Pretenders to the throne in 1613

Causes of the Time of Troubles:

Dynastic crisis. The end of the Rurik dynasty.

Russia's emerging lag behind the West is leading to the emergence of large number supporters of development along the Western path. Poland is cited as a role model, which by this time was turning into an aristocratic republic (“Rzeczpospolita” - “republic” in Polish). The Polish king is elected by the Sejm. Boris Godunov is also becoming a moderate “Westerner.”

Growing public dissatisfaction with the authorities.

1598-1613 - a period in Russian history called the Time of Troubles.

At the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries, Russia was experiencing a political and socio-economic crisis. The Livonian War and the Tatar invasion, as well as the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible, contributed to the intensification of the crisis and the growth of discontent. This was the reason for the beginning of the Time of Troubles in Russia.

First period of turmoil characterized by the struggle for the throne of various pretenders. After the death of Ivan the Terrible, his son Fedor came to power, but he turned out to be unable to rule and was actually ruled by the brother of the tsar’s wife, Boris Godunov. Ultimately, his policies caused discontent among the popular masses.

The Troubles began with the appearance in Poland of False Dmitry (in reality Grigory Otrepiev), the allegedly miraculously surviving son of Ivan the Terrible. He won over a significant part of the Russian population to his side. In 1605, False Dmitry was supported by the governors, and then Moscow. And already in June he became the legitimate king. But he acted too independently, which caused discontent among the boyars; he also supported serfdom, which caused protest from the peasants. On May 17, 1606, False Dmitry I was killed and V.I. ascended the throne. Shuisky, with the condition of limiting power. Thus, the first stage of the Troubles was marked by the reign of False Dmitry I (1605 - 1606)

Second period of troubles. In 1606, an uprising arose, the leader of which was I.I. Bolotnikov. The ranks of the militia included people from different walks of life: peasants, serfs, small and medium-sized feudal lords, servicemen, Cossacks and townspeople. They were defeated in the battle of Moscow. As a result, Bolotnikov was executed.

But dissatisfaction with the authorities continued. And soon False Dmitry II appears. In January 1608, his army headed towards Moscow. By June, False Dmitry II entered the village of Tushino near Moscow, where he settled. In Russia, 2 capitals were formed: boyars, merchants, officials worked on 2 fronts, sometimes even receiving salaries from both kings. Shuisky concluded an agreement with Sweden and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth began aggressive military operations. False Dmitry II fled to Kaluga.

Shuisky was tonsured a monk and taken to the Chudov Monastery. An interregnum began in Russia - the Seven Boyars (a council of 7 boyars). The Boyar Duma made a deal with the Polish interventionists and on August 17, 1610, Moscow swore allegiance to the Polish king Vladislav. At the end of 1610, False Dmitry II was killed, but the struggle for the throne did not end there.

So, the second stage was marked by the uprising of I.I. Bolotnikov (1606 - 1607), the reign of Vasily Shuisky (1606 - 1610), the appearance of False Dmitry II, as well as the Seven Boyars (1610).

Third period of troubles characterized by the fight against foreign invaders. After the death of False Dmitry II, the Russians united against the Poles. The war acquired a national character. In August 1612, the militia of K. Minin and D. Pozharsky reached Moscow. And already on October 26, the Polish garrison surrendered. Moscow was liberated. The time of troubles is over.

Results of the Troubles were depressing: the country was in a terrible situation, the treasury was ruined, trade and crafts were in decline. The consequences of the Troubles for Russia were expressed in its backwardness compared to European countries. It took decades to restore the economy.

IN 1613 year after the liberation of Moscow from the Polish garrison, it was convened Zemsky Cathedral.

