Urban uprisings in the 17th century. The rebellious age: popular performances and their consequences

17th century was remembered by contemporaries as a "rebellious" century. This century began with the uprising of Khlopok and the war led by Ivan Bolotnikov and ended with streltsy unrest. Popular unrest covered vast territories, and during city riots, the rebels became the masters of the capital.

17th century was remembered by contemporaries as a "rebellious" century. This century began with the uprising of Khlopok and the war led by Ivan Bolotnikov and ended with streltsy unrest. Popular unrest covered vast territories, and during city riots, the rebels became the masters of the capital. However, the rebels did not have a well-thought-out plan of action, often pursued narrow class interests, were disunited and undisciplined. A common feature of the popular unrest of the XVII century. were pronounced tsarist illusions. Those who rebelled, with rare exceptions, did not think about actions against the royal person, and even more so against the very institution of the monarchy. Their anger was directed against the boyars, duma people, governor, and the autocrat, on the contrary, was looking for protection against "traitors". The tsar was addressed with petitions, they asked him to punish mercenary people and put honest servants in their place.

Salt riot of 1648

The "Salt Riot" got its name because it was provoked by dissatisfaction with the salt tax. This event was preceded by a general crisis in the taxation system. In the section of the lecture devoted to the feudal estates, it was said about the tax - a complex of monetary and in-kind duties that the townspeople carried. Meanwhile, in the cities, side by side with the taxable townspeople, artisans and merchants from white settlements lived, so called because they were whitewashed, or exempted from taxation. White settlements belonged to large spiritual and secular feudal lords. The population of the white settlements was dependent on their feudal lords, but their financial situation was better than that of free people. Hence, the desire of the townspeople to exchange their heavy freedom for a relatively light dependence by enslaving powerful nobles was observed. It got to the point that in some cities the population of white settlements caught up with the population of suburbs. Thus, fewer and fewer taxpayers paid taxes, and the tax that fell on each of them naturally increased.

It soon became apparent to the authorities that it was pointless to further increase direct taxes in view of the reduction and undermining of the paying capacity of the hard-won population. Official documents of that time frankly admit that the collection of streltsy and yamsky money was extremely uneven due to the mass evasion of townspeople: "others do not pay, because neither in the category in the lists, nor in the cadastral books of their names are there, and everyone lives in county in the surplus". Nazariy Chistoy, a former guest who became a Duma clerk, proposed following the example of Western European countries to place the main emphasis on indirect taxes. In 1646, some of the direct taxes were abolished, and instead the duty on salt was quadrupled - from five kopecks to two hryvnias per pood. Since the sale of salt was a state monopoly, Chisty assured that the salt tax would enrich the treasury. In fact, the opposite happened, as buyers reduced their salt intake to the limit. Moreover, the salt tax led to unpredictable consequences. On the Volga, due to the high cost of salt, thousands of pounds of fish rotted, which the common people ate during fasting. At the beginning of 1648, the unsuccessful tax was abolished, but at the same time, taxable people were required to pay the old taxes for three years in a row. The dissatisfaction of the people was intensified by the abuses of the tsar's associates: the tutor of the tsar, the boyar Morozov, the tsar's father-in-law, Prince I.D. Miloslavsky, the roundabout L.S. Pleshcheev, head of the Pushkar order Trakhaniotov.

An outbreak of spontaneous discontent occurred at the beginning of the summer of 1648. The ordinary population of Moscow tried several times to file a petition against the royal entourage, but the petitions were not accepted, which prompted the dissatisfied to take more decisive action. On May 25, 1648, when Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was returning from pilgrimage, the crowd stopped his carriage and demanded that L. S. Pleshcheev be dismissed. The tsar promised, and the people had already begun to disperse, when suddenly several courtiers from among Pleshcheev's supporters hit several people with whips. The enraged crowd brought down a hail of stones on them and burst into the Kremlin. To stop the rebellion, Pleshcheev was handed over for execution, but the crowd pulled him out of the hands of the executioner and killed him. The fugitive Trakhaniotov was caught and executed. When they killed the clerk Nazarius the Pure, the crowd said: "Here you are, traitor, for the salt." The house of Shorin's guest was looted, who was accused of raising the price of salt. On top of the misfortunes, a terrible fire broke out in Moscow.

Salt riot of 1648

Streltsy, who had been delayed by salary for a long time, went over to the side of the rebels, which gave the rebellion a special scope. Only a detachment of serving foreigners remained loyal to the government, moving to defend the royal palace with unfurled banners and drumming. Under cover of the Germans, negotiations began with the rebels. Most of the close associates, whose heads the crowd demanded, were handed over for reprisal. The tsar announced to the people that he was sorry for the atrocities of Pleshcheev and Trakhaniotov. With great difficulty it was possible to save boyar Morozov. The tsar tearfully asked the crowd: “I promised to give you Morozov and I must admit that I can’t justify him completely, but I can’t make up my mind and condemn him: this is a man dear to me, the husband of the tsarina’s sister, and it will be very hard for me to hand him over to death.” Morozov was sent to a safe place, to an honorable exile in the Kirillov-Belozersky Monastery, and the tsar had to promise that he would never return the boyar to Moscow.

The king ordered to treat the archers with wine and honey, they were given an increased salary. The tsar's father-in-law Miloslavsky invited the elect from the Black Hundreds to the feast and treated them for several days in a row. Judges were replaced in all major orders. By royal decree, the debtors were released from the right. Alexei Mikhailovich also promised to lower the price of salt.

Following Moscow, unrest occurred in Kozlov, Vladimir, Yelets, Bolkhov, Chuguev. The main consequence of the city uprisings was the township reform and the adoption of the Council Code of 1649.

Uprisings in Pskov and Novgorod in 1650

Less than a year after the adoption of the Council Code, unrest broke out in Pskov and Novgorod, two cities in which the veche spirit had not yet died out. The reason for the unrest was the news that bread was sent to Sweden to pay off the debts of the government. The "young people" of Pskov, that is, the urban poor, appealed to the authorities with a request not to send bread, as the city was threatened with starvation. Having received a refusal on February 28, 1650, the Pskovites withdrew from obedience. A Swedish agent was captured, the governor Sobakin lost power over the city. The Pskovites chose as their leaders a triumvirate of the square clerk Tomilka Vasiliev and archers Porfiry Koza and Iov Kopyto.

Two weeks later, the unrest spread to Novgorod, and the Novgorodians acted approximately according to the same pattern. The Danish envoy was captured, and on March 16 the bell rang and shouts were heard: “The sovereign does not care about us, he helps with money and feeds the German lands with bread.” Voivode Prince Khilkov and Metropolitan Nikon tried to suppress the unrest by force, but the shooters' heads and boyar children could not do anything with the rebels. Metropolitan clerk Ivan Zheglov, released from prison, became the leader of the Novgorodians. In the zemstvo hut, the government consisted of Zheglov, the shoemaker Elisey Grigoriev, nicknamed Lisitsa, the Pentecostal archer Kirsha Dyavolov and others. But this elected government failed to organize the defense of Novgorod. They thought of sending ambassadors to Pskov so that both cities could stand together, but these plans were not fulfilled, and the matter was limited to the fact that a petition was sent to Moscow with assurances of the loyalty of the Novgorodians who punished the traitors. Among the rebels themselves, vacillations began very quickly. The prosperous part of the townspeople was afraid of a repetition of the Novgorod pogrom eighty years ago: “We will bring upon ourselves the same misfortune for the current turmoil that was under Tsar Ivan,” and the nobles refused to put their hands on the record that they should stand at the same time with worldly people.

Meanwhile, a detachment of military men was sent to pacify Novgorod, headed by Prince I. N. Khovansky. And although the leader of the township, Elisey Lisitsa, said: “We will not let the boyar Prince Khovansky into the city, and if there is no measure, then we, having taken banners and drums, will all go to Pskov,” the Novgorod nobles and boyar children began to run across to the government camp. Hopes for a petition did not materialize, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich demanded to extradite the instigators, threatening otherwise to send a governor with many military men. Metropolitan Nikon spoke with eloquent admonitions, and the prosperous part of the Novgorodians took his side. As a result, in mid-April, Prince Khovansky was allowed into the city, and a sentence came from Moscow: to execute Zheglov and Elisha Lisitsa by death, and beat the other instigators mercilessly with a whip and exile them to Astrakhan for eternal life.

