Creation

The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 is unique in that

The cathedral elected Mikhail Romanov to reign, marking the beginning of a new dynasty.

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 5
Zemsky Sobors were convened in Russia repeatedly over a century and a half - from the middle of the 16th to the end of the 17th century (finally abolished by Peter I). However, in all other cases, they played the role of an advisory body under the current monarch and, in fact, did not limit his absolute power. The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was convened in the conditions of a dynastic crisis. His main task was to elect and legitimize a new dynasty on the Russian throne.

background

The dynastic crisis in Russia erupted in 1598 after the death of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich. At the time of his death, Fedor remained the only son of Tsar Ivan the Terrible. Two other sons were killed: the eldest, John Ioannovich, died in 1581, presumably at the hands of his father; the younger, Dmitry Ioannovich, in 1591 in Uglich under unclear circumstances. Fedor had no children of his own. After his death, the throne passed to the wife of the king, Irina, then to her brother Boris Godunov. After the death of Boris in 1605, the following ruled successively:
- Boris's son, Fyodor Godunov
- False Dmitry I (versions about the true origin of False Dmitry I - see the article)
After the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky from the throne as a result of the uprising on July 17 (27), the power in Moscow passed to the interim boyar government (see Seven Boyars). In August 1610, part of the population of Moscow swore allegiance to Prince Vladislav, the son of the Polish king and Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund III. In September, the army of the Commonwealth entered the Kremlin. The actual power of the Moscow government in 1610-1612 was minimal. Anarchy reigned in the country, the northwestern lands (including Novgorod) were occupied by Swedish troops. In Tushino near Moscow, the Tushino camp of another impostor, False Dmitry II, continued to function (False Dmitry II himself was killed in Kaluga in December 1610). To liberate Moscow from the invaders, the First People's Militia (under the leadership of Prokopiy Lyapunov, Ivan Zarutsky and Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy), and then the Second People's Militia under the leadership of Kuzma Minin and Prince Dmitry Pozharsky, were successively assembled. In August 1612, the Second Militia, with part of the forces remaining near Moscow from the First Militia, defeated the army of the Commonwealth, and in October completely liberated the capital.

convocation of the council

Motives for election

According to the point of view officially recognized during the era of the Romanovs (and later rooted in Soviet historiography), the council voluntarily, expressing the opinion of the majority of the inhabitants of Russia, decided to elect Romanov, in accordance with the opinion of the majority. This point of view was developed by the historian N. A. Lavrovsky, who, having studied the reports of sources, built the following scheme of events. Initially, the participants of the council decided not to choose the king from Lithuania and Sweden "with their children and Marinka with her son, as well as all foreign sovereigns", but "to choose from Moscow and Russian families." Then the participants of the council began to discuss the question of whom to elect "from the Russian clans" and decided "to elect a tsar from the tribe of the righteous ... Feodor Ivanovich of All Russia of blessed memory" - his nephew Mikhail Romanov. This description of the work of the Cathedral was repeated many times, until the beginning of the twentieth century. This position was held, in particular, by the largest Russian historians of the 18th-20th centuries: N. M. Karamzin, S. M. Solovyov, N. I. Kostomarov, V. N. Tatishchev and others.

“There was then no one dearer to the Russian people than the Romanov family. For a long time he was in the love of the people. There was a good memory of the first wife of Ivan Vasilyevich, Anastasia, whom the people for her virtues revered almost as a saint. They remembered and did not forget her good brother Nikita Romanovich and condoled with his children, whom Boris Godunov tortured and overworked. They respected Metropolitan Philaret, the former boyar Fyodor Nikitich, who was a prisoner in Poland and seemed like a true Russian martyr for a just cause.

N. I. Kostomarov

Sessions

The cathedral opened on January 16. The opening was preceded by a three-day fast, the purpose of which was cleansing from the sins of unrest. Moscow was almost completely destroyed and devastated, so they settled, regardless of origin, where they could. Everyone converged in the Assumption Cathedral day after day. The interests of the Romanovs at the cathedral were defended by the boyar Fyodor Sheremetev. Being a relative of the Romanovs, however, he himself could not claim the throne, since, like some other candidates, he was part of the Seven Boyars.
One of the first decisions of the council was the refusal to consider the candidacies of Vladislav and Karl Philip, as well as Marina Mnishek:

“... But the Lithuanian and Sviatian king and their children, for their many lies, and no other people should be robbed of the Moscow state, and Marinka and her son should not be wanted”

S. F. Platonov

But even after such a decision, the Romanovs were still opposed by many strong candidates. Of course, they all had certain shortcomings (see above). However, the Romanovs also had an important drawback - in comparison with the old Russian families, they clearly did not shine with their origin. The first historically reliable ancestor of the Romanovs is traditionally considered the Moscow boyar Andrei Kobyla, who came from a Prussian princely family.

