Zemsky Sobor 1612 1613 briefly. History and us

Zemsky Sobors

Zemsky Sobors were convened in Russia repeatedly over a century and a half - from the mid-16th to the end of the 17th century (finally abolished by Peter I). However, in all other cases, they played the role of an advisory body under the current monarch and, in fact, did not limit his absolute power. The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was convened in conditions of a dynastic crisis. His main task was to elect and legitimize a new dynasty on the Russian throne.

Background

The dynastic crisis in Russia erupted in 1598 after the death of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich. At the time of his death, Fedor remained the only son of Tsar Ivan the Terrible. Two other sons were killed: the eldest, Ivan Ioannovich, died in 1581, presumably at the hands of his father; the younger, Dmitry Ioannovich, in 1591 in Uglich under unclear circumstances. Fyodor did not have his own children. After his death, the throne passed to the Tsar's wife, Irina, then to her brother Boris Godunov. After the death of Boris in 1605, they ruled successively:

Boris's son, Fyodor Godunov
False Dmitry I (versions about the true origin of False Dmitry I - see the article)

After the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky from the throne as a result of the uprising on July 27, 1610, power in Moscow passed to the provisional boyar government (see Seven Boyars). In August 1610, part of the population of Moscow swore allegiance to Prince Vladislav, son of the Polish king Sigismund III. In September, the Polish army entered the Kremlin. The actual power of the Moscow government in 1610-1612 was minimal. Anarchy reigned in the country; the northwestern lands (including Novgorod) were occupied by Swedish troops. In Tushino, near Moscow, the Tushino camp of another impostor, False Dmitry II, continued to function (False Dmitry II himself was killed in Kaluga in December 1610). To liberate Moscow from the Polish army, the First People's Militia (under the leadership of Prokopiy Lyapunov, Ivan Zarutsky and Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy), and then the Second People's Militia under the leadership of Kuzma Minin and Prince Dmitry Pozharsky, were successively assembled. In August 1612, the Second Militia, with part of the forces remaining near Moscow from the First Militia, defeated the Polish army, and in October completely liberated the capital.

Convocation of the Council

Versions about the motives for election

First version

According to the point of view officially recognized during the reign of the Romanovs (and later rooted in Soviet historiography), the council voluntarily, expressing the opinion of the majority of the inhabitants of Russia, decided to elect Romanov, in agreement with the opinion of the majority. This position is adhered to, in particular, by the largest Russian historians of the 18th - 20th centuries: N. M. Karamzin, S. M. Solovyov, N. I. Kostomarov, V. N. Tatishchev and others.

“At that time there was no one dearer to the Russian people than the Romanov family. He has long been in the people's love. There was a good memory of Ivan Vasilyevich’s first wife, Anastasia, whom the people revered almost as a saint for her virtues. They remembered and did not forget her good brother Nikita Romanovich and condoled for his children, whom Boris Godunov tortured and overworked. They respected Metropolitan Philaret, the former boyar Fyodor Nikitich, who was held captive in Poland and seemed to the Russians to be a true martyr for a just cause.”

N. I. Kostomarov

According to some opinions, this concept is characterized by a denial of the Romanovs’ desire for power and an obvious negative assessment of the three previous rulers. Boris Godunov, False Dmitry I, Vasily Shuisky in the minds of the “novelists” look like negative heroes.

Other versions

Some historians hold a different point of view [ source?] . The most radical of them believe that in February 1613 there was a coup, seizure, usurpation of power [ source?] . Others believe that we are talking about not completely fair elections, which brought victory not to the most worthy, but to the most cunning candidate [ source?] . Both parts of the “anti-romanists” are unanimous in the opinion that the Romanovs did everything to achieve the throne, and the events of the early 17th century are viewed not as unrest that ended with the arrival of the Romanovs, but as a struggle for power that ended with the victory of one of the competitors. According to the “anti-novelists,” the council created only the appearance of a choice, but in fact this opinion was not the opinion of the majority; and that subsequently, as a result of deliberate distortions and falsifications, the Romanovs managed to create a “myth” about the election of Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom [ source?] .

“At first glance... the election... “to the kingdom” of young Mikhail Romanov looks like a true miracle, sent down to this family from above as a reward for integrity and piety... When we try to “turn this myth inside out”, the Romanovs are transformed from almost saintly “quiet” pious people again "quiet conservatives"

F. L. Grimberg

"Anti-novelists" point to the following factors that cast doubt on the legitimacy of the new king [ source?] :

Progress of the meetings

The cathedral opened on January 7. The opening was preceded by a three-day fast, the purpose of which was cleansing from the sins of the turmoil. Moscow was almost completely destroyed and devastated, so people settled, regardless of origin, wherever they could. Everyone gathered in the Assumption Cathedral day after day. The interests of the Romanovs at the cathedral were defended by the boyar Fyodor Sheremetev. Being a relative of the Romanovs, he himself, however, could not claim the throne, since, like some other candidates, he was part of the Seven Boyars.

One of the first decisions of the council was the refusal to consider the candidacies of Vladislav and Karl Philip, as well as Marina Mniszech:

“...And the King of Lithuania and Sweden and their children, for their many untruths, and no other people should be robbed of the Moscow state, and Marinka and her son are not wanted.”