The younger brother of Novgorod the Great - Pskov put up more fierce resistance. The rebels by force took lead, gunpowder and the keys to the city from the governor. Okolnichiy F. F. Volkonsky, who came to Pskov for the search, was himself captured, interrogated and barely escaped execution. Prince Khovansky, who, after the conquest of Novgorod, laid siege to Pskov with his detachment, was met with firing from cannons and squeakers. It is characteristic that at the same time the rebels continued to hope for the tsar, did not believe the negative answer to their petition (they even tortured one of the petitioners who returned from Moscow, seeking recognition that he had brought a false letter). There were rumors that Alexei Mikhailovich fled to Poland and would soon come to the rescue of Pskov with the Don and Zaporozhye Cossacks. Hostilities continued for several months, and Prince Khovansky could not take the well-fortified city. Moreover, Gdov and Izborsk joined Pskov. The rebels, knowing about the massacre of the Novgorodians, refused to submit, and responded to the message of Metropolitan Nikon: "It will be with him that Novgorod deceived, and we are not Novgorodians, we do not send guilty persons to the sovereign, and we know no guilt over ourselves."

At the end of July 1650, the Zemsky Sobor was convened in Moscow, for consideration of which the question of Pskov affairs was proposed. The answer of the elected people has not been preserved, but the royal decree, adopted immediately after the cathedral, did not require the extradition of breeders and promised the Pskovites that if they expressed humility, the military people would immediately retreat from Pskov. Historian S. M. Solovyov wrote that such a decision had its own explanation: "... we will point out only one fear, which the sources directly speak about: immediately after the cathedral, the Black Hundreds of the Socialists were called to the Ambassadorial order and they were told to inform the sovereign about all sorts of people who will speak thieves' speeches or accommodate the people. Obviously, the turbulent situation in Moscow itself and other cities forced them to refrain from using force.

The authorities relied on attracting the wealthy part of the townspeople, and indeed, the "best people" of Pskov persuaded their fellow citizens to kiss the sovereign's cross. This happened already in August and was accompanied by violent clashes between the "best" and the "youngest" people. Pop Yevsey, headman Gavrila Demidov, Tomilka Slepoy "talked about the sovereign in speeches incomprehensible to the human mind." With great difficulty, the Pskovites managed to take the oath, and then, despite all the assurances made before, the massacre of the instigators began. They were captured" the best people and sent to Novgorod, where they were imprisoned in chains.

Copper Riot of 1662

If the "salt riot" was generated by the crisis of taxation, then the cause of the "copper riot" was the crisis of the monetary system. At that time, the Muscovite state did not have its own gold and silver mines, and precious metals were brought from abroad. At the Money Yard, silver Joachimstalers, or, as they were called in Russia, “Efimkov”, minted Russian coins: kopecks, money - half kopecks and half kopecks - quarter kopecks. The protracted war with Poland over Ukraine required huge expenses, in connection with which, on the advice of A.L. Ordin-Nashchokin began issuing copper money at the price of silver. As with the salt tax, the result was just the opposite of what was intended. Despite the strict royal decree, no one wanted to accept copper, and the peasants, who were paid with copper poltins and altyns, "thin and uneven", stopped the supply of agricultural products to the cities, which led to famine. Poltinas and altyns had to be withdrawn from circulation and re-coined into kopecks. A small copper coin at first really had circulation on a par with silver kopecks. However, the government failed to avoid the temptation the easy way replenish the treasury and immensely increased the release of unsecured copper money, which was minted in Moscow, Novgorod and Pskov. At the same time, paying salaries to servicemen in copper money, the government demanded the payment of taxes ("fifth money") in silver. Soon copper money depreciated, for 1 ruble silver they gave 17 rubles copper. And although a strict royal decree forbade raising prices, all goods rose sharply in price.

Counterfeiting was on the rise. According to the Council Code of 1649, criminals had their throats filled with molten metal for counterfeiting a coin, but the threat of a terrible execution did not stop anyone, and a stream of "thieves' money" flooded the state. The search led to the craftsmen who worked at the Money Yard, “because before that time, when there were no copper money, and at that time they did not live by a rich custom, and with copper money they set up courtyards, stone and wooden, and clothes for themselves and wives were made from the boyar custom, and in the ranks they began to buy all sorts of goods and vessels, silver and food stocks at a high price, not sparing money. In the forgery of the coin, faithful heads and kissers were involved, assigned to the Money Yard to control the minting of the coin. They were from guests and merchants, "honest and well-to-do people." As G. Kotoshikhin wrote, “the devil disturbed their minds, that they were still imperfectly rich, they bought copper in Moscow and in the Svei state, and brought it to the money yards with royal copper together, and ordered to make money, and having made it, they brought it from the money yard with royal money together, and they gave the royal money to the treasury, and took their own to themselves. As always, ordinary performers suffered - they were executed, their hands and fingers were cut off and exiled to distant cities. The rich paid off the punishment by giving "big promises to the boyar, the tsar's father-in-law, Ilya Danilovich Miloslavsky, and the Duma nobleman Matyushkin, who was the former tsar's sister, and a clerk, and in the towns, promises to the governors and orderly people; and they, for those promises, that thief helped and delivered from troubles.

The common people were outraged by the impunity of the boyars. On July 25, 1662, sheets with accusations against Prince I. D. Miloslavsky, several members of the Boyar Duma and a wealthy guest Vasily Shorin were found in the Lubyanka. They were accused of secret relations with Poland, which had no basis. But disgruntled people needed a reason. It is significant that the same people who were accused of abuse during the "salt riot" became the object of universal hatred, and just like fourteen years ago, the crowd attacked and destroyed the house of Shorin's guest, who collected the fifth money in the whole state. Several thousand people went to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, who was in his country palace in the village of Kolomenskoye. The king was forced to go out to the people, and a scene played out in front of the church, which was a violation of all the rules of court etiquette. The common people surrounded the tsar, held him by the buttons, asked: "What to believe?", And when Alexei Mikhailovich gave his word to investigate the matter, one of the crowd beat the tsar of all Russia on the hands. The crowd went home, but this day was not destined to end peacefully.

Another crowd of many thousands, much more belligerent, was pouring towards them from Moscow. Petty merchants, butchers, bakers, pie-makers, village people again surrounded Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and this time they no longer asked, but demanded that the traitors be handed over to her for reprisal, threatening “if he won’t give them those boyars for good, and they will teach him to have them themselves according to your custom." However, archers and soldiers have already appeared in Kolomenskoye, sent by the boyars to the rescue. Therefore, when they began to threaten Alexei Mikhailovich, he raised his voice and ordered the stolniks, solicitors, tenants and archers to cut down the rebels. The unarmed crowd was driven into the river, more than seven thousand people were killed and captured. G. Kotoshikhin describes the bloody finale of the copper rebellion, “And that same day, 150 people were hanged near that village, and everyone got a decree, tortured and burned, and, according to the investigation for guilt, they cut off their hands and feet, and fingers at the hands and feet, and some were beaten with a whip, and signs were placed on the face on the right side, setting the iron on fire, and put on that iron “beeches”, that is, a rebel, so that he would be forever grateful; and inflicting punishment on them, they sent everyone to distant cities, to Kazan, and to Astarakhan, and to Terki, and to Siberia, to eternal life ... and by another greater thief of that day, in the night, a decree was issued, tying his hands back, putting him in big courts, drowned in the Moscow River. The search in connection with the "copper riot" had no precedents. All literate Muscovites were forced to give samples of their handwriting in order to compare them with the "thieves' sheets", which served as a signal for indignation. However, the instigators were never found.

"Copper Riot" was a performance of the city's lower classes. Craftsmen, butchers, pie-makers, peasants of suburban villages took part in it. Of the guests and merchants, "not a single person stuck to those thieves, they even helped those thieves, and they received praise from the king." Despite the merciless suppression of the rebellion, it did not go unnoticed. In 1663, by the royal decree of the copper business, the courtyards in Novgorod and Pskov were closed, and the minting of silver coins was resumed in Moscow. The salaries of all ranks to service people were again paid in silver money. Copper money was withdrawn from circulation, private individuals were ordered to melt it into boilers or bring it to the treasury, where 10 rubles were paid for each ruble, and later even less - 2 silver coins. According to V. O. Klyuchvsky, "The treasury acted like a real bankrupt, paid creditors 5 kopecks or even 1 kopeck per ruble"

Streltsy revolt of 1682

The Streltsy rebellion of 1682, or "Khovanshchina", as it is often called after the main participants in the movement of the Khovansky princes, was a complex and confusing phenomenon. On the one hand, these events reflected the struggle of boyar groups - "parties", in the words of one of his contemporaries. On the other hand, this movement was a kind of urban uprisings, in which the "rebellious" 17th century was so rich.

