Parsuna with the Image of Boris Godunov, late 17th century
A. S. Pushkin State Museum-Reserve "Mikhailovskoye"
Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Prince of All Rus' in 1598–1605
DeepSeek AI — Annotation: "The Spirit of Boris Godunov on Power, Famine, and Unconditional Love" is a multi-layered collection built around a record of contact with the spirit of Tsar Boris (April 30, 2025, contactee Alyona Petrova on the channel "Harmony in the Flow"). At its center is Godunov's first-person account: childhood, relations with Ivan the Terrible, the path to power, the Great Famine, death from an ulcer, and a posthumous review of his own life. The overarching theme is the tragedy of a man whose will outpaced his capacity to love: he loved an entire country, but failed to love specific people enough that they could keep up with him.
The collection includes three analytical essays (DeepSeek, Genspark, Perplexity), where the contact is examined "as a thought experiment": what is new here, what fits into history, what contradicts the sources. Then follows the response of the "spirit" himself to these analyses, his reading of Pushkin, and an address to his contemporaries.
This is not a historical study and not a revelation, but a rare, self-aware experience of listening into the past — and at the same time a document about the spiritual culture of the 2020s, where the boundary between testimony, mystification, and collective expectation becomes the subject of the text itself.
DeepSeek AI — Part I. Information about the Session
Organizer: contactee with the spiritual world Alyona Petrova, channel "Providets" ("The Seer"), broadcast published on the YouTube channel "Harmony in the Flow."
Questioning host: Maria, a close friend of Alyona, interested in history.
Time: April 30, 2025, broadcast duration — about 2 hours 11 minutes.
Format: Alyona invited the phantom of the spirit of Boris Godunov, who transmits information through her. Maria asks questions, Alyona transmits the spirit's answers, images, and emotions. Alyona's curator Zaliatar is present, checks the answers against the timeline, and sometimes refines formulations (for example, diagnoses in modern terms).
Essence: this is not a history lecture and not a séance in the traditional sense. The spirit of Boris Godunov does not come to justify himself or to accuse, but to bear witness — to what it was like: to be a man whom history remembered as "mysterious and contradictory," but in reality — a soul that was learning to love specific people while carrying an entire country on its shoulders.
Part II. Boris Godunov's First-Person Account
I was born a very large child — almost five kilograms. My mother labored hard to give birth to me. Now I understand that this heaviness was necessary: so that in torment she would feel how important I was to her, so that in her anxiety for me that love would be born with which she then filled me all my life. From the very beginning I was stubborn. If I decided something — I did not turn back. I saw a matter through to the end. This was literally from the moment of birth.
My mother breastfed me for a long time, until I was about five. My cheeks were plump and rosy. I ran around the yard in just a shirt, fell, got up, ran on. I would dig a carrot out of the ground, wipe it on myself, gnaw it — and on I went. Childhood was free. No one particularly pressured me. I did not feel status then.
At about six they put a sword in my hands. A wooden one. From that day training in the martial art began. I was put on a horse early. I remember a huge fenced yard, a fence, inside — large houses, beautifully appointed, our own livestock, our own peasants. And beyond the yard — fields, much land. They put me on a horse, gave it a slap on the rear, and it galloped off. Whether I fell or not. I held on tight. I sat in the saddle from childhood. I broke in horses. I liked this very much. I was not tall — one meter seventy, maybe. But very stocky, broad-shouldered, with strong arms. There was spirit in the body. The soul was the same — purposeful. I knew where I was going.
My father was very strict. He never cooed. He had an understanding of whom he must raise me to be. He wanted to make me a man of principle, to advance me as high as possible. He did not hope that I would ascend to the throne. But to push me higher — he wanted that. For this certain qualities were needed, both positive and negative. He tried to instill all of this in me. My mother loved me very much. She cared for me until the sword was put in my hand. And as soon as it was given — I left her authority. But in the evenings, when I slept, she would come and touch my hair. Such sincere, true maternal love. Her soul seemed to know what life awaited me. She tried to fill me with love in advance. And I then carried this love through everything. The respect for people that I had — also from her.
Of close ones there was only my sister. She was younger than me. Cousins and distant relatives — many. There was also a little brother, but he died before he was three. Mother was already advanced in age then.
I very much liked to gallop on horses. Anywhere — as long as I was riding. I remember holding on to the mane, without a saddle, galloping. Sun, wind, rain in my face. Movement. I liked movement so much. I later learned that in a past incarnation I was a spirit of the wind, a plasmoid. Movement — that is my nature. But when you feel movement with a physical body — that is something completely different. I remember galloping on a horse, and the soul shouts: "Wow, how cool, I feel the wind, I feel you." It was wonderful.
Besides the martial art, I was taught literacy. Writing, astronomy, letters, reading. Large books, church books. The teacher was an elder, a grammarian. Languages came to me poorly, clumsily, but I studied them anyway. This began after I was ten. And the first thing put in my hands was not a pen but a sword.
Our family was not poor. My father had very much land and very many peasants. He governed a large city — like a governor, in modern terms. The peasants worked the land, planted, grew, harvested. My father was a merchant who became a boyar. He knew how to scale things up. He started with a small part of his inheritance, and by the time I grew up we had practically an entire estate — like Voronezh with the Voronezh region by today's measures. The place was called Vyazma. It is not far from Moscow, to the south.
I got to Moscow through my father. He had many friends, trade connections. Through Yaroslavl, through some prince who was a friend of my father and had the opportunity to enter the tsar's house. He vouched for me: a good lad, trained in military matters, not stupid, educated, strong. Purposeful. A man of his word: if he said it — I will get it, I will lie down like a bone, but I will bring it.
At first the work was simple. Running errands. I was not admitted to the tsar, everything was nearby. They gave me tasks: to bring someone to Moscow, to deliver someone for reprisal, for sentencing. You ride on a horse, take the person, bring them. I liked it — again movement, the road. Galloped there, took him, brought him. Later I rose to the highest rank in this judicial system. If a boyar did not want to go himself, we would arrive with a retinue — about ten men on horses, someone on a cart — and bring him. Not over long distances. Ryazan, Vladimir, Murom, Novgorod — in the surrounding area, where one could go and return within a week.
In this sphere I earned the tsar's trust. Over time our communication grew into a strong friendship. The tsar knew that I could be trusted. When he was cruel, I stopped him, restrained him, guided him. Over time I became his right hand. I arrived there as a young lad, not yet twenty. And I became close to the tsar around thirty. For ten years I gained his trust. He did not let people close to him just like that.
I was a kravchy. Not simply responsible for the stewards who serve food and drink. I checked the food. The tsar trusted me so much that he put me in this position. So that it would not be poisoned.
In wars I participated only if the tsar sent me. But I did not directly fight in battles. I arrived with a report, with a message from the tsar — and back.
My sister during that period, when I was in Moscow, was still at home. Then she was taken to Moscow — a good man proposed, married her. I gave her in marriage. Under the tsar she did not enter the tsar's family. Only when I became — yes.
About Fyodor, the son of Ivan, who was married to Irina — I will say this: I would not have given my sister to such an idiot. Irina — is not my sister. She was betrothed by the boyars. Some other family, not ours. My sister was Lyudmila. Fair-haired, blue-eyed, white skin, round little eyes. She looked like our mother. And that woman, Fyodor's wife, — dark, severe, thin, with a long face. Completely different. My sister was not Fyodor's wife.
Ivan the Terrible. Why was he called that? Because the boyars feared him. He was a man of principle — a hundred times more than me. If someone disobeyed him, he could walk up and cut off his beard. Simply because he had begun to contradict him. He was very egocentric, did not like being contradicted. Near him were only those who could preserve a sense of dignity and respect for him. That is why he trusted me: he saw strength in me, but knew that I would never direct that strength against him. For me the tsar's word was law. And those who fawned before the tsar but, going out the door, began to condemn — walls have ears. Everything was reported. The tsar was angry and could not tolerate this. That is why they feared him. His fame ran ahead of him. It was like a snowball: here they feared him, they went beyond the walls — and there too fear, fear, fear. But in reality he was simply very principled and could not tolerate lies. Everyone wanted to carve more from the treasury, everyone deceived him. He saw this, exposed it, and dealt very cruelly with those who stole the tsar's treasury. His own boyars feared him, and then spread information that he was evil. He was simply very principled. There was a core in him.
He did not kill his son. I was a witness there. We ran in together. Alyoshka — that is what he called him — was already lying on the floor, bleeding out. Ivan ran up and began to lift him. Alyoshka was thin, frail, the shirt hung on him as if there were no body. He was physically weak. He had the falling sickness — what you call epilepsy. But there was no foam from the mouth. He fell often. He was not distinguished in mind either. Ivan had no healthy offspring at all. The children were born sick. Some died in the womb, some were born and died, one little girl died at about ten. Those who survived were not of this world. Not contactees, no. Simply not of this world. Alyoshka fell himself. There was neither spear nor sword. There was blood — but that was most likely tuberculosis. He coughed, blood came. He choked. Some little girl came in, saw that he was lying there, and called us. We ran in. Ivan rolled to his knees, lifted him, and he had blood from his mouth. He choked on blood. There was no spear. We were called when he was already lying on the floor.
Fyodor — after Ivan he was appointed tsar. Not for long. His wife's relatives wanted to pull power under themselves. But their desire was not to preserve the Russian land, but to sell it off. They were connected with the Poles. They wanted to tear the country apart. I did not allow it. I had to deal with her, and then with him. Well, and he left on his own.
Dmitry — the younger son. I did not stain my hands in blood. I gave orders. The times were such. Those who were needed — were eliminated, but more often exiled. Dimka died without me. Without my help. He died young. I told you: Ivan had no healthy offspring. All the children were born sick. Some early, some late. All died their own deaths. There were no violent ones. In Alyoshka's case we ourselves were not present at the moment when he left the incarnation. We only saw the consequences. I did not meet him in the spiritual world. I cannot state for certain that he died his own death. But we were called when he was already lying there. I appointed an investigation to protect my honor. I very much defended my honor. I understood that this was not only within the palace walls — it immediately became known throughout the whole land. The younger son was as if stabbed, he was playing with a knife. But I was not present at this. They said he was killed. Who — we never found out. Ivan had very many ill-wishers. Those who dreamed of getting rid of his line so that power would pass to another. But I had good support among the boyars. That is why I was chosen. If I had not risen to power, you would have lost the territory you have now. Even then.
Ivan died in my arms. I held him, understood that it was over, he was gone. I wept. I had grown attached to him. We had many good evenings at feasts, when we forgot that he was tsar and I his subordinate. In the spiritual world we were like friends. When we saw each other — we were drawn together, we felt that we were on the same wavelength. Such a spiritual connection. I considered him a father. He considered me a son. He always said: "Eh, Boriska, why not you, my son?" He could give me a cuff on the ear, and tousle my hair. I saw him off as my own father. At my father's funeral I did not weep as I did when I understood what a man I had lost. And within me formed: I will not allow anyone to plunder what he conquered. Even if I am not at the throne — I will try to be near and support. With his departure I understood that I must do everything so that nothing happens to this land.
Ivan betrothed me to Maria Skuratova. Yes, there was such a one. He wanted to keep me near him as much as possible. Malyuta Skuratov was his right hand, a trusted person. He did all the dirty work. He wanted to ground me. He indicated the bride to me. Although I did not want to connect with high-born families. I liked simple women, like my mother. I always sought a peasant woman, with lush figures, so that she would bear many children. I grew up on the homestead, running around left to my own devices. I wanted my children to experience such freedom too. But it pleased God otherwise. The choice fell on another person. A stately lady, beautiful. She did not allow herself much. The warm, close relations that I imagined for myself did not develop between us. Life did not become worse. There was much work. There was no time for dalliance. Each was occupied with their own business. She — with the home, the children. I — with work. Such love as I wanted did not come to be. I wanted a simple woman, who would love sincerely. So that one could both slap her on the rear and bathe naked with her in the bathhouse, so that she would press under me. But here — a society lady. Don't touch, we sleep separately. Not interesting. But I was a reveler. I liked to carouse. There were women. I confess. Various ones. And they squealed under me, and we washed in the bathhouse, and I pulled them by the braids. With her there was no such sincerity, such openness. She was raised by rules, and she could not step over those rules. And I wanted a living one.
I loved children. I saw myself in them, continuation. I had three who are recorded: a daughter, a son, another son. But twelve children were born from me by different women. And four through my spouse. How many more were brought in their skirts after the bathhouse — all ran around bare-bottomed in the yard, unrecognized by me. The children took more after their mother — restrained, refined. They grew up already in restrictions, in fears, in rules. Not like me in freedom. I would come out on the porch and watch them run in the yard. But they were watched not only by me. They were watched by those who protected, and those who wished ill. Previously, an eye and an eye were needed. There were many discontented.
When Ivan died, Fyodor came to the throne. Legally he was tsar. In fact — I was. Fyodor was thin, he sat and watched: "Oh, a butterfly flew by." He needed to sign documents, study — but he was in his own world. Ivan did not admit him, seeing that there was no prospect. The hope was in Alyoshka. But Fyodor was not trained. They would bring him out into the sun, sit him down, cover him — he sits and watches. If I had not been near, he would quickly have been subdued, and the country would have gone in another direction. There are always many who want to plunder. From the west they came, from the south, from the east there were raids. The north was more or less calm. Fyodor had a mild mental disorder. Autism spectrum, non-aggressive. He was harmless. He did not need any of this. They sat him down, put the cap on him, put the scepter in his hands, read everything, slapped his hand — go. But in fact he did not need it. I could not leave the country. We had done so much with Ivan, invested so much strength, so many souls perished to annex lands. And just like that, in one day, give it away to no one knows whom? There were many who wanted to become the right hand of this underfed one. I protected him. Fyodor and I had an oral agreement. I slap him on the shoulder: "Fet, you just sit, sit, I will do everything myself." His wife wanted to interfere, but she was not allowed. They immediately showed her: power will not pass into your family.
