What is an autocratic monarchy: the definition

Unlimited, autocratic monarchy isthe form of government is akin to absolutism. Although in Russia the very word "autocracy" differed in interpretation at different periods of history. Most often it was associated with the translation of the Greek word Αυτοκρατορία - "himself" (αὐτός) plus "rule" (κρατέω). With the advent of the New Times, this term denotes an unlimited monarchy, "Russian monarchy", that is, absolutism.

Historians have investigated this issue simultaneouslywith the establishment of the reasons why in our country is autocratic monarchy resulted in the the well-known form of government. Even in the XVI century Moscow historians have tried to explain how the country appeared "samoderzhatelnye" kings. Relegating the role of the Russian samoderzhatelyam "under the cover of old," In ancient times, they found the family tree bringeth forth from Caesar the Romans in August our first rulers who granted such authority to Byzantium. Autocratic monarchy established at St. Vladimir (Red Sun) and Vladimir Monomakh.

First mentions

For the first time began to use this conceptconcerning the Moscow rulers under Ivan the Third, the Grand Duke of Moscow. It was he who began to be awarded the title of Lord and Autocrat of All Russia (Dmitry Shemyaka and Vasily the Dark were called simply the masters of all Russia). Apparently Ivan III was advised by his wife - Sophia Palaeologus, a close relative of the last Byzantine emperor Constantine XI. And indeed, with this marriage, there were grounds to lay claim to the heritage of the Eastern Roman (Roma) state by a young Russia. From here and went to Russia autocratic monarchy.

Having obtained independence from the Horde khans, IvanThe third before other sovereigns now always combined these two titles: the tsar and the autocrat. Thus, he stressed his own external sovereignty, that is, independence from any other representative of power. Byzantine emperors called themselves exactly the same, only, naturally, in Greek.

This concept was completely clarified by V.O. Klyuchevsky: "The autocratic monarchy is the total authority of the autocrat (autocrat), which does not depend on either side of external power." The Russian Tsar does not pay tribute to anyone and is thus a sovereign. "

With the advent of Ivan the Terrible on the thronethe autocratic monarchy of Russia has considerably strengthened, since the concept itself has expanded and now it has meant not only an attitude toward the external parties of the government, but it has also been used as an unlimited internal authority that has become centralized, thus reducing the power of the boyars.

The historical and political doctrine of Klyuchevsky beforeexperts are still used in their studies, since it most methodologically fully and broadly interprets the question posed: why is Russia an autocratic monarchy. Even Karamzin wrote his "History of the Russian State", relying on a vision of the historical perspective, inherited from the historians of the 16th century.

Kavelin and Solovev

However, only when in historical studiesthere was an idea of ​​studying the development of all aspects of life of all strata of society, the question of an autocratic monarchy was posed methodologically correctly. KD Kavelin and SM Solovyov noted this necessity for the first time, having determined the main moments of the development of power. It was they who clarified how the consolidation of the autocratic monarchy took place, having designated this process as a conclusion from the form of patrimonial way of life in the state power of the state.

For example, in the north there were special conditionspolitical life, under which the very existence of education was owed only to the princes. To the south the conditions were somewhat different: the family life disintegrated, moving to statehood through patrimony. Already Andrew Bogolyubsky was the unlimited owner of his own estates. This is a bright type of patrimonial estate and a sovereign master. It was then that the first concepts of the sovereign and citizenship appeared, about self-government and fellow-workers.

Soloviev in his works wrote a lot about howthe strengthening of the autocratic monarchy took place. He points out a long series of reasons that triggered the emergence of the monarchy. First of all, it is necessary to note the Mongolian, Byzantine and other foreign influences. The unification of the Russian lands was facilitated by practically all classes of the population: both zemstvo people, and boyars, and the clergy.

In the northeast, new large cities appeared,where the patrimonial principle dominated. This also could not but create special living conditions for the emergence of an autocratic monarchy in Russia. And, of course, the personal qualities of the rulers-the Moscow princes-were of great importance.

Due to the fragmentation of the country was becomingespecially vulnerable. Wars and civil strifes did not cease. And at the head of every army there was almost always a prince. They gradually learned to get out of conflict through political decisions, successfully solving their own plans. It was they who changed history, destroyed the Mongolian yoke, built a great state.

From Peter the Great

An autocratic monarchy is an absolute monarchy. But, despite the fact that already at the time of Peter the Great, the notion of Russian autocracy was almost completely identified with the notion of European absolutism (the term itself did not take root and was never used). On the contrary, the Russian government was positioned as an Orthodox autocratic monarchy. Feofan Prokopovich in the Spiritual Regulations already in 1721 wrote that the authority of the autocratic God himself obeys commands.

When the notion of a sovereign state appeared,the notion of autocracy was further narrowed and denoted only the internal unlimited power that rested on its divine origin (the anointed of God). This already ceased to concern the sovereignty, and the last use of the term "autocracy", which implied sovereignty, happened under the reign of Catherine the Great.