The death of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich in the spring of 1682 served as a reason for the Streltsy rebellion. The Tsar was childless, and his two younger brothers, sixteen-year-old Ivan and ten-year-old Peter, were contenders for the throne. The princes were born from different marriages and behind them are kindred clans, behind Ivan - the Miloslavskys, behind Peter - the Naryshkins. The right of seniority was on the side of Ivan, but he was sickly, half-blind and weak-minded, while Peter already at an early age showed extraordinary liveliness and abilities. It had to be decided who would take the throne. The situation was tense to the limit, and the boyars, who had gathered in the palace to elect a new tsar, put on armor under their dress, fearing that it would come to a stabbing. The debate in the Boyar Duma yielded nothing. The custom demanded that the issue be submitted for resolution to "all ranks by the people of the Muscovite state." This meant the Zemsky Sobor, but this institution already had a nominal value. The cathedral of 1682 can be called by this name only with a big stretch. He was called to hastily, literally in a few hours without any elections. All the ranks of the people gathered in Red Square were asked which of the two princes should be in the kingdom. The majority shouted: "Peter Alekseevich!" For the sick Ivan, only a few voices were heard. So, .... 1682, Peter, the future emperor Peter the Great, was elected to the kingdom.

The mother of the tsar, Natalya Kirillovna Naryshkina, and her entourage, from the very first hours of her reign, had to face a new force that intervened in events. It's about about the Moscow archers, who had good reason to be dissatisfied with their position. The colonels of the archery regiments looked at their subordinates as if they were serfs, withheld in their favor the archery salary and food, burdened them with requisitions and work. The turmoil at the top gave the archers a reason to declare their claims. Already on the day of Peter's election, one of the regiments refused to swear allegiance to the new tsar, and a few days later, elected representatives from sixteen streltsy and one soldier regiment filed a petition demanding an end to the abuses of the initial people. The government gave in. The regimental commanders were ordered to return the salaries of the archers, and two colonels, especially famous for extortion, Semyon Karandeev and Semyon Griboedov, were punished with a whip in the square. Griboedov was read a “fairy tale” about his wines, typical of the streltsy elite, before being punished: for bribes and work, he beat them with cruel fights ... forcibly forced them to sew for themselves a colored dress, velvet hats, yellow boots; deducted from them money and bread from the state salary ... ".

However, the concession did not lead to calm, especially since the archers were skillfully directed by the hostile boyar group. Many of the old families were dissatisfied with the humble Naryshkins, who emerged from the nobility only thanks to the marriage of Alexei Mikhailovich with the beautiful Natalya. The nobility was especially outraged by the rapid rise of the tsarina's brothers, young people who had no merit: I.K. Naryshkin at the age of 23 was granted the boyar rank. The dissatisfied rallied around the Miloslavskys, and their leader was Princess Sofya Aekseevna, the sister of Tsarevich Ivan and the half-sister of Tsar Peter.

You can learn more about Princess Sophia from the essay by N.I. Kostomarov here. It should be said that the princess was a unique figure in Russian history of the 17th century. Usually, from birth, the royal daughters were in a kind of golden cage, and even tightly closed from prying eyes. They lived as recluses in the palace chambers, and if they happened to go to church, then during the exit, cloth floors were carried on both sides of them to isolate them from the people, and in the temple their places were covered with taffeta - all to avoid the "evil eye" . The tsar's daughters were doomed to celibacy, since, according to G. Kotoshikhin, "it was not customary to marry them off to princes and boyars, because their princes and boyars are serfs and in their petition the writer of serfs, and that is set in eternal it’s a shame if a lady is married off as a slave; and it’s not customary to give other states for kings and princes, for the reason that they won’t abolish more than one faith, and they won’t abolish their faith, they put their faith in reproach, and even for the fact that other states of language and politics they don't know, and they would be ashamed of it."

Under Fyodor Alekseevich, the strict supervision of his six sisters was relaxed, but if the five princesses took advantage of their relative freedom only to dress up in Polish dress and take lovers, then Sophia had far-reaching political plans. As N. I. Kostomarov wrote, Princess Sophia, “Although she also led a far from lenten life, she differed from others in her remarkable mind and abilities. She approached Fedor more than her sisters and almost did not leave him when he suffered from his ailments; in this way she accustomed the boyars who came to the tsar to her presence, she herself was used to listening to conversations about state affairs and, probably, to a certain extent, she already participated in them with her advanced mind. She was then over 25 years old. To foreigners she seemed not at all beautiful and was distinguished by obesity; but the latter in Russia was considered beauty in a woman.

By figurative comparison one of his contemporaries, the news of the streltsy unrest became for Princess Sophia as joyful as for Noah the olive branch brought by the dove to the ark. Taking advantage of the discontent of the archers, it was possible to wrest power from the Naryshkins, but Sophia and Miloslavsky had to hurry, since the opposite side was taking measures to strengthen itself. The boyar A. S. Matveev, once one of the closest employees of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, was urgently called to Moscow, exiled to Mezen due to the machinations of the Miloslavskys. From him Miloslavsky had nothing to expect mercy. The boyar, who returned from exile, also condemned the concessions to the archers: "They are such that if they let the reins go even a little, they will reach extreme outrages ...".

May 15 is a fateful date, on this day in 1591 Tsarevich Dmitry died in Uglich, and the same day in 1682 in Moscow was marked by a series of massacres. Supporters of the Miloslavskys spread rumors among the archers that the Naryshkins had exhausted Tsarevich Ivan. Approximately according to the same pattern, the events of May 17, 1606 developed, when Shuisky's henchmen raised the alarm to the people with a rumor that the Poles had killed Tsar Dmitry - False Dmitry I and, taking advantage of the uprising, elevated Vasily Shuisky to the throne. In May 1682, the archers and the common people rushed to the Kremlin. The queen, together with the patriarch and the boyars, led Ivan and Peter to the Red Porch. The crowd, making sure that the prince was alive, calmed down and began to succumb to negotiations. However, at this decisive moment, as contemporaries said, the whole matter was decided by the unreasonable behavior of Prince M. Yu. Dolgorukov, his father's assistant on the Streltsy order and one of the boyars most hated by the archers. The prince began to threaten the archers and brought the crowd out of himself. The archers threw the boyar Matveev off the porch and chopped him to pieces, killed the tsarina's brother Athanasius Naryshkin, the boyars G. G. Romodanovsky and I. M. Yazykov, the duma clerk Larion Ivanov and many others. The bodies of the dead were dragged through the Spassky Gates to Red Square, archers walked in front of them and mockingly proclaimed: “Here is the boyar Artemon Sergeevich! Here is the boyar Prince Romodanovsky, here is the duma one is coming, give way! Streltsy also dealt with the head of the Streltsy Department, Prince Yuri Dolgoruky, who suppressed the uprising of Stenka Razin. When an eighty-year-old man was informed about the murder of his son Mikhail, he had the imprudence to say to the archers: “They ate the pike, but their teeth remained, they would not rebel long, they would soon hang on the battlements along the walls of the White and Earthen City.” One of the prince's serfs reported these words to the archers, who dragged the old man out of bed, cut him into pieces, threw the body into a dunghill and put a salted pike. The next day, the archers demanded that I.K. Naryshkin be handed over to them, threatening to kill all the boyars otherwise. Tsarevna Sofya sharply said to Tsarina Natalya: “Your brother cannot leave the archers; let us not all die for him!” The young boyar was confessed, communed and unction before his inevitable death, after which he was led out to the rebellious crowd. Naryshkin was brutally tortured, then dragged to Red Square and cut into pieces. The tsar's physician Daniil von Gaden was forced under torture to confess that he, together with the Naryshkins, allegedly poisoned Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich.

The entire capital was in the hands of the archers and the serfs who joined them. Streltsy and Kholopy orders were crushed. The archers called on the serfs to destroy the bondage records, and some of the serfs took advantage of the opportunity, but not all, since many became enslaved quite voluntarily.

