Zemsky Sobor overcoming the turmoil. Zemsky Sobors in troubled times

Topic No. 4. Russia in the 17th century

1. Time of Troubles. Russia under the first Romanov. Zemsky Sobors.

2. Council Code of 1649. Serfdom, popular movements, church reform, reunification of Ukraine with Russia, the eve of reforms.

Boris Godunov. After the death of Ivan the Terrible (1584), the political crisis caused by the unsuccessful Livonian War and oprichnina terror took on the character of an open struggle between various boyar groups for power. The middle son of Ivan the Terrible, 27-year-old Fyodor Ivanovich, ascended the throne. Due to dementia, “blessed” Fyodor could not rule, and the actual ruler soon became his brother-in-law (brother of his wife Irina), the unborn boyar Boris Godunov (married to the daughter of Malyuta Skuratov), ​​one of the most influential members of the regency council. He was an experienced, talented, active and flexible statesman, although he was sometimes unscrupulous in his means. Having dealt with the head of the princely-boyar opposition, the influential I.P. Shuisky (he was exiled and then killed), Godunov abandoned the brutal methods of rule of Ivan the Terrible, sought to calm the country tormented by the oprichnina, and provided a number of benefits to the nobility and townspeople. With him the patriarchate was established, which increased the prestige of the Russian Orthodox Church and meant its complete independence from the Church of Constantinople (the first patriarch was Godunov’s supporter Job). Foreign policy was successfully conducted. As a result of a short war with Sweden, Russia returned the previously lost lands and cities of Yam, Koporye, Ivangorod, Korela. The southern borders of the state were strengthened (the cities of Orel, Kursk, Voronezh, Belgorod were built), and vigorous advances in Western Siberia continued. At the same time enslavement of peasants increased, in fact, a system of serfdom was established on a state scale (prohibition of peasant migrations, a five-year period for searching for fugitives). In 1591, eight-year-old Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich died in Uglich (under reliably unclear circumstances). Rumors appeared about Boris Godunov's involvement in the murder. In 1598, the childless Fyodor Ivanovich died, the Rurik dynasty was interrupted, a fierce struggle began for the empty throne. Boris Godunov had an advantage over his main rival F.N. Romanov, because he relied on real power. In 1598, the Zemsky Sobor elected Boris Tsar.

Troubled times. From that moment on, instability in the country began to be felt more and more, provoked by the peculiar, in the opinion of many, illegal accession of Boris Godunov to the throne. An attempt to achieve consolidation of the ruling elite around the throne was unsuccessful, and it was not possible to get rid of the opposition in the circles of the nobility. The reprisal against the Romanovs and their supporters did not bring peace either (the head of the Romanovs, Fyodor Nikitich, was forcibly tonsured a monk under the name of Filaret). The economic stabilization of the 90s was interrupted by a bad harvest in 1601-1603. and a terrible famine that killed a third of the 7 million population. The Troubles in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century were an all-encompassing and protracted crisis that affected all spheres of the life of the state, all classes and resulted in a civil war. It was based on an economic crisis, social tension in the lower classes, dissatisfaction of the nobility with its position (which did not correspond to its increased role), opposition to Godunov from the noble boyars, and finally, an unresolved dynastic crisis. The internal crisis was aggravated by external interference. The Polish king Sigismund III intended to take advantage of the dissatisfaction of all classes with his position and the new tsar to promote his protege to the Russian throne.

