home > Answers

Autocratic form of government. Autocracy vs monarchy

Terminology

The difference between autocracy and absolutism

At the turn of the 20th century, theories arose that differentiated the concepts of “autocracy” and “absolutism.” At the same time, thinkers of the conservative and Slavophile persuasion contrasted the pre-Petrine autocracy, in which, in their opinion, the organic unity of the sovereign with the people was realized, with post-Petrine absolutism as a bureaucratic, degenerate form of monarchy. Moderate liberal thinkers contrasted the pre-Petrine autocracy, based on the idea of ​​the divinity of power, with the Petrine and post-Petrine form as based, from their point of view, on the idea of ​​the common good.

What seemed possible to Kostomarov - namely, the emergence in Rus' of a monarchy limited by boyar rule - according to Klyuchevsky, turns out to be a historical reality, if not completely, then to a significant extent. Moscow Rus' turns out to be not at all as unlimitedly autocratic as previously thought, but rather monarchical-boyar, since the Tsar of All Rus' does not rule the land individually, but through the mediation and with the help of the boyar aristocracy: individual cases of clashes between the monarch and this aristocracy are even cited to attempts to limit the powers of Moscow autocrats.

Professor Sergeevich’s conclusions are no less original. Contrary to the generally accepted opinion about the development of the Moscow state from the inheritance of the Moscow princes, he proves that the united territory of north-eastern Rus' did not grow from this fiefdom, but on the ruins of the old Vladimir Great Reign, after Dmitry Donskoy acquired it as the hereditary possession of his house. It was not through the efforts of the Moscow princes and even in spite of their aspirations that this work of unification began. The Moscow princes, from Kalita to Dmitry Donskoy, were not at all the creators of the order that led the Moscow state to autocracy and greatness, but on the contrary, they were decisive proponents of the view of reign as private property, with all its anti-state consequences. The initiators and supporters of the reunification of the territory under the rule of one prince were the boyars, who acted as defenders of this idea back in the old Rostov land. From Ivan Kalita, behind the names of the princes, the boyar hand is hidden, creating the Moscow State stone by stone. There is also no agreement on the relative assessment of Byzantine influences, although quite a lot has been done in the specialized literature to clarify this issue.

During the years of Soviet power, the question of the definition of absolutism was practically not discussed until 1940, when a discussion took place on the problems of defining the political system that preceded the absolutism of Peter I. In 1951, at the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, a discussion was held directly devoted to the problems of absolutism. These discussions revealed the dissimilarity of the researchers' positions. Specialists in the field of state and law, as a rule, were inclined not to separate the concepts of “absolutism” and “autocracy”. Historians, unlike jurists, made a certain distinction and often contrasted these concepts. Moreover, in relation to different periods of Russian history, historians understood the content of the same concept differently. In relation to the second half of the 15th century. By autocracy, historians simply understood the absence of vassal dependence of the Grand Duke of Moscow on the Golden Horde Khan, and the first autocrat in Rus' was Ivan III Vasilyevich, who overthrew the Horde yoke. In relation to the first quarter of the 16th century. autocracy was already interpreted as “unique power” - when the power of the Moscow sovereign extended to the territory of the entire Russian land, where sovereign principalities had already been almost completely eliminated. Only under Ivan IV Vasilyevich, autocracy, according to historians, resulted in a regime of unlimited power of the sovereign - an unlimited monarchy. But for the most part, historians argued that in the middle of the 16th century. In Russia, not an absolute, but an estate-representative monarchy emerged, which in Russia did not contradict the regime of unlimited power of the tsar

In the late 1960s, a debate arose again over whether autocracy should be considered a special form of unlimited monarchy or a regional variant of absolute monarchy. During this discussion, it was established that the Russian autocracy had two features in comparison with Western European absolutism. Firstly, its social support was only the serving nobility, while Western monarchies also relied on the emerging bourgeois class. Secondly, non-legal methods of governance generally prevailed over legal ones; the personal will of the Russian monarchs was more clearly expressed. At the same time, opinions were expressed that Russian autocracy was a version of Eastern despotism. Discussion 1968-1972 reached a dead end, historians were unable to agree on a definition of the term “absolutism” [ specify] .

