Council of 1613 and approval on the Russian throne. Overcoming turmoil

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 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 thieves' factories are divided into many parts and theft multiplies a lot, and therefore the boyars and governors invited all the spiritual authorities to be with 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 a person is suitable for the zemstvo council and state election, all the cities would send to Moscow, and so that these authorities and elected the best people agreed firmly in their cities and took full contracts from all sorts of 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 discuss whether to choose from foreign royal houses or their natural Russian, and decided “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 should not be elected, and Marinka and her son should not be wanted on 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 Moscow state, but swedish king Velikiy Novgorod taken 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. 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 were to be 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 charter of Mikhail Fedorovich, written in the summer of 1613. We see only 277 signatures on it, but there were obviously more participants in the council, since not all cathedral people signed the cathedral 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 there were, it seems, more servicemen 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 does not have the 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 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, unspoken inquiry among the people, and 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 elected 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.

Zemsky Sobor of 1613- a constitutional assembly of representatives of various lands and estates of the Moscow kingdom, drawn up for the election of a new tsar to the throne. It was opened on January 7, 1613 in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. On February 21 (March 3), 1613, the cathedral elected Mikhail Romanov as king, marking the beginning of a new dynasty.

Zemsky Sobors

Zemsky Sobors were convened in Russia repeatedly over a century and a half - from the middle of the 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 the 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, John Ioannovich, died in 1581 at the hands of his father; the younger, Dmitry Ioannovich, in 1591 in Uglich under unclear circumstances. Fedor had no children of his own. After his death, the throne passed to the wife of the king, Irina, then to her brother Boris Godunov. After the death of Boris in 1605, they successively ruled:

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

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 civil uprising(under the leadership of Prokopy 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 Polish army, and in October completely liberated the capital.

convocation of the council

October 26, 1612 in Moscow, deprived of support from the main forces of Hetman Khodkevich, the Polish garrison capitulated. After the liberation of the capital, it became necessary to choose a new sovereign. Letters were sent from Moscow to many Russian cities on behalf of the liberators of Moscow - Pozharsky and Trubetskoy. Information came about the documents sent to Sol Vychegodskaya, Pskov, Novgorod, Uglich. These letters, dated mid-November 1612, ordered representatives of each city to arrive in Moscow before December 6th. However, the elected for a long time gathered from the distant ends of the still seething Russia. Some lands (for example, Tverskaya) were devastated and burned completely. Someone sent 10-15 people, someone just one representative. The opening date of the meetings of the Zemsky Sobor was postponed from December 6 to January 6. In dilapidated Moscow, the only building left that can accommodate all the elected ones is the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. According to various estimates, the number of those gathered varies from 700 to 1500 people.

Candidates for the throne

In 1613, in addition to Mikhail Romanov, both representatives of the local nobility and representatives of the ruling dynasties of neighboring countries claimed the Russian throne. Among the last candidates for the throne were:

Polish prince Vladislav, son of Sigismund III
Swedish prince Karl Philip, son of Charles IX

Among the representatives of the local nobility, the following names stood out. As can be seen from the above list, they all had serious shortcomings in the eyes of voters.

Golitsyn. This clan descended from Gediminas of Lithuania, but the absence of V.V. Golitsyn (he was in Polish captivity) deprived this clan of strong candidates.
Mstislavsky and Kurakin. Representatives of these noble Russian families undermined their reputation by collaborating with the Poles (see Seven Boyars)
Vorotynsky. According to the official version, the most influential representative of this family, I. M. Vorotynsky, recused himself.
Godunov and Shuisky. Both those and others were relatives of the earlier ruling monarchs. The Shuisky family, in addition, descended from Rurik. However, kinship with the overthrown rulers was fraught with a certain danger: having ascended the throne, the chosen ones could be carried away by settling political scores with opponents.
Dmitry Pozharsky and Dmitry Trubetskoy. They, undoubtedly, glorified their names during the storming of Moscow, but did not differ in nobility.

In addition, the candidacy of Marina Mniszek and her son from marriage with False Dmitry II, nicknamed "Raven", was considered.

Versions about the motives for the election

"Romanov" concept

According to the point of view officially recognized during the era 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 accordance with the opinion of the majority. This position is held, 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.

