There is autocracy. Causes of the collapse of the Russian autocratic monarchy

Holy Royal Martyrs

- Sergey Vladimirovich, in your opinion, what are the reasons for the fall of the monarchy in Russia?

The collapse of the monarchy in Russia in 1917 is a multidimensional phenomenon. Many reasons led to this, among which spiritual, social, political and economic ones can be distinguished.

I see spiritual reasons in the impoverishment of faith and piety among the people and, above all, in the elite of society, the widespread use of ritual beliefs, the extreme diminution of love and obedience to the reigning monarch, the desacralization of the image of the Anointed of God in the minds of people. As every sin is born from a sinful thought, so the revolution took place before in human hearts. However, in fairness, we must admit that not all monarchs were at the height of their vocation.

It should be noted that deep social causes led to the revolution of 1917. The reforms of Peter I at the beginning of the 18th century, aimed at breaking down the patriarchal way of life of the Russian people, the abolition of the patriarchate, the persecution of the Old Believers, led to a giant surge of anti-monarchist sentiments among the people, part of Russian society even considered Peter the Antichrist. In the future, the era of palace coups, regicide, favoritism, the dominance of foreigners in power did not at all contribute to the strengthening of the monarchist consciousness.

At the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries, a significant part of the elite of Russian society was involved in Freemasonry, which was patronized by Emperor Alexander I for a long time. At that time, constitutionalist ideas became widespread, which resulted in an anti-monarchist conspiracy, which went down in history under the name of the Decembrist uprising.

By the middle of the 19th century, apostasy processes were gaining strength, an educated layer of Russian society was formed - the intelligentsia, which served as a breeding ground for the cultivation of the ideas of liberalism and Westernism. Among the intelligentsia, populism arose, driven by a thirst for the overthrow of the monarchical system, a terrorist underground was created, which set as its task the physical destruction of the Emperor and carried out the assassination of Alexander II, as well as many high-ranking tsarist dignitaries.

Until the revolution of 1917, Russia was predominantly an agrarian country, the vast majority of the population of which were peasants. The land question was vital for them. The reform of 1861 was of a half-hearted nature; gave the peasants freedom, but not land. In the future, despite the measures taken by the authorities, the land issue was not satisfactorily resolved.

Economically, Russia by the beginning of 1917, although there were high rates of growth in industrial production, was very weakened. In order to attract foreign investment for an industrial breakthrough at the end of the 19th century, S.Yu. Witte carried out a financial reform, the meaning of which was to link money emission to gold and introduce the convertibility of the ruble. This reform caused an exponential increase in external debt, which by March 1917 reached an astronomical amount - 13 billion gold rubles.

As for political reasons, the leading Western powers did not want a powerful competitor in the face of Russia to appear on the world stage and did everything to weaken it from the outside and from the inside. The world behind the scenes financed the Russian revolutionary movement, which organized riots, strikes and terror against tsarist officials. The country was drawn into a bloody world war that hastened its collapse.

Thus, by 1917, almost all sectors of society were opposed to autocracy: the elite, and above all the emerging bourgeoisie, wanted power and the opportunity to form a government, the clergy wanted independence in governing the Church, the peasantry wanted land, the people were excited by provocative rumors about the enormous influence of G. E. Rasputin at court and the betrayal of the Empress.

The autocracy fell as a result of a ramified conspiracy, which involved the top of the generals, the backbone of the Duma opposition, which expressed the interests of the big bourgeoisie, members of the reigning House. Everything happened with the silent support of the people.

- And how do you feel about the opinion that in 1917 the bishops and the priesthood betrayed the Tsar?

Based on the analysis of the documentary sources of that time available to us today, it is legitimate to conclude that the highest church hierarchs were indirectly involved in the conspiracy against the Emperor. It is authentically known about the negotiations that took place between a number of members of the Holy Synod and the Provisional Committee of the State Duma even before its overthrow. Is it necessary to explain that any contacts with this self-proclaimed body, which served as the headquarters of the anti-monarchist conspiracy, were a serious crime?

The content of the agreements reached can be judged from the “Statement” of six members of the Holy Synod, published on March 8, 1917, which stated: “The Provisional Government<…>announced to us the provision of the Orthodox Russian Church with complete freedom in its administration, reserving only the right to stop decisions of the Holy Synod that are in any way inconsistent with the law and undesirable from a political point of view. The Holy Synod met these promises in everything, issued a message of reassurance to the Orthodox people and performed other acts necessary, in the opinion of the Government, to calm the minds. By the decision of the Holy Synod, prayers for the Tsar and the Reigning House were excluded from the order of services, the text of the oath was changed, and it was blessed to pray for the "Benevolent Provisional Government", which consisted entirely of Freemasons and liberals. Those. in exchange for freedom in government, the Holy Synod played a crucial role in legitimizing the conspirators in the face of the uncertainty of the political system.

Here it is necessary to bear in mind the conflict of circumstances prevailing at that time. The emperor was overthrown and transferred the supreme power to his younger brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, who expressed his readiness to accept it only on condition that it was the will of the people. He transferred power to the Provisional Government, charging it with the duty of preparing the earliest possible convocation of the Constituent Assembly, which was to determine the form of government in Russia. Of course, it could not be an autocratic monarchy, no one agreed to this. The question, I think, was this: will it be a constitutional monarchy or will it be a republic. Thus, the question of the monarchy was not finally removed by the act of not accepting power by Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. However, having replaced the commemoration of tsarist power in all places at divine services with a prayerful commemoration of democracy, the Holy Synod actually proclaimed Russia a republic.

How could this happen? When you read historical documents, you are taken aback by the joy with which many bishops and priesthood received the overthrow of the Emperor. From this we can conclude that a significant part of the clergy has latently formed a liberal anti-monarchist consciousness, which, under favorable conditions, has manifested itself. At that time, euphoria reigned in society that, finally, we had thrown off the shackles of the hated autocracy, now a new life would come, champagne was uncorked all over the country. This euphoria also embraced the priesthood, it was present both in the speeches of the bishops and in the decisions of the Synod.

In my opinion, in many respects, this growth and spread of anti-monarchist sentiments among the priesthood was facilitated by the violation of the principle of the symphony of authorities, expressed in the nationalization of the Church, which was turned into an Office of the Orthodox Faith. In matters of church administration, the institution of the chief prosecutor's office played a huge role; not a single decision of the Synod could enter into force without the approval of the Emperor. This was not to the liking of the hierarchs, and when the opportunity presented itself to change the existing order of things, they did not fail to take advantage of it.
Subsequently, none of the higher hierarchs, neither the Synod, nor the Local Council showed any interest in the fate of the deposed and imprisoned Emperor and His family, did not intercede to alleviate their fate.

Some zealous monarchists defend the opinion that the convening of the Local Council of 1917-1918, which restored the Patriarchate, took place without the will of the Tsar and therefore this decision was unpleasing. How do you feel about this point of view?

