The meaning of the Zemsky Sobor 1613. History and we

Chapter Six The Zemsky Sobor of 1613 and the Election of Mikhail Fedorovich to the Tsar's Throne I The history of the great embassy has shown us how right those were who did not trust the sincerity of the Poles and their assurances. An attempt to restore state order by union with the Speech

Zemsky Sobor in 1613. Election to the Russian throne of a tsar from the Romanov dynasty

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

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

Zemsky Sobors

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

background

A dynastic crisis in Russia erupted in 1598 after the death of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich. At the time of his death, Fedor remained the only son of Tsar Ivan the Terrible. Two other sons were killed: the eldest, John Ioannovich, died in 1581, presumably at the hands of his father; the younger, Dmitry Ioannovich, in 1591 in Uglich under unclear circumstances. Fedor had no children of his own. After his death, the throne passed to the wife of the king, Irina, then to her brother Boris Godunov. After the death of Boris in 1605, they successively ruled:

• Boris's son, Fyodor Godunov
• False Dmitry I (versions about the true origin of False Dmitry I - see the article)

After the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky from the throne as a result of the uprising on July 27, 1610, power in Moscow passed to the provisional boyar government (see Seven Boyars). In August 1610, part of the population of Moscow swore allegiance to Prince Vladislav, son of the Polish King Sigismund III. In September, the Polish army entered the Kremlin. The actual power of the Moscow government in 1610-1612 was minimal. Anarchy reigned in the country, the northwestern lands (including Novgorod) were occupied by Swedish troops. In Tushino near Moscow, the Tushino camp of another impostor, False Dmitry II, continued to function (False Dmitry II himself was killed in Kaluga in December 1610). To liberate Moscow from the Polish army, the First People's Militia (under the leadership of Prokopy Lyapunov, Ivan Zarutsky and Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy), and then the Second People's Militia under the leadership of Kuzma Minin and Prince Dmitry Pozharsky, were successively assembled. In August 1612, the Second Militia, with part of the forces left near Moscow from the First Militia, defeated the Polish army, and in October completely liberated the capital.

convocation of the council

Versions about the motives for the election

First version

According to the point of view officially recognized during the era of the Romanovs (and later rooted in Soviet historiography), the council voluntarily, expressing the opinion of the majority of the inhabitants of Russia, decided to elect Romanov, in accordance with the opinion of the majority. This position is held, in particular, by the largest Russian historians of the 18th-20th centuries: N. M. Karamzin, S. M. Solovyov, N. I. Kostomarov, V. N. Tatishchev and others.

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

N. I. Kostomarov

According to some opinion, this concept is characterized by the denial of the Romanovs' desire for power and the negative assessment of the three previous rulers is obvious. Boris Godunov, False Dmitry I, Vasily Shuisky in the view of "novelists" look like negative characters.

Other versions

Some historians hold a different point of view [ source?] . The most radical of them believe that in February 1613 there was a coup, a seizure, a usurpation of power [ source?] . Others believe that we are talking about not completely fair elections, which brought victory not to the most worthy, but to the most cunning candidate [ source?] . Both parts of the “anti-Romanists” are unanimous in their opinion that the Romanovs did everything to achieve the throne, and they consider the events of the early 17th century not as a turmoil that ended with the arrival of the Romanovs, but as a power struggle that ended with the victory of one of the competitors. According to the "anti-Romanists", the council created only the appearance of choice, but in fact this opinion was not the opinion of the majority; and that subsequently, as a result of deliberate distortions and falsifications, the Romanovs managed to create a "myth" about the election of Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom [ source?] .

