The election of Michael. Bloody boys of the Romanov dynasty

From the Romanov dynasty. At the end of February 1613, he would be elected ruler of the Russian kingdom at the Zemsky Sobor. He became king not by family heritage, not by seizing power, and not by his own will.

Mikhail Fedorovich was chosen by God and people, and at that time he was only 16 years old. His reign came at a very difficult time. By the will of fate, Mikhail Fedorovich had to solve serious economic and political problems: to lead the country out of the chaos in which it was after the Time of Troubles, to raise and strengthen the national economy, to preserve the territories of the Fatherland, which was being torn apart. And the main thing is to organize and consolidate the House of Romanov on the Russian throne.

Romanov dynasty. Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov

In the Romanov family, boyar Fyodor Nikitich, who later became Ksenia Ivanovna (Shestova), had a son on July 12, 1596. They named him Mikhail. The Romanov family was related to and was very famous and rich. This boyar family owned vast estates not only in northern and central Russia, but also on the Don and in Ukraine. At first, Mikhail and his parents lived in Moscow, but in 1601 his family fell out of favor and fell into disgrace. Boris Godunov, the ruler at that time, was informed that the Romanovs were preparing a conspiracy and wanted to kill him with the help of a magic potion. The reprisal followed immediately - many representatives of the Romanov family were arrested. In June 1601, at the meeting, a verdict was passed: Fyodor Nikitich and his siblings: Alexander, Mikhail, Vasily and Ivan should be deprived of their property, forcibly tonsured as monks, exiled and imprisoned in various places remote from the capital.

Fyodor Nikitich was sent to the Anthony-Siysky Monastery, which was located in a deserted, deserted place 165 versts from Arkhangelsk, up the Dvina River. It was there that Father Mikhail Fedorovich was tonsured a monk and named Philaret. The mother of the future autocrat, Ksenia Ivanovna, was accused of complicity in a crime against the tsarist government and was sent into exile in the Novgorod district, in the Tol-Egorievsky churchyard, which belonged to the Vazhitsky monastery. Here she was cut into a nun, named Martha and imprisoned in a small building surrounded by a high palisade.

Exile of Mikhail Fedorovich on Beloozero

Little Mikhail, who was six years old at that time, was exiled along with his eight-year-old sister Tatyana Fedorovna and his aunts, Marfa Nikitichna Cherkasskaya, Ulyana Semyonova and Anastasia Nikitichna, to Beloozero. There the boy grew up in extremely harsh conditions, was malnourished, suffered deprivation and poverty. In 1603, Boris Godunov somewhat commuted the sentence and allowed Mikhail’s mother, Marfa Ivanovna, to come to Beloozero to visit her children.

And some time later, the autocrat allowed the exiles to move to the Yuryev-Polsky district, to the village of Klin - the native patrimony of the Romanov family. In 1605, False Dmitry I, who seized power, wanting to confirm his relationship with the Romanov family, returned its surviving representatives from exile to Moscow, including Mikhail’s family and himself. Fyodor Nikitich was granted the Rostov Metropolitanate.

Troubles. The state of siege of the future tsar in Moscow

During difficult times, from 1606 to 1610, Vasily Shuisky ruled. During this period, many dramatic events happened in Russia. This included the emergence and growth of the “thieves” movement, a peasant uprising led by I. Bolotnikov. Some time later, he teamed up with a new impostor, the “Tushino thief” False Dmitry II. The Polish intervention began. Troops of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth captured Smolensk. The boyars overthrew Shuisky from the throne because he thoughtlessly concluded the Vyborg Treaty with Sweden. Under this agreement, the Swedes agreed to help Russia fight against False Dmitry, and in return they received the territories of the Kola Peninsula. Unfortunately, the conclusion of the Vyborg Treaty did not save Russia - the Poles defeated the Russian-Swedish troops in the Battle of Klushin and opened their approaches to Moscow.

At this time, the boyars ruling the country swore allegiance to the son of the king of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Sigismund, Wladyslaw. The country split into two camps. In the period from 1610 to 1613, an anti-Polish popular uprising arose. In 1611 it was formed under the leadership of Lyapunov, but it was defeated on the outskirts of Moscow. In 1612, a second militia was created. It was headed by D. Pozharsky and K. Minin. At the end, a terrible battle took place, in which the Russian troops won. Hetman Khodkevich retreated to the Sparrow Hills. By the end of October, the Russian militia cleared Moscow of the Poles who had settled there, awaiting help from Sigismund. Russian boyars, including Mikhail Fedorovich and his mother Martha, captured, exhausted by hunger and deprivation, were finally freed.

Attempted murder of Mikhail Fedorovich

After the most difficult siege of Moscow, Mikhail Fedorovich left for the Kostroma estate. Here the future tsar almost died at the hands of a gang of Poles who were staying in and looking for a way to Domnino. Mikhail Fedorovich was saved by the peasant Ivan Susanin, who volunteered to show the robbers the way to the future tsar and took them in the opposite direction, to the swamps.

And the future tsar took refuge in the Yusupov monastery. Ivan Susanin was tortured, but he never revealed Romanov's location. This is how difficult the childhood and adolescence of the future king were, who at the age of 5 was forcibly separated from his parents and, while his mother and father were still alive, became an orphan, experienced the hardships of isolation from the outside world, the horrors of a state of siege and hunger.

