What happened in 1613 in Rus'. Time of Troubles (Time of Troubles). Main events. Feature and contradiction
Letters were sent to cities with an invitation to send authorities and elected officials to Moscow for a great cause; they wrote that Moscow had been cleared of Polish and Lithuanian people, the churches of God had returned to their former glory and God’s name was still glorified in them; but without a sovereign the Moscow state cannot stand, there is no one to take care of it and provide for the people of God, without a sovereign the Moscow state will be ruined by everyone: without a sovereign the state cannot be built in any way and is divided into many parts by thieves’ factories and thefts multiply a lot, and therefore the boyars and governors invited, so that all the spiritual authorities would come to them in Moscow, and from the nobles, boyar children, guests, merchants, townspeople and district people, choosing the best, strong and reasonable people, according to how suitable a person is for the zemstvo council and state election, all the cities would be sent to Moscow, and so that these authorities and elected the best people They agreed firmly in their cities and took full agreements from all kinds of people about the election of the state. When quite a lot of authorities and elected representatives had gathered, a three-day fast was appointed, after which the councils began. First of all, they began to talk about whether to choose from foreign royal houses or their natural Russian, and decided “not to elect the Lithuanian and Swedish king and their children and other German faiths and any foreign-language states not of the Christian faith of the Greek law to the Vladimir and Moscow states, and Marinka and her son are not wanted for the state, because the Polish and German kings saw themselves as untruths and crimes on the cross and a violation of peace: the Lithuanian king ruined the Moscow state, and the Swedish king took Veliky Novgorod by deception.” They began to choose their own: then intrigues, unrest and unrest began; everyone wanted to do according to their own thoughts, everyone wanted their own, some even wanted the throne themselves, they bribed and sent; sides formed, but none of them gained the upper hand. Once, the chronograph says, some nobleman from Galich brought a written opinion to the council, which said that Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov was the closest in relationship to the previous tsars, and he should be elected tsar. The voices of dissatisfied people were heard: “Who brought such a letter, who, where from?” At that time, the Don Ataman comes out and also submits a written opinion: “What did you submit, Ataman?” - Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky asked him. “About the natural Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich,” answered the ataman. The same opinion submitted by the nobleman and the Don ataman decided the matter: Mikhail Fedorovich was proclaimed tsar. But not all the elected officials were in Moscow yet; there were no noble boyars; Prince Mstislavsky and his comrades immediately after their liberation left Moscow: it was awkward for them to remain in it near the liberating commanders; Now they sent to call them to Moscow for a common cause, they also sent reliable people to cities and districts to find out the people’s thoughts about the new chosen one, and the final decision was postponed for two weeks, from February 8 to February 21, 1613.
COMPOSITION OF THE CATHEDRAL
Elected people gathered in Moscow in January 1613. From Moscow they asked the cities to send “the best, strongest and most reasonable” people for the royal election. The cities, by the way, had to think not only about electing a king, but also about how to “build” the state and how to conduct business before the election, and about this to give the elected “agreements”, i.e. instructions that they had to guided by. For a more complete coverage and understanding of the council of 1613, one should turn to an analysis of its composition, which can only be determined by the signatures on the electoral charter of Mikhail Fedorovich, written in the summer of 1613. On it we see only 277 signatures, but obviously there were participants in the council more, since not all conciliar people signed the conciliar charter. Proof of this is, for example, the following: 4 people signed the charter for Nizhny Novgorod (archpriest Savva, 1 townsman, 2 archers), and it is reliably known that there were 19 Nizhny Novgorod elected people (3 priests, 13 townspeople, a deacon and 2 archers). If each city were content with ten elected people, as the book determined their number. Dm. Mich. Pozharsky, then up to 500 elected people would have gathered in Moscow, since representatives of 50 cities (northern, eastern and southern) participated in the cathedral; and together with the Moscow people and clergy, the number of participants in the cathedral would have reached 700 people. The cathedral was really crowded. He often gathered in the Assumption Cathedral, perhaps precisely because none of the other Moscow buildings could accommodate him. Now the question is what classes of society were represented at the council and whether the council was complete in its class composition. Of the 277 signatures mentioned, 57 belong to the clergy (partly “elected” from the cities), 136 - to the highest service ranks (boyars - 17), 84 - to the city electors. It has already been said above that these digital data cannot be trusted. According to them, there were few provincial elected officials at the cathedral, but in fact these elected officials undoubtedly made up the majority, and although it is impossible to determine with accuracy either their number, or how many of them were tax workers and how many were service people, it can nevertheless be said that the service There were, it seems, more than the townspeople, but there was also a very large percentage of the townspeople, which rarely happened at councils. And, in addition, there are traces of the participation of “district” people (12 signatures). These were, firstly, peasants not from proprietary lands, but from black sovereign lands, representatives of free northern peasant communities, and secondly, small service people from the southern districts. Thus, representation at the council of 1613 was extremely complete.
We don’t know anything exact about what happened at this council, because in the acts and literary works of that time only fragments of legends, hints and legends remain, so the historian here is, as it were, among the incoherent ruins of an ancient building, the appearance of which he has to restore has no strength. Official documents say nothing about the proceedings of the meetings. True, the electoral charter has been preserved, but it can help us little, since it was not written independently and, moreover, does not contain information about the very process of the election. As for unofficial documents, they are either legends or meager, dark and rhetorical stories from which nothing definite can be extracted.
