An outside view is always subjective, but capable of noticing what we are used to ignoring. All the more interesting is the view of a person from another culture and another century. A look at Russia by Adam Olearius, secretary of the Holstein embassy, 17th century.
Russian is strong, bearded, pot-bellied, unbridled, arrogant, cunning. An uncouth ignoramus in a shirt, caftan and hat, alien to the high sciences and arts. Not accustomed to feather beds, delicate dishes and delicacies, but, on the contrary, content with a mat, straw laid on a stove or on a bench, eating rough food, richly seasoned with onions and garlic, which is unusual and strange for a foreign guest...
Wonderful diva, wonderful miracles
The German scientist Adam Olearius had to see a lot in Russia, being the secretary of the Holstein embassy. There was a lot to marvel at and be amazed at. Much was subsequently told and illustrated by him in the book “Description of a Journey to Muscovy,” published for the first time in 1647.
Vast Russian forests, extremely fertile soil, despite the severe frosts, when noses, ears, hands, feet froze, the enormous abundance of bread and pastures, undreamed of by the Germans, could not help but delight the observant Olearius. As well as the ceremony of meeting ambassadors in front of the Moscow gates, the rich robes of the king and his retinue during audiences, abundant treats from the royal table, solemn church processions on the Kremlin square, the magnificent celebration of the New Year, the festival in honor of the Entry of the Lord into Jerusalem, at which Adam Olearius I had a chance to visit, and the embassy participants were certainly impressed.
But at the same time, there are constant fires and robbery, familiar to Moscow, drunken men and women lying around everywhere, be it Novgorod, Moscow, Kazan, Vladimir, Arkhangelsk, in the middle of the streets in the mud, or naked, in what their mother gave birth to, returning home from a tavern, where drinking away their last shirt, peasants scattering at the sight of an embassy approaching the village, or poisoning bees in order for foreigners to survive - all this led to bewilderment, gave rise to blasphemy and censure of a stranger who was unable to measure the facets of the Russian soul. A contradictory soul: frank and cunning, submissive and wild, mocking and pious, wallowing in the mud and loving to take a steam bath...
Frank and cunning
Cleverness and cunning are among the distinctive features of the Russian character, according to Adam Olearius. The cunning of the Muscovites - as Olearius often calls the Russians - is often used in purchase and sale transactions, and contributes to benefits, good profits. Not disdaining deception for personal enrichment, the Russian is very suspicious and distrustful, and is not so easy to fool. But if someone manages to cheat a Muscovite, he will be highly revered and respected by the deceived for his ingenuity and intelligence.
Olearius happened to witness how Moscow merchants begged a certain Dutchman, who had deceived them in trade for a significant amount of money, to enter into cooperation with them, believing that a person possessing such masterful methods of deception would succeed in trading. But here's what's interesting! Not hesitating to deceive and not considering deception and cunning a matter of conscience, but, on the contrary, a smart and commendable act, Russians consider it a sin not to give extra money to a person who, when making a payment, paid too much by mistake. Taking money given involuntarily would be considered theft, but the participant in the transaction uses cunning consciously and voluntarily, therefore, there is nothing to say about the dishonest behavior of the Russian businessman!
Submissive and wild
The Russian people do not disdain shameful and vile words and ridicule. Swearing and swearing, sometimes turning into fist fights, so familiar to Russians, which have become “second nature”, are everyday attributes of life in Russia.
Russian people are rude and hard-hearted, assures the author of “Description of a Journey to Muscovy.” That is why, as Olearius believes, Russians should be kept “under a cruel and severe yoke and coercion and constantly forced to work, resorting to beatings and whips.”
Russians are created for slavery, which they demonstrate by bowing to the ground to noble persons, bending their heads low, sometimes right down to the ground and throwing themselves at their feet, showing gratitude for beatings and punishments. Any nobleman, nobleman, boyar, who has serfs subordinate to him, is himself a slave, a tsar’s “servant”, who every time shows his insignificance before the tsar by signing letters and petitions diminutive name: “Parsley, your servant.”
But! How patient and enduring the Russian man is, especially the commoner, burdened with the heavy yoke of serfdom, how submissive the peasant is to his ruler, just as furious and cruel, unbridled is the Russian, driven to the extreme, weakened, oppressed. There is a lot of evidence of this in history: riots and riots, sweeping over, like stormy streams, everything and everyone in their path.
Mocking and pious
The first thing a Russian person does when he enters a hut is look into the holy corner, make the sign of the cross, bow low to the icons - he magnifies God, and only then the owners. The God-fearing and devout Russian listens to mass standing, humbly, bowing to the face of God, whispering “Lord, have mercy.”
Russians have more fasting days a year than non-fasting days. But on the eve of strict fasting, people fearlessly and desperately indulge in all sorts of bad things: gluttony, drunkenness, revelry.
Avoiding dissent, heresy, priests in Orthodox Church they do not dare read sermons interpreting the gospel, but only read the biblical texts themselves. But at the same time, books were passed around in which descriptions and interpretations of the gospel stories were collected, with various additions, fables and “dangerous”, according to the indignant Adam Olearius, fictions.
Who's talking about what, and the lousy one about the bath
Rolling around in the mud, unconscious, under the doors of a tavern or tavern is one side of the coin. And here’s another: Russian people love to take a steam bath, oh, they love it! Yes, so that the bathhouse is hotter, and you can whip it properly with a birch broom, and when you can’t bear it, throw yourself into a snowdrift or a river, wipe yourself thoroughly with the snow like soap and then go back to the bathhouse, made of logs, hot, unbearable for German bones, unthinkable for the secretary of the Holstein embassy, a learned mind , a fastidious mind, Adam Olearius, who preferred to grow together with his shirt and wash himself once a year!