Zemsky Sobor 1613 Election of Mikhail Fedorovich to the kingdom

After the expulsion of the interventionists by the boyars and the people's militia led by Prince Pozharsky, it was decided that it was necessary to choose a new king. On February 7, 1613, during the preliminary election, a nobleman from Galich proposed to enthronement Filaret’s son, Mikhail Fedorovich. Of all the applicants, he was closest in kinship to the Rurik family. Messengers were sent to many cities to find out the opinion of the people. On February 21, 1613, the final elections were held. The people decided: “Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov should be sovereign.” Having made this decision, they equipped the embassy to notify Mikhail Fedorovich of his election as tsar. On March 14, 1613, the ambassadors, accompanied by a religious procession, came to the Ipatiev Monastery and nun Martha. Long persuasion was finally crowned with success, and Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov agreed to become king. Only on May 2, 1613, the sovereign’s magnificent ceremonial entry into Moscow took place - when, in his opinion, the capital and the Kremlin were already ready to receive him. On July 11, a new autocrat, Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, was crowned king. The ceremony took place in the Assumption Cathedral.

Beginning of the reign of the sovereign

Mikhail Fedorovich took the reins of government of a torn, destroyed and impoverished country. In difficult times, the people needed just such an autocrat - generous, charming, gentle, kind and at the same time generous in spiritual qualities. It’s not for nothing that people called him “meek.” The personality of the tsar contributed to the strengthening of the power of the Romanovs. The domestic policy of Mikhail Fedorovich at the beginning of his reign was aimed at restoring order in the country. An important task was to eliminate the gangs of robbers rampaging everywhere. A real war was waged with the Cossack ataman Ivan Zarutsky, which ultimately ended in capture and subsequent execution. The issue of peasants was acute. In 1613, state lands were distributed to those in need.

Important strategic decisions - armistice with Sweden

Mikhail Fedorovich's foreign policy was focused on concluding a truce with Sweden and ending the war with Poland. In 1617, the Stolbovo Treaty was signed. This document officially ended the war with the Swedes, which lasted for three years. Now the Novgorod lands were divided between the Russian kingdom (the captured cities were returned to it: Veliky Novgorod, Ladoga, Gdov, Porkhov, Staraya Russa, as well as the Sumer region) and the Kingdom of Sweden (it received Ivangorod, Koporye, Yam, Korela, Oreshek, Neva). In addition, Moscow had to pay Sweden a serious amount - 20 thousand silver rubles. The Stolbov Treaty cut off the country from the Baltic Sea, but for Moscow the conclusion of this truce allowed it to continue its war with Poland.

The end of the Russian-Polish war. Return of Patriarch Filaret

The Russo-Polish War lasted with varying degrees of success starting in 1609. In 1616, an enemy army led by Władysław Vaza and Hetman Jan Chodkiewicz invaded Russian borders, wanting to overthrow Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich from the throne. It was only able to reach Mozhaisk, where it was stopped. Since 1618, the army of Ukrainian Cossacks, led by Hetman P. Sagaidachny, joined the army. Together they launched an assault on Moscow, but it was unsuccessful. Detachments of Poles retreated and settled next to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. As a result, the parties agreed to negotiations, and a truce was signed in the village of Deulino on December 11, 1618, which put an end to the Russian-Polish war. The terms of the treaty were unfavorable, but the Russian government agreed to accept them in order to stop internal instability and restore the country. According to the agreement, Russia ceded the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to Roslavl, Dorogobuzh, Smolensk, Novgoro-Seversky, Chernigov, Serpeisk and other cities. Also during the negotiations, it was decided to exchange prisoners. On July 1, 1619, an exchange of prisoners was carried out on the Polyanovka River, and Filaret, the king’s father, finally returned to his homeland. Some time later he was ordained patriarch.

Dual power. Wise decisions of two rulers of the Russian land

The so-called dual power was established in the Russian kingdom. Together with his father-patriarch, Mikhail Fedorovich began to govern the state. He, like the Tsar himself, was given the title of “Great Sovereign.”

At the age of 28, Mikhail Fedorovich married Maria Vladimirovna Dolgorukaya. However, a year later she died. For the second time, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich married Evdokia Lukyanovna Streshneva. Over the years of their marriage, she bore him ten children. In general, the policy of Mikhail Fedorovich and Filaret was aimed at centralizing power, restoring the economy and filling the treasury. In June 1619, it was decided that taxes would be taken from the devastated lands according to sentinels or scribe books. It was decided to conduct a population census again to establish the exact amounts of tax revenues. Scribes and patrolmen were sent to the area. During the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, to improve the tax system, the compilation of scribe books was carried out twice. Since 1620, governors and elders began to be appointed locally to keep order.

Rebuilding Moscow

During the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, the capital and other cities destroyed during the Time of Troubles were gradually restored. In 1624, a Stone Tent and a striking clock were built over the Spasskaya Tower, and the Filaret Belfry was also built. In 1635-1636, stone mansions were erected for the king and his offspring in place of the old wooden ones. 15 churches were built on the territory from Nikolsky to Spassky Gates. In addition to restoring destroyed cities, the policy of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov was aimed at further enslaving the peasants. In 1627, a law was created that allowed nobles to transfer their lands by inheritance (for this it was necessary to serve the king). In addition, a five-year search for fugitive peasants was established, which was extended to 9 years in 1637, and to 10 years in 1641.

Creation of new army regiments

An important area of ​​Mikhail Fedorovich’s activity was the creation of a regular national army. In the 30s In the 17th century, “regiments of the new order” appeared. They included free people, and foreigners were accepted as officers. In 1642, training of military people in foreign systems began. In addition, Reitar, soldier and cavalry regiments began to form. Two Moscow elective regiments were also created, which were later named Lefortovo and Butyrsky (from the settlements in which they were located).

