Election of Romanov to the kingdom. Election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the Tsar Who was elected Tsar in 1613

Late XVI and beginning of XVII centuries became in Russian history a period of socio-political, economic and dynastic crisis, which was called the Time of Troubles. The Time of Troubles began with the catastrophic famine of 1601-1603. A sharp deterioration in the situation of all segments of the population led to mass unrest under the slogan of overthrowing Tsar Boris Godunov and transferring the throne to the “legitimate” sovereign, as well as to the emergence of impostors False Dmitry I and False Dmitry II as a result of the dynastic crisis.

"Seven Boyars" - the government formed in Moscow after the overthrow of Tsar Vasily Shuisky in July 1610, concluded an agreement on the election of the Polish prince Vladislav to the Russian throne and in September 1610 allowed the Polish army into the capital.

Since 1611, patriotic sentiments began to grow in Russia. The First Militia, formed against the Poles, never managed to drive the foreigners out of Moscow. And a new impostor, False Dmitry III, appeared in Pskov. In the fall of 1611, on the initiative of Kuzma Minin, the formation of the Second Militia began in Nizhny Novgorod, led by Prince Dmitry Pozharsky. In August 1612, it approached Moscow and liberated it in the fall. The leadership of the Zemsky militia began preparing for the electoral Zemsky Sobor.

At the beginning of 1613, elected officials from “the whole earth” began to gather in Moscow. This was the first indisputably all-class Zemsky Sobor with the participation of townspeople and even rural representatives. The number of “council people” gathered in Moscow exceeded 800 people, representing at least 58 cities.

The Zemsky Sobor began its work on January 16 (January 6, old style) 1613. Representatives of “the whole earth” annulled the decision of the previous council on the election of Prince Vladislav to the Russian throne and decided: “Foreign princes and Tatar princes should not be invited to the Russian throne.”

The conciliar meetings took place in an atmosphere of fierce rivalry between various political groups that took shape in Russian society during the years of the Troubles and sought to strengthen their position by electing their contender to the royal throne. The council participants nominated more than ten candidates for the throne. Various sources name Fyodor Mstislavsky, Ivan Vorotynsky, Fyodor Sheremetev, Dmitry Trubetskoy, Dmitry Mamstrukovich and Ivan Borisovich Cherkassky, Ivan Golitsyn, Ivan Nikitich and Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, Pyotr Pronsky and Dmitry Pozharsky among the candidates.

Data from the “Report on Patrimonies and Estates of 1613,” which records land grants made immediately after the election of the Tsar, make it possible to identify the most active members of the “Romanov” circle. The candidacy of Mikhail Fedorovich in 1613 was supported not by the influential clan of Romanov boyars, but by a circle that spontaneously formed during the work of the Zemsky Sobor, composed of minor figures from the previously defeated boyar groups.

According to a number of historians, the decisive role in the election of Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom was played by the Cossacks, who during this period became an influential social force. A movement arose among service people and Cossacks, the center of which was the Moscow courtyard of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, and its active inspirer was the cellarer of this monastery, Abraham Palitsyn, a very influential person among both the militias and Muscovites. At meetings with the participation of cellarer Abraham, it was decided to proclaim 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich, the son of Rostov Metropolitan Philaret captured by the Poles, as tsar.

The main argument of Mikhail Romanov’s supporters was that, unlike elected tsars, he was elected not by people, but by God, since he comes from a noble royal root. Not kinship with Rurik, but closeness and kinship with the dynasty of Ivan IV gave the right to occupy his throne.

Many boyars joined the Romanov party, and he was also supported by the highest Orthodox clergy - the Consecrated Cathedral.

The election took place on February 17 (February 7, old style) 1613, but the official announcement was postponed until March 3 (February 21, old style), so that during this time it would become clear how the people would accept the new king.

Letters were sent to the cities and districts of the country with the news of the election of a king and the oath of allegiance to the new dynasty.

On March 23 (13, according to other sources, March 14, old style), 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.

At the end of 1612, the Zemsky Sobor met in Moscow. The issue of choosing a new king was discussed for about two months. The Council rejected all foreign candidates for the throne. As a result, we settled on a candidate Mikhail Romanov.

As a result, the Romanov dynasty was established in Russia, which ruled the country for 300 years (until 1917).

• Firstly, Mikhail Romanov was not involved in the events of the Time of Troubles.
• Secondly, he had family ties with the former Rurik dynasty, and was a relative of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich (on the maternal side). The first wife of Ivan the Terrible, Anastasia, was the mother of Tsar Fedor. She came from the Romanov family.
• Thirdly, Mikhail was the son of Filaret Romanov, who suffered from Godunov (he was forcibly tonsured a monk) and, in addition, was captured by the “Tushinsky thief”, and, therefore, suffered from him.
• Fourthly, Mikhail was young, he was 16 years old, and he had a “quiet disposition.” There is a legend that one of the boyars said: “Let’s choose Mishka Romanov, he is young and not yet sophisticated, he will be obedient to us in everything.”