By the time it ends Smolensk War(1632-1634) the situation in the Russian voivodeships of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth began to sharply worsen, since it was then that the Polish and local Little Russian Catholic gentry and magnates sharply tightened the already severe social, national and religious oppression of the local Russian population, where Cossacks traditionally constituted a special stratum.
All of them were divided into city or regimental, and Nizovsky or Zaporozhye. The first lived sedentarily in the middle reaches of the Dnieper and were officially among the “registered” Cossacks who were in the service of the Polish crown. City Cossacks, who received salaries from royal treasury, ruled by elected but approved by Warsaw hetman, colonels, foremen and captains. Nizovsky Cossacks lived on the islands beyond the Dnieper rapids in the territory Zaporozhye Sich, which arose on the borders with Crimean Khanate still in the middle of the XYI century.
Formally, the Zaporozhye Cossacks were also considered subject to the Polish crown, although in fact they were independent of Warsaw and all issues, including the election of a chieftain and a military clerk, decisions on the organization of military campaigns and predatory raids on neighboring states, were decided at the Combined Arms Rada. The Koshevoy ataman, who had unlimited powers during military campaigns, was subordinate to elected kuren atamans and colonels.
At the end of the XYI century. the Polish crown, vitally interested in stopping the predatory campaigns of the Cossacks, as well as in their services to protect the southern borders from constant raids Crimean Tatars, began to flirt with the senior elite, who were included in the category of “registered” Cossacks. However, the overwhelming majority of the Cossacks - “discharged” Cossacks, the number of which was constantly growing at the expense of fugitive Russian serfs and slaves, still did not recognize the power of Warsaw.
Therefore, from time to time, powerful uprisings arose on the southern borders of the Polish crown under the leadership of the Zaporozhye hetmans K. Kosinsky (1591-1593), S. Nalivaiko (1594-1596), J. Borodavka (1619-1621), T. Tryasyla (1630 ), I. Sulima (1635), P. Pavlyuk (1638) and others. After suppression last uprising For a whole decade, an unsteady truce remained here, which the Polish gentry dubbed the “golden peace,” but it was the calm before the storm.
New stage the struggle of the Russian people against the social, national and religious oppression of lordly Poland is associated with the name of Bogdan Mikhailovich Khmelnitsky (1595-1657), who during the years of the last uprising Zaporozhye Cossacks held the position of military clerk. For his involvement in this uprising, he was removed from this position and appointed with demotion as a centurion in the border town of Chigirin. It was here in 1646 that he had an acute conflict with the local headman, Mr. A. Chaplinsky, who forced B. M. Khmelnitsky to flee again to the Zaporozhye Sich. At the beginning of 1648, at the Combined Arms Rada, he was elected Kosh hetman Zaporozhye army and called on the Zaporozhye Cossacks and Little Russian villagers to begin a national liberation struggle against lordly Poland.
In April-September 1648, the Cossacks defeated the armies of crown hetmans N. Pototsky, M. Kalinovsky and I. Vishnevetsky in the battles of Zhelti Vody, Korsun and Pilyavets, and then liberated almost the entire territory of Podolia and Volyn. At this time, King Władysław IY (1633-1648) died in Warsaw and the royal throne was occupied by him younger brother, Polish cardinal Jan II Casimir (1648-1668), who proposed to B.M. Khmelnitsky to conclude a truce, who accepted this proposal and took his army to Kyiv.
In March 1649, B.M. Khmelnitsky, who was looking for allies in the fight against the Polish crown, sent Colonel S.A. Muzhilovsky to Moscow with a personal message to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, in which he asked him to provide all possible assistance in the fight against Poland. This message was favorably received in Moscow and, by order of the tsar, the Russian ambassador, Duma clerk G.I. Unkovsky, went to Chigirin, where the headquarters and the hetman’s office were located, and signed the following agreement with B.M. Khmelnitsky: 1) Since Moscow is forced to comply the terms of the Polyanovsky Treaty (1634), she will not yet be able to start a new war with Poland, but will provide all possible assistance to the Zaporozhye hetman with finances and weapons; 2) Moscow will not object if, at the request of the Cossacks, the Don Cossacks take part in hostilities against the Polish crown.
Soon, Jan II Casimir resumed hostilities against B.M. Khmelnytsky, but in August 1649 the Polish army was defeated near Zborov, and he was forced to declare “The mercy of His Royal Majesty to the Zaporozhian Army on the points proposed in their petition.” The essence of these privileges was as follows: 1) Warsaw officially recognized B.M. Khmelnytsky as hetman of the Zaporozhye army; 2) Warsaw transferred the Kiev, Bratslav and Chernigov voivodeships to his management; 3) The quartering of Polish crown troops was prohibited on the territory of these voivodeships, but the local Polish gentry received the right to return to their possessions; 4) The number of registered Cossacks in the service of the Polish crown increased from 20 to 40 thousand sabers.
