Zemsky Cathedrals.

20.09.2019

Proverbs where there are numbers Folk definition of a proverb

Cutugno with his wife. Biography. "I cheated, but I have only one woman of heart!"

(continuation)

The conciliar verdict on the acceptance of citizenship. - The behavior of the highest Little Russian clergy.

In Moscow, the tsarist decision to accept Little Russia into citizenship was first of all tried to be consolidated by a conciliar verdict.

At the beginning of 1651, the Zemsky Sobor was convened, for the discussion of which the Little Russian issue was proposed along with Polish falsehoods, which are: non-observance of the tsar's title, the publication of books containing dishonor and reproaches to the Moscow ranks and the sovereign himself, the Crimean Khan's persuasions to fight the Moscow state together, etc. But then the Great Zemsky Duma spoke in favor of accepting Little Russia and for the war with the Poles conditionally: if they do not reform, i.e. will not give satisfaction. Obviously, the Little Russian question is not yet mature enough in the eyes of the Moscow government; it waited for further circumstances to show, continuing to preserve the peace treaty with Poland, and in its diplomatic relations with Poland so far confined itself to complaints about the breaking of the articles of "eternal ending", mainly about non-observance of the full tsarist title, as well as the dishonor inflicted by the publication of books, full of blasphemy against the tsar and the entire Muscovite state. Our government has already demanded no more, no less than the death penalty for those guilty of that, in accordance with the Diet constitution (decree) of 1638. Such a demand was presented in 1650 by the Moscow ambassadors, the boyar and the armorer Grigory Le Havre. Pushkin and his comrades, and in 1651 the envoys Afanasy Pronchishchev and the clerk Almaz Ivanov. The king and the pans-Rada responded to such a demand with various excuses, called it "a small matter" and sent embassies with empty excuses, moreover, they blamed the blame on insignificant persons and who did not know where they were. With a similar answer, for example, in Moscow in July 1652, Polish envoys, the royal nobleman of Penseslavsky and the royal secretary Unekhovsky, came to Moscow. In the following year, 1653, when the last desperate struggle of the Cossacks with the Poles was taking place and when Khmelnitsky made especially insistent requests to the tsar to accept Little Russia into his citizenship, Moscow considered it possible to intervene in this struggle, but began with diplomatic intervention.

In April, the sovereign sent to Poland the great and plenipotentiary ambassadors of the boyars-princes Boris Alexandrovich Repnin-Obolensky and Fed. Fed. Volkonsky with the embassy clerk Almaz Ivanov and a large retinue. This embassy made the same demands on punishment of those guilty of "registration" of the royal title or of belittling the "state honor"; in addition, they complained about the robberies of Polish and Lithuanian people in foreign cities and about the removal of peasants from boyar and noble estates and estates, about treacherous links with the Crimean Khan and the admission of his ambassador to Sweden, all with the same intent, that is, to fight together in Moscow. state. But the Moscow ambassadors in the name of the sovereign proposed to consign all these Polish inconsistencies to oblivion if the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth stops the persecution of the Orthodox faith, returns the churches selected for union, puts an end to the internecine war with the Cossacks and establishes peace with them according to the Zboriv Treaty. The Pan-Rada did not give any satisfactory answer to these representations, and they laughed at the demand for the death penalty for those guilty of registration of the title; Against the Cossacks, Polish troops set out on a campaign while our embassy was with them. The latter left empty-handed, although he declared that his tsarist majesty the Polish would no longer tolerate incorruptions, and "for the Orthodox faith and his sovereign honor, he will stand, as much as the merciful God will give." Only at the end of September did Prince Repnin-Obolensky return to Moscow with his comrades. Here they received timely news of the unsuccessful course of the negotiations, and, of course, they counted on this failure in advance, and therefore they had already taken appropriate decisions and were preparing for an armed struggle. These decisions, as we said, the young tsar and the Boyar Duma considered it necessary to back up with a solemn nationwide agreement. For this purpose, an ordinary Zemsky Sobor of the clergy, boyars, nobles, merchants and all kinds of ranks of people was convened in Moscow in advance.

The Council began its sessions in June and slowly discussed an important Little Russian issue. It ended on October 1, on the feast of the Protection of the Most Holy Theotokos. The tsar with the boyars listened to mass in the church of this holiday (better known under the name of St. Basil the Blessed); and then, with a procession of the cross, he arrived at the Faceted Chamber, where the spiritual and elected zemstvo people gathered together with the consecrated cathedral, which was headed by Patriarch Nikon. At the beginning of the meeting, a statement was read (by the Duma clerk) of the above-mentioned Polish untruths and Cossack harassment before the tsar; moreover, it was reported about the arrival of the new hetman envoy Lavrin Kaputa with the notification of the renewed war with the Poles and with a request for help, although a small number of military people.

Zemsky Cathedral. Painting by S. Ivanov

At the council, the Little Russian question was raised on a predominantly religious basis; in the foreground was the salvation of the Western Russian Orthodox Church from Polish persecution and from the union introduced by the Poles. It was pointed out that King Jan Kazimierz, upon his election, swore an oath of freedom for "dissimilar" Christian denominations and in advance allowed his subjects from loyalty and from obedience to himself, if he did not keep this oath and began to press someone for their faith; and since he did not keep his oath, the Orthodox people became free and can now enter into allegiance to another sovereign. The officials of the Zemsky Sobor cast their votes in the usual manner. Their answers, of course, had already been formed in advance and now they were clothed only in a solemn form. The opinion of the consecrated cathedral was already known. After that, the boyars in their response rested mainly on the persecuted Orthodoxy, as well as on the fear that the Zaporozhye army would not succumb to the Busurman sovereigns, the Turkish sultan or the Crimean khan out of need; therefore, they concluded, “one should" take under the high state hand of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnitsky and the entire Zaporozhye army with cities and lands. " For the boyars, the same was repeated by the court ranks, noblemen and boyar children, arrow heads, guests, merchant and black hundreds and burdensome people of palace settlements. Servicemen, according to custom, expressed their readiness to fight the Lithuanian king for the honor of the state, not sparing their heads, and the merchants undertook to repair "help" (money) for the war and also "die their heads" for the Emperor. Following the verdict of the cathedral, on the same day, the embassy of the boyar Vas was announced, obviously prepared in advance. You. Buturlin, steward Alferyev and Duma clerk Larion Lapukhin, who was supposed to travel to Kiev and Ukraine to swear allegiance to the hetman, the entire Zaporozhye army, the bourgeoisie "and all sorts of zhiletsky people."

