Election of Mikhail Romanov in 1613. Candidates for the throne. Reasons for convening the council

Letters were sent to cities with an invitation to send authorities and elected officials to Moscow for a great cause; they wrote that Moscow had been cleared of Polish and Lithuanian people, the churches of God had returned to their former glory and God’s name was still glorified in them; but without a sovereign the Moscow state cannot stand, there is no one to take care of it and provide for the people of God, without a sovereign the Moscow state will be ruined by everyone: without a sovereign the state cannot be built in any way and is divided into many parts by thieves’ factories and thefts multiply a lot, and therefore the boyars and governors invited, so that all the spiritual authorities would come to them in Moscow, and from the nobles, boyar children, guests, merchants, townspeople and district people, choosing the best, strong and reasonable people, according to how suitable a person is for the zemstvo council and state election, all the cities would be sent to Moscow, and so that these authorities and elected the best people They agreed firmly in their cities and took full agreements from all kinds of people about the election of the state. When quite a lot of authorities and elected representatives had gathered, a three-day fast was appointed, after which the councils began. First of all, they began to discuss whether to choose from foreign royal houses or their natural Russian, and decided “not to elect the Lithuanian and Swedish king and their children and other German faiths and any foreign-language states not of the Christian faith of the Greek law to the Vladimir and Moscow states, and Marinka and her son are not wanted for the state, because the Polish and German kings saw themselves as untruths and crimes on the cross and a violation of peace: the Lithuanian king ruined the Moscow state, and the Swedish king took Veliky Novgorod by deception.” They began to choose their own: then intrigues, unrest and unrest began; everyone wanted to do according to their own thoughts, everyone wanted their own, some even wanted the throne themselves, they bribed and sent; sides formed, but none of them gained the upper hand. Once, the chronograph says, some nobleman from Galich brought a written opinion to the council, which said that Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov was the closest in relationship to the previous tsars, and he should be elected tsar. The voices of dissatisfied people were heard: “Who brought such a letter, who, where from?” At that time, the Don Ataman comes out and also submits a written opinion: “What did you submit, Ataman?” - Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky asked him. “About the natural Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich,” answered the ataman. The same opinion submitted by the nobleman and the Don ataman decided the matter: Mikhail Fedorovich was proclaimed tsar. But not all the elected officials were in Moscow yet; there were no noble boyars; Prince Mstislavsky and his comrades immediately after their liberation left Moscow: it was awkward for them to remain in it near the liberating commanders; Now they sent to call them to Moscow for a common cause, they also sent reliable people to cities and districts to find out the people’s thoughts about the new chosen one, and the final decision was postponed for two weeks, from February 8 to February 21, 1613.

COMPOSITION OF THE CATHEDRAL

Elected people gathered in Moscow in January 1613. From Moscow they asked the cities to send “the best, strongest and most reasonable” people for the royal election. The cities, by the way, had to think not only about electing a king, but also about how to “build” the state and how to conduct business before the election, and about this to give the elected “agreements”, i.e. instructions that they had to guided by. For a more complete coverage and understanding of the council of 1613, one should turn to an analysis of its composition, which can only be determined by the signatures on the electoral charter of Mikhail Fedorovich, written in the summer of 1613. On it we see only 277 signatures, but obviously there were participants in the council more, since not all conciliar people signed the conciliar charter. Proof of this is, for example, the following: for Nizhny Novgorod 4 people signed the letter (Archpriest Savva, 1 townsman, 2 archers), and it is reliably known that there were 19 Nizhny Novgorod elected people (3 priests, 13 townspeople, a deacon and 2 archers). If each city were content with ten elected people, as the book determined their number. Dm. Mich. Pozharsky, then up to 500 elected people would have gathered in Moscow, since representatives of 50 cities (northern, eastern and southern) participated in the cathedral; and together with the Moscow people and clergy, the number of participants in the cathedral would have reached 700 people. The cathedral was really crowded. He often gathered in the Assumption Cathedral, perhaps precisely because none of the other Moscow buildings could accommodate him. Now the question is what classes of society were represented at the council and whether the council was complete in its class composition. Of the 277 signatures mentioned, 57 belong to the clergy (partly “elected” from the cities), 136 - to the highest service ranks (boyars - 17), 84 - to the city electors. It has already been said above that these digital data cannot be trusted. According to them, there were few provincial elected officials at the cathedral, but in fact these elected officials undoubtedly made up the majority, and although it is impossible to determine with accuracy either their number, or how many of them were tax workers and how many were service people, it can nevertheless be said that the service There were, it seems, more than the townspeople, but there was also a very large percentage of the townspeople, which rarely happened at councils. And, in addition, there are traces of the participation of “district” people (12 signatures). These were, firstly, peasants not from proprietary lands, but from black sovereign lands, representatives of free northern peasant communities, and secondly, small service people from the southern counties. Thus, representation at the council of 1613 was extremely complete.