This definition of an autocratic monarchyremained until the very end of the tsarist rule in Russia, that is, until the February Revolution of 1917: the Russian emperor was an autocrat, and the state system was autocracy. The overthrow of the autocratic monarchy in Russia in the early 20th century occurred for understandable reasons: already in the 19th century this form of government of criticism was openly called the power of tyrants and despots.

What is the difference between autocracy and absolutism? When the Westernizers and the Slavophiles were arguing with each other at the beginning of the nineteenth century, they built several theories that bred the notions of autocracy and absolutism. Let us dwell in more detail.

The Slavophiles counterposed the early(pre-Petrine) autocracy with post-Petrine. The latter was considered an absolutism bureaucratic sense, degenerate monarchy. While the early autocracy was considered correct, because it organically united the sovereign and the people.

Conservatives (including L. Tikhomirov) did not support such a division, believing that the post-Petrine Russian government is also significantly different from absolutism. Moderate liberals shared the pre-Petrine and post-Petrine rule on the principle of ideology: the basis for the divinity of power or on the idea of ​​common good. In the end, what is an autocratic monarchy, historians of the XIX century did not determine, because they did not agree.

Kostomarov, Leontovich and others

N.I. Kostomarov is a monograph, where he tried to reveal the correlation of concepts. The early feudal and autocratic monarchy, in his opinion, developed gradually, but, in the end, turned out to be a complete replacement of the despotism of the horde. In the XV century, when the destinies were destroyed, the monarchy was to appear. And the power would be divided between the autocrat and the boyars.

However, this did not happen, but was strengthenedautocratic monarchy. The 11th grade studies this period in detail, but not all schoolchildren understand why this happened. The boyars lacked cohesion, they were too presumptuous and selfish. In this case, it is very easy to take power to the hands of a strong sovereign. It was the boyars who missed the opportunity to create a constitutional-autocratic monarchy.

Professor F.I. Leontovich found a lot of borrowings, which were introduced into the political, public, administrative life of the Russian state from the Oirat Charters and Chingizova Yasa. Mongolian law, like no other, well established itself in Russian laws. This is also the position in which the sovereign is the supreme owner of the country's territory, this is the enslavement of the townspeople and the attachment of peasants, this is the idea of ​​parochialism and compulsory service in the service class, these are the Moscow orders copied from the Mongolian chambers, and a very, very many more. These views were shared by Engelman, Zagoskin, Sergeevich and some others. But Zabelin, Bestuzhev-Ryumin, Vladimirsky-Budanov, Solovyov and many other professors did not attach such importance to the Mongolian yoke, but they put forward absolutely different creative elements to the fore.

By the will of the people

North-Eastern Russia united under the Moscowunanimity thanks to the close national unity that sought to peacefully develop their crafts. During the reign of the princes of the Yurievichs, the posad even entered into a struggle with the boyar squad force and won. Further, the yoke violated the formed course of events on the way of unification, and then the Moscow princes made a very correct step by arranging a people's covenant about silence and the Zemstvo world. That is why they could be at the head of Russia, which was striving for unification.

However, the autocratic monarchy was formed farnot right away. People almost did not care what was going on in the princes' quarters, even people did not think about their rights and any liberties. He was in constant cares of safety from the powerful of this world and about the daily bread.

Boyars played a decisive role in power for a long time. However, Ivan the Third came to the aid of the Greeks with the Italians. Only with their clues did the tsarist autocracy get its final form so soon. Boyars is a seditious force. She did not want to listen to the people or the prince, moreover - to the earthly peace and silence it was the first enemy.

Thus branded Russian aristocratsKostomarov and Leontovich. However, a little later historians disputed this opinion. Boyars, in the opinion of Sergeyevich and Klyuchevsky, were not enemies of the unification of Russia at all. On the contrary, they did their utmost to help Moscow princes. And Klyuchevsky says that there was no unlimited autocracy in Russia at that time. It was monarchist-boyar power. There were even clashes of monarchs with their aristocracy, there were attempts on the part of the boyars to restrict the powers of the Moscow rulers somewhat.

Investigation of the issue under Soviet power

Only in 1940 was the first discussion inAcademy of Sciences, dedicated to the question of determining the state system, which preceded the absolute monarchy of Peter the Great. And exactly in 10 years the problems of absolutism were discussed at the Moscow State University, at its historical faculty. Both discussions showed complete dissimilarity in the positions of historians. Experts in the state and law did not share the notion of absolutism and autocracy. Historians have seen the difference and most often these concepts were opposed. And what does autocratic monarchy mean for Russia in itself, scientists have not agreed.

