The main milestones of the Time of Troubles in Russia

Zemsky Sobor in 1613. Election to Russian throne king from the Romanov dynasty

In January 1613, the Zemsky Sobor met in Moscow, at which the issue of electing a new tsar was decided. We can say that he was in some way, the Constituent Assembly of that era. After 30 long debates, the choice fell on Mikhail Romanov. The most important criterion was the fact that he was the great-nephew of the first wife of Ivan the Terrible, Anastasia Romanovna. Played my part and young age Michael. At the time of his election, he was only 16 years old. Some boyars believed that, using his young age, they would rule behind his back. In July 1613, the wedding of Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom took place. The young monarch got an extremely ruined kingdom. Bandit gangs and Polish detachments raged in many parts of the country. In the autumn of 1614, Sweden launched military operations against Russia. However, they soon ended, and in 1617 peace was signed between Russia and Sweden. However, according to the articles of the Stolbovsky peace, the Baltic coast remained with Sweden. A year later, Moscow diplomats signed the Deulino truce with Poland. The Poles left Smolensk and other lands behind them, but returned noble Russian captives from captivity, among whom was the father of the tsar, Metropolitan Filaret. An important feature initial stage Mikhail's reign was the continuous work of the Zemsky Sobor, which from 1613 to 1622, for 10 years, made decisions and determined the most important directions of state policy. The subject of special concern of the Moscow government was the improvement of the general welfare. To this end, measures were taken to provide service people with local lands and peasants. During this period, further enslavement of the peasantry took place. There was a process of development and streamlining of the tax and financial systems. During the time of Mikhail Romanov, manufactory production received an impulse. Mikhail Fedorovich himself patronized the construction of gunpowder mills, greenery production and saltpeter breweries. He regularly ordered miners, metallurgists, gunsmiths, watchmakers, jewelers and other specialists from abroad. Under him, three ironworks, large for those times, were built near Tula. With the help of foreigners, weapons and iron foundries were built in the Urals. During the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, the territory of the country increased significantly due to the peaceful development of the sparsely populated regions of the North, Eastern Siberia and Far East.

Time of Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676) 31 In July 1645 Tsar Mikhail died. Contemporaries testify that in connection with this, the Zemsky Sobor was convened, which elected his son Alexei Mikhailovich to the throne and swore allegiance to him. This period is characterized by the influence of constantly operating factors that decisively determined the nature and direction of Russian history. - The country continued to overcome the consequences of troubled times. - Heavy military confrontation with Poland, Sweden and Turkey, requiring significant resources and forces of the nation. - Development and strengthening of economic and cultural contacts with the West. Strengthening the influence of European civilization. - The continued territorial expansion of the state and the development of vast undeveloped regions of Siberia, the Far East and the South of Russia. The first years of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich became a time of serious social collisions and upheavals. During this period, a tax reform was carried out. The procedure for collecting payments and carrying out duties has been changed. Instead of the former, land-based principle of tax collection, they began to be collected according to the cash amount of peasants on estates and estates, which relieved the nobles of the need to pay for empty plots and increased the taxation of large land holdings. In 1646 - 1648. a household inventory of peasants and beans was carried out. The strengthening of tax oppression by the state led to social conflict and exacerbation of the class struggle. The reasons for this should also be sought in the growing role of the prikaz bureaucracy. V mid-seventeenth v. the country was shaken by the “salt riot”, urban uprisings, the “copper riot” and, finally, a powerful uprising led by S.T. Razin. No wonder contemporaries called the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich a “rebellious age.” An important moment in the legal development of Russian society in the period under review was the development and adoption at the Zemsky Sobor in 1649 of the most important legal document of that era - the Cathedral Code. The significance of the new legal document was that all classes of society were subordinated to the interests of the state. With the help of the Code, the state "seated", - in the words of V.O. Klyuchevsky, - social classes according to tightly locked class cells. In the Code, the desire of the state to gather all the available forces of the nation and subjugate them to itself found legal expression. The code enserfed a significant layer, the so-called "owning peasants." The fortress also housed the service class, which was obliged to serve the state. During this period, Russia waged heavy wars with Poland and Sweden. The raids of the Crimean khans posed a great danger to her. During the period under review, Russia maintained active trade and economic relations with the states of Northern Europe. Important role the city of Arkhangelsk then played in this trade.

Time of Troubles- a difficult period of Russian history. For many it became fatal, but for the House of Romanov this period was the beginning of the 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, I must say that this opinion is fully justified. After all, the main reason for the beginning of this period is the termination of the Rurik dynasty. Here it is necessary to note another important fact, this suppression affected only the Moscow branch of the dynasty, and not the whole family, as some believe.