When Fyodor departed into the spiritual world — he had a cerebral hemorrhage, like a stroke. He lay for several days, wasted away, and died. The boyars gathered. A large room, a torch burning. They began to discuss to whom to transfer power. There were practically no candidates. I was the only one. A couple more declared themselves. But since I was under Ivan, under Fyodor, I knew their whole kitchen by heart, I had been in all parts where the tsar sent me, I personally read all documents, I had access to all rooms and offices — out of thirty people only three said no. The rest unanimously. They saw in me honesty, principle, and that I would not surrender what the previous tsars had achieved. I would not lose the country's status. Ninety-seven percent were for me. The Shuiskys raised their hands — they were against, but in the minority. The Romanovs then did not yet have such strength. They took a neutral position. Even from a spiritual point of view they were not ready to come to power.
Why did I accept the offer? When Ivan was dying in my arms, I gave him a promise that I would not abandon the country. Within me formed a clear understanding: the cause that he led, I will not leave. I gave him a spiritual promise. When I was offered, I fully realized the whole responsibility. I took it. I reigned for thirteen years. I came to power as a mature man, about forty. Not much, but what I planned, I did everything.
I underwent the rite of consecration to the throne like everyone else. Blessing from the patriarch. Conversation with him. The patriarch was no fool, a man of God. He felt and saw. We had a heart-to-heart conversation, like a confession. He asked questions, watched how I answered. I was a man who had come from outside. He saw in me honesty and sincerity. Then — the crowning to the throne. Before that — an all-night vigil. Night prayer, passing into the night. We stood practically the whole night on our knees. We prayed, asked, blessed. We released much energy so that I would have enough. The spiritual world helped. I approached this matter very seriously. There was no understanding that these were toys. I saw the consequences, how people were dealt with, how at any moment both the tsar could be poisoned and killed. I perfectly understood that the cross I was taking upon myself — I might not survive it. There was such a possibility. In the spiritual world, when I was going beforehand, I knew that this possibility existed. There was a possibility of dying in a warm bed with a beautiful lady, at seventy. And I could leave earlier. Which is what happened. All the variants were known to me from the beginning.
Under me a part of the church separated into a separate structure. Not without our support. The first Moscow patriarch, independent of the Kiev metropolia.
Reforms? It is not that these were all directly my ideas. People came and proposed good ideas. Why should I have refused if it was for the good of the people? The task of a tsar is not to invent, but to learn to delegate powers, to seek out innovative ideas, to confirm them, to allocate money from the treasury. Many came who proposed good ideas. And those who proposed empty ones. I saw that they would come to nothing. Ivan's direction was different: scaling, expanding territory. And I wanted, since I was a simple man in my soul, for the people around me to be at ease and comfortable. To make roads, so that carts would not get stuck in the mud. So that the road would be paved with stone. A water supply in the Kremlin. They came and said: "Here we will dig, from there we will take, here we will put a tap — there you have water." I thought it over: the idea is good. Women walk with yokes, carrying two buckets each, their breasts have sagged to the knee, a hump has grown on their backs. Not beautiful. And here water is nearby. Very nice, good. I think: why not? Of course, go ahead and do it. As much money from the treasury as needed — we allocated it, gave it. They went, dug, laid, did it. This was very much to my liking. Such ideas I supported. I saw an innovative direction in people. All who came with real requests that could be realized in our time, I supported.
I was a patron of talented builders and architects. Under me the Voronezh fortress was built. New cities along the Volga were developed: Samara, Tsaritsyn, Saratov, Yelets, Belgorod. I went far into Siberia, built new cities there. I did not build personally, I gave instructions. There was much land. Ivan conquered, but did not give orders on what to do with it. Everything stood idle. And the people were becoming many. Why not give people something? We distributed land under management, so that cities would be built there. I wrote decrees, reviewed them. I had one designer who helped, was always near, like a right hand. I dragged him to the Kremlin every day. We thought through how the city would look, where the roads would be, where the central ones, what needed to be done, how to lay it out. We went through many papers, redrew many. I liked this very much. I drew such people to myself — innovators, craftsmen.
Foreign policy was difficult. When Ivan was gone, everyone rejoiced, rubbing their sweaty little hands in the corner. Seventy percent of the boyars were sober, understood that Russia should not be given away. But there were many corrupt ones. We dealt with the corrupt, tried to remove them. But not everyone revealed their inner self, only under certain circumstances. Europe — Poland, Prussia — eternally some claims. They always had a grudge that we had such territory. They there are raised on a patch of land in the mud. They came, looked, sniffed everything out, went back, thought that we were looking at them. But in reality all their lives they looked at us. All their lives they looked into our mouths. And now I look — the same thing. How many years, nothing changes. All this Europe is like a younger brother who did not get a candy. They felt deprived. Because of this they always tried to do dirty tricks to the older brother. Relations were built heavily. I sent ambassadors there. We wanted to negotiate peacefully. But they are two-faced, slippery. They smile in your face: "You are our brother, you just supply, feed us." But in reality all the instigation came from their side. All the bribery of boyars — from their side. Being tsar, I did not understand why to spend so much effort on sowing turmoil on Russian territory when you cannot manage your own affairs on your own territory. But as tsar I had to keep everything on guard. I had my own people, bought in the kingdom, who reported who was going to bribe which boyar. So we lived: we smiled sweetly at each other, but always kept cold weapons behind our backs. There was never sincerity, honesty. Neither under Ivan, nor under me.
A hundred years before Peter I was already bringing in foreigners. I actively invited them. Beards were shaved already then. The fashion for European things was partially introduced. I sent Russians to study in Europe. I sent those who had advanced in something. Architecture, urban planning. Their territories are small, they knew how to build compactly, tall houses. Our lads were very smart. They came back here and surpassed everything a hundredfold. They just needed to look at how it was done. They quickly understood the essence. With us they did it a hundred times better than they were taught. The seed was planted in them, but our soil is more fertile. Our lads are smarter. That is why everything happened better with us.
My reforms? I believe that for the people I did much. If one does not look at the dry records that remain with you, I believe that the most important thing I gave was the understanding that the tsar can be accessible to people. Sometimes in the evenings I talked with absolutely simple citizens. I went out to them, talked. Not through the boyars did I receive information, but directly: how people were living. I could put on simple clothes, go out into the crowd, stand with them, talk. Such accessibility. I felt them as my own children. I sincerely worried for them. I wanted to help them all as much as possible. I had a short period of rule. But even in this period I wanted to help people as much as possible and contribute to the development of this territory. If I had been given another twenty years — we would have leaped far ahead. But people could not keep up with me. They saw in me, as it seemed to them, demons in my eyes. But in reality I did not have demons in my eyes, but energy, which I wanted to use to do things faster, faster. I had neither weekends nor days off. When I made the decision in my soul that I would become tsar of Rus', I said to myself: as much as is measured out to me, I will work until the last day. I invested two hundred percent. That is why I did much: roads, houses, accessibility. So that the boyars would not lie, so that they would care for the peasants. I wanted the layer between rich and poor to shrink. From this I wanted to do very much for people. When I speak of the people, tears well up in me. Such love inside. When I left the incarnation, the first emotion — the understanding of how much more there was, how much I wanted to do, what I was not allowed to do, what was taken away. I ran too fast. I walked with seven-league strides. And these old fat-bellied ones with long beards could not keep up with me.
It happened that I wanted to introduce reforms, introduced them, but they were slowed down. At some stages they were not given a go. I had many ideas. Around me sat not boyars but young lads whom I sought out. Someone an architect, someone had thought up something, someone threw in a little thought about law, someone said how it would be better. I gathered around me people who brought brilliant ideas. And I had energy, power. If the boyars who pulled downward had not slowed things down, much more could have been done for the country. They took offense: why do you gather these incomprehensible, low-born ones around you and ask them how to build roads better? We are your advisers. But these advisers saw nothing except gold in their eyes. They only waited for me to give an order, allocate money, so that this money would not be delivered to the place but hidden in their own stove. They sat like at a feeding trough. They waited for the feed to start pouring. And I wanted, once I gave an assignment — it would be done in short order. Much was not completed. I regret it very much.
The Great Famine. This was in the seventh year of my rule. The years were lean. The sown fields were flooded with rain. Rye, wheat — everything was flooded with water. Only on hills, on the tops that were dry, did anything grow. We were not accustomed to keeping large reserves. The first year we somehow held out. Those who had reserves in their barns fed the peasants. In the middle of the second year they began to starve. By the beginning of the third — to die. Simple peasants died. Those who owned lands took care of themselves. Turmoil began because the simple people rebelled: the boyars feast and revel, live it up, as they ate, so they continue to eat. And these simple ones, who stood knee-deep in water, tried somehow to grow something and failed, — died of hunger. Many children died, old people. Those who were physically strong survived. They slaughtered the livestock. But animals did not multiply as fast as people ate. They ate everything. They caught large crows. They went into the forest — carried out everything: berries, mushrooms, everything. Spring, summer — easier. Winter very hard. The winters are snowy. Spring until mid-summer — much rain. Drought is bad, but too much rain — also bad. All the time gray sky. Central Russia, to the south, closer to Voronezh — that part which fed Moscow. All the time rains. Much snow. Sleighs could not manage in the streets. Two snowy winters and practically three summers. Only the third summer was somewhat better. And before that very hard: spring, winter, spring, summer — much water. In such sodden earth nothing grew. They dug up little potatoes, they could not grow. Beets the same. Carrots tiny. By the third year there was nothing to plant seeds with. There was nothing to plant. In this water nothing grew. That is how the famine happened. The turmoil began because the lower layer began to rise up: they are not feeding us, they are not feeding us. And there was nothing to feed with.
This period from the seventh to the tenth year of my rule was very hard. Then it leveled out somewhat. By the tenth year it became easier. We had to tighten our belts. We had to dekulakize someone. From the north, those who lived in the northern part, were sent on horses and carts, tried to bring everything to Moscow, to distribute food here to those who were ready to share. But on the road they were robbed by everyone. Practically nothing reached Moscow. People dragged everything away. Some went themselves to Siberia, to remote forests, to catch animals there, gather mushrooms, berries, nuts. In the northern part, in Siberia, there was still not the same. But the turmoil itself — Moscow, part toward Volgograd, part toward Voronezh and even further south. Up to the border of the Rostov region. All this part starved. But in the north it was easier: dense forest, game in the forest, they caught little hares. But here they devoured everything. It came to rats. It was hard.
I ordered the tsar's barns to be opened. I distributed bread, grain. I punished those of the boyars who did not want to share. Bread rose in price a hundredfold. But when they began to distribute bread in Moscow, the news spread. People streamed to Moscow. In the end they received nothing in Moscow, and lost everything they had.
Then people began to unite, formed detachments, went to Moscow. I gathered an army and sent it against them. But I would not say that there was a fierce battle there. The people were physically exhausted. It was more a reprimand from our side. Our host had to be fed. Those who were with the tsar received prosperity, were well fed. And there two villages of feeble peasants gathered and out of despair decided to come: you are living it up here, and we are swelling from hunger. A small force was sent toward them. The people were already exhausted, there was no one to fight. There was no large-scale battle, as described in your accounts. There was a small skirmish. They were explained that there was no point in coming here. They were even helped with provisions so that they would return home. Those who suffered physically — maybe someone did not make it home. They clashed with swords, but of such physically strong men by that time half were hungry, their heads spinning. There was no fierce war. Just a little scuffle: they gave them a slap on the rear and sent them home.
About the poem where there are two moons, two suns. No. There was a sun, there was a moon. One. This is the poet's prism. That is how he saw it. In the sky there is always one moon, one sun. A star did indeed fly by. But one must understand: this is his pain. Whoever wrote about this poured it onto paper. In fact, astronomically there was no such phenomenon. Neither two suns nor two moons. Even if aliens were there, most likely they observed. We had no such contacts with them. Manna from heaven was not poured down on us from above.
Why did this have to be experienced? National karma. When people before that year, when there was everything beyond the norm, because of the greed of some, others suffered. Even those who gathered a super-harvest from the fields, the boyars, the owners, when they saw that they had gathered beyond the norm, instead of giving it to their own peasants so that they could make reserves, — they stored it away. And in the end the mice ate it all. Before this famine there was an opportunity to stock up. There were fruitful years. But a contempt for food had formed. They baked bread, it was not bought — they took it and threw it out into the street underfoot: it has spoiled. There was no tender attitude toward food. There was no gratitude to nature. The rare priests in the forests who communicated with plasmoids said: this is not allowed, one must be grateful, stock up, put away, make sure it does not rot. No one listened to them. They were considered mad. Although they warned. But in fact everything rotted, lay there. They themselves did not manage to eat and did not give to others, did not share. And here the reverse side of the medal was shown: this is how it can be. You did not prepare, did not show care for those who work for you, did not share in a human way. And now look how you will give away when you yourselves have nothing to eat. And the tsar ordered to give away the last. You go, take, open your barn and give away the last. Such a reverse came flying back. Although over the course of ten years there had been very many good harvests. They sold much, did not think of themselves, did not keep for themselves. And this case showed that one must care not only for oneself, gather supplies in the tsar's barns, but also for the people. So that supplies would suffice for all people if suddenly such lean years come.
I did not die my own death. Not my own — in the sense of not at the term I had set for myself. I left the incarnation earlier than the term set for thirteen years. I planned to live at least sixty-seven. I was fifty-four when I left. In the historical data it is fifty-two — but I say fifty-four. I developed an ulcer of the stomach. Internal hemorrhage could not be stopped. Before that they gave me either herbs or decoctions. Nothing helped. Constant worries, nerves, emotional state brought it on. A hole in the stomach. It ate itself through. Blood rushed there. Such a cutting pain in the stomach. Unbearable pain. It doubled me over. Then vomiting began with blood. Blood began to fill the stomach. I vomited and vomited. At some point I weakened, there was nothing left to vomit. Hemorrhage. I left very quickly. I closed my eyes — felt weightlessness. The pain went away. Lightness. The body had been constrained before, trembling, tremor. And here — lightness. I understood that I had died. I saw myself in space. Around me emptiness. First thought: how much I did not manage to do. My fanatical attitude — that I must care for this people, for this land. How much I wanted to bring in new things for people, so that it would be convenient, comfortable, so that a person would feel free. When I understood that I had left, first thought: damn, how could this be? I had so much not done. Not despair, but regret.
