He was the first elected Russian Tsar. Zemsky Sobors

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

Candidates

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

Mikhail Fedorovich did not pass the first round

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

No-show

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

Tightening

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

The role of Pozharsky

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

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

Cossacks

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

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

British recognition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Romanov dynasty collapsed after three hundred and four years. A new grandiose turmoil began in the country, leading Russia to the brink of national-state destruction. Civil war forever split the Russian people into “reds” and “whites”. A deep economic crisis fatally struck the economic organism, and another political collapse, complicated by external forces, again threatened the existence of the very Russian statehood. As if these weren't there three centuries The Romanovs, as if, having barely emerged from the Time of Troubles, Russia again went through the circles of historical hell. From Mikhail to Mikhail. From the Ipatiev Monastery to the Ipatiev Cellar...

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

During the Time of Troubles, Russia suffered a whole series transformations in the social, political and religious spheres of life. The pinnacle of these social transformations, which marked the end of the Time of Troubles and the onset of political stability, was the Zemsky Sobor of 1613.

Ivan IV (the Terrible) did not leave a single heir behind. It was the fact of the presence of a free throne that became the cause of the Troubles in the Russian state. The Troubles meant endless attempts by internal and external forces to seize power.

At the same time, during the period of the XVI-XVII centuries. numerous Zemsky Sobors, which served as an advisory body to the sovereign. The most important goal of the Zemsky Sobor was the election of a new autocrat and a new leadership dynasty. As a result of the council on January 16, the first tsar of the Romanov dynasty was elected.

What were the prerequisites for convening the Zemsky Sobor?

the dynastic crisis that began in 1598 as a result of the death of Fyodor Ioannovich, who was the only heir of Ivan the Terrible;
alternate and frequent changes of power: from Fyodor’s wife Irina - to Boris Godunov, from Boris Godunov - to his son Fyodor, and then to False Dmitry the First and Vasily Shuisky, and as a result of the uprising against Shuisky - to the provisional government.
decentralization and political stratification of society: one part of the Russian population swore allegiance to Prince Vladislav, the northwestern part of the population was under Swedish occupation, and the Moscow region was under the influence of the camp of the overthrown False Dmitry II.

How did the preparation of the cathedral take place?

After the expulsion of foreign invaders from Russia in 1612, the opportunity arose to elect a new monarch. For this purpose, Minin, Trubetskoy and Pozharsky sent invitation letters to all parts of Russia, in which representatives of the nobility were called to the All-Russian Council. But no one expected that people would come for so long. There was unrest and chaos throughout the country. Only in the Tver region almost all cities were burned to the ground and completely destroyed. From some regions only 1 representative was sent, from others - 10. This contributed to the postponement of the council for a whole month - from December to January. Historians estimate the number of participants in the January council at 700-1500 people. At that time, such a number of people in Moscow could only be accommodated by the Assumption Cathedral, in which the Zemsky Sobor took place.

What were the contenders for the royal throne?

Polish prince Vladislav;
False Dmitry II;
Swedish prince Karl Philip;
King James I of England;
son Ivan (historians call him “vorenko”);
Golitsyn;
Romanovs;
Mstislavsky;
Kurakins;
Vorotynsky;
Godunovs;
Shuisky;
Prince Dmitry Pozharsky;
Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy.

Who took part in the election of the king?

The council was numerous and was represented by:

noble boyars, who were divided into two approximately equal camps: some considered Fyodor Mstislavsky or Vasily Golitsyn the ideal candidate, and others considered Mikhail Romanov;
nobles who voted for Dmitry Trubetskoy, whom they considered “one of their own,” but who also had the rank of “boyar”;
the clergy, in particular Filaret (father of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov), who was the patriarch in Tusheno and was very respected there;
Cossacks who changed their preferences depending on who was willing to pay them: at first they supported the Tushenskys, and then they were ready to put on the throne someone who would have something to do with Tushin;
representatives from the peasants;
city elders.

Today, the only historical source from which we can find out about the real composition of the cathedral is the electoral charter of Mikhail Fedorovich. Representatives on this certificate different corners countries left signatures. It is known for sure that there were at least 700 participants in the cathedral. But only 227 people left their signatures on the certificate. This may mean that many people simply refused to sign the letter. And this can be proven at least using the example of Nizhny Novgorod. There were 19 of his representatives at the council, but only four signed. Among these 277 signatures were representatives of all major classes.

Approved letter of election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the Moscow State

How did the Zemsky Sobor end?

The first decision of the council was to approve a mandatory condition for candidates for the throne - the monarch had to be Russian and in no way relate to foreigners.