We don’t know anything exact about what happened at this council, because in the acts and literary works of that time only fragments of legends, hints and legends remain, so the historian here is, as it were, among the incoherent ruins of an ancient building, the appearance of which he has to restore has no strength. Official documents say nothing about the proceedings of the meetings. True, the electoral charter has been preserved, but it can help us little, since it was not written independently and, moreover, does not contain information about the very process of the election. As for unofficial documents, they are either legends or meager, dark and rhetorical stories from which nothing definite can be extracted.

THE ROMANOVS UNDER BORIS GODUNOV

This family was the closest to the previous dynasty; they were cousins ​​of the late Tsar Feodor. The Romanovs were not disposed towards Boris. Boris could suspect the Romanovs when he had to look for secret enemies. According to the news of the chronicles, Boris found fault with the Romanovs about the denunciation of one of their slaves, as if they wanted to use the roots to destroy the king and gain the kingdom by “witchcraft” (witchcraft). Four Romanov brothers - Alexander, Vasily, Ivan and Mikhail - were sent to remote places in difficult imprisonment, and the fifth, Fedor, who, it seems, was smarter than all of them, was forcibly tonsured under the name of Philaret in the monastery of Anthony of Siy. Then their relatives and friends were exiled - Cherkassky, Sitsky, Repnins, Karpovs, Shestunovs, Pushkins and others.

ROMANOVS

Thus, the conciliar election of Mikhail was prepared and supported at the cathedral and among the people by a number of auxiliary means: pre-election campaigning with the participation of numerous relatives of the Romanovs, pressure from the Cossack force, secret inquiry among the people, the cry of the capital’s crowd on Red Square. But all these selective methods were successful because they found support in society’s attitude towards the surname. Mikhail was carried away not by personal or propaganda, but by family popularity. He belonged to a boyar family, perhaps the most beloved one in Moscow society at that time. The Romanovs are a recently separated branch of the ancient boyar family of the Koshkins. It’s been a long time since I brought it. book Ivan Danilovich Kalita, left for Moscow from the “Prussian lands”, as the genealogy says, a noble man, who in Moscow was nicknamed Andrei Ivanovich Kobyla. He became a prominent boyar at the Moscow court. From his fifth son, Fyodor Koshka, came the “Cat Family,” as it is called in our chronicles. The Koshkins shone at the Moscow court in the 14th and 15th centuries. This was the only untitled boyar family that did not drown in the stream of new titled servants who poured into the Moscow court from the middle of the 15th century. Among the princes Shuisky, Vorotynsky, Mstislavsky, the Koshkins knew how to stay in the first rank of the boyars. At the beginning of the 16th century. A prominent place at the court was occupied by the boyar Roman Yuryevich Zakharyin, who descended from Koshkin’s grandson Zakhary. He became the founder of a new branch of this family - the Romanovs. Roman's son Nikita, the brother of Tsarina Anastasia, is the only Moscow boyar of the 16th century who left a good memory among the people: his name was remembered by folk epics, portraying him in their songs about Grozny as a complacent mediator between the people and the angry tsar. Of Nikita’s six sons, the eldest, Fyodor, was especially outstanding. He was a very kind and affectionate boyar, a dandy and a very inquisitive person. The Englishman Horsey, who then lived in Moscow, says in his notes that this boyar certainly wanted to learn Latin, and at his request, Horsey compiled a Latin grammar for him, writing Latin words in it in Russian letters. The popularity of the Romanovs, acquired by their personal qualities, undoubtedly increased from the persecution to which the Nikitichs were subjected under the suspicious Godunov; A. Palitsyn even puts this persecution among those sins for which God punished the Russian land with the Troubles. Enmity with Tsar Vasily and connections with Tushin brought the Romanovs the patronage of the second False Dmitry and popularity in the Cossack camps. Thus, the ambiguous behavior of the family name in the troubled years prepared for Mikhail bilateral support, both in the zemstvo and in the Cossacks. But what helped Mikhail the most in the cathedral elections was the family connection of the Romanovs with the former dynasty. During the Time of Troubles, the Russian people unsuccessfully elected new tsars so many times, and now only that election seemed to them secure, which fell on their face, although somehow connected with the former royal house. Tsar Mikhail was seen not as a council elect, but as the nephew of Tsar Feodor, a natural, hereditary tsar. A modern chronograph directly says that Michael was asked to take over the kingdom “of his kindred for the sake of the union of royal sparks.” It is not for nothing that Abraham Palitsyn calls Mikhail “chosen by God before his birth,” and clerk I. Timofeev in the unbroken chain of hereditary kings placed Mikhail right after Fyodor Ivanovich, ignoring Godunov, Shuisky, and all the impostors. And Tsar Mikhail himself in his letters usually called Grozny his grandfather. It is difficult to say how much the rumor then circulating that Tsar Fyodor, dying, orally bequeathed the throne to his cousin Fyodor, Mikhail’s father, helped the election of Mikhail. But the boyars who led the elections should have been swayed in favor of Mikhail by another convenience, to which they could not be indifferent. There is news that F.I. Sheremetev wrote to Poland as a book. Golitsyn: “Misha de Romanov is young, his mind has not yet reached him and he will be familiar to us.” Sheremetev, of course, knew that the throne would not deprive Mikhail of the ability to mature and his youth would not be permanent. But they promised to show other qualities. That the nephew will be a second uncle, resembling him in mental and physical frailty, he will emerge as a kind, meek king, under whom the trials experienced by the boyars during the reign of the Terrible and Boris will not be repeated. They wanted to choose not the most capable, but the most convenient. Thus appeared the founder of a new dynasty, putting an end to the Troubles.