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

Reason for convocation Zemsky Cathedral 1613 simple and obvious - the period ended, which in domestic science was called the Time of Troubles. For a long time, Russia was dominated by various court factions. 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 in parallel Russia was "ruled" by the Tush thief - False Dmitry II. Then the boyar government came to power in Russia - the Seven Boyars, which, by its actions, actually let the 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 the new king.
But before starting to consider the activities of the only complete Zemsky Sobor in Russian history, we need to recall the reasons for its convocation and the events preceding this moment.

So, "on the night of January 6 to 7, 1598, after a serious illness, he passed away" Sovereign Fedor I Ioannovich, the youngest son of John IV Vasilyevich the Terrible. Little is said about the reign of this man in historical science, but when you begin to consider in detail this short period of 14 years, you understand how significant it was for the subjects of Fyodor Ivanovich. He was the "Prayer King", and the assertion of some historians about his insanity has to go against the grain. He was little involved in state affairs, shifting most of them to the closest associate of Boris Fyodorovich Godunov, but he was engaged in them. He was far from the military aspirations of his August father, he was concerned about reverence Russian state. He performed prayers for days, which were aimed exclusively at the benefit of the country and the people. Under him, the people restored what was destroyed by his formidable parent. I would say that his 14 years of albeit non-independent rule benefited the entire state, because Russia restored its strength after the Livonian disaster, strengthened the country's borders and managed to wage war with Sweden. It is noteworthy that the campaign against the enemy was personally led by Fedor Ioannovich. Among other things, it was under Fedor I that the Moscow Metropolis received the status of a patriarchy (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 pretext 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. For the purposes of this study, this is not relevant. It is required to turn to the last stage of the struggle against the Polish-Lithuanian invaders, i.e. to the second militia under the leadership of the zemstvo headman Kuzma Minin and military governor Prince D. M. Pozharsky. In Nizhny Novgorod, from where the assembled militia began its movement to the capital, there was its administrative and political center - the Nizhny Novgorod "council of the whole earth." This “council” was a kind of mobile Zemsky Sobor. This is due to the fact that, as a result of the transfer of the militia to Yaroslavl in March 1612, this mobile body of power acquired the "character of the supreme government body."

As Cherepnin rightly noted, already during their stay in Yaroslavl, the militia worked out a political program, which set the restoration of the monarchy as its final goal. Has begun The final stage movement of the Zemstvo militia to the capital, which was still in the hands of the Polish-Lithuanian invaders. On October 26, 1612, after long battles for Moscow, the interventionists surrendered to the Russian forces. Members of the boyar duma, headed by Prince. F.I. Mstislavsky. Immediately after the occupation of the Kremlin, the provisional government began to prepare for the convening of the Zemsky Sobor.
Cherepnin, referring to sources, makes it clear that the cathedral had representation from all over the world. Letters were sent to the cities (Beloozero, Novgorod, Uglich, etc.) demanding that they send representatives to the cathedral. In fairness, it should be noted that until the Zemsky Sobor was convened, the government, created during the advance to Moscow by Prince Pozharsky and the Zemstvo headman Minin, acted.

The consecrated cathedral (an integral curia of a full zemstvo sobor) 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 stands 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 of Rostov and Yaroslavl Kirill (Zavidov), 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. Probably, this confusion is connected with 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 is that Metropolitan Kirill (Zavidov) was in the convoy of the second Zemstvo militia and blessed him for the feat of arms - to free the capital from the interventionists, which was indicated earlier.

The most important difference from other cathedrals of the Russian state is that this cathedral is complete, which, in principle, was neither before nor after the events described. The main sign of his high representation is the signatures made on the reverse side of the approved diploma. At the same time, it is noted that signatures were put on it until 1617, so the total number of 235 “assaults” does not indicate its full composition. Most likely, the total number of participants varies from 700 to 800 people.
Separately, it is worth dwelling on the candidates for the highest, as they would now put it, "public post". In addition to the Russian titled families, there were other applicants 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 Karl Philip, Duke of Södermanland (since 1611), son of the King of Sweden Charles IX and his wife Queen Christina, nee Princess of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp.
The Polish pretender was King Vladislav (later King of Poland Vladislav IV), son of the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund III and his wife Anna, nee Archduchess of Austria. It is noteworthy that on August 17, 1610, an agreement was concluded between the “Seven Boyars” and the Polish hetman Zholkevsky on the election of Vladislav to the Moscow throne. But this agreement has no factual grounds, because. Vladislav had to convert 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 should not be accepted to 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 also considered. But "Don't look for Marinka and your son and don't want to." Prince I.M. was also called another possible contender. Vorotynsky, but, according to the official version, the prince recused himself and personally went with an 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 and others.