The second decision was that the cathedral elected Mikhail Romanov, who was only 16 years old at the time of the cathedral, as Tsar. As a result, all power was concentrated in the hands of one legitimate monarch, who founded a stable ruling dynasty. Russian state was able to stop the attacks of the Kingdom of Poland, Germany and Sweden, which sought to take the free Russian throne.

To notify Mikhail of his election, a delegation from the Zemsky Sobor arrived in Kostroma. He was able to come to Moscow for the coronation only in May 1613.

Unfortunately, very few authentic documents have survived to this day that would shed light on all the subtleties of those events and decisions. We only know about the numerous intrigues surrounding the cathedral. This is quite natural, given the responsibility and scale of the decision being made. Entire dynasties could lose their influence. For the country, this was the only opportunity to get out of the political crisis.

Why did they choose Mikhail Romanov?

His figure is not at all accidental in big politics. He was the nephew of Fyodor Ioannovich and the son of Patriarch Filaret (who was very popular among the Cossacks and the clergy). Fyodor Sheremetyev energetically campaigned for his choice among the boyars. The main argument that was supposed to convince the boyars to vote for Mikhail Romanov was his youth and inexperience (which automatically meant the possibility of creating his own puppet on the throne). But it didn't work initially.

Moreover, after 1613, voters wanted Mikhail to come to Moscow. But for the modest and timid Mikhail, this demand was very untimely. He would simply make a bad impression on voters. For this reason, the Romanovs convinced the others that the route from Kostroma to Moscow was a very dangerous one in the current political situation. This requirement was eventually dropped.

It is impossible to clearly explain the reasons for choosing the Romanov dynasty. Most researchers agree that the figure of Mikhail Romanov was the most convenient for all Russian dynasties. In fact, at the very beginning of his reign, all power functions were not with Mikhail, but with his father Filaret, who ruled the country on behalf of his son.

By the way, the main argument against Michael at the council was the friendly ties of his father Philaret with False Dmitry I, who made him his metropolitan, and with False Dmitry II, who made Philaret Patriarch. According to the decision of the council, such friendly ties were unacceptable for a candidate for the throne.

What was the role of the Cossacks in holding the cathedral?

The Cossacks played a significant role in the victory of the Romanovs. According to an eyewitness, in February the boyars decided to choose a monarch “at random”, simply by casting lots. The Cossacks did not like this. And their speakers began to demonstratively speak loudly against such tricks of the boyars. At the same time, the Cossacks shouted Mikhail’s name, proposing to choose his candidacy. The Cossacks were immediately supported by the Romanovites. And as a result, most of the boyars chose Mikhail.

The role of the British in legitimizing the cathedral?

The first foreigners to recognize the legitimacy of the newly elected monarch were the British. In the same year, England sent its representatives to Moscow under the leadership of John Metrick. From this event, the reign of the Romanov dynasty was finally established. Mikhail Romanov was grateful to the British. The new elected monarch restored relations with the English "Moscow Company" and provided preferential terms of trade for English merchants with other foreigners, as well as with Russian "big business".

What are the features and uniqueness of the Zemsky Sobor?

There is still debate among historians about the relativity of the procedure for choosing Tsar Michael. But no one argues that this cathedral has become unique in Russian history, because:

the cathedral was the most massive and numerous among all Zemsky cathedrals;
All classes participated in the cathedral (except for serfs and childless peasants) - there were no analogues to this in Russia;
at the council a controversial, but most important decision for the country was made;
The cathedral did not choose the most prominent and strong candidate, which serves as a reason to assume intrigue and bribery.

What were the results, the historical significance of the Zemsky Sobor and the choice of Mikhail Romanov?

exit from the dynastic crisis;
the end of the Time of Troubles;
rapid economic growth;
centralization of power;
urbanization and growth in the number of cities (up to 300 by the end of the 17th century);
geopolitical advance towards the Pacific region;
growth in agricultural turnover;
creation of a single economic system as a result of the growth in trade turnover, small and large trade between the most remote regions of Russia;
increasing the role of estates in the administrative system;
social consolidation and ideological unity of the people;
strengthening the socio-political management system in Moscow and in certain areas;
preparing the ground for transformation Russian monarchy into absolutist;
further replacement of councils with a procedure for confirming the legitimacy of the heir at meetings with the tsar;
the principle of election was replaced by the principle of administrative delegation.

The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 marked the end of the Time of Troubles and was supposed to bring order to the government of Russia. Let me remind you that after the death of Ivan 4 (the Terrible), the place on the throne was free, since the king did not leave behind heirs. That is why the Troubles occurred, when both internal forces and external representatives carried out endless attempts to seize power.

Reasons for convening the Zemsky Sobor

After the foreign invaders were expelled not only from Moscow, but also from Russia, Minin, Pozharsky and Trubetskoy sent invitation letters to all parts of the country, calling on all representatives of the nobility to appear at the Council, where a new tsar would be elected.

