Election of Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov Elected people gathered in Moscow in January 1613. From Moscow they asked the cities to send the best, strong and reasonable people for the royal choice. Cities, by the way, had to think not only about the election of the king, but also how to build

Zemsky Sobor 1613. Election of Mikhail Romanov as Tsar. Cathedral embassy to him. The feat of Ivan Susanin

Immediately after the cleansing of Moscow, the provisional government of princes Pozharsky and Trubetskoy sent letters to the cities with an invitation to send elected representatives to Moscow, ten people from the city, for the "sovereign's defrauding." By January 1613, representatives from 50 cities had gathered in Moscow and, together with Moscow people, formed an electoral [zemstvo] sobor. First of all, they discussed the issue of foreign candidates for kings. They rejected Vladislav, whose election brought so much grief to Russia. They also rejected the Swedish prince Philip, who was elected by the Novgorodians to the "Novgorod state" under pressure from the Swedish troops, who then occupied Novgorod. They finally made a general decision not to elect a "king from the infidels", but to elect their own "from the great Moscow families." When they began to determine which of their own could be elevated to the royal throne, the voices were divided. Everyone named a candidate they liked, and for a long time they could not agree on anyone. It turned out, however, that not only at the cathedral, but also in the city of Moscow, among the Zemstvo people and among the Cossacks, who were then many in Moscow, the young son of Metropolitan Filaret was especially successful. His name was called already in 1610, when it was about the election of Vladislav; and now in favor of Mikhail Fedorovich, written and oral statements from the townspeople and Cossacks were received at the meetings of the cathedral. On February 7, 1613, the cathedral for the first time decided to opt for Michael. But out of caution, they decided to postpone the matter for two weeks, and at that time to send to the nearest cities to find out if Tsar Michael would be there, and, in addition, to summon to Moscow those of the boyars who were not at the cathedral. By February 21, good news came from the cities and the boyars gathered from their estates, and on February 21 Mikhail Fedorovich was solemnly proclaimed king and both the members of the cathedral and all of Moscow took the oath to him.

Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov in his youth

The new tsar, however, was not in Moscow. In 1612, he sat with his mother, nun Marfa Ivanovna, in the Kremlin siege, and then, freed, he left through Yaroslavl to Kostroma, to his villages. There he was in danger from a wandering Polish or Cossack detachment, of which there were many in Russia after the fall of Tushin. Mikhail Fedorovich was saved by a peasant from his village of Domnina, Ivan Susanin. Having informed his boyar of the danger, he himself led the enemies into the forests and died there with them, instead of showing them the way to the boyar estate. Then Mikhail Fedorovich took refuge in the strong Ipatiev Monastery near Kostroma, where he lived with his mother until the moment when an embassy from the Zemsky Sobor came to the monastery with an offer of the throne. Mikhail Fedorovich renounced the kingdom for a long time; his mother also did not want to bless her son to the throne, fearing that the Russian people "fell heartless" and could destroy young Mikhail, like the former tsars, Fyodor Borisovich,

The Zemsky Sobor, convened in January 1613 (it was attended by representatives from 50 cities and the clergy), immediately decided: do not elect a non-Christian to the throne. Many worthy people claimed the throne. However, 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov was chosen from all of them, who at that moment was not even in Moscow. On the other hand, the former Tushins and Cossacks advocated for him especially zealously and even aggressively. The last participants of the Zemsky Sobor were afraid - everyone knew the irrepressible power of the Cossack freemen. Another candidate for king, one of the leaders of the Home Guard, Prince D.T. Trubetskoy, tried to please the Cossacks and win their support. He arranged plentiful feasts, but received nothing but ridicule from them in return. The Cossacks, who boldly walked around Moscow in armed crowds, looked at Mikhail as the son of the “Tushino Patriarch” Filaret, who was close to them, believing that he would be obedient to their leaders. However, Mikhail suited many others as well - Russian society craved peace, certainty and mercy. Everyone remembered that Mikhail came from a family revered for the kindness of the first wife of Ivan the Terrible, Anastasia - "Dove".

The decision to elect Mikhail was made by the zemstvo on February 7, and on February 21, 1613, after a solemn procession through the Kremlin and a prayer service in the Assumption Cathedral, Mikhail was officially elected to the kingdom. For Trubetskoy, the victory of Mikhail's party was a terrible blow. According to a contemporary, he turned black with grief and fell ill for 3 months. Still - the crown for Trubetskoy was lost forever. The cathedral sent a deputation to Kostroma, to Mikhail. Sent on behalf of the whole earth, they called the young man to the kingdom.

By the time the deputation arrived in Kostroma, Mikhail and his mother, nun Marfa, lived in the Ipatiev Monastery. This ancient monastery was founded in 1330, when the noble Tatar Chet camped near Kostroma. At night, the Mother of God appeared to him. Chet immediately converted to Orthodoxy, and on the site of the miraculous appearance of the Mother of God he founded a monastery, called Ipatiev Trinity. This Tatar Chet, who became Zakhar in Orthodoxy, was the ancestor of Boris Godunov. It was here on April 14, 1613 that the Moscow delegation met with Martha and her son Mikhail.

A member of the embassy, ​​Avraamiy Palitsyn, said that the tsar’s mother did not agree to let her son go to the kingdom for a long time, and she can be understood: although the country was in a terrible situation, Martha, knowing the fate of Michael’s predecessors, was very worried about the future of her unintelligent 16-year-old son. But the deputation implored Marfa Ivanovna so fervently that she finally gave her consent. And on May 2, 1613, Mikhail Fedorovich entered Moscow, and on July 11 he was married to the kingdom.

The young king at first did not rule independently. Everything was decided for him by the Boyar Duma, behind his back were relatives who received prominent places at court; the role of the mother, the “Great old woman” Martha, a strong-willed and stern woman, was also great. She became abbess of the Kremlin Ascension Monastery. Everyone was waiting for the return of the tsar's father, Patriarch Filaret, who was languishing in Polish captivity. But this did not happen soon.

In the winter of 1613, at the time of his election to the kingdom, Mikhail and his mother were in the Romanov family estate near Galich. The Poles, having learned about the election of Mikhail Romanov to the tsars, decided to preempt the envoys of the Zemsky Sobra and capture the young man. The serf boyars of the Romanovs, Ivan Susanin, having become the guide of a detachment of Poles who were going to "break" the patrimony of Mikhail, led the enemies into the thicket and thereby destroyed them, but he himself died from their sabers. So Susanin, at the cost of his life, saved the future tsar, the founder of the dynasty, for Russia.