Industrial development

In addition to creating an army, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov sought to develop various industries in the country. The government began to call upon foreign industrialists (miners, foundries, gunsmiths) on preferential terms. The German Settlement was founded in Moscow, where engineers and foreign military personnel lived and worked. In 1632, a plant was built for casting cannonballs and cannons near Tula. Textile production also developed: the Velvet Court opened in Moscow. Velvet making training took place here. Textile production was launched in Kadashevskaya Sloboda.

Instead of a conclusion

Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov died at the age of 49. This happened on July 12, 1645. The result of his government activities was the calming of the state, agitated by the Troubles, the establishment of centralized power, raising welfare, and restoring the economy, industry and trade. During the reign of the first Romanov, wars with Sweden and Poland were stopped, and, in addition, diplomatic ties were established with European states.

Zemsky Sobor of 1613- a constitutional meeting of representatives of various lands and classes of the Moscow kingdom, formed to elect a new king to the throne. Opened on January 7, 1613 in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. On February 21 (March 3), 1613, the council elected Mikhail Romanov to the throne, marking the beginning of a new dynasty.

Zemsky Sobors

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

Background

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

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

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

Convocation of the Council

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 Russia on behalf of the liberators of Moscow - Pozharsky and Trubetskoy. Information has been received about documents sent to Sol Vychegodskaya, Pskov, Novgorod, Uglich. These letters, dated mid-November 1612, ordered representatives of each city to arrive in Moscow before December 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. 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.

Candidates for the throne

In 1613, in addition to Mikhail Romanov, both representatives of the local nobility and representatives of the ruling dynasties of neighboring countries 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 (see Seven Boyars)
• Vorotynsky. 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.

Versions about the motives for election

"Romanov" concept

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

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

Other versions

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

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

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

Progress of the meetings

The cathedral opened on January 7. The opening was preceded by a three-day fast, in order to cleanse oneself 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 Mniszek:

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

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

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

Other versions

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

Indeed, the decisive vote was scheduled for February 21 (March 3), 1613. The council, however, made another decision that Sheremetev did not like: it demanded that Mikhail Romanov, like all other candidates, immediately appear at the council. Sheremetev did his best to prevent the implementation of this decision, citing security reasons for his position. Indeed, some evidence indicates that the life of the pretender to the throne was at risk. According to legend, a special Polish detachment was sent to the village of Domnino, where Mikhail Fedorovich was hiding, to kill him, but the Domnino peasant Ivan Susanin led the Poles into impassable swamps and saved the life of the future tsar. Critics of the official version offer another explanation:

The council continued to insist, but later (approximately February 17-18) changed its decision, allowing Mikhail Romanov to remain in Kostroma. And on February 21 (March 3), 1613, he elected Romanov to the throne.

Cossack intervention

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

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

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

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

The frightened Metropolitan fled to the boyars. They 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:

Embassy in Kostroma

A few days later, an embassy was sent to Kostroma, where Romanov and his mother lived, under the leadership of Archimandrite Theodoret Troitsky. The purpose of the embassy is to notify Michael of his election to the throne and present him with a 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:

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

On February 21, 7121 from the creation of the world, which corresponds to March 3, 1613 of the modern Gregorian calendar, the Great Zemsky and Local Council elected Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov as Tsar. From this day the reign of the Romanov dynasty in Russia began.

The complex external and internal political situation of the early 17th century, called by historians the Great Russian Troubles, was resolved in 1612 by the victory of the people's militia of Minin and Pozharsky over the Poles and the liberation of Moscow from intervention troops.

On February 7, 1613, the Great Zemsky and Local Council was assembled. It took place in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin - the only surviving building in Moscow that could accommodate all the elected officials. The number of those gathered, according to various sources, ranges from 700 to 1,500 people. Dynastic crisis, i.e. the actual end of the Rurik dynasty and the accession of the boyar Boris Godunov became one of the causes of the Great Troubles, which almost led to Russia losing its statehood and political independence. Therefore, the main task of the council was to elect a new king.

Among the contenders for the throne were the Polish prince Vladislav, the Swedish prince Karl Philip, the leaders of the people's militia Dmitry Pozharsky and Dmitry Trubetskoy, the descendants of Tsars Boris Godunov and Vasily Shuisky, as well as numerous representatives of the boyar nobility: the Mstislavskys, Kurakins, Golitsyns, Vorotynskys. In addition, the candidacy of Marina Mnishek and her son from her marriage to False Dmitry II, Tsarevich Ivan Dmitrievich, who was popularly nicknamed “Vorenko”, was considered.