Naturally, B.M. Khmelnitsky tried to make the most of the resulting truce to find new allies in the fight against the Polish crown. Having secured the support of Moscow, where the idea of an alliance with the Zaporozhye hetman was supported in February 1651 at the Zemsky Sobor, and Bakhchisaray, which concluded a military alliance with the Cossacks, B.M. Khmelnitsky resumed hostilities against Poland. But in June 1651, near Berestechko, due to the vile betrayal of the Crimean Khan Islam-Girey, the Cossacks suffered a crushing defeat and were forced to sit down at the negotiating table. In September 1651, the warring parties signed the Treaty of Belotserkov, under the terms of which: 1) the Zaporozhye hetman was deprived of the right to foreign relations; 2) Only the Kiev Voivodeship remained under his control; 3) The number of registered Cossacks was again reduced to 20 thousand sabers.
This peace turned out to be even less durable and hostilities were soon resumed. In May 1652, B. Khmelnitsky defeated the army of Hetman M. Kalinovsky near Batog, and in October 1653 he defeated the army of Colonel S. Makhovsky in the battle of Zhvanets. As a result, Jan II Casimir was forced to sign the Zhvanetsky Peace Treaty, which exactly reproduced the terms of the “Zboriv Mercy” granted by the Polish king in 1649.
Meanwhile, in October 1653, a new Zemsky Council was held in Moscow, at which, at a new request from the hetman ambassadors I.E. Vygovsky and G.G. Gulyanitsky, a decision was made to accept the Zaporozhye army under the arm of the Russian Tsar and start a war with Poland. To formalize this decision, the Grand Embassy was sent to the headquarters of B.M. Khmelnitsky, consisting of the boyar V.V. Buturlin, the okolnichy I.V. Alferov and A.M. Matveev and the Duma clerk L.V. Lopukhin. In January 1654, a Combined Arms Rada was held in Pereyaslavl, at which all articles of the treaty that determined the conditions for the reunification of Little Russia with Russia were officially approved, and the hetman himself, colonels, foremen and representatives of 166 “Cherkasy” cities took an oath to be “eternal subjects of his royal majesty All-Russian and his heirs."
In March 1654 in Moscow in the presence of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, members Boyar Duma, the Consecrated Council and the Hetman's ambassadors - Colonels S.Z. Bogdanovich and P.I. Teteri, a historical agreement was signed on the reunification of the ancestral Russian lands with Russia. In accordance with the “March Articles”: 1) Throughout the territory of Little Russia, the previous administrative, that is, military-regimental system of management was preserved, “so that the Zaporozhye Army would elect a Hetman among itself and notify His Royal Majesty so that His Royal Majesty would not be in trouble , because of that long-standing military custom.” 2) “In the Zaporozhian Army, which narrowed their rights and had their liberties in property and in the courts, so that neither the governor, nor the boyar, nor the steward would intervene in military courts,” 3) “The Zaporozhye Army numbered 60,000 so that it was always full " etc. Moreover, what is especially interesting is that the “March articles” specifically stipulated the specific size of the sovereign’s salary and the possessions of the entire Cossack elite, in particular the military clerk, military judges, military colonels, regimental captains and centurions.
It must be said that in modern Ukrainian historiography, and in the broad public consciousness of many “Ukrainians,” there is a persistent myth about the existence of a special form of republican government in the “Hetmanate,” which was visibly manifested in the image of the free Cossack state. However, even a number of modern Ukrainian historians (V.A. Smoliy, N.N. Yakovenko) rightly say that in the so-called Cossack Republic in much to a greater extent There were elements of authoritarianism and oligarchic rule, especially during the period of hetmanship of B.M. Khmelnitsky, I.E. Vygovsky, Yu.B. Khmelnitsky and P.I. Teteri. Moreover, almost all applicants for the hetman’s mace, demonstrating their commitment to the ideas of subordinating their powers to the “collective will” of the Zaporozhye army, in fact made every effort to expand the boundaries of their authoritarianism and even transfer the hetman’s mace by inheritance. Moreover, Professor N.N. Yakovenko directly stated that it was under B.M. Khmelnytsky that a regime of military dictatorship was established in the Hetmanate, since all leadership positions here were occupied exclusively by military sergeants.
The constant references of Ukrainian independentists about a special national-autonomous status are also untenable. Left Bank Ukraine as part of the Muscovite kingdom, since in reality it was not national or regional, but military-class autonomy, stemming from the special border position of the Little Russian and Novorossiysk lands, located on the borders with the Crimean Khanate and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Exactly the same military class autonomy existed in the lands of Don and Yaitsky Cossack troops, who, like the Zaporozhye Cossacks, carried border service on the southern borders of the Moscow kingdom, and then the Russian Empire.
Taking the Zaporozhye army or “Hetmanate” under his high hand, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich certainly took into account the inevitability of war with Poland, so this decision was made only when the Russian army was able to start a new war with its long-standing and strong opponent. New Russian-Polish war(1654-1667) began in May 1654, when the 100,000-strong Russian army set out on a campaign in three main directions. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, at the head of the main forces, moved from Moscow to Smolensk, Prince A.N. Trubetskoy with his regiments set out from Bryansk to unite with the troops of Hetman B.M. Khmelnitsky, and boyar V.B. Sheremetyev from Putivl went to unite with the Zaporozhye Cossacks. To prevent a possible attack by the Turks and Crimean Tatars, boyar V.A. Troekurov was sent to the Don with an order Don Cossacks vigilantly guard the Crimean borders, and, if necessary, act against the enemy.
