Lev Tikhomirov Monarchical state(translated from Russian by Google Translate) | Conservatism | Monarchy | Prueba gratuita de 30 días | Scribd
Está en la página 1de 605

Page 1

Lev Tikhomirov
Monarchical state
Lev Tikhomirov.
"Monarchical state"
LA Tikhomirov "monarchical state", M .: SUE "Oblizdat" LLP
"Alirio", 1998, 672 p.
"Monarchical state" LA Tikhomirov - a totally unique work
in the domestic social and political thought, the work hitherto no one surpassed.
Even opponents of the monarchy, called him "the best justification for the idea of
autocratic
the monarchy. "The author is deeply and thoroughly explores the history of the
monarchical principle and
It is building a system theoretically true, autocratic monarchy. First published in
1905 the book was reprinted in 1992, but has since become a rarity. AT
Unlike the previous, this re-release is provided with thorough essay on the life and
Tikhomirov works, notes and indices.
"Monarchical state" necessary for everyone who sincerely wants
Revival of Russia, regardless of their political views.
(c) the State Unitary Enterprise "Oblizdat", 1998.
(c) LLP "Alirio", 1998.
BBK 87.3 (2) 6
T 46
Editors: AN Buhanov, Aleynikov RE
Notes: SM Sergeev, Antipenko ZG
Index: AV Efremov
ISBN 5-89653-012-9
Sergey Sergeev: "My ideals of eternal" (creative traditionalism Lion
Tikhomirov)
Foreword
PART ONE
ORIGIN AND CONTENT monarchical principle
Section I.
SOURCES OF POWER IN SOCIETY
I Psychological bases of the public.
Page 2

II Psychological bases of power.


III Purpose of public authority. Procedure. Implementation of the truth.
Section II.
STATE AND supreme power
IV States as the culmination of society and the protection of freedom. Inevitability
statehood.

V Content of statehood.
VI Structure of the State. Components of its elements.
Section III.
SUPREME AUTHORITY
VII supreme power and the Management.
VIII Simplicity principle of supreme power.
IX Unity of supreme power and the separation of powers of the Management.
X Cause need the Management Authorities. The limiting action and
the division of labor. Action Direct and gear.
Principle XI representative of supreme power. Class politicians. Bureaucracy.
XII principles of government and polity.
XIII The main forms of power are types rather than phases of the evolution of power.
XIV inner meaning of the basic types of power.
Section IV.
GENERAL FRAMEWORK MONARCHY
XV General considerations.
XVI The value of religious beliefs.
Reality XVII religious influences.
XVIII religious elements in the sole supreme authority.
XIX moral imprint of religious ideas.
XX monarchical principle in connection with the phenomena of the social order.
XXI influence of external and internal policy.
XXII political consciousness.
XXIII Species monarchy.
PART TWO
Roman-Byzantine STATEHOOD
Introduction.
Section I.
ROMAN absolutism
Roman I of the historical idea. Initial operation of the republic.
Fall II patricians. The dominance of usurpation.
III Imperial idea.
Julius Caesar IV.
V Roman Empire as a delegation of the national rule of a single person, person
Blessed by God.
VI absolutism of the Roman Empire. The end of his shift in the idea of oriental
despotism.
VII Evolution of the Roman state.
Section II.
Page 3

DIRECT theocracy and delegate


VIII The idea of theocracy.

IX Preparation of the social order.


X People's power demand.
XI as the Divine King of the delegation.
Section III
BYZANTINE STATEHOOD
The end of the XII Roman absolutism.
XIII Constantine the Great.
Compound XIV Christian and Roman ideas.
XV Church and State.
Mixing nation XVI and the Church.
XVII ratio autocrat to the Church.
XVIII Byzantine idea of two inseparable authorities.
XIX vitality of Byzantine ecclesiastical building.
XX Meaning Union Church for the state. Remains of absolutism.
XXI Disadvantages social order.
XXII state duties of the Church.
XXIII Byzantine bureaucracy.
XXIV The fragility of heredity. The lack of legitimacy.
XXV idea of personal merit.
XXVI The struggle for power.
XXVII The disappearance of patriotism.
XXVIII Causes of death of the Byzantine Empire.
Section IV
CHURCH IDEA The European monarchs
Common Ground XXIX European monarchy.
XXX Roman idea of the Church. The struggle of the Church and the State.
XXXI Protestant idea of the Church. The revival of absolutism.
PART THREE
RUSSIAN STATEHOOD
Preface.
Section I.
GENERATION TYPE supreme power
I General favorable conditions.
II The Old Prince.
III Fighting democratic and aristocratic origin.
IV National struggle for existence.
V Influence of the Church.
VI influence of religious ideas.
VII Growth tsarist idea.
VIII Andrew Bogoyayubsky as a carrier of the idea of autocracy.
IX Development of succession.
X Moscow tsar.

Page 4

Section II
UNITY AND NATION supreme power
XI Unity ideals of the king and the people. The doctrine of Ivan the Terrible.
Unity XII national ideal by the king.
XIII proper growth of state institutions.
XIV Communication of the king and the people in the administration. Boyar
Duma. Zemsky Sobor.
XV Communication of the state and the people in the church administration.
XVI Royal Court.
XVII Unity of the king and the people in the Management area. Municipality.
Section III
RUSSIAN STATE WEAKNESSES
XVIII Lack of awareness.
XIX The precarious political structure.
XX appearance of bureaucracy.
XXI Moscow crisis outlook. Church split.
XXII Bankruptcy consciousness. The emergence of absolutism.
XXIII European intellectual yoke.
XXIV Peter the Great as the Russian people.
XXV contradicts the principles of Peter's time.
Section IV
CONSCIOUSNESS Petersburg period
XXVI The complexity of the work of self-consciousness.
XXVII instinct and consciousness.
XXVIII journalistic consciousness. MN Katkov.
XXIX journalistic consciousness. Aksakov.
XXX A.Kireev, M.Yuzefovich and others.
XXXI K.N.Leontev.
XXXII Unclear scientific consciousness.
Section V
The Management SYSTEM AND RELATIONSHIP WITH NATION OF
PETERSBURG
PERIOD
XXXIII imitative of the Management System. Collegiate bureaucracy. By Peter I.
Catherine II.
XXXIV bureaucracy from Peter the Great to Alexander II.
XXXV bureaucracy in the Church.
XXXVI Communication Supreme authority with the nation. Element ideokraticheskogo.
XXXVII The value of the nobility.
Saving XXXVIII type of supreme power.
Section VI
The Present Situation RUSSIAN STATE

XXXIX The uncertainty of the moment.


XL historical idea of Russia at the end of the period of student.
XLI The revolutionary spirit of the new period.
XLII The social conditions of the new period.
XLIII condition of the masses.
XLIV historic moment. Dissociation of supreme power and the people.
Page 5

XLV Relaxation national forces.


XLVI Relaxation government.
Conclusion XLVII.
PART FOUR
Monarchist POLICY
A few words to the readers
STATE DUMA 1905
Section I
The general meaning of the monarchical principle POLICY
I What I am politics.
II Society, and State Sovereignty.
III Scope of the state. "Natural law".
IV monarchist politician.
V properties of various principles of power.
VI of primary importance monarchical principle. The value of other principles
power.
Section II
GENERATION of the supreme ruler
VII General considerations.
VIII Dinastichnost and succession.
IX dynastic politics.
X Education.
Royal XI principles.
Section III
To the beginning of ethical and religious
XII Communication Supreme authority and religion.
XIII The independence of religious and moral union.
XIV What is the Church.
XV attitude of the state to the Church.
XVI Church policy. Separation of church and state and their union.
XVII confessional politics.
XVIII The need for a religious perspective to confessional politics.
XIX confessional policy of the monarchy.
XX tasks Russian religious policy.
Section IV

ATTITUDE TO social order


XXI Communication state and social systems.
XXII Story estates and general civil.
XXIII evolution of the social order.
XXIV The inability of the state outside the social order.
XXV ruling class "classless" state.
XXVI The structure of social forces.
XXVII system of "party" due to the social structure of the state.
Page 6

XXVIII monarchist social order relationship with the state.


Contact XXIX social system with ethical and religious principles.
Section V
CONTROL SYSTEM
XXX Subject reasoning.
XXXI The royal prerogative.
XXXII place of the monarch in the control system.
XXXIII of the Management Principles of perfection.
XXXIV The combination of bureaucratic and social forces. Autocracy and
government.
XXXV bureaucratic usurpation.
XXXVI politicized usurpation.
XXXVII bureaucracy and politicians.
XXXVIII need to combine management system of the monarchy. Principles
public administration.
XXXIX monarchical system of national "representation." Sovetnye people.
XL bureaucracies.
XLI Senior government agencies. Zemsky Sobor.
XLII objectives of sensible management organization.
Section VI
PERSONALITY, FREEDOM AND LAW
XLIII state and the individual.
XLIV of rights "of man."
XLV about rights and responsibilities.
XLVI system of building rights.
XLVII exercise of the right.
Section VII
Historical destiny of the nation
XLVIII national policy objectives.
XLIX conservatism and progress. Life.
L General objectives of creation of the nation. Development of the material and spiritual
forces.
LI territorial policy.

LII economic policy.


LIII National-tribal relations.
LIV International and global existence of the nation. World State.
LV international law of the State.
GENERAL CONCLUSION
LVI Destiny monarchical principle.
NOTES Indices
Sergey Sergeev: "My ideals of the eternal"
(creative traditionalism Lev Tikhomirov)
Since the end of XVIII - early XIX centuries. thinkers who did not believe in the
beneficence
"the progressive development of humanity" on the way departing from the eternal
foundations of human
Page 7

society (religion, social hierarchy, the cultural identity of each nation), way, who had found himself crystal clear expression in the theory and practice of liberal
and (slightly
later) social democracy - got the nickname "conservatives." Opponents
"Conservative" put in a word the meaning of a purely negative, making it brane
nickname with a criminal tinge; themselves "enemies of progress and freedom" with his
nickname
humbled and even proudly inscribed it on its banner. Meanwhile, if you think about it,
the terms "conservative," "conservative," "conservatism" - completely meaningless
and do not reflect the essence of the phenomenon, referred to by them.
To find out what he wants, "liberal" enough to translate this word
Russian language will become clear to all: "individualism, competition, the Parliament".
"Communist" - is not difficult to guess: "teamwork, socialization, power
workers. "In both cases, the essence of ideology is clearly expressed in the word. A
"conservative"? "Canning", t. E. To maintain, can be anything, including
liberalism, communism ... "Conservatism" is a general property of all mankind, and
inherent can be any age, country, individual. I suggest the possibility of
Objection: "Though a pot name - just do not put in the oven," it is not in the title, and so
everything
clear. But there is another saying that "in for a penny, in for a pound." Can
also remember the teachings of Father Paul Florensky that determines the fate of the
name
called. Is it because some guardians of the sacred foundations of life constantly suffer
defeat that call themselves so dull?
In fact, it is worth all the time to maintain decrepit from rotten wood, wall,
when you can build a new stone. The very "idea of the wall" remains, but becomes more
reliable implementation. Like innovation, and in fact, nothing new - in fact not on the
screen

wall replaced. But the "conservatives" and not engage in the preservation of fox-fire,
they just
often advocated the construction of stone walls. So the main thing in their ideas - not
saving
do anything, and preserve and increase the historical tradition that can
change shape depending on the age, remaining unchanged in the principal points
content.
Consequently,
"Conservative"
much
correct
name
"traditionalists." Calling so they throw themselves of the historical plaque
doom and intellectual inferiority, inherent in the word "conservative".
Traditionalism - special ideology, aimed not at standstill, and on the development of
humanity, but development did not deny the past, but, on the contrary, based on
it. The traditionalism, as in other ideologies have their "conservative", but there are
your "innovators" or better - creators. Creativity in any way is not contraindicated
tradition, on the contrary, it is necessary, in order to clean the source does not become a
tradition
dirty swamp of prejudice. The opposition between conservative and creative
traditionalism is perfectly expressed in the Gospel parable of the talents. Rab zaryvshy
his talent in the ground (servant "wicked and lazy") - a typical conservative, as slaves,
multiply their talents (the slaves "good and faithful") - creators of
unquestionable. Exactly
past and should define the face of traditionalism.
In Russian culture of XIX-XX centuries. not a few were "good and faithful" - the true
creators
traditions. Lev Tikhomirov - one of them ...
***
Page 8

Fate Tikhomirov and fantastic, and typical at the same time. Born January 19
1852 in Gelendzhik, the family doctor (who belonged to the hereditary priestly
old), he was in high school under the influence of the works of Pisarev became interested
in the revolutionary
ideas. However, even without Pisareva itself school education led to the fact that,
Rozanov's words, "every Russian with 16 sticks to the party" overthrow
political system "[1]." In the history I learned was that the monarchy is the time
"reaction" time of the republic - "the era of progress." <...> Everything we have read and
heard everything
They say that the world is developing revolution. We believed in it, as in the movement
of the earth around

Sun "[2] - later recalled Lev. For high school boy


I had quite republican beliefs. In 1870, the young lion, who graduated from Kerch
gymnasium with a gold medal goes to the law faculty of Moscow
University and then transferred to a medical. Two years in Moscow was enough
the young man became a member of the revolutionary circles, a propagandist "advanced
Ideas "in the working environment, the author of" incendiary "brochures (in particular,
the Pugachev
rebellion) and even the "five minutes" fianc Sophia Perovskoy. In November 1873 - he
was arrested and
passes as a defendant on the "trial of the 193" (ie, the process of the participants of the
famous
"going to the people"), and then spends more than four years in the fortress. AT
January 1878 Tikhomirov released and lived for a while in the parents under
administrative supervision, but revolutionary activity does not cease participating in
the "Land and Freedom". In October of the same year, he secretly left the parental home,
and
It goes underground. As happened in 1879 split of "Land and Freedom" on
"Redistribution" and "Narodnaya Volya". Lev joined to the second, more
radical organizations (approving, among other things, the idea of regicide) and became a
member of the
its Executive Committee and the Administrative Commission. Tikhomirov was one of
the
the key figures of the "Narodnaya Volya" - its actual ideologue and editor
party publications. After the tragic (and the monarchy, and for "the People") 1881
Lev (with the permission of the party) left Russia to avoid arrest. Slightly
later to be followed by his wife Catherine D. with young son Sasha. FROM
autumn 1882 Tikhomirov living abroad - first in Switzerland, then in France, where
1883 in conjunction with PL Lavrov began to publish the "Bulletin of the People's Will"
... And then like the bombing, but this time thrown into the People - in 1888 one of the pillars
Russian radicalism releases published a brochure with the speaker called "Why I
ceased to be a revolutionary, "and in January of next year repentant ideologist
Revolution received the highest pardon, returns home. Returned
a staunch traditionalist, confessing the famous triad of Orthodoxy,
Autocracy, Nationality.
Since September 1890 - Tikhomirov monarchical staffer's largest newspaper
"Moscow News". In 1909-1913 gg. - Has its publisher and editor. In 1906 - he
Preconciliar presence of an active participant, involved in the preparation of the Local
Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. From 1907 to 1911 Lev - Consultant
Stolypin on the labor question. He reached the rank of privy
Adviser and the highest implanted gold snuffbox. After the death of Constantine
Leontiev
Tikhomirov

becomes
Top
significant
ideologist
Russian
traditionalism. From his pen out such classic works as "the beginning and
ends "(1890)," Social mirages of modernity "(1891)," Fight of the Century "(1895), and
finally,
fundamental "monarchical state" (1905). Waste Lev Alexandrovich
Page 9

from social activities in 1914 opened a new period of his life and work,
associated with the development of in-depth questions of philosophy of history and
theology, fruit
which was another of his capital work, "Religious and philosophical foundations of
history"
(recently we have published for the first time [3]). Tikhomirov had to survive the
collapse of what
he served for nearly thirty years, "without fear or reproach," - Russian autocracy and see
the triumph of the most extreme revolutionary ideas, so brilliantly they deposed. Yet
it did not change his opinion ... The winners did not touch the old lion, he died of his
Sergiev Posad death October 10, 1923 His last finished writing
was "eschatological imagination" "In the last days," in the form of artistic and
philosophical
tells the story of the end of world history - the kingdom of the Antichrist and the Second
Coming
Christ ...
The ideological evolution Tikhomirov - "this many glorious way." The break with the
nihilism,
abandonment of the "heritage of 60th." They were typical of the Russian generation
tihomirovskogo
intellectuals. Suffice it to recall Vladimir Solovyov (born in 1853) and Basil
Rozanov (born in 1856). The first in his youth, according to the recollections of his close
friend Leo
Lopatin was "typical nihilist of the sixties," bigoted materialist and
Darwinist, denier Pushkin, finally, a socialist who believed that socialism
should "revive humanity and radically update the story" [5]. Second, according
his own admission, was "the way of hatred for the government ... to people it, to
principles of its ... from the bottom to the top ... - passionate burning heart the way to
"own
get "and" in the young "(the essence of the revolution) <...>" [6]. But neither the one nor
the other in his

Nihilism does not reach that region, whose came to the ideology of "Narodnaya Volya",
no overhang,
like him into the abyss, not looked into it. Tikhomirov on himself verify the truth "ideas
60s. ", Showing that the practical conclusion of these is - state
crime. He survived the crash of existential philosophy and the revolutionary
all that leads to it (atheism, materialism and liberalism). His experience is akin to the
experience
Dostoevsky's heroes, that's why biographers Tikhomirov regret failed meeting
repentant "Narodnaya Volya" and repent "petrashevtsa." Fantastic same fate
Lev Alexandrovich that people are so far advanced on the path of nihilism, like him,
typically do not return. I personally do not remember the case in world history,
tihomirovskomu such as a revolutionary of such high rank is converted to
traditionalist at least of high rank. It's just as if under a pseudonym
Joseph de Maistre hiding Robespierre and VI Ulyanov-Lenin in 1905 with Dr.
Dubrovin became the author of the program of the Union of the Russian
people. Yes. Tikhomirov left
on the other, but he came back on, radically different. He returned for good in general,
confidently stood on the stage tradition with her to not go. And here it is unlike those
as Soloviev and Rozanov, a tradition which, at times, served as a means to
irresponsible expression (I'm not talking about their political frivolity).
Former comrades Tikhomirov of "Narodnaya Volya" - Vera Figner and Nikolai
Morozov,
learning of his "renegade", argued heatedly. Figner so strongly puzzled that
other cause "treason", but to - "mentally ill" - could not come up with. Morozov
also stated: "this can always be expected". [7] But that "apostasy" bore
ideological, not self-serving in nature, they are unanimous. Indeed, the diaries of Leo
Alexandrovich leave no doubt and faith, and he came to monarchism totally
sincerely. The opinion of the Morozov's probably true. Tikhomirov himself in his
repentance
brochure wrote: "<...> in the dreams of revolution has two sides. One side is tempted
Page 10

destructive, the other - the construction of a new one. This second task has long prevailed
in me
Over the first. <...> Well-established ideas of social order and solid
State authorities have long featured me in a revolutionary environment; I never
forgotten Russian national interests and would always laid his head for the unity and
integrity
Russia "[8]. That is, even if revolutionary, Lev has not lost
State instinct, and probably therefore from it and you can always expect
the break with populism. But this instinct then got on with it in principle
anti-state theory; acquired over the years of experience and wisdom found
the falsity of the latter and pointed instinct proper rational expression. But,

revolutionary experience for Tikhomirov had not only negative. He left


his temperament fighter (so rare characteristic traditionalists in the crucial era)
It freed him from conformism (vice predominantly traditionalist) and, most importantly,
have many sore spots Russia, which is often overlooked by people of power and
which had to be treated seriously (and not to speak) to knock out of the hands
revolutionaries of their trump cards. In general, radical past helped Lev Alexandrovich
get creative traditionalist.
***
In the first works published after his return to his homeland,
Tikhomirov openly declares the creative nature of his world. The article
"The next question," [9] he sharply criticizes the "conservatives" for their sluggishness in
the fight against
revolutionary ideas, for their inability to create systematically organized
counter-propaganda. "<...> We Orthodox - he writes KI Leontiev - need oral
sermon or better missionary. <...> It should be a systematic missionary work,
some society circle. It is necessary to make to listen, to make reading. Necessary
look, go forward, go where you do not even want to <....> important youth, yet honest,
still capable of dedication, even the ability to think about the soul, when he finds out that
it has
shower. You need to go to preach in the very strata recruited from the revolutionaries ".
[10]
Leontiev was, incidentally, one of the few "conservatives" who shared enthusiasm
convert "zealot foundations", they both assumed even create something like
a secret society to fight nihilism. Tikhomirov thought highly of the power of thought
Konstantin Nikolayevich and dedicated analysis of its ideological heritage of the
beautiful article,
which brilliantly formulated the basic theoretical postulates of the creative
traditionalism, whose most important representative was Leontiev: "In my opinion, if
civilization, among whom I live, has gone on the decline, I do not dedicate their forces in
simply slowing its decline. I will look for its revival, I will seek a new center,
around which the eternal foundation of culture could again be put on active.
Simple apprehension of death that undoubtedly has killed, is not a serious problem
public policy ". [11] Following the Leontiev Tikhomirov called for the development" of
the type
we received from birth. No "response" no "misoneism" be here
can not "[12]. In another work Lev denounces" false "
"wimpy" conservatism, because he was "out of fear to shake the foundations of society
hides
they do not allow them to grow and develop ". [13] The true" conservatism "(t. e. what
What we call creative traditionalism) "completely coincides with the true
Page 11

progress in one and the same problem: the foundations of public life support,

escorted by freedom of development, promoting their growth ". [14] Tikhomirov rejects
the notion
"progress" and "conservatism", replacing them with a synthetic term 'livelihoods' for
"preservation and development of the organic force it - it's the same thing, <..> organic
forces
only exist in a state of life, in a state of development, in the same way
as it is impossible to develop, is not stored in the type "[15].
"The liberal reactionaries", to fix once and for all on the
positions of 60-ies., could not imagine any other development, but to put on the
European
egalitarian "progress," of all the other ways it seemed "stagnation", "return to
past "and so on. d. Tihomirovskie ideas simply do not fit into the primitive brain,
arranged by the liberal pattern (as well as in the minds of those traditionalists, for
whom tradition identified with the fact that "made the chief"). On the charges of critics,
claimed that his "ideals in the past." Lev replied: "No, not at all.
My eternal ideals that had been in the past, have in the present, will be in the future.
The life of the individual and society has its own laws, its conditions unchanged
proper development. The better by instinct or understanding, we conformed to them, the
we are above. The more mistakenly senses or mind, trying to deal with them, the
more frustrating their personality and their society. <...> Have always been bright, so to
speak
"ideal" manifestation of vitality of individuals and society, have always been and, I
believe,
are manifestations of the fall decomposition, impotence. In the past, at present and in the
future, I am
the same love stop at the forms of the first kind, with the same sadness and
censure on the second. Ideally, in the sense of my desires about the future, of course,
to see in it the triumph of the greatest possible start in life. "Reactionary" is
is my opinion or "progressive" - right, I'm no one is not interested one iota "
[16].
In its outlook, in their social and religious ideals Tikhomirov was
successor of the direction of Russian social thought, which was launched
Slavophiles 40s. (Khomyakov, IV Kireyevsky, Aksakov, Samarin). While in
emigration, Lev wrote OA Novikova (October 26 1888): "I have long
was the belief in the absolute validity of certain fundamentals of Slavophilism. <...> I
no doubt close to Slavophilism ", specifying, however, that he could not" enroll yourself
in any
a separation, "because" there are things that Aksakov did not pay attention (especially
Hamsters), and that is very important ... "[17]. Tikhomirov did not want to be (and did
not) imitator
old Slavophilism, because "national self-determination is not frozen in the Slavophiles.
Much of what they have been vague, complicated by "Western" influences, becomes
clear after

them "[18]. Lev carefully studied the new phases of Russian original
thoughts manifested creativity of Dostoevsky, Nikolai Danilevsky, MN Katkov, PE
Astafieva especially KN Leontiev. He opted out of their ideas, those who, in his opinion,
We develop and deepen Slavophilic base. It seems to me, Tikhomirov
He failed in his writings (especially in the "monarchical state") to carry out
Russian traditionalism creative synthesis (at least in the area
social and political theory) linking together seemingly irreconcilable thinkers
by cutting off their "extreme" one-sided judgments. Once again, we got
a synthesis, not an eclectic mess, and its creation is probably the main merit of the Lion
Alexandrovich to national culture.
Page 12

***
Before offering a positive social program Tikhomirov
I spent a lot of effort to refute prevailing in the minds of the Russian intelligentsia
all sorts of progressivist myths (or, as he himself said, "Mirage"): from Marxism
anarchism to moderate, benevolent constitutionalism. It seems to me that this
Criticism was the most powerful and elaborate in Russian thought of the XIX
century. Moreover,
some of her thesis was later deep development in the works of representatives of the socalled "Russian religious-philosophical renaissance," the beginning of XX century. For
example,
Lev Alexandrovich expressed in the "Fight of the Century," the idea that socialism is
the latest revival of Hebrew and early Christian messianism chiliasm,
then received a brilliant scientific validation by SN Bulgakov included in
his two-volume book "Two Cities" (1911). And Article Tikhomirov 90s. the
intelligentsia [19] this is a direct anticipation "Weh!" ..
And liberal and social democracy, constituted the ultimate dream of different groups
Russian educated stratum does not meet ideologue creative traditionalism. ABOUT
vaunted "liberal freedom" Lev wrote, listing the fruits in the XIX century .:
"In the area of mental submission to such freedom has created an extremely authorities
mediocre. In the area of economic freedom creates unprecedented dominance
capitalism and the subordination of the proletariat. In the political field, instead of the
expected
narodopravleniya generated by a new ruling class with institutions
necessary for its existence "[20].
As the antithesis of bourgeois society advocates social democracy, and Tikhomirov
prophetically remarked that "if planned social upheaval in the destiny of mankind,
it will produce, of course, the party "[21]. However, a society based on the recipes of
Marxism,
still less can bring happiness to mankind: "A common type of social-democratic regime
and

all the conditions of the birth of his new society predict the future, thoroughly soaked
despotism, discipline and centralization. <...> All his enormous coercive power
will <...> be in the hands of the ruling layer, incomparably more powerful than
politicians of modern liberal democracy. <...> "Gentlemen workers" can expect from
social democracy that anything but the recognition of the rights of the individual. There
springing system in which society - everything a person - nothing. <...> Aristocratic
Republic with a variety of mass enslavement of the population: it is the only outcome
social-democratic communism <...> ". [22] The power of foresight Tikhomirov
strikes, he even speaks of the huge number of "all sorts of <...> commissioners" [23]
upcoming Marxist paradise. But Lev and predicted that such a "paradise"
short-lived, and his successor anarchy under the slogan: "There is no need of society! Let
people live! "; communism compromised state collapse and an era
disintegration "of the whole into small groups, deter someone's personal influence"
[24]. Is not this the future we face today?
So, both liberalism and communism - "Social mirages". But how to dispel? Exit,
by Tikhomirov, in restoring spiritual balance personality disturbed oblivion
the religious foundations of life, thanks to which there are "fruitless chimeras" of "social
mysticism. "After losing the concept of the divine kingdom is not of this world, but not
lost
striving for the ideal in his mind, people do object of faith perfect society,
Page 13

impossible to earth. It is necessary to go back to living the religious idea that


able to give a Christian. Religious consecration social system can
to create a relative social harmony, the true embodiment of the system
It can only be a monarchy.
***
"Monarchical state" Tikhomirov - a totally unique work in
domestic (yes, probably in the world), the socio-political thought. Work anyone
hitherto not surpassed. Even not a monarchist Berdyaev considered him "the best
Justification of the autocratic monarchy ". [25] Later work IL Solonevich
("People's monarchy") and Ivan Ilyin ("On the monarchy and the republic"), so popular
now, in my opinion, can not be compared with the "monarchical state" no depth
thoughts, neither of the breadth of the material nor for the detailed design
theme. Although it should be
recognize that Ilyin and especially Solonevich write brighter, user friendly, fun; about
tihomirovsky same treatise would like to repeat the words of Leontiev, tell them about
"Russia and
Europe "Danilevsky - a great book, sometimes very badly written. Reading
"Monarchical state" requires a lot of effort, but they are rewarded - the
understanding of complex historical and socio-political issues that
receives the attentive reader of this remarkable book. For example, compare the bright,
largely true, but incomplete, in journalistic biting, and so did

surface characteristic of Peter I in the same Solonevich a multilateral, balanced


estimate "the employee on the throne" Tikhomirov, and you'll understand the difference
levels.
Reasonableness of the book is such that some of the author's ideas sound today as
practical
instructions "to act." No wonder a prominent contemporary writer V. Belov said,
that "monarchical state" "is simply irreplaceable for those who sincerely want
Revival of Russia, regardless of their political views "[26].
There is no sense to retell the book here - it is the reader. Let me just note that
"Monarchical state" despite the vast and interesting history
digressions, least of all aims to the knowledge of the past, or rather, the purpose of this Storage.
Paphos tihomirovskogo treatise - a futuristic, not retrospective. The
the social order, which the author considers the most perfect, in fact anywhere
It never existed. And in Byzantium and Russia, and even more so in Western Europe
Tikhomirov sees distortion monarchical ideas, leading to the degeneration of the
autocratic principle in contrast, the democratic origin,
the principle of absolutism. Monarchical state, therefore, is not given in the final
a - there is only the foundation of (laid down in the Middle Ages), which is still under
construction and
build. True autocratic monarchy - in the future, it is necessary to do.
***
Autocratic monarchy by Tikhomirov, can not exist without the two fundamentals:
religious ideal and lasting, corporately organized "social order"
Page 14

having a close relationship with the supreme power. And then, and another in Russia in
the early XX century.
It was in rickety state. His task Lev saw that
specify the path of the Russian monarchy creative restoration of its main pillars. In some
his works ("The clergy and society in the modern religious movement", "Personality,
society and the Church, "" Christianity and Politics "and others.) He mooted the best
burning religious and social problems. His pamphlet "Request for life and our
Church administration "(1903) contributed to the beginning of concrete and practical
actions
to change the system of non-canonical church governance. As for
"social order", there Tikhomirov's emphasis on the labor question,
rightly seeing it right resolution guarantee of future Russia. On this subject, they
was written a lot of articles ("workers and the state", "Russian ideals and
worker question "," The Citizen and the proletarian, "and so on. d.), and memos. It
Tikhomirov theorized that, unfortunately, it is ridiculous and quickly folded policy
the rational organization of the labor movement, under the auspices of the government,
which was

name "Zubatovism" [27]. Later, he tried to push for such a policy and
Stolypin [28]. "In politics and public life - he wrote Tikhomirov Prime Minister
October 31, 1907 - all dangerous, like all human life can be dangerous.
It is clear that there is and can be dangerous, and workers' organizations. But is not it
dangerous was
nobility, peasants and all the others? Is it not dangerous even the bureaucratic
organization? Question about the dangers of the organization for me does not solve
anything. The question may
It is only: whether the organization called necessities of life? If so, it means
should be conducted as if it will not lead the government and the law, it will lead others opponents of the government and the law. If the government fails to comply with what is
called
necessities of life - she sins against his duty, and it is punishable
revolutionary movements. <...> Thanks to fuss with corporations - Middle Ages
They lived for a thousand years. This means that the work was okupleny. The people and
the state - lived. A
that's the policy challenge. <...> Once and for all, forever, nothing can be arranged.
You can not create the world, and then to rest from our labors. They live forever Only the
laws of life and the forms
constantly changing. <...> I just do not ignore the difficulties of our labor question,
but I see that he is in some ways stronger than in Europe. But this does not relieve a little
we have the need to address this issue and find ways to solve "[29]. I think that
after 10 years, many appreciated the development of the working tihomirovskie
issue, but it was too late ...
Lev Alexandrovich had other offers supreme power. For example,
the creation of a monarchical system of popular representation (in no deputies should
were elected by professional corporations, not from political parties) as opposed to the
liberal
democracy. But most projects tihomirovskih quiet "bear a shelved" ...
***
Of course there are some amazing stories mysticism that "monarchic
statehood "was published it in 1905, t. e. in the year when Russian
autocracy began its tragic path to the station with a symbolic name - bottom.
Petersburg system for two centuries had time to wear out, the monarchy could save only
Page 15

radical renewal. The great thinker of the proposed program of renovation, but
There was nobody to run it. Russian ruling class too long to wean think
in Russian to understand that absolutism and autocracy - polar principles. Him
It was only enough for inept concessions constitutionalism.
Even Stolypin, the most alive person in government, was very far from
tihomirovskih ideas [30]. The ruling layer has degenerated, he was not able to creatively
answer a call the era, which led to the death of the traditional Russian. Tikhomirov

He foresaw its collapse even in 1899, when it seemed that everything was "peace and
quiet".
"<...> A single big man in the camp of the monarchy" [31], - with bitterness he writes
March diary. And in July, trusts diary truly terrible experience:
"Hard to serve as a hopeless case, and its hopelessness is becoming clearer to me.
Orthodoxy is melting like a candle <...> About the monarchy - it is difficult even to
speak. One form,
content is increasingly obscured all. About peoples already not possible
mention. Where's she? <...> And yet - I can not lose the knowledge. I can not fail to see,
the monarchy (as it should be) is the highest form of statehood. Can not I
believe in God ". [32] Unfortunately, foreboding not deceived Lev Alexandrovich ...
Tikhomirov was a loner in "conservative" camp, "smart uselessness"
in the words of Herzen. He looked askance at him, suspecting him - "Conrad Wallenrod."
For example, journalist of the newspaper "Voice of Moscow", signed F. Cheb-in,
denounced "on
superiors "in 1911, that is," and until now our revolutionaries to any particular
respectfully refer to this old "Lion" underground <...> here feels like
some connection between them solemnly, as though there underground, still waiting for
something from
this tested "compromiser" [33]. Yes, the loneliness - the lot of the creative personality in
dead medium. "Our position - wrote Tikhomirov Franklin D. Samarin August 9, 1911 probably no worse than the former, but very little understanding of Orthodoxy and
monarchy in the medium
the so-called "right" demonstrated much brighter than before. Unfortunately, we have a
much
More anti-Semitic than the Orthodox, absolutists much more than the monarchists, and
causes of impotence of the Church and the monarchy are much clearer than the three to
five years ago. Clear
thing - that people can only be reactionary, but not Russian builders
began. I can not hide from myself that I was with the direction that I want to give the
newspaper (and
I can not change), just lonely. I, however, and before he knew it, that is to
"Revolution". But nowadays finds more and more that the victory of the revolution was
absolutely inevitable from the moment when a strong hand was gone, she was not
allowed
up, because in the Russian society, all basic and ideal foundations
Orthodox monarchy - so pale that it is unable to repel any enemy "
[34]. Reading these documents, you cease to wonder about the "martobrya" 1917 ...
Tikhomirov rediscovered Russian emigration, his books were published in
abroad and vividly discussed. The idea of the corporate state simply soared in
air almost all over the world in the middle of the XX. She was addicted to the fascists,
liberals,
Socialists ... it differently embodied in Italy, the US and even in part of the country, once

called Russia. But these state systems are fundamentally different from
tihomirovskogo Project monarchies they were not, at least in the sense that
I invested in this concept the author of "monarchical state".
***
Page 16

Mark Tikhomirov worst predictions about the future of Russia come true. And further
continue to come true. "Instead of developing the productive forces of the nation dial to borrow money, using credit created by the ancestors; instead of protecting and
expansion of the territory - to sell and give in the province; instead courageous
repel the enemy by creating mighty armies - to save themselves shameful world price
return the enemy of public money and the earth instead of the rational organization of
government
institutions - lie to the right and left, calming the inevitable discontent bribe
the leaders of the opposing parties, the more corrupt the people, and so on. d ... "[35].
This was written in 1905 on the
possibly the worst method of governance, but as a modern sound!
Yet, still ... Russia is not yet dead, although far from ideal tihomirovskih it
another is a living organism, although badly crippled. Russian continues his thought
It works, and it needs to learn the legacy of his great predecessors, the ideologues
creative traditionalism. Modern Tikhomirov there? Let us not deceive ourselves, nor
today or tomorrow a true monarchy is restored. First you need to votserkovit
people. But the original Russian thought can learn from Lev Alexandrovich. and in
First of all his wonderful ability to ideological synthesis. We are for the time being, to
Unfortunately, instead of creative achievements of our Wisdom deal
catechesis of their heritage (forgetting that we have enough of catechism Orthodox). Someone creates "the only true doctrine" - "leontevizm"; someone makes
Ilyin of the new Marx and Engels from Solonevich new; for someone is no truth except
Eurasianism and its Gumilyov prophet ... It's sad, because complicates the work of
national
consciousness. None of the thinkers of the past (and Tikhomirov including) we will not
be able
to give precise answers to all contemporary questions. They must answer ourselves. With
aid those on whose shoulders we stand, taking away everything we needed and
discarding
irrevocably obsolete. Here tihomirovskoe ability to harness in a harness seemed
have completely different ideas are very welcome.
Well, if the Lord will reveal the miracle and will tell the people of the Orthodox
churched
Sovereign is the best handbook than a "monarchical state," King of All
Russia and can not recommend ...
Sergey Sergeev, 1997.
Literature:

[1] VV Rozanov about yourself and your life. M., 1990. S. 422.
[2] The memories of Lev Tikhomirov. Moscow-Leningrad "1927 S. 29, 31.
[3] L. Tikhomirov Religious and philosophical foundations of history. M., 1997.
[4] The State Archive of the Russian Federation (GA RF), f. 634, on. I, U. hr. 58.
[5] See .: AF Losev Vladimir Soloviev and his time. M., 1990, pp 18-19.
[6] VV Rozanov decree. Op. S. 523.
[7] See V. Figner .: preface to "Memoirs of Lev Tikhomirov."
[8] L. Tikhomirov why I stopped being a revolutionary. M., 1895. S. 27.
[9] The Moscow News, May 4, 1889
[10] The Russian State Archive of Literature and Art (RGALI), p. 290, op.
Page 17

1 units. hr. 51, l. 4.


[11] See .: LA Tikhomirov Russian ideals and KN Leontiev. Literary Studies. 1992
1-2-3. S. 157
[12] Ibid. S. 158.
[13] L. Tikhomirov Fighting century. 2nd ed. M., 1896. S. 38.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid. S. 53.
[16] L. Tikhomirov What causes our argument? Russian Review. 1894, 2. C.
913-914.
[17] RGALI, f. 345, on. 1 units. hr. 746, pp. 5-5 vol.
[18] Tikhomirov AL Slavophiles and Westerners in modern echoes. Russian
Review 1892, 10. S. 920.
[19] See. Eg .: What our intelligentsia? Russian Review. 1895, 10; K
the question of the intelligentsia. Ibid.
1896, number 2.
[20] A Tikhomirov, liberal democracy and social. M., 1896. S. 46-47.
[21] Ibid. S. 79.
[22] Ibid. Pp 85-86, 65, 89.
[23] Ibid. S. 78-79.
[24] Ibid. Pp 94, 96.
[25] Berdyaev Kingdom of God and the kingdom of Caesar. Way. Paris, 1915, 1. S.
33.
[26] Belov VI Unsung book. Our contemporary 1997, 1. S. 192.
[27] The fund SV Zubatov (GA RF, f. 1695) kept a note Tikhomirov, "The Tasks
Russian labor unions and volunteer their organization "(1901).
[28] See .: GARF, f. 102, on. D-4 1908 units. hr. 251, which holds the note on
Tikhomirov
labor question PA Stolypin's name.
[29] Ibid. pp. 1 ob.-2 -2 on.
[30] See. Eg., Tikhomirov article on Stolypin in his book "To Reform
the new Russia. "Moscow, 1912.