THE ROMANOVS UNDER BORIS GODUNOV
This family was the closest to the previous dynasty; they were cousins of the late Tsar Feodor. The Romanovs were not disposed towards Boris. Boris could suspect the Romanovs when he had to look for secret enemies. According to the news of the chronicles, Boris found fault with the Romanovs about the denunciation of one of their slaves, as if they wanted to use the roots to destroy the king and gain the kingdom by “witchcraft” (witchcraft). Four Romanov brothers - Alexander, Vasily, Ivan and Mikhail - were sent to remote places in difficult imprisonment, and the fifth, Fedor, who, it seems, was smarter than all of them, was forcibly tonsured under the name of Philaret in the monastery of Anthony of Siy. Then their relatives and friends were exiled - Cherkassky, Sitsky, Repnins, Karpovs, Shestunovs, Pushkins and others.
ROMANOVS
Thus, the conciliar election of Mikhail was prepared and supported at the cathedral and among the people by a number of auxiliary means: pre-election campaigning with the participation of numerous relatives of the Romanovs, pressure from the Cossack force, secret inquiry among the people, the cry of the capital’s crowd on Red Square. But all these selective methods were successful because they found support in society’s attitude towards the surname. Mikhail was carried away not by personal or propaganda, but by family popularity. He belonged to a boyar family, perhaps the most beloved one in Moscow society at that time. The Romanovs are a recently separated branch of the ancient boyar family of the Koshkins. It’s been a long time since I brought it. book Ivan Danilovich Kalita, left for Moscow from the “Prussian lands”, as the genealogy says, a noble man, who in Moscow was nicknamed Andrei Ivanovich Kobyla. He became a prominent boyar at the Moscow court. From his fifth son, Fyodor Koshka, came the “Cat Family,” as it is called in our chronicles. The Koshkins shone at the Moscow court in the 14th and 15th centuries. This was the only untitled boyar family that did not drown in the stream of new titled servants who poured into the Moscow court from the middle of the 15th century. Among the princes Shuisky, Vorotynsky, Mstislavsky, the Koshkins knew how to stay in the first rank of the boyars. At the beginning of the 16th century. A prominent place at the court was occupied by the boyar Roman Yuryevich Zakharyin, who descended from Koshkin’s grandson Zakhary. He became the founder of a new branch of this family - the Romanovs. Roman's son Nikita, the brother of Tsarina Anastasia, is the only Moscow boyar of the 16th century who left a good memory among the people: his name was remembered by folk epics, portraying him in their songs about Grozny as a complacent mediator between the people and the angry tsar. Of Nikita’s six sons, the eldest, Fyodor, was especially outstanding. He was a very kind and affectionate boyar, a dandy and a very inquisitive person. The Englishman Horsey, who then lived in Moscow, says in his notes that this boyar certainly wanted to learn Latin, and at his request, Horsey compiled a Latin grammar for him, writing Latin words in it in Russian letters. The popularity of the Romanovs, acquired by their personal qualities, undoubtedly increased from the persecution to which the Nikitichs were subjected under the suspicious Godunov; A. Palitsyn even puts this persecution among those sins for which God punished the Russian land with the Troubles. Enmity with Tsar Vasily and connections with Tushin brought the Romanovs the patronage of the second False Dmitry and popularity in the Cossack camps. Thus, the ambiguous behavior of the family name in the troubled years prepared for Mikhail bilateral support, both in the zemstvo and in the Cossacks. But what helped Mikhail the most in the cathedral elections was the family connection of the Romanovs with the former dynasty. During the Time of Troubles, the Russian people unsuccessfully elected new tsars so many times, and now only that election seemed to them secure, which fell on their face, although somehow connected with the former royal house. Tsar Mikhail was seen not as a council elect, but as the nephew of Tsar Feodor, a natural, hereditary tsar. A modern chronograph directly says that Michael was asked to take over the kingdom “of his kindred for the sake of the union of royal sparks.” It is not for nothing that Abraham Palitsyn calls Mikhail “chosen by God before his birth,” and clerk I. Timofeev in the unbroken chain of hereditary kings placed Mikhail right after Fyodor Ivanovich, ignoring Godunov, Shuisky, and all the impostors. And Tsar Mikhail himself in his letters usually called Grozny his grandfather. It is difficult to say how much the rumor then circulating that Tsar Fyodor, dying, orally bequeathed the throne to his cousin Fyodor, Mikhail’s father, helped the election of Mikhail. But the boyars who led the elections should have been swayed in favor of Mikhail by another convenience, to which they could not be indifferent. There is news that F.I. Sheremetev wrote to Poland as a book. Golitsyn: “Misha de Romanov is young, his mind has not yet reached him and he will be familiar to us.” Sheremetev, of course, knew that the throne would not deprive Mikhail of the ability to mature and his youth would not be permanent. But they promised to show other qualities. That the nephew will be a second uncle, resembling him in mental and physical frailty, he will emerge as a kind, meek king, under whom the trials experienced by the boyars during the reign of the Terrible and Boris will not be repeated. They wanted to choose not the most capable, but the most convenient. Thus appeared the founder of a new dynasty, putting an end to the Troubles.
Time of Troubles - Chronology of events
The chronology of events helps to better understand how events unfolded during a historical period. The chronology of troubled times presented in the article will help students better write an essay or prepare for a report, and teachers can choose key events that are worth talking about in class.
The Time of Troubles is a designation for the period in Russian history from 1598 to 1613. This period was marked by natural disasters, Polish-Swedish intervention, and a severe political, economic, government and social crisis.
Chronology of events of the Time of Troubles
The threshold of troubled times
1565-1572 - oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible. The beginning of a systemic political and economic crisis in Russia.
1569 - Union of Lublin between the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Formation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
1581 - murder of Ivan Ivanovich's eldest son in a fit of rage by Ivan the Terrible.
1584, March 18 - death of Ivan the Terrible while playing chess, accession to the throne of Fyodor Ivanovich.
1596. October - Schism in the church. The cathedral in Brest, which split into two cathedrals: Uniate and Orthodox. The Kiev Metropolis was divided in two - those faithful to Orthodoxy and the Uniates.