S. F. Platonov

But even after such a decision, the Romanovs were still confronted by many strong candidates. Of course, they all had certain shortcomings (see above). However, the Romanovs also had an important drawback - in comparison with the ancient Russian families, they clearly did not shine in origin. The first historically reliable ancestor of the Romanovs is traditionally considered to be the Moscow boyar Andrei Kobyla, who came from a Prussian princely family.

First version

Mikhail Fedorovich after his election to the throne

According to the official version, the election of the Romanovs became possible due to the fact that the candidacy of Mikhail Romanov turned out to be a compromise in many respects:

Having received a young, inexperienced monarch on the Moscow throne, the boyars could hope to put pressure on the tsar in resolving key issues.
Mikhail's father, Patriarch Filaret, was for some time in the camp of False Dmitry II. This gave hope to the defectors from the Tushino camp that Mikhail would not settle scores with them.
Patriarch Filaret, in addition, enjoyed undoubted authority in the ranks of the clergy.
The Romanov family was less tainted by its collaboration with the “unpatriotic” Polish government in 1610-1612. Although Ivan Nikitich Romanov was a member of the Seven Boyars, he was in opposition to the rest of his relatives (in particular, Patriarch Filaret and Mikhail Fedorovich) and did not support them at the council.
The most liberal period of his reign was associated with Anastasia Zakharyina-Yuryeva, the first wife of Tsar Ivan the Terrible.

“Let's choose Misha Romanov! - Boyar Fyodor Sheremetyev campaigned without hiding his plans. “He’s young and will be popular with us!” ...The desire to have a “behavioral” inexperienced monarch is the goal pursued by experienced and cunning Moscow politicians, supporters of Mikhail (A. Ya. Degtyarev)

Lev Gumilev lays out the reasons for the election of Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom more consistently:

“The Cossacks were in favor of Mikhail, since his father, who was friends with the Tushins, was not an enemy of the Cossacks. The boyars remembered that the applicant’s father was from a noble boyar family and, moreover, the cousin of Fyodor Ioannovich, the last tsar from the family of Ivan Kalita. The church hierarchs spoke out in support of Romanov, since his father was a monk, and in the rank of metropolitan, and for the nobles the Romanovs were good as opponents of the oprichnina.”

Other versions

According to a number of historians, the decision of the council was not entirely voluntary. The first vote on Mikhail’s candidacy took place on February 4 (7?) The voting result disappointed Sheremetev’s expectations:

“When the majority was sufficiently prepared by Sheremetyev’s concerns, a preliminary vote was scheduled for February 4. The result undoubtedly disappointed expectations, therefore, citing the absence of many voters, they decided to postpone the decisive vote for two weeks... The leaders themselves obviously needed a postponement in order to better prepare public opinion...” (K. Waliszewski)

Indeed, the decisive vote was scheduled for February 21 (March 3) of the year. The council, however, made another decision that Sheremetev did not like: it demanded that Mikhail Romanov, like all other candidates, immediately appear at the council. Sheremetev did his best to prevent the implementation of this decision, citing security reasons for his position. Indeed, some evidence indicates that the life of the pretender to the throne was at risk. According to legend, a special Polish detachment was sent to the village of Domnino, where Mikhail Fedorovich was hiding, to kill him, but the Domnino peasant Ivan Susanin led the Poles into impassable swamps and saved the life of the future tsar. Critics of the official version offer another explanation:

“Deprived of any upbringing amid the turbulent events that surrounded his childhood and early youth, probably unable to read or write, Mikhail could ruin everything by appearing in front of the Council” (K. Walishevsky)

The council continued to insist, but later (approximately February 17-18) changed its decision, allowing Mikhail Romanov to remain in Kostroma. And on February 21 (March 3) he elected Romanov to the throne.

Cossack intervention

Some evidence points to possible reason such a change. On February 10, 1613, two merchants arrived in Novgorod, reporting the following:

“The Russian Cossacks, who were in Moscow, wished for a boyar named Prince Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to be the Grand Duke. But the boyars were completely against this and rejected it at the Council, which was recently convened in Moscow.” (L.V. Cherepnin)

And here is the testimony of the peasant Fyodor Bobyrkin, who also arrived in Novgorod, dated July 16, 1613 - five days after the coronation:

“Moscow ordinary people and Cossacks, of their own free will and without the general consent of other zemstvo officials, chose Fedorov’s son, Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, who is now in Moscow, as Grand Duke. Zemstvo officials and boyars do not respect him.” (L.V. Cherepnin)

Literature

Valishevsky K., “Time of Troubles”, Moscow, “IKPA”, 1989.
Vasilevsky I. M. The Romanovs from Mikhail to Nikolai. - Rostov n/d: Maprekon, 1993.
Grimberg F. L., “The Romanov Dynasty. Puzzles. Versions. Problems", Moscow, "Moscow Lyceum", 1996.
Gumilyov L. N., “From Rus' to Russia”, St. Petersburg, “YUNA”, 1992.
Degtyarev A. Ya. (scientific review by R. G. Skrynnikov), “The Difficult Age of the Russian Tsardom”, Leningrad, “Children’s Literature”, 1988.
Karamzin N. M., “History of the Russian State,” in 12 volumes, in 3 books, Kaluga, “Golden Alley”, 1993.
Klyuchevsky V. O., “Russian history. Complete course of lectures in 3 books", Moscow, "Mysl", 1993.
Lurie F. M., “Russian and world history in tables", St. Petersburg, "Iskusstvo-SPb", 1997.
Pashkov B. G., “Rus. Russia. Russian empire. Chronicle of reigns and events of 862-1917", Moscow, "TsentrKom", 1997.
Platonov S. F., “Works on Russian history”, St. Petersburg, “Stroylespechat”, 1994.
“The Romanovs. Historical portraits", edited by E. V. Leonova, Moscow, "Armada", 1997.
“Tercentenary of the House of Romanov”, reprint of the anniversary edition of 1913, Moscow, Sovremennik, 1991.
Cherepnin L.V., “Zemsky Councils of the Russian state in the 16th-17th centuries,” Moscow, “Science”, 1978.

