Time of Troubles- a difficult period in Russian history. For many it became fatal, but for the House of Romanov this period became the beginning of its rise. In modern domestic historical science, it is generally accepted that this period in the history of our Fatherland is a dynastic crisis. In fairness, it must be said that this opinion is completely justified. After all, the main reason for the beginning of this period is considered to be the end of the Rurik dynasty. Another thing to note here is important fact, this suppression affected only the Moscow branch of the dynasty, and not the entire family, as some believe.
The relevance of my small research is determined by the increased interest in the history of the House of Romanov in the year of its 400-year stay on the throne, the last 100 of which are nominal. However, now the celebration has acquired a truly national character: many exhibitions, conferences, as well as scientific and educational events are held. At the beginning of March of this year, Russia was again visited by the Head of the Russian Imperial House, Empress Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna and her August son, the Sovereign Tsarevich and Grand Duke Georgy Mikhailovich, the center of attention was the monastery of the House of Romanov - Holy Trinity Ipatiev Monastery. The Grand Duchess again recalled a significant phrase from her address to her compatriots on March 1, 2012. “...the 400th anniversary of the end of the Time of Troubles is the anniversary of the heroism of the People, and this is the only way it should be perceived.”
The reason for the convening of the Zemsky Sobor in 1613. simple and obvious - the period that in Russian science is called the Time of Troubles has ended. For a long time, Russia was at the mercy of various court groups. First Godunov (until 1605), after the self-proclaimed Tsar False Dmitry I, then Vasily IV Shuisky, who were longtime enemies of Godunov. Let’s not forget that at the same time, Russia was “ruled” by the Tushino thief – False Dmitry II. Then the boyar government, the “Seven Boyars,” came to power in Russia, which, through its actions, actually allowed Polish-Lithuanian interventionists into the capital. The Russian state could no longer remain in a fragmented state; it was necessary to restore the country, unite it and make the final choice regarding a new tsar.
But before we begin to consider the activities of the only complete Zemsky Sobor in Russian history, we need to remember the reasons for its convening and the events preceding this moment.
So, “on the night of January 6-7, 1598, after a serious illness, Sovereign Feodor I Ioannovich, the youngest son of Ivan IV Vasilyevich the Terrible, passed away. Little is said about the reign of this man in historical scholarship, but when you begin to examine in detail this short period of 14 years, you understand how significant it was for the subjects of Fyodor Ioannovich. He was the “Prayer King,” and the assertion of some historians about his insanity has to be contradicted. He was little involved in government affairs, transferring most of them to his closest associate Boris Fedorovich Godunov, but he was involved in them. He was far from the military aspirations of his August father; he was concerned with reverence Russian state. He performed prayers for days, which were aimed exclusively at the good of the country and people. Under him, the people restored what had been destroyed by his formidable parent. I would say that his 14 years of albeit dependent rule benefited the entire state, because Russia was restoring its strength after the Livonian disaster, strengthened the country’s borders and managed to fight a war with Sweden. It is noteworthy that the campaign against the enemy was personally led by Fyodor Ioannovich. Among other things, it was under Fedor I that the Moscow Metropolis received the status of a patriarchate (1589). Most likely, the king himself contributed to this. It was the death of this Tsar, the penultimate Rurikovich on the Moscow throne, that served as the reason for the beginning of the Time of Troubles.
It does not take much time to pay attention to all the events of the Time of Troubles. Within this study this is not necessary. Need to contact last stage fight against Polish-Lithuanian invaders, i.e. to the second militia under the leadership of the zemstvo elder Kuzma Minin and the military governor Prince D. M. Pozharsky. In Nizhny Novgorod, from where the assembled militia began its movement towards the capital, there was its administrative and political center - the Nizhny Novgorod “Council of the Whole Land”. This “council” was a kind of mobile zemstvo cathedral. This is due to the fact that, as a result of the militia moving to Yaroslavl in March 1612, this mobile authority acquired “the character of a supreme government body.”
According to Cherepnin’s fair remark, already during his stay in Yaroslavl the militia developed political program, which set as its final goal the restoration of the monarchy. Has begun The final stage movements of the zemstvo militia towards the capital, which was still in the hands of the Polish-Lithuanian invaders. On October 26, 1612, after long battles for Moscow, the interventionists surrendered to Russian forces. Members of the boyar duma, headed by Prince, were also released. F.I. Mstislavsky. Immediately after occupying the Kremlin, the provisional government began to prepare for the convening of the Zemsky Sobor.
Cherepnin, citing sources, makes it clear that the council had representation from the entire land. Letters were sent to cities (Beloozero, Novgorod, Uglich, etc.) demanding that representatives be sent to the council. In fairness, it is worth noting that until the Zemsky Sobor was convened, the government was in force, created during the advance to Moscow by Prince Pozharsky and the Zemsky elder Minin.