The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 marked the end of the Time of Troubles and was supposed to bring order to the government of Russia. Let me remind you that after the death of Ivan 4 (the Terrible), the place on the throne was free, since the king did not leave behind 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 parts of the country, calling on all representatives of the nobility to appear at the Council, where a new tsar would be elected.

The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 opened in January, and the following took part in it:

• Clergy
• Boyars
• Nobles
• City elders
• Peasant representatives
• Cossacks

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

Progress of the Council and its decisions

The first decision approved by the Zemsky Sobor was that the Tsar must be Russian. He should not relate to the Nostrians in any way.

Marina Mnishek intended to crown her son Ivan (whom historians often call “the little crow”), but after the Council’s decision 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 wishing to take a place on the throne. Therefore, groups began to form that united, promoting their representative. There were several such groups:

• Noble boyars. This included representatives of the boyar family. One part of them believed that Fyodor Mstislavsky or Vasily Golitsyn would be the ideal tsar for Russia. Others leaned towards the young Mikhail Romanov. The number of boyars was divided approximately equally by interests.
• Nobles. These were also noble people with great authority. They promoted their “tsar” - Dmitry Trubetskoy. The difficulty was that Trubetskoy had the rank of “boyar,” which he had recently received in the Tushensky courtyard.
• Cossacks. According to tradition, the Cossacks sided with 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 king, who was related to Tushin.

Mikhail Romanov's father, Filaret, was a patriarch in the Tushensky courtyard and was highly respected 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 against him was that his father was on friendly terms with both False Dmitrys. The first False Dmitry made Philaret a metropolitan and his protege, and the second False Dmitry appointed him patriarch and his protege. That is, Mikhail’s father had very friendly relations with foreigners, whom they had just gotten rid of by decision of the Council of 1613 and decided not to call him to power again.

results

The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 ended on February 21 - Mikhail Romanov was elected tsar. Now it is difficult to reliably talk about all the subtleties of the events of those days, since not many documents have survived. Nevertheless, it is known for certain that the Council 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, who at that time was only 16 years old, was elected to the throne. A clear answer: “Why exactly?” no one will give it. Historians say that this was the figure most convenient for all dynasties. Allegedly, young Mikhail was an extremely suggestible person and could be “controlled as needed by the majority.” In fact, all power (especially in the first years of Romanov’s reign) 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 contradiction

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

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

To summarize, we can say that the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was important for the history of Russia. He concentrated power in the hands of the Russian Tsar, laid the foundation of a new dynasty (the Romanovs) and saved the country from constant problems and claims to the throne from the Germans, Poles, Swedes and others.

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

In addition, such gatherings arose immediately after the unification of states, both in Europe and in Muscovy, so this body coped with the formation of a holistic picture of the state of affairs in the country as well as possible.

1613, for example, played a revolutionary role in the history of Russia. It was then that Mikhail Romanov was placed on the throne, whose family ruled the country for the next three hundred years. And it was his descendants who brought the state from the backward Middle Ages to the forefront at the beginning of the twentieth century.

Zemsky Sobors in Russia

Only the conditions created by the class-representative monarchy allowed the emergence and development of such an institution as the Zemsky Sobor. The year 1549 was outstanding in this regard. Ivan the Terrible gathers people to eliminate local corruption. The event was called the “Cathedral of Reconciliation.”

The word itself at that time had the meaning “nationwide”, which determined the basis of the activities of this body.

The role of zemstvo councils was to discuss political, economic and administrative issues. In fact, it was the connection between the tsar and the common people, passing through the filter of the needs of the boyars and clergy.

Although democracy did not work out, the needs of the lower classes were still taken into account more than in Europe, permeated through and through with absolutism.

All free people took part in such events, that is, only serfs were not allowed. Everyone had the right to vote, but the actual and final decision was made only by the sovereign.

Since the first Zemsky Sobor was convened by the will of the tsar, and the effectiveness of its activities was quite high, then this practice strengthened.

However, the functions of this institution of power changed periodically depending on the situation in the country. Let's look at this issue in more detail.