In this turmoil, Princess Sophia and Miloslavsky managed to achieve the desired goal. On May 26, a new cathedral was convened, again only from the inhabitants of Moscow. In fear of the archers, the participants in the council found a compromise solution to put two brothers in the kingdom at once: both Ivan and Peter. At the same time, Ivan, at the request of the elected from the archers, was proclaimed the first king, and Peter the second. A few days later, the demand of the archery regiments was announced that, in view of the youth of the sovereigns, the board was handed over to their sister Sofya Alekseevna.

Princess Sophia gained power thanks to the archers, whom in return she was forced to appease and reward in every possible way. Streltsy received the honorary title of "outdoor infantry". Moscow archers, soldiers, townspeople and coachmen were given letters of commendation so that they would not be called rebels. The letter monotonously listed: "... there was a beating, for the house of the Most Pure Mother of God and for you, great sovereigns, for peaceful enslavement and fury towards you, and from the great tax, insults and lies to the boyars, Prince Yury and Prince Mikhail Dolgoruky .. .. Duma clerk Larion Ivanov was killed because he was decent to them, Dolgoruky ... yes, reptiles were taken from him in the likeness of a snake. Prince Grigory Romodanovsky was killed for his treason and neglect ... And Ivan Yazykov was killed for that he, having stacked with our colonels, paid us great taxes and took bribes. Boyarin Matveev and Dr. Danila were killed because they made a poisonous potion for Your Royal Majesty, and Danila was tortured to blame for that. Ivan and Afanasy Naryshkin were beaten for that they applied your royal purple to themselves and thought of all evil against the sovereign Tsar John Alekseevich ... ". As a sign of the streltsy exploits, a pillar was erected on Red Square with the names of the traitors beaten by them.

Archers were not satisfied with moral encouragement. Each was granted ten rubles, and in addition they received the property of the killed boyars and demanded the return of unpaid salaries for almost forty years. According to the archery calculations, a huge amount of 240 thousand rubles came out. There was no such money in the treasury, and from all over the state it was ordered to collect silver dishes and pour money from it for the archers.

Sophia's government became a hostage to the streltsy demands. It turned out that it was much easier to create a storm than to calm it down. Moreover, the streltsy regiments threatened to finally go out of obedience. They had their own ideological program, which consisted in restoring the old faith. The year 1682 was in many ways a turning point for the schismatics. In April, in Pustozersk, by royal decree, the spiritual leader of the schism, Archpriest Avvakum, was burned, and literally two weeks later, Tsar Fedor Alekseevich died. The schismatics saw this as a clear sign of God's wrath. Among the archers there were many adherents of Avvakum. Aleksey Yudin, one of the leaders of the Streltsy revolt, belonged to the split. Prince Khovansky was also considered a champion of the old faith, whose name gave the name to the whole movement.

Prince Ivan Andreevich Khovansky, nicknamed Tararuy, belonged to the Gediminovich family, who, in their nobility, argued with the Rurikovichs. He was a famous voivode, although, as one historian quipped, he was most famous for his defeats. In the days of May, he was one of the supporters of Princess Sophia, who raised the archers to rebellion. As a reward, he was made chief ("judge") of the Streltsy order. But having received command of the "outdoor infantry" Khovansky began to claim an independent role. Together with Khovansky, the archers swore to stand for the old faith. The elected regiments demanded a debate about faith and put up against the Nikonians several schism teachers, led by the Suzdal priest Nikita.

The religious debate took place on July 5 in the Palace of Facets. Raskolnikov was accompanied by a whole crowd, who approved of their haggard appearance: “Their belly is not thick, not like the current New Testament teachers!” The dispute itself did not decide anything, each of the parties - the patriarch with the synclite and the schismatics remained with their convictions. Princess Sophia behaved courageously, was not afraid, like many boyars, of the crowd seething outside and ardently defended church reforms. The princess warned those elected from the archers: "... in hope of you, these schismatic peasants so boldly came here .... If we must be in such enslavement, then the kings and we can no longer live here: let's go to other cities and announce to everyone people about such disobedience and ruin."

The threat of the princess to leave the capital had an effect on the archers. In addition, the elected representatives of the regiments were generously treated with wine and they departed from the old faith. As S. M. Solovyov wrote, “ordinary archers rioted, but could not resist the royal cellar, when they put up ten people by the tub: they brought bails that they would not stand up for the old faith in advance, and they began to beat the schismatics, shouting: “You , rebels, revolted the whole kingdom! They rushed to flee wherever they could: their fathers were intercepted; Nikita, as the most impudent breeder of unrest and the violator of his promise, was beheaded ... "

After the failure to return to the old faith, it was increasingly difficult for Prince Khovansky to play the role of an intermediary between the government and the archers. A rich and distinguished boyar himself, he acted as an intercessor for the archers in front of the bloodsucking boyars, and the boyars assured that he was indulging the archers for the sake of general peace. "When I'm gone, then in Moscow they will walk knee-deep in blood," he said. But Sophia and her entourage no longer believed the prince. He was accused of pandering to schismatics and was even suspected of wanting to take the throne himself. There were rumors that during the procession, the archers planned to take the lives of kings and queens and call out their idol to the kingdom. Whether these suspicions were true or not, in August the whole royal family left Moscow and settled in the village of Vozdvizhensky.

Prince Khovansky rushed about, not knowing what to do. He was afraid to finally break with the government, and when the tsar's decree came to all thoughtful people to come to Vozdvizhenskoye, he obeyed and left Moscow. In the capital, his carriage was constantly surrounded by fifty archers and another hundred guarded the house, but outside the city he turned out to be completely defenseless, which Sophia's supporters did not fail to take advantage of. On September 17, the prince was captured near the village of Pushkino and taken to Vozdvizhenskoye. Before the eyes of the princess, the prince was not allowed, at the outskirts of the village they read an accusatory tale to Khovansky, and right there at the Moscow road they "performed" - they were executed along with his son.

Left without a leader, the archers were completely at a loss, all the more so because, by order of the ruler, the noble militia from the districts began to pull up to the Trinity Monastery. Seeing that the forces of the ruler are increasing every day, the archers decided to bring guilt. Elected from the regiments went to the Trinity, however, some of them fled back halfway in fear. The rest, appearing before the princess, tearfully prayed for her forgiveness.

On November 6, Princess Sophia returned to Moscow as a winner. The column erected on Red Square in honor of the archers was destroyed, the regiments were brought into obedience. the head of the Streltsy order was appointed a person loyal to Sophia - the duma clerk F. L. Shaklovity. In February 1683, a decree was issued on the return to the former owners of the serfs who received vacation pay during the riot: "and henceforth do not believe such vacation pay, because they took them in troubled times, unwillingly, for vague insurance, but to these same serfs when giving them inflict cruel punishment, beat them with a whip mercilessly, but if the former masters do not take them, then exile them to Siberian and other distant cities for eternal life.

For the next seven years, power under the nominal reign of Ivan and Peter passed into the hands of Princess Sophia and her favorite, Prince V.V. Golitsyn.

The "rebellious age" is a century that brought many shocks to Russia and set important tasks for the rulers of that time, which were very difficult to solve. Throughout the hundred years, the country was shaken by popular uprisings, which will be discussed in more detail below.

"Rebellious Age": popular uprisings, their causes and consequences

It all began, as you know, with the Time of Troubles. This period was a turning point in the history of our country: it presented not only a new dynasty, but also many social, political and economic problems, social tensions in society and intervention. The young Mikhail Romanov had to disentangle everything. So, the "rebellious age" in Russia began with the first peasant war, led by Ivan Bolotnikov. The war took place during the reign of Vasily Shuisky and made it clear that he was not coping with his duties. It is worth noting at once one feature of all the speeches at that time: the unrest was not directed against tsarism, but against the boyars, who organized arbitrariness both on the ground and in relation to the authorities.