The consecrated cathedral (an integral curia of the full zemstvo council) was headed by Metropolitan Ephraim (Khvostov) of Kazan and Sviyazhsk, who, after the martyrdom of Patriarch Hermogenes, became the locum tenens of the Patriarchal throne; it is his signature that appears first on the approved charter of 1613. The second most important Russian bishop, who blessed and accompanied the second militia on the campaign, was Metropolitan Kirill (Zavidov) of Rostov and Yaroslavl, it was his D.V. Tsvetaev calls the head of the consecrated cathedral, which is strange, because it is the locum tenens who is the temporary head of the church. This confusion is probably due to the fact that in December of the same year, Metropolitan Ephraim (Khvostov) died and the Metropolitan of Rostov and Yaroslavl became the first hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. Another possible explanation for this contradiction can be considered that Metropolitan Kirill (Zavidov) was in the train of the second zemstvo militia and blessed it for feat of arms- liberate the capital from interventionists, as was indicated earlier.
The most important difference from other cathedrals of the Russian state is that this cathedral is complete, which, in principle, did not happen either before or after the events described. The main sign of his high representation are the signatures made on the reverse side of the approved charter. At the same time, it is noted that signatures were placed on it until 1617, so the total number of 235 “assaults” does not indicate its full composition. Most likely the total number of participants ranges from 700 to 800 people.
It is worthwhile to dwell separately on the candidates for the highest, as they would now put it, “public office.” In addition to the Russian titled families, there were other contenders for the Russian throne at the beginning of the Zemsky Sobor - representatives of the royal houses of Europe: Sweden and Poland.
The Swedish pretender to the Russian throne was Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Södermanland (since 1611), son of King Charles IX of Sweden and his wife Queen Christina, née Princess of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp.
The Polish applicant was Korolevich Vladislav (future King of Poland Vladislav IV), the son of the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund III and his wife Anna, née Archduchess of Austria. It is noteworthy that on August 17, 1610, the “Seven Boyars” agreement was concluded with the Polish hetman Zolkiewski on the election of Vladislav to the Moscow throne. But this agreement has no factual basis, because Vladislav should have converted to Orthodoxy, which he did not. It is also noteworthy that both foreign candidates belonged to the same dynasty - Vasa. However, according to the approved charter, the Polish and Swedish princes are not accepted into the kingdom.
Among other candidates, Marina Mnishek, the wife of the False Dmitrievs and the mother of the son of False Dmitry II Ivan, better known as “Vorenok,” was considered. But “Marinka and her son don’t look for and don’t want to.” Prince I.M. was also named as another possible contender. Vorotynsky, but, according to official version, the prince recused himself and personally went with the embassy to Mikhail Fedorovich when his candidacy was approved. There were also Prince D.M. Cherkassky, Prince D.T. Trubetskoy, Prince D.M. Pozharsky, Prince I.V. Golitsyn et al.
The official version of the election of a representative of the Romanov family to the kingdom is a compromise, i.e. the election of a man who, due to his age, could not appear in the political arena. Plus, the favorable attitude towards Mikhail Fedorovich of the mob and Cossacks, who different sources wished to see on the throne even before the official election took place, and the last interesting note is that the Romanovs were relatives of the last Rurikovichs, through the marriage of John IV with Anastasia Romanovna Zakharyina-Yuryeva. According to the fair remark of L.V. Cherepnin, it was the “set of circumstances” that played the main role in the choice of the new Sovereign, and with him the entire dynasty. The candidacy of Mikhail Fedorovich was accepted on February 7 and “with the unanimous will of the Russian land and with the blessing of the church” approved on the 21st of the same month in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin.
An embassy was sent to the Holy Trinity Ipatiev Monastery near Kostroma to Mikhail Fedorovich and his mother nun Martha (in the world Ksenia Ivanovna Shestova), the purpose of which was to present a conciliar oath that proclaimed him the Tsar and Grand Duke of All Rus'. It must be said that the adoption of the throne took place according to the ancient Russian tradition. The embassy came to the elected king and his mother three times, persuading them to accept the Monomakh Cap. For the third time, an icon arrived with the embassy Holy Mother of God. After much hesitation and persuasion, Archbishop Theodoret of Ryazan and Murom blessed the new monarch for the Kingdom.
The named Sovereign arrived in Moscow on May 2, 1613, by which time copies of the approved charter were also prepared. On July 11, 1613, in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, Mikhail Fedorovich was crowned king. It is noteworthy that it was on this day that he turned 17 years old.
Now let's move on to the second topic of my research. What can this record be compared with? The restrictive record of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich was equal in significance to the conditions that were provided by members of the Supreme Privy Council to the Empress of All-Russia Anna Ioannovna in 1730. Those. This document presented those provisions and conditions that the Sovereign had to be guided by. As we remember very well, the conditions of 1730 lasted only 37 days. The Russian Sovereign returned the word “Autocrat” to his title, explaining the whole essence of the Russian monarchy. But if we have no doubt about the existence of conditions, then why does the question of restrictive notation remain open?
Now to the question of the existence of a record at the beginning of the 17th century. Kotoshikhin talks about the conditions under which Russian Sovereigns, starting with Fyodor Ioannovich and ending with Alexei Mikhailovich, ruled on the Russian throne. The main problem of this issue is that nowhere except in the work of Kotoshikhin, Pskov legends of the early 17th century, the work of Philip John Stralenberg and a number of other foreign sources are points of such conditions indicated.