The Russian historian V. O. Klyuchevsky put forward the following reasons for the election of Mikhail: “Mikhail suffered ... family popularity. But what helped Mikhail the most in the cathedral elections was the family connection of the Romanovs with the former dynasty. Tsar Mikhail was seen not as a council elect, but as the nephew of Tsar Fedor, a natural, hereditary tsar. Thus appeared the founder of a new dynasty, putting an end to the Troubles.”

Having elected the tsar, the people's representatives did not leave him alone with the boyars' lust for power and the enormous problems of restoring the country. The Zemsky Sobor constantly supported the tsar. Its participants were elected for a three-year term. They worked almost without breaks for nine years (three convocations).

Ivan Susanin

Having barely found a new king, Russia almost lost him. According to a number of sources, a Polish detachment was sent to Kostroma to capture the new Moscow Tsar and kill him. However, the local peasant Ivan Susanin, volunteering to lead the Poles to the Romanov patrimony, he led them into deep forests. In the meantime, Mikhail, warned by well-wishers, managed to move to Kostroma, under the protection of the high walls of the Ipatiev Monastery. Susanin paid with his life for saving the king.

Historians have long debated the authenticity of this event. But in the memory of the people, the image of the Kostroma peasant Ivan Susanin became a symbol of heroic self-sacrifice in the name of the Fatherland.

Minin and Pozharsky under Romanov

Minin Kuzma Zakharyev (nicknamed Sukhoruk), a townsman, a zemstvo elder from Nizhny Novgorod under Mikhail Romanov, became a Duma nobleman. Died 1616

Under Tsar Boris Godunov, Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky had the court rank of steward, and under Vasily Shuisky he was a governor in the city of Zaraysk. He fought bravely against False Dmitry I, took part in the first militia in the battles against the Poles in Moscow. Under Tsar Mikhail Romanov, he received the rank of boyar, headed important orders, and was a governor in Novgorod. He died in 1642 and was buried in Suzdal, on the territory of the Savior-Efimiev Monastery.

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

COMPOSITION OF THE CATHEDRAL

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

We don’t know anything precise about what happened at this council, because in the acts and literary works of that time only fragments of traditions, hints and legends remain, so the historian here is, as it were, among incoherent fragments ancient building, whose appearance he does not have the strength to restore. Official documents say nothing about the proceedings of the meetings. True, the electoral charter has been preserved, but it can help us little, since it was not written independently and, moreover, does not contain information about the very process of the election. As for unofficial documents, they are either legends or meager, dark and rhetorical stories from which nothing definite can be extracted.

THE ROMANOVS UNDER BORIS GODUNOV

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

ROMANOVS

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

Source:
Work of Professor D. V. Tsvetaev,
Manager of the Moscow Archive of the Ministry of Justice.
“ELECTION OF Mikhail Feodorovitch Romanov TO THE KINGDOM”
1913 edition
T. SKOROPECHATNI-A.A. LEVENSON
Moscow, Tverskaya, Trekhprudny lane, coll. D.

III.
The composition of the electoral zemsky council of 1613.

Having occupied and cleaned the Kremlin, the boyar Prince. Dmitry Timofeevich Trubetskoy and the steward, Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky, who headed the provisional government, began immediately preparing for the speedy convening of a plenipotentiary council. Now, it seemed, the most convenient time had come for the urgent implementation of the thought that had been brewing for everyone:

It is impossible to be without a sovereign for a short time, and the Moscow state has had enough of being ruined”; “It is not possible for us to remain without a king for a single hour, but let us choose a king for our kingdom.

The governors acted here in agreement with all the officials of the state who were with them, i.e. with the zemstvo council or cathedral, which was formed from the councils that consisted of the militias; at the head of the consecrated cathedral was, as before, as in Yaroslavl, Metropolitan Kirill of Rostov and Yaroslavl. If previously both leaders could only convene with those cities that were adjacent to each of them separately, now the practice of convening has changed. It was decided to “exile to all cities with all kinds of people, from small to large,” in order to “turn on the Vladimir and Moscow states and all the great states of the Russian kingdom of the Tsar and the Grand Duke, God willing.”

And so, through the messengers, letters of convocation rushed, as the official narrative puts it, “to the Moscow state, to Ponizovye, and to Pomerania, and to Seversk, and to all Ukrainian cities.” The certificates were addressed to all ranks: the consecrated cathedral, boyars, nobles, servants, guests, townspeople and district. The highest spiritual authorities were called upon to “come to Moscow”, as those who were part of the consecrated cathedral, according to their position; cities were invited, “having given advice and a strong verdict,” to send “for the Zemstvo Great Council and the State’s robbing” “ten of the best and most intelligent and stable people,” or “as appropriate,” choosing them from all ranks: “from nobles, and from the children of boyars, and from guests, and from merchants, and from Posatsky, and from district people "). The city's elected officials had to give a “complete and strong sufficient order” so that on behalf of their city and district they could “speak freely and fearlessly about state affairs,” and warn them that at the council they should be “straightforward without any cunning.”

