An unlimited, autocratic monarchy is a form of government akin to absolutism. Although in Russia the word "autocracy" in different periods of history had differences in interpretation. Most often, he was associated with the translation of the Greek word Αυτοκρατορία - "himself" (αὐτός) plus "dominate" (κρατέω). With the advent of modern times, this term denotes an unlimited monarchy, "Russian monarchy", that is - absolutism.
Historiographers have studied this issue at the same time as establishing the reasons why in our country the autocratic monarchy poured into 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 the Russian autocrats "under the cover of antiquity", in ancient times, they found our first rulers, who had been granted such power by Byzantium, who removed the family tree from Caesar Augustus the Romans. The autocratic monarchy established itself under St. Vladimir (Red Sun) and Vladimir Monomakh.
First mention
For the first time they began to use this concept with respect to the Moscow rulers under Ivan the Third, the Grand Duke of Moscow. It was he who began to be titled as the sovereign and autocrat of all Russia (Dmitry Shemyaka and Vasily the Dark were simply called the sovereigns of all Russia). Apparently, Ivan the Third was advised by his wife, Sofia Paleolog, a close relative of the last Byzantine emperor Constantine XI. And indeed, with this marriage there are reasons to claim the succession of the heritage of the Eastern Roman (Romey) state by young Russia. From here the autocratic monarchy went in Russia.
Having gained independence from the Horde khans, Ivan the Third in front of other sovereigns now always combined these two titles: the tsar and the autocrat. Thus, he emphasized his own external sovereignty, that is, independence from any other representative of power. Byzantine emperors called themselves in the same way, only, naturally, in Greek.
This concept was fully clarified by V. O. Klyuchevsky: "The autocratic monarchy is the complete power of the autocrat (autocrat), which does not depend on any side of external power. The Russian tsar does not pay tribute to anyone and, therefore, is a sovereign."
With the advent of Ivan the Terrible on the throne, the autocratic monarchy of Russia significantly strengthened, since the concept itself expanded and now denoted not only the attitude to the external sides of the 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 experts in their studies, because it most methodologically fully and widely interprets the question posed: why is Russia an autocratic monarchy. Even Karamzin wrote his "History of the Russian State", relying on a vision of historical perspective inherited from 16th century historians.
Cavelin and Soloviev
However, only when historical research came up with the idea of studying the development of all aspects of life for all sectors of society, the question of the autocratic monarchy was posed methodologically correct. Such a need was first noted by K. D. Cavelin and S. M. Soloviev, identifying the main points in the development of power. It was they who clarified how the consolidation of the autocratic monarchy took place, designating this process as the withdrawal from the form of tribal life to the state autocratic power.
For example, in the north there were special conditions of political life, under which the very existence of education was obliged only to the princes. To the south, the conditions were somewhat different: tribal life disintegrated, moving to statehood through patrimony. Already Andrei Bogolyubsky was an unlimited owner of his own estates. This is a bright type of homestead and sovereign master. It was then that the first concepts of sovereign and citizenship, of autocracy and self-help appeared.
Soloviev in his works wrote a lot about how the strengthening of the autocratic monarchy took place. He indicates a long series of reasons that caused the emergence of monocracy. First of all, it should be noted the Mongolian, Byzantine and other foreign influences. The unification of Russian lands was facilitated by almost all classes of the population: zemstvo people, and boyars, and clergy.
In the northeast, new large cities appeared, dominated by the patrimonial beginning. This also could not but create special living conditions for the emergence of the autocratic monarchy in Russia. And, of course, the personal qualities of the rulers — Moscow princes — were of great importance.
Due to fragmentation, the country became especially vulnerable. War and civil strife did not stop. And at the head of each army 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, built a great state.
From Peter the Great
The autocratic monarchy is an absolute monarchy. But, despite the fact that already at the time of Peter the Great, the concept of Russian autocracy was almost completely identified with the concept of European absolutism (the term itself did not take root with us and was never used). On the contrary, the Russian government was positioned as an Orthodox autocratic monarchy. Feofan Prokopovich in the Spiritual Rules already in 1721 wrote that God himself commands the autocratic authorities to obey.