Troubles and civil war began with the appearance of the impostor False Dmitry I, declaring himself Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich (Grigory Otrepyev, from the minor nobles, was condemned to execution for his service to the Romanovs, who claimed the throne, but became a monk; an intelligent, competent adventurer decided to take advantage of the created situation to achieve ambitious goals). In the struggle for the throne, he initially counted on popularity among the people, the support of the Polish king (who sought to weaken Godunov), the boyars (dissatisfied with the artistic but independent Godunov) and Dmitry's mother Maria Naga. At the end of 1604, False Dmitry with a detachment of Polish mercenaries crossed the Russian border and, with the support of the boyars, the rebel Cossacks and the population of easily captured cities, began to advance towards Moscow. In April 1605, Boris Godunov unexpectedly died. In the impostor, the opposition saw a force capable of overthrowing the hated dynasty. The royal regiments went over to the side of False Dmitry I. The son of Boris Godunov and his mother were killed. The Boyar Duma recognized False Dmitry, who triumphantly entered Moscow as sovereign, but with certain conditions, not allowing his autocracy. The policies of False Dmitry I, new extortions, his behavior and especially his pro-Polish orientation (intensified after his marriage to Marina Mnishek) began to cause discontent among various segments of the population. As a result of a boyar conspiracy, the impostor was killed in the Kremlin (in May 1606), and by the tsar at an impromptu Zemsky Sobor the initiator of the conspiracy, Vasily Shuisky (“boyar tsar”), was elected, promising

to rule with the consent of the Boyar Duma, not to resort to disgrace and executions without trial. He did not enjoy authority or widespread support; moreover, he resorted to intrigue, lies and cunning. The attempt to transition from autocracy and despotism to boyar rule failed.

The second stage of the turmoil, already in the form of a civil war, began with the movement against Shuisky, in defense of the supposedly saved good Tsar False Dmitry. In 1606, it was headed by the Cossack ataman Ivan Bolotnikov (former governor of False Dmitry). His Cossack detachments, with the participation of peasants, townspeople and nobles, besieged Moscow, but were repulsed and defeated by Vasily Shuisky in Tula. New impulse civil war given by False Dmitry II(a puppet in the hands of the Polish gentry, who, under threat, agreed to become “Tsarevich Dmitry”). Having failed to take Moscow, his army of Polish and Belarusian mercenaries, the remnants of Bolotnikov’s troops, Cossacks and everyone dissatisfied with Shuisky and dreaming of a good king, stopped in Tushino. Here was their own Boyar Duma with orders, Metropolitan Filaret (soon patriarch), Marina Mnishek, who “recognized” her husband in False Dmitry. The two-year dual power and dual center (Moscow and Tushino) weakened the country even more. After the flight of False Dmitry II to Kaluga, the collapse of the Tushino camp began. In the autumn of 1609 Sigismund III, in response to Shuisky's alliance with Sweden, launched an open intervention, besieged the Russian army and the allied Swedish army near Smolensk and moved towards Moscow. At this time, False Dmitry II was approaching the city from Kaluga. In July 1610, the boyars and nobles, led by Zakhary Lyapunov, overthrew Vasily Shuisky from the throne (he was forcibly tonsured a monk, and died in Polish captivity in 1612). It was decided to elect a new tsar who enjoyed widespread support, and before that power passed to the “seven boyars” led by F.I. Mstislavsky. In search of stability, an agreement was concluded to call the 15-year-old prince Vladislav to the Russian throne (previously, a similar agreement with Sigismund III was concluded by the “Russian Tushins”). Moscow began to swear allegiance to the new sovereign with the condition that he accept Orthodoxy, after which Polish troops entered Moscow, and the governor, Alexander Gonsevsky, who relied on a narrow group of boyars, began to rule on behalf of Vladislav. Negotiations on the final agreement with Sigismund reached a dead end, and his intention to ascend the Russian throne himself became obvious. The election of Vladislav did not bring the desired peace; on the contrary, the country was on the brink of destruction- statehood was destroyed, society was split into hostile camps, there was a Polish garrison in Moscow, the country was ruled by a puppet government, the Poles' siege of Smolensk continued, the Swedes captured a significant part of the north-west of the Moscow state (including Novgorod).

