagreements, disputes, intrigues and troubles began, for among the "noble" Moscow boyars, who were previously allies of either the Poles, or the Tushino thief, there was no worthy and popular candidate. After long disputes, on February 7, 1613, the elected people agreed on the candidacy of 16-year-old Mikhail Romanov, the son of Metropolitan Filaret, who was in Polish captivity, and the grand-nephew of the first wife of Ivan the Terrible, Anastasia Romanova.

On February 21, 1613, the Zemsky Sobor unanimously elected and solemnly proclaimed Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov tsar. The electoral letter said that "all Orthodox peasants of the entire Moscow state" wished him to reign, and on the other hand, his family ties with the former tsarist dynasty were indicated: the new tsar was the son of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich's cousin, Fyodor Nikitich Romanov-Yuriev , and to Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich - a nephew ...

On May 2, 1613, Mikhail Romanov arrived in Moscow; on July 11, he was crowned king. His father, Patriarch Filaret, headed the Orthodox Church. Thus, power on Russian soil was restored in the form of an autocratic monarchy.

The nature and consequences of the turmoil. The struggle for power and for the royal throne, begun by the Moscow boyars, subsequently led to the complete collapse of the state order, to the internecine struggle "all against all" and to terrible demoralization, which found especially vivid expression in the Tushino "bindings" and in those wild and senseless atrocities and violence against the civilian population, which was committed by gangs of "thieves' people".

There is no doubt that in the middle of the Time of Troubles (since 1606) we observe elements of the "class struggle", or the uprising of the poor against the rich, but to a greater extent it was general civil strife.

Contemporaries accurately and correctly write: "thieves from all ranks", i.e. from all estates and classes of society. The Tushino camp of the second False Dmitry is considered a characteristic "thieves'" camp, and meanwhile "the Thief had representatives of very high strata of the Moscow nobility." "Thieves" was by no means an economic, but a moral and psychological category - people without any moral and religious foundations and legal principles, and there were quite a few of them in all classes of society (they were still a minority of the population). And who were those "zemstvo people" who rose up against domestic "thieves" and foreign enemies and restored the nation state destroyed by "thieves" and external enemies? These were Trinity monks, posad and village monks, commercial and plowed peasants of the central and northern regions, average service people and a significant part of the Don Cossacks - a very variegated alliance in terms of class.

During the period of the so-called interregnum (1610-1613), the position of the Moscow state seemed completely hopeless. The Poles occupied Moscow and Smolensk, the Swedes - Veliky Novgorod, gangs of foreign adventurers and their "thieves" ravaged the unfortunate country, killed and robbed civilians. When the land became "stateless," political ties between the individual regions were broken, but still society did not disintegrate: it was saved by national and religious ties. Urban societies of the central and northern regions, headed by their elected authorities, become carriers and preachers of national consciousness and social solidarity.

The Time of Troubles was not so much a revolution as a severe shock to the life of the Moscow state. The first, direct and most serious consequence of it was the terrible ruin and desolation of the country: in the inventory of rural areas under Tsar Mikhail, many empty villages are mentioned, from which the peasants "fled", or "unknown kudas", or were beaten by the "Lithuanian people" and "thieves". In the social composition of society, the turmoil further weakened the strength and influence of the old noble boyars, which in the storms of the time of troubles partly perished or was ruined, and partly morally degraded and discredited themselves by their intrigues, "prank" and their alliance with the enemies of the state.