Although the negotiations on the unification of Ukraine with Great Russia were conducted predominantly on a religious basis, and the Moscow government in particular highlighted the salvation of Orthodoxy in Little Russia, however, it is curious that the highest Little Russian clergy almost did not participate in these negotiations and - how We have already indicated that they did not express any desire to exchange Polish citizenship for Moscow citizenship. Monks and priests, on the contrary, clearly strove for such a change and even in a significant number left for the Moscow state.

The fact is that the metropolitan, bishops and abbots of the most important monasteries came for the most part from the Russian gentry, which, although it still retained Orthodoxy, had already undergone significant polonization in its language, customs, convictions and feelings, was very unsympathetic to the autocratic Moscow system and looked down on the people of Moscow, considering them significantly inferior to themselves in culture and almost barbarians. A good example of this, in addition to the famous Adam Kisel, is the Orthodox Little Russian nobleman Joachim Erlich, who in his notes is hostile to the Khmelnytsky uprising and to any enemy of the Commonwealth. It was at this time that the Kiev hierarchy was of gentry origin and left the school of Peter Mohyla, who, as you know, was in kinship and friendship with the Polish aristocracy, and if he turned to Moscow, then only for the sake of helping schools and churches. His successor in the metropolis, Sylvester Kossov, a Belarusian nobleman by birth, just as willingly used alms from Moscow and, at its request, sent Kiev scientists; but he valued the troubles and privileges associated with his see more, was pleased with the improved position of the higher Orthodox clergy during Khmelnytsky's time and did not express any desire to reunite the Little Russian flock with the Great Russian. He did not in the least smile at the idea of exchanging his nominal dependence on the Patriarch of Constantinople, that is, almost complete independence, for real submission to the stern Moscow Patriarch. In addition, with the falling away of Ukraine from Poland, the Orthodox flock was divided into two parts; for Belarus and Volhynia remained with the Poles; consequently, the Metropolitan of Kiev could lose both power and income in this other part of his metropolitanate. Therefore, he not only was not offended by the refusal of the senators to accept him into their midst, contrary to the Zboriv Treaty, but even after that he continued to be an intermediary between the Khmelnytsky and the Polish government and strove for their reconciliation. In the same spirit, the successor of Peter Mogila at the Kiev-Pechersk archimandry Joseph Tryzna and in part the Kiev-brother archimandrite Innokenty Gizel acted. The Moscow government, of course, took notice. Their constant non-participation in the hetman's petition about citizenship and expressed their bewilderment; but Khmelnitsky assured them of their secret agreement with him, and the silence was justified by fear of revenge of the Poles if his petition was not crowned with success. When it was crowned, then the true attitude of the Little Russian hierarchs to the matter of reunification was revealed.

Regarding the Zemsky Sobor of 1651, see. Latkina"Materials for the history of the Zemsky Cathedrals of the 17th century". (Study of his "Zemsky Sobors of Ancient Rus". 231 et seq., With links to the Archive of the Ministry of Justice, St. Petersburg, 1885). Baby about zemstvo councils ("Rus. Thought". 1883. № 12). In the Acts of Moscow. Gosud. (II. No. 459 under 1651) there is news of the choice of noblemen and boyar children in Krapivna to the great zemstvo and lithuanian affairs. It is clear that we are talking about the Zemsky Sobor in 1651. The nobles chose two people. And instead of two townspeople, the governor himself appointed a boyar's son, and a gunner; for which he was reprimanded. Polish falsehoods are also mentioned in the order to the envoys to the emperor Ferdinand III. ("Monuments of diplomatic relations" III. 95 - 97). Acts of the Zemsky Sobor in 1653 published in S.G.G. and D. III. No. 157. II. P. 3. I. No. 104. Acts of the South. and Zap. Grew up. X. No. 2. The general content of this act in the Palace Rank. III. 369 - 372. A more complete copy of it, extracted by Mr. Latkin from Moscow. Arch. M. In. Del, published by him in the annexes to his memorable study, 434 ff. Different opinions about this cathedral: Solovyov's "History of Russia". T. X. "Rus. West." 1857. April. K. Aksakov "Works". I. 207. The child's remembered work. Platonov "Notes on the history of Zemsky Sobor". J. M. H. Ave. 1883. No. 3. G. Latkin justly proves that the meeting on October 1 was only the final, solemn at the Council of 1653, that its sessions began on June 5, and elections for him were held in May. Confirmation is provided from the Palace. Res. (III. 372) the news that on the same day, October 1, was announced to boyar Buturlin and his comrades an embassy to Ukraine to take the oath. Consequently, it was prepared in advance in accordance with the conciliar judgment that had already taken place. On the basis of a hitherto incorrect idea of a one-day meeting of a council, as Latkin points out, there was an incorrect polemic between Soloviev and Aksakov about his significance in the series of Zemsky councils in general. (239-241). Tsar Alexei, on April 24, 1654, releasing the prince. Al. Nick. Trubetskoy and other voivods on the campaign, said to the military men: "Last year there were cathedrals more than once, at which there were elected from you, two nobles from all cities; at these cathedrals we spoke about the lies of the Polish kings." (Soloviev. X. p. 359 of the first edition. From the Polish affairs of Moscow. Arch. M. In. D.). Obviously, different sessions of the Council of 1653 are meant here. Acts of Moscow. Gosud. II. №№ 527, 530, 535, 538. (News from Putivl and Chernigov about Khmelnitsky and Vyhovsky, their and colonels threatened to transfer to Turkish citizenship in case of the Tsar's refusal to accept the Zaporozhye army. them for a campaign, etc.).

List of Zemsky Cathedrals

For 135 years, from 1549 to 1684, about 60 councils were convened. It is difficult to name the exact number of cathedrals, due to the lack of preserved documentation about the early period, as well as due to the controversy of the legitimacy of some cathedrals in crisis situations (indicated in italics). In different periods, cathedrals met at different intervals and had different status and character ( See Periodization of Zemsky Councils).