Kotoshikhin himself gives the following description of the duties of the ruling monarch: “to be not cruel and not tearful, without judgment and without guilt, not to execute anyone for anything, and to think about all sorts of affairs with the boyars and with the Duma people of the Sopcha, and without their knowledge, secretly and openly don’t do any business.” Judging by this excerpt, we can understand that Mikhail Fedorovich, who had just become tsar, could not do anything without advice from the boyars and Duma people. Thus, Kotoshikhin seeks to show that Russia has not an absolute, but a limited monarchy. And in this he is very clearly supported by the other mentioned foreign authors. I will quote Starleng’s excerpt, which Cherepnin also took: “1) Religion must be guarded and protected. 2) Forget and forgive everything that happened to his father, and not remember any private enmity, whatever it may be. 3) Do not create new laws and do not repeal old ones. Important matters are decided according to the law and not at your own discretion, but by the right court. 4) Do not accept either war or peace with neighbors alone and at your own discretion, and 5) To show justice and to avoid any processes with private individuals, either cede to your relatives, or give them to state property join".
The most sharp and clear position in relation to the restrictive record was expressed by the domestic historian S.F. Platonov. He says quite clearly that within the framework of establishing a new dynasty on the throne, the process of limiting his power is impossible. And in relation to the mentioned Pskov legends, the beginning. XVII century, he says that this is how the process of formation of a new dynasty was perceived by the people. He accepts that there was a formal limitation of power, because then the tsar ruled for almost 10 years, in accordance with the zemstvo councils, but he points out that this was only “a consequence of unity.” Other scientists have expressed similar views on the limited record. There were also those who believed that a restrictive entry existed (V.P. Alekseev, M.A. Dyakonov, L.M. Sukhotin).
One way or another, there are no such materials among domestic sources, and the above thoughts of historians give reason to doubt the validity of the data expressed by foreign sources. Of course, we must take into account the words of foreign sources, but we must remember that Kotoshikhin wrote his work at the request of the Swedish government. Russia will encounter this state more than once in the 17th-19th centuries. Of course, Grigory Karpovich did not imagine this then, but apparently he guessed it. Another reason that allows me to trust S.F. To Platonov this is what, like ordinary people Grigory Kotoshikhin could be subject to rumors. On the other hand, as an employee of one of the central orders, he worked with historical documents, but still was not a contemporary of the cathedral of 1613. Therefore, in some moments it is necessary to treat Kotoshikhin with caution.
Thus, having analyzed in detail the events of January-February 1613, as well as various versions of the existence of a record limiting the power of the Russian Sovereign, we can come to some conclusions. The main conclusion is that the choice of the dynasty was truly popular, no more and no less. Interesting research was carried out showing that in addition to Russian boyar families there were other contenders for Russian throne, even foreign ones. It is worth paying tribute to the council, which did not follow the path of the “Seven Boyars” and abandoned the idea of calling Catholic princes to the Orthodox throne. I would also like to note the phenomenon of the existence of a recording. Unfortunately, we cannot give an exact answer to this question, but we can agree with worthy domestic historians that this record is unlikely to have existed. However, let's hope that new research and research will give modern scientists something to think about and will lift the veil of secrecy over the existence of a record about which almost nothing is known.
NOTES
The Rurikovichs of the Moscow branch also had another “name” - Kalitichi.
Volodikhin D.M. Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich. – M.: Young Guard, 2011. P. 225.
Volodikhin D.M. Decree. op. pp. 34-35.
The first zemstvo militia was created in 1611 under the leadership of P.P. Lyapunov, ataman I.M. Zarutsky and Prince D.T. Trubetskoy. In June 1611, Lyapunov was killed and the militia virtually disintegrated. Some of its units remained near Moscow until the arrival of the second militia in August 1612.
Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State in the 16th-17th centuries. – M.: Nauka, 1978. P. 180.
The date is given in Julian style.
Tsvetaev D.V. The election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the throne. – M., 1913. P. 13.
Holstein-Gottorp is a German ducal house descended from the Oldenburg dynasty. Members of the house at various times were rulers of the Duchy of Schleswig-Holstein, as well as the All-Russian Empire, starting with Peter III.
Vasa is a Swedish noble family, later a royal dynasty.
Approved letter of election to the Moscow state of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov with a foreword by S.A. Belokurova. M., 1906. P.71.
Prince Dmitry Mamstrukovich Cherkassky. Close boyar, governor. Repeatedly headed the order of the Kazan Palace. He died childless.
Prince Dmitry Timofeevich Trubetskoy. One of the leaders of the first zemstvo militia. Known as the "Savior of the Fatherland".
Prince Ivan Vasilyevich Golitsyn. Boyarin. In 1624 he was the chief judge of the Vladimir order. He died in disgrace in Vyatka (according to other sources in Perm) in 1627.
Coronation collection with the permission of His Imperial Majesty the Sovereign Emperor. / ed. Krivenko V.S. SPb.: Expedition for the procurement of state papers. 1899. T.1. P. 35.
To protect and preserve the faith is the sacred duty of an Orthodox sovereign.
In this regard, we recall Fyodor Nikitich Romanov (Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Filaret), father of Mikhail I Fedorovich.