The beginning of overcoming the turmoil. The first and second zemstvo militias, the liberation of Moscow. The church played a huge role in preventing the national threat, and, above all, the 80-year-old Patriarch Hermogenes, who freed his subjects from the oath to Vladislav (with reference to the failure of the Polish side to fulfill the terms of the treaty) and called on the people to resist the Poles and defend the Orthodox state. In response the consolidation of healthy forces in society began. The decisive role in the liberation movement was played by the zemshchina - townspeople, merchants, artisans, nobles, state peasants, part of the boyars. The idea of ​​a national militia is maturing in the country. The first militia, consisting of detachments of Cossacks (leaders Ivan Zarutsky, Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy) and noble detachments (Prokopiy Lyapunov), besieged Moscow in the spring of 1611, but due to disagreements between the nobles and the Cossacks, it disintegrated. In the fall of 1611, the Second Zemstvo Militia was formed, led by the Nizhny Novgorod governor, Prince Dmitry Pozharsky, and the townsman, merchant Kuzma Minin. In October 1612, it liberated the Kremlin from the Polish garrison and created Council of the whole earth- actual government. Convened by his decision Zemsky Sobor 1613(the most representative and numerous) after disputes and under pressure from the Cossacks, elected Tsar from among many candidates 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov. He was a cousin of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, was the son of Filaret (the Tushino patriarch, popular among the free Cossacks) and this ultimately suited everyone. Perhaps, upon ascending the throne, Mikhail Fedorovich gave an obligation not to rule without the participation of the Zemsky Sobor and the Boyar Duma. The election of the first Romanov as tsar stopped the collapse of the state and created the preconditions for overcoming the consequences of the turmoil.

Russia under the first Romanovs. Young, sickly and mediocre in abilities, Mikhail Fedorovich (1613-1645) could not at first rule independently. The ruling group consisted of F.I. Mstislavsky, D.M. Cherkassky, I.N. Romanov. She pursued a policy of pacifying the country that was devastated and tired of the shocks, its gradual revival and the unity of all classes in the name of this. The new, not yet consolidated dynasty restored the autocratic monarchy, but at the same time needed broader support. And the first ten years The Zemsky Sobor met almost continuously(consisting of the Consecrated Cathedral, the Boyar Duma and representatives of the Zemshchina). However, even at this time heyday of the Zemsky Sobor it remained only an advisory and not a legislative body (like the parliaments of European countries). Therefore, the Russian monarchy remained autocratic, and not class-representative, but with elements of class representation (Zemsky Sobor and Boyar Duma).

In 1619, Mikhail Fedorovich’s father, Metropolitan Philaret, returned from Polish captivity and became patriarch. Physically strong, talented and powerful, he received the title of great sovereign and now actually ruled together with his son (until his death in 1633). Since the late 20s, Zemsky Sobors have met less and less frequently. In order to overcome the consequences of the Time of Troubles, local government was centralized, over elected officials governors were installed everywhere(in 250 counties), the maintenance of which was entrusted to the local population. Appeared new ranks– military administrative districts in border areas. In order to streamline and mitigate taxation, a census of taxable and taxable population, new watch and scribe books were compiled, attaching the population to their place of residence, citizens who moved from the suburb to white settlements (free from taxes) returned to the city tax, and illegally seized lands were taken away. The practice of “lesson years” was revived, and the duration of the search for fugitive peasants increased. It turned out to be long and painful the process of curbing the free Cossacks, whose actions threatened stabilization in the country, the movement of Ataman Balovnya was defeated, the detachments of I. Zarutsky were defeated (1614, 1615), the insurrectionary movement of Ivan Balash in the army of M.B. Shein, who besieged Smolensk (1632-1634). At the same time, the serving Cossacks received new benefits (land and salary).

Main tasks foreign policy were returning lands lost during the Time of Troubles, achieving security of the southern borders from the predatory raids of the Crimean Khan (vassal Ottoman Empire), according to the Stolbovo Treaty of 1617, Sweden returned Novgorod, but retained the coast of the Gulf of Finland and Korela. After the new invasion of the Poles, led by Vladislav, the Deulin Agreement (1618), which was extremely difficult for the country, was concluded, according to which Smolensk, Seversk and Chernigov lands went to Poland. After the defeat in the war for Smolensk and the conclusion of the Polyanovsky Peace, all the cities that the Russians captured at the beginning of the war, including Smolensk, were returned to the Poles. But Vladislav (who became the Polish king) finally abandoned his claims to the Russian throne.