To different periods of our history they appliedthe same concept with different content. The second half of the XV century - the end of vassalage dependence on the Golden Horde khan, and only the overthrown Tatar-Mongol yoke Ivan the Third was called the first real autocrat. The first quarter of the 16th century - autocracy is treated as a monarchy after the abolition of sovereign principalities. And only under Ivan the Terrible, according to historians, the autocracy receives the unlimited power of the sovereign, that is, an unrestricted, autocratic monarchy, and even the estate-representative component of the monarchy did not contradict the unlimited power of the autocrat.

Phenomenon

The following discussion arose in the very late 1960syears. She put on the agenda the question of the form of an unlimited monarchy: is not it a special kind of absolute monarchy peculiar only to our region? It was established in the course of the discussion that, compared with European absolutism, our autocracy had several characteristic features. The social support is only the nobility, while in the west the monarchs have more relied on the emerging class of the bourgeoisie. Above the legal methods of control, non-legal dominated, that is, the personal will of the monarch was much more endowed. There were opinions that the Russian autocracy was a variant of eastern despotism. In a word, for 4 years, until 1972, the term "absolutism" was not defined.

Later A.I. Fursov was invited to consider the phenomenon of Russian autocracy, which has no analog in world history. Differences from the eastern monarchy are too significant: this is a restriction of traditions, rituals, customs and law, not peculiar to rulers in Russia. From the Western they are no less: the power even the most absolute there was limited by law, and even if the king had the right to change the law, he still had to obey the law, even if changed.

And in Russia it was different. Russian autocrats have always stood above the law, they could demand from others subordination to him, but they themselves had the right to avoid following, anyway, the letter of the law. However, the autocratic monarchy developed and acquired more and more European features.

The end of the XIX century

Now crowned descendants of the autocrat PeterThe Great were already much more limited in their actions. There was a management tradition that was considered with the factors of public opinion and certain legal provisions that concerned not only the domain of prerogatives of dynastic, but also general civil law. The monarch could be only Orthodox from the Romanov dynasty, consisting in an even marriage. The ruler was obliged by the law of 1797, when he entered the throne, to appoint an heir.

Restricted autocrat and managerialtechnology, and the order of publishing laws. The repeal of his orders required a special legislative act. The king could not deprive life, property, honor, class privileges. He had no right to impose new taxes. I could not even justify anyone for nothing. For everything, there was a written order, which was drawn up in a special way. The oral order of the monarch was not law.

Imperial fate

It's not the tsar-modernizer Peter the Great,titled Russia as an empire, made it so. In essence, the empire of Russia has become much earlier and, according to many scientists, it continues to remain. It is the product of a complex and long historical process, when the formation, survival, and strengthening of the state took place.

The imperial fate of our country is fundamentallydiffers from others. In the conventional sense, Russia was not a colonial power. The expansion of the territories occurred, but it was not motivated, as in the Western countries, by economic or financial aspirations, the search for markets and raw materials. She did not divide her territory into colonies and metropolises. On the contrary, the economic indicators of almost all the "colonies" were much higher than those of the historical center. Education and medicine were everywhere the same. It is appropriate to recall 1948, when the British left India, leaving there less than 1% of literate aborigines, and not educated, but just knowing the letters.

Territorial expansion was always dictatedsecurity and strategic interests - that's where the main factors of the emergence of the Russian Empire. And wars were very rare for the acquisition of territories. There was always an onslaught from the outside, and now it still exists. Statistics say that in the 16th century we fought 43 years, in 17 - already 48, and in 18 - all 56. The XIX century was almost peaceful - only 30 years Russia spent on the battlefield. In the West, we have always fought either as allies, delving into other people's "family quarrels," or reflecting aggression from the west. No one was the first to attack. Apparently the very fact of the appearance of such vast territories, regardless of the means, ways, reasons for the formation of our state, will inevitably and permanently give rise to problems, since the very nature of imperial existence speaks here.

The Hostage of History

If one examines the life of any empire,complex relationships in the interaction and counteraction of centripetal and centrifugal forces. In a strong state these factors are minimal. In Russia, monarchical power invariably acted as a carrier, exponent and implementer of only the centripetal principle. Hence its political prerogatives with the eternal question of the stability of the imperial construction. The very nature of Russian imperialism could not but hamper the development of regional autonomization and polycentricity. And history itself made monarchical Russia its hostage.

The Constitutional-autocratic monarchy was with usis impossible only because the tsarist government had a sacred right to do so, and the kings were not the first among equals - they were not equal. They were married to the board, and it was a mystical marriage with a whole vast country. The royal porphyry radiated the light of heaven. For the beginning of the XX century in Russia, the autocratic monarchy was not even archaic, in part. And today, such sentiments are alive (let us recall Natalia "Nyasha" Poklonskaya). It's in our blood.

Liberal-legal spirit inevitably facesa religious worldview that rewards the autocrat with a special halo, and none of the other mortals will ever be honored. All attempts to reform the supreme power are defeated. Religious authority wins. In any case, by the beginning of the 20th century, the universality of the rule of law state of Russia was much further than now.