December 15, 1596 - Royal universal to the Orthodox with support for the decisions of the Uniate Council, with a ban on obeying the clergy loyal to Orthodoxy, an order to accept the union (in violation of the law on freedom of religion in Poland). The beginning of open persecution of Orthodoxy in Lithuania and Poland.
The beginning of troubled times
1598 - the death of Fyodor Ivanovich, the end of the Rurik dynasty, the election of boyar Boris Fedorovich Godunov, the brother-in-law of the late tsar, as king at the Zemsky Sobor.
January 01, 1598. Death of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich, end of the Rurik dynasty. The rumor that Tsarevich Dimitri is alive is spreading in Moscow for the first time
February 22, 1598. Boris Godunov’s agreement to accept the royal crown after much persuasion and the threat of Patriarch Job to excommunicate from the Church for disobedience to the decision of the Zemsky Sobor.
1600 Bishop Ignatius the Greek becomes the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Moscow.
1601 Great famine in Rus'.
Two contradictory rumors are spreading: the first is that Tsarevich Dimitri was killed on the orders of Godunov, the second is about his “miraculous salvation.” Both rumors were taken seriously, despite the contradiction, they spread and provided the anti-Godunov forces with support among the “masses.”
Impostor
1602 Escape to Lithuania by Hierodeacon of the Chudov Monastery Grigory Otrepiev. the appearance in Lithuania of the first impostor, posing as the miraculously escaped Tsarevich Dmitry.
1603 - Ignatius the Greek becomes Archbishop of Ryazan.
1604 - False Demetrius I, in a letter to Pope Clement VIII, promises to spread the Catholic faith in Russia.
April 13, 1605 - Death of Tsar Boris Feodorovich Godunov. The oath of Muscovites to Tsarina Maria Grigorievna, Tsar Feodor Borisovich and Princess Ksenia Borisovna.
June 03, 1605 - Public murder on the fiftieth day of the reign of sixteen-year-old Tsar Feodor Borisovich Godunov by princes Vasily Vas. Golitsyn and Vasily Mosalsky, Mikhail Molchanov, Sherefedinov and three archers.
June 20, 1605 - False Dmitry I in Moscow; A few days later he appoints Ignatius the Greek as patriarch.
Tushino camp
May 17, 1606 - Conspiracy led by Prince. Vasily Shuisky, uprising in Moscow against False Dmitry I, deposition and death of False Dmitry I.
1606-1610 - reign of the “boyar tsar” Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky.
June 03, 1606 - Transfer of relics and canonization of St. Righteous Tsarevich Dimitry of Uglich.
1606-1607 - uprising under the leadership of the “voivode of Tsar Dmitry” Ivan Bolotnikov.
February 14, 1607 - Arrival in Moscow by royal command and at the request of Patriarch Hermogenes, the “former” Patriarch Job.
February 16, 1607 - “Letter of Permission” - a conciliar ruling on the innocence of Boris Godunov in the death of Tsarevich Dimitri of Uglich, on the legal rights of the Godunov dynasty and on the guilt of the Moscow people in the murder of Tsar Feodor and Tsarina Maria Godunov.
February 20, 1607 - Reading of the petition of the people and the “letter of permission” in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin in the presence of Sts. Patriarchs Job and Hermogenes.
1608 - False Dmitry II's campaign against Moscow: the impostor besieged the capital for 21 months.
The beginning of the Russian-Polish war, the Seven Boyars
1609 - agreement between Vasily Shuisky and Sweden on military assistance, open intervention of the Polish king Sigismund III in Russian affairs, siege of Smolensk.
1610 - murder of False Dmitry II, mysterious death of the talented commander Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky, defeat by Polish-Lithuanian troops near Klushino, overthrow of Vasily Shuisky from the throne and his tonsure as a monk.
1610, August - the entry of Hetman Zholkiewski's troops into Moscow, the calling of Prince Vladislav to the Russian throne.
Militia
1611 - creation of the First Militia by the Ryazan nobleman Prokopiy Lyapunov, an unsuccessful attempt to liberate Moscow, the capture of Novgorod by the Swedes and Smolensk by the Poles.
1611, autumn - creation of the Second Militia led by Nizhny Novgorod Posad elder Kuzma Minin and Prince Dmitry Pozharsky.
1612, spring - The second militia moved to Yaroslavl, the creation of the “Council of All Land”.
1612, summer - connection of the Second and the remnants of the First militia near Moscow.
1612, August - reflection of Hetman Khodkiewicz’s attempt to break through to the Polish-Lithuanian garrison besieged in the Kremlin.
1612, end of October - liberation of Moscow from the invaders.
Election of the Tsar
1613 – The Zemsky Sobor elects Mikhail Romanov as Tsar (February 21). Mikhail's arrival from Kostroma to Moscow (May 2) and his royal crowning (May 11).
The defeat of Zarutsky and Marina Mnishek near Voronezh.
400 years ago a great historical event took place in Rus', which determined the fate of the Fatherland and our people for centuries. By the will of God and the patriotic zeal of the Orthodox people, a long ruinous period, which went down in history as the Time of Troubles, ended. This event was the agreement of 16-year-old Mikhail Romanov with the decision of the Zemsky Sobor, which elected him Tsar of All Rus' in March 1613. It became the boundary between 15 years of devastation “in deeds and minds” and the revival of Russia with its gradual transformation into a great European and world power. A new reigning dynasty was born, which was destined to build and strengthen the Russian state for more than 300 years, to expand its borders from the Carpathians to the Pacific Ocean, from the icy Arctic to the Pamirs.