[31] GA RF, f. 634, on. 1 units. hr. 6, n. 229 vol.


[32] Ibid. U hr. 7. ll. 37-37 vol.
[33] Voice of Moscow, 23 October 1911.
[34] Department of Manuscripts of the Russian State Library (RSL OR), p. 265 to. 202
u hr. 8, pp. 5 vol. - 6.
[35] LA Tikhomirov monarchical state. SPb., 1992. S. 620.
Foreword
The subject of the book is the principle of the monarchy, its essence
and the conditions for its operation. But in order to find out how existing and conditions
his appearance and actions, I had to describe the general principles of prestatehood.
If they wanted to be brief - I absolutely could not avoid with the delineation
psychological basis of the fact of power, from which arises the power of the Supreme,
among other things, represented by the monarchical principle.
Thus I had to enter in the installation of the basic principles
State law, which could always take in their normal school
interpretation.
Page 18

Likewise, I found it impossible to do without some historical explanations


its general conclusions about the nature of the monarchical principle. It is of course
extremely
It expanded my work. But I think that the historical obosnovka my conclusions
reality would require a much more broader explanation. - Only with the utmost
I regret to confine concise instructions on the history of Eastern monarchs, and
European monarchical state. Even more sensitive gap
lack of delineation of the monarchies of the Far East. Unfortunately this item
I am unable to enter into the book without risking tighten up unspecified
the future of its publication.
So, the first three parts of my book is to clarify the conditions for the occurrence
The monarchical principle and essence. The last part is to describe the conditions of his
action - that is to outline the monarchical policy.
These are the general scope of this book.
General idea of this study is not the first time the readers. Also in
1897, I published a book, appeared before the individual articles in the "Russian
Review "-" one-man rule, as a principle of state buildings "[1].
This book gave a sketch of the same ideas of what is developing now published
"Monarchical state". In view of the fact that the "sole power" no longer
there is a sale, I, where can I enter some of its passages in the present study,
if necessary, their recycling. Nevertheless, today published "The monarchist
statehood "is not a new edition of the" sole power "and instead of 136 pages
which had a "personal power" is in four parts of about 600
pages of the same size.

Despite these considerable size - I realize - my book leaves many


to desire and completeness of the materials and the processing of the object. But I hope
that it is still
It gives something for the expansion of Russian political consciousness.
The late Chicherin said that history is largely the story
Error rulers.
It seems to me that history is largely the story of a very general
small human consciousness in the dispensation of their political system. it
equally evident in monarchies and republics, and the rulers of the nations.
The greatest benefit of the people bring, in my judgment, all that any
increases ever missing their political awareness, t. e. an understanding of the
law, who lives of human society and the state.
If I was able to observe and to indicate something is true, but until now overlooked in
sight
the scope of the political principle that the subject of this book, I
I will assume that labor is not fruitless.
Lev Tikhomirov, December 18, 1904
Lev Tikhomirov.
"Monarchical state"
PART ONE:
Page 19

ORIGIN AND CONTENT monarchical principle


Section I.
SOURCES OF POWER IN SOCIETY
Psychological bases of the public.
What connects people in society? What, then, is the basis of the public and,
therefore, it determines its laws? No matter how different philosophical concepts about
the soul, no matter how
it is difficult for a modern scholar to allow some independent spirit - in
the answer to the above questions are beginning to point to psychology. Not in
any external, but the internal, psychological conditions are increasingly looking for clues
the fact public.
"To the extent that - says Espinas [" The social life of animals ", p. 44] - as
the observer moves away from the first phase of life, he sees more and more often that
the group
living beings is not done under the impulse of physical and chemical forces and
physiological meaning but under the influence of increasing inclinations and Felt
drives. Before his eyes is seamless transition from outside to inside, from
more or less complex movements to deceive the game ideas and the will to
consciousness. "
The same psychological element says Alfred Fouillee. Trying to synthesize,
as he puts it, the materialistic and idealistic school of sociology, he comes

concluded that human society is in contrast to the biology of the organism


"voluntarily and knowingly". "The strength of the connecting part of the public body,
apparently not of the same nature as that connects the body part of an animal or
plant: the latter - relatively unconscious, the very first conscious "
["The modern science of society", p. 114].
Gustave Le Bon even reaching almost mystical relationship to the psychological
based society. He speaks of "the soul of the people" and argues that even the
classification
Peoples provides the best basis psychology. "The lining of institutions, arts,
beliefs, political governments of each nation are known moral and
intelligent features, from which it follows its evolution. "Therefore, Lebon,
"basis for classification, which can not give anatomy, language, environment policy
groups, give us the psychology of "[" The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, "p. 10].
Leaving
side of such statements, reaching, perhaps, then direct the content of the facts, it is
impossible,
however, admit that psychological foundations of society are for
Sociology absolutely inevitable conclusion.
Indeed, sociology eventually forced to admit that
public, we have before us the laws of cooperation. At the same time it is necessary
acknowledge that the laws of cooperatives are exactly the same wherever we are seeing
them either,
in biology and sociology. But such assumptions, it is quite
apparent that individuals themselves, come into cooperation, in both cases, i.e. in
Biology
and the public are significantly different, so cooperate on the basis of not
the same abilities or properties.
What "special" cooperate in biology, in the world of phenomena of organic
matter? Taking
schematic - it's just not specialized cells almost pieces of protoplasm,
gifted with a total capacity of life, movement and the vague feeling
Page 20

assimilation. Their cooperation, their joint action even unthinkable except when
direct the seam, for which they have a greater ability and
are almost no obstacles. World protozoans, and the so-called
colonial animals, are good examples of this are many.
Fusion of the lower animals like sponges, polyparies generally a common
phenomenon. Accurately
as well known, and the disintegration of its constituent parts, so starfish caught in the net,
instantly dissipated into pieces and fragments of her slip back into the sea.
There is no need, no reason to even consider the animal body, as something
by fusion of the original incident-free cells. But the character of the lower

explains the nature of animal cells, shows us that in the healing of cooperation
It corresponds to the nature of the biological specimen. And fusion of versatility
troubled life abilities cells allows its very rapid specialization, the
is the transformation in a simple body. Such is the picture of biological specimens.
But there are individuals who enter into cooperation sociological? No, it is not
cells and organisms. And in co-operation take even the organisms themselves, to put
the language of biology, but only their nerve centers. When several wolves together in a
pack,
cooperate not by themselves their teeth or paws, not by themselves their body and their
nerve
centers, only forcing each his body, his teeth and paws to help other companions
on cooperation. Looking at society through the eyes of a biologist, we should call the
society
cooperation of the nerve centers. But it is self evident that the nerve centers can
cooperating only on the basis of strength and abilities inherent to them. And what is the
nerve center in terms of biology? This cell, or plant cells,
specialized in movement, not assimilation, not in any particular sense
perception, and on the functions of representation and regulation, that is, the ability of
consciousness,
feeling and will. Only on the basis of these abilities and possibilities of cooperation of
nerve
centers, i.e. and the organisms themselves.
Thus, the laws of cooperation, possible for animals and humans - at
public appearance among them - are the laws of cooperatives feelings, ideas and
desires, cooperation that is our psychological world. Laws
the public, and consequently, citizenship and policy develop from
mental source. It is certainly up to the full evidence.
It goes without saying that this view, indicating the starting point
sociology, psychology, does not resolve the dispute on the merits that is our mind,
What is spirituality, whether it is original and well there essentially from the forces of the
dead
nature, and so on. n. But all of this comes in the realm of philosophy or psychology, not
sociology. For sociology starting point is, in any case, the world
human ideas, feelings and desires in them clearly observable manifestations.
Spiritualist or materialistic definition of psychological properties
although it can not affect our sociological views, but only a very
indirectly. In any case, no philosophical materialism can not lead
sociology to such absurd for her worldview, such as economic
materialism.
Psychological bases of the public did not deny the significance of impacts
external and material. But all these influences act on the social environment is not right,
and
Reflecting and recycling in our soul, our inner sphere of feelings, desires,

representation. At the same time, depending on our philosophy, we can argue, it has been
or
Page 21

was not to be, in some unimaginably distant past, our soul is some tabula
rasa, on which external influences entered the gradual accretions its content.
However, there is quite clear that if the outside influences had nothing to reflect and
processed, they could not have created and no deposits. Some primary
the content of the soul can not be denied. But all these philosophical debates very little
concern
sociology.
Sociology does not begin in the depths of chaos, where nothing can be disassembled, and
therefore
everything you can dream up. Sociology begins where the already visible effects
public. And in the beginning of his sociological science sees as a tabula toothfish
rasa [2], as well as a creature with a very definite mental content,
is not created by external conditions, as well as their own and really like
external conditions, and if testing their influence, and itself having on them the same
influence. Not only known historical person, and even in the most insignificant
animal, sociology finds solid content desires, feelings, and ideas like
something finished, before the former, and not create external influences. All external
influence
fall is not an empty place, and on a clear and specific content. They just
affect the soul, inciting, reducing or directing our ideas, feelings and
will, provide material for its processing of our soul, but did not create it.
In metaphysics possible dispute on the question of the absolute identity of the soul. AT
sociology and the history of this dispute is unthinkable. Whatever it is either represented
for our soul
philosopher, sociologist and historian, for it has an independent and permanent
content.
Our feelings, wants and representation, for the sociologist essentially eternal, though
combinations and vary in their evolutionary state phases. Just this
the constancy of the basic fact of the public and provides an opportunity of being a social
science,
that from the time of its earliest observations knows the same humanity with
mental properties are substantially the same, just as one knows chemistry
same substance with properties substantially, always the same, just as
biology among the ever-changing forms of the organic world knows only one and the
same living
substance with ever the same basic properties.
Only on the object having some basic immutable
properties and possible existence of laws, scientifically observed. Sociology of such
object has before him in the psychic world of mankind. If mankind

some distant "future" could have major mental properties


different from those that were before, even the most remote millennia ago, science
would have been completely impossible, because she would have had to admit at the
time that
of humanity as a constant and real phenomenon does not exist, and is
it is a mirage, defies rational understanding.
In reality, however, such a mirage exists only in the imaginations of some,
True, fashion, fortune-telling about the former never (or at least we do not know)
the past, and in the same weird dreams about the alleged "future" of humanity. Yet
actual science, the exact knowledge of the exact observation suggests completely against
all these
fantasies. All more or less the exact history of all ancient traditions, all pieces
ancient poetry present us with the same humanity, what we are seeing now, in
all its main properties. We can see why the phenomenon in human society,
possessing domestic laws that can effect them and to the evolution of their forms on their
Page 22

eternally unchanging principles. Therefore, science is possible, and penetrating into the
meaning of and
the other, the science community.
Psychological bases of power.
Setting social phenomena on the basis of a psychological policy is
value that clears the way for the understanding of the main factors of it - the phenomenon
of power.
As mentioned in the previous chapter, the laws of society are nothing but the laws of
Cooperation feelings, desires and ideas of individuals joining the public between
the interaction.
But any cooperation is necessary in a certain direction
side of these diverse and opposite feelings, desires and ideas, that is,
itself implies some guiding force, in other words - some
power. It is clear at the same time, that this power, this power can only come from the
same feelings,
perceptions and desires, which lays the basis for cooperation of social phenomena.
Thus, power is born simultaneously with the social process. Power
is a consequence of the social process and a prerequisite for its
commission.
Both phenomena are inseparable from one another. The authorities have the power to
guide, but at the same
time itself is generated by social forces, that is, therefore, in a sense, they
subordinated and without their support could not exist. It is not difficult to see a priori
that,
to its origin and its meaning as a force guiding the government should
not generated by a volitional capacity, but also the feelings and ideas.

History shows that the value of the past, even very large.
The previous arguments show the inevitability of power. But it is shown and
history. The presence and power - the consequences of it - coercion - can be seen
strongly in all
mezhduchelovecheskih relations. Never, never seen a hostel without any
power and coercion. From a historical point of view, this fact is not subject to appeal.
But not all the same estimate its value from the moral. Often, power and
forcing regarded as a necessary evil. Authorities counterpose freedom as
especially beneficent state. We know what a strong participation take such
presentation in our historical estimates of the various institutions, as well as in our
political creativity finally alleged ideals of the future. Very important
so as clearly as possible to understand the real source and being as accurate
the phenomenon, which is called the power, and that is called freedom.
It is not difficult to notice that both these phenomena make up no more than a different
manifestations of the same facts - namely the independence of the human person.
If a person is not a creature, embodying some independent force,
if it were simply the result of any external influences, he would not be able
nor of freedom or a state government. Our freedom is nothing but the
Regardless of the state of these environmental conditions, and this situation may appear
Only when the voltage capacity of our internal strength to the extent of at least
equal to the voltage acting on their external forces. Our power is something other than
the
the transition of the internal voltage to the subordination of external forces or external
conditions
forces. By the very nature of social phenomena, this ability freedom and authority
Page 23

all and is most often seen in relation to other individuals.


In the state of social cooperation every person, as external to it
conditions and forces primarily meets the same cooperative members. Independence
personality primarily and most often seen in relation to what its closest
It surrounds. In conjunction with these creatures around every person looking
in the circumstances, it is alternately in the state of freedom and power. It is not
it is difficult to see that the state of freedom is a state of inaction in appearance. This
condition,
in which the individual and not subject itself, but also does not subordinate one, does not
lend itself to
foreign influence and she does not have it. This state of personal existence is, as
It would be ideal, but in terms of the public is not active.
If you imagine a society whose members are in this state
internal independence, as well, and complacency, because only with such a
comprehensive
complacency willpower can not try to carry on its activities

surroundings, it is clear that in such a state of the individual, society thereby


abolished. It is not only not necessary, but it is not even just because these free and
complacency individuals at each other without interacting, not living common
cooperative life. This state of theirs is, perhaps, the state of bliss, but
not a civil state. It is important to develop your own perfect
the internal forces, which can then be applied to civil life. But for now
this did not happen until they are clean and balanced
freedom of self-satisfaction, they are not in a civil state.
The latter, on the contrary, all woven from the interaction of power and subordination. It
full of struggle, which may take various forms, more coarse or more subtle,
but in both cases it remains a struggle. To achieve co-operation of individuals internally
original this fight completely inevitable, and in the fight against natural state is not
freedom, but either power or submission. The ability of people to group more
complicate all this interweaving of power and submission, the moral, the material, the
personal, the collective, the beneficial, the bad influence, and therefore cause a
currently very different attitude in society.
It should be noted, moreover, that the government, on the one hand, and submission other
They are not necessarily the result of any kind of violence, suppression of one
the identity of another. As he outlines Pobedonostsev ["Moscow collection" [3]], in
the complex nature of man is, among other things, on a quest for the undoubted power,
which he could comply.
This is - the power of "moral gravity", "need exposure to a single soul
the other. "" The strength of this, the author notes, of course, without the prior agreement
It connects people in society. "It also" makes the environment look for other human
rights,
prirazitsya to anyone who listened, who guided "[4].
This is a very deep-observed feature of our psychology, a trait that can be
called feminine, but which is common to the whole human race. It is not at all
an expression of weakness, at least in substance, but expresses a poetic contemplation
ideal sought by us and enchanting us in their particular implementations, our calling
reverence and submission, because the ideal is impossible to hold, and he can only obey,
We as the highest top. This feature is especially vivid in women is concerned, however
whole,
a series of human virtues: humility, modesty and sincere joy at
finding the ideal, without envy what is above us, and the one net ready
Page 24

to put it higher in the sample itself and the leadership. Just as the desire for
independence can be generated not only a powerful force, but also the rough
unbridled nature, demonic vanity and the desire not to obey
is always the result of weakness, but also the best, the finest properties of our nature.
It is on a quest for power, the desire to free obedience played a huge and

high role in the development of the public.


In total - summarizing - the freedom to play a much bigger role in personal
and the development of life, rather than in public. Freedom to society is needed, in fact,
because without it there would be a high personality. Power and submission, on the
contrary, the essence of
mainly social status, they mostly expressed in human
cooperation, they have built a society.
Morally, this fact in itself is neither praise nor
condemn, for evaluation of power and subordination is quite dependent on the name of
what, in any
purposes and with what consequences applies its power to influence, and the
subordination of seeking or
expose power.
The objectives of the public authorities. Procedure.
Implementation of the truth.
So, the fact of power is absolutely inevitable, as a direct consequence
psychic nature of man. The objectives that it sets itself when the ruling may
be varied. But as soon as the manifestation of the power received public
character, its main purpose is to create and maintain "order." For some
the achievement of this objective is the same authority received the task to give the moral
order
character, make it an instrument of the "truth."
The order is the first, most urgent need nascent society.
In general, for every process any category of phenomena was needed order, ie.
e. known harmony and certainty of fulfillment of this process. If you violate this
conditions, this process is destroyed and replaced by a chaotic mix of their
elements.
In the physical world this necessary procedure is achieved unbroken domination
the so-called laws of nature, that is complicated by summing the mechanical,
chemical and t. d. forces. Since the elements included in the processes of this category
are not
yourself, do not enter into any share of freedom, harmonious order of their actions
achieved by itself, as the average result of the combining of forces.
The social phenomena the same result, order, balance and slim
have to reach a certain sequence on other grounds - psychological,
among the combinations of elements, and can work together and move apart, and join
fight, but on the basis of feelings, perceptions and desires.
The ability of the will, the will, brings to each individual action, cooperate in
social process, something completely arbitrary [The question of whether there is a
arbitrary real or apparent, has little or no value.
It is enough that these actions can not be foreseen, they are unexpected for
others], a purely private, not predusmotrimoe. If these are not consistent will of not
put in some well-known pre-frame, that is, the norms required for all the

Page 25

social life becomes impossible. For the life of every need confidence
in a correct order of phenomena, which could be conformed in their
actions and calculations. No matter how some order or even imperfect
outrageously unfair and cruel to it is still possible to adjust if
at least it is known beforehand, that certain absurdity built into the system and
there firmly. Then they can at least try to avoid, or at least not to waste
useless power to achieve that because of this firmly established
injustice or absurdity impossible. People due to extreme wealth
its internal forces can live and grow even under the most appalling conditions, if
Once these conditions are built on a clear and specific order, which all parties
It is known in advance, and because each is subject to stipulations and calculation.
But if no order, even absurd, not at all, if everything is all
suddenly, casually, without allowing any stipulations, considerations and calculations life
It becomes impossible.
Of course, the complete absence of any order of humanity has never known, because in
the first sign of such anarchy, people immediately start their own
available to them in organized groups, introducing them available to them in order. In
history, we
We know only a very relative instances of anarchy, but they become humanity
the victims of such disasters, it is ready to submit to whatever most cruel and
unjust power, if only given its dominance is common to all and to all
known order.
A specific procedure - this is the first human need for social order.
To create this order is necessary that some power capable of
coercion led to the arbitrary will of individual subordination to some
well-known and generally binding regulations.
Thus, power is needed. At the same time she was there, it escapes
fill all the nascent society. Everyone is all around you, and
He feels the power of other people and groups. So, at first, people did not
to be difficult, the task of creating a constitutional power. It is enough to take,
admit her to obey, thus creating a certain order.
In his first order of sources is more or less certain for
deeds is like a simple formulation of the actual relations between people. By
the very nature of the people they have some dominant sensations, ideas and
wishes, by virtue of which we treat other people that way, and not otherwise.
The difference between sex, age, strength, ability itself outlines some frames
actual relationship. Strong subjugates the weak, poor seeking protection from
force. Along with selfishness manifested feeling of sympathy. Finally, even in the most
serious and
Fallen tribes still not drowned out by the divine voice of conscience, prompting even
and I have a vague sense of duty. Thus, you get some of the prevailing

the actual relationship between the man, woman, family, genus and finally,
relationship to others. All of this is a simple memory is stated in the rules of custom that
used to do; protection of the custom is common practice, as well as revenge on the part of
concerned in each case, as well as pressure from the smaller authorities,
here and there, playing the role of power. Yet, this first layer order, inevitably
rising in the social fabric, can not quite meet
the need for order. Firstly, this procedure too is not systematic, not monotonous,
Page 26

not easy enough to find out. What city - the donors that the village - something
custom. In each
small center of human organization, under the influence of random local conditions
there is order too subjective, not only incomprehensible to all strangers, but even
contrary to their usual behavior. With the increasing number of men
Relations clash of different traditions becomes even a little uncomfortable,
creating a mess. Suffice it to the general line of human behavior is not reached
codify custom, necessarily unequal.
Moreover, the custom is too articulates what is, not what it should be.
Meanwhile, people have the idea of "objective" about the idea of what "should be", there
is a completely
congenital, stems from the very depths of the human spirit. It is understood by those
thoughtful
Observers, which are not Christian worldview does not recognize her in person
a spark of the divine spirit, inherent in us never zaglushimy moral ideal.
Fouillee correctly noted, "in the formation of a conscious society, we see
in action creative organizing idea. At the same time the formation of the various
members
It begins with the fact that they have an idea about the case, which may be formed; Here
assistance
determined by the desired purpose, and is not the result, recognized only after
He was a "[" Modern science of society ", p. 90]. Meanwhile, we are in the habit of it
only recognize the results after it occurred. The need for a conscious,
reasonable order continues to exist, meet its demands.
The search for these broader, more vseobnimayuschih and reasonable standards of order
and there
point of origin of the national idea.
The build social person follows independent folding private
interests, while bringing to the folding on the basis of their relationship share
rationality, but it is the essence of the relationship, adapted to the private, special
interests. The state is seeking the idea of order, adapted to all relations
taken together, that is, to the man at all. To find such a person should order
to look into the depths of his mental being, they know themselves not as
father or son, a soldier or a trapper, and as a person. The search for such a comprehensive

the order is accompanied by a quest for power, it is appropriate, ie. e. the supreme power,
capable of being above all special interests. Creative social idea man
rises here to the whole of its height.
On what stops the creative idea as a principle that can be
supreme, supreme? As Pobedonostsev expressed in the above-cited site,
subjective desire to find "someone to listen, someone to be guided", "and ogustevaya
concentrating, looking imperious indisputable impact, which would be merged,
which would have obeyed the mass, with all its diverse needs, desires
and the passions, which have found excitement to the activity and the beginning in which
there is
would, in the midst of all sorts of distortions of self-will, the measure of truth. So, the
truth is based on the idea
All power is his "[" Moscow collection ", pp. 250-251 [5]].
This definition may seem idealistic, and not comprehensive, but,
in fact, only because the author leaves unexamined the question of what is the truth about
he says. In fact, in his words expressed the observation
extremely deep.
Man undoubtedly searches for the truth, no matter how he was rude and undeveloped
morally. It has ineradicable consciousness, as if the memory of your
the origin of some of the supreme truth, from which it is distant something, but to which
Page 27

tends to return, because only in submission to her own moral power, he


He feels himself being free. It is perfectly revealed
Christian doctrine of freedom for which we are free, only becoming
servants of God. This is because, submitting to the power of truth, people are not subject
to
anything alien, and only the highest part of his own "I". Although
a conscious understanding of this psychological condition is available only Christian
but a vague sense of the fact of his own nature is peculiar to every human
essentially. Man seeking truth and looking for it to submit to it.
But what is "truth"? This problem is solved by mankind with great difficulty.
Hence the difference in the principles that a person chooses the basis of power over him.
What is the truth in the depths of our consciousness or our feelings? The truth is
neither more nor less, as something that really is, as the basic reality in
Contrary to any error, illusion, or hypothesis. True - this is the main main
strength, not one that chance, time to get some reason the dominance, and one that
substantially stronger than all, the highest, the main reality, at least temporarily and
accidentally us
Lost. That is what is true. It expresses the fundamental reality of human
life.
This is the truth-seeking people for his personal life, and for the social. it
It is, in essence, the search for more sustainable existence. The most stable

existence is, of course, is that due to the very source of life,


supreme life force.
Only in relation to this higher reality, this truth, this we know, and
justice, for it is true that in accordance with the truth. Only here we get
respect for the law, which is the formula of justice. Thus all of our legal
logically flow from the notion of how we understand the truth of what we see higher
Reality, who is willing to comply, because conscious of the need to obey only
the very highest.
What is this truth, what really, really exists, but is not
illusion?
This question allowed people not only different, but also on the basis of two kinds.
Firstly, the idea is: what is the ultimate reality of the world in general? This is very
it is important, for it is obvious that this higher power can not influence our public life.
Hence it is a powerful influence on public perceptions of metaphysical
life. In the history of mankind religious concepts have played a huge role in
policy. Is there a deity or not it? If there is, what it properties and, therefore,
What is the direction of its influence? Various solutions to these problems is of great
value to our institutions and legal concepts.
Secondly, the same question is put on the ultimate reality is different and solved more
the narrow sense, in relation to purely earthly human power, the solution testing
influenced by religious ideas, keeps the consciousness of self
values of human strength. With regard to political institutions, from ancient times to this
day
seeking the highest power is one of the three lines.
Sometimes people think that as the highest political reality exists
just the power, financial, physical, quantitative, irrespective of its rational or
moral content. No matter how ridiculous or cruel it is, but it is the power of it reality, and therefore there is no "truth" above it.
Page 28

Sometimes people notice, on the contrary, that the strength of the material, when its
quantitative
outdoor invincibility is not the most supreme, because it turns out on closer
monitoring a quality depending on the strength, which gives one the predominance
man on the whole crowd. Then the ultimate reality in the social and political
sense, begin to seem these qualitative heroic strength. Higher seek truth in them
and from them.
Sometimes, finally, people are finding that neither quantitative nor qualitative force is not
Higher up still, there is something deeper invincible them with what they are willing or
not
wishing eventually forced to conform and that, on the contrary, it goes with anything
other than
yourself, do not think: this is some moral law, the moral force

law. Then people recognize the ultimate reality that the moral law, and in solid
hope he resolved to subdue him, and quantitative and qualitative strength of its
society.
These different states of consciousness are clearly more moral power,
rather than mental, because nations have seen a wide variety of mental retardation.
These solutions also do not remain constant, but vary in one and the same nation on
several times during its historical life.
In any case, seeking the supreme, common and comprehensive power, which would
replaced by Law shaky and occasional custom solution, people are turning to it
one of these three concepts the highest political reality that can subdue
all the other political forces.
Consistent with the choice of a decision there and different principles
supreme power, the appearance of which is the emergence of the state, uniting
under his rule all the small and private associations of the social order.
Section II.
STATE AND supreme power
The state as the culmination of society and the protection of freedom.
The inevitability of statehood.
Getting to the consideration of the State and its supreme authority, we must first
just make a few reservations about the current theoretical nemalochislennyh
negations statehood. Those denying the impression of something wild and
mentally painful. But outlining all the great and beneficent value
statehood, not overly phase also be recalled that the actions of state has
its limits, passing that state ceases to be the power and ustroitelnoy
beneficent. Perhaps it is the absence of due limits of the state,
powerful, regulating life and is the kind of protest that, although
unreasonable denial is expressed in a socialist state in general.
But at least the modern state and has filed a reason to just complaints against
itself a denial of statehood in general is perfect madness.
Since people live more or less consciously, since they have
history of humanity lives on the basis of statehood. Modern socialists
Page 29

cause shadows prehistoric past, searching for it society, alien


state as a support for their dreams of the future stateless. But is it
It can serve as an ideal of the future life of the wild herds of wild prehistoric men
the past? They themselves, as soon as they began to climb some of the fall, immediately
there was, on the contrary, the ideal state, with which they have time
achieve higher levels of society and culture. This ideal arose
equally among all nations, generated, obviously, by the very nature of man.
Everywhere and always happened that depicts B. Chicherin, speaking of the period to
another
Underdevelopment of statehood in Russia.

"The position of the person - he says - was determined by private, casual, even
outside its benefits. Personality in all its randomness, freedom in all its
unbridled underlying social life and would lead to
the rule of force, inequality, civil strife and anarchy ... "This situation created
the need for higher union - the state. "Only the state can develop
reasonable freedom and moral personality; provided as themselves, without higher
the contracting authority, these two began to destroy themselves ... "
"The government - he explains - is the highest form of the hostel, the highest
manifestation
peoples in the public sphere. It undetermined nationality collected in a single
body receives a single country, it is the people. It is the supreme power
the representative of the supreme will of the public, whatever the form of
government. This
Public will subjugates private and will set so hard
order in society. "
"Fencing the weak from the strong, it gives the opportunity to develop a reasonable
freedom;
destroying all the advantages of random, it makes the equation between people;
assessing the merits rendered to the public, it elevates the inherent dignity of the person.
By forcing all citizens to pay a portion of their resources for the common good, it is
It contributes to the implementation of the various human purposes, which may be
achieved only in a dormitory with mutual assistance, and for which there is
civil union "[" Experiments on the history of Russian law ", pp. 368, 369].
The idea of the state derives from the very depths of human consciousness. For all
thousands of people of all sorts of historic tribes and their degree of development
eye estimation, inference and experience always and everywhere were reducible to a
single idea.
We it can, therefore, be regarded as a political axiom, just
in mathematics and logic axioms are nothing but the formulation of universal
the same impression.
This axiom says that people in the state is the highest instrument for the protection of
their
security, rights and freedoms.
Deniers state against the will give confirmation of this truth, t. To.,
leaving the state in their future aspirations imagine only one of two things:
simple domination of the strongest (anarchy), or the subordination of human elemental
forces (in
Social Democracy).
Indeed, the socialists, the followers of economic materialism only
therefore hoping for an opportunity to destroy coercive power, which, in their
opinion, the future
stateless
Society

will be
inserted
at
frames
Communist production, which in itself will regulate the life and
human activity.
Page 30

Mankind is invited to destroy their reasonable, deliberate power


over them, but for what? To submit a spontaneous power of the economy,
which suppress our freedom with all the ruthlessness of the forces of nature. Together
with
state, we would destroy our human instrument of a higher power over our
life, t. e. our freedom. For what is our freedom, it is not possible
yourself guide for our affairs, to do what we think is right, and not
to do what we wish to avoid, do not be blind toy of natural forces, but
to adapt them to our human needs?
On this the most gives us ways to Union State in which
people joining forces discipline them and sends them to achieve their
objectives with all the power that is able to properly organized and intelligently
the current government.
Power, of course, implies submission. But creating a power that should be
to obey, we will not sacrifice our freedom, because in doing so we instead subordination
elemental forces submit themselves, t. e. the fact that they themselves are aware of the
necessary.
So we just get out of blind obedience to the circumstances and gain
independence, the first condition of freedom.
Ideal stateless, on the contrary, instead of the subordination of people themselves Imply
to subordinate forces located outside them.
It is understandable that people will always prefer the first outcome. Moreover, as the
power of the conscious,
state always take precedence over external forces, unconscious. Triumph
state so it is always inevitable, and eventually from whatever theoretical
anarchy, we may have started and ended with the restoration of state always.
To this should be added that, for all its necessity and immutability
Principles of the State has its natural limits of application. From
necessary to a proper understanding of the content of the principle of the state, as this
it is determined by the content and limits of its application.
The content of statehood.
Despite thousands of years of observation of the various manifestations of statehood,
despite the fact that the determination to do it sometimes extraordinary minds insight
and the accuracy of the content of state reserves and still have room for a variety of

interpretations and disputes. Complex category of phenomena is always difficult to


differentiate. In all
category of phenomena we see something clearly and unquestionably distinguished
solely to her
owned; but then it is willing to exhaust a distinctive content we
involuntarily go in both directions, in the field already controversial.
The most indubitable feature state of consciousness and
creative intent, and then the presence of power and coercion. Both traits are closely
interconnected. The need to resort to coercion to resolve
any deliberate obstruction characterizes creativity, which, intending himself
known target, thereby establishes a known line of passing and, therefore,
determines that the elimination of all that this line can interfere with the goal.
These characteristics differ even Spencer, generally inattentive to manifestations
statehood.
"There are - he said - unconscious agencies (spontaneus) [quote from Russian
Page 31

translation. Translator good reason to use the word "unconscious", but spontaneus
It encompasses the notion of spontaneity, of identity, of its origin
own forces, and not the deliberate creation], without the participation of developing
thought in
the pursuit of private goals and cooperation have invented consciously
suggesting a clear consciousness of the public purposes. "The difference is due to this?
"Efforts units to produce one form of self-organization. Efforts
preservation of the whole unit generates another form of organization. In the first case
consciously pursued private purpose only, and relevant organizations,
formed from this pursuit of private goals, grows unconsciously and without
coercive power. In the second case, there is a conscious pursuit of public
purposes and the corresponding setting organizations deliberately acts
coercion. "
"The political organization - concludes Spencer - we call that part
public organization that deliberately takes the guiding and restraining
function for public purposes "[Geert Spencer." The development of political institutions "
pp. 18-21].
It is obvious, however, that with such definitions, we can not identify concepts
the state of the environment of many other unions. Coercion and consciousness are not
unique to one
State, just as it is not alien and freedom. All this does not release the state from
society.
Society, a set of smaller unions - is really a sphere
independent activity of the individual, because it is for her more methods
choose a particular submission, and to acquire personal power. Therefore, society
is preeminently an area in which the developing human capacity for freedom. Yet

it does not eliminate the presence of the element in a society of power and coercion. All
small
unions, society, family, community, class, party, mugs just soaked
power, subordination and coercion. On the other hand, the state itself is,
certain respects ultimate triumph of human freedom and the main means of
to ensure the identity of its freedom in society. That capacity for freedom, which
raised primarily in the medium of society, an opportunity to come to
actual freedom mainly due to the state.
To understand the maintenance of the state, in essence, to be taken into
note that this represents the collective called the state, and what it
different from other collective. I put the term "collectivity" only
clarity. The exact meaning of the concept should be put here, the term "alliance" brand
As used fairly lawyers statists. For in the same
national collective has many linking its unions, and the state is
there is not a special collectivity, but only a particular form of union.
What do they say about her political thinkers?
"If we do, - says Bluntschli, - reduced to a single whole the results presented
historical analysis, the notion of the state is determined as follows:
the state is an aggregate of people united in a moral and a legal personality,
in a certain area, in the form of government and citizens "[Bluntschli." General
state law ", p. 35].
In this definition,
famous
scientist feel too obvious
incompleteness. In fact, the Jesuits have the State? Judaism,
Page 32

complete the creation of the Alliance Israelite [6], will be whether the world state? By
Bluntschli, we would have had to admit it. Clause "specific territory" nothing
He explains. Firstly, for the Jesuits and the Jews "globe" is quite
a defined territory. Secondly, very often not all the inhabitants of the territory
It was part of the state. So in Rome, enormous masses of slaves were not included in
State Union.
Our B. Chicherin gives the best evidence of the transfer of state ["course
State of Science ", vol. 1, pp. 4-7]. They are:
1. The state is a union,
2. The Union of an entire people,
3. It certainly has a territory,
4. It has a single law,
5. It nation becomes a legal entity,
6. It is controlled by the supreme authority,
7. Its purpose - the common good.
Briefly summarizing, professor Chicherin stops on the formula: "The State

is an organization of people's lives, saved and updated in


continuous change of generations. "
The last formula with the benefit could be replaced by a simple expression
"The State is an organization of national life." However, one can never say that
and the definition of professor Chicherin not satisfy us in the quest to understand the
essence
State Union.
The fact that these external signs hiding something of a
a deep inner meaning.
It must pay attention to the fact that the state union does not come easy
people, individual, isolated, having no other interests than the government. In
people can not be isolated public interest, such people state
it is not necessary and would constitute for them a useless yoke. National interest can
appear only in people who have previously been joined in a more elementary
social groups and is receiving some interests that require coordination and
care, as well as with the need to ensure the identity of the operation by the same
Group forces. For such people - for members of social groups - the state
it becomes really necessary, and even necessary, since when intertwined
the interests of these groups do not allow them to disconnect; but at the same time
creating them
mutual struggle and exploitation. Here it becomes necessary to unification and higher
conciliatory principle with him for the respective tasks of the government.
Following a social foundation for the state and the nation is, t. E. The people or
collection of tribes, rather than a combined material and moral: here
already have meaning and territory, geographical conditions, working conditions,
language, beliefs,
historical conditions, and so on.. In this set of groups of family, labor, communities,
corporations, class layers, more or less established in a single society, "Earth"
can only be a need in the state, ie. e. High union built not
private or group interests, and on the general interest, ie. e. all of them equally
covering and providing all federal exist.
Hence the need to link the state with the "nation", "all the people", t. E. A
a set of private groups.
Page 33

Hence the link with the territory, for the people, the nation, living in the territory. People
must
to extract a livelihood from the land - in the form of hunting, fishing, agriculture and
industry based on the processing of these products extractive work. Order
Jesuits, or the Jewish tribe, or filibusters, etc., no matter how strong their
the corporation is not embody the idea of the state. They need your organization
interest and not common. No special group generally does not carry
statehood, but only all of them together, in a variety of complex, create an idea

state.
Thus, the idea of the state union, in fact, a requirement
universal, global existence, not in quantitative and qualitative
sense. United Jewry would have dominion over the entire globe, not a name
yet the nature of the state. Rome began with a few dozen square miles since
the nature of the state and has grown to a whole orbis terrarum romanus [7], remaining in
principle
existence in the same Rome, in the same state.
So, in the state we are implementing the conditions of existence are not corporate, not
birth without any other, closed in their own private or group purposes but
universal conditions of existence.
This state is unthinkable without the supreme authority, for it is not something
abstract, but a real union, which requires the actual power that the idea and objectives of
its
I would stand above all others.
These are the natural conditions of the state union. Of course, the presence of
single supreme authority provides the presence of a single principle of control, and
in part, therefore, the unity of the law, but this is of secondary importance; the principle
of unity
maybe even when different conditions are not right to demand the same law. As for
ethnicity, territory and so on., all this does not make the contents public
ideas, but only gives the conditions of its origin.
In total, keeping only what is essential for the state, we can
define the state as a union of members of social groups, based on
universal principles of justice under its respective sovereign power.
According to this we have the analysis of the state itself are two necessary
element:
1. The Union men stratified by social group;
2. sovereignty.
Both of these elements are closely related. The correct analysis is exactly the statehood
analysis of the relationship of these two elements; Art is politics is the art of preservation
between these elements must be, that is the natural nature of their relationship.
The structure of the state.
Components of its elements.
However, this analysis may be correct only if we consider the
elements of the state structure primarily in the state and the ratio in which
They are interconnected by themselves, by their very nature. Unfortunately, lawyers,
with the task of not only the theoretical study of the social and public
phenomena, but mainly the art of the best control is usually addicted
this latter aspect of the matter and left without proper attention to the laws of the
phenomena themselves. AT
Page 34

this respect the state law should still much to learn from the natural sciences.
Medic also has the task of the art treatment, but the exact method of the natural sciences
ever
would not let him in the care of the treatment to forget the actual structure of the body. In
contrast,
just remembering it, he is looking for the ability to heal. In public law, unfortunately,
the subjective element of personal tastes and desires dominates objective
observation of phenomena. Hence it is generated by a number of important
errors. Particularly affected by
mixing elements of the actual structure of the state doctrine of the forms of the Supreme
the power to which we are to go.
If we try to be on the ground of the facts, we can see above the main
elements of the state (union of citizens and the supreme power) in a constant
environment without changing in any states.
It is necessary to distinguish between the four elements, although closely related, but
having
a separate existence among themselves, can even face, for their harmony
It is only a tendency of social facts and the purpose of political art, but easy
may fail the one-sided development of a single element, the errors
rulers. These elements are the following:
1. The nation, which is the whole mass of individuals and groups, of which the joint
cohabitation
It generates the idea of supreme power over them the same rule. State
It helps national unity and in this sense contributes to the creation of the nation, but
It should be noted that the State does not replace or abolish the nation themselves. All
History is full of examples of what the nation is experiencing a complete collapse of the
state and through
Century again able to create it; just as the nation's changing all the time and
convert its state system. In general, the nation is the basis, the weakness of which
weak and the state; State weakens the nation thus proves its
insolvency.
2. The supreme power, which is the concrete expression of the principle, accepted
nation for unifying principle.
3. The State, as the totality of the Supreme power and subjugate her subjects,
members of the nation. The nation, however, lives in a state of some of his
existence, and each individual member of the nation is only partly a member of the State
not
from losing their connection with this nation.
4. The government, which is the organization of the control system. It is organized
Supreme power, but is not itself the Supreme authority, and it is only a tool.
Question theoretically important and practically the most confused - this is
Questions: 1) the relation of the nation and the supreme power, on the one hand, and 2)
the relation of

Supreme power and government.