According to the official version developed by Russian historians during the reign of the Romanovs (Karamzin, Solovyov, Klyuchevsky, Kostomarov, etc.), the candidacy of the unknown 17-year-old Mikhail Romanov arose only because of his relationship through the female line with the Rurikovich dynasty. His father, Metropolitan Filaret (formerly boyar Fyodor Nikitich Romanov), was a cousin of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich. The first wife of Ivan IV the Terrible, Tsarina Anastasia, came from the Romanov-Zakharyin-Yuryev family and was Fyodor Nikitich’s aunt. Under Boris Godunov, the Romanov boyars were subjected to repression. Fyodor Nikitich and his family went into exile, then he and his wife Ksenia Ivanovna Shestova were forcibly tonsured as monks under the names Filaret and Martha. This was supposed to deprive them and their descendants of any rights to the throne. In 1605, Filaret was released by False Dmitry I from the Anthony-Siysky Monastery, where he was actually imprisoned, and immediately took up an important church post (Metropolitan of Rostov). Filaret remained in opposition to Vasily Shuisky, who overthrew False Dmitry. In 1608, a new impostor, False Dmitry II (“Tushino thief”), wanting to “make friends” with Filaret, named him Patriarch of Moscow, but he did not accept this rank. Subsequently, Filaret presented himself to the enemies of the impostor as a “prisoner” in the Tushino camp and did not insist on his patriarchal rank. In 1610, he was recaptured (“recaptured”) from the Tushino people, took part in the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky and became an active supporter of the Seven Boyars. Unlike Patriarch Hermogenes, Filaret, in principle, did not object to the election of the Polish prince Vladislav as king, but demanded that he convert to Orthodoxy. In 1611, while participating in negotiations with Vladislav’s father, the Polish king Sigismund III, Filaret resolutely refused to sign the version of the treaty prepared by the Polish side, was arrested by the Poles and languished in captivity until 1619.

Needless to say, Filaret Romanov enjoyed great respect in the circles of the clergy, and in the eyes of yesterday’s militias - serving nobles and Cossacks - he looked like a patriot, a martyr, a hero. According to the historian N.I. Kostomarov, at that time Filaret “seemed like a true Russian martyr for a just cause.”

However, the Romanovs could not boast of either the nobility or the antiquity of their family. Their first historically reliable ancestor is traditionally considered to be the Moscow boyar Andrei Kobyla, who came from Prussian princes. But it was precisely the “artiness” of the Romanovs, in comparison with other representatives of the boyar families, that suited, first of all, the serving nobility and Cossacks, who tried to prevent the boyar aristocracy in its desire to establish a monarchy in the country according to the Polish model. The Romanovs were also favored by the fact that, unlike other boyar families (Kurakins, Miloslavskys, Sheremetyevs), they were less tainted by their collaboration with the “unpatriotic” Polish government in 1610-1612.

The only surviving son of the children of Fyodor and Ksenia Romanov, Mikhail Fedorovich (1596-1645), shared the exile and fate of his parents as a child. Due to the circumstances, he received neither proper education nor upbringing and was unlikely to be able to govern the state. Appearing before the elected delegates in the Assumption Cathedral, such a “minor” could ruin the whole thing. Therefore, immediately after the liberation of Moscow from the interventionists, Misha and his mother went to the Shestov estate of Domnino (near Kostroma), and the interests of the Romanovs at the Council were represented by one of the most noble Moscow boyars, Fyodor Sheremetyev. Being a relative of Mikhail, he himself could not claim the throne, since, like some other candidates, he was part of the Seven Boyars.

According to the official point of view of Russian historians, which later took root in Soviet historiography, in 1613 the Council voluntarily, expressing the opinion of the majority of the inhabitants of Russia, decided to elect Mikhail Romanov as Tsar. The candidacies of foreign applicants and Marina Mnishek were rejected almost immediately. The leader of the Cossacks, Trubetskoy, was reminded that he “kissed the cross,” that is, he swore allegiance to Vorenko, the son of Marina Mnishek. Pozharsky, according to some sources, insisted on electing a foreigner as tsar, namely the Swedish prince Karl Philip. He believed that the monarch, who had no connection with the boyar aristocracy, would quickly restore order and put an end to unrest and unrest. It is obvious that the boyar elite and the clergy, who played the “first fiddle” at the Council, would never have agreed to elect a warrior who was independent in his actions and capable of governing as king. Pozharsky and Trubetskoy were removed from the list of applicants “due to ignorance of the family,” and young Mikhail Romanov was elected by a majority vote as a compromise figure, which at that moment suited everyone.

The Duma boyars rightly judged that “Misha is young, his mind has not yet reached him, and he will be liked by us.” Without the support of a captive parent, the young monarch would have become just a toy in the hands of the all-powerful boyar aristocracy. The moral character of Michael as the son of a metropolitan corresponded to the interests of the church and popular ideas about the king-shepherd, an intercessor before God. Romanov’s state of health, ability to manage, or, in modern terms, business qualities were not taken into account during the elections at the Council. The new tsar was not supposed to become the head of state, but only a symbol of the return to order, peace and antiquity (“loving and kind to them all, giving to them as if they were a sinner”).

As for other historical versions, according to some Russian, Soviet and foreign historians, the decision of the Council could not be completely voluntary and legitimate. There are practically no documents about the composition of the meeting or its progress. One can judge what happened within the walls of the Assumption Cathedral in the winter of 1613 only from the “Book of Election” of the first Romanov, written by boyar A.S. Matveev sixty years later, and according to well-known written sources. The latter include only two contradictory copies of the “letter of election of Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom,” and a letter addressed to the Stroganovs, in which the newly-crowned Tsar and the Council ask the Stroganovs: “although now reduce the trades, and give the military salary to the people as much as you can...”

What kind of “military men” are we talking about in this document and why did they need to be paid in such a hurry?

According to one version, which was followed by Russian historians L.V. Cherepnin, S.F. Platonov and others, it was “military force” that influenced the final decision of the Council. Pozharsky and Trubetskoy, having disbanded the militia, actually abandoned revenge on the boyar elite, who swore allegiance to the Poles. But the formations of the Don Cossacks, previously part of Trubetskoy’s militia, did not leave Moscow in the winter of 1612-13. The Cossacks at one time supported the “Tushino thief” in the fight against the “boyar” Tsar Vasily Shuisky. Filaret, a fierce opponent of Shuisky, was perceived by the Cossack atamans as a friend and ally. From the very beginning of the council meetings, they launched active campaigning for his son, considering Mikhail Romanov “their” candidate. A part of the patriotic clergy and boyars, close to the Sheremetyevs and Romanovs, was in solidarity with the Cossacks.