Politically, the time of troubles - when the earth, having gathered its strength, itself restored the destroyed state, - showed with its own eyes that the Muscovite state was not the creation and "patrimony" of its "master" - the sovereign, but was a common cause and common creation "of all cities and all ranks of people of the entire great Russian Kingdom. "

9.Russia in the 17th century

Time of Troubles ... The reign of Boris Godunov (1598-1605) was marked by the beginning in Russia of the so-called. Troubles. In 1601–03, famine overtook the country, which, despite the government's large-scale emergency measures (organizing public works, opening tsarist grain barns for the hungry, temporary restoration of St. George's Day), had catastrophic consequences for economic development and led to a sharp exacerbation of social contradictions. The atmosphere of general discontent, as well as the dynastic crisis (suppression with the death of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich of the Moscow branch of the Rurikovichs) created fertile ground for the emergence of impostors, acting under the names of the heirs of Ivan IV the Terrible. In 1603, rebel detachments under the leadership of Khlopok operated in the central districts of the country. Although the uprising was quickly suppressed, the internal political situation in the country did not stabilize. In the fall of 1604, an impostor (Grigory Otrepiev) moved from the Commonwealth to the Moscow state, posing as the miraculously escaped Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich (False Dmitry I). His power was recognized by the cities of the Seversk land in the south-west of the Russian state, as well as Voronezh, Belgorod, Yelets, Kursk, etc. After the sudden death of Boris Godunov (13.4.1605), a significant part of the tsarist army that was besieging the fortress of Kroma went over to the side of False Dmitry I. The united army moved to Moscow, where on June 1 there was a coup in favor of the impostor: Tsar Fyodor Godunov and his mother Tsarina Maria Grigorievna were taken into custody and soon killed. On 20 June 1605, the impostor entered Moscow and a month later, under the name of Dmitry Ivanovich, was married to the kingdom. Imitating the Polish king, False Dmitry I renamed the Boyar Duma to the Senate, made changes to the palace ceremonies. The impostor emptied the treasury with expenses for the maintenance of the Polish and German guards, for entertainment and gifts for the Polish king; general indignation was caused by his marriage to the Catholic Marina Mnishek. Among the boyar nobility, a conspiracy matured, headed by Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, who came from the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod branch of the Rurikovichs. On 17 May 1606, during the uprising of the townspeople against the Poles, False Dmitry I was killed. The conspiracy leader became the new king. Vasily IV Ivanovich (ruled 1606–10), nominated by a narrow circle of courtiers, was not popular. Trying to secure the support of the nobility and the top of the merchant class, Vasily Ivanovich gave a “kissing record”, pledging to judge his subjects by “true judgment” and not impose disgrace on anyone without guilt. The spread of rumors about the salvation of Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich (False Dmitry I) led to a mass movement against Shuisky under the slogan of returning to the throne of the "true" tsar. The uprising led by I.I. Bolotnikov, who called himself "the great voivode of Tsar Dmitry", covered a huge territory (Komaritskaya volost, Ryazan land, the Volga region, etc.), a rebel army of many thousands, which included detachments of Cossacks, serfs, townspeople, peasants, small landowners, in the fall of 1606 laid siege to Moscow. However, a split occurred in the camp of the rebels. Commoners went to Bolotnikov's army to "beat their boyars and merchants", destroy "fortresses", that is. letters confirming their enslavement. As a result, the noble detachments led by the Ryazan nobleman P.P. Lyapunov and a serviceman from Tula I. Pashkov went over to the side of the government. Dec. 1606, after several battles with the tsarist army, the Bolotnikovites retreated to Tula and after a 4-month siege (May – October 1607) were forced to surrender.

Rice. Charter of False Dmitry I. 1604

However, already at the beginning. 1608 a new impostor appeared in the Seversk land, declaring himself the miraculously saved "Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich" (the so-called False Dmitry II), under whose banner all those dissatisfied with the government of Vasily Shuisky began to gather. On the territory of Russia, weakened by the internecine war, detachments of the Polish gentry and Zaporozhye Cossacks moved. In June 1608, the army of False Dmitry II approached Moscow, fortifying in the village. Tushino, where the "thieves" Boyar Duma was formed, orders were in force, on behalf of "Tsar Dmitry" ranks and lands complained. To fight the army of the impostor, Vasily Shuisky concluded an agreement with Sweden, according to which, for hiring a foreign army, Russia ceded Ladoga and Korel to Sweden. In the summer of 1609, the Russian-Swedish army, led by Prince M.V. Skopin-Shuisky defeated the Tushins near Tver, and in January. 1610 lifted the siege from the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. The Tushino camp disintegrated, and the impostor fled to Kaluga, where in December. 1610 was killed.