The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was a constitutional meeting of representatives of various lands and classes of the Moscow kingdom, formed to elect a new king to the throne.

On February 21 (March 3), 1613, the council elected Mikhail Romanov to the throne, marking the beginning of a new dynasty.

Zemsky Sobors were convened in Russia from the mid-16th to the end of the 17th century (finally abolished by Peter I). They played the role of an advisory body under the current monarch and did not limit his absolute power.

The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was convened in conditions of a dynastic crisis.

The main task is the election and legitimization of a new dynasty on the Russian throne, because in 1598, after the death of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, a dynastic crisis arose in Russia.

In 1613, in addition to Mikhail Romanov, both representatives of the local nobility and representatives of the ruling dynasties of neighboring countries laid claim to the Russian throne. Among them were:

1. Polish prince Vladislav, son of Sigismund III

2. Swedish prince Carl Philip, son of Charles IX

Among the representatives of the local nobility, the following surnames stood out: Golitsyns, Mstislavskys, Kurakins, Vorotynskys, Godunovs and Shuiskys. The Shuisky family descended from Rurik, but kinship with the overthrown rulers was fraught with a certain danger: having ascended the throne, the chosen ones could get carried away with settling political scores with their opponents.

In addition, the candidacy of Marina Mnishek and her son from her marriage to False Dmitry II was considered.

Versions of the motives for election:

1. According to the point of view officially recognized during the reign of the Romanovs, the council voluntarily decided to elect Romanov, in agreement with the opinion of the majority. This position is adhered to by the largest Russian historians of the 18th-20th centuries: N. M. Karamzin, S. M. Solovyov, N. I. Kostomarov, V. N. Tatishchev and others.

2. Some historians hold a different point of view. It is believed that in February 1613 there was a coup and seizure of power.

3. Others believe that we are talking about not completely fair elections, which brought victory not to the most worthy, but to the most cunning candidate.

"Anti-novelists" point to the following factors that cast doubt on the legitimacy of the new king:

The problem of the legitimacy of the council itself.

The problem of documenting the meetings of the council and the voting results. The only official document is the Approved Letter of Election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the Tsardom, drawn up no earlier than April-May 1613.

The problem of pressure on voters.

One way or another, Mikhail agreed to accept the throne and left for Moscow, where he arrived on May 2, 1613.

22 Ticket. Council Code of 1649: legal consolidation of serfdom and class functions.

The Council Code of 1649 is a set of laws of the Moscow state, the first legal act in Russian history that covered all existing legal norms, including the so-called “new decree” articles.

The Council Code was adopted at the Zemsky Sobor in 1649 and was in force until 1832, when, as part of the work to codify laws Russian Empire The Code of Laws of the Russian Empire was developed (M.M. Speransky).

The Council Code consists of 25 chapters regulating various areas of life.

Reasons for adopting the Council Code:

1. At the end of the Time of Troubles, the government of the new dynasty - the Romanovs - begins active legislative activity.

2. By 1649, the Russian state had a huge number of legislative acts that were not only outdated, but also contradicted each other.

3. Transition of Legislation to a normative interpretation of legal norms.

4. Salt riot in Moscow (1648).

To develop the draft Code, a special commission was created headed by Prince N.I. Odoevsky.

The sources of the Council Code were both Russian and foreign legislation.

1. Decree books of orders - in them, from the moment of the emergence of a particular order, current legislation on specific issues was recorded.

2. Code of Laws of 1497 and Code of Laws of 1550.

3. Lithuanian statute of 1588 - was used as an example of legal technique (wording, construction of phrases, rubrication).

4. Petitions

5. Kormchaya book (Byzantine law) The sources of the Council Code were both Russian and foreign legislation.

Branches of law according to the Council Code.

1. State law.

The Council Code determined the status of the head of state - the tsar, autocratic and hereditary monarch.

2. Criminal law

The crime system looked like this:

Crimes against the Church.

State crimes.

Crimes against the order of government.

Crimes against decency.

Crimes against the person.

Property crimes.

Crimes against morality.

Punishments and their purposes: death penalty, corporal punishment, imprisonment, exile, dishonorable punishments, fines, confiscation of property.

Purposes of punishment: intimidation, retribution from the state, isolation of the criminal, separation of the criminal from the surrounding mass of people (cutting off the nose, branding, cutting off an ear).

3. Civil law

Subjects civil law were both individuals (private) and groups (for example, a peasant community).

The main ways of acquiring rights to any thing, including land (real rights), were considered:

Land grant.

Acquiring rights to a thing by concluding a purchase and sale agreement.

Acquisitive prescription.

Finding things.

The oral form of the contract is increasingly being replaced by a written one.

Legislators paid special attention to the problem of patrimonial land ownership. The following were legislatively established: a complicated procedure for alienation and the hereditary nature of patrimonial property.

