Zemsky Sobor of 1613: the election of Mikhail Romanov. The Role of Zemsky Sobors in Russia

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

In addition, such gatherings arose immediately after the unification of states, both in Europe and in Muscovy, therefore, with the formation of an integral picture of the state of affairs in the country, this body was coping as best as possible.

Zemsky Sobor of 1613, for example, played a revolutionary role in the history of Russia. It was then that Michael Romanov, who was governed by the country for the next three hundred years, was placed on the throne. And it was his descendants that brought the state from the backward Middle Ages to the forefront in the early twentieth century.

Zemsky Sobors in Russia

Only such conditions created by the estate-representative monarchy allowed the emergence and development of such an institution as the Zemsky Sobor. 1549 became outstanding in this regard. Ivan the Terrible collects people to eliminate corruption on the ground. The event was called "Cathedral of Reconciliation".

The very word at that time had a meaning "national", which determined the basis of the activity of this body.

The role of the Zemsky Sobor was to discuss political, economic and administrative issues. In fact, it was the connection of the king with the common people, passing through the filter of the needs of the boyars and the clergy.

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

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

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

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

Evolution of the role of the cathedral from Ivan the Terrible to Mikhail Romanov

If you remember something from the textbook "History, Grade 7", no doubt, the period of the XVI-XVII centuries was one of the most intriguing, from the child-killer tsar and ending with a troubled time when the interests of various noble families collided and emerged from scratch Folk heroes like Ivan Susanin.
Let's see what exactly happened at this time.

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

The next period includes the dark time of the Troubles. It continues until the overthrow of Basil Shuisky in 1610. It was in these years that the importance of the Zemsky Sobor changes radically. Now they serve the idea that the new pretender to the throne is promoting. In general, the decisions of such meetings at that time were at odds with the strengthening of statehood.

The next stage became the "golden age" for this institution of power. The activities of the Zemsky Sobor united the legislative and executive functions. In fact, this was the period of temporary rule of the "Parliament of Tsarist Russia".
After the emergence of a permanent ruler, the period of restoration of the state after the devastation begins. It was at this time that qualified advice was needed for a young and inexperienced tsar. Therefore, the cathedrals play the role of an advisory body. Their participants help the ruler to understand financial and administrative issues.

For nine years, since 1613, the boyars have been able to streamline the collection of five-figure money, prevent a second invasion of Polish-Lithuanian troops, and restore the economy after the Troubles.

Since 1622, not a single cathedral has been held for ten years. The situation in the country was stable, so there was no special need for it.

Zemsky Sobors in the 17th century increasingly assume the role of a regulator in the sphere of domestic, but more often foreign policy. The accession of Ukraine, Azov, Russian-Polish-Crimean relations and many issues are resolved through this instrument.

Since the second half of the seventeenth century, the significance of such events has fallen significantly, and by the end of the century it has stopped altogether. The most noteworthy became the two cathedrals - in 1653 and 1684 years.

At the first, the Zaporozhye army was accepted into the Moscow State, and in 1684 the last meeting took place. It decided the fate of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
This concludes the history of the Zemsky Sobor. Particularly contributed to this Peter the First by his policy of establishing absolutism in the state.
But let's take a closer look at the events of one of the most important cathedrals in the history of Russia.

Prehistory of the Cathedral of 1613

After the death of Fyodor Ioannovich , Russia had a Time of Troubles. He was the last of the descendants of Ivan Vasilyevich Grozny. His brothers were killed earlier. The elder, John, as scientists believe, fell at the hands of his father, and the younger, Dmitry, disappeared in Uglich. He is considered dead, but there are no reliable facts of his death.

Thus, since 1598, a complete mess begins. Consistently ruled in the country, Irina, the wife of Fyodor Ioannovich, and Boris Godunov. Next on the throne visited the son of Boris, Theodore, False Dmitry First and Vasily Shuisky.

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

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

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

Thus, in 1612 Pozharsky and Minin, at the head of the national militia, drove Polish-Lithuanian troops out of the capital. All preconditions for bringing order to the country were created.

Convening

As we know, the Zemsky Sobor in the 17th century was an element of government (as opposed to spiritual). Secular power needed advice, which in many respects repeated the functions of the Slavic Veche, when all free men of the family converged and solved pressing issues.

Before that, the first Zemsky Sobor of 1549 was still a joint one. Representatives of the church and secular authorities participated in it. Later, only the metropolitan spoke from the clergy.

This happened in October 1612, when, after the expulsion of the Polish-Lithuanian troops that occupied the heart of the capital, the Kremlin began to bring the country in order. The army of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which occupied Moscow, was liquidated quite simply because hetman Khotkevich ceased to support it. In Poland, they already realized that they can not win in the situation that has arisen.

Thus, after cleansing all external occupation forces, it was necessary to establish a normal strong power. For this purpose, the messengers were sent to all the provinces and volosts with the proposal to join the chosen people to the general cathedral in Moscow.

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

The only place that could accommodate all the people who arrived was the Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin. According to different data, the total number of them was from seven hundred to one and a half thousand people.

Candidates

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

Russian know, though, and submitted its candidacy for the Zemsky Sobor of 1613, had no special weight in the eyes of the public. Let's see which of the representatives of the princes' surnames aspired to power.

