HISTORICAL DICTIONARY A–Z - Russia: A Reference Guide from the Renaissance to the Present - page 383

died childless. The assembly, composed of boyars,
clergy, gentry, and some merchants, chose Boris
GODUNOV as czar, an election that would usher in
the TIME OF TROUBLES . In 1606, at the height of
the Time of Troubles, a zemskii sobor was called by
Moscow boyars to choose a new czar after they
had assassinated Dmitrii I, known as the FALSE
DMITRII , who had reigned briefly as czar. The
assembly chose one of its own, a boyar named
Vasili Shuiiskii, who reigned until 1610 as Vasili
IV.

began to call them less frequently and PETER I ,
perhaps the most absolutist of 17th-century
autocrats, ultimately abolished the zemskii sobor.

zemstvo (pl. zemstva )
Named after a term for a 16th-century tax-col-
lecting institution, the zemstva were institutions
of local government established in 1864 as part
of the GREAT REFORMS designed by the govern-
ment of Czar ALEXANDER II . As initially estab-
lished, the zemstva existed on two levels, district
and provincial. Delegates to the district zemstva
were chosen indirectly and represented both the
landowning gentry and the village peasant com-
munes. The district zemstva then chose delegates
to the provincial zemstva. Both district and
provincial zemstva appointed executive boards to
carry out a series of activities, such as elemen-
tary education, road construction, and the pro-
vision of health care. The zemstva, however, were
not established uniformly across the empire.
They were mostly active in the provinces of
European Russia. Only in 1911 did the czar
allow their establishment in the Belorussian and
western Ukrainian provinces of the empire, and
they were never established in Siberia.
Even though they were under the formal
supervision of provincial governors, the zemstva
operated with considerable autonomy until
1890, when a new law gave the minister of the
interior the right to approve the appointment of
zemstvo directors. The law also restricted the pro-
portion of peasant delegates to the zemstvo
provincial assemblies. In 1895, NICHOLAS II
quashed the long-standing hope of many zemstvo
activists for greater participation in the govern-
ment as “senseless dreams.” Zemstvo leaders were
involved in the Union of Liberation that con-
tributed to the liberal pressures on the monarchy
in the first years of the 20th century. The zemstvo
congress that met in November 1904 in St.
Petersburg articulated part of the agenda of civil
rights that would help drive the events of the
1905 Revolution. During World War I, despite
the government's suspicion of voluntary
activism, the zemstva, joined under the umbrella

The zemskii sobor that is best remembered in
history is the one that convened in January
1613 to put an end to the dynastic instability of
the Time of Troubles, after a national army had
driven out the Poles, who had seized MOSCOW in
1610. More representative than other assem-
blies, its delegates numbered about 800, with
about 500 coming from the provinces of Russia.
The assembly was dominated by gentry and
merchant interests, who had come to the fore in
the drive to liberate Moscow from foreign rule.
After the assembly agreed not to consider for-
eign candidates to the throne, it chose MICHAEL
ROMANOV , a sickly 16-year old, around whose
candidacy most segments of Muscovite society
could unite. Thus began the ROMANOV DYNASTY ,
which would rule Russia for the next 300 years.
With Michael as czar, an assembly of the land
met with great frequency, especially during the
first decade of his reign, when it met almost con-
tinuously. His son ALEKSEI also convened zemskie
sobory to deal with such matters as the Ulozhenie
of 1649 and the annexation of Ukraine.
Historians have argued over the scope and
importance of these assemblies within the con-
text of Muscovite autocracy. Most have argued
that the zemskie sobory assisted the czars in for-
mulating policies but did not limit their powers.
Even when its members were elected rather than
appointed, membership in the zemskii sobor was
seen in the light of service to the crown. Others
have noted that, especially in the reigns of
Michael and the first part of Aleksei's reign, the
zemskie sobory decided on matters of vital impor-
tance to the state. Because they could possibly
grow to challenge the power of the czar, Aleksei