In 1613, on the old new year’s date, the people’s army, in a solemn assembly, elected the first Romanov, Michael. This was likely the most representative assembly in Russian history, and far more representative than the oligarchic/merchant Lower House of the British Parliament, or the urban oligarchy that later stirred up the French Revolution. The assembly was made up of lower nobles, clergy, peasants and townsmen. They demanded a monarch, they demanded an end to oligarchy and they demanded a cessation of violence. They elected the young Michael.

Russia was in ruins after the Troubles, fields were left unplanted, foreign troops still occupied many areas of Russia, and the population, who had given all to support the war effort, was, naturally enough, broke. There was nothing happy about Michael at this time, as he realized the task ahead of him was massive. He was to rebuild Russia and create peace out of nearly nothing.

Now, as far as the robber gangs were concerned, Michael had a great deal of help from the people’s army, as well as the various forces that spontaneously created themselves throughout the countryside. The brigands were cleared out of Russia rather quickly.

Michael was quite willing to swallow his pride and approach western Europe for financial assistance. The British oligarchy had been enamored with Russia for some time, not merely for natural resources, but for assistance for trade with India, and as part of their strategy to compete with the Dutch. It was the British who responded with assistance for the prostrate Russia, and they also negotiated with Sweden to call off hostilities. Holland also assisted Russia at this time, and, it should be noted, was also an oligarchy, being dominated by a handful of major shipping magnates. Russia was important for overland trade, and must be made stable and prosperous for their own interests. Russia was rich in natural resources, and, since the beginning of the western Renaissance, Russia was largely feeding western Europe and it was the ports of the north that Russian/Baltic grain was shipped to the west. Michael quickly took advantage.

It was clear, however, that Michael would have to reopen hostilities with Poland. While Vladislas lived, he would claim that he was the duly elected tsar of Russia, and would not give up this claim. Peace with Sweden made it possible for Michael to rally the local nobility and launch an attack where Russian territory could be regained. Vladislas’ view of democracy is identical to the present American version. Money buys power and hides under the face of “election.” Vladislas was elected by an unrepresentative council of Shuiskii allies in Moscow. Yushckenko in Ukraine and Saakashvili in Georgia were elected due to huge influxes of cash from the United States, the Carnegie Endowment, George Soros, Vladimir Gusinskii and of the major oligarchs outside of the country. But this is a “fair” election in the eyes of the western oligarchy, precisely as Vladislas viewed his election by Shuiskii’s magnates as “fair and binding” at the time. History changes nothing: the arrogant drive Volvos today rather than carriages.

It might also be worth mentioning that Vladislas sought an alliance with the Cossacks, one that at least some of the Cossack leadership found interesting. The reality was, that despite the attempts at peace by Britain. Holland and Germany, war was brewing, and it was a war that would have major European repercussions. The Protestant Reformation, the pet theology of the north-western oligarchy, made the Russian alliance a little easier than if Europe had been solidly Catholic. Sweden, who, after the defeat of the Protestant forces in Germany, became the military champion of Protestantism (and, in fact, saved the very existence of Protestantism after the German Empire’s victories), and, as a result, realized that an alliance with Russia was in her interests. The “wars of religion” among the German states drew in Sweden and Holland (as her oligarchy were the bankers to the Reformation), once the Protestant north, led by Saxony, were on the receiving end of Bavaria’s (et al.) military might. Once the Catholic powers (with the exception of France, to the endless chagrin of the “Latin mass” Catholics), created an anti-Protestant alliance, Sweden, Russia and France sought an alliance against papal power.

It might be worth digressing a bit to see France’s interest here. France, though nominally a Catholic power, was in communion with the pope only in theory. In practice, the French monarchy chose their own bishops and largely were in total control over the church. This was largely because of several factors: first, during the schism of Avignon, the pope’s (whoever it was at any given time, and in any given area) all negotiated with the various French monarchs at the time, promising them full control over the appointment of bishops in exchange for loyalty. This deal was renewed even after the schism ended, and, at the beginning of the Reformation, the popes were not going to jeopardize French loyalty by interfering in French church affairs.

The reality is that the Catholic Church of France was an autonomous national church during the Reformation, one that fought papal pretensions far more than they supported them. The political/military reason for the French refuas to fight for the papacy was the ambition of the Habsburgs. The Habsburgs, at the ascension of Charles V (the emperor during the life of Luther), held the following possessions: Naples (the more medieval-minded, Greek, rural, souther part of Italy (including Sicily), very different from the Florentine bankers’ republic), Spain (remember, Charles was grandson of Ferdinand and Isabella), the Netherlands (because of his Spanish connection), and, of course, the German empire, which, by now, was largely an set of small city-states, though governed by the strongest, the so-called “electors.” He was also the “archduke” of Austria.

