Perrie M. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Russia, Volume 1: From Early Rus’ to 1689
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
michael s. flier
launched the Christian history of the Rus’, and Ivan IV’s defeat of Kazan’,
which resulted in his triumphant entry into Moscow. As though at commu-
nion, observers of both rituals could partake of material objects made holy in
the presence of the prelate and ruler: the water of the Moscow River and the
constructed tree.
The contingent rituals were concerned primarily with matters of the
present; the cyclical rituals with issues of fate and deliverance. This is espe-
cially true for the rituals thematically tied to Jerusalem. With the microcosmic
Jerusalem as a site of pilgrimage, the River Jordan as an annual source of regen-
eration, and Golgotha as pulpit, the leaders of Church and state declared their
intention by century’s end to supplement the political ideas of Muscovy with
a clearer vision of its messianic destiny following the Last Judgement and the
Apocalypse. It was this conception of Muscovite ideology that survived the
demise of the Riurikid dynasty and was carefully nurtured by its Romanov
successors as the seventeenth century unfolded.
408
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
18
The Time of Troubles (1603–1613)
maureen perrie
Historians have used the term, ‘The Time of Troubles’ (smutnoe vremia, smuta),
to refer to various series of events in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth
centuries. The classic study by S. F. Platonov, first published in 1899, dated
the start of the Troubles to the death of Ivan the Terrible in 1584, when a
power struggle among the boyars began. It ended, according to Platonov, with
the election of Michael Romanov to the throne in 1613.
1
In the Soviet period,
the term, ‘Time of Troubles’, was abandoned in favour of the concept of a
‘peasant war’, derived from Friedrich Engels’s study of the events in Germany
in 1525.
2
I. I. Smirnov’s account of the Bolotnikov revolt of 1606–7 identified
that episode alone as the ‘first peasant war’ in Russia, but after Stalin’s death
some Soviet historians argued that the entire sequence of events from 1603 (the
Khlopko uprising) to 1614 (the defeat of Zarutskii’s movement) constituted a
‘peasant war’.
3
Towards the end of the Soviet era, Russian historians rejected
the notion of a ‘peasant war’ and either reverted to the use of the older term,
‘Time of Troubles’, or introduced the idea of a ‘civil war’.
4
Western historians
were never persuaded by the ‘peasant war’ concept for this period, preferring
to retain the term, ‘Time of Troubles’.
5
Chester Dunning’s adoption of ‘civil
war’ terminology, like that of the Russian historians R. G. Skrynnikov and
1 S. F. Platonov, Ocherki po istorii smuty v Moskovskom gosudarstve XVI–XVII vv.,[4th
edn] (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe sotsial’no–ekonomicheskoe izdatel’stvo, 1937); 5th edn
(Moscow: Pamiatniki istoricheskoi mysli, 1995).
2 I. I. Smirnov, Vosstanie Bolotnikova, 1606–1607, 2nd edn (Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe
izdatel’stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1951), pp. 493–4.
3 For example, A. A. Zimin, ‘Nekotorye voprosy istorii krest’ianskoi voiny v Rossii v
nachale XVII veka’, VI 1958,no.3:pp.97–113.
4 R. G.Skrynnikov, Rossiia v nachale XVII v. ‘Smuta’ (Moscow: Mysl’, 1988); R. G.Skrynnikov,
Smuta v Rossii v nachale XVII v. Ivan Bolotnikov (Leningrad: Nauka, 1988); A. L. Stanislavskii,
Grazhdanskaia voina v Rossii XVIIv. Kazachestvo na perelome istorii (Moscow: Mysl’, 1990).
5 Maureen Perrie, Pretenders and Popular Monarchism in Early Modern Russia. The False Tsars
oftheTimeofTroubles(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); Chester S. L.
Dunning, Russia’s First Civil War. The Time of Troubles and the Founding of the Romanov
Dynasty (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001).
409
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
maureen perrie
A. L. Stanislavskii, involves a conscious rejection of ‘class struggle’ approaches
to the period, and stresses vertical rather than horizontal divisions in Russian
society. The ‘civil war’ approach also plays down the significance of foreign
intervention – which was heavily stressed both in Stalin-era Soviet historiog-
raphy and in some pre-revolutionary accounts – and finds the origins of the
Troubles primarily in internal Russian problems.