The evolution of the role of the cathedral from Ivan the Terrible to Mikhail Romanov

If you remember something from the textbook “History, 7th grade”, without a doubt, the period of the 16th - 17th centuries was one of the most intriguing, starting from the child-killer king and ending with the troubled time, when the interests of various noble families collided and arose out of nowhere folk heroes like Ivan Susanin.
Let's see what exactly was happening at this time.

The first Zemsky Sobor was convened by Ivan the Terrible in 1549. It was not yet a full-fledged secular council. The clergy took an active part in it. At this time, the ministers of the church are completely subordinate to the king and serve more as a conductor of his will to the people.

The next period includes the dark time of the Troubles. It continues until the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky from the throne in 1610. It was during these years that the significance of Zemsky Sobors changed dramatically. Now they serve the idea promoted by the new contender for the throne. Basically, the decisions of such meetings at that time ran counter to the strengthening of statehood.

The next stage became the “golden age” for this institution of power. The activities of Zemsky Sobors combined legislative and executive functions. In fact, this was a period of temporary rule by the “parliament of Tsarist Russia.”
After the appearance of a permanent ruler, the period of restoration of the state after devastation begins. It is at this time that a young and inexperienced king needs qualified advice. Therefore, councils play the role of an advisory body. Their members help the ruler understand financial and administrative issues.

For nine years, starting in 1613, the boyars managed to streamline the collection of five-dollar money, prevent a re-invasion of Polish-Lithuanian troops, and also restore the economy after the Time of Troubles.

Since 1622, not a single council was held for ten years. The situation in the country was stable, so there was no particular need for it.

Zemsky Sobors in the 17th century increasingly took on the role of a regulatory body in the internal sphere, but more often foreign policy. The annexation of Ukraine, Azov, Russian-Polish-Crimean relations and many issues are resolved precisely through this instrument.

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

At the first, the Zaporozhye army was accepted into the Moscow state, and in 1684 the last gathering took place. The fate of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was decided on it.
This is where the history of Zemsky Sobors ends. Peter the Great especially contributed to this with his policy of establishing absolutism in the state.
But let's take a closer look at the events of one of the most important councils in Russian history.

Background to the cathedral of 1613

After his death, the Time of Troubles began in Rus'. He was the last of the descendants of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. His brothers died earlier. The eldest, John, as scientists believe, fell at the hands of his father, and the youngest, Dmitry, disappeared in Uglich. He is considered dead, but there are no reliable facts about his death.

Thus, from 1598 complete confusion begins. The country was successively ruled by Irina, the wife of Fyodor Ioannovich, and Boris Godunov. Next on the throne were Boris's son, Theodore, False Dmitry the First and Vasily Shuisky.

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

It turns out that the 17th century played an ambiguous role in the history of Russia. The events that unfolded in the country forced the people to come to a common desire to get rid of the devastation. There were two attempts to expel the impostors from the Kremlin. The first was under the leadership of Lyapunov, Zarutsky and Trubetskoy, and the second was headed by Minin and Pozharsky.

It turns out that the convening of the Zemsky Sobor in 1613 was simply inevitable. If it were not for such a turn of events, who knows how history would have turned out and what the situation in the state would be today.

Thus, in Pozharsky and Minin, at the head of the people's militia, the Polish-Lithuanian troops were expelled from the capital. All the prerequisites were created to restore order in the country.

Convocation

As we know, Zemsky Sobors in the 17th century were an element of state governance (as opposed to spiritual ones). The secular government needed a council, which in many ways repeated the functions of the Slavic veche, when all the free men of the clan came together and resolved pressing issues.

Before this, the first Zemsky Sobor of 1549 was still joint. It was attended by representatives of the church and secular authorities. Later, only the Metropolitan spoke from the clergy.

This happened in October 1612, when, after the expulsion of the Polish-Lithuanian troops that occupied the heart of the capital, the Kremlin, they began to put the country in order. The army of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which occupied Moscow, was liquidated quite simply due to the fact that Hetman Khotkevich stopped supporting it. Poland has already realized that they cannot win in the current situation.

Thus, after clearing out all external occupation forces, it was necessary to establish a normal strong government. For this purpose, messengers were sent to all regions and volosts with an invitation to selected people to join the general council in Moscow.

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

The only place that could accommodate all the people who arrived was the Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin. According to various sources, their total number ranged from seven hundred to one and a half thousand people.

Candidates

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

The Russian nobility, although they submitted their candidacies for the Zemsky Sobor in 1613, did not have much weight in the eyes of the public. Let's see which of the representatives of the princely families aspired to power.

The Shuiskys, as well-known descendants, were undoubtedly quite confident of victory. However, the danger that they, and the Godunovs who found themselves in a similar situation, would begin to take revenge on past offenders who overthrew their ancestors was very high. Therefore, the chances of their victory turned out to be scanty, since many of the voters were related to those who could suffer from the new rulers.