Thus, when determining the nature of the Supreme Sovereign power value is constant
attributed to the state itself, even to the government. The government, they say,
It generates a phenomenon the government and citizens.
"Even in the most complete democracy, - says Bluntschli, - where the opposite,
apparently disappears, it really does exist. People community
Athenian citizens had the government, and some Athenians towards her
subjects. Where there is clothed with the authority of government where citizens denied
political obedience, at what everyone does what he wants, in short, where anarchy there
terminated state "(" The total public law ").
What's right? The fact that a rule and a nationality. But who
Page 35

who belongs to the first and second? In this respect, the analysis of Rousseau [Contrat
Sociale [8], Vol.
VI] it was much more accurate than analysis Bluntschli. Citizenship refers to itself
supreme power. There is a significant difference between Souverain (Sovereignty) and
Gouvernement (Government). People community of Athens was just Souverain, and only
because individuals were subjects of it.
In general, members of the State Union are citizens only in regard to the Supreme
power against the government they are citizens, for their rights and have their
obligations, just as the government has its own rights and duties. In both
cases, the rights and obligations determined by the supreme power, and the government has not
more as a tool of governance, itself no independent authority and has no
enjoy only those powers which granted him the supreme power.
So you can not in any way confused with the power of the Supreme Government,
and it should not even notice that the idea of control inherent in one form or another
Supreme authority shall be only with great caution determinable cash in on
for the moment the control system. For the control system caused not one
the internal logic of this form of supreme power (for example, the monarchy or
democracy), but also the circumstances of a more or less strangers to her, and even
contrary to s.
The relationship between the government and the supreme power belongs to the general
curious policy. The supreme power is a manifestation of the principle ideas.
The government is the creation of practical conditions, the conditions of time and
place. In principle, and
Ideally supreme authority of the government organizes its own idea, t. e.
in relation to the content of his ideas. But if this idea is not so clear to
allow an organization in a sufficiently pure form, or if the practical conditions
incompatible with the organization of the government on the basis of this principle, the
organization
the government can appear forces and principles, even outright hostility of the

form of sovereignty. In this position has, for example, in French democracy


the end of the XVIII century. In such a situation there are now many monarchy. To
all such cases, the government organized by the supreme power, may become even
an instrument of revolution, the overthrow of the power of the Supreme, for, in the spirit
any other form of government, the government gets its most powerful
promoter in the minds of the nation and is gradually replacing, for example, the
monarchy democrats.
But even apart from such drastic cases, and as a general phenomenon, and Sovereignty
Government agencies have always separate existence, and their interests and
aspirations do not always coincide, and can come in complete contradiction.
The Government is the organ of supreme power, and the case is political art
that this body to function in complete harmony with the supreme power. But the general
social law of phenomena is that every organization, once formed,
It tends to grow as much as possible, to become more independent as possible and as
opportunity to dominate others. At the same time every such organization receives
the desire to develop further and all logical from its own content on the
its own principle. This is a general law of all living. It is equally
effect and in government offices, and the stronger, the better they are placed.
Do not reject in principle, its subordination to the Supreme power, these institutions
naturally tend to be actually possible from her independent and act
yourself. At any weakening of the political art of the Supreme
Page 36

power, this trend of government institutions to develop the most harmful


sizes. Therefore, in the history of the struggle and the magistrates of the Supreme
government it takes a very prominent
place. Rome's history is filled with it, as in the days of kings and of the overthrow of
their
the days of the republic. The most complete example of the conquest of supreme power
magistracy represented Japan last centuries (before the coup, nizvergshego
Sogunov [9]). Mikado [10], in principle, the autocratic, deified in appearance, it was
actually turned into a prison sharpener in his palace and, of course, and from ottert
government, and the people with the system of magistracy Sogunom headed. In less
striking
the size of the same phenomenon is seen in the history of many monarchies. In the
history of democracies it
even stronger. Thus, in modern France - as it does in parliamentary countries - the people
on the principle of autocratic removed from any influence on the case, and it is almost
There is in them (except for the minutes of the revolutionary outbreaks). In the North
American
country this phenomenon is sometimes even more markedly, especially in the eastern
states.
If government agencies have their own special power from the Supreme

existence, it makes him and the nation. Relationship supreme power to the nation as a
result of
this also requires constant political art, with the weakening of whose can
subverted. And it is all the more important because it is the right attitude to
The supreme power of the nation draws strength for a permanent holding in their hands
Magistrates.
The Management authority has always striving to bring the supreme power in
passive state, retaining only the active role for itself. Her idea is
Souverain regne, mais ne gouveme pas [11]. On the other hand the nation, the people, is
always striving
support the direct effect of the power of the Supreme, for only manifestations of the
supreme power
protect the people, the nation of the gradual enslavement of governmental authorities.
Therefore the supreme power can always rely on the people in the fight against any
Magistrate - whether aristocratic or politicized or bureaucratic
character. Cut off from the people, the supreme power - on the contrary, always runs the
risk of
the fate of former Japanese Mikado.
To outline the structure of the national public body shall be clearly
comprehensibility for the possibility of political art. Current state law
extremely suffers constant mixing elements play a role in
state functions.
These elements, as stated, the following:
1. The nation remains alive and in case of the state, and the generator system
social, with a disorder that is crumbling and the state. Its individual members are
citizens against the power of the Supreme, but the citizens against the state and
Government;
2. The supreme power, which in conjunction with the subjects forms:
a) the State;
b) the government, subordinate to the Supreme power and she organized for the purpose
of
government.
Section III.
SUPREME AUTHORITY
Page 37

Power supreme and the Management.


The main difference between the supreme power and government is accompanied
completely different structure of both.
The supreme power is always based on any one principle, one,
concentrated and indivisible.
Power government, by contrast, always more or less is a combination of
different principles and is based on specialization - giving rise to the so-called separation

authorities.
Current state law, or rather a constitutional right, forgetting
the difference between the supreme power and the Management are constantly credited
with the first that
It takes place only in the second. In this way, in the XIX century. approval of two
scientific false and
practically harmful doctrine of "co supreme power" and "separation of powers"
issued and the very sovereignty. These teachings must be false
remove before we proceed with our consideration, because when you save as
harmful confusion of concepts no clear idea about the real life
public events impossible.
This constitutional doctrine - the establishment is not an objective scientific thought and
requirements
purely practical, need to somehow understand the political structure
revolutionary era XVIII and XIX centuries, - beyond that experienced heavy pressure
side street disjointed thoughts are connected with the pressure of ill-conceived theory
"progress." Under such influences matted lawyers was teaching that, if
the modern era in politics creates something unprecedented, a new, "modern state".
Under the pressure of the popular, street demands "freedom" under which the mass itself
well she knows that to realize such a large mind as Bluntschli, trying to remake
classification of states to clean up their place in the "freedom" as a "control"
the subjects of the government, understood in the sense of supreme power. This idea
essentially negates all that Bluntschli himself speaks of being the supreme power. In the
For if control subjects can make supreme power to change your way of
Action, what is the meaning of it? If the citizens as a result of control can cause
Supreme authority to act differently, it means that it is subject to supreme
power. Therefore,
last resort make subjects rather than power. Hence, the present Supreme
power up subjects.
This logical absurdity Bluntschli doctrine accepts only because he did not see
reality "of the modern state." In fact, it is not anything
essentially new, but only the appearance of democracy as the supreme authority. Only
why is the requirement of "control" on the part of the alleged "subjects." In
actually they are in Europe, not subjects, and the supreme power; However,
"government"
Bluntschli is the old memory continues to be considered a "supreme authority", for a
long time
it ceased to be, and was only a "delegated authority", the People's Commissar,
fulfilling the dictates of the supreme power of the people. This is what is really so
called "modern state". As for the actual control subjects
over supreme power, then this is not possible and now, as never was. Separate
citizen "modern" state just can not "control"
autocratic people's will, as a citizen of the monarchy can not do it in

against his sovereign.


Page 38

Not noticing the absurd, introduced them to science, Bluntschli draws "modern" state
So:
"Although in the period from the end of the Middle Ages to the XVIII century in the face
of absolute royal
power resumed, it seemed the absolutism of Roman emperors, but people soon
again recalled its natural (?) freedom. It begins the struggle for political
freedom against absolutism government. The government is again popular, but
nobler forms than in the past. Medieval social class device
is the threshold of a new representative government in which the people is
themselves in the face of the best (?) and noble (?) of its members. "define a new
"constitutional" monarchy, he says: "Constitutional monarchy in some way
It encompasses all other forms of government. However, representing the highest
diversity, it does not sacrifice (?) for him harmony and unity. It provides
aristocracy free field for the manifestation of its force and its spiritual faculties; on
democratic trend of people's life, it does not impose fetters, and leaves behind him
free development. She even admits ideokraticheskogo element in the form of veneration
of the law "
[Bluntschli, as you know, tried to establish in the science of the fourth form of the
Supreme power
"ideocracy"].
This is a fantastic idea completely entered the quasi-scientific use, and
textbooks state law students preach such "truth":
"In the state of the old order, which can serve as a type of the French monarchy
XVII century, all the fullness of the supreme power concentrated in one person, and this
power
therefore (?!) it was a personal and nadzakonnoy. The modern state such authority does
not know
and distributes the basic functions of state power among several bodies of
which is why none of them has unlimited power and each finds its
limit in the constitution of other organs. "" In the present state of each function
State power has its own, its nature of the relevant authority, and each of these
bodies has its own, guaranteed by law competence. "For
the establishment of the unity of action of scattered power of the temple of "the basic
principle
constitutional (it is "modern") of the State stipulates that new right is created
the unilateral will of the ruler, and can take place only in the form of a law. "
This "modern" state is regarded as universal:
"If the people before the political system took shape only from the elements,
Yields on his native soil, in modern times, this system is often artificially

is imposed on the model of the constitutions of other nations and immediately gives the
people what others
formidable battered by centuries of historical life. Constitutional institutions
It was composed on English soil intact for centuries. But since they have mastered the
science (not
conversely whether they have mastered the science?), and they have generated a political
theory that
preached outstanding minds of Britain, France and Germany, and State
operation of the latter country was collapsing under the pressure of new needs, new ideas
and new
views, if they were the samples which have been transformed into a relatively
a short time the majority of European states. "Otherwise, if the past
now the "political doctrine is an independent force, subordinating his
dominion of civilized peoples, leveling political life and applies to
They uniform network of institutions "[Alekseev." Russian State law "
Moscow, 1895, pp. 9-10].
It is impossible not to wonder valid current opinion when you see what determination
Page 39

They even suggest such a thin analysts as BNTchitcherin.


"The limited monarchy - and repeats it in the general chorus - is a combination of
monarchical principle with the aristocratic and democratic. In this political
expressed in the form of full development of all elements of the state and their
harmonious
combination. The monarchy is the beginning of the government, the people and its
representatives start
freedom, aristocratic collection of permanence of the law. "" The idea of the state (as if)
here reaches higher development "[B. Chicherin." The course of the State of Science ",
Vol. 1].
It would be hard to believe that these are the words of the same scientist who in the same
work
He writes about "pure monarchy":
"Of all the political forms, the one that is in its entirety unity
the state will, together with the state and the unity of the Union. "" Pure
monarchy - he says - and is the highest moral order. There Supreme
power independent of people's will; so there dominates the beginning of charge or
subordination of higher order. "In other words, it would be concluded that the net
Monarchy is the purest expression of all state idea. But BN
Tchitcherin immediately says: "As for the principles of liberty, it is in this state
the form is shown only (?) in the subordinate (??) areas ". Note tricky! This
unfortunate "freedom" and it confuses the modern statists.
Be that as it may, if modern scientists thought more about the objective problems
science, t. e. primarily about knowledge of facts and events, and not applied to "progress"

"leveling" and so on. n., they never would have been 2,000 years to build in the last word
Registered Polybius ancient science of "combined" supreme power. However, and
Polybius, in
Essentially, it does not make such drastic mistakes, as it is now.
More than 2,000 years ago (about 200 years BC X.) he developed his theory of
polippeskih forms. Recognizing followed Aristotle in three basic forms (monarchy,
aristocracy and democracy), he was represented by a succession of them.
The society is not yet well-developed, or came to the disorder, the power is
the inheritance of power. But in the midst of the conflict between people inevitably
produced the concept of
honest, dishonest, fair, unfair. The heads and elders try
Therefore, control of justice rather than by force. Polybius, himself a native of
Greco-Persian world, could not know the living examples of this kind in the history of
the rise
Deioces. Such a popular his face justice, he said, create a monarchy. It
held, still retains his moral character. Losing it, it degenerates into
tyranny. Then, is the need to overthrow a tyrant, and that brings out the best,
influential people. An era of aristocracy. End aristocracy is
when it degenerates into oligarchy, which is to protest against the power
the people - democracy. Its degeneration, in turn, creates an unbearable mob rule,
domination of the crowd, which again leads society into chaos. Then salvation is again
the restoration of autocracy.
So I imagine Polybius circular evolution of political change forms.
From this he deduced his theory of complex forms of power. Since they all have their
shortcomings, the wisest legislators, he said, thought to ward off a necessary evil
a combination of three basic forms to correct deficiencies one other virtues.
How about this example of Polybius points to the constitution of Lycurgus in
Sparta. Even more
successful combination he believes the device Rome, where the consuls were in his
According element monarchy, the Senate - the aristocratic, and the People's Assembly
and
Page 40

tribunate - democratic.
Thus Polybius outlines the constitution of the Roman Republic, not
delimiting it the supreme power and authority of the Management. The Management
Device
power in Rome and it was really very wise. But the supreme power in Rome,
the overthrow of kings, was still a democracy, in a country which had excellent
aristocracy, although incapable to grow to a value of supreme power, but the game
a huge role in the Management of power. All the "combination" only occurred in
this latter area.

The very same Supreme power is nowhere more complex: it is always simple and based
on
one of the three eternal principles: monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy.
Conversely, in the management never operates any one of these principles, but
always seen the simultaneous presence of all of them, one way or another organized
Supreme power.
"The modern state" is not in this respect, nothing new
exclusive, but only reproduces the eternal law of the political structure of society.
Erroneous concepts in this regard are generated only forgetting that the organization
supreme power and organization management is not the same thing, and the very nature
of
society composed differently.
To see the error of the point of view of constitutional law, it is sufficient
remember common attributes of supreme power.
On the beautiful wording of Chicherin ["course Gosud. Science", h. 1, p. 60 and
seq.] supreme power is one, constant, continuous, Derzhavna, sacred, inviolable,
irresponsible, everywhere inherent it is the source of all state authority.
"The totality of its rights have sovereignty (Machtvolkommenheit) as the
internal and external. Legally, it is not limited. She does not obey
nobody's court, because if there was a supreme judge, he would have belonged to the
supreme power.
She - the supreme judge of all the rights ... In short, it is the power to complete the legal
field and
Absolutely. This fullness of power is sometimes called the absolutism of the state as
opposed to the
absolutism of the prince. The autocratic rule because the monarch is unlimited
power, he is the only representative of the state as a whole Union. But at any rate
another form of government supreme power in the same way ... It's unlimited sovereignty
inseparable from the very essence of the state. "
Objecting to the opinion of the possibility of limiting it, rightly Tchitcherin
replies:
"Any restrictions it can only be moral, but not legal. Being
legally infinite, supreme power finds its own limit in
moral consciousness and conscience of citizens. "
More accurate to say that it is limited to the contents of ideokraticheskogo
element that expresses and expression is recognized as the Supreme. Coming out of these
limits, usurping it becomes illegal. Remaining the same therein by anything except
the content of their own ideas, not limited.
The doctrine of the alleged possible limitation of the power of the Supreme is as notices
Chicherin, "from the French Revolution." But it requires serious reservations.
This doctrine, deprived the state of philosophical thought, was actually in
by "liberal" compromise between the revolutionary idea and practical

common sense. It was not the creation of the mind, and the fear of their own idea of the
"new
Page 41

failure "of the desire to associate anything reckless" will "new" autocrat "
mob rule. But pure revolutionary idea, as fantastic essentially not
I suffered from this illogical "liberalism."
Valid philosopher anticipated the new system, Jean Jacques Rousseau, who is not afraid
its ideals, and therefore preserving the freedom of his mind, it is attached to
statists logical definitions (but not liberal constitutionalists).
"For the same reason that Souverainete (Sovereignty) inalienable says
He - she is indivisible (indivisible, that is united). "The law, he says, is the will of the
Souverain. Our politicians, quips he has originated at
constitutionalists anglomanskoy Montesquieu school without being able to share
Supreme power in principle, divide it into forms and made from Souverain
fantastic creature in that way, as if to make a man of several bodies, from
which has only one eye, the other only the hands, the third leg, and nothing
more. Rousseau
only mocks these "Japanese magicians", but explicitly states that they
shifts occur from a lack of accuracy of observation and reasoning) [ContratSociale,
Vol. II]. Only the government (that is, as mentioned above, in the control system)
Rousseau
permits, and even then with reservations, "mixed" form of government, it is in their
mutual forms
limitations.
It is clear, however, that such restrictions only provide more Autocracy
Supreme power itself, as to prevent the possibility of any usurpation
subordinates government forces.
Thus Rousseau does constitutionalists his time quite the same
reproach that has to make a modern statists, infected the same
illogicality.
When it comes to talk at all, they clearly understand the meaning of sovereignty.
But because of the need to justify theoretically "modern" liberal state they
made absolutely fantastic notion of a "complex subject" supreme power.
"The unity of the Supreme authority - the theory goes - not at all disturbed by the fact
that
it supports are several organs, as we see in a constitutional monarchy.
The supreme power in a constitutional monarchy, where there are several agencies, as
one, as in the absolute. "Why? Because, explains the theory that these few
Only bodies together constitute the supreme authority. "Act as spokesman
single state will, can not make differently, as the combined effect of
King and the Parliament "[Alekseev, p. 130].
Here it is obvious, however, a huge misunderstanding. "Subject" Supreme power

can certainly be a collective, but only if it is still


any one principle. There is a common will, all managed imagine
"combine" multiple wills, expressing the opposite principles. But it
it is clear that such a "mix" the pros and cons in the interior creates a "unified state
Will "the eternal struggle, excludes any possibility of the desired unity.
Misunderstanding by which people do not notice such an obvious truth,
It is the lack of attention to the essential difference between the supreme power and
created its government, and between Souverain Gouvemement, the difference is so
firmly
Rousseau sets. This forgetfulness to those countries that the very same constitutional
theory
I created the concept of a king who "regne mais ne gouveme pas" [12].
In reality, the political forces do not have such supreme power, which would only
Page 42

"reigned", not "manage". This is possible only in exceptional moments, on the eve of
the fall of the supreme power, which is already in effect ceased to be it, but still
officially abolished. Supreme power is always actual controls. At the
However, there is no supreme power, which would have called for the management, it
created,
other subordinate social forces. Supreme power, the power of "The Kingdom",
Souverain,
so to speak, managed by the management, and the whole question of good political
system is
is to control the forces of royal government was not a sham.
Political thinkers of our time knows the facts, which are capable of
to highlight the relationship between the supreme power and control. For example, they
point out that "
there is no real life example to the state as a whole consisted only of
monarchical, aristocratic and democratic elements, "In reality,
political structures of the body are "mixed style". This "mix of styles
because the monarchy, aristocracy and democracy are based on the properties,
an integral accessory each hostel. "Therefore," in
States is not complete uniformity of the elements, but only the predominance of one over
the other "[NA Zverev," The grounds of classification, "Roscher and analysis exercises
others]. It is absolutely true observation. But it is true only as long as
assigns Supreme authorities of what constitutes membership of a society, and
State changes from society to the extent that this principle requires that gets
In this state the function of the supreme power.
The case, in fact, is the following. In human society, there are a few
elements of power, influence on others. All the vitality of management depends on the
ability
use the intercom, which is a thousand points between coexists

State and regional, class, class, clan, and so on. d. unions


create public life. Here there are many centers of influence,
based on the different ways to have power, but because in the manifold manifestations
constantly live all the principles of power. They do not disappear nowhere and, if not
disappear
various kinds of organization occurring based on them, and for all social life
kind are needed. But when there is a state - this means that there is an idea
some supreme power, not to destroy private forces, but to regulate them,
reconciliation and general agreement. Without such a dominion of power at the private
power
the opposite of the idea is doomed to struggle. The meaning of the Supreme power is
general mandatory conciliation.
Easy principle of sovereignty.
That is why the supreme power of the idea of his can be based only on
any one simple principle. On what exactly? The political genius of different
peoples and at different times of their existence is not the same it solves. He sometimes
chooses
the basis of democratic, aristocratic or monarchical times, but always
any one. Otherwise, can not be and is not. For the combination of several bases of power
It would deprive the Supreme unity of ideas, t. e. would violate the very purpose of the
institution
state.
No matter how we combine different powers to achieve them according to the action,
Page 43

We can not prevent their collision. This clash is even necessary, for
live the principles of trust, and believe in his innocence, and therefore must
every possible endeavor to greater domination over society. The destruction of such
aspirations would mean the disappearance of them manpower. Therefore, the collision of
and the fight
inevitable and desirable. But society must be an institution which did not allow to
such an impact to civil wars, did not allow a useful degree of struggle to move in
the degree of danger or even fatal to society. That facility is
the state and its sovereignty.
If Sovereignty was a combination of different bases of power, their struggle
inevitably there would in itself. Who would have appeared to her mediator? Free
Agreement? But the state only, and is based on the grounds and in the case where there is
no
free agreement.
In all cases, when the free agreement is possible, the state is not necessary.
When an agreement can not be free, supreme power of the state can
act as a judge, only to become the highest point of view, his own,
whole, free from the danger of internal contradictions.

If the state supreme power consisted of several elements,


society could never be sure that it has the supreme power.
Such power would have been only in those moments when it came to the constituent
elements
agreement, and would disappear every time they come into conflict. But where, then,
"permanence", "continuity" of the Supreme government action? When "combines" power
predominance alternately would receive one or the other principle, and the society would
be deprived
harmony and certainty of control. But then there is no benefit from the state, but
No and of the state itself. It's like a permanent institution at the same time disappear, and
society
itself does not know what minute it has a state, which is not.
Therefore supreme power is always based on the same principle, the above
all the others. It is not the logic of demand, but also a historic fact. The Verkhovna
authorities have always rules in any one principle. Others, although stored in
State acting as a force control, but are subordinate without
the actual value of the power of the Supreme, has the last word solutions. Only
superficial analysis generates opinion on the existence of supposedly "difficult"
Supreme power. Its not.
The "modern" constitutional states just no match,
challenging the supreme power, but only complicated the Management
authority. Constitutional
"monarchs" and the upper and lower chambers on the merits of modern ideas up power
only delegated; Actually, the supreme power is the people, the numerical
majority. In recent history, constitutional countries, we always see, as in the case
clashes between the authorities delegated decisive element is the mass
nation, peuple Souverain [13], sometimes via surveys sometimes through
revolutions or through "peaceful demonstrations" that are important in politics
the threat of revolution.
That
what
modern
Representatives
State
rights
consider
"constitutional" monarchy, though combining various elements in one
Supreme power is, therefore, not really other than the not yet fully
organized by the Democracy. She had already won in the minds of people, it has become
in fact, the supreme authority, but has not yet thrown out of their delegated
Page 44

Authorities remnants of the monarchy and aristocracy, has not yet replaced these
fragments of the former
one device Chamber of People's Representatives. In the advanced radical program
in general, and therefore require a single chamber.
But even if experience and practice have shown that it is more convenient to divide its
people
"control" into several independent institutions in view of a president and two or
even more chambers, it does not change the state of affairs. Supreme power
modern countries is in any case it is a democracy, and we are currently,
like all other moments in history, we see that in fact the supreme authority
and is one simple principle, and not a combination of several, and not some
out of them difficult.
The combination of the complication and occurs as usual, only in the control system,
will lead the leadership of the Supreme power in the possible practical
implementation. As expressed by Professor R.-Slavatinsky: "Each
state, whatever its form of government, there is a certain system of power and
institutions historically term and having a kind of organization. Oddly
vary between these authorities and institutions, they are composed of the supreme power
of the
authorities subordinate to it, and of participating in the government of the people, in a
large
or less established in the country determines the form of government "
["Russian system of state law."]
This formula correctly draws the actual structure of the state, which does not
destroys society, and a supremely organize it, and therefore allows for their
the supreme leadership of the effect of all his natural forces, which introduces them to the
system
management. The government does, even if necessary, for introducing the other elements
authorities in their control of it thus submits its supervision and
leadership, and leaves them lurking in the society as the extra-legal forces and rebel.
Giving them in various sectors of control place most of their inherent nature,
the supreme power, it is up to the perfect organization of management. But should not
remember that all of this specialization is not in itself the supreme power, but only in
created its government. In them, and only them, separation occurs and
a combination that is so confusing current state law. All these
separation and combinations are possible, and only because of the harmonic, without
immersion
society as anarchy, which always stands over them as a living and active force
any one, simple and indivisible principle, as the supreme authority.
Unity of supreme power and the separation of powers of the Management.
Just as the supreme power is one of his principle and can not be
a combination of different principles, the same way she did not share in its
manifestations.

The manifestation of state power can be threefold [constituent power,


some stand out too much, obviously, is a manifestation of legislative]
1. Legislative,
2. The court,
3. Executive.
It is obvious that these manifestations of power express the work of the same
Page 45

force. If we imagined a state in which there are three independent


power, of which one decides the laws, but is powerless to compel the court and
administration
adhere to them, and the other judges as she pleases, but is powerless to reflect on their
experience
legislation and also powerless to compel the administration to enforce its
regulations, we would get a picture of the madhouse. It is clear, therefore, that
legislative, judicial and executive powers are meaningful only as a manifestation
the same power that the law establishes some general norm, and
court administration and apply it to particular cases and executes.
It is the mind, the conscience and the will of one and the same soul of the state, which is
the soul
the supreme power.
Despite the logical and factual evidence of this provision, it
denied general public law.
"As a representative of the state - said prof. BNTchitcherin [" The course of the state
science ", Part I, pp. 75- 76], - the subject of supreme power has absolute power. But
belonging to the ideal subject of sovereignty can be shared between
various real actors. "
"This distribution is based on the fact that the fullness of power encompasses
multiple rights that can be assigned to individual organs. Supreme power
divided into sectors, each of which contains a certain amount or a system
right "(p. 75)." The separation can be found in most Supreme power, but more often
it occurs in the subordinate bodies "(p. 78).
All this - quite wrongly. Never in the history of this division in the Supreme
authorities did not occur.
It happens - and very often that the supreme power is in slumber, inactive, and
therefore subordinate organs become autocratic. But at every moment of his
consciousness
and actions of supreme power - the monarch or the people - always and everywhere
conscious of the complete
entitled to all manifestations of power.
For them - it is a power, it are manifestations of the same power. Severally
expression does not even have real power, and does not have any sense, and in order to
and get a sense of power, must unite in any one region. Where

"independence" separation of powers, which take place at the Supreme drowsing


power, each of these specialized authorities and can therefore only
samovlastvovat that usurps itself partly not belong to her right.
Thus, the court assumes the role of a little bit and legislator (via arbitrary
"interpreting" laws), as well as the executive branch (as it happens in America, it was
in Poland and was not even in the Roman Senate). Likewise, the executive usurps
functions of legislative and judicial, examples of which even result in unnecessarily.
The usurpation of the judicial and executive legislative assemblies is
even modern French parliament.
In short, when dormant or lulled supreme power actually
combines these three manifestations of power, it begins the actual usurper
combining them all separate authorities, which proves indirectly that separated
the authorities could not even exist if it were not connected anywhere together.
BNTchitcherin, however, says that they are connected in a perfect subject, and
are separated in real bodies. But this is impossible. Really can not
keep distraction. Not one authority should be real, but also the subject of
Page 46

Supreme power. The ideal subject - matter theory. A practice knows no


ideal subjects, and only he knows the real. Such real subject of supreme power monarch, aristocracy or the people - encompasses all the rights and undivided fullness
authorities to share the fullness of this on individual manifestations is possible only in the
organs,
which may be subject to it, only if he is as real as
They instead of some abstract shadow.
The doctrine of the separation of lawyers "in the most supreme authority" have mistaken
the formulation of observations of the state of pathology. In fact, this only occurs
as a manifestation of the struggle against the Management Authorities of the
Supreme. Of course, the Management
government is very pleased to be "real", t. e. does exist, and the Supreme
convince the authorities to be "ideal" is not really manifested. But this is only
means to lull the supreme authority, and not the change in the nature of political
forces. AND
every minute that supreme power is awakened - she feels having
while all three manifestations of his being. Sometimes it may not be.
On the contrary, in the grips of the Management division of competence quite inevitable.
That being the authorities, these specialized power. Supreme power is not available
specialization: she would have lost it through their strength, their meaning and existence,
because
its effect is essentially a guide. On the contrary, the authorities are the Management
thinner, more perfect than the more specialized, and not on this special
no damage occurs precisely because of the specialized divided
the Management of power towers Coordinates and directs a single, indivisible

Supreme power.
The reason for the need for the Management Authorities.
The law of marginal activities and division of labor.
Action Direct and gear.
Theoretically, it may be the question why, when the existence of the Supreme
the authorities need more power the Management? Why not absorbed reckoned the last
entirely? In practice, however, it is clear that no single will, individually or
collective, can not have the property of omnipresence, and therefore you must needs
vosposoblyayuschih her organs.
Moreover, and at the idea of his state arises only when the society and
well-developed social system, ie. e., so, in a social environment that has
numerous manifestations of power and subordination that require their
harmonization by exposing some general ideas (the supreme authority). Without
This might not occur, there would not even need the state. Thus, power,
Get the value of the sovereign, in the company of the many ready-made
power factor, that it will not destroy, but rather harmonically combine
it led to the state of co-existence. Conversion
different social power to their offspring upravitelpye authorities is one of the tasks
the supreme power. This process occurs naturally, at the force of things.
But even in the abstract, theoretical sense of the need for power-sharing in the
Conquer, supreme and subordinate her ruler-ing quite understandable.
Page 47

In the analysis of the phenomenon of power, as in the analysis of the actions of all forces
found two
Law: 1) the limits of the law and 2) the law of the division of labor. The latter had the
luck
draw attention to themselves and to grow in the whole doctrine of the separation of
powers. But first,
despite its primacy, it is not honored.
We must, however, deal with it with particular attention.
Every powerful force, whatever its legal authority, even if it is,
becoming the supreme legally absolute, actually still limited by its
quantitative content. It can reach its direct influence only
certain limits. Hence, with the growth of society is the need to gear
the influence of the Management mechanism that transmits the power of the center
beyond
her immediate physical ability action. In an organization, it is enough
overgrown, as a state, the necessary gear, the system
legal administrative belts and blocks, sometimes takes a huge, complex
dimensions. Supreme power, means assignment to be always and everywhere to
everywhere
and always exert its guiding effect, you need to be able to require that

- The organization of the mechanism of government.


Its operation thus becomes rather direct - transfer, and that
Recently - in general is extremely widespread - has two main types:
1) the serving,
2) representative.
The power of servitors in the form of all sorts of officials, commissioners, and so on. N.,
Is the
certainly necessary and useful government mechanism that is used to
transfer and implementation of the ruling will. But it must be remembered that this
mechanism, these
levers, wheels and blocks - are made up of human beings and organizations
also have their own will, their desires, their own internal logic of development.
If the mechanical complexity of the mechanism, increasing the friction and inertia of the
gear
parts already responds to the proper and productive use of the driving force,
the effect in human society is inevitably accompanied by the transfer mechanism
even replacing the direction of the will of the ruling. This replacement may occur in the
lung,
constantly corrected shades, but may increase and reach a complete perversion
supreme will. One way or another, to a greater or lesser extent, it is always characterized
by
all the gear effect.
Thus, in principle, and ideally the best action is direct. Only when
direct, immediate control is carried out the will of the ruling in its pure form, it makes
exactly what involves making.
This applies to all areas of the state and public administration, and even
various instances of the transfer of power, in which the greatest perfection
It is to preserve for each possible instance of direct action, without
further transmission.
In order to achieve this direct service authorities there and
specialization, division in the field of legal, judicial and administrative,
in establishing the mutual independence of each branch of this division. But this
specialization and mutual independence of official authorities takes place only within the
their auxiliary service to the Supreme power they all remain the same
subordinated. Inattention to the analysis of jurisprudence and legislation of direct
transmission
the government's actions in this regard leads to extreme distortion of the doctrine of
Page 48

the division of power, which is converted into some theory oligarchy government
departments. Especially confusing views on the independence of the judiciary, which is
mostly exempt from subordination of the Supreme power, and forms some status in
statu [14].

In fact, the separation of powers and their mutual independence have a reasonable place,
I repeat, only in the purely the Management, where the goal is to achieve this
perhaps more direct action. But specialized and independent from one another
These management all equally flow from the supreme power are the same
implements it, obey it, and only it will perform. They are all in authority
Only the transfer, and therefore subject to the same direct control and
direction on the part of the supreme power.
The need to resort to the action of the gear can not and should not be
accompanied by a distortion of the content of the supreme power, which includes
all the branches of power, not one any of them. Restriction of
Supreme power allocation from its conduct, such a court case, it would be
destroying it, for supreme power, and because the Supreme that is universal,
It has all the competence, losing, as though some of them - have thus it does not have
a supreme and the same special as the other.
The law limits the action has an impact on the Supreme power is not in the sense that
destroying its universality, universality, but only in that it limits the scope of
direct application to each of the branches of the administration, and creates in each of
them
system
transmission
Actions by
governmental
mechanism,
legislative, judicial and administrative. In this system, the gear steps
The supreme power has the same effect itself, but only through its service people over
which saves power, control and right to immediate destruction of all
Absolutely not her will and instruction.
In a developed political system the direct effect of the Supreme power
It specializes thus on the control and direction of the transfer of powers,
all the machinery of government, while maintaining its full and
universality, while preserving all its moral responsibility towards
citizens for the actions of the Management led by its authorities.
In view of this relationship between the supreme power and the Management, perfection
the machinery of government is to provide the most comprehensive and easy way
for the control and direction of the supreme authority of all institutions throughout the
region
the transfer of power. This can be achieved above all by releasing the power of the
Supreme
direct superintendence of all the petty and insignificant affairs and management
concentration of direct action on the control and direction of the service
institutions.
Another powerful weapon of supreme power in the observation of the Management

It gives authorities the existence of the control subjects themselves the action of official
bodies.
For such control subjects produced a lot of different ways: a) the right to appeal
to the supreme power, b) publicity and publicity activities of official authorities,) and
right
the opportunity to discuss the actions of the authorities in the press, assembly, and so on.
n. The third way
control of the supreme power of the state mechanism of action - giving the system
performance management authorities dissimilar substrates, t. e. the establishment of
public
next to the bureaucratic control, resulting in a constant is their mutual
Page 49

inspection and criticism. Finally, the fourth method is the establishment of a special
special
Body control. In Russia, the creation of such a special body to pay much
attention. When Emperor Nicholas in these types of housing was created
gendarmes. Fiscal Peter the Great [15] have the same goal. The same character was
reketmeystera institution [16] and subsequently Petition Committee [17]. It should,
however,
said that while the need for such specialized practice of always pointing
their failure, and even the ability to perverting its goals. At all
no doubt that the problem of control is achievable not only as the application of these
methods simultaneously.
When these methods are not utilized sufficiently, control and
the action of the guide Supreme power weaken or even may become
fictitious.
When imperfect control and direction of the transfer service agencies
power may well distort the intentions and the will of all the supreme power.
But it comes to a complete distortion of the usurpation, when transfer the power received
representative character.
The principle of representativeness of the supreme power.
Class politicians. Bureaucracy.
On the principle of representation is necessary to stop a few special, in
To avoid misunderstanding.
When we talk about representation, the reader always imagine that it
It is something that that brings with it freedom, the rights, the limitation of arbitrariness
and
m. n., generally imagines something very bright; therefore, he is predisposed
considered superfluous critical examination of the principle that promises many
benefits. Such
relevant to understanding the principles of the extremely erroneous. It is not always
representative

It shall be for a blessing. I'm talking about the very idea of representation by any other
person will and
Supreme power of thought. This phenomenon is not only representative democracy, but
and the monarchy. Its something we have to consider objectively - as a political fact as
one of the constituent elements of statehood.
John Stuart Mill called representative government the best of all [D. S. Mill.
"Representative government", Chapter III].
But Mill under representative form of government understands only
democratic governance, and all his arguments in favor of representation are
actually not to the representation and democracy. Meanwhile, it is very big
the difference, and if even recognize the beginning of a democratic government the best,
then it
yet it should not be that there is a better representation or even just a good way
government. Rousseau believed democracy to the highest government
principle, but the office completely denies [value representation
democracy I have discussed in more detail in the book "Democracy and liberal
social ", Moscow, 1896].
The thinking is that Mill. He thinks no doubt that every person and every group
can best do know and understand their interests. Therefore, the best rule
Page 50

It is a democratic, which, according to Mill, and it was carried out superintendence


each with their interests. But since it is impossible for people is immediate
I am going to solve the case, if the state has outgrown any size
a small town, we have to instead of direct popular government
to organize it from the elected representatives.
This argument proves not that was a good representation
principle, but only that it is inevitable in certain cases, and what we can not agree.
At the same time, however, for us in full force the question remains, is it not the only
representative
a necessary evil? And in this case required the adoption of measures to bring it
perhaps less harm. Mill himself, discussing the best ways of organizing
Mission, in fact, concerned about is this very task.
But before we take action to ensure that derive from this principle may
more useful and possible to reduce the size of the damage it is necessary to understand
the very essence of it, than the Mill is not disquiet.
What is the office? It's just one of the forms of transfer of power. Power
and can transmit their monarch and the aristocracy and the people. Very often, it is
inevitable as
in general, all forms of transfer of power. But servicemen form the transfer of power in
general
for some control was very little risk for the principal. The point,

public service as charged, the officials, the commissioner always strictly defined. These
individuals do
what they ordered, on the basis of a well established law or regulations. If they
violate regulations or laws - it is a crime. Regulations and Rules
representative of the will of the Supreme power is quite different. His task - not to fulfill
this
separate order, but to act in the name of his client, represents the will of the
it against even in cases where the will of itself is not yet defined. The idea
representation is as though the transfer of the supreme power of the autocracy
officials or deputies. But this transfer is essentially based on an error, which
represented by an illusion, by presenting sometimes - even a lie.
Someone else will not feature because she did not know in advance. None
and he can know in advance what will be his will. Especially not to know
"representative". However, for the development of democracy in the vast country, not
allowing no possibility of direct rule of the people, this form of transmission of its
the authorities had now universal domination, creating a parliamentary government.
Currently, after a century of practice for anyone not be doubtful,
that parliamentary countries will of the people represented by the government to the
extreme
few. The role of the people is almost exclusively to choose their masters, yes
in the case of singularities of any change of their actions, though the latter problem - at
good organization politicized parties - is not easy.
Many offer a way to limit the absolute power of these representatives. Most
common thought in this regard demands that they acted on the "Mandate"
voters. But this is possible only in the constituent assembly, in respect of which
really possible to present clearly defined will of the voters. In regard to
the affairs of the Board previously unknown mandates be impossible. Cramped so
way deputies were forced to constantly deal with new requests for
voters and businesses reign would come to stillness. In his above-mentioned book and
Mill rightly rejects the system of orders. And without them parliamentarism
inevitably degenerates into complete arbitrariness of the parties that will certainly hold in
their
Page 51

the hands of deputies, on the theory of representing the will of the people, but in reality executing a will of their parties.
Currently, the protection of the representative form of government is possible only on
soil matter - good or bad ruling class gives the system? Some find
that it produces the best ruling class. The reader is referred in this respect to the
mentioned book "Democracy and social liberal." Here I note only that both
Whatever was a question about the qualities of the ruling class under this system can not
be a dispute,
that it brings all the harm that comes from the supreme power to bring

frustration and impotence.