One might realize the alarm of the French in being, quite literally, surrounded by a strong-minded prince, one calling himself “Roman Emperor” and being lavishly supported by the papal party (though it might be added that Charles’ relations with the papacy were at times stormy.) The French threw in their lot with the anti-Catholic alliance as a way to control Charles. Therefore, the alliance was Charles, Poland and the Papacy versus Russia Sweden and France. However the death of Sigsmund (who was on the Polish throne at the time, as his son Vladislas was still in Russia) gave Michael the green light to attack Polish positions in Russia, with full Swedish support. Pro-Russian Tartar activity in the south diverted some of the Polish forces, and many of the western cities were recaptured. Eventually, Vladislas, with some western money, was paid off to renounce his claim to Moscow.

Now, Michael did not rule Russia alone. He was a compromise candidate in the fiercely debated popular assembly, and was, however intelligent and pious, inexperienced. His father was Patriarch Filaret of all Russia, a rather curious thing for students approaching this for the first time. Filaret Romanov was an intelligent, pro-Moscow boyar who supported the election of Boris Gudenov. However, the Romanovs were considered part of the boyarin (though an eccentric part) and Boris exiled the family, forcing Filaret to become a monk. However, Filaret became a model monk: he was pious, well-read, an experienced diplomat, but unlike many other boyars, believed in the mission of Holy Russia and the Christian Roman Empire that was bequeathed to Russia though Sophie and Ivan. His taking the tonsure by force was far from a punishment, but rather Filaret’s true love of the monastic life and his obvious fervor for the Orthodox tradition got him noticed rather quickly. Making things more bizarre, Filaret was captured by the second False Dimitri, and the latter, so impressed with the Romanov, made him an equally False “Patriarch of Russia,” that is, the Russias under Dimitri’s domain.

Once back in Moscow, after an unpleasant jaunt to Poland, Filaret was the obvious choice for patriarch once the saintly Germogen went to heaven. He was the obvious choice, despite of his checkered past, largely because he was Michael’s father, having bore children before becoming a monastic. No better choice was conceivable. Like Germogen, Filaret anathematized Roman Catholicism and all the boyarin who cooperated with the oligarchy under Vladislas. Though Michael was elected tsar, his father was entrusted with many aspects of state oversight. His interests were primary theological, in that he sought the purification of Orthodoxy from the evils of oligarchy, the creation of seminaries and the development of a truly apologetic tint to the Russian church, which makes some sense given the Russian experience with the Poles. However, Filaret also proved himself able to begin dealing with state finance. Russia was broke after the troubles, and only some foreign cash kept the state functioning after the war. Filaret began to reorganize the taxation office, and sought to tax the “service nobility,” that institution that developed under Ivan III, but normally did not pay cash taxes in that their payments to the state were in personal service in military, educational, bureaucratic or religious forms. Filaret realized that all aspects of wealth must be brought under state supervision if Russia was to be a financially functional state.

Importantly, the institution of serfdom was strengthened under Filaret. This is important for it calls down the most saccharine condemnation from the academic elite. Of course, serfdom was forced upon Russia, whether it be Boris or Michael/Filaret. Serfdom developed due to a weak central authority, and continual military crises that led to the flight of peasants to the south, to Cossack lands and even deeper south into Turkey and Persia. In Boris’ case, serfdom was the only real solution to the oligarchic practice of enticing good labor away from smaller estates, but in Michael’s case, it was a way to keep labor in place due to the loss of population during the wars of the Troubles, the necessity of a stable labor force for the cultivation of long-fallow fields, the necessity of a stable tax assessing and gathering force, and for many of the reasons all connected to the rebuilding of a shattered state and economy. Landlords were given power over peasants (or, more accurately, autonomous peasant communes) far less than the modern state has over its taxpayers (who are treated as individuals, and hence are much weaker in dealing with the state), but power nevertheless, and a power used to compensate for the helplessness of central institutions outside of the Muscovite diocese.

Michael and Filaret represent Russia in 2007: coming out of a time of severe trial and weakness, foreign intervention and attack. They, working together with the boyarin who remained loyal to Moscow, rebuilt an empire, and did the rebuilding at breathtaking speed. The enemies of Russia should take heed here. The union of church, crown and land, it should be noted, together rebuilt Russia from, literally, ashes. They did it solely on the basis of the political views of Ivan IV and the nature of Orthodox life. This is all that was necessary, then and now.

We hear often that monasteries were used as “prisons.” What does this mean in practice?

It means that the Russian tsardom believed that the purpose of punishment was to reform the individual, not merely torment him. As Russia began to modernize, one of the things that the state borrowed from western Europe were methods of juridical torture. Peter made the most of this rather dubious “borrowing” from the west. In the code of Yaroslav, there is no allowance for this particular form of “Enlightenment.” However, it remained the Russian tradition that criminals, particularly high-profile ones, are better served by conversion and penance rather than torture and execution. Prisoners in monasteries were placed in a strict diet, and were part of the regular monastic routine of labor and prayer. Given that American prisons are organized rape camps, U.S. citizens should have nothing to say about Russian juridical practices. Monasteries were not just houses of prayer, but were houses of reformation, and served an important social purpose. They were there for repentance and labor. What better place for criminals?