A.I. Fursov proposed to see in autocracy a phenomenon that has no analogues in world history. The fundamental difference is that if the power of eastern monarchs was limited by tradition, ritual, customs and law, and the power of Western monarchs, even in the era of absolutism, was limited by the law on which the entire Western order was built (in France of the 17th-18th centuries, considered a model absolute monarchy, the king could change the law, but he had to obey it), then the power of the Russian autocrats was the power supralegal . Being a completely original phenomenon, autocracy, however, arose under the influence of trends and phenomena of pan-Eurasian development as a Russian response to non-Russian - Eurasian and global - influences and received its completed form in interaction with the trends and phenomena of global capitalist development.

The beginning of the genesis of autocracy A.I. Fursov sees the practice of interaction between Russian princes and the Horde. Rus' could not borrow the experience of supra-legal power from the Horde - there was no such power in the Horde. But the power of the Horde khans over Russia, over the Russian princes, one of whom they functionally endowed with this power, was supralegal. The inclusion of Rus' in the Horde order changed the balance of power in the power triangle of prince-boyars-veche. Firstly, having acquired in the person of the Horde and its troops that instrument of violence that they did not have before, the princes sharply strengthened their position in relation to the boyars and the veche. Secondly, since within the framework of the Horde system there was competition for the label, the best chances were for those principalities where the prince and the boyars did not oppose each other, but acted in unity. The Hordeization of Rus' led to the emergence of a mutant Horde-Moscow power. It had new qualities that were initially absent neither in the nomadic powers nor in pre-Mongol Rus'. Firstly, the central power, by order of the khan, became the only significant and real one. Secondly, power, strength, violence have become the main factor in life. Thirdly, this power turned out to be the only entity that stood as a viceroyal power over the entire Russian land - just as the Horde itself stood over it. These qualities were not directly borrowed from the other side, but arose, although not necessarily, but naturally in the process and as a result of the interaction of the khan’s power of the Horde, on the one hand, and the Russian order, Christian society, on the other. The supra-legal, volitional relations between the Horde and Rus' lasted 250 years - a period quite sufficient to develop stable forms of relations and practices. (A.I. Fursov considers it remarkable that the Mongolian Yuan dynasties in China and the Il-Khans (Hulaguids) in Iran became the direct, internal rulers of these countries, experiencing local influence, their orders, laws, etc., whereas the Golden Horde carried out external, remote exploitation, collecting tribute, i.e. exercising a strong-willed, supra-legal relationship).

see also

Notes

Literature

  1. Belov, “On the historical significance of the Russian boyars” (St. Petersburg,).
  2. Veshnyakov, “On the reasons for the rise of the Moscow Principality” (St. Petersburg,).
  3. Dyakonov, “The power of the Moscow sovereigns” (, chapters I-V).
  4. I. Zhdanov, “Tales of Babylon” and “The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir” (, Chapter VI).
  5. Zabelin, “A look at the development of the Moscow autocracy” (“Historical Bulletin”, Nos. 2-4).
  6. Zakharov V. Yu. Absolutism and autocracy: the relationship of concepts // Electronic magazine “Knowledge. Understanding. Skill ». - 2008. - No. 6 – History.
  7. Klyuchevsky V. O. Selected lectures from the Course of Russian History. / Comp. ON THE. Mininkov. - Rostov n/d: publishing house "Phoenix", 2002. - 672 p. ISBN 5-222-02651-5
  8. Klyuchevsky V. O."Boyar Duma".
  9. Kostomarov N.I., “The beginning of autocracy in Russia” (monographs, vol. XII) e
  10. Leontovich, “On the history of the rights of Russian foreigners: the ancient Mongol-Kalmyk or Oirat statute of penalties” (Odessa,).
  11. Sergeevich, “How and from what the territory of the Moscow State arose” (“Nov”, January, book 2 and February, book 1); his, “Free and involuntary servants of the Moscow sovereigns” (“Observer”, No. 2-3); his, “Legal Antiquities” (vol. I).
  12. Solonevich I. L. "The People's Monarchy". - Buenos Aires: Our Country, 1973. - ISBN 0503020200 -009- Reprint reproduction: M.: Publishing house. and advertising information. company "Phoenix" GASK SK USSR, 1991. - 512 p. - ISBN 5-7652-0009-5
  13. Sorokin Yu. A. On the concept of “absolutism” // “Historical Yearbook”, 1996. - pp. 4-16.
  14. Soloviev S.M., “A look at the history of establishing state order in Russia” (Works, St. Petersburg,).
  15. Tikhomirov L. A."Monarchical statehood." - M.: State Unitary Enterprise "Oblizdat", LLP "Alir", 1998. - 672 p. ISBN 5-89653-012-9
  16. Fursov A.I. Russian power, the history of Eurasia and the world system: mobilis in mobile (social philosophy of Russian power) // Report at the meeting of the seminar "ΣΙΝΕΡΓΙΑ. Civilizational context and value foundations of Russian politics" May 23, 2008.