It was one of the most exemplary cathedrals on the principle that it witnessed a huge number of participants who were represented at it in the entire history of the existence of Muscovite Rus'. Representatives of the clergy, boyars (in an extremely weakened composition), nobility, merchants, urban townspeople and state peasants sat at the cathedral. But the strongest group was the Cossacks. It, as a class, especially strengthened during the Time of Troubles, when its composition was significantly replenished with representatives of urban Cossacks. These included those townspeople who, during the Time of Troubles, abandoned their main occupations, formed militias, organized themselves in the manner of Cossack detachments, and never returned to their previous profession. It was they who decided that now was the time to act, that is, it was necessary to place on the throne a weak ruler who could quickly organize a strong administration and army and, naturally, fulfill certain demands: a general amnesty and their inclusion in the nobility and the distribution of estates. Many of them also demanded money for the service rendered - the liberation of Moscow. As a result, before the first meeting of the council, several candidates were nominated: from the Cossacks - Romanov, from the nobles - Pozharsky, from part of the clergy and boyars - Mstislavsky. As for the merchants, artisans and peasants, they were an undecided mass. The outcome was decided before the meeting even began. On the night before the opening of the cathedral, the Cossacks blocked the residences of Pozharsky and Mstislavsky and, at gunpoint, forced them to renounce their claims to the throne. No one expected such actions, however, the nobles did not want to give up and demanded several weeks of council meetings until a compromise was found. This class took care of the safety of estates received during the Time of Troubles, and the final approval of the hereditary nature of their possessions. The Cossacks agreed to the following conditions: the top of the Don Cossacks received the nobility and the right to autonomous control of their circle and an elected ataman (he had to exercise military and civil power in this territory), and the policemen would receive money. Anyone who swears allegiance to the king will receive amnesty. As a result of this agreement, Mikhail Romanov was elected Tsar, the boyars went downhill and merged with the losing nobility, and the clergy generally began to lose their autonomy (became under the control of the state administration). Some of the Don Cossacks who took part in the liberation movement went home after Mikhail’s election, others remained in Moscow. They formed the basis of the government's armed forces. In addition to the Don Cossacks, there were detachments of service Cossacks, who during the Time of Troubles were very imbued with the independent spirit of the Donetsk people. The Cossacks had their own military organization, and they did not consider themselves integral part regular army. Separate groups of them, scattered throughout the country, did not want to obey the orders of even their own senior officers. When supplies were depleted, they robbed the population, which was very similar to robbery. In a letter to the Stroganovs dated May 25, 1613, the bishops accurately described the situation (not only regarding the Cossacks, but also the military in general), saying that when they do not receive a salary, they either go home or rob willy-nilly. However, besides these forced robbers, there were many real robbers among the Cossacks. But now Romanov himself had to agree to one more condition: to share power with the Zemsky Sobor. Now it is a permanent institution, which met almost without interruption throughout the reign of Mikhail Romanov. All important decisions were developed with the participation of the Council and signed as follows: by royal decree and by zemstvo verdict. The Council became the highest body of legislative power, without which the tsar could not pass a single law or make changes to legislation. The council shared executive power with the tsar. The reason for this is that after the Time of Troubles it was impossible to immediately restore order and law without relying on the structures that were developed during the Time of Troubles. Thus, the power of the new government was forced to be based not on force, but on popular support, primarily to restore order in the country. The Boyar Duma remained part of the Zemsky Sobor, the highest body of the government and central administration, but at the same time some changes occurred in the composition of the Boyar Duma: the Boyar Party was discredited, its representatives were removed from the Boyar Duma. The first roles in the Boyar Duma were taken by Minin and Pozharsky, Cherkassky, and most of the positions were taken by okolnichy and Duma nobles. The first composition of the new Duma included: 2 boyars, 5 okolnichy, 7 Duma nobles, 4 Duma clerks, and the most influential person in it was the Duma nobleman - Minin. He acted in close contact with Pozharsky, he was appointed chief treasurer and ruler of Muscovy. After the death of Minin in 1616, the Boyar Duma underwent some changes. Several relatives of the tsar were introduced into its composition, who assigned the boyar title and position, but initially this did not in any way affect the balance of power in the Duma. But gradually, with the fall of the positions of Trubetskoy and Pozharsky, the Romanov clan brought the Duma under its control. The range of issues considered by the Duma as a matter of priority was determined: Issues of eliminating the remnants of uncontrolled armed groups Destruction of Zarutsky and Mniszek Restoration of the national economy To resolve the first two issues, it was necessary to establish contact with the Cossacks. At this time, the Cossacks formed the basis of the government armed forces, in contrast to the nobility, whose position was undermined during the Time of Troubles. The Cossacks had their own military organization, they were not considered an integral part of the regular army, they were not subordinate to anyone, and individual groups that were scattered throughout the country knew only one thing - robbery. As a result, the Zemsky Sobor brought charges of treason against them. Local city authorities played a special role in eliminating the uncontrolled Cossacks. They obeyed the verdict of the Zemsky Sobor, and the bandits were caught and executed. This is how the armed opposition to the new regime was eliminated.

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

Encyclopedic YouTube

• 1 / 5

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

  Background

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

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

  After the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky from the throne as a result of the uprising on July 17 (27), power in Moscow passed to the provisional boyar government (see Seven Boyars). In August 1610, part of the population of Moscow swore allegiance to Prince Vladislav, the son of the Polish king and Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund III. In September, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth army entered the Kremlin. The actual power of the Moscow government in 1610-1612 was minimal. Anarchy reigned in the country; the northwestern lands (including Novgorod) were occupied by Swedish troops. In Tushino, near Moscow, the Tushino camp of another impostor, False Dmitry II, continued to function (False Dmitry II himself was killed in Kaluga in December 1610). To liberate Moscow from the invaders, the First People's Militia was successively assembled (under the leadership of Procopius Lyapunov, Ivan Zarutsky and Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy), and then the Second People's Militia under the leadership of Kuzma Minin and Prince Dmitry Pozharsky. In August 1612, the Second Militia, with part of the forces remaining near Moscow from the First Militia, defeated the army of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and in October completely liberated the capital.

  Convocation of the Council

  Motives for election

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

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

  N. I. Kostomarov

  Progress of the meetings

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

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

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

  S. F. Platonov

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

  First version

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

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

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

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

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

  Other versions

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

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

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

  February 20, 1613. On the porch of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, cellarer of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra Avraamy Palitsyn reads out the decision of the Zemsky Sobor “On the election of boyar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the royal throne.” (“Book about the election of the Tsar and Grand Duke Mikhail Fedorovich to the kingdom”, 1672-1673)

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

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

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

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

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

  “It was only the Don Cossacks who imprisoned your son in the Moscow state.” (S. F. Platonov)

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

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

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

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

  Embassy in Kostroma

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

  Of the year. (Palace categories. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1850. Stbl. 95).

  Literature

  The election of Mikhail Romanov to the throne today, from afar, seems to be the only right decision. There cannot be any other relation to the beginning of the Romanov dynasty, given its venerable age. But for contemporaries, the choice of one of the Romanovs for the throne did not seem the best. All the political passions that usually accompany elections were fully present in 1613.

  Suffice it to say that among the contenders for the Russian throne was a representative of a foreign royal court and several of his own boyars, including the leaders of the Moscow Boyar Duma in 1610-1612. Prince Fyodor Ivanovich Mstislavsky and Prince Ivan Mikhailovich Vorotynsky, as well as the main commanders of the militia that recently liberated Moscow - Prince Dmitry Timofeevich Trubetskoy and Prince. The Romanov circle, if anything stood out against this background, was the abundance of proposed candidates, which included Ivan Nikitich Romanov (uncle of Mikhail Romanov), Prince Ivan Borisovich Cherkassky and Fyodor Ivanovich Sheremetev. Among these seven contenders, according to the “Tale of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613,” there was also the “eighth lamenting” Prince Pyotr Ivanovich Pronsky, who became noticeable thanks to his service in the zemstvo militia. He was the same young and well-born steward as Mikhail Romanov, only of princely origin. During the discussions at and around the Electoral Council, the names of Prince Ivan Ivanovich Shuisky, Prince Ivan Vasilyevich Golitsyn, and Prince Dmitry Mamstrukovich Cherkassky, who was in Polish-Lithuanian captivity, were also heard.