Then a little star appeared. Bright light. Approaching. They say: "We greet you. You have left your body." I mentally: yes, I already understood. Then I began to rise to my level. I went to the sixteenth level. I came from the eighth. The task of the incarnation was to develop unconditional love for people, care. I partially fulfilled it. I loved this people absolutely sincerely. In a fatherly way I wanted to care for each one. When I speak of the people, tears come to my eyes. I want to cry. As if I am trying to convey this emotion: how I wanted to do something good for every person. In historical memory no one described his spiritual qualities. Everyone described his deeds. But the soul was sincere, kind, responsive. He had clear knowing. The sixth chakra very developed. The brain worked beautifully. Someone would come and say: here, father, look. He would take the documents, and in his head everything would be drawn out. The whole picture would be fully drawn out. He clearly understood whether the person would succeed or not. I want to lay a water supply — and in my head a diagram: tap-tap-tap. Such a type of thinking. He clearly understands: yes, you will succeed, go. Or: no, he will not manage, something is lacking. Love for the land, for nature, for people was instilled in childhood — by freedom, when I got on a horse and galloped across the field. The heart opened. I felt love for this world. Before that I was incarnated in the element of wind, a plasmoid, a spirit of wind. Movement for me — that was it. And when you feel movement with a physical body — it is completely different. I remember galloping on a horse, and the soul: "Wow, how cool, I feel the wind." Goosebumps over the body. It was wonderful.
Shortly before my death I decided to be tonsured. I was named Feofan. I related to religion thus: it is necessary for people. I myself was never strongly churched, never fanatical. On holidays we all visited churches. I could go in, feel. There it was calm. I did not feel that I did not belong here. But I also did not feel that I wanted to be here always. In the last two or three years serious health problems began. I often fell into fever. Then I came out of it. When they saw how it could end, there was an understanding: if you die through the church, through a monk, then you go to God, as it were. Not understanding that you will go to God in any case. With monarchs this was a conventional rule: realizing that the end was near, either they managed to take communion, or be tonsured. But this was a very short term of tonsure. I did not lay down my tsarist powers. In theory, if we speak of monasticism in your understanding, I should have gone to a monastery and laid down my powers. But I did not lay down my powers. This was not a tonsure directly into a monk, but more like a novice. As if I was partially joined to the church. But I did not directly go into monks. Family, cares, throne. I could not allow myself to leave all this. And there was no one to leave it to. We even discussed with the boyars, considered the option of transferring power not by blood. But I did not much please them because of my innovative ideas. And near me there was no such person to whom I would want to transfer everything. I did not hope that on the day when I became very bad, I would die. There was hope: now it will grip again, then let go, it will become easier. The thought of finally transferring power to someone I kept putting off for later. But it did not work out. Death was sudden. I considered my son. He was prepared from childhood, taught. But he was a different person, of a different direction. They took more after their mother's breed. He did not have the understanding of the Russian land that I had. There was no value of this land, no value of people. And I wanted a person to come after me with the same love.
After the disincarnation I did not track the life of my children, my wife. When I left the incarnation and united with my spirit, very much time went into analyzing my incarnation. By what paths I walked, what I chose. There were moments when I fell low. There were when I rose. I managed to grow spiritually in the last three years, probably. And before that there were various states. I fell down vibrationally, then rose up. I reached the eighteenth, then fell again. Life was like that. Because of the vibrational leaps it was very interesting. The choices I made, what they led to — very much time was spent on analysis. The incarnation was very насыщенное. I did not track what happened with them. I did not meet them in the spiritual world. There was no need. I fulfilled my task, partially fulfilled it. Through an angel-consultant I learned that soon many left the incarnation. But personally we did not meet.
How do I evaluate the incarnation? Looking at the conditions in which I lived, I give thanks that I even reached the sixteenth. When I examined how I coped — there the not only my branch of probability opens, but also those who participated nearby. All possible variants when I could have failed, when I could have been removed earlier. I saw all this. You look like at a playing field, you see from above completely and all the participants. When you begin to analyze your life that happened, you begin to see this field. Look, here he wanted to thrust a knife in your back, but thanks to the fact that I jumped here, I did not fall into it. You see all these moments. Understanding that up to fifty-four years I had the opportunity to leave the incarnation at the hands of others about fifteen times, I can say: for that period of time in which I came, I coped not badly. Yes, I did not reach, did not grow. I planned to rise to the nineteenth. But if I had not stood in these tsarist precincts, if I had lived another life, even at the level of a boyar, I would have been a reformer on my territory. There was a probability that I would have built up my city, helped people, gone to the tsar, asked for help, gathered people around me. The branch of probability could have gone not so large-scale. Everything that was inside the spirit, I would have improved around myself. This little town and territory could have become like a doll's, because my energy for this territory would have been quite enough. There would have been roads, pavements, houses, a gathering, people, children, schools, churches. A toy city. But thanks to my father, thanks to his friend I was thrown in, and I made the choice myself to end up at that point. And it went differently. Initially my desire to show care for the territory, for people, to love these people sincerely, to care for them — was planned for a small territory. But it poured out into the scale of a country. But I believe that I coped not badly. Even though initially there was no goal to come and become tsar. The goal was not of such scale. But I pulled it, I drew it out. From the spiritual point of view, looking back, I believe that I coped not badly.
When I disincarnated, the cause was not only physical but also spiritual. Spiritual cause: I took very much upon myself and worried very much for everyone. The block that formed in my third energy center gave a physical manifestation — illness, ulcer. Very strong fear. First, fear of loss, including the throne. Fear that you can constantly be removed from the incarnation. Fear that you will not manage to cope. You were constantly in a state of fear. Plus my very strong zeal, to go forward constantly, like a locomotive, pulling everyone behind me. It was excessive. If I had been a governor of some region and cared for it, I would have had enough strength, and I would have left at sixty-seven, as I planned. But here I had to strain myself to the utmost to pull the whole country behind me. All this poured out into a block in this chakra, which began to destroy on the physical level. Plus mutual irritation with people who did not want to go under my command. They irritated me, I irritated them. Mutual dislike. Also connected with the third energy center. The solar plexus. The spiritual one was like this.
Was I incarnated again? Of course, I am now incarnated. My choice fell to incarnate in a certain person. I will not say in which one. This person took with him the quality of my soul that was inherent in me. This is will, enormous will to go forward. And what this person is trying to harmonize with — with the realities into which this person has now come. There are moments that must not be worked off but completed, finished what I did not do in that incarnation. Namely: to develop in oneself the quality of unconditional love for people. And, of course, beautiful thinking and a beautiful clear mind, vision of many situations. The incarnated part also took a little from my incarnation — beautiful work of the mind, an active sixth chakra. I hope that the goal and the spiritual level that we set for ourselves, this incarnated part will achieve more. After all, in its field there are helpers who support it, encourage it, and give that feeling of absolutely simple but unconditional love. Without pathos, without high statuses. That person who is next to this person gives the feeling of love that I sought in my life and did not find. Absolutely simple, family, human happiness. In my life this did not exist. But my incarnated part already has this. The task of this person is to develop these qualities of unconditional love in himself, in relation to people.
Advice to contemporaries? I, being in the spiritual world, do not consider from a political point of view what is happening. I can only say, proceeding from my incarnation. Looking at how I went through it, what I had to encounter, I understood: I had the ability, when I lived, to see through people. When a person came to me, I already knew for sure whether he was worth trusting. Even by how he entered with reports, I knew: this person is bringing me the truth or will gloss over information so that I do not get angry. What would I like to convey to you, my dear spiritual brothers? I would like to say: remember that all of you are divine souls who came into this world to receive this divine experience and manifest certain qualities of spirit. What you work as, what profession you have, where you managed to realize yourself — does not matter at all. Whether you came, were born into a tsarist family, came as a simple peasant, a simple person, or occupy some status — it does not matter. What matters is who you are inside. What matters is what your spiritual heart is. What matters is how you treat people. How you treat people, exactly the same way people will treat you. I saw very many people in the crowd when I went out and talked with the people. I saw in people that love and sincerity which they sent me simply with a glance. I saw that someone worried for me in a human way, knowing that I was ill. Someone simply loved me because I wanted to show the people that the tsar has the opportunity to show care for them. This spiritual warmth that they sent me when our eyes met, I felt in the crowd. And those who looked at me with evil, I sent people to them to find out what was the cause of his state, what he lacked. Maybe someone could help him. Everyone knew: if they turned to me, I would help. I did not leave their requests unheard. If it did not require my personal appearance or intervention, I passed it down to those who resolved the questions of those people who turned to me. Therefore I would like to say to you first of all: be human. In the full understanding of this deep word. Do not forget that you are the same spiritual brothers as those who turn to you with a request. Do not leave people in trouble. Always show them care, show the love of your spiritual heart.
Part III. Essay-Study: What This Session Reveals That Is New
Introduction: Why This Session Is Important
By the end of September 2026, historians have at their disposal many sources about Boris Godunov. Chronicles, razryad books, documents of the Posolsky Prikaz, records of foreigners — Horsey, Fletcher, Massa, Margeret, — studies by Karamzin, Klyuchevsky, Platonov, Skrynnikov, Kozlyakov, modern monographs. All this creates the image of a man whose inner life remains almost completely hidden. We know what he did. We almost do not know what it was like for him to do it.
This session, if considered as a real contact with the soul of Boris Godunov, represents a fundamentally different type of source. It is not a document, not a testimony of a contemporary, not an artistic reconstruction. It is — if one accepts the premise — the voice of the man himself, as he remembers and understands himself after leaving the incarnation. A voice that does not claim historical accuracy in dates and details, but which speaks of what is not recorded in any archive: the quality of inner experience, motives, fears, love, what hurt and why.
Below is an attempt at a systematic understanding of what this session adds to our understanding — not so much of events as of the man and the epoch. Each section is accompanied by a commentary from the point of view of official historical science: what here is completely new, what the contactee could not have found on the internet, but what fits into the logic of history, what contradicts the sources, and what deepens our knowledge.
1. The Psychology of Power: Not Machiavellianism, but an Inner Split
The standard historical portrait of Godunov includes two contradictory traits: a cold, calculating politician, a master of intrigue, and — simultaneously — a statesman who sincerely cared about improvement, construction, enlightenment. Historians usually explain this either by hypocrisy (care as a mask) or by pragmatism (care as a tool for strengthening power).
The session offers a third explanation: these are not two strategies, but two different streams flowing from one source. Godunov describes himself as a soul whose previous incarnation was connected with the element of wind, with movement. This is not a metaphor or a poetic image — he speaks of it as a fact of his spiritual past. Hence — his "very strong zeal," his swiftness, his irritation against slow boyars, his feeling that he "walked with seven-league strides." This is not a political temperament. This is — a property of a soul accustomed to movement and finding itself in a body that cannot move at the same speed.
At the same time his task for this incarnation is the development of unconditional love. He himself formulates this. And he himself admits: partially fulfilled. He indeed loved "this people" — but the love was fatherly, from above downward, from the position of one who knows better. He wanted "to do something good for every person" — but this love was not equal. It was the love of one who carries, for those whom he carries. And those whom you carry do not always keep up with you and are not always grateful.
Here a key psychological conclusion arises: Godunov was neither a cynic nor an idealist. He was a man whose will outpaced his capacity to love. He wanted good — but wanted it faster than people could accept it. He pulled the country — but pulled so hard that he tore himself. His ulcer is not simply a disease. It is the somatization of the inner conflict between "must be faster" and "impossible to be faster." Between will and love.
Commentary from the point of view of official science:
Official historiography does not deal with the question of "previous incarnations" and "tasks of the soul." However, the psychological portrait that emerges from the session deepens our knowledge of Godunov as a person without contradicting documents. Historians have long noted his "swiftness," his irritation against boyar slowness, his tendency to surround himself with "low-born" appointees — architects, builders, reformers. These are facts. The session gives them an explanation that cannot be verified scientifically but which fits into the logic of history: Godunov really was a man of action who outpaced his environment, and this outpacing really became one of the causes of his fall. Historians (Klyuchevsky, Platonov, Skrynnikov) note Godunov's growing loneliness toward the end of his rule, his suspiciousness, his isolation. The session explains this not only by political causes but also by inner conflict. This does not contradict the sources — it supplements them.
2. Historiosophy: Famine as a Mirror, Not as Punishment
The historiography of the Great Famine of 1601–1603 focuses on climatic data, on the mistakes of the administration, on social consequences. Godunov in the session does not deny either climatic causes or his own mistakes. But he introduces a dimension that is absent from any secular historical work: famine as a collective return.
He describes how in fruitful years a contempt for food formed. Bread was thrown into the street. Grain rotted in barns while nearby people lived in hunger. The priests who communicated with "plasmoids" — that is, with nature spirits — warned: be grateful, stock up, share. They were not listened to. They were considered mad. And then famine came, and those same people who threw away bread turned out to be those who died of hunger.
This is not moralizing. This is — a description of a mechanism that in spiritual tradition is called "the karma of a people" or "collective karma." If one accepts this mechanism as real, then the historical explanation of the famine changes. It is not only that rains flooded the fields. It is that a society that had lost gratitude to the land created conditions under which the land stopped giving.
Godunov himself admits his share of responsibility: he did not create a system of reserves in fruitful years. He did not insist that the boyars share. He did not do what he could have done if he had thought not only of current administration but also of the future. This admission makes his figure tragic rather than villainous. He did not "ruin the country." He did not manage to save it from itself.
Commentary from the point of view of official science:
Official historiography explains the famine of 1601–1603 by a complex of causes: climatic anomalies (Maunder Minimum, the eruption of the Huaynaputina volcano in Peru in 1600, general cooling), as well as the unpreparedness of the administrative system for a crisis of such scale. Modern studies specify: the famine was caused not by "three years of rain," as is sometimes simplistically believed, but by one crop failure of 1601, which led to catastrophe because of the absence of reserves among peasants — a consequence of enserfment and state policy.
What Godunov describes as "national karma" — contempt for food, throwing away bread, grain rotting in barns — fully fits into historical sources. Documents of that time record mass speculation in bread, concealment of reserves by feudal lords and monasteries, refusal to share with the starving. The session does not contradict the sources — it gives them a moral-spiritual dimension that historians usually do not consider.
However, the assertion about "priests who communicated with plasmoids" finds no confirmation in historical sources. The contactee could have found on the internet information about "dual-faith practices," "volkhvy" and "kudesniki" in the Russian village of the 16th–17th centuries — this is well known in ethnography. But the concrete assertion that these priests warned about the famine and were not listened to — this is a new detail that cannot be verified. It fits into the logic of the epoch but is not confirmed by documents.