The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 opened in January, and the following took part in it:

Clergy
Boyars
Nobles
City elders
Peasant representatives
Cossacks

In total, 700 people took part in the Zemsky Sobor.

Progress of the Council and its decisions

The first decision approved by the Zemsky Sobor was that the Tsar must be Russian. He should not relate to the Nostrians in any way.

Marina Mnishek intended to crown her son Ivan (whom historians often call “the little crow”), but after the Council’s decision that the tsar should not be a foreigner, she fled to Ryazan.
Historical background

The events of those days must be considered from the point of view of the fact that there were a huge number of people wishing to take a place on the throne. Therefore, groups began to form that united, promoting their representative. There were several such groups:

Noble boyars. This included representatives of the boyar family. One part of them believed that Fyodor Mstislavsky or Vasily Golitsyn would be the ideal tsar for Russia. Others leaned towards the young Mikhail Romanov. The number of boyars was divided approximately equally by interests.
Nobles. These were also noble people with great authority. They promoted their “tsar” - Dmitry Trubetskoy. The difficulty was that Trubetskoy had the rank of “boyar,” which he had recently received in the Tushensky courtyard.
Cossacks. According to tradition, the Cossacks sided with the one who had the money. In particular, they actively served the Tushensky court, and after the latter was dispersed, they began to support the king, who was related to Tushin.

Mikhail Romanov's father, Filaret, was a patriarch in the Tushensky courtyard and was highly respected there. Largely due to this fact, Mikhail was supported by the Cossacks and the clergy.
Karamzin

Romanov did not have many rights to the throne. The more serious claim against him was that his father was on friendly terms with both False Dmitrys. The first False Dmitry made Philaret a metropolitan and his protege, and the second False Dmitry appointed him patriarch and his protege. That is, Mikhail’s father had very friendly relations with foreigners, whom they had just gotten rid of by decision of the Council of 1613 and decided not to call him to power again.

Results

The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 ended on February 21 - Mikhail Romanov was elected tsar. Now it is difficult to talk reliably about all the subtleties of the events of those days, since not many documents have survived. Nevertheless, it is known for certain that the Council was surrounded by complex intrigues. This is not surprising - the stakes were too high. The fate of the country and entire ruling dynasties was being decided.

The result of the Council was that Mikhail Romanov, who at that time was only 16 years old, was elected to the throne. A clear answer: “Why exactly?” no one will give it. Historians say that this was the figure most convenient for all dynasties. Allegedly, young Mikhail was an extremely suggestible person and could be “controlled as needed by the majority.” In fact, all power (especially in the first years of Romanov’s reign) was not with the tsar himself, but with his father, Patriarch Filaret. It was he who actually ruled Russia on behalf of his son.

Feature and contradiction

The main feature of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was its mass character. Representatives of all classes and estates took part in deciding the future of the country, with the exception of slaves and rootless peasants. In fact, we are talking about an all-class Council, which has no analogues in the history of Russia.

The second feature is the importance of the decision and its complexity. There is no clear answer why Romanov was chosen. After all, this was not the most obvious candidate. The entire Council was marked by a large number of intrigues, attempts at bribery and other manipulations of people.

To summarize, we can say that the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 had important for the history of Russia. He concentrated power in the hands of the Russian Tsar, laid the foundation of a new dynasty (the Romanovs) and saved the country from constant problems and claims to the throne from the Germans, Poles, Swedes and others.

Ministry of Higher Education

Russian Federation

Tomsk State University

control systems and radio electronics

(TUSUR)

department of automated control system

Control pAbot #1

on Russian history

Option #3

The formation of the Romanov dynasty. Features of the Russian autocracy.

Plan.

1. Introduction.

Election of Mikhail Romanov as Tsar to the Russian throne by the Zemsky Sobor.

3. Formation of the Moscow centralized state

Oprichnina: causes, essence, consequences.

The place of the church in the state.

Conclusion.

Introduction.

1917 is a fatal milestone in the history of Russia, the year of the beginning of the breakdown of traditional forms of life of the people and the country. The starting point for the collapse of the historical connection of times was the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne on March 2, 1917. Together with the Romanovs, the century-long era of thrones and crowns faded into oblivion, replaced by the times of the loudly declared<народоправства>. The monarchical autocracy was replaced by the uncompromising power of the Bolshevik Party, which declared its task to create the most just society in the history of mankind. The result of their attempts is the ruined lives and destinies of millions of people, a destroyed culture, a slandered history... Ideology left its mark on the objectivity of the presentation of Russian history. That is why, until 1917, our country appears before us in such gloomy tones. Many representatives of the highest state power, autocrats, were clearly given negative characteristics. But, perhaps, the greatest “fame” in this was gained by Nicholas II, the last emperor of the Romanov dynasty, whose name is still often used with a lot of offensive epithets. A limited, weak-willed person, by chance, found himself at the pinnacle of power, was unable to solve the country's pressing problems, hindered its progressive development, and therefore found himself a victim of the inexorable course of events. This is the stereotype that most people have in relation to Nicholas II. But is this really so?