  The opening of the Council was postponed and postponed, because Moscow found itself in the power of the Cossacks, because a sufficient number of elected officials did not come, because there was no Kazan Metropolitan Ephraim and because there was no head of the Boyar Duma - the boyar Prince Fyodor Ivanovich Mstislavsky, who retired to his estates after liberation of the capital. There were too many reasons why the Council was unwilling or unable to take full responsibility. Probably because of this, the election of the tsar at first resembled veche meetings, where recent heroes of the battles near Moscow, electors who came from the area, as well as ordinary residents of the capital crowding around the Kremlin could express their opinions. There was also pre-election campaigning, which, however, took the form of feasts, which were organized by the candidates, in accordance with their era.

  The main pre-election intrigue was to reconcile the opposing positions of the boyar curia at the Council and the Cossacks in electing a new tsar. It would seem that the boyars, experienced in the intricacies of palace politics, had an advantage here, but the Cossacks also continued to represent a significant force that could not be ignored.

  Back in the summer of 1612, when Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky negotiated the election of Duke Charles Philip to the Russian throne, he “confidantly” informed Jacob Delagardie that all the “most noble boyars” had united around this candidacy. Opponents of the election of a foreign sovereign were “part of the simple and unreasonable crowd, especially the desperate and restless Cossacks.” Jacob Delagardie conveyed to his king the words of Prince Dmitry Pozharsky about the Cossacks, who “do not want any specific government, but want to elect a ruler under whom they could continue to freely rob and attack, as they have done so far.” .

  Boyar ideas about the Cossacks were unlikely to change quickly after the liberation of Moscow. In the fall of 1612, according to the testimony of Ivan Filosofov, there were four and a half thousand Cossacks in Moscow and “in everything, the Cossacks are strong among the boyars and nobles, they do what they want, and the nobles and the boyars’ children dispersed to their estates.” Novgorodian Bogdan Dubrovsky described the situation in the capital in November - early December 1612 in a similar way. According to his estimates, in Moscow there were 11 thousand “best and senior Cossacks” selected during the analysis. Despite the analysis carried out, designed to divide the Cossacks, they continued to act together and in the end were able not only to unite around one candidate, but also to insist on her election. They did not leave Moscow at all, as the boyars wanted, but waited until the moment when all the names of possible contenders were announced in order to propose their candidate. This is exactly the version of events contained in the “Tale of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613.”

  The exact start time of the conciliar meetings remains unknown. Most likely, the official opening of the Council did not take place, otherwise the news about this should have been included in the “Approved Charter on the Election of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich.” After January 6, 1613, endless discussions began, as reported by contemporaries. “And we, elected people from all over the Council and all ranks, spent a lot of time talking and thinking about the sovereign’s fleecing...” - this is what they wrote in the first letters about the election of Mikhail Fedorovich, describing the course of the electoral Council. The first conclusion, which satisfied the majority, was the rejection of all foreign candidates: “... so that the Lithuanian and Swedish kings and their children, and other German faiths and some foreign-language states of the non-Christian faith of the Greek law do not defraud the Vladimir and Moscow states and Marinka and her son you don’t want it for the state.” This meant the collapse of many political hopes and passions. Those who were members of the Boyar Duma, which concluded an agreement on the calling of Prince Vladislav, lost; there were no more prospects for the claims of the former Tushins, especially the Cossacks of Ivan Zarutsky, who continued their war for the young pretender Tsarevich Ivan Dmitrievich. But the organizer of the zemstvo militia, Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky, who consistently supported the candidacy of the Swedish prince Karl Philip, also suffered a sensitive defeat. At the Council, another point of view prevailed; the experience of the Time of Troubles taught not to trust anyone from the outside: “... because the Polish and German kings saw for themselves a lie and a crime on the cross and a peaceful violation, just as the Lithuanian king ruined the Moscow state, and the Swedish king Veliky Novgorod took Oman for with a kiss of the cross." Having agreed on whom “the whole earth” did not want to see on the throne (there were no particular surprises here), the elected officials made another most important general decision: “And to rob the Vladimir and Moscow states and all the great states of the Russian kingdom from the sovereign from the Moscow clans , God willing."

  Everything returned “to normal”, the situation that arose at the time of the suppression of the Rurik dynasty in 1598 was repeated, but there was no such figure as Boris Godunov. Whatever candidates for kings were named, each of them lacked something for the urgently felt unification in the face of the external threat that continued to emanate from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden. What needed to be invented so that the new tsar could cope with the establishment of internal governance and eliminate Cossack self-will and robberies? All the applicants belonged to noble princely and boyar families, but how to give preference to one of them without immediately causing internecine struggle and parochial disputes? All these intractable contradictions led the members of the Electoral Council to a dead end.

  The closest to the “crown of Monomakh”, it seemed, was Prince Dmitry Timofeevich Trubetskoy; for some time, he was supported by the Cossacks of the Moscow region regiments, which he commanded. In January 1613, he was given a charter for Vaga, which was owned by Boris Godunov and the Shuisky princes before him, which meant the continuity of the power tradition coming from them. But the Romanovs turned out to be closer to the Cossacks: echoes of memories of the activities of Nikita Romanovich Yuryev, who hired Cossacks to serve in the construction of the southern border of the state even under Tsar Ivan the Terrible, played a role. The martyrdom of the Romanovs under Tsar Boris Godunov and the stay of Metropolitan Philaret (Romanov) in the Tushino camp as the named patriarch were also important. Due to the absence of the captive Filaret in Moscow, they remembered his only son, the steward Mikhail Romanov. He was barely 16 years old, that is, he entered the age at which the service of a nobleman usually began. During the reign of Vasily Shuisky, he was still small and did not receive any official appointments, and then, finding himself under siege in Moscow, he could no longer go to work, being always with his mother, nun Marfa Ivanovna. Thus, if Mikhail Romanov was elected, no one could say that they had once commanded the Tsar or performed the same service as him. But the main advantage of a candidate from the Romanov family was his relationship with the extinct dynasty. As you know, Mikhail Romanov was the nephew of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich (their fathers were cousins). This circumstance ultimately overpowered all other arguments for or against.