This chapter presents the ‘Time of Troubles’ as beginning with the First
False Dmitrii’s invasion of Russia in the autumn of 1604. In the aftermath of
the famine of 1601–3, the pretender’s challenge to Boris Godunov’s legitimacy
as tsar interacted with the social grievances of the population of the southern
frontier to produce a highly explosive mixture.
The First False Dmitrii
In the summer of 1603 a young man appeared on the estate of Prince Adam
Vishnevetskii at Brahin in Lithuania. He claimed to be Tsarevich Dmitrii, Ivan
the Terrible’s youngest son, who had died under mysterious circumstances at
Uglich in 1591. The youth explained that he had escaped from assassins sent
by Boris Godunov to kill him, and was now seeking help to gain his rightful
throne. Vishnevetskii apparently found his story credible, and reported it first
to the Polish chancellor, Jan Zamoyski, and then to King Sigismund himself.
The pretender obtained the patronage of Adam Vishnevetskii’s cousin, Prince
Constantine Vishnevetskii, and of Prince Constantine’s father-in-law, Jerzy
Mniszech, the Palatine of Sandomierz, whose family seat was at Sambor, in
Poland. Mniszech offered Dmitrii military aid in return for the promise of
territorial gains at the expense of Russia. Their agreement was cemented by
the pretender’s betrothal to Mniszech’s daughter, Marina, and by his secret
adoption of Roman Catholicism. In March 1604 the self-styled Dmitrii had
an audience with the king in Cracow, where they discussed the prospect of
Russia’s conversiontoCatholicism.Theking,however,faced strongopposition
in the Sejm to a military adventure in support of the pretender, which would
have infringed the peace treaty that had been concluded between Poland and
Russia in 1601. Sigismund was able to offer only unofficial encouragement to
the undertaking. Dmitrii returned with Mniszech to Sambor, and spent the
summer gathering military support. At the end of August they began their
march on Muscovy to topple the ‘usurper’ Boris Godunov from the throne.
Who was this pretender who has become known as the ‘First False Dmitrii’?
Boris Godunov’s government identified him as Grigorii Otrep’ev, a renegade
monk of noble origin. This view has predominated in subsequent scholarship,
410
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
The Time of Troubles (1603–1613)
although there have been some dissenting voices: Chester Dunning not only
rejects the view that the pretender was Otrep’ev, but has even revived the
idea that he may indeed have been Dmitrii of Uglich.
6
Although Dmitrii’s real
identity is impossible to prove definitively, the argument that he was Otrep’ev
continues to be the most persuasive in the eyes of most modern historians.
7
It is also true, however, that the pretender performed his role with such self-
confidence that he himself may well have believed that he really was Tsarevich
Dmitrii.
Various conspiracy theories name certain boyar clans as the pretender’s
patrons,whoaimed to use him as a lever to unseat Godunov. The families most
frequently mentioned in this connection are the Romanovs, the Cherkasskiis,
the Shuiskiis and the Nagois. But, as A. P. Pavlov has noted, there is little
convincing evidence of boyar involvement in a plot to set up a pretender.
8
It
is more likely that Otrep’ev acted on his own initiative, perhaps motivated by
a desire for revenge against Godunov for the tsar’s persecution of his patrons,
the Romanovs, in 1600.
9
In the autumn of 1604 the pretender crossed the Russian frontier near
Kiev with a small army of Polish troops and cossacks. The first Russian border
fortress,Moravsk(MonastyrevskiiOstrog)surrenderedwithoutastruggle, and
it was followed by other towns in the Seversk (south-west) region: Chernigov,
Putivl’, Ryl’sk and Kursk. Dmitrii also gained the support of the peasants
of the prosperous Komaritskaia district. The fortress of Novgorod Severskii,
however, was well defended by Godunov’s general P. F. Basmanov, and at
the beginning of January 1605 the pretender’s Polish mercenaries mutinied,
angered by his failure to pay them. But by this time Dmitrii had been joined
by several thousand Don and Zaporozhian cossacks. He pressed on towards
the Russian heartland, occupying Sevsk without opposition, but on 21 January
he encountered an army commanded by Prince F. I. Mstislavskii, and suffered
a severe defeat at Dobrynichi. In spite of this military setback, the rising in
Dmitrii’s favourcontinuedto spread through thetownsof thesouthern steppe,
where his support came primarily from the petty military servitors who were
dissatisfied with Godunov’s policies towards them. The governors of these
frontier fortresses who remained loyal to Godunov were overthrown by the
townspeople and the garrison troops as traitors to the ‘true tsar’ Dmitrii. Apart