This concept is characterized by the denial of the desire of the Romanovs for power. At the same time, the negative assessment of the three previous rulers is obvious. Boris Godunov, False Dmitry I, Vasily Shuisky in the view of "novelists" look like negative characters.

Other versions

However, some historians take a different view. The most radical of them believe that in February 1613 there was a coup, a seizure, a usurpation of power. 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. Both parts of the “anti-Romanists” are unanimous in their opinion that the Romanovs did everything to achieve the throne, and that the events of the early 17th century should not be viewed as a turmoil that ended with the arrival of the Romanovs, but as a power struggle that ended with the victory of one of the competitors. According to the "anti-Romanists", the council created only the appearance of choice, in fact this opinion was not the opinion of the majority. And later, as a result of deliberate distortions and falsifications, the Romanovs managed to create a "myth" about the election of Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom.

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

The problem of the legitimacy of the cathedral itself. Convened in conditions of complete anarchy, the council did not represent the Russian lands and estates in any fair proportion.
The problem of documentary description of the meetings of the council and the results of voting. The only official document describing the activities of the cathedral is the Approved Charter on the election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the kingdom, drawn up no earlier than April-May 1613 (see, for example: L. V. Cherepnin “Zemsky Sobors in Russia in the 16th-17th centuries”).
The problem of pressure on voters. According to a number of sources, outsiders, in particular, the Cossack army stationed in Moscow, had a great influence on the course of the discussion.

Sessions

The cathedral opened on January 7th. The opening was preceded by a three-day fast in order to be cleansed from the sins of unrest. Moscow was almost completely destroyed and devastated, so they settled, regardless of origin, where they could. Everyone converged 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, however, he himself 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 Philipp, as well as Marina Mnishek:

But even after such a decision, the Romanovs were still opposed 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 old Russian families, they clearly did not shine with their origin. The first historically reliable ancestor of the Romanovs is traditionally considered 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 solving 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 accounts with them.
Patriarch Filaret, in addition, enjoyed undoubted authority in the ranks of the clergy.
The Romanov clan sullied itself to a lesser extent by collaborating 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 cathedral.
The most liberal period of his reign was associated with Anastasia Zakharyina-Yuryeva, the first wife of Tsar Ivan the Terrible.

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

Other versions

However, 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 4 (7?) February. The result of the vote deceived Sheremetev's expectations:

Indeed, the decisive vote was scheduled for February 21 (March 3), 1613. The council, however, made another decision, objectionable to Sheremetev: he demanded that Mikhail Romanov, like all other candidates, immediately appear at the council. Sheremetev in every possible way prevented the implementation of this decision, motivating his position with security considerations. Indeed, some evidence indicates that the life of the pretender to the throne was in danger. 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 impenetrable swamps and saved the life of the future tsar. Critics of the official version offer another explanation:

The Council continued to insist, but later (tentatively February 17-18) changed its mind, allowing Mikhail Romanov to stay in Kostroma. And on February 21 (March 3), 1613, he elected Romanov to the kingdom.

Cossack intervention

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

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

The Polish commander Lev Sapieha reported the results of the elections to the captive Filaret, the father of the newly elected monarch:

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

The frightened metropolitan fled to the boyars. They hurriedly called everyone to the cathedral. The Cossack atamans repeated their demand. The boyars presented them with a list of eight boyars - the most, in their opinion, worthy candidates. The list did not include the name of Romanov! Then one of the Cossack chieftains spoke:

Embassy in Kostroma

A few days later, an embassy was sent to Kostroma, where Romanov lived with his mother, under the leadership of Archimandrite Theodoret Troitsky. The purpose of the embassy is to notify Michael of his election to the throne and to hand him the conciliar oath. According to the official version, Michael was frightened and flatly refused to reign, so the ambassadors had to use all their eloquence to convince the future king 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:

One way or another, Mikhail agreed to accept the throne and left for Moscow, where he arrived on May 2, 1613. The coronation in Moscow took place on July 11, 1613.

The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 marked the end of the Time of Troubles and was supposed to introduce order into the rule of Russia. Let me remind you that after the death of Ivan 4 (the Terrible), the place on the throne was free, since the tsar left no heirs. That is why the Troubles occurred, when both internal forces and external representatives carried out endless attempts to seize power.