First version

According to the official version, the election of the Romanovs became possible due to the fact that the candidacy of Mikhail Romanov turned out to be a compromise in many respects:
- Having received a young, inexperienced monarch on the Moscow throne, the boyars could hope to put pressure on the tsar in solving key issues.
- Mikhail's father, Patriarch Filaret, was for some time in the camp of False Dmitry II. This gave hope to the defectors from the Tushino camp that Mikhail would not settle accounts with them.
- Patriarch Filaret, in addition, enjoyed undoubted authority in the ranks of the clergy.
- The Romanov clan sullied itself to a lesser extent by collaborating with the "unpatriotic" Polish government in 1610-1612. Although Ivan Nikitich Romanov was part of the Seven Boyars, he was in opposition to the rest of his relatives (in particular, Patriarch Filaret and Mikhail Fedorovich) and did not support them at the council.
- The most liberal period of his reign was associated with Anastasia Zakharyina-Yuryeva, the first wife of Tsar Ivan the Terrible.
“Let's choose Misha Romanov! - boyar Fyodor Sheremetyev campaigned without hiding his intentions. “He is young and will be familiar to us!” ... The desire to have a "common" inexperienced monarch is the goal pursued by highly experienced and cunning Moscow politicians, supporters of Mikhail (A. Ya. Degtyarev)

More consistently [ ] sets out the reasons for the election of Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom of Lev Gumilyov:

“The Cossacks were in favor of Mikhail, since his father, who was friends with the Tushins, was not an enemy to the Cossacks. The boyars remembered that the father of the applicant was from a noble boyar family and, moreover, a cousin of Fyodor Ioannovich, the last tsar from the family of Ivan Kalita. The hierarchs of the church spoke out in support of Romanov, since his father was a monk, and in the rank of metropolitan, and for the nobles the Romanovs were good, as opponents of the oprichnina.

Other versions

According to a number of historians, the decision of the council was not completely voluntary. The first vote on Mikhail's candidacy took place on 4 (7?) February. The result of the vote deceived Sheremetev's expectations:

“When the majority was sufficiently prepared by Sheremetyev’s concerns, a preliminary vote was scheduled for February 4. The result, undoubtedly, deceived expectations, therefore, referring to the absence of many voters, they decided to postpone the decisive vote for two weeks ... The leaders themselves, obviously, needed a delay in order to better prepare public opinion ... ”(K. Valishevsky)

Indeed, the decisive vote was scheduled for February 21 (March 3). The council, however, made another decision, objectionable to Sheremetev: he demanded that Mikhail Romanov, like all other candidates, immediately appear at the council. Sheremetev in every possible way prevented the implementation of this decision, motivating his position with security considerations. Indeed, some evidence indicates that the life of the pretender to the throne was in danger. According to legend, a special detachment of troops from the Commonwealth was sent to the village of Domnino, where Mikhail Fedorovich was hiding, to kill him, but the Domnino peasant Ivan Susanin led the enemies into impenetrable swamps and saved the life of the future tsar. Critics of the official version offer another explanation:
February 20, 1613. On the porch of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, cellar of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra Avraamy Palitsyn read out the decision of the Zemsky Sobor "On the election of the boyar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the royal throne." (“The book on the election of the Tsar and Grand Duke Mikhail Fedorovich to the kingdom”, 1672-1673)

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

“The Russian Cossacks, who are in Moscow, wished for a boyar named Prince Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov as a grand duke. But the boyars were completely against it and rejected it at the Council, which was recently convened in Moscow. (L.V. Cherepnin)

And here is the testimony of the peasant Fyodor Bobyrkin, who also arrived in Novgorod, dated July 16 (26), five days after the coronation:

“The Moscow common people and Cossacks, of their own free will and without the general consent of other Zemstvo officials, elected the Grand Duke of Fedorov’s son, Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, who is now in Moscow. Zemstvo officials and boyars do not respect him.” (L.V. Cherepnin)

The Lithuanian commander Leo Sapieha reported the results of the elections to the captive Filaret, the father of the newly elected monarch:

“They put your son on the Muscovite state, only Don Cossacks.” (S. F. Platonov)

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

“The boyars played for time at the cathedral, trying to resolve the issue of the tsar “secretly” from the Cossacks and waiting for their departure from Moscow. But they not only did not leave, but behaved more actively. Once, having consulted with "the entire Cossack army", they sent up to five hundred people to the Krutitsy Metropolitan. Forcibly, having broken down the gate, they broke into his courtyard and demanded with “rude words”: “Give us, Metropolitan, the Tsar of the Sovereign to Russia, whom we should bow to and serve and ask for a salary, die to a smooth death!” (Romanovs , Historical portraits, edited by E. V. Leonova)

The frightened metropolitan fled to the boyars. They hurriedly called everyone to the cathedral. The Cossack chieftains repeated their demand. The boyars presented them with a list of eight boyars - the most, in their opinion, worthy candidates. The list did not include the name of Romanov! Then one of the Cossack chieftains spoke:

“Princes and boyars and all Moscow nobles! Not by the will of God, but by autocracy and by your own will, you elect an autocrat. But by the will of God and with the blessing ... of the Grand Duke Fyodor Ioannovich of All Russia, with his blessed memory, to whom, sovereign, bless his royal staff and reign in Russia, Prince Fyodor Nikitich Romanov. And that one is now full in Lithuania. And from a good root and branch, good and honor is his son, Prince Mikhailo Fedorovich. May it be fitting, according to God's will, in the reigning city of Moscow and all Russia, may there be a tsar sovereign and Grand Duke Mikhailo Fedorovich of all Russia ... "(ibid.)