By the same consequences idea of representation of the Verkhovna power leads to
monarchical rule, but here it is in a different form. Democratic
Representative creates the domination of parliamentary politicians. The idea of monarchy
Mission creates or satrapies, or the so-called red tape.
Excessive centralization of the actual development of the board of the monarch
control and direction of numerous institutions becomes too impossible.
The natural desire of all the organizations to independence could encourage
government agencies and even the deliberate creation of an order when
they are the "name" of the monarch and the alleged "by decree" it, but actually quite
independently and even without the knowledge of the supreme power. Then there is the
so-called
bureaucratic rule, where officials like the parliamentary politicians,
They represent the will of the supreme authority. This, of course, such as fiction, as in
parliamentary government, with the difference that in one case for falsification
is the will of the monarch, and the other will of the people. The bureaucracy and
parliamentarianism so go
always hand in hand, and parliamentarism on the idea of even the natural conclusion
bureaucracy.
To avoid this, a special significance for the supreme power is the so-called
government (more precisely - public administration), which is extremely
extends the possibility of direct action in government offices and releases
Supreme power of authority for direct supervision and direction. This applies equally to
States all the images of government in all forms of sovereignty. Meaning
government as a necessary complement democratic republics, has even
his serious literature, but it is no less great for the monarchy, as we look at
in the reasoning of the monarchical policy.
Principles of government and polity.
The methods of the government's actions, should define its different varieties,
or principles. Principles of power, of which grow in the form of government in human
society, just three: it is 1) the power of sole, 2) the power of some influential
minorities, 3) total power, nationwide. Based on only three of these principles
power we can operate wherever is necessary or inevitable power.
From them grow all combinations of the Management of power, including the power to
grow and
supreme. But they are easier to perceive and analyze in the power of the sovereign, rather
than in
the Management, precisely because the sovereign power requires some common
Page 52

guiding principle, whereas the power of the Management not only allows, but requires
the most diverse combination of different principles of power, according to the private

the necessities of government. Therefore, analyzing the thought of man has seen before
all
the basic principles is in the power of the sovereign, anciently divided state on
monarchical, aristocratic and democratic.
Lawyers call this the "form of government", as still not come to
agreement
relatively
internal
meaning
of this
obvious
phenomena
statehood. But should not forget that there is a "form" as constant as ever
It repeats that obviously causes some deep eternal content.
These three basic principles have always been well known for a long time, and; analysis
political writers from the time of Aristotle until now does not discover anything new,
except them.
Attempts
changes
Aristotle
Classification
each
time
are
arbitrary, prompted by any practical trend. So Montesquieu
unsuccessfully tried to identify a particular form of despotism in the state from the
obvious desire
rehabilitate contemporary French monarchy. So I try Bluntschli
add to Aristotle's fourth subdivisions form - "theocracy", as
arbitrarily, from a clear desire to adopt stronger "secular" nature of modern
state. This increase, however, can not be accepted. It is impossible not to see that
"theocracy"
always only either democracy or the monarchy or aristocracy often.
They are different from other monarchies or aristocracies not politically, but only
its content ideokraticheskogo element in what may be different from each other and
Other monarchy or republic. Consequently, the theocracy itself no particular
political form of government is not. All of these failures can not be accepted in
increments
Science [Division 2 forms (monarchy and republic), adopted by Machiavelli and our
Speransky also not retained. It does so completely ignored
the inner meaning, and is held only form].
As Aristotle is inevitable - an interesting example of this is
Study NA Zvereva ["Basis of classification in connection with a common doctrine

the classification of "Moscow, 1883]. This work is all the more instructive that these
policies
brought it to the data covered a total of sociology and philosophical thought. What is
we are coming?
Classification of Aristotle, expressed in modern terminology, [That is,
calling polity Aristotle's current democracy, and its democracy in the current ochlocracy] is. It recognizes three main forms of government,
which may be lawful or (when referring to the good of the state), or
distorted (when referring to the good of the ruler). Thus, we obtain:
1. Monarchy capable perverted into tyranny,
2. aristocracy that could be perverted into an oligarchy,
3. Democracy capable perverted into mob rule.
Criticizing all the amendments proposed at various times, and rejecting them,
also showing that the attempts of new classifications or insolvent, or just
reproduce in a disguised form of Aristotle, says Professor Zverev
possible, combining the results of 2,000 years of work, stay at such a classification:
A. Simple shapes (indivisible bodies of supreme power):
a) the monarchy,
b) the aristocracy,
Page 53

c) democracy.
B. Complex forms (the supreme body of which is divided into its constituent parts)
a) monarchist,
b) the aristocratic,
c) democratic.
However, we can not say that the ease or difficulty may be only
appearance, visual sign, and no it does not explain the content itself. So, for
clarify the content of the forms of government, we must draw the formula of Professor
Zvereva somewhat differently and we find that the basic forms are:
1. Monarchy: a) indivisible bodies, b) the separate agencies.
2. The aristocracy: a) indivisible bodies, b) the separate agencies.
3. Democracy: a) indivisible bodies, b) the separate agencies.
So, again, we're in the clear classification of Aristotle, especially if
remember that a separate body itself the supreme power in reality is not, and
there are only separate controls, so, therefore, it is a minor, and
not the main feature of the classification. So, in the classification of a much more correct
and more convenient
to keep the division of Aristotle. In the last major work by public law
["Policy". Volume III Course of State Science, 1898] BNTchitcherin does so.
In support of thousands of years of political science conclusions can already be
some cite the findings of sociology. So, Spencer [G. Spencer, "Development policy

institutions "], speaking about the development of political institutions, notes that the
company
internally connected two kinds of organization: economic and political. First,
He said, it grows unconsciously and without coercion, the second expresses "conscious
prosecution purposes "and" coercive acts. "Consciousness and power, so
way, and they are recognized as the foundation of the state. As for the power, seeing it
a source in the nation (and, moreover, if we apply the terminology Bluntschli in
"ideocratic"
element). Spencer admits, like all other observers that it is expressed in
three main "instruments", "despotism", "oligarchy" and "democracy." It is understood
that for
designate him unsympathetic man rule and reign of the elect Spencer
only uses terms such as "despotism" and "oligarchy", but as a fact, he sees
exactly the same as that of other observers.
Generally, in determining the state of its basic shapes and their properties, even we have
to a completely axiomatic truth, general observation, the same,
indisputable. Here, for clarity, even a small sample of this, remarkable for
antiquity.
Long before Aristotle himself in his history, Herodotus tells of a debate on
Meeting Persians overthrew Lzhesmerdisa. Between them they were thinking about
changing
form of government in the state, which remained without a legal heir to the throne, and
without
every government.
At the same time, says Herodotus, Otan (one of the conspirators) proposes to establish
democracy. "I believe he said that none of us should not have to be the sole
ruler. You have seen the extent to which came willfulness Cambyses, themselves
suffering from
willfulness magician (Lzhesmerdisa). Yes, and how the State can be
landscaped with the sole administration, when the monarch is allowed to do
irresponsible anything? Even if the worthy man was clothed with a
power, then he would not have kept him a peculiar mood. Surrounding autocrat
Page 54

good produce it self-will and jealousy is inherent in human nature. With these
two evils he becomes vicious. Sated benefits, it makes a lot
part of the excesses of self-will and partly out of envy. He is envious of the life and
health
virtuous citizens, on the other hand protects them from disrepair, and libel
trusts most. To please him harder than anyone else, because if you
admire them moderately, he is not happy because you enough chtish it; if
render him an extraordinary respect, he was not happy with you as a flatterer. He breaks

established from time immemorial customs, rapes of women, extrajudicial executions of


citizens. As for
People's control, then, firstly, it is the perfect name of equality,
Second, the ruling people do not commit anything that makes the autocrat; on
Position nation appoints by lot, and every office he is responsible; every solution
transmitted to the General Meeting. Therefore, I propose to abolish autocracy and
give power to the people. After all, the number of all. "
Megabase delivered the opinion of the aristocracy [Herodotus "oligarchy", our
terminology is not quite the same as the old].
"With regard to the abolition of autocracy - he said - I agree with Otanes.
But he is wrong when he proposes to deliver power to the people. In fact, there is nothing
senseless and willful unfit crowd, and it is impossible for people to rid themselves of
self-will of the tyrant to surrender unbridled self-will of the people; For if that
It does the tyrant, though he does with the meaning, and the people have no sense. And
can it make sense to have
someone who did not learn anything good does not know, and quickly jumped on to no
avail
business, like a mountain stream? People let management offer those who wish to harm
Persians, and we will choose the Council of worthy people, and they were given
power; among them enter
and ourselves. The best people, of course, belong to the best solution. "
However, Darius, at that time still did not have any chance to be special
elected kings, opposed the views of Otanes and Megabase.
"I think - he said - that the opinion Megabase true democracy, and about
aristocracy wrong. Of the three suggested ways to control us, suggesting
each of them in the best possible way - t. e. the best of democracy, aristocracy, and the
same
a monarchy, I prefer the latter. There can be nothing better
monocracy best man. Guided by good intentions, it is perfectly
It manages the nation. This can most truly kept confidential decisions regarding
external enemy. In contrast, the aristocracy, where many decent person care about the
welfare
States usually occur fierce infighting between them. Since each of the
rulers sought for himself and wants to give primacy to its preponderance of opinion, then
they
come to mutual collisions occur where internecine excitement, and from
unrest bloodshed; monocracy causes blood, from which it also follows
that autocracy is the best way to manage. Further, when the management of the national
vices
inevitable, and if they exist, are not evil people fight among themselves because
public domain, but come into close friendship; usually harmful to
State people are against it together. This continues for as long as
any one will not be led by the people and does not put an end to this course of action.

Such a face-ons to his surprise from the people, and it soon becomes
autocrat, so once again proving that the autocracy perfect form
Management "[Herodotus," History ", Vol. III, 80-82].
As you can see, not only the basic principles of government, but even their essential
features,
Page 55

confessed the people since ancient times.


The main forms of power are the types
rather than phases of the evolution of power.
The power in society and the state is always only in the form of monarchy,
aristocracy or democracy. At the present time, when the theory of evolution tries
reduce all phenomena to develop a basic form, there is the idea that it provides
and forms of government. Normally this idea is that the basic form - a
Democracy, from which the others are developed and it is finally transferred.
With this however can not agree completely. On the contrary, it is necessary to recognize
all three
special form of power, independent types of power that do not arise from a single
the other, but coexist permanently close and never even destroyed in the depths
Society, however none of them acquired in the community or in a given period values
in fact the supreme authority.
Strongly always and in every society, we notice the existence of power
sole, which are subject to even it out of respect to this individual,
because in many cases, the general consciousness has to dispose of someone
one. It happens in all cases where the purpose of the action is very clear and all
It is recognized as and when necessary with the special harmony of action and
energy. Similar
Companies always exists in a layer that is particularly over other
trust and obey, not because each found the person he
Especially high, and on the assumption that the person has given layer estates
the ability to control that those that have a special layer for the production of about
which the people was not visible from it qualities of the person, but only for
supplies it to this layer. Such embryos social aristocracy and not a little
in modern societies. This is the modern intelligentsia, which has been even an idea
brain, genetic development. These aristocratic layer of strong and
the industrial world. In the political world every candidate has a chance if
It belongs to the old politicized family. In general, this element of the aristocracy, t. E.
Layer some of the best people, credible primarily not by their personal qualities, and
on alleged as layers, class, always in a variety of forms
There is in the depths of society. Similarly, there is no society, even slavish, in which no
it would be in some form or other manifestations of democratic government, t. e. the
power of a mass
people, not because she was smart and in some respect better than others, and

because this mass, the force most.


All of this very special type of power that have a different meaning and content.
Evolutionary move from one to another, they can not but succeed each other on
domination they can. Each of them can advance in the value of the sovereign power.
The nation always finds them in himself, and depending on the circumstances, each of
them can
and encourage others to win first place without, however, being able to kill
other principles of government, which then pass on a service display
public life. Each of them, becoming supreme, is not generated by the other, and
replace it. It is not the fact of evolution in the public regard, and the fact of the
revolution.
It's all signs of rapid upheaval rather than the development of, for example, the monarchy
of democracy
Page 56

or vice versa. Most coup may occur due to any evolution in


national life, but in the sense of the state, he still is a coup.
The fact that the coup could disguise here in the eye of the beholder
the fact that the government itself, that is, in the control system, the former
hireyuschy principle of sovereignty has already been used to actually replace other
opposing the principles of power. But then he did not turn to them, but only
supplanted them, having become too weak to maintain its role.
So, replace the form of the Supreme power can be seen as the result of evolution
national life, but not as the evolution of the power itself, the more that being
deposed as the supreme authority, the principle of authority is still not in the least
destroyed and only gets subordinate function.
By themselves, the basic form of the power in any evolutionary relationship between
It is not located. None of them can not be called neither the first, nor the second,
The last phase of evolution. Not one of them at this point can not be read
neither higher nor lower, no primary or final. A theoretical analysis of this
regard is supported by historical facts that do not show
no need to change the sequence of the constant forms of sovereignty.
Monarchy, aristocracy and democracy among the same nation replace one another in
very different sequences, with a constant ratio is seen
only between the government and the Verkhovna form known state of the spirit of the
nation.
Evolutionary theory is seen in the national life of a number of necessary
successive phases of development. It may be the assumption that the form of the
Supreme
power associated with these phases of evolution in the life of the nation. But on the basis
of historical
to establish the facts can not be anything like that. There are a number of nations, which
passed the full cycle

development, even before the final death know only one form of sovereignty.
Byzantium kept its monarchy lived. Venice from the beginning to the end was
aristocracy. Swiss tribes obeyed only the conquest of the monarchy, but
every minute of your creation for itself democracy. There are peoples who
state development began with the monarchical principle, but there is, as it were
born democracy ... In general, the emergence of various forms of supreme power
have to put in a relationship is not with phases of development of the nation, and with
some of its special
state.
I believe quite obvious that the authorities are determined by the form of the Supreme
moral and psychological state of the nation, no matter what any of Fazis
manifested this psychological condition. It may be generated by what some
the influence of social and economic evolution, or invasion of any external
historical conditions, any particular religious influences: but no matter where
occurred or that the moral and psychological state is it, rather than anything else
It is leading the nation to a preference in favor of some form of sovereignty. it
a variety of conditions that can occur each of the main forms of the Supreme
power and creates a lot of species that can be said, it is not
investigated and classified by science, but by eye estimation is always seen as a fact
the history of every observer.
This nerassledovatelnost many other supreme power is extremely
understand and prevent significant differences themselves the main types of hiding them
before
observer, just as in the biology of the main types of organisms decorated
Page 57

observers as long as the persistent observation and study of species not


It found with certainty that there is not one basic form, which gives rise to all
species, and some of the basic forms, types.
The inner meaning of the basic types of power.
Why, as the supreme power then extends the monarchy, the aristocracy, the
Democracy? This is due to the known psychological state of the nation, which
naiblizhe corresponds to a particular principle of authority. Policy in the installation
Supreme power merges with the national psychology. In one form or another Supreme
authorities expressed the spirit of the people, their beliefs and ideals that it is aware of
both internal
the supreme principle, worthy of submission to him of the entire national life.
As the highest, this principle becomes an unlimited, autocratic.
Supreme power they create, limited only by the content of their own
ideal. There appears a fact which calls ideocracy Bluntschli. Every supreme
ideokratichna power, t. e. is solely under the authority of his ideal. It
It is undeniable, yet identical with it, and it becomes usurpation, tyranny, oligarchy, or
ochlocracy when she comes out of obedience to him. Limits defining the moral

legality or illegality of the Supreme power, can not be exact wording, but
always felt a nation, then dutifully obeying the basic truth, power
expresses the rebels against usurpation.
This moral, or the lining of the Supreme ideocratic authorities so
burdensome that many researchers have tried to establish political institutions
the connection between the form of the Supreme power and moral state of the nation.
This connection seems to me, it can be determined quite accurately. In the state, the
objective
which have the common good, the nation seeks to create protection that it considers
proper
or fair. Why should a nation in some cases trusts in these kinds of sole
monarch, and sometimes, on the contrary, it is pinning its hopes for the best, traditional
Reliable people, sometimes just in the numerical majority? In that
seen something else, as the degree of intensity and clarity ideal aspirations of the nation.
In various forms of the Supreme authorities expressed what kind of a nation by force
the moral of his most trusted.
Democracy expresses its confidence in the power of quantification.
Aristocracy expresses confidence in the preemptive authority, checked
experience; it has confidence in the wisdom of force.
It expresses confidence in the monarchy mainly to the strength of the moral.
If a society does not exist quite busy beliefs covering
all aspects of life in submission to one ideal, the cohesive force of society is
numerical strength quantification, which creates the possibility of submission of people
power
even in those cases where they have no readiness to do so inside. This is the first,
Fazis elementary sense of discipline. "Where the world, and we go there," "the world of a
great man", "we
timers from the world is not "... All these formulas are the democratic discipline we
know
in their folk proverbs. Bryce describes exactly the same state of mind
Page 58

American democracy of the United States.


If ideals are not comprehensive enough to admit all bright, but at the same time
nevertheless the people have faith in the existence of a reasonable law of social
phenomena,
there is dominance of the aristocracy, the people "better" able to specify the nature of
this social intelligence.
When finally in the nation is alive and strong some comprehensive ideal of morality,
all in all leading to the availability of voluntary subordination itself, it appears
The monarchy, as in this case to the Supreme domination of the moral ideal is not
required
the force of a physical (democracy) is not required, and the interpretation of this quest

ideal (aristocracy), and you need only the best expression of his constant, what
more capable than just an individual as a being morally reasonable, and this person
It shall only be delivered in full independence from all external influences,
can upset the balance of its judgment to the purely ideal perspective.
Section IV.
GENERAL FRAMEWORK MONARCHY
General considerations.
The essence of the monarchical principle as supreme moral ideal, putting
her in connection with a number of conditions on which, however, depend to varying
degrees and
combinations and other forms of power delivered over the state as the supreme
the beginning of the dispensation.
Among these conditions is the basis of existence of the monarchy, the first
place should deliver this or that religious principle, which is permeated
world view of the people. But despite the importance of it, it's not the only condition,
determining the occurrence of the monarchy. The second is to specify a social order
without
which can not exist a nation, and therefore monarchy. One or another state
social order affects powerfully the emergence of various forms of sovereignty.
But this does not exhaust the necessary conditions for them. Supreme power demands
conscious
understanding
his
Essentially,
to
capabilities
right
operation. The element of consciousness and the necessary knowledge, science, theory cash all this plays a huge role in the fate of statehood, and more
role, generally, a lack of awareness. In this latter case, usually in
history of this type of statehood, not being able to develop their own forces, often
prepares itself a celebration of other forms of sovereignty.
Due to the differences in the influence of religious ideology and social system, and
also at different states of consciousness, there are several dissimilar types
monarchy. At the heart of three of them:
1) despotic monarchy, 2) the absolutist monarchy, and 3) the monarchy or the net
autocratic. We will examine their characteristics below. Now, note that
lack of consciousness greatly affects the transition from one type to another is mainly
by constructing the Management Authorities incongruous with the character of the
Supreme
Page 59

power.

"History, - says Chicherin - pretty much have the story Error


rulers "[" Rate Policies ", p. 2]. But the mistakes of rulers are mostly
lack of political awareness among the people in general. Historically
Indeed, one might say, humanity has never possessed a sufficient degree of
awareness in their public constructions. Consequently - all three types of
the monarchy, which is now said - are the types actually ideal. In fact
they are never in complete purity of his, but always in a mixture of different
types, but with a predominance of a single core.
It is generally more easier transitions in the history of the state to the other
forms of government by an evolutionary or revolutionary. If such transitions,
it is sometimes inevitable wisely t. e. really meet the needs of
changing conditions, perhaps more often than they cause a lack of
public awareness, so that this form of government itself is confusing its
natural forces assumption influences foreign to its nature and therefore itself
paralyzed and made useless and impossible.
This shows how important is the science of government, in the sense of knowledge
ruling strengths and weaknesses of their system, and what kind of political force it
support or undermine.
The value of religious beliefs.
You can theoretically argue about whether one religion can give a person
comprehensive ideal, covering all aspects of its existence. Historically
We practice at least see that such a role is played not by philosophical systems, and
religious, or rather, that the philosophical system is capable of such a role only
when converted into the belief, religion, combining a rational belief
absolute requirement of a higher superhuman strength. Human Psychology
It is that the strong leadership of its actions gives only some superhuman
authority. Hence the connection with the spiritual power of religion.
Our modern, personally unbelieving scientists doubly violate the right
understanding of history with regard to these superhuman powers. They are often denied
the value of religious ideas in history, and instead doing their best to make the
explanation
the fate of humanity other secondary factors, such as the impact of natural, economic
conditions, and so on. f. Others, however, to exaggerate the importance of the religious
extremes
representations, precisely because they do not believe in their objectivity. I will focus
more
more on this subject, to establish an appropriate, as I suppose, in the view
Sizes religious influences.
Fustel Coulanges in his remarkable study of ancient statehood before
extreme exaggerates the influence of religious beliefs on ancient political
life, claiming to explain this, if people then were absolutely are not,
as it is now. Now, he says, people are different, and socio-political work
moves have other laws.

Page 60

"We - said full [Alfred Fouille - Psychologie du peuple Francais [18] Paris, 1898], does not belong to an era when Hume wrote: if you want to know the Greeks and
Romans - study
English and French. People described by Tacitus and Polybius, are the same as the
surrounding
us. "Full argues that even they themselves Tacitus, Polybius and Caesar describes the
people,
representing "les plus frappants contrastes" [19] between them. All these opinions show
that current thinkers have completely lost all sense of proportion. They compose the
"middle
man ", not wanting to think about the real deviations from the" average person ", existing
only in the abstract, the claim undrainable les plus frappants contrastes, forgetting for
differences seen in common. Meanwhile, in reality, private differences, although they
have
its extreme importance, develop only eternal and unshakeable for all time
the peoples of the same, the general background. Hume was right in saying that wanting
to know the Greeks
and Romans - learn French and English, for not knowing the person - do not know Greek
or
Roman and know a person with the necessary subtlety can be at their best
contemporaries, to those we can observe directly and personally. Right
surveillance system needs to go from the known to the unknown, from the easy to the
observed
difficult to observe. Only in this way can we understand the nature and the eternal law,
remains unchanged, and the value of the differences of time and place.
Describing the enormous importance of religion for the social and political structure of
the ancient
Peace, for his manners, customs, laws and institutions, Fustel Coulanges says: "To
learn the truth about ancient peoples, we must study them, forgetting about himself.
"This is, however,
is the greatest mistake, especially since it actually double: for Fustel Coulanges on
In fact, do not forget about yourself and just try to forget and think better forgotten
currently, more than opposing itself is ancient. It creates a biased
Our idea if the exact opposite to them, and then wonders
"Why terms of managing people are no longer as in the old days?" In explanation, he
He says: "If the laws of human association are now different than in antiquity, it is on
that in man something has changed. Indeed, one part of our being
varies from age to age: it is our knowledge ... The man does not think more as he thought
25 centuries ago, and it is because the laws governing them, and now other than in the
old days "
(p. 2) [Fustel Coulanges. "Ancient civil community"].

"Look - he says - in the ancient institutions, without thinking about their beliefs,
and you will find them dark, can not be explained ... But next to these institutions and
these
Laws put beliefs: the facts at once become clear "(p. 2-3).
Thus, according to Fustel Coulanges, in the ancient religious beliefs
"determined" everything - family, marriage, agency policy. But now it is not so, because
our
"knowledge" had changed.
Such a view is one-sided and distorted past, and present. First, religious
beliefs influenced the institution not only in Romulus or Regulus, but at Augusta
Diocletian. Likewise, they influenced the establishment and Sts Constantine
and Justinian the Great, and then in the whole history of Europe and Russia until the
present times,
that Fustel Coulanges, without proper analysis and mistakenly considered to have, if
to, other laws of the association. In fact, religious beliefs, and is now as
affect the institution. On the other hand, never ever, even in the so-called
theocratic countries, not one determined by the nature of religious beliefs
social and political institutions.
Just as the ignorant peasant, learned of the existence of science,
Page 61

It begins to be considered all-powerful, so unbelieving modern scientist, noting in


antiquity
the action of the religious feelings and religious beliefs, is inclined to think,
if believers these feelings and these ideas are all-powerful.
For the believer, on the contrary, it is enough to peer into the ancient institutions to
In order to see that they, like us, the influence of the religious feelings and beliefs
It exists but is not definitely ruled not definitely determine the behavior of people.
Current believers convinced of the existence of God, convinced that the regulations
Religious us His will specified, all-powerful and invincible, convinced that life on earth insignificant moment, and we are even on the calculation, only prudent to perform the
will of God. Yet
how much do we play it? Not every moment whether we break it, carried away by
passion,
calculation, and finally just forgetting God in a state of "not seeing God"?
Remembering the best time of the full flowering of Christianity, the persecution of the
Christians and the most apostolic times, we meet a lot of facts that indicate
it then had the same swing of faith and obedience to God, on the one hand, and
forgetting God, His betrayal and - on the other. This often we see even in the Lives of the
Saints themselves.
The same state it was in ancient pre-Christian world. In the classical world, we
at every step we see that along with faith in the gods, and the desire to conform their
lives to

their demands, was unbelief and forgetfulness, and even the exploitation of
religion. Rome deified
Romulus. The Romans believed that Romulus was taken up to heaven, from where it
was. And yet - the same
Ancient history tells us that Romulus killed senators and composed rest
history. Who is to obey his alleged divinity and who exploited
religion? Can we say that the senators did not believe in the gods? Certainly we
believed. Yet
they are, in the history of the murder of Romulus, as if brazenly mocked the
gods. Similar
Livy, for all the reign of the patricians, said set of certainties,
how they used religious divination in order to prevent the election
disagreeable people or encourage the plebeians to obey the policy of the Senate. Enough
read Livy, to ensure that the operation of "the will of the gods," the patricians
not one was suspicious of the plebeians, and really commit. Likewise, in
Greeks, we often see cases where they did not pay attention to the will of the gods and
conform with the requirements of piety. For example, when Gyges cast
dynasty Heraclides, the faith of the people and of Gyges said in a decision: to ask
Pythia, or not to recognize the king Gyges? But then he manifested and
disbelief. Because
"Oracle - says Herodotus, - at the same time announced that Heracleidae be avenged on
fifth generation Gyges neither Medes, nor their kings did not pay any attention to
Oracle saying, till it came to pass "[Herodotus, I, 13]. Then, soon, when Alliete, in
while emptying the land of the enemy, he was negligent, burned the Temple of Athena
Asesskoy, and "this first no attention was paid" until the trouble happened. Such
the facts set. However, suffice it to recall the very classical mythology peoples
full of people fighting with the gods, in order to understand how probation and was
unstable
the subordination of people to the gods.
Generally man is a complex and willy-nilly, in obedience to the set
disparate influences - at the same time always has and seeks to have their will
dispensation of his life. In line with the suggestions of the will, he has his own account,
philosophy, adapting to the circumstances of life is very manifold. Human
He feels the pressure of the laws of economic, social, historical complications
and so on. n. Accordingly, all that he always has your everyday calculation
considerations
Page 62

political, personal, and so on. n., which he certainly did not subordinate their beliefs
or so-called beliefs. Never so it was not such a people, which would
social and political system is entirely determined only religious or
philosophical beliefs. On the other hand, the influence of these beliefs and does not
disappear

Never.
Influence of religious element in the social and political work is preserved
currently. Not to mention the great mass of believers of different
faiths, even non-believers consider themselves to act
political and social platform with the ideas of a purely religious nature.
Auguste Comte, creating a religion of humanity, not only to become the head of our time
because of the particulars of their religion. But the belief in some Dieu - l'humanite [20],
in a
collective being - "mankind", always living in the change of generations, and even
has some general understanding, deeply stuck in the nineteenth century, those people
who have renounced
Christianity. Similarly, modern socialism (Marxism) takes more
the shape of the deification of material forces of production. When we remember how
clean
atheistic philosophy of Buddhism, who rejected God, inhabiting the sky with their deified
"wise men", and only then, t. e. moving from the philosophical and moral atheism
purely pagan religion, became capable of social and political creativity, we
We did find an incredible appearance in 100-200 years, the altars and the "spirits" of
Marx and
Engels in a new paganism socialist productive forces of nature.
The reality of religious influences.
The value of religious belief in the history of human societies is extremely
obscured by the fact that a path on this subject do not usually believe in
the existence of God and the action of the spirit world to the mortal life. They therefore
represent
Statement religious beliefs creation of the human imagination. Not God created man,
they say
they created a man and the gods. Under these terms, in the influence of religion see
reflected
human impact on himself. I should mention that not only understand differently
question, but I think that by denying the real, independent existence of spirits - history
absolutely nothing is impossible to understand.
Human nature is such an area of the world, which is connected to the action
material and spiritual forces. We operate on the influence of the earth, the material acts
and the world of spirits. Revelation says that our life on earth, as well as the historical
life,
there is an arena of struggle of the spiritual forces, which lead us to a completely
opposite
actions and destinies. That is why it is important for us the content of our religious
representations. Their significance is similar to the value of the experimental
sciences. Just as science
Natural make up the knowledge of the forces of nature, as religious

beliefs constitute knowledge of the effects on us of the spirit world. In both cases, this
knowledge must
to to think your life with these action forces the material and spiritual.
In both cases, the knowledge and use them to increase our strength and reasonable
dispensation
Life, on the contrary - the ignorance, or non-use knowledge weakens us and causes to
life,
enslaved by forces unknown to us, but nevertheless existing and us
Page 63

applicable. Advances in the knowledge of these human influences are not the same, and
hence the
the effect is quite different religious faiths and beliefs.
Mankind had fallen from the true knowledge of God divorced. However, human
race and tribes, according to the tradition of their ancestors kept the memories of what
God
a single Creator and Divine Providence. The memory of most heavily tarnished, to
such an extent that almost lost its practical impact on people's lives. But the stronger
acted lower religious views.
On this basis, most clearly, there are two kinds of religious
ideas: 1) the deification of the forces of nature, 2) the cult of ancestors, both cult often
merge in varying degrees. The belief in the immortality of the soul and conviction
benevolence of fathers of families, lead to the fact that people see their patrons
the spirits of ancestors, for them to apply for protection, they sacrifice, they erected
churches and so on. n. On the instructions of their own desires and they are as good will
and circumstances
Realizing their behavior and their social life.
The deification of the forces of nature - there is only a rough insight into the field of
spirituality
creatures. Here people worship and the power of evil and good, especially easy moving
away from the concept of
the very essence of God. His creature - as we know from Revelation, is a creature
moral. The deification of human nature, on the contrary, only bows before
force, regardless of the moral or protivonravstvennogo content, and thus
The method is particularly far way to move away from the true God.
It is these various states of religious beliefs - can not help but have a very
different effects on human life in general and in particular on the concept of human
Supreme power in his political life.
Arranging the state, people act to act very differently, depending
by the fact that, in their opinion, is stronger and more just world. Moreover, to determine
their
activity is very important, what kind of forces of the spiritual world, in the opinion of the
the people most interested in human social life. In ancient beliefs

Greek was the idea of a destiny that is much stronger than Jupiter's and other
gods, but Jupiter, Venus, and so on. d. directly intervene in earthly affairs, and clearly
impose its own requirements, the failure of which is dangerous, and profitable
execution. Among
the fact that the fate of desires - Greco was not known. In these terms it is, of course,
It does not conform with the fact that he did not know, and that he knows.
Hence the huge initial impact on policy is ancestor worship and
the cult of the forces of nature. Similarly, as the recognition of the One Deity, the Creator
of the world, these
two branches of the religious ideas are capable of giving the starting point for the sole
Supreme power.
Religious element
in the sole supreme authority.
The recognition of the supreme state power of one person over the hundreds of thousands
and
millions of human beings like him can not take place except under
fact or presumption that this person - the king - Some top acts
Page 64

superhuman strength, a nation which wants to obey or may not obey.


With regard to the peoples conquered by force, the king is the supreme conquerors can
power, as the conquered have no independent rights and are only
those bits of rights and tolerance who want to leave the winner or to bestow.
But violent human power one person has the position only
against the conquered tribe. The king himself conquered tribe is not distinctive
force, and it drew the midst of the people subjected, in respect of which should already
have
any other source of power, not a simple force. And conquered recognize
Supreme power of the king who conquered them, because he was backed by his soldiers,
his
native tribe. Strength, forcing to submission, is thus not present
the sole ruler, and the people stood behind him.
But how one person can become the supreme power to the people, to
to which he belongs, and that as many times stronger than any individual
personality, how many millions more units?
This can be done only by the influence of religious beginning, fact or
the presumption that the monarch is a representative of some higher power, against
which
void millions of human beings. The participation of religious principle definitely
necessary for the existence of the monarchy as state sovereignty. Without
religious principle sole power, even though the most brilliant person may
only be a dictatorship, limitless power, but not supreme, and the Management,
Get all the rights only as a representation of the people's power.

That was the historical emergence of monarchies. Often one-man rule


I put forward in the value of the supreme ruler, dictator, leader, for reasons quite
varied: for the wisdom of legislative or judicial, energy and talents to
maintenance of internal order on military capabilities, but these rulers could
get the value of the supreme power only if the fact of their elevation
privhodila religious idea, which indicated people in the person representative
Higher superhuman start.
As a rule, all the monotheistic religions promote the emergence of a
Supreme monarchical power, polytheistic religion, on the contrary, this little
favor, except in the case where the cult of ancestors creates a
Uplink relationship deification of the representative of the dynasty.
Deified ancestors, who at the same time are the ancestors
the ruling dynasty, it is clear, according to the king the living exponent of the spirit and
beliefs of the people. The presence of this element in the ancient kingdoms everywhere,
more or less
noticeable. The chief god of Assyria was the Assyrian, who was revered as the patron
and the dynasty,
and yet the Bible calls the Assyrian son Shem. In Egypt, explicitly states that the country
initially ruled gods, t. e. in other words - the ancestors of the Kings have been enrolled in
the
deity. With regard to China, our famous sinologist, St George S., very convincing
explains the importance of ancestor worship analysis of Chinese characters [Sergei St.
George,
"Analysis of the Chinese hieroglyphic writing as reflecting a life story
Ancient Chinese people ", St. Petersburg., 1888]. The characters of the Chinese express,
as we know,
no sounds and concepts and combinations of concepts, and therefore allows analysis of
Character
to determine what circumstances and facts led to just such and not other preparation
this character. For example, it can be seen clearly from what elements formed
"State" or "army" or "the people" and so on. n.
Page 65

This analysis leads Character of St. George to the conclusion that the ancient
Chinese kings were nothing more than the elected chiefs. Selected in such chiefs
Military Merit, as the character "give" it expresses that face reigning
skillfully in warfare. And this was originally elected leader turns
Subsequently, the representative of Heaven.
In total, this picture is drawn. One of the founders of the Chinese,
elected leaders in the conquest of their present territory, turned
gradually the supreme deity, and bogdyhana - his "sons." The son of the leader of the
first, more

probably very powerless, at the request of the cult of ancestors, brought him the victim,
and
It was therefore necessary to mediate between the people and the dead leader,
that the spirit of the people was needed, as the patron. The authority of the successor of
his way
It increased from generation to generation. All subsequent kings of his death even more
the sky was filled with spirits, who is the patron of the Chinese, and all live with Shangdi
(sky). All the Emperor is "the son of heaven," and most of his reign called
"ministry of the sky." Indeed "the ministry of the sky" is both a family
the duty of the emperor cult of ancestors, and - control of the people over which ruled
All these spirits during his life and after death were patrons of the former subjects.
Ancestor worship, required for each individual family, it does not matter for all
other families of the Chinese people, while the cult of the powerful nature of Shang-di
concerned
all. The ancestors of other families stayed home spirits-protectors, and Shang-di
gradually grew in major national deity. Clearly, the authorities gave a halo
Shang-di cult to the Chinese emperor, natural, undeniable and inheritance
guardian of the cult. Conquering the sky, t. E. Shang-di, the people thus had
obey his earthly representative, bogdyhanu, and I could not refuse him obedience, not
refusing obedience to the sky. So from the original happy, lucky
commander, who advanced from among his peers chiefs of Chinese labor,
has grown on the basis of the cult of the ancestors, the supreme power is not dependent
on people's desires
and the election and the will of the "sky", Shang Ti.
But it is clear at the same time that the supreme power in the management of exhibits
bogdyhana
people are not my personal will and the will of the host of spirits of their ancestors, with
the Parliamentary
Shang-di in heaven. Supreme power, so here expresses the whole spirit, dedication,
beliefs and ideals of the people.
The moral imprint of religious ideas.
The difference between the religious ideas vozvedshego power supreme value, giving it
unequal moral dignity. Even among the monotheistic religions do not all give
the same content to the ideal, the service that creates supreme power
monarch. True yogi - one. Higher ideals of truth and morality - is also only
alone. The true degree of autonomy of the person in the unit of your life - too only
one. As much as we, in my opinion, no increase or decrease the degree of his or
independence in reality it really is such as it is created by God. therefore
proper, proper management of public life, in everyday life and in politics, gives only
Page 66

the religious impact that people get from the true God. Other

influence, whether they are created by our imagination or a disguised influence


any other super-human forces will have an effect more or less
distorted.
Therefore, the monarchical principle as supreme, is not the same degree of
moral dignity and the common good. This is due to the content of
religious principle, which reported this monarchy its supreme state
value.
Binding of the monarchy, as supreme, with unknown divine power,
vague moral shape creates the perverted monarchy, with the despotic
character.
Everything is, of course, comes down to the person of the ruler. We see this type in
Eastern monarchies. Huge kingdom there and break it in connection with a
person or two-three generations of the ruling house. These are the Tatar kingdom,
Arab, Turkish. In all of them, with the enormous significance of the person of the ruler,
in the nation
very poorly all able to produce his identity. The concepts of the church does not exist,
and
when this concept of deity - could not exist. Mohammedan concept of
God Allah - is not associated with the notion of his stay in the hearts of people, and only
associated with
obedience to Him (Islam - means submission).
The late Vladimir Solovyov [W. Solovieff. La Russie et 1'Eglise Univeiselle [21]] bright
It characterizes the spirit of this religious concept. To Islam, he says, "God and man
placed in the existence of two opposite poles, whereby between
no filiation. Every element of the implementation of the Divine, descending to man, and
every
spiritualization element rising from the man themselves excluded. Religion
becomes purely external relationship between the omnipotent Creator and creation,
certainly alien to freedom and are only obliged to blindly obey their lord (this
there is a sense of the Arabic word "Islam"). This corresponds to the simplicity of the
religious idea as
It is a simple solution to the problem of social and political. Man and humanity are not
the task of any progress. There is no moral regeneration for
personality and even more for the society. All it is belittling to the level of pure natural
existence. Ideal reduced to the extent at which the possibility of immediate,
direct its implementation. The Muslim society can not have any other
purposes other than the development of material forces, and enjoyment of earthly
goods. The whole task
Muslim state - to spread Islam and arms control orthodox
absolute power by the rules of elementary justice laid down in the Koran. "
This religious concept is reflected in the nature of the supreme power in the state,
weakening the moral principle that Islam is not in the spirit of our quality, and
an external version of the rules, t. e. in training, in obedience to the prescribed regime.

