What happened in 1613 in Russia. Time of Troubles (Troubles). Main events. Feature and controversy

Letters were sent to the cities with an invitation to send authorities and elected officials to Moscow for a great cause; they wrote that Moscow had been cleansed of Polish and Lithuanian people, the churches of God were clothed in their former splendor, and God's name was still glorified in them; but without the sovereign, the Muscovite state cannot stand, there is no one to take care of him and there is no one to provide for the people of God, without the sovereign, the Muscovite state will be ruined by everything: without the sovereign, the state is not built by anything and the thieves' factories are divided into many parts and theft multiplies a lot, and therefore the boyars and governors were invited, so that all the spiritual authorities were to them in Moscow, and from the nobles, the children of the boyars, guests, merchants, townsmen and county people, choosing the best, strong and reasonable people, since the person is fit for the zemstvo council and state election, all cities would be sent to Well, Moscow, and so that these authorities and the elected best people come to an agreement in their cities firmly and take full contracts from all people about the election of the state. When quite a lot of authorities and elected officials gathered, a three-day fast was appointed, after which 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 none of the states of the non-Christian faith of the Greek law on the Vladimir and Moscow state, and They don’t want Marinka and her son in the state, because the Polish and German kings saw in themselves a lie and a crime of the cross and a peaceful violation: the Lithuanian king ruined the Muscovite state, and the Swedish king Veliky Novgorod took it by deceit. They began to choose their own: here intrigues, unrest and unrest began; everyone wanted to do according to his own thought, everyone wanted his own, some wanted the throne themselves, bribed and sent; sides formed, but none of them prevailed. Once, says the chronograph, some nobleman from Galich brought a written opinion to the cathedral, which said that Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov was the closest in kinship with the former tsars, and he should be elected tsars. Dissatisfied voices were heard: “Who brought such a letter, who, from where?” 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 of the elected were in Moscow; there were no noble boyars; Prince Mstislavsky and his comrades left Moscow immediately after their liberation: it was embarrassing for them to remain in it near the liberators; now they sent to call them to Moscow for a common cause, they also sent reliable people around the cities and counties 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 people “the best, strong and reasonable” for the royal choice. The cities, by the way, had to think not only about the election of the king, but also about how to "build" the state and how to conduct business until the election, and about this give the elected "contracts", that is, instructions that they had to guided by. For a more complete coverage and understanding of the cathedral of 1613, one should turn to the analysis of its composition, which can only be determined by the signatures on the electoral letter of Mikhail Fedorovich, written in the summer of 1613. We see only 277 signatures on it, but the participants in the cathedral, obviously, were more, since not all conciliar people signed the conciliar charter. Evidence of this is, for example, the following: for Nizhny Novgorod, 4 people signed the charter (Archpriest Savva, 1 townsman, 2 archers), and it is reliably known that there were 19 people elected from Nizhny Novgorod (3 priests, 13 townsmen, a deacon and 2 archers). If each city were satisfied with ten elected people, as the book determined their number. Dm. Mich. Pozharsky, then up to 500 people would have gathered in Moscow, as representatives of 50 cities (northern, eastern and southern) participated in the cathedral; and together with the people of Moscow and the clergy, the number of participants in the cathedral would have extended to 700 people. The cathedral was really crowded. He often met in the Assumption Cathedral, perhaps precisely because none of the other Moscow buildings could accommodate him. Now the question arises which classes of society were represented at the council and whether the council was full in terms of its class composition. Of the 277 signatures mentioned, 57 belong to the clergy (part of the "elected" from the cities), 136 - to the highest service ranks (boyars - 17), 84 - to the city elected. It has already been said above that these digital data are far from reliable. According to them, there were few provincial elected representatives at the council, but in fact these elected representatives undoubtedly constituted the majority, and although it is impossible to determine with accuracy either their number, or how many of them were taxpayers and how many service people, nevertheless, it can be said that servicemen there were, it seems, more than townspeople, but there was also a very large percentage of townspeople, which rarely happened at cathedrals. And, besides, there are traces of the participation of "district" people (12 signatures). These were, firstly, the peasants of not the owner's, but the black sovereign lands, representatives of the free northern peasant communities, and secondly, small service people from the southern counties. Thus, the representation at the council of 1613 was exceptionally complete.