Links

  • // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: In 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional ones). - St. Petersburg. , 1890-1907.

This form of government is akin to absolutism. Although in Russia the very word “autocracy” had different interpretations in different periods of history. Most often it was associated with the translation of the Greek word Αυτοκρατορία - “himself” (αὐτός) plus “to rule” (κρατέω). With the advent of modern times, this term denotes an unlimited monarchy, “Russian monarchy,” that is, absolutism.

Historiographers have studied this issue simultaneously with establishing the reasons why in our country the autocratic monarchy resulted in this well-known form of government. Back in the 16th century, Moscow historians tried to explain how “autocratic” kings appeared in the country. Having assigned this role to Russian autocrats “under the cover of antiquity,” in distant antiquity they found our first rulers, who had derived the family tree from Caesar Augustus of the Romans, to whom Byzantium had granted such power. The autocratic monarchy established itself under Saint Vladimir (Red Sun) and Vladimir Monomakh.

First mentions

This concept was first used in relation to Moscow rulers under Ivan the Third, the Grand Duke of Moscow. It was he who began to be titled as the Gospodar and Autocrat of All Rus' and Vasily the Dark was simply called the Gospodar of All Rus'). Apparently Ivan the Third was advised to do this by his wife, Sophia Paleologus, a close relative of the last emperor of Byzantium, Constantine XI. And indeed, with this marriage there were grounds to claim the continuity of the heritage of the Eastern Roman (Roman) state by young Russia. This is where the autocratic monarchy came to Rus'.

Having gained independence from the Horde khans, Ivan the Third, before other sovereigns, now always combined these two titles: tsar and autocrat. In this way, he emphasized his own external sovereignty, that is, independence from any other representative of power. They called themselves exactly the same, only, naturally, in Greek.

This concept was fully clarified by V. O. Klyuchevsky: “An autocratic monarchy is the complete 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 a sovereign.”

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

Klyuchevsky’s historical and political doctrine is still used by specialists in their research, since it most methodologically fully and broadly interprets the question posed: why Russia is an autocratic monarchy. Even Karamzin wrote his “History of the Russian State”, relying on a vision of 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 layers of society appeared in historical research, the question of autocratic monarchy was posed methodologically correctly. K.D. Kavelin and S.M. Solovyov were the first to note such a need, identifying the main points in the development of power. It was they who clarified how the strengthening of the autocratic monarchy took place, defining this process as a conclusion 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, moving to statehood through patrimonial ownership. Already Andrei Bogolyubsky was the unlimited owner of his own estates. This is a bright type of patrimonial owner and sovereign owner. It was then that the first concepts of the sovereign and citizenship, of autocracy and support appeared.

Solovyov wrote a lot in his works about how the autocratic monarchy was strengthened. 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 Russian lands: zemstvo people, boyars, and clergy.

New large cities appeared in the northeast, where patrimonial rule dominated. 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 there was almost always a prince. They gradually learned to get out of conflicts through political decisions, successfully resolving their plans. It was they who changed history, destroyed the Mongol yoke, and built a great state.

From Peter the Great

An 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 among us and was never used). On the contrary, the Russian government was positioned as an Orthodox autocratic monarchy. in the Spiritual Regulations already in 1721 he wrote that God himself commands to obey the autocratic power.

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 referred to sovereignty, and the last use of the term “autocracy,” which implied sovereignty, occurred during the reign of Catherine the Great.

This definition of an autocratic monarchy was maintained 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 political system was an autocracy. The overthrow of the autocratic monarchy in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century occurred for obvious reasons: already in the 19th century, critics openly called this form of government the rule of tyrants and despots.