Embassy in Kostroma

On March 2, an embassy was sent to Mikhail Romanov and his mother, who was in Kostroma, on behalf of the Zemsky Sobor, under the leadership of Ryazan Archbishop Theodoret Troitsky. The embassy included archimandrites of Chudov, Novospassky, Simonov monasteries, boyars F.I. Sheremetyev, V.I. Bakhteyarov-Rostovskaya, boyar children, clerks, elected from cities (Palace ranks. T. 1. SPb., 1850. Stbl .17-18). The purpose of the embassy is to notify Michael of his election to the throne and hand him the conciliar oath. According to the official version, Michael was frightened and flatly refused to reign, so the ambassadors had to use all their eloquence to convince the future king to accept the crown. Critics of the "Romanov" concept express doubts about the sincerity of the refusal and note that the conciliar oath has no historical value:
Of the year. (Palace ranks. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1850. Stbl. 95).

Literature

Similar institutions arose both in Western Europe and in the Muscovite state. However, the causes and consequences of their activities were radically different. If in the first case class meetings served as an arena for solving political issues, a battlefield for power, then in Russia such meetings were mainly used for administrative tasks. In fact, the sovereign got acquainted with the needs of the common people through such events.
In addition, such meetings arose immediately after the unification of states, both in Europe and in Muscovy, therefore, this body coped with the formation of a holistic picture of the state of affairs in the country in the best possible way.
1613, for example, played a revolutionary role in the history of Russia. It was then that Mikhail Romanov was placed on the throne, whose family ruled the country for the next three hundred years. And it was his descendants who brought the state from the backward Middle Ages to the forefront at the beginning of the twentieth century.
Zemsky Sobors in Russia
Only such conditions, which were created by the estate-representative monarchy, allowed the emergence and development of such an institution as the Zemsky Sobor. 1549 was an outstanding year in this respect. Ivan the Terrible gathers people to eliminate corruption on the ground. The event was called the "Cathedral of Reconciliation".
The very same word at that time had the meaning of "nationwide", which determined the basis of the activities of this body.
The role of the zemstvo sobors was to discuss political, economic and administrative issues. In fact, it was the tsar's connection 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 through and through with absolutism.
All free people took part in such events, that is, only serfs were not allowed. Everyone had the right to vote, but the actual and final decision was made only by the sovereign.
Since the first Zemsky Sobor was convened at the will of the tsar, and the effectiveness of its activities was quite high, this practice became stronger.
However, the functions of this institution of power changed periodically depending on the situation in the country. Let's look into this issue in more detail.
The evolution of the role of the cathedral from Ivan the Terrible to Mikhail Romanov
If you remember something from the textbook "History, Grade 7", without a doubt, the period of the 16th - 17th centuries was one of the most intriguing, starting from the child-killing king and ending with the time of troubles, when the interests of various noble families clashed and arose from scratch folk heroes like Ivan Susanin.
Let's see what exactly happened at that time.
The first Zemsky Sobor was convened by Ivan the Terrible in 1549. It has not yet been a full-fledged secular council. The clergy took an active part in it. At this time, the ministers of the church are completely subordinate to the king and serve more as a conductor of his will to the people.
The next period includes the dark time of the Troubles. It continues until the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky from the throne in 1610. It was during these years that the significance of Zemsky Sobors changed dramatically. Now they serve the idea promoted by the new pretender to the throne. Basically, the decisions of such meetings at that time ran counter to the strengthening of statehood.
The next stage became the "golden age" for this institution of power. The activities of Zemsky Sobors combined legislative and executive functions. In fact, this was the period of the temporary rule of the "parliament of tsarist Russia."
After the appearance 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 king. Therefore, cathedrals play the role of an advisory body. Their members help the ruler sort out financial and administrative issues.
For nine years, starting from 1613, the boyars managed to streamline the collection of five-fold money, prevent the re-invasion of the Polish-Lithuanian troops, and also restore the economy after the Time of Troubles.
Since 1622, not a single council has been held for ten years. The situation in the country was stable, so there was no particular need for it.
Zemsky Sobors in the 17th century increasingly assumed the role of a regulatory body in the sphere of domestic, but more often foreign policy. The accession of Ukraine, Azov, Russian-Polish-Crimean relations and many issues are resolved precisely through this tool.
From the second half of the seventeenth century, the significance of such events noticeably decreases, and by the end of the century it ceases altogether. The most notable were two cathedrals - in 1653 and 1684.
At the first, the Zaporizhzhya army was accepted into the Moscow state, and in 1684 the last gathering took place. It decided the fate of the Commonwealth.
This is where the history of Zemsky Sobors ends. Peter the Great especially contributed to this with his policy of establishing absolutism in the state.
But let's take a closer look at the events of one of the most important cathedrals in the history of Russia.
Prehistory of the Cathedral of 1613