Tsar Michael and Patriarch Filaret - father and son in power

In 1618, Prince Vladislav, who still claimed the Russian throne, again approached Moscow and stood in Tushino. Then the Poles fought their way to the Arbat, but there they were stopped by the Russian regiments. After that, in the village of Deulino near the Trinity-Sergius Monastery on December 1, 1618, Russian and Polish diplomats signed a truce. And already on June 1, 1619, according to him, an exchange of prisoners took place near Vyazma. Among the people who returned from captivity was the father of the king, Patriarch Filaret. He was given a formal reception. At Presnya, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, on his knees, greeted his father, who also knelt down in front of his son, the Tsar.

Patriarch Filaret, a strong and strong-willed man, lived a difficult life full of contradictions. More than once he was in danger - at the court of the half-mad Ivan the Terrible, in the cell of the monastery, where Godunov imprisoned him in 1600, during the time of Shuisky. In 1606, Tsar Vasily, yielding to the opinion of the boyars, agreed to the election of Filaret as patriarch. Then, accusing him of spreading rumors about the rescue of "Tsar Dmitry" from Moscow, he refused to support him.

In October 1608, Filaret was in Rostov, and during the capture of the Rostov Kremlin by the troops of the Tushino thief, he was with the defenders of the city in the main cathedral, inspiring them to resist. When the situation of the besieged became hopeless, Filaret went out to meet the besiegers of the cathedral with bread and salt, but the Tushino people seized him, threw him into a simple cart, and took him as a prisoner to their "thieves' capital". There he was received by False Dmitry II and made patriarch. Later, during the flight of the Tushins, Filaret was seized by people loyal to Shuisky. He was left in Moscow, but deprived of the patriarchate. Then Filaret actively intrigued against Shuisky, and then openly spoke out for his overthrow. During the Seven Boyars, Filaret went with a delegation to the camp of Sigismund near Smolensk, where the Poles declared him a prisoner and took him to Poland. The captivity dragged on for 8 years.

From the return of the 70-year-old Filaret until his death in 1634, the dual power of father and son was established in the country (“they ruled inseparably”). Filaret was again elected patriarch, while he bore the royal title " Great Sovereign". Like a monarch, Filaret received foreign ambassadors, was in charge of the most important state affairs. He had no experience in these matters. Ruled by Patriarch Filaret prudently, in all the undertakings of the government, he sought to achieve the support of the Zemsky Sobors, which met frequently.
With the help of the “watch”, or census, he conducted the first accounting of lands after the ruin (“Moscow devastation”), sought to provide the nobles with estates. It is important that Filaret recognized as legal the possessions of those nobles who, during the Time of Troubles, "flying", received lands from Shuisky, and from False Dmitry, and from Vladislav, and from other rulers. This reasonable policy calmed the society, as well as the successful fight against the Cossack freemen and robberies.

End of the Time of Troubles, royal weddings

Gradually, life in Russia entered a normal rut. Detachments of the Cossacks, who had been so annoying to the authorities, either dispersed, having received land, or they were defeated in battles by government troops. After the death of False Dmitry II, Ivan Zarutsky got along with Marina Mnishek. He sent letters throughout the country demanding to swear allegiance to Marina's young son, Tsarevich Ivan Dmitrievich. At the end of 1613, in a bloody battle near Voronezh, Zarutsky's army was defeated, and the ataman, together with Marina and Ivan, fled to Astrakhan. Having captured the city and killed the governor, he wanted to raise the Nogai Tatars, Volga Cossacks against Russia, ask for help from the Persian Shah and Turkish Sultan. Here the government acted immediately - the archers suddenly laid siege to Astrakhan. Taken by surprise by the arrival of the Moscow regiments, the Cossacks acted in accordance with their original customs. In exchange for a pardon, they captured and handed over Zarutsky, Marina and Ivan to the authorities. Zarutsky was put on a stake, and 4-year-old Ivan was hanged in Moscow. Marina died in prison from illness and longing.

Once in power, Filaret wanted to strengthen the position of the new dynasty with the successful marriage of Michael. At first, he was looking for a bride abroad for his son. Russian diplomats failed to marry off the niece of the Danish king Christian, as well as a relative of the Swedish king Gustav II Adolf. The obligatory transition of the bride to Orthodoxy did not suit the Lutheran kings.

Then they turned to Russian beauties. Marya Khlopova walked in brides for a long time. Usually, a struggle was in full swing around the choice of a bride - after all, the queen's relatives flew up very high. Therefore, it is not surprising that Marya, who once overate sweets and suffered from stomachache, was slandered before the king, saying that she was terminally ill. Michael immediately renounced the bride. Of the many girls, he chose Mary Dolgoruky, but a year later the young queen died - someone poisoned her. Finally, in 1626, Mikhail played a magnificent wedding with Evdokia Lukyanovna Streshneva, a beautiful but humble noble daughter who became the mother of 10 of his children.

In February 1613, Russian history took another turn. Was it a continuation of the old path or a new road? Perhaps both. A new ruler appeared in a state somewhere on the outskirts of Europe, a sickly seventeen-year-old young man, raised by child-loving aunts in cramped rooms with low ceilings, poorly educated not only by Western European, but even by Muscovite standards, dependent on an imperious mother and an experienced politician, father. And this young man was to become the founder of the dynasty, his descendants were to rule a huge empire ... But it is unlikely that any of his contemporaries in Muscovy or outside it, looking at the young Mikhail Fedorovich (1596-1645), would dare to predict brilliant prospects for him.

Once it seemed to us that Russian history is not too mysterious. School and university textbooks convinced us of this. But now we know that there are enough mysterious moments in Russian history. Mysteries also surrounded Michael, the ancestor of a dynasty that was destined to become as great, peculiar and tragic as, for example, the Ptolemaic Lagid dynasty in Hellenistic Egypt (4th-1st centuries BC).

And the first mystery was the very origin of the family to which young Mikhail Fedorovich belonged. By the time of his accession, this family had, in fact, three nicknames: Koshkins, Zakharyins, Romanovs ... They should have reminded of a certain Roman Zakharyin Koshkin (d. 1543), who was not a great commander or statesman, he did not even live very long, and did not see a sudden triumph of his kind. But what was this triumph? And this was the legal marriage of Roman's daughter Anastasia (c. 1530-1560) with Ivan Vasilyevich, who had barely left his adolescence, who went down in history under the name of Ivan the Terrible (1530-1584). The girl Anastasia became his first wife and therefore the most legitimate in the eyes of the church, and it was the church that oversaw, as they say, the ideological climate of Muscovy, a distant state that turned precisely during the reign of Ivan the Terrible from a principality into a kingdom! Thus, the family of Roman Koshkin turned out to be related to the first Russian queen. This relationship was very useful to them, because nothing but this relationship, the family was not remarkable. It didn't stand out for its notoriety.

Ipatiev Trinity Monastery. Kostroma. It was founded in 1330 by the Tatar Murza Cheta, the founder of the Godunov family, who converted to Orthodoxy (at one time their tomb was located in the monastery). AT Time of Troubles sixteen-year-old Mikhail Romanov and his mother, nun Martha, were hiding from the Poles here. It was here that on March 14, 1613, the Moscow embassy arrived, bringing the decision of the Zemsky Sobor to elect Mikhail. In the Trinity Church of the monastery, the ambassadors announced to Michael popular will. After six hours of persuasion, Mikhail agreed. Photo: Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorsky from the archives of the Library of Congress

It was only later, in hindsight, that the origin of the first representative of the family of Andrei Kobyla (d. 1351) from the ruler of the Prussians Vidvung was invented! In fact, nothing is known about this Andrei Kobyl, it is only possible to assume that he had a boyar rank during the reign of the Grand Duke of Moscow Simeon the Proud (1317-1353), the son of Ivan Kalita (1283-1341), Andrei Kobyla is mentioned among those who traveled for the bride Simeon...

But why was it necessary to invent origin precisely from a foreign ruler? It is easy for anyone who is interested in Russian history to notice that all the rulers of Russia-Muscovy-Russia were, in fact, “Westerners”, they sought, one way or another, to establish relations with Western Europe. Why, the first ruling dynasty, the Rurikoviches, was of Western European origin. And the Romanovs who replaced the Rurikoviches were "Westernizers" to an even greater extent, not by their real origin, but by conviction. And this is not because they chose this very “Western” path of development after much deliberation, but simply because there was no other way for them. They initially had to rely on an alliance with European monarchs, since at home everyone knew that the Romanovs were “thin”, and after all, both the Rurikovichs, and the Gediminoviches, and the descendants of noble Mongolian families were still alive in Muscovy. And to secure oneself from possible claims one should have allied relations with Western Europe, dynastic marriages. But all this was yet to come.

It should be noted that the course to the West was carried out even before the Romanovs. Reforming the army, Ivan the Terrible relied on hired troops, musketeers and pikemen. And Boris Godunov (1552-1605) sent his subjects to England to study, and tried to arrange a "European" marriage for his daughter. There is nothing to say about False Dmitry (d. 1606). He already called himself emperor and invited the Moscow boyars to wash their hands before eating. How it ended for him, we know. And who would have thought that already in the presence of the grandson of the fragile Mikhail Fedorovich, the boyars would not only wash their hands, but even shave off their beards! ..

Metropolitan Filaret. Filaret was a secular person by nature. He was never interested in church matters. He was much more interested in politics. And he was a good politician.In principle, he was not opposed to the Polish prince Vladislav taking the Moscow throne. But for this he had to accept Orthodoxy. When the Zemsky Sobor chose Filaret's son, Mikhail Romanov, as king, the metropolitan became, in fact, his co-ruler. He took the title of "Great Sovereign" and returned to himself, against all church rules, his patronymic, becoming Filaret Nikitich.Reproduction from the site Art-catalog

However, under Boris Godunov, the descendants of Roman Koshkin could not count on any brilliant future. The family was disgraced. They did not please Tsar Boris with a precedent! After all, he himself actually justified his rights to the throne by kinship with Tsar Fedor (1557-1598), the son of Ivan the Terrible. Godunov's sister, Irina (d. 1633), was Fyodor's wife. But after all, the daughter of Roman Koshkin was the wife of the very first Grand Duke of Moscow, who was officially married to the kingdom. And Fedor Ivanovich was Anastasia Romanovna's son ... In other words, the Koshkins-Romanovs could well declare that they had no less, but, on the contrary, more rights to the throne than Boris Godunov! And Godunov took action - subjected them to serious disgrace. Fyodor Nikitich and his wife Xenia were tonsured and subsequently became known in history as the Elder Martha (d. 1631) and Patriarch Filaret (d. 1633). Little Misha and his sister Tatyana remained in the care of their aunts ...

What happened next? Some historians, supporters of the version of the Moscow origin of False Dmitry, even believe that the cunning Romanovs managed to organize an intrigue and, for a start, push Grigory Otrepyev, “their own man,” as they say, to the throne. But this version breaks on the stones of elementary logic. The impostor could in no way be Grigory Otrepyev, who, in turn, really was “from the court” of the Romanovs. Moscow was not a big city, and a person who was too well known to many (namely, Otrepyev was such) would not have dared to appear there under the guise of the son of Ivan the Terrible. Probably, the impostor was a Pole or, at worst, an Italian. Declaring him a runaway monk from the boyar court, the Moscow rulers subsequently tried to simply discredit him, in which they succeeded!

However, Otrepiev could not be the son of Ivan the Terrible either. Thanks to Boris Godunov, who "dressed up" a thorough investigation into the death of the boy Dmitry (1582-1591). The surviving papers ingenuously paint such a true and vivid picture of an epileptic disease that there is no doubt: this boy would not have lived long, he suffered from severe seizures, and his personality had already begun to degrade ...

But the former Fyodor Nikitich Romanov, already Filaret, did not seem to be interested in the origin of False Dmitry. The Romanovs managed to swear allegiance to him, thanks to which they were returned from exile.

Then the real leapfrog of Romanov's oaths began. They swore allegiance to the second Dmitry (d. 1610), nicknamed the “Tushinsky thief”, swore allegiance to Vasily Shuisky (1553-1612), finally swore allegiance to another applicant approved by the Muscovite aristocracy - the young Polish prince Vladislav (1595-1648). Filaret himself went to Poland. And stayed there for quite some time. Later - again! - a version was invented about his "Polish captivity". But why take him prisoner, he was on the side of the Polish party! ..

While Filaret settled complex relations with the Poles, his son was elected Tsar of Moscow. Filaret then managed to come to an agreement with the Polish "colleagues", and so far there have been no protests from their side.

Scientists argue why, nevertheless, Michael found himself in the kingdom. Various hypotheses are put forward. Historians who lived during the reign of the Romanovs were forced, like Nikolai Kostomarov (1817-1885), to write that no one, they say, was dearer to the Russian people than the Romanovs, who suffered from Boris Godunov, who wanted to live according to the old canons. All this is not supported by the surviving documentary evidence. The Romanovs did not at all intend to live according to some kind of antiquity, but continued the pro-Western course of Boris Godunov and Ivan the Terrible ... Soviet historians could afford to be not so naive and therefore assumed that the boyars chose Mikhail, considering him weak-willed and wanting to rule themselves. But they could not consider his father powerless, and his mother was clearly not distinguished by weakness of will.

The election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the kingdom in Russian culture has become a symbol of the complete unity of the people and power - an exceptional event in the history of Russia. The Russian intelligentsia idealized it (as did the author of this picture, Grigory Ugryumov) and took it as confirmation of the possibility of reviving the principle of catholicity in Russian society, that is, universal love and brotherhood. As you know, the intelligentsia was deceived. Unfortunately, she did not know who, in fact, placed the Cap of Monomakh on the young tsar.Reproduction from the site Art-catalog

But that's not all. Who chose Michael? The textbooks say - Zemsky Sobor. And what this zemstvo cathedral was like is not clear to this day. Did it look like a democratic Mongolian kurultai, or was it reduced to the conspiracy of a small group of nobility? And what nobility (some boyars we had several ranks)? Incidentally, such individuals as Prince Ivan Golitsyn (d. 1672), who was related by blood to the Rurikovichs, claimed the throne. What happened there anyway? Light is shed by a document discovered in the mid-1970s called The Tale of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613. And this is the picture that emerges: Moscow is actually blocked by Cossack detachments, the houses of the applicants are surrounded. The Cossacks strongly lobby for the election of young Mikhail Romanov! That's why he was ... chosen!

Let's try to figure out who was called the Cossacks in the XVII century. They were a kind of condottieri, free armed seekers of fortune. They were employed in one army, then in another, then to Pozharsky, then to the Polish hetman Zholkevsky (1547-1620) ... I must say that the Romanovs did not fulfill their promises and did not give the Cossacks the territories that were discussed. This became the reason for serious Cossack uprisings, of which the most famous are the movements of Razin (c. 1630-1671) and Pugachev (1740/42-1775). The latter, by the way, promised to finally fulfill the promise and “grant” the Cossacks to the “eternal and free possession” of the Don “with all green meadows, with all dark forests” ...

So the Romanovs got power. But he still had to keep her. But the situation was not so simple. It was necessary to destroy the most important contenders, that is, in the first place, Marina Mnishek (c. 1588 - c. 1614) and her son, little Ivan, who was barely four years old. Marina's claims were based on the fact that she was officially crowned, "anointed to the kingdom", and her son was formally Rurikovich, the grandson of Ivan the Terrible! It was formally, of course, and not in fact, but in this case, this “formality” mattered ... However, Marina and her son were captured and executed. The first important act of the new king was the decree on the public execution of a four-year-old child. It was already something new in the world practice!

Usually objectionable child applicants were quietly suffocated with a pillow in some dark dungeon. But Michael could not afford this, he reasonably feared the appearance of an impostor later, "miraculously saved." (By the way, such an impostor, a certain Ivan Luba, subsequently appeared anyway, but his case, of course, did not burn out.) Therefore, the execution of the boy was public. Russian documents were fixed simply: hung up! But foreign sources say otherwise. The Dutchman Elias Gerkman published in 1625 eyewitness accounts of the public hanging of a small crying child ... It turned out that the first Romanov executed the last Rurikovich from the branch descended from Alexander Nevsky (1220-1263). And three hundred years later, history turned into a tragic zigzag - an execution in distant Siberia, where the Romanovs would exile their political opponents, a boy, the last representative of the ruling branch, for three hundred years in a row ...

But the Romanovs at the very beginning of their reign were not in the mood for sentimentality. We can assume that the order for the public execution of little Ivan was actually given not by Mikhail, but by his imperious mother, the old woman Martha. She also selects the first bride for her son, a girl from the family of her Khlopov relatives. Young Mary is given a solemn new name - Anastasia, once again reminding everyone of her relationship with the first queen in Russian history. To become relatives of the new queen was, of course, prestigious and profitable this time. A tight knot of all sorts of intrigues is twisted. And just then Filaret returns to his homeland. The prospect of Mikhail's Russian marriage is discarded.

An experienced politician, Filaret is looking for allies in the West. Where? Of course, where the Rurikovichs come from, where Boris Godunov was looking for a groom for his daughter, in Denmark. However, the Danish king Christian IV (1577-1648) refuses the hand of his niece. The Swedish king Gustavus Adolf (1594-1632) also refuses, does not want to give up Princess Catherine. Europe does not recognize the newborn Romanov dynasty.

Filaret decides for the time being to be content with the local nobility and celebrates his son's wedding with Princess Maria Dolgorukova. But soon the young wife of Michael dies (1625). What caused the death of this Rurikovna is not known. But it is known that several more times the Dolgorukovs-Dolgorukies will try with the help of their women to get close to the Romanov throne, but these attempts will not succeed either for the bride of Peter II (1715-1730) or for the favorites of Alexander II (1818-1881). Finally, ambitions are temporarily abandoned, and the humble noblewoman Evdokia Streshneva (d. 1645) becomes Mikhail's wife. She bore him a dozen children, but only three daughters and a son survived, the future Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1629-1676).

After a short time, the Romanovs came back to have an oath of allegiance to Vladislav. He grew up and did not want to recognize the king of a man who was formally his subject. In 1632, a war began that cost Muscovy the Smolensk and Chernigov-Seversk lands. But in 1634, King Vladislav nevertheless renounced his claims to the Moscow throne and recognized Mikhail as king.

The last years of the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich were overshadowed by a severe internal political conflict. The documents brought us information about a certain conspiracy, the exposure of which led to a long court case and repression. The queen fell ill, two princes died one after the other. Finally, another attempt to establish close relations with Europe failed. Mikhail Fedorovich wanted to marry his eldest daughter Irina (1627-1679) to a European. This time, the tsar agreed even to the illegitimate royal son of the Danish king Christian IV - Voldemar (1622-1697). This twenty-year-old youth bore the title of Count of Schleswig-Holstein. But the wedding did not take place. The Church, continuing to play the role of a "monopolist" in the sphere of ideology, did not want the marriage of the princess with a non-Orthodox prince. The church was a force, owned land and serfs. The prince, in turn, was unwilling to concede and unwilling to change his faith. The conflict dragged on. The young man actually found himself in Muscovite captivity. He was released and released to his homeland only after the accession of Alexei Mikhailovich.

In 1645, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich died. It is unlikely that the king died satisfied, because he left his young son to the mercy of fate, as they say. But this very fate was favorable to the Romanov dynasty for almost three hundred years, and already the great grandson Peter brilliantly continued the policy of his father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and led his state to the path of greatness ...

Partner news

It is well known that Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, the first representative of the Romanov dynasty, was elected to the kingdom by the Zemsky Sobor, which met at the beginning of 1613. The “Council of the Whole Land” - the government of the united militias (the government of Trubetskoy - Pozharsky) convened a very wide Zemsky Sobor. Along with high-ranking aristocrats and church hierarchs, numerous elected representatives from the localities took part in the work of the Council, among whom were provincial nobles, parish priests, townspeople, “service people according to the instrument” and even state peasants. For a long time, what happened at the Council was known from the letters on the election of Mikhail Fedorovich and data from Russian narrative sources. Based on this information, N.A. Lavrovsky in the middle of the XIX century. built the following sequence of events. Initially, the participants in the Council decided not to choose the king of "Lithuanian and Swedish kings with their children and Marinka with her son, as well as all foreign sovereigns", but to choose "whom the Lord God will give from Moscow from 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 king from the tribe of the righteous< … >blessed memory of Feodor Ivanovich of all Russia "- his nephew, Mikhail Fedorovich.

Such a description of the work of the Zemsky Sobor was repeated many times, until the beginning of the 20th century, when the Swedish researcher H. Almqvist published the texts of messages about the events taking place in Moscow, received by the Swedish governor in Novgorod, J. Delagardie. The Swedish authorities had important reasons in order to closely follow the events taking place in Moscow. In Stockholm, they seriously feared that the Russian throne would be occupied by the son of King Sigismund III, who was expelled from Sweden, who was at war with the Swedish king (his uncle) Charles IX, trying to regain the lost throne. Therefore, already on August 24, 1610, J. Delagardie addressed a letter to the Russian estates, in which, warning against the Poles, he urged them to elect one of the sons of the Swedish king as king. At the beginning of the summer of 1611, J. Delagardie negotiated on this subject with the authorities of the First Militia. In the agreement concluded by J. Delagardie with the Novgorodians after the occupation of Novgorod by the Swedish troops in July 1611, the Novgorodians spoke of their desire to see one of the sons of Charles IX on the royal throne and their readiness to facilitate the transfer of other Russian lands under his authority. In June of the following year, 1612, ambassadors from Novgorod visited the authorities of the Second Militia in Yaroslavl, proposing to elect the son of Charles IX, Charles Philip, as king, reporting that the prince “will be in Novgorod for the state soon and is given to all the will of the Novgorod state of people and wants to be baptized in ours into the Orthodox peasant faith of the Greek law. At the negotiations D.M. Pozharsky took a firm stand: the Second Militia would send ambassadors to Novgorod when the prince arrived there and converted to Orthodoxy. However, the Swedish proposal was not rejected. In the letters sent to the cities, it was proposed to send electives to Yaroslavl - “two and three people from all ranks”, In particular, and to discuss proposals from Novgorod

On October 3, 1612, the Novgorod ambassadors who were in Stockholm were presented with a letter indicating the consent of King Gustav Adolf to release his brother Karl Philip to the royal throne, so that Novgorodians would inform all Russian cities about this. Karl Philip, it was said in the letter, at the end of February 1613 will be waiting for Russian representatives in Vyborg. On December 26, 1612, one of the Novgorod envoys, F. Boborykin, was sent from Novgorod to Moscow with the text of this document. Naturally, under these conditions, Delagardie made every effort to find out what was happening in Moscow.

The new sources introduced into circulation caused a different reaction of researchers - some recognized their importance, others questioned their evidence. A systematic analysis of these data was carried out in his master's thesis, completed in 1918, by a young researcher at that time G.A. Zamyatin. To the documents discovered by H. Almqvist, he was able to add new texts that he discovered in the Delagardie archive in Tartu. The turbulent events of the revolution led to the fact that the issues raised lost their relevance for a while. Only in 1926 was G.A. Zamyatin able to publish the main part of the work in Proceedings Voronezh University, and it did not meet with any wide response. The manuscript was published in full in the collection of works by G.A. Zamyatin in St. Petersburg in 2008.

What information did the messages received by Delagardie about the mood in society during the preparation and holding of the Zemsky Sobor contain?

In the late autumn of 1612, the son of the boyar Bogdan Dubrovsky was sent to the militia camp near Moscow with a letter from the Metropolitan of Novgorod

Pozharsky Dmitry Mikhailovich.

Isidore, which repeated the proposal to raise Charles Philip to the Russian throne. Bogdan Dubrovsky was first in the militia camp, and then in Moscow liberated from the Poles from early October to mid-December 1612. In November 1612, a decision was already made to convene a Zemsky Sobor to elect a sovereign, and letters began to be sent to the cities with an order to send elected representatives to Moscow by December 6 "and with them write your advice for your own hands." In their answer to Isidore dated November 15, 1612, the leaders of the militia informed him of the decision and asked him to inform him of the arrival of Charles Philip in Novgorod. Then they could "with all the states of the Russian kingdom, giving advice, send ambassadors to the prince in Novgorod." It followed from this that the candidacy of Carl Philip was not removed from the agenda, and the Swedish authorities had to continue their efforts to collect information about what was happening in Moscow. Returning to Novgorod, Bogdan Dubrovsky reported that the “boyars” (judging by the context, the leaders of the militia with whom he negotiated) appointed a council to select a new sovereign and would like to elect Charles Philip, since the country needed help for the war against Poland.

Of course, the purpose of such conversations could be to maintain peace with Sweden while the Russian estates negotiate the choice of their sovereign. However, as noted by G.A. Zamyatin, independent evidence has been preserved, to a certain extent confirming the message of Aubrovsky. This is a message from Smolyan Ivan Filosofov, who was captured by the Poles at the end of November 1612. According to him, in Moscow, “the best people” “talk in order to rob a foreigner for dominion”, and the Cossacks want to “take one of the Russian boyars, and try on Filaretov son or thieves Kaluga ". Confirming to a certain extent the message of B. Dubrovsky about the mood " the best people”, Filosofov’s message also speaks of the fact that the Cossacks had other moods. They would like to see on the throne "Filaret's son" - 14-year-old Mikhail Romanov. The very use of the word is typical. The Cossacks did not know Mikhail Romanov himself. The appearance of his candidacy was clearly connected with the sympathy of the Cossacks for his Father Filaret. Connections with the Cossack environment appeared with Filaret (in the world of Fyodor Nikitich Romanov), when in 1609-1610. he was "patriarch" in Tushin, where many of the Cossacks who liberated Moscow came from. The opinion of the Cossacks could be of serious importance, since, according to the testimony of both Dubrovsky and Filosofov, after the liberation of Moscow, the noble militia went home, and the Cossacks remained in the capital the main military force.

The course of events showed that the electors could not convene in Moscow by December 6, and in December new letters had to be sent to the localities. The Zemsky Sobor began its work in January 1613 even before all the electives gathered. Information about the first meetings of the Zemsky Sobor was reported to J. Delagardie by the Swedish messenger Georg Brunno. Sent in the summer of 1611 by J. Delagardie to negotiate with the authorities of the First Militia, Brunno was detained for a long time in Moscow and released when, at the end of January 1613, F. Boborykin brought the letter of Gustavus Adolf mentioned above.

According to him, the first meetings of the Council were marked by speeches by the Cossacks. At first they wanted A.T. Trubetskoy, whom they knew well from Tushin, to become king, but the "boyars" rejected his candidacy, referring to the fact that "they had no happiness with the grand dukes they had previously from their fellow countrymen," and arguing that Trubetskoy is incapable of governing Russia. Then the Cossacks wished to elect Mikhail Fedorovich, "the son of the metropolitan, who is in Poland." And this mention shows that the Cossacks sought the election of the son of Filaret. When this candidacy was rejected, the Cossacks proposed to elect Prince Dmitry Mamstrukovich Cherkassky. at the hasty governor of the Second Militia Dm. Cherkassky began his career in the camp of False Dmitry II, where he left in 1608 with D.T. Trubetskoy and where he was until the death of the impostor.

Thus, the Cossacks advanced the people they

Trubetskoy Dmitry Timofeevich.

Engraving by A. Afanasiev. Early XIX in.

they knew well from their stay in Tushino and from whom THEY could expect to receive a good salary. In this series, the candidacy of the son of Filaret was also named.

According to G. Brunno, the Zemsky Sobor rejected all these candidates. "Boyars" (leaders of the militia) and most of the Zemstvo elected are inclined to elect Charles Philip as Tsar. A few days before G. Brunno's arrival in Novgorod, the Swedes interrogated Russian merchants who had arrived in Novgorod. The merchants reported that the boyars, having rejected the proposal to elect Mikhail Romanov, decided, together with the elected representatives, to ask for “a Grand Duke from a foreign state and royal family and origin, "that is, Charles Philip, if, in accordance with the promise of the king, he will soon arrive in the Muscovite state. It is surprising why G. Brunno does not report anything about such an important decision. All this leads us to believe that such an agreement was not formalized in the form of some kind of binding decision and therefore the Swedish messenger was informed about it in the most general form.

A.P. Pavlov expressed interesting thoughts about the reasons for the sympathy of the Zemstvo elected to the candidacy of Karl Philip. Representatives of cities located to the south and west of Moscow predominated among the elected representatives. Some of these lands were under the rule of the Poles, others were in danger from their side. An alliance with Sweden made it possible to avoid such a danger and achieve the return of what was lost.

At the same time, it is worth noting that, according to Brunno, “other zemstvo officials in the majority agreed with the opinion of the “boyars”< … >except for the Cossacks. Thus, not only the Cossacks, but also some part of the elect opposed the Swedish candidate. By this time, the message in the report of Delagardie dated April 13, 1613, that Mikhail Romanov, having learned about the nomination of his candidacy, hastily left Moscow, rebuffing the Cossacks who tried to detain him, should be attributed to this time.

A number of sources indicate that at the first stage of the Council's activity, members of the boyar duma, who were sitting in Moscow with the Poles, did not participate in it. According to G. Brunno, after the liberation of Moscow, the boyars went to Yaroslavl, fearing that the Cossacks "would not cause them any violence." A similar message is read in the testimony of the children of the boyars I. Chepchugov, N. Pushkin and F. Durov, taken prisoner by the Swedes on June 17, 1614. As G.A. Zamyatin, the steward I. Chepchugov was a member of the "council of the land" - the government of the Second Militia, N. Pushkin and F. Durov were participants in the Zemsky Sobor, who signed the letter of election of Mikhail Fedorovich. They reported that after the liberation of Moscow, the boyars, as it were, went on a pilgrimage, since “they are hostile to

Jacob Delagardie.

Unknown artist of the Dutch school. Early 17th century

everybody simple people countries because of the Poles". In the letters issued by the Zemsky Sobor in January - early February, "boyars", as a special rank among its participants, were not mentioned. This comparison shows that the term “boyars” both in the retelling of G. Brunno’s message and in the reports of scouts denoted boyar children led by A.T. Trubetskoy and A.M. Pozharsky, who were part of the interim government - the "council of the whole earth."

It is clear that this government considered it possible to convene a Council and discuss the issue of choosing a sovereign without the participation of members of the boyar duma - the traditional body of supreme power. Soon, however, the situation changed. This is reported by such an important official source as the Approved Charter on the election of Mikhail Fedorovich to the kingdom.

According to this source, on February 7, a break was announced in the meetings of the Council until the 21st, when a decision was to be made on the election of a king. The postponement was motivated by the fact that it was necessary to wait for the delegations that had not yet arrived at the cathedral, especially from Kazan, headed by Metropolitan Ephraim. In addition, they expected the arrival of members of the boyar duma from Yaroslavl, headed by Prince. F.I. Mstislavsky. In addition, “secretly” messengers were sent to the places to find out the mood of the people. Obviously, in Moscow they wanted to find out whether the moods of the elected representatives who arrived in the capital coincided with the moods on the ground. The cathedral resumed work on February 21, although by this time the delegation from Kazan had not arrived. Obviously, some circumstances did not allow to wait longer.

About what happened on February 21, when the Cathedral resumed its work, the news of two sources, written already at a certain temporary distance from the event, has been preserved. One of them is the “Tale” by Avraamy Palitsyn, written around 1620. It says that when a three-day fast was announced before the start of new meetings, “many nobles and boyar children, and guests of many pink cities came to the Trinity metochion to Avraamy Palitsyn , and chieftains, and Cossacks ”and brought with them“ each of their rank writing ”about the election of Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom, as the nephew of the last legitimate tsar of Russia before the Time of Troubles, Fedor Ivanovich. From Kaluga, such a “writing” was brought “from Kaluga and from the Seversky cities by the guest of Smirnaya Sudovshchikov (representative of Kaluga at the Zemsky Sobor). They asked to transfer these "scriptures" to the "ruling boyars and governors." Then it is told that, having become acquainted with the “scriptures”, “the boyars and governors and the entire royal synklit” made the same decision and sent the Ryazan archbishop and boyars to the Lobnoye Mesto to find out the opinion of the people and the army, who also welcomed the election of Mikhail Fedorovich. It is important to note one feature of this story - the initiative to elect Mikhail Romanov comes from the Cossacks and Zemstvo elected, "boyars and governors" only agree with it.

The election of Mikhail is described in a completely different way in the interrogations of the boyar children I. Chepchugov, F. Durov and N. Pushkin, who, as already noted, were captured by the Swedes in 1614. As they said, the Cossacks and ordinary people with “great noise "They came to the boyars in the Kremlin, accusing them of not choosing a tsar in order to govern Russia themselves and use its income, and demanded that they immediately choose a tsar so that they would know who should reward them for their service. Mikhail Romanov should be elected such a tsar, since Fyodor Ivanovich bequeathed the kingdom to his father before his death. The boyars tried to object, referring to his youth, they suggested postponing the solution of the issue until he arrived from Kostroma to Moscow, but those who gathered “did not want to leave the Kremlin for one hour” until the duma people and zemstvo officials took the oath to Mikhail Fedorovich. Thus, according to this story, the main role in the election of Mikhail was played by the performance of the Cossacks, supported by the population of Moscow.

Commenting on this story, G.A. Zamyatin noted that, even without this information, J. Delagardie wrote to the king on April 13, 1613, that “the Cossacks, find

Mikhail I Fedorovich Romanov.

Miniature from the royal titular book. XVII century

living there, in Moscow, they took them as their grand duke< ... >Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov. Novgorod merchants, who visited Prince Karl Philip in Vyborg, said that “In the Muscovite state, thieves overcame good people < … >in the Muscovite state, the Cossacks, without the consent of the boyars, governors, nobles and the best people of all ranks, for the sake of their theft, (placed) sovereign Mikhail Romanov on the Moscow state. In 1615, the Lithuanian chancellor Lev Sapega told the captive Filaret: “Only Don Cossacks put your son in the Moscow state.” To these testimonies should be added a letter dated 1613 from the French officer Jacob Margeret the English king To Yakov I. Calling on this ruler to send troops to the Russian North, Margeret wrote that the new tsar was chosen only by the Cossacks, the majority of society lives in fear of them and will gladly meet English army.

Although G.A. Zamyatin, having carefully studied both the biographies of the persons from whom information was received by the Swedish authorities, and the circumstances under which their testimony was recorded (for example, the captured boyar children were interrogated separately and their testimonies were compared), seriously substantiated the factual reliability of the information he collected, yet the absence of independent parallel The news about the events of the beginning of 1613 did not make it possible to give a final judgment on what of the collected by the researcher can be considered a firmly established fact.

The situation changed when, in 1985, A.A. Stanislavsky and B.N. Morozov published the monument they found "The Tale of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613" . Later A.A. Stanislavsky made a number of observations, comparing the messages of the "Tale" with the news that came to Delagardie. However, it should be borne in mind that the researcher was primarily interested in the role of the Cossacks in the events that took place, and not in the history of the election of Mikhail Fedorovich. Comparison of different descriptions of the same events seems to make it possible to clarify the picture of events that was outlined by G.A. Zamyatin.

"The Tale", as rightly noted by A.A. Stanislavsky, confirms the evidence of the end of 1612 about the dominance of the Cossacks in Moscow liberated from the Poles. “And the Cossacks walk in crowds in Moscow, wherever they move to walk In the bazaar - 20 or 30 people, and all are armed, autocratic ... From the boyar rank, no one dares to speak with them in spite of them.”

The "Tale" contains important data on the relationship of the Cossacks with one of the leaders of the government - D.T. Trubetskoy. The Tale says that within a month and a half (obviously, from the first to the last meeting of the Zemsky Sobor), D.T. Trubetskoy in the Kremlin, where he lived in former yard Boris Godunov, arranged feasts for the Cossacks, "begging them to be king in Russia and from them, the Cossacks, he would be praised." Although the author of the Tale says that the Cossacks "laughed" at Trubetskoy, they, as G. Brunno reported in Novgorod, proposed his candidacy to the members of the Council at the first meetings. Now it is clear that this was the result of the actions of the applicant himself. G.A. Zamyatin, relying on the answer of the leaders of the government to Metropolitan Isidore of November 15, 1612, attributed THEM to the number of supporters of the Swedish candidate. In the light of new data, these considerations can only apply to A.M. Pozharsky.

The Tale's message that D.T. Trubetskoy arranged feasts for a month and a half, they show that even after the rejection of his candidacy, he continued to fight for it. This allows, in a different way than G.A. Zamyatin, to evaluate such a fact as the solemn award by the Zemsky Sobor in January 1613 to Vagi D.T. Trubetskoy. G.A. Zamyatin believed that the issuance of a letter was a kind of compensation for the rejection of his candidacy. Perhaps this was the case for some of the participants in the Council. However, it stands after A.P. Pavlov to pay attention to some features of the document. It emphasized that Vaga had previously been granted by Fyodor Ivanovich to Boris Godunov, his merits as the main organizer of the freedom movement. For A.T. Trubetskoy, such public recognition of his merits was, obviously, an important step towards achieving the desired goal. At the same time, A.P. Pavlov that the Duma officials who were in Moscow - members of the militia - were not sealed with their signatures.

The Tale's statements about the fact that the Cossacks "laughed" at Trubetskoy, seem to date back to the time when a two-week break came in the work of the Sobor. The Cossacks continued to go to Trubetskoy for feasts, promised him their support, although they had already decided to refuse his candidacy. When it turned out, A.T. Trubetskoy fell ill with grief: “his face is black from the torment, and fell into an ailment, and lay for three months without leaving his yard.”

The "Tale" notes that the "boyars" hoped for the Cossacks to leave the capital, but they firmly decided to wait for the election of the king. Further in the "Tale" it is said that after the convening of the Cossack circle, more than 500 Cossacks went to the courtyard to the Krutitsy Metropolitan. Having broken the gates, the Cossacks broke into the farmstead and “with rude words” demanded to expedite the election of the king. Apparently, as A.A. Stanislavsky, it was thanks to this speech of the Cossacks that the meeting of the Council, at which the issue of electing the king was to be decided, was scheduled for February 21.

The central place in the Tale is occupied by the story of how, breaking into the Kremlin, the Cossacks forced the boyars to decide on the election of Mikhail Fedorovich. As A.A. Stanislavsky rightly noted, the story "The Tale" reveals a number of coincidences with the stories of captive boyar children. So, in both messages, the Cossacks, demanding the choice of Mikhail Fedorovich, argue that Tsar Fedor Ivanovich bequeathed the kingdom to his father Fedor (“he blessed his staff”). According to the children of the boyars, the boyars, trying to reject this proposal, referred to the youth of the candidate; full mind”) his own uncle, Ivan Nikitich Romanov.