The personality of the emperor and the subsequent execution of the royal family pre-

represent a “blank spot” in the history of the USSR.

The election of Mikhail Romanov as Tsar to the Russian throne by the Zemsky Sobor.

The primary issue was the restoration of central power, which in the specific historical conditions of the beginning of the 17th century. meant the election of a new king. There was already a precedent: the election of Boris Godunov “to the kingdom”. The Zemsky Sobor, very broad in its composition, met in Moscow. In addition to the Boyar Duma, the highest clergy and the capital's nobility, numerous provincial nobility, townspeople, Cossacks and even black-sown (state) peasants were represented at the cathedral. 50 Russian cities sent their representatives.

The main question was the election of a king. A fierce struggle broke out around the candidacy of the future tsar at the council. Some boyar groups proposed calling a “prince’s son” from Poland or Sweden, others nominated candidates from the old Russian princely families - the Golitsyns, the Mstislavskys. Trubetskoy, Romanov. The Cossacks even offered the son of False Dmitry II and Marina Mnishek (“warren”). But they were not in the majority at the Council. At the insistence of representatives of the nobility, townspeople and peasants, it was decided: “Neither a Polish prince, nor a Swedish one, nor any other German faith and from any non-Orthodox states should be chosen for the Moscow state and Marinka’s son would not be wanted.”

After much debate, the members of the cathedral agreed on the candidacy of 16-year-old Mikhail Romanov, the cousin of the last tsar from the Moscow Rurik dynasty, Fyodor Ivanovich, which gave reason to associate him with the “legitimate” dynasty.

The nobles saw the Romanovs as consistent opponents of the “boyar tsar” Vasily Shuisky, the Cossacks saw the supporters of “Tsar Dmitry” (which gave reason to believe that the new tsar would not persecute the former “Tushins”). The boyars, who hoped to retain power and influence under the young tsar, did not object either. Fyodor Sheremetev very clearly reflected the attitude of the titled nobility towards Mikhail Romanov in his letter to one of the Golitsyn princes: “Misha Romanov is young, he has not yet come to his senses and will be won over to us.” V. O. Klyuchevsky remarked about this: “They wanted to choose not the most capable, but the most convenient.”

On February 21, 1613, the Zemsky Sobor announced the election of Mikhail Romanov as Tsar. An embassy was sent to the Ipatiev Monastery in Kostroma, where Mikhail and his mother “nun Martha” were hiding at that time with a proposal to take the Russian throne. This is how the Romanov dynasty established itself in Russia, ruling the country for more than 300 years.

One of the heroic episodes of Russian history dates back to this time. A Polish detachment tried to capture the newly elected tsar, looking for him in the Kostroma estates of the Romanovs. But the headman of the village of Domnina, Ivan Susanin, not only warned the tsar about the danger, but also led the Poles into impenetrable forests. The hero died from Polish sabers, but also killed the nobles lost in the forests.

In the first years of the reign of Mikhail Romanov, the country was actually ruled by the Saltykov boyars, relatives of the “nun Martha,” and from 1619, after the return of the Tsar’s father, Patriarch Filaret Romanov, from captivity, the patriarch and “great sovereign” Filaret. The restoration of the economy and state order began. In 1617, in the village of Stolbovo (near Tikhvin), an “eternal peace” was signed with Sweden. The Swedes returned Novgorod and other northwestern cities to Russia, but the Swedes retained the Izhora land and Korela. Russia lost access to the Baltic Sea, but it managed to get out of the war with Sweden. In 1618, the Truce of Dowlin was concluded with Poland for fourteen and a half years. Russia lost Smolensk and about three dozen more Smolensk, Chernigov and Seversk cities. The contradictions with Poland were not resolved, but only postponed: both sides were not able to continue the war any further. The terms of the truce were very difficult for the country, but Poland refused to claim the throne.

The Time of Troubles in Russia is over.

Formation of the Moscow centralized state.