The Kurakins, Mstislavskys and other princes who once collaborated with the Kingdom of Poland and the Principality of Lithuania, although they made an attempt to join power, failed. The people did not forgive them for their betrayal.

The Golitsyns could well have ruled the Muscovite kingdom if their most powerful representative had not languished in captivity in Poland.

The Vorotynskys did not have a bad past, but for secret reasons their candidate, Ivan Mikhailovich, recused himself. The most plausible version is considered to be his participation in the “Seven Boyars”.

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

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

Official motives

Many scientists were interested in this topic. It's no joke - to determine the real course of events during the formation of the basis of modern Russian statehood!
As the history of zemstvo councils shows, together people managed to make the most correct decisions.

Judging by the records of the protocol, the first decision of the people was to exclude all foreign applicants from the list of candidates. Neither Vladislav nor the Swedish prince Charles could now participate in the “race”.

The next step was to select a candidate from local representatives of the nobility. The main problem was that most of them had compromised themselves over the past ten years.

The Seven Boyars, participation in uprisings, support of Swedish and Polish-Lithuanian troops - all these factors largely played against all candidates.

Judging by the documents, in the end there was only one left, which we did not mention above. This man was a descendant of the family of Ivan the Terrible. He was the nephew of the last legitimate Tsar Theodore Ioannovich.

Thus, the election of Mikhail Romanov was the most correct decision in the eyes of the majority of voters. The only difficulty was the lack of nobility. His family descended from a boyar from the Prussian princes, Andrei Kobyla.

First version of events

The 17th century was of particular importance in the history of Russia. It is from this period that we know such names as Minin and Pozharsky, Trubetskoy, Godunov, Shuisky, False Dmitry, Susanin and others.

It was at this time, by the will of fate, or perhaps by the finger of God, that the ground for the future empire was formed. If it were not for the Cossacks, which we will talk about a little later, the course of history would most likely have been completely different.

So, how did Mikhail Romanov benefit?

By official version, outlined by many respected historians such as Cherepnin, Degtyarev and others, there were several factors.

Firstly, this applicant was quite young and inexperienced. His inexperience in state affairs would have allowed the boyars to become " gray cardinals"and in the role of advisers to be actual kings.

The second factor was his father’s involvement in events related to False Dmitry II. That is, all the defectors from Tushino did not have to fear revenge or punishment from the new tsar.

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

Second version of the cathedral

Opponents consider the following factor to be the main motive for electing the mentioned candidate. Sheremetyev strove quite strongly for power, but could not achieve it directly due to the lack of nobility of the family. In view of this, as history teaches us (grade 7), he developed an extraordinary active work on the popularization of Mikhail Romanov. Everything was beneficial for him, because his chosen one was a simple, inexperienced young man from the outback. He didn't understand anything public administration, neither in metropolitan life, nor in intrigues.

And to whom will he be grateful for such generosity and who will he listen to first when making important decisions? Of course, those who helped him take the throne.

Thanks to the activity of this boyar, most of those who gathered at the Zemsky Sobor in 1613 were prepared to make the “right” decision. But something went wrong. And the first voting results are declared invalid “due to the absence of many voters.”

The boyars, who opposed such a candidacy, made an attempt to get rid of Romanov. A detachment of Polish-Lithuanian soldiers was sent to eliminate the unwanted applicant. But the future tsar was saved by the previously unknown peasant Ivan Susanin. He led the punishers into the swamp, where they safely disappeared (along with the national hero).

Shuisky is developing a slightly different front of activity. He begins to contact the Cossack atamans. It is believed that it was this force that played main role during the accession of Mikhail Romanov.

Of course, one should not belittle the role of zemstvo councils, but without the active and urgent actions of these detachments, the future tsar would have virtually no chance. It was they who actually put him on the throne by force. We'll talk about this below.

The last attempt of the boyars to avoid Romanov’s victory was his appearance before the people, so to speak, “to the bride.” However, judging by the documents, Shuisky was afraid of failure, due to the fact that Mikhail was a simple and illiterate person. He could discredit himself if he started making a speech to voters. That is why tough and urgent action was needed.

Why did the Cossacks intervene?

Most likely, thanks to the active actions of Shuisky and the approaching failure of his company, as well as due to the attempt of the boyars to “dishonestly deceive” the Cossacks, the following events occurred.

The importance of zemstvo councils, of course, is great, but aggressive and brute force often turns out to be more effective. In fact, at the end of February 1613, something like an assault on the Winter Palace took place.

The Cossacks broke into the Metropolitan's house and demanded that the people be convened for discussion. They unanimously wanted to see Romanov as their king, “a man from a good root who represents a good branch and the honor of the family.”
The frightened clergyman convened the boyars, and under pressure a unanimous decision was made to enthronement of this candidate.