  On February 7, 1613, about a month after the start of the council meetings, a decision was made to take a two-week break. In the “Approved Charter” they wrote that the election of the king “for greater strengthening was postponed from February 7th to February 21st.” Secret envoys were sent to the cities to “inquire into all sorts of people’s thoughts about the state’s robbery.” The news of the “Approved Charter” gave reason to talk about the “pre-election” of the steward Mikhail Romanov to the Russian throne on February 7th. However, if by this date everyone had already agreed with the candidacy of Mikhail Romanov, then what other “strengthening” was expected? Most likely, behind the decision to take a break in the cathedral sessions was hidden the previous desire to wait for the presence at the cathedral of Kazan Metropolitan Ephraim, the head of the Boyar Duma, Prince Fyodor Ivanovich Mstislavsky, and uncertainty due to the incomplete representation of cities at the cathedral. Two weeks is a very short period of time to find out what the people of the Moscow state were thinking about, to different ends of which at that time one could travel for months, or even years (as, for example, to Siberia). To whom should the information collected in the country flow, who would summarize it, and were these “opinions” announced at the Council? All this should also have been taken care of during the proper organization of the Council. But the electoral Zemsky Sobor, which met under emergency conditions, itself established the rules of its work.

  In mid-February 1613, some elected officials actually left the capital (to consult with their voters?). The news of this was preserved by chance, because several Toropets deputies were captured by Alexander Gosevsky, who by that time served as the Lithuanian referendum, but continued not only to closely monitor Moscow affairs, but even, as we see, to interfere in them. He informed Prince Christopher Radziwill that the “Toropets ambassadors” who went to the capital for the election of the tsar returned empty-handed and, having been captured on the way back, told him that new elections were scheduled for February 21. There are also references to a trip to Kostroma before the final election of Mikhail Romanov by the brothers Boris Mikhailovich and Mikhail Mikhailovich Saltykov, relatives of the Tsar’s mother Marfa Ivanovna, who tried to find out their opinion on the conciliar decision. The question to what extent the election of Mikhail Romanov was a foregone conclusion on February 7 remains open. The most plausible explanation for the break is its coincidence with Maslenitsa and the Lent that followed. At the same time, 15 years ago, Tsar Boris Godunov was elected. The election of the new king was scheduled for the first Sunday of Lent - February 21.

  The circumstances of the two-week break before the election of Mikhail Romanov were also written in a letter to Metropolitan Ephraim in Kazan on February 22-24, 1613, notifying about the election. It also spoke about the secret collection of information regarding the future candidacy of the king:

  “... and before his state robbery, we sent the Moscow state in all cities and districts of those cities to secretly check on all kinds of faithful people, what the sovereign Tsar wanted for the Moscow state, and in all cities and districts, from small to large, the same idea , that Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov Yuryev would be the sovereign Tsar of the Moscow State.”

  Nothing was said about the “pre-election” of Mikhail Romanov by the Council on February 7. Due to the “wound up” associated with the lack of elected people from the Kazan kingdom, and the ongoing ruin of the state at the Council, they decided to “simplify the period in the state’s robbery until the resurrection of the one hundred and twenty-first year of February until the twenty-first day.” In all the churches of the state, prayers were held for the granting of “a tsar from the Russian people to the Moscow state.” Most likely, this was the official decision reached by the Council on February 7, and the mood of the first, one of the strictest weeks of Lent, when worldly passions were inappropriate, should have helped to make the right choice from all the contenders for the throne.

  Having reconvened at the scheduled date “on Assembly Sunday,” February 21, 1613, the Zemsky Sobor made the historic decision to elect Mikhail Fedorovich to the throne. In a letter to Metropolitan Ephraim in Kazan, they wrote how “for the requested period” on February 21, a prayer service was first held, and then the meetings of the Zemsky Sobor resumed:

  “...we had in the reigning city of Moscow all sorts of ranks with elected people from all the cities and the reigning city of Moscow with all sorts of residents, and everyone spoke and advised general council, which the sovereign Tsar turned to the Moscow state, and they talked about it for a long time, and having sentenced and advised everything with a single and irrevocable council and with the advice of their entire Moscow state, people brought all ranks to us to the metropolitan, and archbishop, and bishop, and to the entire Consecrated Cathedral , and to us boyars and okolniki and people of all ranks, their thoughts separately.”

  This is the description of that very Council that changed Russian history. It is possible to understand the essence of what was happening only by revealing what stands behind each of the etiquette formulas in the text of the letter. It is only obvious that the Council lasted a long time, different ranks - Moscow and city nobles, guests, townspeople and Cossacks - had to formulate their single opinion, i.e. “thought”. This practice corresponded to the order of meetings of the Zemsky Sobors of later decades. An important, but not fully disclosed, reference is to the fact that the decision was made “with all sorts of local people” from Moscow. The separately mentioned participation of the Moscow “peace” in the events is by no means accidental and is additional evidence of its “invasion” in the affairs of the tsar’s election. Confirmation of this is contained in the questioning speeches of the steward Ivan Ivanovich Chepchugov (and two other Moscow nobles) in Novgorod in 1614. According to Ivan Chepchugov, who fought in the zemstvo militia and as a steward had to participate in the activities of the Zemsky Sobor, the Cossacks and mob “with great burst into the Kremlin noisily” and began to accuse the boyars that they “do not elect any of the local gentlemen as sovereigns in order to rule themselves and benefit from the country’s income alone.” Supporters of Mikhail Romanov never left the Kremlin until the “Duma and Zemstvo officials” swore allegiance to the new tsar.