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 person who, due to his age, could not light up in the political arena. Plus, the benevolent attitude towards Mikhail Fedorovich of the mob and Cossacks, who, according to various sources, wished 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 a new Sovereign, and with him the entire dynasty. The candidacy of Mikhail Fedorovich was accepted on February 7 and "by the unanimous will of the Russian land and with the blessing of the church" was 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 the conciliar oath, which proclaimed him the Tsar and Grand Duke of all Russia. I must say that the adoption of the throne took place according to the ancient Russian tradition. The embassy came to the chosen tsar and his mother three times, persuading them to accept the Hat of Monomakh. For the third time, the icon of the Most Holy Theotokos arrived with the embassy. After long hesitation and persuasion, the Archbishop of Ryazan and Murom Theodoret blessed the new monarch for the Kingdom.

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

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

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

Kotoshikhin himself gives the following description of the duties of the ruling monarch: “to be not cruel and not weeping, without trial and without guilt, do not execute anyone for anything, and think about all sorts of things with the boyars and thoughtful people sopcha, and without their knowledge secretly and openly don't do anything." 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 in Russia there is not an absolute, but a limited monarchy. And in this he is very clearly supported by the other mentioned foreign authors. Here is an excerpt from Starling, which Cherepnin also took: “1) Observe and protect religion. 2) Everything that happened to his father, to forget and forgive, and not to remember any private enmity, whatever it was. 3) Do not create new laws and do not repeal old ones. Important matters according to the law and not at one's own discretion, but by the right court to decide. 4) Do not accept either war or peace with neighbors alone and at your own discretion, and 5) Your estates, for the sake of justice and in order to avoid any processes with private individuals, either cede to your relatives, or attach them to state property.

The Russian 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, early. In the 17th century, he says that this was how the process of becoming a new dynasty was perceived by the people. He accepts that there was a formal restriction of power, because then for almost 10 years the tsar rules, in accordance with the Zemstvo sobors, but he points out that this was only a “consequence of unity.” Other scholars have expressed similar views on the restricted record. There were also those who believed that the restrictive record existed (V.P. Alekseev, M.A. Dyakonov, L.M. Sukhotin).

One way or another, there are no such materials among domestic sources, and the cited thoughts of historians give reason to doubt the validity of the data expressed by foreign sources. Of course, one must take into account the words of foreign sources, but it must be remembered that Kotoshikhin wrote his work by order of the Swedish government. Russia will face this state more than once and in XVII-XIX centuries. Of course, at that time Grigory Karpovich did not assume this, but apparently he guessed. 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 about the existence of a record that limits 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, 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 cathedral, which did not follow the path of the Seven Boyars and abandoned the idea of ​​calling Catholic princes to the Orthodox throne. And also I would like to note the phenomenon of the existence of the record. To our great regret, we cannot give an exact answer to this question, but we can agree with worthy domestic historians that, nevertheless, this record hardly existed. Nevertheless, let's hope that new research and research will give ground for reflection to modern scientists and open the veil of secrecy over the existence of a record about which almost nothing is known.

NOTES

The Rurikovichi of the Moscow branch had another "name" - Kalitichi.

Volodikhin D.M. Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich. - M .: Young Guard, 2011. S. 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 actually 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 of the XVI-XVII centuries. – M.: Nauka, 1978. S. 180.

The date is given in Julian style.

Tsvetaev D.V. The election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the kingdom. - M., 1913. S. 13.

Holstein-Gottorp is a German ducal house that emerged from the Oldenburg dynasty. House members in different time were the 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.

The approved letter of election to the Moscow State of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov with a preface by S.A. Belokurova. M., 1906. P.71.

Prince Dmitry Mamstrukovich Cherkassky. Near 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 Vasilievich Golitsyn. Boyar. 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 procurement of state papers. 1899. Vol.1. S. 35.

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

In this regard, Fedor Nikitich Romanov (Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Filaret), father of Mikhail I Fedorovich, is remembered.

Cherepnin L.V. Decree. op. S. 205.

REFERENCES

SOURCES

Acts related to the history of zemstvo cathedrals / Ed. Yu.V. Gauthier. Moscow: Typography Vilde, 1909. 76p.

The approved letter of election to the Moscow State of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov with a preface by S.A. Belokurova. // 2nd edition of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University. Moscow, 1906. 110 p., illustration.

