What is an autocratic monarchy: definition

2024 Author: Howard Calhoun | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 10:16

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

Historiographers investigated this issue simultaneously with the establishment of the reasons why in our country the autocratic monarchy resulted in this well-known form of government. Back in the 16th century, historians of Moscow tried to explain how "autocratic" tsars appeared in the country. Having assigned this role to the Russian autocrats "under the cover of antiquity", in ancient times they foundwho deduced a genealogical tree from the Caesar of the Romans Augustus, our first rulers, to whom Byzantium granted such power. The autocratic monarchy was established under St. Vladimir (Red Sun) and Vladimir Monomakh.

First mentions

For the first time, this concept began to be used in relation to the Moscow rulers under Ivan the Third, the Grand Duke of Moscow. It was he who began to be titled as the ruler and autocrat of all Russia (Dmitry Shemyaka and Vasily the Dark were simply called the rulers of all Russia). Apparently, Ivan the Third was advised by his wife, Sophia Palaiologos, a close relative of the last emperor of Byzantium, Constantine XI. And indeed, with this marriage, there were grounds to claim the succession of the heritage of the Eastern Roman (Romaic) state by young Russia. From here the autocratic monarchy went to Russia.

Having gained independence from the Horde khans, Ivan the Third, before other sovereigns, now always combined these two titles: king and autocrat. Thus, he emphasized his own external sovereignty, that is, independence from any other representative of power. Byzantine emperors called themselves exactly the same, only, of course, in Greek.

This concept was fully clarified by V. O. Klyuchevsky: "Autocratic monarchy is the full power of an autocrat (autocrat), who does not depend on any of the parties to external power. The Russian Tsar does not pay tribute to anyone and, thus, is sovereign".

With the advent of Ivan the Terrible on the throne, the autocraticThe monarchy of Russia was significantly strengthened, since the concept itself expanded and now meant not only the attitude to the external aspects of government, but was also used as an unlimited internal power, which became centralized, thus reducing the power of the boyars.

The historical and political doctrine of Klyuchevsky is still used by specialists in their research, since it is the most methodologically complete and broad interpretation of the question posed: why Russia is an autocratic monarchy. Even Karamzin wrote his "History of the Russian State" based on the vision of the historical perspective inherited from historians of the 16th century.

Kavelin and Solovyov

However, only when the idea of studying the development of all aspects of life of all strata of society appeared in historical research, the question of autocratic monarchy was raised methodologically correctly. For the first time, such a need was noted by K. D. Kavelin and S. M. Solovyov, having identified the main points in the development of power. It was they who clarified how the strengthening of the autocratic monarchy took place, designating this process as a withdrawal from the form of tribal life into state autocratic power.

For example, in the north there were special conditions of political life, under which the very existence of education was due only to the princes. To the south, the conditions were somewhat different: tribal life was disintegrating, passing to statehood through patrimony. Already Andrei Bogolyubsky was the unlimited owner of his own estates. This is a bright type of votchinnik andsovereign owner. It was then that the first concepts of the sovereign and citizenship, autocracy and subservience appeared.

Soloviev in his works wrote a lot about how the strengthening of the autocratic monarchy took place. He points out a long series of reasons that caused the emergence of autocracy. First of all, it is necessary to note the Mongolian, Byzantine and other foreign influences. Almost all classes of the population contributed to the unification of the Russian lands: the zemstvo people, the boyars, and the clergy.

New large cities appeared in the northeast, dominated by the patrimonial beginning. This, too, 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 fragmentation, the country became especially vulnerable. Wars and civil strife did not stop. And at the head of each army almost always stood a prince. They gradually learned to get out of conflicts through political decisions, successfully resolving their own plans. It was they who changed history, destroyed the Mongol yoke, built a great state.

From Peter the Great

Autocratic monarchy is an absolute monarchy. But, despite the fact that already in the time of Peter the Great, the concept of Russian autocracy was almost completely identified with the concept of European absolutism (this term itself did not take root and was never used in our country). On the contrary, the Russian government positioned itself as an Orthodox autocratic monarchy. FeofanProkopovich in the Spiritual Regulations already in 1721 wrote that God himself commands the autocratic power to obey.