During this period, there were 3 types of feudal land ownership: the property of the sovereign, patrimonial land ownership and estate. The Council Code of 1649 allowed the exchange of estates for estates.

4. Family law

In the field of family law, the principles of Domostroy continued to apply - the primacy of the husband over his wife and children, the actual community of property, the obligation of the wife to follow her husband.

The legislation allowed one person to enter into no more than three marriages during his life.

The age of marriage was determined by custom and practice, but, as a rule, it coincided for a man with the age of civil capacity - 15 years.

In relation to children, the father retained the rights of head of the family until his death. For the murder of a child, the father received a prison sentence, but not the death penalty, as for the murder of a stranger.

The Code established a special type of execution for female murderers - burying alive up to the neck in the ground.

Divorce was allowed, but only on the basis of the following circumstances: the spouse leaving for a monastery, the spouse being accused of anti-state activities, the wife’s inability to bear children.

5. Legal proceedings under the Council Code

The Code describes in detail the procedure for “judgment” (both civil and criminal).

“Initiation” - filing a petition.

Arbitration is oral with the obligatory maintenance of a “court list”, that is, a protocol.

The evidence was varied: testimony (at least 10 witnesses), documents, kissing the cross (oath).

+ “Search”, “Pravezh”, “Wanted”.

The meaning of the Council Code.

The Council Code generalized and summarized the main trends in the development of Russian law in the 15th-17th centuries.

It consolidated new features and institutions characteristic of the new era, the era of advancing Russian absolutism.

The Code was the first to systematize domestic legislation; An attempt was made to differentiate the rules of law by industry.

The Council Code became the first printed monument of Russian law.

The Council Code codified Russian civil law.

Zemsky Sobor 1613. Election to the Russian throne of a tsar from the Romanov dynasty

In January 1613, the Zemsky Sobor met in Moscow, at which the issue of electing a new tsar was decided. We can say that he was, in a way, the Constituent Assembly of that era. After 30 long debates, the choice fell on Mikhail Romanov. The most important criterion was the fact that he was the great-nephew of Ivan the Terrible’s first wife, Anastasia Romanovna. Mikhail’s young age also played a role. At the time of his election he was only 16 years old. Some boyars believed that, using his young age, they would rule behind his back. In July 1613, Mikhail Romanov was crowned king. The young monarch inherited an extremely ruined kingdom. Bandit gangs and Polish detachments were still rampant in many areas of the country. In the fall of 1614, Sweden launched military operations against Russia. However, they soon ended, and in 1617 peace was signed between Russia and Sweden. However, according to the articles of the Stolbovsky Peace, the Baltic coast remained with Sweden. A year later, Moscow diplomats signed the Deulino Truce with Poland. The Poles retained Smolensk and other lands, but returned noble Russian captives from captivity, including the Tsar’s father, Metropolitan Filaret. Important feature initial stage Mikhail's reign was the continuous work of the Zemsky Sobor, which from 1613 to 1622, for 10 years, made decisions and determined the most important directions of state policy. The subject of special concern of the Moscow government was the improvement of general well-being. For this purpose, measures were taken to provide service people with local lands and peasants. During this period, further enslavement of the peasantry took place. There was a process of development and streamlining of tax and financial systems. During the time of Mikhail Romanov, manufacturing production received an impetus. Mikhail Fedorovich himself patronized the construction of gunpowder mills, herbal production and saltpeter breweries. He regularly sent ore miners, metallurgists, gunsmiths, watchmakers, jewelers and other specialists from abroad. Under him, three large ironworks at that time were built near Tula. With the help of foreigners, weapons and iron foundries were built in the Urals. During the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, the territory of the country increased significantly due to the peaceful development of sparsely populated areas of the North, Eastern Siberia and Far East.

The time of Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676) 31 In July 1645, Tsar Mikhail died. Contemporaries testify that in connection with this, a Zemsky Sobor was convened, which elected his son Alexei Mikhailovich to the throne and swore allegiance to him. This period is characterized by the influence of constantly operating factors that decisively determined the nature and direction of Russian history. - The country continued to overcome the consequences of the troubled times. - Heavy military confrontation with Poland, Sweden and Turkey, which required significant resources and forces of the nation. - Development and strengthening of economic and cultural contacts with the West. Strengthening the influence of European civilization. - The continued territorial expansion of the state and the development of vast undeveloped regions of Siberia, the Far East and the South of Russia. The first years of Alexei Mikhailovich's reign became a time of serious social conflicts and upheavals. During this period, a tax reform was carried out. The procedure for collecting payments and carrying out duties has been changed. Instead of the previous land-based principle of collecting taxes, they began to be collected according to the available number of peasants on estates and estates, which relieved the nobles of the need to pay for empty plots and increased the taxation of large land holdings. In 1646 - 1648 A household inventory of peasants and peasants was carried out. Increased tax oppression by the state led to social conflict and intensified class struggle. The reasons for this should also be sought in the increasing role of the administrative bureaucracy. In the middle of the 17th century. the country was shaken by the “salt riot”, urban uprisings, the “copper riot” and, finally, a powerful uprising under the leadership of S.T. Razin. It is not for nothing that contemporaries called the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich the “rebellious century.” An important moment in the legal development of Russian society in the period under review was the development and adoption at the Zemsky Sobor of 1649 of the most important legal document of that era - the Council Code. The significance of the new legal document was that all classes of society were subordinated to the interests of the state. With the help of the Code, the state “seated”, as V.O. Klyuchevsky, - social classes in tightly locked class cells. The Code found legal expression for the state’s desire to gather all the available forces of the nation and subordinate them to itself. The Code enslaved a significant layer of the so-called “owning peasants.” The fortress also housed the service class, which was obliged to serve the state. During this period, Russia waged difficult wars with Poland and Sweden. The raids of the Crimean khans posed a great danger to her. During the period under review, Russia maintained active trade and economic relations with the states of Northern Europe. The city of Arkhangelsk then played an important role in this trade.