  Another story about the royal choice contains “The Tale of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613.” According to this source, on February 21, the boyars came up with the idea of ​​choosing a tsar from several candidates by lot (a selection procedure borrowed from church law, according to which one of the Moscow patriarchs was elected in the 17th century). All plans were mixed up by the Cossack atamans invited to the Council, who accused the highest government officials of seeking to usurp power. The name of the new Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich at the Council was also pronounced that day by the Cossack atamans, who believed in the transfer of the royal staff by inheritance from Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich to the “prince” (sic!) Fyodor Nikitich Romanov: “And he is now full in Lithuania, and from the good good roots and branch, and his son is Prince Mikhailo Fedorovich. May it be fitting for him to rule according to God’s will.” The Cossack speakers very quickly moved from words to action and immediately proclaimed the name of the new tsar and “celebrated him for many years”: “By God’s will, in the reigning city of Moscow and all Russia, may there be a Tsar, Sovereign and Grand Duke Mikhailo Fedorovich and all Russia!” .

  Although the name of Mikhail Romanov as a contender for the royal throne has been discussed for a long time, the call Cossack atamans at the Council, supported by ordinary Cossacks and the Moscow “peace” gathered in the Kremlin squares, took the boyars by surprise.

  “The Tale of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613” provides very truthful details about the reaction of members of the Boyar Duma, who believed that the name of Mikhail Romanov would not be seriously considered at the Council. There is no doubt that the author of the Tale, if he was not an eyewitness himself, wrote everything down from the words of a very informed person. In any case, the reader of this story has a “presence effect”: “At that time, the boy was possessed by fear and trembling, and their faces were changing with blood, and not a single person could utter anything, but only one Ivan Nikitich Romanov said: “ That Prince Mikhailo Fedorovich is still young and not fully sane."

  An awkward phrase that betrays the excitement of the boyar Ivan Romanov. In an effort to say that his nephew was not yet so experienced in business, he completely accused Mikhail of lack of intelligence. What followed was a remarkable response from the Cossack atamans, who turned this clause into a joke: “But you, Ivan Nikitich, are old, full of reason, and to him, the sovereign, you are a born uncle according to the flesh, and you will be a strong blow to him.” After this, “the boy was completely exhausted.”

  But Prince Dmitry Timofeevich Trubetskoy received the main blow (accusations of striving for “autocracy” were largely directed at him as the head of the government of “the whole earth,” who still decided all matters in the country). “Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy,” the author of “The Tale of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613” writes about him, “his face was blackened, and he fell into illness, and lay for many days, without leaving his yard from the steep, that the Cossack had drained the treasury and their knowledge is flattering in words and deception.” Now it becomes clear why the signature of Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy is not on the letters notifying the cities about the election of a new tsar.

  Thus, the conciliar meeting on February 21, 1613 ended with all the ranks agreeing on the candidacy of Mikhail Romanov and “they wrote a verdict on that and put their hands on it.” The decisive circumstance was, after all, the relationship of the future king with the previous dynasty. Notifying Metropolitan Ephraim about this, they could not resist “correcting” the genealogical arguments:

  “And by the grace of God and the Most Pure Mother of God and the prayers of all the saints, our council and all ranks of people in one thought and in one agreement decided to be in the Moscow state the sovereign tsar and grand prince of all Russia, the blessed branch of the blessed memory of the great sovereign tsar and great Prince Ioann Vasilyevich, the autocrat of all Russia and the great empresses, the tsarina and the grand duchesses Anastasia Romanovna, to her grandson, and the great sovereign, the tsar and Grand Duke Fyodor Ivanovich of all Russia, to his nephew Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov Yuryev.”

  A slight discrepancy with reality in the degree of kinship between Mikhail Romanov and Tsars Ivan the Terrible and Fyodor Ivanovich was no longer significant. What turned out to be more necessary was a unifying idea associated with a return to the names of former rulers. The young man Mikhail Romanov in 1613 could still only symbolically unite the past with the present in the minds of his contemporaries during the Time of Troubles. The main thing was to indicate something else, which was reported in the first letters about the election of Mikhail Fedorovich to the kingdom: “...at no one’s request or consent, God elected him, the sovereign, to such a great royal throne, over all people.”

  One conciliar “sentence” adopted on February 21, 1613 was not yet enough to immediately transfer power to the new king, who, moreover, was absent from the capital and did not know about the election. The government of the “Council of the Whole Land” continued to act and make decisions and issue letters on behalf of the boyars Prince Dmitry Timofeevich Trubetskoy and Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky until February 25. Only from February 26, according to the observation of L. M. Sukhotin, the distribution of estates and the assignment of salaries to service people began to be made “by sovereign decree.” The basis for such a transfer of power was another conciliar decision on February 24 to send representatives of “the whole earth” to Mikhail Fedorovich “to Kostroma, the estate of his Tsar’s Majesty” and to take the oath to the new sovereign. A letter to Kazan Metropolitan Ephraim, prepared on February 22 and sent after February 25, spoke about this. Events in Moscow changed literally by the hour, and the decree on the oath was adopted at the moment when another embassy of members of the Council was being prepared “to the great lord, to Ephraim Metropolitan and to all the people of the Kazan state.” In the Kazan charter, written during the days of the Electoral Council, its composition is listed in the most complete way, in contrast to sources of a later time, when “volost peasants” and other categories of elected officials were hidden under the general name “people of all ranks”:

  “And at that time, the boyars, and okolnichi, and chashniki, and stolniks, and solicitors, and great nobles, and Duma nobles, and clerks, and nobles from cities, and tenants, and children of boyars, and heads of streltsy, and merchant guests, and atamans, and Cossacks, and streltsy, and gunners, and zatinshchiki, and all sorts of servicemen and tenants, and of the entire Moscow state and people of all ranks from cities, and volost peasants from Lithuania, and from the Crimean, and from the German Ukraine, Zavolsk and Pomeranian and northern all the cities, Moscow residents, all sorts of black people with wives and children and real babies and beat them with their foreheads, so that we could send to him, the great sovereign, soon and pray to him, the great sovereign, so that he, the great sovereign, would accomplish his feat in the reigning city of Moscow on his royal throne given to him by God, and without him he, the great sovereign, would kiss the cross.”