List

February 27-28, 1549: "Cathedral of Reconciliation" by Ivan the Terrible
January-March 1551:"Stoglavy Cathedral" (church-land)
1564 ... Presumably, a council took place on the establishment of the oprichnina.
1565 year. Gathered in the absence of Tsar Ivan, who had left Moscow, on the initiative of the estates and conducted "negotiations" with the Tsar. Reconstructed based on circumstantial evidence.
June 28 - July 2, 1566. Zemsky Sobor 1566. About the Livonian War
1575 ... Presumably, regarding the appointment of Simeon Bekbulatovich
1576 ... Presumably, regarding the removal of Simeon Bekbulatovich and the "return" of Ivan IV.
1579 ... Presumably regarding Poland.
January 1580... Cathedral of 1580 (church-zemstvo).
November 1580. Presumably in Polish affairs
April 1584.... Election of Fedor I to the kingdom after the death of Ivan IV. Reconstructed based on circumstantial evidence.
July 1584... Church-Zemsky Cathedral. Also, the decision to restrict the growth of church lands and the abolition of tarhan privileges
February 17 / February 27, 1598... Cathedral of 1598. Election of Boris Godunov to the throne after the death of Fyodor Ioannovich
May 15, 1604... About the upcoming raid of Kazy-Giray.
1605 ... Collected by False Dmitry I for the trial of Vasily Shuisky with his brothers accused of organizing a conspiracy against the Pretender. (A political trial was held under the guise of a Zemsky Sobor).
1606 ... Election of Vasily Shuisky as Tsar. There is a question about the legitimacy of this council.
February 1607... On the release of the population from the oath to False Dmitry and on the forgiveness of the perjury against Boris Godunov and his family.
1607 ... In the case of "Tsarevich Peter" (Ileyka Gorchakov). A presumptive council, which should be considered not a zemstvo, but a judicial one.
July 17, 1610 Zemsky Sobor in 1610. The overthrow of Vasily Shuisky and the election of a provisional government from the boyars, the election of Vladislav as tsar. Presumptive cathedral, or illegitimate cathedral.
June 30, 1611... The verdict of "all the earth" in the First Militia. All the land has elected a "government" - boyars and governors DT Trubetskoy, IM Zarutsky, PP Lyapunov. The decision was taken outside Moscow, which was occupied by the enemy. The cathedral was attended by representatives of 25 different cities, regiments, boyars. Some scholars are considered not a zemstvo council, but a military council, a "marching council", a "war council".
End of 1611 - 1612... "Council of All the Earth" in the Second Militia in Nizhny Novgorod. The leading administrative and political center of the militia.
Zemsky Sobor 1613... Election of Mikhail Romanov. Presumably, the powers of the cathedral lasted 3 years, until 1615.
1. 1614 ... There are certificates for this year. It is not known whether new elections were held. One of the problems to be solved is the continued robbery of the Cossacks.
1616-1619 (2nd "three-year session" during the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich).
1619-1622 (presumably the 3rd 3-year session)
1631 ... The first cathedral after an almost 10-year hiatus, about which there is information.
1632 ... On November 11, the issue of collecting five and demand money from the population was considered (Smolensk war, Balash's movement).
1634 ... January 29. New Cathedral on the issue of collecting five and request money.
1636-1637
1637
1639
1642. Council on the issue of Azov.
1645. Election of Alexei Mikhalovich to the throne after the death of Mikhail Fedorovich. Controversial cathedral
1648. "Summer Zemsky Cathedral"
1648. September Zemsky Cathedral
1649. Adopted by the Cathedral Code of 1649
1650
1651
1653. On the acceptance of the Zaporozhye Host into the Moscow state.
1660, 1662, 1663
1674.
1681-1682. Cathedral of "Sovereign Military and Zemstvo Affairs"
April 27, 1682... Election to the throne of Peter I after the death of Fyodor Alekseevich.
May 15, 1682. Changing the previous decision, the election of Ivan and Peter under the pressure of the archers. Controversial cathedral
1683-1684. About Eternal Peace with Poland (see Eternal Peace (1686))
1698. A controversial cathedral, it is not known whether there was.

Literature

Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State. M., 1978.

Notes (edit)

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what the "List of Zemsky Sobors" is in other dictionaries:

S. Ivanov Zemsky Sobor Zemsky Sobor (Council of the Whole Land) the highest estate representative institution of the Russian kingdom from the middle of the 16th to the end of the 17th century, present the collection ... Wikipedia

February 20, 1613. On the porch of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, the cellarer of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius Avraamy Palitsyn reads out the decision of Zemsk ... Wikipedia

Request "John IV" is redirected here; see also other meanings. About the name and names associated with him Ivan the Terrible (disambiguation) Ivan IV Vasilievich ... Wikipedia Wikipedia

The request for "John IV" is redirected here, see John IV (disambiguation). In the annals, the nickname Terrible is also used in relation to Ivan III. Ivan IV the Terrible Ivan IV Vasilievich ... Wikipedia

Kaluga State Pedagogical University

them. K.E. Tsiolkovsky

Department of History and Political Science

Zemsky sobors in the history of Russia

3-year student's essay

Faculty of Psychology

FP groups - 311

Latysheva Evgeniya

Kaluga, 2005

1. Historiography ……………………………………………………… 3

2. What are Zemsky Sobors ………………………………………… ..6

3. The largest Zemsky Sobors ............................................................................. ... ... 10

4. Cathedral Code of 1649 …………………………………… ..14

5. Periodization of the history of the Zemsky Sobor ..................... 17

6. Classification of Zemsky Sobors ………………………………… ..18

7. Conclusions ………………………………………………………… ..... 20

8. References ………………………………………………… .22

HISTORIOGRAPHY

The question of the Zemsky Councils of the 16th - 17th centuries. was one of the most popular problems of noble-bourgeois historiography. The interest in this problem, in addition to its purely scientific significance, was largely due to the fact that noble-bourgeois historians often looked in the Zemsky Councils for a prototype of representative institutions, the introduction of which, as they thought, should become a condition for the further development of the state system in Russia in 19-20 centuries.

An appeal to the past of state institutions, as it were, showed the direction of the Russian autocracy along the path of transforming it into a bourgeois monarchy without revolutionary upheavals and upheavals. It is no coincidence that attention to the Zemsky Councils intensified during the periods of the first and second revolutionary situations and during the revolution of 1905-1907.

In the volumes published annually since 1851, book after book, "History of Russia from Ancient Times" by S. M. Solovyov, material related to the Zemsky Cathedrals was systematized, and their actual history was reproduced. The source base for studying the activities of the Zemsky Councils at that time was still very insufficient. For the most part, these were assembly materials published in the "Collection of State Letters and Treaties" and in the publications of the Archaeographic Commission, some data are given in the "History" of N. M. Karamzin. Soloviev also used some new archival documentation (for example, ambassadorial affairs). Therefore, with his work, one can begin the history of the study of Zemsky Councils.

Further study of zemstvo councils was associated with the introduction of new sources into scientific circulation and a more complete use of those already known in print. The new materials revealed by IN Zhdanov made it possible to more diversify the activities of Stoglava in 1551 as a church-state conference of a special type, which he called the "church-zemstvo council." S. F. Platonov extracted a number of information about the Zemsky Councils from "palace categories" and "category books". I.I.Dityatin discovered in the archives of the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs documents about the cathedral of 1651 (a cathedral act, voivodship replies, a letter of invitation for a cathedral, a verdict on the election of representatives) and other materials of the 17th century.

In connection with the study of the Zemsky Sobor of 1648-1649, the thought of scientists turned as a source to the Cathedral Code. One of the tasks of the source study of the monument was to establish the extent to which elected people took part in its development. The condition for solving this problem was the use of a versatile methodology: studying the text of the Cathedral Code, marking in the margins, comparing it with other sources, etc.

A new stage in the study of zemstvo cathedrals was opened by the research of V.O. Klyuchevsky. He put forward three methodological premises. First, we must proceed from the fact that the Zemsky Sobors are "a special type of popular representation, different from Western representative assemblies," where there was a struggle between social classes and social classes with the government. Secondly, it is necessary to study "the connection of the ancient Russian zemstvo councils with the soil that grew them, with native institutions", to find out "which social worlds were sent to the councils of these representatives, when they arose and how these worlds were arranged, who and why they chose as their representatives." Thirdly, it is necessary to grasp "the prospects in the history of the council's representation: did this institution have any development, historical growth, or did it come to a standstill the same as it was born, remaining politically undersized."

In Soviet literature, the topic of zemstvo councils did not immediately take its rightful place. In the 1920s and 1940s, articles appeared that introduced new materials about individual cathedrals into scientific circulation: 1613, 1616, 1639, 1683-1684. As for the general concepts of the development of this political body, they basically adhered to the ideas that had developed in pre-revolutionary historiography.

V.K.Nikolsky expressed a number of interesting considerations about the Zemsky Councils. As if summing up the results of the study of this institution in pre-revolutionary historiography, he emphasized its complexity and variety of specific forms of manifestation.

The beginning of a number of new investigations in this area was laid by an article by M.N. Tikhomirov. The author, first of all, formulated his attitude to those disagreements on the issue of Zemsky Councils, which emerged in pre-revolutionary literature. He emphasized that he was closer to the approach to the topic of V. N. Latkin (the Russian cathedral is a representative body of the European type) than V. O. Klyuchevsky (the Russian cathedral is "a political undersized"). Noting that “the question of zemstvo councils in the conditions of disenfranchised autocratic Russia in the 19th century is not only a historical question, but also a political one,” Tikhomirov considered it a timely and urgent task to revert to the study of cathedrals as caste-representative institutions. The author revised the data on all known cathedrals of the 17th century, showing the conditions and consequences of their convocation.

At present, the history of the Zemsky Sobors is still of interest to researchers. The cathedrals left many legal monuments (codes, laws, etc.), which are of great historical interest.

WHAT IS THE EARTH CATHEDRAL

Zemsky Sobors - the central estate-representative institution of Russia in the middle of the 16-17th century. The appearance of zemstvo councils is an indicator of the unification of the Russian lands into a single state, the weakening of the princely-boyar aristocracy, the growth of the political importance of the nobility and, in part, the upper classes of the posad. The first Zemsky Sobors were convened in the middle of the 16th century, during the years of exacerbation of the class struggle, especially in cities. Popular uprisings forced the feudal lords to rally to pursue a policy that strengthened state power, the economic and political position of the ruling class. Not all zemstvo councils were properly organized class-representative assemblies. Many of them were convened so urgently that there could be no question of choosing representatives from the localities to participate in them. In such cases, in addition to the “consecrated cathedral” (the higher clergy), the Boyar Duma, the capital's servants and commercial and industrial people, persons who happened to be in Moscow on official and other matters spoke on behalf of the district officials. There were no legislative acts that determined the procedure for electing representatives to councils, although the thought of them arose.

The Zemsky Sobor included the Tsar, the Boyar Duma, the Consecrated Cathedral in its entirety, representatives of the nobility, the upper ranks of the townspeople (merchants, large merchants), i.e. candidates of three estates. The Zemsky Sobor, as a representative body, was bicameral. The upper chamber included the tsar, the Boyar Duma and the Consecrated Cathedral, which were not elected, but participated in it in accordance with their position. The members of the lower house were elected. The procedure for elections to the Council was as follows. From the discharge order, the voivode received an election order, which was read out to the inhabitants of cities and peasants. After that, the estate electoral lists were drawn up, although the number of representatives was not recorded. Voters gave orders to their elected officials. However, elections were not always held. There have been cases when, at an urgent convocation of a council, representatives were invited by the tsar or local officials. In the Zemsky Cathedral, a significant role was played by the nobles (the main service class, the basis of the tsarist army), and especially the merchants, since the solution of monetary problems depended on their participation in this state body to provide funds for state needs, primarily defense and military. Thus, in the Zemsky Sobors, a policy of compromise between various strata of the ruling class was manifested.

The regularity and duration of meetings of the Zemsky Sobor were not regulated in advance and depended on the circumstances and the importance and content of the issues discussed. In a number of cases, Zemsky Sobors functioned continuously. They solved the main issues of foreign and domestic policy, legislation, finance, state building. Issues were discussed by estates (by chambers), each class submitted its written opinion, and then, as a result of their generalization, a conciliar verdict was drawn up, adopted by the entire composition of the Council. Thus, the government was able to identify the views of individual classes and groups of the population. But on the whole, the Council acted in close connection with the tsarist power and the Duma. Cathedrals gathered on Red Square, in the Patriarch's Chambers or the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, and later in the Golden Chamber or the Dining Hall.

It must be said that the bulk of the population - the enslaved peasantry - did not belong to the zemstvo sobors as feudal institutions. Historians suggest that only one time, at the council of 1613, there was, apparently, a small number of representatives of the Black-sowed peasants.

In addition to the name "Zemsky Sobor", this representative institution in the Moscow state had other names: "Council of All Land", "Cathedral", "General Council", "Great Zemstvo Duma".

The essay is supplemented by documents related to the convocation of the Zemsky Sobor in 1651, which was supposed to discuss the violation by the Polish kings Vladislav and Jan Casimir of the peace treaty of 1634 and the transfer of Bohdan Khmelnitsky1 to Russian citizenship. Documents Nos. 1-4 contain: the royal decree on the convocation of a council, a letter of appeal to Krapivna, formal replies from the Krapivno and Meshchovsky governors on the election of elected people to the council. Document No. 5 introduces the characteristics of the institution of an elected tsar in the Russian state at the beginning of the 17th century, belonging to the prominent Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky.

DOCUMENT No. 1.

THE CATHEDRAL OF POLISH AFFAIRS AND ABOUT THE ZAPOROZHIAN HETMAN BOGDAN KHMELNITSKY 1651, FEBRUARY 19 (extract)

Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of All Russia pointed out to establish a cathedral about the Lithuanian business. And at the cathedral there will be: the patriarch, and the metropolitans, and the archbishops, and the bishop, and the black authorities, and the boyars, and the entourage, and the duma people, and the stewards, and the solicitors, and the Moscow nobles, and the clerks and nobles from the cities, and guests, and merchants, and people of all ranks. And the Sovereign instructed them to declare the Lithuanian king and the lords are glad of the past and present untruths, what are being done on their part, past the eternal end, but from the king and from the lords there was no correction in that. And so that those, their untruths of his, the Sovereigns of the Moscow State were known to all people; also the Zaporozhye hetman Bogdan Khmelnytsky was sent to declare that they were beating a high hand and citizenship under the Tsar's head. And at the cathedral, to speak all sorts of ranks to people aloud ...

SPb., 1884 .-- P. 81.

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (from German engraving)

CONCLUSION OF THE 7159th JANUARY FROM THE TSAR AND THE GRAND PRINCE ALEXEY MIKHAILOVICH TO KRAPIVNA, VOOVOAD VASIL ASTAFIEV ABOUT THE DELIVERY OF ELECTED PEOPLE TO MOSCOW

From the Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of All Russia to Krapivna, Vasilyo Astafieva. It has been written from us to you in advance of this, and ordered to choose from the Solovites the best noblemen, two people, and the best townspeople, two people and send them to Moscow for a period, on Cathedral Sunday (the first Sunday of Great Lent - Auth.) th, 159th year for our royal, great, and zemstvo, and Lithuanian business. And how will this letter of ours come to you, and you would have our decree to the Solovites - to the noblemen and the boyar children, tell them, according to our previous decree, to choose the best noblemen, two people from themselves, and from the townspeople two people immediately they sent it to the specified date, so that our and the zemstvo business would not suffer (delay - Auth.). And whom the names of the noblemen and the children of the boyars, according to our decree, will choose from themselves, and you would have written about that and sent their names to us, to Moscow, in the category.

It was written in Moscow in the summer of 159, January 31st.

Materials for the history of Zemsky Sobors ... Vasily Latkin. -

DOCUMENT No. 3.

Letter from Voivodeship Krapivna Vasily Astafyev to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich on the election of electives to participate in the Zemsky Sobor

To the Tsar, Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of all Russia, your servant Vaska Astafiev beats with his forehead. According to yours, Tsar, Tsarev and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of all Russia, by decree and by letters, it was ordered to me, your servant, to choose the Solovites of the best noblemen, two people, and the best townspeople, two people; and having chosen, to send to you, Emperor, to Moscow on the cathedral Sunday of this year, 159, for your royal, great, and zemstvo, and Lithuanian business. And the Solovians, the nobles and the boyar children among themselves, chose the Solovites for yours, the sovereign, the royal, great, and zemstvo and Lithuanian affairs: Nikita Ivanov, the son of Khripkago, and Roman Ivanov, the son of Satin. And the townspeople, Sovereign, there are only three people on Krapivna, and those are thin, bra-

(from a miniature of the 17th century)

The wedding of the king

dyat [between] the court and in such, your, sovereign business, they will not be, and I, your servant, instead of the best townspeople, two people, chose the best people from Krapivna, two people: the Solovlyan boyar son Fedos Bogdanov so that he Fedos lives on Krapivna in the posad, and often happens to your, sovereigns, many affairs with the regimental from the boyars and the governor in the pod'yachi, and the gunman of Krapivna Ivan Fomin. And he ordered those elected noblemen and clerk and gunner to appear in the rank of yours, the sovereign duma nobleman Ivan Afanasyevich Gavrenyov and your sovereign clerks ...

Materials for the history of Zemsky Sobors ... Vasily Latkin. - SPb., 1884 .-- S. 102-103. DOCUMENT No. 4.

Letter from Meshchovsky Voivode Mikhail Durnov to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich on the election of electives for participation in the Zemsky Sobor

(extract)

To the Tsar, Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of all Russia, your servant, Mishka the Bad, beats with his forehead. This year, Sovereign, in February 159, on the 1st day, your Sovereign, Tsarev and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of All Russia have been sent a letter from the Rank of the clerk Ivan Severov to Meshchok to me, your servant. And according to your sovereign's charter, you ordered me, your servant, to choose the best noblemen, two people, and the best townspeople, two people, to Meshchoka. And having chosen, it has been ordered to me, your servant, to send to you, the Sovereign, to Moscow for a period, on the national Sunday of this day, 159, for your Sovereign, Tsarev and the Great Prince Alexei Mikhailovich of all Russia of the royal business, both the Zemsky and Lithuanian. And according to your sovereign's decree and literacy, I, your servant, chose the best nobles for Meschovsk, two people: Ivan Ivanov, the son of Koshkarev, and Saveli Medvedev, the son of Labadinsky, and the best townspeople: Danka Semyonov and Makarka Aleksandrov. And having chosen, I, your servant, ordered the nobles and townspeople to appear in Moscow for a period of time, on Palm Sunday of the current year 159, in the category of the Duma nobleman Ivan Afanasyevich Gavrenev and clerks ...

Materials for the history of Zemsky Sobors ... Vasily Latkin. -

SPb., 1884 .-- P. 111.

I had to elect the tsar by the Zemsky Sobor. By the very novelty of the matter, the conciliar election was not considered a sufficient justification for the new state power, it aroused doubts and anxiety. The conciliar decision on the election of Boris Godunov foresees the objection of people who will say about the voters: "Let us separate from them, because they have appointed a tsar for themselves."

Whoever says such a word, the conciliar act calls him unreasonable and damned. One very widespread pamphlet of 1611 tells how the author was told in a miraculous vision that the Lord himself would indicate to whom to own the Russian state; if they set up a king of their own accord, "there will never be a king." Throughout the entire Troubles they could not get used to the idea of an elected tsar; they thought that the elected king was not a king, that only a born, hereditary sovereign from the offspring of Kalita could be a real, legitimate king, and they tried to attach the elected king to this tribe in all sorts of ways, legal fiction, genealogical stretch, rhetorical exaggeration. Boris Godunov, upon his election, was solemnly greeted by the clergy and people as the hereditary tsar, "wishing him well on his sovereign patrimony", and Vasily Shuisky, who formally limited his power, was written in official acts as "autocrat", as natural Moscow sovereigns were titled. With such stubborn thinking in the ruling circles, the appearance of an elective tsar on the throne should have seemed to the masses not as a consequence of political necessity, albeit a sad one, but as something similar to a violation of the laws of nature: an elective tsar was just as incongruous for her as an elective father, an elective mother. That is why simple minds could not, could not fit into the concept of a "true" king, neither Boris Godunov, nor Vasily Shuisky, and even more so the Polish prince Vladislav: they were seen as usurpers, while one ghost of a natural king in the person of a rogue of unknown origin calmed him dynastically - legitimate consciences and disposed to trust. The turmoil ended only when it was possible to find a tsar who could be linked by kinship, albeit not directly, with an extinct dynasty: Tsar Michael was established on the throne not so much because he was the national electoral leader, but because he was brought by his nephew to the last tsar of the former dynasty. Doubt in popular election, as a sufficient legitimate source of supreme power, was an important condition that nourished the Troubles, and this doubt stemmed from the deeply rooted conviction that such a source should only be patrimonial succession in a certain dynasty. Therefore, this inability to get used to the idea of an elected tsar can be recognized as a derivative cause of the Troubles, which emerged from the main one just outlined.

Klyuchevsky V.O. Works: In 9 vols. T. Ill: Course of Russian history.

Ch.Z.-M., 1988. -S. 49-51.

QUESTIONS AND TASKS 1.

Name the conditions in which the reforms of local government took place at the end of the 15th - the middle of the 16th centuries. Name the local government bodies that emerged during this period and indicate their competence. 2.

Compare the system of representation at the Zemsky Councils in the XVI-XVII centuries. What are the reasons for its transformation. 3.

Using the text of the essay and documents Nos. 1-4, describe the procedure for electing representatives of certain regions to the Council of 1651 4.

Compare the legal status of the Zemsky Councils and the estate-representative institutions of France and England. Show the elements of similarity and differences in the electoral systems of these bodies. 5.

Using the text of the essay and document No. 5, show how the election of the tsar was reflected in the public consciousness.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

Materials for the history of Zemsky Cathedrals of the XVII century. (1619-20, 1648-49 and 1651) Vasily Latkin. - SPb., 1884.

Materials on the history of the USSR for seminars and practical classes. Issue 2. Russian feudal village XI-XVI centuries .: Textbook for universities on spec. "History". - M „1987.

Russian legislation of the X-XX centuries in 9 volumes. T. 2: Legislation of the period of formation and strengthening of the Russian centralized state. - M., 1985. Russian legislation of the X-XX centuries in 9 volumes. T. 3: Acts of Zemsky Sobors. - M „1985.

Belonovsky V. N., Belonovsky A. V. Representation and elections in Russia from ancient times to the 17th century: (theory, history, practice). - M., 1999. Volkov VA Organization of state power in the zemstvo liberation movements of the Time of Troubles // Soviet state and law. - 1985. - № 6. Eroshkin NP History of state institutions in pre-revolutionary Russia. - M., 1983.

Ivanchenko A.V. Election commissions of the Russian Federation: history, theory, practice. - M., 1996.

Institutions of self-government: historical and legal research / Otv. ed. L. S. Mamut - M "1995.

History of the USSR from ancient times to the end of the 18th century / Ed. B.A. Rybakov. - M „1975.

Kabanov A.K. Organization of elections to the Zemsky Councils of the 17th century. // Journal of the Ministry of Public Education. - 1910 .-- September.

Kizevetter A.A.Local self-government in Russia IX-XIX centuries: Historical sketch. - M., 1910.

Klyuchevsky V.O. Works. In 9 vols. T. III: Course of Russian history. Part 3. - M., 1988.

Klyuchevsky V.O. Works. In 9 vols. T. VIII: Articles. - M., 1990.

Mordovina S.P. The nature of the noble representation at the Zemsky Sobor 1598

of the year // Questions of history. - 1971. - No. 2.

Pavlov A.P. The Tsar's Court and the Political Struggle under Boris Godunov (15841605). - SPb., 1992.

Platanov S.F. - M „1995.

Skrynnikov R. G. Russia on the Eve of the Time of Troubles. - M., 1981. Soloviev S. M. History of Russia since ancient times in 15 books. Book IV (v. 78). - M „I960.

Tikhomirov M.N.Russian state of the XV-XVII centuries. - M., 1973.

Torke X-Y. The so-called zemstvo councils in Russia // Questions of history. - 1991. -

Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Cathedrals of the Russian State of the 16th-17th centuries. - M., 1978. Shmelev GN The attitude of the population and the regional administration to the elections to the Zemsky Sobor in the XVII century // Sat. Art., dedicated to V.O. Klyuchevsky ... Part II. - M., 1909. Schmidt SO At the origins of Russian absolutism: A study of the socio-political history of the time of Ivan the Terrible. - M., 1996.

According to the dry encyclopedic language, the Zemsky Sobor was the central estate-representative institution of Russia in the middle of the 16th and 17th centuries. Many historians believe that zemstvo councils and estates - representative institutions of other countries are phenomena of the same order, obeying the general laws of historical development, although each country had its own specific features. Parallels can be seen in the activities of the British Parliament, the states-general in France and the Netherlands, the Reichstag and Landtags of Germany, the Scandinavian Rikstags, the Seims in Poland and the Czech Republic. Foreign contemporaries noted the similarities in the activities of cathedrals and their parliaments.

It should be noted that the term "Zemsky Sobor" itself is a later invention of historians. Contemporaries called them "cathedral" (along with other types of meetings) "council", "zemstvo council". The word "zemstvo" in this case means state, public.

The first council was convened in 1549. The Code of Law of Ivan the Terrible was adopted at it, approved in 1551 by the Stoglav Cathedral. The Code of Law contains 100 articles and has a general pro-state orientation, eliminates the judicial privileges of appanage princes and strengthens the role of the central state judicial bodies.

What was the composition of the cathedrals? This issue is considered in detail by the historian V.O. Klyuchevsky in his work "The composition of the representation at the zemstvo councils of ancient Russia", where he analyzes the composition of the cathedrals on the basis of the representation of 1566 and 1598. From the cathedral of 1566, dedicated to the Livonian War (the cathedral spoke in favor of its continuation), a sentence was preserved, a full protocol with a list of all the ranks of the cathedral, a total of 374 people. The members of the cathedral can be divided into 4 groups:

1. Clergy - 32 people.
It included the archbishop, bishops, archimandrites, abbots and monastic elders.

2. Boyars and sovereign people - 62 people.
Consisted of boyars, okolnichy, sovereign clerks and other high officials, a total of 29 people. The same group included 33 ordinary clerks and clerks. representatives - they were invited to the council because of their official position.

3. Military service people - 205 people.
It included 97 nobles of the first article, 99 nobles and children
boyars of the second article, 3 toropets and 6 Lutsk landowners.

4. Merchants and industrialists - 75 people.
This group consisted of 12 merchants of the highest rank, 41 ordinary Moscow merchants - “the merchants of the Muscovites,” as they are called in the “cathedral charter,” and 22 representatives of the commercial and industrial class. From them, the government expected advice on improving the tax collection system, in the conduct of commercial and industrial affairs, which required commercial experience, some technical knowledge that the orderly people did not possess, and the indigenous governing bodies.

In the 16th century, Zemsky Sobors were not elective. “Choice as a special power in a particular case was not then recognized as a necessary condition for representation,” wrote Klyuchevsky. - A metropolitan nobleman from the Pereyaslavl or Yuryev landowners came to the cathedral as a representative of the Pereyaslavl or Yuryevsky nobles because he was the head of the Pereyaslavl or Yuryevsky hundreds, and he became the head because he was a metropolitan nobleman; he became a nobleman in the capital because he was one of the best service people in Pereyaslavl or Yuryevsk ‘in his homeland and in service’ ”.

Since the beginning of the 17th century. the situation has changed. With the change of dynasties, the new monarchs (Boris Godunov, Vasily Shuisky, Mikhail Romanov) needed recognition of their royal title by the population, which made the estate representation more necessary. This circumstance contributed to a certain expansion of the social composition of the "elected". In the same century, the principle of the formation of the "Tsar's Court" changed, and nobles began to be elected from the counties. Russian society, left to itself in the Time of Troubles, “involuntarily learned to act independently and consciously, and the thought began to arise in it that it, this society, the people, was not a political accident, as Moscow people used to feel, not newcomers, not temporary inhabitants in someone's state ... Next to the sovereign's will, and sometimes even in its place, now more than once another political force appeared - the will of the people, expressed in the verdicts of the Zemsky Sobor, "wrote Klyuchevsky.

What was the election procedure?

The convocation of the cathedral was carried out by a letter of appeal, heard from the tsar to well-known persons and localities. The letter contained issues on the agenda, the number of electives. If the number was not determined, it was decided by the population itself. The draft letters clearly stipulated that “the best people”, “kind and intelligent people”, “sovereigns and zemstvo deeds for the custom,” “with whom one could talk,” “who could speak of grievances and violence, and resentment and what to fill the Muscovite state with "and" would arrange the Muscovite state so that everyone would come to dignity ", etc.

It is worth noting that there were no requirements for the property status of candidates. In this aspect, the only limitation was that only those who paid taxes to the treasury, as well as people who served, could participate in the elections held by estates.

As noted above, sometimes the number of elected people to be sent to the council was determined by the population itself. As noted by A.A. Rozhnov in his article "Zemsky Sobors of Muscovite Rus: Legal Characteristics and Significance", such an indifferent attitude of the government to the quantitative indicators of the people's representation was not accidental. On the contrary, it obviously flowed from the very task of the latter, which was to convey the position of the population to the Supreme Power, to give it the opportunity to be heard by it. Therefore, the decisive factor was not the number of persons who were members of the Council, but the degree to which they reflected the interests of the people.

The cities, together with their counties, constituted constituencies. At the end of the elections, the minutes of the meeting were drawn up, which was certified by all those who participated in the elections. At the end of the elections, a "choice by hand" was drawn up - an electoral protocol, sealed with the signatures of voters and confirming the eligibility of the elected officials for the "Tsar and the Zemsky Affair." After that, the elected officials with the "unsubscribe" of the voivode and the "electoral list by hand" went to Moscow to the Discharge Order, where the clerks made sure of the correctness of the elections.

The deputies received instructions from the voters, mostly oral, and upon returning from the capital had to report on the work done. There are cases when attorneys who failed to achieve satisfaction of all the petitions of local residents asked the government to issue them special "safe" letters that would guarantee them protection from "any bad" from disgruntled voters:
"It was ordered them, elected people, in the cities to the governors from the city people from every bad thing to protect, so that your sovereign at the cathedral Code of law for the petition of the zemstvo people is not against all the articles, your state clerk has learned the decree"

The work of the delegates at the Zemsky Sobor was carried out mainly free of charge, on a "voluntary basis." Voters provided the electors with only “supplies,” that is, they paid for their travel and accommodation in Moscow. The state, however, only occasionally, at the request of the deputies themselves, "granted" them for carrying out their duties as a deputy.

Questions resolved by Councils.

1. Election of the king.

Cathedral of 1584. Election of Fyodor Ioannovich.

In the spiritual 1572, Tsar Ivan the Terrible appointed his eldest son Ivan as his successor. But the death of the heir by his father's hand in 1581 abolished this testamentary disposition, and the tsar did not have time to draw up a new will. So his second son Fedor, having become the eldest, was left without a legal title, without an act that would give him the right to the throne. This missing act was created by the Zemsky Sobor.

Cathedral of 1589 Election of Boris Godunov.
Tsar Fedor died on January 6, 1598. The ancient crown - the cap of Monomakh - was put on by Boris Godunov, who won a victory in the struggle for power. Among his contemporaries and descendants, many considered him a usurper. But this view was thoroughly shaken thanks to the works of V.O. Klyuchevsky. The well-known Russian historian argued that Boris was elected by the correct Zemsky Sobor, that is, it included representatives of the nobility, clergy and the upper ranks of the posad population. The opinion of Klyuchevsky was supported by S.F. Platonov. Godunov's accession to the throne, he wrote, was not the result of intrigue, for the Zemsky Sobor had chosen him quite deliberately and knew better than us what he had chosen.

Cathedral of 1610 Election of the Polish king Vladislav.
The commander of the Polish troops advancing from the west to Moscow, hetman Zolkiewski, demanded that the "seven-boyars" confirm the agreement of the Tushino Boyar Duma with Sigismund III and the recognition of the king's son Vladislav as the Tsar of Moscow. "Seven Boyarshina" did not enjoy authority and accepted Zholkevsky's ultimatum. She announced that Vladislav would convert to Orthodoxy after receiving the Russian crown. In order to give the appearance of legitimacy to the election of Vladislav to the kingdom, a semblance of a Zemsky Sobor was hastily assembled. That is, the Sobor of 1610 cannot be called a full-fledged legitimate Zemsky Sobor. In this case, it is interesting that the Council, in the eyes of the then boyars, was a necessary instrument for the legitimization of Vladislav on the Russian throne.