After death, the Time of Troubles began in Russia. He was the last of the descendants of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. His brothers had died earlier. The eldest, John, as scientists believe, fell at the hands of his father, and the youngest, Dmitry, disappeared in Uglich. He is considered dead, but there are no reliable facts of his death.
Thus, from 1598, complete confusion begins. Irina, the wife of Fyodor Ioannovich, and Boris Godunov successively ruled in the country. Then the son of Boris, Theodore, False Dmitry the First and Vasily Shuisky visited the throne.
This is a period of economic decline, anarchy and the invasion of neighboring armies. In the north, for example, the Swedes ruled. In the Kremlin, with the support of part of the population of Moscow, Polish troops entered under the leadership of Vladislav, the son of Sigismund III, the Polish king and Lithuanian prince.
It turns out that the 17th century in the history of Russia played an ambiguous role. The events that unfolded in the country forced the people to come to a common desire to get rid of the devastation. There were two attempts to expel 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 convening of the Zemsky Sobor in 1613 was simply inevitable. If not for such a turn of events, who knows how history would have developed and what the situation in the state would be like today.
Thus, in Pozharsky and Minin, at the head of the people's militia, the Polish-Lithuanian troops were expelled from the capital. All the prerequisites for restoring order in the country were created.
Convocation
As we know, Zemsky Sobors in the 17th century were an element of state administration (as opposed to spiritual ones). The secular authorities needed advice, which in many respects repeated the functions of the Slavic veche, when all the free men of the clan met and resolved pressing issues.
Prior to this, the first Zemsky Sobor of 1549 was still joint. It was attended by representatives of the church and secular authorities. Later, only the metropolitan spoke from the clergy.
This happened in October 1612, when, after the expulsion of the Polish-Lithuanian troops that occupied the heart of the capital, the Kremlin, they began to put the country in order. The army of the Commonwealth, which occupied Moscow, was liquidated quite simply due to the fact that Hetman Khotkevich stopped supporting it. In Poland, they have already understood that in the current situation they cannot win.
Thus, after cleaning up all the external occupying forces, it was necessary to establish a normal strong government. For this, messengers were sent to all regions and volosts with a proposal to join the chosen people in the general council in Moscow.
However, due to the fact that the state was still devastated and not very calm, the townspeople were able to gather only a month later. Thus, the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was convened on January 6th.
The only place that could accommodate all the people who arrived was the Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin. According to various sources, their total number ranged from seven hundred to one and a half thousand people.
Candidates
The result of such chaos in the country was a large number of people who wanted to sit on the throne. In addition to the primordially Russian princely families, the rulers of other countries joined the election race. Among the latter, for example, were the Swedish prince Karl and the prince of the Commonwealth Vladislav. The latter was not in the least embarrassed by the fact that he was kicked out of the Kremlin only a month ago.
The Russian nobility, although they presented their candidatures for the Zemsky Sobor of 1613, did not have much weight in the eyes of the public. Let's see which of the representatives of the princely families aspired to power.
The Shuiskys, as well-known descendants, were undoubtedly quite sure of victory. However, the danger that they, and the Godunovs who found themselves in a similar situation, would begin to take revenge on past offenders who overthrew their ancestors was very high. Therefore, the chances of their victory turned out to be scanty, since many of the voters were related to those who could suffer from the new rulers.
Kurakins, Mstislavsky and other princes, who once collaborated with the Kingdom of Poland and the Principality of Lithuania, although they made an attempt to join power, failed. The people did not forgive them for their betrayal.
The Golitsyns could well have ruled the Moscow kingdom if their most powerful representative had not languished in captivity in Poland.
The Vorotynskys did not have a bad past, but for secret reasons their candidate, Ivan Mikhailovich, filed for self-withdrawal. The version of his participation in the "Seven Boyars" is considered the most plausible.
And, finally, the applicants most suitable for this vacancy are Pozharsky and Trubetskoy. In principle, they could have won, since they especially distinguished themselves during the Time of Troubles, knocked out the Polish-Lithuanian troops from the capital. However, they were let down, in the eyes of the local nobility, by a not very outstanding pedigree. In addition, the composition of the Zemsky Sobor feared, not without reason, the subsequent “purge” of the participants in the Seven Boyars, with which these candidates could most likely begin their political careers.
Thus, it turns out that it was necessary to find a previously unknown, but at the same time quite a noble descendant of a princely family, capable of leading the country.
official motives
Many scientists have been interested in this topic. Is it a joke - to determine the real course of events during the formation of the foundations of modern Russian statehood!
As the history of Zemsky Sobors shows, together people managed to make the most correct decisions.
Judging by the records of the protocol, the first decision of the people was to exclude all foreign applicants from the list of candidates. Neither Vladislav nor the Swedish prince Charles could now participate in the "race".
The next step was the selection of a candidate from the local representatives of the nobility. The main problem was that most of them had compromised themselves during the past ten years.