The Time of Troubles began in 1598 with the death of Ivan the Terrible's childless son Fyodor Ioannovich. The Rurik dynasty ended. The usual and God-sanctified order of succession to the throne was disrupted. The boyars of that time had to resort to a hitherto unheard of procedure - the election of a new king. There was no legal provision for elections, the result was determined by the behind-the-scenes intrigues of the clans, using what is now called “administrative resources.” So Boris Godunov ascended the throne, who, under the late Fyodor Ioannovich, essentially managed all the affairs of the state. His election was not recognized by popular rumor as “legitimate”; Tsar Boris was accused of being the murderer of the young son of Ivan the Terrible - the legal heir to the throne of Tsarevich Dmitry, who lived with his disgraced mother in Uglich.
The terrible cold snap in Rus' that occurred in 1601-1603, when there were frosts even in the summer and the grain was not ripe to become seeds, caused an unprecedented famine. This was already regarded as the Lord's punishment. Popular unrest began and grew into an uprising. In such a situation, the adventurer False Dmitry I appeared, who, with the help of the Poles and the angry mob, captured Moscow and was crowned Russian Tsar. In this “evil time” everything was built on lies, corruption, and betrayal. Driven to white heat, the Muscovites rebelled in 1606, overthrew and killed False Dmitry I. The boyars elected another tsar from among them - Vasily Shuisky, but the people did not have much faith in him either. A new contender for the continuation of the legitimate Rurik dynasty, False Dmitry II, the Tushinsky thief, has appeared again, at the suggestion of Poland. Two governments were created in Russia: in Moscow - the rule of Tsar Vasily Shuisky, and in the village of Tushino near Moscow, the government of False Dmitry II was established, in which the Poles ruled. The bedlam was universal. Each city and each province decided for itself “where to go, in which camp to fight.” Due to disagreements in the Tushino camp, False Dmitry II went to Kaluga, where he was killed during a hunt.
In the same 1610, Vasily Shuisky was overthrown, forcibly tonsured as a monk, and then taken to Poland, where he died ingloriously in captivity two years later. Russian state completely degraded. In Moscow, the reign of the Seven Boyars came under Polish protectorate. It seemed that everything was over. All holders of secular power have lost all trust in the eyes of the people. However, the heart of the Russian people in the form of the Russian Orthodox Church continued to beat, which instilled hope for the salvation of the Fatherland. As in its time Venerable Sergius Radonezh inspired the Moscow prince Dmitry to perform a feat of arms on the Kulikovo field, and now the role of spiritual leaders fell to Orthodox clergy. Patriarch Hermogenes became an unwavering defender of Orthodoxy, and faith was then perceived as synonymous with sovereignty and national unity.
The boyars, having lost faith in themselves and in Russia, were ready to recognize the Polish prince Vladislav as the Russian Tsar for the sake of preserving their estates and privileges. The Patriarch was inclined to do the same in the interests of establishing peace in the Russian land, but he strictly raised the question of faith. “Let Vladislav accept Orthodox faith, and all Poles will be withdrawn from Moscow!” - this was his final verdict. One of the boyars, Mikhailo Saltykov, even swung his knife at the unyielding Hermogenes, but he replied: “I am not afraid of your knife, I will arm myself against the knife with the power of the holy cross.” He did not hesitate to declare that if the invaders did not leave the Moscow borders, and the royal throne was occupied by a non-religious, he would begin to send letters to all cities, calling for resistance to the invaders and the salvation of the faith. This position of the Orthodox first hierarch prompted the Ryazan nobleman Prokopiy Lyapunov to begin forming the first people's militia with the aim of liberating Moscow from the Poles. It approached Moscow, but was not successful due to internal disagreements, which ended in the death of P. Lyapunov himself.
Undaunted, Hermogenes again sent letters from his prison in the Chudov Monastery calling for the creation of a new militia. It was the reading of his document at the gathering in Nizhny Novgorod that served as the starting point for the creation of a people's army under the leadership of Minin and Pozharsky. Our great historian V.O. Klyuchevsky notes: “Strong national and religious ties saved society.”
In those years, the Trinity-Sergius Lavra turned into the informal capital of Russia as a counterbalance to the lascivious Moscow. Archimandrite Dionysius (rector of the Lavra) and cellarer Abraham Palitsyn became influential creators of the Russian liberation movement. They compiled and sent their “conscription letters” and appeals from Patriarch Hermogenes to Russian cities, rousing the people to resistance. A whole underground network of couriers (“fearless people”) was created, who, at the risk of their lives, maintained contact between Russian cities and the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Thousands and thousands of refugees from all over the tormented Russian land flocked to the monastery. The Lavra itself was turned into a powerful fortress.
The Poles, realizing the danger, sent an army of almost 15 thousand under the command of Jan Sapieha to capture the Lavra. The famous siege began, which lasted 16 months - from October 1608 to January 1610. The Russian garrison consisted of 2.5 thousand military men and thousands of monks and townspeople. But there were over 100 cannons on the walls and towers. The Poles made dozens of attacks, but all of them were repulsed. The besieged themselves suffered huge losses from the fighting and hardships. By the end of the siege, only 200 fighters remained in the ranks, but their fighting spirit was not broken. The Poles wavered and lifted the siege, especially since detachments of Russian militia began to approach the Lavra. Now it is difficult for us to imagine the huge explosion of enthusiasm and joy, faith in the final victory of a just cause, which the news of the victory under the walls of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra caused among the people.