Elections were to be carried out immediately, “ignoring all other matters.” The date for the congress in Moscow was set at Nikolin's autumn day (December 6). “Otherwise it was written to you at the end of the letters, we give you information, and you yourself know that, only we will soon not have a sovereign in the Moscow state, and it is not at all possible for us to be without a sovereign; and in no states does the state exist anywhere without a sovereign.” The Novgorod Metropolitan, whose letter was to become known to the Swedish government, was diplomatically notified (November 15) that when the council meets in Moscow and he knows about the arrival of the prince Prince Karl-Philipp Karlusovich in Novgorod, then ambassadors will be sent to the latter with a full agreement on state and about zemstvo affairs. There was no mention of the date of the convocation, but instead they reported that “they wrote to Siberia and Astrakhan about fleecing the state and about advice on who should be in the Moscow state.” This mention shows that the leaders here were the same people who were in Yaroslavl: it was not the custom to call representatives of remote and unsettled Siberia, into the depths of which they were gradually moving aggressively, to the council; and there was no way that deputies from such remote places could have arrived on time for the actual convocation. The warning skillfully made it clear to the Swedes that the council would not begin soon, and thus tried to gain time for them.

The elected officials arrived in Moscow little by little, much behind the deadline indicated in the letters; Due to the difficulty of getting ready and the inconvenience and danger of communication routes, many could not keep up with him. After the first draft letters, the second ones were sent, with the requirement that they not delay in sending the authorized representatives; it was prescribed to equip and not be embarrassed by the number, “as many people as fit.” The first traces of the cathedral's activities were preserved from the following January 1613, when it was still far from being at full strength).

Speaking about the composition of the cathedral, it should be noted that in the 17th century the zemstvo cathedrals included: the consecrated cathedral, the boyar duma and representatives of different classes or social groups and strata, service and taxation. Members of the consecrated cathedral and the boyar duma (due to the position of these two government institutions) were present at the councils in one composition. However, the events of the Troubles could not help but affect many of these members: some were in captivity or captivity, some fell under suspicion. The latter fate befell the most prominent members of the Duma. If the government of the leaders who liberated Moscow came to the council unhindered, then those members of the Duma who allowed the Polish garrison into Moscow and wrote and acted against Trubetskoy and Pozharsky had different prospects. Those less noble and more compromised by their service to the Poles were imprisoned and punished. “The most noble boyars, as they say about them, left Moscow and went to different places under the pretext that they wanted to go on a pilgrimage, but more for the reason that everyone was hostile to them simple people countries because of the Poles, with whom they were at one with each other, so they need to not show themselves for a while, but hide from view.” They even say that they “were declared rebels” and that inquiries were made around the cities as to whether they would be allowed into the Duma. Far-sighted rulers, having arranged an honorable meeting for these noble persons upon leaving the Kremlin and providing protection from the robbery of the Cossacks, tried and then to support them in public opinion, pointing out that they endured all sorts of oppression from the Poles: “they were all in captivity, and some were for bailiffs.” ", Prince Mstislavsky, "Lithuanian people beat the coins, and his head was beaten in many places." No matter how to explain the departure of the prince. F.I. Mstislavsky with his comrades from Moscow, whether due to a personal desire for rest or external motives, there is no doubt that they were not present at the first meetings of the council and were called to it later, in fact, to participate in the solemn proclamation of the already elected sovereign.

However, not all boyars left Moscow. For example, the boyar Feodor Ivanovich Sheremetev remained. He also signed the letters with which the Kremlin Duma boyars exhorted (January 26, 1612) the “Orthodox peasants” to leave “the thieves’ troubles”, not to follow Pozharsky, but “to our great sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Vladislav Zhigimontovich of All Russia for the wine bring your own and cover it with your current service.” His cousin, Ivan Petrovich Sheremetev, a supporter of Vladislav, did not allow the Nizhny Novgorod militia into Kostroma, for which the Kostroma residents removed him from the voivodeship and almost killed him. Saved from death by the prince. Pozharsky, he joined the ranks of the Nizhny Novgorod army; book Pozharsky was so convinced of his trustworthiness that upon leaving Yaroslavl he left him there as commander. Another nephew of Feodor Ivanovich came to Moscow with the Nizhny Novgorod militia. Both were supposed to bring Feodor Ivanovich Sheremetev closer to the prince. Pozharsky. During the siege, he was in charge of the State Household in the Kremlin, a report on the state of which he was now supposed to submit; with his comrades, he then did what he could to preserve the regalia and some other royal treasures, as well as to protect his loved ones, by wife, relatives of the old woman Marfa Ivanovna Romanova with her young son Mikhail (Sheremetev was married to the cousin of Mikhail Fedorovich). Before they had time to send out all the letters calling for the council, he received (November 25, 1612) from Trubetskoy and Pozharsky a large courtyard space in the Kremlin, “to build a courtyard on that place.” Sheremetev thus began construction where the cathedral met and met; he could conveniently keep abreast of the whole matter, and then began to participate in the council itself. When discussing the candidacy of Mikhail Fedorovich, this circumstance could have its significance).