We do not know anything exact about what happened at this cathedral, because in the acts and literary works of that time only fragments of traditions, allusions and legends remained, so that the historian here is, as it were, among the incoherent fragments of an ancient building, to restore the appearance of which he has no strength. Official documents do not say anything about the course of the meetings. True, the electoral charter has been preserved, but it is of little help to us, since it was by no means written independently and, moreover, does not contain information about the very course of the election. As for unofficial documents, they are either legends or meager, obscure and rhetorical stories from which nothing definitive can be extracted.

ROMANOVS UNDER BORIS GODUNOV

This clan was the closest to the former dynasty, they were cousins ​​of the late Tsar Fedor. The Romanovs were not disposed towards Boris. Boris could suspect the Romanovs when he had to look for secret enemies. According to the chronicles, Boris found fault with the Romanovs about the denunciation of one of their lackeys, as if they wanted to exterminate the tsar by means of roots and get the kingdom by “witchcraft” (witchcraft). The four Romanov brothers - Alexander, Vasily, Ivan and Mikhail were sent to remote places in difficult imprisonment, and the fifth Fyodor, who, it seems, was smarter than all of them, was forcibly tonsured under the name of Filaret in the monastery of Anthony Siysky. Then they exiled their relatives and friends - Cherkassky, Sitsky, Repnins, Karpovs, Shestunovs, Pushkins and others.

ROMANOVS

So the conciliar election of Mikhail was prepared and supported at the council and among the people by a number of auxiliary means: election campaigning with the participation of the numerous relatives of the Romanovs, pressure from the Cossack force, tacit inquiry among the people, the cry of the capital's crowd on Red Square. But all these electoral methods were successful because they found support in society's attitude to the family name. Mikhail was endured not by personal or propaganda, but by family popularity. He belonged to a boyar family, perhaps the most beloved then in Moscow society. The Romanovs are a recently isolated branch of the old boyar family of the Koshkins. For a long time, still led. book. Ivan Danilovich Kalita, left for Moscow from the "Prussian lands", as the pedigree says, a noble man, who was nicknamed Andrei Ivanovich Kobyla in Moscow. He became a prominent boyar at the Moscow court. From his fifth son, Fyodor Koshka, came the "Cat's clan", as it is called in our annals. 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 that flooded the Moscow court from the middle of the 15th century. Among the princes Shuisky, Vorotynsky, Mstislavsky, the Koshkins knew how to stay in the front row of the boyars. At the beginning of the XVI century. a prominent place at the court was occupied by the boyar Roman Yuryevich Zakharyin, who came 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 Empress Anastasia, is the only Moscow boyar of the 16th century who left a good memory among the people: his name was remembered by the folk epic, depicting him in their songs about Grozny as a complacent mediator between the people and the angry tsar. Of the six sons of Nikita, the eldest, Fedor, stood out especially. He was a very kind and affectionate boyar, a dandy and a very inquisitive person. The Englishman Horsey, who then lived in Moscow, tells 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 that Nikitichi was subjected to under the suspicious Godunov; A. Palitsyn even puts this persecution among those sins for which God punished the Russian land with Troubles. Enmity with Tsar Vasily and ties with Tushin brought the Romanovs the patronage of the second False Dmitry and popularity in the Cossack camps. So the ambiguous behavior of the surname in the troubled years prepared for Mikhail bilateral support, both in the Zemstvo and in the Cossacks. But most of all, the kinship of the Romanovs with the former dynasty helped Michael in the conciliar elections. In the course of the Time of Troubles, the Russian people unsuccessfully chose new tsars so many times, and now only that election seemed to them lasting, which fell on the face, although somehow connected with the former royal house. Tsar Michael was seen not as a conciliar elect, but as Tsar Fedor's nephew, a natural, hereditary tsar. The 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 Avraamiy Palitsyn calls Mikhail "chosen from God before his birth," and the clerk I. Timofeev, in an unbroken chain of hereditary tsars, placed Mikhail right after Fyodor Ivanovich, ignoring Godunov, Shuisky, and all impostors. And Tsar Mikhail himself in his letters usually called Ivan the Terrible his grandfather. It is difficult to say how much the then-circulating rumor helped the election of Mikhail, that Tsar Fyodor, dying, verbally bequeathed the throne to his cousin Fyodor, Mikhail's father. But the boyars, who led the elections, had to be persuaded in favor of Mikhail by another convenience, to which they could not be indifferent. There is news that F.I. Sheremetev wrote to Poland, Prince. Golitsyn: "Misha-de Romanov is young, he has not yet reached his mind and he will be familiar with 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, reminding him of his mental and physical frailty, will come out as a kind, meek tsar, under whom the trials experienced by the boyars during the reign of Ivan the Terrible and Boris will not be repeated. They wanted to choose not the most capable, but the most convenient. So the founder of a new dynasty appeared, putting an end to the Troubles.