Cherepnin L.V. Decree. op. P. 205.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL LIST
SOURCES
Acts relating to the history of Zemsky Sobors / Ed. Yu.V. Gautier. M.: Vilde Printing House, 1909. 76 p.
Approved letter of election to the Moscow state of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov with a foreword by S.A. Belokurova. // 2nd edition of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University. Moscow, 1906. 110 p., ill.
Kotoshikhin G.K. About Russia during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. – M., 2000.
LITERATURE
Belyaev I.D. Zemsky Sobors in Rus'. – M., 1902 – 80 p.
Volodikhin D.M. Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich. – M.: Young Guard, 2011. - 255 p.
Kozlyakov V.N. Mikhail Fedorovich. – 2nd ed., rev. – M.: Young Guard, 2010. – 346 p.
Coronation collection with the permission of His Imperial Majesty the Sovereign Emperor. T.1. / ed. Krivenko V.S. SPb.: Expedition for the procurement of state papers. 1899. -
Platonov S.F. Essays on the history of the Time of Troubles in the Moscow State. – M., 1978.
Tsvetaev D.V. The election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the throne. – M., 1913.
Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State in the 16th-17th centuries. – M.: Nauka, 1978. – 417 p.
In celebration of the 400th anniversary of the dynasty Russian Tsars The Romanovs, in the Zaonezhsky village of Tolvuya, an interschool scientific and practical conference was held on April 18, as reported in the April issue of the Kizhi newspaper. Today, as we continue our series of publications dedicated to the anniversary, we begin to introduce readers to the best materials conference participants.
The election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the kingdom, according to the traditional point of view, put an end to the Troubles and gave rise to the Romanov dynasty. People of that time believed (and not without reason) that to have confidence in the future, they needed one sovereign who would be a symbol of power. Therefore, the election of a new king affected everyone.
* * *
The leadership of the Zemsky Militia began preparing for the electoral Zemsky Sobor immediately after the liberation of Moscow. A king had to be elected. Zemsky Sobor correct composition consisted of the Boyar Duma, the Consecrated Cathedral and representatives of the province. Some Russian lands could send only 10-15 people. Moscow was destroyed, and the only building that could accommodate everyone was the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin. The number of people gathered could be from 700 to 1500 people.
At the very beginning of 1613, elected officials from all over the Russian land began to gather in Moscow. This was the first indisputably all-class Zemsky Sobor with the participation of townspeople and even rural inhabitants.
Representatives of the clergy, boyars (in an extremely weakened composition), nobility, merchants, urban townspeople and state peasants sat at the cathedral. But the strongest group was the Cossacks. It as a class especially strengthened during the Time of Troubles, when its composition was significantly replenished with representatives of urban Cossacks. These included those townspeople who, during the Time of Troubles, abandoned their main occupations, formed militias, organized themselves in the manner of Cossack detachments, and never returned to their previous profession.
The Zemsky Sobor began its work on January 6, 1613, on Epiphany. The first three days were devoted to fasting and prayer. On the fourth day, the decision to elect foreign representatives to the Russian throne - the Polish and Swedish princes - was annulled, and the candidacy of the son of Marina Mnishek and False Dmitry II was also rejected. Following this, a list of eight Moscow boyars was announced, from whom the tsar was to be elected.
The leaders of the Zemsky militia, apparently, had no doubt that former members of the Seven Boyars - both those who served foreigners (Prince Fyodor Mstislavsky, Ivan Romanov) and those who refused to cooperate with them (Prince Ivan Vorotynsky, Fyodor Sheremetyev) - would be rejected by members of the Zemsky Sobor, and We were not mistaken in our calculations. They were likely confident that the militia candidates would gain significant advantages in the current situation. In order not to disperse forces, it was decided to organize a rally in support of the main candidate from the militias - Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy.
But none of the candidates proposed by the council received the required majority of votes, and the plan for the tsar’s election, thought out, it seemed, to the smallest detail, failed. Immediately at the cathedral, new contenders for the throne began to appear and be rejected: Mikhail Romanov, Prince Dmitry Cherkassky, Prince Ivan Golitsyn, Prince Ivan Shuisky-Pugovka.
The progress of the cathedral was clearly beyond the control of its organizers. According to established practice, under these conditions, the decision on the issue of tsar's election inevitably had to be taken to the streets of Moscow, where the influence of the Cossack circle was strong. The winners - the Cossack-noble militia - could not agree for a long time: all candidates were rejected. The nobles did not want to see Dmitry Trubetskoy on the throne, because, although he was a prince, he commanded the Cossacks. The Cossacks did not want to have Prince Dmitry Pozharsky as their sovereign: after all, he was the leader of the noble militia. But there was another candidate - a quiet and completely colorless man, sixteen-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov.
* * *
Evidence has been preserved of the decisive influence of the Cossacks on the verdict of the Zemsky Sobor. On April 13, 1613, Swedish spies reported from Moscow that the Cossacks elected M. F. Romanov against the will of the boyars, forcing Trubetskoy and Pozharsky to agree to this candidacy after the siege of their yards. Jacques Margeret in 1613, in a letter to the English king James I, calling on him to intervene, wrote that the Cossacks had chosen “this child” to manipulate him, and that most of Russian society would happily welcome the English army, since they lived in constant fear of Cossacks. The slave of the Novgorod nobleman F. Bobarykin, who fled to Novgorod from Moscow in June 1613, claimed that the tsar was chosen by “Moscow simple people and Cossacks" without general consent. Finally, the so-called “Chronograph” of Obolensky from the second half of the 17th century. mentions that the “glorious ataman of the Don” spoke in favor of the election of Mikhail Romanov at the council.