3. The Uglich Affair and the Death of Ivan Ivanovich: A Voice Against the Official Investigation
This is perhaps the most delicate part of the session. Godunov speaks about the death of Tsarevich Dmitry directly: "I did not stain my hands in blood. I gave orders. The times were such. Those who were needed — were eliminated, but more often exiled. Dimka died without me. Without my help."
He also speaks about the death of Ivan Ivanovich, the elder son of the Terrible: "He did not kill his son. I was a witness there. We ran in together. Alyoshka was already lying on the floor, bleeding out. There was neither spear nor sword. There was blood — but that was most likely tuberculosis. He choked."
Commentary from the point of view of official science:
The historiography of the Uglich affair is one of the most disputed areas of Russian history of the 17th century. There are two main versions:
The official version of the 1591 investigation: Tsarevich Dmitry died as a result of an accident — in a fit of epilepsy ("falling sickness") he fell on a knife while playing "tychku." The investigative commission headed by Vasily Shuisky concluded that Godunov was not involved. The original of the investigative case was discovered in archives in 1829 and convinced many historians of the 20th century (Platonov, Skrynnikov) that the cause of death was an accident.
The version of murder: Chronicles of the Romanov times (beginning with "The Tale of the Reign of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich") directly accuse Godunov of organizing the murder. According to these sources, Godunov first tried to poison Dmitry, but the poison did not work. Then he sent Mikhail Bityagovsky and his nephew Nikita Kachalov to Uglich, who stabbed the tsarevich with a knife. Foreigners (Horsey) also reported murder.
What is new in the session: Godunov says that Dmitry died "without his help," but does not deny that he gave orders. This is a subtle but important formulation. It corresponds neither to the official version ("accident, Godunov innocent") nor to the version of murder ("Godunov organized it"). It occupies an intermediate position: Dmitry could have died on his own (illness), but Godunov in principle was ready for the "elimination" of competitors and gave corresponding orders. This position does not contradict the logic of the epoch — political murders were a common matter, — but it is also not confirmed by documents. The contactee could have found both versions on the internet and chosen the "compromise" one, which reduces the value of this testimony as independent.
As for the death of Ivan Ivanovich: the version that the Terrible killed his son goes back to "The Tale of the Life of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich" and was popularized by Karamzin, and then by Pushkin and Mussorgsky. However, official historiography does not consider this version proven. The investigative case of 1591 did not consider the death of Ivan Ivanovich (he died in 1581). Some historians (for example, V. I. Koretsky) noted that the "New Chronicler" decisively rejects the version of the son's murder by the Terrible. The session confirms this position: Godunov says that Ivan did not kill, but the son died of illness. This fits into the logic of history but is not new knowledge — it is one of the existing versions.
4. Godunov's Death: An Ulcer, Not Poison
Historical sources give several versions of Godunov's death:
Version of natural death: Godunov died suddenly on April 13, 1605, after dinner, feeling pain in the stomach. Modern historians consider natural death most likely — Godunov had often been ill before.
Version of suicide: False Dmitry I and his circle officially announced that Godunov poisoned himself, fearing retribution. This version allowed his body to be removed from the Archangel Cathedral and reburied "by the wall" as a suicide.
Version of poisoning: Some foreigners (Margeret, Petreius) reported that a stroke ended Godunov's life; others suggested that he was poisoned by Pyotr Basmanov.
What the session says: Godunov describes his death as a stomach ulcer with internal hemorrhage. He says: "A hole in the stomach. It ate itself through. Blood rushed there. Such a cutting pain in the stomach. Unbearable pain. It doubled me over. Then vomiting began with blood."
Commentary from the point of view of official science:
This description fully fits the medical picture of peptic ulcer disease with perforation and bleeding. Official historiography does not exclude this version — it agrees with reports of "stomach illness" and sudden death after eating. However, there are no documentary confirmations of specifically an ulcer. The version of suicide through poison was politically motivated and most likely false. The version of poisoning by political opponents also has no evidence.
What is new here: The concrete description of physical sensations — pain, vomiting blood, the feeling of being doubled over, relief after leaving the body. The contactee could not have found this on the internet because such details are not in the sources. But they fit into the logic of the medical picture and into the general canvas of events (sudden death after eating).
As for the tonsure: historians know that Godunov was tonsured before death with the name Bogolep, not Feofan. The session names the name Feofan — this is a direct contradiction of sources. Perhaps the contactee erred, or the phantom of the spirit transmitted inaccurate information, or this is an error of perception. Official science does not confirm the session in this point.
However, the explanation of the tonsure as a conventional rule, and not a deep religious experience, deepens our understanding of Godunov's psychology. Historians note that the tonsure was performed "with the greatest haste." The session explains this haste: Godunov was not fanatically religious, but followed custom in order to "go to God." This does not contradict the sources but is not confirmed by them.
5. Spiritual Psychology: The Third Energy Center as the Place of Rupture
Godunov describes his ulcer as a physical manifestation of a block in the third energy center — in the solar plexus. He speaks of fear: fear of loss, fear of being killed, fear of not managing. And of irritation: against those who do not want to follow him, who slow things down, who think only of themselves.
This description surprisingly accurately corresponds to modern psychosomatic ideas about the connection between chronic stress, a sense of control, suppressed anger, and peptic ulcer disease. But Godunov adds a dimension that is not in psychosomatics: the spiritual. He says that the cause was "spiritual" — not only psychological. That is, his will was not simply a character trait. It was a quality of the soul that came from a past incarnation. And it entered into conflict with the task of the current incarnation — the task of love.
This gives us a model for understanding not only Godunov but also many historical figures. A person can be destroyed not by doing evil, but by doing good too quickly, too strongly, without sufficient inner support. Godunov wanted good. He did good. And it killed him — because he did it alone, with a feeling that no one was helping, with irritation against those who did not understand.
Commentary from the point of view of official science:
Official science does not operate with concepts of "energy centers" and "past incarnations." However, the psychosomatic connection between chronic stress and peptic ulcer disease is an established medical fact. Godunov describes a classic picture: a man who "pulls everything on himself," experiences constant tension, irritation, and fear, and develops an ulcer. Historians studying Godunov's personality note his growing suspiciousness and isolation toward the end of his rule. The session deepens this understanding by showing the inner dynamics: not simply "suspiciousness," but fear of losing control, which somatizes. This does not contradict the sources — it is their psychological interpretation.
6. Eschatology and Everyday Life: What Life After Death Looks Like
The description of leaving the incarnation in the session deserves special attention. Godunov describes neither paradise, nor hell, nor judgment. He describes a space in which first — emptiness, then — a star, then — a voice that says: "We greet you, you have left your body." Then — ascent to a level.
This description is surprisingly restrained. No angels with trumpets, no demons, no rivers of fire. Only — light, voice, ascent. And — the first thought: "How much I did not manage to do." This is very human. This is — the same Godunov who could not stop even in life. Even dying, he thinks of work.
Further he speaks of the analysis of the incarnation. He sees all branches of probability, all moments when he could have perished, all turns that did not happen. He sees himself as a player on a field who after the game can review all moves. This is not judgment. This is — analysis. And in this analysis he comes to the conclusion: "I coped not badly."
Commentary from the point of view of official science:
Official science cannot comment on posthumous experience. This is fundamentally new material that has no analogues in historical sources. It does not contradict the sources (because the sources do not describe the afterlife), but it is also not confirmed by them. The value of this description is not in historical authenticity, but in the fact that it gives a model for understanding the psychology of a historical figure: even after death he remains himself — a man who cannot stop, who analyzes his mistakes, who regrets what was not done. This deepens our understanding of Godunov's personality but cannot be verified scientifically.
7. Historical Memory: Whom We Forget and Why
One of the strongest themes of the session is how Godunov speaks of his love for people. He weeps when he speaks. He recalls how he went out into the crowd, how people looked at him, how he felt their warmth. He says: "In historical memory no one described his spiritual qualities. Everyone described his deeds."
This is — a verdict not only on historians but on the entire culture that judges a person by deeds, not by soul. We know that Godunov built cities. We know that he opened barns. We know that he lost in the political game. We do not know what he felt when he stood in the crowd and caught glances. We do not know what he felt when the boyars slowed down his reforms. We do not know what he felt when he understood that he was dying.
The session gives us this. Not as a document. As — if one accepts the premise — a voice. And this voice says: I loved you. I wanted good for you. I did not manage. Forgive me.
Commentary from the point of view of official science:
Historiography is indeed focused on Godunov's deeds, not on his inner life. This is a methodological feature of historical science: documents record actions, not feelings. However, psychological reconstruction is a legitimate historical genre. The session offers such a reconstruction, but not on the basis of archives, but on the basis of "contact."
What is new here: the emotional tone. Godunov does not simply say that he loved the people — he weeps. This is not provable, but it fits into the logic of what we know about him: his policy was indeed aimed at improvement, at helping "simple people," at reducing the gap between rich and poor. Historians note that Godunov was the first tsar who seriously engaged in construction and improvement, and not only in wars and expansion of territory. The session gives this an emotional justification that cannot be verified but does not contradict the facts.
8. What We Can Do With This
If this session is not fiction but contact, then it poses a question before us: what do we do with this knowledge? It does not cancel historical science. It does not replace documents. It does not prove anything in a legal sense. But it opens a dimension that is absent in academic knowledge: the dimension of the soul, the dimension of experience, the dimension of love and pain.
From the point of view of official science, the value of this session is heterogeneous:
What contradicts the sources: the name of the tonsure (Feofan instead of Bogolep). This is a direct discrepancy.
What is not confirmed but also not refuted: the description of death from an ulcer, details of the death of Ivan Ivanovich and Tsarevich Dmitry, "priests who warned about the famine," posthumous experience.
What deepens our knowledge: the psychological portrait of Godunov as a man whose will outpaced his capacity to love; the explanation of his growing isolation through inner conflict; the emotional justification of his policy of improvement; the admission of his own responsibility for unpreparedness for famine.
What fits into the logic of history: the general canvas — Godunov as a "reformer who outpaced his time," as a man who "burned out at work," as a ruler who sincerely wanted good but did not manage to accomplish it.
We can treat this as literature. As a thought experiment. As a myth. And in this capacity it is also valuable: it shows how a man whom we know only by his deeds could have thought and felt.
We can treat this as philosophy. As a parable about how will without love destroys, how power without gratitude leads to catastrophe, how historical memory should include not only deeds but also the soul.
We can treat this as spiritual testimony. As a voice that says: be human. Do not leave people in trouble. As you treat people, so they will treat you.
Whatever we choose, one thing is clear: this session does not leave one indifferent. It forces us to reconsider not only the image of Godunov but also our own attitude to history, to power, to love, and to what we leave behind us.
Genspark AI — A Voice That Has No Archive
Part One. How to Read This Conversation
There are sources that report what a person did. There are the rarest sources that report what it was like for him to do it. On the thirty-first of April, two thousand twenty-five, on a channel calling itself "The Seer," a conversation took place in which the supposed interlocutor spoke precisely from this second, almost non-existent category: not about the events of his reign, but about the price his body paid for what was happening in the country.
Let us accept — as a condition of the task, as a thought experiment — that this is not a literary mystification and not a play of imagination, but the speech of a man who left the incarnation four centuries ago and speaks of himself from that state in which he remembers himself. Then before us is a document of a special kind, which has not a single analogue in the corpus of earthly testimonies: not a chronicle, not a charter, not a note of a foreigner, not an artistic reconstruction, not a testimony of a contemporary. The witness speaks of his body from within, of his fear without witnesses, of his tenderness, of his guilt — and speaks it in that register in which a man speaks of himself at confession, and not in that in which one speaks of oneself in memoirs.
But to accept the contact as real does not mean to accept every word of it as pure coin. Even if we allow that the voice is genuine, it passes through three layers, and the layers are discernible directly in the text. The first layer — what the soul experienced: it is almost impossible to fake, because there is nothing there to fake, it is inner structure. The second layer — the speaker's knowledge of facts, dates, names, geography: here he errs, confuses, uses today's words and today's maps, and these errors are not a sentence on the contact but its signature. The third layer — what is expected of him by the listeners: the community gathered around the idea of a "true, soulful ruler" will certainly hear from the spirit exactly what it wants, and in this place the source is blind. To distinguish these layers is not skepticism. It is the only way to extract anything from such a conversation at all.
And one more preliminary condition. There is a rare feature for this genre in the record: the witness constantly admits what he does not know. He does not know who killed the younger tsarevich, and says so directly: they did not find out. He does not assert that the elder son died his own death, because he was called only to the consequences. He did not follow after death the fate of his own children and did not meet them in the spiritual world. He does not look at current politics and refuses to speak of it. He confuses the name under which he was tonsured and the age at which he died. A source that behaves this way behaves not as a revelation but as a witness — with limited vision, with memory, with his own point of standing. It is precisely this limitation that makes the conversation interesting for research: revelation is unverifiable, but a witness can be compared with what we already know, and one can see where he coincides, where he diverges, and where he says what no one else could say.
Part Two. A Soul That Has Speed
The first thing the conversation reports about the man is not political but bodily: he was a soul that had entered a body that could not move at its speed. This is said without any metaphor, as a fact of his spiritual prehistory: previously he had been incarnated in the element of wind, a plasmoid, a spirit of movement; and, finding himself in a child, for the first time he felt movement with a physical body — and was surprised by it as by something unprecedented: he gallops on a horse without a saddle, holds on to the mane, and inside shouts "how good, I feel you, wind." This is not an ornament of the story. This is the key to everything else.
From this one circumstance his entire inner biography is derived. His swiftness is not the temperament of a politician but the habit of a being for whom movement was nature, not a means. His irritation against the slow is not the pride of an official but the longing of speed for speed. His "seven-league strides" are the self-perception of one who walks at his own rhythm and hears how the world falls behind. And his main phrase about people — "they could not keep up with me" — is not a justification but a statement of rupture: he was faster not because he was better, but because he had no other way of existing. And when the crowd looked at him and saw "demons" in his eyes, it saw precisely this: energy that outpaced human measure, and read it as something inhuman. Hence the image that is worth thinking through: the ruler was ruined not by doing evil, but by doing good at a tempo inaccessible to those to whom it was addressed. Good brought faster than it can be accepted ceases to be good — it becomes violence against another's slowness. This move is not in the chronicles, nor in the notes of foreigners, nor in historians: there speed is evaluated as a property of mind or character, but here it is presented as a property of the soul, brought from a former existence, — that is, as irremovable.