  On February 24, the same thing happened again that happened three years ago, when the Cossacks and the Moscow “world” intervened in the course of the council meetings. A reflection of this is the mention in the “Tale of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613” that the Cossacks almost by force forced the boyars to kiss the cross of Mikhail Fedorovich. It was the Cossacks who were most interested in ensuring that no turnaround happened and that Mikhail Romanov, whose choice they so insisted on, would become king:

  “The Bolyar, as a Cossack, intended to kiss the cross for the sovereign, so they could leave Moscow, and not kiss the cross themselves in front of the Cossacks. The Cossacks knew their intention and forced them, the boyars, to kiss the cross. And kissed the boy's cross. Also, then the Cossacks brought six crosses to the Place of Execution, and the Cossacks kissed the cross, and glorified God all.”

  In the official documents issued on behalf of the Council, of course, not a word was said about the forced oath of the boyars. On the contrary, in a letter to Kazan and other cities it was emphasized that kissing the cross was performed “according to the general world council” and “by the whole earth.” However, the acute rejection of the candidacy of Mikhail Romanov by some boyars and participants in the electoral Council (including the temporary rulers of the state, Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy and Prince Dmitry Pozharsky) was known to contemporaries. At the beginning of 1614, in Novgorod, the son of the boyar Nikita Kalitin spoke about the balance of power during the election of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich:

  “Some princes, boyars and Cossacks, as well as ordinary people, the noblest of them - Prince Ivan Nikitievich Yuryev, uncle of the now elected Grand Duke, Prince Ivan Golitsyn, Prince Boris Lykov and Boris Saltykov, son of Mikhail Saltykov, cast their votes for Feodorov’s son and chose and installed him as their Grand Duke; they now hold on to him very much and have sworn allegiance; but Prince Dmitry Pozharsky, Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy, Prince Ivan Kurakin, Prince Fyodor Mstislavsky, as well as Prince Vasily Borisovich Cherkassky, stood firmly against and did not want to agree to anything that others did. Especially Prince Dmitry Pozharsky openly spoke to the boyars, Cossacks and zemstvo officials in Moscow and did not want to approve the choice of his son Theodore, arguing that as soon as they accepted him as their Grand Duke, order would not last long, but it would be better for them to stand on the fact that all of them decided earlier not to elect any of their fellow tribesmen as grand dukes.”

  The position of Prince Dmitry Pozharsky was clear; he had to continue to adhere to the agreements of his zemstvo government on the calling of Prince Charles Philip. Now it is difficult to say definitely when the turn in the views of Prince Pozharsky came, but it is indisputable that the candidacy of Mikhail Romanov was confirmed in the most intense political struggle.

  The oath to Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich began on February 25, and from that time on there was a change of power. The first letters were sent to the cities, informing about the election of Mikhail Fedorovich, and kissing notes were attached to them. The text of the oath included a rejection of all other possible applicants, obliging everyone to serve “their sovereign, and to be straightforward and want good in everything without any cunning.”

  The charter of the Moscow Zemsky Sobor was sent out on behalf of the Consecrated Council, headed by Metropolitan Kirill, which consisted of diocesan and monastic authorities and “the great monasteries of the honest monasteries of elders, who were gathered for the royal fleece to Moscow.”

  All other ranks were only listed in order. And this is no coincidence. Strictly speaking, in those days only the Consecrated Council could be perceived as convened with sufficiently full representation (with the exception of Metropolitan Ephraim). All other deputies, as well as people who simply happened to be in Moscow, addressed precisely this church council, which consecrated similar general gatherings of people gathered for the election of the Tsar. Letters were sent to the cities, addressing first of all the local Consecrated Cathedral, and then to the governors, district nobles and boyar children, archers, Cossacks, guests, townspeople and district “all people of the great Moscow state.”

  From Moscow they recalled the “suppression of the royal root” and the time that came after the deposition of Tsar Vasily Shuisky: “... due to the common zemstvo sin, and due to the envy of the devil, many people hated his sovereign and fell behind him; and discord broke out in the Moscow state." Further, briefly recalling the agreement with Hetman Zholkiewski, about the “cleansing” of Moscow from Polish and Lithuanian people, they came to the main thing - the royal choice. Here there could be nuances in the letters, since some cities, despite all the requests, did not send their representatives “for the state’s fleece.” Now they were reminded of this and informed everywhere that “elected people” from the cities of Moscow, Pomerania and Ukraine had long since gathered and were living in Moscow “for a long time.” There was a general opinion that “without the sovereign the Moscow state can build nothing, and the factories are divided into many parts by thieves, and theft multiplies many things.” Describing the list of candidates discussed at the Zemsky Sobor, the electors explained why they abandoned “the Lithuanian and Swedish king and their children” and reported that “they did not want Marinka and her son for the state.” Thus, based on the principle of negation, the decision was born to choose “a sovereign from the Moscow clans, whomever God wills.” By all accounts, such a candidate was Mikhail Fedorovich, whose election to the Russian throne took place on February 21. They kissed the cross to the new Tsar, promising him “to serve and straighten both the enemies of his sovereign and the enemies of the Moscow state with the Polish and Lithuanian and German people, and with the Tatars, and with the traitors who will not serve his sovereign, fight to the death.” . At the end of the letter of election, Mikhail Fedorovich was called upon to sing many years and hold “prayer services with ringing bells” for the health of the new king and for peace in the country: “... and would establish a Christian state peacefully and in silence and prosperity.”

  However, there were still many places in the Moscow state where the decision of the electoral Zemsky Sobor on the election of Mikhail Fedorovich to the kingdom was not recognized. The greatest danger continued to come from another Cossack contender - the son of Marina Mnishek, Tsarevich Ivan Dmitrievich. At this time, he and his mother were in the hands of Ivan Zarutsky, who settled in Epifani, in the upper reaches of the Don. Immediately after the election of Mikhail, the “Zemsky Council” sent there with letters of approval three Cossacks from the regiment of Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy - Vaska Medved, Timoshka Ivanov and Bogdashka Tverdikov. What came of this, they told themselves in their petition:

  “As, sir, the whole earth and all the military men kissed the cross in Moscow to you the sovereign, we were sent from Moscow from your sovereign boyars and from the whole earth to Zarutsky. And how we, your servants, came to Epifan to Zarutsky with boyar and zemstvo charters, and Zarutsky sold us your servants for strong bailiffs and robbed us naked, horses and guns and clothes and money, robbed everything. And because of the bailiffs, sir, we, your servants who were plundered in body and soul, released us with letters to Moscow to your sovereign boyars and to the whole land.”