This is a very strange point of view, because the Tsar did not exist at that time. The possibility of convening a Local Council to reform church administration has been widely discussed since 1905. The emperor was not opposed to this idea, but considered it expedient to postpone the holding of the Council until more favorable times. It is known that the Sovereign offered himself to the Patriarchs, but did not find understanding among the bishops.

In my opinion, the restoration of the Patriarchate was the only possible and absolutely correct decision for the Church at that time. According to canon law, the administration of the Church is entrusted to the First Hierarch, whose name is exalted at divine services within the limits of the respective ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The Church was deprived of the legal right to have its Primate for more than 200 years, therefore, the election of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia by the Local Council in 1917 can be considered as an act of restoring historical justice.

Let's remember the symbolism of our state emblem - the double-headed eagle inherited by Russia from Byzantium. Two equal heads of the eagle, topped with crowns, symbolize the ecclesiastical and royal authorities, which are equal in dignity, but perform different services according to the will of God. Above them is a common large crown, a symbol of power from God. Thus, the double-headed eagle visibly expresses the ideal of the state system - a symphony of God-given authorities - the Priesthood and the Kingdom. Therefore, the restoration of the Patriarchate, as the most important spiritual bond, in the conditions of anarchy was an undoubted blessing.

Many Orthodox are convinced that the current unsatisfactory spiritual and material state of our country is due to the violation of the 1613 conciliar oath of allegiance to the Romanov family, the betrayal of Tsar Nicholas II by the Russian people and the connivance of his murder. What do you think about this?

Of course, the oath, like the oath to the reigning monarch, was violated, but for the sake of objectivity, it should be noted that in history it was violated more than once. It is known that after 1613 there were several regicides, but none of them, by the grace of God, led to such catastrophic consequences as the murder of the Royal Family.

Speaking about the Cathedral Oath of 1613, it is necessary to note one important detail. Since the early 1990s, an abbreviated apocryphal version of the oath with a false insert containing a curse and excommunication from the Holy Trinity of all those who violated the cathedral vows has become widespread in the monarchical environment. In his speech at the Fourth Pre-Council Meeting in Moscow in October 2012, a well-known historian who develops the royal theme, Leonid Evgenievich Bolotin, admitted his guilt in launching this apocrypha into circulation. For those wishing to familiarize themselves with the original text of the Cathedral Oath, I recommend that you refer to the “Approved Diploma on the election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the Moscow State, with a preface by S.A. Belokurova.

- Is it correct, in your opinion, to talk about the violation of the oath by all the people?

Yes, it's correct in my opinion. After all, the overwhelming majority of the people rejected the Autocratic Monarchy - power from God - and desired a different form of government that indulges human passions. No one opposed the overthrow of the Emperor, no one stood up for the imprisoned Royal Family, no serious attempt was made to free them, and with the tacit consent of the majority, they were put to death.

What do you think about the need for repentance in connection with the royal theme? Do you share the opinion that today in Russia it is necessary to conduct a rite of nationwide repentance, similar to the one that took place in the Time of Troubles? How do you feel about modern attempts to hold such a Chin, in particular, the meetings of believers in the village of Taininsky near Moscow?

We certainly need repentance. The question is how to repent and in what. Repentance is a Sacrament that involves the personal participation of a person, therefore it is impossible to repent for the sins of our ancestors, including against the Tsar's power, one can only pray to the Lord for their mercy and forgiveness. We can only repent for ourselves, for example, that we believed the communist propaganda about “Nicholas the Bloody”, that we were Octoberites, pioneers, were members of the Komsomol and the party, that they deified regicides and the greatest criminals, such as Lenin.

The Church glorified the Royal Family in the guise of holy martyrs - this is also an act of repentance. Now we can pray to them for the restoration of the Orthodox Kingdom.

The years 2017 and 2018 are approaching - the centuries of the overthrow of Emperor Nicholas II and the ritual murder of the Royal Family. A huge event in spiritual life could be the Rite of repentance for sins against the Tsar’s power, following the model of 1607, performed by the Patriarch with a host of bishops and priesthood in the presence of representatives of all dioceses and with a confluence of many people, for example, on Poklonnaya Hill. This would be a truly great spiritual act of cleansing from the filth of the theomachism and tsarism of the Soviet era.

As for what is happening in Taininsky, the anti-canonical rite was used there from the very beginning, in which the emphasis was on repentance for the sins of the ancestors. It contains absolutely insane things, it is proposed to repent not only for their deceased relatives, but even for the theomachists, for the Masons. In addition, schismatics have been ruling there for several years now. I fully agree with the late Patriarch Alexy II, who, shortly before his death, gave an assessment of what is happening in Taininsky, calling this action anti-church.

How do you feel about the idea of restoring the Autocratic Monarchy in Russia? What conditions do you think are necessary for this?

I regard it as the only hope for the salvation of Russia. We must pray that the Lord would grant us a Tsar, but for this, of course, it is necessary to strengthen faith among the people and revive the monarchical consciousness. How can this happen? Apparently, only through great sorrow. So far, unfortunately, it is difficult to talk about it. Even if we imagine that a Tsar will appear now, then on whom will he rely and how will he rule in general? After all, the basis of monarchical government is the recognition by people of the sacred power of the Emperor, given by God, voluntary submission to him as the Anointed of God.

I believe that in the end we will come to the restoration of the autocratic monarchy, there are prophecies of the Holy Fathers about this. At one time, the prophecy, transmitted from the spirit-bearing elders by Archbishop Feofan of Poltava, the confessor of the Royal Family, fell on my heart very much, that the future Tsar was predestined by God and that he would be a man of fiery faith, a brilliant mind and an iron will, he would come from the Romanov clan through the female line. Everything is in the hands of God, and God forbid that this prophecy be fulfilled!

AUTOCRACY

AUTOCRACY, a monarchical form of government in Russia, in which the tsar (from 1721 the emperor) had supreme rights in legislation, governing the country, commanding the army and navy, etc. From the middle of the 16th century in Russia, a class-representative monarchy was taking shape: the tsar ruled together with the Boyar Duma, convened Zemsky Sobors. In the 17th century there was a transition to an absolute monarchy (see ABSOLUTISM), which was established in the reign of Peter I (1689-1725). In the course of the Revolution of 1905–07, with the establishment of the State Duma, a turn was made towards the establishment of a constitutional monarchy. After the abdication of the throne by Emperor Nicholas II and Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich during the February Revolution of 1917, S. ceased to exist.