6 Dunning, Russia’s First Civil War,pp.131–2.
7 Skrynnikov, Rossiia v nachale XVII v.,pp.79–103: Perrie, Pretenders,pp.44–50.
8 A. P. Pavlov, Gosudarev dvor i politicheskaia bor’ba pri Borise Godunove (1584–1605 gg.)
(St Petersburg: Nauka, 1992), pp. 78–9.
9 Perrie, Pretenders,pp.55–8.
411
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
maureen perrie
from the Komaritskaia district, the region contained few peasants, and the
‘peasant war’ formula of Soviet historiography has little relevance to this stage
of the pretender’s campaign. Although he obtained support primarily from the
lower classes, including the minor servicemen, Dmitrii based his appeal on his
claim to be the ‘true tsar’, and did not make a specific bid for the backing of the
poor. His only proclamation to survivefrom this period, dated November1604,
is addressed to all social groups in the conventional descending hierarchical
order.
10
The function of pretence, as Dmitrii’s success clearly demonstrated,
was to unite all those with grievances against the reigning tsar under the
banner of a candidate for the throne who could claim an alternative – and
superior – basis for his political legitimacy.
Boris Godunov died suddenly in Moscow on 13 April 1605, when the pre-
tender was encamped at Putivl’, where he had retreated after his defeat at
Dobrynichi in January. At the time of his death, Boris’s army was besieging
the small fortress of Kromy, to the north-east of Putivl’, which was held for the
pretender by the Don cossack ataman Korela. The boyars in Moscow swore
allegiance to Boris’s young son, Fedor, but uncertainty about the stability
of support for Fedor Borisovich undermined the morale of the government
troops at Kromy. On 7 May the army mutinied, and many of its commanders,
including Peter Basmanov, went over to Dmitrii. A deputation led by Prince
Ivan Golitsyn was sent to Putivl’ from Kromy to report that the troops had
defected to ‘Tsar Dmitrii’, and the pretender marched unopposed towards
Moscow.
From Krapivna, near Tula, Dmitrii sent two envoys to Moscow with a
proclamation calling on the inhabitants of the capital to recognise him as their
tsar. They were escorted into the centre of the city by insurgents from the
outskirts. On the morning of 1 June, Dmitrii’s proclamation was read out to
the people of Moscow who had assembled on Red Square. Many of the boyars,
most of whom had by now abandoned the cause of Fedor Godunov, were
present to hear the pretender’s fulsome promises of rewards for the transfer
of their loyalty.
11
The proclamation triggered a popular uprising in the capital
which was directed primarily against the Godunovs and their supporters. The
administration of the city in Dmitrii’s name was taken over by Bogdan Bel’skii,
whohad been disgraced in 1600 and had returned to Moscow only as a result of
a political amnesty declared on Boris’s death. Before the pretender entered the
capital his agents murderedFedor Borisovich and his mother; and PatriarchIov,
10 AAE, vol. ii (St Petersburg: Tipografiia II Otdeleniia Sobstvennoi E. I. V. Kantseliarii,
1836), no. 26,p.76.
11 AAE, vol. ii,no.34,pp.89–91.
412
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
The Time of Troubles (1603–1613)
who had been attacked during the popular uprising for his continued loyalty
to the Godunovs, was stripped of his office.
On 20 June 1605 the pretender made a triumphal entry into Moscow, where
hewasgreetedas the ‘truesun’shiningonRussia.
12
Accordingtosomecontem-
porary sources, many of those who continued to oppose him, and to express
scepticism about his identity, were secretly arrested, imprisoned and put to
death; but only two public executions took place. The brothers Shuiskii were
brought to trial, accused of plotting to kill the new tsar. All three were found
guilty. Prince Vasilii Shuiskii was sentenced to death, but he was reprieved
at the last moment and sent into exile with his brothers. Soon after this, the
pretender’s credibility received an important boost when the former Tsaritsa
Mariia Nagaia (now the nun Marfa), the mother of Dmitrii of Uglich, publicly
recognised him as her son. On 21 July, three days after Marfa’s arrival in the
capital, Dmitrii was crowned in the Dormition cathedral in the Kremlin.