Let us recall the events that preceded the ascension to the throne of the first Tsar of the Romanov dynasty. Ivan IV the Terrible, having killed his eldest son, Ivan, interrupted the male line of the Rurik dynasty. His middle son, Fedor, was handicapped. Mysterious death in Uglich youngest son- Demetrius (he was found stabbed to death in the courtyard of the tower), and then - the death of the last of the Rurikovichs, Theodore Ioannovich - put an end to their dynasty. Boris Godunov, brother of Theodore's wife, came to power as a member of the Regency Council of five boyars. The Zemsky Sobor of 1598 elected Boris Godunov as Tsar. In 1604, Polish troops under the leadership of False Dmitry I, Grigory Otrepyev, set out from Lvov to the Russian border. In 1605, Boris Godunov died, and the Throne was transferred to his son Theodore and the widow queen. An uprising broke out in Moscow, Theodore and his mother were strangled. The new tsar, False Dmitry I, entered Moscow accompanied by the Polish army. But he did not rule for long: in 1606 Moscow rebelled, and False Dmitry was captured and killed. Vasily Shuisky became king. The approaching crisis was bringing the country closer to a state of anarchy. After the uprising of Ivan Bolotnikov and the two-month siege of Moscow, False Dmitry II moved his troops to Russia from Poland. In 1610, Shuisky’s army was defeated, the king was overthrown and tonsured a monk. Power passed into the hands of the Boyar Duma: the period of the “Seven Boyars” began. After the Duma signed an agreement with Poland, Polish troops were secretly brought into Moscow. The son of the Polish Tsar Sigismund III, Vladislav, became the Russian Tsar. And only in 1612 the militia of Minin and Pozharsky managed to liberate Moscow. And it was at this moment that Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov entered the arena of History. In addition to him, contenders for the Throne were the Polish prince Vladislav, the Swedish prince Karl Philip and the son of Marina Mnishek and False Dmitry II Ivan. But they still elected Mikhail. By

what? V.B. Kobrin writes about this as follows: “The Romanovs suited everyone. This is the property of mediocrity.” Indeed, to consolidate the country and restore social order, what was needed was not bright personalities, but people capable of calmly and persistently pursuing a conservative policy. “...It was necessary to restore everything, almost to build the state all over again - its mechanism was so broken,” writes V.O. Klyuchevsky. This is how Mikhail Romanov turned out to be. His reign was a time of lively legislative activity of the government, which concerned the most diverse aspects of the Russian state-

no life. The reign of the first Romanov initial period was distinguished by its dependence on the Boyar Duma and lack of independence in decision-making: for all important issues Mikhail Fedorovich addressed the Zemsky Councils. However, over time, the tsar’s sole power began to strengthen: those subordinate to the center began to rule in the localities.

voivodes. For example, in 1642, when the meeting, with a huge majority, spoke out in favor of the final annexation of Azov, which the Cossacks had conquered from the Tatars, Mikhail Fedorovich made the opposite decision. The most important task of this period was the restoration of state unity of the Russian lands, some of which, after the “Time of Troubles,” remained under the ownership of Poland and Sweden. In 1632, after King Sigismund III died in Poland, Russia

began a war with Poland, as a result of which the new king Vladislav renounced his claims to the Moscow Throne and recognized Mikhail Fedorovich as the Moscow Tsar.

The most important innovation in industry at that time was the emergence of manufactories. The further development of crafts, an increase in agricultural and fishing production, and the deepening of the social division of labor led to the beginning of the formation of an all-Russian market. In addition, diplomatic and trade ties between Russia and the West have improved. The largest centers of Russian trade were: Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Bryansk. Sea trade with Europe went through the only port - Arkhangelsk; Most of the goods were transported by dry route. Thus, by actively trading with Western European countries, Russia has achieved an independent foreign policy.

Rose and agriculture. Agriculture began to develop on fertile lands south of the Oka, as well as in Siberia. This was facilitated by the fact that the rural population of Russia was divided into two categories: landowners and black-growing peasants. The latter made up 89.6% of the rural population. According to the law, they, sitting on state land, had the right to alienate it: sale, mortgage, inheritance. Thus, the peasants were personally free, they did not have serfdom. The fulfillment of public duties was monitored by the community with a lay meeting and elections. As a result of reasonable domestic policy The life of the common people has improved dramatically. So, if during the “time of troubles” the urban population in Moscow itself decreased by more than three times - townspeople fled from their destroyed homes, then after the “restoration” of the economy, according to K. Valishevsky, “... a chicken in Russia cost two a penny, a dozen eggs - a penny. Arriving in the capital for Easter, he<посол - П.Л.>witnessed the pious and merciful deeds of the sovereign, who visited prisons before matins and distributed colored eggs and sheepskin coats to prisoners." There was progress in the field of culture. According to S.M. Solovyov, "...Moscow amazed with its splendor and beauty, especially in the summer , when the greenery of numerous gardens and vegetable gardens joined the beautiful variety of churches." The first Greek-Latin school in Russia was opened in the Chudov Monastery. The only Moscow printing house, destroyed during the Polish occupation, was restored. Unfortunately, the development of culture of that time was left imprinted by the fact that Mikhail Romanov himself was an exceptionally religious person. S.M. Soloviev writes that “the tsar participated in a religious celebration, the like of which new Russia had never seen: a religious procession moved from the Assumption Cathedral to the Spassky Gate; behind the icons and clergy were the stewards, solicitors, nobles and clerks in golden brocade dresses, behind them the sovereign himself, behind the sovereign the boyars, okolnichi, duma people and guests; on both sides of the path near the king there were colonels and heads of streltsy." Therefore, the most prominent scientists of this era were considered the correctors and compilers of sacred books, which, of course, greatly hampered progress.