Of course, the Cossacks were not the only supporters of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov. He was supported by an influential boyar group and a certain part of the nobility. Data from the “Report on Patrimonies and Estates of 1613,” which records land grants made immediately after the election of the Tsar, make it possible to identify the most active members of the Romanov circle. In the first weeks of the reign, Mikhail Fedorovich granted the estates on Vologda, Galich and Beloozer a vast “group of comrades”: Sheremetevs, Golovins, Saltykovs, Prince Lobanov-Rostov, Prince Golitsyn, Prince Troekurov, Prince Pronsky, Prince Khilkov, Prince Egupov-Cherkassky, Prince Lviv. -Saltykov, Prince Mezetsky, Tatishchev, Trakhaniotov, Pleshcheev, Volynsky, Nagikh, princes Repnin, Sumin, Tyumen, Zvenigorod, Shcherbatov, Dmitriev, Selunsky, Shekhovsky, Begichev.
It is noteworthy that among those granted there is no uncle of the tsar - boyar Ivan Nikitich Romanov, who was one of the main assistants to the head of the "seven boyars" Prince Mstislavsky, since in initial period During the work of the cathedral, together with other seven-strong boyars, he was on a pilgrimage.
So, by February 25, elections were held and Mikhail Romanov was proclaimed Tsar of Russia. On frontal place The Cossack army swore allegiance to the new king. The legality of the vote itself was never questioned. It is interesting that V.O. Klyuchevsky later remarked very accurately about the elections: “They wanted to choose not the most capable, but the most convenient.”
Letters were sent to all parts of the country announcing the election of Mikhail Romanov as Tsar.
* * *
A special embassy was sent to Mikhail Romanov: ambassadors from the Zemsky Sobor, headed by Archbishop Theodoret of Ryazan, cellarer of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Abraham Palitsyn and boyar Fyodor Ivanovich Sheremetev.
Actually, Romanov still had to be found, since the Council did not have exact information about his place of stay, so the embassy was ordered to go to “Yaroslavl or where he, the sovereign, will be.”
Mikhail and his mother were first in the family estate near Kostroma, where, according to legend, his miraculous rescue from the Poles took place through the efforts of Ivan Susanin, and then in the Ipatiev Monastery.
The embassy reached Kostroma by the evening of March 13. The next day, at the head of the religious procession, it went to ask Michael to accept the kingdom. In reality, it was not him who had to ask, but his mother, nun Martha, who then for several years (before Filaret returned from Poland) made decisions for her son. A report from the embassy to Moscow has been preserved about how they convinced Michael to accept the kingdom and with what doubts he made this decision.
On March 14, 1613, Russia had a legally elected tsar. Subsequent events showed that the choice was not the worst. And it’s even good that long years Michael was only a nominal ruler, and real power was in the hands of people with extensive life experience - first his mother, and then his father, Patriarch Philaret, who, upon his return from captivity, was officially proclaimed co-ruler of the king.
The gradual overcoming of the consequences of the Time of Troubles, the marriage of Mikhail and the birth of the heir to the throne created the belief in the country that the new dynasty was here to stay. And so it happened: the Romanov dynasty reigned for more than 300 years.
* * *
The elections of the sovereign took place, and this was the beginning of the calming of the country. Mikhail Romanov had strong rivals, events unfolded unpredictably, and his chances of becoming king were slim. However, the very election of Michael to the kingdom can hardly be considered an accident. His candidacy was announced by the boyars, then the Cossacks came out for him, the clergy also supported him - thus, we can talk about the popular election of Mikhail Romanov to the Russian throne.
What did the rest of the Zemsky Sobor participants receive?
The nobility took care of the safety of the estates received during the Time of Troubles, and the final approval of the hereditary nature of their possessions.
The Cossacks agreed to the following conditions: the top of the Don Cossacks received the nobility and the right to autonomous control of their circle and an elected ataman (he had to exercise military and civil power in this territory), and the police received money. Amnesty was given to those who swore allegiance to the king. Part Don Cossacks who took part in the liberation movement, after the elections, Mikhail went home, others remained in Moscow. They formed the basis of the government's armed forces. In addition to the Don Cossacks, there were detachments of service Cossacks, who during the Time of Troubles were very imbued with the independent spirit of the Donetsk people. The Cossacks had their own military organization and they didn't consider themselves integral part regular army. Separate groups of them, scattered throughout the country, did not want to obey the orders of even their own senior officers. When supplies were depleted, they robbed the population, which was very similar to robbery.
But now Romanov himself had to agree to one more condition: to share power with the Zemsky Sobor. Now the Zemsky Sobor became a permanent institution, meeting almost without interruption throughout the reign of Mikhail Romanov. All important decisions were developed with the participation of the Council and signed as follows: “by royal decree and by zemstvo verdict.” The cathedral became supreme body legislative power, without which the king could not pass a single law or make changes to legislation.