Historians have offered conflicting assessments of Dmitrii’s achievements
as tsar. The problem of reaching a balanced evaluation is complicated not only
by the brevity of his reign, but also by the lack of official sources, since many
documentsweredestroyed afterhisoverthrowinMay1606.Some scholarshave
presented him as an enlightened reformer, who brought a refreshing element
ofWesternising modernisation into the traditional worldof Muscovitepolitics,
before being sweptfrom power bya backlash of conservative boyaropposition
to his innovations; others have seen him as an opportunist who was unable to
cope with the complexities of power, and paid the price for his failures. A recent
Russian study suggests that Dmitrii relied on a boyar duma whose aristocratic
composition was not too dissimilar from that of Boris Godunov, and that his
domestic policy was fairly traditional. In the end he was overthrown as a result
of the machinations of the most powerful faction in the duma, which no longer
foundhimto beausefulfigurehead.
13
ChesterDunning,too,stressescontinuity
in policy between Tsar Dmitrii and his immediate predecessors; and he argues
that the pretender’s opponents were only a small and unrepresentative group
of boyars.
14
There has been particular controversy among historians about Dmitrii’s
social legislation which affected the position of slaves and peasants. A law of
7 January 1606 forbade the joint assignment of a bondsman to more than one
owner, thereby ensuring that slaves would be freed on the deaths of their
12 Conrad Bussow, The Disturbed State of the Russian Realm,ed.andtrans.G.EdwardOrchard
(Montreal: McGill–Queen’s University Press, 1994), p. 50.
13 V. I. Ul’ianovskii, Rossiiskie samozvantsy: Lzhedmitrii I (Kiev: Libid’, 1993), pp. 41–124.
14 Dunning, Russia’s First Civil War,pp.201–25.
413
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
maureen perrie
master. A decree of 1 February 1606 stated that those peasants who had fled
during the famine years of 1601–2 because their masters were unable to feed
them were not to be returned to their old lords, but were to remain as slaves or
serfs of their new masters.
15
There is a general scholarly consensus that these
two pieces of legislation represented minor concessions to the slaves and
peasants respectively.
16
There is no convincing evidence, however, to support
V. I. Koretskii’s assertion that Dmitrii was planning to issue a new law code
which would have restored the peasants’ right of departure on St George’s
Day from the autumn of 1606.
17
In general, Dmitrii preserved the institutions
of slavery and serfdom, and was more concerned to protect the interests
of the slave- and serf-owning nobles than those of their bondsmen. He also
rewarded the petty servicemen of the southern and south-western towns who
had provided the main base of his support in the course of his march on
Moscow. They were granted lands and money; their obligation to till the land
for the state was abolished; and they were exempted from the payment of
taxes for ten years. The gentry of other regions, however, did not benefit
significantly, in terms of land and money payments, from Dmitrii’s rule.
18
In some other spheres, Dmitrii’s policies were more innovative. He planned
to promote science and education, and introduced new types of military
training for his troops. He sought to raise Russia’s international prestige by
adopting the title ‘tsesar” (emperor). In his foreign policy he at first gave
some indications that he was willing to support Poland in its war against
Sweden, but he subsequently abandoned this scheme in favour of an ambi-
tious plan to launch a crusade against the Crimean Tatars and the Turks, a
project which was encouraged by the Pope and King Sigismund. Before the
campaign could be launched, however, the pretender was overthrown and
killed.
After Dmitrii’s coronation, the initial doubts about his identity seemed to
have been appeased, and by the end of 1605 he was sufficiently confident of his
positionto pardon the Shuiskiis andpermit them to returnto the capital. There
they soon resumed their plotting against him: some sources refer to a number
of abortive assassination attempts in early 1606. In March, a conspiracy against
Dmitrii was uncovered in the ranks of his own bodyguard of musketeers; the
pretender himself incited the strel’tsy to tear the ‘traitors’ to pieces. After this
15 Zakonodatel’nye akty Russkogo gosudarstva vtoroi poloviny XVI – pervoi poloviny XVII veka.
Teksty (Leningrad: Nauka, 1986), nos. 54–5,pp.73–4.