Source: Encyclopedia "Fatherland"

the monarchical form of government in Russia, which corresponded to the traditional ideals of the Russian people, in which the bearer of supreme power - the Tsar, the Emperor - owned the supreme rights in legislation, in the supreme administration, in the highest court.
In its age-old wisdom, preserved by popular sayings of sayings and proverbs, our people, in a completely Christian way, reveals a significant amount of skepticism towards the possibility of perfection in earthly affairs. “Where the morals of the people are good, the statutes are also kept,” he says, but adds: “From the west to the east there is no man without vice.” At the same time, “the king is not free to be a fool”, but meanwhile “one fool will throw a stone, but ten smart ones will not be pulled out.” This action of human imperfection, moral and mental, excludes the possibility of getting quite well, especially since if a stupid person does a lot of harm, then a smart one sometimes does more. “A fool sins alone, but a smart one seduces many.” In total, we have to confess: “Whoever is not sinful to God, the king is not to blame!” Moreover, the interests of life are complex and opposite: “You can’t make the sun warm for everyone, you can’t please the king for everyone,” especially since “God is high, the king is far away.”
Socio-political life, therefore, does not become a cult of the Russian people. His ideals are moral and religious. Religious and moral life is the best center of his thoughts. He also dreams of his own country precisely as "Holy Russia", guided in achieving holiness by the motherly teaching of the Church. “To whom the Church is not a mother, God is not a father,” he says.
Such subordination of the relative world (political and social) to the absolute (religious) world leads the Russian people to the search for political ideals only under the protection of God. He seeks them in the will of God, and just as a king accepts his power only from God, so the people only from God desire to receive it over themselves. Such a mood naturally leads the people to the search for an individual bearer of power, and, moreover, subject to the will of God, i.e. precisely the monarch-autocrat.
This is psychologically inevitable. But confidence in the impossibility of the perfection of political relations leads the people not to humiliate them, but, on the contrary, to the desire to raise them to the greatest possible extent, by subordinating them to the absolute ideal of truth. For this, it is necessary that political relations be subordinated to moral ones, and for this, in turn, the bearer of supreme power must be one person, the decider of cases according to conscience,
The people do not believe in the possibility of justly arranging social and political life by means of legal norms. He demands more from political life than a law established once for all, without consideration of the individuality of the individual and the case, is capable of giving. Pushkin also expressed this eternal feeling of a Russian person, saying: “the law is a tree”, cannot please the truth, and therefore “it is necessary that one person be above everything, above even the law.” The people have long expressed the same view on the inability of the law to be the highest expression of the truth they are looking for in social relations: “The law that draws - where you turn, it went there”, “The law is like a web: a bumblebee will slip through, and a fly will get stuck.”
On the one hand, “it is in vain to write laws when they are not followed,” but at the same time, the law sometimes unnecessarily restricts: “Not every whip bends according to the law,” and, out of necessity, “necessity writes its own law.” If the law is placed above any other considerations, then it even harms: "A strict law creates the guilty, and then the reasonable one involuntarily fools." The law, in essence, is conditional: “What a city, then a habit, what a village, then a custom,” but meanwhile “you can’t dance to any song, you can’t fit in to all manners.” Such a relative means of realizing the truth can in no way be placed as the highest "ideocratic" element, not to mention abuses. And they are also inevitable. Sometimes "the laws are holy, but the performers are adversaries." It happens that "power breaks the law" and "whoever writes the law breaks it." Often the guilty one can calmly say: “What are the laws to me when the judges are familiar?”
The only means of making truth the highest standard of social life is to look for it in the individual, both below and above, for the law is good only as it is applied, and the application depends on whether the individual is under the power of the highest truth. "Where the morals of the people are good, the statutes are kept." "Whoever is strict with himself, both the king and God keep him." "He who does not know how to obey, he does not know how to order." "Whoever does not govern himself, he will not instruct the other on reason." But this severity of the subjects towards themselves, although it provides the basis for action for the supreme power, does not yet create it. If the supreme power cannot be constituted by an impersonal law, then "multi-rebellious human desire" cannot give it either. The people repeat: "Woe to the house that a woman owns, woe to the kingdom that many have."
Strictly speaking, the people recognize the ruling class widely, but only as an auxiliary instrument of government. "A king without servants, as without hands" and "The king with good governors humbles the world's adversity." But this ruling class is as little idealized by the people as the impersonal law. The people say: “Do not keep the court near the prince’s court” and remark: “Captivity, captivity, the boyar court: eat in passing, sleep while standing.” Although "to know the boyars - to gain mind," but also "it's a sin not to cheat." “The gates to the boyar court are wide, but narrow: they are enslaving.” You can’t live without a servant, but still: “God muddied the people - fed the governor” and “People quarrel, and the governors feed.” In the same way: "The clerk is at the place that the cat is at the dough," and the people know that often - "To be as the clerk marked." In general, in a moment of pessimism, popular philosophy is capable of asking a difficult question: “Worms in the earth, devils in the water, knots in the forest, hooks in the court: where to go?”
And the people resolve this issue, leaving for the installation of supreme power in the form of a sole moral principle.
In politics, the Tsar for the people is inseparable from God. This is not at all the deification of the political principle, but its subordination to the divine. The fact is that "The court of kings, but the truth of God." “No one is against God, but against the king,” but this is because “the king is from God.” "All power is from God." This is not morally arbitrary power. On the contrary: "All power will give an answer to God." “The king of the earth walks under the king of heaven,” and folk wisdom even adds meaningfully: “The King of kings has many kings.” But by placing the Tsar in such complete dependence on God, the people in the tsar call upon God's will for the supreme arrangement of earthly affairs, giving them all the boundlessness of power for this.
This is not a transfer to the Sovereign of the people's autocracy, as happens with the idea of dictatorship and caesarism, but simply the rejection of one's own autocracy in favor of God's will, which places the king as a representative of not the people's, but Divine power.
The king is thus the conductor of the will of God into the political life. "The king commands, and God guides on the true path." "The heart of the king is in the hand of God." "What God will not will, neither will the king." But, receiving power from God, the king, on the other hand, is so completely accepted by the people that he is completely inseparably merged with him. For in representing the power of God before the people in politics, the king represents the people before God. “The people are the body, and the king is the head,” and this unity is so inseparable that the people are even punished for the sins of the king. “For the royal sin, God will execute the whole earth, for the pleasure he has mercy,” and in this mutual responsibility, the king even comes first. "The people will sin - the king will beg, and the king will sin - the people will not beg." The idea is highly characteristic. It is easy to understand to what an immeasurable degree the moral responsibility of the king is in such a sincere, all-devoted merging of the people with him, when the people, unconditionally obeying him, agree to answer for his sins before God.
It is impossible to imagine a more unconditional monarchical feeling, more submission, more unity. But this is not the feeling of a slave, only obeying, and therefore not responsible. The people, on the contrary, are responsible for the king's sins. This, therefore, is a transfer of the Christian mood into politics, when a person prays “Thy will be done” and at the same time does not for a moment renounce his own responsibility. In the tsar, the people put forward the same prayer, the same search for the will of God, without evading responsibility, which is why they desire complete moral unity with the tsar, who is responsible before God.
For a non-Christian, this political principle is difficult to understand. For a Christian, it shines and warms like the sun. Having submitted in the king to such an unconditional degree to God, our people do not feel anxiety from this, but, on the contrary, calm down. His faith in the real existence, in the reality of God's will is beyond any doubt, and therefore, having done everything on his part to submit himself to the will of God, he is quite sure that God will not leave him, and, therefore, will give him the greatest security of the situation.
Pondering into this psychology, we will understand why the people speak of their Tsar in such touching, loving expressions: "Sovereign, father, hope, Orthodox Tsar." Everything is in this formula: both power, and kinship, and hope, and consciousness of the source of one's political principle. Unity with the tsar is not an empty word for the people. He believes that "the people think, and the tsar knows" the people's thought, for "the tsar's eye sees far", "the tsar's eye reaches far" and "when all the people breathe, it will reach the tsar." With such unity, responsibility for the king is perfectly logical. And it is clear that it does not bring fear, but hope. The people know that "the good of the people is in the hand of the king", but they also remember that "before the merciful king, the Lord is merciful." With such a worldview, it becomes clear that "it is impossible for a kingdom to stand without a king." "Without God, there is no light; without the King, the earth is not ruled." "Without a king, the earth is a widow." This is a mysterious union, incomprehensible without faith, but with faith - giving both hope and love.
The power of the king is unlimited. "Not Moscow is a decree for the sovereign, but the sovereign of Moscow." "The will of the king is the law." "Royal condemnation is without judgment." The king and for the people, as in Christian teaching, not without reason carries a sword. He is a formidable force. "Punish and have mercy - God and the King." "Where the king is, there is a thunderstorm." "Go to the king - carry your head." "The wrath of the king is the ambassador of death." "Near the king - near death." The king is the source of strength; but he is also a source of glory: "Near the king - near honor." He is the source of all good: “Where the king is, there is truth”, “God is rich in mercy, and the sovereign in pity”, “Without the king, the people are orphans”. It shines like the sun: "It is warm under the sun, good under the sovereign." If sometimes "the king is terrible, yes God is merciful." With such views, in the firm hope that “the king commands, and the Lord directs on the true path,” the people surround their “father” and “hope” with a wall, serving him “faith and truth”. “Prayer for God, service for the king does not disappear,” he says and is ready to go anywhere in his historical suffering, repeating: “Wherever you live, serve the king alone” - and in all trials comforting himself with the thought: “The holy will of the king is for everything ".