Time of Troubles - Chronology of events

The chronology of events helps to better imagine how events developed in a historical period. The Time of Troubles chronology presented in the article will help students to better write an essay or prepare for a report, and teachers to choose key events that should be told in class.

The Time of Troubles is a designation of the period of Russian history from 1598 to 1613. This period was marked by natural disasters, the Polish-Swedish intervention, the most severe political, economic, state and social crisis.

Chronology of events of troubled times

The prelude to troubled times

1565-1572 - oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible. The beginning of a systemic political and economic crisis in Russia.

1569 - Lublin Union of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Formation of the Commonwealth.

1581 - murder by Ivan the Terrible in a fit of anger, the eldest son of Ivan Ivanovich.

1584, March 18 - the death of Ivan the Terrible while playing chess, the accession to the throne of Fedor Ivanovich.

1596. October - Schism in the church. Cathedral in Brest, split into two cathedrals: Uniate and Orthodox. The Kyiv Metropolitanate was divided into two - faithful to Orthodoxy and Uniates.

December 15, 1596 - Royal Universal to the Orthodox with support for the decisions of the Uniate Council, with a ban on obeying Orthodox clergy, an order to accept the union (in violation of the law on freedom of religion in Poland). The beginning of an open persecution of Orthodoxy in Lithuania and Poland.

The beginning of troubled times

1598 - the death of Fedor Ivanovich, the termination of the Rurik dynasty, the election of boyar Boris Fedorovich Godunov, brother-in-law of the late tsar, as tsar at the Zemsky Sobor.

January 01, 1598. The death of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich, the end of the Rurik dynasty. The rumor that Tsarevich Dimitri is alive is spreading in Moscow for the first time

February 22, 1598. Consent of Boris Godunov to accept the royal crown after much persuasion and threats to excommunicate Patriarch Job from the Church for disobedience to the decision of the Zemsky Sobor.

1600 Bishop Ignatius Grek becomes the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Moscow.

1601 Great famine in Russia.

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, spread and provided anti-Godunov forces with help among the "masses".

Impostor

1602 Hierodeacon Grigory Otrepyev of the Chudov Monastery escapes to Lithuania. the appearance in Lithuania of the first impostor, posing as the miraculously saved Tsarevich Dmitry.

1603 - Ignatius Grek becomes Archbishop of Ryazan.

1604 - False Dmitry 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. Muscovites' oath to Tsarina Maria Grigorievna, Tsar Feodor Borisovich and Princess Xenia Borisovna.

June 3, 1605 - Public murder on the fiftieth day of the reign of the 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, the uprising in Moscow against False Dmitry I, the deposition and death of False Dmitry I.

1606-1610 - the reign of the "boyar tsar" Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky.

June 03, 1606 - Transfer of relics and canonization of St. Right-Believing Tsarevich Dimitry of Uglich.

1606-1607 - an uprising led by the "voivode of Tsar Dmitry" Ivan Bolotnikov.

February 14, 1607 - Arrival in Moscow at the royal command and at the request of Patriarch Hermogenes "byvago" Patriarch Job.

February 16, 1607 - "Letter of Permit" - a conciliar ruling on the innocence of Boris Godunov in the death of Tsarevich Dimitry of Uglich, on the legal rights of the Godunov dynasty and on the guilt of Moscow people in the murder of Tsar Fyodor 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 - Vasily Shuisky's agreement with Sweden on military assistance, the open intervention of the Polish king Sigismund III in Russian affairs, the siege of Smolensk.