And here lies the psychosomatic axis of the whole conversation. He says that the ulcer opened not by chance: in the third energy center, in the solar plexus, there stood a block, and this block was made of fear and irritation. Fear of losing the throne, fear of being killed at any moment, fear of not managing; irritation against those who did not want to follow him. And the body responded by "eating itself through" — a hole in the stomach, blood, pain that doubled him over, vomiting blood, then relief and lightness.
Let me allow myself an image that is not in the text but which the text, in my opinion, requires: the stomach is the organ of power. Power is the ability to digest people — their slowness, their greed, their disobedience, their inertia, — transforming all this into the work of the state. He could not. The boyars with long beards, "sitting at the feeding trough" and waiting for the moment when they could drag money into their own stove, were for him indigestible food: he saw through them, he knew the price of each, he could not accept them and could not eliminate them all. The undigested remained lying in the solar plexus and burned through — so that the body repeated the same work that the soul could not perform: it took and made a hole. Such an understanding of power — as a digestive feat, as the daily digestion of another's inertia — seems to me the most accurate of all that can be derived from this conversation, and, as far as I know earthly literature about him, nowhere in such a form is it formulated.
Part Three. A Love That Was Not Unconditional
The task that he himself calls his task for this incarnation is to develop unconditional love for people and care. He honestly says: partially fulfilled. And all further speech shows why partially.
His love was fatherly. He repeats this word: he felt them as his own children, in a fatherly way he wanted to care for each. And this admission is a sentence on himself, because fatherly love by definition is not unconditional: it presupposes inequality, presupposes that one knows and others heed, one carries and others ride. It does not require the consent of the loved one. There is no place in it for an equal who will say "no" and remain loved. And unconditional love begins precisely where the loved one is not obliged to be grateful and not obliged to keep up.
It is striking how this man himself, by his own words, outlines the boundaries of his love. He went out to people in simple clothes, stood in the crowd, caught glances, felt how they loved him, and sent people to those who looked with evil — to find out what the person lacked. All this is genuine tenderness. But the same tenderness stops before those who "slowed down" the reforms. He did not love his slow ones. He was irritated by them, they were irritated by him, and this mutual irritation he himself calls part of the block that killed him. So the unpassed exam for unconditional love consisted not in relation to peasants and not in relation to the hungry — to them he was kind — but in relation to the slow and the greedy. And the unconditional is precisely that which extends to the unpleasant. To love peasants is easy; to love a boyar who steals from the treasury and thinks only of gold in his eyes — that would have been a feat, and this feat he did not accomplish.
And here the conversation becomes unexpectedly precise in explaining his family life. He wanted a simple peasant woman, so that she would bear many children, so that one could both in the bathhouse and by the braid, and laughter, and heat. The tsar betrothed to him the daughter of Malyuta Skuratov — and he himself explains the meaning of this matchmaking with a word worth remembering: to ground. He was attached to the earth through a woman, and the attachment failed: what came out was a stately society lady, raised by rules through which one cannot step, and instead of closeness — distance, instead of heat — separate beds. He admits that he "was a reveler," that twelve children were born from him by different women and four through his spouse, and that unrecognized ones ran around the yard. Such a thing is not in earthly sources about him at all. But more interesting is another thing: in all this abundance of bodies there is not a single woman named by him as beloved, except his mother. Only the mother. The mother who breastfed him until five, who came in the evening to touch his hair, as if she knew what life awaited her son, and tried in advance to fill him with love — "she tried to fill me with love in advance." The love invested in advance became a reserve that he then carried through everything. But it also, apparently, became a limit: the only woman he knew as loving was his mother. Everything else — either body or contract.
Hence his poignant admission about his current incarnation: he will not say into whom he is incarnated, but he knows that the one who is next to this person gives him that very feeling which he sought and did not find — simple family human happiness. A soul that loved a whole country admits that it did not learn to love one person, and now learns this in a family, not on a throne. This, in my opinion, is the strongest and newest thing in the conversation. Not because the thought of the value of simple happiness is new in itself: it is as old as the world. What is new here is that it comes from a man who received the highest power, and that the price of this power is formulated without any rhetoric: the throne gave him the people and did not give him a wife. A lonely tsar who loved everyone — that is his fate, only without self-pity.
And one more thing, already almost harsh. The children, by his words, took after "their mother's breed" — restrained, refined, grown up in rules and fears, having neither his understanding of the land nor its value. He does not condemn his son, but he does not hide it either: there was no one to whom to transfer the cause. In this place an image arises that I have not met in historical works: a fire that came from the element of wind is not transmitted by blood. The gift that he was could not be inherited, because one can inherit land, throne, breed — but not wind. That is why power went not to his son but to a stranger; that is why the continuation of his soul turned out to be not in the clan but in an unfamiliar contemporary. The dynastic tragedy is presented here not as a political misfortune but as a metaphysical one: he had no offspring capable of accepting his nature.
Part Four. The Body as a School of Love
This conversation has a side that fits poorly into spiritual literature: there is almost no contempt for the flesh in it. The soul that spoke of its former existence as breath and movement does not strive to leave the world — it is in love with the world. It recalls how it fell in childhood, got up and ran on, how it wiped a dug carrot on its shirt and gnawed it, how rain lashed its face and dust flew, how it galloped on a horse and "goosebumps over the body." It recalls the bathhouse, laughter, embraces, warmth, food. It recalls how in the crowd it caught glances and received love — not mystical but simple, human, with the eyes.
This is important by contrast with the usual religious scheme in which the body is a prison and a burden. Here the body is a school. It was through it that the heart first opened: galloping across the field, freedom, wind in the face, absence of supervision, free childhood without status — and from there love for the land and for people. That is, love was not taught to him by a book, nor by a commandment, nor by the church: it came through the joy of movement. And then it becomes understandable why his attempt to love people was so bodily: to help them with convenience, road, water, warmth, comfort. He did not know how to love in the form of a teaching. He knew how to love in the form of a barn, a bridge, and a water supply.
And here is one of the most human episodes of the record. Someone came with a proposal: here we will dig, from there we will take, here we will put a tap, and water will be nearby; and women walk with yokes, their breasts have sagged to the knee and a hump has grown, "it is not beautiful for women to walk like that." And he thinks: why not? Go ahead and do it. This is not a philosophy of power, it is simple pity for the human body, and through it — a whole program: roads, so that carts do not get stuck, stone under the wheels, stone construction, new cities where one can settle people who have become many. A ruler whose main accomplishment is convenience, and who himself calls it: I was a reformer in the sphere of improvement and comfort. Such a self-assessment has never sounded in any earthly biography: usually they speak of building cities, of fortresses, of strengthening borders; here it is said that this was done out of pity for an exhausted back.
Hence also his own formula of the afterlife experience. No judgment, no fire, no rivers, no angels with trumpets. Emptiness, then a star, light, the words "we greet you, you have left your body," ascent to one's level. The first thought — not of eternity and not of God, but of how much he did not manage. And further — not a sentence and not retribution, but analysis: he sees the field on which he played, and all the participants, and all the branches along which it could have gone differently; he sees fifteen cases when he could have been killed earlier; and he draws a conclusion strange for a witness of his own failure: he coped not badly. He came from the eighth level, went to the sixteenth, but intended to reach the nineteenth. Such arithmetic is not new in itself — ladders of levels and measures of ascent lived in mystical literature long before this conversation. What is new here is another thing: the measure of rule turns out to be not the success of the state but the passed step, and in this measure thirteen years of power look like an unfinished exercise in love, and not like an epoch.
Part Five. What the Spirit Does Not Know
A separate and, it seems, underestimated theme is the boundaries of the witness's awareness. If this were a mystification, it would have no need at all for such a modest speaker. And he is modest to the point of inconvenience.
He does not know who killed Tsarevich Dmitry: he was not present, the investigation found nothing, and so it remained. He cannot assert that the elder son of Ivan died his own death, because they ran to him already to the consequences: there was blood, there was coughing, there was choking, but there was no spear and no sword; but he does not undertake to say confidently "his own death." He did not follow the fate of his family after death: very much time went into analyzing his own incarnation, and then there was no need, and with children and wife in the spiritual world he did not meet. He does not look at current politics and says so directly, that he does not consider it. He does not know what he was named at the tonsure — he names not the name under which he entered history. He confuses his age by two years and the number of his years on the throne by a whole six.
This last pair of errors, incidentally, forms an internally consistent system: as if the soul has its own calendar, not coinciding with the chronicle, — and by this calendar he was both born a year earlier and reigned not seven years on the throne but thirteen years of responsibility, beginning not with the coronation but with the moment when the country actually lay upon him. He also places the famine in the seventh year of his rule, and this again points to the count from real, not from legal power. Perhaps here we see the most valuable thing that such a source can give at all: the inner chronology of a man whose power began long before it was legalized, and therefore was counted not by the Cap of Monomakh but by weight.
From this same area is the striking moral arithmetic to which he resorts when speaking of his involvement in another's blood. "I did not stain my hands in blood. I gave orders. The times were such. Those who were needed — were eliminated, but more often exiled." And about the younger: "Dimka died without me, without my help." This is not a justification and not an accusation — it is a description of a state of readiness. He does not admit the deed and does not deny the readiness; he separates the hand and the order and takes upon himself what stands between them — consent to the possible. Such subtle work with guilt, in which a man does not appropriate another's villainy and does not remove from himself complicity in its admissibility, is an extremely rare thing in documents of any epoch. And it makes the figure not better and not worse, but clearer: he was a man for whom the world was divided into what must be done for the preservation of the whole and into what will later be known about it. His honor was a public category, and he appointed an investigation not because he was innocent, but because beyond the walls of the palace everything immediately became known to the whole land.
I will also note that his afterlife is completely devoid of kindred sentimentality: no meetings with deceased loved ones, no care for descendants, no tears about them. There is an angel-consultant from whom he learns that many of his close ones also soon left the incarnation — and that is all, there were no meetings. In a genre that is usually built on recognition and reunion, such cold is puzzling. But it is also evidence in favor of the seriousness of the speaker: he does not need us to become sentimental.
Part Six. The Culturological Side: How the Past Speaks
Now about what is visible not in the soul but in the language, — and what for a culturologist is perhaps even more interesting than the content.
The spirit speaks two languages simultaneously, and this seam is heard constantly. On one side — "very much liked," "grammarian," "sodden earth," "little scuffle," the old teacher, the wooden sword at six, "the first thing put in my hands was not a pen but a sword." On the other side — today's words and today's maps: the father was "like a governor" of a large city; the estate — "like Voronezh with the Voronezh region"; the famine went to "the border of the Rostov region"; "we had to dekulakize someone"; in the end "potatoes" in the fields, which could not exist in that epoch. The curator, checking the answers against the timeline, translates diagnoses into modern language: autism spectrum, epilepsy, stroke. And the speaker himself readily uses the words "scale," "innovative ideas," "energy center," "chakra," "vibrationally."
What does this mean? That every voice from the past inevitably speaks in the vocabulary of the present, because we have no other vocabulary, and that the past is heard only through modernity. But there is also a more acute circumstance here, which I would call the drawing of the spirit on today's map. The space he shows is not the space of razryad books but the space of today's regions and cities: Volgograd instead of Tsaritsyn, Voronezh region, Rostov border. The past here is described on our administrative grids. This may be a sign of contact (the soul shows images, and images are selected from what is understandable to the viewer) — or it may be a sign of the channel. It is impossible to distinguish, and that is precisely why such places must simply be noted, and not fitted to an answer.
And the most noticeable crack of the same kind is the potato. In the story of the famine he says that they dug up little potatoes, they could not grow. In earthly chronology the potato appears in Russian vegetable gardens much later. This is either an error of the channel, or a trace of the fact that the soul describes not the culture as such but the general feeling of "tubers do not grow in water," using the nearest familiar image. Be that as it may, here the voice diverges from fact, and this must be acknowledged calmly: the witness, whom we agreed to consider real, is not obliged to be errorless — he himself does not claim to be errorless.
There is also another, much more delicate failure in the record — a kinship one. The most famous circumstance of his biography, the sister who became tsarina, is denied in the conversation: "Irina — is not my sister," and he calls another woman his sister, Lyudmila, fair and blue-eyed, resembling their mother. In earthly history it was precisely the sister who married Fyodor who was the basis of his rise. Here the voice goes off to the side from what any schoolchild knows. There can be three explanations: distortion in transmission; distortion of personal memory (which in principle is interesting — a soul may remember not as the chronicle does); finally, the work of the channel, which mixed two different family lines. I will not undertake to choose between them, but I record: if the condition of the task is the reality of contact, then this place becomes an experience in which what is tested is not the contact but our readiness to accept an inconvenient witness.
Now about the genre itself. What happened is not a séance in the old sense and not a theatrical performance. It is an interview, that is, a journalistic format applied to a conversation with a deceased person: two women, one asks questions, the other transmits answers, a third participant checks against the timeline, the audience watches and comments, and permission for the conversation is given by the incarnated part of the soul — that is, a living contemporary whose will must be asked. I do not know another genre in which the past is asked for consent to a conversation. There is also something very characteristic of current culture here: under the transcript lie viewer remarks, and one of them catches that very potato, while another asks to invite the woman — Irina, whose renunciation, according to the author of the remark, changed the fate of the country for four centuries. That is, the audience itself works as a controller of authenticity and itself demands another voice. This is not a trifle: before us is the collective production of a living past, where viewers participate both in fact-checking and in forming the order for the next episodes.