Seven boyars, participation in uprisings, support for Swedish and Polish-Lithuanian troops - all these factors played against all candidates to a large extent.
Judging by the documents, in the end there was only one left, which we did not mention above. This man was a descendant of the family of Ivan the Terrible. He was the nephew of the last legitimate tsar Theodore Ioannovich.
Thus, the election of Mikhail Romanov was the most correct decision in the eyes of the majority of voters. The only difficulty was the lack of nobility. His family descended from the boyar from the Prussian princes Andrei Kobyla.
First version of events
The 17th century in the history of Russia was of particular importance. It is from this period that we know such names as Minin and Pozharsky, Trubetskoy, Godunov, Shuisky, False Dmitry, Susanin and others.
It was at this time that by the will of fate, or perhaps by God's finger, the ground for the future empire was formed. If not for the Cossacks, which we will talk about a little later, the course of history would most likely be completely different.
So, what was the advantage of Mikhail Romanov?
According to the official version presented by many respected historians such as Cherepnin, Degtyarev and others, there were several factors.
Firstly, this applicant was quite young and inexperienced. His inexperience in state affairs would have allowed the boyars to become "gray cardinals" and in the role of advisers to be actual kings.
The second factor was the involvement of his father in the events associated with False Dmitry II. That is, all defectors from Tushino could not be afraid of revenge or punishment from the new king.
Of all the applicants, only this family was the least associated with the Commonwealth during the "Seven Boyars", so the patriotic feelings of the people were completely satisfied. Still: a boyar from the family of Ivan Kalita, who among his relatives has a clergyman of high rank, an opponent of the oprichnina and, moreover, young and “common”, as Sheremetyev described him. These are the factors, according to the official version of events, that influenced the accession of Mikhail Romanov.
The second version of the cathedral
Opponents consider the following factor to be the main motive for the election of the said candidate. Sheremetyev quite strongly strove for power, but could not achieve it directly due to the ignorance of the family. In view of this, as history teaches us (Grade 7), he developed an unusually active work to popularize Mikhail Romanov. Everything was beneficial for him, because his chosen one was a simple, inexperienced young man from the outback. He did not understand anything either in public administration, or in metropolitan life, or in intrigues.
And to whom will he be grateful for such generosity and who will he listen to 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 gathered at the Zemsky Sobor in 1613 were prepared to make the “right” decision. But something went wrong. And the first results of the voting are declared invalid "due to the absence of many voters."
The boyars, who opposed such a candidacy, made an attempt to get rid of Romanov. A detachment of Polish-Lithuanian soldiers was sent to eliminate the objectionable applicant. But the future tsar was saved by the previously unknown peasant Ivan Susanin. He led the punishers into the swamp, where they disappeared safely (along with the folk hero).
Shuisky, on the other hand, develops a slightly different front of activity. He begins to contact the atamans of the Cossacks. It is believed that this force played a major role in the accession of Mikhail Romanov.
Of course, one should not belittle the role of Zemsky Sobors, but without the active and urgent actions of these detachments, the future tsar would actually have no chance. It was they who actually put him on the throne by force. We will talk about this a little lower.
The last attempt of the boyars to avoid the victory of Romanov was his coming out to the people, so to speak, "to the bride." However, judging by the documents, Shuisky was afraid of failure, due to the fact that Mikhail was a simple and illiterate person. He could discredit himself if he began to speak to the voters. That is why tough and urgent action was needed.
Why did the Cossacks intervene?
Most likely, thanks to the active actions of Shuisky and the imminent failure of his company, as well as due to the attempt of the boyars to “dishonorably deceive” the Cossacks, the following events occurred.
The significance of Zemstvo sobors is, of course, great, but aggressive and brute force often turns out to be more effective. In fact, at the end of February 1613, there was a semblance of an assault on the Winter Palace.
The Cossacks broke into the Metropolitan's house and demanded to convene the people for discussion. They unanimously wished to see Romanov as their tsar, "a man from a good root, who is a good branch and honor of the family."
The frightened clergyman summoned the boyars, and under pressure a unanimous decision was made on the accession of this candidate.
Cathedral oath
This is actually a protocol that was drawn up by Zemsky Sobors in Russia. The delegation delivered a copy of such a document to the future tsar and his mother on March 2 in Kolomna. Since Mikhail was only seventeen years old at that time, it is not surprising that he was frightened and immediately flatly refused to ascend the throne.
However, some researchers of this period argue that this move was later corrected, since the conciliar oath actually completely repeats the document read to Boris Godunov. "To confirm the people in the thought of the modesty and piety of their king."
Be that as it may, Michael 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 got 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 its fundamental difference from the veche. No matter how similar they may be, there are several fundamental features. Firstly, the veche was local, and the cathedral was state. Secondly, the former had full power, while the latter was still more of an advisory body.