However, the results of the first vote on Mikhail’s candidacy disappointed the expectations of his supporters. Referring to the absence of many voters (elected voters continued to come from all over the country), they decided to postpone the decisive vote for two weeks. The Council also demanded that the candidate himself appear at the meeting, but Fyodor Sheremetyev strongly opposed this, citing security reasons. The council continued to insist, but later (approximately February 17-18) suddenly changed its decision, allowing Mikhail Romanov to remain in Kostroma, and on February 21 (March 3) elected him to the throne in absentia.

The reason for such a “quick” decision was that the armed Don people broke into the courtyard of the Krutitsa Metropolitan, broke down the gate and decisively demanded the election of Philaret’s son as king. The frightened Metropolitan rushed to the boyars. They hastily called everyone to the council. The Cossack atamans repeated their demand. The boyars presented them with a list of the eight most worthy candidates, in their opinion. Romanov's name was not on the list. Then one of the Cossack atamans spoke:

The Polish commander and chancellor Lev Sapieha, reporting the election results to the captive Filaret, the father of the newly elected monarch, said:

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

There is information that neither Pozharsky, nor Trubetskoy, nor a number of their supporters, whom the Cossacks blocked in their houses in advance, took part in the elections on February 21. Subsequently, Pozharsky was practically removed from the political scene, subjected to disgrace, and during the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich he occupied only minor, insignificant positions at court.

According to the most radically minded “anti-romanists” (opponents of the legitimacy of the election of the Romanovs), the myth of popular representation during the election of Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom by the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 has a much later origin. It can be attributed to the times of Tatishchev and Karamzin, but not to the beginning - middle of the 17th century. A number of Soviet and modern historians are inclined to view the Romanovs’ rise to power as another coup d’etat, which fortunately ended the Great Troubles in Rus'. As a result of many years of political struggle between various groupings of the boyars (Godunovs - Shuiskys - Sheremetyevs - Miloslavskys - Golitsyns - Romanovs, etc.), the head of the state was not the most worthy, but the one who suited the most cunning, dexterous and perspicacious representatives of the highest aristocracy. By the way, under the Romanovs, the activities of their predecessors - Godunov and Shuisky - were assessed extremely negatively. Although both of them were legitimate Russian sovereigns, and their descendants had no less rights to the throne than the nephew of the last Rurikovich.

After the election of the new tsar, we had to look further: no one except Sheremetyev had any idea where young Romanov was at the moment. Only on March 13, 1613, the ambassadors of the Council arrived in Kostroma. At the Ipatiev Monastery, where Mikhail was with his mother, he was informed of his election to the throne. Having learned about this, the mother, nun Martha, refused to bless her son to reign: she seriously feared for his life. Indeed, the Poles tried to prevent the new Tsar from arriving in Moscow. A small detachment went first to Domnino and then to the Ipatiev Monastery to kill Mikhail. According to legend, the Shestov serf Ivan Susanin deliberately led the Poles into a dense forest and, refusing to show the way to the monastery where the tsar had taken refuge, died at the hands of the interventionists. Proof of the reality of Ivan Susanin’s feat is considered to be the royal charter of January 30, 1633, granting Susanin’s son-in-law Bogdan Sabinin half of the village with exemption (“whitening”) from all taxes and duties.

On June 11, 1613, Mikhail Fedorovich was crowned king in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin. The Troubles are over. The difficult, slow reconstruction of the Russian state began, shaken by a deep dynastic crisis, severe social discord, complete economic collapse, famine, political disintegration of the country, external aggression...

Tsar Michael I gave, according to the testimony of a number of contemporaries, a sign of the cross that he undertakes not to rule without the Zemsky Sobor and the Boyar Duma (like Vasily Shuisky). According to other sources, he did not give such a record and later, when he began to rule autocratically, he did not break any promises. At first, the Tsar’s mother and the Saltykov boyars ruled on behalf of Mikhail. In 1619, Metropolitan Filaret, who returned from Polish captivity and was elected patriarch, became the de facto ruler of the country. From 1619 to 1633 he officially bore the title of "Great Sovereign".

The Romanov dynasty collapsed after three hundred and four years. A new grandiose turmoil began in the country, leading Russia to the brink of national-state destruction. The civil war forever split the Russian people into “reds” and “whites”. A deep economic crisis mortally affected the economic organism, and another political collapse, complicated by external forces, again threatened the existence of Russian statehood itself. It’s as if these three centuries of the Romanovs never happened, as if, barely emerging from the Time of Troubles, Russia again went through the circles of historical hell. From Mikhail to Mikhail. From the Ipatiev Monastery to the Ipatiev Cellar...

Will the next choice be better? Or will it become a starting point, the beginning of a new “circle”, which, one way or another, will be closed by future generations of Russians? Who knows?..

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 the great-great-grandson of Ivan III), could not be taken into serious consideration, since he declared back in 1610 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 contender 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 convenient 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 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.