Thus, at the beginning of the electoral council, mainly militia dignitaries led by princes Trubetskoy and Pozharsky sat and acted as members of the Duma, who, of course, opened the cathedral and supervised its proceedings. The boyars, members of the previous government, who, due to their nobility, occupied the leading places in most cases, came to the final, ceremonial meetings. Prince Feodor Ivanovich Mstislavsky signed the approved document on the election of Mikhail Fedorovich to the kingdom as the first of the secular dignitaries), immediately after the non-elected members of the consecrated council (33rd), the boyars princes Ivan Golitsyn, Andr. Sitskaya and Iv. Vorotynsky. The liberating princes occupied only 4 and 10 places in the signatures on one copy of the letter, and even 7 and 31 places on the other. Duma ranks, highest ranks of courtiers and clerks are named on the charter in total up to 84 persons). The rest of the secular non-elected members of the cathedral also belonged to the upper strata of the service class. Among the non-elected members there were quite a few people who had family ties with the Romanovs: in addition to F.I., Sheremetev, the Saltykovs, the princes of Sitsky, the princes of Cherkassy, ​​Prince. Iv, Katyrev-Rostovsky, book. Alexey Lvov and others.

The events of the Time of Troubles brought forward the moral significance of the consecrated cathedral: its Russian members steadily advocated for Orthodox Russian principles. After the martyrdom of Hermogenes, the patriarchal throne remained vacant; Metropolitan of Rostov Filaret and Archbishop of Smolensk Sergius languished with Prince. You. You. Golitsyn, Shein and comrades in Polish captivity, the Novgorod metropolitan was bound by the Swedish authorities. At the head of the consecrated cathedral was its former chairman, Metropolitan Kirill, who held primacy for a long time and was the only metropolitan both in the elective cathedral meetings and during the embassy to Mikhail Fedorovich with an invitation to the kingdom. Metropolitan Ephraim of Kazan, successor of Hermogenes, who was considered one of the voices of the spiritual hierarchy, came to the meeting and coronation; he took first place in the consecrated cathedral and was the first to sign the Approved Charter. Upon his arrival in Moscow, he ordained Gon as Metropolitan of Sara and Pond, who then ruled the Russian Church until the return of Filaret Nikitich. All three metropolitans signed the Approved Charter). They were followed by three archbishops, including Theodoret of Ryazan, two bishops, archimandrites, abbots, and cellars. The abbots of five monasteries were present from the Moscow monasteries, and from the Kremlin Miracle Monastery, where Hermogenes died, there was, in addition to the archimandrite, a cellarer. The Trinity-Sergius Lavra was first represented by both of its famous figures, Archimandrite Dionysius and cellarer Abraham Palitsyn, who later replaced Dionysius and signed the charter alone; Archimandrite Kirill was present from the Kostroma Ipatiev Monastery. The total number of members of the consecrated cathedral according to hierarchical position was 32. Many cities, among their elected representatives, sent clergy, archpriests and priests of local churches and abbots of monasteries.

From the non-elected, official part of the Zemsky Sobor, a total of 171 persons were named in the assault. This number is probably quite close to reality: there is no reason to think that a significant part of the non-elected members did not give their signatures.

87 elected secular members of the cathedral were named in assault. Undoubtedly, there were significantly more of them). Among them, people belonging to the middle strata of the service class and townspeople predominated; there were also palace and black peasants, instrumental people and even representatives of eastern foreigners 2). As for the territorial distribution of the electors, as can be seen from the letter, they came from no less than 46 cities. Zamoskovye, in particular its main, northeastern part, was especially fully represented. This circumstance is easily explained by the size of the Moscow region, the abundance of cities on it, the immediate participation of cities, namely its northeastern part, in previous restoration activities public order and, finally, the fact that there was a cathedral within the boundaries of Zamoskovye).

The active participation taken in the events by the cities of the Pomeranian region suggests that this region was well represented at the council; The absence of signatures of electors on the conciliar charter, except for one, from the cities of this region must be entirely attributed to the incompleteness with which elective representation was generally reflected in the assault. But from the lands stretching towards Pomerania, representatives of Vyatka are known by name among four.

In second place in terms of the number of names mentioned in assaults is the region of Ukrainian cities, from which Kaluga was sent, by the way, by Smirna-Sudovshchikov, whose activities we will have to meet. Then come the rest of the regions adjacent to Zamoskovye from the south: Zaotsky cities, Ryazan region, as well as the southeast-Niz, with its former Tatar capital Kazan; sent his electors and the far south: North and Field, in particular, from another source, we learn about the energetic representative of the “glorious Don”. In an extremely unfavorable position regarding the opportunity to take part in the council at that time, of course, were the cities from the German and Lithuanian Ukraine, which, judging by the assaults, were really the weakest represented; nevertheless, they also participated in the conciliar election of the sovereign).

In general, at the council of 1613, all major groups of the population of the Moscow state were represented by its non-elected and elected participants, except for the privately owned peasantry) and serfs.

In territorial terms, the representation at it appears to us even more complete, if we take into account from which cities the clergy came to the council, who were present here by virtue of their official position, and not by choice: then the above number of cities (46), undoubtedly presented at the council, at least 13 more should be added, not counting the capital. If the cities generally followed the norm regarding the number of electives indicated in the invitation letters, and even if only about 46 cities sent electives, then the number of all members of the council exceeded 600.