How does autocracy differ from 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 contrasted the early (pre-Petrine) autocracy with the post-Petrine autocracy. The latter was considered bureaucratic absolutism and 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 government was significantly different from absolutism. Moderate liberals divided pre-Petrine and post-Petrine rule according to the principle of ideology: based on the divinity of power or on the idea of ​​the common good. As a result, historians of the 19th century did not define what an autocratic monarchy was, since they did not agree on opinions.

Kostomarov, Leontovich and others

N.I. Kostomarov has a monograph where he tried to identify the relationship between 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 appanages were destroyed, the monarchy should have already appeared. Moreover, power would be divided between the autocrat and the boyars.

However, this did not happen, but the autocratic monarchy strengthened. The 11th grade studies this period in detail, but not all students understand why this happened. The boyars lacked cohesion; they were too arrogant and selfish. In this case, it is very easy for a strong sovereign to seize power. 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, and administrative life of the Russian state from the Oirat charters and Chingiz Yasa. Mongolian law, like no other, took root well in Russian laws. This is the situation in which the sovereign is the supreme owner of the country's territory, this is the enslavement of the townspeople and the attachment of the peasants, this is the idea of ​​localism and compulsory service among 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 Rus' was united under the Moscow autocracy thanks to the close national unity, which sought to peacefully develop its industries. During the reign of the Yuryevich princes, the posad even entered into a fight with the boyar druzhina force and won. Further, the yoke disrupted the correct course of events that had been formed on the path of unification, and then the Moscow princes took a very correct step, establishing a people's covenant of silence and zemstvo peace. That is why they were able to find themselves at the head of Rus', which was striving for unification.

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

The boyars played a decisive role in power for a long time. However, the Greeks and Italians came to the aid of Ivan the Third. It was only with their prompting that the tsarist autocracy received its final form so quickly. The boyars are a seditious force. She didn’t want to listen to either the people or the prince; moreover, she was the first enemy of zemstvo peace and silence.

This is how the Russian aristocrats Kostomarov and Leontovich were branded. However, a little later historians disputed this opinion. The boyars, according to Sergeevich and Klyuchevsky, were not enemies of the unification of Rus' at all. On the contrary, they did their best to help the Moscow princes do this. And Klyuchevsky says that there was no unlimited autocracy in Rus' 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 Moscow rulers.

Only in 1940 did the first discussion take place at the Academy of Sciences on the issue of defining the political 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 history department. Both discussions showed complete dissimilarity in the positions of historians. Experts in state and law did not share the concepts of absolutism and autocracy at all. Historians saw the difference and most often contrasted these concepts. And what does an autocratic monarchy mean for Russia in itself, scientists have not agreed.

They applied the same concept with different content to different periods of our history. The second half of the 15th century is the end of the Golden Horde Khan, and only Ivan the Third, who overthrew the Tatar-Mongol yoke, was called the first true autocrat. The first quarter of the 16th century - autocracy is interpreted as autocracy after the liquidation of sovereign principalities. And only under Ivan the Terrible, according to historians, did the autocracy receive the unlimited power of the sovereign, that is, an unlimited, autocratic monarchy, and even the class-representative component of the monarchy did not in any way contradict the unlimited power of the autocrat.

Phenomenon

The next debate arose at the very end of the 1960s. She put on the agenda the question of the form of unlimited monarchy: is it not a special type of absolute monarchy, unique only to our region? It was established during the discussion that, in comparison with European absolutism, our autocracy had several characteristic features. The social support was only the nobility, while in the West the monarchs already relied more on the emerging bourgeois class. Legal methods of governance were dominated by non-legal ones, that is, the monarch was endowed with much more personal will. There were opinions that Russian autocracy was a variant of Eastern despotism. In short, for 4 years, until 1972, the term “absolutism” was not defined.

Later, A.I. Fursov proposed 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 rulers in Rus'. There are no fewer of them from the West: 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 - even if it was changed.

But in Rus' it was different. Russian autocrats always stood above the law; they could demand that others obey it, but they themselves had the right to evade following, whatever 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 much more limited in their actions. A management tradition developed that took into account 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 Christian from the Romanov dynasty, who was in an equal marriage, could be a monarch. The ruler was obliged by the law of 1797 to appoint an heir upon accession to the throne.

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

Imperial destiny

It was not the modernizing Tsar Peter the Great, who called Russia an empire, who made it such. In essence, Russia became an empire much earlier and, according to many scientists, continues to remain so. This is the product of a complex and long historical process during which the formation, survival, and strengthening of the state took place.