Reasons for convening the Zemsky Sobor

After the foreign invaders were expelled not only from Moscow, but also from Russia, Minin, Pozharsky and Trubetskoy sent invitation letters to all the destinies of the country, urging all representatives of the nobility to come to the Cathedral, where a new tsar would be elected.

The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 opened in January, and it was attended by:

Clergy
Boyars
nobles
City Elders
Peasant representatives
Cossacks

In total, 700 people took part in the Zemsky Sobor.

The course of the Council and its decisions

The first decision that was approved by the Zemsky Sobor was that the tsar must be Russian. He must not refer to aliens in any way.

Marina Mniszek intended to crown her son Ivan (whom historians often call "Vorenok"), but after the decision of the Council that the tsar should not be a foreigner, she fled to Ryazan.
Historical reference

The events of those days must be considered from the point of view of the fact that there were a huge number of people who wanted to take a place on the throne. Therefore, groups began to form, which united, promoting their representative. There were several such groups:

Noble boyars. This included representatives of the boyar family. One part of them believed that Fedor Mstislavsky or Vasily Golitsyn would become the ideal tsar for Russia. Others leaned towards the young Mikhail Romanov. The number of boyars by interests was divided approximately equally.
Nobles. These were also noble people with great authority. They promoted their "king" - Dmitry Trubetskoy. The difficulty was that Trubetskoy had the rank of "boyar", which he had recently received in the Tushensky yard.
Cossacks. By tradition, the Cossacks joined the one who had the money. In particular, they actively served the Tushensky court, and after the latter was dispersed, they began to support the tsar, who was related to Tushin.

Mikhail Romanov's father, Filaret, was a patriarch in the Tushensky court and enjoyed great respect there. Largely due to this fact, Mikhail was supported by the Cossacks and the clergy.
Karamzin

Romanov did not have many rights to the throne. The more serious claim to him was that his father was on friendly terms with both False Dmitrys. The first False Dmitry made Filaret a metropolitan and his protege, and the second False Dmitry appointed him patriarch and his protege. That is, Mikhail's father was on very friendly terms with foreigners, whom they had just got rid of by the decision of the Council of 1613, they decided not to call for power anymore.

results

The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 ended on February 21 - Mikhail Romanov was elected tsar. Now it is difficult to reliably speak about all the intricacies of the events of those days, since not so many documents have survived. Nevertheless, it is known for certain that the Cathedral was surrounded by complex intrigues. This is not surprising - the stakes were too high. The fate of the country and entire ruling dynasties was being decided.

The result of the Council was that Mikhail Romanov was elected to the kingdom, who at that time was only 16 years old. The unequivocal answer "Why exactly him?" no one will. Historians say that it was the most convenient figure for all dynasties. Allegedly, young Mikhail was an extremely suggestible person and he could be "managed as the majority needs." In fact, all the fullness of power (especially in the first years of the reign of Romanov) was not with the tsar himself, but with his father, Patriarch Filaret. It was he who actually ruled Russia on behalf of his son.

Feature and controversy

The main feature of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was its mass character. Representatives of all classes and estates, with the exception of serfs and rootless peasants, took part in deciding the future of the country. In fact, we are talking about an all-estate Council, which had no analogues in the history of Russia.

The second feature is the importance of the solution and its complexity. There is no definite answer why Romanov was chosen. After all, it was not the most obvious candidate. The entire Council was marked by a large number of intrigues, bribery attempts and other manipulations of people.

Summarizing, we can say that the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 had importance for the history of Russia. He concentrated power in the hands of the Russian tsar, laid the foundation for a new dynasty (the Romanovs) and delivered the country from constant problems and claims to the throne from the Germans, Poles, Swedes and others.

Zemsky Sobor 1613

The expulsion of the interventionists from Moscow made it possible to elect a new tsar.