As a result of internal measures and foreign policy actions, the most severe consequences of the Time of Troubles were overcome, but The process of economic restoration took three decades - from the 20s to the 50s. The protracted nature of the restoration of productive forces in agriculture was explained by the low fertility of the Non-Black Earth region (the bulk of the population was located here), the preservation of traditional forms of farming and tools, and the disinterest of peasants in increasing the results of their labor. As a result, in the XVII-XVIII centuries. in the peasant economy there was a simple reproduction of its resources. The main reserve for agricultural growth was the involvement of new lands in circulation - south of the Belgorod region, the Middle Volga region and Siberia (where productivity was higher). Both peasant and landowner farming largely retained a subsistence character. The noble estate gradually lost the features of conditional land ownership and approached the estate; by the end of the century, only formal differences remained between them. The new dynasty made extensive use of the distribution of land to the nobles, especially in the Volga region, on the developed wild fields. Nobles, boyars, and monasteries were increasingly involved in trade operations and fishing activities, Crafts everywhere are developing into small-scale production.

But unlike Western Europe, simple commodity production did not turn into capitalist production and labor did not turn into a commodity, since the nascent civilian labor was supplanted by the dominant serfdom. Small-scale production created the conditions for the emergence of manufactories, which became an important innovation in the industry of the 17th century. By the end of it, there were already up to 30 manufactories (metallurgical, textile, leather, glass-making, salt-making). The first large enterprises were created by the government - Cannon Yard, Coin, Khamovny (fabrics), Printed. Many manufactories were founded by foreign merchants and industrialists. Due to the lack of free labor, the state assigned black-growing peasants to manufactories. The role of the merchants in the economic and commercial life of the country and the importance of fairs (Makaryevskaya, Irbitskaya, Arkhangelsk) increased.

Not only domestic trade grew, but also foreign trade, which was almost entirely in the hands of foreign merchants. Russian merchants lacked capital, a market, and had no freedom of action. The center of Russian trade with Western Europe was Arkhangelsk, and with the countries of the East - Astrakhan. The government supported the merchants, in particular, by increasing duties on foreign goods. The expansion of the exchange of goods between regions indicated the beginning of the formation of an all-Russian market.

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 solved. 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 only the sovereign accepted.

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

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

In the 17th century, Zemsky Sobors increasingly took on the role of a regulatory body in the sphere of domestic, 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 large number wanting 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 “purge” 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 foundation 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?

According to the official version, set forth 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 allow the boyars to become “gray cardinals” and act as actual kings in the role of advisers.

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 (7th grade), he developed unusually active efforts to popularize Mikhail Romanov. Everything was beneficial for him, because his chosen one was a simple, inexperienced young man from the outback. He understood nothing either in government, or in metropolitan life, or in intrigue.

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 the main role in 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 drawn up 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. Main point, which today defines this phenomenon, is a 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.

From the 16th to the 17th centuries, Zemsky Sobors were convened in Russia; they played the role of an advisory body under the monarch. The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was convened in conditions of crisis, and its main goal was the election of a new monarch and a new ruling dynasty. The meeting was opened on January 16, 1613, and its result was the election of the first Romanov Tsar. Read below to see how this happened.

Reasons for convening the council

The main reason The meeting became a dynastic crisis, which began in 1598 after the death of Fyodor Ioannovich. He was the only son of Tsar Ivan the Terrible - John was allegedly killed by his father, Dmitry was killed in Uglich under unclear circumstances. Fyodor had no children, so the throne passed to his wife Irina, and then to her brother Boris Godunov. In 1605, Godunov dies, and his son Fyodor, False Dmitry I and Vasily Shuisky alternately come to power.

In 1610, an uprising occurred, which resulted in the overthrow of Shuisky from the throne. Power passed to the provisional boyar government.

But chaos reigns in the country: part of the population has sworn allegiance to Prince Vladislav, the north-west is occupied by Swedish troops, and the camp of the murdered False Dmitry II remains in the Moscow region.