Cathedral of 1613 Election of Mikhail Romanov.
After the expulsion of the Poles from Moscow, the question arose about the election of a new tsar. Letters of letters were sent from Moscow to many cities of Russia on behalf of the liberators of Moscow - Pozharsky and Trubetskoy. Received information about the documents sent to Sol Vychegodskaya, Pskov, Novgorod, Uglich. These letters, dated mid-November 1612, ordered representatives of each city to arrive in Moscow before December 6, 1612. As a result of the fact that some of the candidates were late in arriving, the cathedral began its work a month later - on January 6, 1613. The number of participants in the cathedral is estimated from 700 to 1500 people. Among the candidates for the throne were representatives of such noble families as the Golitsyns, Mstislavsky, Kurakin, and others. Pozharsky and Trubetskoy themselves nominated themselves. As a result of the elections, Mikhail Romanov won. It should be noted that for the first time in their history, the Black-sowed peasants took part in the Council of 1613.

Cathedral of 1645. Confirmation of the throne of Alexei Mikhailovich
The new royal dynasty for several decades could not be sure of the firmness of its positions and at first needed the formal consent of the estates. As a result, in 1645, after the death of Mikhail Romanov, another "electoral" council was convened, which approved his son Alexei on the throne.

Cathedral of 1682 Approval of Peter Alekseevich.
In the spring of 1682, the last two "electoral" zemstvo councils in the history of Russia were held. At the first of them, on April 27, Peter Alekseevich was elected tsar. On the second, on May 26, both the youngest sons of Alexei Mikhailovich, Ivan and Peter, became tsars.

2. Questions of war and peace

In 1566 Ivan the Terrible gathered the estates to find out the opinion of the "land" about the continuation of the Livonian War. The significance of this meeting is emphasized by the fact that the cathedral worked in parallel with the Russian-Lithuanian negotiations. The estates (both noblemen and townspeople) supported the tsar in his intention to continue military operations.

In 1621, a Council was assembled on the occasion of the violation by the Commonwealth of the Deulinsky truce of 1618. In 1637, 1639, 1642. estates gathered in connection with the complication of relations between Russia and the Crimean Khanate and Turkey, after the capture of the Turkish fortress of Azov by the Don Cossacks.

In February 1651, the Zemsky Sobor was held, the participants of which unanimously expressed support for the uprising of the Ukrainian people against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but no specific assistance was provided then. On October 1, 1653, the Zemsky Sobor made a historic decision on the reunification of Ukraine with Russia.

3. Financial issues

In 1614, 1616, 1617, 1618, 1632. and later zemstvo councils determined the amount of additional fees from the population, decided the question of the fundamental possibility of such fees. Cathedrals of 1614-1618 made decisions on "pyatins" (collection of a fifth of the income) for the maintenance of service people. After that, the "pyatinschiki" - officials who were gathering to file, using the text of the conciliar "verdict" (decision) as a document, dispersed across the country.

4. Domestic policy issues

The very first Zemsky Sobor, about which we have already written, was devoted to just internal issues - the adoption of the law-enforcers Ivan the Terrible. The Zemsky Sobor in 1619 resolved issues related to the restoration of the country after the Time of Troubles and the determination of the direction of domestic policy in the new situation. The Council of 1648-1649, caused by mass urban uprisings, resolved issues of relations between landowners and peasants, determined the legal status of estates and estates, strengthened the position of the autocracy and the new dynasty in Russia, and influenced the solution of a number of other issues.

The next year after the adoption of the Council Code, the council was once again convened to end the uprisings in Novgorod and Pskov, which could not be suppressed by force, especially since the insurgents retained fundamental loyalty to the monarch, that is, they did not refuse to recognize his power. The last "zemstvo council" dealing with domestic policy issues was convened in 1681-1682. It was dedicated to the implementation of the next transformations in Russia. The most important of the results was the "conciliar act" on the abolition of parochialism, which made it possible in principle to increase the efficiency of the administrative apparatus in Russia.

Cathedral duration

The meetings of the members of the cathedral lasted for different times: some groups of electives conferred (for example, at the council of 1642) for several days, others for several weeks. The duration of the activities of the collections themselves, as institutions, was also not the same: issues were resolved either in a few hours (for example, the council of 1645, which had sworn allegiance to the new Tsar Alexei), then within several months (councils of 1648 - 1649, 1653). In 1610-1613. Under the militias, the Zemsky Sobor turns into the supreme body of power (both legislative and executive), deciding issues of domestic and foreign policy and operates almost continuously.

Completion of the history of cathedrals

In 1684, the convocation and dissolution of the last Zemsky Sobor in Russian history took place.
He was deciding the question of eternal peace with Poland. After that, Zemsky Sobors were no longer convened, which was the inevitable result of the reforms of the entire social structure of Russia carried out by Peter I and the strengthening of the absolute monarchy.

The meaning of cathedrals

From a legal point of view, the tsar's power was always absolute, and he was not obliged to obey the Zemsky Councils. Councils served the government as an excellent way to find out the mood of the country, to get information about the state of the state, whether it can incur new taxes, wage a war, what abuses exist, and how to eradicate them. But councils were most important to the government in that it used their authority to carry out such measures that, under other circumstances, would have caused displeasure, if not even resistance. Without the moral support of the councils, it would have been impossible to collect for many years the many new taxes that were imposed on the population under Michael to cover urgent government expenses. If the council, or the whole land, has decreed, then there is nothing to do: willy-nilly, one has to fork out beyond measure, or even give up the last savings. It should be noted that the Zemstvo Councils differ qualitatively from European parliaments - there was no parliamentary war of factions at the councils. Unlike similar Western European institutions, the Russian Councils, possessing real political power, did not oppose themselves to the Supreme Power and did not weaken it, extorting rights and privileges for themselves, but, on the contrary, served to consolidate and strengthen the Russian kingdom.

There were 57 cathedrals in total. One must think that in reality there were more of them, and not only because many sources have not reached us or are still unknown, but also because in the proposed list the activities of some cathedrals (during the first, second militias) had to be indicated in general, in while more than one meeting is likely to have been convened and it would be important to mark each of them.

Partners News