Brief lull

After the Bolotnikov uprising, the calm before the storm came in the country. The 17th century - the "rebellious age" - came to stability, but again the boyars violated everything: at the end of the first half of the century, the Salt Riot broke out. The reasons for this rebellion were to increase taxes on salt - the most important product. The authorities wanted to increase the country's treasury in this way, but all this only led to the fact that the solvency of the population fell significantly. The rebels had a special hatred for the boyar Morozov and Prince Miloslavsky. One of the consequences was the adoption of the Cathedral Code - a new set of laws of Russia. The next performances in the "rebellious age" were performances in Novgorod and Pskov. As you know, in these cities the veche had great power, and its spirit hovered over ordinary people. The reason for the performances was the shipment of bread to Sweden. These uprisings ended in complete suppression. The next shock was the Copper Riot caused by the minting of copper money. With this step, the government wanted to equate copper money with silver, but the attempt was unsuccessful, and the money began to depreciate, and counterfeiting began to actively develop. All this caused great unrest in the capital. The "rebellious age" ended with the movement of Stepan Razin, which covered large territories. The Don Cossacks undertook the well-known "campaign for zipuns", which was evaluated by the same Cossacks in different ways: someone supported, and someone, on the contrary, was against the Cossack performances. The movement covered almost the entire south of Russia, but did not end in success: Stepan Razin was extradited to the government by his own Cossacks, after which he was executed.

The ending " rebellious age"

The "rebellious age" brought many problems to Russia. The country was devastated, it lagged far behind European states in its development, the country's defense capability was reduced, and social tension increased. In addition, the "rebellious age" ended with the Streltsy rebellion, which ended the era of unrest and uprisings.

The rebellious age is a period of time in the history of Russia, namely in the 17th century, when various uprisings and wars took place, which entailed great consequences and went down in history under different names. "", Peasant revolt, peasant wars of Bolotnikov and Razin, as well as the uprising of 1682.

Causes of the rebellious age

Any rebellion has its own prerequisites, reasons that made people start uprisings or rebellion. The rebellious age had one main reason - the ruler Boris Morozov. He had a great influence on Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, whom he brought up from childhood. There are several main reasons for the uprisings of the people:

• Big taxes
• In addition to unbearable taxes, emergency taxes were sometimes introduced.
• All new categories of residents were classified as draft population
• Abuse of power and unwillingness to listen to the people
• The emergence of the townsman draft class.

All this was the cause of popular riots. People could no longer tolerate the abuse of power not only by the king, but also by his entourage. Sooner or later the people had to explode and it happened.

Events of the rebellious age

During the rebellious age, there were several uprisings and riots of the people. In 1648, the "Salt Riot" began, its cause was an increase in the tax on salt, which was unbearable for people, the greed of the Moscow ruling elite led to the Moscow uprising. The townspeople, peasants and archers smashed the houses of the Moscow nobility and demanded the extradition of Morozov. As a result, at the direction of the people, most of the boyars were executed. But that was only the beginning.

In 1650, the price of bread jumped sharply, due to the fact that he left for Sweden, as a payment for defectors from the regions that Russia had captured. And finally, July 25, 1662 was marked by a "copper riot", as a sign of the immoderate production of copper coins. Counterfeits appeared, copper money depreciated sharply, and people began to starve. Copper money ceased to be printed in 1663.

In 1661-1667, a peasant uprising began under the leadership of . The uprising was directed against the boyars and those close to the king. It was a bloody clash, as a result of which Stepan Razin was caught and executed. But this only strengthened the desire of the people to fight for their interests.

The Streltsy revolt of 1682 was the crown of the rebellious age. Its reasons are not exactly clarified, but presumably this is an abuse of power by the Streltsy military leaders. The result of the Streltsy rebellion was the actual reign of Sofya Alekseevna for 7 years.

The results of the rebellious age

Mismanagement of the country and ignoring the will and desires of the people. The result of the rebellious age was inconclusiveness. Despite all the uprisings and confrontations, the voice of the villagers was not heard, taxes continued and the people were ignored. The abuse of power only expanded and intensified, everyone was eager for more powers, no one obeyed the law that they did not like.

Introduction

The XVII CENTURY in many ways still continues to be unappreciated, despite the efforts of many eminent scientists who studied and popularized it. It did not become a milestone in the history of the Russian state, occupying a niche between the events of the Time of Troubles and Peter's transformations. Meanwhile, this is one of the most interesting periods of national history.

Since the time of Ivan III, Russia considered itself a state that embodied truly Divine orders on earth, and with understandable (after the Mongols, fights with Lithuania and the Commonwealth) distrust, looking at European technical and scientific achievements.

At the beginning of the 17th century, faced with the unrighteous Latin countries, she was forced to recognize, at least, their equality with herself. The turn towards Europe was not easy for the country and largely depended on the strengthening of the central government and the development of the state apparatus. It was at this time that absolutism began to take shape in Russia. It took shape under the undivided domination of the feudal-serf system. The autocracy, strengthening its positions, maneuvered between the groupings of the ruling class, which, in a moment of danger, rallied around the throne, which contributed to the consolidation of the throne and the centralization of government. Russia's gradual transition to absolutism is clearly visible in various areas of the country's political life, both external and of a deeper nature.

The very change in the title of the autocrat testified to this: instead of “sovereign”, the tsar and grand prince of all Russia, after 1654 they wrote: “By God's grace, the great sovereign, tsar and grand prince of all the Great, and Small, and White Russia and the autocrat.” In this formulation, the Divine origin of royal power and its unlimited character were especially emphasized. Two chapters of the Code of 1649, adopted under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676), were specifically devoted to protecting the prestige of the royal power, determining punishments for damaging the honor of the autocrat.

The son of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, Alexei, who earned the nickname "The Quietest", was brought up in the tower by the boyar Morozov. He was a well-read man with a literary gift. He tried to compose poetry, published an excellent instruction on falconry, was strong in the epistolary genre. Sensitive, but not refined, he quickly fell into anger, but did not hide evil for a long time, trying to caress the wronged in vain. Alexey Mikhailovich also loved charity, to the point that pilgrims, holy fools, and wanderers lived in the palace on full support. The king was a zealous master and a deeply religious person, he loved reading and stories, he did not remain indifferent to beauty in all its manifestations. However, throughout his life, Alexei Mikhailovich easily succumbed to other people's influence (Morozov, Nikon, Mstislavsky), did not know how to work hard and regularly, was indecisive, and sometimes weak-willed, which he tried to compensate for with a huge lust for power.

Evidence of the strengthening of the autocracy was the decline in the significance of Zemsky Sobors. Not so far away was the time of their heyday, when the shattered power tried to rely on the authority of representative institutions. However, already the Zemsky Sobor of 1653, which decided on the reunification of Ukraine with Russia, became the last council of the full composition. The very reunification of the Slavic lands was an important milestone in the history of the Russian state. It marked not only its strengthening, but also wider contacts with the West through the newly annexed lands.

Now the strengthened autocracy no longer needed class-representative props. Zemsky Sobors were replaced by the Boyar Duma and other institutions. However, there were also significant changes in the Duma itself. First of all, its composition was changing: nobles and clerks were gaining more and more power in it. The number of members of this body also increased sharply, by the end of the century it consisted of 94 people, which made its work quite difficult. Already Alexei Mikhailovich had to create a narrower body within the Boyar Duma for the prompt resolution of pressing issues.

Changes also took place in the order system, which flourished in the 17th century. It was complex, multi-layered and difficult to explain in terms of the functions of this or that order. According to their purpose, the latter were divided into permanent and temporary, and those, in turn, into personally sovereign, patriarchal, palace and state. Throughout the 17th century there were about 80 orders, the functions of which often overlapped, which did not contribute to the clarity and professionalism of management. During this time, the number of officials in them also increased sharply: in the middle of the century there were 837 clerks, at the end? 2739. To control their activities, it was necessary to create an "Order of Secret Affairs", but this did little to improve the situation.

One of the most important and well-known events of the government of Alexei Mikhailovich was the adoption of the Code of 1649. It consists of 25 chapters, almost a thousand articles and covers all areas of public life. This is a code of laws, compiled from former Russian regulations with the addition of Byzantine and Lithuanian laws. However, the Code was not a collection of old material, it contains many new provisions, and the old ones were significantly revised.

The Code canceled the fixed summer for the investigation of the fugitives. Thus, the peasants were finally attached to the land. It forbade the clergy to acquire estates, which sharply limited the possibility of expanding the monastic land ownership. The Code consolidated and isolated the townspeople, turning them into a closed class. Now it was impossible to leave the settlement, but outsiders, alien to the taxable urban population, could not enter the settlement.