“At first glance ... the election ...“ to the kingdom ”of young Mikhail Romanov looks like a true miracle, sent down to this family from above as a reward for integrity and piety ... When you try to“ turn inside out ”this myth, the Romanovs are transformed from almost holy“ quietest ”pious again - still in the "quiet conservatives" "

F. L. Grimberg

"Anti-Romanists" point to the following factors that cast doubt on the legitimacy of the new king [ source?] :

Sessions

The cathedral opened on January 7th. The opening was preceded by a three-day fast, the purpose of which was cleansing from the sins of unrest. Moscow was almost completely destroyed and devastated, so they settled, regardless of origin, where they could. Everyone converged in the Assumption Cathedral day after day. The interests of the Romanovs at the cathedral were defended by the boyar Fyodor Sheremetev. Being a relative of the Romanovs, however, he himself could not claim the throne, since, like some other candidates, he was part of the Seven Boyars.

One of the first decisions of the council was the refusal to consider the candidacies of Vladislav and Karl Philipp, as well as Marina Mniszek:

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

S. F. Platonov

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

First version

Mikhail Fedorovich after being elected to the kingdom

According to the official version, the election of the Romanovs became possible due to the fact that the candidacy of Mikhail Romanov turned out to be a compromise in many respects:

• Having received a young, inexperienced monarch on the Moscow throne, the boyars could hope to put pressure on the tsar in solving key issues.
• Mikhail's father, Patriarch Filaret, was for some time in the camp of False Dmitry II. This gave hope to the defectors from the Tushino camp that Mikhail would not settle accounts with them.
• Patriarch Filaret, in addition, enjoyed undoubted authority in the ranks of the clergy.
• The Romanov clan sullied itself to a lesser extent by collaborating with the "unpatriotic" Polish government in 1610-1612. Although Ivan Nikitich Romanov was part of the Seven Boyars, he was in opposition to the rest of his relatives (in particular, Patriarch Filaret and Mikhail Fedorovich) and did not support them at the cathedral.
• The most liberal period of his reign was associated with Anastasia Zakharyina-Yuryeva, the first wife of Tsar Ivan the Terrible.

“Let's choose Misha Romanov! - boyar Fyodor Sheremetyev campaigned without hiding his intentions. “He is young and will be familiar to us!” ... The desire to have a "common" inexperienced monarch is the goal pursued by highly experienced and cunning Moscow politicians, supporters of Mikhail (A. Ya. Degtyarev)

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

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

Other versions

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

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

Indeed, the decisive vote was scheduled for February 21 (March 3). The council, however, made another decision, objectionable to Sheremetev: he demanded that Mikhail Romanov, like all other candidates, immediately appear at the council. Sheremetev in every possible way prevented the implementation of this decision, motivating his position with security considerations. Indeed, some evidence indicates that the life of the pretender to the throne was in danger. According to legend, a special Polish detachment was sent to the village of Domnino, where Mikhail Fedorovich was hiding, to kill him, but the Domnino peasant Ivan Susanin led the Poles into impenetrable swamps and saved the life of the future tsar. Critics of the official version offer another explanation:

“Deprived of any upbringing among the turbulent events that surrounded his childhood and early youth, probably not being able to read or write, Mikhail could ruin everything by appearing in front of the Cathedral” (K. Valishevsky)

The Council continued to insist, but later (tentatively February 17-18) changed its mind, allowing Mikhail Romanov to stay in Kostroma. And on February 21 (March 3), he elected Romanov to the kingdom.

Cossack intervention

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

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

And here is the testimony of the peasant Fyodor Bobyrkin, who also arrived in Novgorod, dated July 16, 1613 - five days after the coronation:

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

Literature

• Valishevsky K., Time of Troubles, Moscow, IKPA, 1989.
• Vasilevsky I. M. The Romanovs from Mikhail to Nikolai. - Rostov n / a: Maprekon, 1993.
• Grimberg F.L., “The Romanov Dynasty. Puzzles. Versions. Problems”, Moscow, “Moscow Lyceum”, 1996.
• Gumilyov L. N., "From Rus' to Russia", St. Petersburg, "UNA", 1992.
• Degtyarev A. Ya. (scientific review by R. G. Skrynnikov), "The Difficult Age of the Russian Tsardom", Leningrad, "Children's Literature", 1988.
• Karamzin N. M., "History of the Russian State", in 12 volumes, in 3 books, Kaluga, "Golden Alley", 1993.
• Klyuchevsky V. O., “Russian history. Full course of lectures in 3 books, Moscow, Thought, 1993.
• Lurie F. M., "Russian and world history in tables", St. Petersburg, "Art-SPb", 1997.
• Pashkov B. G., “Rus. Russia. Russian empire. Chronicle of the reigns and events of 862-1917, Moscow, TsentrKom, 1997.
• Platonov S. F., "Works on Russian history", St. Petersburg, Stroylespechat, 1994.
• "The Romanovs. Historical portraits, edited by E. V. Leonova, Moscow, Armada, 1997.
• "The Tercentenary of the House of Romanov", reprint reproduction of the anniversary edition of 1913, Moscow, Sovremennik, 1991.
• Cherepnin L.V., "Zemsky Sobors of the Russian state in the 16-17th centuries", Moscow, "Nauka", 1978.

Letters were sent to the cities with an invitation to send authorities and elected officials to Moscow for a great cause; they wrote that Moscow had been cleansed of Polish and Lithuanian people, the churches of God were clothed in their former splendor, and God's name was still glorified in them; but without the sovereign, the Muscovite state cannot stand, there is no one to take care of him and there is no one to provide for the people of God, without the sovereign, the Muscovite state will be ruined by everything: without the sovereign, the state is not built by anything and the thieves' factories are divided into many parts and theft multiplies a lot, and therefore the boyars and governors were invited, so that all the spiritual authorities were to them in Moscow, and from the nobles, the children of the boyars, guests, merchants, townsmen and county people, choosing the best, strong and reasonable people, since the person is fit for the zemstvo council and state election, all cities would be sent to Well, Moscow, and so that these authorities and the elected best people come to an agreement in their cities firmly and take full contracts from all people about the election of the state. When quite a lot of authorities and elected officials gathered, a three-day fast was appointed, after which councils began. First of all, they began to talk about whether to choose from foreign royal houses or their natural Russian, and decided not to elect the Lithuanian and Swedish king and their children and other German faiths and none of the states of the non-Christian faith of the Greek law on the Vladimir and Moscow state, and Don’t want Marinka and her son in the state, because the Polish and German kings saw in themselves a lie and a crime of the cross and a peaceful violation: the Lithuanian king ruined the Muscovite state, and the Swedish king Veliky Novgorod took it by deceit. They began to choose their own: here intrigues, unrest and unrest began; everyone wanted to do according to his own thought, everyone wanted his own, some wanted the throne themselves, bribed and sent; sides formed, but none of them prevailed. Once, says the chronograph, some nobleman from Galich brought a written opinion to the cathedral, which said that Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov was the closest in kinship with the former tsars, and he should be elected tsars. Dissatisfied voices were heard: “Who brought such a letter, who, from where?” At that time, the Don ataman comes out and also submits a written opinion: “What did you submit, ataman?” - Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky asked him. “About the natural tsar Mikhail Fedorovich,” answered the ataman. The same opinion, submitted by the nobleman and the Don ataman, decided the matter: Mikhail Fedorovich was proclaimed tsar. But not all of the elected were in Moscow; there were no noble boyars; Prince Mstislavsky and his comrades left Moscow immediately after their liberation: it was embarrassing for them to remain in it near the liberators; now they sent to call them to Moscow for a common cause, they also sent reliable people around the cities and counties to find out the people's thoughts about the new chosen one, and the final decision was postponed for two weeks, from February 8 to February 21, 1613.

COMPOSITION OF THE CATHEDRAL

Elected people gathered in Moscow in January 1613. From Moscow they asked the cities to send people “the best, strong and reasonable” for the royal choice. The cities, by the way, had to think not only about the election of the king, but also about how to “build” the state and how to conduct business until the election, and about this give the elected “contracts”, that is, instructions that they had to guided by. For a more complete coverage and understanding of the cathedral of 1613, one should turn to the analysis of its composition, which can only be determined by the signatures on the electoral letter of Mikhail Fedorovich, written in the summer of 1613. We see only 277 signatures on it, but the participants of the cathedral, obviously, were more, since not all conciliar people signed the conciliar charter. Evidence of this is, for example, the following: for Nizhny Novgorod, 4 people signed the charter (Archpriest Savva, 1 townsman, 2 archers), and it is reliably known that there were 19 people elected from Nizhny Novgorod (3 priests, 13 townsmen, a deacon and 2 archers). If each city were satisfied with ten elected people, as the book determined their number. Dm. Mich. Pozharsky, then up to 500 people would have gathered in Moscow, as representatives of 50 cities (northern, eastern and southern) participated in the cathedral; and together with the people of Moscow and the clergy, the number of participants in the cathedral would have extended to 700 people. The cathedral was really crowded. He often met in the Assumption Cathedral, perhaps precisely because none of the other Moscow buildings could accommodate him. Now the question arises which classes of society were represented at the council and whether the council was full in terms of its class composition. Of the 277 signatures mentioned, 57 belong to the clergy (part of the "elected" from the cities), 136 - to the highest service ranks (boyars - 17), 84 - to the city elected. It has already been said above that these digital data are far from reliable. According to them, there were few provincial elected representatives at the council, but in fact these elected representatives undoubtedly constituted the majority, and although it is impossible to determine with accuracy either their number, or how many of them were taxpayers and how many servicemen, nevertheless, it can be said that servicemen there were, it seems, more than townspeople, but there was also a very large percentage of townspeople, which rarely happened at cathedrals. And, besides, there are traces of the participation of "district" people (12 signatures). These were, firstly, the peasants of not the owner's, but the black sovereign lands, representatives of the free northern peasant communities, and secondly, small service people from the southern counties. Thus, the representation at the council of 1613 was exceptionally complete.

We do not know anything exact about what happened at this cathedral, because only fragments of traditions, allusions and legends remained in the acts and literary works of that time, so that the historian here is, as it were, among the incoherent fragments of an ancient building, to restore the appearance of which he has no strength. Official documents do not say anything about the course of the meetings. True, the electoral charter has been preserved, but it is of little help to us, since it was by no means written independently and, moreover, does not contain information about the very course of the election. As for unofficial documents, they are either legends or meager, obscure and rhetorical stories from which nothing definitive can be extracted.

ROMANOVS UNDER BORIS GODUNOV

This clan was the closest to the former dynasty, they were cousins ​​of the late Tsar Fedor. The Romanovs were not disposed towards Boris. Boris could suspect the Romanovs when he had to look for secret enemies. According to the chronicles, Boris found fault with the Romanovs about the denunciation of one of their lackeys, as if they wanted to exterminate the tsar by means of roots and get the kingdom by “witchcraft” (witchcraft). The four Romanov brothers - Alexander, Vasily, Ivan and Mikhail were sent to remote places in difficult imprisonment, and the fifth Fyodor, who, it seems, was smarter than all of them, was forcibly tonsured under the name Filaret in the monastery of Anthony Siysky. Then they exiled their relatives and friends - Cherkassky, Sitsky, Repnins, Karpovs, Shestunovs, Pushkins and others.