1610 - the assassination of False Dmitry II, the mysterious death of the talented commander Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky, the defeat of the Polish-Lithuanian troops near Klushino, the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky and his full tonsure as a monk.

1610, August - Hetman Zholkevsky's troops entered Moscow, Prince Vladislav was called to the Russian throne.

militias

1611 - the creation of the First Militia by the Ryazan nobleman Prokopy Lyapunov, an unsuccessful attempt to liberate Moscow, the capture of Novgorod by the Swedes and the Poles of Smolensk.

1611, autumn - the creation of the Second Militia, led by the Nizhny Novgorod townsman headman Kuzma Minin and Prince Dmitry Pozharsky.

1612, spring - The second militia moved to Yaroslavl, the creation of the "Council of All the Earth".

1612, summer - connection of the Second and the remnants of the First militia near Moscow.

1612, August - Hetman Khodkevich's attempt to break through to the Polish-Lithuanian garrison besieged in the Kremlin was repulsed.

1612, the end of October - the liberation of Moscow from the invaders.

The election of the king

1613 - Zemsky Sobor elects Mikhail Romanov as Tsar (February 21). Mikhail's arrival from Kostroma to Moscow (May 2) and his coronation to the kingdom (May 11).

The defeat of Zarutsky and Marina Mnishek near Voronezh.

400 years ago, a great historical event took place in Russia, 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 ended, which went down in history as the Time of Troubles. This event was the agreement of 16-year-old Mikhail Romanov with the decision of the Zemsky Sobor, which elected him the Tsar of All Russia in March 1613. It became the boundary between the 15-year 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 for more than 300 years to build and strengthen the Russian state, 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 customary and God-sanctified order of succession to the throne was violated. The then boyars had to resort to a hitherto unheard-of procedure - the election of a new tsar. There was no legal provision for elections, the result was determined in the behind-the-scenes intrigues of the clans, using what is now called "administrative resource". 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 legitimate heir to the throne of Tsarevich Dmitry, who lived with his disgraced mother in Uglich.

A terrible cold snap in Russia, which occurred in 1601-1603, when there were frosts even in summer and the grain was not ripe to become seeds, caused an unprecedented famine. This has already been regarded as a punishment from the Lord. Popular unrest began, which grew into an uprising. In such an environment, 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, betrayal. Muscovites, driven to white heat, revolted in 1606, overthrew and killed False Dmitry I. The boyars elected another tsar from their midst - Vasily Shuisky, but there was no particular faith in him among the people. A new contender for the continuation of the legitimate Rurik dynasty, False Dmitry II, the Tushinsky thief, appeared again at the Polish suggestion. Two governments were created in Russia: in Moscow - the power of Tsar Vasily Shuisky, and in the village of Tushino near Moscow, the government of False Dmitry II, in which the Poles ruled, settled. 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 a monk, and then taken to Poland, where he died ingloriously in captivity two years later. The Russian state has completely degraded. In Moscow, the rule of the Seven Boyars came under the Polish protectorate. It seemed like it was all over. All bearers of secular power have lost all confidence 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 gave hope for the salvation of the Fatherland. Just as at one time St. Sergius of Radonezh inspired the Moscow prince Dmitry to a feat of arms on the Kulikovo field, so now the role of spiritual leaders fell to the Orthodox clergy. Patriarch Hermogenes became an unshakable defender of Orthodoxy, and faith was then perceived as a synonym for sovereignty, national unity.

The boyars, having lost faith in themselves and in Russia, were ready to recognize the Polish prince Vladislav as the Russian tsar in order to preserve their estates and privileges. The patriarch was inclined to the same in the interests of establishing peace in the Russian land, but he firmly raised the question of faith. “Let Vladislav accept the Orthodox faith, and all Poles will be taken out of Moscow!” - that was his final verdict. One of the boyars - Mikhailo Saltykov - even brandished a knife at the uncompromising 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, without hesitation, declared that if the invaders did not leave Moscow, and the royal throne was occupied by a non-believer, he would 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 Prokopy Lyapunov to start forming the first people's militia in order to liberate Moscow from the Poles. It approached Moscow, but did not achieve success due to internal disagreements that ended in the death of P. Lyapunov himself.