Finally, the people's militia under the command of Minin and Pozharsky approached Moscow in the fall of 1612, where it (again, at the insistence of A. Palitsyn) was joined by detachments of Cossacks from the remnants of the first militia under the command of Trubetskoy. The Poles surrendered and, by the grace of the victors, went home. The most important thing has begun: the creation of a new government. All the previous 15 years, the country was ruled by people who were illegitimate in the eyes of the people: either impostors, or persons who received the throne as a result of incorrect elections - conspiracies of boyar clans. Fair popular elections were needed so that the new government would not raise any doubts about its legitimacy. It was decided to convene a Zemsky Sobor. From each city, 7 delegates came to Moscow; classes were widely represented separately: boyars, clergy, nobles, service people, townspeople and even peasants. In total, about 800 people gathered. On the eve of the opening of the Council, a three-day strict fast was declared in order to cleanse oneself of all the filth that had accumulated in souls during the years of the Troubles. Even infants had to observe this fast.
The meetings began in December 1612 and continued until the end of the following February, 1613. The first question of who to put on the throne - a foreigner or a Russian - was resolved quickly and unanimously: “Only our own Russian, Orthodox.” The second question: “Which Russian exactly?” - took almost two months of debate. The list of initially named candidates was extensive: from Prince D. Pozharsky to the son of Marina Mnishek and False Dmitry II, but as the discussion progressed, it shrank every day. The candidacies of princes Golitsyn, Mstislavsky, Vorotynsky, Trubetskoy and others disappeared. In other words, we were talking about real democratic elections. Little by little, the name of Mikhail Romanov appeared in the center of the narrowed circle of candidates, who suited many people. Some liked that a 16-year-old boy could easily become an obedient instrument in the hands of the boyars, others were flattered by the fact that he was the cousin of the last Rurik Tsar - Fedor - and was, as it were, the legal successor of the legitimate dynasty. Some considered him a “patriot”, since his father Fyodor ( tonsured Filaret) had been in Polish captivity since 1610, others, knowing that Filaret received an appointment to the post of Metropolitan of Rostov from False Dmitry I, and in 1609 was installed as Patriarch False Dmitry II, They believed that the new tsar would be gentle towards those who collaborated with Polish proteges.
Soon messages began to arrive from cities in support of M. Romanov’s candidacy. All the Cossacks spoke out for him, and they were the only organized military force, because the zemstvo militia was disbanded immediately after the capture of Moscow. In the end, on March 3, 1613, the Zemsky Council of the Russian Land unanimously supported the candidacy of M. Romanov. But even this seemed not enough to the Russian political elite of that time for the full legitimacy of the choice. Messengers were sent to all cities with a request to obtain local opinion on the acceptability of Mikhail Romanov's candidacy. The support was unanimous.
Then they sent a deputation to the Ipatiev Monastery (near Kostroma), where the future tsar was with his mother. The parent did not want to give her son up for such a difficult feat. She reproached the messengers for betraying all the sovereigns elected over 15 years from B. Godunov to V. Shuisky. But the ambassadors answered: “The previous sovereigns did not receive the throne in the same way as Michael receives it now. Boris sat in the state of his own free will, having killed Demetrius, he took revenge on his deeds, Vasily was chosen by a few people for the state, and Mikhail was chosen not according to his desire, but unanimously, by the whole earth, by the will of God...” After oaths of assurance loyalty of all subjects, Mikhail Romanov accepted the royal staff as a sign of royal power. This happened on March 14, 1613, and Mikhail Fedorovich was crowned king in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin on July 11, 1613.
The reign of the first Romanov was not easy. It took a whole year to catch the Cossack ringleader Ivan Zarutsky, who with Marina Mnishek still flattered himself with the hope of returning the Time of Troubles to Russia, but was caught, taken to Moscow and impaled. M. Mniszech died in prison in 1614, and her 4-year-old son was hanged. Poland did not recognize Mikhail Romanov as tsar for a long time; in 1618, its troops approached Moscow, but were repulsed. Under the terms of the Deulin Truce (1619), prisoners were exchanged, and the Tsar’s father, Patriarch Filaret, returned to Russia, becoming Michael’s de facto regent. Things went well.
Until now, the Russian kingdom had been considered a kind of fiefdom of the Rurik dynasty; the dissatisfied did not think about riots, but preferred to flee to the outlying lands. This is how Cossack settlements were formed. Now the state, saved by the common efforts of the entire people, has become its joint property. The Troubles made the people feel both their weakness and their strength. That is why the entire 17th century was called the “rebellious century.” By trusting and submitting to the royal will, the Russian people acquired the courage to have their own opinion. Just look at the list of rebel names: Patriarch Nikon, Archpriest Avvakum, noblewoman Morozova, Stenka Razin, etc. And this was under Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov, whom the Polish historian K. Walishevsky called “one of the most highly moral monarchs of all times and peoples.”
The legitimacy of the new Tsar Mikhail Romanov was so accepted by the popular consciousness that at the very first test of loyalty, people went to the feat of self-sacrifice. This is what Ivan Susanin did. Later, in 1866, another peasant averted the hand of the terrorist Karakozov, who was trying to kill Emperor Alexander II. Until the revolution of 1917, the ideological foundation of the empire was the triad “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.”
The Romanov dynasty turned out to be one of the most stable in Europe and was the most successful until the twentieth century. The English Windsors or the German Hohenzollerns cannot compare with her; only the Habsburgs and the Bourbons were older than the Romanovs, but they ruled in smaller states, and even then with varying success. For Russia, the time of the Romanovs included periods of highest prosperity national culture, art, the establishment of interethnic and interfaith peace in the vast expanses of the empire, great military victories and scientific achievements. The fall of the empire plunged Russia into a new Time of Troubles, which continues to this day. If the Russian people, together with others, can repeat the feat of our ancestors in 1612-1613, then a bright and endless distance will open before them.
Similar institutions arose in Western Europe, and in the Moscow state. However, the causes and consequences of their activities were radically different. If in the first case, class meetings served as an arena for resolving political issues, a battlefield for power, then in Rus', at such meetings, mainly administrative tasks were solved. In fact, the sovereign became acquainted with the needs of the common people through such events.