The council elected Mikhail Romanov to the throne, laying the foundation for a new dynasty.

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 5
Zemstvo councils were convened in Russia repeatedly over a century and a half - from the mid-16th to the end of the 17th century (finally abolished by Peter I). However, in all other cases, they played the role of an advisory body under the current monarch and, in fact, did not limit his absolute power. The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was convened in conditions of a dynastic crisis. His main task was to elect and legitimize a new dynasty on the Russian throne.

Background

The dynastic crisis in Russia erupted in 1598 after the death of Tsar Fedor Ioannovich. At the time of his death, Fedor remained the only son of Tsar Ivan the Terrible. Two other sons were killed: the eldest, John Ioannovich, died in 1581, presumably at the hands of his father; the younger, Dmitry Ioannovich, in 1591 in Uglich under unclear circumstances. Fyodor did not have his own children. After his death, the throne passed to the Tsar's wife, Irina, then to her brother Boris Godunov. After the death of Boris in 1605, successive rulers were:
- Boris's son, Fyodor Godunov
- False Dmitry I (versions about the true origin of False Dmitry I - see the article)
After the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky from the throne as a result of the uprising on July 17 (27), power in Moscow passed to the provisional boyar government (see Seven Boyars). In August 1610, part of the population of Moscow swore allegiance to Prince Vladislav, the son of the Polish king and Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund III. In September, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth army entered the Kremlin. The actual power of the Moscow government in 1610-1612 was minimal. Anarchy reigned in the country; the northwestern lands (including Novgorod) were occupied by Swedish troops. In Tushino, near Moscow, the Tushino camp of another impostor, False Dmitry II, continued to function (False Dmitry II himself was killed in Kaluga in December 1610). To liberate Moscow from the invaders, the First People's Militia was successively assembled (under the leadership of Procopius Lyapunov, Ivan Zarutsky and Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy), and then the Second People's Militia under the leadership of Kuzma Minin and Prince Dmitry Pozharsky. In August 1612, the Second Militia, with part of the forces remaining near Moscow from the First Militia, defeated the army of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and in October completely liberated the capital.

Convocation of the Council

Motives for election

According to the point of view officially recognized during the reign of the Romanovs (and later rooted in Soviet historiography), the council voluntarily, expressing the opinion of the majority of the inhabitants of Russia, decided to elect Romanov, in agreement with the opinion of the majority. This point of view was developed by the historian N.A. Lavrovsky, who, after studying reports from sources, constructed the following diagram of events. Initially, the council participants decided not to choose the king from Lithuania and Sweden “with their children and Marinka and her son, as well as all foreign sovereigns,” but “to choose from Moscow and Russian families.” Then the participants of the cathedral began to discuss the question of who to elect “from the Russian clans” and decided to “elect a king from the tribe of the righteous ... Theodore Ivanovich of All Rus' of blessed memory” - his nephew Mikhail Romanov. This description of the work of the Council was repeated many times, until the beginning of the twentieth century. This position was adhered to, in particular, by the largest Russian historians of the 18th - 20th centuries: N. M. Karamzin, S. M. Solovyov, N. I. Kostomarov, V. N. Tatishchev and others.

“At that time there was no one dearer to the Russian people than the Romanov family. He has long been in the people's love. There was a good memory of Ivan Vasilyevich’s first wife, Anastasia, whom the people revered almost as a saint for her virtues. They remembered and did not forget her good brother Nikita Romanovich and condoled for his children, whom Boris Godunov tortured and overworked. They respected Metropolitan Filaret, the former boyar Fyodor Nikitich, who was held captive in Poland and seemed to the Russians to be a true martyr for a just cause.”

N. I. Kostomarov

Progress of the meetings

The cathedral opened on January 16. The opening was preceded by a three-day fast, the purpose of which was cleansing from the sins of the turmoil. Moscow was almost completely destroyed and devastated, so people settled, regardless of origin, wherever they could. Everyone gathered in the Assumption Cathedral day after day. The interests of the Romanovs at the cathedral were defended by the boyar Fyodor Sheremetev. Being a relative of the Romanovs, he himself, however, could not claim the throne, since, like some other candidates, he was part of the Seven Boyars.
One of the first decisions of the council was the refusal to consider the candidacies of Vladislav and Karl Philip, as well as Marina Mniszech:

“...But the King of Lithuania and Sweden and their children, for their many lies, and other people, don’t rob the Moscow state, and don’t want Marinka and her son.”

S. F. Platonov

But even after this decision, the Romanovs were still confronted by many strong candidates. Of course, they all had certain shortcomings (see above). However, the Romanovs also had an important drawback - in comparison with the ancient Russian families, they clearly did not shine in origin. The first historically reliable ancestor of the Romanovs is traditionally considered to be the Moscow boyar Andrei Kobyla, who came from a Prussian princely family.