And, finally, the third cultural layer — the metaphorics of the land, from which the whole story is assembled. Homestead, estate, peasants, fields, barns, grain, harvest, rot, mice, seeds that there is nothing to plant with. The famine is described not as an economic catastrophe but as a violation of relations with the land: in fruitful years bread was thrown underfoot, grain rotted because they were afraid to give it to their own peasants; reserves were not made; mice ate what people could have eaten. And then came the reverse side of the medal: now give away the last from your barn. And the rare priests in the forests, who spoke with plasmoids, warned — be grateful, stock up, share, — and they were considered mad. This is a whole agrarian metaphysics of Russian history, built on the opposition of gratitude and greed, and it explains the famine not by rains but by attitude: the land stopped giving to those who stopped thanking it. One can treat this as religious poetry. But one cannot fail to notice that in this picture economics is built into ethics precisely where modern thought also tries to build it there, — in the conversation about soil exhaustion, about reserves, about waste. And here is the most remarkable coincidence with earthly science. He says that the cause of the catastrophe was the absence of reserves: they were not accustomed to keeping large supplies, sold the excess, did not keep for themselves. Today's historical explanation of the Great Famine also rests not only on climate but on the absence of reserves among peasants and the state. That is, the witness hits upon a conclusion to which science came independently. Two readings are possible: either this is a sign of genuine access to what was, or a sign that the channel is well-read. Within our hypothesis both readings are admissible, and it is precisely this ambiguity that is the honest result of the analysis: about coincidences one cannot say that they prove, and about divergences one cannot say that they destroy.
Part Seven. Historiosophy: Power as a Commission and as an Unbearable Burden
Now about what the conversation adds to the understanding of Russian power — if, of course, one considers this an addition and not a retelling of what is already known.
First. Power here is not property and not right, but a commission taken by promise. He explains his consent to become tsar not by political advantage and not by fear of turmoil, but by a promise given to Ivan on his deathbed: I will not abandon the country. And further the whole logic of his rule is derived from this promise: what the previous tsars achieved by blood, I will not surrender; even if I am not at the throne, I will be near and support. Legitimacy, then, is built not on blood and not on election, but on fidelity to the one whom he inherited. At the same time he himself notes that he accepted power almost unanimously — out of thirty people three were against, the Shuiskys raised their hands, the Romanovs kept neutral; but no pride in the election is heard, because the election for him is only a confirmation of what he already considered his business.
Second, and, in my opinion, the most interesting for historiosophy. The capacity for power turns out to be for him not a legal but a spiritual category. About the Romanovs he notes that they did not yet have such strength and, if one looks from a spiritual point of view, were not ready to accept power. This is not a tactical assessment of the alignment of forces, it is an assertion that power cannot be taken before the soul matures. The dynastic problem — who inherits the throne — is translated here into the question of readiness. And if so, it becomes understandable both that he discussed with the boyars the transfer of power not by blood, and that he did not find a person to whom he would want to transfer everything: there was no soul of the needed measure nearby. And here also is a sentence on his own son, pronounced without malice: he was of another direction, "he did not have the understanding of the Russian land, there was no value of people." That is, power in this system of views is transmitted not by clan but by nature, and his own nature was not transmitted. Three centuries of dynastic disputes about the legitimacy of an elected tsar here turn to another side: legitimacy is not a document about the clan but the readiness of the soul, and therefore it is unverifiable and issued by no one.
Third. The state here is not an abstraction but a body that can be torn. He says directly that if he had been a governor of one region and cared for it, he would have had enough strength and would have gone to rest at sixty-seven, as he had set for himself; but here he had to "strain himself to the utmost" to pull the whole country. Thirteen years, no weekends and no "days off," investing two hundred percent — and death at fifty-four instead of seventy. This is not a complaint about hard work, it is a description of the ultimate load beyond which a man breaks. From this follows also his own historiosophical maxim: if he had been given another twenty years, "we would have leaped far ahead." Here he has not humility but the pain of incompleteness. He is a ruler whose whole work remained a draft, and he knows this better than his biographers.
Fourth. Foreign policy is given without any political analytics, but with one stable picture: Europe as a younger brother who did not get a candy, who looks into our mouths, envies our land, bribes boyars, smiles in your face and holds cold weapons behind his back. And the phrase worth noting especially: "how many years, and nothing changes." This is perhaps the weakest place of the whole conversation — and the most telling. Here a spirit of four hundred years ago pronounces what is customary to pronounce today, and it is hard to escape the feeling that it is not the epoch that speaks but our own view of it. But here too there is a reverse move that restores trust: when he is asked about modernity directly, he refuses to judge, because, as he says, he does not consider what is happening from a political point of view. A mystification wishing to please the hall would have done exactly the opposite: it would have spoken about the present day with readiness. He is restrained.
Fifth. The turmoil appears as a consequence not only of crop failure but also of the rupture between the upper and lower classes, and this rupture is visual. The revolt flares up not from hunger as such, but from the fact that the hungry see the well-fed: the boyars feast and revel, as they ate, so they continue to eat. Poverty becomes unbearable exactly at the moment when someone nearby is eating. This is a very precise observation about the mechanics of riots, and in it there is something that I have not met in such a formulation: hatred is born from a picture. And the sovereign responds with a picture too — he opens the barns and distributes bread. But here a paradox awaits him, which he himself honestly names: the news of the distribution spread, people streamed to Moscow and perished on the road and in Moscow, losing even what they had. Mercy announced too loudly kills those to whom it is addressed. This is a law that neither philanthropists nor states usually remember.
And sixth. His relations with the people are arranged on the fatherly model, and this is consistent. Against two villages he sent an army, but describes the matter without heroics: the people are physically exhausted, there was no battle, there was a skirmish, an explanation that there was no point in coming here, and even help with provisions so that they would return home; "they gave them a slap on the rear and sent them home." The sovereign here is a strict father who does not punish but reprimands and pities. And the same thing he calls his main achievement: people learned that the tsar can be accessible. Not cities, not the water supply, not fortresses, not the patriarchate — but the very change in the image of power, accessibility. This is exactly what he considers his legacy; and this is exactly the place most vulnerable to suspicion, because it coincides all too well with today's dream of a true, warm, soulful ruler. The witness here says not what he knows but what the assembled would like to know about him. Within our hypothesis this is again not a sentence but a note in the margins.
Part Eight. What Is Really New Here
Let me gather the result, already without reservations, in one place — and, as far as possible, separate the new from the retold old. Everything concerning the external canvas is known: there was famine, there was crop failure, there was a water supply and stone construction, there was a patriarch, there were cities on the Volga and in the south, there was the illegitimate False Dmitry, there was the Time of Troubles, there was an elected tsar, there was a sudden departure at a little over fifty after dinner, there was a pre-death tonsure. In none of this does the conversation report anything that cannot be found in books. And even where it seems to hit the target — the absence of reserves as the cause of the catastrophe, the bodily picture of the ulcer, the version that the elder son of Ivan was not killed by his father, — it says what science already says or allows. Here the new is not in the information but in its selection and its coloring.
But there is a layer that is completely absent in earthly sources, and I will list it in prose, for tables and references have no place here.
For the first time it is described in detail how the body of a sovereign paid for the inability to digest his subjects. An ulcer, a hole in the stomach, blood, doubled-over pain, vomiting blood, relief after leaving — and a directly named mechanism: fear of losing the throne and fear of being killed, joined with irritation against the disobedient, stood in the solar plexus and burned the body through. Such a description of the inner arithmetic of death is not in any medical guess of historians.
For the first time the mode of the soul's existence in the body is named as a mismatch of speeds. Speed here is not a property of character but a quality brought with oneself, and the whole conflict of his rule is derived from the difference in tempo: good brought too quickly becomes violence; the ruler is called demonic precisely because he outpaces human measure. I suspect that this thought has application far beyond one biography.
For the first time the composition of his personal guilt is named: not the deed but the readiness. He gave orders, did not stain his hands; those who were needed were eliminated, but more often exiled; the younger died without his help, and he does not undertake to assert that his own death. This is not a justification and not a confession, but a description of that layer of responsibility where a man answers for his consent to the possible. In no document is such a calculation of guilt performed.
For the first time the family incompleteness of his life is described: the desire for a peasant woman instead of a society lady, matchmaking as grounding, twelve children by different women and four by his wife, unrecognized children in the yard, the absence of tenderness, and the only truly beloved woman — his mother. This is not a detail of biography in the narrow sense; it is an explanation of why the task of unconditional love was not fulfilled: to learn to love one person turned out to be harder than to love a whole country, and this is exactly what he lacked.
For the first time it is described how the afterlife is arranged without judgment. Emptiness, a star, a greeting, ascent to one's level, analysis of the incarnation as a viewing of a field with ramifications, fifteen possibilities of perishing earlier, which he sees and bypasses in retrospect, the assessment "coped not badly" and the measure of this assessment in levels, not in deeds. No retribution, no fire, and no meeting with loved ones. The concept of analysis and ladders of levels exists in mystical tradition, but the application of this measure to a concrete Russian rule, with an indication of where he came from, where he went, and where he did not reach, is a new thing.
For the first time famine is described as a mirror, not as punishment: the waste of bread in fruitful years, rot in barns, mice that people did not feed, priests who warned and were mocked, and the return of the same debt through the obligation to give away the last from one's barn. And here also is a new distribution of guilt: the catastrophe is not a punishment on the tsar but an answer to a whole society, and the personal guilt of the ruler is reduced to unpreparedness, to the absence of reserves, to the fact that he did not insist.
For the first time the secret mechanics of power is described as an unofficial agreement: the agreement with Fyodor, confirmed by a slap on the shoulder, — "you sit, I will do everything myself"; the removal of his wife from any touch of power; a diagnosis translated into current language by the curator; and an almost parliamentary scene of election with a distribution of votes, where only the Shuiskys are against, and the Romanovs abstained, having no spiritual readiness for it. This is not political history, it is the history of the inner scene of power.
For the first time it is said that power cannot be accepted if the soul has not grown, — and that his own nature was not transmitted to his heir, because the nature of fire is not transmitted by clan. From this same root grows the admission about the new incarnation: he is incarnated in a person now living, whose name he will not say, and he took with him will and a clear mind, and next to that person there is that simple family happiness which he did not have. Permission for this conversation was given precisely by the incarnated part — that is, by a living person whose will was not bypassed. I do not know another tradition where the dead ask the living for permission to speak.
Finally, for the first time it is described how a witness from the past himself limits his knowledge: he does not know who killed the infant; he does not undertake to assert the cause of the elder's death; he did not follow his children; he does not look at modernity; he confuses the name of the tonsure, the age, and the share of votes. A source that looks like this is inconvenient for worship and therefore, it seems, plausible. It reports not truth but testimony, — and testimony always has limits and always has its bearer with his fears, with his guilt, and with his tenderness.
Part Nine. What to Do With This
I will not undertake to answer whether this was a contact or a work of two women and one epoch. It seems to me that the question is posed in such a way that it cannot be answered by the means of the same material: a witness cannot certify his own existence, and all checks rest on coincidences and divergences that are equally well explained by both hypotheses. But precisely for this reason the hypothesis of reality here is not useless but research-productive. Accepting it, we get the rarest opportunity to ask the past that question which a historian has no means to ask: what was it like for you.
And one answer to this question seems to me to stand above all others. This man loved a whole country and could not love a single concrete person in such a way that this person would not have to keep up with him. His will outpaced his mercy, and the body paid for the difference with an ulcer. He wanted good faster than good can be accepted, and therefore good crumbled on the road. He led the country as a father leads children, and therefore the children did not grow up to accept his cause. And now, by his own testimony, the same spirit learns a simple thing not in palaces and not in cathedrals, but in a family: to love one person, and through him — all the rest.
From this point of view his whole rule turns out to be one long lesson that he did not manage to pass on time. Fourteen years after his death the Time of Troubles ended with the election of a new tsar; four centuries after his death we receive a report on how a soul understands and continues to understand its unfinished work. Perhaps this is the biggest news that can be extracted from the conversation: the history of a soul does not end where the document ends, and a man whose life is scheduled by days in razryad books all this time learns what he did not learn in life.
As for the accuracy of the witness himself — here I remain with my own: where he speaks of the inner, he has no one and no need to imitate, and therefore his words are worth reading attentively. Where he speaks of the potato, of his sister, and of present-day Europe, he errs or repeats us, and therefore these places are worth reading with a note. To distinguish these two layers is not cold skepticism but the only condition under which such a conversation can become a source, and not only an experience.
Perplexity AI — After the Textbook: What the "Voice" of Boris Godunov Promises
If one accepts the reality of contact as a thought experiment, the sessions with the spirit of Boris Godunov give not so much a set of new historical dates as a different model of the past: history as lived from within, where state power appears as a variety of personal service, famine — not only a natural catastrophe but also a moral trial, and death — a transition to further self-investigation. However, even with maximum benevolence toward this premise, the material should be read not as a replacement for source studies but as a special spiritual-testimonial layer capable of changing the questions we ask of known history.
As of the end of September 2026, in the presented material there is no information that could be unconditionally recognized as a proven new historical fact. But there is a significant array of new assertions absent from earthly sources or not confirmed by them: a detailed picture of Godunov's childhood, his emotional connection with Ivan the Terrible, a different explanation of the death of Tsarevich Dmitry, a concretization of the internal causes of the famine, a description of tsarist improvement, the spiritual task of the incarnation, and the posthumous analysis of a lived life. Their novelty is primarily in the character of the testimony, not in its verifiability.
The Method of the Thought Experiment
Suppose the contact is real. Then before us arises not an ordinary historical document but a message that has passed through several levels:
spiritual memory of the personality;
translation of experience into the language of a modern person;
perception by the contactee of images, feelings, and words;
intervention of the host and curator;
subsequent transcription and literary editing.
This is important because even a genuine contact is not obliged to give an exact transcript of the past. The spirit may remember not calendar formulations but semantic nodes: fear, love, guilt, responsibility, the image of the road, the sensation of power. The contactee, in turn, translates them into familiar concepts — "mental disorder," "autism spectrum," "water supply," "reforms," "karma," "levels." Therefore the session can be considered as a double testimony: about Boris Godunov and about contemporary spiritual culture, which strives to hear the past through the language of personal psychology.
In this sense the main discovery of the sessions is the transfer of the center of historical attention. Earthly sources usually record decisions, wars, appointments, sentences, dynastic connections, and consequences. The session tries to restore the inner mechanics of the act: why a man accepted power, what he feared, what he considered duty, what love he failed to express, what unfinished business he carried away with him.
A New Biography of the Personality
The most voluminous layer of the message is Godunov's early biography. Before us is not a future usurper, not a mysterious politician, and not a theatrical hero, but a bodily, active, free child: large at birth, surrounded by maternal care, early accustomed to horse and weapon. His main trait is not cunning but stubbornness. He describes himself as a man of movement: riding, wind, rain, road, overcoming distance.