Conciliar oath

This is actually the protocol that was compiled by the Zemstvo Councils in Russia. The delegation delivered a copy of such a document to the future tsar and his mother in Kolomna on March 2. Since Mikhail was only seventeen years old at that time, it is not surprising that he was frightened and immediately flatly refused to ascend the throne.

However, some researchers of this period argue that this move was later corrected, since the conciliar oath actually completely repeats the document read to Boris Godunov. “To confirm the people’s thoughts about the modesty and fear of their king.”

Be that as it may, Mikhail was persuaded. And on May 2, 1613, he arrives in the capital, where he is crowned on July 11 of the same year.

Thus, we have become acquainted with such a unique and hitherto only partially studied phenomenon in the history of the Russian state as zemstvo councils. The main point that defines this phenomenon today is the fundamental difference from the veche. No matter how similar they may be, several features are fundamental. Firstly, the veche was local, and the cathedral was state. Secondly, the former had full power, while the latter was still more of an advisory body.

Razheva Arina

This work was presented at the IX city scientific and practical conference of schoolchildren “First Steps into Science” by a 6th grade student

Download:

Preview:

IX city scientific and practical conference for schoolchildren

"First steps into science"

Section: history

Job title:

« Mikhail Romanov and other candidates

to the royal throne in 1613»

g.o. Togliatti, MBU secondary school No. 47, 6 “A” class

Scientific supervisor: Kozyreva Svetlana Nikolaevna,

History teacher, MBU Secondary School No. 47

Tolyatti

2013

1. Introduction 3

2. Main part 4

2.1. About candidates for the throne in 1613 5

2.2. About Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov 6

2.3. On the role of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 7

3. Conclusion 9

4. References 10

Introduction

On March 1, 2012, an Appeal to compatriots was published on the celebration of the 400th anniversary of the overcoming of the Time of Troubles and the restoration of Russian statehood by the Head of the House of Romanov, E.I.V. Sovereign Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna. It says, in part: “400 years ago, our Motherland was tormented by a terrible, unprecedented Troubles. Everything collected over the centuries at the cost of incredible labors and sacrificial deeds of the people found itself on the verge of complete destruction. The decapitated country was perishing from civil war and external invasion, from the confusion and betrayal of the ruling layer, from indifference, bitterness, suspicion, mutual hatred, cowardice, lies, meanness and self-interest, which engulfed all classes without exception... We need to be deeply imbued with the idea that we are celebrating the 400th anniversary of the feat of our great long-suffering People. First and foremost, this is not a celebration of the dynasty, hierarchs, military leaders, diplomats and aristocrats, no matter how significant their contribution to the national struggle, but the glorification of courage, self-sacrifice and love of ordinary people who liberated and revived our country... Not at all By downplaying the significance of symbolic state, church and public acts, we are obliged to highlight and prioritize the social and educational content of the anniversary..."

What so significant happened 400 years ago? Why was the election of Mikhail Romanov so important for the life of all of Russia? Were there other candidates for the throne and why were they not chosen? What role did the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 play in solving these problems?

Fundamental question:what role did the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 play in the choice of a new ruling dynasty in Russia?

Goal of the work: compare different contenders for the royal throne and find out the reasons for the election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to reign

Research objectives:

1. Study the historical background for the election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the royal throne.

2. Get acquainted with the contenders for the reign and compare their chances in the election struggle.

3. Find out the reasons for the election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to reign

4. Determine the role of the Zemsky Sobor in the selection of a new ruling dynasty in Russia.

Main content

History of Russia on turn of the XVI- The 17th century is replete with events. The state entered a period of economic decline, internal strife and military failures. It was on the verge of collapse. The enemies - the Swedes and Poles - captured the country's largest border fortresses - Smolensk and Novgorod, and then occupied Moscow. Internal conflict undermined the strength of a huge power. The disasters gave rise to a widespread popular movement. The state was experiencing a protracted and complex moral, political and socio-economic crisis. The result of which was a change of royal dynasties in Russia - the Rurik dynasty was replaced by the Romanov dynasty.

On October 26, 1612, in Moscow, deprived of support from the main forces of Hetman Chodkiewicz, the Polish garrison capitulated. After the liberation of the capital, the need arose to choose a new sovereign. Letters were sent from Moscow to many cities of Rus' on behalf of the liberators of Moscow - D. Pozharsky and D. Trubetskoy, which ordered representatives of each city to arrive in Moscow before December 6. However, the elected officials took a long time to come from the distant ends of still seething Russia. Some lands (for example, Tverskaya) were devastated and completely burned. Some sent 10-15 people, others only one representative. The opening date for meetings of the Zemsky Sobor was postponed from December 6 to January 6, 1613. In dilapidated Moscow, there was only one building left that could accommodate all the elected officials - the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. The number of those gathered varies, according to various estimates, from 700 to 1,500 people. The Zemsky Sobor, held in Moscow in January - February 1613, “was the most representative of all the Zemsky Sobors.” This was truly the “Russian National Assembly,” whose representatives were especially concerned that their decision would express the will of “the whole earth.” Although the elected officials had broad powers, they still sent out their decisions to a survey of cities. Having gathered after many years of violent events and civil strife, people were divided by their recent past.