First version

According to the official version, the election of the Romanovs became possible due to the fact that the candidacy of Mikhail Romanov turned out to be a compromise in many respects:
- Having received a young, inexperienced monarch on the Moscow throne, the boyars could hope to put pressure on the tsar in resolving key issues.
- Mikhail's father, Patriarch Filaret, was for some time in the camp of False Dmitry II. This gave hope to the defectors from the Tushino camp that Mikhail would not settle scores with them.
- Patriarch Filaret, in addition, enjoyed undoubted authority in the ranks of the clergy.
- The Romanov family was less tainted by its collaboration with the “unpatriotic” Polish government in 1610-1612. Although Ivan Nikitich Romanov was a member of the Seven Boyars, he was in opposition to the rest of his relatives (in particular, Patriarch Filaret and Mikhail Fedorovich) and did not support them at the council.
- The most liberal period of his reign was associated with Anastasia Zakharyina-Yuryeva, the first wife of Tsar Ivan the Terrible.
“Let's choose Misha Romanov! - Boyar Fyodor Sheremetyev campaigned without hiding his plans. “He’s young and will be popular with us!” ...The desire to have a “behavioral” inexperienced monarch is the goal pursued by experienced and cunning Moscow politicians, supporters of Mikhail (A. Ya. Degtyarev)

More consistently [ ] sets out the reasons for the election of Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom of Lev Gumilyov:

“The Cossacks were in favor of Mikhail, since his father, who was friends with the Tushins, was not an enemy of the Cossacks. The boyars remembered that the applicant’s father was from a noble boyar family and, moreover, the cousin of Fyodor Ioannovich, the last tsar from the family of Ivan Kalita. The church hierarchs spoke out in support of Romanov, since his father was a monk, and in the rank of metropolitan, and for the nobles the Romanovs were good as opponents of the oprichnina.”

Other versions

According to a number of historians, the decision of the council was not entirely voluntary. The first vote on Mikhail’s candidacy took place on February 4 (7?) The voting result disappointed Sheremetev’s expectations:

“When the majority was sufficiently prepared by Sheremetyev’s concerns, a preliminary vote was scheduled for February 4. The result undoubtedly disappointed expectations, therefore, citing the absence of many voters, they decided to postpone the decisive vote for two weeks... The leaders themselves obviously needed a postponement in order to better prepare public opinion...” (K. Waliszewski)

Indeed, the decisive vote was scheduled for February 21 (March 3) of the year. The council, however, made another decision that Sheremetev did not like: it demanded that Mikhail Romanov, like all other candidates, immediately appear at the council. Sheremetev did his best to prevent the implementation of this decision, citing security reasons for his position. Indeed, some evidence indicates that the life of the pretender to the throne was at risk. According to legend, a special detachment of troops of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was sent to the village of Domnino, where Mikhail Fedorovich was hiding, to kill him, but the Domnino peasant Ivan Susanin led his enemies into impassable swamps and saved the life of the future tsar. Critics of the official version offer another explanation:
February 20, 1613. On the porch of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, cellarer of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra Avraamy Palitsyn reads out the decision of the Zemsky Sobor “On the election of boyar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the royal throne.” (“Book about the election of the Tsar and Grand Duke Mikhail Fedorovich to the kingdom”, 1672-1673)

Some evidence points to a possible reason for this change. On February 10, 1613, two merchants arrived in Novgorod and reported the following:

“The Russian Cossacks, who were in Moscow, wished for a boyar named Prince Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to be the Grand Duke. But the boyars were completely against this and rejected it at the Council, which was recently convened in Moscow.” (L.V. Cherepnin)

And here is the testimony of the peasant Fyodor Bobyrkin, who also arrived in Novgorod, dated July 16 (26), five days after the coronation:

“Moscow ordinary people and Cossacks, of their own free will and without the general consent of other zemstvo officials, chose Fedorov’s son, Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, who is now in Moscow, as Grand Duke. Zemstvo officials and boyars do not respect him.” (L.V. Cherepnin)

The Lithuanian commander Lev Sapega reported the election results to the captive Filaret, the father of the newly elected monarch:

"They put your son on Moscow State only Don Cossacks.” (S. F. Platonov)

Here is a story written by another eyewitness to the events.

“The boyars were playing for time at the council, trying to resolve the issue of the tsar “in secret” from the Cossacks and waiting for their departure from Moscow. But they not only did not leave, but became more active. One day, after consulting with “the entire Cossack army,” they sent up to five hundred people to the Krutitsy Metropolitan. Forcibly, breaking down the gate, they burst into his courtyard and “with rude words” demanded: “Give us, Metropolitan, the Tsar of Russia, whom we can worship and serve and ask for a salary, why die a smooth death!” (Romanovs) , Historical Portraits, edited by E. V. Leonova)

The frightened Metropolitan fled to the boyars. They hastily called everyone to the council. The Cossack atamans repeated their demand. The boyars presented them with a list of eight boyars - the most worthy candidates, in their opinion. Romanov's name was not on the list! Then one of the Cossack atamans spoke:

“Princes and boyars and all Moscow nobles! It is not by God’s will, but by autocracy and by your own will that you choose the autocratic. But by God’s will and with the blessing of... Grand Duke Fyodor Ioannovich of All Rus', in his blessed memory, to whom he, sovereign, bless his royal staff and rule over Russia, Prince Fyodor Nikitich Romanov. And that one is now full in Lithuania. And from the good root and good branch and honor - his son, Prince Mikhailo Fedorovich. May it be fitting, according to God’s will, that in the reigning city of Moscow and all Russia there will be a Tsar, Sovereign and Grand Duke Mikhailo Fedorovich of All Rus'...” (ibid.)