The Time of Troubles is a difficult period in Russian history. For many it became fatal, but for the House of Romanov this period became the beginning of its rise. In modern domestic historical science, it is generally accepted that this period in the history of our Fatherland is a dynastic crisis. In fairness, it must be said that this opinion is completely justified. After all, the main reason for the beginning of this period is considered to be the end of the Rurik dynasty. Another important fact should be noted here: this suppression affected only the Moscow branch of the dynasty, and not the entire clan, as some believe.

The relevance of my small research is determined by the increased interest in the history of the House of Romanov in the year of its 400-year stay on the throne, the last 100 of which are nominal. However, now the celebration has acquired a truly national character: many exhibitions, conferences, as well as scientific and educational events are held. At the beginning of March of this year, the Head of the Russian Imperial House, Empress Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, and her August son, the Sovereign Tsarevich and Grand Duke Georgy Mikhailovich, visited Russia again; the center of attention was the monastery of the House of Romanov - the Holy Trinity Ipatiev Monastery. The Grand Duchess again recalled a significant phrase from her address to her compatriots on March 1, 2012. “...the 400th anniversary of the end of the Time of Troubles is the anniversary of the heroism of the People, and this is the only way it should be perceived.”

The reason for the convening of the Zemsky Sobor in 1613. simple and obvious - the period that in Russian science is called the Time of Troubles has ended. For a long time, Russia was at the mercy of various court groups. First Godunov (until 1605), after the self-proclaimed Tsar False Dmitry I, then Vasily IV Shuisky, who were longtime enemies of Godunov. Let’s not forget that at the same time, Russia was “ruled” by the Tushino thief – False Dmitry II. Then the boyar government, the “Seven Boyars,” came to power in Russia, which, through its actions, actually allowed Polish-Lithuanian interventionists into the capital. The Russian state could no longer remain in a fragmented state; it was necessary to restore the country, unite it and make the final choice regarding a new tsar.
But before we begin to consider the activities of the only complete Zemsky Sobor in Russian history, we need to remember the reasons for its convening and the events preceding this moment.

So, “on the night of January 6-7, 1598, after a serious illness, Sovereign Feodor I Ioannovich, the youngest son of Ivan IV Vasilyevich the Terrible, passed away. Little is said about the reign of this man in historical scholarship, but when you begin to examine in detail this short period of 14 years, you understand how significant it was for the subjects of Fyodor Ioannovich. He was the “Prayer King,” and the assertion of some historians about his insanity has to be contradicted. He was little involved in government affairs, transferring most of them to his closest associate Boris Fedorovich Godunov, but he was involved in them. He was far from the military aspirations of his August father; he was concerned about the reverence of the Russian state. He performed prayers for days, which were aimed exclusively at the good of the country and people. Under him, the people restored what had been destroyed by his formidable parent. I would say that his 14 years of albeit dependent rule benefited the entire state, because Russia was restoring its strength after the Livonian disaster, strengthened the country’s borders and managed to fight a war with Sweden. It is noteworthy that the campaign against the enemy was personally led by Fyodor Ioannovich. Among other things, it was under Fedor I that the Moscow Metropolis received the status of a patriarchate (1589). Most likely, the king himself contributed to this. It was the death of this Tsar, the penultimate Rurikovich on the Moscow throne, that served as the reason for the beginning of the Time of Troubles.

It does not take much time to pay attention to all the events of the Time of Troubles. This is not necessary for the purposes of this study. It is necessary to turn to the last stage of the fight against the Polish-Lithuanian invaders, i.e. to the second militia under the leadership of the zemstvo elder Kuzma Minin and the military governor Prince D. M. Pozharsky. In Nizhny Novgorod, from where the assembled militia began its movement towards the capital, there was its administrative and political center - the Nizhny Novgorod “Council of the Whole Land”. This “council” was a kind of mobile zemstvo cathedral. This is due to the fact that, as a result of the militia moving to Yaroslavl in March 1612, this mobile authority acquired “the character of a supreme government body.”

According to Cherepnin’s fair remark, already during their stay in Yaroslavl, the militia developed a political program, which set the restoration of the monarchy as its final goal. The final stage of the movement of the zemstvo militia towards the capital, which was still in the hands of the Polish-Lithuanian invaders, began. On October 26, 1612, after long battles for Moscow, the interventionists surrendered to Russian forces. Members of the boyar duma, headed by Prince, were also released. F.I. Mstislavsky. Immediately after occupying the Kremlin, the provisional government began to prepare for the convening of the Zemsky Sobor.
Cherepnin, citing sources, makes it clear that the council had representation from the entire land. Letters were sent to cities (Beloozero, Novgorod, Uglich, etc.) demanding that representatives be sent to the council. In fairness, it is worth noting that until the Zemsky Sobor was convened, the government was in force, created during the advance to Moscow by Prince Pozharsky and the Zemsky elder Minin.

The consecrated cathedral (an integral curia of the full zemstvo council) was headed by Metropolitan Ephraim (Khvostov) of Kazan and Sviyazhsk, who, after the martyrdom of Patriarch Hermogenes, became the locum tenens of the Patriarchal throne; it is his signature that appears first on the approved charter of 1613. The second most important Russian bishop, who blessed and accompanied the second militia on the campaign, was Metropolitan Kirill (Zavidov) of Rostov and Yaroslavl, it was his D.V. Tsvetaev calls the head of the consecrated cathedral, which is strange, because it is the locum tenens who is the temporary head of the church. This confusion is probably due to the fact that in December of the same year, Metropolitan Ephraim (Khvostov) died and the Metropolitan of Rostov and Yaroslavl became the first hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. Another possible explanation for this contradiction can be considered that Metropolitan Kirill (Zavidov) was in the train of the second zemstvo militia and blessed it for a feat of arms - to liberate the capital from the interventionists, as was indicated earlier.