This close connection between the tsar and the people, which characterizes our monarchical idea, was developed, in fact, not by aristocratic and democratic Novgorod-Cossack Russia, but by zemstvo Russia, which grew up along with the autocracy. This idea became characteristically Russian, deeply planted in the popular instinct. Neither the democratic nor the aristocratic idea disappeared, but at all the critical, decisive moments of Russian history, the voice of powerful instinct conquered all the vacillations of political doctrines and rose to brilliant insight.
Remarkable is the memory of the halo with which the Russian people surrounded the “impatient” fighter for autocracy, who so often lowered his heavy hand on the masses, who were unconditionally loyal to him. The people looked at the struggle of John IV with the aristocracy as “bringing out treason”, although, strictly speaking, John had almost no “traitors of Russia” in the literal sense. But the people felt that their opponents had betrayed the people's idea of supreme power, outside of which they no longer imagined their "Holy Russia".
The Time of Troubles seemed to do everything possible to undermine the idea of power, which was unable to prevent or pacify the turmoil, and then was overshadowed by the shameful usurpation of a vagabond impostor and foreign adventuress. With the shattering of the royal power, the aristocracy again raised its head: they began to take "records" from the kings. On the other hand, the democratic beginning of the Cossack freemen undermined the monarchical statehood with the ideal of general social equality, protected by the Cossack "circle". But nothing could separate the people from the idea arising from their world outlook. He saw his sin and God's punishment in the humiliation of royal power. He was not disappointed, but only wept and prayed:
You, God, God, merciful Savior,
Why was he angry with us early,
He sent us, O God, a charmer,
I'll cut the evil one, Grishka Otrepyev.
Has he really, having been stripped, sat down on the kingdom? ..
Rasstriga perished, and at the sight of the shrine desecrated by him, the people drew a conclusion not about any reform, but about the need for a complete restoration of autocracy. The main reason for the unpopularity of Vasily Shuisky was concessions to the boyars. “Shuisky’s recording and the kissing of the cross performed by her,” says Romanovich-Slavatinsky, “outraged the people, who objected to him that he did not give the recording and did not kiss the cross, which had not been important in the Muscovite state for centuries.” Meanwhile, the “restriction” consisted only in the obligation not to execute without trial and in recognizing the advisory vote of the boyars. Every tsar observed both without a record, but the monarchical feeling of the people was offended not by the content of the obligations, but by the fact of the transformation of moral obligation into legal obligation.
The Tushinsko-Bolotnikovskaya bait of Cossack liberty also did not receive triumph. The Tushino and Bolotnikovites were perceived as thieves, just as dangerous as foreign enemies, as enemies of the entire social order. The general revolt against the prince is no less characteristic. Vladislav's candidacy promised to restore order on a "constitutional" basis, in which the rights of the Russian nation were widely protected. He accepted the obligation to limit his power not only to the aristocratic boyar Duma, but also to the Zemsky Sobor. Under the control of the Zemsky Sobor, he put his obligation not to change Russian laws and not to impose unauthorized taxes. From the modern liberal point of view, the accession of a foreign prince on such terms did not violate the interests of the country in any way. But Moscow Russia understood its interests differently. It was the candidacy of Vladislav that was the last straw that overflowed the cup.
It is instructive to recall the content of the proclamations of the book. Pozharsky and other patriots who aroused the people to revolt.
The proclamations call for the restoration of the king's power.
“You, gentlemen, welcome, remembering God and your Orthodox faith, to consult with all sorts of people with general advice, so that we would not be stateless in the current final ruin.” The constitutional prince, obviously, did not say anything to the heart of the people. “Themselves, gentlemen, you know, the proclamation continues, how can we, without a sovereign, against common enemies, Polish, and Lithuanian, and German people, and Russian thieves, stand? How can we, without a sovereign, refer to the great state and zemstvo affairs with neighboring sovereigns? How can our state continue to stand strong and motionless?
The national-monarchist movement has erased all plans for limiting autocracy to such an extent that now our historians cannot even restore with accuracy what exactly the boyars managed to snatch temporarily from Mikhail. In any case, the restrictive conditions were thrown out very soon during the period of continuous meetings of the zemstvo sobors (between 1620-25). The people looked at the disaster experienced as God’s punishment, solemnly promising the tsar to “get better” and declaring to Mikhail that “it’s not possible for the Muscovite state to stand without the sovereign” - they “robbed” him “with all his will”.
This triumph of autocracy is characteristic in that it was carried out by zemstvo Russia in the struggle against the Russian aristocratic principle and the Russian democratic one. Zemstvo Russia, i.e. it was the national one, expressing the typical features of nationality, that in confusion rejected all other foundations, except for the autocratic one, and recreated it in the same form in which it was drawn to Ivan the Terrible and that Zemstvo Russia, which built its cultural and state life on the Orthodox worldview.
The restoration of the autocracy, shaken by the turmoil, was entirely the work of zemstvo Russia.
The administrative institutions of the Moscow monarchy were formed in close connection with the popular social system. By its very type, the supreme power accepted all subjects under its patronage, did not fundamentally deny trust to anyone, and was ready to recognize everyone as a more or less suitable service force for its “sovereign affairs”. It was this direct voice of autocratic feeling that the development of tsarist power did not stifle the people's self-government, but encouraged and developed it. Hence it turned out that the general type of administrative institutions of the Muscovite state, despite the mass of particular shortcomings stemming from the infantile ignorant state of proper legal knowledge, developed into something very vital, in the full sense of the ideal, which, unfortunately, not only remained undeveloped, but later, according to unfavorable circumstances, even sickly.
The general system of power in the Moscow kingdom took shape in this form.
Above the whole state towered the "Great Sovereign", the Autocrat. His competence in the field of management was boundless. Everything that the people lived with, its political, moral, family, economic, legal needs - everything was subject to the conduct of the supreme power. There was no question that was considered not to concern the king, and the king himself admitted that for each subject he would give an answer to God: "if they sin by my negligence."
The king is not only the director of all current government affairs in the form of protecting external security, internal order, justice and related legislative and judicial issues. The tsar is the director of the entire historical life of the nation. This is the power that cares about the development of national culture, and about the most distant future destinies of the nation.
Tsarist power developed together with Russia, together with Russia it resolved the dispute between the aristocracy and democracy, between Orthodoxy and non-Orthodoxy, together with Russia it was humiliated by the Tatar yoke, together with Russia it was fragmented by appanages, together with Russia it united antiquity, achieved national independence, and then began to conquer foreign kingdoms, together with Russia realized that Moscow is the Third Rome, the last and final world state. Royal power is, as it were, the embodied soul of the nation, which has given its destinies to God's will. The king manages the present, proceeding from the past and having in mind the future of the nation.
Hence, theoretically arguing, a complete connection between the king and the nation is necessary, both in terms of their general submission to the will of God, and in terms of the very body of the nation, its internal social structure, through which the crowd is transformed into a social organism.
In Russian tsarist power, this connection was practically achieved by its very origin from: 1) the church idea and 2) the tribal, and then 3) patrimonial system. In the very process of its development, tsarist power entered into a connection with both the church and the social system.
There was little consciousness in all this. There was nowhere to take her. The Byzantine doctrine can rather be called a tradition than a doctrine, and the ecclesiastical idea only made the religious system the leader of the political, but did not explore the objective laws of social life. There could not be a theoretical conscious structure of state power. But there was a very strong organic composition of the country, which made it possible for the idea of supreme power to be realized on very correct social foundations.
Tsarist power, abolishing since the time of Andrei Bogolyubsky both aristocratic and democratic power as supreme, was an intermediary between them. She, in the name of religious principles, supported justice in relations between all the forces existing in the country, i.e. moderating the excessive claims of each, each gave just satisfaction.
Tsars-autocrats were the guardians of the rights of the people. “The formidable sovereigns of Moscow, John III and John IV,” wrote historian I.D. Belyaev, - were the most zealous affirmers of the original peasant rights, and especially Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich constantly strived to ensure that the peasants were independent in social relations and had the same rights with other classes of Russian society. If in relation to the peasants Godunov's policy violated tsarist traditions, then the social forces - and under him were not afraid, did not exclude their participation in management, but, on the contrary, attracted them. Since our monarchical power did not create the Russian people out of nothing, but itself arose from the ready-made social forces of the tribal system, it naturally used these forces for administrative tasks as well.
For this, the supreme power had no need for theoretical considerations, for social forces existed in fact and with the truncation of their encroachments on the rule - from them the elements of control remained by themselves. Thus, from the aristocratic elements of all kinds, the princely ruling families, the boyars and the lower squad, a service class was formed, in which the aristocracy occupied the most important places, both in the upper state administration, the boyar duma and orders, and in the lower. Numerous organizations of democratic power - vecha - state, urban and rural, in the same way passed into the category of local self-government forces. And all together - the governing forces of the country came to the aid of the supreme power in the form of zemstvo councils.
L.A. Tikhomirov