When the concept of a sovereign state appeared, the concept of autocracy narrowed even more and meant only internal unlimited power, which was based on its divine origin (God's anointed). This no longer applied to sovereignty, and the last use of the term "autocracy", which meant sovereignty, happened during the reign of Catherine the Great.

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

What is the difference between autocracy and absolutism? When Westerners and Slavophiles argued among themselves at the beginning of the 19th century, they built several theories that separated the concepts of autocracy and absolutism. Let's take a closer look.

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

Conservatives (including L. Tikhomirov) did not support such a division, believing that the post-Petrine Russian governmentvery different from absolutism. Moderate liberals divided pre-Petrine and post-Petrine rule according to the principle of ideology: the basis of the divinity of power or the idea of the common good. As a result, historians of the 19th century did not define what an autocratic monarchy was, because they did not agree on opinions.

Kostomarov, Leontovich and others

N. I. Kostomarov has 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 for the despotism of the horde. In the 15th century, when the inheritances were destroyed, the monarchy should already have appeared. Moreover, power would be divided between the autocrat and the boyars.

However, this did not happen, but the autocratic monarchy strengthened. Grade 11 studies this period in detail, but not all students understand why this happened. The boyars lacked cohesion, they were too presumptuous and selfish. In this case, it is very easy to take power into 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 that were introduced into the political, social, administrative life of the Russian state from the Oirat statutes and Chingiz Yasa. Mongolian law, like no other, took root well in Russian laws. This is the position in which the sovereign is the supreme owner of the country's territory, this is the enslavement of townsmen andattaching peasants, this is the idea of localism and compulsory service with the service class, these are Moscow orders copied from the Mongolian chambers, and much, much more. These views were shared by Engelman, Zagoskin, Sergeevich and some others. But Zabelin, Bestuzhev-Ryumin, Vladimirsky-Budanov, Solovyov and many other professors on the Mongol yoke did not attach such importance, but brought completely different creative elements to the fore.

By the will of the people

North-Eastern Russia was united under Moscow autocracy thanks to the close national unity, which sought to peacefully develop their crafts. Under the rule of the princes Yuryevich, the settlement even entered into a struggle with the boyar retinue force and won. Further, the yoke violated the correct course of events that had formed on the path of unification, and then the Moscow princes took a very correct step, arranging a people's covenant of silence and zemstvo peace. That is why they were able to be at the head of Russia, striving for unification.

However, the autocratic monarchy was not formed immediately. The people were almost indifferent to what was going on in the princely chambers, the people did not even think about their rights and any liberties. He was in constant concern for safety from the powers that be and for daily bread.

Boyars have long played a decisive role in power. However, Ivan the Third came to the aid of the Greeks with the Italians. It was only with their promptings that the tsarist autocracy received its final form so soon. The boyars are a seditious force. She did not want to listen to the people or the prince, moreover, to the zemstvo worldand silence it was the first enemy.

Thus branded Russian aristocrats Kostomarov and Leontovich. However, a little later, historians challenged this opinion. Boyars, according to Sergeevich and Klyuchevsky, were not at all enemies of the unification of Russia. On the contrary, they did their best to help the Moscow princes do it. And Klyuchevsky says that there was no unlimited autocracy in Russia at that time. It was a monarchical-boyar power. There were even clashes between monarchs and their aristocracy, there were attempts on the part of the boyars to somewhat limit the powers of the Moscow rulers.

Research on the issue under Soviet rule

It was only in 1940 that the first discussion took place at the Academy of Sciences, dedicated to the issue of defining the state system that preceded the absolute monarchy of Peter the Great. And exactly 10 years later, the problems of absolutism were discussed at Moscow State University, at its historical department. Both discussions showed a complete dissimilarity in the positions of historians. The concepts of absolutism and autocracy were not separated at all by specialists in state and law. Historians saw the difference and most often these concepts were opposed. And what does an autocratic monarchy mean for Russia in itself, scientists have not agreed.