So, let's summarize. In my opinion, the main reason that Mikhail Romanov managed to create a “viable” dynasty was his carefully balanced, internal and foreign policy, as a result of which Russia, albeit not completely, managed to solve the problem of the reunification of Russian lands, internal contradictions were resolved, industry and agriculture developed, the sole power of the tsar was strengthened, ties with Europe were improved, etc. At the same time, indeed, the reign of the first Romanov cannot be ranked among the brilliant eras in the history of the Russian nation, and his personality does not appear in it with special brilliance. However, this reign marks a period of renaissance, the significance of which is still felt today. Let's hope that after the upcoming Elections, someone similar to Mikhail Fedorovich will head Russia...

Oprichnina.

The oprichnina was introduced in February 1565 and abolished in the fall of 1572. Almost twelve years remained until Tsar Ivan’s last breath. There were many events ahead, but this short - even by the standards of his reign - period forever determined the starting point in the assessment of Ivan IV. In recent decades, factual knowledge about the events of 1565-1572 has increased. have expanded greatly, but the oprichnina is still a mystery. The concept, which reduces it to the fight against the Staritsky inheritance, Novgorod separatism and the church as objective opponents of centralization, is shared by few people. The desire to see in it a super-rigid path of centralization can be accepted if you only close your eyes to the political form of its implementation. A consistent explanation of this phenomenon is now hardly possible. But what is real is to describe the logic of political phenomena in the interplay of internal and external factors. The importance of the latter has undoubtedly increased since the late 50s. The conquest of Kazan and Astrakhan, the suppression of the uprisings of the 50s in the Volga region only temporarily relieved the tension in relations with Crimea and Tur-

tion. However, Russia became involved in the Russian-Swedish and then the Livonian War. It lasted 25 years, and the country managed to fight with the strongest states of Northern and Central Europe. This war was the fate of Tsar Ivan: he survived its end by only seven months. The country has been at war almost without a break for a quarter of a century. Tension grew within the government environment. Regular disgraces again swept through the thinning ranks of active figures of the 50s. In 1562, the famous governor Prince M.I. Vorotynsky and his younger brother, in 1563, the no less famous I.V. Sheremetev-Bolshoi was imprisoned. In those same years, one of the leaders of the “Chosen Rada”, Prince D.I. Kurlyatev (with his son), the mother of V.A. Staritsky, was forcibly tonsured; the appanage prince himself had been under investigation for several months. Serial executions began - because of suspicions of treason, the Adashevs and their relatives were killed “all over the world.” In 1564, the court world shuddered. At the end of January, princes M.P. Repnin and Yu.I. Kashin, who distinguished themselves during the capture of Polotsk, were killed on the street. It was not an execution - reprisal. The reason was "worthy". Repnin flatly refused to put on a mask and take part in the royal revelry, reminding Ivan IV that such a pastime was indecent for an Orthodox monarch. In a moment of anger, the king remembered this. Somewhere in the summer of the same year, on the orders of Ivan IV, the hounds strangled D.F. Ovchina-Obolensky. This fact led to a solidarity speech by Duma officials and hierarchs: they asked to stop the shameful reprisals.

Even earlier, at the end of April, the tsar received an extremely painful blow: a friend of his youth, once very close to him, Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky, fled from Yuryev to Lithuania. In the message he sent soon, he least of all tried to justify himself. Far from it, he accuses the tsar of betraying the covenants of God, the principles of behavior of the Orthodox monarch, which he followed in previous years, when he had wise advisers: “in Orthodoxy the most luminous one appeared,” Grozny is now “resisting.” The main evidence is the unjustified and cruel executions, the shedding of innocent, “holy” blood of the boyars. The answer was not slow. The king also did not make excuses, but accused. Boyar treason is the root cause of all miscalculations and mistakes, their self-will (and the boyars were led to this by Adashev and Sylvester) meant the “removal of power” from the tsar himself. He bitterly remarked: “In words he was a sovereign, but in deeds he had no mastery.” But from his ancestors he was chosen by God to the royal degree, and therefore is free to execute and have mercy on “his servants.” He has only one judge, and he

not on earth, but in heaven - God. The aggravation of the internal political situation occurred against the backdrop of military failures. In January 1564, a Russian army of 20,000 suffered a humiliating defeat from a much smaller Lithuanian detachment on Ula. In July there was a new defeat near Orsha. And in September something happened that Grozny had avoided even in his worst dreams. The offensive of large Lithuanian forces in three directions on the western border was coordinated with the Khan's large campaign. The latter was completely unexpected: in February, the khan took an oath before the Russian ambassadors. There was no information from Crimea, the border guards did not work. Fortunately, there was relatively little bloodshed. Having plundered a number of territories of the Ryazan region and having failed in attempts to take the city, the khan left with a full force, without even collecting all the driven detachments. Not