  One can only guess about the content and style of correspondence between the “Council of the Whole Land” and the rebellious Cossack ataman; apparently, he was asked (as would be done again in 1614, when Zarutsky was in Astrakhan) to refuse to support Marina Mnishek’s claims to royal regalia for his son. However, Ivan Zarutsky has already crossed the line separating a fighter for the “correct” candidate from an ordinary robber, which he will soon prove with his campaign against the Tula and Oryol cities - Krapivna, Chern, Mtsensk, Novosil, Livny - burning fortresses, “flogging” people and with particular cruelty, ruining the estates of the elected representatives who were in Moscow during the election of Mikhail Fedorovich.

  The oath to Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich began at a time when his consent to take the throne had not yet been received. How should the young man Mikhail Romanov, who was in Kostroma, in the Ipatiev Monastery, feel when this fate fell?

  Already in November 1612, the leaders of the Second Militia sent out letters to the cities with a call to gather at the Zemsky Sobor “for the royal plunder.” The period of waiting for the electors stretched out for a long time, and, most likely, the work of the cathedral began only in January 1613. Envoys arrived from 50 cities, in addition, the highest clergy, boyars, participants in the “Council of the Whole Land,” palace officials, clerks, representatives of the nobility and Cossacks. Among the elected were also service people “according to the instrument” - archers, gunners, townspeople and even black-mown peasants. In total, about 500 people took part in the work of the cathedral. The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was the most numerous and representative in the entire cathedral practice of the 16th-17th centuries.

  The work of the Council began with the adoption of a significant decision: “The Lithuanian and Svian kings and their children, for their many lies, and no other people’s lands, are not to be plundered by the Moscow state... and Marinka and her son are not wanted.” The nominations of “princes who serve in the Moscow state” were also rejected, i.e. Siberian princes, descendants of Khan Kuchum and the Kasimov ruler. Thus, the Council immediately determined the circle of candidates - the “great” families of the Moscow state, the large boyars. According to various sources, the names named at the Council are known: Prince Fyodor Ivanovich Mstislavsky, Prince Ivan Mikhailovich Vorotynsky, Prince Ivan Vasilyevich Golitsyn, Prince Dmitry Timofeevich Trubetskoy, Ivan Nikitich Romanov, Prince Ivan Borisovich Cherkassky, Prince Pyotr Ivanovich Pronsky, Fyodor Ivanovich Sheremetev. There is dubious news that Prince D.M. also put forward his candidacy. Pozharsky. In the heat of a local dispute, the nobleman Sumin reproached Pozharsky for “ruling and reigning” and this “cost him twenty thousand.” Most likely, this is nothing more than a libel. Subsequently, Sumin himself renounced these words, and the leader of the Second Militia simply did not and could not have such money.

  The candidacy of Mstislavsky, undoubtedly one of the most distinguished candidates by descent from Gediminas and kinship with the dynasty of the Moscow kings (he was a great-great-grandson Ivan III), could not be taken into serious consideration, since he declared as early as 1610 that he would become a monk if he was forced to accept the throne. He also did not enjoy sympathy for his openly pro-Polish position. The boyars who were part of the Seven Boyars were also nominated - I.N. Romanova and F.I. Sheremetev. The candidates who were part of the militia had the greatest chances - princes D.T. Trubetskoy, I.B. Cherkassy and P.I. Pronsky.

  Trubetskoy developed the most active election activity: “Having established honest meals and tables and many feasts for the Cossacks and in a month and a half all the Cossacks, forty thousand, inviting crowds to his yard all day long, receiving honor for them, feeding and singing honestly and praying to them, so that he could be the king of Russia...” Soon after the liberation of the Kremlin from the Poles, Trubetskoy settled down in the former courtyard of Tsar Boris Godunov, thereby emphasizing his claims. A document was also prepared to award Trubetskoy the vast volost of Vaga (on the Dvina), the ownership of which was a kind of step to royal power - Vaga was once owned by Boris Godunov. This letter was signed by the highest hierarchs and leaders of the united militia - princes D.M. Pozharsky and P.I. Pronsky, however, ordinary participants in the cathedral refused to sign the letter. They were well aware of the hesitations of the former Tushino boyar during the battles for Moscow, and, perhaps, could not forgive him for his oath to the Pskov thief. There were probably other complaints against Trubetskoy, and his candidacy could not get enough votes.

  The struggle unfolded in the second circle, and then new names arose: steward Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, Prince Dmitry Mamstrukovich Cherkassky, Prince Ivan Ivanovich Shuisky. They also remembered the Swedish prince Carl Philip. Finally, the candidacy of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov prevailed, whose advantages were his relationship with the previous dynasty (he was the nephew of Tsar Fedor Ivanovich) and his cleanliness in the betrayals and strife of the Time of Troubles.

  The choice of Mikhail Romanov was close to several political groups. Zemstvo and noble leaders recalled the sympathies of Patriarch Hermogenes for Michael and the tragic fate of this family under Godunov. The name of Romanov was very popular among the Cossacks, whose decisive role in the election of the young tsar was noted in a special literary monument - “The Tale of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613”. For the Cossacks, Mikhail was the son of the Tushino “patriarch” Filaret. The young applicant also inherited the popularity among Muscovites, which was enjoyed by his grandfather Nikita Romanovich and father Fyodor Nikitich.