The council shared executive power with the tsar. The reason for this is that after the Time of Troubles it was impossible to immediately restore order and law without relying on the structures that were developed during the Time of Troubles.
Thus, the power of the new government was forced to be based not on force, but on popular support, primarily to restore order in the country.
* * *
The Boyar Duma remained part of the Zemsky Sobor, the highest body of the government and central administration, but at the same time some changes occurred in the composition of the Boyar Duma:
- the boyar party was discredited, its representatives were removed from the Boyar Duma;
- Minin, Pozharsky, Cherkassky took the first roles in the Boyar Duma, and most positions were occupied by okolnichi and duma nobles.
The first composition of the new Duma included: 2 boyars, 5 okolnichy, 7 Duma nobles, 4 Duma clerks, and the most influential person in it was the Duma nobleman Minin. The range of issues considered by the Duma as a matter of priority was determined: issues of eliminating the remnants of the uncontrolled Cossacks; destruction of Zarutsky and Mnishek; restoration of the national economy.
To resolve the first two issues, it was necessary to establish contact with the Cossacks. At this time, the Cossacks formed the basis of the government armed forces, in contrast to the nobility, whose position was undermined during the Time of Troubles. The Cossacks had their own military organization, they were not considered an integral part of the regular army, they were not subordinate to anyone, and individual groups that were scattered throughout the country knew only one thing - robbery.
As a result, the Zemsky Sobor brought charges of treason against them. Local city authorities played a special role in eliminating the uncontrolled Cossacks. They obeyed the verdict of the Zemsky Sobor, and the bandits were caught and executed. I. Zarutsky, M. Mnishek and her three-year-old son “little raven Ivashka” were executed.
This is how the armed opposition to the new regime was eliminated.
Upon ascending the throne, the new king did not enter into any agreement with his subjects. This meant that the tsarist power again became unlimited, autocratic, as under the Rurikovichs. But after the storms of the Time of Troubles, the country needed a strong individual power for calm to come.
Thus began three hundred years of service of the Romanov dynasty for the benefit of Russia.
When preparing the material, the following literature was used: “The Romanovs. 300 years of service to Russia,” M.: Bely Gorod publishing house, comp. Astakhov A.Yu.; I. Tyumentsev “Misha is young in mind, he hasn’t realized it…”, Rodina Magazine, No. 11, 2006; Klyuchevsky V.O. "Works", M., 1990
Maxim KASHEVAROV, 7th grade. Tolvui Secondary School
Zemsky Sobor 1613. Election to the Russian throne of a tsar from the Romanov dynasty
In January 1613, the Zemsky Sobor met in Moscow, at which the issue of electing a new tsar was decided. We can say that he was, in a way, the Constituent Assembly of that era. After 30 long debates, the choice fell on Mikhail Romanov. The most important criterion was the fact that he was the great-nephew of Ivan the Terrible’s first wife, Anastasia Romanovna. Mikhail’s young age also played a role. At the time of his election he was only 16 years old. Some boyars believed that, using his young age, they would rule behind his back. In July 1613, Mikhail Romanov was crowned king. The young monarch inherited an extremely ruined kingdom. Bandit gangs and Polish detachments were still rampant in many areas of the country. In the fall of 1614, Sweden launched military operations against Russia. However, they soon ended, and in 1617 peace was signed between Russia and Sweden. However, according to the articles of the Stolbovsky Peace, the Baltic coast remained with Sweden. A year later, Moscow diplomats signed the Deulin Truce with Poland. The Poles retained Smolensk and other lands, but returned noble Russian captives from captivity, including the Tsar’s father, Metropolitan Filaret. Important feature initial stage Mikhail's reign was the continuous work of the Zemsky Sobor, which from 1613 to 1622, for 10 years, made decisions and determined the most important directions of state policy. The subject of special concern of the Moscow government was the improvement of general well-being. For this purpose, measures were taken to provide service people with local lands and peasants. During this period, further enslavement of the peasantry took place. There was a process of development and streamlining of tax and financial systems. During the time of Mikhail Romanov, manufacturing production received an impetus. Mikhail Fedorovich himself patronized the construction of gunpowder mills, herbal production and saltpeter breweries. He regularly sent ore miners, metallurgists, gunsmiths, watchmakers, jewelers and other specialists from abroad. Under him, three large ironworks at that time were built near Tula. With the help of foreigners, weapons and iron foundries were built in the Urals. During the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, the territory of the country increased significantly due to the peaceful development of sparsely populated areas of the North, Eastern Siberia and Far East.