During the military campaign of 1654, the Russian army and Zaporozhye Cossacks, inflicting a number of major defeats on the Polish army, took Smolensk, Dorogobuzh, Roslavl, Polotsk, Gomel, Orsha, Shklov, Uman and other cities in Belarus and Little Russia. Military campaign 1655 also turned out to be extremely successful for the Russian army, which inflicted a number of major defeats on the Poles and captured Minsk, Grodno, Vilna, Kovno and reached Brest. But by the summer of 1655, the situation on the territory of Little Russia itself had become seriously complicated, since part of the Cossack elders, who did not recognize the decisions Pereyaslavl Rada, supported the Polish gentry and Hetman S. Pototsky managed to collect and arm new army. However, already in mid-June 1655, the regiments of B.M. Khmelnitsky, A.N. Trubetskoy and V.V. Buturlin defeated the Poles near Lvov, and the city itself was encircled. Meanwhile, the new Crimean Khan Mohammed Giray decided to help Warsaw and invaded Polish Ukraine, but in the Ozernaya area he was defeated and hastily retreated back. After these events Polish king John II Casimir fled in panic to Silesia, and the Lithuanian hetman J. Radziwill defected to the Swedish king Charles X Gustav, who a year ago began the Northern War (1555-1660) with the Polish crown.
Stockholm decided to take advantage of Poland's crushing military defeat, and already at the end of 1655 the Swedish army captured Poznan, Krakow, Warsaw and other cities of its southern neighbor. This situation has radically changed the course further developments. Not wanting to strengthen Sweden's position in the strategically important Baltic region, under pressure from the head of the Ambassadorial Prikaz A.L. Ordin-Nashchekin and Patriarch Nikon, Alexey Mikhailovich declared war on Stockholm and in May 1656 the Russian army hastily moved to the Baltic states.
The beginning of the new Swedish campaign turned out to be very successful for the Russian army, and in just one month it captured Dinaburg and Marienburg and began the siege of Riga. However, at the beginning of October, having received news that Charles X was preparing a campaign in Livonia, the siege of Riga had to be lifted and retreated to Polotsk.
In this situation, in October 1656, Moscow and Warsaw signed the Vilna Truce and began joint military operations against the Swedish army, which by that time had taken control of a significant part of Polish territory. This circumstance greatly frightened B.M. Khmelnitsky and in February 1657 he entered into a military alliance with the Swedish king Charles X, sending 12 thousand Zaporozhye Cossacks to help his new allies. The Poles immediately notified Moscow about this, from where an embassy mission headed by the boyar B.M. Khitrovo was sent to B.M. Khmelnitsky, which found the Zaporozhye hetman already seriously ill. Trying to justify himself to the royal ambassador, he said that in February 1657, the royal envoy, Colonel S. Benevsky, came to Chigirin, who invited him to go over to the side of the king, therefore, “as a result of such tricks and lies, we sent part of the Zaporozhian Army against the Poles.” Due to these obviously far-fetched reasons, B.M. Khmelnitsky himself refused to recall his Cossacks from Polish front, however, the Cossacks, having learned that their campaign had not been agreed upon with the Russian Tsar, returned back and told their elders: “How crowded you were from the Poles, at that time you bowed to the sovereign, and how behind the sovereign’s defense you saw space for yourself and own a lot and have become rich, so you want to be self-righteous lords.”
It must be said that such “political prostitution” was always characteristic of the entire Cossack elders, who constantly rushed about in search of more profitable allies, partners and sponsors. And this distinctive feature of the entire “Ukrainian” political elite will become its generational curse for all time, and betrayal will be elevated to the rank highest dignity any “Ukrainian” politician.
Then, in February 1657, the Swedish army went on the offensive in Livonia, and in Moscow a boyar’s verdict was adopted “to take all possible measures to bring the Swedes to peace.” In this situation, Russian troops went on the defensive and pinned down M. Delagardi’s army near Yuryev and Gdov, where in September 1657 Prince I.A. Khovansky defeated the Swedish warriors and regained the strategic initiative.
Meanwhile, according to the will of B.M. Khmelnytsky, who died in August 1657, the hetman’s mace was transferred to his 16-year-old son Yuri. However, due to his early age, the Cossack elders, having convened a new Combined Arms Rada in Chigirin, handed over hetman powers to the clerk general of the Zaporozhye army I.E. Vygovsky, who soon betrayed Moscow and in June 1658 signed the Gadyach Peace Treaty with Warsaw. According to this agreement, the Hetmanate, called the Grand Duchy of Russia, was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as an equal part of this state, endowed with internal autonomy. At the same time, all property and former lands were returned to the Polish gentry and the Catholic Church. Initially, the articles of this agreement were enthusiastically greeted by the “Ukrainian” elders. However, when they were approved in the Polish Sejm, many of these articles were rejected by the Polish magnates and gentry, and the Gadyach Treaty was ratified in a greatly reduced form. However, the newly-minted master I.E. Vygovsky, having assumed the title of “Grand Hetman of the Russian Principality,” went over to the side of the Poles and, together with them, began active military operations against Russia. By the way, new title Zaporizhzhya Hetman is one of the most terrible secrets modern “Ukrainian historiography”, since it completely destroys their entire delusional concept about the existence of an “independent” Ukrainian Cossack state and about a separate “Ukrainian people”, which had nothing to do with the damned Katsaps and Muscovites.