Original taken from whiteman in Autocracy vs Monarchy.

Preface.
Speaking about the Russian empire and the empire in general, one cannot ignore the fundamental question of autocracy, which is absolutely obscure for the majority, who falsely associate autocracy with absolute monarchy.

5 years ago, the Russian Observer published an article by E.S. Kholmogorov "Ctrl + Alt + Del, or Give autocracy!" . Not only the article itself is interesting, but also the discussion that unfolded. I have been using the Rusobra website for a long time only as a source of archival materials, but this year I am looking at something, it has completely fallen into disrepair. How not to lose it completely. :(Therefore, I consider it appropriate to endure something.
In order to facilitate perception, I will try to highlight the main, in my opinion, theses of the article and discussion. So, the theses and their decoding from Kholmogorov:

Autocracy is not identical with monarchy, it cannot be reduced to it. The concept of autocracy is both broader and more fundamental than the concept of monarchy.

The historical Russian monarchy is a form of exercise of autocratic supreme power, and not vice versa.

Autocracy, autocratic power are connected with the monarchy by the relation of belonging, not identity.

The principle of autocracy is the principle of Russian national sovereign power, which can be exercised in a variety of political forms—democratic, aristocratic, monarchical, or "mixed." If only these forms were filled with the pure meaning of Russian power. In the absence of a monarchy, the principle of autocracy does not lose its meaning. Let's see what this meaning is.

1. Autocracy as unconditional sovereignty.
“Whatever the autocrat is called, if not himself standing,” Grozny answered Kurbsky. And he wrote to the Polish king Sigismund Augustus: “Our great sovereigns, any royal autocracy is not like your wretched kingdom; they tell the gentry as they want.” The motif of autonomy of power, non-binding by anyone's will and someone's instructions for the Russian political ideology of the time of the Terrible Tsar turns out to be central.

“Free tsarist autocracy is by no means certain, and they are not planted or obsessed by anyone in the state, but from the almighty God’s right hand they rule autocrats in their states and no one else can inflict a decree on them and free good pay and dashing executions,” they answered in the era of the Livonian war, the Russian boyars on an anonymous letter of the Polish king Sigismund Augustus, who tried to seduce the Russian sovereign people with Polish gentry liberties.

In Bodin's formulation, one "who receives orders from the emperor or the pope is not sovereign." That is, autocracy was understood and historically thought of as the Russian name for sovereign power, which has no basis in any other power, but only in itself. In other words, it is the genetic formula of statehood and the origin of its powers.