The country's internal political situation was sharply complicated by the invasion of its borders by foreign invaders. Back in Sept. 1609 the Polish king Sigismund III invaded Russia and laid siege to Smolensk (the heroic defense of the fortress continued until June 1611). In May 1610, the Polish army led by Hetman S. Zholkiewski moved to Moscow and in the battle near the village. Klushino defeated the army of Vasily Shuisky, whose remnants fled to Moscow, sowing panic. An uprising broke out in the capital. On 7/17/1610, a group of conspirators from among the boyars and nobles, supported by the townspeople, overthrew Vasily Shuisky from the throne, who was forcibly tonsured a monk. The participants in the conspiracy swore an oath "to elect the sovereign with all the land." Power passed to the interim government of the "seven-numbered boyars" headed by Prince F.I. Mstislavsky (the so-called Semboyarshchina). On 8/17/1610, the boyar government signed an agreement with Hetman Zolkiewski on the election of the Polish prince Vladislav to the throne and admitted the Polish garrison to the Kremlin. In 1611, Swedish troops captured Pskov and Novgorod.

The actions of the boyar government were regarded in the country as an act of treason and served as a signal for the unification of patriotic forces under the slogan of expelling foreign invaders, as well as "thieves" - traitors who were sowing confusion, and the election of the sovereign "by the will of the whole earth." At the head of the movement was the service nobility and the top of the posad of a number of cities. The militia created in 1611 (headed by Prince D.M. Trubetskoy, P.P. Lyapunov and I.M.Zarutsky) approached Moscow in the spring. The supreme government body of the militia was the "Council of the Whole Earth" - a kind of permanent Zemsky Sobor, uniting representatives of all social strata participating in the liberation movement. However, the external unity of the militia was not supported by internal unity. Conflicts between the Cossacks and servicemen led to the disintegration of the army in the summer of 1611 and the departure of part of it from the camp near Moscow. The center of the liberation movement moved to Nizhny Novgorod, where, under the leadership of the Nizhny Novgorod merchant K.M. Minin and Prince D.M. Pozharsky formed a new militia. The second militia (1611–12), supported by a patriotic population, expelled the invaders from Moscow. 10/22/1612 Kitay-Gorod was taken by storm, and on October 26. the Polish garrison of the Kremlin capitulated. Gathered at the beginning. 1613 in Moscow Zemsky Sobor 19 Feb. elected the 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov (reigned 1613–45) to his reign. Until the end. 1610s the elimination of the hotbeds of the Troubles and foreign intervention continued. According to the Stolbovsky peace with Sweden (1617), Russia had to cede the Izhora land from the r. Neva and Korelu, thus deprived of access to the Baltic Sea. After the unsuccessful campaign of the Polish prince Vladislav against Moscow, the Deulinskoe truce was concluded (1618), according to which the Commonwealth ceded Smolensk with the district, Sebezh, Chernigov, Novgorod-Seversky, Dorogobuzh and a number of other cities in the west and south-west of Russia.

Rice. Zemsky Sobor 1613. 17th century miniature.

Economic and socio-political development of Russia in the 2nd quarter. 17 in... At the end of the Time of Troubles, the economic ruin of the state reached alarming proportions. Huge tracts of cultural lands were abandoned. The most affected are the counties located to the west and south of Moscow, and to a lesser extent to the north of it. In some counties, the desolation of arable land reached 60%. The predatory raids of the Crimean Tatars caused enormous damage to the country. In the 1st floor. 17th century At least 200 thousand Russian people were taken prisoner and sold by the Crimean Tatars in the slave markets in Istanbul.