In August 1658, the troops of I.E. Vygovsky, hitting the rear of the Russian troops, took Poltava, Lubny and Glukhov, which extremely complicated the situation on the “Ukrainian front”. Therefore, the Russian army urgently stopped hostilities against the Swedes and at the end of December 1658, Prince I.S. Prozorovsky concluded a deal Swedish ambassadors a three-year truce in Veliesar, according to which all conquered lands in the Baltic states were transferred to Stockholm, which would later be enshrined in the Treaty of Kardis, signed in June 1661.
At the beginning of 1659, the Crimean gentry army under the command of I.E. Vygovsky and Mohammed Giray inflicted a major defeat on the Russian troops near Konotop, where the best part of the local cavalry, led by Prince A.N. Trubetskoy, died. Meanwhile, Right Bank Little Russia opposed the Zaporozhye hetman, which was soon supported in the Left Bank. As a result, I.E. Vygovsky fled to Warsaw in panic, and Yu.B. Khmelnitsky, an absolutely mediocre and insignificant person who suffered from chronic binges, was elected as the new hetman of the Zaporozhye army.
In modern historical science and Ukrainian journalism (T.V. Yakovleva, N.I. Yakovenko, O.A. Buzina) events on Polish Ukraine, which unfolded after the death of B.M. Khmelnitsky and lasted exactly thirty years (1657-1687) are traditionally called very capacious and extremely exact term"Ruin". Moreover, most of these authors, including the Ukrainian independentists themselves, rightly characterize it as a Civil War, which had catastrophic consequences for all Little Russian lands. Although, a number of modern candidates of Ukrainian sciences categorically deny this characteristic and claim that it was either Ukrainian national revolution(V. Smoliy, V. Stepankov), or the struggle for the establishment of an independent Cossack State (T. Chukhlib, Y. Mitsik). However, this assessment is openly speculative and completely inconsistent with well-known facts that were recognized even by such pillars of Ukrainian separatism as N.M. Kostomarov and M.S. Grushevsky.
Active participation in this Civil War, which had an absolutely unprincipled character of the struggle for power, various elder groups of the Zaporozhye Cossacks and the Little Russian gentry took part, which were headed either by Hetman I.E. Vygovsky (1657-1658), then Hetman I.F. Bespaly (1658-1659), then Hetman Yu.B. Khmelnitsky (1660-1663), who, in violation of all agreements with Moscow, became like political prostitutes rush between Warsaw and Istanbul, entering into various military and political unions. In this situation, in 1662, the Little Russian Order was created in Moscow, headed by the boyar P.M. Saltykov, since the internal situation in Polish Ukraine was actually out of the control of the very weak hetman administration. By the end of 1663, Little Russia was de facto divided into two parts: Pereyaslav Colonel P.I. Teterya (1663-1665) became the hetman of Right Bank (Polish) Little Russia, who was replaced by General Captain P.D. Doroshenko (1663-1676), and Koshevoy Ataman I.M. Bryukhovetsky (1663-1668) was elected hetman of Left Bank Little Russia, who was then replaced by Chernigov colonel D.I. Mnogogreshny (1668-1672). At the same time, the entire Hetman elite and regimental sergeant-major not only fought with each other, but also conducted active military operations on the Polish, Crimean and Russian “fronts”.
In January 1664, Jan Casimir undertook final offensive on the Left Bank of Little Russia, but near Glukhov it was defeated by Hetman I. Bryukhovetsky, who carried out a successful raid on the right bank of the Dnieper, where they captured Kanev and Cherkassy. Meanwhile, in Poland itself, part of the gentry rebelled against Jan Casimir and in this situation Warsaw invited Moscow to begin peace negotiations, which ended in January 1667 with the signing of the Truce of Andrusovo for 13.5 years. Under the terms of this truce: 1) Poland recognized the Smolensk, Chernigov, Starodub and Seversky lands for Russia; 2) Poland recognized Moscow as the whole of Left Bank Little Russia and Kyiv; 3) Russia returned to Poland all its conquests in Belarus and Lithuania; 4) Zaporozhye Sich came under shared management Russia and Poland “for their common service against the advancing Basurman forces”; 5) Both sides assumed obligations to provide military assistance to the Zaporozhye Cossacks in the event of an attack on their border lands by the Crimean Tatars.
The conclusion of the Andrusovo Truce is assessed differently in historical science. For example, all Ukrainian independentists believe that Russia treacherously violated all its obligations to jointly fight against Ukrainian people against lordly Poland. However, in Russian historiography this truce is considered the largest foreign policy victory of Russian diplomacy, as a result of which the ancestral Russian lands were reunited with Russia.
Truce of Andrusovo de facto assigned to Russian state the entire territory of Left Bank Little Russia, which in modern Ukrainian historiography is called “Hetmanate”, which occupied the territory of modern Chernigov and Poltava regions, as well as a significant part of the Kyiv and Cherkassy regions and a small part of the Sumy region. In the east, Left Bank Little Russia bordered on Slobodskaya Ukraine, and in the south - on the lands of the Zaporozhye Sich. Administratively, this territory, where the previous military-regimental control system was preserved, was divided into five regiments - Chernigov, Poltava, Pereyaslavl, Prilutsky and Mirgorod, which were headed by military colonels subordinate to the Little Russian hetman and the general foreman.
It must be said that in the public consciousness there is a common idea that along with Little Russia, Sloboda Ukraine also became part of Russia, which almost completely coincided with the borders of modern Kharkov, Sumy, Lugansk and part of Poltava and Donetsk regions. However, this is absolutely not true, since these lands have been inhabited since the beginning of the XYI century. de facto belonged to Russia. It is here, on the borders Wild Field, during the time of Ivan the Terrible, the construction of the Great Zasechnaya Line began, intended to protect the borders of the Russian state from the constant raids of the Crimean and Nogai Tatars.