The opinions of pre-revolutionary and Soviet historians rarely coincide, but there is no disagreement regarding the Zemsky Sobor of 1613: representatives of various estates and lands of Russians in full agreement elected Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom. Alas, this blissful picture is far from reality.

In October 1612, the people's militia liberated Moscow from the Poles. The time has come to restore the country devastated by turmoil, to recreate state institutions. The empty throne of the Rurikovich was to be ascended by a legitimate, legitimate sovereign, elected by the Zemsky Sobor. On January 16, 1613, a difficult debate began in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, which determined the fate of Russia.

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 king's son Karl-Philip had more supporters, among them - the leader of the Zemstvo army, Prince Pozharsky. Why did the patriot of the Russian land opt for a foreign prince? Perhaps the antipathy of the “thin-born” Pozharsky to domestic applicants - the well-born boyars, who in the Time of Troubles more than once betrayed those to whom they swore allegiance, had an effect. He feared that the "boyar tsar" would sow the seeds of a new unrest in Russia, as happened during the short reign of Vasily Shuisky. Therefore, Prince Dmitry stood for the calling of the "Varangian".
But there is another version. In the autumn of 1612, the militia captured a Swedish spy. Until January 1613, he languished in captivity, but shortly before the beginning 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 most of the 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 there should not be a foreigner on the Russian throne, the sovereign should be elected "from Moscow families, which God wills." Was Pozharsky really so naive that he did not know the mood of the majority? Of course not. Prince Dmitry deliberately fooled Delagardie's head with "universal support" for the candidacy of Charles Philip, in order to prevent Swedish interference in the election of the king. The Russians hardly repelled the Polish onslaught, and a campaign against Moscow by the Swedish army could also turn out to be fatal. Pozharsky's "cover operation" was successful: the Swedes did not move. That is why on February 20, Prince Dmitry, safely forgetting about the Swedish prince, proposed to the Zemsky Sobor to choose a tsar from the Romanov family, and then he put his signature on the conciliar charter on the election of Mikhail Fedorovich. During the coronation of the new sovereign, it was Pozharsky who was given a high honor by Mikhail: the prince presented him with one of the symbols of power - the royal power. Modern political technologists can only envy such a competent PR move: the savior of the Fatherland hands the state to the new tsar. Beautiful. Looking ahead, we note that until his death (1642), Pozharsky faithfully served Mikhail Fedorovich, taking advantage of his unchanging location. It is unlikely that the tsar would have favored someone who wanted to see not him, but some Swedish prince on the throne of the Ruriks.
But let us return to January 1613. Only Russian pretenders, noble princes, participate in the struggle for the royal throne. But the head of the infamous "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 leaders of the militia Dmitry Trubetskoy and Dmitry Pozharsky did not differ in nobility. But the new king must unite the country split by the Time of Troubles. How to give preference to one kind, so that a new round of boyar strife does not begin?

This is where the surname of the Romanovs, relatives of the vanished Rurik dynasty, arose: Mikhail Romanov was the nephew of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich. Mikhail's father, Patriarch Filaret, was respected among the clergy and Cossacks. In favor of the candidacy of Mikhail Fedorovich, the boyar Fyodor Sheremetyev actively campaigned. He assured the obstinate boyars that Mikhail "is young and will be familiar to us." In other words, become their puppet.
But the boyars did not allow themselves to be persuaded: in the preliminary vote, the candidacy of Mikhail Romanov did not get the required number of votes. Moreover, the Council demanded the arrival of the young applicant in Moscow. The Romanov party could not allow this: an inexperienced, timid, inexperienced young man in intrigues would have made an unfavorable impression on the delegates of the Council. 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 it not then that the legend about the feat of Ivan Susanin, who saved the life of the future tsar, arose? After a heated debate, the Romanovs succeeded in persuading the Council to cancel the decision on Michael's arrival.
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 see through their thoughts in all sorts of people." The voice of the people, of course, is the voice of God, but isn't two weeks not enough to monitor the public opinion of a large country? It is not easy for a messenger to get to Siberia, for example, even in two months. Most likely, the boyars counted on the departure from Moscow of the most active supporters of Mikhail Romanov - the Cossacks. If the villagers get bored, they say, to sit idle in the city, they will disperse. The Cossacks really dispersed, so much so that the boyars did not seem a little ...

An interesting 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 the king by casting lots, but the hope for "maybe", in which any forgery is possible, seriously angered the Cossacks. Cossack orators smashed the boyar "tricks" to smithereens 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 supporters of the Romanovs, and 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", having achieved the election of Mikhail. The unknown author of the “Tale” (probably an eyewitness of what is happening) does not spare colors, describing the reaction of the boyars: “The Bolyar at that time was obsessed with fear and trembling trembling, and their faces were changing with blood, and no one could say anything.” Only Mikhailo'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 in full mind." To which the Cossack wits objected: “But you, Ivan Nikitich, are an old verst, in full mind ... you will be a strong potor to him.” Mikhail did not forget Uncle's assessment of his mental abilities and subsequently removed Ivan Kasha from all state affairs.

The Cossack demarche came as a complete surprise to Dmitry Trubetskoy: “His face is black, and falling into an ailment, and lying for many days, without leaving his courtyard from the mountain, that the Cossacks exhausted the treasury and recognized them as 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-in-arms, generously endowed them with a "treasury" - and suddenly they were on the side of Mikhail. Perhaps the Romanov party paid more?
Be that as it may, 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 Metric arrived in Moscow. Thus began the history of the second and last royal dynasty of Russia.

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 the 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” were also rejected, i.e. Siberian princes, descendants of Khan Kuchum and the ruler of Kasimov. 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. The dubious news has been preserved that Prince D.M. Pozharsky. 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 Muscovite tsars (he was a great-great-grandson of Ivan III), could not be taken for serious consideration, since back in 1610 he announced that he would take the monastic vows, if he is forced to accept the throne. He did not enjoy sympathy for his openly pro-Polish position. Candidates for the boyars who were part of the Seven Boyars were also assigned - I.N. Romanova and F.I. Sheremetev. The candidates who were part of the militia had the greatest chances - princes D.T. Trubetskoy, I.B. Cherkassy and P.I. Pronsky.