To different periods of our history they used the same concept with different content. The second half of the 15th century was the end of vassal dependence on the Golden Horde Khan, and only Ivan the Third, who overthrew the Tatar-Mongol yoke, was called the first real autocrat. First quarter of the 16th centuryautocracy is interpreted as autocracy after the liquidation of sovereign principalities. And only under Ivan the Terrible, according to historians, the autocracy receives the unlimited power of the sovereign, that is, the unlimited, autocratic monarchy, and even the class-representative component of the monarchy did not contradict the unlimited power of the autocrat.

Phenomenon

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

Later, AI Fursov was asked to consider in the Russian autocracy a phenomenon that has no analogue in world history. The differences from the eastern monarchy are too significant: this is a limitation by traditions, rituals, customs and law, which are not characteristic of the rulers in Russia. They are no less than Western ones: even the most absolute power there was limited by law, and even if the king had the right to change the law, he still had to obey the law- let it be changed.

But in Russia it was different. The Russian autocrats always stood above the law, they could demand that others obey it, but they themselves had the right to evade following, whatever it was, the letter of the law. However, the autocratic monarchy developed and acquired more and more European features.

Late 19th century

Now the crowned descendants of the autocrat Peter the Great were already much more limited in their actions. A management tradition developed that took into account the factors of public opinion and certain legal provisions that concerned not only the area of dynastic prerogatives, but also general civil law. Only an Orthodox from the Romanov dynasty, who was in an equal marriage, could be a monarch. The ruler was obliged by law of 1797 to appoint an heir upon accession to the throne.

The autocrat was limited both by administrative technology and the procedure for issuing laws. The cancellation of his orders required a special legislative act. The king could not deprive of life, property, honor, estate privileges. He had no right to introduce new taxes. I couldn't even do good to anyone just like that. For everything, a written order was needed, which was drawn up in a special way. The oral order of the monarch was not law.

Imperial Destiny

It was not at all the modernizing Tsar Peter the Great, who titled Russia an empire, made it such. At its core, Russia became an empire much earlier and, according to many scientists, continues to be one. itthe product of a complex and lengthy historical process, when the formation, survival, and strengthening of the state took place.

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

Territorial expansion has always been dictated by security and strategic interests - that's where the main factors in the emergence of the Russian Empire. Moreover, wars occurred very rarely for the acquisition of territories. There has always been an onslaught from outside, and even now it still exists. Statistics say that in the 16th century we fought for 43 years, in 17 - already 48, and in 18 - all 56. The 19th century was practically 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 repelling aggression from the West. No one has ever been attacked first. Apparently, the very fact of the emergence of such vast territories, regardless of the means, ways, reasons for the formation of our state, will inevitably and constantly give rise to problems, since it says herethe very nature of imperial existence.

Hostage of history

If you study the life of any empire, you will find complex relationships in the interaction and opposition of centripetal and centrifugal forces. In a strong state, these factors are minimal. In Russia, monarchical power has invariably acted as the bearer, exponent and implementer of only the centripetal principle. Hence its political prerogatives with the eternal question of the stability of the imperial structure. The very nature of the Russian empire could not but impede the development of regional autonomization and polycentrism. And history itself has made monarchical Russia its hostage.

A constitutional autocratic monarchy was impossible with us only because the royal power had a sacred right to do so, and the kings were not the first among equals - they had no equal. They were married with the reign, and it was a mystical marriage with a whole huge country. Royal purples radiated the light of heaven. For the beginning of the 20th century in Russia, the autocratic monarchy was not even partly archaic. And today such sentiments are alive (remember Natalya "Nyasha" Poklonskaya). It's in our blood.

The liberal-legal spirit inevitably clashes with a religious worldview that rewards the autocrat with a special halo, and no other mortal will ever be honored with this. All attempts to reform the supreme power fail. Religious authority wins. In any case, by the beginning of the 20th century, from the universality of the rule of law, Russia was muchfurther than now.