The imperial destiny of our country is fundamentally different from others. In the generally accepted sense, Russia was not a colonial power. Expansion of territories occurred, but it was not motivated, as in Western countries, by economic or financial aspirations, or by the search for markets and raw materials. It did not divide its territories into colonies and 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 letters.

Territorial expansion has always been dictated by security and strategic interests - these are the main factors in the emergence of the Russian Empire. Moreover, wars occurred very rarely over the acquisition of territories. There has always been an onslaught from the outside, and even now it still exists. Statistics say that in the 16th century we fought for 43 years, in the 17th - already 48, and in the 18th - all 56. The 19th century was practically peaceful - Russia spent only 30 years 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 was ever 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 the very nature of imperial existence speaks here.

Hostage to history

If you examine the life of any empire, you will discover complex relationships in the interaction and reaction of centripetal and centrifugal forces. In a strong state, these factors are minimal. In Russia, monarchical power 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 hinder the development of regional autonomy and polycentrism. And history itself has made monarchical Russia its hostage.

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

The liberal legal spirit inevitably collides with a religious worldview, which rewards the autocrat with a special aura, and none of the other mortals will ever receive this. All attempts to reform the supreme power fail. Religious authority wins. In any case, by the beginning of the 20th century, Russia was much further from the universality of the rule of law than it is now.