The fearless Hermogenes from his dungeon in the Miracle Monastery again sent letters calling for the creation of a new militia. It was the reading of his document at the meeting 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 lecherous Moscow. Archimandrite Dionysius (rector of the Lavra) and cellarer Avraamiy Palitsyn became influential creators of the Russian liberation movement. They compiled and sent to Russian cities their "draft letters" and appeals of Patriarch Hermogenes, which raised 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 flocked to the monastery from all over the tormented Russian land. The Lavra itself was turned into a powerful fortress.

The Poles, realizing the danger, sent an almost 15,000-strong army 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 soldiers and thousands of monks and townspeople. But there were over 100 cannons on the walls and towers. Dozens of attacks were made by the Poles, but they were all repulsed. The besieged themselves suffered huge losses from hostilities and hardships. By the end of the siege, only 200 fighters remained in the ranks, but their morale was not broken. The Poles faltered and lifted the siege, especially since detachments of Russian militia began to approach the Lavra. Now it is difficult for us to imagine a huge explosion of enthusiasm and joy, faith in the final victory of a just cause, which was caused among the people by the news of the victory under the walls of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra.

Finally, the people's militia under the command of Minin and Pozharsky in the autumn of 1612 approached Moscow, where (again, according to A. Palitsyn's insistent conviction), detachments of Cossacks from the remnants of the first militia under the command of Trubetskoy joined him. The Poles surrendered and, by the grace of the victors, went home. The most important thing began: 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 wrong elections - conspiracies of boyar clans. We needed fair popular elections so that the new government would not raise any doubts about its legitimacy. It was decided to convene the Zemsky Sobor. From each city, 7 delegates came to Moscow, estates were widely represented separately: boyars, clergy, nobles, service people, townspeople and even peasants. There were about 800 people in total. On the eve of the opening of the Cathedral, a three-day strict fast was announced in order to be cleansed of all the filth that had accumulated in the souls during the years of Troubles. Even infants were required to observe this fast.

The meetings began in December 1612 and continued until the end of the following February, 1613. The first question of whom to put on the throne - a foreigner or a Russian - was resolved quickly and unanimously: "Only his Russian, Orthodox." The second question: “Which one of the Russians?” - took almost two months of debate. The list of candidates initially named was extensive: from Prince D. Pozharsky to the son of Marina Mnishek and False Dmitry II, but as the discussion progressed, it was reduced every day. The candidacies of the princes Golitsyn, Mstislavsky, Vorotynsky, Trubetskoy and others have disappeared. In other words, it was about real democratic elections. Little by little, in the center of the narrowed circle of candidates was the name of Mikhail Romanov, who suited very many. Some liked that the 16-year-old boy could easily become an obedient instrument in the hands of the boyars, others were flattered that he was a cousin of the last Rurik tsar, Fedor, and was, as it were, the legitimate successor of the legitimate dynasty. Some considered him a “patriot”, since his father Fyodor (in the tonsure Filaret) had been in Polish captivity since 1610, others, knowing that Filaret was appointed to the post of Metropolitan of Rostov from False Dmitry I, and in 1609 he was appointed Patriarch False Dmitry II, it was believed that the new tsar would be soft on those who collaborated with the Polish proteges.

Soon messages began to arrive from the cities in support of the candidacy of M. Romanov. 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 Sobor of the Russian Land unanimously supported the candidacy of M. Romanov. But even this seemed to the then political elite of Russia not enough for the full legitimacy of the choice. Messengers were sent to all cities asking for an opinion from the localities on the acceptability of Mikhail Romanov's candidacy. Support was unanimous.

Then a deputation was sent to the Ipatiev Monastery (near Kostroma), where the future tsar was staying with his mother. The parent did not want to give her son to such a difficult feat. She reproached the messengers for having betrayed all the sovereigns elected over 15 years from B. Godunov to V. Shuisky. But the ambassadors answered: “Former sovereigns did not receive the throne in the same way as Michael now receives. Boris sat down on the state at his own will, having killed Demetrius, he took revenge on his deeds, Vasily was chosen for the state by a few people, and Mikhail is chosen not at his will, but unanimously, with all the earth, by God's permission ... ”After oath assurances in loyalty of all subjects, Mikhail Romanov accepted the royal staff as a sign of royal power. It happened on March 14, 1613, and Mikhail Fedorovich was married to the kingdom in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin on July 11, 1613.