In addition, such gatherings arose immediately after the unification of states, both in Europe and in Muscovy, so this body coped with the formation of a holistic picture of the state of affairs in the country as well as possible.
1613, for example, played a revolutionary role in the history of Russia. It was then that Mikhail Romanov was placed on the throne, whose family ruled the country for the next three hundred years. And it was his descendants who brought the state from the backward Middle Ages to the forefront at the beginning of the twentieth century.
Zemsky Sobors in Russia
Only the conditions created by the class-representative monarchy allowed the emergence and development of such an institution as the Zemsky Sobor. The year 1549 was outstanding in this regard. Ivan the Terrible gathers people to eliminate local corruption. The event was called the “Cathedral of Reconciliation.”
The word itself at that time had the meaning “nationwide”, which determined the basis of the activities of this body.
The role of zemstvo councils was to discuss political, economic and administrative issues. In fact, it was the connection between the tsar and the common people, passing through the filter of the needs of the boyars and clergy.
Although democracy did not work out, the needs of the lower classes were still taken into account more than in Europe, permeated through and through with absolutism.
All free people took part in such events, that is, only serfs were not allowed. Everyone had the right to vote, but the actual and final decision was made only by the sovereign.
Since the first Zemsky Sobor was convened by the will of the tsar, and the effectiveness of its activities was quite high, this practice became stronger.
However, the functions of this institution of power changed periodically depending on the situation in the country. Let's look at this issue in more detail.
The evolution of the role of the cathedral from Ivan the Terrible to Mikhail Romanov
If you remember something from the textbook “History, 7th grade”, without a doubt, the period of the 16th - 17th centuries was one of the most intriguing, starting from the child-killer king and ending with the troubled time, when the interests of various noble families collided and arose out of nowhere folk heroes like Ivan Susanin.
Let's see what exactly was happening at this time.
The first Zemsky Sobor was convened by Ivan the Terrible in 1549. It was not yet a full-fledged secular council. The clergy took an active part in it. At this time, the ministers of the church are completely subordinate to the king and serve more as a conductor of his will to the people.
The next period includes the dark time of the Troubles. It continues until the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky from the throne in 1610. It was during these years that the significance of Zemsky Sobors changed dramatically. Now they serve the idea promoted by the new contender for the throne. Basically, the decisions of such meetings at that time ran counter to the strengthening of statehood.
The next stage became the “golden age” for this institution of power. The activities of Zemsky Sobors combined legislative and executive functions. In fact, this was a period of temporary rule by the “parliament of Tsarist Russia.”
After the appearance of a permanent ruler, the period of restoration of the state after devastation begins. It is at this time that a young and inexperienced king needs qualified advice. Therefore, councils play the role of an advisory body. Their members help the ruler understand financial and administrative issues.
For nine years, starting in 1613, the boyars managed to streamline the collection of five-dollar money, prevent a re-invasion of Polish-Lithuanian troops, and also restore the economy after the Time of Troubles.
Since 1622, not a single council was held for ten years. The situation in the country was stable, so there was no particular need for it.
Zemsky Sobors in the 17th century increasingly took on the role of a regulatory body in the internal sphere, but more often foreign policy. The annexation of Ukraine, Azov, Russian-Polish-Crimean relations and many issues are resolved precisely through this instrument.
From the second half of the seventeenth century, the importance of such events noticeably decreased, and by the end of the century it stopped altogether. The most notable were two cathedrals - in 1653 and 1684.
At the first, the Zaporozhye army was accepted into the Moscow state, and in 1684 the last gathering took place. The fate of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was decided on it.
This is where the history of Zemsky Sobors ends. Peter the Great especially contributed to this with his policy of establishing absolutism in the state.
But let's take a closer look at the events of one of the most important councils in Russian history.
Background to the cathedral of 1613
After his death, the Time of Troubles began in Rus'. He was the last of the descendants of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. His brothers died earlier. The eldest, John, as scientists believe, fell at the hands of his father, and the youngest, Dmitry, disappeared in Uglich. He is considered dead, but there are no reliable facts about his death.
Thus, from 1598 complete confusion begins. The country was successively ruled by Irina, the wife of Fyodor Ioannovich, and Boris Godunov. Next on the throne were Boris's son, Theodore, False Dmitry the First and Vasily Shuisky.
This is a period of economic decline, anarchy and invasion by neighboring armies. In the north, for example, the Swedes ruled. Polish troops led by Vladislav, son of Sigismund III, the Polish king and Lithuanian prince, entered the Kremlin, with the support of part of the population of Moscow.
It turns out that the 17th century played an ambiguous role in the history of Russia. The events that unfolded in the country forced the people to come to a common desire to get rid of the devastation. There were two attempts to expel the impostors from the Kremlin. The first was under the leadership of Lyapunov, Zarutsky and Trubetskoy, and the second was headed by Minin and Pozharsky.
It turns out that the convening of the Zemsky Sobor in 1613 was simply inevitable. If it were not for such a turn of events, who knows how history would have turned out and what the situation in the state would be today.
Thus, in Pozharsky and Minin, at the head of the people's militia, the Polish-Lithuanian troops were expelled from the capital. All the prerequisites were created to restore order in the country.
Convocation
As we know, Zemsky Sobors in the 17th century were an element of state governance (as opposed to spiritual ones). The secular government needed a council, which in many ways repeated the functions of the Slavic veche, when everyone came together free men kind and solved pressing issues.
Before this, the first Zemsky Sobor of 1549 was still joint. It was attended by representatives of the church and secular authorities. Later, only the Metropolitan spoke from the clergy.
This happened in October 1612, when, after the expulsion of the Polish-Lithuanian troops that occupied the heart of the capital, the Kremlin, they began to put the country in order. The army of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which occupied Moscow, was liquidated quite simply due to the fact that Hetman Khotkevich stopped supporting it. Poland has already realized that they cannot win in the current situation.