The most important difference from other cathedrals of the Russian state is that this cathedral is complete, which, in principle, did not happen either before or after the events described. The main sign of his high representation are the signatures made on the reverse side of the approved charter. At the same time, it is noted that signatures were placed on it until 1617, so the total number of 235 “assaults” does not indicate its full composition. Most likely the total number of participants ranges from 700 to 800 people.
It is worthwhile to dwell separately on the candidates for the highest, as they would now put it, “public office.” In addition to the Russian titled families, there were other contenders for the Russian throne at the beginning of the Zemsky Sobor - representatives of the royal houses of Europe: Sweden and Poland.

The Swedish pretender to the Russian throne was Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Södermanland (since 1611), son of King Charles IX of Sweden and his wife Queen Christina, née Princess of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp.
The Polish applicant was Korolevich Vladislav (future King of Poland Vladislav IV), the son of the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund III and his wife Anna, née Archduchess of Austria. It is noteworthy that on August 17, 1610, the “Seven Boyars” agreement was concluded with the Polish hetman Zolkiewski on the election of Vladislav to the Moscow throne. But this agreement has no factual basis, because Vladislav should have converted to Orthodoxy, which he did not. It is also noteworthy that both foreign candidates belonged to the same dynasty - Vasa. However, according to the approved charter, the Polish and Swedish princes are not accepted into the kingdom.
Among other candidates, Marina Mnishek, the wife of the False Dmitrievs and the mother of the son of False Dmitry II Ivan, better known as “Vorenok,” was considered. But “Marinka and her son don’t look for and don’t want to.” Prince I.M. was also named as another possible contender. Vorotynsky, but, according to the official version, the prince recused himself and personally went with the embassy to Mikhail Fedorovich when his candidacy was approved. There were also Prince D.M. Cherkassky, Prince D.T. Trubetskoy, Prince D.M. Pozharsky, Prince I.V. Golitsyn et al.

The official version of the election of a representative of the Romanov family to the kingdom is a compromise, i.e. the election of a man who, due to his age, could not appear in the political arena. Plus, the favorable attitude towards Mikhail Fedorovich of the mob and Cossacks, who, according to various sources, wanted to see on the throne even before the official election took place, and the last interesting remark, the Romanovs were relatives of the last Rurikovich, through the marriage of John IV with Anastasia Romanovna Zakharyina-Yuryeva . According to the fair remark of L.V. Cherepnin, it was the “set of circumstances” that played the main role in the choice of the new Sovereign, and with him the entire dynasty. The candidacy of Mikhail Fedorovich was accepted on February 7 and “with the unanimous will of the Russian land and with the blessing of the church” approved on the 21st of the same month in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin.

An embassy was sent to the Holy Trinity Ipatiev Monastery near Kostroma to Mikhail Fedorovich and his mother nun Martha (in the world Ksenia Ivanovna Shestova), the purpose of which was to present a conciliar oath that proclaimed him the Tsar and Grand Duke of All Rus'. It must be said that the adoption of the throne took place according to the ancient Russian tradition. The embassy came to the elected king and his mother three times, persuading them to accept the Monomakh Cap. For the third time, an icon of the Most Holy Theotokos arrived along with the embassy. After much hesitation and persuasion, Archbishop Theodoret of Ryazan and Murom blessed the new monarch for the Kingdom.

The named Sovereign arrived in Moscow on May 2, 1613, by which time copies of the approved charter were also prepared. On July 11, 1613, in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, Mikhail Fedorovich was crowned king. It is noteworthy that it was on this day that he turned 17 years old.

Now let's move on to the second topic of my research. What can this record be compared with? The restrictive record of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich was equal in significance to the conditions that were provided by members of the Supreme Privy Council to the Empress of All-Russia Anna Ioannovna in 1730. Those. This document presented those provisions and conditions that the Sovereign had to be guided by. As we remember very well, the conditions of 1730 lasted only 37 days. The Russian Sovereign returned the word “Autocrat” to his title, explaining the whole essence of the Russian monarchy. But if we have no doubt about the existence of conditions, then why does the question of restrictive notation remain open?

Now to the question of the existence of a record at the beginning of the 17th century. Kotoshikhin talks about the conditions under which Russian Sovereigns, starting with Fyodor Ioannovich and ending with Alexei Mikhailovich, ruled on the Russian throne. The main problem of this issue is that nowhere except in the work of Kotoshikhin, Pskov legends of the early 17th century, the work of Philip John Stralenberg and a number of other foreign sources are points of such conditions indicated.

Kotoshikhin himself gives the following description of the duties of the ruling monarch: “to be not cruel and not tearful, without judgment and without guilt, not to execute anyone for anything, and to think about all sorts of affairs with the boyars and with the Duma people of the Sopcha, and without their knowledge, secretly and openly don’t do any business.” Judging by this excerpt, we can understand that Mikhail Fedorovich, who had just become tsar, could not do anything without advice from the boyars and Duma people. Thus, Kotoshikhin seeks to show that Russia has not an absolute, but a limited monarchy. And in this he is very clearly supported by the other mentioned foreign authors. I will quote Starleng’s excerpt, which Cherepnin also took: “1) Religion must be guarded and protected. 2) Forget and forgive everything that happened to his father, and not remember any private enmity, whatever it may be. 3) Do not create new laws and do not repeal old ones. Important matters are decided according to the law and not at your own discretion, but by the right court. 4) Do not accept either war or peace with your neighbors alone and at your own discretion, and 5) To show justice and to avoid any processes with private individuals, either cede to your relatives, or add them to state property.”

