the Kremlin, Michael Romanov instituted the ritual, thereafter standard, of bring-
ing the empire’s entire populace to swear an oath of allegiance to the new tsar
(Empress Elizabeth in 1741 ceased asking landlords’serfs to take the oath; Paul I
restored the practice in 1796). Russia returned to previous patterns of autocratic
rule: Michael Romanov’s father returned to Russia in 1619 to become effectively
co-tsar as Patriarch Filaret, the new dynasty cultivated and expanded the elite,
councils were called less and less frequently (only to deal with immediate issues of
war and peace), and the new dynasty projected legitimacy by symbolically“restor-
ing” as much of sixteenth-century court procedure as possible while harshly
punishing dissent. An illustrated history of Michael Romanov’s accession, done
decades later, underscores the significance of popular consensus by depicting
hundreds of people welcoming him as he entered Moscow in 1613 (Figure 6.8).
Accidents of birth shaped tsarist succession differently in the seventeenth century
than in the preceding. As a rule, succession was stable. Only Michael Romanov’s
sons were considered sovereign; his collateral kin were lavished with lands, boyar
status, and wealth, but were not given appanages, any hint of sovereign power, or
place in succession. Succession was made easier by the fact that few sons survived;
daughters, however, proliferated. Michael Romanov (1613–45) left three daughters
of a total of seven, but he had only one son, who succeeded as Aleksei Mikhailovich
(1645–76). Aleksei Mikhailovich and his two wives in turn had ten daughters
(eight of whom survived to adulthood) and four sons (three of whom survived
him). To prevent rival power bases, none of these sons received territorial appan-
ages and none of the daughters was allowed to marry, domestically or abroad, to
prevent factions from proliferating. Aided by long reigns, Romanov succession
flowed smoothly with minimal struggle among boyars from 1613 to 1682, when
Tsar Fedor Alekseevich (1676–82) died without issue, leaving one brother from
each of his father’s two marriages (to Mariia Miloslavskaia and Natalia Naryshkina).
As in Ivan IV’s minority, the stakes were so high for boyar clans that violence
broke out. The claim of 16-year-old Ioann and his Miloslavskii clan against that of
10-year-old Peter and his Naryshkin clan was weakened by Ioann’s physical
disabilities; initially the patriarch summoned a council of hierarchs, court elites,
and Moscow townsmen, less capacious than many such Councils, but within the
tradition. It declared Peter tsar. The Miloslavskie then took advantage of grievances
among the Moscow musketeers to incite them into a rebellion that quickly
attracted urban masses. Their storming of the Kremlin and arson across the city
resulted in the murders of several boyars, including Peter’s uncle Ivan Naryshkin.
The victorious Miloslavskii faction then engineered what Lindsey Hughes calls“a
makeshift assembly similar to the one that had elected Peter”; it proposed the
unprecedented solution that the two boys share the throne. Oath-kissing around
the realm and coronation of the two tsars followed. The Miloslavskie then prompt-
ly took charge, with Sofiia Alekseevna acting as regent for Ioann, and Peter and his
Naryshkin kinsmen expelled from the Kremlin.
From May 1682 the remarkable Sofiia Alekseevna de facto ruled, but trad-
itional political culture came to bear in 1689 when Peter reached maturity,
symbolized by his marriage in January. This, compounded by Ioann’s inability
Broadcasting Legitimacy 151