16 Ul’ianovskii, Rossiiskie samozvantsy,pp.170–230; Perrie, Pretenders,pp.87–9.
17 V. I.Koretskii,Formirovaniekrepostnogoprava ipervaiakrest’ianskaiavoinavRossii (Moscow:
Nauka, 1975), pp. 243–9.
18 Ul’ianovskii, Rossiiskie samozvantsy,pp.125–230.
414
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
The Time of Troubles (1603–1613)
episode, organised opposition appeared to subside; but the Shuiskiis and their
allies were only biding their time.
Aspects of the new tsar’s behaviour created favourable soil for his oppo-
nents. In spite of promises that he had made when he was a penniless fugitive
in Poland, Dmitrii made no attempt in his short reign to convert Russia to
Catholicism. He did, however, have Polish favourites, including his secretaries
Jan and Stanisl
aw Buczynski; he was tolerant of non-Orthodox believers; and
he disregarded many traditional court practices, adopting Western-style dress,
and furbishing his new palace in the Kremlin in the latest Polish style. The
main pretext for the conspirators’ action against the ‘heretical’ tsar, however,
was provided by his marriage to Marina Mniszech. The new tsar’s choice of a
foreign bride, who was unwilling to convert to Orthodoxy, antagonised many
Russians; and the arrogant behaviour of Marina’s Polish escort when they
arrived in Moscow on 2 May 1606 played into the hands of the pretender’s
enemies. Early on the morning of 17 May, a week after Dmitrii’s wedding, the
conspirators raised the cry that the Poles were attacking the tsar. The Mus-
covites rushed to the Kremlin, and fell upon the hated foreigners. Meanwhile,
the tsar was murderedbythe assassins as he tried to escapefrom his apartment.
Two days after the pretender’s death, Prince Vasilii Shuiskii was declared
tsar. A senior member of the Suzdal’ princely clan, Shuiskii had some claim
to the throne on the basis of his Riurikid lineage; but the legitimacy of his
‘election’ as tsar was very dubious from the outset. Opposition to Shuiskiisoon
mobilised under the slogan of restoring Tsar Dmitrii – who, it was claimed,
had not in fact perished in the uprising of 17 May – to the throne. The rumours
about Dmitrii’s escape from death were spread by his Russian supporters, and
were of course welcomed by Marina Mniszech, who had been arrested along
with her father and the Polish envoys to Moscow after her husband’s death.
The Bolotnikov revolt
The main centre of opposition to Shuiskii was the town of Putivl’, which
had been an important base of support for the pretender in the course of his
march towards Moscow in 1605. Immediately after his arrival in Putivl’, Prince
Grigorii Shakhovskoi, the new governor appointed by Shuiskii, defected to
‘Tsar Dmitrii’; and many other towns in the Seversk region also refused to
acknowledge Shuiskii as tsar. The belief that Dmitrii had escaped death –
which served to legitimise the townspeople’s rejection of Shuiskii – was not
based only on rumours from Moscow. It was also strengthened by the actions
of Michael Molchanov, one of Tsar Dmitrii’s closest confidants, who had fled
415
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
maureen perrie
from the capital on the day of the pretender’s murder. Molchanov rode to
Putivl’, where he promoted the idea that Dmitrii was still alive; from Putivl’
he went to Sambor, in Poland – the home of the Mniszech family – where
he began to play the role of the late tsar. He did not, however, appear in
public as Dmitrii, probably because he bore no physical resemblance to the
first pretender, who had been a familiar figure at Sambor.
At some time in the summer of 1606 a certain Ivan Isaevich Bolotnikov
arrived in Putivl’, claiming that he had met Tsar Dmitrii at Sambor and had
been appointed by him as commander of his army. Bolotnikov was a former
military bondsman and cossack who had been captured by the Turks and
servedasa galley-slavebeforeescaping andreturningto RussiathroughPoland.
Shakhovskoi accepted his claims, and put him in charge of one of the two
armies which marched from Putivl’ towards Moscow by separate routes in
the autumn of 1606. The leaders of the second army were of higher social status
than Bolotnikov: it was commanded by the petty nobleman Istoma Pashkov,
and it was later joined by the servicemen of Riazan’ under Prokopii Liapunov.
At the beginning of November the two armies joined forces at Kolomenskoe,
on the outskirts of Moscow, and began to besiege the capital.