The reign of the first Romanov was not easy. For a whole year, I had to catch the Cossack ringleader Ivan Zarutsky, who, with Marina Mnishek, still consoled himself with the hope of returning the Time of Troubles to Russia, but was caught, taken to Moscow and impaled. M. Mnishek died in prison in 1614, and her 4-year-old son was hanged. Poland did not recognize Mikhail Romanov as king for a long time, in 1618 its troops approached Moscow, but were driven back. Under the terms of the Deulino truce (1619), an exchange of prisoners was made, and the father of the tsar, Patriarch Filaret, returned to Russia, who became the de facto regent of Mikhail. Things went well.

Until now, the Russian kingdom was considered, as it were, the patrimony 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 all the people, has become its common property. The turmoil made the people feel both its weakness and its strength. That is why the entire 17th century was called the “rebellious age”. By trusting and obeying the Tsar's will, the Russian people acquired the courage to have their own opinion. What is worth only one list of the names of the rebels: Patriarch Nikon, Archpriest Avvakum, noblewoman Morozova, Stenka Razin, etc. And this was under Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov, whom the Polish historian K. Valishevsky 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 people's consciousness that at the first test of loyalty, people went to the feat of self-sacrifice. So did Ivan Susanin. Later, in 1866, another peasant took 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 20th century. The English Windsors or the German Hohenzollerns cannot be compared with it, only the Habsburgs and the Bourbons were older than the Romanovs, but they ruled in smaller states, and even then with varying degrees of success. For Russia, the time of the Romanovs included periods of the highest flowering of 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 of 1612-1613, then a bright and endless distance will open before them.

Similar institutions arose both in Western Europe and in the Muscovite state. However, the causes and consequences of their activities were radically different. If in the first case class meetings served as an arena for solving political issues, a battlefield for power, then in Russia such meetings were mainly used for administrative tasks. In fact, the sovereign got acquainted with the needs of the common people through such events.

In addition, such meetings arose immediately after the unification of states, both in Europe and in Muscovy, therefore, this body coped with the formation of a holistic picture of the state of affairs in the country in the best possible way.

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 such conditions, which were created by the estate-representative monarchy, allowed the emergence and development of such an institution as the Zemsky Sobor. 1549 was an outstanding year in this regard. Ivan the Terrible gathers people to eliminate corruption on the ground. The event was called the "Cathedral of Reconciliation".

The very same word at that time had the meaning of "nationwide", which determined the basis of the activities of this body.

The role of the zemstvo sobors was to discuss political, economic and administrative issues. In fact, it was the tsar's connection with the common people, passing through the filter of the needs of the boyars and the 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 at 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 into 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, Grade 7", without a doubt, the period of the 16th - 17th centuries was one of the most intriguing, starting from the child-killing king and ending with the time of troubles, when the interests of various noble families clashed and arose from scratch folk heroes like Ivan Susanin.
Let's see what exactly happened at that time.

The first Zemsky Sobor was convened by Ivan the Terrible in 1549. It has not yet been 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 pretender to 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 the period of the temporary rule of the "parliament of tsarist Russia."
After the appearance of a permanent ruler, the period of restoration of the state after the devastation begins. It was at this time that qualified advice was needed for a young and inexperienced king. Therefore, cathedrals play the role of an advisory body. Their members help the ruler sort out financial and administrative issues.

In nine years, starting from 1613, the boyars manage to streamline the collection of five-point money, prevent the re-invasion of the Polish-Lithuanian troops, and also restore the economy after the Time of Troubles.

Since 1622, not a single council has been 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 assumed the role of a regulatory body in the sphere of domestic, but more often foreign policy. The accession of Ukraine, Azov, Russian-Polish-Crimean relations and many issues are resolved precisely through this tool.

From the second half of the seventeenth century, the significance of such events noticeably decreases, and by the end of the century it ceases altogether. The most notable were two cathedrals - in 1653 and 1684.

At the first, the Zaporizhzhya army was accepted into the Moscow state, and in 1684 the last gathering took place. It decided the fate of the Commonwealth.
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 cathedrals in the history of Russia.

Prehistory of the Cathedral of 1613

After death, the Time of Troubles began in Russia. He was the last of the descendants of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. His brothers had 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 of his death.