The Shuiskys, as well-known descendants of the Rurik dynasty, were undoubtedly confident enough in the victory. However, the danger that they, and found themselves in a similar situation, the Godunovs, will begin to take revenge on past offenders who overthrew their ancestors, was very high. Therefore, the chances of their victory were miserable, since many of the voters were in kinship with those who could suffer from the new rulers.

The Kurakins, the Mstislavl and other princes, who once cooperated with the Kingdom of Poland and the Principality of Lithuania, though they made an attempt to join the government, were fiasco. The people did not forgive them for betrayal.

The Golitsyns could well have ruled the Moscow kingdom, had their strongest representative not languished in captivity in Poland.

Vorotynsky did not have a bad past, but for secret reasons, their candidate, Ivan Mikhailovich, filed for self-withdrawal. The most plausible version is his participation in the "Semiboyar".

And, finally, the most suitable candidates for this vacancy are Pozharsky and Trubetskoi. In principle, they could have won, because they particularly distinguished themselves during the Troubles, knocked out Polish-Lithuanian troops from the capital. However, let them, in the eyes of the local nobility, not a very prominent pedigree. In addition, the composition of the Zemsky Sobor was not groundlessly afraid of the subsequent "cleansing" of the participants in the Semiboyar region, with which these candidates were more likely to start their political career.

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

Official motives

Many scientists were interested in this topic. Is it a joke - to determine the real course of events during the formation of the basis of modern Russian statehood!
As the history of the Zemsky Sobor shows, people were able to make the most correct decisions together.

Judging by the records of the protocol, the first decision of the people was to exclude all foreign applicants from the list of candidates. Neither Vladislav nor the Swedish king Karl could participate in the "race".

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

Semiboyarschina, participation in the uprisings, support for Swedish and Polish-Lithuanian troops - all these factors played a significant role against all candidates.

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

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

Next, we will talk about the events that led to the well-known to all turn of history.

First version of events

The 17th century in the history of Russia had a special significance. It is from this period that we know such names as Minin and Pozharsky, Trubetskoi, Godunov, Shuisky, False Dmitry, Susanin and others.

It was at this time the will of fate, or maybe, the god's finger, but the soil for the future empire was formed. If it were not for the Cossacks, which we will talk about a little later, the course of history would most likely be completely different.

So, what is the benefit of Mikhail Romanov?

According to the official version, set forth by many respected historians, such as Tcherepnin, Degtyarev and others, there were several factors.

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

The second factor was the involvement of his father in the events connected with False Dmitry II. That is, all defectors from Tushino could not be afraid of revenge or punishment of the new king.

In addition, Patriarch Filaret, his father, enjoyed authority in the spiritual life of the Moscow kingdom, and most monasteries supported this nomination.

Of all the applicants, only this genus was least associated with the Commonwealth during the "Semiboyarschina", so the patriotic feelings of the people were completely satisfied. Still: a boyar of the family of Ivan Kalita, who has a high-ranking clergyman among his relatives, an opponent of the oprichnina and, moreover, a young and "pious", as described by Sheremetev. Here are some factors, according to the official version of events, influenced the accession of Mikhail Romanov.

Second version of the cathedral

Opponents consider the following factor to be the main motive for the election of the said candidate. Sheremetiev rather strongly sought power, but the direct way could not reach it because of ignorance of the clan. In view of this, as history teaches us (Grade 7), he developed an unusually active activity in the popularization of Mikhail Romanov. It was profitable for him, because his chosen one was a simple, inexperienced young man from the remote area. He did not understand anything either in the government, in the capital's life, or in intrigues.

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

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

The decisive vote is postponed for three weeks. And at this time, there are many important events in both opposing camps.

Boyars, who opposed this candidacy, made an attempt to get rid of Romanov. A detachment of Polish-Lithuanian soldiers was sent to eliminate the unwanted challenger. But the future tsar was saved first by the unknown peasant Ivan Susanin. He led the chastisers into the swamp, where they safely and disappeared (together with the national hero).

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

Of course, we should not belittle the role of the Zemsky Sobor, but without the active and urgent actions of these detachments, the future tsar would not actually have a chance. It was they who actually put him on the throne by force. We'll talk about this below.

The last attempt of the boyars to avoid the victory of Romanov was the way out to the people, so to speak, "to see". However, judging by the documents, Shuisky was frightened of failure, in view of the fact that Mikhail was a simple and illiterate person. He could discredit himself if he began to speak to voters. That's why we needed tough and urgent actions.

Why did the Cossacks intervene?

Most likely, due to Shuisky's active actions and the near failure of his company, and also as a result of the boyars' attempt to "dishonorably deceive" Cossacks, the following events occurred.

The significance of the Zemsky Sobor, of course, is great, but aggressive and brute force is often more effective. In fact, at the end of February 1613 there was a similarity of storming the Winter Palace.

The Cossacks broke into the Metropolitan's house and demanded to call a people for discussion. They unanimously wanted to see their Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, "a man from a benevolent root is a good industry and honor of the family."
A frightened clergyman called the boyars, and under pressure, a unanimous decision was made about the accession of this candidate.

The Cathedral Vow

This is actually the protocol that constituted the Zemsky Sobors in Russia. A copy of such a document the delegation delivered to the future tsar and his mother on March 2 in Kolomna. Since Mikhail was only seventeen at that time, it's no surprise that he was frightened and immediately flatly refused to ascertain the throne.

However, some researchers of this period argue that this move was later corrected, since the catholic oath virtually completely repeats the document read by Boris Godunov. "To confirm the people in the thought of the modesty and piety of their king."

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

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