From the end of the XYI century. The tsarist government began the construction of the Belgorod abatis line, where a new stream of Russian settlers poured in, who founded Belgorod, Chuguev, Tsarev-Borisov, Russkaya Lozovaya, Russkie Tishki, and Little Russian settlers from the Russian, Kyiv and Bratslav voivodeships. The bulk of these settlers were Zaporozhye Cossacks, Little Russian villagers and Orthodox clergy, but among them there were also representatives of the Little Russian Orthodox gentry, who founded the cities of Oleshnya (1631) and Akhtyrka (1641). The mass exodus of Zaporozhye Cossacks to Sloboda Ukraine began under B.M. Khmelnitsky, who founded the cities of Krasnokutsk (1651), Ostrogozhsk (1652), Sumy (1652), Kharkov (1653) and others. During the period of the bloody “Ruins,” a new wave of resettlement of Little Russian villagers and Cossacks began to the lands of Sloboda Ukraine, where they founded the cities of Saltov (1659), Balakleya (1663), Volchansk (1674), Izyum (1681) and others. As in neighboring Little Russia, administration here was built on the principles of a military regimental system, the basis of which was the Ostrogozhsky, Sumy, Akhtyrsky, Kharkov and Izyumsky regiments, the commanders of which were subordinate to the Belgorod governor, appointed from Moscow.
Meanwhile, the new hetman of the Left Bank became a loyal ally of Moscow, general military judge I.S. Samoilovich (1672-1687), and the hetman of the Right Bank, general esaul P.D. Doroshenko, who until recently was an ardent champion of “independent Ukraine”, recognized himself as a vassal of the Crimean khan and concluded a new military alliance with him. In 1672, the united Crimean-Turkish army, with the support of the Zaporozhye Cossacks, invaded the territory of the Podolsk Voivodeship, captured Kamenets-Podolsky and besieged Lviv. The Polish king Mikhail Vishnevetsky (1668-1673), unable to resist the aggressor, surrendered to the mercy of the winner and concluded the Buchach Peace Treaty with Istanbul, according to which he transferred to him the entire territory of Right Bank Little Russia, the management of which was entrusted to the newly appointed hetman of Southern (Khan) Ukraine P.D. .Doroshenko (1672-1676), whose residence was Chigirin.
At the same time, in 1672, the Crimean-Turkish army invaded Podolia and Hetman P.D. Doroshenko, having concluded a military alliance with the Turkish Sultan Mohammed IY, declared war on Poland, which ended with the signing of the Buchach Peace Treaty, according to which the entire territory of Right Bank Little Russia was transferred to Istanbul and Podolia.
In 1676, the Russian-Zaporozhye army under the leadership of Prince G.G. Romodanovsky made a successful campaign against Chigirin, as a result of which P.D. Doroshenko was deprived of the hetman's mace and Colonel Ivan Samoilovich became the new Zaporozhye hetman. As a result of these events began Russian-Turkish war(1677-1681). In August 1677, the enemy began a siege of the border town of Chigirin, the defense of which was led by the prince-voivode I. Rzhevsky. But in September 1677, the Russian army under the command of Prince G. Romodanovsky and Hetman I. Samoilovich defeated the Crimean-Turkish warriors at Buzhin and put them to shameful flight.
The following year, the Crimean-Ottoman army again invaded Little Russia and in August 1678. Nevertheless, she captured Chigirin, but she never managed to cross the Dnieper. After several local skirmishes, the warring parties sat down at the negotiating table, which resulted in January 1681. The Bakhchisaray Peace Treaty was signed, under the terms of which: 1) Istanbul and Bakhchisaray recognized Kyiv and Left Bank Little Russia as Moscow; 2) Right Bank Little Russia remained under power Turkish Sultan; 3) All Black Sea lands, on which the Novorossiysk province would then be created, were declared neutral and were not subject to settlement by subjects of Russia and Crimea.
In 1686, under pressure from Vienna, which headed the “Holy League” of Christian European powers to fight Ottoman expansion, the new Polish king John III Sobieski (1673-1696) was forced to conclude an “Eternal Peace” with Moscow on the terms of the Truce of Andrusovo, and Russia became full member of the new military alliance. In May 1687, in pursuance of his allied obligations The Russian-Zaporozhye army under the command of Prince V.V. Golitsyn and Hetman I. Samoilovich set out on the First Crimean Campaign, which ended in vain due to its disgraceful preparation. Then, in February 1689, the Russian-Zaporozhye army under the command of Prince V. Golitsyn began the Second Crimean Campaign. This time, the campaign was much better prepared, and the Russian army managed to reach Perekop. However, V. Golitsyn was never able to break through the enemy’s defenses and, “having a little slurp,” turned back.
A logical continuation Crimean campaigns V.V. Golitsyn began the Azov campaigns of Peter I 1695-1696. In May 1695 the Russian army under the command of F.A. Golovin, P.K. Gordon and F.Ya. Lefort went on a campaign to Azov, which closed the exit to Azov and Black Sea. In June 1695 Russian regiments began a siege of the fortress, which had to be lifted three months later, since the Russian army was never able to completely blockade it. Thus, the First Azov Campaign ended in vain.