the last form of the feudal-landlord state that emerged in Russia by the beginning of the 17th century. and lasted until the February Revolution of 1917. The term “S.” borrowed from Byzantine law, which used the term “autocrator”. In the 16th-17th centuries. The autocrats ruled together with the boyar council and the Zemsky Sobors. Thus, the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 elected Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov as Tsar, who established a new dynasty. In the 17th century the tsar still ruled together with the boyar Duma. According to the historian G. Kotoshikhin, Mikhail Romanov “... although he was written as an autocrat, he could not do anything without the boyar council.” The strengthening of autocratic power was facilitated by the Zemsky Sobors, which ceased their activities in the same 17th century; until the end of the century, the so-called order system existed. During the reign of Peter I (1689-1725), sovereignty acquired a new qualitative content: the autocrat became the bearer of absolute, legally unlimited power. In the so-called interpretation to Art. 20 of the Military Regulations of 1716 it was said: “His Majesty is an autocratic monarch who should not give an answer to anyone in the world in his affairs; but he has strength and power, his own states and lands, like a most Christian sovereign who rules according to his will and goodness.” The government apparatus under Peter I and his successors was constantly expanded and bureaucratized. Centralization increased in civil and military administration, and police regulation of all aspects of the public and private life of subjects acquired enormous scope. Nevertheless, Peter's reforms, which significantly strengthened the Russian state, had progressive significance for the country. In February 1722, Peter I abolished the previous procedure for transferring the throne to his eldest son or electing a tsar by the Zemsky Sobor; the heir to the throne was to be appointed at the personal discretion of the king. Peter's death prevented him from taking advantage of this law. The absence of a law on succession to the throne led to 6 palace coups over 37 years (from 1725 to 1762). Catherine II (1762-1796) hatched a plan to remove her son Paul from the throne and transfer the throne to her grandson Alexander, but the plan did not come true and the royal throne was taken by Paul I. Under Paul I in 1797, a law was passed according to which the throne was replaced by primogeniture by a male person (in the descending line). This meant the eldest son of the deceased emperor. Legally, the throne could be occupied by females, but only after the suppression of all male generations. The emperor was obliged to profess the Orthodox faith. On the occasion of the accession to the throne, a special manifesto was published. All male subjects over the age of 12 were sworn in. Some time after ascending the throne, the ceremony of coronation and anointing was performed on the new emperor (in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin). Members of the reigning house, i.e. persons “belonging to the royal family had a number of privileges (personal and property). The emperor's children and grandchildren were called grand dukes (princesses, princesses) and bore the title of "imperial highnesses". Any birth in the tsar’s family was reported “to the public” in manifestos (“we inform our loyal subjects that our august wife, the empress (such and such) has safely delivered her child.”) The name of the newborn or newborn (Grand Duke or Grand Duchess) was immediately named. At birth (or adulthood), members of the imperial family were awarded the highest order of the Russian Empire - the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called (the blue ribbon for this order was worn over the right shoulder). Several more orders were added to this. Newborn grand dukes or princesses were immediately allocated 100,000 rubles from the treasury. The honorary advantages of the king included the title (full, medium and short). Most often he used a short title: “By the grace of God, (name of the king), Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, Tsar of Poland, Grand Duke of Finland, and so on, and so on, and so on.” The emperor had a personal coat of arms, which was also a small state coat of arms. There were also medium and large Russian state emblems (a combination of the Byzantine double-headed eagle with the Moscow St. George the Victorious). The Russian national anthem began with the words: “God save the Tsar.” The “highest” appearances on the occasion of all kinds of solemn or festive events - the New Year, the Epiphany Blessing of the Water, Easter Matins, etc. - served the purpose of elevating the royal power. There were many holidays throughout the year, the so-called royal days, when churches celebrated the emperor’s name day, his enthronement and other similar events. Prayers were offered for the health and well-being of the king and the members of the “prosperously reigning house.” Requiem services were served for the “tsars who died in God.” In priestly sermons the motif was often heard: “Fear God, honor the king!”, and with a hint of threat. There was no clear distinction between the private property of the king (and members of the dynasty) and state property. The latter was ultimately also at the disposal of the emperor. In other words, even the satisfaction of the private needs of these individuals belonged to the state sphere and was of a public legal nature. . The emperor, his mother, his wife, the heir to the throne (the crown prince) and his wife, and the emperor's daughters were not subject to state income tax. As the head of the imperial (reigning) house, the emperor was the supreme guardian of the person and property of the minor grand dukes and princesses. He could, in particular, authorize the sale of the real estate of these persons; in the same capacity he sanctioned the marriages of members of the house. The highest rescripts, i.e. documents addressed to ministers, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers or any Grand Duke usually ended with the words: “I remain always favorably disposed toward you” or “I remain forever invariably favored.” The tsar sent “personal highest decrees” to the ruling senate. In official addresses, the “royal” spelling was used: the pronoun “we” (“us”, “us”, etc.), and not “I”, and “second”, not “second”. The “highest manifesto” of the same Nicholas II, for example, ended with the words: “Given in Tsarskoe Selo on the 18th day of February in the year from the birth of Christ one thousand nine hundred and five, our reign in the