Thus, after clearing out all external occupation forces, it was necessary to establish a normal strong government. For this purpose, messengers were sent to all regions and volosts with an invitation to selected people to join the general council in Moscow.
However, due to the fact that there was still devastation and a not very calm situation in the state, the townspeople were able to gather only a month later. Thus, the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was convened on January 6.
The only place that could accommodate all the people who arrived was the Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin. According to various sources, their total number ranged from seven hundred to one and a half thousand people.
Candidates
The consequence of such chaos in the country was a large number of people who wanted to sit on the throne. In addition to the original Russian princely families, rulers of other countries joined the election race. Among the latter, for example, were the Swedish prince Charles and the prince of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Vladislav. The latter was not at all embarrassed by the fact that he was kicked out of the Kremlin only a month ago.
The Russian nobility, although they submitted their candidacies for the Zemsky Sobor in 1613, did not have much weight in the eyes of the public. Let's see which of the representatives of the princely families aspired to power.
The Shuiskys, as well-known descendants, were undoubtedly quite confident of victory. However, the danger that they, and the Godunovs who found themselves in a similar situation, would begin to take revenge on past offenders who overthrew their ancestors was very high. Therefore, the chances of their victory turned out to be scanty, since many of the voters were related to those who could suffer from the new rulers.
The Kurakins, Mstislavskys and other princes who once collaborated with the Kingdom of Poland and the Principality of Lithuania, although they made an attempt to join power, failed. The people did not forgive them for their betrayal.
The Golitsyns could well have ruled the Muscovite kingdom if their most powerful representative had not languished in captivity in Poland.
The Vorotynskys did not have a bad past, but for secret reasons their candidate, Ivan Mikhailovich, recused himself. The most plausible version is considered to be his participation in the “Seven Boyars”.
And, finally, the most suitable applicants for this vacancy are Pozharsky and Trubetskoy. In principle, they could have won, since they particularly distinguished themselves during the Time of Troubles and drove the Polish-Lithuanian troops out of the capital. However, in the eyes of the local nobility, they were let down by their not very outstanding pedigree. In addition, the composition of the Zemsky Sobor was not unreasonably afraid of the subsequent “cleansing” of the participants of the Seven Boyars, with which these candidates could most likely begin their political careers.
Thus, it turns out that it was necessary to find a previously unknown, but at the same time quite noble descendant of the princely family, capable of leading the country.
Official motives
Many scientists were interested in this topic. It's no joke - to determine the real course of events during the formation of the basis of modern Russian statehood!
As the history of zemstvo councils shows, together people managed to make the most correct decisions.
Judging by the records of the protocol, the first decision of the people was to exclude all foreign applicants from the list of candidates. Neither Vladislav nor the Swedish prince Charles could now participate in the “race”.
The next step was to select a candidate from local representatives of the nobility. The main problem was that most of them had compromised themselves over the past ten years.
The Seven Boyars, participation in uprisings, support of Swedish and Polish-Lithuanian troops - all these factors largely played against all candidates.
Judging by the documents, in the end there was only one left, which we did not mention above. This man was a descendant of the family of Ivan the Terrible. He was the nephew of the last legitimate Tsar Theodore Ioannovich.
Thus, the election of Mikhail Romanov was the most correct decision in the eyes of the majority of voters. The only difficulty was the lack of nobility. His family descended from a boyar from the Prussian princes, Andrei Kobyla.
First version of events
The 17th century was of particular importance in the history of Russia. It is from this period that we know such names as Minin and Pozharsky, Trubetskoy, Godunov, Shuisky, False Dmitry, Susanin and others.
It was at this time, by the will of fate, or perhaps by the finger of God, that the ground for the future empire was formed. If it were not for the Cossacks, which we will talk about a little later, the course of history would most likely have been completely different.
So, how did Mikhail Romanov benefit?
By official version, outlined by many respected historians such as Cherepnin, Degtyarev and others, there were several factors.
Firstly, this applicant was quite young and inexperienced. His inexperience in government affairs would allow the boyars to become " gray cardinals"and in the role of advisers to be actual kings.
The second factor was his father’s involvement in events related to False Dmitry II. That is, all the defectors from Tushino did not have to fear revenge or punishment from the new tsar.
Of all the applicants, only this clan was least connected with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth during the “Seven Boyars,” so the patriotic feelings of the people were completely satisfied. Of course: a boyar from the family of Ivan Kalita, who has a high-ranking clergyman among his relatives, is an opponent of the oprichnina and, moreover, young and “disciplined,” as Sheremetyev described him. These are the factors, according to the official version of events, that influenced the accession of Mikhail Romanov.
Second version of the cathedral
Opponents consider the following factor to be the main motive for electing the mentioned candidate. Sheremetyev strove quite strongly for power, but could not achieve it directly due to the lack of nobility of the family. In view of this, as history teaches us (7th grade), he developed unusually active efforts to popularize Mikhail Romanov. Everything was beneficial for him, because his chosen one was a simple, inexperienced young man from the outback. He didn't understand anything public administration, neither in metropolitan life, nor in intrigues.
And to whom will he be grateful for such generosity and who will he listen to first when making important decisions? Of course, those who helped him take the throne.
Thanks to the activity of this boyar, most of those who gathered at the Zemsky Sobor in 1613 were prepared to make the “right” decision. But something went wrong. And the first voting results are declared invalid “due to the absence of many voters.”
The boyars, who opposed such a candidacy, made an attempt to get rid of Romanov. A detachment of Polish-Lithuanian soldiers was sent to eliminate the unwanted applicant. But the future tsar was saved by the previously unknown peasant Ivan Susanin. He led the punishers into the swamp, where they safely disappeared (along with the national hero).