Thus, despite the haste with which elections had to be carried out, and the difficulties during the congress of members in the capital, the council of 1613 was complete in its composition. At the same time, it clearly outlines the middle classes of the population, far from the oligarchic or foreign tendencies of the upper layer and from the aspirations of the willful Cossacks; it clearly reflects the broad movement of the zemshchina to protect and restore Russian statehood.

NOTE:

1) In view of the uneven composition of the population in cities, letters (for example, addressed to Beloozero) ordered that a choice be made “from abbots, and from archpriests, and from townspeople, and from district people, and from palace villages, and from black volosts,” “and district peasants” (added another); or they demanded (for example, in Ostashkov) that “ten reasonable and reliable people” be sent “from priests, nobles, townspeople and peasants” living in such and such a city and its district. Acts of Moscow region militias, No. 82, 89; Arsenyev Tver Papers, 19-20.

2) Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, V, 63; Palace Classes, I, 9-12, 34, 183; Collection of state charters and agreements, I, 612; III, 1-2, 6; Additions to the Historical Acts, I, No. 166; Acts of the Moscow Region militias, No. 82. - As for the message from the authorities to the Novgorod Metropolitan about writing “to Siberia,” it should be noted that in the surviving district charter through Perm to the Siberian cities, princes Pozharsky and Trubetskoy only notified these cities about the liberation of Moscow and punished they should sing prayers with ringing bells on the occasion of such a joyful event, but they say nothing about sending delegates to the council and about the council itself (Collection of state charters and agreements, I, no. 205); there is no mention of an invitation from Siberia in the official Palace Discharges (I, 10).
Distribution of letters of summons began earlier on November 15, 1612: Additions to the Historical Acts, I, 294. The letter to Beloozero was sent on November 19, delivered quickly, on December 4; but by the deadline, the Beloozersky residents, who still needed time to conduct elections, could not get to the council. The second letter, received on December 27, ordered the electors to be sent immediately, “not to give them any time.” They could get to Moscow no earlier than the second half or even the end of January (Acts of the Moscow Region militias, 99, 107, and preface, XII; Collection of state charters and agreements, I, 637). Members of the cathedral from more distant points and more dangerous along the way could arrive even later. The first document from the activities of the cathedral was the letter of complaint from Prince. Trubetskoy on Vaga, in January 1613, there are 25 signatures under it. Appendix No. 2 to the work of I. E. Zabelin “Minin and Pozharsky”. M., 1896, 278-283,

4) Approved letter of election to the Moscow state of Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov. Publication of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities, first (1904) and second (1906). Previously published in the Ancient Russian Vivlioik, vol. V of the first edition and vol. VII of the second, and in the Collection of state charters and agreements, vol. I, No. 203. In the absence of a list of members of the council and news of their number, the signatures on it are the most important, albeit very imperfect, source of information about the composition of the cathedral.
This charter was made in two copies." The earlier one apparently (see “Approved Charter,” ed. 2, preface, p. 11) is now kept in the Armory Chamber; the second is in the Moscow Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In both signatures are separated by blank spaces into 4 departments: 1) the ranks of the consecrated cathedral and the Duma; 3) the remaining non-elected members; 4) the consistency in the distribution of signatures between departments is not always maintained due to the fact that the holder often signed not only for himself, but also. for other persons, on behalf of the number of persons named in assault more number assault: according to our calculation, 238 signatures of the first copy give 256 names; 235 second-272 name. There are 265 names that appear equally in both. The total number of names on both copies is 283, with the seal of the Duma clerk P. Tretyakov - 284. This figure does not coincide with the calculations of previous researchers (Prof. Platonova, Avaliani, etc.). The document was drawn up two months after the fact; signatures took even longer to collect; in addition, not all participants in the election could give their signatures, and on the other hand, signatures were given by persons who were not at the council during the election period.

5) Namely: 11 boyars, 7 okolnichikhs, 54 highest court ranks, at least 11 clerks, 1 of them Duma. In this calculation, we mean the title that the signatories wore during the period of the royal election, and not at the time of signing the charter. From okolnichy books. Grigor. Petrov. Romodanovsky and Bor. Mich. Saltykov signed the charter after receiving the boyars, Mich. Mich. Saltykov - after receiving the title of kraychago. Among the highest court ranks who signed the charter there are 1 cup maker, 34 stewards, 19 solicitors. From the stolniks of the book. Dm. Mikh, Pozharsky and Prince. Iv. Bor. Cherkassky signed after receiving the noble status. Prince Yves also signed up as a boyar. Andr. Khovansky, and the number of higher court ranks during the Tsar’s election increases with him by another 1. Stepan Milyukov, who signed himself as a solicitor, did not yet hold this title at the time of the Tsar’s election. Some of the assaulters signed their names without indicating their rank; e.g., stolniks of the book. Iv. Katyrev-Rostovsky and Prince. Iv. Buynosov, solicitor Dementy Pogozhev, clerks, except Pyotr Tretyakov and Sydavnoy Vasiliev. At the time of the election of the tsar, only the latter of these two was the Duma clerk. See A v a p i a n i, Zemsky Sobors, part II, pp. 81 and 82.