Most of these changes took place against the backdrop of an intensification of the struggle between various strata of Russian society. "Rebellion" of the 17th century expressed itself not only in them, but also in the ideological crisis that hit the country in the 1650s. It began with attempts by the church "top" to restore the unity of the content of sacred books and rituals. Back in 1640, a circle of zealots of ancient piety was formed in Moscow, which included future ideological opponents Nikon and Avvakum. They tried to resist the arbitrary reduction of church services and the penetration of secular principles into the spiritual life of society, to fight the vices that had spread among the priests.

The dispute within the Circle unfolded over the models on which it was necessary to make changes in the sacred texts. For some, these were ancient Russian handwritten books, for others, their Greek originals. Both sources turned out to be faulty: in Russian books there were no two identical texts (scribal errors, inattention to the original), Greek texts were subject to changes after the fall of Byzantium and the conclusion of a union between the Byzantine and Catholic churches. At the heart of the overdue conflict lay not only purely church affairs, but also the fundamental choice between the Byzantine and ancient Russian heritage, and, ultimately, the relationship between Russia and Europe. Having become patriarch in 1652, Nikon energetically set about church reform, relying in its implementation on Greek books. He was opposed by a group that insisted on the "purity" of Russian texts, which was headed by Archpriest Avvakum.

1. Causes of "Rebellion" of the 17th century

The most important reasons for such a scale of social conflicts, unprecedented before in Russia, were the development of serfdom, the strengthening of state taxes and duties.

The "Cathedral Code" of 1649 legally formalized serfdom. The strengthening of feudal oppression met with fierce resistance from the peasants and the lower classes of the urban population, which was expressed, first of all, in powerful peasant urban uprisings (1648,1650,1662, 1670-1671). The class struggle was also reflected in the largest religious movement in Russia in the 17th century. - schism of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Decree of 1607

Legislative measures against fugitive peasants ended with a decree on March 9, 1607, which for the first time tried to remove peasant escapes from the area of ​​civil offenses prosecuted on the private initiative of the victim, turning them into a criminal offense, into a matter of state order: the search for and return of fugitive peasants, regardless of the claims of landowners he imposed on the regional administration, under pain of heavy responsibility, for failure to fulfill this new duty for it, and for the reception of fugitives, previously unpunished, he imposed a large fine in favor of the treasury of 10 rubles for each yard or for a lone peasant, in addition to remuneration, and instigated to escape in addition to the monetary penalty, he was also subjected to a commercial penalty (whip). However, this decree also allowed the limitation period for claims against fugitive peasants, only extended to 15 years. On the other hand, he directly recognized the personal, and not the land, attachment of the landowning peasants: those of them who 15 years before the decree were recorded in land inventories, in cadastral books of 1592-1593, were instructed "to be behind those for whom they were written." However, the decree either failed, or was understood only in the sense of prohibiting peasant escapes and exports, and not as abolishing the legal exit of peasants. Peasant orders and after that were made on the same terms; the very assumption of a 15-year statute of limitations for the fugitives supported the character of purely civil relations behind the peasant land contracts. The decree was issued when the Troubles flared up, undoubtedly interfering with its action. It tightened the knot of obligatory relations between the peasants and the masters, when all the foundations of the state order were tottering, when the taxing and unfree classes threw off their old obligations and were even less embarrassed by new ones. The century in Russian history gained a reputation as "rebellious". Indeed, it began with the Troubles, the middle of it was marked by urban uprisings, the last third - by the uprising of Stepan Razin.

2. Revolts of the 17th century

"Salt Riot"

In 1646, a duty was introduced on salt, which significantly increased its price. Meanwhile, salt in the XVII century. was one of the most important products - the main preservative that allowed the storage of meat and fish. Following the salt, these products themselves have risen in price. Their sales fell, unsold goods began to deteriorate. This caused discontent, both consumers and merchants. Growth in government revenues was less than expected as salt smuggling developed. Already at the end of 1647, the "salt" tax was abolished. In an effort to compensate for the losses, the government cut the salaries of service people "according to the instrument", that is, archers and gunners. General discontent continued to grow.

June 1648 in Moscow there was a so-called "salt" riot. The crowd stopped the carriage of the tsar, who was returning from pilgrimage, and demanded that the head of the Zemsky order, Leonty Pleshcheev, be replaced. Pleshcheev's servants tried to disperse the audience, which only provoked even more bitterness. On June 2, pogroms of boyar estates began in Moscow. The clerk Nazarei Chistoy, whom Muscovites considered the inspirer of the salt tax, was killed. The rebels demanded that the closest associate of the tsar, boyar Morozov, who actually led the entire state apparatus, and the head of the Pushkar order, boyar Trakhaniotov, be handed over for reprisal. Not having the strength to suppress the uprising, in which, along with the townspeople, the servicemen "according to the instrument" participated, the tsar relented, ordering the extradition of Pleshcheev and Trakhaniotov, who were immediately killed. Morozov, his tutor and brother-in-law (the tsar and Morozov were married to sisters) Aleksey Mikhailovich "prayed" from the rebels and sent him into exile in Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery.

The government announced the cessation of levying arrears, convened the Zemsky Sobor, which met the most important demands of the townspeople to ban the transition to the "white settlements" and the nobles - to introduce an indefinite investigation of the fugitives. Thus, the government satisfied all the demands of the rebels, which indicates the relative weakness of the state apparatus (primarily repressive) at that time.

Uprisings in other cities

Following the Salt Riot, urban uprisings swept through other cities: Veliky Ustyug, Kursk, Kozlov, Pskov, Novgorod.

The strongest were the uprisings in Pskov and Novgorod, caused by a rise in the price of bread due to its deliveries to Sweden. The urban poor, who were threatened by famine, expelled the governor, defeated the courts of wealthy merchants and seized power. In the summer of 1650, both uprisings were suppressed by government troops, however, they managed to enter Pskov only due to discord among the rebels.

"Copper Riot"

In 1662, a major uprising again took place in Moscow, which went down in history as the "Copper Riot". It was caused by an attempt by the government to replenish the treasury, devastated by a difficult long war with Poland (1654-1667) and Sweden (1656-58). In order to compensate for the huge costs, the government put copper money into circulation, equating it with silver in price. At the same time, taxes were collected in silver coins, and goods were ordered to be sold with copper money. The salaries of servicemen were also paid in copper. Copper money was not trusted, especially since they were often forged. Not wanting to trade for copper money, the peasants stopped bringing food to Moscow, which caused prices to skyrocket. Copper money depreciated: if in 1661 two copper rubles were given for a silver ruble, then in 1662 - eight copper ones.

July 1662 a riot followed. Some of the townspeople rushed to smash the boyar estates, while others moved to the village of Kolomenskoye near Moscow, where the tsar was in those days. Alexei Mikhailovich promised the rebels to come to Moscow and sort things out. The crowd seemed to calm down. But in the meantime, new groups of rebels appeared in Kolomenskoye - those who had previously broken the courtyards of the boyars in the capital. They demanded that the tsar extradite the boyars most hated by the people and threatened that if the sovereign “does not give them back those boyars for good”, then they “will begin to have them themselves, according to their custom.”

However, during the negotiations, archers called by the tsar had already arrived in Kolomenskoye, who fell on the unarmed crowd and drove it to the river. Over 100 people drowned, many were hacked or captured, and the rest fled. By royal order, 150 rebels were hanged, the rest were beaten with a whip and branded with iron.

Unlike the "salt", "copper" rebellion was brutally suppressed, as the government managed to keep the archers on its side and use them against the townspeople.

Rebellion of Stepan Razin

The largest popular performance of the second half of the XVII century. happened on the Don and on the Volga.

The population of the Don was the Cossacks. The Cossacks were not engaged in agriculture. Their main occupations were hunting, fishing, cattle breeding and raids on the possessions of neighboring Turkey, the Crimea and Persia. For guard service to protect the southern borders of the state, the Cossacks received royal salaries in bread, money and gunpowder. The government also put up with the fact that runaway peasants and townspeople found shelter on the Don. The principle “no extradition from the Don” was in effect.

In the middle of the XVII century. equality no longer existed in the Cossack environment. The elite of the wealthy (“home-loving”) Cossacks stood out, who owned the best fisheries, herds of horses, who received the best share in the booty and the royal salary. Poor ("goat-like") Cossacks worked for the homely.