To this end, in January 1613, the most representative Zemsky Sobor took place in the liberated capital. It was attended by deputies from all estates, including black-haired peasants. The cathedral proclaimed Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov (1613–1645), the founder of a dynasty that had ruled Russia for more than 300 years. This put an end to the Troubles. For various reasons, a political compromise was found in the person of sixteen-year-old Mikhail, although various candidates were discussed: Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy, Prince Dmitry Pozharsky, Prince Vasily Golitsyn, D.M. Vorotynsky, Carl Philip of Sweden, Vladislav of Poland, and others. The participants in the council immediately rejected the candidacies of foreign princes and the "Vorenka" - the son of False Dmitry II and Marina Mnishek. An important role was played by the fact that Father Fyodor Nikitich Romanov (Filaret in monasticism) stood behind Mikhail. He was supported by people who advanced during the years of the oprichnina and suffered from it, supporters and opponents of Boris Godunov, Vasily Shuisky and both False Dmitrys, "friends" and "enemies" of the Commonwealth, the Cossacks. The boyars were satisfied with Mikhail's youth, inexperience and narrow-minded mind. Sheremetiev wrote to Prince Golitsyn in Warsaw: “Let’s choose de Misha Romanov, he is still young and has not reached his mind ... and he will be familiar with us.” All of the above provided the founder of the Romanov dynasty with a majority of votes. It was taken into account that the first wife of Ivan IV the Terrible, Anastasia, belonged to the Romanov family. Moreover, no conditions were set for the new tsar: the power acquired an autocratic-legitimate character.

Thus, the conservative trend won, as opposed to the possible, but not taken place, alternatives of the Time of Troubles. The society, incredibly tired for a decade and a half, strove for the usual order that the first Romanovs could provide: Mikhail Fedorovich (1613-1645), Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676), Fedor Alekseevich (1676-1682).

In January - February 1613, the Zemsky Sobor was held in Moscow, proclaiming Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov (1613 - 1645), the founder of the dynasty that ruled Russia for more than 300 years, as Tsar. However, the final end of the Troubles was yet to come. Robbery Cossack gangs and detachments of interventionists continued to roam the country.

Ataman I. Zarutsky in the summer of 1612 tried to knock out Don Cossacks to a trip to Moscow in order to put on the throne a “Vorenka” (Ivan, the son of Marina Mniszek). After the failure of this adventure at the end of 1613, he captured Astrakhan and spent the winter of 1613-1614 there, calling for a rebellion against the Moscow authorities and, according to some reports, trying to create his own state under the auspices of the Iranian Shah. When troops sent by Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich approached Astrakhan in March 1614, the townspeople rebelled against Zarutsky, and the ataman, Marina Mnishek, and her son had to flee. In the autumn of 1614 they were issued to the tsarist troops by the Yaik Cossacks. Soon Ivan Zarutsky and the “Vorenok” were executed, and Marina Mnishek was thrown into prison.

In 1615, the Swedish troops, who occupied the northwestern regions and captured Novgorod in 1611, laid siege to Pskov. The Pskovians offered heroic resistance to the enemies, and, having failed to capture the city, the Swedish king Gustav II Adolf decided to conclude a peace treaty with Russia. In 1617, the Stolbovsky Peace was signed, under the terms of which Sweden returned Novgorod to Russia, but left behind all the lands along the coast of the Baltic Sea; in addition, Russian merchants were forbidden to travel to European countries and trade with foreign merchants - all Russian trade had to go through Swedish cities and through the mediation of subjects of the Swedish king.

The Commonwealth, which occupied the western territories of Russia, did not accept the expulsion of its troops from Moscow and the election of the Russian Tsar. In 1618, Prince Vladislav led a campaign against Moscow. But the Polish siege of the capital was unsuccessful, and the Poles decided to sign a truce. On December 1, 1618, an agreement was signed between the Commonwealth and Russia in the village of Deulino. Under the terms of the Deulino truce, hostilities ceased for 14.5 years, Smolensk, Chernigov and Novgorod-Seversky lands remained behind the Commonwealth, in addition, Prince Vladislav did not renounce his claims to the Moscow throne and continued to call himself tsar. But many prisoners were returned from Poland, including the father of the king, Patriarch Filaret, who became the de facto ruler of the state.

Russia emerged from the Time of Troubles exhausted, with huge territorial and human losses. According to some reports, up to a third of the country's population died during this period.

Russia's international position worsened, its military potential weakened, and for a long time its southern borders remained practically defenseless.