The spiritual condition of the Eastern peoples - Semitic, and Hamitic, in general, is
a curious contrast to the spiritual state iafetadov. Recent deeply feel your
spirit, and on the other hand, sometimes we tend to forget about the existence of a higher
power, their breed.
But, remembering that higher power, iafetidy easily feel their moral
affinity with it. Jews make certain the midst between the two types.
The rest of the peoples of the East never consider themselves a higher power. East stores
the higher consciousness of superhuman strength, suiting the fate of individuals and
peoples, but
the moral content of these higher powers do not feel easy.
Page 67

The superhuman elements, for the most part, he feels invincible only
force, which submits without examining its quality and ready to bow before
demonic origins as to the Divine.
Such spiritual mood, certainly arouses a tendency in politics
rallying around the sole power in which the people elect looking east
Higher superhuman strength. But the content of the will of a higher power was not
determined
moral principle. East resigned to the power, the force because it does not respect her, not
liking
it, but only to submit. Thus clothed character and public consciousness.
Chosen higher powers could only show a success, expressing support
above. Success - a measure of moral law. Day courses of action that
elect the higher powers, for ambiguity will last, or more precisely - the nature of
Obscurity
This will, there was no indication other than the will of the ruler. Glimpses higher
religious consciousness generate some signs of debt ruler. But this - nuggets,
who have more moral development can create a high example of the Board,
but can not create a common ideal king. In the end, to the east, and Genghis Khan
Nadir Shah is as perfect as Harun al-Rashid.
When ambiguities moral character of the Deity and the ensuing Meryl
Truth as a "success" can not be the difference between the rule of law and usurping.
Therefore, the element of heredity underdeveloped. Maintaining the dynasties often
achieved by killing all the applicants. Beating all the brothers of the Sultan sometimes
It was generally domestic policy. The practice becomes even more power
arbitrary, when she does not have the legitimacy and support holds only so long,
yet is a formidable force. The arbitrariness of the authorities characterizes this despotic
monarchy. This should be noted that randomness does not depend on the law being
absent,
he can be. But there is a law for all citizens, not for the Supreme authority,
which itself is the source of all law, and therefore they can not be ogranichivaema.

The arbitrariness of despotic power of the monarchy depends on the absence of what
only
arbitrariness destroyed it - a clear idea of the moral ideal, to express
which it is designed. Thus despotic monarchy is everywhere
perverted religious ideas in connection with the correctness of which can only
develop the true ideal type of monarchy.
The monarchical principle in connection with the phenomena of the social order.
Human conceptions of truth and justice are in the thin inner
Due to religious beliefs and ideas. But along with this foundation of beliefs,
in the development of the concepts of justice, truth and the right to play a huge role
conditions
historic national life, inter-tribal relations, social and personal,
that - even with all the influence of belief - never determined solely by them,
and have as their cause and the impact of purely worldly considerations, practical,
considerations about the possibility or impossibility, convenience or inconvenience,
benefits or harm.
All this enormous layer of influences and conditions purely political, social,
Economics also plays a powerful role in determining the shape and nature of the
Supreme power in particular is reflected in the monarchy.
Page 68

It may be unfavorable to its origin may be, on the contrary, very


it is favorable. But in general should be noted that between this layer influences
historical, social and religious influences layer does not have a complete and necessary
matches. They act individually, sometimes coincide, sometimes opposing one
another. So here, in Russia, the two layers of influences, generally speaking, very match
harmoniously, creating this type of particularly well-seasoned monarchy. In Byzantium,
for example, on the contrary, the impact of historical and social in many essential points
disagreed with the religious, harming the development of pure monarchical type. In
Rome
the divergence of these layers influence was even stronger. The same can be said about
monarchies of Western Europe.
Leaving
at
party
layer
Religious
influences,
field
effects
historical and social, we can notice the following phenomena.
With regard to its own social humanity in general is experiencing two stages
development: life patriarchal [The Age matriarchal too little is known to her

introduced into the argument] life and citizenship, imperceptible stages of passing
one to another. Gen. patriarchal, there are sprawling family life, the members of which
are linked
Not only a common origin, but the whole moral and disciplinary force it.
The patriarchal way of life exists only up to those limits, while the family, much
overgrown,
but it is not so large that its members lost an opportunity of personal
constant communication, personal contacts, joint work and protection. On this
direct, personal influence all built in a patriarchal way of life, and even more so
firmly that the location of each member is determined not by choice, not by the desire or
even
merit, and natural increase of one generation to another. The patriarchal family
eat the fruit, so to speak, vegetable social process, action of natural forces
birthday, sympathy, subordination stronger habit knowingly participate in ...
This is very small, only the particulars and details. But the more usual bond and
instinctive, growing even closer unity of worship, which is always, or
is the cult of ancestors, or closely associated with it.
Patriarchal power is in its essence monarchist. It is imbued with the
the moral spirit, the same native (spontaneite), regardless of the wishes
or election; it is imbued with perfect clarity of rights and obligations as the problems
control and subordination. This power is a purely monarchical in nature, but
It represents only the embryo of monarchy, just as patriarchal community
It represents only the embryo of society.
Power patriarchal ruler extremely clear in his family community.
But it will bring together at least two such communities? In respect of those two or three
family
Communities there is nothing that unites the interior of each of them individually.
Sprawling patriarchal way of life turns into a generic, has built only on
inertia, the natural analogy, on the basis of a patriarchal, but without a real one,
direct, personal connection and power, which is all the beauty and power
patriarchal life. Internal slim complacency, and therefore immutable
the order of the patriarchal system and therefore can not be repeated in a family. This
tribal life
everywhere characterized by general uncertainty communication strife. "Vozsta born on
race" - is
general phenomenon.
Meanwhile, tribal life - this is the stage that phase of the evolution of the patriarchal
life, with which the tribe moves to build a civil, t. e. to build when a question
Page 69

nothing of political power based on the family relationship is not, not related, are not
economic, not moral or religious, and individual right, but
civil relations, human relations, friends and strangers, the rich and the poor, and evil

the good, and not uniform cult, but enforced, and who want to live in a civil
Union.
This marital status, civil union, did not abolish the unions and other
ties and even without their existence is impossible, that is, without their existence for him
it is impossible to find a reputable foundations. Still, in itself, in its essence, it is
distinct from them. The notion of the supreme power is only in the transition to this
civil, political, state.
What are the working conditions for the emergence of various forms of supreme power?
By itself, a purely patriarchal way of life in general is very favorable for the development
of it
monarchical power, which is similar to the character of the familiar and beloved
patriarchal authority. Therefore, if the patriarchal family, not even grown up in
entrenched tribal system, the need to obtain a joint action as
for general self-defense or attack, they naturally stands out as a common
government - monarchy. But if you need the total power it is at already developed
the tribal system, the emergence of the monarchy harder.
Lords of childbirth too powerful to give the place of the monarchy, and
developed generic life naturally brings aristocratic principle, in which
Prince, rex, konung is only as primus inter pares [22]. In this case, the monarchical
principle can advance only later, with the condition that the aristocratic system
begins, whether on their own degradation, or very rapid tide of new folk
layers, random and sbrodnyh, provided already powerless to save his prestige. Then
increasing weight, democratically inclined, in the struggle with the principle of
aristocracy,
can once again give the ground for the emergence of the monarchy, reconciling these two
conflicting forces
a total unity.
So here is a monarchy representative of a general
reconciling the principle recognized by both parties, what principles can
It appears only some moral ideal. Generally, with the development of civil
state, the monarchy is more easily than the elements of civil life and the difficult
more they severally developed. Not wanting and not seeing grounds for mutual
submission, feeling individually its own raison d'etre, all of these elements
able to unite only to some higher principle, distracted from their
separate existence, but did not deny them. That principle is the easiest
moral, human, emanating from the idea of the individual, his rights, its benefits, its
needs, and so on. n. As with such a character, he puts forward the monarchical power as
essentially moral.
On the other hand, is a unifying principle is the idea of the state, the country,
Motherland - the basis of the Supreme power is natural aristocracy or democracy,
avoiding unilateral authority only as a dictatorship, t. e. as though
absolute, but still delegated authority.
Hence the phenomenon of so-called absolute monarchy, with more than

the appearance of a monarchy rather than its essence. Terms of purely social and political
generally able to create only the sole, or even the election,
hereditary absolutism, which keeps real or perceived election
Page 70

the people's will. But it is not yet recognized by the Supreme, native power, it is not
power above the popular will. To complete monarchical case for social assistance
the conditions should be the religious beliefs, and only then turns absolutism
in the present monarchy. Similarly, in a true monarchy, with the withdrawal of the
religious
beliefs will only absolutism, which can then easily give way
democracy or aristocracy.
The effects of domestic and foreign policy.
The influence of religious and social can be called organic, the most
deep and fundamental. Besides these, however, there is still a very strong influence
the state of practical life, t. e. the impact of domestic and foreign policy.
The monarchy has sole power posed as supreme. Therefore, it
contribute to the emergence and maintenance of all the circumstances in which advances
man rule, and those who create in the minds of a nation living
universally recognized moral ideal, covering all aspects of social life.
The significance of these external conditions, the current political circumstances,
however, should
assessed only in the present measure. They often bring down our understanding of the
essence
monarchy.
Sometimes nations occurs most burning practical interest that all
It unites all common associates, engulfing all desire ... In these cases, before
pungency needs or desires effaced all ideals, and this interest is
view of the national ideal. But this ideal is temporary should not be confused with the
fact that
He lives in the depths of people's psychology.
The people's struggle for existence, which requires concentration of forces, easily occurs
the need for a single leader, who is the king. Era of national self-defense,
or the era when one nation, dominating a number of others, should rule over them with
straining all its forces - may also require the highest personal power led
national forces. So nominated dictators because the conditions for the monarchy. Yet
big mistake to reduce the essence of the monarchy in a personal power. If the monarchy
relies only on such temporary historical demand, it is not durable and not even
is full, there is no true monarchy.
You can have unilateral authority and without the monarchy. On the contrary, it is
possible and in a monarchy
to use all means of collective authorities wherever they are needed. Peter the Great
well developed collegial principle in all its management, and indeed the story is full

such examples.
Generally, pushing some power in the beginning of the supreme, harmonizing
the principle that a nation does not destroy other forms of power that continue in it
There, and only go to the official value of the forces that are allowed
The supreme power in the different spheres of government. Therefore, when the policy
advances
the need for personal power, as the power utility, here you can not even enter into a
that it pushes the monarchy.
For example, in ancient Rome sole power was a need not only
external, but internal. Sam Titus Libya, a fan of the Republican revolution,
perfect Brutus says:
"There is no doubt that the same Brutus, celebrated the expulsion of Tarquin
Page 71

Proud, committed to dealing fatal for the country if, seeking to premature
Freedom, snatched the scepter from any of the preceding kings. Really - what
It would become of this rabble of shepherds and the outcasts of all countries, if they were
right
free from fear of the king, were given all the storms tribune? What would be,
if these aliens in a strange city entered into a struggle with the Senate before marriage
alliances, kinship, love for a new home - not grudgingly mutual affection?
Discord would have destroyed it hardly originated State "[Livy," Roman History "
Vol. II, Ch. I].
However, the need for personal power at this time was not as strong as
before. This is proved not only absolutism Tarquin, but also that of exile
the kings of the Republic itself, as noted by Livy, "in no way reduced the prerogatives of
power. "
Moment stories pointed Titus Libya, very curious. Supreme
power has been changed, and the Management remained almost the same. What does this
mean? Disappeared
something so kept the monarchy and replace it made another High
principle - the aristocracy (but unsuccessfully). Gone was the patriarchal king,
representative
patriarchal community and its minister general the cult. And all this happened - despite
the ongoing need for personal power.
But the aristocracy had not satisfied the ideal of sovereignty. Aristocracy, with
First Roman times, fought against the monarchy. There is no doubt that Romulus was
Senators killed, and of Titus Livius known that those same senators have probably long
delayed
election of a new king. They even tried to rule by one, and only the people's insistence
forced to restore the monarchy. "After the death of Romulus, says Titus Libya, one
hundred
Senators made this decision: they were divided into 10 decuries each decuries

I put one member appointed by the authorities. Thus, for the reign it was 10
people, but only one gets the sign of authority and the lictors. Power remained with him
for
5 days, and then in turn passed on to others. "This arrangement lasted for the whole year.
"But the people murmured, his enslavement became more severe, he had not one, but a
hundred gentlemen."
And senators, seeing this excitement minds prefer to offer themselves what they
ready to take power, that is the new king.
The coup plotting repeatedly, finally succeeded with the aristocracy
Tarquinia. However, she still could not hold in their hands the supreme power,
which quickly took in Rome, the democratic nature, but the power of the Management
almost entirely left in the hands of the aristocracy.
And the power of the Management, growing out of the aristocracy, under the supreme
authority
Democracy has retained the same individual character. King expelled, but instead created
two consuls of the same force of power. "The challenge to retain the absolute power of
the right and at the same
time limit it actually says Mommsen [Mommsen, "Roman History", Part 1, Chap.
VI], it has been solved completely Roman, sharp and simple: the solution was to limit
, the authorities and the appointment of two equal and equal to the absolute rulers. "If
not enough for such action and power, assigned much of the absolute and uniform
dictator.
Supreme power remained the same for the Roman people.
Similarly, true monarchy, conscious of his rule, almost can not
exist without the presence about himself "the voice of the earth," any "sovetnyh people,"
that
some form of "Sobor". When this is not - this is a sure sign of incipient
Page 72

the fall of the sole rule. Meanwhile, the Zemsky Sobor - Institution
"democratic." Yet, making a huge demand for the monarchy, he did not
It gives supreme power - democracy.
In Russian history, we have the phenomenon where, the Management democratic force
even standing on the supreme moment, he has not changed the monarchical rule. Time of
Troubles
completely destroyed the monarchy, which did not even have a legal representative.
The political necessity forced to resort to action for people's autocracy
save the country from foreign enemies. A purely democratic interim government
capital freed by armed force. The cathedral, convened for recovery
statehood, had absolutely constitutive law. Finally, in the area of the Management
Authorities have declared themselves such common folk heroes like Prince Pozharsky
and Citizen
Kuzma Minin Sukhorukov. And what? We see that not only are these all-powerful

the Management forces seized the supreme power, but that he tried his Cathedral
autocratic role only as the official forces of the monarchy, and immediately
He restored it in all its autocracy.
So one need a certain power of the Management does not create more and
It abolishes the monarchy. For the monarchy needed, apart from the occasional needs of
the policy,
known moral and psychological conditions. In them the whole essence of the case. But
nonetheless
long practice known control can gradually pave the way for this or
a supreme power.
Therefore, the need for national self-defense, and in general, the circumstances
requiring concentration of power and its special energy, favorable to the institution
monarchy. This is done by the national education of the mind and senses in the habits
and tastes,
favorable to represent himself sole power as supreme.
But just as well, and vice versa, the practice of democratic principles, under certain
conditions,
It can gradually instill in the mind of the people of the national democratic ideal of
autocracy.
An example of this we have in the Russian history. Perfect princely nonentity
authorities in Veliky Novgorod, its absence, its constant variability, while constantly
growing and relatively perfection national administration and Chamber posadniks in
several centuries has brought the principle that "the Great Novgorod free and princes and
mayor ". Novgorod developed the idea of the national autocracy so that Moscow only
to suppress the idea and forced to accept the Grand Duke - "Sovereign".
In neighboring Poland, the practice of aristocratic control gradually completely
He destroyed the monarchical idea of supreme power and replaced it with the idea of the
Commonwealth republic, in which the king had been only an auxiliary role of national
representative and head of the main national affairs.
There is no doubt that throughout Europe the practice of absolutism extremely
She contributed to the growth of democratic ideas, preparing it replace the monarchy
republic or near the so-called "limited" monarchy, which
limitations already shows that it does not have the power supreme. General practice
domestic policy, gradually raising the people love and trust in one way or another
the principle of authority, of course is of great importance to one or other of
These principles were gradually supreme value, first in the mind and then
actually.
Page 73

Political consciousness.
Of all the areas of social creativity of the State have the greatest
degree area of consciousness, it creates the greatest effect

intentionality and human reasoning. Therefore, in the state structure, as in the


good and in the bad sense, it has a huge impact all relates to the field
Reason: the state of our knowledge, the logic of development, the ability to critically
assess and
t. e. Therefore, as for the state of the people is of great importance and depth
the nature of the educated class, the degree of education, development and
independent science of the country.
Every beginning of the authorities to the existence and actions, should understand what
the source of his strength, in order to preserve and develop it.
For example, democracy, expressing the views and aspirations of the spirit of
quantitative
forces of the nation, of course must maintain all the conditions under which quantitative
It retains the ability to force the majority to prevail over the power of qualitative or
morally perfect. The mass of the people in a democracy should be as high as possible. All
manifestations of mental aristocracy or whatever it was - dangerous for democracy (as
Supreme power). The dominance over the minds and conscience of anyone
comprehensive
moral ideal that can be more authoritative than the popular will - such
as dangerous. Policy equation is essential for the preservation of democracy in
As the Supreme power.
The aristocracy to be the supreme power of the state should be in
actually support the qualitative superiority of their own. Some of the privileges and
actual domination can not strengthen it, and it should pursue in its policy
aim to be a qualitatively higher power, as a class of civil, military, or
industry.
In turn, the monarchy, to develop and maintain their own, should be based on
forces, it is inherent. For example, the need for a powerful monarchy
organization of management, high technical connecting with unity of action
the perfection of the special powers, and so on.. But first of all necessary to the monarchy
take care of their ability to be the mouthpiece of the highest moral ideal, and
therefore care most about the maintenance and development of the necessary conditions
to save the people of the higher ideal aspirations, and the conditions to which
most of the monarch it easier to smell and observe the people's soul, to
always be in communion with it.
History is full of examples of the fall of the monarchy, unaware primatial
the importance of the terms of the order. We know how often prevents or undermine the
monarchy
even shared her native court laxity of morals. Also a common mistake
- Aspiration of all the attention on the development of the absoluteness of power and
organization
the machinery of government in such a direction that the central
governmental machine could take over the execution of all the vital functions of the
nation.

Meanwhile, the idea of government omnipotence is precisely deeply democratic and


fascination with her most monarchical government paved the way for
social democracy.
The task of every political principle of self-awareness is not very easy, and fully
Page 74

even that is not possible without enhanced and armed mental work that
called scientific. Only this work finds itself the nation and the rulers - that the current
life should be attributed to this principle, its content and resulting therefrom
the internal logic of development, and that only in appearance it is brought to the
historical environment,
random conditions internal or external policies.
If we do not know the internal logic of the principle of authority, and
know him only external manifestations, we will be ascribed to him
own content a lot, in fact it alien or contrary to it,
created not by him but only if it and in spite of it. On the contrary, we can attribute to it
more beneficial, that in reality they are not created.
In general, for conscious action, we need to know more than one historical practice,
but the most ideal of this principle, its content must know not only what
or that they might be made, but the main thing is that he is able to do on your
internal content. We also need to know the conditions necessary for the full
the development of his creative abilities to understand - that it helps or hinders
act. This resolves a number of issues of the problem: what should be done, what should
be avoided,
it is the duty of the authorities and that, on the contrary, the violation of its obligations,
what
the best means of action, according to its nature. The resolution of all this good fortune
It depends on the degree of self-understanding, awareness of the principle of authority as
it
itself, and the nation.
Science is, therefore, of great importance for political creativity. AND
not enough for the reasonableness of its influence that it has the means
universal scientific observation. Science must be, in addition, an independent,
directly observe their country. It is very important doctrine, theory and
general ideas of political creativity can make the effect of a dependent science
extremely harmful and fatal. In the field of ideas easier to borrow, for science
It is universal. Yet the doctrine of a stranger could come from a completely different
combinations of conditions. Not matching the conditions of the nation, however, the
doctrine can
affect her mind and lead to activities entirely inappropriate.
All this applies to the monarchical principle. When there are organic
the conditions of its proponents, is only the beginning, the starting point of the monarchy.
The religious worldview nation generates an instinctive desire to monarchical

power. Organic social conditions give a lot for its dispensation. But it all
It should be more reasonable to use, with the help of awareness, knowledge and action
political forces. The value of awareness and lack of it in the highest degree is large;
political reason there is such tremendous force that can fight even with the strongest
Influence of organic and psychological conditions for the benefit or detriment of the
nation and its
statehood.
It should be noted that in the history of this scientific value conscious thought brought
Not only are many benefits, but perhaps more often it was still bad, due to the fact that
science
social and state - the color of human knowledge hitherto has been and remains on
a very low level of development, not yet mastered the fullness of his subject, and most
know
particular phenomena than their base, so that - in lack of knowledge is replaced
Generalized hypothesis, for the most part extremely weak. Meanwhile erroneous
scientific
false consciousness thought and produce on the minds and creativity in politics no less
influence than the right. Correct or is mistaken consciousness is always
Page 75

mighty power, good or bad, but the force. Its role in the history
Statehood was huge since both appeared in people the idea of statehood.
Varieties of monarchical power.
Under the influence of different combinations of these conditions occurs, develops,
Upadana gets stronger or monarchical power. On a variety of conditions, it naturally
is a lot of varieties, which are very numerous petty shades.
But the most important features in the history of the world played the role of three
varieties
the monarchical principle.
Of these, in fact, one major, the perfect, true monarchy. Two other
They represent a perversion.
Speaking of clean, ideally, the type of any form of supreme power, I
I mean by this the type that it is maintained in its meaning and content.
All power has its strengths, and they are better than the exhibit
their own properties without impairing nor any cutting down any invasion
Actions other elements with opposite properties. In this sense, the real
Monarchy can be only one. It was there that monarchy, in which one person
It gets the value of the Verkhovna power: not just a powerful force and the supreme
power. it
the same can happen in a completely pure form, but under one condition: when the
monarch is
doubt for the nation and himself, is appointed to the governance of the
God.

The power of the monarch is possible only if the national recognition, voluntary and
sincere.
It is associated with the highest power of moral content, filling people's faith
and makes it the ideal to which people would like to fill my whole life,
monarchical power is not representative of their own people, and that higher
force that is the source of the national ideal.
To recognize the supreme domination of this ideal state of his life
a nation can only when, believe in the absolute value of this ideal, and therefore
He raises it to the absolute top personal, t. e. God. Bleeding from human spheres the ideal would not be absolute. Bleeding is not the source of the personal - it could not
be
moral. So, wanting to subjugate his life moral principle, a nation
He wants to subject himself to the divine guidance, looking for the sovereignty of God.
It is a necessary condition to one-man rule has ceased
It is delegated by the people and could be delegated by God, and therefore totally
independent of the human will, and of any national recognition. Wherein
sole power becomes supreme.
But in order for it to be really the supreme power of the Divine
moral principle, that the monarchy should be established true faith, faith in
true, actually existing God.
Religion associated with true worship, people really opens
the purpose of their life, reveals the nature of man and the action of Providence,
doubtless points
the foundations of social life, and all of this is preparing an environment in which can act
state, subordinate to the rule of the moral ideal. When all this has Page 76

may occur true, ideal monarchy. Then the monarch - not a despot, not unauthorized
power, guided not by their tyranny and ruled not to himself, and not even in their
if desired, and is God's servant, entirely subordinate to God at his service, just
like every citizen, in their family and social duty, performs known
a small mission God assigned. So the monarch carries his reign only service
God.
This authority, the people subject to unlimited, within its service to God, t. E. Until
Monarch does not make citizen to break the will of God and, therefore, ceases to own
to be a servant of God. For the same caveat - the Supreme power of the monarch is
unlimited. Is not
It means that the people gave him her, popular, power. According to the theory of the
state
absolutism. The supreme power of the Sovereign depends on that if people are denied, in
his
benefit from its sovereignty. This is not true. People renounces its practice

authorities are not in favor of the monarch, and in favor of God, that is simply deposited
in the direction of his power, and
It requires the authority of God. For the specific performance of the power of God in
state God created the monarch.
As a people who have true faith, there is a particularly important factor when
which alone can be the ideal monarchy. The fact that God is with the people,
who believe in Him. He stayed with Israel. He is a Christian church, with
a collection of believers. This God, who is staying in the people, serve the
monarch. Same
called the spirit of the people, in this case, expresses the mood required by God.
So the service of God coincides with the monarch union with national spirit. This
complete
independent of the popular will and the subordination of the people's faith, spirit and
ideals
characterized by a monarchical power, and that it becomes capable of being supreme.
The concrete historical, national ideal of life, and therefore, and control is created
two conditions: firstly, it follows from the field of religious and metaphysical,
secondly, from the area of the practical life, in which people of this nation used
in practice, their notions of truth and consistent with the need, with the terms of the
social life. Under the influence of these two categories of phenomena produced
People's moral type, people's moral ideal of a fighter, a hero and leader.
The bearer of this ideal is the sole monarchical power.
In view of the differences of practical conditions, among which produces this ideal
King, since shades of moral concepts, and the most ways to the emergence of royal
power,
Monarchy may be many shades. In one case, it may
the predominant influence of the social order, in other - religious, in the third - on the
primarily to combat international, etc... These differences are not eliminated together
all the elements that create the monarchical parliamentary power - do not interfere with
any
of these specific types of the monarchy belonged to the true, pure, perfect
manifestations of the monarchical principle. But there are two manifestations of
monarchical principle,
qualitatively different from a true monarchy, and so are its distortion.
These are two very common types: 1) a despotic monarchy, and 2) the monarchy
absolute.
Despotic monarchy or autocracy, monarchy is different from true that
it will of the monarch has no objective guidance. The monarchy of the true will of the
monarch
subject to God, and, moreover, it is very clear. It has its divine teaching leadership,
moral ideal, clear duty, and all of this there is not only a scientist but also as a
the actual content of the national soul, which God Himself dwells. Therefore, in the true

Page 77

the arbitrary power of the monarchy Supreme fundamentally impossible. In fact, of


course, he
possible, but exceptional and short-lived phenomenon. His existence
counteract all the forces of what the nation lives and the monarch himself.
But there is a monarchy, whose personal Sovereignty is based on false religious
concepts, and then they generate from this arbitrary personal power, that is,
despotic. It depends on what those false religious concepts are related or
personal deification of the monarch or a deity, as some were aware only
a great force without moral content, and not living in the very soul of the people,
make up this nation.
It is clear that personal deification of the monarch, he has no external
the law of his will. What he wants, and there is a law that has no other motive than his
desire, not having no pacing, does not allow any criticism and verification. It Supreme power, but completely arbitrary.
Similarly, in this case, there can be no question of any moral
unity government with his subjects. It may be a coincidence, but is not intended to, and
usually impossible. The monarch does not care about this, and citizens can not even
know
advance what pleases their master.
When the concept of some unknown, omnipotent deity who brings
given the identity of the ruler of the people - also obtained the supreme power. But it also
despotic, because the content and direction of the will of the deity, the patron monarch,
and makes everyone obey him, is unknown, and says nothing of conscience and
the mind of the people.
In this form of power of any close contact with the people of the monarch as the least
not intended fundamentally necessary. The people is not a place of storage
ideal, not a deity dwells in the hearts of people. This unknown god is not related
people do not constitute a source of their moral world is against them only
power they obey unwillingly, out of fear of the impossibility of consciousness
resist. Once this mysterious superhuman strength put on people
Lord Monarch, there is only slavishly obey protege, is unknown
god did not destroy itself and does not replace another despot.
In addition to this despotic monarchy, there is another very common form
the monarchy, the so-called absolute.
Monarchy is true, that is, representing the supreme power of the moral ideal,
unlimited, but not absolute. It has required her start
moral and religious, in the name of which only gets its
legally-unlimited power. It has no power in itself, and therefore is not absolute.
Absolute Power has only the force that on anything but itself, no
It depends flows from itself. Such is the power of democracy, which is
expression of the popular will, the ruling by the very fact that it is the will of the people,
the power

originating out of itself, and thus absolute.


Absolutism is the meaning of the concept and the sense of historical fact, means
power does not created from nothing but itself independent, anything other than the most
yourself, do not due. When people merge with the state - the power of the state,
expressing the sovereignty of the people, made an absolute. This is not a form of
government, but its
character, a property similar to as "liberal" or "despotism". Absolutism as
the trend may actually occur at all volunteer power, but only for
Page 78

misunderstanding or abuse. In the spirit of his, by nature, absolutism


characteristic only of democracy, for the people's will, nothing but itself does not
due creates absolute power, so if the people merged with the state, the
and the power of the latter becomes absolute.
The state, merging with the mass, which does not recognize on themselves, on moral
of his, no power over their own mass force - absolutely on
Nature. If all available means of action in the state and management of transferred
one person, that person becomes the owner of absolute power, the sum of all
State authorities. As a sole form of power, and it is considered
It called monarchy. However, in reality this is not a monarchy, but a certain dictatorship.
Then the monarch has all authorities, all of them currently focuses, but the authorities
It is not supreme. All power, he concentrated the essence of the people's power, he
only transferred temporarily or forever, or hereditary. But no matter how it was given
power, it still is popular, in addition to that it is absolute. If it was
Divine power, it could not be absolute, since subordinate to God and
bled to Him. But if it is not divine, then it can not be supreme over
people. People from his rule can not give up, because it is part of his
nature, but can only submit any higher than it valid. But one man
can not be stronger than it. People can trust him to delegate his power, but this very
power as a property as an element belongs still to the people and therefore it if
pleases, can always start to show the property, and at the same time, delegated
authorities abolished, and returns to its source, that is, to the people. At all,
The supreme power is essentially inalienable.
Therefore, all kinds of monarchical power of the absolutist type of
essentially no monarhichny, with a lack of the most essential properties of the monarchy
the value of supreme power. These species, no matter how concentrated at all
features still remain only the highest authority of the Management. Formula Sic volo, sic
jubeo: sit lege regis voluntas [24] - in the form of lush and vysokovlastnaya, deprived of
the essential:
real basis of the rule, that is an expression of moral and religious sources. This
Formula absolutism expresses the voice of the people, which one can say, "So I want my

will - the law. "The will of the monarch is the supreme for people and gives the law only
when
proclaims God's will.
The general course of the development of absolutist monarchies historically is that they
It arises from democracy as its delegation (Caesarism) and it is carried out as happened
in
European monarchy.
Thus, the monarchy has three main forms:
1) true monarchy, folk component of Rule of faith and spirit in the face
Monarch. It - Autocratic Monarchy.
2) despotic monarchy, autocracy, giving the monarch supreme power, but without
obligatory for him and the people of known content.
3) an absolute monarchy in which the monarch is essentially only has all power
management, but it does not have the supreme power remained with the people, but
without the use of, but
the full potential of its force.
The historical reality of these forms of monarchical power in the mix
different combinations. The influence of religious ideas can give absolutism shades
true sovereignty. Fading religious and moral ideals can
Page 79

convert autocratic monarchy into a despotic or, on the contrary, enlightenment


religious ideas may increase the despotism to the true autocracy. Effect
doctrines most often is reduced to a simple autocracy absolutism. All these
combinations of colors may appear in the history of the same monarchy, forming
random moments of her life in a solid or strengthened its evolution.
It is clear that this evolution may or progressive nature, which
It is approaching a distorted form, the true type of the autocratic monarchy;
or vice versa, regressive, creating a gradual move from autocracy to
despotism or absolutism. Progressive evolution leads to a strengthening and flourishing
monarchy. Regressive - to destroy it, and the state transition to other forms of
the supreme authority, that is the aristocracy, or democracy.
PART TWO
Roman-Byzantine STATEHOOD
Introduction
The following chapters set out the historical manifestation of the laws
state, theoretical formula of which is given in the first part of the book, and
practical conclusions are given in the fourth.
As stated, the monarchical principle is three main types: the autocratic,
absolutist and despotic.
In this part of the book describes the development of monarchies, Roman and Byzantine,
and in the explanation of the conditions that determine their type, introduced a general
outline of the monarchy

Israel, as a predecessor of the idea of the Christian monarchy, and for delineation
latest absolutism - outline the impact of the Western Catholic and Protestant church
ideas on the nature of the European monarchy.
Monarchy outlines eras represent different degrees of fluctuation between
type of absolutism and autocracy, and the type of Rome expresses its most pure
generated absolutism, the Byzantine statehood - something of a transitional
absolutism to autocracy.
Most developed purely autocratic style in Moscow Russia. His depiction
the third part of the book is dedicated.
These two types of monarchy, the most important in our cultural history. As for
despotic monarchy, limits in different parts of general guidance, without entering the
special details. I assume this gap, however, not because it is not considered
important, but because its completion would be too long delayed the end of my
work for the general conclusions that enough delineation types, the most important in
History monarchical state.
Section I.
ROMAN absolutism
Page 80

Roman historical idea.