Trubetskoy developed the most active pre-election activity: “The establishment of a meal and honest tables and feasts is many for the Cossacks and in a month and a half for all 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 huge volost of Vaga (on the Dvina), the possession of which was a kind of stepping stone to royal power - Boris Godunov once owned Vaga. This letter was signed by the highest hierarchs and leaders of the united militia - princes D.M. Pozharsky and P.I. Pronsky, however, ordinary participants in the cathedral refused to sign the letter. They were well aware of the hesitations of the former Tushino boyar during the battles for Moscow, and, perhaps, could not forgive him for his oath to the Pskov thief. 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 defeated 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, Golovin, M.M. and B.M. Saltykovs, Prince P.I. Ironsky, L.M. and A.L. Naked, Prince P.L. Repnin and others. Some were 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, he was a native nephew, Prince B.M. Lykov - nephew by wife, F.I. Sheremetev was married to Mikhail's cousin. Princes F.I. were related to him. Mstislavsky and I.M. Vorotynsky.

True, the candidacy of Mikhail Romanov "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 reach the desired compromise. On the very first day of the beginning of work, February 21, the Council made a 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 of Russia, let there be the Tsar Sovereign and Grand Duke Mikhailo Fedorovich and the weight of Russia! »

At this time, Mikhail, together with his mother, nun Martha, was in the Kostroma Ipatiev Monastery, the ancestral monastery of the Godunovs, richly decorated and gifted by this family. On March 2, 1613, an embassy was sent to Kostroma, headed by the Ryazan Archbishop Feodorit, the boyars F.I. Sheremetev, Prince V.I. Bakhteyarov-Rostovsky and roundabout F.V. Golovin. 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. Having given their souls to the former sovereigns, they did not directly serve ... ”Added to this was the difficult situation in the country, which, according to Martha, her son, due to his infancy, would 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. The social structure of Russia in the 17th century. contained the origins of social contradictions that exploded in uprisings throughout the century. It is no coincidence that the 17th century is figuratively 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 basis of the state activities of Mikhail Romanov was the desire to reconcile 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 accept 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 king's firm support in the fight against external enemies, restoring order within the state and restoring the destroyed economy and culture.