The fight against foreign invasion turned into an official rejection of everything foreign and non-Orthodox, which aggravated cultural isolation.

IN Time of Troubles Russia has undergone a number of transformations in the social, political and religious spheres of life. The peak of these social transformations, which marked the end of the Time of Troubles and the onset of political stability, was the Zemsky Sobor of 1613.

Ivan IV (the Terrible) did not leave a single heir behind him. It was the fact of the presence of a free throne that caused the Troubles in the Russian state. Troubles meant endless attempts by internal and external forces to seize power.

At the same time, during the period of the XVI-XVII centuries. Numerous Zemsky Sobors were convened, which served as an advisory body to the sovereign. The most important goal of the Zemsky Sobor was the election of a new autocrat and a new ruling dynasty. As a result of the council on January 16, the first tsar from the Romanov dynasty was elected.

What were the prerequisites for convening the Zemsky Sobor?

the dynastic crisis that began as early as 1598 as a result of the death of Fyodor Ioannovich, who was the only heir to Ivan the Terrible;
alternate and frequent change of power: from Fyodor's wife Irina - to, from Boris Godunov - to his son Fyodor, and then to False Dmitry the First and, as a result of the uprising against Shuisky - to the interim government.
decentralization and political stratification of society: one part of the Russian population swore allegiance to Prince Vladislav, the northwestern part of the population was under Swedish occupation, and the part near Moscow was under the influence of the camp of the deposed False Dmitry II.

How was the preparation of the cathedral?

After the expulsion of foreign invaders from Russia in 1612, the opportunity arose for the election of a new monarch. To this end, Minin, Trubetskoy and Pozharsky sent letters of invitation to all parts of Russia, in which representatives of the nobility were called to the All-Russian Council. But no one expected that people would come for so long. Throughout the country there were riots and chaos. Only in the Tver region, almost all the cities were burned to the ground and completely devastated. From some areas only 1 representative was sent, from others - 10 each. This contributed to the transfer of the cathedral for a whole month - from December to January. Historians estimate the number of participants in the January Cathedral at 700-1500 people. Such a number of people at that time could only be accommodated in Moscow by the Assumption Cathedral, in which the Zemsky Sobor took place.

Who were the contenders for the royal throne?

Polish prince Vladislav;
False Dmitry II;
Swedish prince Carl-Philip;
King of England James I;
son Ivan (his historians call him “Vorenok”);
Golitsyns;
Romanovs;
Mstislavsky;
Kurakins;
Vorotynsky;
Godunovs;
Shuisky;
Prince Dmitry Pozharsky;
Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy.

Who took part in the election of the king?

The cathedral was numerous and was represented by:

noble boyars, who were divided into two approximately equal camps: some considered Fyodor Mstislavsky or Vasily Golitsyn to be the ideal contender, while others considered Mikhail Romanov;
nobles who voted for Dmitry Trubetskoy, whom they considered "their own", but who also had the rank of "boyar";
the clergy, in particular (the father of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov), who was the patriarch in Tushen and was very respected there;
the Cossacks, who changed their preferences depending on who was ready to pay them: at first they supported the Tushenskys, and then they were ready to put someone who would have something to do with Tushin to the kingdom;
representatives from the peasants;
city elders.

Today the only historical source, by which we can find out about the real composition of the cathedral - this is the electoral letter of Mikhail Fedorovich. Representatives from different parts of the country left signatures on this letter. It is known for sure that there were at least 700 participants in the cathedral. But only 227 people left their signatures on the letter. This may mean that many people simply refused to sign the letter. And this can be proved at least on the example of Nizhny Novgorod. There were 19 of its representatives at the council, and only four signed. Among these 277 signatures were representatives of all major classes.

Approved letter of election to the Moscow state of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov

How did the Zemsky Sobor end?

The first decision of the council was the approval of a mandatory condition for candidates for the throne - the monarch had to be Russian and in no way relate to strangers.

The second decision was that the cathedral elected Mikhail Romanov as tsar, who at the time of the council was only 16 years old. As a result, all power was concentrated in the hands of one legitimate monarch, who founded a stable ruling dynasty. Russian state was able to stop the attacks of the Kingdom of Poland, Germany and Sweden, who sought to occupy the free Russian throne.