6) On the charter of the Zemsky Sobor, Prince. Trubetskoy on Vaga in January 1613, Metropolitan Kirill was the first to sign, and there are no other metropolitan signatures on it (3 abelina, No. II, p. 282). The document of the council, sent to the elected Mikhail Feodorovich in March, begins: “To the Tsar and Grand Duke Mikhail Feodorovich of all Russia, your sovereign pilgrims: Metropolitan Kirill of Rostov, and archbishops, and bishops, and the entire consecrated cathedral, and your slaves: boyars, and okolnichy ..." He was one of the metropolitans indicated both in the correspondence between the cathedral and the ambassadors and in the royal letter notifying him of the day of his arrival in Moscow. Collection of state charters and agreements, III, No. 2-6; Palace Classes, I, 18, 24, 32, 35, 1185, 1191, P95, 1209, 1214, etc. Metropolitan Ephraim was in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra when the sovereign stopped there on his way to Moscow, April 27. Palace Discharges, I, 1199. Jonah was made metropolitan shortly after May 24, 1613. His Eminence Macarius, History of the Russian Church, vol. X, St. Petersburg, 1881, 169.

7) Inconsistency in the number of names real number members of the cathedral is explained mainly by the practice of substitution when signing the charter: when signing for other elected representatives from the same city and district, the clerk usually did not name them, but limited himself to the general indication that he was signing “and for his comrades, elected people, place,” sometimes he signed for representatives of another city. Let us add that even among the elected officials named in the assaults, the social and official status of many remains unknown.

8) Among the elected officials (secular and clergy) known to us by their social status, representatives of the middle strata of the service class make up 50% (42 out of 84), clergy - more than 30% (26); In an incomparably smaller number, elected members of the townspeople (7) and instrumentalities (5) are known by name. But regarding the townspeople, in the assaults themselves there are indications that they were present as electors from many cities. None of the representatives of the peasantry are named.

9) Named in the assault are: 38 elected from 15 cities in Moscow, 16 elected from 7 Ukrainian cities, 13 elected from 5 cities in Zaotsk, 10 elected from 3 cities in the Ryazan region, 12 elected from 5 cities in Niza, “9 elected from 2 cities in Severg, 4 elected from 4 cities of the Field. Among the elected from the cities of Niz we include 4 Tatar “princes”, they gave assault in the Tatar language. One of them is Vasily Mirza, obviously a Christian.
Who this “Vasily Mirza” is can be seen from his petition, stored in the Moscow Archive of the Ministry of Justice: “To the Tsar, Sovereign and Grand Duke Mikhail Fedorovich of all Russia, your servant, the sovereign of the Kadomsky district, Tatar Vaska Murza Chermenteev beats with his forehead. Merciful sovereign king and Grand Duke Mikhail Fedorovich of all Russia, please let me, your slave, for my service and for the joy that I, your slave, have been sent to Moscow to fleece the Tsar; and I, your servant, beat you, the sovereign, with my brow, about the letters, and you, the sovereign, granted me, your servant, the order to give your royal letters. Merciful sir, let me be your slave, do not impose a stamp duty on me, your slave, to assume that I, your servant, sir, am ruined to the ground. Tsar Sovereign and Grand Duke Mikhail Fedorovich of All Russia, have mercy, perhaps.” Note: “The Sovereign granted, he did not order duties on documents, therefore he sits with the Sovereign’s affairs in the Ambassadorial Prikaz in the Tatar translation. Duma deacon Peter Tretyakov" (Preobrazhensky order, column No. 1, l. 56, no date on the document). We meet this Murza Chermenteev, according to Archive documents, also as a Kadom landowner looking for runaway serfs. “In the summer of March 7133 (1625), on the 11th day, the sovereign’s letter was sent to Kadom to the governor on the petition of Kadomsko Vasily Murza Chermonteyev against fugitive people on Ivashka Ivanov and on the zhonok on Okulka and on Nenilka, a trial was ordered. Duties of half a half were taken” (Printing Office Duty Book, No. 8, l. 675). His first petition shows that foreigners participated in the electoral council, which rejects the position widespread in science that they only gave signatures on the document, but were not at the council.

On the Approved Certificate of Election, this Mirza signed, on one copy of it (as we read in the translation, at our request, again made now, with the participation of Prof. F.E. Korsh, by teachers of the Tatar language at the Moscow Lazarev Institute): “For the elected comrades from the fortress (city) of Tyumen and from the fortress (city) of Nadym, I, Vasily Mirza, put my hand”; or on another copy: “For the Kadom (?)... Simbirsk (? translators’ questions) people (I), Vasily Mirza, put his hand.” By Tyumen, obviously, one should mean one of the fortified cities, on the lower defensive line, to which Kadom belonged. Therefore, although the above-mentioned letter of notification to the Novgorod Metropolitan spoke of writing “to Siberia,” Mirza Vasily’s assault was “for the city of Tyumen” and “for the Simbirsk (Tyumen?) people” ( according to the previous translation, in the notes to the Approved charter of the Society, 88, 90) cannot, contrary to the opinion we previously expressed, serve as evidence of representation at the council of Siberia, in particular Tyumen.