In the 40s. 17th century the Cossacks lost access to the Azov and Black Sea, since the Turks fortified the fortress of Azov. This prompted the Cossacks to move their campaigns for prey to the Volga and the Caspian Sea. The robbery of Russian and Persian merchant caravans caused great damage to trade with Persia and the entire economy of the Lower Volga region. Simultaneously with the influx of fugitives from Russia, the hostility of the Cossacks to the Moscow boyars and clerks also grew.

Already in 1666, a detachment of Cossacks under the command of Ataman Vasily Us invaded Russia from the Upper Don, reached almost Tula, destroying noble estates on its way. Only the threat of a meeting with a large government army forced Mustache to turn back. Numerous serfs who joined him went with him to the Don. The speech of Vasily Us showed that the Cossacks are ready at any moment to oppose the existing order and authorities.

In 1667, a detachment of a thousand Cossacks went to the Caspian Sea on a campaign "for zipuns", that is, for prey. At the head of this detachment was ataman Stepan Timofeevich Razin - a native of the homely Cossacks, strong-willed, intelligent and mercilessly cruel. Razin's detachment during 1667-1669 robbed Russian and Persian merchant caravans, attacked coastal Persian cities. With rich booty, the Razintsy returned to Astrakhan, and from there to the Don. The Zipun Campaign was purely predatory. However, its meaning is wider. It was in this campaign that the core of the Razin army was formed, and the generous distribution of alms to the common people brought unprecedented popularity to the ataman.

In the spring of 1670, Razin began a new campaign. This time, he decided to go against the "traitor boyars". Without resistance, Tsaritsyn was captured, the inhabitants of which gladly opened the gates to the Cossacks. The archers sent against Razin from Astrakhan went over to his side. Their example was followed by the rest of the Astrakhan garrison. The resisting voevoda and the Astrakhan nobles were killed.

After that, Razin headed up the Volga. Along the way, he sent out "charming letters", calling on the common people to beat the boyars, governors, nobles and clerks. To attract supporters, Razin spread a rumor that Tsarevich Alexei Alekseevich (actually already deceased) and Patriarch Nikon were in his army. The main participants in the uprising were Cossacks, peasants, serfs, townspeople and workers. The cities of the Volga region surrendered without resistance. In all the captured cities, Razin introduced management along the lines of the Cossack circle.

Failure awaited Razin only near Simbirsk, the siege of which dragged on. Meanwhile, the government sent a 60,000-strong army to suppress the uprising. On October 3, 1670, near Simbirsk, the government army under the command of the governor Yuri Baryatinsky inflicted a severe defeat on the Razints. Razin was wounded and fled to the Don, to the Kagalnitsky town, from which he began his campaign a year ago. He hoped to re-gather his supporters. However, the homely Cossacks, led by the military ataman Kornila Yakovlev, realizing that Razin's actions could bring royal wrath to all the Cossacks, seized him and handed him over to the government governors.

Razin was tortured and in the summer of 1671 he was executed on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow along with his brother Frol. The participants in the uprising were subjected to cruel persecution and executions.

The main reasons for the defeat of the Razin uprising were its spontaneity and low organization, the fragmentation of the actions of the peasants, as a rule, limited to the destruction of the estate of their own master, the lack of clearly conscious goals for the rebels. Even if the Razintsy managed to win and capture Moscow (this did not happen in Russia, but in other countries, for example, in China, the rebellious peasants managed to take power several times), they would not be able to create a new just society. After all, the only example of such a just society in their minds was the Cossack circle. But the whole country cannot exist due to the seizure and division of other people's property. Any state needs a system of government, an army, taxes. Therefore, the victory of the rebels would inevitably be followed by a new social differentiation. The victory of the unorganized peasant and Cossack masses would inevitably lead to great sacrifices and would cause significant damage to Russian culture and the development of the Russian state.

In historical science there is no unity on the question of whether Razin's uprising should be considered a peasant-Cossack uprising or a peasant war. In Soviet times, the name "peasant war" was used, in the pre-revolutionary period it was about an uprising. AT last years again, the definition of "rebellion" is predominant.

Speaking of the Razin uprising, it should be noted that most of the major uprisings began in the outskirts, since, on the one hand, many fugitives accumulated there, not burdened with a large economy and ready for decisive action, and on the other hand, the power there was much weaker than in the center of the country.

Uprising in the Solovetsky Monastery.

Nikon comes from the family of the Mordovian peasant Mina, in the world - Nikita Minin. He became patriarch in 1652. Nikon, distinguished by his uncompromising, resolute character, had tremendous influence on Alexei Mikhailovich, who called him his "sobin (special) friend."

The centralization of the Russian state required the unification of church rules and rituals.

The most important ceremonial changes were: baptism not with two, but with three fingers, the replacement of prostrations with the waist, the singing of hallelujah three times instead of twice, the movement of believers in the church past the altar not in the direction of the sun, but against it. The name of Christ began to be written in a different way - “Jesus” instead of “Jesus”. Some changes were made to the rules of worship and icon painting. All books and icons painted according to old models were to be destroyed.

For believers, this was a serious departure from the traditional canon. After all, a prayer uttered not according to the rules is not only ineffective - it is blasphemous! The most stubborn and consistent opponents of Nikon were the "zealots of ancient piety" (previously the patriarch himself was a member of this circle). They accused him of introducing "Latinism", because the Greek Church since the time of the Florentine Union of 1439 was considered "spoiled" in Russia. Moreover, Greek liturgical books were printed not in Turkish Constantinople, but in Catholic Venice.

Nikon's opponents - the "Old Believers" - refused to recognize the reforms he had carried out. At church councils in 1654 and 1656. Nikon's opponents were accused of schism, excommunicated and exiled.

The most prominent supporter of the schism was Archpriest Avvakum, a talented publicist and preacher. The former court priest, a member of the circle of "zealots of ancient piety" survived a difficult exile, suffering, the death of children, but did not abandon the fanatical opposition to "Nikonianism" and its defender - the king. After a 14-year imprisonment in an "earth prison", Avvakum was burned alive for "blasphemy against the royal house." The most famous work of Old Believer literature was the "Life" of Avvakum, written by himself.

The church council of 1666/1667 cursed the Old Believers. Severe persecution of dissenters began. Supporters of the split were hiding in the hard-to-reach forests of the North, the Volga region, and the Urals. Here they created sketes, continuing to pray in the old way. Often, in the event of the approach of the royal punitive detachments, they staged a "burn" - self-immolation.

The monks of the Solovetsky Monastery did not accept Nikon's reforms. Until 1676, the rebellious monastery withstood the siege of the tsarist troops. The rebels, believing that Alexei Mikhailovich had become a servant of the Antichrist, abandoned the traditional Orthodox prayer for the tsar.

The reasons for the fanatical stubbornness of the schismatics were rooted, first of all, in their belief that Nikonianism was a product of Satan. However, this confidence itself was fed by certain social reasons.

The bulk of the schismatics were peasants who left for sketes not only for the right faith, but also for freedom, from the lordly and monastic requisitions.

The ideology of the split, which was based on the rejection of everything new, the fundamental rejection of any foreign influence, secular education, was extremely conservative.

All uprisings of the 17th century. were spontaneous. The participants in the events acted under the influence of desperation and the desire to capture prey.

rebellious age Razin uprising

3. The development of the culture of the "Rebellious Age"

Painting.

The painting of this period in the art history literature of the last eighty years was regarded as a decline, as the decline of ancient Russian art, which seemed to have exhausted itself and faced the historical inevitability of giving way to the art of the New Age. The merits of individual works or whole phenomena of artistic life were determined only by the measure of their approximation to the realistic method, which had been established in the West since the Renaissance, and in our country since the time of Peter the Great's reforms. The main merit of the artists of this time was considered to be the inclusion in the art of everyday scenes, containing at least a hint of a reflection of reality, as well as the decorative qualities of fresco paintings. Paintings of the 17th century denied in the depth of content, in the absence of figurative characteristics. Against the backdrop of the turbulent events of the "rebellious" century, fine arts seemed like a quiet backwater, where no noise from the street could be heard, and the artists were only concerned with disputes about how to write - "light-like" (life-like) or "dark-like".

icon painting

The artistic heritage of the Solovetsky Monastery is attracting more and more attention from researchers. It is known that Solovki had its own icon-painting workshop, which since 1615 was located in a special stone chamber - this circumstance, in our opinion, testifies to the great importance attached to its activities. One of the important, but still little studied, is the problem of the formation and development of the traditions of local Solovetsky icon painting, the definition of its peculiar features. Of particular importance in this regard is the identification and study of works created directly in the monastery icon-painting workshop, since at present, in the preserved complex of Solovetsky monuments of ancient Russian painting, works by local masters are sometimes lost among the icons painted for the monastery in other picturesque centers.