In May 1696 The Russian army under the command of Tsar Peter, governor A.S. Shein and General F.Ya. Lefort began the Second Azov Campaign. This time, the fortress was surrounded not only from land, but also from the sea, where several dozen galleys and hundreds of Cossack plows reliably blocked it, and in July 1696 Azov was taken. And in July 1700, after long and grueling negotiations, the Russian ambassador, clerk E.I. Ukraintsev, signed the Treaty of Constantinople (Istanbul) with the Turks, according to which Azov was recognized as Russia.
Thus, no matter how much modern Ukrainian independentists would like it, Little Russia in the 17th century. I couldn't become sovereign state quite for obvious reasons: 1) the pathological inability of the Little Russian “elite” itself to make any compromises for the sake of creating own state and 2) due to the fact that the Little Russian lands became the arena of a fierce struggle between the three strongest states of the then world - Russia, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Ottoman Empire, where a sovereign Ukraine objectively did not and could not have a place.
XVII century was important stage in development National economy Russia. By the middle of the century, the devastation - a consequence of the turmoil - was largely overcome. Happened further growth agricultural production, however, mainly due to the introduction of new lands into circulation, and not by improving the tools and methods of cultivating the land. Despite the increasing orientation of agriculture towards the market, the majority of landowners and peasant farms basically retained their subsistence character. And yet, the all-Russian market was taking shape. In the second half of the 17th century. the regions that produced marketable bread and other agricultural products, and the areas that consumed them, were identified; Handicraft production areas are also emerging.
Serious changes took place in the development of industry - the first manufactories appeared. Manufacturing production began in metallurgy - a copper smelter in the Urals (1637); by the end of the century there were about 30 manufactories. They were founded by the treasury, large landowners and merchants - owners of trading capital, often from wealthy peasantry. Among the factory workers, the majority were peasants dependent on the landowner or the state, assigned to the factories and thus serving their duties.
Development of commodity-money, market relations, an increase in the number of manufactories was observed in Russia in conditions forward movement feudal economy. Talk about origins in the country capitalist relations, main feature which is an increase in the share of free wage labor in the economy, there is no reason. The formation of a single national market thus occurred in the absence of elements of a capitalist economy based on the development of non-capitalist production.
Russian cities as commercial and industrial centers in the 17th century. remained weak and significantly inferior in development to Western European ones. Many things had an impact: the destruction of the city economy by the Tatars, the weakening of city freedoms with the strengthening of princely power during the unification of the state, the location of Russian cities at a considerable distance from the sea coasts, the inexhaustible possibilities of internal colonization, when the excess population from rural areas went not to cities, but to other rural areas. areas.
The urban population consisted of the privileged elite of the settlement and the bulk of the tax population - artisans and small traders. The merchant elite had its own division - guests, living hundred and cloth hundred. Along with privileges, merchants had a lot of responsibilities that were burdensome and distracted them from their main activities (managing state-owned industries, collecting taxes from estates, etc.). As for the "taxpayers", they were assigned to the townspeople's communities, which were collectively responsible for the correct payment of taxes. The cities were governed by governors, who were appointed from among the boyars and service people by the Rank Order and approved by the Tsar and the Boyar Duma.
The seventeenth century is the heyday feudal period in Russia. At this time, the feudal-serf system was being strengthened and bourgeois ties were simultaneously emerging within the same system. The rapid development of cities and society in general led to a flourishing of culture. Painting also gained strength in Russia in the 17th century. Concentration has begun masses in large cities, which, in turn, was the main reason for such a rapid development of culture. The horizons of Russian people were also broadened by the beginning industrial production, which forced us to take a closer look at the distant regions of the country. Various secular elements penetrate into the painting of the 17th century in Russia. The paintings are becoming more and more popular.
The impact of the church on art
The church was also aware of the great influence of art, in particular painting. Representatives of the clergy tried to control the painting, trying to subordinate them to religious dogma. Folk masters - painters who, in their opinion, deviated from the established canons - were persecuted.
Painting in the 17th century in Russia was still far from realistic trends and developed extremely slowly. In the foreground there was still an abstract, dogmatic and allegorical vision of painting. Icons and paintings were characterized by being overloaded with small scenes and objects around the main image. Also characteristic of that time were explanatory inscriptions on the paintings.
Personality and paintings of the 17th century
When describing painting in the 17th century in Russia, one cannot fail to mention the artist Simon Fedorovich Ushakov, who is the author of such famous paintings as “The Savior Not Made by Hands,” “The Trinity” and “Planting the Tree of the Russian State.” A remarkable phenomenon in painting was the interest in man as an individual. The widespread portraiture of the 17th century in Russia spoke about this.
It should be noted that the portrait became the property of the masses only from the middle of the 18th century, and before that time only those close to supreme power could leave a memory of themselves on the artist’s canvas. A number of ceremonial and decorative paintings were created for large public spaces, such as the Academy of Arts, the Senate, the Admiralty and Imperial palaces. Families could also order portraits, but they did not display them, but left them in their circle. They could decorate even the poor St. Petersburg apartments of members of the intelligentsia, who tried to follow trends and fashion in society.
The influence of Western European culture on Russian painting
It should be noted that painting in the 17th century in Russia changed a lot, especially with regard to portraiture. began to come to the fore real world With real destinies and processes. Everything became more secular and life-like. Huge influence came from the west. Aesthetic tastes from the West gradually began to flow into Russia. This concerned not only art in general, but also such artistic things as dishes, carriages, clothes and much more. It has become popular to take up portraits as a hobby. It was fashionable to bring paintings depicting monarchs as gifts to the king. In addition to this, the envoys were not averse to purchasing portraits of interest to them in world capitals. A little later, it became popular to imitate the skill of painting on canvas by foreign artists. The first “Titular Books” appear, which depict portraits of foreign and Russian sovereigns.
