Translated material
Martyr of legitimacy
...we do not know that for the sake of uttering a very lofty verb: “Behold, Father, the great Patriarch Job, God is witness to this: no one will be poor or needy in my kingdom!” And shaking the top of the asshole on himself, “and this last one,” he said, “I’ll share it with everyone!”
Abraham Palitsin about the crowning of Boris Godunov
At the beginning of 1598, events occurred in the Moscow state that were unprecedented before. On the night of January 7 (Old Style), the Tsar, forty-year-old Fyodor I, the son of Ivan the Terrible from his first wife, Anastasia Romanovna Zakharyina, quietly reposed. Actually, kings in Moscow have happened to die before, but in this case, together with the pious and, as they say, weak-minded monarch, who did not even touch the affairs of state administration during his entire fourteen-year reign, something greater passed into another world - the dynasty founded by Daniel died, son of Alexander Nevsky and ruled Moscow for 300 years without interruption.
This has never happened in the historical memory of the Russian people - moreover, the situation of kingdomlessness that had arisen required immediate action, and action that was not based on tradition. Not only was it impossible to find a dynastic heir to the deceased monarch, there were no traces of any clear expression of Fyodor Ioannovich’s will in this regard during his lifetime. In this situation, the country was doomed to make non-standard decisions.
And those were not slow to follow. In the presence of Patriarch Job, the boyars, the episcopate and other higher “authorities” swore allegiance to the widow of the deceased - Tsarina Irina. However, according to the official chronicle, this decision was made by Tsar Feodor while dying, handing over the scepter to his wife.
The role, however, of Fyodor Ioannovich in the accession of his widow is not so important for us now. What is more important is precedent. Irina Fedorovna Godunova then became the first female head of the Russian state since the time of the semi-legendary Princess Olga. Completely legitimate and having, if desired, all the possibilities for independent rule. Strictly speaking, women have been encountered as active subjects of Russian political life before. But each time their influence on the course of affairs was, so to speak, shadowy, informal. The first to emerge from the shadows was Elena Glinskaya, the second wife of Vasily III, who after his death in 1533 became the official regent for the young Ivan, the future Grozny. Glinskaya's regency lasted until 1538. It is difficult to say to what extent she herself was involved in state affairs, however, in addition to and ahead of her relatives, a key figure in the state apparatus then became a characteristic person - the favorite, Prince I. F. Ovchina-Obolensky-Telepnev. Which, undoubtedly, was Elena’s personal choice - her personal personnel decision.
And yet, Elena Glinskaya was only a regent for the young Grand Duke. As, by the way, later Princess Sophia did under the minors Peter I and Ivan V. That is, a ruler with limited – primarily in terms of time – powers. Queen Irina is a completely different matter. The latter, theoretically, could do everything. Rule independently until death, marry anyone, bequeath the throne to anyone, etc.
In reality, however, nothing of the sort happened. The reign of Queen Irina lasted only a few days, until the burial of the deceased king. As if nothing significant happened, however, a precedent was created and it was precisely this that the “chicks of Petrov’s nest” probably remembered in 1725, placing the widow of the first Russian emperor on the throne and thus opening the “age of the Indian kingdoms” in Russia, which lasted for a short time intermittently until 1796.
But let's return to Irina the First and her short reign. During this period, decrees were sent out on her behalf, as expected, and prayers were sent out in churches for Queen Irina. But then she became adamant, deciding to leave the throne and become a nun. Moreover, Queen Irina also refused to participate in resolving the issue of further succession to the throne.
Although she was persuaded to do so. Moreover, they persuaded him in a rather definite way, offering with their authority to transfer the scepter to their own brother - Boris Fedorovich Godunov - who had actually led the Moscow state for ten years.
However, she flatly refused. And Boris himself also refused - in their opinion, this method of transferring power had too unstable legitimacy.
As a result, Job, the Staritsky abbot, became the temporary head of state during the interregnum, who, thanks to Godunov, became the first Russian patriarch in 1586 and remained faithful to Boris until the end of the latter. It was Job who, at the end of Fyodor’s “magpies,” convened the Zemsky Sobor, and then through it carried out the election of Godunov as Tsar of All Rus'. At that time, it was a transfer of power in the most legitimate way possible. However, in an unprecedented way: although zemstvo councils had met several times before, never before had the Russian people chosen a monarch for themselves. And in general, they never chose. Although they knew that this was happening – in particular, in neighboring Poland. Subsequently, a monarch in Rus' happened to be chosen more than once: in 1606, 1613, 1682, 1725, 1730. And only Paul the First in 1797 issued a Decree on Succession to the Throne, formally regulating this process.
So - the Zemsky Sobor of 1598. However, this manifestation of democracy should not be overestimated. This is what such a people's representation looked like. About five hundred people gathered in Moscow seemed to truly represent all the geographical and social diversity of the then Muscovy. Although with exceptions: it is clear that with those messages for a month and a half, someone could not arrive in Moscow. Foreigners, peasants, etc., who were subject to the Russian Tsar, were not represented. But that’s not even the point. What is more important is that, according to the ideas of that time, no one chose the participants of the Council anywhere - despite the fact that the Russians were already familiar with the procedure for selecting representatives at the grassroots level. The cathedrals of the 16th century, in terms of the principle of formation, most closely resemble the current Public Chamber - it included ex officio members of the Boyar Duma (appointed there by the tsar, or rather, by the tsars), the so-called “Consecrated Cathedral” in its entirety, that is, the top of the church hierarchy, specially appointed representatives of the court and administrative officials, and appointed representatives from the localities, which were usually the military leaders of the district noble militias and representatives of the merchants appointed by city governors. There were about 40 of these latter people. It seems that in Soviet times such a composition was called “parthozaktiv”...