  Mikhail Romanov also found many supporters among the boyars. This was no longer the close-knit Romanov clan against which Godunov directed his repressions, but a circle of people from the defeated boyar groups that spontaneously formed at the Council. These were mainly young representatives of well-known families who did not have sufficient weight among the boyars - the Sheremetevs (with the exception of the boyar Fyodor Ivanovich), Prince I.F. Troekurov, Golovin, M.M. and B.M. Saltykovs, Prince P.I. Ironsky, L.M. and A.L. Naked, Prince P.L. Repnin and others. Some were relatives of the new tsar, others, through the Tushinsky camp, were connected with Mikhail’s father, Filaret Romanov, while others had previously supported Trubetskoy’s candidacy, but reoriented in time. However, for the “old” boyars, members of the Seven Boyars, Mikhail Romanov was also one of them - I.N. He was Romanov’s own nephew, Prince B.M. Lykov - nephew by wife, F.I. Sheremetev was married to Mikhail's cousin. Princes F.I. were related to him. Mstislavsky and I.M. Vorotynsky.

  True, the candidacy of Mikhail Romanov did not “pass” immediately. In mid-February, the Council took a break from meetings - Lent began - and political disputes were abandoned for some time. Apparently, negotiations with the “voters” (many of the council participants left the capital for a while and then returned) made it possible to achieve the desired compromise. On the very first day of the start of work, February 21, the Council made the final decision on the election of Mikhail Fedorovich. According to the “Tale of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613”, this decision of the electors was influenced by the decisive call of the Cossack atamans, supported by the Moscow “peace”: “By the will of God, in the reigning city of Moscow and all of Russia, let there be a Tsar, Sovereign and Grand Duke Mikhailo Fedorovich and the weight of Russia! »

  At this time, Mikhail, together with his mother nun Martha, was in the Kostroma Ipatiev Monastery, the family monastery of the Godunovs, richly decorated and gifted by this family. On March 2, 1613, an embassy was sent to Kostroma headed by the Ryazan Archbishop Theodoret, the boyars F.I. Sheremetev, Prince V.I. Bakhteyarov-Rostovsky and Okolnichy F.V. Golovin. The ambassadors were still preparing to leave the capital, but letters had already been sent throughout Russia announcing the election of Mikhail Fedorovich to the throne and the oath of allegiance to the new tsar had begun.

  The embassy reached Kostroma on March 13. The next day, a religious procession headed to the Ipatiev Monastery with the miraculous images of the Moscow saints Peter, Alexy and Jonah and the miraculous Fedorov Icon of the Mother of God, especially revered by the Kostroma residents. Its participants begged Mikhail to accept the throne, just as they persuaded Godunov fifteen years ago. However, the situation, although similar in appearance, was radically different. Therefore, the sharp refusal of Mikhail Romanov and his mother from the proposed royal crown has nothing to do with Godunov’s political maneuvers. Both the applicant himself and his mother were truly afraid of what opened before them. Elder Martha convinced the elected officials that her son “had no idea of ​​being a king in such great, glorious states...” She also spoke about the dangers that beset her son on this path: “In the Moscow state, people of all ranks were exhausted by their sins. Having given their souls to the former sovereigns, they did not directly serve...” Added to this was the difficult situation in the country, which, according to Martha, her son, due to his youth, would not be able to cope with.

  Envoys from the Council tried to persuade Michael and Martha for a long time, until finally the “begging” with shrines bore fruit. It was supposed to prove to young Michael that human “will” expresses the Divine will. Mikhail Romanov and his mother gave their consent. On March 19, the young tsar moved towards Moscow from Kostroma, but was in no hurry on the way, giving the Zemsky Sobor and the boyars the opportunity to prepare for his arrival. Mikhail Fedorovich himself, meanwhile, was also preparing for a new role for himself - he corresponded with the Moscow authorities, received petitions and delegations. Thus, during the month and a half of his “march” from Kostroma to Moscow, Mikhail Romanov became accustomed to his position, gathered loyal people around him and established comfortable relations with the Zemsky Sobor and the Boyar Duma.

  The election of Mikhail Romanov was the result of the finally achieved unity of all layers of Russian society. Perhaps for the first time in Russian history, public opinion solved the most important problem state life. Countless disasters and the decline in the authority of the ruling strata led to the fact that the fate of the state passed into the hands of the “land” - a council of representatives of all classes. Only serfs and slaves did not participate in the work of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613. It could not have been otherwise - the Russian state continued to remain a feudal monarchy, under which entire categories of the population were deprived of political rights. Social structure Russia XVII V. contained the origins of social contradictions that exploded in uprisings throughout the century. It is no coincidence that the 17th century is figuratively called “rebellious.” However, from the point of view of feudal legality, the election of Mikhail Romanov was the only legal act throughout the entire period of the Time of Troubles, starting in 1598, and the new sovereign was the true one.

  Thus, the election of Mikhail Fedorovich ended the political crisis. Not distinguished by any state talents, experience, or energy, the young king had one important quality for the people of that era - he was deeply religious, always stood aloof from hostility and intrigue, strove to achieve the truth, and showed sincere kindness and generosity.

  Historians agree that the basis government activities Mikhail Romanov had a desire to reconcile society on a conservative basis. Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich was faced with the task of overcoming the consequences of the Time of Troubles. King Sigismund could not come to terms with the collapse of his plans: having occupied Smolensk and a vast territory in the west and south-west of Russia, he intended to launch an attack on Moscow and take the capital of the Russian state. Novgorod land was captured by the Swedes, who threatened the northern counties. Gangs of Cossacks, Cherkasy, Poles and Russian robbers roamed throughout the state. In the Volga region, the Mordovians, Tatars, Mari and Chuvashs were worried, in Bashkiria - the Bashkirs, on the Ob - the Khanty and Mansi, in Siberia - local tribes. Ataman Zarutsky fought in the vicinity of Ryazan and Tula. The state was in a deep economic and political crisis. To fight the numerous enemies of Russia and the state order, to calm and organize the country, it was necessary to unite all the healthy forces of the state. Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich throughout his reign strove to achieve this goal. The leaders of the zemstvo movement of 1612 were a solid support for the tsar in the fight against external enemies, establishing order within the state and restoring the destroyed economy and culture.

  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

  The history of Russia at the turn of the 16th - 17th centuries 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: