Such institutions arose both in Western Europe and in the Muscovite state. However, the causes and consequences of their activities were radically different. If in the first case class meetings served as an arena for solving political issues, a battlefield for power, then in Russia such meetings were mainly used for administrative tasks. In fact, the sovereign got acquainted with the needs of the common people through such events.
In addition, such gatherings arose immediately after the unification of states, both in Europe and in Muscovy, therefore, this body coped with the formation of a complete picture of the state of affairs in the country as well as possible.
The Zemsky Sobor of 1613, for example, played a revolutionary role in the history of Russia. It was then that Mikhail Romanov was placed on the throne, whose family ruled the country for the next three hundred years. And it was his descendants who brought the state from the backward Middle Ages to the forefront at the beginning of the twentieth century.
Zemsky Sobors in Russia
Only the conditions created by the class-representative monarchy allowed the emergence and development of such an institution as the Zemsky Sobor. 1549 was an outstanding year in thisplan. Ivan the Terrible gathers people to eliminate corruption on the ground. The event was called the “Cathedral of Reconciliation.”
The word itself at that time had the meaning of "nationwide", which determined the basis of the activity of this body.
The role of Zemsky Sobors was to discuss political, economic and administrative issues. In fact, it was the tsar's connection with the common people, passing through the filter of the needs of the boyars and the clergy.
Although democracy did not work out, but the needs of the lower classes were still taken into account more than in Europe, permeated through and through with absolutism.
All free people took part in such events, that is, only serfs were not allowed. Everyone had the right to vote, but the sovereign alone made the actual and final decision.
Since the first Zemsky Sobor was convened at the will of the king, and the effectiveness of its activities was quite high, this practice has become stronger.
However, the functions of this institution of power periodically changed depending on the situation in the country. Let's take a closer look at this issue.
The evolution of the role of the cathedral from Ivan the Terrible to Mikhail Romanov
If you remember something from the textbook "History, Grade 7", no doubt, the period of the 16th - 17th centuries was one of the most intriguing, from the child-killing king to the time of troubles, when the interests of various noble families clashed and folk heroes like Ivan Susanin appeared from scratch.
Let's see what exactly happened init's time.
The first Zemsky Sobor was convened by Ivan the Terrible in 1549. It has not yet been a full-fledged secular council. The clergy took an active part in it. At this time, the ministers of the church are completely subordinate to the king and serve more as a conductor of his will to the people.
The next period includes the dark time of Troubles. It continues until the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky from the throne in 1610. It was during these years that the significance of Zemsky Sobors changed dramatically. Now they serve the idea promoted by the new pretender to the throne. Basically, the decisions of such meetings at that time were contrary to the strengthening of statehood.
The next stage was the "golden age" for this institution of power. The activities of Zemsky Sobors combined legislative and executive functions. In fact, it was a period of temporary rule of the “parliament of tsarist Russia.”
After the appearance of a permanent ruler, the period of restoration of the state after the devastation begins. It was at this time that qualified advice was needed for a young and inexperienced king. Therefore, cathedrals play the role of an advisory body. Their members help the ruler sort out financial and administrative issues.
In nine years, starting from 1613, the boyars manage to streamline the collection of fifth money, prevent the re-invasion of the Polish-Lithuanian troops, and also restore the economy after the Time of Troubles.
Since 1622, not a single council has been held for ten years. The situation in the country was stable, so there was no particular need for it.
Zemsky Sobors in the 17th century increasingly take on the role of a regulatory body in the sphere of domestic, but more often foreign policy. The accession of Ukraine, Azov, Russian-Polish-Crimean relations and many issues are resolved precisely through this tool.
Since the second half of the seventeenth century, the significance of such events has noticeably decreased, and by the end of the century it has ceased altogether. The most notable were two cathedrals - in 1653 and 1684.
At the first, the Zaporizhzhya army was accepted into the Moscow state, and in 1684 the last gathering took place. The fate of the Commonwe alth was decided on it.
This is where the history of Zemsky Sobors ends. Peter the Great especially contributed to this with his policy of establishing absolutism in the state.
But let's take a closer look at the events of one of the most important cathedrals in the history of Russia.
Prehistory of the Cathedral of 1613
After the death of Fyodor Ioannovich, the Time of Troubles began in Russia. He was the last of the descendants of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. His brothers had died earlier. The eldest, John, as scientists believe, fell at the hands of his father, and the youngest, Dmitry, disappeared in Uglich. He is considered dead, but there are no reliable facts of his death.
Thus, from the year 1598, complete confusion begins. Irina, the wife of Fyodor Ioannovich, and Boris Godunov successively ruled in the country. Then the son of Boris, Theodore, False Dmitry the First and Vasily Shuisky visited the throne.
This is a period of economic decline, anarchy and invading neighboring armies. In the north, for example,managed by the Swedes. The Kremlin, with the support of part of the population of Moscow, entered the Polish troops led by Vladislav, the son of Sigismund III, the Polish king and the Lithuanian prince.
It turns out that the 17th century in the history of Russia played an ambiguous role. The events that unfolded in the country forced the people to come to a common desire to get rid of the devastation. There were two attempts to expel impostors from the Kremlin. The first was led by Lyapunov, Zarutsky and Trubetskoy, and the second was led by Minin and Pozharsky.
It turns out that the convocation of the Zemsky Sobor in 1613 was simply inevitable. If not for such a turn of events, who knows how history would have developed and what the situation in the state would be like today.
Thus, in 1612, Pozharsky and Minin, at the head of the people's militia, expelled the Polish-Lithuanian troops from the capital. All prerequisites were created to restore order in the country.
Convening
As we know, Zemsky Sobors in the 17th century were an element of government (as opposed to spiritual ones). The secular authorities needed advice, which in many respects repeated the functions of the Slavic veche, when all the free men of the clan came together and resolved pressing issues.
Before that, the first Zemsky Sobor of 1549 was still joint. It was attended by representatives of the church and secular authorities. Later, only the metropolitan spoke from the clergy.
So it happened in October 1612, when after the expulsion of the Polish-Lithuanian troops that occupied the heart of the capital, the Kremlin, they began to put the country in order. Army of the SpeechThe Commonwe alth, which occupied Moscow, was liquidated quite simply due to the fact that Hetman Khotkevich stopped supporting it. In Poland, they have already realized that in an urgent situation they cannot win.
Thus, after cleaning up all the external occupying forces, it was necessary to establish a normal strong government. For this, messengers were sent to all regions and volosts with a proposal to join the selected people in the general council in Moscow.
However, due to the fact that the state was still devastated and not very calm, the townspeople were able to gather only a month later. Thus, the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was convened on January 6.
The only place that could accommodate all the people who arrived was the Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin. According to various sources, their total number ranged from seven hundred to one and a half thousand people.
Candidates
The result of such chaos in the country was a large number of people who wanted to sit on the throne. In addition to the primordially Russian princely families, the rulers of other countries joined the election race. Among the latter, for example, were the Swedish prince Karl and the prince of the Commonwe alth Vladislav. The latter was not at all embarrassed by the fact that he was kicked out of the Kremlin only a month ago.
The Russian nobility, although they presented their candidacies for the Zemsky Sobor in 1613, did not have much weight in the eyes of the public. Let's see which of the representatives of the princely families aspired to power.
The Shuiskys, as well-known descendants of the Rurik dynasty, undoubtedly wereconfident enough to win. However, the danger that they, and the Godunovs who found themselves in a similar situation, would begin to take revenge on past offenders who overthrew their ancestors was very high. Therefore, the chances of their victory turned out to be scanty, since many of the voters were related to those who could suffer from the new rulers.
The Kurakins, Mstislavskys and other princes who once collaborated with the Kingdom of Poland and the Principality of Lithuania, although they made an attempt to join power, failed. The people did not forgive them for their betrayal.
The Golitsyns could well have ruled the Moscow kingdom if their most powerful representative had not languished in captivity in Poland.
The Vorotynskys did not have a bad past, but for secret reasons their candidate, Ivan Mikhailovich, filed for self-withdrawal. The most plausible is the version of his participation in the Seven Boyars.
And, finally, the most suitable applicants for this vacancy are Pozharsky and Trubetskoy. In principle, they could have won, since they especially distinguished themselves during the Time of Troubles, knocked out the Polish-Lithuanian troops from the capital. However, they were let down, in the eyes of the local nobility, by a not very outstanding pedigree. In addition, the composition of the Zemsky Sobor was not unreasonably afraid of the subsequent “purge” of the participants in the Seven Boyars, with which these candidates could most likely start their political careers.
Thus, it turns out that it was necessary to find a previously unknown, but at the same time, a noble descendant of a princely family capable of leading the country.
Official motives
Many scientists were interested in thistopic. Is it a joke to determine the real course of events during the formation of the foundations of modern Russian statehood!
As the history of Zemsky Sobors shows, together people managed to make the most correct decisions.
According to the records of the protocol, the first decision of the people was to exclude all foreign applicants from the list of candidates. Neither Vladislav nor the Swedish prince Karl could now participate in the "race".
The next step was to select a candidate from among the local nobility. The main problem was that most of them had compromised themselves during the past ten years.
Seven Boyars, participation in uprisings, support for Swedish and Polish-Lithuanian troops - all these factors largely played against all candidates.
Judging by the documents, in the end there was only one left, which we did not mention above. This man was a descendant of the family of Ivan the Terrible. He was the nephew of the last legitimate tsar Theodore Ioannovich.
Thus, the election of Mikhail Romanov was the most correct decision in the eyes of the majority of voters. The only difficulty was the lack of nobility. His family descended from the boyar from the Prussian princes Andrey Kobyla.
Next, we will talk about the events that led to the well-known turn of history.
First version of events
The 17th century in the history of Russia was of particular importance. It is from this period that we know such names as Minin and Pozharsky, Trubetskoy, Godunov, Shuisky, False Dmitry, Susanin and others.
It was at this time by the will of fate, or maybeGod's finger, but the soil was formed for the future empire. If not for the Cossacks, which we will talk about a little later, the course of history would most likely be completely different.
So, what is the benefit of Mikhail Romanov?
According to the official version presented by many respected historians such as Cherepnin, Degtyarev and others, there were several factors.
Firstly, this applicant was quite young and inexperienced. His inexperience in public affairs would have allowed the boyars to become "gray cardinals" and in the role of advisers to be actual kings.
The second factor was his father's involvement in the events associated with False Dmitry II. That is, all defectors from Tushino could not be afraid of revenge or punishment from the new tsar.
Besides this, Patriarch Filaret, his father, enjoyed authority in the spiritual life of the Muscovite kingdom, and most of the monasteries supported this candidacy.
Of all the applicants, only this family was the least connected with the Commonwe alth during the "Seven Boyars", so the patriotic feelings of the people were completely satisfied. Still: a boyar from the family of Ivan Kalita, who has among his relatives a clergyman of high rank, an opponent of the oprichnina and, moreover, young and "common", as Sheremetyev described him. Here are the factors, according to the official version of events, that influenced the accession of Mikhail Romanov.
Second version of the cathedral
Opponents consider the following factor to be the main motive for electing the mentioned candidate. Sheremetyev was quite keen onpower, but could not reach it directly due to the ignorance of the family. In view of this, as history teaches us (Grade 7), he developed an unusually active work to popularize Mikhail Romanov. Everything was beneficial for him, because his chosen one was a simple, inexperienced young man from the outback. He did not understand anything either in public administration, or in the life of the capital, or in intrigues.
And to whom will he be grateful for such generosity and who will he listen to first of all when making important decisions? Of course, those who helped him take the throne.
Thanks to the activity of this boyar, most of those who gathered at the Zemsky Sobor in 1613 were prepared to make the “right” decision. But something went wrong. And the first results of the voting are declared invalid “due to the absence of many voters.”
Decisive vote postponed three weeks ahead. And at this time, many important events are taking place in both opposing camps.
The boyars, who opposed such a candidacy, made an attempt to get rid of Romanov. A detachment of Polish-Lithuanian soldiers was sent to eliminate the objectionable applicant. But the future tsar was saved by the previously unknown peasant Ivan Susanin. He led the punishers into the swamp, where they disappeared safely (along with the folk hero).
Shuisky is developing a slightly different front of activity. He begins to contact the atamans of the Cossacks. It is believed that this force played a major role in the accession of Mikhail Romanov.
Of course, we should not belittle the role of Zemsky Sobors, but without active and urgentthe actions of these detachments, the future king would actually have no chance. It was they who actually put him on the throne by force. We will talk about this below.
The last attempt by the boyars to avoid Romanov's victory was his coming out to the people, so to speak, "to the bride." However, judging by the documents, Shuisky was afraid of failure, due to the fact that Mikhail was a simple and illiterate person. He could discredit himself if he began to speak to the voters. That is why tough and urgent action was needed.
Why did the Cossacks intervene?
Most likely, due to the active actions of Shuisky and the imminent failure of his company, as well as due to the boyars' attempt to "dishonorably deceive" the Cossacks, the following events occurred.
The significance of Zemsky Sobors is, of course, great, but aggressive and brute force often turns out to be more effective. In fact, at the end of February 1613, there was a semblance of an assault on the Winter Palace.
Cossacks broke into the Metropolitan's house and demanded to convene the people for discussion. They unanimously wished to see Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov as their tsar, "a man from a good root who is a good branch and honor of the family."
Cathedral oath
This is actually the protocol that was drawn up by Zemsky Sobors in Russia. The delegation delivered a copy of such a document to the future tsar and his mother on March 2 in Kolomna. Since Mikhail was only seventeen years old at that time, it is not surprising that he was frightened and immediately flatlyrefused to ascend the throne.
However, some researchers of this period argue that this move was later corrected, since the conciliar oath actually completely repeats the document read to Boris Godunov. “To confirm the people in the thought of the modesty and piety of their king.”
Be that as it may, Mikhail was persuaded. And on May 2, 1613, he arrives in the capital, where he is crowned on July 11 of the same year.
Thus, we got acquainted with such a unique and hitherto only partially studied phenomenon in the history of the Russian state as Zemsky Sobors. The main point that defines this phenomenon today is its fundamental difference from the veche. No matter how similar they may be, there are several fundamental features. Firstly, the veche was local, and the cathedral was state. Secondly, the former had full power, while the latter was still more of an advisory body.