Shuisky is developing a slightly different front of activity. He begins to contact the Cossack atamans. It is believed that it was this force that played main role during the accession of Mikhail Romanov.
Of course, one should not belittle the role of zemstvo councils, but without the active and urgent actions of these detachments, the future tsar would have virtually no chance. It was they who actually put him on the throne by force. We'll talk about this below.
The last attempt of the boyars to avoid Romanov’s victory was his appearance before the people, so to speak, “to the bride.” However, judging by the documents, Shuisky was afraid of failure, due to the fact that Mikhail was a simple and illiterate person. He could discredit himself if he started making a speech to voters. That is why tough and urgent action was needed.
Why did the Cossacks intervene?
Most likely, thanks to the active actions of Shuisky and the approaching failure of his company, as well as due to the attempt of the boyars to “dishonestly deceive” the Cossacks, the following events occurred.
The importance of zemstvo councils, of course, is great, but aggressive and brute force often turns out to be more effective. In fact, at the end of February 1613, something like an assault on the Winter Palace took place.
The Cossacks broke into the Metropolitan's house and demanded that the people be convened for discussion. They unanimously wanted to see Romanov as their king, “a man from a good root who represents a good branch and the honor of the family.”
The frightened clergyman convened the boyars, and under pressure a unanimous decision was made to enthronement of this candidate.
Conciliar oath
This is actually the protocol that was compiled by the Zemstvo Councils in Russia. The delegation delivered a copy of such a document to the future tsar and his mother in Kolomna on March 2. Since Mikhail was only seventeen years old at that time, it is not surprising that he was frightened and immediately flatly refused to ascend the throne.
However, some researchers of this period argue that this move was later corrected, since the conciliar oath actually completely repeats the document read to Boris Godunov. “To confirm the people’s thoughts about the modesty and fear of their king.”
Be that as it may, Mikhail was persuaded. And on May 2, 1613, he arrives in the capital, where he is crowned on July 11 of the same year.
Thus, we have become acquainted with such a unique and hitherto only partially studied phenomenon in the history of the Russian state as zemstvo councils. The main point that defines this phenomenon today is the fundamental difference from the veche. No matter how similar they may be, several features are fundamental. Firstly, the veche was local, and the cathedral was state. Secondly, the former had full power, while the latter was still more of an advisory body.
This period of time (1613 - 1645) marks the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov. However, some historians believe that the state at this time was ruled by two sovereigns: Mikhail Romanov and his father, Patriarch Filaret (in the world Fedor Romanov).
During this period, the state was restored from the devastating consequences of the Time of Troubles, as well as its further strengthening and development. Some of the most important events that occurred in 1613 - 1645 are the adoption of the Stolbovo Peace Treaty with Sweden in 1617, the Deulin Truce with Poland in 1618, and the Smolensk War of 1632 - 1634.
Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov was elected to the throne in January 1613 by the Zemsky Sobor at the age of 16.
The young sovereign faced important tasks, such as: overcoming discord and economic ruin, restoring state order. One of the most important areas domestic policy During the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, the restoration of statehood began, namely, the streamlining of the management and taxation system. To solve the first problem, local voivodeship rule was introduced; to solve the second, they began to compile new sentinel and scribe books that assigned the population to their place of residence, thus reviving the practice of “lesson years.”
In foreign policy, the main goal was the return of lands lost as a result of the Troubles.
The implementation of this goal was not fully completed. Since, following the results of the Smolensk War (1632 - 1634), Smolensk remained with Poland, and also the lands conquered during successful military operations at the beginning of the war were transferred to it. However, Mikhail Fedorovich managed to return Novgorod by concluding the Stolbovo Peace Treaty with Sweden in 1617 at the beginning of his reign.
For the first 6 years of his reign, Mikhail Romanov ruled based on the Boyar Duma and Zemsky Sobors. But, in 1619, with the return of Father Michael, Patriarch Philaret, the so-called period of co-rule began, which lasted until Philaret’s death in 1633. The Patriarch did a lot for the spiritual development of the country - he tried to establish deanery, both in worship and in the image the life of the clergy, persecuted fist fights and folk games characterized by obscenity, punished immorality and freethinking. Carrying out activities of this kind was especially important in a country where for 15 years (during the Time of Troubles) there was a moral and ethical decomposition of society.
In addition, Filaret, who had enormous life experience, “helped” his young son rule. Thus, the patriarch united secular and ecclesiastical power in his hands.
To summarize, we can say that Mikhail Romanov and Filaret laid the foundation for a new dynasty - the Romanovs, which will remain the ruling dynasty in
the next 300 years; their activities marked the beginning of the restoration of the previously destroyed country and determined the main directions of policy. A strong centralized power was established in the country, which led to the further development and strengthening of absolutism; the northwestern, southwestern, southern and eastern directions of foreign policy were continued by Alexei Mikhailovich, since actions in these directions during the period 1613-1645 did not have the desired success.
Historians speak positively about the period, which, in their opinion, was of a restorative nature, but some of them believe that the role of Mikhail Romanov would not have been so significant for the history of Russia if his father and mentor, Filaret, who actually ruled the country in for 14 years, guiding his son and promoting his own ideas.
In conclusion, it is worth mentioning that with the accession of Michael, the activity of the Zemsky Sobors intensified; his reign is called the heyday of the class-representative monarchy. The phenomenon of the Troubles that preceded the beginning of Romanov’s reign strengthened the idea of autocracy as a symbol of national sovereignty, a condition of internal peace and stability. In the future, Mikhail Fedorovich's son, Alexey Fedorovich, will continue to promote the idea of one-man rule, which will ultimately lead to the establishment of an absolute monarchy in Russia in the 18th century.