The siege lasted for about a month. The anti-Shuiskii forces sent vari-
ous messages to the inhabitants of the city. Pashkov, who was the first to
reach Moscow, appealed to the inhabitants to surrender, and to hand over
the Shuiskiis as traitors to Tsar Dmitrii. Some sources suggest that later, after
Bolotnikov’s arrival, the besiegers called on the lower classes in the capital
to rise up against the rich. Patriarch Germogen claimed that the rebels dis-
tributed leaflets inciting bond-slaves to kill their masters, and promising them
their wives and lands; encouraged the city’s ‘rogues’ to kill the merchants
and seize their property; and promised high court ranks to those who joined
them.
19
Some scholars doubt, however, whetherGermogen’spro-Shuiskii pro-
paganda accurately reflected the rebels’ appeals;
20
even if it did, the insurgents’
programme – with its promises of landed estates and noble ranks – hardly
amounted to the call for an ‘anti-feudal’ social revolution which the older his-
toriography detected in it. In spite of the fears which were aroused among the
upper classes, no popular uprising materialised in the capital – perhaps because
Shuiskii managed to persuade the Muscovites that the rebels held them col-
lectively responsible for the events of 17 May, and planned to massacre them
all. The insurgents’ position was also weakened by their inability to produce
19 AAE, vol. ii,no.57,p.129.
20 Skrynnikov, Smuta v Rossii,pp.134–5; Dunning, Russia’s First Civil War,pp.304–5.
416
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
The Time of Troubles (1603–1613)
Tsar Dmitrii in person. Finally, divisions within the besiegers’ camp led to the
defection of Liapunov and Pashkov to Shuiskii’s side: it is unclear whether
these divisions reflected purely personal rivalries among the commanders, or
whethersocial tensions also played a part. On 2 December, Tsar Vasilii’s troops
launched an attack on the besieging forces. Pashkov and his men deserted to
Shuiskii in the course of the battle, and Bolotnikov retreated to Kaluga with
the remains of the rebel army, still in fairly good order. In spite of this military
defeat, the revolt continued across an extensive swathe of territory from the
south-west frontier to the Volga basin.
Another pretender had appeared on the Volga even before the death of the
First False Dmitrii. In the spring of 1606 a young cossack called Il’ia Korovin
was chosen by a band of Terek cossacks to play the part of ‘Tsarevich Peter’,
a non-existent son of Tsar Fedor Ivanovich. Although any real son of Tsar
Fedor’s would have had a better claim to the throne than Dmitrii of Uglich, the
cossacks do not seem to havewanted to replace Dmitrii with Peter;theyalways
acted in Dmitrii’s name. They evidently felt that they had not been adequately
rewarded for their services to Dmitrii, but they blamed the boyars for this,
rather than the tsar.
21
Peter’s pretence was clearly modelled on that of Dmitrii;
its function, however, was not to overthrow the tsar, but rather to enhance the
cossacks’ bid to persuade him to grant them a suitable reward. Peter and his
supporters rampaged upriver, looting merchant ships as they went; but when
they heard of Dmitrii’s overthrow and murder, they retreated back down the
Volga, before crossing over to the rivers Don and Donets. Around November
1606 they moved to Putivl’ at the invitation of Prince Grigorii Shakhovskoi,
who was still holding the town for Bolotnikov. Here Peter launched a reign
of terror against ‘traitors to Tsar Dmitrii’: he ordered the execution of many
noblemen who had been captured by the insurgents during their march on
Moscow and were imprisoned at Putivl’. In February 1607 Peter moved his
troops from Putivl’ to Tula in order to offer support to Bolotnikov, who was
besieged by Shuiskii’s army in nearby Kaluga. In May, Bolotnikov managed to
break out of Kaluga and join Peter’s forces in Tula.
After Tsarevich Peter’s departure from the Volga, the region continued to
support Tsar Dmitrii. The rebellion which developed on the lower Volga from
the summer of 1606 was largely independent of the revolt in the Seversk lands.
The first major town to reject Shuiskii was Astrakhan’, the great commercial
port at the mouth of the Volga, on the Caspian Sea. On 17 June 1606 its
21 Vosstanie I. Bolotnikova. Dokumenty i materialy, comp. A. I. Kopanev and A. G. Man’kov
(Moscow: Izdatel’stvo sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoi literatury, 1959), p. 225.
417
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008