The Russian autocracy from the very beginning thought of itself as a specific political organism. Its history begins with the refusal to recognize any external "order" of the Russian authorities on the part of external forces (Byzantium, the Horde or some others), or on the part of internal forces, the aristocracy and the boyars, the people or even the Church. Autocratic power was considered by the Russians as divinely ordained and self-born. It is no coincidence that the genetic myth of the initial Russian autocracy was the myth of the brother of August Caesar Prus, whose descendants Rurik ruled in Russia from ancient times.

Contrary to the widespread belief, this genetic myth did not so much emphasize the "continuity" of Russian power from Rome and Byzantium as it denied it, establishing Russian power as an independent state principle, located with Roman statehood not in children's or grandchildren's, but in fraternal relations.

When the idea of the “Byzantine inheritance” and even more so the concept of the “transition of the kingdom” from the First Rome through the Second to the Third is attributed to the famous doctrine of the “Third Rome”, this betrays a lack of familiarity with the primary sources. The monk Philotheus has no idea of “heredity”, there is an idea of “gathering” all Christian kingdoms, destroyed for one reason or another, into a single kingdom.

Autocracy is conceived in the Russian political concept in such a way as the idea of a completely independent, “autochthonous” origin of Russian statehood, which is not connected with any external world system, cannot accept any instructions from it and has no obligations to it. The same applies to the internal political system - it is not bound by some principles external to it, for example, the principles of aristocratic law. It is not generated and is not limited by someone's "rights", but manifests itself as law, judgment and mercy according to the commandments of God. Thus, the Russian autocratic statehood is not supposed to be a constitution, that is, again, a system of rules and restrictions external to the state that form it, but a fact, the very existence of its existence, “holding”.
Autocracy as a way of existence of Russian statehood means, first of all, the self-establishment of the Russian state.

2. Autocracy as a way of political existence

However, if the Russian concept of autocracy were limited to the concept of sovereignty, it would not be as unique, as magnetic as it really is. It would not have had some mysterious, mystical beginning, which is felt by everyone who comes into contact with the idea of autocracy.
Power is given by God to many, and in a sense, to all peoples.

The mysticism, the unique originality of the idea lies elsewhere, in the understanding of autocracy as a historical mode of existence of the Russian state and the Russian nation in their indissoluble whole.

“The Russian tsar does not receive and has not received his power from anyone; Russian tsars and princes united scattered tribes and organized that Russian state, under whose shadow the Russian people took shape, and before the Russian people felt themselves to be a political body, Russian tsars were already at the head of it, strong in the state they created and the social forces organized by them. Russian tsars arose with the Russian kingdom, which raised the Russian people to the consciousness of their unity. The power of the Russian tsar is autocratic power, that is, power that is self-originating, not received from outside, not bestowed by another power. The basis of this power is not some legal act, not some legal provision, but the entire historical past of the Russian people.
Autocracy begins where the idea of statehood and the idea of “power in general” ends, and that peculiar historical way of implementing the state and power principle, which is characteristic of Russian history, begins. Autocracy begins where "princes in general" end, and they are replaced by Alexander Nevsky, Ivan Kalita, Dmitry Donskoy, Ivan III and Ivan the Terrible, Mikhail Romanov and Peter the Great, Paul I and Alexander III. Autocracy is a historically accomplished and wealthy statehood of Russia.

The principle of autocracy, therefore, is based not only on the principle of independence from any other power, but also on the idea of the union of enormous forces and powers in one source, in one state principle, which took place in the course of a long historical work of the Russian state and the Russian people. Autocracy in Russia is more than independence and more than a monarchy; it is Russian statehood itself in its historical realization, in the fullness of its tradition and its manifold influence on the entire life of the people.

3. Monarchism is only a particular form of the implementation of Russian autocracy. The first historically and most mature form, complete in its actual implementation.
(Here Kholmogorov's concept intersects but does not coincide with the formula prescribed in the Fundamentals of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, which says that according to our faith, "Judging" is given (the power of authority, legalized by God, based on authority), by lack of faith - the monarchy (the power of authority, legalized by God , based on authority and coercion), out of disbelief - democracy (power without authority, based on coercion, legalized by formal procedures).

4. Comparison with the Byzantine monarchy:
“The Russian idea of autocracy in this sense was quite original, in this respect it significantly surpassed the Byzantine concept of the power of a basileus as an autocrat. The fact that the Russian language chose the term “autocracy” instead of the obvious “autocracy” speaks a lot about the difference between the two concepts.

The concept of autocracy carried the burden of Roman, still republican ideas. It assumed independence and even arbitrariness only in the exercise of power, but not in its origin. The power of an autocrat is closer not to a monarchy, but to a dictatorship, that is, it is the power entrusted to him by "the Senate and the people." And more meaningful is another hypostasis of Byzantine power, the power of "Vasilevs Romeev", that is, the political head of the entire "Christian people", in which the Church was identified with Roman citizenship as a political body. As L.A. Tikhomirov rightly noted in his study of monarchical statehood, instead of developing a state political and social organism, the Romans took the path of administrative functionalization of the Church.

5. Comparison with dictatorship:
"National autocracy cannot and should not be replaced by a dictatorship, that is, the ahistorical power of one person, which simplifies the heterogeneity of the nation to democratic homogeneity. It was not by chance that Plato considered dictatorship and democracy to be the closest relatives, since the basis of dictatorship is in no way a modified power of a quantitative sum of voters, but only reduced to a single number of one authorized voter.This is a democratic, bottom-up power in which only one will has the right to vote.

On the contrary, the national autocracy must renounce both democratic and dictatorial self-simplification.

What is a European monarchy?
Early feudal monarchy- In the conditions of military democracy, the prince (king), relying on the retinue, turns from an elected military leader into the head of state and begins to transfer supreme power by inheritance. He begins to appoint officials (counts, "husbands") as his deputies in the districts (in the city centers of tribal unions), later the monarch's deputies replace elected officials of lower levels (centuries).

With the growth of the territory of the state, the growth of the bureaucratic apparatus, the branching of the ruling dynasty, political decentralization occurs, and large feudal lords begin to influence the approval of one or another candidate on the royal throne. Supreme power becomes nominal.

At the next stage, with the full development of the layer of petty feudal lords in the localities and the urban estate, the head of state, in alliance with them, gets the opportunity to infringe on the rights of large feudal lords, territorially increase his domain and begin the process of centralization of the state, again make his power real and hereditary.

patrimonial monarchy- a monarchy, in which the supreme power again becomes real and the order of its transfer ceases to depend on the will of large feudal lords, in the struggle against which the monarch enters into an alliance with the chivalry and the third estate and begins the process of state centralization.
Estate-representative monarchy- a monarchy in which the power of the monarch is limited not only by representatives of his vassals, as in a patrimonial monarchy, but also by representatives of the third estate. Subsequently, with the transition to a mercenary army and the liquidation of appanages, it will be transformed into an absolute monarchy.
Absolute monarchy- a monarchy in which estate privileges continue to exist, however, there are no feudal estates, a vassal system, and in some cases (England, France) there is no serfdom.