Thus, from 1598, complete confusion begins. Irina, the wife of Fyodor Ioannovich, and Boris Godunov successively ruled in the country. Then the son of Boris, Theodore, False Dmitry the First and Vasily Shuisky visited the throne.

This is a period of economic decline, anarchy and the invasion of neighboring armies. In the north, for example, the Swedes ruled. With the support of part of the population of Moscow, Polish troops entered the Kremlin under the leadership of Vladislav, the son of Sigismund III, the Polish king and Lithuanian prince.

It turns out that the 17th century in the history of Russia played an ambiguous role. 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 impostors from the Kremlin. The first - 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 not for such a turn of events, who knows how history would have developed and what the situation in the state would be like 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 for restoring order in the country were created.

Convocation

As we know, Zemsky Sobors in the 17th century were an element of state administration (as opposed to spiritual ones). The secular authorities needed advice, which in many respects repeated the functions of the Slavic veche, when all the free men of the clan met and resolved pressing issues.

Prior to 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 Commonwealth, which occupied Moscow, was liquidated quite simply due to the fact that Hetman Khotkevich stopped supporting it. In Poland, they have already realized that in the current situation they cannot win.

Thus, after cleaning up all the external occupying forces, it was necessary to establish a normal strong government. For this, messengers were sent to all regions and volosts with a proposal to join the chosen people in the general council in Moscow.

However, due to the fact that the state was still devastated and not very calm, the townspeople were able to gather only a month later. Thus, the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was convened on January 6th.

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 result of such chaos in the country was a large number of people who wanted to sit on the throne. In addition to the primordially Russian princely families, the rulers of other countries joined the election race. Among the latter, for example, were the Swedish prince Karl and the prince of the Commonwealth Vladislav. The latter was not in the least embarrassed by the fact that he was kicked out of the Kremlin only a month ago.

The Russian nobility, although they presented their candidatures for the Zemsky Sobor of 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 sure 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.

Kurakins, Mstislavsky 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 Moscow 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, filed for self-withdrawal. The version of his participation in the "Seven Boyars" is considered the most plausible.

And, finally, the applicants most suitable for this vacancy are Pozharsky and Trubetskoy. In principle, they could have won, since they especially distinguished themselves during the Time of Troubles, knocked out the Polish-Lithuanian troops from the capital. However, they were let down, in the eyes of the local nobility, by a not very outstanding pedigree. In addition, the composition of the Zemsky Sobor was not unreasonably afraid of the subsequent “purge” of the participants in the Seven Boyars, with which these candidates could most likely start their political careers.

Thus, it turns out that it was necessary to find a previously unknown, but at the same time quite a noble descendant of a princely family, capable of leading the country.

official motives

Many scientists have been interested in this topic. Is it a joke - to determine the real course of events during the formation of the foundations of modern Russian statehood!
As the history of Zemsky Sobors 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 the selection of a candidate from the local representatives of the nobility. The main problem was that most of them had compromised themselves during the past ten years.

Seven boyars, participation in uprisings, support for Swedish and Polish-Lithuanian troops - all these factors played against all candidates to a large extent.

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 the boyar from the Prussian princes Andrei Kobyla.

First version of events

The 17th century in the history of Russia was of particular importance. 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 that by the will of fate, or perhaps by God's finger, the ground for the future empire was formed. If not for the Cossacks, which we will talk about a little later, the course of history would most likely be completely different.

So, what was the advantage of Mikhail Romanov?

According to the official version presented 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 state affairs would have allowed the boyars to become "gray cardinals" and in the role of advisers to be actual kings.

The second factor was the involvement of his father in the events associated with False Dmitry II. That is, all defectors from Tushino could not be afraid of revenge or punishment from the new king.

Of all the applicants, only this family was the least associated with the Commonwealth during the "Seven Boyars", so the patriotic feelings of the people were completely satisfied. Still: a boyar from the family of Ivan Kalita, who among his relatives has a clergyman of high rank, an opponent of the oprichnina and, moreover, young and “common”, as Sheremetyev described him. These are the factors, according to the official version of events, that influenced the accession of Mikhail Romanov.