Despite the fact that resistance from some quarters grew in direct proportion to the increase in popularity folk art, it was simply impossible to contain the movement. In the second half of the century, painting in the 17th century in Russia gained high speed. One of the main workshops art centers became in which more than one hundred paintings were painted by two dozen masters under the leadership of Loputsky, Wuchters and Bezmin. Their works reflected existing contradictory tendencies in painting. Some of the paintings were made in official style, and the other part is in Western European.
Novelty in portraiture
Painting in the 17th century in Russia changed its appearance. Found new uniform secular genre - portrait. Man became the main theme of art. It can be concluded that the role of the individual as a person has increased. The canonical “faces” faded into the background and gave way to everyday relationships and the personality as a whole. A real person became worthy of poetry, and not just a divine or a saint. The ceremonial portrait has left the stage of Russian art. Naturally, his influence has not ended today, but it has become less significant. During the Petrine period, it also finds a place for itself on Russian soil, and even exists on a par with the European portrait.
Conclusion
This is how painting of the 17th century developed in Russia. Briefly, we can conclude that it was in this century that the crucial moment in art, which influenced the culture of the country and its further development.
1598-1613 - a period in Russian history called the Time of Troubles.
At the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries, Russia was experiencing a political and socio-economic crisis. Livonian War and the Tatar invasion, as well as the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible, contributed to the intensification of the crisis and the growth of discontent. This was the reason for the beginning of the Time of Troubles in Russia.
17. Why was the 17th century called “rebellious”
main reasons
The enslavement of peasants and the growth of feudal duties
Increasing tax oppression and waging almost continuous wars (which affected the well-being of the population)
Increased administrative red tape
Attempts to limit Cossack freedom
Church schism and reprisals against Old Believers
because in the 17th century there were many riots and uprisings
Cotton's Rebellion 1602-1604
Bolotnikov's revolt of 1606-1607
Salt riot 1648
Uprisings in Pskov and Novgorod 1650
Copper Riot 1662
Movement led by S. Razin
Streletsky riot of 1682 or Khovanshchina
Historians call the 17th century “rebellious” because of the many popular performances and the riots that occurred during this century. Popular uprisings covered huge masses of the tax-paying population. In addition, the performances were not limited to the capital, but took place throughout Russia.
The most mass uprisings 17th century is:
1. Salt riot in Moscow in 1648;
2. Bread riots in Pskov and Novgorod in 1550;
3. Copper riot in Moskai in 1662;
4. Cossack-peasant uprising led by Stepan Razin in 1667 - 1671.
The reasons for the popular uprisings were the enslavement of peasants and the increase in their duties, increased tax oppression, an attempt to limit Cossack liberties, church schism and persecution of Old Believers.
The urban unrest was complex and ambiguous. The main force of the uprisings were the “black people” - the lower and middle strata of the urban population. Inside the posads there was a struggle against the privileged commercial and industrial strata (guests, trading people of the living room and cloth hundreds), as well as the “best people” (the rich), who shifted the burden of taxes onto the “middle” and “younger” people. The Posad poor were often joined by the Streltsy, who by origin and type of economic occupation were closely connected with them. Cossacks, dissatisfied with the government’s attack on their liberties, also took an active part in popular movements. With Nikon's church reform, the army of those dissatisfied and ready to fight the authorities was replenished with schismatics who suffered severe persecution.
18. When did manufactories appear in Russia, what were their characteristics?
Manufactory is a large enterprise where manual labor of hired workers was mainly used and division of labor was widely used.
In Russia, the first forms of manufacturing production appeared in the 17th century, but they received widespread development in the 18th century, from the time of Peter I. Manufacture in Russia was entangled with elements of serfdom. It was closely connected not with urban craft, which was relatively poorly developed in Russia, but with peasant industry, which had long been widespread in the countryside and was a necessary part of natural serf farming. Along with capitalist manufactories, there were state-owned, possessional and patrimonial manufactories in Russia. Merchant manufactory, working on civilian labor, up to early XIX centuries did not gain dominance.
Early XVIII centuries and Peter's reforms in the economic history of Russia
are the most important moment in the development of industry. It's from this
time begins the “manufacturing” period in the history of Russian industry,
which, under the conditions of serfdom, lasted until half of the 19th century centuries,
when did this “serf” manufactory completely turn into
capitalist manufacture, and then into a capitalist factory.
The prehistory of this manufacturing period in the industrial development of Russia
is, on the one hand, the development of the serf-patrimonial industry in
Russian state of the 17th century, and on the other – handicraft and handicraft small
industry. The beginning of the 18th century can be considered the first facet of the manufacturing period
in the industrial development of Russia. The first beginnings of manufactures arose in
large patrimonial farms in the form of various working for a wide market
industrial production (Morozov's enterprises, etc.) or appear in
form of foreign enterprises created primarily for
meeting military and other needs of the state. But still, these rudiments and peculiar forms of “large-scale” industry did not yet mark the beginning of the manufacturing period in Russian industry in the 17th century. This beginning should be attributed specifically to Peter’s
transformations, since individual elements that were already present before and
which were necessary prerequisites for the emergence of manufacture, during
Peter I resulted in a complete system.