ROMANOVS

So the conciliar election of Mikhail was prepared and supported at the council and among the people by a number of auxiliary means: election campaigning with the participation of the numerous relatives of the Romanovs, pressure from the Cossack force, unspoken inquiry among the people, and the cry of the capital's crowd on Red Square. But all these electoral methods were successful because they found support in society's attitude to the family name. Mikhail was endured not by personal or propaganda, but by family popularity. He belonged to a boyar family, perhaps the most beloved then in Moscow society. The Romanovs are a recently isolated branch of the old boyar family of the Koshkins. For a long time, still led. book. Ivan Danilovich Kalita, left for Moscow from the "Prussian lands", as the pedigree says, a noble man, who was nicknamed Andrei Ivanovich Kobyla in Moscow. He became a prominent boyar at the Moscow court. From his fifth son, Fyodor Koshka, came the "Cat's clan", as it is called in our annals. The Koshkins shone at the Moscow court in the 14th and 15th centuries. This was the only untitled boyar family that did not drown in the stream of new titled servants that flooded the Moscow court from the middle of the 15th century. Among the princes Shuisky, Vorotynsky, Mstislavsky, the Koshkins knew how to stay in the front row of the boyars. At the beginning of the XVI century. a prominent place at the court was occupied by the boyar Roman Yuryevich Zakharyin, who came from Koshkin's grandson Zakhary. He became the founder of a new branch of this family - the Romanovs. Roman's son Nikita, the brother of Empress Anastasia, is the only Moscow boyar of the 16th century who left a good memory among the people: his name was remembered by the folk epic, depicting him in their songs about Grozny as a complacent mediator between the people and the angry tsar. Of the six sons of Nikita, the eldest, Fedor, stood out especially. He was a very kind and affectionate boyar, a dandy and a very inquisitive person. The Englishman Horsey, who then lived in Moscow, tells in his notes that this boyar certainly wanted to learn Latin, and at his request, Horsey compiled a Latin grammar for him, writing Latin words in it in Russian letters. The popularity of the Romanovs, acquired by their personal qualities, undoubtedly increased from the persecution that Nikitichi was subjected to under the suspicious Godunov; A. Palitsyn even puts this persecution among those sins for which God punished the Russian land with Troubles. Enmity with Tsar Vasily and ties with Tushin brought the Romanovs the patronage of the second False Dmitry and popularity in the Cossack camps. So the ambiguous behavior of the surname in the troubled years prepared for Mikhail bilateral support, both in the Zemstvo and in the Cossacks. But most of all, the kinship of the Romanovs with the former dynasty helped Michael in the conciliar elections. In the course of the Time of Troubles, the Russian people unsuccessfully elected new tsars so many times, and now only that election seemed to them lasting, which fell on the face, although somehow connected with the former royal house. Tsar Michael was seen not as a conciliar elect, but as Tsar Fedor's nephew, a natural, hereditary tsar. The modern chronograph directly says that Michael was asked to take over the kingdom "of his kindred for the sake of the union of royal sparks." It is not for nothing that Avraamiy Palitsyn calls Mikhail “chosen from God before his birth,” and the clerk I. Timofeev, in an unbroken chain of hereditary tsars, placed Mikhail right after Fyodor Ivanovich, ignoring Godunov, Shuisky, and all impostors. And Tsar Mikhail himself in his letters usually called Ivan the Terrible his grandfather. It is difficult to say how much the then-circulating rumor helped the election of Mikhail, that Tsar Fyodor, dying, verbally bequeathed the throne to his cousin Fyodor, Mikhail's father. But the boyars, who led the elections, had to incline in favor of Mikhail another convenience, to which they could not be indifferent. There is news that F.I. Sheremetev wrote to Poland, Prince. Golitsyn: "Misha-de Romanov is young, he has not yet reached his mind and he will be familiar with us." Sheremetev, of course, knew that the throne would not deprive Mikhail of the ability to mature and his youth would not be permanent. But they promised to show other qualities. That the nephew will be a second uncle, reminding him of his mental and physical frailty, will come out as a kind, meek tsar, under whom the trials experienced by the boyars during the reign of Ivan the Terrible and Boris will not be repeated. They wanted to choose not the most capable, but the most convenient. So the founder of a new dynasty appeared, putting an end to the Troubles.