When the concept of a sovereign state appeared, the concept of autocracy narrowed even more and denoted only internal unlimited power, which relied on its divine origin (the anointed of God). This was no longer related to sovereignty, and the last use of the term "autocracy", which implied sovereignty, happened under the reign of Catherine the Great.
This definition of the 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 state 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 power of tyrants and despots.
What is the difference between autocracy and absolutism? When Westerners and Slavophiles argued among themselves back in the beginning of the 19th century, they built several theories that breed the concepts of autocracy and absolutism. Let us dwell in more detail.
The Slavophiles opposed the early (pre-Peter) autocracy with the post-Peter autocracy. The latter was considered bureaucratic absolutism, a degenerate monarchy. While the early autocracy was considered correct, since it organically united the sovereign and the people.
Conservatives (including L. Tikhomirov) did not support such a division, believing that the post-Petrine Russian government was significantly different from absolutism. Moderate liberals shared pre-Peter and post-Peter rule on the principle of ideology: the basis on the divinity of power or on the idea of a common good. As a result, what the autocratic monarchy is, historians of the 19th century did not determine, because they did not agree on opinions.
Kostomarov, Leontovich and others
N.I. Kostomarov has a monograph where he tried to identify the correlation of concepts. The early feudal and autocratic monarchy, in his opinion, developed gradually, but, in the end, turned out to be a complete replacement for the despotism of the horde. In the XV century, when destinies 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. Grade 11 studies this period in detail, but not all students understand why this happened. The boyars lacked unity, they were too presumptuous and selfish. In this case, it is very easy to take power into the hands of a strong sovereign. It was the boyars who missed the opportunity to create a constitutional autocratic monarchy.
Professor F.I. Leontovich found a lot of borrowings that were made into the political, social, administrative life of the Russian state from the Oirat charters and Chingizova 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 territory of the country, this is enslavement of the posadniks and the attachment of peasants, this is the idea of parochialism and compulsory service at the service class, this is the Moscow orders copied from the Mongolian chambers, and much more. Engelman, Zagoskin, Sergeyevich and some others shared these views. But Zabelin, Bestuzhev-Ryumin, Vladimirsky-Budanov, Solovyov and many other professors in the Mongol yoke did not attach such importance to this, but put forward completely different creative elements to the forefront.
By the will of the people
Northeastern Russia united under Moscow autocracy thanks to close national unity, which sought to peacefully develop its crafts. Under the rule of the princes Yurievich, Posad even entered the battle with the boyar retinue force and won. Further, the yoke violated the course of events that had formed on the path of unification, and then the Moscow princes took a very right step by arranging a popular testament of silence and the worldly world. That is why they were able to be at the head of Russia, striving for unification.
However, the autocratic monarchy was not formed immediately. The people were almost indifferent to what was going on in the princes' towers, even the people did not think about their rights and any liberties. He was in constant concern for safety from the powers that be and for his daily bread.
The boyars for a long time played a decisive role in power. However, the Third came to the aid of the Greeks and Italians. Only with their clues did the tsarist autocracy get its final form so soon. Boyar is an seditious force. She did not want to listen to either the people or the prince; moreover, this was the first enemy of the Zemsky world and silence.
Thus branded Russian aristocrats Kostomarov and Leontovich. However, a little later, historians disputed this opinion. According to Sergeyevich and Klyuchevsky, the boyars were not the enemies of the unification of Russia. On the contrary, they did their best to help the Moscow princes do this. And Klyuchevsky says that there was no unlimited autocracy in Russia at that time. It was a monarchist-boyar power. There were even clashes between the monarchs and their aristocracy, there were attempts by the boyars to somewhat limit the powers of the Moscow rulers.
The study of the issue under Soviet rule
Only in 1940 was the first discussion at the Academy of Sciences devoted to the question of determining 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 Faculty of History. Both discussions showed a complete dissimilarity in the positions of historians. Specialists in state and law did not separate the concepts of absolutism and autocracy. Historians saw the difference, and most often opposed these concepts. And what does the autocratic monarchy mean for Russia in itself, scientists have not agreed.
They applied the same concept with different contents to different periods of our history. The second half of the 15th century was the end of vassal dependence on the Golden Horde Khan, and Ivan the Third was the first real autocrat who only overthrew the Tatar-Mongol yoke. The first quarter of the 16th century - autocracy is treated as autocracy after the liquidation of sovereign principalities. And only under Ivan the Terrible, according to historians, the autocracy receives unlimited power of the sovereign, that is, unlimited, autocratic monarchy, and even the class-representative component of the monarchy did not contradict the unlimited power of the autocrat.