About candidates for the throne

A sharp struggle broke out around the candidacy of the future tsar at the Council. They suggested calling a “prince’s son” from Poland or Sweden; they remembered that the tsar could only be elected from among the “natural Moscow boyars” and nominated candidates from the old Russian princely families; They even offered the son of False Dmitry II and Marina Mnishek. 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 the latest candidates for the throne were:

Polish prince Wladyslaw, son of Sigismund III

Swedish prince Carl 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 family descended from Gediminas of Lithuania, but the absence of V.V. Golitsyn (he was in Polish captivity) deprived this family of strong candidates.

Mstislavsky and Kurakin. Representatives of these noble Russian families undermined their reputation by collaborating with the Poles. According to the official version, the most influential representative of this family, I.M. Vorotynsky, recused himself.

Godunovs and Shuiskys. Both were relatives of previously reigning 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 get carried away with settling political scores with their opponents.

Dmitry Pozharsky and Dmitry Trubetskoy. They undoubtedly glorified their names during the storming of Moscow, but were not distinguished by nobility.

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

Of the eight candidates for tsar nominated on behalf of the boyars, four (F. Mstislavsky, I. Vorotynsky, F. Sheremetev, I. Romanov) as members of the notorious seven-boyars were with the Poles in Moscow in 1611-1612. during the assaults by the first and second militias. That is, they were persons obviously unacceptable to the liberators of the capital. The fifth, steward I. Cherkassky, fought on the side of the Poles against the first militia, was taken prisoner by the Russians, but was forgiven due to the nobility of the family. Prince Pronsky on this list is the only nobleman not associated with Moscow. He came from the family of the great princes of Ryazan. He was one of the few representatives of the nobility in the second militia, but was completely unknown to most members of the cathedral.

Thus, only two figures on the boyar list - active participants in the fight against the Poles in the ranks of the first and second militias, princes D. Trubetskoy and D. Pozharsky - could really lay claim to the Russian throne.

At the insistence of representatives of the nobility, townspeople and peasants, it was decided: “Neither a Polish prince, nor a Swedish one, nor any other German faith, nor from any non-Orthodox states should be chosen for the Moscow state and Marinka’s son would not be wanted.”

In preparing for the council, the zemstvo authorities seemed to have foreseen everything. They tried to insure against the nomination of new candidates. The Shuisky princes were defeated back in 1610, and, apparently, they were not taken into account. The head of another princely clan and a contender for the throne in 1610, boyar Vasily Vasilyevich Golitsyn, was in Polish captivity, so the chances of his nephew Ivan Andreevich Golitsyn ascending the royal throne, according to the parochial order, were illusory. In a similar manner, the authorities apparently attempted to neutralize another possible 1610 candidate, Mikhail Romanov. His uncle, Ivan Nikitich Romanov, was included in the list of applicants. The inclusion of Prince Ivan Borisovich Cherkassky in this list closed the path to the throne for Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Cherkassky, who had compromised himself by betraying the “zemstvo cause.”

About Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov

All candidates were distinguished by the antiquities of the family, but none of them had clear advantages for the throne. Why did the choice fall on Mikhail Romanov?
Researchers argue that, apparently, three circumstances played a decisive role in Mikhail’s choice. He was not involved in any of the adventures of the Time of Troubles, his reputation was clean. Therefore, his candidacy suited everyone. Moreover, Mikhail was young, inexperienced, quiet and modest. Many of the boyars and nobles close to the court hoped that the tsar would be obedient to their will. Finally, the family ties of the Romanovs with the Rurikovichs were also taken into account; Mikhail was the cousin of the last tsar from the Rurikovich dynasty, Fyodor Ivanovich. In the eyes of contemporaries, these family ties meant a lot. They emphasized the “godliness of the sovereign” and the legality of his accession to the throne. According to V. O. Kyuchevsky: “They wanted to choose not the most capable, but the most convenient. Thus appeared the founder of a new dynasty, putting an end to the Troubles.”

For the first time, the name of the boyar’s son, as the only person worthy of the tsar’s rank, was named after the fall of Tsar Vasily Shuisky in the summer of 1610 by Patriarch Hermogenes. But then the words of the Holy Shepherd were not heard. Now they have acquired the character of a great historical political action. The decision in favor of Mikhail Romanov turned out to be universal.

On March 14 (24 new style), 1613, 16-year-old Mikhail Romanov agreed to accept the Russian kingdom, and was solemnly named sovereign. On July 11, 1613, his royal crowning took place in the Assumption Cathedral. Mikhail Romanov became the first tsar of the new dynasty, occupying the royal throne from 1613 to 1645. Under him, an amazing union developed between the Priesthood and the Kingdom, which had no analogues either before or since. Under Mikhail Fedorovich, the functions of the “kingdom” and “priesthood” were, as it were, harmonized in favor of the Church, when the spiritual shepherd played a decisive role in worldly affairs. The Romanov dynasty will rule Russia for more than three hundred years, until it ends tragically.