eleventh,” followed by the phrase: “On the true His Imperial Majesty's hand signed: "Nicholas". Not only the tsar’s resolution on the “most submissive reports” of the ministers, but in general every “highest” order was subject to execution and served for “guidance”. Often the tsar wrote on papers “read with pleasure” or “read with great pleasure.” Even if the king simply crossed out some words, the relevant ministers were notified about this - “for considerations.” The reign of Nicholas I (1825-1855) became the apogee of S. or absolutism. According to the characteristics of A.I. Herzen, Russia at that time was “an empire of mended feathers and faceted bayonets.” From this point of view, the reign of Alexander II (1856-1881) was more liberal. This and subsequent reigns (Alexander III, Nicholas II) were characterized by a noticeable evolution towards the bourgeois monarchy; the contradiction between the archaic state system with its dominance of the bureaucracy and developing capitalism became increasingly obvious. Tsarism made concessions to bourgeois development in the socio-economic field. In Russia, as in other absolutist states, the court camarilla, which was, as it were, a second government, had a strong influence on the course of government affairs. Shortly before the collapse of the empire, completely unknown people appeared around the throne who had nothing to do with the bureaucracy, for example, the Frenchman, the false doctor Philip, “a butcher by training and a swindler by vocation,” who conducted spiritualistic séances and advised Nicholas II on issues of domestic and foreign policy, for that he received the title of doctor and the rank of actual state councilor, as well as hereditary Russian nobility. In the pre-war years, the editor of the magazine “Citizen”, Prince V.P., had a strong influence on the tsar. Meshchersky, to whom ministers - members of the State Council and other dignitaries came to pay their respects. A symbol of S.’s complete decomposition was the appearance of Grigory Rasputin and “Rasputinism.” According to Article 16 of the Basic Laws (as amended on April 23, 1906) “The power of administration in its entirety belongs to the sovereign emperor within the entire Russian state. In supreme governance, his power acts directly; in matters of government of a subordinate, a certain degree of power is entrusted from him, according to the law, to the appropriate places and persons acting in his name and at his command.” The power of the supreme administration was most often manifested in the issuance by the king of mandatory orders or decrees. Some of them were given for guidance to officials and institutions (administrative decrees), others established duties and rights for a wide range of persons (legal decrees); some were ordinary, others were extraordinary. In practice, as before 1906, it was impossible to distinguish between law and decree. The supreme government bodies include a number of councils, whose members were appointed by the king and whose decisions were advisory in nature. Council of Ministers, Military Council, Admiralty Council, State Defense Council, Finance Committee, Guardian Council (under the department of the Empress Maria's institutions in charge of charity and education). These councils were led by persons appointed by the king, who could preside over them personally. The executive bodies of the supreme administration were the Ministry of the Imperial Household and the Imperial Headquarters, which carried out the instructions of the king during his travels. The activities of the subordinate government bodies consisted mainly in the execution of the royal decrees (and in general any “predestination” and “highest commands” of the king), therefore the totality of the subordinate government bodies and their activities should be called executive power. The Emperor had his own Imperial Majesty's office at his fingertips. It consisted of committees: a) on the service of officials of the civil department and on awards; b) the charity of honored civil officials. There were also offices: a) for accepting petitions submitted to the Highest Name; b) according to the institutions of the department of Empress Maria. The powers of the emperor after the adoption of the Basic Laws as amended on April 23, 1906 remained extremely extensive. According to this act, he remained the supreme leader of Russia's foreign relations with foreign powers, declared war and concluded peace, as well as treaties with foreign states. As the “sovereign leader of the Russian army and navy,” he exercised supreme command over all the armed forces of the state, determined their structure, issued decrees and orders regarding “everything generally related to the structure of the armed forces and defense”; declared areas under martial law or a state of exception; appointed and dismissed the chairman of the Council of Ministers and chief managers of individual units, managed finances, etc. He had the right to dissolve the Duma before the expiration of the five-year term of office of its members, calling new elections and the time of its convocation. The emperor granted titles, orders and other state honors, as well as the rights of fortune, and had the right to pardon those convicted; justice was done in his name. Article 7 stated that the emperor “exercises legislative power in unity with the State Council and the State Duma.” Article 86 stated: “No new law can be enacted without the approval of the State Council and the State Duma and take force without the approval of the sovereign emperor.” In other words, legislative proposals to repeal or amend existing laws and issue new ones, approved by the State Duma and the State Council, were presented to the tsar for approval. Lit:. Eroshkin N.P. History of government institutions in pre-revolutionary Russia. M., 1983; His own. Feudal autocracy and its political institutions (first half of the 18th century). M., 1981; His own. Autocracy on the eve of collapse. M., 1975; Zayonchkovsky PA. The crisis of autocracy at the turn of the 70-80s of the 19th century. M., 1964; His own. Russian autocracy at the end of the 19th century. M., 1970; His own. The government apparatus of autocracy in the 19th century. M., 1978; Soloviev Yu.B. Autocracy and nobility at the end of the 19th century. L., 1973; His own. Autocracy and nobility in 1902-1907. L., 1981; Chernukha V.G. The internal policy of tsarism from the mid-50s to the early 60s of the 19th century. L., 1970; Vasilyeva N.I., Galperin G.B., Korolev A.N. The first Russian revolution and autocracy. L., 1975; Chermensky E.D. IV State Duma and the overthrow of tsarism in Russia. M., 1976. EA. Skripilev