The original order of the Republic
Roman Republic almost had no need to be considered from a purely monarchical
idea. While the original story finds Rome with the kings, but the form of the Supreme
power
he got most of the historical tradition, from the time older, where the royal
power developed on the basis of the patriarchal, with a strong participation of religion in
ancient times without
doubt based on the cult of the ancestors *.
* Fustel Coulanges defines the ancient Greco-Roman king, as "priest
public focus. "" Just, he says, like a family power was not shared by
I am the father of the priesthood, as the head of the household cult, it was at the same
time and master, so accurately and
High Priest of the civil community was at the same time, the political head. "(" Ancient
civic community ", pp. 159, 160, 162). I have already mentioned one-sidedness Fyustsl
Coulanges
against the influence of religion. The value was determined as the householder and
familiar
the fact of its sovereignty, and his experience, and his strength.
But in Rome, nor religious or social conditions have not already done kingship
required. Meaning of Jupiter was not very high among the celestial Republic
polytheism, and gave little towers nationwide spokesmen divine decrees.
Kovateli royal power, Romulus and Numa, and Tarquinia, try to recreate it,
paid homage to a special cult is Jupiter. But Tull Hostilius, as it turns out, is not

could correctly recall the secret prayers Numa Jupiter [Livy, XXXI]. Formula
declaration of war, said: "Hear, Jupiter, Juno hear, Quirin (t. e. MI), the gods
the sky, the earth gods, the gods of the underworld - hear. "This does not give an
abundance of patrons
special power to none, and do not see why they needed a host of one spokesman,
especially since the Roman gods demanded worship only themselves.
With regard to social, we find Rome already in the structure of generic rather than
patriarchal. This is not a family community, and union labor. Strong patrician
aristocracy gave little space sole supreme power, but gradually
increasing the plebs, alien patrician clan organization, as well as strange and cult
patricians, made it impossible to grow up in this aristocracy the supreme power. Beneath
the influence of these conditions very early in Rome is evident conviction that the
supreme power in
Essentially, there is power nationwide. Mommsen quite subtly observes that the ancient
Roman device was like a constitutional monarchy turvy. AT
Constitutional Monarchy (Mommsen thinks) King personifies the full
power, while the representatives of the people run the country. Rimsky people
It was almost the same as the King of England, and all belonged to the management of its
head - the king
["Roman History", Part I, Chapter VI]. In the Roman kings were really strong
the Management functions, but lacking such attributes of sovereignty as the power
legislative or right of pardon, which (very characteristicity) owned
people.
The expulsion of Tarquin and the destruction of the royal power was the work of the
patricians, but
assign supreme power failed. Needing plebeians, they not only joined the
Senate equestrian names, but recognized Valery Publikoly law, which allowed
an appeal to the people in the decisions of all officials. It was a formal recognition
Supreme power of the people. In compiling the Ten Tables laws omnipotent decemvirs,
Page 81

invested with this mission, not only subjected to public discussion of draft laws and
then corrected their tables according to the instructions of the people, but at the
conclusion of these tables
It was adopted at the nationwide comitia centuriata [25]. Thus, this basic act
the founding legislation took place with the right of referendum [26], which
recognized only a few of our modern democracies.
So, in the Roman Republic never had a combined power of the Supreme, not
The supreme power belonged to neither the king nor the nobility, and always belonged
autocratic Roman people, t. e. was democratic. All combinations of principles
occurred only in the power of the Management that patrician aristocracy
I make every effort to capture and hold in their hands. The whole struggle between the
patricians and

plebeians took place, translated into modern political language, on the census
to be elected, but the rule of the people, the patricians did not deny.
Consul Kvintius, urging the plebeians not to listen to incitement tribunes
perfectly outlined how closely patricians doing the will of the people. "For the sake of
the gods he exclaims, - what else do you need? You want the tribunes: we'll give them, from
desire for peace. You demanded decemvir: we made you assign them. Are you tired
decemvirs we forced them to relinquish power ... you want to restore the tribunes they
It has been restored. You wish to have consuls - and this is fulfilled, "... It is true that all
positions fall into the hands of the patricians, but they corrected them perfectly, they
were full
valor, patriotism and political wisdom, and he is aware of the plebs and felt *.
* Strong generic principle is the foundation of true aristocracy, providing it
traditional spirit and a good upbringing. The strength of the Roman patrician clans can
judging by the fact that Fabius, for example, could put the war from one of his last name
a detachment of 306 people, "patricians polls," proudly says Titus Libya. it
strong generic beginning powerfully supported the political and patriotic spirit. To
the war with Lavikonami between military tribunes appeared scandalous controversy: all
We want to get the difference, to go against the enemy, and no one wanted to stay for
less
brilliant objectives of protection of the city. Of course, such a dispute compromised
military tribunes
(replaces consuls). And here appears the old man, Quintus Servilius, the father of one of
the disputes.
"Since there is - he said - is not respected nor the Senate, nor the republic, let my fatherly
authorities to stop the debate. "And he ordered his son - the highest officials of the state stay in the city, not allowing him to even burned the lot. (Livy, Vol. IV, Sec. XLV).
Obeying the inevitable logic of the democratic idea, he fought for the patricians
Equation rights to be elected to office, but the patricians were able to lead the people so
that when
equation right, the first 150 years of the republic for all positions (except, of course, the
tribunes) are not
It was never elected a single plebeian, and this in spite of all incitement tribunes
reproached the people that he does not respect himself.
Roman plebs for a long time had enough common sense to understand all
the superiority of the patricians. He aspired to equality in principle, he kept under the
patricians
the eternal threat, but actually gave them to do what they do better than him
*.
* Needless to say, this was achieved not one good sense of the people, as well as
all means of political sleight of patricians, up to and including bribery tribunes.
So it was in the best times of the republic, although, of course, based on the principle
rule of the people, of course been influenced by the tribunes to go to the equation

human service classes. Tribune Canuleius perfectly formulated this by saying that they
are,
Page 82

rostrum only want to do for the people of the right, "which he belongs," namely,
- "Trust office to whom he pleases."
Be that as it may, in its typical form of government it was the idea of the republic
It is. The supreme power belonged to the people, but democracy and enjoyed
their power only where absolutely necessary direct manifestation
The supreme power: in the law, the court of last resort, in the appointment of senior
Officials, in an act of mercy. In the region of the Management, in Rome, there were
very skillful combination of individual and collegial power, mostly
aristocratic. With this system of the Republic lived the whole period of its true
greatness.
Fall patricians. The domination of usurping
Glory of the Roman Republic was held at the junction with the sovereignty of the people
servile role of the aristocracy. But the evolution of the Roman state gradually made
such a combination of forces impossible.
First of all, the gradual evolution of a purely political idea led to attempts
direct reign of the autocratic nation. Permanent agents this
ideas were rostrum (t. e., of course, people's tribune. *
* So-called tribunes consuls were similar and even though their institution
it was the victory of the democratic idea - direct propaganda value it does not
had.
This Roman "popular representation" was, of course, a necessary complement
People's autocracy, and in that sense was quite reasonable link of the Roman
constitution. But like all other kinds of representative politicking, tribunate only
and lived strife, and constantly lit them further and further pursuing the idea of equality
citizens and the national intervention board. The service role aristocracy legally
undermined. In the same speech, Kvintius taunts people for systematic
oppression of the patricians. "You said he wanted to have consuls, entirely dedicated
People's Party and sacrificing ourselves, we made this a purely patrician
the position to become the support of the people. You have tribunate, an appeal to the
people, nationwide
voting compulsory voting. Under the pretext of equality, you have roughshod in
All of our rights, and we all carry and transfer "[Livy, Vol. III, Sec. LXVII].
Patrician aristocracy strove rights as fussing about them ministers
monarch: to serve him same. In general, the idea of the Roman government
Republic, which gave her the power, was that the supreme power belongs to the people,
a utility "best people", people patrician patrimonial qualification. Tribunate was also
the supervisory authority of the Supreme authority of the Management.
It should be noted that this idea was not the only patrician, but also
Divide and plebs. Destroyers were it stands. Not once they managed to destroy this

the foundation of the Roman constitution, but, under the systematic incitement of the
people,
Roman aristocracy gradually abolished. Vanished, exposing the people's right to appoint
in the post, "whom he pleases" - undermine the possibility of a patrician, and
of whatever qualification. Tiberius Gracchus proclaimed the right of the people to
overthrow the period
Page 83

all officials. This legal abolition of their privileges on post Patricia could paralyze the fact is had on the effect given by the generic
social systems. But the gradual expansion of the legal rights of the individual,
characterizes Roman history, thereby undermining caste clan system, for
It infuriated the person from the discipline of the order. Instead of the former united unity
patricians, we begin to notice the patricians in the ranks of the people, leaders of the
democratic
movements. Under such circumstances, could not patricians and actually do what he
increasingly consuming legally.
External history of Rome, on the other hand, produced a more profound change
in the social structure of the Roman nation. Conquest expands the territory of the state
and
introduced into its structure the new population. This changes the composition of both
higher and lower
class.
The end of the Punic Wars, made mainly on the shoulders of the latest
the efforts of the noble patrician aristocracy, in this patriotic feat
finally tore his strength - was the moment of transformation of Rome into the world
State, orbis terrarum Romanus. Cato certainly had no idea that preaching delenda
est Carthago [27], he thus predicted Yugurtovskoe "mature perituram" [28] at
ancient Rome. Hannibal could not cope without taking part in Rome Italian
population. The conquest of Carthage inevitably entailed the conquest of nearly all
then known world. Urbs Roma [29] turned into orbis terrarum Romanus. A time history
led to this, the zealots of antiquity, from Cato to Brutus could mourn former
Rome only by misunderstanding the meaning of events. Rome new appeared because
content
has outgrown its old foundations, which are worldwide state were no longer possible. Yet
this process is the collapse of the old and the birth of the new was very s tragic because s
tragic that many times
patriots might seem that Rome finally dies.
The title of Roman citizen was transferred outside Italy and for all the old rules
social order. The state became global. Physical and even moral
the strength of its focus is no longer in Rome, and has already been poured around the
entire Mediterranean
seas. Province of Rome became stronger and the democratic idea more

which developed in Rome, could not deny the rights of others, is located in Rome
citizens, and they themselves do not permit. All the situation was drawn to the fact that
the value of
People are not prepared due to the fact that they were Romans, but because they were
needed for
fighting, were forced. During the war, especially civil wars, by the Romans
I had to draw on all the power which fall under the arm. Troops began
replenished not only foreigners, but even slaves. This is particularly had to practice
during the wars Punic. Thus, soon Marius, Sulla in the fight against right
He turned to slaves, urging them to revolt.
In a moment of triumph, he surrounded himself with a crowd of 4,000 slaves who raged
over
Notable citizens. In turn, the "aristocrat" Sulla just surrounded himself
a detachment of 10,000 slaves who gave the freedom and rights of Roman citizenship. In
the fight
They called on the help of all. Warrior sent to kill Mary, was one of those most Cimbri
from
which Mari just saved Rome. After the death of Maria, the chief of his party were
residents of Italy, while Sylla represented the supremacy of ancient Rome. Conquering
the world, Rome
thus willy-nilly, he blurred among the inhabitants of the world, and
statehood power took things universal.
Accordingly, in this process, change, and economic conditions of existence
Page 84

people. Ancient Rome was inhabited by people of agricultural and labor. Sami Cincinnati
We walked behind the plow, and plebeian did not dream about anything other than land,
which could produce in
the sweat of his bread. Gradually Rome became the center of industrial and commercial.
The old tribal organization, with the patronage of the householder, with numerous
clients,
It becomes unnecessary and unprofitable. The best path to wealth has been different:
Industry speculation or robbery provinces, but finally and large rural
economy, slaves were more profitable than customers. And here begins enhanced
blooming
customers at will. Freedmen, knocked out of the old rut - declasses [30] - take
Chief among the Roman plebs and patrician families, partly mixed with
upstarts happiness and speculation, partly impoverished and moving into the ranks of the
discontented and
rebellious elements.
Thus, in total, the difference between the patricians and plebeians cleared
both politically and socio-economically. It is becoming evident, and
sensitive only difference between "Optimates" and "proletarians" people strong,

rich, powerful, on the one hand, and on the other hand golytboy-.
And in such conditions autocratic something people had to follow the order itself is not
Having had his gallant, old patrician who ruled himself destroyed. Clear as
All this intensified the further course of the process of social and political disorder.
Roman rulers of the provinces do what they want. These potentates. They pay tribute to
Rome subordinate kings. They rob the province. Things were no better in Rome. The
main foundation
Crassus made the state of speculation at the time of the proscriptions of Sulla and
devastation
Maria. Crassus bought cheaply proskriptov estate and homes devastated by fire and
then resold them. Profitable speculation was also traded in slaves,
enriched, by the way, Cato. The mercy of state taxes has also created
a lot of the rich. About robbery provinces have nothing to say. Beauty in one of
Jerusalem
Temple looted by 15 million rubles. Pompey received a Cappadocian king
37,000 rubles per month. [Schlosser, "World History"]; of its production during the war
with
Mithridates can be judged from the fact that he, during his triumph gave each
a soldier of the army of 327 rubles. Huge state thus created,
They helped to seize power. Searchers posts and watered and fed and amused
spectacles "autocratic" poor voters izderzhivaya to millions.
Officials were bought and sold, not only justice, but even the Romans.
Weight Bribery corrupts citizens and feeding, but, of course, lived in the form of
impoverished
the proletariat. The capital of Rome - whose population actually usurped power
"autocratic people" of the Roman state, has focused this contrast of two
classes. About the size of the lower class of autocratic rabble, wandered in the capital,
It can be judged from the fact that up to 320,000 people Julius Caesar used a gratuitous
distribution
bread from the Republic [Suetonius, "Julius Caesar", Ch. XLI].
Rome became a global state. The dignity of a citizen of the world
the state has increased in terms of very high. Need to edit a variety of peoples
developed subtle concepts of law, justice and political art. For this
management, internal and external, was finally established practice for centuries clever
organization of the judicial and administrative authorities. But to manage this
organization
fall patriotic aristocracy was no one left. The people had every right: select,
He succeeds, controlled all power. But it was a dead letter. Huge population
Roman citizens scattered throughout Italy and beyond its borders, it was impossible to
Page 85

It has even come to a crowd in one place. It was the lord of the blind, deaf and even

not mine. His elected were doing and wanted to deceive him, for what he did could not
follow:
normal position of any democracy, accepting the supreme power of the great
volume state.
And then came the era of all kinds of usurpation, the ruling party, universal
robbery, universal corruption. Even the history of Jugurtha showed that everything can
be done in
Rome for the money, because Rome was no longer the eyes of the government: the
people did not have to
bodies. The province commanders did what they wanted, even fought each other. In the
Rome took place incredible anarchy and suffice it to recall the story of Milo and
Sallust, to understand the impossibility of the situation. In Rome, the order could already
Only supported usurpers, but it is very expensive. Mariana robberies
and violence horrified Rome, but they could only eliminate even more terrible violence
Sulla
when, during one proscriptions (excluding war) killed 40,000 people, including
thousands of riders, 90 senators and 15 consuls [Schlosser, "World History", vol. I, p.
719] ...
Urbem venalem et matureperituram si emptorem invenerit [31] predicted Rome
Yogurt. Yet
Rome waited, apparently, even the worst. He apparently decomposed in mutual feuds
and
I went straight to the death, if the state constitution is not changed. But she
changed. On the impossibility of the former regime, in the impossibility of direct
rule by the people was seeking personal power.
She was nominated succession of usurpation, but the national consciousness
finally understood the need for it, as the legal basis of the order.
The imperial idea
By the time the imperial period, Rome had developed themselves a slender, and great
ideal statehood. It was fully aware the rule of law, civil
equality, strong government, the need for specialization
the Management of the authorities and their responsibility. All this slim state idea
expired but not from any higher, supranational beginning, and inseparably
linked to the historical Rome. Roman firmly believed in his height
State ideal, in its absoluteness, but this ideal was not given any
abstract idea, not the supreme will of the Deity, and Rome, his works, his mind, his
history, and therefore the actual implementation of this ideal was inseparable from
the existence of Rome.
The general idea of the board, ie. E. The essential task of the supreme power, was
soznavaema quite clearly. But all orbis terramm Romanus, which almost merge with
the concept of the globe, must reign pax Romana [32], but it was Romana, for
whose maintaining the master of the universe saying to themselves:
Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento:

Parcere subiectis et debellare superbos! [33]


The idea of slim, and even majestic, but purely terrestrial closely and inextricably linked
with the
Roman power, valor, history, the existence of Rome and the Roman title
citizen, or at least a Roman citizen. Religious beginning was here
Page 86

much less significance than even in the days of Romulus and Numa, when the gods
inspire
laws. In Rome, the final development of the law was a purely Roman, expresses the will
and
the mind of the people, senatus populusque [34], the Roman republic, or rather the whole
Roman nation.
This point was important. On the one hand - ideal was so clear and
obscheosoznan that does not even require any interpretations, so that the aristocracy least
It could now obtain value of sovereignty (which previously could not achieve).
On the other hand, it was the ideal in whose name the people could not obey
a force above him, because in the Roman state ideals of the people it claimed
himself as the source of this ideal. So true monarchy in Rome could not
arise. Sole power could be higher in terms of the Management Authority, but
it is not the supreme value of what has been gleaned. Meanwhile, all the circumstances
advanced definitely need personal power so strong that it does not
even relied on the election, for violent unrest have shown all the inability to personally
people wisely choose the power.
The bloody unrest since the Gracchi ran Optimates victory, but showed even
by demagogues, it is impossible to rely on the crowd. Mari acted for the people, but
I relied on the military usurpation. Sulla acted in the name of the aristocracy, but relied
on
the same military usurpation. Both of them have not introduced, in fact, no reform, and
Only supported various aspects of the Roman constitution. Sulla so recognized
the national rule, even acting with violence, ordered himself elect dictators
the people, not the Senate. All recognize the supremacy of the people, and all have
perfectly understood that
virtually rule it is a fiction, and that the order can be maintained only
dictatorship, and, moreover, immutable, that would not pay attention to any legal
timing, and I did not go to a place because of the dissatisfaction of the people. Roman
thought
therefore focused on the means to find such unilateral authority, which would not
It was usurping. The task was extremely difficult, with the Roman state Ideally,
almost impossible. And it really was only allowed about.
Describing the moment that preceded the insurrection of Julius Caesar, Plutarch notes:
"At this time in Rome looking for all positions exhibited outdoors tables covered
money and without shame to buy votes of citizens who, having sold his voice, went on

Champ de Mars, not only to vote for their bidders, but to keep them
his candidacy blows of swords, arrows and slings. At that time, people's congresses
part of the costs are not primarily as a platform and put the blood and defiled her
murder; city,
plunged into anarchy, like a ship without a rudder crashing storm. All people
sensible thought that would be an even greater happiness, if this state of madness and
campaign will not lead to anything worse than monarchy. Many people dared even
publicly say that the transfer of power into the hands of one person has been the only
means of
cure illnesses republic "[Plutarch," Caesar ", XXXI]. The need for the sole
power was so obvious that he Cato, wishing to avoid even the dictatorship offered
appoint Pompey sole consul. But in fact the royal power the Romans
completely forgotten how to understand.
Proving the right of the people to depose all power, Tiberius Gracchus directly advances
as
comprehensible truth, the following argument:
"Royal dignity, which encompasses all the power of magistrates, moreover
consecrated religious ceremonies that were attached to the divine character. but
Romans expelled Tarquinius, who enjoyed power unjustly "[Plutarch," Gracchus "
Page 87

XVIII]. We used to say in the old days: "Do not Moscow Sovereign decree and
Sovereign Moscow." This
the idea would be understandable to Julius Caesar, but not Gracchus, not Mary, not Sulla,
none at all
Times Roman republic.
The Romans, says Bluntschli, "The political system is contained in the organic
contact with the people. The Romans recognized state "the dispensation of the people"
and the people's will
find the source of all law "[" The general state law, "p. 51].
Rome did not give the place a true monarchy as the supreme authority, for lack of
Ideally, a national not only religious, but also of moral character. Rome
national ideal was a purely civilian. "The first distinguishing between the right to
morality, Romans indicated the legal nature of the state - says
Bluntschli. - In their view, the state is not an ethical order of the world, but above all
the legal order. "The source also was the right people and its purely practical life. In
the period of the full development of the empire, Guy gave a definition: "Nam quod
quisque populus
ipse sibi jus constituit, id ipsius proprium civitatis est, vocatusque jus civile "[" General
state law ", p. 51] [35]. Purely civilian government in Rome was ideal
It developed a continuous political calculation, people management practices.
Representative of this ideal could only be created by it, that is, himself Roma, senatus
populusque, ie the Roman nation. Its power could be given to an individual only

how to delegate.
So it happened with the appearance of the empire. However, the genius of its founder Julius
Caesar - apparently felt the need for something more. It was felt in the whole
the history of the empire, that the emperor should be something higher and more
independent than the power
delegated. But under the terms of Roman life this is not more of what was created.
Julius Caesar
Divus Julius Caesar [36] was the true ideal is not so much of Rome as a whole
the classical world. All the features of the Roman valor joined him with a purely Hellenic
subtlety and breadth of personal development. And it needed a man to give
nascent empire even a shadow of the perfect start, which alone could turn
system to usurp the monarchy. Julius Caesar himself had a purely monarchical
feeling, if not consciousness, as, of course, difficult to say. He was quite
penetrate the consciousness of power in the name of the national ideal, but not in the
name of the popular will, which,
obviously profoundly despised and did not hesitate to insult, with their full conviction
right to rule, by virtue of a providential purpose.
This idea of a sole ruler did providentialness
later successes. In times of Trajan, 100 years after Christ, the historian,
talking about the triumph of Octavius Augustus, was able to argue that although the
chances of
victory were on the side of Brutus, "but the Roman Empire could not be controlled by
many, it
I needed a monarch. And God willing, no doubt, from a single release Octavia
a man capable to prevent its domination, did not allow Brutus to find out about his
victory
Fleet "[Plutarch," Brutus ", LV]. Because of this, Brutus and died. But such reasoning
it was possible, as we see, only under Trajan. At the beginning of the emergence of the
empire, it would
It seemed strange. The intervention of mysterious forces in the fate of the Roman people
is quite
Page 88

He allowed, but those forces were many: some were for Mary, the other for Sulla, signs
and wonders
accompanied all their actions. In total, these small demonic beings
could certainly help their pets, but were themselves too unstable and mutually
fighting, so they were able to give a guide to the behavior of individuals, and
not an entire nation.
Caesar was a personal consciousness of a very high divine guidance,
and because of this - his divine nature. This trait he wanted to give
produced by individual power. It would act as the patron gods of Rome, among the

and which he was attached. Acting in the name of something higher, like Caesar
deliberately allowed himself to humiliate the people's will, and yourself - straight to
magnify
divinity. At the very beginning of his political career, he makes a public
a statement that puts him as a republic would be higher.
"The family of my aunt Julia, - he said from the podium - on the one hand goes back to
kings, on the other - to the immortal gods. My mother comes from a family of Anka
Marcia
(king). And Julia comes from Venus, and our name belongs to their family. Therefore
our way home from the holiness of kings, lord of people, connecting the majesty of the
gods,
masters of kings "[Suetonius," Julius Caesar ", VI]. Later on, standing on his feet, Caesar
publicly he said: "The Republic - nothing, one name, without any content - respublicam
nihil esse, apellationem modo sine corpore et specie "- and added that now his word
should
considered by law: pro legibus habere quo dicat [Suetonius, "Julius Caesar",
LXXVII. Plutarch].
The revolutionary audacity of such speech becomes clear when we remember what for
Roman has been a republic. "The Republic, - says Cicero - is the work of people - est res
publica res populi ". And Caesar said that the res publica nihil est, an empty title sine
corpore
et specie. He, however, expressed and sharper.
According to the account of Plutarch, when tribune Metellus did not want to give to
Caesar the state
treasury, referring to the law, Caesar said first relatively gently, and then said:
"However, let's wrong with you, I did not use all my rights: because you told me
belong by right of conquest, you and all those declaring themselves against me, hit the
my hands "[Plutarch," Caesar ", XLI]. And these" all "were in Rome, the Senate, the
country has just
Charging Pompey kill Caesar. Such arrogant declarations themselves above
Republic Caesar lot. He did not conform to the law, which was designed to
to ensure the rule of the people, cut all the elections and appointed officials on
Long term, has surrounded himself same "higher honors human greatness," as expressed
by
Suetonius, and not only took the title of Father of the Fatherland, but also put his statue
between
statues of kings. However, he raised up itself and temples. In general, he sought
consecration
divine, higher civil, and to say that if he called against him
daggers decrepit and dying republicanism, the people were fascinated by him and
She recognized him as something superhuman.
"At his death, Julius Caesar - says Suetonius, - he was placed in a number of gods
not only to declare those who awarded him this honor, but also the internal

the conviction of the people. "During the games, celebrated in his honor by Augustus,
was a comet, and
it regarded as the soul of Caesar taken at the sky: creditum est animam esse Caesaris in
coelum recepti
[37]. Mystical conviction covered folk memory of Caesar's murderers. "Damnati omnes
[38], - says Suetonius, - all of them were killed in different ways: in a shipwreck in
battles, some as themselves killed by the same gun, which killed Caesar "
[Suetonius, "Julius Caesar", LXXXVIII, LXXXIX].
Page 89

The Roman Empire as a delegation of the national rule


a single person, personally revered God
His divine Julius Caesar, in the eyes of the Romans, to inject some personality
monarchic shade emerging personal power at the head of the republic.
During his life, from the very beginning of the struggle with Pompey, he was officially
declared an enemy
republic; life ended under the daggers of her defenders. And yet, the consciousness of the
nation,
it is in kind of Julius Caesar was to remain the highest position of the Management
Republic, and the very name of Caesar became the title of the new government. Julius
Caesar conquered
Rome and the moral and physical violence, has created a something that was higher
people, and at the same time recognized him as perfect.
However, this element of the "rule" of the new government was very small. He was
more ornament than a creature of the imperial period. Subsequent rulers
imitated, as far as possible, the policy of Caesar, but of course can develop
advantage that was given by the terms of the national system, and not something that was
given the number of completely leaving the genius of Caesar. Follow
the rulers of the republic for a long time did not dare to explicitly claim to sovereignty
and
on the contrary, as the first patrician aristocracy, we thought only about making stronger
hold in their hands the power of the Management. This was achieved in the hands of
Emperor of the top positions of the republic.
So did another Julius Caesar, but for him it was probably of little value. To
follow the rulers of this formed the basis of power. August first satisfied
the power of the Emperor (Emperor - was a purely military title), connected with the title
tribune. Then in August, "gradually rose, and concentrated in his hands the power of the
Senate,
Higher Magistracy and laws "[Tacitus," Annals ", I. 2]. No one is not complaining,
says the historian. "Even the province have accepted this change because of power
struggle
people and greed magistrates made them suspect the power of the Senate and the people,
and they

We expect little help from the laws, which became powerless against violence, intrigue
and
especially by bribery. "In general, the support of the provinces was huge
support for the power of the emperors.
The fact that Rome was considered the republican freedom of the people, it was for the
provinces
cruel slavery to the Roman mob. More on demonstrative funeral of Caesar "in this
great nationwide mourning (summo publico lucto) markedly were many foreigners
(exterorum gentium), who showed their grief in the statutes of each of their land "
[Suetonius, "Julius Caesar", LXXXIV]. Empire brought with it the renunciation of Rome
by narrow ideas
proper of the Roman Republic, and puts forward the idea of the greatest Roman world state, and it was sensitively understood all orbis terrarum Romanus. AND
Indeed, the empire was the greatest good for the entire Roman world. August, for the first
time
Roman colonies brought to participate in the elections the authorities in Rome. For this
decurio colonies
sending, to the day of the people's congresses, the votes in sealed envelopes. Similar
August if you take away the freedom of some cities, a punishment to them, they gave the
right or Latin
Page 90

the rights of citizenship to those who deserve it. Similarly, he conquered the country
gave them to inherit, and generally looked upon them as members of the Empire
[Suetonius, "August"
XLIII, XLVI].
But imagining yourself in this big, "imperial" idea, as if bequeathed
all immortal Julius Caesar, emperor a long time did not deny that this is the idea
Rome itself, and appropriated the supreme power, independent of the people. They
said only concentrated in themselves all the higher authorities: 1) first of all, the power of
the military,
2) as princeps'ov Senate - the presidency of the legislature, and 3) on the last
They concentrate executive power at many different top positions.
However, Roman Emperor always remained with the representative of the people and, as
a
tribunes, and a representative of the Senate, as his principal term (princeps). Rank was
princeps'a
sometimes their main official title (as Tiberius). Finally fiction election
Emperor by the Senate and the people always remain. If, in respect of the Senate was on
mostly (but not always) a fiction, the proclamation of the people had
very real value, especially as a part of the nation, which was the army. A
We should remember that in the spirit of Rome - the people and the army, in theory, very
little different.

Thus, the imperial power is essentially still remained not supreme, and
only delegated by the people of the senatus populusque romanus [39]. As in the republic
autocratic people entrusted all the Management power of the aristocracy, so he passed
Now all the power of Caesar. This idea was expressed and formal acts. So when
accession home Flavian Vespasian, first proclaimed even without the knowledge of their
own,
different parts of the troops, in different places of the empire, and the outbreak of civil
war more
during the life of his predecessor Vittel - but was completely legal
Assent. "Immediately after the fall of Vittel (and when Vespasian was still in Egypt)
Senate
formal decree passed Vespasian all the rights as in the Republican era
the Senate and the people had "[Schlosser," World History ", vol. II, p. 116].
This was the idea of the Roman Empire. Republic - senatus populusque - passed
Caesar all his rights in perpetuity. At the same time, although it was assumed that it is not
evaded
without the will of the gods, but the legal significance of this element can not be regarded
as particularly important. it
a hallowed person of the emperor, who moreover deified personally served
a new face to the National Pantheon.
When the general outlook of Rome with his religion, his personal legal concepts
and the other one would come up to create that higher personal power that
the general consciousness and all existing conditions, was absolutely necessary, but
for a more solid foundation in the popular conception of the world which did not have the
data.
Absolutism of the Roman Empire.
The end of his shift in the idea of oriental despotism
Thus established the monarchical power was on the proper development
absolute, infinite, perfectly suited to the formula Sit lege regis voluntas [40]. Yet
deep strength she had. In essence, it was still the people's government, a
Caesar passed, however, without conditions and without a time limit, but still
delegated. Eating
comparison, the Roman Republic left here their national law, jus civile [41], and
Page 91

He resorted to the concept of jus gentium [42], established in imperial power some
beneficium
[43]. Assignment of People's Power of the emperor did not have the character of Roman
donatio [44] with the
by the people, for the people to give their power could only for myself, for the present
generation.
Alien can not be present. So it goes something like political beneficiuma, without recoil

conditions and without a time limit, but without losing the giver of their rights on the
subject, and therefore a
constantly hanging like the sword of Damocles, the right to demand it back. In this way,
Imperial power was in fact the Management completely unrestricted
and because of the absolute, but not supreme, not autocratic. This has left a special stamp
on
Empire prevented her aware of the difference between the supreme power and the
Management. From
Caesarea was lying on the personal management of the entire work, and to this is
centralism, bureaucracy
and the weakness of the social order.
In view of the legal weakness and insecurity of the Emperor of his private
deification was a huge political power surrogate for strength. Must
It noted that the mass of the people of this deity was not at all empty words. With
superstition mass with unclear to her the true idea of the Divine, it is easier to believe in
the
the divinity of Caesar, and there are a lot of facts purely mystical relationship to the
people
Caesarea. In the suburbs of Velitrah, for example, a century preserved birthplace
August. Once upon a time it changed hands, and was in the use of them, but
room, where he was born former emperor, in the popular mind was revered as sacred,
that it was impossible to enter without reverent prayer and without any need.
Spend the night as it was impossible, and the brave men who dared to it,
vybrasyvaemy there were an invisible force, with great risk to their lives.
Characteristic are cases. When Vespasian had been proclaimed by the Senate, but was
yet in Egypt, to him were two men "of the people," says Suetonius, and asked them to
heal. One was blind, the other lame. Vespasian did not dare to risk such an experience,
but they insisted that he Serapis sent them to the emperor in a dream, and adds Suetonius,
Emperor really healed their anointing his saliva.
Clearly, as the treasured under such conditions the Roman idea of a personal policy
deification of the emperors, and how dangerous it seemed to Caesarea Christianity accept
all the power of their - what she was not strong enough - but denied it was the other side personal deity - which was particularly important for virtually strength
imperial power.
Meanwhile, and this fiction of a personal deity could be a reliable support only
against the most grossly superstitious masses, for more or less developed man
certainly could not be considered the Emperor a god in any authoritative way. As
the development of philosophical ideas - rude pagan polytheism was replaced in the top
Circle some vague representation of a single deity. Moreover - personal
the divinity of the emperor of all developed minds was too obvious a lie.
Therefore, in the upper strata of society began to appear a different concept: the
delegation of power
emperor gods themselves. Pliny, congratulating Trajan's ascension to the throne, writes:

"The immortal gods hastened to call upon your virtues to the Office of the Republic." AT
his eulogy Pliny expressed more sharply: "king of the world (ie. e. God), he says
Trajan, now free and relieved of care imposed on the deity; he is now
deals only with the care of heaven, since as you ordered (ie. e. the emperor)
submit it to the human race "[Letters of Pliny and the introduction of Raul to Pesson
the French translation of them].
Page 92

Here, the delegation of the emperor from the deity is brought to the most extreme limits,
that would be blasphemous for a truly religious person. The trouble however, is
as for the emperor, and Pliny, and for the whole society, be ready for this new
view, strengthen the power of the Emperor, was certainly unknown, it is
for the deity of the emperor clothed in such representation, and what is the will of the
deity?
Under these circumstances the delegation of power from the earth deity inevitably led to
power
pure despotism - samovlastitelstvu, as it is usually in the eastern monarchies.
Indeed, the emperor, as a representative of the power of the unknown deity, which
It will not know the people are empowered to do whatever they like. Quod principi
placuit
- Legis habet vigorem [45]. For some unknown deity will, the emperor could do that
He wants, without losing the right to rely on the will of the deity. On the other hand, for
the same
reason, and every citizen can not be deprived of the opportunity to think that governor
It violates the will of the principal deity, and therefore lose the rights obtained.
Thus the power to do absolutely, definitely unrestricted or
even conscience or reason. But at the same time, it becomes a solid, ie. E. Not
excluded the constant attempts to outrage and coups. it
an inevitable consequence of absolutism. In general, the delegation of power from the
deity gets
serious policy meaning only in the case where it is not absolute, but
morally limited, t. e. where there is some clear and well-known instructions
themselves. For this purpose it is necessary to clear the religious worldview of the
people, and the establishment of
Church that being religious than the king, this is able to
serve as a guarantee for the validity of the election of the divine king to control
affairs of earthly power.
That is why the final victory of Christianity, t. E. Caesar subordination to God,
the power of the emperors could not find solid support his rule. She was
absolute, as the power of the Management, but no solid ideological support for his
supremacy, was forced to leave all in the development of material forces: focus
Emperor in all branches of the administration, strengthen the army, police, bureaucracy
in general, all

mechanical and material means of power. But it makes the power of the Caesars
despotic,
and moreover rendered themselves in the power of the Caesars of the same militarybureaucratic mechanism,
by which they held sway over the nation. Hence - the more emperors fell
in the absolutism of power, the less they held the moral elements, and the more
became outrage and coups. Under Diocletian, the idea of a politically dovedshy
Imperial absolutism to the utmost severity power was already so
great, I had to break in pieces the empire between several of Caesar and the existence of
it was no longer a social fact, a matter of personal art ruler. The idea
Roman absolutism moved to the eastern idea samovlastitelstva in which all
the prosperity of the state and its very existence depends almost exclusively on
Whether intelligent and good man seized power, or disability and self-serving.
The evolution of the Roman state
The total represents the evolution of the Roman state, so the picture
Page 93

correct deficiencies Supreme democratic power through various


power devices the Management. Republic gave a majestic building of a political,
is the nation - senatus populusque - the Management has delegated all his power
patrician aristocracy. But then people began to seek autocratic take in
hand directly, and the power of the Management, which led to a long period
civil strife and disorder, where even the usurpation of power by anyone was
a blessing for the nation. Because of this crisis, Rome was taken out by the fact that the
power of the Management
was again taken away from the people and not to the aristocracy passed already, and in
the sole hands
Emperor. Initially, the idea of Roman Caesarism was quite clear. The Emperor
He represents the same absolute power which possessed the nation, but to use this power
by delegation from the nation. Thus the supreme power, in fact, remained at the senatus
populusque. This was expressed by a symbol - mostly just a comedy - the election
Emperor by the Senate and the people's acclamation.
But the Roman people a long time, even since the days of the Republic, became far
worldly, not homogeneous, and the area from the Atlantic to the Euphrates represented agglomerates nationalities, beliefs, world view, which finally with
concept of civis Romanus [46] did not incorporate the concept about any strong political
system. As this loss of a single national ideology, the national delegation
imperial power became more and more fictitious and it disappeared from the
consciousness of the
people. Emperor in the eyes of the people have already had the power not because he was
elected or approved
the people or the Senate, but because power is in his hands. Imperial Power

thus becoming the native self-arisen, and therefore sovereign, but at the
and so strongly is no meaningful.
This power is more suited to the type of Eastern despotism. The emperor was not
as the result of some clear, eternal, permanent force, but as a
the simple fact of success, finally, perhaps as the result of what some
mystic power, but no one knows what. The emperor had absolute power, but the purpose
of its
responsibilities have not been determined by nothing more or less clear.
This power, however, though still subject to, as long as it is effective, but it is easy and
change, easily subject to another with her emerging strength, because none of them
not consecrated by law. The fragility of all States samovlastitelskogo type is known.
They are easy to occur in the hands of the usurper of genius, but also easy to
crumble. Every
Social construction rests on the foundations of psychology, and the respect that
people inspires a simple force, as the force is elementary and the least reliable. Respect
It increases as the force finds himself under moral motives,
Acting where it is only right to rule. But the weakening of the moral
motive force is losing the respect of the nation, and as it loses its attractive influence.
The process of disintegration, of the weakening of the influence of this delectable
authorities showed up and
The Roman Empire, and from the time of Diocletian - the governor of a very personal
nature
outstanding - it has become unmistakable. Only the appearance of Constantine the Great,
rescued the empire,
For Constantine found in the conditions of his time, a new type of supreme power,
having
clear ideokraticheskogo element. From this element again gained power tend to get
duties.
It was the idea of the divine delegation, the idea of service to the Supreme power of God
for
what the emperor had to rely on Christianity.
It was such a profound upheaval ideokraticheskogo element of the Roman Empire,
Page 94

he preceded the emperors might seem risky to madness.


First however, than to characterize the final crisis of the Roman
state, it is necessary to dwell on the sense of the theocratic ideas.
Section II.
DIRECT theocracy and delegate
The idea of theocracy
The transition from the Roman to the Byzantine imperial idea of statehood
accompanied by the introduction of the idea of a theocratic state sovereignty.
The idea of theocracy is not alien to the theory of the state of science, but it is considered

regardless of religious reasons, which, however, only make sense of it.


Theocracy is talking about the theory of the state law, means to him only
State domination of priests or clergy. In this sense, it can not theocracy
of course it is recognized as a special form of government, and should be included among
the
a manifestation of aristocratic origin.
But theocratic idea gets a real sense when considered on the basis of faith
There are actually God. In this case, it expresses the direct
God's control of human society, it is God, not of any class of priests,
clergy or priesthood.
Under this condition, the people, strictly speaking, there is no state. But the idea of God
government
may enter the state, if it will be in the form of a delegation of the Divine
Supreme power.
Eternal specimen of theocracy in both of these forms is the people of Israel, both in
its generic period of life, and the state.
The state was a theocracy during the power delegated to the kings and the
sense, the idea of the state due to God is then transmitted to Christianity, and with him to
Rome and to all
States Christian period.
The history of the theocracy of Israel, thus so clearly associated with the Christian
statehood, that this subject should be more detail.
Protestantism is very common idea, if the Bible is not the imperial power
It approved and is, in the words of the Bible, "a sin against God." The historian in general
accurate and impartial as Schlosser directly says, if the establishment of the kingdom
"sharply contrary to the law of Moses, in which the head of state
recognized only one God. "It is difficult to understand how such things are repeated
people
Read the Bible.
The law of Moses clearly and precisely provided for the future
the emergence of royal power and indicate in advance the conditions under which it can
be
legitimate. False and then, as if God has admitted that during the time of Moses, "the
head of state."
No state if the law of Moses was not established, and was only
organized by the nation on the basis of generic and common worship. Lord admitted
Lord of Israel's moral sense as a spiritual union, t. E. As the church.
Page 95

Although the term "king" and is used in the application to the Lord, but in the sense of
theocracy, not a state. Because of this supreme reign over the Lord
Israeli delegate his particular when the time statehood was
Still to come is any person or institution. The power of the Lord manifested in

Israel's life, and in the priesthood, and in the prophecy, and the public everywhere with
her
concrete, human expression.
In the Bible we find all the consistent relation of God to the dispensation of different
personal and social sides of human life according to the law Divine. AT
the end of this dispensation is in place and the state, but not earlier than
It sets the stage social. Let's look at the overall picture of this dispensation.
Preparation of the social order
The chosen people was first given the moral foundation of law, consisting in
faith in God. Faith leads to submission (the Abrahamic covenant and the symbol of
circumcision).
Then, through Moses, ten commandments, are the foundations of the social order, and
Moses supplemented by public law statutes and framed Old Testament
Church. After a few hundred years, through Samuel, God also has been installed and the
royal
power.
The purpose of this order is very clear dispensation.
Strictly speaking, the earthly human existence would be enough and one
moral law, suggesting its absorption and unconditional respect for the man. Yet
the latter condition is impracticable. Man - a creature prone to sin, "stiff-necked" and
Now, on this his "stiff-necked" become necessary framework for social order, to
facilitate human possibilities of life, according to the moral law, that is,
God-pleasing. The framework of the social order, imposing on human compulsion, but
supported by his own will and effort, thus forcing creates freedom
Man, why it encompasses the element of voluntariness and moral merit.
The law introduces a social establishment near the church, which with him
mixed, and only serves to communicate with God, support in others
commitment to comply with imposed them on social coercion. This is the system,
legalized Moses.
Is there enough it? If a person, with due sanctity, could live even one
the moral law, especially as it would seem, he could live with support
social systems and the Church, under the direct guidance of God. That's what it is
real ideal of social life, especially the proclamation of Samuel.
The height and unmistakable truth that ideal. Really people, worthy of God,
have no power of coercion, to be able to live as pleasing to God, and when they do
reach, that are under the direct control of God, without the need
coercive power. But his "stiff-necked" in sin, of passion and
selfishness, and even people that are not able to. For the moral development of people
first
just need to understand this terrible extent of their moral poverty, because otherwise we
They are not able to abandon the proud height of his imagination. And actually for
Israel was given this time of immediate theocracy.

Page 96

The outcome of the experience of the ideal state is known. In the history of the Judges,
Israel (and in the face
him and all of humanity) has shown himself, that is not able to stay at such a height, and
It needs new props coercion. Lord knew, without any experience, but the experience
was allowed for people to understand themselves and their hunting, their persuasion
themselves
imposed on a new compulsion. It is morally a triumph
self-understanding, t. e. higher wisdom - and the triumph of freedom, because there is no
higher manifestations
freedom, like when a person binds himself for the sake of an ideal.
Moses, fulfilling the will of God, Israel arranged in the order which, according to the
wisdom
God has been prescribed for the moral education of the person. But Moses, not
establishing the kingdom, anticipated in advance, and have it to Israel.
"When you come into the land which the Lord thy God will give thee, and say to
yourself:
I will set a king over them, like all the nations that are around me - put it on
a king, which the LORD thy "[Deuteronomy, XVII, 14, 15].
This
reservation
"Like
other
peoples "
- highly
is characteristic
at
social and pedagogical terms. God's chosen people must make himself
tell yourself that he is not above "other people." It is not just Israel and reminded himself
Moses, repeating that the Lord chose Israel not because that he was better than others
nations, and even the land of Canaan gives them. Israelis, not because they are good, and
Because the people of Canaan require punishment ...
So Israel had to make sure he can not live without good faith
the new system of coercion.
Moses was a pre-specified two conditions for the emergence of royal power:
It is necessary for this, firstly, to the people aware that it is a necessity.
It is necessary, secondly, to keep the people elected king over themselves, but give it to
the Lord.
Moreover, Moses even indicated for the management and the king himself:
"When he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write him a copy of this law
(Moses), a book which is before the priests the Levites. And he shall read it all the God
days of his life, in order to learn to fear the Lord his God, and keep all the words
this law "[Deuteronomy XVII, 18, 19].