Try to find in the autocracy at least something of the above.
Tov. Spengler wrote a phrase that cuts our ears, but let's forgive him as a German: "Primitive Moscow tsarism is the only form that fits Russianness even today, but in St. Petersburg it was falsified into the dynastic form of Western Europe."

The trouble is that the attempts to theoretically comprehend and substantiate the Russian autocracy, begun by Ivan the Terrible, did not receive further continuation under the Romanovs. And the Russian monarchy, remaining essentially an autocracy, tried to look like a European monarchy, which had never been an autocracy. As a result, any "theoretical substantiation" of autocracy within the framework of the European tradition looked false, and autocracy itself - an alien barbarism for every European.
The sacredness of power, to some extent, was with the French king, but this sacredness was not absolute, it did not even come from God, but from the pope, from recognition by other European monarchs. The inclusion of Russia in European politics required the recognition of the Russian autocrat by other European monarchs, therefore, it already objectively limited autocracy.

The absolute monarchy is estate, and in fact the power of the absolute monarch is delegated to him by the highest nobility. In this way, European absolute monarchy can be considered the ultimate form of estate democracy. While autocracy does not have as its source any of the possible democratic procedures. And the European can't imagine it at all. Sacredness has nothing to do with it.

For Europeans, not every monarchy was associated with tyranny. Hegel even idealized the absolute German monarchy. But for them autocracy has always been identical with tyranny. And not only an autocratic monarchy, but any Russian method of government in which autocracy inevitably manifests itself.

Autocracy is not the highest degree of absolutism and autocracy. One can be autocratic without executing anyone and consulting with everyone. But autocracy presupposes both its own institutions, of which we have a rather vague idea, and its own mechanism of functioning, which is practically unknown to us in general.

I can only assume that a stable autocracy needs constant approval and confirmation of its "realness". It was this factor that ruined Godunov, False Dmitry, Shuisky and other contenders for the role of Autocrat. And in In this sense, the real Autocracy ended with Ivan the Terrible. The Romanovs were already holding on to the need for autocracy, but they experienced a clear lack of confidence in their "realness". After Peter I, we did not have a real autocracy and autocrats who could say, like Ivan the Terrible, addressing the nobles that "my power is not from you, serfs." After Peter we already have "Autocracy limited by regicide", which in fact is only a form with a very limited content.
We now, for example, in principle cannot understand how it was in the 15th century that the princes Shuisky took Moscow 2 times and overthrew Vasily II the Dark, imprisoned him, blinded him, and both times were forced to leave, and Vasily returned to the kingdom. Is it possible to imagine this in the post-Petrine 18th century? And the thing is that you cannot become an Autocrat if the people do not have faith that the king is "real". This situation in European terms of "democracy" is absolutely impossible to understand and explain.
Under autocracy, the king (monarch, president, general secretary) is responsible only to God, and therefore none of the mortals can "blame" any responsibility on him. The king is not a lonely hero, he relies on the Faith of the people. Without Faith Autocracy is impossible. The breakdown of the autocracy is always accompanied by a crisis of faith and always leads to a severe crisis of the entire state.

From the point of view of the political institutions of Bolshevism Stalinist regime- only a temporary concentration of power in the hands of the leader of one of the power groups in a critical situation. As soon as the situation was slightly normalized, there was a rapid liberalization of the regime, in which all factions received much more rights, within the existing system.
The Stalinist regime is only a democracy adapted to the conditions of an acute need for autocracy. :)
As soon as circumstances allowed, democracy again began its destructive action.

But, from the point of view of the perception of power by the people, the relationship "Stalin-people" (as well as today "Putin-people") very quickly took on the familiar, historically understandable and verified form of "autocrat-people." And therefore, the ensuing quite logical, from the point of view of the established top political system, "debunking the cult of personality" was perceived by the people as a new demolition of the autocracy and led to a lethal crisis of the communist faith.

Autocracy is not identical with monarchy, it cannot be reduced to it. The concept of autocracy is both broader and more fundamental than the concept of monarchy.

The historical Russian monarchy is a form of exercise of autocratic supreme power, and not vice versa.

Autocracy, autocratic power are connected with the monarchy by the relation of belonging, not identity.

The principle of autocracy is the principle of Russian national sovereign power, which can be implemented in a variety of political forms - democratic, aristocratic, monarchical or "mixed". If only these forms were filled with the pure meaning of Russian power. In the absence of a monarchy, the principle of autocracy does not lose its meaning. Let's see what this meaning is.

1. Autocracy as unconditional sovereignty.
“Whatever the autocrat is called, if not himself standing,” Grozny answered Kurbsky. And he wrote to the Polish king Sigismund Augustus: “Our great sovereigns, any tsarist autocracy is not like your wretched kingdom; they tell the gentry as they want.” The motif of autonomy of power, non-binding by anyone's will and someone's instructions for the Russian political ideology of the time of the Terrible Tsar turns out to be central.

“Free tsarist autocracy is by no means certain, and they are not planted and obsessed by anyone in the state, but from the almighty God’s right hand in their states they are autocratic and no one else can inflict a decree on them and free good pay and dashing executions,” they answered in the era of the Livonian war, the Russian boyars on an anonymous letter of the Polish king Sigismund Augustus, who tried to seduce the Russian sovereign people with Polish gentry liberties.

2. Autocracy as a way of political existence

“The Russian tsar does not receive and has not received his power from anyone; Russian tsars and princes united scattered tribes and organized that Russian state, under whose shadow the Russian people took shape, and before the Russian people felt themselves to be a political body, Russian tsars were already at the head of it, strong in the state they created and the social forces organized by them. Russian tsars arose with the Russian kingdom, which raised the Russian people to the consciousness of their unity. The power of the Russian tsar is autocratic power, that is, self-originating power, not received from outside, not bestowed by another power. The basis of this power is not some legal act, not some legal provision, but the entire historical past of the Russian people.
Autocracy begins where the idea of statehood and the idea of “power in general” ends, and that peculiar historical way of implementing the state and power principle, which is characteristic of Russian history, begins. Autocracy begins where "princes in general" end, and they are replaced by Alexander Nevsky, Ivan Kalita, Dmitry Donskoy, Ivan III and Ivan the Terrible, Mikhail Romanov and Peter the Great, Paul I and Alexander III. Autocracy is a historically accomplished and wealthy statehood of Russia.

The principle of autocracy, therefore, is based not only on the principle of independence from any other power, but also on the idea of the union of enormous forces and powers in one source, in one state principle, which took place in the course of a long historical work of the Russian state and the Russian people. Autocracy in Russia is more than independence and more than a monarchy; it is Russian statehood itself in its historical implementation, in the fullness of its tradition and its manifold influence on the entire life of the people.