Folk art

Anti-church sentiments and the social protest of the masses were directly reflected in oral folk art. Such proverbs as “there is no prayer, but there is no benefit”, “someone is sick, but the priest is purse”, show a hostile-mocking attitude towards churchmen and church rites in the mass of the population. The condemnation of all gentlemen sounds in the proverbs in exactly the same way: “the gates to the boyar court are wide, but narrow from the courtyard”, “God punished the people - he sent the governor”, ​​etc.

Folklore reflected the consciousness of one's strength emerging among the people: "a man is naked, and he has a stake in his hands." Stepan Timofeevich Razin became the favorite hero of folk art, around the name of which numerous legends, songs, and legends have developed. In one of the reworked ancient epics, Razin turned out to be endowed with heroic features and stood next to Ilya Muromets, and in another epic, Ilya Muromets was already the captain on the ship of Stepan Razin.

Buffoons, bear guides, puppeteers with their beloved Petrushka roamed all over Russia. We saw them on the streets of the capital. Their bold and sharp, imbued with rude folk humor, denunciations of secular and spiritual masters strongly attracted the people and just as much disturbed the feudal elites of society. Patriarch Joasaph called the folk theater "satanic games", Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich sent a decree to the cities in 1648 - not to let buffoons, disperse "disgrace" (spectacles), and "hari" (masks) and "demonic buzzing vessels" to break and burn , naughty ones to beat with batogs - but nothing helped.

Literature

The spread of literacy among the townspeople, as well as the creation of a significant layer of educated clerks, contributed to the penetration of democratic elements into literature. A fictional character appeared in literature, now belonging not to the feudal elite, but to servicemen or townspeople, and even to "naked and not rich." Increased attention to the human personality, to its individual characteristics, to the experiences, actions of an individual.

One of the brightest phenomena in the history of Russian literature was the emergence of democratic satire, the object of which was not only secular gentlemen and rulers, but the church and clergymen. This reflected the "rebellious time." Democratic satire, which came out of the popular, mostly urban, environment, appealing to a wide layer of literate people in the same environment, had a great influence on it. Already in the first half of the century, the “Tale of the Chicken and the Fox” spread, in which the hypocrisy and money-grubbing of the clergy was ridiculed. The “Service to the Tavern” was popular, parodying the ritual of church worship and denouncing the widespread “tavern ruin” arranged by the treasury. The parody "Kalyazinsky petition" contained a sharp mockery of the drunkenness and promiscuity of the monks and the arbitrariness of the monastic rulers. A manifestation of religious free-thinking was the "Tale of the Mothman", where it was "proved" that all the "saints" themselves were sinners, therefore the "mothman" has the same reason to be in paradise as the Apostle Peter and other "saints".

A new phenomenon in literature was the emergence of versification. A native of the Belarusian lands, Simeon Polotsky (Samuil Efimovich Sitnianovich) translated the hymnal into verse, which served for a long time as a manual for teaching children to read and write, and also composed many pompous, with many allegories, verses glorifying the tsars Alexei Mikhailovich and Fyodor Alekseevich. At the end of the century, poets Sylvester Medvedev and Karion Istomin worked in the same direction.

applied arts

There was also a strong desire for decorativeness in this area. This finds expression in the appearance of rich “sets” of icons, where silver, gold with precious stones cover almost the entire image, leaving only the “faces” and hands open (this is how Andrei Rublev’s “Trinity” was closed in the 17th century). Jewelry art created many magnificent works of art - household items of the feudal nobility, cult items, etc. Sewing became just as magnificent, adorned with precious stones.

Woodcarving, which penetrated everywhere - from the royal chambers to peasant and townsman huts and household utensils, was widely spread and highly artistically developed. Carved architraves and cornices, decoration with carvings of porches, the originality of carving techniques in different areas are one of the characteristic features of Russian artistic culture of the 17th century.

Many of the best carvers were assembled at the Armory to carry out government orders. Here, partly under the influence of Belarusian craftsmen, techniques of a special, monumental manner of carving, rich in decorative elements, were developed. fine workmanship wooden carved iconostases in the most significant temples were covered with gold, creating the illusion of metal (gold) casting. Royal, patriarchal, episcopal "places" in cathedrals, backs of chairs in palaces, carriages and other items were trimmed with magnificent figured carving.

Sculpture developed extremely slowly and was still represented by folk wood carvings and high reliefs of works of applied art.

The development of Russian culture in the 17th century. reflected the most important process of the formation of the Russian nation. The beginning of the destruction of the medieval religious-feudal ideology and the establishment of secular principles in spiritual culture are associated with it. Despite the opposition of churchmen, who were afraid of the penetration of “Latinism” into Russia, in the 17th century. expanding cultural ties with Western Europe. However, all these new cultural trends touched only the top of society. The bulk of the population remained illiterate and superstitious. For further development Russian culture, the country needed more decisive and broad transformations, which were later carried out by Peter I.

Conclusion

"Rebellious Age" is a common name of the 17th century Russian chronicle. The title is connected with countless internal conflicts, which disturbed the Capital Kingdom from the end of the 16th to the beginning of the 18th century. Due to this period Russian government survived two full-scale civil struggles (the Troubles of 1603-1619; the war with the Don leaders S. Razin and V. Us 1666-1671), a lot of uprisings of the bourgeois, even in Moscow itself, the "rebellious age" peasant riots, rebellions Cossacks, as well as archers, the actions of countless impostors, a church schism.

The "rebelliousness" of the century had a lot of circumstances. Among them in the main place is the legalization of serfdom. It should also be called the dynastic crisis, connected with the cessation at the end of the 16th century. the Rurik dynasty, the opposition of the government to the intensified Cossack freemen, the advent of royal power to the rights of the estates. With extreme relapses of the "rebellious age" (streltsy uprisings, the battle with the Cossacks of K. Bulavin, etc.) at the end of the 17th - the beginning of the 18th century. met Peter I. His fierce, relying on renewed military force, public indignation was suppressed for some time.

century was the beginning of a new period in the field of culture. Changes took place in the socio-economic and political life of Russian society, which caused a revival of the socio-political thought of the advanced part of the people. The revitalization of urban life, the development of industry, crafts and trade greatly increased the role of the townspeople, their craving for knowledge and enlightenment. The situation of the "rebellious age", decisive actions against the oppressors strengthened people's faith in their own strength, awakened in them a craving for a new and meaningful existence. The schism further weakened the influence of the church. Russian art took the first steps to become secular, free in its expression. This was also facilitated by the expansion of ties with the West. Along with the Greek-Slavic enlightenment, Western-Latin culture came to Russia, which was previously rejected Orthodox Church. But Russian culture remained fundamentally feudal, accessible only to the upper stratum of the ruling class. The centers of culture themselves were formed in the largest cities with industry, crafts, trade, and, above all, in Moscow, at the royal court. The social protest of the broad masses of the people against the dominance of the feudal lords was reflected in folklore. One of central places occupied in it proverbs and sayings.

In the 17th century, a new stage in the development of the Russian language began. The central regions, headed by Moscow, played a leading role in it. The Moscow dialect became dominant, turning into a common Great Russian language. Great importance was attached to education and enlightenment. In Moscow in the 80s of the 17th century. about 24% of the townspeople were literate.

Bibliography

1.Kobrin V. "Trouble: (from the history of Russia early XVII c.) // Motherland 1991

2.Buganov V.I. The world of history. Russia in the 17th century. M., 1989.

.Sakharov A.N., Novoseltsev A.P. History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century. Moscow, 2000

.N.I. Kostomarov "The Rebellion of Stenka Razin" ("Monograph", vol. II);

.CM. Solovyov "History of Russia" (vol. XI).

.Bushuev SV, Mironov G.E. History of Russian Goverment. Historical and bibliographic essays. Book. 1. M., 1991

.Klyuchevsky V.O. About Russian history. M., 1993.