Preparations for the Zemsky Sobor of 1613

When the capital was liberated from the troops of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1612, an urgent need arose for a new monarch. Letters were sent to the cities (on behalf of Pozharsky and Trubetskoy) with invitations to the authorities and elected people for a great cause. However, people took longer to arrive than expected, because the country was still in turmoil. The Tver region, for example, was devastated and completely burned out. Some lands sent only one person, some - a whole detachment of 10 people. As a result, the cathedral was postponed for a month - from December 6, 1612 to January 6, 1613.

The number of elected elected officials, according to historians, varies from 700 to 1500. In Moscow at that time, destroyed by military clashes and uprisings, there was only one building that could accommodate such a number of people - the Assumption Cathedral in the Moscow Kremlin.

This is where the Zemsky Sobor met in 1613.

Composition of the meeting

The composition of the assembly is known today only from Mikhail Fedorovich’s election letter, on which elected people from different cities left their signatures. But there are only 227 signatures on the charter, while the number of people present at such a significant event clearly exceeded this number. Some of them simply did not sign the letter. There is evidence for this. 4 people signed for Nizhny Novgorod, and 19 arrived. In total, representatives of 50 cities came to Moscow, so the cathedral was crowded.

Now it’s worth examining the class affiliation of the participants in the Zemsky Sobor of 1613. The representation of people of all classes was complete. Of the 277 signatures on the charter, 57 belong to clergy, 136 to service officials, and 84 to city elected officials. There are traces of participation in the elections of the king and district people - small service people and peasants.

Candidates for the throne: who are they?

The Zemsky Sobor (1613) elected Mikhail Romanov as Tsar, but besides him there were many contenders for the Russian throne. Among them stood out representatives of local noble families and dynasties of neighboring powerful states.

The Polish prince Vladislav was immediately eliminated due to his unpopularity among the people. The Swedish prince Karl Philip had more followers, including Prince Pozharsky (in fact, the latter simply carried out a clever distraction and was a supporter of Mikhail Romanov). According to the version presented to the public, the prince chose a foreign candidate due to distrust of the Russian boyars, who during times of unrest more than once switched from one favorite to another. The boyars nominated King James I of England.

Among the representatives of the local nobility, the following candidates stand out:

1. Golitsyns - due to the absence of the head of the clan (he was captured by the Poles), the Golitsyns did not have strong candidates.
2. The Mstislavskys and Kurakins ruined their reputation because they collaborated with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In addition, Mstislavsky declared 3 years ago that he would become a monk if they tried to place him on the throne.
3. Vorotynsky - a representative of the family himself renounced his claims to the throne.
4. The Godunovs and Shuiskys were rejected due to their kinship with the previously reigning monarchs.
5. Pozharsky and Trubetskoy were not distinguished by their nobility.

Despite this, Trubetskoy still begins vigorous activity, proposing his candidacy for the throne.

Thus, the Romanovs at the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 became the ruling dynasty.

Why the Romanovs?

But where did the candidacy of Mikhail Romanov come from? It is, of course, not accidental. Mikhail was the nephew of the deceased Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, and his father, Patriarch Filaret, was very popular among the clergy and Cossacks.

Fyodor Sheremetyev actively campaigned for the boyars to vote for Romanov, since he was young and inexperienced (that is, he could be made his puppet). But the boyars did not give in to persuasion. When, after a second vote in 1613, the Zemsky Sobor elected Mikhail Romanov, another problem arose. Elected people demanded that he come to Moscow, which could not be allowed under any circumstances. The timid and modest Mikhail would obviously make a bad impression on the cathedral, so the Romanov party convinced everyone that the path from the Kostroma region was very dangerous in the current political situation. After much debate, Romanov’s adherents managed to convince the council to cancel the decision on the arrival of the chosen one.

The decision is delayed

In February, the delegates were tired of the endless debate and announced a break for two weeks. Messengers were sent to all cities with instructions to find out what the people thought about the election of the king. Is everyone happy that in 1613 the Zemsky Sobor elected Mikhail Romanov? In fact, the goal was not at all to monitor the thoughts of the population, because two weeks is a very short period. You can't get to Siberia even in two months. The boyars hoped that Romanov’s supporters would get tired of waiting and leave. But the Cossacks were not going to give up. More on this below.