The Lithuanians also achieved a lot: the 32,000-strong army failed to take Polotsk. It was clear to the king: something like this could not happen without extensive treason. It was time to move on to decisive measures, as the elder Basmanov repeatedly told him about. In December, unimaginable events took place in the capital and in the Moscow region. At the beginning of the month, a train of several hundred sleighs with the royal family, all its property, the entire state treasury and all the holiness of Moscow churches left the capital. He was accompanied by several hundred armed nobles (also with families and property). For quite a long time the tsar moved around the palace villages of the capital district and only at the end of the month settled in Alexandrovskaya Sloboda, a distant residence near Moscow. Two messages were delivered to Moscow. Hierarchs, boyars, nobles, tsar clerks

explained their departure as “great betrayals” with the complete impossibility of stopping them: each of his attempts to “punish” the perpetrators turned out to be ineffective due to the intervention of the rulers and Duma boyars. That is why he leaves the throne given to him by God and goes to where God will arrange for him and his family. The letter to the townspeople concluded something completely different: the tsar assured of the complete absence of anger towards them, the boyar traitors were to blame for everything. After negotiations in the settlement with a delegation from Moscow, Grozny relented. He will return to the throne upon fulfillment of three conditions: the execution of traitors at his discretion, the introduction of the oprichnina to ensure the tsar’s everyday life and security, payments for the “rise” (for the initial structure) by the rest of the country (zemshchina ) 100 thousand rubles - a huge amount by the standards of that time. The return of the king to the capital in February 1565 was not without reprisals, of course. There were very few of them, but there were some. Perhaps the most brilliant military leader of the 16th century, a man of great intelligence and unquestioned authority, A.B. Gorbaty-Shuisky, was executed with his son. What did the introduction of the oprichnina mean? The tsar took into his inheritance many districts in the west, southwest and center of the country, the most delicious palace possessions and rich northern regions (Podvinye, Pomorie, Vologda), and part of the territory of Moscow. The oprichnina corps consisted of a thousand specially selected nobles who received estates only in oprichnina districts; all zemstvos had to be evicted from them. Later, the number of oprichniki increased several times, the territory of the oprichnina expanded. The oprichnina had its own Duma, its own court, its own orders. The Zemstvo Duma and orders were completely disconnected from any influence on the oprichnina. In turn, the tsar, having removed himself from the current administration (it was in the hands of the Zemstvo Duma and central departments), concentrated in his hands control over diplomacy and the most important affairs. The hardships of the war again lay with the zemshchina; the guardsmen knew only two duties - protecting the tsar and his family, searching for and removing traitors.

Who was included in the “pitch army” 10 (as Kurbsky called it), who entered the elite, the oprichnina court? There is no significant difference from the zemshchina. And yet, the courtyard guardsmen, as a rule, are from previously unnoticed branches of a number of clans, from the younger lines of the family tree of surnames. Old Moscow untitled and, moreover, not primary noble families are widely represented. The leading roles were played by father and son Basmanov, Prince Afanasy Vyaemsky, G. Lovchikov, etc. Another thing was also important - the guardsmen were cut off from any family and friendly ties in the zemshchina. Let's think about the meaning of innovation. Ivan the Terrible is strengthening autocratic power in a strange way, highlighting a third-rate destiny on the traditional scale. After all, the oprichnina in the XIV-XV centuries. They called the widow's inheritance, which stood out in addition to other reigns and inheritances. This is the first paradox. The second paradox is that it is the oprichnina part of the country that is assigned a politically and socially dominant role. It has its own capital - Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, and its branch - the oprichnina courtyard in Moscow, behind Neglinka, opposite the Kremlin (it was rebuilt by 1567).

The establishment of the oprichina was marked by the exile of several hundred nobles to Kazan “in disgrace.” most of them belonged to the leading princely houses - Yaroslavl, Rostov, Starodub, Obolensky. Their ancestral lands were confiscated and distributed.