5. Comparison with dictatorship:
"National autocracy cannot and should not be replaced by a dictatorship, that is, the ahistorical power of one person, which simplifies the heterogeneity of the nation to democratic homogeneity. It was not by chance that Plato considered dictatorship and democracy to be the closest relatives, since the basis of dictatorship is in no way a modified power of a quantitative sum of voters, but only reduced to a single number of one authorized voter.This is a democratic, bottom-up government in which only one will has the right to vote.

On the contrary, the national autocracy must renounce both democratic and dictatorial self-simplification.

To begin with, it is necessary to define what we understand and mean by the term "autocracy". At the beginning of the XIX century. MM. Speransky gave such an interpretation of this word. “As applied to the state,” he noted, “it is synonymous with the word ‘sovereign’.” That is, any independent state is an autocratic state. In relation to the sovereign, it also means inseparable power with someone. This same feature of the autocratic monarchy is also pointed out by B.N. Chicherin. In his famous "Course of State Science", he noted that autocracy is an unlimited monarchy, and that "the totality of the rights belonging to it is absolute power." “All its limitations,” he noted, “can only be moral, not legal. Being unlimited, the supreme power finds a limit in its own consciousness and in the conscience of citizens. In his work “Monarchist statehood”, the former revolutionary populist L.A. Tikhomirov, noting the difference between despotism and autocratic monarchy, emphasized that “a despotic monarchy or autocracy differs from a true monarchy in that the will of the monarch does not have objective guidance in it. In the Monarchy, the true will of the monarch is subordinate to God, and, moreover, very clearly. It has as its guidance the Divine teaching, a moral ideal, a clear duty...”. Strictly speaking, autocracy is a form of monarchical power that is limited only by the religious and ethical norms of Orthodoxy. For conscience, from the point of view of Orthodoxy, is a correlation between human desires and aspirations and divine instructions (“Co-News”). By the way, the well-known publicist of Russian abroad I.L. Solonevich defined autocracy as a "dictatorship of conscience." Strictly speaking, we see deep Orthodox origins in the phenomenon of autocracy. There is no trace of the impact on this political institution of the traditions coming from the Golden Horde statehood.

As you know, in ancient Russia, due to a number of circumstances, conditions and traditions, the monarchy, as a form of state power, did not take shape. Speaking strictly legally, representatives of the Rurik dynasty can hardly even be called early feudal monarchs, as pre-revolutionary and Soviet researchers often did. There is also no reason to talk about the princes of the period of specific Russia, as about monarchs. In medieval Russia, the prince was only the supreme representative of law, but not its source, and law itself was a set of social norms, the archetype of which was "old times", custom. The power of the prince, by its nature, was not sovereign, but functional. The prince was only a ruler, but not a monarch. Remember the purpose for which the Slavs called Rurik and his squad “from across the sea” and concluded a series with him. Society expected the prince to "protect widows and orphans." If the prince in his actions deviated from the norms and customs accepted by society, acted “not in the old way”, then this caused legitimate discontent and gave the people the right not only not to obey, but also to overthrow such an “untried prince”.

The primary elements of autocratic power, as is known, also arose in the lands of North-Eastern Russia. The first such ruler who tried to put the princes in the position of "handmaids" (subjects) was Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky.

The formation of the institution of the monarchy in the Moscow principality was favored by several circumstances and factors. In the second half of the XV century. the Moscow prince, with the growth of economic and military-political power, more and more acquired in the eyes of people the importance of not only the supreme ruler, but also became a personified source of power and legitimacy.

In this aspiration and justification of the new nature of power, a significant role belongs to the church, which also sought to raise its authority and influence. Thus, the interests of the two authorities, secular and spiritual, here coincided and intertwined.

When analyzing the development of the Moscow state and the institution of autocracy, one cannot ignore the presence of a number of external factors and circumstances. By the middle of the XV century. the situation around Russia changed quite quickly. This was due to the dramatically changed conditions that occurred in the geopolitical space around Russia, which had a serious impact on the processes of collecting lands around Moscow and on the nature of the emerging Moscow statehood.

In the 40s. 15th century the final collapse of the Golden Horde took place, and in its place the Kazan, Astrakhan and Crimean khanates and other, smaller uluses arose. The new state formations were not peaceful, which is why the borders of the Moscow state were under the strongest threat from the east and south. To this should be added the aggravation of relations between Moscow and Lithuania for leadership in the unification of the entire Russian space.

In 1453, Byzantium fell under the blow of the Ottoman Turks. This led to a dramatic change in the geopolitical space in Europe. For the Moscow principality, this had serious historical consequences that left an indelible imprint on the development of the Russian Orthodox Church and Moscow statehood. Since 1448, the Russian Orthodox Church has become autocephalous, i.e. independent of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In 1453, the Ottoman Turks captured Constantinople itself and, thus, in the eyes of the church, Moscow became the successor of the second Rome, and the autocephalous church, in the presence of a sovereign ruler, gained even greater importance and independence.

The Moscow prince, thanks to the efforts of the church, turned, in the eyes of his subjects, into an intermediary between God and people. From now on, his power was declared divine, and he himself became "God's anointed", to whom God entrusted to manage his subjects. From that moment on, the Grand Duke of Moscow turned into a monarch and ruled not according to "human will, but by God's command." Thus, the factors that led to the formation of autocratic power in Russia were as follows:

1) the growing economic and military-political power of the Moscow princes;

2) the interests of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Orthodox ideology, which had deep traditions in Russian medieval, traditional society;

3) external circumstances - the transformation of the Russian Orthodox Church into an autocephalous one, the fall of Constantinople, which undoubtedly accelerated this process.

Autocracy, as a power set by God, was accepted by the main part of the population of the Muscovite state. In the public sense of justice, it was more and more personified with order and justice. This is very important to emphasize and note. Power, if it is based only on naked violence, cannot be durable.

The formation of autocratic power was inextricably linked with the emergence of a new state ideology. The core ideologemes of autocracy were:

· the idea of continuity between the Muscovite state and ancient Kievan Rus. Hence the desire of Ivan III, Vasily III and Ivan IV to collect all the lands of the "fathers and grandfathers" around Moscow;

· the idea of religious continuity between Moscow and Constantinople. The fall of Byzantium contributed to the emergence and formation of such an important doctrine as "Moscow - III Rome", which played an important role in the history of our country in the 16th-17th centuries.

Autocracy was the political completion of the centralized structure of the Russian state, based on the principles of service and tax, and crowned it. Autocracy, expressing the principle of catholicity, representing a special system of institutions, contributed to the concentration of resources of the emerging nation for protection from external enemies and was a positive condition for its internal development.

Autocracy acted as the antipode of the "evil infinity" of princely squabbles and troubles of specific time, from which all social strata of society were tired. From the very beginning, it demonstrated the advantages of organized power over the lawlessness of the veche, which covered the dictatorship of the Novgorod master, which more and more dragged Novgorod into the swamp of political chaos and social conflict.

Portal for the student. Self-training

RELATED ARTICLES