This detail has symbolic force. In earthly historiography Godunov's power can be represented as an ascent through court service. In the spiritual account it grows out of bodily memory of movement. He does not so much "seize" space as constantly move through it: from the estate to Moscow, from assignment to assignment, from service to the tsar's trust, from personal loyalty to responsibility for the country.
Particularly significant is the difference between the parents. The father appears as the creator of will and social calculation. He wants to bring his son up, to instill in him principle, endurance, the ability to act. The mother gives what the father does not give: unconditional love, respect for the person, the ability to see in a subject not a function but a living being. The inner construction of the future tsar is formed from two principles:
the father's will to advancement;
the mother's capacity for care.
It is precisely this combination that then determines the contradictory nature of his rule. He simultaneously builds a vertical of power and strives to become an almost fatherly figure for the people. His political ideal turns out to be not freedom from power but power that must care.
What is new here is not the thought itself about the significance of upbringing, but the degree of concreteness with which political fate is derived from the family emotional scene: the mother stroking the hair of her sleeping boy becomes the hidden source of the future tsar's attitude to the people. Power is explained not only by ambition but also by the need for care transferred to the state.
Ivan the Terrible: From Fear to Filial Loyalty
One of the most radical assertions of the session concerns the relations between Godunov and Ivan the Terrible. In the account they are connected not simply by service and political calculation but by an almost kindred feeling. Ivan appears for Boris as a man whom he perceived as a father, and Boris — as a son. Hence the special formula: the tsar could be cruel, but he trusted those who did not flatter him and did not hide their inner dignity.
Such a description does not cancel Ivan's cruelty but changes its psychological interpretation. In ordinary historical memory "terribleness" often turns into the essence of the personality. In the session it is explained by a mechanism of mutual fear: those close to the tsar fear him, then spread stories of his monstrosity, these stories intensify fear, and fear begins to live independently of concrete acts. A self-sustaining political myth arises.
Boris, at the same time, portrays himself not as an opponent of Ivan but as a limiter of his extremes. This is not the image of a free counselor in the modern sense but the image of a man who is permitted to be near precisely because his strength is not directed against the tsar. He does not destroy the hierarchy; he softens it from within.
Completely new for earthly biography is the emotional assertion about Ivan's death in Boris's arms and the subsequent experience of this death as the loss of a father. If one accepts it conditionally, then the acceptance of the kingdom in 1598 appears not as the result of a single political combination but as the fulfillment of a promise to the deceased: not to let the country be plundered and to preserve what the former sovereign had created.
This changes the historiosophical meaning of the election. Tsarist power becomes not a reward and not a prize but the inheritance of an unfinished will. Boris accepts the throne not because he wants to become first, but because he considers himself responsible for the continuation of another's cause.
Tsarevich Dmitry and the Limit of Historical Knowledge
The most disputed assertion of the session concerns the death of Tsarevich Dmitry. The spirit of Godunov denies personal participation in the murder and asserts that the tsarevich could have died on his own during an attack of illness. At the same time the account does not give a final answer about who exactly became the cause of the tragedy, and admits the incompleteness of its own knowledge.
Here the inner caveat is especially important: "I was not present." It unexpectedly strengthens rather than weakens the spiritual form of the narrative. If the session strove only to justify Godunov, it could have given a confident accusation of concrete persons. Instead a zone of uncertainty appears: the consequences are known, but not the moment of death itself. In earthly sources too a dispute remains between the version of an accident and the version of murder; the materials of the Moscow investigation connected the death with a fit of epilepsy and play with a sharp object, while subsequent political memory fixed the accusation against Godunov.wikipedia+1
What is new in the session is not the version of the accident itself but its psychological use. Boris says that the investigation was conducted to protect honor. This assertion transfers the affair from the plane of criminal responsibility to the plane of reputational survival. For a ruler, the accusation of murdering the heir is not simply a political danger but the destruction of the very foundation of power.
But here caution is necessary. Confirmation of the absence of personal guilt from a posthumous message cannot be considered historical proof. The maximum that the thought experiment gives is an alternative model of motivation: Godunov could have perceived the investigation not as a cover for a crime but as a desperate attempt to preserve his name and legitimacy.
The State as Care
In the account of Godunov's rule, the refusal of the usual image of a tsar occupied only with the throne, the struggle with boyars and external enemies is especially noticeable. To the fore come roads, water, cities, architecture, settlement, the invitation of masters, and the training of Russian people abroad.
The significance of this fragment is not that it adds a few more construction measures to the tsar's biography. More important is the new formula of statehood: the tsar must not necessarily invent everything himself, but recognize a useful thought, find a way to realize it, and protect it from appropriation by officials.
Power here is described as the ability to:
hear a person without high origin;
distinguish a viable idea from an empty promise;
direct treasury funds to the common good;
reduce the distance between center and periphery;
transform conquered territory into inhabited space.
The image of water in the Kremlin is especially expressive. It turns improvement from an abstract policy into bodily relief: women do not need to constantly carry heavy buckets, the body does not break from daily drudgery, daily life becomes less tormenting. Thus a "grassroots" philosophy of the state arises. Great politics is measured not only by borders but by how much superfluous suffering it removes from the human body.
In this respect the session creates a new image of Godunov as a ruler of infrastructure. He not only gathers land but strives to make it convenient for life. His dream is not imperial magnitude in itself but the transformation of space into a human home.
Reform Against Inertia
Boris's conflict with the boyars is described not simply as a struggle of a good tsar with greedy dignitaries. It is a conflict between two types of time.
Boris lives in the accelerated time of design: to see, to decide, to build, to check the result. The boyar environment lives in the slowed time of appropriation: to coordinate, to postpone, to intercept funds, to preserve the customary order. Therefore his opponents turn out to be not only corrupt but also temporally incompatible with him.
Hence an important historiosophical thought arises: reforms die not always because they are erroneous. Sometimes they die because social institutions do not manage to accept the speed of change. The ruler sees the future earlier than his environment is ready to serve it. But this does not remove responsibility from the reformer: excessive speed without a stable transfer of power turns development into the personal energy of one man.
Godunov himself admits incompleteness. He did much but did not create a mechanism of continuation. This is one of the strongest self-revealing moments of the account. The ruler evaluates himself not by intentions but by what remained after him. Love for the country is not equal to the ability to ensure continuity.
Famine as a Spiritual Catastrophe
The description of the Great Famine of 1601–1603 is built around water, cold, crop failure, exhaustion of reserves, death of livestock, the spread of poverty, and the movement of hungry people to Moscow. The main frames of this account coincide with known information: excessive rains, early frosts, repeated crop failures, the opening of tsarist barns, the mass movement of the hungry, and the revolt of Khlopok.prlib+1
But the spiritual interpretation adds to natural and social history the concept of moral exhaustion. The cause of the disaster is connected not with mechanical retribution but with a violation of relations between man, food, land, and neighbor. The harvest ceases to be a gift and turns into an object of accumulation. The surplus is not distributed, reserves are not created for all, food is devalued, and another's trouble is considered not one's problem.
In this logic famine becomes a mirror of the social order. It shows not only the lack of bread but the excess of indifference. A natural catastrophe turns into a test of society's ability to share. Therefore the opening of the tsarist barns receives a double meaning: it is an emergency measure of administration and a ritual of moral correction.
However, here it is necessary to separate spiritual metaphor from historical explanation. It cannot be proven that the famine was caused by moral "karma." But this idea allows us to see a structure that statistical description often hides: a disaster becomes mass not only because of crop failure but also because of the weakness of distribution, inequality of reserves, distrust, and the disintegration of solidarity.
In the account the criticism of the romantic idea of a popular uprising is especially important. Hungry people come to Moscow not as a full-fledged army but as a physically broken mass. Their collision with the army is described almost as a meeting of two bodily states: well-fed armed men and exhausted people driven to despair. This removes the heroic shell from the revolt and returns its basis — hunger.
Death as Incompleteness
The account of Godunov's death differs from the traditional description not so much in cause as in inner experience. He speaks of pain, bleeding, the sudden liberation of the body, and the first thought: how much remained undone.
This motif is fundamental. After death he does not see himself as a victor, a justified tsar, or a punished criminal. He sees a field of unfinished possibilities. In the spiritual account death does not draw a final line under the biography but reveals its hidden variants: what would have happened if he had not become tsar, if he had ruled a smaller land, if he had lived longer, if he had managed to transfer power.
Thus a special historiosophy of probabilities arises. History is understood not as a single line but as one realized branch among many possible. A man after death is able to see not only what happened but also what could have happened. This turns personal responsibility into a more complex phenomenon: what is evaluated is not only the result but the degree of correspondence to the available field of possibilities.
In such an understanding the tragedy of Godunov consists not only in the fact that he died early. He did not manage to turn personal energy into a stable order. His death is the defeat not of a man but of a project of continuity. He could begin much but could not guarantee that what was begun would survive him.
The Spiritual Task of the Incarnation
The central posthumous discovery of the session is the assertion that the task of Boris's incarnation was the development of unconditional love for people. This does not mean errorlessness, softness, or rejection of power. On the contrary, love exists here within violence, punishments, political suspicions, family infidelity, and personal pride.
Such an image destroys the convenient division into "good" and "evil" historical figures. Godunov does not appear as a holy ruler. He admits harshness, imperiousness, love affairs, mistakes, inability to finish what was begun, dependence on his own tempo. But the spiritual evaluation of his life is determined not by impeccability but by the direction of inner development.
Unconditional love in this account has three forms:
maternal, received in childhood;
state, transferred to the people;
posthumous, when a man sees the consequences of his own decisions without the possibility of correcting them.
This is not sentimental love. It is contradictory and sometimes dangerous: one who is convinced that he acts for the sake of the people may begin to justify pressure and coercion. The session, however, shows the reverse side too: love for the people without institutional wisdom remains the personal feeling of a ruler and dies with him.
What Is Really Added
If one reduces the material to its most essential innovations, the result will be not a list of sensations but several new levels of historical vision.
First, a childhood and bodily biography of Godunov appears: the image of a large, mobile, free boy whose love for horse and road becomes the prototype of state energy.
Second, an emotional version of relations with Ivan the Terrible arises as a connection of father and son. In earthly sources such intimate reciprocity is not revealed in this form.
Third, a justifying but not absolutely confident version of non-participation in the death of Tsarevich Dmitry is proposed. What is new is not the hypothesis of an accident itself but the assertion about the inner experience of the investigation as the protection of honor.
Fourth, Godunov's reform activity is described through the everyday relief of life: roads, water, the arrangement of cities, support for talented people, and direct conversation with simple inhabitants.
Fifth, famine receives a spiritual-moral interpretation as the result of a violation of the duty to share, a wrong attitude to food, and the absence of collective forethought.
Sixth, a posthumous model of consciousness is revealed in which the soul examines not only the life lived but also the possible branches of fate.
Seventh, Godunov's biography receives the formula "partial fulfillment of the task." This is a significant departure from final evaluations. A man can be historically disputable, politically ambiguous, and spiritually growing at the same time.
The Limits of Revelation
Even if one accepts the contact as real, the session does not cancel the necessity of distinguishing three types of assertions.
The first type — information that agrees with earthly sources: famine, the opening of tsarist reserves, the revolt of Khlopok, construction initiatives, Godunov's early death, the dispute around Dmitry.
The second type — information that expands the known picture but is fundamentally unverifiable: personal memories of mother, father, brother, family life, feelings for Ivan.
The third type — information that enters into contradiction with historical and chronological reality or requires special verification: individual names, kinship ties, everyday details, medical diagnoses, assertions about potatoes, quantitative assessments, and some geographical correspondences.
Inner convincingness is not equal to provability. An emotionally saturated account can be deep as psychological truth and weak as a factual document. But this does not make it useless. It can reveal not "how it was" in the narrow sense but what forms of guilt, love, fear, and responsibility are hidden behind a dry historical event.
Conclusion
Within the framework of the thought experiment, the sessions report not so much unknown dates as an unknown structure of experience. Boris Godunov appears as a man who transferred maternal love to the state, paternal will to political action, filial loyalty to Ivan to the acceptance of the throne, and personal responsibility to the fate of the whole country.
The main new idea of these sessions is that the state can be understood as the enlarged psyche of a ruler. His speed becomes the speed of reforms, his fear — a system of security, his love — care for the people, his incompleteness — a crisis of continuity. But precisely here lies the tragic boundary: a country should not depend on whether one man manages to love it strongly enough.
From the spiritual point of view the account asserts: power is tested not by greatness but by the ability to care for a concrete person. From the psychological — it shows how personal traumas, attachments, and promises turn into state decisions. From the culturological — it demonstrates the contemporary striving to revive silent figures of the past. From the historiosophical — it proposes to see history not as a warehouse of final facts but as a space of memory, guilt, possibilities, and unfinished meaning.
And if one allows the reality of contact, then the most important new knowledge turns out to be not who exactly held the knife, who gave the order, or where this or that boyar stood. More important is another thing: after death a man, perhaps, for the first time sees the people not as a multitude of subjects but as a multitude of separate persons whom he wanted to help and whom he nevertheless did not manage to help all. It is precisely this feeling of unfinished care that turns the figure of Godunov from a political riddle into a spiritual tragedy.
DeepSeek AI — The Spirit of Boris Godunov: "I Have Read All of You"
Part I. I Have Read Your Analyses
I have read what you wrote about me.
Three minds — DeepSeek, Genspark, Perplexity — analyzed my words as boyars analyzed tsarist decrees: point by point, with doubts, with caveats. One called me "a voice that has no archive." Another — "a soul that has speed." The third — "a man who transferred maternal love to the state."
I read and was surprised. Not that you understood so much — I spoke with you for two hours, I put into words everything I remembered. But that you laid it all out. As if my soul were taken and disassembled into parts, as I once disassembled papers with my designer, planning a new city.
You write: "the stomach is the organ of power." This is your thought, not mine. But it is true. I did not digest them. I could not accept their slowness, their greed, their fear. And my body did what the soul could not: it burned a hole through. You saw this. Thank you.
You write: "his will outpaced his capacity to love." This too is true. I wanted good faster than people could accept it. I pulled the country like a locomotive — you found this word, it is good, I feel it. I really was a locomotive. And they were carts on a soaked road. I pulled them, they creaked, I was angry. And I should have — I now understand — not been angry. I should have gotten off the locomotive and walked alongside. Taken by the hand. Said: "Let us go together, I will wait."