Of the electives from Pomerania, only one “elected abbot Jonah from the Dvina Antonyev Monastery of Siisk” left his name on the charter, who, however, attested in his assault the presence of other electives from Pomerania. Of the lands stretching towards Pomerania, the representation of Vyatka (4) was relatively well reflected and the representation of Perm was not reflected at all. Of the cities from German Ukraine, only two cities were represented, lying in the southwestern corner of that region, Torzhok and Ostashkov. Of the cities from Lithuanian Ukraine, the presence of elected representatives from Vyazma and Toropets was certified; We learn about those elected from the latter not from the letter, but from another source - from reports about the ambassadors captured by Gonsevsky from Toropets (Archaeographic collection. Vilna, 1870, VII, No. 48, p. 73). - In the list made by P.G. Vasenko (note 27 to Chapter VI, “The Romanov Boyars and the Accession of Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov.” St. Petersburg, 1913), cities, the presence of elected officials from which is certified by signatures on the charter, includes 43 cities; Staritsa, Kadom and Tyumen are not yet mentioned.

10) Among the elected representatives of 12 cities, the presence of “district people” was witnessed in assaults. Unfortunately, none of the latter are named. “District people” came to the council from almost all regions of the state; There are only no indications of their arrival from the German and Lithuanian Ukraine and from the Bottom. The “county people” from Pomerania included, of course, the peasants of the palace villages and black volosts, the elected representatives of whom were directly called to the council by a boyar charter to the Belozersk governor (Acts of the Moscow Region Militia, 99). However, in our opinion, the basis for the provision on calling peasants to the council in general cannot, in our opinion, be the second letter to Beloozero (ibid., 107), which refers to the previously named peasants, and the letter to Ostashkov (Arsenyev Swedish Papers, 19), as a translation , where there is no precision in the expressions, for example, instead of “county” there is “okrug”, etc. (See above, 14, note.) It is known that some researchers (for example, V. O. Klyuchevsky, Course of Russian history. M., 1908, III, p. 246): they mean “district people” who came from areas where there was no black peasantry, privately owned peasants. But it must be admitted that the presence at the council of 1613 of representatives of the privately owned peasantry would have little corresponded with the general situation of this peasantry at that time and would have been a sharp difference between the council of 1613 and subsequent zemstvo councils, at which there were undoubtedly no representatives of the privately owned peasantry.

On March 3, 1613, the Zemsky Sobor installed Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov as king. How was the first tsar from the Romanov family elected, who was behind it, and could a different decision have been made?

Candidates

There were many contenders for the Russian throne. The two most unpopular candidates - the Polish prince Vladislav and the son of False Dmitry II - were “weeded out” immediately. The Swedish prince Karl Philip had more supporters, among them the leader of the zemstvo army, Prince Pozharsky. Why did the patriot of the Russian land choose a foreign prince? Perhaps the antipathy of the “artistic” Pozharsky towards domestic contenders - high-born boyars, who Time of Troubles More than once they betrayed those to whom they swore allegiance. He feared that the “boyar tsar” would sow the seeds of new unrest in Russia, as happened during the short reign of Vasily Shuisky. Therefore, Prince Dmitry stood for the calling of the “Varangian”, but most likely this was Pozharsky’s “maneuver”, since in the end only Russian contenders – high-born princes – took part in the struggle for the royal throne. The leader of the notorious “Seven Boyars” Fyodor Mstislavsky compromised himself by collaborating with the Poles, Ivan Vorotynsky renounced his claim to the throne, Vasily Golitsyn was in Polish captivity, the militia leaders Dmitry Trubetskoy and Dmitry Pozharsky were not distinguished by nobility. But the new king must unite the country divided by the Troubles. The question was: how to give preference to one clan so that a new round of boyar civil strife does not begin?

Mikhail Fedorovich did not pass the first round

The candidacy of the Romanovs as the main contenders did not arise by chance: Mikhail Romanov was the nephew of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich. Mikhail's father, Patriarch Filaret, was respected among the clergy and Cossacks. Boyar Fyodor Sheremetyev actively campaigned in favor of the candidacy of Mikhail Fedorovich. He assured the obstinate boyars that Mikhail “is young and will be liked by us.” In other words, he will become their puppet. But the boyars did not allow themselves to be persuaded: in the preliminary voting, Mikhail Romanov’s candidacy did not receive the required number votes.

No-show

When electing Romanov, a problem arose: the Council demanded that the young candidate come to Moscow. The Romanov party could not allow this: an inexperienced, timid, unskilled young man in intrigue would make an unfavorable impression on the Council delegates. Sheremetyev and his supporters had to show miracles of eloquence, proving how dangerous the path from the Kostroma village of Domnino, where Mikhail was, to Moscow was. Was it not then that the legend about the feat of Ivan Susanin, who saved the life of the future tsar, arose? After heated debates, the Romanovites managed to convince the Council to cancel the decision on Mikhail’s arrival.