Embassy in Kostroma

On March 2, an embassy was sent to Mikhail Romanov and his mother, who was in Kostroma, on behalf of the Zemsky Sobor, under the leadership of the Ryazan Archbishop Theodoret of the Trinity. The embassy included the archimandrites of the Chudov, Novospassky, Simonov monasteries, boyars F.I. Sheremetyev, V.I. Bakhteyarov-Rostovskaya, boyar children, clerks, elected from the cities (Palace ranks. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1850. Stbl. . 17-18). The purpose of the embassy is to notify Michael of his election to the throne and present him with the conciliar oath. According to the official version, Mikhail got scared and flatly refused to reign, so the ambassadors had to show all their eloquence to convince the future tsar to accept the crown. Critics of the “Romanov” concept express doubts about the sincerity of the refusal and note that the conciliar oath has no historical value:
Of the year. (Palace categories. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1850. Stbl. 95).

Literature

Report at the first Tsar's readings of "Autocratic Russia"
The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was assembled by the decision of the head of the administrative department of the Moscow state created in Moscow after the expulsion of the Poles by Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky together with Prince Dmitry Timofeevich Trubetskoy. A charter dated November 15, 1612, signed by Pozharsky, called on all cities of the Moscow State to elect ten elected people from each city to elect the Tsar. According to indirect data, the Zemsky Sobor was attended by representatives of 50 cities liberated from the Polish occupation and the gangs of thieves of Ataman Zarutsky, an ardent supporter of the elevation of the son of Marina Mnishek and False Dmitry II to the Moscow Royal throne.

Thus, ten people from one city had to be present at the Zemsky Sobor, subject to the norms of representation determined by the head of the Moscow government. Based on this norm, then five hundred elected members from cities only, not counting members of the Zemsky Sobor, should have participated in Zemsky Sobor by position (Boyar Duma in its entirety, court officials and higher clergy). According to the calculations of the most prominent specialist in the history of troubled times, Academician Sergei Fedorovich Platonov, more than seven hundred people should have participated in the Zemsky Sobor of 1613, which amounted to five hundred elected and about two hundred courtiers, boyars and church hierarchs. The large number of people and representativeness of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 are confirmed by evidence from various independent chronicle sources, such as the New Chronicler, the Tale of the Zemsky Sobor, the Pskov Chronicler and some others. However, with the representation of the boyar duma and court officials, everything was not as simple as with the ordinary elected members of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613. There is direct evidence from both Russian chroniclers and foreign observers that a significant part of the boyar aristocracy, which made up the absolute majority of the members of the Boyar Duma and court officials, who were supporters of the invitation to the Moscow throne of the Polish prince Vladislav and who had stained herself by close cooperation with the Polish occupiers, both in Moscow and in other cities and regions of the Moscow state, was expelled by January 1613 - the time of the beginning of the Zemsky Sobor from Moscow to their estates.

Thus, the boyar aristocracy, traditionally present and usually actively influencing the decisions of the Zemsky Councils, was sharply weakened at the Zemsky Council of 1613. It can be said that these decisions of princes Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky and Dmitry Timofeevich Trubetskoy became the last blow in the final defeat of the once influential Moscow boyar aristocracy “Polish party” (supporters of Prince Vladislav). It is no coincidence that the first resolution of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was the refusal to consider any foreign candidates for the Moscow throne and the refusal to recognize the rights of the vorenok (son of False Dmitry II and Marina Mnishek) to it. The majority of participants in the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 were committed to the speedy election of a Tsar from a natural Russian boyar family. However, there were very few boyar families that were not stained by the turmoil, or were stained comparatively less than others.

In addition to the candidacy of Prince Pozharsky himself, who, as a likely candidate for the throne, due to his lack of nobility, was not taken seriously even by the patriotic part of the Moscow aristocracy (despite the fact that Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky was a hereditary natural Rurikovich, neither he nor his father and grandfather were not only Moscow boyars, but even okolnichy). At the time of the overthrow of the last relatively legitimate tsar, Vasily Shuisky, Prince Pozharsky bore the modest title of steward. Another influential leader of the patriotic movement, Prince Dmitry Timofeevich Trubetskoy, despite his undoubted nobility (he was a descendant of the Gediminovich dynasty of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), was greatly discredited by his collaboration with former supporters of the so-called Tushino thief, False Dmitry II, led by Ataman Zarutsky. This past of Prince Dmitry Timofeevich Trubetskoy repelled him not only from the boyar aristocracy, but also from wide circles of the hereditary service nobility. The hereditary nobleman Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy was not perceived by the Moscow aristocracy and many nobles as one of their own. They saw in him an unreliable adventurer, ready for any action, any ingratiation with the mob, just to achieve full power in the Moscow state and seize the royal throne. As for the social lower classes and, in particular, the Cossacks, to whom Prince Dmitry Timofeevich Trubetskoy constantly curried favor, hoping with their help to take the royal throne, the Cossacks quickly became disillusioned with his candidacy, as they saw that he did not have support in wide circles of others estates. This caused an intensive search for other candidates at the Zemsky Sobor in 1613, among whom the figure of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov began to acquire the greatest weight. Mikhail Fedorovich, a sixteen-year-old youth, untainted in the affairs of the Troubles, was the son of the head of the noble boyar family of the Romanovs, in the world Fedor, and in monasticism Filaret, who was in Polish captivity, who became metropolitan in the Tushino camp, but took a consistently patriotic position in the embassy of 1610, subtly and wisely negotiated with the Polish king Sigismund, under Smolensk besieged by the Poles, about the calling of Prince Vladislav to the Moscow throne, but in such a way that this calling did not take place. In fact, Metropolitan Philaret surrounded this calling with such religious and political conditions that made election almost impossible, both for Sigismund and for Prince Vladislav.