The role of Prince Pozharsky in the formation of a new dynasty of Russian tsars is also great. It was he who pulled off a cunning operation, making everyone believe that he was a supporter of Karl Philip. This was done only to ensure that the Swedes did not interfere in the election of the Russian ruler. Russia barely managed to hold back the onslaught of Poland; the Swedish army could not be stopped. The new tsar appreciated Pozharsky’s efforts and favored him until the very end.

The role of the Cossacks in the election of a new dynasty

The Cossacks are also credited with playing a major role in the election of Mikhail. A vivid story about this is contained in “The Tale of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613,” which was written by an eyewitness to what happened.

In February, the boyars decided to elect a tsar “at random”, simply by casting lots. It is clear that in such a situation, forgery of any name is possible. The Cossacks did not like this course of events, and their speakers staged a loud speech against the boyars’ tricks. Moreover, the Cossacks shouted out the name of Mikhail Romanov, proposing to place him on the throne, which the “Romanovites” immediately supported. This is how the Cossacks achieved the final election of Mikhail.

He said that Mikhail was still young and not quite sane, to which the Cossacks replied that he was an uncle and would help with business. The future tsar did not forget this and later permanently removed Ivan Kasha from all political affairs.

Embassy in Kostroma

At the Zemsky Sobor of 1613, Mikhail Romanov was elected the new ruler of his country. News of this is sent to the future monarch in February. He and his mother were in Kostroma and did not expect such a turn of events. The embassy was led by Archbishop Theodoret Troitsky from Ryazan. It is known that the delegation also included boyar Sheremetyev, Bakhteyarov-Rostovskoy, children of boyars, archimandrites of several monasteries, clerks and elected officials from different cities.

The purpose of the visit was to present Mikhail Romanov with a conciliar oath and notify him of his election to the throne. Official version says that the future monarch got scared and renounced the right to be king. The ambassadors were eloquent and persuaded Mikhail. Critics of the “Romanov” concept argue that the conciliar oath has no historical and political value.

Mikhail Romanov arrives in Moscow in May 1613, and his coronation took place two months later, in July.

Recognition of the Tsar by Britain

It is reliably known that the first country to accept the decision of the Zemsky Sobor in 1613 was Britain. John Metrick's embassy arrives in the capital that same year. Apparently, it was not in vain that throughout the years of his reign, Mikhail Romanov showed a special affection for this country. After the Time of Troubles, the Tsar restored relations with the British "Moscow Company". The freedom of action of British merchants was somewhat limited, but they were offered preferential terms trade both with representatives of any countries and with Russian big businessmen.

What is the historical significance of the choice?

The main result of the election of Mikhail Romanov to reign was the end of the dynastic crisis. This had further positive results - the end of the Troubles, a sharp rise in the economy, and an increase in the number of cities (by the end of the century there were 300). Russian people are rapidly moving towards Pacific Ocean. It rose and agriculture, increasing momentum.

Small and large trade and exchange of goods are being established between remote areas of the country, which contributes to the formation of a unified economic system.

The election of the ruler contributed to increasing the role of the estates in the management system. The activities of the cathedrals motivated the growth of public consciousness and strengthened the system of political governance in the capital and counties. The election of the tsar at the council prepared the ground for the development of the monarchy in Russia into an absolutist one. At subsequent councils (1645, 1682), the elections were replaced by a procedure for confirming the legitimacy of the heir. The opportunity to choose the king yourself disappears.

By the middle of the 17th century, cathedrals completely lost their meaning and power. They are being replaced by meetings with representatives of individual classes under the king. The principle of election was replaced by the principle of official delegation.

The uniqueness of the Zemsky Cathedral

Although historians still argue about how Mikhail Romanov was elected, their opinion clearly agrees on one thing - the cathedral was unique in the history of Russia. Home it distinguishing feature in the mass of the meeting. None of the councils had ever been so multi-class; everyone took part in it, except perhaps the slaves.