Government measures (gross description and patrol of the deserted areas, search and return to their former places of residence of fugitive peasants, etc.) were aimed both at eliminating economic devastation and at further establishing serfdom. In order to replenish the treasury for five years, annually (up to 1619) was collected "fifth money", or pyatina (a fifth of the movable property of the draft population), as well as "request money" from the clergy and service people. All tax benefits (tarkhans) of cities and lands were canceled; white settlements. In 1619, in order to streamline the collection of taxes, the compilation of new scribes and sentinel books began. In 1637 a decree was issued to increase the period of detecting runaway peasants to 9 years, and in 1642 to 10 years for runaways and 15 years for exported peasants.

Rice. Plowing. Miniature 17th century

By the 1620s and 30s. handicraft production and trade revived. Guests and members of the Living Room of the Hundreds were exempted from the posad tax. On behalf of the government, merchants conducted state trade, managed customs and taverns. Customs duties and the tsarist monopoly on the trade in bread, furs, copper, etc., became an important item in the treasury. agriculture and crafts have recovered from the effects of the Time of Troubles. In the village, where at least 96% of the population lived, a natural-patriarchal economy dominated, mainly agricultural. The main agricultural crops were rye, oats, and barley. The increase in the volume of agricultural production was achieved mainly due to the development of new lands south of the Belgorod line, as well as the Middle Volga region and Siberia. The fortresses of Yeniseisky (1619), Krasnoyarsky (1628), Bratsky (1631), Yakutsky (1632) were founded. Russian explorers reached the coast of the Sea of Okhotsk (1639), i.e. The Pacific Ocean.

Rice. Blacksmithing masters. Fishing. Miniatures of the 17th century

Merchant. Miniature 17th century

Industry, as before, developed mainly due to the growth of handicraft and small-scale commodity production and the deepening of industry specialization on this basis. Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Vologda became the centers of fabric production for sale in the domestic market and abroad. Leather production was established in Yaroslavl, Vologda, Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod and Kaluga. Tula-Serpukhovskoy, Tikhvinsky and Ustyuzhno-Zheleznopolsky regions were the centers of iron-making industries. The main areas of salt production were the North (Salt Galitskaya, Sol Kamskaya, Salt Vychegodskaya), Staraya Russa in the West and Balakhna in the Middle Volga region. There was a concentration of artisans and rural commodity producers in old cities, new urban centers of industry arose in the European part (Simbirsk, 1648, etc.). A new phenomenon in the country's economic life was the development of commercial and industrial villages (Pavlovo-on-Oka, Lyskovo, Murashkino, etc.), the main occupation of whose inhabitants was no longer agriculture, but certain types of crafts. The first manufactories appeared: in salt production, as well as in the distillery, leather (production of yuft), rope-spinning and metal-working industries. Cannon, Mint, Printing, Velvet Dvors, Armory, Hamovnaya Chambers and others worked in Moscow. The first metallurgical and glass factories were built with the support of the state. Foreign merchants (A.D. Vinius, P.G. Marselis, and others) received permission to build enterprises. Enterprises were founded in their estates by wealthy boyars (I.D. Miloslavsky, B.I. Morozov, and others). In contrast to Western Europe, where civilian workers worked at factories, serf labor of peasants "assigned" to them dominated in Russian industrial enterprises. The emergence of manufactories did not lead to any significant changes in socio-economic relations. The main customer and consumer of the products of industrial enterprises were the state and the royal court. The growth of agricultural and handicraft production caused an increase in the number of urban and rural trades, marketplaces and fairs. The largest trade center was the capital of the state, Moscow. The main trade artery within the country was the Volga. Trades in the largest cities (Moscow, Yaroslavl, etc.) and the Makaryevskaya fair (near Nizhny Novgorod) acquired an all-Russian significance. In the development of commodity exchange with Ukraine, the Svenskaya fair (near Bryansk) began to play an important role, with the Don - Lebedyanskaya (now the territory of the Lipetsk region. ), with Siberia - Irbit (now the territory of the Sverdlovsk region). Internal interregional trade (bread, salt, etc.) has become one of the main sources of the formation of merchant capital. However, as before, foreign trade was the main source of their education. Sea trade with Western European countries was carried out through the only port - Arkhangelsk (on the White Sea), which accounted for 3/4 of the country's trade turnover. Western European goods were also delivered to Russia by dry route through Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk. The main consumers of imported goods (mainly industrial products - weapons, cloth, paper, tin, luxury goods, etc.) were the treasury and the royal court. Trade with Asian countries was carried out through Astrakhan (on the Caspian Sea), where, along with Russian merchants, Armenians, Iranians, Bukharians, Indians traded, delivering raw silk, silk and paper fabrics, scarves, carpets, etc. Russian merchants supplied domestic goods, mainly Thus, raw materials - hemp, flax, leather, potash, leather, bacon, canvas, furs. Russia's foreign trade was almost entirely in the hands of foreign merchants, who made transactions not only in Arkhangelsk, but also in other cities of the country and thus penetrated the domestic market. The dominance of foreign trade capital on the domestic market aroused sharp discontent among Russian merchants. At the Zemsky Cathedrals of the 1630s – 40s. questions were raised about limiting the trade of foreign merchants to border towns. Posad people sought the elimination of "white" settlements that belonged to feudal lords and were exempt from paying state taxes (until 1649–52), privileges of guests, hundreds of merchants living in the drawing room and cloth, the abolition of tarkhans (letters granting trade privileges for large monasteries), protested against tax oppression and, often together with archers and other service people "by the device", rebelled against the arbitrariness of the authorities. The increase in taxes, increased exploitation of the townspeople caused the Salt Riot (1648) in Moscow, uprisings in Novgorod and Pskov (1650); in 1648–50, uprisings also took place in the cities of the South (Kozlov, Kursk, Voronezh, etc.), Pomorie (Veliky Ustyug, Salt Vychegodskaya), the Urals and Siberia. Total in the middle. 17th century the uprisings covered more than 30 cities, reaching Siberia (Narym, Tomsk, Yenisei prison) and forced the government to make significant changes in legislation.