Autocracy is a form of government specific to Russia, in which the highest holder of power in the country had all the rights to lead the state. The Tsar, and subsequently the Russian Emperor, had supreme rights in government, legislation and the Supreme Court.

The autocrat himself could approve bills, appoint and dismiss senior dignitaries from positions. He also exercised command of the army and navy, and was in charge of all the finances of the country. Even the appointment of heads of local authorities was within the competence of the ruler, and in judicial terms only he could approve sentences and grant pardons.

Autocracy in Russia in its development successively passed through two stages. From the 16th to the 17th centuries, it was a monarchy based on the class-representative principle, when the tsar led the country together with the boyar aristocracy. From the 18th to the beginning of the 20th century, an absolute, unlimited monarchy reigned in Russia. The last Russian autocrat, Nicholas II, abdicated the throne in early March 1917, during the February bourgeois revolution.

Features of autocracy

Autocracy in Russia developed from the patrimonial system, and therefore bore the imprint of the country's economic traditions. Its peculiarity was the reluctance of the reigning persons to distinguish between different types of property. By the end of the era of autocracy, the sovereign almost single-handedly controlled not only trade, but also all the country’s resources.

One of the foundations of autocracy was the Orthodox Church, which was directly involved in developing the principles of individual rule of the state. It was believed that the Russian tsars were the direct heirs of the Roman emperor, and their dynasty traced its history back to the oldest family in the world. To confirm this position, a corresponding document was created, in the development of which Metropolitan Macarius was directly involved. Over time, the idea of ​​the divine origin of autocratic power became stronger in society.

Some researchers believe that the introduction and strengthening of autocracy in Russia is directly related to the peculiarities of the Russian national character. The point is that the people of Rus' were not distinguished by the ability to self-organize, were prone to conflicts and needed a strong central government. However, the understanding of the issue cannot be considered correct. The formation of autocracy in Russia took place in accordance with the characteristic features of the country's economic and social structure. At a certain stage in the development of the state, autocratic power was completely justified.

Emperor) had supreme rights in the legislative, administrative and judicial spheres. Despite the appearance in 1905-1906. elements of a constitutional monarchy, S. in Russia existed until the February Revolution of 1917.

Large legal dictionary. - M.: Infra-M. A. Ya. Sukharev, V. E. Krutskikh, A. Ya. Sukharev. 2003 .

Synonyms:

See what “AUTOCERATE” is in other dictionaries:

    Autocracy... Spelling dictionary-reference book

    Autocracy, absolutism, autocracy; unlimited monarchy, monarchy, absolute monarchy, tsarist regime, tsarism, power Dictionary of Russian synonyms. autocracy absolutism, unlimited (or absolute) monarchy, autocracy; autocracy... ... Synonym dictionary

    Autocracy, a monarchical form of government in Russia, under which the tsar (from 1721 emperor) had supreme rights in legislation, government of the country, command of the army and navy, etc. From the middle of the 16th century. in Russia it developed according to class... ...Russian history

    Monarchical form of government in Russia. In the 16th and 17th centuries. the tsar ruled together with the boyar duma, in the 18th beginning. 20th centuries absolute monarchy. (see Absolutism, Autocracy) ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

    Autocracy, autocracy, many. no, cf. (polit.). A system of government with unlimited power of the monarch. “More and more broad masses of the people came to the conviction that the only way out of the intolerable situation was the overthrow of the tsar... ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

    AUTOCONCERENCE, I, cf. In pre-revolutionary Russia: monarchy. Overthrow of the autocracy. | adj. autocratic, oh, oh. Ozhegov's explanatory dictionary. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

    Wed. autocracy and autocracy of women. or old autocracy, autocratic government, monarchical, sovereign, unlimited, independent of state institutions, councils, or elected councils, zemstvos and ranks; or | this very power... Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary

    English autocracy; German Selbstherrschaft. A form of government in which supreme power entirely and indivisibly belongs to one person, the monarch. see ABSOLUTISM, AUTOCRACY. Antinazi. Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2009 ... Encyclopedia of Sociology

    Monarchical form of government in Russia. In the 16th and 17th centuries. the tsar ruled together with the boyar duma, in the 18th beginning. 20th centuries absolute monarchy. (Absolutism, Autocracy). Political science: Dictionary reference book. comp. Prof. Science Sanzharevsky I.I.. 2010 ... Political science. Dictionary.

    Autocracy- (English autocracy) the name of the monarchical form of government in Russia, when the bearer of the supreme state power (tsar, emperor) had supreme rights in legislation (approval of bills), in supreme administration (appointment and ... ... Encyclopedia of Law

Books

  • Autocracy and reforms. Political struggle in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century, S. V. Mironenko. The monograph, based on new archival material, examines the attempts of the autocracy to reform its fundamental foundations (to begin the emancipation of serfs and limit the autocracy...
  • Autocracy and the Constitution. Political everyday life in 1906-1917, Soloviev Kirill Alekseevich. On April 23, 1906, Russia was granted a constitution by the highest decision. The State Duma, which the reformer Mikhail Speransky proposed to establish back in 1809, began to function. Accepted…

We also recommend

Loading...Loading...