Thus, the establishment of the kingdom was given by Moses to the time Israel will
ready for statehood. The need for this has come in 400 years.
People's power demand
The spectacle of the moment of occurrence of the royal power in Israel is instructive for
all eternity
While all the structure of God in the Bible. All of these experiments as if social and
political
creativity needed not omniscient, and for us - that we learned its nature,
their strength, and in accordance with the reasonable could understand their lives. Moses
himself
Israel said it: "Know in your heart that the Lord your God is teaching you how to man
teaches his son "(Vtoraz. VIII, 5).
Experience has shown the people of the era of the judges that he was under the direct
guidance of God life is not capable.
Poverty sense of faith, its inefficiency, led to the fact that without the state
Page 97

authorities began the expansion of the moral and social order. The sacred narrative of
sinful and outrageous fact, almost did not finish the extermination of Benjamin
knee, often adds as if in explanation: "And in the days Tyya not byashe King in
Ezra: male hedgehog anything before it ochima tvoryashe "[47]. (Judges XVII, 6, XVIII,
I, XIX, I, XIX,
25) ...
Meanwhile, in all fairness, probably none of the existing nations, and certainly
least of all in modern Russia have not demonstrated that the ability of people to
independently
stand up for the truth, which still appeared then in Israel, you can guarantee that heinous
a crime for which punishment has teamed all Israel and went to internecine
war - we would have passed almost unnoticed, and in any case would not find him
hundreds of thousands of avengers ...
But Israel is aware that he is morally powerless. Of course, the inability to live
self-righteousness was still "a great sin," as Samuel, the spokesman
pure ideal, but in terms of the ideal of holiness - the person does not need any at all
external backup. And the people of Israel, though it did not have enough holiness, but
at least aware of this; I am certainly willing to live by the truth - felt commitment
to subordinate themselves the new restrictions of its arbitrariness.
Lawlessness really made itself felt everywhere then. The most
the high priest's authority starts to distort and take her unseemly character
assignment of worldly power. From this and public and ecclesiastical power
demoralize. We know the Bible story of the sons of High Priest Eli. They
were priests, but "Belial", did not know the Lord, and of the priests to the people
(Kings, I book, ch. 2, 12-13). His predation they hid people from

sacrifice, womanizing with the pilgrim, and his father could not find the strength to
appease them.
Life became so sinful that the leadership of God, as it were left temporarily
Israel. "The word of God was rare in those days, was no open vision" (1 Kings, ch. 3, 1).
When at last the Lord raised up again the great prophet Samuel, the first words
God, there was finally in the church, after a long silence, heralded a punishment for
the sins of Israel.
This punishment turned over the guilty: guilty and turned the whole nation, because
that even the ark of God had betrayed him to the Gentiles. Then came the era
Samuel, the era of direct guidance of God ... But what it turned out in the end? With
Samuel's sons, even during the lifetime of his father, started the same transgression. "His
sons
We do not walk in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted
judgment "(ibid
same, Ch. 8, Art. 3). And among the people is brewing independent statehood demand
for
several centuries foreseen by Moses.
As the Divine King delegation
The Israelites said to Samuel: "Put us a king to judge us, like the other
peoples. "These words do not like Samuel, but the Lord told him:" Listen to the voice
the people ", but only the beginning" of the king presented them. "
The prophet did so, explaining the most eloquent way the people of the whole weight
Page 98

statehood, but people are so felt unable to do without


state that "refused to obey the voice of Samuel," and said, "No, let
a king over us. "And that is? God does not justify the prophet, and the people and said:"
Listen
their voice, and make them a king "(ibid, ch. 8, p. 6-22).
So, the matter is clarified. Ideally, our state is higher, the more we live under
direct authority of God. All of our backups are the result of its weakness
sinfulness. In this sense, the establishment of statehood is "a great sin", anyway
no matter what form of power we may create. But it is better consciousness of sin and
seeking support rather than
unjustified conceit. In this sense, the requirement of statehood was
the merit of Israel was justified.
The transition from the judges to the king was the transition from the moral authority to
the State compulsory. The judges were not democratic and aristocratic power, and
moral authority, nonstate. Judges raised up the Lord, and not elected by anybody.
Samuel was not even of the tribe of Levi, and his mother praying at the dedication of it,
saying:
"Lord humbles and exalts ... because he lifteth up the needy, to set them among its

nobleman. "
Demanding the king, Israel demanded statehood, and the Lord told the prophet to deliver
them a king.
So the king had not put the people's election and God. Anointing of Saul, Samuel
He said: "The Lord anointed you to be prince over his inheritance in Israel, and thou shalt
reign over the people of the Lord and save them from the hands of their enemies, "and"
The Spirit will come upon you
Lord. "Then, introducing the new king of the people, Samuel declared that although the
people and
committed a sin, rejected the direct guidance of God, but God permits
that their weakness under such condition: "If you will, and the king of your walk in the
trail of the Lord
Your God, the hand of the Lord is not against you. If you do evil, both you and
your king "(Ch. 12, p. 14-25).
The king himself with the obligation to put in the will of God. For violation
this was later convicted Saul at what Samuel said: "Now the kingdom shall not continue
yours. Lord sought him a man after his own heart and appointed him to be the leader of
the Lord
His people "(Ch. 18, p. 14). However, the king, even convicted by God, declared
inviolable for the people: "Do not touch my anointed."
The kingdom, therefore, is at the request of the people, conscious of their inability
under the direct guidance of God, and therefore asking God
particular representative government, and people are not coming out of the power of
God, and not even
elect himself king and takes God's appointed. This, God's delegated authority
He also sanctified and receives no obligation to fulfill his will, and God. Nationals same
get the duty to obey the king. Rights king set out to the people Samuel
King has authority over the individual citizens and of their property, and to limit the
power
Only the king is that he must obey God. This duty of the king
It is a condition for the subordination of subjects.
Thus arose the Israelite monarchy. Without going into details, it should be recalled that
it is not abolished the social structure of Israel. Still Israel separated into their
knee, had his princes, heads of the fathers, and we constantly see their official
by the king, sometimes as severe as "sons Sarrui", which was afraid to offend the king
David.
But the theme of this book - the question is not in the realm of the Management System
Page 99

Israel and in the delineation of a total order of Bogouchrezhdennogo system,


throwing light, and in general to the laws of society, it is completed.
The basis - see the moral law, which consists in faith and obedience to God. Then comes
organization of social and church, but do not merge, but only co-exist. Finally

is a state organization based on the delegation of the divine, and likewise


separate from the Church.
At the same time the establishment of royal power as a divine delegation is given only
when people self-consciously come to this unfailing desire
power, and it is imagining all the burden of burdens it imposes on them the burden of
subordination,
Still he says: "Therefore choose a king, we can not do without him."
All these features remain constant conditions for the ideal type of the monarchy.
With these general lessons theocratic Israel, we can now return to the
Rome suffering that vainly sought support for his theocratic ideas
decaying absolutism. In general, the complex conditions of the Roman Empire - the first
view it was not easy to find these support the supremacy of the emperor, but in reality
they were to some extent be found.
Section III
BYZANTINE STATEHOOD
The end of Roman absolutism
The position of the Roman Empire at the time of Constantine the Great, presents a
picture
complete decomposition. Like all the absolutist monarchy, it did not have bases
durability.
As we said, the creation of the genius of Julius Caesar did not have a clean view of the
monarchy, in which
the monarch is the supreme authority would be. Roman Emperor represented only
the Management of concentrated power that does not belong to him in their own right,
but only the power of attorney delegated by the Senate and people of Rome (Senatus
Populusque
Romanus). Such a construction can not provide clean power to the emperor supreme,
which
the idea belongs to the people. Hence the fragility of this power from the moral, and its
actual omnipotence that can go into despotism. If at the same time the Roman Nation
It retains at least control authorities and lines of action of Caesar, the Empire
It would have the form of the republic with a strong presidential power. But absolutist
Caesarism
has a natural tendency to undermine the internal organization of the nation,
necessary to monitor, for Caesarism, combining all the Management authorities, thereby
It leaves the people no more or less independent, to act as a control authority.
A high civic spirit, who lived in the Roman estates and is in critical
minute echo even in the Senate, for a long time paralyzed detrimental
absolutism, sometimes creating a blossoming era, as it was the last time under the
Antonines. Yet
Roman society more decomposed, his organized force became more
one army, overflowing with mercenaries, or completely alien, or barely
obtain surface effects of Roman culture and Roman spirit. Most

the foundations of this spirit disappeared in Roman society, more corrupting. After 200
years
on the basis of the empire it had been the explicit form of complete decomposition.
Page 100

Last century life of the empire, to Diocletian, the expansion became apparent.
It is difficult to say how many of the emperors of this century. They were at once
tens proclaimed separate parts of the army, fighting each other, died in
best cases, somehow recognized the dominance of senior emperor. When Gallienus was
for thirty Tyrants, as they are called, in the various provinces. Syria has already occurred
successful trial Zenobia found a special realm, only nominally subordinate to Rome
(Palmyra). Most of the emperors, even recognized by the Senate, died from murder.
In general, the empire collapsed completely under the influence of internal corruption
and the nation
hence the state. Barbara, have already learned to despise Rome, pressured him to
all sides from the outside. It was easy to see that Rome comes to an end, and the
celebration of it
Goals took place in an era full of agony.
From this death, Rome was temporarily withdrawn Diocletian. Empire began to look at
slim and even threatening. But that was purchased at the cost of giving up the idea of the
Roman Empire.
Diocletian became purely oriental despot. He disposed of the empire as a personal
estate, and even in appearance assimilate all the attributes of the Persian monarchy,
trying
get the value of the sovereign power.
It is remarkable that Julius Caesar himself, the first emperor of reaching power, clearly
I felt that it lacked something. He also tried to give himself a personal divine
nature and obviously conscious of the end, that this is not strong enough grounds to
folk beliefs, and without it his empire hangs in the air - the hardships of life,
felt their dreams shattered. The last Roman emperor Diocletian rejected
Caesarism sought ideas and oriental despotism. But it was impossible. The Persians
private
the nature of the despotic rule of the Supreme power was due to religious
views, of course nominate such power. When the Roman polytheism with
a plurality of equal gods, even those unrecognized huge share
population, the emperor could not obtain such authorization from above. If the Roman
gods
patronized by the emperor when the emperor was himself a god, the gods were such
set, and no one they could not give the unshakable power. Empire of the Roman sights,
It was a purely human institution, the case of the Senate and the people. And the Senate
and the people themselves have
They die and decompose.
Diocletian personal talents could temporarily support the Empire, but he was broken

under the weight of the task. It was crazy during the last persecution against Christians
and left
State in the same position in which it is seized.
But among those who at this time was brought forward, was already a reformer Constantine
Great.
Constantine the Great
Constantine the Great State idea was to combine the Roman
empire with a new historical factor - Christianity. Christianity, on the whole spirit
his was just the opposite of the ancient world that the problem created by combining
empire of antiquity with Christianity, denied the ancient world, before drawing
Constantine huge coup. The challenge was so great that the Reformer
Page 101

even dare to move the capital of the empire, not only as the residence of his that
We did many emperors as well as the center of imperial life. With such Constantine
way end and Rome, Byzantium begins.
Historians as Lebo, blamed Constantine for the transfer of the capital, saying that
he undermined the viability of the Empire, which had its roots in the Roman
population. But resurrect
Roman idea itself could no longer hope no one any insightful
statesman. Many emperors tried to do this and gave the era
very shiny boards, but only just. It ended the life of the emperor and - again begins
old decomposition. If Constantine thought some galvanizing fading body
ancient empire, he certainly would have done the same as other good emperors
staying in Rome, and trying to maintain his personality life fade in the nation. Yet
such a task was too insignificant for the great man, too barren.
Constantine obviously was not thinking of extending the agony of the old world and the
creation of a new world.
From this point of view he was right, not wishing to undermine the Rome in order to
move the capital
where it was easier to create something new, with the least interference from rotting
fragments of antiquity.
But as far as Constantine coped with the task - is another question.
No wonder that the idea to combine the Roman statesman
Christianity may seem very improbable. Roman state and Christianity
It seemed completely opposite camps, and were such as Empire
It retained its historical character.
The Roman state, whose last word was an empire, formed when
Christianity was not yet on the basis of not having anything to do with him. Top Roman
Emperors, as representatives of their ideas have been the most cruel persecutors of
Christians,
They were quite right, for Christianity, with all humility authorities recognize each

absolute beginning, higher than the imperial power. For their part, Christians
developed not only irrespective of the Roman state, but also in the constant
Opposition to it. If Christianity is not lost, it is quite contrary to the wishes
Emperors. If the empire has continued to somehow eke out existence, it does not
thanks to the support of Christians.
On the contrary, with all humility last, the empire felt that the more
Christianity spread, the looser becomes beneath her social ground. Yes and
we can not doubt that Christianity has accelerated the expansion of the ancient world.
With many improvements to the machinery of government introduced
Emperors, with undoubted greatness of many emperors, the state apparently stunted
because underneath perished living society. This is partly, of course, it happened
because scant moral foundations of ancient society could not hold it
the best people. They all went to Christianity. From Caesar, the Senate of the Republic
and they
We went to Christ crucified, living with a moment of transition of interests that have
nothing
in common with the interests of the empire.
Thus, suffering from persecution of the ancient world, and in turn denying all his
foundations, as much as 300 years Christianity grew, grew stronger and organized in full
alienation from the state. In their communities, in their church, it was all that
expensive. Empire morally alien to him, it seemed he was not even on what is needed.
Meanwhile, it still grew, it captures more masses. For 100 years before
Constantine, Tertullian boldly told Empire:
Page 102

"We came yesterday, and already pervades everything your cities, islands, villages,
villas,
your advice, your camps, your Curia, the palaces, the Senate ... We could not fight with
you
resorting to arms, but just separated from you. "If, he said, Christians weight
withdrew from the Empire, "you would be amazed solitude, silence, and the world would
have seemed to you
extinct "*.
* The number of Christians in the Empire is a moot point. Very valuable data
on this subject includes Professor A. Spassky in the article "Getting the Emperor
Constantine "(" Theological Journal, "1904, December). The famous Harnack says
Christians are the predominant population of the most important provinces. Prof.
Spassky, by comparing the different bits of the statistics of the time,
establishes a different view ... It does not believe in the city of Rome, more than 50,000
Christians are counting
50,000 for the Alexandria, and so on. n. In general, it does not allow Christians to
Constantine could make and 10% of the inhabitants of the empire. But no matter how to
solve this question -

it is clear that Christians - corpus christianonun - were very significant, internally


cohesive mass, which of course was the strongest of all, individual, or other groups
estates motley empire with its disjointed population].
All this multitude, not rebelling against the Empire, it was a stranger,
than the foreign country. The Empire was not able to even find a name for this
unusual organization. Christianity is more often called "philosophy." Sometimes
they were called "Christian nation", though Christians did not have a single breeding
feature. Only Constantine, influenced, it seems bishop Hosea Cordoba found
the name of the "class of Christians" (corpus Cristianorum). This legal translation
Christian concept of "church" for the first time to determine exactly what was in front of
him
Empire in the face of Christians.
Until then, the millennial state and Three hundred church stood facing each
another alien who did not want and did not seek each other out.
Constantine as a statesman and a disciple Christians, however, was able to understand
that
These two forces are not only able to connect, but that connection to both of them
equally necessary.
This is the great idea of his showing in Constantine one of those
few historical geniuses who know how to open a new line of humanity
movement and structure.
Church to the state does not want her to do. But it was not
member state, she could not take on the functions of the state, because of
essentially had different goals and had one of coercive power, without which
state. But at the same time it is clear that Christians could not do without any
state. Tertullian said, that the empire would be empty without Christians. But at the same
time and
Christians, if they came out of the limits of the empire, they were forced to look for
any other state.
Yes, the church and state authorities did not deny in principle; rather, it
He announced the establishment of the power of the Divine. Only it itself could not take
themselves of this power, without ceasing to be the Church.
Moreover, the Church is not recognized by the authorities as an autonomous principle,
but as a
Divine institution, t. E. Logically demanded by the state of submission
Higher top, in other words - demanded that the government act at the direction of the
Earth
Heavenly power.
But with the government point of view, this requirement is nothing harmful.
Page 103

On the contrary - the state can not exist without ideokraticheskogo element
without a moral sense. The Roman Empire had lost its element and ideokraticheskogo

it is decomposed by the fact that it could not learn in a decaying ancient world.
If you could draw it into a new world of Christianity - that would rescue
Empire revival of statehood.
Thus, a deeper analysis of the mutual needs, it seemed, the Church and
Empire could lend a hand ... mutually Constantine and decided to do it.
This moment connection steel opposite essentially began as a church and
state, put them both a number of challenges, which are likely, while even the
not confessed in all its complexity. Fifteen hundred years since the Christian world
I solved them theoretically and practically, hitherto not reached a solution that would be
received
universal acceptance. However, no matter how to deal with this question of the Christian
state everywhere, in all the productions he had a profound significance for the future of the
Church and
state. From a religious point of view in the history of the Church was not a decisive
moment as a moment when Constantine, after deep reflection and mysterious
visions, raised his "Labarum" with the inscription "In this sign conquer." The state, like
just at that moment was born a new principle of sovereignty that the final
role even to the present time is the subject of dispute restless world.
Connection of the Christian and Roman ideas
.
Keep out of the pagan Roman state, not in the least Christian
denied statehood and the general principle of power. Constantine knew the sacred
Israel recognized the Old Testament books of the Christians the Holy Bible. So it was in
Gospel times, and when the time came the canon, the books entered into it on a par with
New Testament Scripture. Imperial power available in the future even Moses and the
kings
anointed messengers of the Lord.
In the teachings of the New Testament kept the same attitude toward government in
general and in particular to
State. The basic view of Christianity linked the idea of power and political
public with the idea of the divine dispensation and the direction of human affairs.
"Repay Caesar what is Caesar's and to God to God," said the Saviour. Even Pilate, He
He said: "You would not have any power, if it were not given to you by God." Apostle,
instructing obey authority, it adds that it is "God." Element power
as recognized by the apostolic doctrine, that even Christian slaves still have
obey the Lord, their co-religionists. There is no power but of God. Opposes government
opposes the establishment of God.
The boundaries of obedience to the authorities established only by the need to obey
God.
As you know, this obedience to authority is always motivated by the fact that the
authorities

erected by God for the good of themselves as people. This applies the same to the Lord,
that
should benefactor servants and political power, which is to protect the
the good and punish the evil. Hardly have to accept this quotation, which is full
The New Testament Scriptures, and that establish firmly the principle that the
government bears
currently serving God, and from myself has nothing. The authorities thus considered
Page 104

as a duty to God, and His command to the people.


This is its limit, and Christianity was even able to distinguish between the rule of law
illegal and a principle forcing repay God what is God. The human soul, with its
moral world - belongs to God. But Whereupon, obedience to legitimate authority, that,
that is God, has no borders.
"He is God's servant for your good" (Romans XIII, 1-4).
Without denying the principle of power, even if it belongs to the heathen,
Christianity, in spite of injustice and brutality of the emperors, and for all his
alienation from the state, as it was a premonition of the religious mission of the empire
still
a time when it was persecuted. The well-known apologist, St.. MILITON, when
Antonina, paying
Caesars attention on the characteristic, in his opinion, the fact that the empire
He appeared in the world along with Christianity. It is to him as a hint of some
common mission. Simultaneously with the communication. MILITON tries to convince
Caesar that his
just above the duty performance "will of the majority."
"Maybe - he said MILITON - some would say that he could not do what he believes
just because he is a king, and must do the will of the majority. Who says so
one truly worthy of laughter "[" Works ancient Christian apologists. St. MILITON
Sardikiysky "].
King, from the standpoint of a Christian is not obliged to execute the will of the Senate
and the people, but God,
t. e. to be on guard of justice, even against it, and stood "most".
Constantine, an acquaintance with Christianity, could not understand what unshakable
abutment
authorities are able to give it the subordination of the power of divine justice.
He was looking for in Christianity the idea of supreme power, t. E. The content, which is
given to her
the Christian faith. In bringing this new idea of the Christian monarchy, and was
etat produced them, through which he continued the life of the Roman Empire
another 1,000 years, its Byzantine alteration.
What was the idea of supreme power Constantine? According to Eusebius,
who knew him closely, the emperor looked at himself as a servant of God, acting on

hand with the Church. He saw himself as a servant of God, received the power to order
to bring the human race to the service of "sacred law", that is,
Christian. He even referred to himself as "the bishop of external affairs." The meaning of
this formula said prof. Barrows - contemporaries understood that "the emperor thought of himself
are obliged to care about the world of the holy churches of God, watch over the strict
execution
Church ordinances between their subjects, laymen and clergy itself, and
take care of the spread of Christianity among the Gentiles "[Barrows," Relationship
between ecclesiastical and civil authority in the Byzantine Empire ", Kazan, 1880].
However, the imperial service of God, without contradicting this formula, we obtain
guiding idea in the law of Christ, and for all other state duties
Legislation Constantine received a rare harmony since he looked at
themselves, in the words of Lebo, as "the Vicar of God." However, it has penetrated
philanthropy and the desire to maintain good everywhere and eradicate evil.
The first act of the overthrow of Maxentius Constantine was the famous
Edict of Milan the year 313, he, restoring the violated property rights
Churches, at the same time announced a general tolerance for all faiths. This
toleration he remained true to life, by prohibiting only cults and immoral
magic that is not only of charlatanism, but generates a lot of crimes.
Page 105

Subsequently, by the end of his reign, he banned pagan sacrifices, but apparently more
to subjects clearly saw his desire to lead all to Christianity, and
in fact, the pagan temples, with all its sacrifices, flourished everywhere,
where it wished surviving pagan feeling. He decree to invite all
Christianity, declared that the true faith is not intended, and those who persist in pagan
errors.
Scammers have become a scourge during the strife, they were persecuted with
cruelty, which it is earned. But treason he did not give the value
and when his rebellious heretics mutilated statue, Constantine, to punish tips
daring, said a joke: "I am, - he said - did not feel injured."
Rights of the person obliged to provide him a lot. He stopped the free circulation
people in slavery, and gave freedom before slavery. He introduced harsh penalties for
abduction of women - very common in the ancient world. It is contrary to policy
former emperors destroyed all judgments against celibate. He found that when
transfer of slaves in other hands is not allowed to separate members of the same
family. Despite
Fisk claims, Constantine destroyed the conclusion of defaulters in prison and all
criminal prosecution against them. Such laws full of his reign, from beginning to
end.
But most are characteristic all laws, and their rationale, as to where
He expressed the very essence of sovereignty. So he did consider the matter of justice,

especially lying on him as the representative of the government of God. In addition to


various measures
improve the mechanism for the court, said Konstantin principle: "We think we should be
more
taking into account equity, rather than positive law. "The application of this
sublime views were, however, granted them only the supreme power. Judges
also had to conform to the positive law. This gave Constantine
judges to refer to him personally to explain the doubtful cases, but
convicted of such consultations the judges with the emperor - still maintained customary
law
appeal.
Similarly, Constantine, considering himself responsible for all of its officials,
repeatedly published its invitation to citizens to bring him fearlessly
any complaints whatsoever actions of officials, even the highest. Generally in
Constantine saw the Empire supreme power everywhere staring at yourself as
for responsible instrument of God, are not fulfilling their will and divine justice,
as power, sent by God to serve for good subjects [See. Lebau. Histoire du
Bas-Empire [49], p. 114, 126, 134, 135, 205, 231, 378 and others].
What is the inner meaning of the concept of sovereignty that led to the world
Konstantin?
He became a minister of God, not people, not the country, not the "majority", but of
God. From
God, he received and the duties and, therefore, the powers. Thus Constantine
It was not representative of any, even a Christian, the people's will, and
the spokesman of the national moral and religious ideal. It is clear that this is the ideal
Christians united in the Church, and that Constantine erected a principle. This
the idea of supreme power sharply separates the new monarchical principle as from the
former
Roman absolutism, associated with the notion of a republic (the Senate and the people),
and from
Eastern autocracy, which penetrate into the empire Diocletian.
Again, the peoples of the Byzantine autocrat (autocrat) gave power
Page 106

supreme in relation to subjects, but certainly not absolute, since it has


certain that makes the content of this power, namely, the will and law of God,
Which he served. Around this supreme power was a constant living Church,
bearer of moral will of God himself autocrat was only a member, but not
Mr. Church.
Hence the content of the religious and moral ideal of the measurements of the legitimate
authorities,
the same had to constantly autocrat and his subjects, interfering in every
this regard misunderstandings.

In the sense of an ideal - a new monarchy promised the world's most advanced
political system. However, in reality, people had to once again see how
little they are capable of ideals.
As we shall see, the idea of the imperial power, which was the Constantine was
paralyzed in Byzantium persistent influence of the old Roman ideas. Constantine
introduced a new
principle, but it has not disappeared and the old, and the Byzantine double-headed eagle
with its wings closed
autocrat, who was both a Christian monarch, all power
supreme, and the Roman Caesar, the Management carrier power given to him by the
authorities
republic. This duality that characterizes Byzantium affected very detrimental to her
state structure. But more on that below. You must first consider
the position of the emperor, as a bearer of Christian sovereignty.
Church and State
As a Roman Caesar, Constantine rules, like predecessors, in effect
despotically. Republic, the Senate and the people who lived in the idea, in fact, has long
been in
inability to control his delegate. But with a new idea, adopted by Constantine,
for it was some force in the country, which he has had to obey.
Tyranny disappears completely when it came to the Church. Empire, unaccustomed to
public meetings, again saw a huge cathedral, which became Resolution
law for the emperor.
But this was a completely new forms. The emperor did not ask the church that he
I should do, and ask: what is truth, what he should believe? The voice of the Church
the question of the true faith Constantine listened to the never one or the Consul
Tribune did not listen to the speeches of the Senate and the comitia. But here, in the
church councils,
and there was no question of majority or minority, or of their own volition meeting.
Nobody asked what they want bishops or laity, but to get down only - what
is the truth. There was no question of the will of man, and talked only about what
God's will? This was not supposed to, and does not allow any personal ideological
sympathies.
It took only know what is the everlasting, the Catholic faith?
But when this eternal truth, she could only submit.
"Faith in Christ, according to Eusebius, he (Constantine) thought only
true religion, the restoration of the primitive religion, which granted our
grandparents still in Paradise, in the universe, and that the human race has lost then,
as a result of the Fall. "Becoming a" servant of God ", a minister of eternal truth, the
Supreme
Page 107

the power needed to the main content of the truth which gives ideokraticheskogo element

authorities, it was clear, and certainly the same for all the authorities and
citizens. Without it
It would have been impossible supreme power of a new type.
And that is why Constantine's nothing in the world was not afraid so much as
heresies. To
all kinds of pagan errors he treated coldly because bearable. Yet
Christian heresy strongly drove him to the loss of self-control.
"I have so far can be quite calm, he said on the occasion of the heresy Donatovoy
[50] until all my subjects, united in fraternal unity, will not render
All-Holy God truly intelligent worship prescribed by the Catholic
Church "[Lebau," Histoire du Bas-Empire ", Volume 1, pp. 255-256].
It is characteristic of the emperor fathers Council of Nicaea [51] Referring to serious
internal strife, they successfully pacified, Constantine said:
"Once, with the help of God, the Savior, we destroyed the godless tyranny,
speakers open war - let the spirit of the evil one does not dare to attack craft, and
perfidy for our holy faith. I tell you from the heart: internal divisions
Church of God in my eyes all the terrible battles ... The news about your differences
put me in the bitter grief of the world ... God's servants revive among you the spirit of
love,
you must inspire others, stop all sorts of seeds of discord "[Barrows, p.
39-41].
And then, when the decision of the council was uttered, no louder Constantine
He insisted on his divine infallibility.
"The decision, pronounced three hundred bishops, heretics, he writes, should be
honored as came forth from the mouth of God Himself. It is the Holy Spirit to enlighten
them and spoke through
... So they hurry to return to the path of truth ... "
This view is created is not a need for personal conscience, but the main
all - need to supreme power. To be a "servant of God", the Emperor
should know the general guiding line of God's will, which is required to perform in his
direction, and as the clear guiding line should be submitted to his subjects.
Needless to explain that abstract, apparently, questions of doctrine (dogma) always
have a moral conclusions and moral beliefs define actions, and therefore
and all governmental activities. With indisputable and homogeneity of the people
moral and religious assumptions, the emperor, they are separated, it becomes power
supreme. The Church has no authority for it in the measures of implementation, measures
Application
religious truth to government practice. There is only God will judge him, his
the only Master. King thus impossible to oblige the people to listen to
He did not venture to get out of obedience to God. But in general guiding truth
definitions
Emperor certainly had to make his power nature indisputably

have a permanent presence of an independent Church, the Church, which expresses the
will not
Emperor or people in general, and the will of God.
Monarchy - the nature of the supreme power, so in the Christian world alone
possible with the existence of the church, standing nearby, but no matter.
Hence the great task of the new Christian monarchy was unmistakable
the establishment of relations between church and state, or more precisely - between
Supreme authority of the State and the Church. The question here was to install
Relations emperor to ecclesiastical authority. All of the application of the government, its
entire
system and the dispensation of the state, no longer connected directly with the idea of the
church. Here for
Page 108

public authorities have to comply with the forces of social, political,


economic, and so on.. But to set the guiding idea of the board, you must
permanent, full consent of the Emperor, and the subjects of faith, that is, the Church,
where citizens live their faith.
Constantine put the new nation no easy task to establish unmistakable
the ratio of its governing authority (ie the royal) to the ecclesiastical authority.
This problem was solved in the Christian world for the next 1,500 years with a very
different
the degree of clarity and public consciousness of the church, and the church came from,
and
Monarchy of various types.
In general, the nature of the Church. E. The faith of the people, imposed a particular
character on
the monarchy of Christendom. But must remember, not one faith has a value
the structure of the state. It is determined only by the nature of the supreme power. The
structure of the
States have nominated a determined degree of sovereignty of its political
consciousness, discernment, and a combination of political forces. Similarly,
the social conditions that create those or other political forces to influence public
the structure of the Christian period had the one that, thanks to them becomes clear to the
authorities or
obscured understanding of the different political principles necessary for the structure
the state and its activities.
The mixing of the nation and the Church
The emergence of a new principle of supreme power was but the atmosphere
which contributed to the generation of a very important error - mixing the concepts of
"nation" and
"churches". Hence, a number of other errors, responded to the political creativity
Christendom.

Constantine leaned in the transformation of the empire into the mass of the people, which
was called
"Christian nation" or "estate of Christians" (Corpus Christianorum). But though faith
Christian gave an opportunity to the great and fruitful principle of supreme power,
Yet Christians still do not have the social and political meaning of "people"
the nation and the Church were. It was not a social union, and religious. Thinking about
how
adapt to this new segment of the population state, Constantine and others
Converters of Rome, could not help thinking about the actual church requests, and
adapted its business to the needs of the state and the law are not public, and
church. Wanting to conform to the spirit of Christianity, but they received from him
Only the idea of supreme power, although highly valuable, but no political
the doctrine could not receive, because it did not have Christianity as the Church.
As a result, Constantine and his successors particularly reforms, recovering from
Christian idea of the supreme power remained in the Roman imperial doctrine
statehood. This duality receive not only in terms of the Supreme
authorities, but it was transferred to the Church of the idea of the nation, the republic.
In fact, even if the same mass of people of the Church and
state the amounts of the various aspects of his life, and the Church in them
It is something special in the nation. One does not contradict, and education in the
Church
even gives excellent quality for the citizen. Nevertheless, a Christian marries
Page 109

organizes the family, the community, starts a shop or a workshop, satisfied the court or
the police and
t. e., not because he was a member of the Church, not the motives that led him to
church meeting. It merely brings the Christian conception of the ultimate goals of life,
and
Christian sense of purity, love, justice, and so on. d. to their social concerns,
but the main causes of the latter comes from a source not religious, not spiritual,
and everyday. Therefore, the political doctrine of the Church itself can not have.
Political doctrine is born out of the social conditions.
In Rome, the time of Constantine, Christians were not even Christian people:
Among them were people of all tribes, all states that in the social and political
It was embedded in the sense of class of the old empire. They do not have a nation.
Therefore, they could not afford to develop a political doctrine, even as a Christian
nation, like, for example, Russia. They were the only church that can give
the moral authority of the Supreme religious concept, but it has no doctrine. This is
the impact of even the very spirit of Christianity, as the kingdom of the Savior - "not of
this world."
The supreme power of the Christian, unconditional submission to God and to the spirit of
the government,

retains complete freedom in how to implement these goals, according to the political and
social conditions, including the mission had to act. These modes of action
It is determined by the "world". Authorities can combine their very different,
quite freely, on the sole condition that these combinations were conformable
with the will of God, that is. e. were imbued with religious moral principles worthy
Christian.
Church
Namely,
against
States have
keeper
of this
moral and religious guidance and validation of our public life. This is its
power above the state. But the practice of the State
buildings in the Christian spirit of the - nation and the supreme authority are in front of
the whole
the fullness and diversity of funds generated by the nature of man and society.
So, Corpus Christianorum, not being a nation that gave Constantine a political
doctrine. It does not contain any thought other than purely ecclesiastical. Meanwhile, in
the ancient world already existed Roman state doctrine created by the great
the work of a century of political life and the thought of the largest lawyers.
Clearly a huge impact on her term Christian state.
But this doctrine of imperial power was seen as delegated by
the Senate and the people. This doctrine gave all the power to the emperor, but only in
use, and
its source - Sovereignty - belonged to the republic, that is the nation. Therefore Roman
the concept of the imperial power, as the delegation of the people's will, naturally could
converted to the Christian world in the concept of an imperial power like the delegation
Church, ecclesiastical authority. It is a profound mistake, distorting even the concept of
the Church,
it made its way into the world.
In fact, the Church can not delegate to the government, because
that it does not involve itself does not have. This is among other things well explained
Professor
N. Zaozerskii [N. Zaozerskii, "The ecclesiastical authority", Sergiev Posad, 1894]. He
did
correctly says that the state and the church are institutions only coexist, but not
merging of difference to the nature of the power of each of them. The fact is that
ecclesiastical authority lacks enforcement element, without which the power
State. Therefore, the Church can not build a state, and do dream about it - not
Christian and belong to the field of Jewish-Talmudic messianism, so
Page 110

strong in the early days of Christianity.


Similarly, the Church can not be built in the state. But when, for whatever
was the reason there is confusion between "church" and "nation", it is inevitable
clouded understanding of significant differences of the "power" that is inherent in
State. Under these conditions it is possible and even inevitable erroneous definition
relations between the Church and the State.
Theoretically it would be possible to anticipate all that was found in the historic
practice, that is, that the error performances of state-church
relationship can be two opposing concepts.
Firstly, the ecclesiastical authority can get an idea of Papocaesarism. Unless
State power is a delegation of the Church, it is clear that ecclesiastical authority
It can give and not to give political power to the monarch may, having given again to
take away, and
Monarch all have here is only the Management authority and supreme is in
the hands of ecclesiastical authority. That was the idea of the Roman Catholic
Christendom.
Secondly, on the contrary, the emperor could obtain the desire of Caesar-papist. Unless
Church ceded him his power, as the senate and people of Rome gave way to her Caesar,
and if
between the authorities of Church and State is no significant difference, the emperor
could be considered
himself the supreme ruler of the Church, which, in the absolutist expression, it - Suum
imperium et potestatem concessit [52].
This outlook has accused Western Christianity Byzantium. In fact, this
outlook characterizes the Protestant state and church. In Byzantium
the attitude of the Church and the state, or more precisely, the ratio of state and church
power was much more correct than anywhere else. Nevertheless, the fundamental
mistake,
that is, a confused understanding of differences "nation" and "Church" - was for his
Byzantium
sad consequences.
In general, the history of the Christian state in the West is particularly harmful
importance was the fact that there did not know how to properly install power relations
state and church. There is first the idea prevailed Papocaesarism undermines
Emperor in the sense of the value of the sovereign power. Then there was a reaction that
He subordinated the church to the state. However, if an error occurs on this side, in
western Europe
life force young people themselves create a powerful social order that is even
without conscious effort of the monarchy and gave a lot of vitality. In Byzantium, on the
contrary not having received the legacy of the Roman Empire decrepit social and personal good,
Christian statehood could fill this lack of a conscious
creativity, conscious desire to recreate the missing social monarchy

system. But misunderstanding of "nation" and "church", together with the influence of
the Roman
Caesarist doctrine was not allowed to attend in order to supplement
state structure of the necessary social supports.
Thus the Christian monarchy, both in the West and in the East, although at
various reasons, the same did not have time to work out the ideal-type of its right,
that is the type equipped with all the characteristic of his idea of the
basics. Subsequently, the
full monarchical type of statehood appeared in the most successful in building
Muscovite Russia, which is borrowed from the Byzantine church-state setting
relationship, and at the same time, like western Europe, had a brisk social
system, which could not (despite the lack of awareness) is not taken into account
Moscow State.
Page 111

Returning however to Byzantium.


The ratio of the autocrat of the Church
For the Byzantine state relationship to the church were of paramount importance.
Perhaps, in any Christian state did not give them the importance of nowhere
much work has gone public thoughts on the installation of these relations, and with
reason, t. To. The real power of Byzantium, as a nation, have received a huge
performance boost
as a result of a careful installation of state-church relations. They,
of course, criticized, and criticized it with the state, from the ecclesiastical point of view.
However, the Byzantine Empire can boast the fact that nowhere did the question of the
union of the Church and
the state has not been resolved more successfully.
Above these relationships tended to Byzantium one thing, very thin
said Professor Zaozersk [N. Zaozerskii, ibid, p. 256].
"As he (Justinian) views, he says, not even the church and the state must
be distinguished as two social and moral order, living in their own domains,
and contact between each other influences, but the priesthood and
imperial power, as two divine establishment designated by the cumulative and
According to the current landscaping of human life in a single state. "
This remark is subtle, but still can not understand the idea just because the Byzantines.
Yet it was not unknown that the state may be several Orthodox and
The Church is one. So there is something "church" does not coincide with the "state." But
This clause can not be denied that the analytical thought Byzantium several hundred
years
pushed to dogmatic religion, he has remained very weak in relation to the sociological.
The distinction between Church and nation were extremely weak, why not before the
mind's eye
It arose dostodolzhno distinction of Church and State.