In their new location, modest-sized estates awaited them. By the spring of 1566 General displeasure with the oprichnina intensified. Ivan IV sought a compromise, especially after Athanasius’s voluntary departure from the metropolis. The exiles to Kazan were forgiven, they were compensated for their

possessions. There was also a need to make a decision regarding Lithuania - its authorities offered peace or a long-term truce on the terms of the status quo. Another paradox of the oprichnina - the first complete in composition

(including representatives from merchants) Zemsky Sobor of 1566. It was not a meeting of the government with its officials (deputies were elected, however, from among the courtyards in Moscow), and its role was not at all limited to unanimous approval of the tsar’s position. He really needed the opinions of the classes - should he continue the war with Lithuania or make peace? Support for the Council may have resulted from the zemshchina's expectation that the tsar would dissolve the oprichnina in conditions of public consent. Hopes were not justified, and the action against the oprichnina of several hundred nobles was suppressed, three leaders (participants of the Council) were executed. The tsar also managed to install a new metropolitan quite painlessly, the Solovetsky hegumen Philip (from the Kolychev family), persuading him to withdraw the demand for the abolition of the oprichnina and undertaking an obligation not to stand up for it. This ended the rather calm period of the oprichnina, from 1567-1568. the flywheel of repression and terror began to spin with terrifying speed.

The reason was a denunciation, apparently by V.A. Staritsky, of a conspiracy in his favor led by the stable boyar I.P. Fedorov. The conspirators allegedly intended to hand over Tsar Ivan to Sigismund II during the fighting. All this is doubtful. Opposition conversations, some lists of possible supporters of Staritsky, any outlines of actions against the oprichnina - that’s what’s in best case scenario was presented to the king in the form of an extensive and most dangerous conspiracy for him. The royal campaign in Livonia was canceled, Grozny urgently returned to the capital. There, at the end of 1567, the first executions were carried out. An orgy of reprisals and monstrous repressions began in 1568. Let us outline the main milestones of 1568 - oprichnina detachments move across the numerous estates of I.P. Fedorov, smashing estates, confiscating his property, executing numerous people close to him, military and clerk serfs, and peasants. The result of the “small war” was about 500 people executed in a variety of ways. In its finale, the elderly boyar (an experienced administrator and incorruptible judge, who allegedly encroached on the throne, received the last “reward” from his monarch; the king himself stabbed him with a dagger. A tornado of repression swept over the country in 1569-1570. They began in the summer of 1569, in the days of Ivan the Terrible's stay in Vologda, but they gained special momentum in October. Staritsky with his second wife and children from this marriage, his entire entourage, his mother-nun with her noblewomen and dozens of people involved in the “conspiracy to poison” Ivan IV were killed. In December, a not-so-small, quite “normal” war of the tsar against his subjects opened: Grozny set off with the guardsmen to remove treason from Novgorod. Already on the way, “on order” the number of victims reached many hundreds, but what the guardsmen did in Novgorod and. surroundings for five weeks, it is difficult to describe people of various classes - from Novgorod clerks, local nobles, boyars of the Novgorod archbishop to peasants of nearby villages - were hanged, drowned.

or in the ice holes in Volkhov, chopped with axes, flogged with sabers, shot from arquebuses, poisoned by bears, burned in houses. According to minimal estimates, there were about 3 thousand victims, and most likely one and a half to two times more. Novgorod did not recover from this pogrom. The Tsar suspected the Novgorodians of treasonous relations with Sigismund II. Total destruction was in the eyes of the king the best remedy struggle. The beginning of the defeat of Pskov was stopped - Grozny was superstitious, and the holy fool’s prediction threatened his life. The robberies of the guardsmen (under the guise of confiscation) assumed monstrous proportions. On the way to Novgorod, Metropolitan Philip was strangled by Malyuta Skuratov in the Tver monastery. The Metropolitan openly raised his voice against the oprichnina's madness back in the spring of 1568. In the summer, the conflict between the first hierarch and the tsar intensified even more. Philip left the pulpit, thereby trying to influence the king and public opinion. This led to his arrest, then an unjust trial took place: on the orders of the tsar, the rulers overthrew the metropolitan. sending him to prison. There he met his end a year later at the hands of the chief oprichnina executioner. The oprichnina dances of death continued. In the summer-autumn of 1570, the flower of the administrative bureaucracy was executed in three stages on one of the main squares of the capital. Treasurer N. Kurtsev, head of the Ambassadorial Prikaz, printer I. Viskovaty, the first clerks of most central departments and hundreds of less significant persons were subjected to the most painful, sophisticated public torture, when quick death was a blessing. At the same time, the guardsmen completed the executions of Novgorodians, Pskovites, and other persons who were arrested and taken first to Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, and then to Moscow. Philip's voice was heard: instead of prayers for mercy, the king heard words of reproof, terrible in their justice, from those doomed to a painful death.