Parting

Reunification of Ukraine. S.V. Ivanov. Zemsky Sobor

Zemsky Sobor* October 1 (11), 1653 was assembled to make a decision on the inclusion of Ukraine into the Moscow state.

In the 17th century most of Ukraine was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - a united Polish-Lithuanian state. Official language on the territory of Ukraine there was Polish, state religion- Catholicism. The increase in feudal duties and religious oppression of Orthodox Ukrainians caused discontent with Polish rule, which in the middle of the 17th century. developed into a war of liberation of the Ukrainian people.

The war began with an uprising in Zaporozhye Sich in January 1648. The uprising was led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky. Having won a number of victories over Polish troops, the rebels took Kyiv. Having concluded a truce with Poland, Khmelnitsky at the beginning of 1649 sent his representative to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich with a request to accept Ukraine under Russian rule. Having rejected this request due to the difficult internal situation in the country and unpreparedness for a war with Poland, the government at the same time began to provide diplomatic assistance and allowed the import of food and weapons into Ukraine.

In the spring of 1649, Poland resumed military operations against the rebels, which continued until 1653. In February 1651, the Russian government, in order to put pressure on Poland, for the first time announced at the Zemsky Sobor its readiness to accept Ukraine as its citizenship.

After a long exchange of embassies and letters between the Russian government and Khmelnitsky, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in June 1653 announced his consent to the transition of Ukraine to Russian citizenship. On October 1 (11), 1653, the Zemsky Sobor decided to reunite Left Bank Ukraine with Russia.

On January 8 (18), 1654, in Pereyaslavl the Great, the Rada unanimously supported the entry of Ukraine into Russia and entered the war with Poland for Ukraine. Following the results of the Russian-Polish war of 1654-1667. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth recognized the reunification of Left-Bank Ukraine with Russia (Andrusovo Truce).

The Zemsky Sobor of 1653 became the last Zemsky Sobor assembled in full.

* Zemsky Sobors- the central estate-representative institution of Russia in the mid-16th-17th centuries. The Zemsky Sobor included the Tsar, the Boyar Duma, the entire Consecrated Cathedral, representatives of the nobility, the upper classes of the townspeople (merchants, large merchants), i.e. candidates of the three classes. The regularity and duration of meetings of Zemsky Sobors were not regulated in advance and depended on the circumstances and the importance and content of the issues discussed

Literature:

Zertsalov A. N. On the history of Zemsky Sobors. M., 1887
Pushkareva N. Zemsky Sobors // Around the World. 2001-2009
“Council of the whole earth” // Russian idea. 2006
Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State. M., 1978

Zemsky Sobor 1651

Among popular movements mid-17th century V. The liberation struggle of the Ukrainian people under the leadership of Bogdan Khmelnitsky, which prepared the reunification of Ukraine with Russia as part of the Russian state, is of particular importance. This major political act was previously considered at zemstvo councils. Back in January 1650, Russian ambassadors in Warsaw G. G., S. G. Pushkin and clerk Gavrila Leontiev, in their negotiations with representatives of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, reproaching the Polish authorities for violating the terms of the peace treaty of 1634, spoke about the tsar’s intention to convene Moscow Zemsky Sobor to consider “royal untruths” 1281.

The council was convened in 1651. 1282 The royal letter from January 31, 1651 to Krapivna governor Vasily Astafiev reached us about the selection “for our royal, great, and zemstvo, and Lithuanian cause” and sending to Moscow “for a period, for a national team.” Sunday" (February 19) two "best nobles" and two "best" townspeople 1283. As can be seen from the text, this is not the first letter to the Krapivensky governor (“it was written from us to you in advance...”). Consequently, organizational activities began before January 31, 1651.

Letters to other cities with the same content are unknown to us, but the archives of the Discharge contain the voivodes’ responses to them, which give (albeit sparingly) an idea of how the election campaign of 1284 took place. We know 47 such replies in 44 cities: Aleksin, Arzamas, Belgorod, Belev, Volkhov, Borovsk, Vereya, Vladimir, Volok, Voronezh, Yelets, Zaraysk, Zvenigorod, Kaluga, Karachev, Kashira, Kozelsk, Kolomna, Krapivna, Kursk, Livny , Likhvin, Lukha, Moshchovsk, Mozhaisk, Murom, Mtsensk, Nizhny Novgorod, Novosili, Odoev, Orel, Pereyaslavl Zalessky, Pereyaslavl Ryazansky, Putivl, Rylsk, Ryazhsk, Sevsk, Serpeisk, Serpukhov, Suzdal, Tula, Cherni, Shatsk, Yuryev Polsky . At the same time, two replies were preserved for Vladimir, Pereyaslavl Ryazansky and Rylsk. One might think that these are not all the cities where elections were held, but only those under the jurisdiction of the Discharge, and even then, probably not all.

From the replies it is clear that the royal letters were received in different cities not at the same time. The earliest (January 27) received them were the governors of Borovsk and Vladimir 1285. In other cities, notices about the cathedral were sent to the most last days January or February, some governors received them late (“after... the indicated date”) 1286.

Norms of representation (“best people”) for different cities the names are not identical: two noblemen and two townspeople; one of the nobles, one of the townspeople, people; two noblemen, one townsman; 4 noblemen, one townsman. Sometimes we are talking only about nobles or only about townspeople. Probably, the allocation of “electors” to cities depended on the size and composition of the population.

The governors report on the progress of the elections. They proceeded differently. The Arzamas governor writes that he did not fulfill the tsar’s instructions and did not send out the “elected people” by the deadline, because the letter from Moscow came to him late in 1287. In a number of cities there were no townspeople, so the election of delegates from among them did not take place: “and the townspeople, sir, people... there is not a single person... and I, your servant, have no one to choose” (Aleksin); “Of the townspeople, there is no one better to choose, sir, because... the townspeople the best people taken to your, the sovereign’s, stone fence business as kissers...” (Zvenigorod); “And the townspeople, sir, people... there is not a single person” (Kozelsk); “But there are no townspeople, sir” (Mtsensk, Sevsk). A demand came to Rylsk for two townspeople. The governor first replied: “And from the townspeople, sir, there is no one to choose from, because the townspeople... are few, but who, sir, are the townspeople, and they are in your business, sir, in the tavern and in the customs collection in tselovalniki", but a few days later one Rylsk townsman was sent to Moscow 1288. The letter from Krapivna said that there were only three townspeople there, “and they were thin, wandering around the yard”; therefore, the governor chose “instead of the best townspeople” the son of a boyar, who “lives in a settlement in Krapivna and often has ... the sovereign’s many affairs with the regimentals from the boyars and the governor as clerks,” and the Krapivna gunner 1289. The Livensky voivode reported that due to the absence of any townspeople, “except for the bobs and janitors,” he selected one of the bobs and sent one blacksmith to Moscow 1290. In fact, it was no longer a choice, but an appointment 1291. Ryazhsky townspeople elected a gunner to the cathedral in 1292. There were no refusals from the governors regarding the sending of nobles to the “royal great and zemstvo and Lithuanian cause”.

The voivodeship reports are very laconic, so there is not a lot of specific information about the elections in them. Usually they are limited to a short and unclear formula: I, voivode such and such (or we, voivode and clerk such and such) “chose” (“chose”) such and such and “sent” (“sent”) or “ordered” (“ordered”) them to appear in Moscow to the Discharge Order 1293. This formula, taken by itself, can give rise to the assumption that the governor himself chose who to send to the Zemsky Sobor. That local administrators showed autocracy is indisputable: they replaced the Krapivensky governor as an “elected” townsman with a boyar’s son. But this was arbitrariness, not the usual order. A literal understanding of the verb “chose” as “put forward at his own discretion” would mean the absence of a system of elected representation in Rus'. Obviously, the word “chose” in relation to the governor must be understood in the sense that he held the elections.

The impersonal expression “chosen” is distinguished by great uncertainty, which we find in the message of the Arzamas governor: “And by your sovereign... decree, two people were chosen from the Arzamas nobles... and from the townspeople, sir, two people were chosen... And by by choice, sir, I, your servant, sent those nobles and townspeople to you, sir...” 1294. Now the question arises: by whom were they chosen?

In a number of replies there is a direct indication that the nobles and townspeople elected their representatives themselves (separately from each other). Thus, the Voronezh voivode wrote: “... the Voronezh residents, the boyar children, chose two people from the boyar children..., and the townspeople chose the townsman...” 1295. The same was the case in Luhu 1296, Vereya 1297. In Krapivna, only nobles and boyar children held elections “among themselves” 1298. In Odoev, both servicemen and townspeople elected two people each 1299.

In some cases it is said that the voivodes received from the voters a “choice” for elected delegates (unsubscribes from Vereya 1300, Novosili 1301). The Novosilsk “choice” - the verdict of 58 nobles and boyar children dated February 15, 1651 on the election of two people to the Zemsky Sobor came in its own form. It is said about the “elected” that they are “suitable and intelligent for the sovereign, royal, and great, and zemstvo, and Lithuanian affairs...” 1302. Probably writing “choice” was mandatory.

Apparently, before the “selection” was formalized, local service people were interviewed (“fairy tales” were taken from them) about a possible candidate. The Murom voivode described this procedure as follows: “And according to... your, sovereign... decree, I, your servant, ordered both halves of the Murom noblemen to gather in Murom in a hut for both halves and choose from one half, according to the fairy tale of the nobles, the nobleman Subota Semenov son of Chaadaev, and from the other half of the nobleman Gavril Ivanov, son of Chertkov" 1303.

In some cities, the population showed indifference to the elections. Sometimes governors took their implementation into their own hands and began to act administratively. In Pereyaslavl Ryazan, almost the same thing happened as in 1648. The Voivode sent gunners and zatinshchiki to all the camps of the Ryazan district with a call to the “elected nobles” to come to the city for elections to the Zemsky Council. On February 14, “not many people arrived,” the voivode wrote, “and I, your servant, have nothing to choose from.” The arriving nobles brought to the retreat hut a list of 8 names of those who should be involved in the “sovereign’s business,” and the governor, simply pasting the list under the unsubscribe, sent it to Moscow 1304.

Something similar happened in Karachev. At the call of the governor, “not many” nobles and boyar children came to the city. They showed the governor that there were 12 Karachevites on the “selected” list. He sent a gunner and archers after them a second time. Pushkar did not find them at home. Only two of the “elected nobles” came to the city, and the governor sent them to Moscow as “elected” participants in the Zemsky Sobor of 1305.

Great unrest among the Krapiven nobility was caused by the arbitrariness of the governor, who, with his own authority, sent the son of the boyar Fedos Stepanovich Bogdanov to the cathedral, while it was necessary to send a townsman of his choice. A collective petition was filed against Bogdanov “by the whole city” (on behalf of nobles, boyar children, Cossacks, archers, gunners, zatinshchiki and “all ranks of people”), in which he was called a “thief” and “setter” and was accused of He, having “met” with the governor V. Astafiev, went to Moscow. The petitioners wrote that they did not choose such a “thief and schemer” for the “sovereign’s great cause,” and did not give him a “choice,” and he could not be involved in the “sovereign’s royal cause.” They asked to evict Bogdanov from Krapivna, delete him from the list of service people - Solovlyans, and exclude him from the membership of the Zemsky Sobor. On the petition there is a note from the Duma clerk Semyon Zaborovsky: “The Emperor granted him permission, did not order him to attend to his business, ordered him to leave him” 1306.

Bogdanov filed a counter petition, in which he accused the nobles N.I. Khripkov and R.I. Satin with their son and friends of drawing up a complaint against himself. According to Bogdanov, it was they (and not he at all) who “met” with the governor and, in order to drive him, Bogdanov, out of the city, they ordered the governor to “elect him for the townspeople as elected people.” When he arrived in Moscow, they began to “to expel and disgrace,” they wrote a false petition against him. Khripkov and Satin themselves, according to Bogdanov, “are rich people and loudmouths and every person is their fighter, they were chosen as elected people ... according to their own strength and wealth,” and “they are not fit for any sovereign’s business” 1307.

Obviously, during the elections to the Zemsky Sobor in a number of provincial cities of the Russian state, contradictions openly manifested themselves between local service people and the administrative administration, as well as between various layers and groupings of the nobility. The governors sought to appoint candidates they liked as deputies and, in doing so, acted in circumvention of existing norms, used their authority, proximity to certain social circles, resorted to illicit means in the election struggle, and pitted separate groups of voters against each other. Service people opposed their “elected” candidates to the voivodeship candidates; in the struggle for various noble candidates, blocs were created among the nobles, using brute force, blackmail, and slander to eliminate opponents. But it also happened that city nobles and boyar children avoided participating in the elections. This could mean political indifference, and, on the contrary, be a special form of political opposition.

The literature does not always tell exactly how the Zemsky Council took place in 1651. V.N. Latkin writes: “The Council consisted of several meetings. The first took place on February 19. Only the ecclesiastical ranks were present, that is, the consecrated council, by which the report or “sovereign letter” was read. The clergy responded to it eight days later, i.e. February 27. The second meeting took place on February 28; It was attended by the tsar, the boyar duma and all members of the council, except for the clergy. At this meeting the above-mentioned “letter” 1308 was also read.

A. I. Kozachenko paints approximately the same picture: “...At first, only the consecrated council was convened. He began his work in Moscow on February 19, 1651. The government reported to the clergy on the state of affairs in Ukraine, on Russia’s relations with Poland, as well as on the threat to Russia from Crimea, Poland and Sweden. On February 27, 1651, the clergy, led by Patriarch Joseph, presented their opinion (“advice”) to the government... Having received the response from the clergy, the government convened the full secular part of the Zemsky Sobor... The meeting of the secular part of the cathedral took place in the Dining Hut, in the Kremlin February 28 and to those gathered “according to this letter it was announced” 1309.

Some clarifications should be made to the stories of Latkin and Kozachenko. The meeting of the Zemsky Sobor in 1651 was, apparently, only incomplete, without the clergy. It took place in the Dining Hut on February 28, in the presence of the Tsar, and at it the members of the cathedral were familiarized with a note (report) specially prepared on behalf of the government, dedicated to Russian-Polish relations and the Ukrainian issue. So it says in the postscript to this official document: “And on the 159th of February, on the 28th day, according to the sovereign’s decree, to the stewards, and the solicitors, and the noblemen of Moscow, and the nobles, and the children of the boyars, elected from the cities, and the guest, and the living rooms, and the cloth ones, and the black hundreds, and the settlements, and the city elected merchants in the Dining Hut announced according to this letter. And the sovereign is the king and Grand Duke Alexey Mikhailovich of all Russia was at that time, and with him, the sovereign, the boyars and duma people were in the Dining Hut" 1310.

Previously, the text of the sovereign’s “letter” (report) was sent for “advice” to Patriarch Joseph and the highest clergy. As can be seen from the patriarch's response to the king, this happened on February 19, 1311. Thus, February 19 is the date not of the first meeting of the Zemsky Sobor, but of the transfer of a government note to the spiritual “council” (“according to your sovereign ... Alexei Mikhailovich of All Russia decree, the boyar and butler Prince Alexei Mikhailovich Lvov brought to us, your pilgrim, a letter, what was announced to us at the council") 1312. The tsar first wanted to find out the opinion of the ecclesiastical dignitaries, and then raise the questions raised in the letter at the Zemsky Council. We do not know how the discussion of the royal “letter” took place at the council of the highest hierarchs of the church. It is possible that the government note was “announced” at the spiritual council by boyar A. M. Lvov, or perhaps the latter’s mission was limited to handing it over to the patriarch, but it was discussed without secular persons.

The response of the patriarch and other church hierarchs was received by the tsar on February 27, and the next day, February 28, the Zemsky Sobor was already listening to the tsar’s “letter” (report), which had just been discussed in spiritual circles 1313. The “letter” should be dated before February 19, 1651, when it was handed over to the patriarch. It was probably written around February 19, the supposed date of the Zemsky Sobor, which is indicated in a number of documents.

The government note (report) raises two questions:

1) about the “untruths” of the Polish kings Wladyslaw and John Casimir
and lords' rads committed in violation of the peace treaty of 1634;

2) about the readiness of Bogdan Khmelnitsky to transfer to Russian citizenship. It is indicated that it is necessary to familiarize those gathered with this text (“and at the cathedral speak all sorts of chips out loud to the people...”) and convince them of the disloyal actions of the Polish authorities (“so that all sorts of people would be aware of their lies by the rulers of the Moscow State”) 1314.

The compilers of the “letter” strive to provide more material indicating a violation of treaty norms by the Polish side. At the same time, the principle of clarity in displaying the material was proclaimed, achieved by comparing the points of “eternal completion” and cases of deviation from them by Polish statesmen(“...and the grind is written out of the eternal end and from the state’s approval, and how after the eternal approval on the royal side many untruths were committed, but there were no corrections in that from the king and from the lords”) 1315. The “letter” sets out the contents of the 1634 treaty and provides facts of its violation by the Polish side, failure to fulfill the promises of the Polish embassies, and protests of the Russian government. It's about mainly about causing moral damage to the Russian autocracy (distortion of the royal title in diplomatic correspondence, “evil dishonor and reproaches” directed through printed works to the Russian tsars, “which is not only the great sovereign, the Christian anointed of God, and to the common man it is impossible to hear and endure and terrible to think") 1316. Along with the desire to protect the “honor of autocratic monarchs,” the “letter,” intended for announcement at the Zemsky Council, takes under protection from “dishonors and reproaches” and “the Moscow state... all ranks of people” 1317.

On behalf of the Zemsky Sobor, the state “letter” raises the question of the trial and execution at the Sejm of persons guilty of belittling the prestige of the Russian tsars and insulting the dignity of their subjects. This aspect of the matter is emphasized repeatedly.

The government note (report) ends brief description international relations. Jan Casimir of Poland “exiles” with the Crimean Khan; both of them “are planning to fight and ruin the Moscow state,” and are trying to use Sweden for these purposes. Against such an international background, the fact reported to the Zemsky Sobor that Bogdan Khmelnitsky “with the entire Zaporozhian army” addressed the Russian government with a request for citizenship acquires considerable significance.

The last phrase in the sovereign’s “letter” contains the question: what to do if John Casimir, King of Poland, and the lords are glad “according to the agreement of correction and for the sovereign’s honor, the guilty will not be executed” and will continue to refer “to the war against the Muscovite state with the Crimean Khan. ..” 1318 Members of the Zemsky Sobor must answer this question. Its full composition, determined by the royal decree, is placed before the text of the government letter: “The Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of All Russia indicated the Lithuanian decision to hold a council, and at the council to be: the patriarch, and the metropolitan, and the archbishop, and the bishop, and the black power , and boyars, and okolnichy, and Duma people, and steward, and attorney, and Moscow nobles, and deacons, and nobles from cities, and guests, and merchants, and people of all ranks" 1319. The clergy considered the royal “letter” separately from other class groups and sent a written response.

If the Polish king did not agree to satisfy the demands of the Russian government, the church gave permission to terminate the Russian-Polish “eternal consummation” by joining the Zaporozhye army to Russia. If the king meets the claims presented to him from the Russian side, then, the clergy declared, the Russian government will be free to resolve the Ukrainian issue as it sees fit 1320. Thus, consent was given to the annexation of Ukraine.

We do not know any other answers from class groups to the question of “how to be.” The government was satisfied with the opinion of the clergy, and at a meeting of the secular members of the council on February 28 (where the clergy were absent) it limited itself to “announcing” the “letter.” Judging by the initial full list participants of the council, this was probably a departure from the broader program of discussing all “ranks” (as was the case in 1653). Now Russia was not yet ready for the war for Ukraine 1321.

1281 TsGADA, f. 79, op. 1, 1650, book. 78, pp. 258-259 volume: “And about those royal majesty’s untruths in the reigning city of Moscow, our sovereign, the king and the Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of All Russia, the autocrat and sovereign and owner of many states, orders to hold a council, and at the council he orders the patriarch, and the metropolitan, and the archbishop to be , and bishop, and abbot, and everything consecrated cathedral, and his royal majesty, the boyars, and the entire ranks of the people, and those of the royal majesty and you lords are glad of all the lies that were corrected on the royal majesty’s side, at the cathedral he orders to be subtracted, so that those of the royal majesty and you lords are glad of the untruths of all people led." See also: Solovyov S. M. History of Russia since ancient times, book. V (vol. 9-10). M., 1961, p. 559.
1282 The Council of 1651 is poorly covered in the literature. About him, see: Dityatin I.I. On the issue of zemstvo councils of the 17th century. - “Russian Thought”, 1883, book. XII, p. 84-100; Latkin V. N. Zemsky Sobors ancient Rus'. St. Petersburg, 1885, p. 231-285; Kozachenko A.I. Zemsky Sobor of 1653 - “Questions of History”, 1957, No. 5, p. 151-152.
1283 Materials for the history of zemstvo cathedrals of the 17th century by Vasily Latkin. St. Petersburg, 1884, p. 91.
1284 TsGADA, f. 210, Moscow table, no. 240, pp. 374-448. Printed by V.N. Latkin: Materials for the history of zemstvo councils of the 17th century, p. 92-128, No. 1-47. For a description of these replies, see: Dityatin I.I. Decree. cit., p. 84-100.
1285 Materials for the history of zemstvo cathedrals of the 17th century, p. 93-94, 96-98, No. 3, 7, 8.
1286 Ibid., p. 92 -93, No. 1.
1287 Ibid.
1288 Ibid., p. 93, 102, 106, 113, 121, 124, No. 2, 14, 20, 28, 37, 38, 41.
1289 Ibid., p. 102-103, No. 16.
1290 Ibid., p. 108, no. 22.
1291 Shmelev G. Attitude of the population and regional administration to elections to zemstvo councils in the 17th century. - In the book: Collection of articles dedicated to V. O. Klyuchevsky. M., 1909, p. 497.
1292 Materials for the history of zemstvo councils of the 17th century, p. 122, no. 39.
1293 Ibid., No. 2-8, 11-15, 18-23, 25-28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 38, 40-47.
1294 Materials for the history of zemstvo councils of the 17th century, p. 92-93, No. 1.
1295 Ibid., p. 98, no. 9.
1296 Ibid., p. 109, no. 24.
1297 Ibid., p. 99, no. 10.
1298 Ibid., p. 103, no. 16.
1299 Ibid., p. 116, no. 32.
1300 Ibid., p. 99, no. 10.
1301 Ibid., p. 113, no. 29.
1302 Ibid., p. 90.
1303 Ibid., p. 110, no. 25.
1304 Ibid., p. 117-120, No. 35-36.
1305 Ibid., p. 103-104, No. 17; Shmelev G. Decree. cit., p. 497.
1306 TsGADA, f. 210, Belgorod table, no. 32, no. 3-5, 204-207; Shmelev G. Decree. op., p. 497-499.
1307 TsGADA, f. 210, Sevsky Stol, no. 143, pp. 269-271; see ibid., ll. 272-280.
1308 Latkin V.N. Decree. cit., p. 233.
1309 Kozachenko A.I. Decree. cit., p. 151-152.
1310 Reunification of Ukraine with Russia, vol. III. Compiled by: P. I. Pavlyuk, D. I. Myshko, E. S. Kompan, A. A. Bevzo, T. P. Yakovleva. M., 1953, p. 11, no. 1; see also: Materials for the history of zemsky councils of the 17th century, p. 81-86; Acts relating to the history of Zemsky Sobors. Ed. Yu. V. Gauthier. M., 1909, p. 64-68, No. XIX.
1311 Reunion, vol. III, p. 11, no. 2.
1312 Ibid.
1313 Ibid., p. 12, no. 2.
1314 Ibid., p. 7, no. 1.
1315 Reunion, vol. III.
1316 Ibid., p. 9, no. 1.
1317 Ibid.
1318 Ibid., p. 10-11, no. 1.
1319 Ibid.
1320 Ibid., p. 11-12, no. 2.
1321 Kozachenko L.I. Decree. cit., p. 152.

In the fall of 1650, a campaign was undertaken in Moldavia. This campaign thwarted the raid of the Turkish-Tatar invaders on Russia. The hetman sought from the Sultan an order for the Crimean Khan to support Khmelnitsky in his new campaign against the Polish king. Knowing that King Jan Casimir was gathering large forces, the hetman was actively preparing to repel the enemy.

At the request of Khmelnitsky, the Russian government allowed the passage of Cossack troops through Russian territory to strike Polish troops in the Lithuanian-Belarusian lands. The arrival of the Cossacks in Belarus caused a new upsurge of the liberation movement there.

At the beginning of 1651, the Russian government convened a Zemsky Sobor in Moscow specifically to consider the issue of admitting Ukraine to Russia.

The war with Poland resumed in 1651. This time the Khan and his horde joined Khmelnitsky’s army. In June 1651, near the town of Berestechko, in Volyn, a meeting of the people’s army with the army of King John Casimir took place.

At the beginning of the battle, success was on the side of the people's army. However, on the third day of the battle, the khan changed again; he withdrew from his horde and moved east, began to destroy defenseless Ukrainian cities and villages. The Khan detained the hetman as his prisoner. The people's army found itself in a very difficult situation. Nevertheless, a significant part of the army, led by Ivan Bohun, avoided defeat and retreated.

Meanwhile, Khmelnitsky was freed from the Khan's captivity. A new people's army soon gathered near Bila Tserkva. Khmelnitsky could not quickly and completely restore the forces lost at Berestechko. However, the position of Jan-Cazimir’s army worsened as it moved towards the Dnieper region, whose population rose up against the enemy. Under such conditions, in September 1651, a new Treaty of Belotserkov was concluded.

By concluding the Belotserkov Treaty, the hetman, like the rest of the people, did not intend to abandon the continuation of the war, the struggle for the unification of Ukraine with Russia.

5. Zemsky Sobor 1653

On May 22, 1652, the battle of Batog (on Podolia) ended in the complete defeat of the noble army. It became increasingly clear that Poland was powerless to restore its power in Ukraine and prevent its unification with Russia. Turkey’s aggressive aspirations have intensified, and the possibilities for bringing it and Crimea closer to Poland have expanded. At the same time, the victory at Batog convinced the tsarist government of the weakening of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

In 1653, the Russian government decisively took the path of annexing Ukraine to Russia.

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth government resumed the war in Ukraine. The Polish army began to devastate Ukraine in order to force the Ukrainian people to submit. Popular masses in Ukraine were in an exceptionally difficult situation.

At the end of April 1653, a Russian embassy headed by Prince Repnin was sent to Poland. The embassy demanded that the Polish king renew the Treaty of Zboriv and stop the oppression of the Ukrainian people. The Polish government refused to comply with these demands, insisting on the full restoration of the power of the Polish gentry in Ukraine.

In May 1653, the Russian government convened the Zemsky Sobor to consider the issue of unifying Ukraine with Russia and the war against Poland. The Council took place in Moscow, in the Garnet Chamber of the Kremlin. In the work of the Zemsky Sobor, in addition to the Tsar, the Patriarch and senior clergy, “boyars, okolnichy, duma people, stewards and solicitors took part. and Moscow nobles, and residents, and nobles from cities, and boyar children. guests and living rooms and cloth hundreds and black hundreds, and palace settlements, merchants and other ranks, people and archers.

Considering Ukraine's repeated requests. and also taking into account the danger that threatened the existence of the Ukrainian people from the Polish and Turkish-Tatar invaders, the Zemsky Sobor in Moscow on October 1, 1653 agreed to the admission of Ukraine into Russia and the declaration of war against gentry Poland for the liberation of Ukraine, Belarus and Smolensk .

The decision of the Zemsky Sobor on October 1, 1653 also reflected the patriotic sentiments of the Russian people, their desire to reunite with the fraternal Ukrainian people, and their willingness to make sacrifices to implement this decision.

In October 1653, the Russian government sent the Great Embassy to Ukraine, headed by the boyar V. Buturlin. The Kremlin soon solemnly announced the beginning of the war for Ukraine.

Khmelnitsky and his army took part at this time in a new campaign against the Polish army. The meeting with the royal army took place at Zhvanets (near Kamenets-Podolsk). The hetman this time was forced to enter into an alliance with the khan. By the end of November, the troops led by him had completely wrested the initiative from the hands of the enemy, exhausted and surrounded the royal army and were ready to deal the final blow to it. However, this time the Khan demanded that Khmelnytsky conclude peace with the king, and then participate in a joint attack on Russia. Bogdan Khmelnitsky resolutely refused to comply with these demands.

List of Zemsky Sobors

Over 135 years, from 1549 to 1684, about 60 councils were convened. Exact amount It is difficult to name councils due to the lack of surviving documentation about the early period, as well as due to the controversial validity of some councils in crisis situations (indicated in italics). IN different periods councils met at different intervals and had different status and character ( See Periodization of Zemsky Sobors).

List

27-28 February 1549: “Cathedral of Reconciliation” by Ivan the Terrible
January-March 1551:"Stoglavy Cathedral" (church-zemsky)
1564 . Presumably, a council was held to establish the oprichnina.
1565 It 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 of 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-zemsky).
November 1580. Presumably on Polish affairs
April 1584.. The election of Feodor I to the throne after the death of Ivan IV. Reconstructed based on circumstantial evidence.
July 1584. Church and Zemsky Cathedral. Also a decision to limit the growth of church lands and abolish tarhan privileges
17 (27) February 1598. Council of 1598. The election of Boris Godunov to the throne after the death of Fyodor Ioannovich
15 May 1604. About the impending raid of Kazy-Girey.
1605 . Collected by False Dmitry I for the trial of Vasily Shuisky and his brothers accused of organizing a conspiracy against the Pretender. (Under the guise of a Zemstvo Sobor, a political trial took place).
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 perjury against Boris Godunov and his family.
1607 . In the case of “Tsarevich Peter” (Ileika Gorchakov). A tentative council, which should be considered not a zemstvo council, but a judicial council.
17 July 1610 Zemsky Sobor of 1610. The overthrow of Vasily Shuisky and the election of a provisional government from the boyars, the election of Vladislav as king. Presumptive council, or illegitimate council.
30 June 1611. The verdict of "all the earth" in the First Militia. The whole land elected a “government” - boyars and governors D. T. Trubetskoy, I. M. Zarutsky, P. P. Lyapunov. The decision was made outside Moscow, which was occupied by the enemy. Representatives of 25 different cities, regiments, and boyars participated in the cathedral. Some scientists consider it not a zemstvo cathedral, but a military council, a “campaign duma,” a “military council.”
End of 1611 - 1612. "Council of All the Land" in the Second Militia in Nizhny Novgorod. The leading administrative and political center of the militia.
Zemsky Sobor of 1613. Election of Mikhail Romanov. Presumably the powers of the council lasted 3 years, until 1615.
1. 1614 . There are certificates for this year. It is unknown whether new elections were held. One of the problems being solved is the Cossacks who continued to plunder.
1616-1619 (2nd “three-year session” during the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich).
1619-1622 (presumably 3rd triennial session)
1631 . The first cathedral after an almost 10-year break, about which there is information.
1632 . On November 11, the issue of collecting five-dollar and request money from the population was considered (Smolensk War, Balash movement).
1634 . January 29. New council on the issue of collecting pentah and request money.
1636-1637
1637
1639
1642. Council on the issue of Azov.
1645. The election of Alexei Mikhalovich to the throne after the death of Mikhail Fedorovich. Controversial cathedral
1648. "Summer Zemsky Sobor"
1648. September Zemsky Sobor
1649. The Council Code of 1649 was adopted
1650
1651
1653. On the acceptance of the Zaporozhye Army into the Moscow State.
1660, 1662, 1663
1674.
1681-1682. Council of “sovereign military and zemstvo affairs”
April 27, 1682. The election of Peter I to the throne after the death of Fyodor Alekseevich.
May 15, 1682. Change of the previous decision, election of Ivan and Peter under pressure from the archers. Controversial cathedral
1683-1684. About the Perpetual Peace with Poland (see Perpetual Peace (1686))
1698. Controversial cathedral, it is unknown whether there was one.

Literature

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

Notes

Wikimedia Foundation.

2010.

S. Ivanov Zemsky Sobor Zemsky Sobor (Council of the Whole Land) is the highest class representative institution of the Russian kingdom from the middle of the 16th to the end of the 17th century, the meeting is represented by ... Wikipedia

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

The query "John IV" redirects here; see also other meanings. About the name and names associated with him Ivan the Terrible (meanings) Ivan IV Vasilyevich ... Wikipedia Wikipedia

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

According to the dry encyclopedic language, the Zemsky Sobor is the central estate-representative institution of Russia in the mid-16th-17th centuries. Many historians believe that zemstvo councils and estate-representative institutions of other countries are phenomena of the same order, subordinate general patterns historical development, although each country had its own specific features. Parallels are visible in the activities of the English Parliament, the States General in France and the Netherlands, the Reichstag and Landtags of Germany, Scandinavian Rikstags, and Diets in Poland and the Czech Republic. Foreign contemporaries noted the similarities in the activities of the councils 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”, “zemsky council”. The word "zemsky" in in this case means state, public.

The first council was convened in 1549. It adopted the Code of Law of Ivan the Terrible, approved in 1551 by the Stoglavy Council. 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 central state judicial bodies.

What was the composition of the cathedrals? This issue is examined in detail by the historian V.O. Klyuchevsky in his work “The Composition of Representation at the Zemstvo Councils of Ancient Rus'”, where he analyzes the composition of the councils based on the representation of 1566 and 1598. From the council of 1566, dedicated to the Livonian War (the council advocated its continuation), a verdict letter and a full protocol have been preserved with a list of names of all ranks of the cathedral, total number at 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 monastery elders.

2. Boyars and sovereign people - 62 people.
It consisted of boyars, okolnichy, sovereign clerks and other senior officials with a total of 29 people. The same group included 33 simple clerks and clerks. representatives - they were invited to the council by virtue 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 - “Trading people of Muscovites”, as they are called in the “conciliar charter”, and 22 representatives of the commercial and industrial class. From them the government expected advice on improving the tax collection system, in conducting commercial and industrial affairs, which required trade experience, some technical knowledge that the clerks and indigenous governing bodies did not possess.

In the 16th century, Zemsky Sobors were not elective. “Choice as a special power for an individual case was not then recognized as a necessary condition for representation,” wrote Klyuchevsky. - A metropolitan nobleman from the Pereyaslavl or Yuryevsky landowners appeared at the council 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 metropolitan nobleman because he was one of the best Pereyaslavl or Yuryev servicemen ‘for the fatherland and for the service’.”

WITH early XVII V. the situation has changed. When dynasties changed, new monarchs (Boris Godunov, Vasily Shuisky, Mikhail Romanov) needed recognition of their royal title by the population, which made class representation more necessary. This circumstance contributed to some expansion of the social composition of the “elected”. In the same century, the principle of forming the “Sovereign Court” changed, and nobles began to be elected from the counties. Russian society, left to his own devices during the Time of Troubles, “involuntarily learned to act independently and consciously, and the idea began to arise in him that this society, this people, was not a political accident, as Moscow people were used to feeling, not aliens, not temporary inhabitants in someone’s world.” then the state... Next to the sovereign’s will, and sometimes in its place, another political force now more than once appeared - the will of the people, expressed in the verdicts of the Zemsky Sobor,” wrote Klyuchevsky.

What was the election procedure?

The convening of the council was carried out by a letter of conscription, heard from the king famous people and localities. The letter contained the agenda items and the number of elected officials. If the number was not determined, it was decided by the population itself. The draft letters clearly stipulated that the subjects to be elected were “the best people,” “kind and intelligent people,” to whom “the Sovereign’s and zemstvo’s affairs are a matter of custom,” “with whom one could speak,” “who could tell of insults and violence and ruin and what should the Moscow state be filled with” and “to establish the Moscow state so that everyone comes 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 estate.

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 Moscow Rus': legal characteristics and significance”, such an indifferent attitude of the government to the quantitative indicators of popular representation was not accidental. On the contrary, it obviously flowed from the latter’s very task, which was to convey the position of the population to Supreme power, give him the opportunity to be heard by her. Therefore, the determining factor was not the number of persons included in the Council, but the degree to which they reflected the interests of the people.

Cities, together with their counties, formed electoral districts. At the end of the elections, minutes of the meeting were drawn up and certified by all those participating in the elections. At the end of the elections, a “choice in hand” was drawn up - an election protocol, sealed with the signatures of voters and confirming the suitability of the elected representatives for the “Sovereign and Zemstvo Cause”. After this, the elected officials with the voivode’s “unsubscribe” and the “election list in hand” went to Moscow to the Rank Order, where the clerks verified that the elections were being held correctly.

Deputies received instructions from voters, mostly verbal, and upon returning from the capital they had to report on the work done. There are cases where attorneys who were unable to achieve satisfaction of all requests local residents, asked the government to issue them special “protected” letters that would guarantee them protection from “all bad things” from disgruntled voters:
“The governors in the cities were ordered to protect them, the elected people, from the city people from all sorts of bad things, so that your sovereign’s cathedral Code, according to the petition of the zemstvo people, is not against all articles of your sovereign’s decree.”

The work of the delegates at the Zemsky Sobor was carried out mainly free of charge, on a “social basis”. Voters provided the elected officials only with “reserves”, that is, they paid for their travel and accommodation in Moscow. The state only occasionally, at the request of the people’s representatives themselves, “complained” them for performing parliamentary duties.

Issues resolved by the Councils.

1. Election of the king.

Council of 1584. Election of Fyodor Ioannovich.

According to the spiritual year of 1572, Tsar Ivan the Terrible appointed his eldest son Ivan as his successor. But the death of the heir at the hands of his father 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.

Council of 1589. Election of Boris Godunov.
Tsar Fedor died on January 6, 1598. The ancient crown - the Monomakh cap - was put on by Boris Godunov, who won 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. A well-known Russian historian argued that Boris was elected by the correct Zemsky Sobor, that is, which included representatives of the nobility, clergy and the upper classes of the townspeople. Klyuchevsky’s opinion was supported by S. F. Platonov. The accession of Godunov, he wrote, was not the result of intrigue, for the Zemsky Sobor chose him quite consciously and knew better than us why he chose him.