Kotoshikhin G.K. About Russia in the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. - M., 2000.

LITERATURE

Belyaev I.D. Zemsky Sobors in Russia. - M., 1902 - 80s.

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 procurement of state papers. 1899. -

Platonov S.F. Essays on the history of the Time of Troubles in the Muscovite state. - M., 1978.

Tsvetaev D.V. The election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the kingdom. - M., 1913.

Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian state of the XVI-XVII centuries. – M.: Nauka, 1978. – 417p.

Zemsky Sobor in 1613

Already in November 1612, the leaders of the Second Militia sent letters to the cities with an appeal to gather at the Zemsky Sobor "for royal ripping off." The period of waiting for the elected was extended for a long time, and, most likely, the work of the cathedral began only in January 1613. The messengers arrived from 50 cities, in addition, the highest clergy, boyars, members of the "Council of the whole earth", palace officials, clerks, representatives of the nobility and the Cossacks. Among the elected were also service people "according to the instrument" - archers, gunners, townspeople and even black-haired 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 sobor practice of the 16th–17th centuries.

The work of the Council began with the adoption of a significant decision: "The Lithuanian and Sviatian king and their children, for their many lies, and no other lands of people to the Muscovite state ... and do not want Marinka and her son." The candidacies of “princes who serve in the Muscovite state”, that is, Siberian princes, descendants of Khan Kuchum and the ruler of Kasimov, were also rejected. Thus, the Council immediately determined the circle of candidates - the "great" families of the Moscow State, the big boyars. According to various sources, the names named at the Cathedral 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. Doubtful news has been preserved that Prince D. M. Pozharsky also put forward his candidacy. In the heat of a parochial dispute, the nobleman Sumin reproached Pozharsky that he "sovereigned and reigned" and this "became him twenty thousand." Most likely, this is nothing more than a slander. Subsequently, Sumin himself renounced these words, and the leader of the Second Militia simply did not and could not have that kind of money.

The candidacy of Mstislavsky, undoubtedly one of the most noble applicants in origin from Gediminas and kinship with the dynasty of Moscow tsars (he was a great-great-grandson Ivan III), could not be taken seriously, since as early as 1610 he declared that he would be tonsured a monk if he was forced to accept the throne. He did not enjoy sympathy for his openly pro-Polish position. The candidacies of the boyars who were part of the Seven Boyars were also assigned - I. N. Romanov and F. I. Sheremetev. The greatest chances were for the candidates who were part of the militia - the princes D. T. Trubetskoy, I. B. Cherkassy and P. I. Pronsky.

Trubetskoy developed the most active pre-election activity: “Establishing meals and honest tables and many feasts for the Cossacks and for a month and a half all the Cossacks, forty thousand, inviting crowds to their yard all day long, receiving honor for them, feeding and singing honestly and praying to them, so that he be king in Russia ... ”Shortly after the liberation of the Kremlin from the Poles, Trubetskoy settled down in the former court of Tsar Boris Godunov, emphasizing his claims. A letter was also prepared for the award of Trubetskoy to the vast territory of the volost Vaga (on the Dvina), the possession of which was a kind of stepping stone to royal power- Vaga was once owned by Boris Godunov. This charter was signed by the highest hierarchs and leaders of the united militia - princes D. M. Pozharsky and P. I. Pronsky, but ordinary participants in the cathedral refused to sign the charter. 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. Probably, there were other claims against Trubetskoy, and his candidacy was not able to get enough votes.

The struggle unfolded in a second round, and then new names arose: the steward Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, Prince Dmitry Mamtryukovich Cherkassky, Prince Ivan Ivanovich Shuisky. They also remembered the Swedish prince Karl-Philip. Finally, the candidacy of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov prevailed, whose merits were his kinship with the former dynasty (he was the nephew of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich) and his untaintedness in the betrayals and strife of the Time of Troubles.

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

Many supporters were found among Mikhail Romanov and among the boyars. This was no longer the close-knit, kindred Romanov clan against which Godunov directed his repressions, but a circle of people from the crushed boyar groups that spontaneously formed at the Council. Basically, these were young representatives of famous families who did not have sufficient weight among the boyars - the Sheremetevs (with the exception of the boyar Fedor Ivanovich), Prince I.F. Troekurov, Golovins, M.M. and B.M. Saltykov, Prince P.I. Pronsky, A. M. and A. A. Nagye, Prince P. A. Repnin and others. Some were related to the new tsar, others through the Tushino camp were connected with Mikhail's father, Filaret Romanov, others had previously supported Trubetskoy's candidacy, but reoriented themselves in time. However, for the "old" boyars, members of the Seven Boyars, Mikhail Romanov was also his own - I, N. Romanov was his own nephew, Prince B. M. Lykov was his wife's nephew, F. I. Sheremetev was married to Mikhail's cousin. Princes F. I. Mstislavsky and I. M. Vorotynsky were related to him.