Naturally, over the 300 years of the reign of the Romanov dynasty, a lot of “reliable” justifications for the nationwide election of Mikhail and his outstanding role in ending the unrest in Rus' appeared. How did it all really happen? Unfortunately, many documentary evidence of Romanov’s election to the throne were either destroyed or thoroughly edited. But, as they say, “manuscripts don’t burn,” some evidence has been preserved, and some things can be read between the lines of official documents, for example, “The Tale of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613.”

About the role of the Zemsky Sobor

In the minds of the Russian people of that time, the ideal Orthodox tsar was supposed to have three qualities: “love of God,” “reason in ruling,” and military prowess. Mikhail Romanov, unlike his father, did not possess all the virtues of an Orthodox sovereign. He had no experience in government or military affairs. The lethargic, sickly young man grew up in constant fear for his life and the lives of his loved ones. He was distinguished by his extraordinary piety and this strongly reminded him of his uncle, the last “born tsar” Fyodor Ioannovich. The election organizers led voters to the idea that it was enough to elect the “pious” nephew of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich to the Russian throne, and God would grant Russia peace, and the boyars would handle military and administrative affairs.

During the Time of Troubles, twice before, the Russian land, at the Zemstvo Councils of 1598 and 1606, proclaimed a tsar and was twice mistaken. These failures were too costly, and everyone knew it. In 1613, it was not a question of “selection,” as some kind of mechanical procedure for one candidate or another to obtain the maximum number of votes, but of establishing “worthiness.” The debates at the Zemsky Sobor focused not on the question of “who to elect”, but on the question “who can be king in Rus'”, in accordance with the concepts of power that existed at that time among the Russian people of “the whole earth”... Zemsky people of 1613, Having gathered to “rob” the Sovereign, they left it to the Lord God to “elect” the Tsar, expecting the manifestation of this election in the fact that He would put into the hearts of “all men a single thought and affirmation” about His Anointed One. The Lord sends the king to people, and sends them when they are worthy to deserve His mercy. And it is the destiny of the earthly to discern this providential gift and accept it with a prayer of gratitude.

Mikhail Fedorovich, accepting the royal crown, seemed to be doing a favor to the zemstvo. The council, which begged him to take responsibility for the fate of the state, for its part took upon itself the obligation to restore order in the country: to stop civil strife, robberies and robberies, to create acceptable conditions for the exercise of sovereign functions, to fill the royal treasury with everything necessary for the dignified “everyday” of the royal yard and maintenance of troops. Exactlythe active position of the zemstvo compensated for the shortcomings of the government of Mikhail Fedorovich, staffed at the expense of his relatives and friends, who are of little use for governing the state in conditions of devastation and general anarchy. It must be said that the popularly elected Zemsky Sobor began to fulfill its obligations immediately.

Subsequent events showed that the choice was not the worst. And it’s even good that for many years Mikhail was only a nominal ruler, and real power was in the hands of people with extensive life experience - first his mother, and then his father, Patriarch Philaret, who, upon returning from captivity, was officially proclaimed co-ruler of the tsar.

The gradual overcoming of the consequences of the Time of Troubles, the marriage of Mikhail and the birth of the heir to the throne created in the country the belief that new dynasty- this will last for a long time.

Conclusions and Conclusion

Tired of the great disasters during the Time of Troubles, Russia needed stability in all spheres of life, especially the restoration of statehood. To do this, it was necessary to elect a sovereign who would suit all classes and groups. The participants in the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 understood this and managed to find a compromise option for the throne in the person of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov.

The President of our country, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, believes that instilling patriotism is one of the priority tasks of the state. Here is his statement: “We must build our future on a solid foundation. And such a foundation is patriotism. No matter how long we discuss what could be the foundation, a solid moral foundation for our country, we still can’t come up with anything else. This is respect for one’s history and traditions...”

The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 is a vivid example of the fact that the ability to negotiate and make the right decision is the first step that helps restore the country, raise it from its knees. This is true proof of the patriotism of our ancestors. In my opinion, this is precisely the quality that many politicians and influential people in modern Russia lack.

Bibliography

1. A. A. Danilov, L. G. Kosulina. History of Russia (late XVI - XVIII). 7th grade. M.: Education, 2005.
2. T. V. Perevezentseva. History of Russia (book for teachers). 7th grade. M.: Russian word, 2012.
3. IN AND. Buganov. The world of history (Russia in the 17th century). M.: Young Guard, 1989.
4. S. Perevezentsev. Russia. Great destiny. M.: White City, 2006.
5. IN. Klyuchevsky. Russian history course. Media book, 2006.

Internet resources: