Homeless service. Social functions of shelters for people without a fixed place of residence
According to 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 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 “Composition of representation at zemstvo councils” 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, a complete protocol with a list of names of all ranks of the council, have been preserved. 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 recognized then a necessary condition 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 social composition"elective". 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 will, and sometimes in its place, now more than once another political force- 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, issued by the tsar to well-known persons 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 the Supreme Power, to give them the opportunity to be heard by it. 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
For several decades, the new royal dynasty could not be sure of the firmness of its 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” on the continuation of the 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 the 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 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 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 new situation. The Council of 1648 - 1649, caused by massive urban uprisings, resolved issues of relations between landowners and peasants, determined legal status estates and estates, strengthened the position of the autocracy and the new dynasty in Russia, and influenced the resolution of a number of other issues.
On next year After the adoption of the Council Code, the cathedral was once again convened to stop the uprisings in Novgorod and Pskov, which were not possible to suppress by force, especially since the rebels retained their 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
From a legal point of view, the tsar's power was always absolute, and he was not obliged to obey 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 is necessary to note the qualitative difference between zemstvo cathedrals and European parliaments- there was no parliamentary war of factions at the councils. Unlike similar Western European institutions Russian Cathedrals, having real political force, 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
On October 1 (11), 1653, the Zemsky Sobor met in the Moscow Kremlin, which decided to reunite Left Bank Ukraine with Russia. Zemsky Sobors are the central estate-representative institution of Russia in the mid-16th-17th centuries. The Zemsky Sobor included the Tsar, the Boyar Duma, the Consecrated Cathedral in in full force, representatives of the nobility, the upper classes of the townspeople (trading people, large merchants), i.e. candidates of the three classes. The regularity and duration of meetings of the Zemsky Sobors were not regulated in advance and depended on the circumstances and the importance and content of the issues discussed. The Zemsky Sobor of 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 the 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 complications internal situation in the country and unprepared for 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 into a 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.
UNDER THE HIGH GOVERNMENT'S HAND
The Zemsky Sobor on the Ukrainian question took place in 1653. On October 1, it decided to reunite Ukraine with Russia. But this act was preceded by a long history.
The “Palace Discharges” states that on March 19 of this year “the sovereign ordered the sovereign’s letters to be sent to all cities to the governors and clerks” with a summons to the stewards, solicitors, Moscow nobles, and residents to Moscow by May 20 “with all the service.” It was planned that “at that time, their sovereign will deign to look at Moscow on horseback.” On May 2, this order was repeated, but in addition to it, the governors of a number of Zamoskovny and Ukrainian cities were ordered to “exile from each city, from a choice of two nobles, good and reasonable people.” The arrival date is the same - May 20. It is clear that two events were being prepared: the royal review of those serving on the “Moscow list” and the Zemsky Sobor - both of them were related to the struggle for Ukraine.<…>Obviously, there was not one, but several conciliar meetings. The chronological layers identified in the Belgorod column (May 15-June 4, May 21-24, May 25-June 19) are guidelines for dating these meetings. Initially, the government deadline for the nobles to appear in Moscow was, as is known, set for May 20. Between May 20 and 25, one must think, the Zemsky Sobor met for the first time (by no means in full strength), as can now be concluded based on the analysis this source. But even earlier, on May 15, taking into account the possibility of further meetings, the government postponed the date of arrival in Moscow for provincial servicemen until June 5. It is possible that a second meeting took place then. It is possible that the council met for the third time somewhere at the beginning of the third decade of June.<…>
However, there is a source that allows you to determine exact time council meeting in May. To judge the May Council of 1653 and its date, a document opened by A.I. Kozachenko is important - a letter (undated) from Alexei Mikhailovich to the Russian ambassadors sent to Poland in April - Prince. B. A. Repnin, okolnichy B. M. Khitrovo and clerk Almaz Ivanov. In it we read: “...let you know, there was a council on the seventh week on Mayan Wednesday on (the numbers of the day are not clearly readable - L. Ch.) day, and we, the great sovereign, with our father and the pilgrim Nikon, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, at that council they spent a lot of time talking and interrogating all the people - whether to accept Cherkassy. And all sorts of ranks and public people unanimously spoke about this in order to accept Cherkassy. And we, the great sovereign, praised them with our merciful words for the fact that they want to serve with generous and self-willing hearts. And they, hearing our sovereign’s merciful words, were especially happy, and sent... And we have postponed until you arrive from the embassy...” From the above text it is clear that in May 1653 a Zemstvo Council was held, at which the issue of admitting Ukraine to Russian citizenship was discussed. This already confirms the preliminary conclusion made above about the conciliar meeting in the first half of the 20th of May. The discussion was long, people of “all ranks” were interviewed. They also took into account the opinion of the “square people” (obviously, not the participants of the cathedral, but those who were on the square while the meeting was going on and somehow expressed their attitude towards it). As a result, a unanimously positive opinion was expressed about the accession of Ukraine to Russia. The letter expressed satisfaction with its voluntary nature on the part of the Ukrainians, but indicated that the final decision on the issue of their accession and the execution of this act were postponed until the return of the embassy from Poland to Moscow.<…>
The last, decisive meeting of the Zemsky Sobor in 1653, when a resolution was adopted on the reunification of Ukraine with Russia, took place on October 1 in Moscow in the Faceted Chamber. The act of this council has reached us. It contains three parts: 1) the royal decree on convening the council; 2) report from the government; 3) the verdict of the boyars and Duma people and the speeches of other class groups.
The following names were named as participants in the cathedral: the Tsar, Patriarch Nikon, Metropolitan Selivester of Krutitsa, Metropolitan Mikhail of Serbia, archimandrites, abbots, “with the entire consecrated cathedral,” boyars, okolnichy, Duma nobles, stewards, solicitors, Moscow nobles, residents, nobles from cities, boyar children, guests, trading people of the living room, cloth hundreds, tax people of the black hundreds and palace settlements, streltsy (streltsy heads). The stereotypical formula also appears: “people of all ranks.” This is approximately the same composition that was named in the “letter” of May 25, only residents, archers were added and more details were said about “trading people”. It is noteworthy that in the words “nobles and boyar children elected from cities” the definition “elected” is crossed out. Obviously, the government no longer addressed the “elected” provincial service people at the last stage of the Zemsky Sobor. It dealt with them in May-June, when they were summoned to Moscow.
October 1 was a holiday, and the cathedral was of a solemn character. The Emperor came straight from the church with a procession of the cross. At the council, a “letter” was “read aloud to everyone” (a report in new edition) about the “untruths” of the Polish king and lords and about the “petition to the sovereign for citizenship” of Bogdan Khmelnitsky and the Zaporozhye army.
After the “reading” of the government report, a discussion followed.<…>First, the conciliar act contains the opinion of the boyars, which is regarded as a “sentence” (“and after listening to the boyars they sentenced”, “and therefore they sentenced everything”). This is followed by statements from other “ranks” listed at the beginning of the document. Here we are no longer talking about a “sentence”, but about an “interrogation” (“interrogated in order, separately”). Obviously, representatives of each “rank” conferred with each other and then announced their opinion. There are no statements from the clergy, although they were present at the council. Perhaps it simply confirmed what was said at the council of 1651? The “sentence” of the boyars was: “there is a war against the Polish king,” and Bogdan Khmelnitsky with the Zaporozhye army “to accept their cities and lands.” Both proposals stemmed directly from the government report. The arguments also coincide completely: the Polish side belittles the state dignity of Russia, the persecution of Orthodoxy, the threat of the transition of the Orthodox Ukrainian population “to citizenship” to to the Turkish Sultan or to the Crimean Khan, since the violation of the oath by the Polish king made his subjects “free people”.<…>
In “Palace Discharges” the news of the Zemsky Sobor on October 1, 1653 is presented from a certain angle. Of the two closely related issues discussed at it - the relationship between Russia and Poland and Bogdan Khmelnitsky’s appeal to the Russian government about the reunification of Ukraine with Russia - the second issue was chosen. For the Russian government and for the classes of the Russian state, this was the main thing. But above all, the question of the reunification of Ukraine with Russia was the main one for the broad masses of the people, both Russian and Ukrainian. They did not take part in zemstvo councils and did not make decisions on Ukraine’s entry into Russia. However, objectively this decision met the people’s interests and met the needs national development. Three major popular movements of the mid-17th century. - urban uprisings in Moscow and Pskov, the liberation struggle in Ukraine - gave rise to several zemstvo councils. They were close in social composition. But their historical meaning various. Councils 1648-1650 were busy strengthening the internal, class foundations of the feudal state. And although some progressive measures were taken, their main complex was aimed at strengthening serfdom. The war of liberation in Ukraine and its subsequent reunification with Russia did not and could not lead to the elimination of the feudal system, and the reunification itself took place in feudal forms. But the decision of the October Zemsky Sobor of 1653 provided the Ukrainian people with a more favorable path of historical development.
The essay is supplemented by documents related to the convening of the Zemsky Sobor in 1651, which was supposed to discuss the violation of the peace treaty of 1634 by the Polish kings Wladislav and John Casimir and the transfer of Bogdan Khmelnitsky1 to Russian citizenship. Documents Nos. 1-4 present: the royal decree on convening the cathedral, the letter of conscription to Krapivna, the replies of the Krapivna and Meshchovo governors on the election of elected people to the cathedral. 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 outstanding Russian historian V. O. Klyuchevsky.
DOCUMENT No. 1.
COUNCIL HELD UNDER THE GOVERNMENT TSAR AND GRAND DUKE ALEXEY MIKHAILOVICH ON POLISH AFFAIRS AND ABOUT THE ZAPORIZHIE HETMAN BOGDAN KHMELNYTSKY 1651, FEBRUARY 19 (extract)
Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke Alexey Mikhailovich of All Rus' indicated that a council was to be held about the Lithuanian affair. And at the council there will be: the patriarch, and the metropolitans, and the archbishops, and the bishop, and the black authorities, and the boyars, and the okolnichy, and the Duma people, and the stewards, and the solicitors, and the Moscow nobles, and the clerks and nobles from the cities, and guests, merchants, and people of all ranks. And the Sovereign directed them to declare to the Lithuanian king and lords that they were glad of the past and present untruths that were being done on their part, past eternal completion, but from the king and from the lords they were glad to correct this. And so that those of his untruths, the Sovereigns of the Moscow State, would be known to all people; also sent the Zaporozhye Hetman Bogdan Khmelnytsky to announce that they were striving for the Sovereign’s high hand and citizenship. And at the cathedral to speak out loud to people of all ranks...
St. Petersburg, 1884. - P. 81.
Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (from a German engraving)
CALL FOR JANUARY 7159 FROM THE TSAR AND GRAND DUKE ALEXEY MIKHAILOVICH TO KRAPIVNA, TO VOEVOD VASILY ASTAFYEV ABOUT SENDING ELECTED PEOPLE TO MOSCOW
From the Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of All Rus' to Krapivna, Vasilyo Astafieva. It was written from us to you in advance of this, and it was ordered to select the best noblemen from the nightingales, two people, and the best people from the townspeople, two people and send them to us to Moscow for a period of time, on cathedral Sunday (the first Sunday of Great Lent - Author) of the present day - th, 159th year for our royal, great, and zemstvo, and Lithuanian cause. And how will this letter of ours come to you, and you would tell our decree to the nightingale nobles and boyars’ children that, as before and according to this decree of ours, they should choose the best people from the nobles, two people from themselves, and two people from the townspeople They immediately sent it by the specified deadline, so that there would be no delays in our and the zemstvo’s affairs (delays - Author). And what names the nobles and boyars’ children, according to our decree, will choose from among themselves, and you would write about that and send their names to us, to Moscow, in the category.
Written in Moscow in the summer of 159, January 31st.
Materials for the history of zemstvo cathedrals... Vasily Latkin. -
DOCUMENT No. 3.
RELEASE OF VOYOVODA KRAVIVNA VASILY ASTAFYEV TO TSAR ALEXEY MIKHAILOVICH ABOUT THE ELECTION OF ELECTIVES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ZEMSKY CATHEDRAL
To the Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of all Rus', your servant Vaska Astafiev beats his forehead. According to your decree, Sovereign, Tsarev and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of All Rus' and according to letters, I, your servant, was ordered to choose the best noblemen of the nightingale, two people, and the best people of the townspeople, two people; and having chosen, send it to you, Sovereign, to Moscow on the cathedral Sunday of this year, 159, for your royal, great, and zemstvo, and Lithuanian cause. And the Solovlyans, the nobles and the boyar children, chose among themselves for your, sovereign, royal, great, and zemstvo, and Lithuanian cause: Nikita Ivanov, son of Khripkago, and Roman Ivanov, son of Satin. And the townspeople, Sovereign, there are only three people in Krapivna, and they are thin, bro-
(from a miniature from the 17th century)
King's wedding
they are working [between] the yard and in such a matter, yours, the sovereign’s business, they will not be, and I, your servant, instead of the best townspeople, two people, chose the best people from Krapivna, two people: Solovlyanin boyar's son Fedos Bogdanov for the fact that he Fedos lives in the Krapivna settlement and often has a lot of business with you, the sovereign, with the regimental boyars and the governor as clerks, and the Krapivna gunner Ivan Fomin. And he ordered those elected nobles and the clerk and the gunner to appear in your rank, the Sovereign Duma nobleman Ivan Afanasyevich Gavrenev and yours, the Sovereign clerks...
Materials for the history of zemstvo cathedrals... Vasily Latkin. - St. Petersburg, 1884. - P. 102-103. DOCUMENT No. 4.
RELEASE OF MESCHOVSKY VOYOVODE MIKHAIL DURNOV TO TSAR ALEXEY MIKHAILOVICH ABOUT THE ELECTION OF ELECTIONS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ZEMSKY SOBRAB
(extraction)
To the Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of all Russia, your servant, Mishka the Bad, beats you with his forehead. This year, Sovereign, on the 159th of February, on the 1st day, your Sovereign, Tsarev and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of All Russia sent a letter from the Rank for the registration of clerk Ivan Severov in Meshchosk to me, your servant. And according to your sovereign charter, I, your servant, were ordered to choose the best noblemen, two people, and the best townspeople, two people, in Meshchoska. And having chosen, I, your servant, have been ordered to send to you, the Sovereign, to Moscow for a period of time, on the national team Sunday of the present year, 159, for your Sovereign, Tsarev and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of All Russia, royal affairs, both Zemstvo and Lithuanian. And according to your sovereign decree and letter, I, your servant, chose the best noblemen in Meshchovsk, two people: Ivan Ivanov, son of Koshkarev, and Savely Medvedev, son of Labadinsky, and the best townspeople: Danka Semenov and Makarka Alexandrov. And having chosen, I, your servant, ordered the nobles and townspeople to appear in Moscow for a period of time, Palm Sunday of the current year 159 in the Rank of the Duma nobleman Ivan Afanasyevich Gavrenev and the clerks...
Materials for the history of zemstvo cathedrals... Vasily Latkin. -
St. Petersburg, 1884. - P. 111.
The Tsar had to be elected by the Zemsky Sobor. According to the conciliar election, due to the very novelty of the matter, it was not considered a sufficient justification for the new state power, raised doubts and anxiety. The conciliar decision on the election of Boris Godunov anticipates the objection of people who will say about the voters: “We will separate from them, because they appointed a king for themselves.”
Whoever says such a word is called unreasonable and damned by the conciliar act. One very widespread pamphlet of 1611 tells how its author was told in a miraculous vision that the Lord himself would indicate who should own the Russian state; if they install a king of their own free will, “there will be no king forever.” Throughout the Time of Troubles, they could not get used to the idea of an elected king; they thought that the elected king was not a king, that only a born, hereditary sovereign from the descendants of Kalita could be a real, legitimate king, and they tried to attach the elected king to this tribe by all sorts of methods, legal fiction, genealogical stretching, rhetorical exaggeration. Upon his election, Boris Godunov was solemnly welcomed by the clergy and people as a hereditary tsar, “hello to him on his sovereign estate,” and Vasily Shuisky, who formally limited his power, was written in official acts as “autocrat,” as natural Moscow sovereigns were titled. With such intractability of thinking in leading circles, the appearance of an elected tsar on the throne should have seemed to the masses not a consequence of political necessity, albeit sad, but something similar to a violation of the laws of nature: an elected tsar was for them the same incongruity as an elected father, an elected mother. That is why the concept of a “true” king simple minds they could not, did not know how to put down either Boris Godunov, or 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 scoundrel of unknown origin calmed the dynastic-legitimate consciences and disposed them to trust. The turmoil ceased only when it was possible to find a king who could be connected by kinship, although not direct, with the extinct dynasty: Tsar Mikhail established himself on the throne not so much because he was the zemstvo popular choice, but because he was the nephew of the last king of the former dynasties. Doubt about popular election, as a sufficiently legitimate source of supreme power, was an important condition that fueled the Troubles, and this doubt stemmed from the ingrained conviction that such a source should only be patrimonial succession in a well-known dynasty. Therefore, this inability to get used to the idea of an elected king can be considered a derivative cause of the Troubles, emerging from the main one just outlined.
Klyuchevsky V. O. Works: In 9 volumes. T. Ill: Course of Russian history.
Ch.Z.-M., 1988. -S. 49-51.
QUESTIONS AND TASKS 1.
Name the conditions under which local government reforms took place at the end of the 15th - mid-16th centuries. Name the local government bodies that appeared during this period and indicate their competence.
2.
Compare the system of representation at zemstvo councils in the 16th and 17th centuries. What are the reasons for its transformation?
3.
Using the text of the essay and documents Nos. 1-4, characterize the procedure for electing representatives of individual regions to the council of 1651. 4.
Compare the legal status of zemstvo councils and estate-representative institutions in France and England. Show the similarities and differences between 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 LITERATURE Materials for the history of zemsky cathedrals of the 17th century. (1619-20, 1648-49 and 1651) Vasily Latkin. - St. Petersburg, 1884.
for universities for special purposes "Story". - M„ 1987. Russian legislation 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 10th-20th 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 V. A. Organization of state power in the zemstvo liberation movements of the Time of Troubles // Soviet state and law. - 1985. - No. 6. Eroshkin N. P. History government agencies
V pre-revolutionary Russia. - M., 1983.
Ivanchenko A.V. Election commissions
Russian Federation
: history, theory, practice. - M., 1996.
Institutions of self-government: historical and legal research / Rep. ed. L. S. Mamut - M„ 1995. History of the USSR from ancient times to the end of the 18th century / Ed. B. A. Rybakova. - M„ 1975. Kabanov A.K. Organization of elections to zemstvo councils of the 17th century // Journal of the Ministry of Public Education. - 1910. - September.
Kizevetter A. A.
Local government
in Russia IX-XIX centuries: Historical essay. - 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 of 1598 under Boris Godunov (1584-1605). - St. Petersburg, 1992.
Platanov S. F. Essays on the history of the Troubles in the Moscow State of the 16th-17th centuries: Experience in studying the social system and class relations in the Time of Troubles. - M„ 1995.
Skrynnikov R. G. Russia on the eve of the “Time of Troubles.” - M., 1981. Solovyov S. M. History of Russia since ancient times in 15 books. Book IV (vol. 78). - M„I960.
Tikhomirov M. N. Russian state of the XV-XVII centuries. - M., 1973.
Torke H-Y. The so-called zemstvo councils in Russia // Questions of history. - 1991. -
Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State in the XVI-XVII centuries. - M., 1978. Shmelev G.N. Attitude of the population and the regional administration to elections to zemstvo councils in the 17th century // Coll. Art., dedicated to V. O. Klyuchevsky... Part II. - M., 1909. Shmidt S. O. At the origins of Russian absolutism: A study of the socio-political history of the time of Ivan the Terrible. - M., 1996.
Zemsky Sobors are the Russian version of class-representative democracy. They differed fundamentally from Western European parliaments in the absence of a war of “all against all.”
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, subject to the general laws of 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 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, 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 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 - “Muscovite trading people,” 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’.”
From the beginning of the 17th century. 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 its own devices during the Time of Troubles, “involuntarily learned to act independently and consciously, and the idea began to arise in it that it, this society, the people, was not a political accident, as Moscow people were used to feeling, not aliens, not temporary inhabitants in someone’s state... Next to the sovereign’s will, and sometimes in its place, another political force now more than once stood - 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, issued by the tsar to well-known persons 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.
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 known cases when attorneys, who were unable to achieve satisfaction of all the requests of 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.
The commander of the 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 a necessary tool for legitimizing 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 of 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
For several decades, the new royal dynasty could not be sure of the firmness of its 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 of Alexei Mikhailovich’s youngest sons, Ivan and Peter, became kings.
2. Issues of war and peace
In 1566, Ivan the Terrible gathered the estates to find out the opinion of the “land” on the continuation of the 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 the 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 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 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. Domestic policy issues
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 the adoption of the Council Code, the cathedral was once again convened to stop the uprisings in Novgorod and Pskov, which were not possible to suppress by force, especially since the rebels retained their 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), deciding issues of domestic and foreign policy and operating 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
From a legal point of view, the tsar's power was always absolute, and he was not obliged to obey 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 is necessary to note the qualitative difference between zemstvo councils and European parliaments - at the councils there was no parliamentary war of factions. 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.Application. List of all cathedrals
Quoted from:1549 February 27-28. About reconciliation with the boyars, about the viceroyal court, about judicial and zemstvo reform, about the compilation of the Code of Laws.
1551 from February 23 to May 11. About church and government reforms. Compilation " Cathedral Code"(Stoglava).
1565 January 3. About the messages of Ivan the Terrible from Alexandrova Sloboda to Moscow with the notification that due to “treasonable deeds” he “left his state.”
1580 no later than January 15. On church and monastic land ownership.
1584 no later than July 20. On the abolition of church and monastic tarkhanov.
May 15, 1604. About the break with the Crimean Khan Kazy-Girey and the organization of a campaign against his troops.
1607 February 3-20. On the release of the population from the oath to False Dmitry I and on the forgiveness of perjury against Boris Godunov.
1610 no later than January 18. On sending an embassy from Tushino to Smolensk on behalf of the Zemstvo Council for negotiations with King Sigismund III about zemstvo affairs.
1610 February 14. Reply act on behalf of the king Sigismund III, addressed to the Zemsky Sobor.
1610 July 17. About the dethronement of Tsar Vasily Shuisky and the transfer of the state until the election of the Tsar under the authority of the boyar government (“seven boyars”), headed by the boyar Prince. F.I. Mstislavsky.
1610 August 17. Judgment record on behalf of the Zemsky Sobor with Hetman Zholkiewski on the recognition of the Polish prince Vladislav as the Russian Tsar.
1611 no later than March 4 (or from the end of March) to the second half of the year. The activities of the “council of all the earth” during the first militia.
1611 June 30. “Sentence” (constitutive act) of “the whole earth” on state structure and political orders.
October 26, 1612. The act of recognition by the Polish invaders and members of the boyar duma who were with them in the siege in Moscow of the sovereignty of the Zemsky Sobor.
1613 no later than January to May. On the election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the kingdom.
1613 until May 24. About sending collectors of money and supplies to the cities.
1614 until March 18. On the suppression of the movement of Zarutsky and the Cossacks.
1614 until April 6. On the collection of five-point money.
September 1614 1. About sending an embassy to the rebel Cossacks with an exhortation to submit to the government.
1615 until April 29. On the collection of five-point money.
1617 until June 8. On the collection of five-point money.
1618 until April 11. On the collection of five-point money.
1637 around September 24-28. About the attack of the Crimean prince Safat-Girey and the collection of dates and money for the salaries of military men.
1642 from January 3 to January 17. Appeal to the Russian government of the Don Cossacks regarding the admission of Azov to the Russian state.
1651 February 28. About Russian-Polish relations and the readiness of Bogdan Khmelnitsky to transfer to Russian citizenship.
1653 May 25, June 5(?), June 20-22(?), October 1. About the war with Poland and the annexation of Ukraine.
Between 1681 November 24 and 1682 May 6. Council of the sovereign's military and zemstvo affairs (on military, financial and zemstvo reforms).
1682 May 23, 26, 29. About the election of John and Peter Alekseevich to the kingdom, and Princess Sophia as the supreme ruler.
There are 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.