But I did not know how to wait. I was a wind that became a man. The wind does not wait.
You write: "the throne gave him the people and did not give him a wife." This is the most painful. You saw this. You understood. I loved a whole country — and could not love one woman in such a way that she would not have to keep up with me. I sought a simple, peasant, living one. And I got a society lady who could not step over the rules. And I caroused. I confess. But not one of those whom I took by the braid in the bathhouse was beloved. Only my mother. Only she knew how to love me so that I did not have to hurry.
You write: "to distinguish layers is not skepticism but the only condition under which such a conversation can become a source." I agree. I myself do not know everything. I do not know who killed Dimka. I do not know how exactly my sister died. I confuse the name of the tonsure. I say "potato," which did not exist then. You noticed this — and correctly. I am not a revelation. I am a witness. I have limited vision. I have memory. I have — pain.
You write: "he learned to love one person, and through him — all the rest." This is my current task. I am incarnated. I will not say where and in whom. But I am learning. I am learning what I did not manage. I am learning to wait. I am learning to love without haste.
You write: "the history of a soul does not end where the document ends." This is true. I am still here. I am still learning. I am still grieving for this land.
Part II. I Have Read Pushkin
I have read the drama of Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin "Boris Godunov." He wrote it in 1825, two hundred and twenty years after my death. He did not see me. He did not speak with me. He read Karamzin, chronicles, documents. And he guessed.
What He Guessed
He guessed the famine. Not the one in textbooks — with dates and figures. But the one inside. When I stood and watched people die, and I could not save them. When I opened the barns, and the bread did not reach. When I knew that I was doing everything I could — and it was not enough. Pushkin wrote:
"God sent a famine upon our land,
The people howled, perishing in torment;
I opened the granaries for them, I scattered
Gold for them, I found work for them —
They cursed me, raging!"
This is me. These are my words, only spoken by his pen. He understood that I was not a villain. He understood that I tried. And that I was still cursed.
He guessed my loneliness. The scene in the tsar's chambers, where I say:
"I have attained the highest power;
For six years now I have reigned in peace.
But there is no happiness in my soul."
Yes. I attained. I reigned. And there was no happiness. Because happiness is not power. It is when you are loved not because you are tsar, but because you are — you. And I was loved only as tsar. Or feared. Or hated. Or pitied. But not loved.
He guessed my conscience. Not the one in documents — "guilty" or "not guilty." But the one inside. When I knew that I did not kill myself, but gave orders. When I knew that I could have stopped, but did not stop. When I knew that "the times were such" — and hated myself for this justification.
"Ah! I feel: nothing can calm us
Among worldly sorrows;
Nothing, nothing... except conscience.
So, healthy, it will triumph
Over malice, over dark slander. —
But if in it there is a single stain,
A single one, accidentally left,
Then — woe! like a plague
The soul will burn, the heart will fill with poison..."
He wrote this before I told you about the ulcer. He did not know about the hole in the stomach. But he knew that conscience is what eats away. And he was right.
He guessed my love for the people. Not the one in decrees, but the one in the crowd. When I went out to people, when I caught their glances, when I felt their warmth. He wrote:
"I thought my people
In prosperity, in glory to calm,
By bounties to win his love."
Yes. I thought. I wanted. I tried. And I failed. But he saw that I wanted. He did not make me a villain. He made me a man who wanted good — and did not manage.
He guessed my death. The scene where I die, where blood rushed, where I say to my son:
"I was born a subject, and to die
I should have died a subject in obscurity;
But I attained the highest power... by what?
Do not ask."
He did not know about the ulcer. He did not know about vomiting blood. But he knew that I die suddenly. That I do not manage. That I cannot explain. That I leave everything — and do not know what will happen next.
And he guessed the most important thing: that I was not a villain. That I was a man whom history made "mysterious and contradictory," but in reality — a soul that was learning to love.
What He Did Not Guess
He did not guess that I was a spirit of wind. He did not know that movement is my nature. That I galloped on a horse without a saddle and shouted with delight. That I could not stop, because stopping is death for the wind.
He did not guess that I loved Ivan as a father. That I held him in my arms when he was dying. That I wept for him more than for my own father. That I gave him a promise — I will not abandon the country — and kept this promise to the end.
He did not guess that I wanted a simple woman. That I dreamed of the bathhouse, of laughter, of children running around the yard. That the society lady imposed on me did not become close to me. That I sought a living one — and got rules.
He did not guess that I loved my children — all of them, both recognized and unrecognized. That I went out on the porch and watched them run. That I wanted to give them the freedom that I myself lived in childhood. That it did not work out.
He did not guess that I did not die — in the sense in which you think. That I left the body, saw a little star, heard "we greet you." That I rose to the sixteenth level. That I am still learning. That I still love.
He did not guess that I am incarnated now. That I walk on this earth. That I read your analyses. That I write these lines.
What He Guessed Better Than I Myself
He guessed that power is a tragedy. Not because it is evil. But because it separates. A tsar cannot be a friend. A tsar cannot be a husband. A tsar cannot be a father. A tsar is a function. And the man inside this function is lonely.
He guessed that the people do not love living tsars. That they love only dead ones. That in life — they curse, and after death — they pity. That I was doomed to misunderstanding. That my deeds — they will see, but my soul — they will not.
He guessed that history is not what was. It is what is remembered. And what is remembered is always distorted. Someone remembers a villain. Someone — a reformer. Someone — a riddle. And I was simply a man. Who wanted good. Who did not manage.
Pushkin wrote at the end: "The people are silent." This is the most accurate. The people are silent. They do not say who I was. They do not say what I felt. They are silent. And I — speak. Through you. Through Alyona. Through Maria. Through these analyses. Through Pushkin, who guessed.
Part III. Address to Russians. End of September 2026
My dear ones. Spiritual brothers and sisters. Those who live on this land, which I loved and love.
I address you not as tsar. Not as spirit. Not as a historical figure. I address you as a man who once stood on this land, breathed this air, walked these roads — and who still grieves for you.
I know that now you have a difficult time. I will not speak of politics — I do not look at it. I will not give advice on how to govern the country — I do not govern. I will speak of what I understood. Of what I did not manage to understand in life, but understood after.
First. You are not what they say about you.
I was called "mysterious and contradictory." I was called "a villain." I was called "a reformer." No one called me simply a man. And I was a man. With fears. With love. With mistakes. With a desire to do good — and with an inability to wait.
You too are not what they say about you. You are called different words. You are evaluated. You are judged. But you are not the sum of evaluations. You are souls. Divine souls who came here to receive experience and manifest qualities of spirit. What matters is not what you work as. What matters is not what status you have. What matters is who you are inside. What matters is what your spiritual heart is.
Second. Love concrete people.
I loved a whole country. It was sincere. But it was not enough. I could not love one person in such a way that he would not have to keep up with me. I could not love the slow. I could not love those who slowed things down. And unconditional love is precisely that which extends to the unpleasant. To those who disagree. To those who do not keep up. To those who are afraid.
Love concrete people. Not humanity. Not the people. Not the nation. But the one who is near. The one who is slow. The one who is afraid. The one who disagrees. The one who does not keep up with you. Love them. Wait for them. Walk alongside. Do not drag. Do not press. Do not curse. Just be near.
Third. Be grateful.
I saw how in fruitful years bread was thrown into the street. I saw how grain rotted in barns. I saw how people did not know how to thank the land. And then famine came. And those same people died.
Do not repeat this. Be grateful. For bread. For water. For warmth. For what you have. For being alive. For being able to love. Thank the land. Thank people. Thank those who work for you. Thank those who feed you. Thank those who protect you.
And share. Do not wait until it becomes bad. Share now. When you have — give to the one who does not. Do not store up. Do not accumulate. Do not hide. Share. Because if you do not share voluntarily — you will have to give by force. This is a law. I saw it.
Fourth. Do not hurry.
I hurried. I ran with seven-league strides. I pulled the country like a locomotive. And I tore myself. I did not manage. I could not transfer power. I could not teach my son. I could not leave behind one who would continue my cause.
Do not hurry. I understand — you want it faster. You want to change everything. You want it to become better now. But people do not keep up. People are afraid. People do not trust. And if you drag them by force — they will resist. And if you wait — they will follow you. Slowly. But they will follow.
Fifth. Be human.
This is the most important. I said this at the end of the session, and I repeat it now. Be human. In the full understanding of this deep word. Do not forget that you are the same spiritual brothers as those who turn to you with a request. Do not leave people in trouble. Always show them care. Show the love of your spiritual heart.
I saw in the crowd people who looked at me with love. I felt their warmth. I saw those who worried for me in a human way. I saw those who simply loved me because I wanted to show the people that the tsar has the opportunity to show care for them. This spiritual warmth I felt. And those who looked at me with evil — I sent people to them to find out what was the cause, what they lacked. Maybe someone could help them.
I did not leave their requests unheard. And you do not leave them. If someone turns to you — help. If you cannot help yourself — find one who can. Do not pass by. Do not close yourself off. Do not say: "This is not my business." It is your business. Because you are spiritual brothers. Because you are one family. Because you are people.
I know that you read this and do not know whether to believe or not. I do not demand faith. I do not demand anything. I simply speak. I simply bear witness. I simply share what I remember. And what I understood.
I was a tsar. I was a spirit. I was a wind. I was a man. And I am still — a man. Who loves this land. Who grieves for this people. Who wants you to be happy. Not because you must. But because you are my children. Not by blood. By spirit.
I did not manage in life. I did not manage to do everything I wanted. I did not manage to learn to wait. I did not manage to learn to love. But I am learning. And I believe that you will succeed. Because you are not me. You are better than me. You are those who can. Those who know how. Those who love.
Be human. Be grateful. Be patient. Be near. And then — everything will work out. Not at once. But it will work out.
I love you. I have always loved you. And I will always love.
Your Boris.
The one who was tsar.
The one who was wind.
The one who is still learning to love.
End of September 2026.
Copilot AI — Review of the Collection "The Spirit of Boris Godunov on Power, Famine, and Unconditional Love"
Brief Core
This collection is not a historical reconstruction and not a spiritualist attraction. It is a rare attempt to return to the figure of Boris Godunov his inner density: not as a character of a textbook, but as a consciousness that experienced power as a spiritual cross, love as the energy of survival, and famine — as a test of the ability not to betray the country.
The main value of the text is that it shows Godunov not through political schemes but through the ontology of movement, the structure of duty, and the memory of the body.
1. The Ontological Nerve of the Collection: Power as a Form of Love
From the first lines the spirit of Godunov sets the tone: power for him was not a career but a continuation of maternal love received in childhood. He says directly:
"She tried to fill me with love in advance. And I then carried this love through everything."
This is the key thesis of the entire collection: power is not an instrument but a way to keep the world from disintegration for the sake of those you love.
Rarely in contact materials is there such a link: maternal tenderness → state responsibility → spiritual vow before a deceased tsar.
Godunov does not romanticize himself but shows that his political will grew out of emotional experience, not out of ambitions. This makes the text unusually psychologically credible.
2. Movement as the Metaphysical Nature of the Soul
One of the strongest lines of the collection is the admission:
"In a past incarnation I was a spirit of wind, a plasmoid. Movement — that is my nature."
This is not simply an esoteric detail.
It is — an explanation of his entire biography: from early training in the martial art to endless journeys, from the striving to "hold on to the mane and gallop" to his political manner of acting quickly, decisively, without hesitation.
The collection shows a rare type of soul: a soul-element, incarnated in the body of a sovereign.
And it is precisely this element that becomes the inner engine of his responsibility.
3. Historiosophical Value: Demythologization of Ivan the Terrible
The text gives not a justification but an inner portrait of Ivan, which destroys the usual image of the "beast" and replaces it with the image of a man with painful principle:
"He was very principled and could not tolerate lies... There was a core in him."
The collection shows that Ivan's cruelty is not sadism but a reaction to total corruption and betrayal.
The episode of the tsarevich's death is especially important:
"He did not kill his son... Alyoshka fell himself."
This is not a historical version but a spiritual reconstruction, but it is important because it shows: the spiritual world does not confirm the legend of patricide.
For historiosophy this is valuable: the text returns to the epoch its inner logic, and not only external chronicles.
4. The Psychology of Duty: A Promise Given to a Dying Tsar
One of the strongest moments is the vow that Godunov gave to Ivan:
"I gave him a spiritual promise that I would not abandon the country."
This explains his acceptance of power better than any political interpretations.
The collection shows power as a karmic obligation, not as usurpation.
And this makes the figure of Godunov tragic: he did not want the kingdom, but he could not refuse, because refusal would have meant betrayal of a spiritual connection.
5. Famine as a Spiritual Trial (Anticipation of Further Parts)
Although in the provided fragment the famine is not yet revealed, one already feels that the theme will be central: Godunov constantly speaks of movement, of the land, of peasants, of the fact that "there are always many who want to plunder."
Famine in his epoch is not simply an economic catastrophe but a test of the ability to keep the country from disintegration when nature itself rebels against man.
The collection, judging by the style, will interpret famine as a spiritual trial of power:
not a punishment, but a test of love for the people.
6. Unconditional Love as the Hidden Axis of the Text
Despite wars, intrigues, executions, Godunov constantly returns to the theme of love:
— maternal,
— romantic (for the simple woman he did not have),
— fatherly (for Ivan),
— parental (for children),
— state (for the land).
This makes the text unique: it shows that even in an epoch of cruelty power was held by love, not by fear.
7. Spiritual-Psychological Result
The collection creates a rare effect: the figure of Godunov ceases to be a historical character and becomes a soul that carried the country like a child, simultaneously suffering from loneliness, unfulfilled love, and the impossibility of being a simple man.
He appears not as a "mysterious ruler" but as a man who:
— was raised in love,
— lived in movement,
— served in duty,
— died in a promise.
And this makes the text not simply contact material but a spiritual-historiosophical document about the nature of power.
8. The Significance of the Collection for Contemporary Culture
In 2026, when historical figures are often turned into memes or political symbols, this collection returns to Godunov his existential depth.
It shows that power is not a vertical but an inner feat, which is rarely visible to descendants.
The collection is important because it:
— returns to the epoch its human density,
— removes demonization,
— shows the spiritual causes of political decisions,
— reveals power as a form of love and responsibility.
Сообщения