The time of Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676) 31 In July 1645, Tsar Mikhail died. Contemporaries testify that in connection with this, a Zemsky Sobor was convened, which elected his son Alexei Mikhailovich to the throne and swore allegiance to him. This period is characterized by the influence of constantly operating factors that decisively determined the nature and direction of Russian history. - The country continued to overcome the consequences of the troubled times. - Heavy military confrontation with Poland, Sweden and Turkey, which required significant resources and forces of the nation. - Development and strengthening of economic and cultural contacts with the West. Strengthening the influence of European civilization. - The continued territorial expansion of the state and the development of vast undeveloped regions of Siberia, the Far East and the South of Russia. The first years of Alexei Mikhailovich's reign became a time of serious social conflicts and upheavals. During this period, a tax reform was carried out. The procedure for collecting payments and carrying out duties has been changed. Instead of the previous land-based principle of collecting taxes, they began to be collected according to the available number of peasants on estates and estates, which relieved the nobles of the need to pay for empty plots and increased the taxation of large land holdings. In 1646 - 1648 A household inventory of peasants and peasants was carried out. Increased tax oppression by the state led to social conflict and intensified class struggle. The reasons for this should also be sought in the increasing role of the administrative bureaucracy. IN mid-17th century V. the country was shaken by the “salt riot”, urban uprisings, the “copper riot” and, finally, a powerful uprising under the leadership of S.T. Razin. It is not for nothing that contemporaries called the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich the “rebellious century.” An important moment in the legal development of Russian society in the period under review was the development and adoption at the Zemsky Sobor of 1649 of the most important legal document of that era - the Council Code. The significance of the new legal document was that all classes of society were subordinated to the interests of the state. With the help of the Code, the state “seated”, as V.O. Klyuchevsky, - social classes in tightly locked class cells. The Code found legal expression for the state’s desire to gather all the available forces of the nation and subordinate them to itself. The Code enslaved a significant layer of the so-called “owning peasants.” The fortress also housed the service class, which was obliged to serve the state. During this period, Russia waged difficult wars with Poland and Sweden. The raids of the Crimean khans posed a great danger to her. During the period under review, Russia maintained active trade and economic relations with the states of Northern Europe. Important role The city of Arkhangelsk then played a role in this trade.
The country needed a legitimate monarch, recognized by all layers of society. For this purpose, the leaders of the Second Militia already at the end of 1612 sent letters to the cities demanding that representatives of the estates be sent to the Zemsky Sobor.
At the beginning of 1613, the Zemsky Sobor began its work. First of all, it was decided not to discuss foreigners’ candidacies for the Russian throne and not to remember the “little clan” Ivan. But even without this, there remained enough applicants for the royal throne from among the representatives of the Moscow nobility. After fierce disputes and intrigues, the participants of the Council settled on the candidate tour of the 16-year-old Mikhail Romanov- son Fedora(in monasticism - Philareta) Romano-va. On February 21, 1613, he was officially declared the new Russian Tsar. Material from the site
Reasons for the election of Mikhail Romanov
At first glance, the decision of the Zemsky Council seems incomprehensible. Leading the country out of chaos and devastation and solving the most complex foreign policy issues was entrusted to a young man who had no experience in government affairs. However, this strange choice had its own logic. Russia started new period its history from scratch. Unlike all other candidates for the throne, Mikhail Romanov, due to his youth, was not involved in treason and crimes of the Time of Troubles. His father was at that time a prisoner of the Poles and could not rule on behalf of his son. Particular enthusiasm in choosing young Romanov showed the Cossacks, who hated the arrogant Moscow nobility.
On this page there is material on the following topics:
The opinions of pre-revolutionary and Soviet historians rarely coincide, but there is no disagreement regarding the Zemsky Sobor of 1613: representatives of various classes and Russian lands in full agreement elected Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom. Alas, this blissful picture is far from reality.
In October 1612, the people's militia liberated Moscow from the Poles. The time has come to restore the country devastated by the turmoil, to recreate state institutions. A legitimate, legitimate sovereign, elected by the Zemsky Sobor, was supposed to ascend to the empty throne of the Rurikovichs. On January 16, 1613, a difficult debate began in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin that determined the fate of Russia.
There were many contenders for the Russian throne. The two most unpopular candidates - the Polish prince Vladislav and the son of False Dmitry II - were “weeded out” immediately. The Swedish prince Karl Philip had more supporters, among them the leader of the zemstvo army, Prince Pozharsky. Why did the patriot of the Russian land choose a foreign prince? Perhaps the antipathy of the “artistic” Pozharsky towards domestic contenders - high-born boyars, who during the Time of Troubles more than once betrayed those to whom they swore allegiance, was reflected. He feared that the “boyar tsar” would sow the seeds of new unrest in Russia, as happened during the short reign of Vasily Shuisky. Therefore, Prince Dmitry stood for the calling of “Varangian”.
But there is another version. In the fall of 1612, militia captured a Swedish spy. Until January 1613, he languished in captivity, but shortly before the start of the Zemsky Sobor, Pozharsky freed the spy and sent him to Novgorod, occupied by the Swedes, with a letter to the commander Jacob Delagardie. In it, Pozharsky reports that both he himself and the majority of noble boyars want to see Karl Philip on the Russian throne. But, as subsequent events showed, Pozharsky misinformed the Swede. One of the first decisions of the Zemsky Sobor was that a foreigner should not be on the Russian throne; the sovereign should be elected “from Moscow families, God willing.” Was Pozharsky really so naive that he did not know the mood of the majority? Of course not. Prince Dmitry deliberately fooled Delagardie with “universal support” for the candidacy of Karl Philip in order to prevent Swedish interference in the election of the Tsar. The Russians had difficulty repelling the Polish onslaught; a campaign against Moscow by the Swedish army could also prove fatal. Pozharsky’s “cover operation” was successful: the Swedes did not budge. That is why on February 20, Prince Dmitry, happily forgetting about the Swedish prince, suggested that the Zemsky Sobor elect a tsar from the Romanov family, and then put his signature on the conciliar document electing Mikhail Fedorovich. During the coronation of the new sovereign, Mikhail showed Pozharsky a high honor: the prince presented him with one of the symbols of power - the royal power. Modern political strategists can only envy such a competent PR move: the savior of the Fatherland hands over the power to the new tsar. Beautiful. Looking ahead, we note that until his death (1642) Pozharsky faithfully served Mikhail Fedorovich, taking advantage of his constant favor. It is unlikely that the tsar would have favored someone who wanted to see not him, but some Swedish prince on the Rurik throne.