Another feature of the meeting is the importance decision taken and its ambiguity. There were plenty of contenders for the throne (including strong ones), but the Zemsky Sobor (1613) elected Mikhail Romanov as tsar. Moreover, he was not a strong and noticeable candidate. It is clear that this could not have happened without a lot of intrigue, conspiracies and attempts at bribery.

To summarize, we can say that the unique Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was of enormous importance for Russia. Power was concentrated in the hands of one man, the legitimate Tsar, who laid the foundation for the strong ruling Romanov dynasty. This election saved Russia from the constant attacks of Sweden and Poland, as well as Germany, who had plans for the country and its throne.

Zemsky Sobor 1613

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

For this purpose, in January 1613, the most representative Zemsky Sobor was held in the liberated capital. It was attended by deputies from all classes, including black-growing peasants. The council proclaimed Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov (1613–1645), the founder of a dynasty that ruled Russia for more than 300 years. This put an end to the Troubles. For various reasons, a political compromise was found in the person of sixteen-year-old Mikhail, although different candidates were discussed: Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy, Prince Dmitry Pozharsky, Prince Vasily Golitsyn, D.M. Vorotynsky, Karl Philip of Sweden, Vladislav of Poland, etc. The participants of the council immediately rejected the candidates foreign princes and the “vorenko” - the son of False Dmitry II and Marina Mnishek. A big role was played by the fact that behind Mikhail stood Father Fyodor Nikitich Romanov (Filaret in monasticism). He was supported by people who emerged during the oprichnina years and who suffered from it, supporters and opponents of Boris Godunov, Vasily Shuisky and both False Dmitrievs, “friends” and “enemies” of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Cossacks. The boyars were satisfied with Mikhail's youth, inexperience and narrow-minded mind. Sheremetyev wrote to Prince Golitsyn in Warsaw: “Let’s choose Misha Romanov, he’s still young and hasn’t reached the point of understanding... and he’ll be loved by us.” All of the above provided the founder of the Romanov dynasty with a majority of votes. It was taken into account that the first wife of Ivan IV the Terrible, Anastasia, belonged to the Romanov family. Moreover, no conditions were set for the new tsar: power acquired an autocratic-legitimate character.

Thus, the conservative tendency won, as opposed to possible, but failed, alternatives to the Time of Troubles. Society, incredibly tired for a decade and a half, strove for the usual order, which the first Romanovs were able to provide: Mikhail Fedorovich (1613-1645), Alexey Mikhailovich (1645-1676), Fyodor Alekseevich (1676-1682) .

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

In the summer of 1612, Ataman I. Zarutsky tried to incite the Don Cossacks to march to Moscow in order to place the “warren” (Ivan, the son of Marina Mnishek) on the throne. After the failure of this adventure at the end of 1613, he captured Astrakhan and spent the winter of 1613 - 1614 there, calling for a rebellion against the Moscow authorities and, according to some information, trying to create his own state under the patronage of the Iranian Shah. When troops sent by Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich approached Astrakhan in March 1614, the townspeople rebelled against Zarutsky, and the ataman with Marina Mnishek and her son had to flee. In the fall of 1614, they were handed over to the tsarist troops by the Yaik Cossacks. Soon Ivan Zarutsky and the little crow were executed, and Marina Mnishek was thrown into prison.

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

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

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

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

The fight against foreign invasion resulted in official rejection of everything foreign and non-Orthodox, which exacerbated cultural isolation.

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. By 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 applicants by descent from Gediminas and kinship with the dynasty of the Moscow kings (he was the great-great-grandson of Ivan III), could not be taken into serious consideration, since back in 1610 he declared that he would become a monk, if he is 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 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 of 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 of Russia in the 17th century. 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 of Mikhail Romanov’s state activity was the desire to reconcile society on conservative principles. 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 Russian state. Novgorod land was captured by the Swedes, who threatened 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 Russia's many enemies and public order, to calm and organize the country, it was necessary to unite all 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.