The coincidence between two independent sources allows us to consider such a performance of the Cossacks as a well-established fact. The significant role of THIS speech in the election of the first representative of the Romanov dynasty is also obvious. One message of the Tale deserves special attention. According to this source, the boyars proposed to elect the king by lot from among the eight "nobles of the boyars" and it was the message about this that prompted the Cossacks to act. G.A. Zamyatin believed that the boyars wanted to choose Karl Philip and only the intervention of the Cossacks forced them to change their mind. The testimony of the Tale contradicts this hypothesis. According to her, the "boyars" rushed with such a plan from the very beginning of the work of the Cathedral. This assertion is highly questionable. In the list of 8 nobles given in the Tale, in addition to Trubetskoy and Pozharsky, F.I. Mstislavsky, I.M. Vorotynsky, I.N. Romanov, F.I. Sheremetev - the boyars who were sitting in Moscow with the Poles and then left for Yaroslavl. Such candidates could only be put forward by members of the Duma who returned to Moscow, and not by the militia authorities.

It can be seen from the Tale itself that this plan became known when the boyars announced their intentions at the assembled Council. Before us is clearly the initiative of the members of the boyar duma who returned to Moscow, who had not previously been supporters of Karl Philip. Attention is drawn to the changes

The embassy of the Zemsky Sobor, which arrived at the Kostroma Ipatiev Monastery, informs Mikhail Romanov of his election to the kingdom.

Fragment of a miniature from the Book of the Election to the Highest Throne of the Great Russian Tsardom of the Great Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Mikhail Fedorovich, Autocrat of All Great Russia. 17th century

opinions in the behavior of the Cossacks at the beginning and at the end of the activities of the Zemsky Sobor. In late January - early February, the Cossacks propose their candidate to the Council, when the Council rejects him - the Cossacks propose another, on February 21, the Cossacks nominate only one candidate and in a harsh, ultimatum form. G.A. Zamyatin did not give any explanation for these changes in their behavior.

The explanation seems to be to be found in the change in public sentiment during the two-week break from work. It seems that for the course and outcome of the struggle for the throne, the performance of the Cossacks at the first stage of the work of the Council with the candidacy of Mikhail Romanov was important. This speech showed that there are forces in society that support such a candidate. Obviously, it prompted the influential Romanov clan to launch vigorous campaigning activities in favor of their candidate both in the center and in the provinces. Otherwise, the guest of Smirnaya Sudovshchikov would hardly have come from Kaluga with a "scripture" about the election of Mikhail Romanov. If Mikhail Romanov was attractive to the Cossacks as the son of Filaret, the Tushino patriarch False Dmitry II, then this side of Filaret's activity could not attract to him those circles of the population who fought with the adherents of False Dmitry II. When addressing these circles of the population, Filaret spoke as Fyodor Nikitich Romanov, the cousin of Tsar Fyodor, to whom, as a close relative, the Tsar bequeathed his throne. As shown by S.F. Platonov, such a legend appeared shortly after the death of Fyodor Ivanovich. At that time, it did not have a strong impact on society. A different situation developed after many years of Troubles. The connection between the last king of the Rurik dynasty, after whose death normal life soon ceased in the country, and his young nephew reflected in the minds of society the desire for a return to normal life, which once existed and disappeared for a long time, especially since this 14-year-old nephew did not participate in any way in the events of the Time of Troubles, and the easier it was to associate one's expectations with his image. The authority that his father Filaret acquired in the minds of the Russian people, who stubbornly defended the interests of the Russian state at the negotiations near Smolensk, was also important, for which he, along with other members of the “great” embassy, ​​was arrested and sent to prison in Poland. The current situation was reflected in the "Tale" by Avraamy Palitsyn. Representatives from different social circles came from the localities with "scriptures" in which Mikhail Romanov's candidacy was supported, met among themselves, and discussed the state of affairs. According to the "Tale", it turns out that the only place where they came with their "writings" was the Trinity Compound, where the author of the "Tale" himself was located. However, it should be taken into account that Palitsyn systematically sought to emphasize his role in the events that took place. One can therefore think that such meetings, meetings and conversations took place not only at the Trinity Compound, but also in other places in Moscow, the city where there were hundreds of elected representatives of various "ranks" of Russian society who came to the Cathedral. Avraamy Palitsyn's testimony is important, that "atamans and Cossacks" came to him in the courtyard along with zemstvo representatives. At such meetings, the latter could make sure that now not only they, but also other elected officials support the candidacy of Mikhail Romanov. Hence, it seems, the sharp ultimatum nature of the actions of the Cossacks. It is possible that the members of the Boyar Duma who came from Yaroslavl had other plans, but in the current situation they could not resist external pressure, especially since there is reason to believe that among the members of the Duma there were supporters of this candidate.

Information received by Delagardie speaks of a conflict that broke out between the supporters of Mikhail Romanov and the leaders of the Council of All the Earth. Reasons for D.T. Trubetskoy are understandable, since he himself expected to take the throne. Serious dissatisfaction with the decision

Anointing to the kingdom of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov. A fragment of a miniature from the Book of the Election to the Highest Throne of the Great Russian Tsardom of the Great Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Mikhail Fedorovich, Autocrat of All Great Russia. 17th century

showed A.M. Pozharsky. As the boyar son Nikita Kalitin, who left for Novgorod in February 1614, reported, he openly objected to decision, claiming that Russian state unable to wage war on two fronts and he needs an alliance with Sweden. As J. Delagardi reported on April 13, 1613, the Cossacks laid siege to Trubetskoy and Pozharsky in their courtyards and forced them to agree to the election of Mikhail Romanov. In these dramatic circumstances, the activities of the provisional government of the militias - the "Council of the whole earth" - ended.

On February 25, a number of letters were dated with a message to the localities about the accession of Mikhail Fedorovich, and from February 26, orders to govern the country "according to the sovereign's decree" began to be issued by the traditional supreme authority - the boyar duma.

Information came to Delagardie in Novgorod that "zemstvo officials and boyars< … >they don’t respect” the tsar imposed on them by the Cossacks, that “most of the boyars” retired to their possessions, not wanting to recognize Mikhail Fedorovich, that even his relatives do not want his election and do not advise him to take power. However, there is reason to believe that Delagardie's informants exaggerated the nature and extent of the conflict. Letters to the seats came from the participants of the Zemsky Sobor headed by Metropolitan Kirill and were sealed with assault and members of the boyar Duma (F.I. Mstislavsky, I.V. Golitsyn, F.I. Sheremetev, I.S. Kurakin, B.M. Lykov, A.A. Nagoi) and Pozharsky with Trubetskoy.

On March 2, an embassy was sent to Mikhail, who was in Kostroma, on behalf of the Zemsky Sobor, which included the Ryazan Archbishop Feodorit, the archimandrites of the Chudov, Novospassky and Simonov monasteries, the boyars F.I. Sheremetev and V.I. Bakhteyarov-Rostovsky, boyar children, clerks, elected people from cities