Of course, people convened on such principles did not closely resemble parliament. However, in certain situations they were able to express opinions, even quite polar ones.
But not when choosing a king, of course. It was a dispute in which the loser lost almost everything, and therefore the main task of the participant was to understand who SHOULD become king even before the start of the official meeting, which, as we know, in Rus' is not a place for discussion. That is, the whole controversy took place hidden and behind the scenes. We can say that it was on the sidelines of the cathedral of 1598 that Boris Godunov became king.
It is important to keep in mind that Godunov, despite the advantage of his position as a long-term “acting” king, was still not the only candidate for this role. Among others were Fyodor Nikitich Romanov - the future Patriarch Filaret and the father of the first Romanov Tsar Mikhail, representatives of the Shuisky, Mstislavsky clan and even Kasimov's "Tsarevich" Simeon Bekbulatovich: all these people were, according to the views of that time, noticeably more noble than Godunov, and in addition had quite powerful support groups. Then, having already become a tsar, Boris will wage a struggle with them, although using repression as a means, but not bringing them far to the sophistication of the times of Ivan the Terrible. So, Semeon was sent to live permanently on his Tver estates. The Romanovs were treated much harsher - they were convicted on trumped-up charges of witchcraft and sent into distant exile. At the same time, Fyodor Nikitich and his wife were tonsured as monks by force - which, as is known, made subsequent accession to the throne impossible. Yes, some of them died in exile - but under Tsar Ivan they would not have been released from Moscow, having been killed in some savage way. Moreover, already in 1602, that is, less than two years later, most of the surviving convicts (except for Filaret) were pardoned and began to slowly return to Moscow.
Let's say, for comparison, that the Romanovs, who later reigned in a similar pattern, behaved much more completely, not stopping even before the public execution of the four-year-old "Vorenok" - the son of False Dmitry II and Marina Mnishek.
And now Godunov is a legitimate king. But still not as legitimate as his predecessors were. In the eyes of the people of that time, popular election was noticeably inferior in this regard to blood affiliation with the royal dynasty. It gave way so much that much later, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov would begin to call himself the “great-grandson” of Ivan the Terrible, easily flouting the truth that there was no blood relationship between them at all. Actually, the fact that the impostor False Dmitry appeared during Godunov’s lifetime is an indicator of the former’s lack of legitimacy. In fact, the Pretender, had he really turned out to be the miraculously surviving youngest son of Ivan IV, was also not much of a contender for the throne: the seventh marriage of the Terrible with Maria Naga was so inconsistent with church norms that its fruits would rather have been considered illegitimate than princes. And yet, during Godunov’s life, the Pretender saw reasons for his campaign against Moscow, and after the death of the Tsar, the Russians en masse preferred False Dmitry to Godunov’s son, Fedor, to whom they had already taken the oath. Those close to him sent by the Pretender, with the support of the Moscow people, overthrew Fyodor from the throne with all the necessary symbolism: first, he, along with his mother and sister Ksenia, were “brought to Godov’s court,” that is, they were forcibly returned to their previous, boyar status, then they were all brutally killed, saving their lives only Ksenia. This young girl, the failed bride of a Danish prince, was spared only to become the concubine of False Dmitry. The latter “used” her until Marina Mniszek arrived from Poland to Moscow - but soon the Lord punished him too.
It is also worth saying a few words about one more aspect of the traditional legitimacy of the head of the Russian state. Maybe not so much legitimacy as the charisma of the ruler - although go figure where one turns into the other. It will be about the fact that the Russian Tsar in the eyes of his subjects is the Tsar of War. The main defense of the Russian Land. This, I repeat, is his most important function, and the success of its execution is the surest test of the “correctness” of the king. It is no coincidence that the reigning False Dmitry immediately began to prepare for war with Turkey. Peter the Great began his independent real rule with the Azov campaign, and the group of Princess Sophia, Vasily Golitsyn, who had previously opposed him, saw precisely in the success of the Crimean campaigns the last chance to consolidate power in the country. How does Godunov look in this regard? Alas, not too happy. He had serious military success - a successful war with Sweden, which ended in 1593 with the Treaty of Tyavzin and returned to Russia the lands lost by Ivan the Terrible: the fortresses of Ivangorod, Yam, Koporye, Korelu, that is, access to the Baltic. From this war, Godunov, of course, could not help but receive certain political dividends - but then he was only “performing the duties” of the tsar. He became a real king in a time that was, unfortunately, peaceful - so peaceful that he even had to imitate a military campaign against the Crimea - which essentially resulted only in a large military gathering near Serpukhov and a ceremonial reception of the Crimean embassy.
But this rather energetic, capable, erudite and kind-hearted administrator suffered three years of famine in a row: 1601-1603. Which, of course, did not add stability to his regime.