The evolution of the state system... At the beginning of the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, the estate-representative bodies of power, which gained strength during the Time of Troubles, continued to exert a great influence on the affairs of administration, Zemsky Sobors were regularly convened. In 1619–33, the de facto ruler of the country was the father of Tsar Mikhail, who returned from Polish captivity, Patriarch Filaret (in the world Fyodor Nikitich Romanov), who bore the title of “great sovereign” along with his son. Under the tsars Mikhail Fedorovich and Alexei Mikhailovich (reigned in 1645–76), along with the Boyar Duma, there was a "near" or "secret" Duma, which consisted of confidants invited by the tsar. At the same time, the role of the order bureaucracy increased: clerks and clerks. All military, judicial and financial power on the ground was concentrated in the hands of

After the death in 1431 of the Greek Metropolitan Photius, who defended the monocracy of the Moscow Grand Duke, the Russian church hierarchs, taking into account the wishes of Vasily II, "named" Bishop Jonah of Ryazan as Metropolitan. However, the Patriarch of Constantinople did not approve his candidacy, for even before his arrival in Constantinople he had appointed Bishop Gerasim of Smolensk to the Russian Metropolitanate. In the fall of 1433, Gerasim returned from Constantinople to Smolensk, which belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but did not go to Moscow, "but the princes of Russia are fighting and splitting about the great reign of the Russian land."

In 1435 Gerasim, accused of treason, died in Smolensk. And Jonah went to Constantinople for the second time to be ordained as a metropolitan. But he was late again: even before his arrival, the patriarchate approved the Greek Isidore, a prominent church figure, a well-educated person, as metropolitan. In April 1437 the new metropolitan arrived in Moscow.

The purpose of Isidore's appointment was to ensure the acceptance of the proposed Orthodox-Catholic union by the Russian Church. At this moment, Byzantium was in mortal danger from the Ottoman Empire. Trying to save the remnants of his power, the Byzantine emperor entered into negotiations with the Pope to unite the churches, in order to get the support of the European powers in the fight against the Turks. Pope Eugene IV, in turn, eagerly responded to the proposal of Byzantium, hoping to strengthen the prestige of the papal power by the union.