Council of 1610. Election of the Polish king Vladislav.
Commander Polish troops, advancing from the west to Moscow, Hetman Zholkiewski demanded that the “Seven Boyars” confirm the agreement between the Tushino Boyar Duma and Sigismund III and recognize Prince Vladislav as the Moscow Tsar. The “Seven Boyars” did not enjoy authority and accepted Zolkiewski’s ultimatum. She announced that Vladislav would convert to Orthodoxy after receiving the Russian crown. In order to give the election of Vladislav to the kingdom a semblance of legality, a semblance of a Zemsky Sobor was quickly assembled. That is, the Council 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 necessary tool to legitimize Vladislav on the Russian throne.

Council of 1613. Election of Mikhail Romanov.
After the expulsion of the Poles from Moscow, the question arose about electing a new tsar. Letters were sent from Moscow to many cities in Russia on behalf of the liberators of Moscow - Pozharsky and Trubetskoy. Information has been received about 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 delayed 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, Mstislavskys, Kurakins, and others. Pozharsky and Trubetskoy themselves put forward their candidacies. As a result of the elections, Mikhail Romanov won. It should be noted that for the first time in their history, black-growing peasants took part in the Council of 1613.

Council of 1645. Approval of Alexei Mikhailovich on the throne
New royal dynasty for several decades she could not be sure of the firmness of her positions and at first needed the formal consent of the estates. As a consequence of this, in 1645, after the death of Mikhail Romanov, another “electoral” council was convened, which confirmed his son Alexei on the throne.

Council of 1682. Approval of Peter Alekseevich.
In the spring of 1682, the last two “electoral” zemstvo councils in Russian history were held. At the first of them, on April 27, Peter Alekseevich was elected tsar. On the second, May 26, both became kings youngest son Alexei Mikhailovich, Ivan and Peter.

2. Issues of war and peace

In 1566, Ivan the Terrible gathered the estates to find out the opinion of the “land” about the continuation Livonian War. The significance of this meeting is highlighted by the fact that the council worked in parallel with the Russian-Lithuanian negotiations. The estates (both nobles and townspeople) supported the king in his intention to continue military operations.

In 1621, a Council was convened regarding the violation by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of the Deulin Truce of 1618. In 1637, 1639, 1642. estate representatives gathered in connection with the complications of Russia's relations with Crimean Khanate and Turkey, after the capture of the Turkish fortress of Azov by the Don Cossacks.

In February 1651, a Zemsky Sobor was held, the participants of which unanimously spoke out in favor of supporting the uprising of the Ukrainian people against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but no concrete assistance was provided then. On October 1, 1653, the Zemsky Sobor adopted 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 and decided on the fundamental possibility of such fees. Councils 1614-1618 made decisions on “pyatina” (collection of a fifth of income) for the maintenance of service people. After this, the “Pyatiners” - officials who collected taxes, traveled around the country, using the text of the conciliar “verdict” (decision) as a document.

4. Questions domestic policy

The very first Zemsky Sobor, which we have already written about, was dedicated precisely to internal issues - the adoption of the code of law of Ivan the Terrible. The Zemsky Sobor of 1619 resolved issues related to the restoration of the country after the Time of Troubles and determining the direction of domestic policy in the new situation. The Council of 1648 - 1649, caused by massive 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 acceptance Cathedral Code V Once again The cathedral was convened to stop the uprisings in Novgorod and Pskov, which were not possible to suppress by force, especially since the rebels retained fundamental loyalty to the monarch, that is, they did not refuse to recognize his power. The last “Zemstvo Council”, which dealt with issues of domestic policy, was convened in 1681-1682. It was dedicated to carrying out the next reforms in Russia. The most important of the results was the “conciliar act” on the abolition of localism, which provided a fundamental opportunity to increase the efficiency of the administrative apparatus in Russia.

Duration of the cathedral

Meetings of the council members lasted for different periods of time: some elected groups deliberated (for example, at the council of 1642) for several days, others for several weeks. The duration of the activities of the gatherings themselves, as institutions, was also uneven: issues were resolved either in a few hours (for example, the council of 1645, which swore allegiance to the new Tsar Alexei), or within several months (councils of 1648 - 1649, 1653). In 1610-1613. The Zemsky Sobor under the militias turns into the supreme body of power (both legislative and executive), resolving issues of internal and foreign policy and operates almost continuously.

Completing the history of cathedrals

In 1684, the last Zemsky Sobor in Russian history was convened and dissolved.
He decided on the issue of eternal peace with Poland. After this, the Zemsky Sobors no longer met, which was the inevitable result of the reforms carried out by Peter I of the entire social structure of Russia and the strengthening of the absolute monarchy.

The meaning of cathedrals

WITH legal point From the point of view, the tsar’s power was always absolute, and he was not obliged to obey the zemstvo councils. The councils served the government as an excellent way to find out the mood of the country, to obtain information about the state of the state, whether it could incur new taxes, wage war, what abuses existed, and how to eradicate them. But the councils were most important for the government in that it used their authority to carry out measures that under other circumstances would have caused displeasure, and even resistance. Without the moral support of the councils, it would have been impossible to collect for many years those numerous new taxes that were imposed on the population under Michael to cover urgent government expenses. If the council, or the whole earth, has decided, then there is nothing left to do: willy-nilly, you have to fork out beyond measure, or even give away your last savings. It should be noted qualitative difference zemstvo councils 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 benefits for themselves, but, on the contrary, served to strengthen 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 and second militias) had to be indicated in general, in while more than one meeting was probably convened, and it would be important to note each of them.

Partner News