A delegation from the Zemsky Sobor arrived in Kostroma to notify Mikhail of his election. He was able to come to Moscow for the coronation only in May 1613.

Unfortunately, very few authentic documents have survived to this day that would shed light on all the subtleties of those events and decisions. We only know about numerous intrigues around the cathedral. This is quite natural, given the responsibility and scale of the decision being made. Entire dynasties could lose their influence. For the country it was the only possibility get out of the political crisis.

Why did they choose Mikhail Romanov?

His figure is not at all accidental in big politics. He was the nephew of Fyodor Ivanovich and the son of Patriarch Filaret (who was very popular with the Cossacks and the clergy). Fyodor Sheremetyev vigorously campaigned for his choice among the boyars. The main argument that was supposed to convince the boyars to vote for Mikhail Romanov was his youth and inexperience (which automatically meant the possibility of creating his own puppet on the throne). But it didn't work initially.

Moreover, after 1613, the voters wished that Mikhail came to Moscow. But for the modest and timid Mikhail, this demand was very untimely. He would simply make a bad impression on voters. For this reason, the Romanovs convinced the others that the road from Kostroma to Moscow was a very dangerous one in the current political situation. Ultimately, this requirement was dropped.

It is impossible to unambiguously explain the reasons for choosing the Romanov dynasty. Most researchers agree on the assumption that the figure of Mikhail Romanov was the most convenient for everyone. Russian dynasties. In fact, at the very beginning of his reign, all power functions were not with Michael, but with his father Filaret, who ruled the country on behalf of his son.

By the way, the main argument against Michael at the council was the friendly relations of his father Filaret with False Dmitry I, who made him his metropolitan, and with False Dmitry II, who made Filaret Patriarch. Such friendly relations, according to the decision of the cathedral, were unacceptable for a candidate for the throne.

What was the role of the Cossacks in the conduct of the cathedral?

The Cossacks played a significant role in the victory of the Romanovs. According to an eyewitness, in February the boyars decided to choose a monarch "at random", tritely casting lots. The Cossacks didn't like it. And their orators began defiantly loudly speaking out against such tricks of the boyars. At the same time, the Cossacks shouted the name of Mikhail, offering to choose his candidacy. The Cossacks were immediately supported by the "Romanovites". And as a result, most of the boyars opted for Mikhail.

The role of the British in legitimizing the cathedral?

The first foreigners who recognized the legitimacy of the newly elected monarch were the British. In the same year, England sent its representatives to Moscow under the leadership of John Metric. From this event, the accession of the Romanov dynasty was finally established. Mikhail Romanov was grateful to the British. The newly elected monarch restored relations with the English "Moscow Company", provided preferential terms of trade for English merchants with other foreigners, as well as with Russian "big business".

What are the features and uniqueness of the Zemsky Cathedral?

Among historians, disputes are still ongoing about the relativity of the procedure for choosing Tsar Michael. But at the same time, no one argues that this cathedral has become unique in Russian history, because:

the cathedral was the most massive, numerous among all Zemsky cathedrals;
all classes participated in the cathedral (except for serfs and childless peasants) - there were no analogues to this in Russia;
an ambiguous, but most important decision for the country was made at the council;
the cathedral chose not the most prominent and strong candidate, which serves as a pretext for the assumption of intrigues and bribery.

What were the results, the historical significance of the Zemsky Sobor and the choice of Mikhail Romanov?

exit from the dynastic crisis;
end of the Time of Troubles;
rapid economic growth;
centralization of power;
urbanization and growth in the number of cities (up to 300 k late XVII V.);
geopolitical advance towards the Pacific Ocean;
growth of agricultural turnover;
the creation of a single economic system as a result of the growth of trade, small and large trade between the most remote regions of Russia;
increasing the role of estates in the administrative system;
social consolidation and ideological unity of the people;
strengthening the socio-political system of government in Moscow and in certain districts;
preparing the ground for the transformation of the Russian monarchy into an absolutist one;
further replacement of cathedrals by the procedure for confirming the legitimacy of the heir at meetings under the king;
the principle of election was replaced by the principle of administrative delegation.

October 16, 2018