The most sharp and clear position in relation to the restrictive record was expressed by the domestic historian S.F. Platonov. He says quite clearly that within the framework of establishing a new dynasty on the throne, the process of limiting his power is impossible. And in relation to the mentioned Pskov legends, the beginning. XVII century, he says that this is how the process of formation of a new dynasty was perceived by the people. He accepts that there was a formal limitation of power, because then the tsar ruled for almost 10 years, in accordance with the zemstvo councils, but he points out that this was only “a consequence of unity.” Other scientists have expressed similar views on the limited record. There were also those who believed that a restrictive entry existed (V.P. Alekseev, M.A. Dyakonov, L.M. Sukhotin).

One way or another, there are no such materials among domestic sources, and the above thoughts of historians give reason to doubt the validity of the data expressed by foreign sources. Of course, we must take into account the words of foreign sources, but we must remember that Kotoshikhin wrote his work at the request of the Swedish government. Russia will encounter this state more than once in the 17th-19th centuries. Of course, Grigory Karpovich did not imagine this then, but apparently he guessed it. Another reason that allows me to trust S.F. Platonov is that, like ordinary people, Grigory Kotoshikhin could be subject to rumors. On the other hand, as an employee of one of the central orders, he worked with historical documents, but still was not a contemporary of the cathedral of 1613. Therefore, in some moments it is necessary to treat Kotoshikhin with caution.

Thus, having analyzed in detail the events of January-February 1613, as well as various versions of the existence of a record limiting the power of the Russian Sovereign, we can come to some conclusions. The main conclusion is that the choice of the dynasty was truly popular, no more and no less. Interesting research was carried out showing that, in addition to Russian boyar families, there were other contenders for the Russian throne, even foreign ones. It is worth paying tribute to the council, which did not follow the path of the “Seven Boyars” and abandoned the idea of ​​calling Catholic princes to the Orthodox throne. I would also like to note the phenomenon of the existence of a recording. Unfortunately, we cannot give an exact answer to this question, but we can agree with worthy domestic historians that this record is unlikely to have existed. However, let's hope that new research and research will give modern scientists something to think about and will lift the veil of secrecy over the existence of a record about which almost nothing is known.

NOTES

The Rurikovichs of the Moscow branch also had another “name” - Kalitichi.

Volodikhin D.M. Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich. – M.: Young Guard, 2011. P. 225.

Volodikhin D.M. Decree. op. pp. 34-35.

The first zemstvo militia was created in 1611 under the leadership of P.P. Lyapunov, ataman I.M. Zarutsky and Prince D.T. Trubetskoy. In June 1611, Lyapunov was killed and the militia virtually disintegrated. Some of its units remained near Moscow until the arrival of the second militia in August 1612.

Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State in the 16th-17th centuries. – M.: Nauka, 1978. P. 180.

The date is given in Julian style.

Tsvetaev D.V. The election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the throne. – M., 1913. P. 13.

Holstein-Gottorp is a German ducal house descended from the Oldenburg dynasty. Members of the house at various times were rulers of the Duchy of Schleswig-Holstein, as well as the All-Russian Empire, starting with Peter III.

Vasa is a Swedish noble family, later a royal dynasty.

Approved letter of election to the Moscow state of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov with a foreword by S.A. Belokurova. M., 1906. P.71.

Prince Dmitry Mamstrukovich Cherkassky. Close boyar, governor. Repeatedly headed the order of the Kazan Palace. He died childless.

Prince Dmitry Timofeevich Trubetskoy. One of the leaders of the first zemstvo militia. Known as the "Savior of the Fatherland".

Prince Ivan Vasilyevich Golitsyn. Boyarin. In 1624 he was the chief judge of the Vladimir order. He died in disgrace in Vyatka (according to other sources in Perm) in 1627.

Coronation collection with the permission of His Imperial Majesty the Sovereign Emperor. / ed. Krivenko V.S. SPb.: Expedition for the procurement of state papers. 1899. T.1. P. 35.

To protect and preserve the faith is the sacred duty of an Orthodox sovereign.

In this regard, we recall Fyodor Nikitich Romanov (Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Filaret), father of Mikhail I Fedorovich.

Cherepnin L.V. Decree. op. P. 205.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL LIST

SOURCES

Acts relating to the history of Zemsky Sobors / Ed. Yu.V. Gautier. M.: Vilde Printing House, 1909. 76 p.

Approved letter of election to the Moscow state of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov with a foreword by S.A. Belokurova. // 2nd edition of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University. Moscow, 1906. 110 p., ill.

Kotoshikhin G.K. About Russia during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. – M., 2000.

LITERATURE

Belyaev I.D. Zemsky Sobors in Rus'. – M., 1902 – 80 p.

Volodikhin D.M. Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich. – M.: Young Guard, 2011. - 255 p.

Kozlyakov V.N. Mikhail Fedorovich. – 2nd ed., rev. – M.: Young Guard, 2010. – 346 p.

Coronation collection with the permission of His Imperial Majesty the Sovereign Emperor. T.1. / ed. Krivenko V.S. SPb.: Expedition for the procurement of state papers. 1899. -

Platonov S.F. Essays on the history of the Time of Troubles in the Moscow State. – M., 1978.

Tsvetaev D.V. The election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the throne. – M., 1913.

Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State in the 16th-17th centuries. – M.: Nauka, 1978. – 417 p.