Causes of the Time of Troubles:
1598-1613 - a period in the history of Russia, called the Time of Troubles.
At the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries, Russia was going through a political and socio-economic crisis. The Livonian War and the Tatar invasion, as well as the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible, contributed to the intensification of the crisis and the growth of discontent. This was the reason for the beginning of the Time of Troubles in Russia.
The first period of turmoil characterized by the struggle for the throne of various applicants. After the death of Ivan the Terrible, his son Fyodor came to power, but he was unable to rule and was actually ruled by the brother of the tsar's wife, Boris Godunov. Ultimately, his policies aroused the discontent of the masses.
The turmoil began with the appearance in Poland of False Dmitry (in reality, Grigory Otrepyev), who allegedly miraculously survived the son of Ivan the Terrible. He lured a significant part of the Russian population to his side. In 1605, False Dmitry was supported by the governors, and then by Moscow. And already in June he became the legitimate king. But he acted too independently, which caused discontent of the boyars, he also supported serfdom, which caused a protest of the peasants. On May 17, 1606, False Dmitry I was killed and V.I. Shuisky, with the condition of limiting power. Thus, the first stage of the Troubles was marked by the reign of False Dmitry I (1605 - 1606)
The second period of turmoil. In 1606, an uprising broke out, led by I.I. Bolotnikov. The ranks of the rebels included people from different strata of society: peasants, serfs, small and medium-sized feudal lords, servicemen, Cossacks and townspeople. In the battle of Moscow they were defeated. As a result, Bolotnikov was executed.
But dissatisfaction with the authorities continued. And soon False Dmitry II appears. In January 1608, his army headed for Moscow. By June, False Dmitry II entered the village of Tushino near Moscow, where he settled. In Russia, 2 capitals were formed: boyars, merchants, officials worked on 2 fronts, sometimes even received salaries from both kings. Shuisky concluded an agreement with Sweden and the Commonwealth began aggressive hostilities. False Dmitry II fled to Kaluga.
Shuisky was tonsured a monk and taken to the Chudov Monastery. In Russia, an interregnum began - the Seven Boyars (a council of 7 boyars). The Boyar Duma made a deal with the Polish interventionists and on August 17, 1610, Moscow swore allegiance to the Polish king Vladislav. At the end of 1610, False Dmitry II was killed, but the struggle for the throne did not end there.
So, the second stage was marked by the uprising of I.I. Bolotnikov (1606 - 1607), the reign of Vasily Shuisky (1606 - 1610), the appearance of False Dmitry II, as well as the Seven Boyars (1610).
Third Period of Troubles characterized by the fight against foreign invaders. After the death of False Dmitry II, the Russians united against the Poles. The war took on a national character. In August 1612, the militia of K. Minin and D. Pozharsky reached Moscow. And on October 26, the Polish garrison surrendered. Moscow was liberated. The troubled times are over.
The results of the turmoil were depressing: the country was in a terrible situation, the treasury was ruined, trade and crafts were in decline. The consequences of the Troubles for Russia were expressed in its backwardness in comparison with European countries. It took decades to restore the economy.
AT 1613 year after the liberation of Moscow from the Polish garrison, was convened Zemsky Cathedral.
It was one of the most exemplary cathedrals on the principle that it had a huge number of participants who were represented in it in the entire history of the existence of Muscovite Russia. Representatives of the clergy, the boyars (in an extremely weakened composition), the nobility, merchants, urban townspeople and state peasants sat at the cathedral. But the most powerful group was the Cossacks. It, as an estate, became especially stronger during the Time of Troubles, when its composition was significantly replenished with representatives of the city Cossacks. These included those townspeople who, during the Time of Troubles, abandoned their main occupations, formed militias, organized themselves in the manner of Cossack detachments and never returned to their previous profession. It was they who decided that now it was time to act, that is, it was necessary to plant not the throne of a weak ruler who could quickly organize a strong administration and army and, of course, fulfill certain requirements: a general amnesty and classifying them to the nobility and endowing them with estates. Many of them also demanded money for the service rendered - the liberation of Moscow. As a result, before the first meeting of the cathedral, several candidates were nominated: from the Cossacks - Romanov, from the nobles - Pozharsky, from part of the clergy and boyars - Mstislavsky. As for the merchants, artisans and peasants, they were an undecided mass. The outcome was decided before the meeting began. On the night before the opening of the cathedral, the Cossacks blocked the residences of Pozharsky and Mstislavsky and, under threat of arms, forced them to renounce their claims to the throne. No one expected such actions, however, the nobles did not want to give up and demanded several weeks of council meetings until a compromise was found. This estate took care of the preservation of the estates received during the Troubles, and the final approval of the hereditary nature of their possessions. The Cossacks agreed to the following conditions: the top of the Don Cossacks received the nobility and the right to autonomous control of their circle and the elected chieftain (he was supposed to exercise military and civil power in this territory), and the policemen would receive money. Amnesty will be received by the one who swears allegiance to the king. As a result of this agreement, Mikhail Romanov was elected tsar, the boyars go downhill and merge with the defeated nobility, and the clergy generally begin to lose autonomy (become under the control of state administration). Some of the Don Cossacks who took part in the liberation movement went home after the election of Mikhail, others remained in Moscow. They formed the basis of the government armed forces. In addition to the Don Cossacks, there were detachments of service Cossacks, who during the Time of Troubles were very imbued with the independent spirit of the Donetsk people. The Cossacks had their own military organization and did not consider themselves part of the regular army. Separate groups of them, scattered throughout the country, did not want to obey the orders of even their own seniors in rank. When supplies were depleted, they robbed the population, which was very much like robbery. In a letter to the Stroganovs dated May 25, 1613, the bishops accurately described the situation (not only regarding the Cossacks, but also about the military in general), saying that when they do not receive a salary, they either go home or willy-nilly rob. However, in addition to these forced robbers, there were many real robbers among the Cossacks. But now Romanov himself had to agree to one more condition: to share power with the Zemsky Sobor. Now it is a permanent institution that met almost without interruption throughout the reign of Mikhail Romanov. All important decisions were developed with the participation of the Council and signed as follows: by royal decree and by zemstvo verdict. The cathedral became the highest body of legislative power, without which the king could not adopt a single law and amend the legislation. The cathedral shared with the king and executive power. The reason for this is that after the Time of Troubles it was impossible to immediately restore order and law without relying on the structures that were developed during the Time of Troubles. Thus, the power of the new government was forced to be based not on force, but on popular support, primarily to restore order in the country. The Boyar Duma remained a part of the Zemsky Sobor, the highest body of government and central administration, but at the same time, some changes took place in the very composition of the Boyar Duma: the Boyar Party was discredited, its representatives were removed from the Boyar Duma. Minin and Pozharsky, Cherkassky took the first roles in the Boyar Duma, and most of the posts were okolnichi and duma nobles. nobleman - Minin. He acted in close contact with Pozharsky, he was appointed chief treasurer and ruler of Muscovy. After the death of Minin in 1616, the Boyar Duma underwent some changes. Several relatives of the tsar were introduced into its composition, who assigned the boyar title and position, but initially this did not affect the balance of power in the Duma. But gradually, with the fall of the positions of Trubetskoy and Pozharsky, the Romanov clan brought the Duma under its control. The range of issues considered by the Duma as a matter of priority was determined: Issues of liquidation of the remnants of uncontrolled armed formations Destruction of Zarutsky and Mniszek Restoration of the national economy To resolve the first two issues, it was necessary to establish contact with the Cossacks. At this time, the Cossacks formed the basis of the government armed forces, in contrast to the nobility, whose position was undermined during the Time of Troubles. The Cossacks had their own military organization, they were not considered an integral part of the regular army, they did not obey anyone, and separate groups that were scattered throughout the country only knew one thing - robbery. As a result, the Zemsky Sobor charged them with high treason. A special role in the elimination of uncontrolled Cossacks was played by local city authorities. They obeyed the verdict of the Zemsky Sobor, and the bandits were caught and executed. This is how the armed opposition to the new regime was liquidated.