True, the candidacy of Mikhail Romanov "passed" far from immediately. In mid-February, the Council took a break in meetings - Great Lent began - and political disputes were left for a while. Apparently, negotiations with the “voters” (many of the participants in the council left the capital for a while and then returned) made it possible to achieve the desired compromise. On the very first day of the beginning of work, February 21, the Cathedral adopted final decision on the election of Mikhail Fedorovich. According to the “Tale of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613”, this decision of the elected was influenced by the decisive call of the Cossack chieftains, supported by the Moscow “world”: “By God’s will, in the reigning city of Moscow and all Russia, let there be a tsar Grand Duke Mikhailo Fedorovich and all of Russia!

At this time, Mikhail, together with his mother, nun Martha, was in the Kostroma Ipatiev Monastery, the Godunov family monastery, richly decorated and gifted by this family. On March 2, 1613, an embassy was sent to Kostroma headed by Archbishop Feodorit of Ryazan, boyars F.I. Sheremetev, Prince V.I. The ambassadors were still preparing to leave the capital, and letters had already been sent throughout Russia with a notice of the election of Mikhail Fedorovich to the throne and the oath to the new tsar began.

The embassy reached Kostroma on 13 March. The next day, a procession with the miraculous images of the Moscow saints Peter, Alexy and Jonah and the miraculous Fedorovskaya Icon of the Mother of God, especially revered by the Kostroma residents, went to the Ipatiev Monastery. Its participants begged Mikhail to accept the throne, just as they persuaded Godunov fifteen years ago. However, the situation, although similar in appearance, was fundamentally 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 really afraid of what was revealed to them. Elder Martha convinced the elect that her son “has no idea of ​​being a king in such great glorious states ...” She also spoke about the dangers that lie in wait for her son on this path: “People of the Muscovite state of all ranks have become faint of heart due to 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, this son, due to his infancy, will not be able to cope.

The messengers from the Council persuaded Michael and Martha for a long time, until finally the “plea” with the holy things did not bear fruit. It was supposed to prove to young Michael that the human "want" expresses the Divine will. Mikhail Romanov and his mother gave their consent. On March 19, the young tsar moved to Moscow from Kostroma, but he 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, in a month and a half of his “march” from Kostroma to Moscow, Mikhail Romanov got comfortable with his position, gathered loyal people around him and established relations that were convenient for him with the Zemsky Sobor and the Boyar Duma.

The election of Mikhail Romanov was the result of the finally achieved unity of all sections of Russian society. Perhaps for the first time in Russian history, public opinion has solved the most important problem of state life. Innumerable disasters and the fall in the authority of the ruling strata led to the fact that the fate of the state passed into the hands of the "land" - the council of representatives of all estates. Only serfs and serfs did not participate in the work of the Zemsky Sobor in 1613. It could not be otherwise - the Russian state continued to be a feudal monarchy, under which entire categories of the population were deprived of political rights. public structure 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 referred to as "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 Troubles, starting from 1598, and the new sovereign was the true one.

Thus, the election of Mikhail Fedorovich ended the political crisis. Distinguished by neither state talents, nor experience, nor energy, the young king possessed one quality important for the people of that era - he was deeply religious, always aloof from enmity and intrigue, strove to achieve the truth, showed sincere kindness and generosity.

Historians agree that the state activities Mikhail Romanov was striving for the reconciliation of society on a conservative basis. Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich was faced with the task of overcoming the consequences of the Time of Troubles. King Sigismund could not come to terms with the collapse of his plans: having occupied Smolensk and a vast territory in the west and south-west of Russia, he intended to go on the offensive against 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 the entire territory of the state. Mordovians, Tatars, Mari and Chuvashs were worried in the Volga region, Bashkirs in Bashkiria, Khanty and Mansi on the Ob, and local tribes in Siberia. Ataman Zarutsky fought in the vicinity of Ryazan and Tula. The state was in the deepest economic and political crisis. To fight the numerous enemies of Russia and the state order, to calm and arrange the country, it was necessary to unite all the healthy forces of the state. Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich throughout his reign sought to achieve this goal. The leaders of the zemstvo movement of 1612 were the tsar's firm support in the fight against external enemies, restoring order within the state and restoring the destroyed economy and culture.