This anti-Polish, anti-Vladislav and anti-Sigismund position of Metropolitan Philaret was widely known and highly appreciated in wide circles of various classes of the Moscow state. But due to the fact that Metropolitan Filaret was a clergyman, and, moreover, was in Polish captivity, that is, he was actually cut off from the political life of Moscow Rus', his sixteen-year-old son Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov became a real candidate for the Moscow throne.

The most active supporter of Mikhail Fedorovich's candidacy for the Moscow royal throne was a distant relative of the Zakhariin-Romanov family, Fyodor Ivanovich Sheremetyev. It was with his help and support that the idea of electing Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the throne of the Muscovite kingdom took hold of both the members of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 and wide circles of representatives of various classes of the Moscow state.

However, the greatest success of Sheremetyev’s mission, in his struggle for the election of Mikhail Fedorovich to the royal throne, was the support of his candidacy by the governor of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Dionysius.

This authoritative support greatly strengthened Mikhail Fedorovich’s position in the public opinion of representatives of various classes of the Moscow state and, above all, the two of them that most opposed each other: the service nobility and the Cossacks.

It was the Cossacks, under the influence of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, who were the first to actively support Michael’s candidacy for the royal throne. The influence of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra also contributed to the fact that most of the serving nobility, who for a long time greatly fluctuated in their sympathies for possible contenders, ultimately came out on the side of Mikhail Fedorovich.

As for the townspeople - urban artisans and traders, this one was very influential in the liberation movement of 1612-1613. layer of the urban population, whose representatives actively supported the candidacy of Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky before the convening of the Zemsky Sobor, after he withdrew his candidacy and with active support Orthodox Church Mikhail Romanov also began to lean towards his support. Thus, the election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, and, in his person, the new royal Romanov dynasty, was the result of the consent of all the main classes of the Moscow state that participated in the liberation movement of 1612 and were represented at the Zemsky Sobor of 1613.

Undoubtedly, the election of the Romanov dynasty in the person of Mikhail Fedorovich was undoubtedly elected to the Moscow Tsarist throne by the Khakharians-Romanov family with the latest representatives of the faded dynasty of the Moscow Rurikovich, the descendants of the founder of the Moscow Principality of the Holy Prince Daniil and his son Ivan Kalita, Daniyalovichi-Kalitichi, who occupied the Moscow Grand Duke, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a. later, the royal throne for almost 300 years.

However, the history of the Time of Troubles shows us that nobility itself, without public support and the real authority of one or another boyar family in church circles of representatives of various secular classes, could not contribute to their victory in the struggle for the throne that was taking place at that time.

The sad fate of Tsar Vasily Shuisky and the entire Shuisky family showed this clearly.

It was the support of the Church and zemstvo forces from various classes of Moscow Rus' that contributed to the victory of Mikhail Fedorovich, who took the royal throne of the Moscow state.

As evidenced by the largest specialist in the history of the Time of Troubles, the outstanding Russian historian, Professor Sergei Fedorovich Platonov, after the representatives of the main estates participating in the Zemsky Council on February 7, 1613, agreed on the candidacy of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov for the royal throne, some of the deputies - members of the Council was sent to various cities of the Moscow state in order to find out opinions about this decision.

The deputies, sent by express mail from Yamsk, reached southern Russian cities, as well as Nizhny Novgorod, Yaroslavl and other cities in two weeks. The cities unanimously supported the election of Mikhail Fedorovich.

After this, a decisive vote was held on February 21, 1613, which became historic, in which, in addition to the deputies who returned from regional lands and cities, for the first time since the beginning of the work of the Zemsky Sobor, the boyars who were removed by Prince Dmitry Pozharsky from his work at the first stage - former supporters of Vladislav - took part and cooperation with Poland, led by the former head of the pro-Polish government of the era of Polish occupation - the Seven Boyars - boyar Fyodor Mstislavsky.

This was done in order to demonstrate the unity of the Moscow state and all its social forces in supporting the new Tsar in the face of the continuing powerful Polish threat.

Thus, the decision to elect Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov as Tsar of the Moscow State, which took place on February 21, 1613, became a de facto declaration of independence of Muscovite Rus' from foreign intrigues and those foreign centers (Papal Vatican, Habsburg Vienna, Sigismund Krakow) where these intrigues matured and were nurtured.

But the most important result of the work of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was that this decision was made not by the aristocracy in a narrow boyar circle, but by broad layers of different classes of Russian society in the conditions of a public discussion at the Zemsky Sobor.

L.N.Afonsky
Member of the Presidium of the Central Council of "Autocratic Russia"