The second version of the cathedral

Opponents consider the following factor to be the main motive for the election of the said candidate. Sheremetyev quite strongly strove for power, but could not achieve it directly due to the ignorance of the family. In view of this, as history teaches us (Grade 7), he developed an unusually active work to popularize Mikhail Romanov. Everything was beneficial for him, because his chosen one was a simple, inexperienced young man from the outback. He did not understand anything either in public administration, or in metropolitan life, or in intrigues.

And to whom will he be grateful for such generosity and who will he listen to first of all 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 results of the voting 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 objectionable applicant. But the future tsar was saved by the previously unknown peasant Ivan Susanin. He led the punishers into the swamp, where they disappeared safely (along with the folk hero).

Shuisky, on the other hand, develops a slightly different front of activity. He begins to contact the atamans of the Cossacks. It is believed that this force played a major role in the accession of Mikhail Romanov.

Of course, one should not belittle the role of Zemsky Sobors, but without the active and urgent actions of these detachments, the future tsar would actually have no chance. It was they who actually put him on the throne by force. We will talk about this a little lower.

The last attempt of the boyars to avoid the victory of Romanov was his coming out to 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 began to speak to the 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 impending failure of his company, as well as due to the attempt of the boyars to “dishonorably deceive” the Cossacks, the following events occurred.

The significance of Zemstvo sobors is, of course, great, but aggressive and brute force often turns out to be more effective. In fact, at the end of February 1613, there was a semblance of an assault on the Winter Palace.

The Cossacks broke into the Metropolitan's house and demanded to convene the people for discussion. They unanimously wished to see Romanov as their tsar, "a man from a good root, who is a good branch and honor of the family."
The frightened clergyman summoned the boyars, and under pressure a unanimous decision was made on the accession of this candidate.

Cathedral oath

This is actually a protocol that was drawn up by Zemsky Sobors in Russia. The delegation delivered a copy of such a document to the future tsar and his mother on March 2 in Kolomna. 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 in the thought of the modesty and piety of their king."

Be that as it may, Michael 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 got acquainted with such a unique and hitherto only partially studied phenomenon in the history of the Russian state as Zemsky Sobors. The main point that defines this phenomenon today is its fundamental difference from the veche. No matter how similar they may be, there are several fundamental features. 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.

For this period of time (1613 - 1645), the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov falls. However, some historians believe that the state at that time was ruled by two sovereigns: Mikhail Romanov and his father, Patriarch Filaret (in the world, Fedor Romanov).

During this period, the state is being restored from the devastating consequences of the Troubles, as well as its further strengthening and development. One of the most important events that took place in 1613 - 1645 is the adoption of the Stolbovsky peace with Sweden in 1617, the Deulinsky truce with Poland in 1618, 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 of domestic policy during the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich was the restoration of statehood, namely, the streamlining of the management and taxation system. To solve the first problem, local voivodeship was introduced; to solve the second, they began to compile new sentinel and scribe books, attaching the population to the place of residence, thus reviving the practice of “lesson years”.

In foreign policy, the main goal was the return of the lands lost as a result of the Time of 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 Treaty of Stolbovsky with Sweden in 1617 at the beginning of his reign.

For the first 6 years of his reign, Mikhail Romanov ruled on the basis of the Boyar Duma and Zemsky Sobors. But, in 1619, with the return of Father Michael, Patriarch Filaret, the so-called period of co-reigning began, which lasted until the death of Filaret 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 life of the clergy, pursued fisticuffs and folk games, distinguished by obscenity, punished for immorality and freethinking. Carrying out activities of this kind was especially important in a country where for 15 years (during the Time of Troubles) the moral and moral decay of society took place.

In addition, having vast life experience, Filaret “helped” rule his young son. Thus, the patriarch combined secular and ecclesiastical power in his hands.

Summing up, 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. There was an establishment of a strong centralized power in the country, which led to the further formation of the 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 due 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 Mikhail, the activities of the Zemsky Sobors intensified, his reign is called the heyday of the estate-representative monarchy. The Time of Troubles, which preceded the beginning of Romanov's reign, strengthened the idea of ​​autocracy as a symbol of national sovereignty, a condition for inner peace and stability. In the future, the son of Mikhail Fedorovich - Alexei Fedorovich will continue to promote the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bone-man rule, which will ultimately lead to the formation of an absolute monarchy in Russia in the 18th century.