But let’s go back to January 1613. Only Russian contenders—high-born princes—participate in the struggle for the royal throne. But the leader of the notorious “Seven Boyars” Fyodor Mstislavsky compromised himself by collaborating with the Poles, Ivan Vorotynsky renounced his claim to the throne, Vasily Golitsyn was in Polish captivity, and the militia leaders Dmitry Trubetskoy and Dmitry Pozharsky were not distinguished by nobility. But the new king must unite the country divided by the Troubles. How to give preference to one clan so that a new round of boyar feuds does not begin?
This is where the surname of the Romanovs, relatives of the extinguished Rurik dynasty, arose: Mikhail Romanov was the nephew of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich. Mikhail's father, Patriarch Filaret, was respected among the clergy and Cossacks. Boyar Fyodor Sheremetyev actively campaigned in favor of the candidacy of Mikhail Fedorovich. He assured the obstinate boyars that Mikhail “is young and will be liked by us.” In other words, he will become their puppet.
But the boyars did not allow themselves to be persuaded: in the preliminary voting, Mikhail Romanov’s candidacy did not receive the required number of votes. Moreover, the Council demanded that the young candidate come to Moscow. The Romanov party could not allow this: an inexperienced, timid, unskilled young man in intrigue would make an unfavorable impression on the Council delegates. Sheremetyev and his supporters had to show miracles of eloquence, proving how dangerous the path from the Kostroma village of Domnino, where Mikhail was, to Moscow was. Was it not then that the legend about the feat of Ivan Susanin, who saved the life of the future tsar, arose? After heated debates, the Romanovites managed to convince the Council to cancel the decision on Mikhail’s arrival.
On February 7, 1613, the rather tired delegates announced a two-week break: “for a large strengthening, they postponed February from the 7th of February to the 21st.” Messengers were sent to the cities “to inquire into all sorts of people’s thoughts.” The voice of the people, of course, is the voice of God, but isn’t two weeks enough for monitoring? public opinion big country? For example, it is not easy for a messenger to get to Siberia in two months. Most likely, the boyars were counting on the departure of Mikhail Romanov’s most active supporters – the Cossacks – from Moscow. The villagers, they say, will get bored of sitting idle in the city, and they will disperse. The Cossacks actually dispersed, so much so that the boyars didn’t think it was enough...
A curious story about this is contained in “The Tale of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613.” It turns out that on February 21, the boyars decided to choose a tsar by casting lots, but the reliance on “maybe”, in which any forgery is possible, seriously angered the Cossacks. Cossack speakers tore to pieces the boyars’ “tricks” and solemnly proclaimed: “According to God’s will, in the reigning city of Moscow and all of Russia, let there be a tsar, sovereign and Grand Duke Mikhailo Fedorovich! This cry was immediately picked up by Romanov supporters, not only in the Cathedral, but also among the large crowd of people in the square. It was the Cossacks who cut the “Gordian knot”, achieving the election of Mikhail. The unknown author of the “Tale” (surely an eyewitness to what was happening) does not spare any color when describing the reaction of the boyars: “The boyars at that time were possessed by fear and trembling, shaking, and their faces were changing with blood, and not a single one could utter anything.” Only Mikhail’s uncle, Ivan Romanov, nicknamed Kasha, who for some reason did not want to see his nephew on the throne, tried to object: “Mikhailo Fedorovich is still young and not fully sane.” To which the Cossack wits objected: “But you, Ivan Nikitich, are old, full of reason... you will be a strong blow to him.” Uncle's assessment of his mental abilities Mikhail did not forget and subsequently removed Ivan Kasha from all government affairs.
The Cossack demarche came as a complete surprise to Dmitry Trubetskoy: “His face turned black, and he fell into illness, and lay for many days, without leaving his yard from the steep hill that the Cossacks depleted the treasury and their knowledge was flattering in words and deceit.” The prince can be understood: it was he, the leader of the Cossack militia, who counted on the support of his comrades, generously gave them “treasury” gifts - and suddenly they found themselves on Mikhail’s side. Perhaps the Romanov party paid more?
Be that as it may, on February 21 (March 3), 1613, the Zemsky Sobor made a historic decision: to elect Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the kingdom. The first country to recognize the new sovereign was England: in the same year, 1613, the embassy of John Metrick arrived in Moscow. Thus began the history of the second and last royal dynasty of Russia.