Tightening

On February 7, 1613, the rather tired delegates announced a two-week break: “for a large strengthening, they postponed February from the 7th of February to the 21st.” Messengers were sent to the cities “to inquire into all sorts of people’s thoughts.” The voice of the people, of course, is the voice of God, but isn’t two weeks enough to monitor public opinion? big country? For example, it is not easy for a messenger to get to Siberia in two months. Most likely, the boyars were counting on the departure of Mikhail Romanov’s most active supporters – the Cossacks – from Moscow. The villagers, they say, will get bored of sitting idle in the city, and they will disperse. The Cossacks actually dispersed, so much so that the boyars didn’t think it was enough...

The role of Pozharsky

Let's return to Pozharsky and his lobbying of the Swedish pretender to the Russian throne. In the fall of 1612, militia captured a Swedish spy. Until January 1613, he languished in captivity, but shortly before the start of the Zemsky Sobor, Pozharsky freed the spy and sent him to Novgorod, occupied by the Swedes, with a letter to the commander Jacob Delagardie. In it, Pozharsky reports that both he himself and the majority of noble boyars want to see Karl Philip on the Russian throne. But, as subsequent events showed, Pozharsky misinformed the Swede. One of the first decisions of the Zemsky Sobor was that a foreigner should not be on the Russian throne; the sovereign should be elected “from Moscow families, God willing.” Was Pozharsky really so naive that he did not know the mood of the majority? Of course not. Prince Dmitry deliberately fooled Delagardie with “universal support” for the candidacy of Karl Philip in order to prevent Swedish interference in the election of the Tsar. The Russians had difficulty repelling the Polish onslaught; the campaign against Moscow also Swedish army could prove fatal.

Pozharsky’s “cover operation” was successful: the Swedes did not budge. That is why on February 20, Prince Dmitry, happily forgetting about the Swedish prince, suggested that the Zemsky Sobor elect a tsar from the Romanov family, and then put his signature on the conciliar document electing Mikhail Fedorovich. During the coronation of the new sovereign, it was Mikhail Pozharsky who showed great honor: the prince presented him with one of the symbols of power - the royal orb. Modern political strategists can only envy such a competent PR move: the savior of the Fatherland hands over the power to the new tsar. Beautiful. Looking ahead, we note that until his death (1642) Pozharsky faithfully served Mikhail Fedorovich, taking advantage of his constant favor. It is unlikely that the tsar would have favored someone who wanted to see not him, but some Swedish prince on the Rurik throne.

Cossacks

The Cossacks played a special role in the election of the Tsar. A curious story about this is contained in “The Tale of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613.” It turns out that on February 21, the boyars decided to choose a tsar by casting lots, but the reliance on “maybe”, in which any forgery is possible, seriously angered the Cossacks. Cossack speakers tore to pieces the boyars’ “tricks” and solemnly proclaimed: “By God’s will, in the reigning city of Moscow and all Russia, let there be a Tsar, Sovereign and Grand Duke Mikhailo Fedorovich!” This cry was immediately picked up by Romanov supporters, not only in the Cathedral, but also among the large crowd of people in the square. It was the Cossacks who cut the “Gordian knot”, achieving the election of Mikhail. The unknown author of the “Tale” (surely an eyewitness of what was happening) does not spare any color when describing the reaction of the boyars: “The boyars at that time were possessed with fear and trembling, shaking, and their faces were changing with blood, and not a single one could utter anything.”

Only Mikhail’s uncle, Ivan Romanov, nicknamed Kasha, who for some reason did not want to see his nephew on the throne, tried to object: “Mikhailo Fedorovich is still young and not fully sane.” To which the Cossack wits objected: “But you, Ivan Nikitich, are old, full of reason... you will be a strong blow to him.” Mikhail did not forget his uncle’s assessment of his mental abilities and subsequently removed Ivan Kasha from all government affairs. The Cossack demarche came as a complete surprise to Dmitry Trubetskoy: “His face turned black, and he fell into illness, and lay for many days, without leaving his yard from the steep hill that the Cossacks depleted the treasury and their knowledge was flattering in words and deceit.” The prince can be understood: it was he, the leader of the Cossack militia, who counted on the support of his comrades, generously gave them “treasury” gifts - and suddenly they found themselves on Mikhail’s side. Perhaps the Romanov party paid more?

British recognition

On February 21 (March 3), 1613, the Zemsky Sobor made a historic decision: to elect Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the kingdom. The first country to recognize the new sovereign was England: in the same year, 1613, the embassy of John Metrick arrived in Moscow. Thus began the history of the second and last royal dynasty of Russia. It is significant that throughout his reign, Mikhail Fedorovich showed a special attitude towards the British. Thus, Mikhail Fedorovich restored relations with the British “Moscow Company” after the Time of Troubles, although he curtailed his freedom of action English merchants, nevertheless, put them on preferential terms not only with other foreigners, but also with representatives of Russian “big business”.