Metropolitan Isidore took an active part in the conclusion of the union, which was signed in Florence in 1439. The Papal Curia and the Patriarchate of Constantinople signed an act on the acceptance of Catholic dogmas by the Orthodox Church and the recognition of the Pope as the head of the church while preserving Orthodox rituals in worship.

On the way from Florence to Moscow, Isidore sent out a pastoral message of union to the Polish, Lithuanian and Russian lands. However, Isidore met a tolerant attitude towards the union only in Kiev and Smolensk. In the spring of 1441, the Metropolitan arrived in Moscow with a letter from the Pope to Vasily the Dark. But the Grand Duke refused to recognize the act of uniting the churches and declared Isidor a heretic. He was arrested and imprisoned in the Chudov Monastery. From there, the metropolitan fled first to Tver, then to Lithuania, and finally to Rome.

The expulsion of the Metropolitan appointed by Constantinople and the rejection of the ecclesiastical union of 1439 had important consequences. On the one hand, in church circles there was a conviction that the Greeks had betrayed the Orthodox faith for their own selfish purposes, and on the other hand, the personality of the Grand Duke was increasingly associated with the image of the true defender of the faith, the support of Orthodoxy.

In 1448, a council of the highest clergy in Moscow approved the henchman of Basil II, Jonah, on the metropolitan throne without the sanction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. This act marked the end of the dependence of the Russian Church on Byzantium (autocephaly). At the same time, the Moscow metropolitanate from that moment turned out to be in direct dependence on the grand ducal power.

Church and heresies in the second half of the 15th century

By the end of the 15th century, the position of the Russian Orthodox Church was rather difficult. After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Russian Church finally became independent and no one could influence its relations with the secular authorities from the outside. The most far-sighted hierarchs of the Orthodox Church strove to strengthen the grand ducal power and centralize the state as a bulwark of autocracy.

At the same time, the authority of the church inside the country was significantly shaken due to the aggravation of social contradictions. The protest of the social lower classes of society was most often expressed in a religious form. In the largest Russian cities in the 15th century. so-called heretics appeared, whose activities were especially dangerous for the church.

A new rise in the heretical movement took place at the end of the 15th century. in Novgorod and was associated with the activities of the Jew Scarius, who came from Lithuania in 1471 (hence the name - the heresy of the Judaizers, because of the similarity with Judaism). This heresy became widespread among the lower Novgorod clergy. The most stubborn persecutors of the heretics were the archbishop of Novgorod Gennady and a prominent church figure, abbot and founder of the Joseph Volokolamsk monastery, Joseph Volotsky (Ivan Sanin). By the name of the latter, a whole line of religious thought began to be called.

The Moscow circle of heretics consisted of clerks and merchants, headed by the clerk of the Duma, Ivan Kuritsyn, who was close to Ivan III. They advocated the strengthening of the grand ducal power and the limitation of church land tenure, insisted that every person, without the mediation of the church, can communicate with God. In 1490, at a church council, the heretics were condemned and cursed. Supporters of the heresy of the Judaizers were expelled from Moscow, and in Novgorod they were subjected to humiliating reprisals.

In the church environment, there was no complete unity in relation to the heretics. So, the opponents of the Josephites were the so-called non-possessors, led by the elder of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, Nil Sorsky. The non-possessors, for example, believed that heretics should be polemized, not dealt with, and that the true ministry of the church should be performed through an ascetic way of life, by “not acquiring” earthly riches and possessions. For some time, Ivan III was inclined to support non-possessors.

But at a church council in 1503, the militant Josephites stubbornly resisted the issue of the church's renunciation of land ownership. And the very next year, a new church council sentenced the heretics to death. Kuritsyn's Moscow circle was destroyed. Thus, an alliance of secular power began to take shape with the most orthodox part of the clergy, headed by Joseph Volotsky, who proclaimed "the priesthood above the kingdom," and the foundations of Orthodoxy as a condition for the existence of autocracy.