Phenomenon
The following discussion arose at the very end of the 1960s. She put on the agenda the question of the form of an unlimited monarchy: is it not a special kind of absolute monarchy, peculiar only to our region? It was established during the discussion that, compared with European absolutism, our autocracy had several characteristic features. Social support is only the nobility, while in the west the monarchs are more reliant on the emerging class of the bourgeoisie. The legal methods of management were dominated by the illegal ones, that is, the monarch was endowed with much more personal will. There were opinions that the Russian autocracy is a variant of eastern despotism. In a word, for 4 years, until 1972, the term "absolutism" was not defined.
Later, A. I. Fursov proposed to consider a phenomenon in the Russian autocracy that has no analogue in world history. Differences from the eastern monarchy are too significant: this is a limitation of traditions, rituals, customs and the law, not characteristic of the rulers in Russia. There are no less of them from the West: even the most absolute power was limited there by law, and even if the king had the right to change the law, he still had to obey the law - albeit changed.
But in Russia it was different. The Russian autocrats always stood above the law, they could demand that others submit to it, but they themselves had the right to avoid following the letter of the law, whatever it was. However, the autocratic monarchy developed and acquired more and more European features.
End of the 19th century
Now the crowned descendants of the autocrat Peter the Great were already much more limited in their actions. An administrative tradition has taken shape that has been reckoned with the factors of public opinion and certain laws that apply not only to the domain of dynastic prerogatives, but also to common civil law. A monarch could only be an Orthodox from the Romanov dynasty, consisting in an equal marriage. The ruler was obliged by law of 1797 when he entered the throne to appoint an heir.
The autocrat was limited by both managerial technology and the procedure for issuing laws. The cancellation of his orders required a special legislative act. The king could not deprive of life, property, honor, class privileges. He had no right to introduce new taxes. He couldn’t even benefit anyone. For everything, a written order was needed, which was drawn up in a special way. The oral order of the monarch was not law.
Imperial fate
Not at all the modernizing tsar Peter the Great, who titled Russia an empire, made it such. At its core, Russia became an empire much earlier and, according to many scholars, continues to remain it. This is the product of a complex and lengthy historical process, when the formation, survival, and strengthening of the state took place.
The imperial fate of our country is fundamentally different from others. In the generally accepted sense, Russia was not a colonial power. The expansion of territories took place, but it was not motivated, as in Western countries, by economic or financial aspirations, by the search for markets and raw materials. She did not divide her territories into colonies and the mother country. 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. It is appropriate to recall the year 1948, when the British left India, leaving there less than 1% of literate Aborigines, and not educated, but simply knowing the letters.
Territorial expansion has always been dictated by security and strategic interests - these are the main factors behind the emergence of the Russian Empire. Moreover, wars occurred very rarely for gaining territory. There has always been an onslaught from without, and 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 always fought either as allies, delving into other people's "family quarrels," or reflecting aggression from the west. They were never the first to attack anyone. Apparently the very fact of the appearance of such vast territories, regardless of the means, ways, reasons for the formation of our state, will inevitably and constantly cause problems, since the very nature of imperial existence speaks here.
Hostage of history
If you study the life of any empire, you will find complex relationships in the interaction and opposition of centripetal and centrifugal forces. In a strong state, these factors are minimal. In Russia, monarchical power has invariably acted as the carrier, 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 prevent the development of regional autonomy and polycentrism. And history itself has made monarchist Russia its hostage.
The constitutional-autocratic monarchy was impossible in our country only because the tsarist government had a sacred right to it, and the kings were not the first among equals - they had no equal. They were married to the rule, and it was a mystical marriage with a whole huge country. Royal porphyry radiated the light of heaven. For the beginning of the XX century in Russia, the autocratic monarchy was not even partly archaic. And today, such moods are alive (recall Natalia "Nyasha" Poklonskaya). It is in our blood.
The liberal-legal spirit inevitably faces a religious worldview that rewards the autocrat with a special halo, and not one of the other mortals will ever be honored with this. All attempts to reform the supreme power are defeated. 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 now.