But if as a consequence, the relationship of Church and State in Byzantium remained


undeveloped, the ratio of the power of the church and the state have developed in
harmonious system. Here's how it describes Professor Barrows, in his remarkable
labor, so deeply imbued with the spirit of the Byzantine, as if the author was right out
Constantinople Justinian times [F. Burial mounds, "The relationship between the church
and
Civil authority in the Byzantine Empire ", Kazan. 1880].
According to the laws of Justinian (527-565 years), which expresses the spirit
preceding era and has left its mark on all subsequent time, in the state
It recognized the existence of two equal powers. In the foreword to the 6th Novella [53]
lawmaker says
"Goodness of the Most High announced to mankind the two greatest gift of the
priesthood and
Kingdom (the imperial power). The first concerned about pleasing God, and the second
on the other
human subjects. Both the same, originating from one and the same source,
Decoration of human life. "It was the general view. Saint Theodore the Studite
He says (806 g):
"God gave Christians the gift of two degrees, the priesthood and the kingdom by
whose earthly affairs are managed like heaven. "The emperor John Komnenos
(1124-1130) wrote to Pope Honorius II:
Page 112

"In all my management, I recognized two things, as essentially different from


another: the first is a spiritual power that the supreme pontiff of the world, the king of the
world
Christ gave to his disciples and apostles as inviolable benefit by
which they are, by divine right, they have the power to bind and loose all people.
Second there is the secular power, the head of the affairs of time and has at
divine establishment of equal rights in their field. Both of these authorities,
mainstream human life, separate and distinct from each other [Barrows, Ibid
pp. 73].
The ratio of two powers resembles the relationship of body and soul. On image
Epanagoge [54], the state quite like the structure of the human body. how
man consists of two parts, body and soul, and for the state of the body
requires two power - spiritual and secular, that is, the emperor and the patriarch. What's
up
human may be correct only when the mind and body are in harmony,
so precise and well-being of the body in the state subjects only possible
imperatorstvo when the priesthood and are in agreement with each other. This principle
He expressed Justinian, Nikiforov Votaniat, Manuel Comneni and so on. d.
How this was achieved the required consent? In principle, it achieved unanimity
and canon law, regulations of state and church. Council of Chalcedon [55]

It ruled that all laws that are contrary to the canon, are not valid. Justinian ordered
and "church laws have the same effect in the State as public: that
first allowed or prohibited, then permitted and prohibited, and the last. Therefore,
crimes against the first can not be tolerated in the State under the laws of
state. "In 131 Justinian Conte takes such a canon - the rules
Ecumenical Councils, and all of them approved, that is, the rules of
communication. Apostle, local
Councils and fathers.
In this meaning of the canon of the church should not perceive subordination
State power. The fact that all the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils
approved by the emperors, so that the government was fully provided by
any canons, it is unacceptable. But the point of view of canon law and the consent
expressed as a constant principle. In Epanagoge said that contrary to the rules
Church should not be permitted with. Leo Philosopher held that it cancels all the laws,
contrary to the canons. Photios in Nomocanon [56] states that all laws,
contrary to the canons, are invalid. This is the main point of the Byzantine
legislation. The logical consequence was the convergence of law and canon right
Emperor watching to canonical rules are respected also by the
church administration, and therefore the right to cancel orders of ecclesiastical authority,
if the Emperor found them disagree with the laws and canons.
Byzantine idea of two inseparable powers
Byzantine relations of Church and State excite a lot of blame. Them
evinces disapproval and Professor Zaozerskii in the said work. Another of our canonist,
Professor Suvorov, characterizes them as if "the opposite" of Rome
views, t. e. cant repeats the accusation of Byzantium in caesaropapism. He even Mourns
Page 113

Popes break with the Orthodox Church, finding that it violated domestic
the balance of state-church relations.
"If, - he says - the gap between East and West did not happen, then east
Emperor and Pope were to each other mutual checks. The Pope
not brought to their claims to the limit where man's power is drained and mixed
with the power of God, and, conversely, do not east imperatorstvo would become
boundless
theocracy "[" The course of church law ", Volume I, p. 91].
This estimate is an exaggeration of phenomena without attention to the exceptional
permanent phenomena.
Absolutely says Professor Barrows:
"It's safe to say that the relationship between this theory
the state and the Church in general respected in Byzantium. Violation of the law is
inevitable
in any human society. But the story does not constitute a violation of law as

exceptions to the general rule, but the general idea and the spirit permeating society and
control
his actions. "
There is no doubt that these "exceptions", the "abuse" by law were in Byzantium.
The value of the Emperor in the affairs of the church and even the doctrinal often swell
to
full abnormality. Known Theodore Balsamon, interpreter of the canons and laws,
hartofilaks [57] and the Patriarch of Antioch, probably one of the greatest Byzantine
authorities, in the XII century, taught that "the emperor and the patriarch have for the title
of teacher
power of the holy anointing, because it takes away the power of the believers to teach
sovereigns
Christian people, and burn incense like the priests. "
Balsamon finds that "the value of the emperors in the state in this regard, even
It exceeds the value of the clergy, for the power and activities of the emperors extends
body and to the soul, while the activities of the Patriarchs applies only to a single soul ...
"
Archbishop Bulgarian Homatin (XIII century) says that "with the exception of
rites, Emperor combines the privileges of all other bishops in the
the basis of which it obtained the canonical church order importance. "
That's what agreed in Byzantium.
It is these ideas and subsequently drawn the Protestants from Byzantium. Professor
Kurganov makes interesting comparison:
"One of the Protestant theologians, canonists, Richard Rhodes, said that the Church
It becomes excessive in proportion to how the Christian state. The more
State loses its secular character, so to speak, otserkovlyaetsya, especially Church
recedes into the background and loses its power. Something like that - says professor
Barrows - we find the Byzantine lawyers in the practice of the Eastern Church at
striving to be a Christian Byzantine Empire. According to Balsamon,
during the reign of Manuel I (1143-1180 biennium). Some lawyers have expressed the
idea that the force
and the value of the canons to destroy themselves as a result of the meeting of
government
laws. But this idea was rejected because of the adoption of its State
We identify with the Church and would instead of two bogouchrezhdennyh authorities
would constitute a "
[Barrows, p. 87].
So his principle of "two powers" Byzantium still remembered even when
stupefaction largest church-legal thought.
Let's face it, there were examples of attacks on him. Here on the script
an example of this, is usually quoted poritsateley Byzantium.
Page 114

As is known, according to the canon (usually 15 Carthage) clergy, accessing


secular court instead of the church shall be deprived of the place. And in their Balsamon
interpretations tells such a case ["Rules of Local Councils with interpretations"
Issue II, p. 417. Balsamon. (In edition of the Moscow Society of Lovers of spiritual
Education)].
"When the abbot of the All-Seeing, the monk Meletios was held
conciliar tried and abandoned it, and brought the matter to the secular court of the king's
word,
that His Holiness Patriarch Cyrus Luca offended by this, use a lot of effort to
correcting the incident. But I heard from the civil authorities, that the kingship could
do and how would initially appoint a civilian judge to judge
bishop or another insider, and subsequently for the legal discretion
ecclesiastical court can be replaced by a secular ". Balsamon trying different twists
explain such cases, but it is clear that in their royal power was set above the canon.
But no matter how "tsezaropapistichny" these facts - is not a coincidence
rule. Besides, should remember that the Orthodox teaching - for the spirit of it The church is not a hierarchy, and all believers. Not only the emperor and
Just lay on himself as a member of the Church has the right and the well-known teachers,
and interpretation of the faith, and escort the true faith, and in the idea to a certain extent
It is the carrier of ecclesiastical authority. Moreover, these rights belong to the Orthodox
King, "God's chosen one," the eldest son of the Church. In Christianity, there are no
forms to
It would be higher spirit, and the spirit of the rule of faith protected the most. With regard
to forms and
rules, as they are required for security, so to speak, the midline relationship
Church and State, can not prevent the deviations from this "law" average
line, which - depending on the fidelity or infidelity to the spirit, sometimes make a great
heroism and merit, sometimes - a great sin and usurpation.
In the history of the Byzantine emperors, and there were examples of both.
No doubt there was no heresy which would have had among themselves ardent
champions
Emperors and sometimes heresy and occurred only because of them. But should
remember that
Faith was not yet clear. Delusions were not refuted. What is included in the
Orthodox understanding of the dogma, and that it contradicts in those days it was not so
easily discernible. Neither the emperor did not want to deviate from the teachings of the
church, but that
Church teaching is and what is not the church? It was found out only after lengthy
Disputes cathedrals and so on. d. Emperors, like all other people, have at the same time
any of its
opinion, stood on one side or another. Later it turned out that some
emperors talked of heresy, others in the Orthodox. But it turned out
Only afterwards.

Or you can demand that the emperor does not interfere in the discussion of
faith, and they waited patiently for decades, as a matter clarified cathedrals? But this
requirement
not Orthodox. Orthodoxy does not allow a layman was so indifferent to the faith and
He believed only by order of the cathedral. And besides, there were heretical churches,
even more
numerous than the Orthodox. The emperor, like all Orthodox Christians, could not
discuss and look where is the truth. Moreover, he and the supreme power of the people,
not
It could be alien to their religious needs. The emperor, as the supreme power is possible
Only, as the exponent of the faith and the spirit of its people. Thus, interfering in disputes
about faith,
Emperors acted quite correctly as a religious, as well as with the state
points of view. They pressed their secular authority on the outcome of discussions ... But
it should
Page 115

remember that even when the first Christian emperor, Constantine, the bishops
themselves and
churches appealed to the emperor with a request to tame the power of secular heretics
measures.
Therefore, resorting to the emperors did not act arbitrarily, not arbitrarily, and
according to the request of the Church. If the repressive measures were wrong address
and fell on
Orthodox, it is actually happening in those moments and years, when the question of
Orthodox or heretical opinion this has not yet been clarified, and the emperor, thought to
be
zealous Orthodox was actually a heretic.
So, there can not be accused of usurping the imperial power. Anyway enough
It says that after all of this century Byzantium took all the Ecumenical Councils in
this time has been understood and disclosed the whole dogma of Orthodoxy. Enough of
this fact to
to see that the emperors of their interference in theological disputes have not prevented
disclosure of the truth. No doubt, many of them can rightly claim that they
this is very supportive of and faithfully served the Church and the Church authorities.
The vitality of the Byzantine ecclesiastical building
One of partiality poritsateley Byzantine ideas, Vladimir Solovyov, in
essay, which can be called by this pamphlet against it, but he
It marks a significant fact:
"With 842 years (ie. E. After the final clarification of the content of Orthodoxy) is not
the emperor was not a single heretic or heresiarch at Constantinople. "This is a
completely
true indicates that the emperors of the previously fallen into heresy not by some

addiction to heresy, but because like any other man, could not even always understand
question that has Orthodoxy. Ow. Solovyov gives it its explanation addressed
it is against the principle of the Byzantine. He says, though at the moment, "celebration
Orthodox "Church and state agreed on the" negation of Christianity as a social
forces "that" the emperors learned all Orthodoxy, as an abstract dogma, and
Orthodox hierarchy blessed in secula seculorum [58] Paganism public
life "[" La Russie et l'Eglise Univcrselle ", Paris, 1889; see. introduction]. That is why the
emperors
and since then we could live in harmony with the Church ...
It - biased, reaching to the complete oblivion of all the facts of reality.
Autocrat Vladimir presented here. Solovyov some fiend, a devotee of that
Whatever it was evil. But in fact, it was nothing like this. The emperors of Byzantium
were
like all other people. There were they doing terrible and bloody, there have been cases of
high
holiness. In general, they shared a deep religiosity of the era. Between them
there were also those who, changing the royal palace in the monastic cell, they found that
only this time learned the true happiness.
Individual episodes of imperial biographies often affect touching
sincerity of faith.
Let me, for example, remember the story of the emperor Mauritius. Such facts
They say more than reasoning.
The Emperor Maurice was in general a good man and a fine governor. Him
the reign of one of the brightest in the Byzantine Empire. But the emperor had a great
Page 116

sin.
Part of his army, all the valiant, but declared themselves in Asia, extreme willfulness
and indignation, was transferred to Europe, and then experienced a failure: was captured
by
barbarians. It seems it was not without fault of Mauritius, may be intentionally
who gave this body the necessary reinforcements. In many appearances, the emperor was
rather glad to get rid of the soldiers so spoiled, pretentious and
Demoralized by their rebellions all the other troops. At least, when the barbarians
Empire offered to redeem captives, Emperor so traded, for giving them so little
redemption, that, finally, the barbarians became angry and cut all the prisoners, several
thousand
human.
Why is this wine of the Emperor? He certainly did not expect such an outcome, it is, of
course, thought,
barbarians just sell out the prisoners into slavery, as is usual in such
cases. In the history of many examples of acts of power, far more insidious and
sinful and guilty preblagopoluchno soothed his conscience multitude

"For reasons of state." Not that came from Mauritius. Blood subjects, although
faulty, he choked him. Life has become painful to him, but also the death of the
Scarecrow, because he
waiting for the coffin terrible punishment of God for his crime ...
And here begins the episode, which has no example in history.
Mauritius wrote to all the patriarchs, bishops, holy Hermits, and all requests
to pray to God for that He punished him, the emperor, in this life, not in
future. There comes a sight unseen and unheard. The whole Church solemnly prays
the punishment of the pious emperor is strong enough to atone for his sin. AND
Now, finally, the remote eastern Desert inform the Emperor, that the prayer of the
Church
heard.
One hermit had a vision about it. "Lord, - informs the monks - Takes
your repentance penance. It allows you and your family to eternal bliss, but
this world you will lose the kingdom of sorrow and shame. "
The Emperor, having been notified, and gave thanks to God, and waited for the
punishment.
Not have to wait long. The troops broke most absurd outrage Fauci,
negligible rank and villain in life. The Emperor was seized with the whole family ... Yes,
he
- One of the best generals of the empire - not even defended ... Bloodthirsty Fock
immediately ordered to behead the entire royal family. In excess of cruelty, all children,
Seven people were executed in front of his father. Mauritius saw flew one after another
the head of his sons, and only repeated every blow of the ax:
"You are righteous, O Lord, and just are your judgments" ...
The last came off and head of the Mauritius [See. Lebeau, "Histoire du Bas-Empire",
Volume X, p. 396-409] ...
How often do such deep faith found themselves at the Primate of the Church and that if
Emperor, dreaming of "paganism of public life?"
Similarly, true to the Church "blessed paganism public
life "and to the Church the power to do his duty for the authorities to observe, when
she deviated from Christian behavior.
It is not in the same Chrysostom Byzantine Church denounced the sins of the world's
strongest. AT
the latest suicide era of Byzantine ecclesiastical authority voice sounded loud and
safely. Known Blemmydes, for example, a lot of time writing and verbally denounced
the favorite of
king John Lascaris. And she - Markesina - enjoyed such influence at the court that
Page 117

even wore the insignia of imperial dignity. Ignoring reproaches Blemmydes it


I thought to insist on their right to be a member of high society and was at once
worship in the monastery Blemmydes.

"It is - says a contemporary, - I come with great pomp, arrogance


signs of imperial dignity, accompanied by a large retinue. But before I ascended to
Temple, host of the divine persons (monks of the monastery) on the orders of the abbot
Blemmydes shut the door from the inside of the temple, and hath her entrance. "Enraged
Markesina
rushed to the king and demanded the punishment of the offender, shouted that "a disgrace
It applies to the person of the king himself. "There were, of course, and the courtiers who
supported
demand mistress, but the king said, sighing:
"Why do you advise me to punish the righteous man? If I lived
immaculately, would retain the integrity and royal dignity, and myself ... But I
he gave rise to dishonor himself ... "[Nicephorus Grigor," Roman History ", Vol. II. p. 7].
Michael Palaeologus, the national hero, the liberator of Constantinople, was
excommunicated
from the Church of Patriarch Arseny blinding Lascaris. When he did not humility
I could mitigate the patriarch and chased him for a long time, even when his successor
Michael lived rift
"arsenite" did not recognize even the death of Arseny priests and bishops,
set patriarchs appointed to replace illegally deposed king accuser.
Professor Suvorov says "unlimited theocracy" emperors. But the force
These "limitless theocrats" could not make a union with the Pope even in this
time (at Palaeologi) the existence of the empire depended. When
Michael Palaeologus died in the camp his son Andronicus decided not to bury his
father. "He, Nikifor says Gregory - only ordered a few people carried him
away from the camp and buried deep in the ground ... the reason was dodging Michael
from the teachings of the Orthodox Church "[" Roman History ", Grigor Nicephorus, St.
Petersburg. 1862, p.
147]. In Byzantium body excommunication thrown unburied in the field and only
covered with earth ...
However, examples of what the emperors were not stewards not only of faith
The Church, and even the church administration, too. Clearly, not in theory
only, but also in practice Byzantine state and the Church in general, according to the idea
of living
two power, equal rights and the Union. This idea was very sustained. Her expression
It is located in the coronation ceremony of the Byzantine rules (in Epanogoge).
"Once elected civilian authorities, - it says - Emperor
goes to the temple and is showing obedience to God, he seeks his gifts of grace,
as a servant of God and prays for his dedication to the kings. Then, proceeding to the
wedding on
realm through anointing committed patriarch, he gives prevow before the final vow blagovolitelnogo care of subordinates in the truth, and
He utters the oath in the right subject and escorted zealous Orthodox Faith

[Mounds]. Thus, reciprocity approval of church and imperial power


It was held until the end, as well as reciprocity and canon law.
Even
Professor
Zaozerskii,
strongly
criticizing
Byzantine
"synodically-state" form of church government recognizes in the final conclusion:
"Statements by the emperors of their power beyond the sphere of church life were
It is not an ordinary thing. Ordinary as was done during the life of the Church
under the supervision, control and rukovoditelstvom cathedral priests and mostly
Patriarchal Cathedral ... Every time the imperial power on important sides
Page 118

Church life, she met strong resistance from representatives of the Church and every
again, in the end, he wins the Church and never the emperor "[N. Zaozerskii," On
ecclesiastical authority ", pp. 303-304].
So, it is obvious that the Byzantine system of relations between the two powers was
It sets firmly and expediently.
The value of the union of the Church to the state.
Remains of absolutism
Byzantine principle of two equal powers was not only durable, but also
absolutely correct. In favor of its correctness has said the fact that he
set during the Ecumenical Councils, and they confessed. But the manner of clear
that substantial differences principle of church and state, between the authorities
church and state can only be two completely opposite, but
equally correct proportions: a purely moral or union, or complete separation
Church and State, mutual disregard. All other types of relationships
are or false or compromise. False ideas subordination of the Church to the State, or
State Church. Compromise - all that expresses the idea of agreement, concordat, though,
Of course, when between state and church authorities have hidden antagonism and
However, neither the one nor the other party does not have the power to usurp, the only
outcome
a concordat.
In Byzantium, relationship of state and church authorities have been put on the stage
Union. It is right on the idea that outcome gave the State two important benefits.
First, he saved Byzantium from the struggle of the Church and the State. Secondly, the
supreme
power gained enormous prestige.
Many emperors fought against heresies and misunderstanding against orthodoxy.
But it was a struggle not to quarrel Church and state power as an institution. AT

this struggle the emperor acted as a member of the Church, in the name of the Church of
truth, even if
misunderstood. He always had with him one way or another part of the same Church. it
It was a struggle not for the relationship of church and state, and does not lead them
either to break or to
the search for any other principles of mutual relations. As for the clashes have
right between the church and the government, they appeared only in private
occasions, only between the parties, and also did not relate to the principle of
relationships. Such peace, on the basis of the relationship of state and government
church reigned in Byzantium until the very end of her life, and show no
tendency to change, even if the Turks did not stop and its political
existence. Meanwhile in the West, based on the ideas of Rome, in the same period have
been
the brutal war between the emperors and the popes. In 1453, Byzantium had finished
their lives
under the same principles of state and church relations. And in 1500 in the West
Luther has already appeared, and brewing struggle for the triumph of Protestant
caesaropapism.
Millennial peaceful coexistence of church and state was a consequence of the principle,
assimilated into the Byzantine Empire from the beginning.
Another consequence, as I said, it is the credibility of the royal power in the eyes of the
people.
It is closely connected deepest beliefs of the people, and invested the title of "minister
Page 119

God ", the Byzantine emperor could demand from citizens much more discipline,
than in any other setting power. Although filled with unrest and Byzantium
bloody coup, comes from other causes, but the main power
Communication with the autocrat of popular faith made it possible to quickly and easily
recover
old discipline. This close relationship with the king of Byzantium citizens, we can say,
all lived during his turbulent and troubled history. This relationship has its main strength.
With incessant upheavals generated by others, weaknesses
Byzantine statehood amazing speed with which they are recovered
the royal authority of each new ruler, and sometimes completely incapable of low
titles. His extraordinarily honored the king of Byzantium, and of all time never
I changed the monarchical principle. Byzantium is a rare example of the state, all
its existence has never elected again the principle of variable power. This is it
obligation of the religious basis that sanctify this power and put it in the indissoluble
alliance with the People's Church.
Weaknesses of the Byzantine statehood came from completely different
sources: because of social disorganization, and by setting a bad relationship
state power to the nation and its social forces. The position of the imperial

power, converted to Christianity, was from the first moment and stayed forever
the duality of nature.
Declaring himself a servant of God, the emperor thus became the Supreme
power against their Christian subjects, who honored him mouthpiece
their faith, delivered by God to serve Him in worldly matters. Constantine is good
He expressed, calling himself "the Bishop of external affairs." With that he was named
after the Supreme
authority for Christians.
But in the Empire not only still had the majority of the population of the Gentiles, but
over
that she, as an institution, has been the creation of the republic, in which the emperor was
the Management of absolute power, but not supreme.
If Christians were really "people", "nation", they would then be
any estate, corporations, aristocratic or democratic social
power. In all of this with the successors of Constantine might erect any new
management empire, as it could do Christian supreme power among the peoples,
the whole nation is drawn to Christianity in Russia, in England, and so on. But in Rome
Christians made up of the social body. Only their own organization - a
The church was. In it were the only elements in the form of similar social. Religious
community might resemble social, laymen could remind "people", as if the clergy
aristocratic element, and the episcopacy as if the ruling class. In fact, it was
wrongly, as the interests of themselves, the very life of all these elements of church
organization
were absolutely not the ones that are filled with elements of social organization. therefore
no state organization they can not be achieved, though,
misunderstanding, the Christian empire and tried to do it.
As a result, the empire was updated with two errors.
First, the Church is not different from that of the nation, but because the government later
power, instead of effort to organize the nation, tried to impose on church institutions
Social institutions function. It was almost indifferent to the Church, but the state
It has done a lot of damage, as directed it on the wrong path and deviated from the
control
right.
Page 120

Second, the imperial power was both the Management and the higher (by
the idea of the old Roman), and supreme, the idea of a new, Christian. Old Rome had
died very
slow, and the Byzantines until the end of his days continued to call themselves "Romans"
(Romeo). Paganism there most of the time life of Byzantium. AT
Christian empire of the emperor and a double-rooted character that
then I never have been changed.
Meanwhile, the old Roman type of imperial power in its essence there

absolutist. In it the emperor, as a combination of all the Management Authorities do not


It allows the Management of any other authorities, that is hostile to anyone
social, local, class and so on. d. government, whose absence weakens
national vitality and power of the big lead to bureaucracy. Hence a
number of extremely harmful effects of the Byzantine state, prevented her from
developing
monarchical idea in the proper purity and power.
Disadvantages of the social order
The weakest part of the Roman Empire was the shakiness of the social order.
Empire, founded by Julius Caesar and Augustus carried the idea of a great civil rights
and, instead of the previous Republican plunder the provinces, trying to make
everywhere
Ensuring the right. But in fact it is politically evolved steadily
in the worst sense of centralization. At first, the emperors encouraged local
self-government, but the very meaning of the emperor, as the focus of the authorities of
the republic,
prevented the development of institutions in this direction.
Byzantium is, moreover, located in the most different tribes of Rome,
covering more of the elements of discord everywhere, rather than
unification. Christianity was
powerful unifying element, but in the long era of heresy, it is
and contributed to numerous quarrels, which are assigned to the entire
territories and tribes. So it was disassembled the whole of the Empire. Arian heresy [59]
covered mainly Germanic tribes: Vandals, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Alans,
Burgundy - were all Arians, separating little by little from the empire of Italy, Africa,
Spain. Heresy monophysite [60] and Monothelite [61] undermined the moral Us
Byzantium with Egypt, Syria and the countries zaefratskimi. After some time, began
such as seizures by the Roman papacy became isolated. Pure Orthodox idea
It grouped around the empire mainly Greek and Hellenized population.
Empire, based on far-slim body of the Greek national side of Rome,
but it had to withstand a continuous stream of hostile invasions: Attila,
Goths, Slavs, Persians, Arabs, Crusaders, Turks.
What efforts are required for the empire to keep themselves clear from the fact that the
Justinian the Great number of people the military class reached 645,500 people. When
Justinian, in view of the depletion of resources, reduced the army to 150,000 people, it
barely missed
for the maintenance of garrisons on the border. But no military power could not
discard the barbarians. If they do not have time to grab the land of the empire, had their
peacefully accept and settle within the empire, making harmless and even extract
Page 121

some use to populate the devastated areas. But the invading force or peacefully,
aliens anyway made in the provinces of the permanent revolution in

caste relations, legal, land tenure, and so on. d. National genius


time to process the ever-boiling mixture of tribes into something homogeneous whole.
Under these conditions, the Byzantine Empire had only one constant unifying principle state mechanism.
This precariousness forever wavering social foundations and consistency of
governmental mechanism naturally given the preponderance of the bureaucratic top. It
It was the most familiar and most handy tool rule. Only highly
deeply convinced of the need for the Management of social forces, and deliberate system
their organization, could help to overcome the effect of the emperors of all adverse
national and social conditions. But the emperor was even a little desire for it,
because they are the heirs of the Roman imperial idea, that is, half of its entire
beings are born carriers bureaucratic beginning.
As the bearer of the Christian idea, Byzantine monarchy gave autocrat
the nature of the supreme power, t. e. the spokesman of the people's ideals, watching
universal
direction of life for these ideals bed this side autocrat should have been
ministromprezidentom not come without executive officer of current affairs, but
Supreme Director, Comptroller, Judge government. That actually is
the supreme task of the authorities. To fulfill its monarch needs a continuous dialogue
with
nation, and therefore wants to see it organized. This sense of true monarchy, are not
It was foreign to the Byzantine autocrat. But, failure to distinguish the Church and the
nation, is the desire
Communication is seeking public forces, sent only to the Church as an environment
where
came the Christian idea of the supreme power of the monarch. In relation to the social
system
Emperors continued to keep their Roman traditions, giving rise to the bureaucracy.
State duty of the Church
The monarchist feelings of supreme power was manifested immediately in St.
Constantine
for those over which his power received character is really supreme, the
there against Christians. As the Roman emperor Constantine as little pay
attention to the Senate and other republican authorities, like its predecessors. But against
Christians, he began to gather councils and gave extensive powers to the bishops. They
are between
Incidentally, we got the court of law. By Sozomenu [Germias Sozomen, a Greek
historian V
Ages] Constantine gave the right to appeal to the episcopal court, and the decision was
peremptorily. Attached to Theodosiev Code [62] is the head attributed
Constantine, in which the legal rights of the bishops brought the truth to excess, so
how they were allowed to apply for the request of even just one hand and in spite of
unwillingness of the other, the decision of the bishop still remains peremptory.

Trying setting the Management Authorities on the basis of church organization


It continued in Byzantium and after. Professor Zaozerskii selects a number of such
measures
Justinian. The edict of the bishops and patriarchs, he says:
"Taking care of delivery to us by God and the state taking care to our citizens
used throughout the justice lies before we wrote the law (it is the going rate
Page 122

treasury duties) that we recognized for the benefit to make known to your holiness, and
through
it all who live in your area. So, your Bogolyubov and other bishops should
to comply with the aforesaid law and to inform us if out of it will be broken archons
(magistrates), that does not remain neglected none of us is holy and true
legalized ... You have to watch all and others and to inform us about how the Archons,
coming true, and those who will violate this law, that we, knowing
those and others, were awarded the first and last punished "[See. Lebeau," Histoire du
Bas-Empire ", Volume I, Vol. 5, p. 372], and so on. D.
Order it motivates the emperor regret about subjects that are "suffering
great resentment of the Archons in paying extortion taxes treasury. "
Similar motivations led to the emperors entrusted to bishops, however,
together with citizens, many civic duties. The professor was Zaozerskii
curious counting civilian authority of the bishops [Zaozerskii, "On the Church
power ", pp. 278-279].
So the bishop, along with the first citizen of the city, observed that the heads
the province does not prevent citizens in completely different legal acts.
Together with the "Defensor" [63] and the "city fathers", the bishop had the right to
judge
fitness guarantors.
Bishop could receive complaints to the chief of the province, and he did it
presentation, and in the case of inattention to this - could bring the case to the emperor.
Bishop, with the first citizens who could represent the emperor candidates
chiefs of the province.
Bishop could annul the verdict Head of the province. He oversaw over
prisons and had twice a week to inspect them and interrogate prisoners. He
also I watched the delivery of bread soldiers. He took care of street children, about
Prevention of illegal slavery, peksya to correct perverse
women. Bishop generally defended the interests of all of the city participated in the
election
Officials of the city administration, in the audit of its activities, and so on. d.
[N. Zaozerskii,
"The ecclesiastical authority", pp. 274-277]
All this reminds duties tribune of the people. Emperor in the episcopate makes
something like a national tribune, currently subordinate.

As to how all this is legal from the canonical point of view, it is possible,
perhaps not speculate. It depends on how Bishop available at such
worldly care. Be sure, on a state agent, he, of course, can not
taken for anything like that. Rule 81 th - St. Apostle positively states, "not
befits a bishop to go into people's control, "according to the rule and the 6th, he" will not
accept yes
the worldly cares. "But, on the general duties of a Christian, the Bishop can not
be foreign affairs of the Christian mercy.
Help offended, unfortunate protect, maintain all righteousness - not to
go to the national administration and worldly care. Similarly, access to
sovereign, regardless of what any business, have the opportunity to inform him of the
triumphant vice, about slandered truth - it's all there, and the right and duty of a minister
And primate of the Church of God.
Bishops anciently taught Christian truth is not in words only, but also on businesses.
The greatest luminaries of the Church, as St. Basil the Great, Saint Nicholas and others
glorified
himself with the affairs no less than the word Magisterium. Professor N. gives
Glubokovsky
Page 123

lively and talented description of such diverse activities blessed Theodoret


[N. Glubokovsky, "Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus", Volume 1, pp. 26-45].
St. John Chrysostom suffered, defending the land of the poor. Generally, the care
the needs of the congregation is part of the episcopal duty and the apostles themselves,
finding indecent leave
word to serve tables, but have left the needy without tables, but only
was appointed to take care of this deacons.
Worries about the mundane needs of people demand relations with the authorities. The
right of intercession ancient and universal right of bishops. For the monarch himself, just as important to have
an indication of the bishop, which for him is a shepherd. So talent
Bishops of the rights was correct. But laying on their civic responsibilities absolutely wrong.
You can prevent the suggestion of Professor Kurganova that "civil
empowering the bishops were deeply deliberate means to achieve
union of minds cast on the basis of the empire, the Church developed religious
Definitions. "Perhaps - I think the same scientist -" Justinian wanted to bring the spirit of
Christian justice among their subjects best through the bishops, for
Bishops, as a completely renounced the old pagan traditions were all more
capable of being the guardians of truth and tutors people in the spirit of new Christian
ideas. "But if these considerations were, then they can not be considered successful.
Justinian wrote the bishops, giving them authority to:
"If you are on negligence not tell us, we purify ourselves before the Lord this

God, and you give him a report on the wrongs done to others "[Barrows, pp. 478-489].
Without a doubt, the Bishop, knowing the workers of iniquity, and did not let him,
erred. But the emperor was wrong in thinking that it cleans itself. On board
the state put it, not the bishop, and to ensure that there was no lawlessness, there are
many
other means, in addition to the control of the bishop.
Extensive investment episcopate right to monitor the actions of the authorities
Civil and the right to submit them, and the supreme power - a useful thing, legal
Church and reasonable from the point of view of the monarchy, which is the main
a need, a need perhaps more immediate awareness. it
communication with citizens gives the monarch the best means of control of the
Management
authorities. But to do so the Management of the power of the bishop, to put it in the
courts,
immersed in the elections, "city fathers" and, therefore, in all related parties of the fight,
it only means to destroy the bishop all the amenities of a moral influence on
a society in which this society most in need on the part of the Church.
Bishop is not representative of the social system, woven from diverse worldly
care and people's offices. The supreme power can not be a good bishop
sufficient attention to the issues of national control and petty worldly
"justice", which is often not a shadow of a higher truth, none of the warring
parties. Good Bishop engaged a total area of souls to the ideal that
forget the petty legality. Good Bishop quite thoroughly evades
all "parties" the fathers of the city and the Archons. Bad as the Bishop will oversee folk
case, much worse than even the average official.
In all respects, the idea of bringing to the episcopate for management - the idea is
extremely
It failed, and could only be a vague understanding of the difference between a nation
society and the Church.
Page 124

This idea is at the same time distracted from the supreme power organization of the
society and
by improving the performances through the Management unit in connection with the
forces
social order.
Byzantine bureaucracy
In the absence of communication management with social forces of the nation, the
Byzantine
Statehood has developed the most extreme bureaucracy. Wines of this is not on the
Basically the sole supreme authority extended to the triumph of Christianity, and
whole range of conditions in which the supreme power could not or did not know how to
link their

the Management activities with people's social institutions.


In his work, Professor circumstantial Skabalanovich says:
"The basis of the Byzantine state was the idea of authority, complete submission
the human person to the state, the private - total. Applying this idea reflected in
Byzantium extremes of centralization: the state's interests narrowed province
have moved to the capital from the capital to the palace and are embodied in the person
of the emperor "[H.
Skabalanovich, "Byzantine state and church in the XI century," p. 132].
This is - the wording in many parts of the infidel. Except for the worst
centralization, which, however, are not created by Byzantium, and she inherited from
Rome
Diocletian era, everything else is typical for Rome and Byzantium only
to the extent that she could not develop logically the idea of monarchical Supreme
power, which she gave to Christianity. However, we can not but admit that Byzantium
was in this respect, is really small self.
"The total subordination of the individual to the state," is the idea of Rome, even imperial
and
Roman Republic. Empire of the ideas are not created, but only produced a concentration
authorities in one person.
Christianity, however, has brought the idea of "the king - God's servant", t. E. The idea of
power
supreme, but subordinate to God. The person at the same time it is freed from the "full
subordination of the State "for two" full submission "can not be, subject
fully God, the Christian thus could have only provisionally subject to the state. Yet
mastered the monarchical idea of a "New World", a Byzantine national security
from the "old world", and the old idea of the emperor as immortalized dictator.
On Institutes of Justinian the emperor is described as unlimited, and
This is motivated by the fact that it ceded to him by the people. Emperor combines "all
law and the full authority of the people. "Legal principle states:" Quod Principi placuit
legis habet vigorem "[64] because" populus ei - that is, the emperor - et in eum solum
omne
suum imperium et potestatem concessit "[65]. It is purely absolutist idea that places the
power of
Emperor of boundless, but not sovereign, not independent of the popular will. Formula
also contradicts the Christian idea of "King, servant of God," which the law
It can not possibly be what he is "pleased." But moonlighting delegation and folk
God gave the elect of the Byzantine imperial power the opportunity to very
wide arbitrariness. In case of violation of the national law can be invoked at will
God, in case of violation of God's will - to refer to the people of boundless delegation.
However, it is impossible not to see that the same combination, giving the authorities the
possibility of the Emperor
Page 125

arbitrariness, at the same time not give her strength. This power could deprive
unworthy of her, too, on a double basis: for violation of the will of God, or on the basis
will of the people who does not want to continue this long before "concession".
The idea of the Delegation of the popular will and the power to one person alone
suggests
centralization, and then the bureaucracy. Indeed, as the focus of all authorities
the people, the emperor has the power to the Management. It is the meaning of all the
delegation itself
controls. He has to manage all the affairs of the current administration. Therefore
everything is centralized
near it, therein. But since virtually all public affairs lead to one person,
Though most brilliant, yet it is impossible, they are entrusted to the servants, officials.
Thus develops the bureaucracy.
For the king, "God's servant" is mandatory only in the direction of the affairs of the
country the spirit of God
will. People's Self-Government does not contradict his idea under the condition that he
maintains
management control over this "servant of God" and directs all on the right path
However, in case of any deviations from it. But the emperor, who "gave way to the
people
all his power and might, "whatever that may be a manifestation of the national
government,
has been usurped from the people, a sort of confiscation of the people back what
he "lost" the emperor. Therefore, the Byzantine Empire continued the Roman policy
strictly
undermine the already weak social system, which can not exist without
government. With the erosion of the municipal building, all the top people rushed
in the bureaucracy. In this respect, it is only repeat excellent characteristics
Professor Skabalanovicha:
"What a position - he says - has taken the provincial landowning
aristocracy after the collapsed municipal unit, which
based its significance? With the decline of the municipal unit, it must naturally
It was to fall, and it fell would be if, having lost ground for himself in the towns, not
found in return
corresponding leg elsewhere. She found this support, drawing his ambition
for public office and officials. The former possessor and kurialy [66] attacked
public service ... In turn, the person did not belong to the first
landowning aristocracy, who were lucky enough to get a rank, tried
complete the well-being of its acquisition of immovable property ... Formed
thus new bureaucratic aristocracy, lnuvshaya to the imperial court and
proximity to the base their career "[N. Skabalanovich," Byzantine
State and Church in the XI century, "p. 235].
The picture is perfectly accurate. The bureaucracy thus grew from above and below.

Instead, the state enjoyed in the management of local assistance


social forces, the government, on the contrary, its officials did Correcting
the position of social forces. But the difference is obtained under this change is that,
having its
interests in the service, the bureaucracy ceased to be the place of his tenure
citizens had no need to look after the interests of these areas, their
Lively, social health and strength, and looked at them only in terms of
temporary income and the temporary stage career. His influence is not preserved fortress
Provincial and biodegradable. Such was the progress of bureaucratization Byzantine
bureaucracy, not
allowed to nation building.
I'm not going to express itself constructing Byzantine bureaucracy,
which is perfectly described the professor Skabalaiovicha. My only comment is that it
It features more harmony. Actually as a bureaucratic mechanism was
Page 126

construction is very skilful, concentrated in the capital, in the Senate, where all adjoined
"Secrets", t. e. agencies, divided into the ministry, and then branch out across the
country.
Bureaucracy had ranks, salaries, production, depending on the time of service and
zeal ... Actually, the mechanism has been constructed very bad, but for its time, of
course,
It can be called exemplary. Granovsky reproached one researcher (Medovikova) for
that he showed "all the superiority of the Byzantine administrative forms and concepts
on the western feudal ".
"At the base of it (Empire) - he says, - lay abstract from all
national origin formed by centuries of wise governmental organization which
took an even hostile elements and put them into a flexible, submissive to her will
materials. Considered from this point of view is a feudal form of something
barbaric, endlessly rude "[" Works TN Granovsky ", 1866, Part 2-I, p.
120].
This enthusiastic response of our famous "Westerners" of the Byzantine forms
Administration permeated purely Western absolutism. Feudal forms, of course,
It was rude in the sense of the government machinery, but they were at the heart of a
living entity
healthy state - is what they grew to statehood
nationality, on the social system. These feudal forms spawned such great
State of construction, as England and the United States, now gripping the whole
world, because they merged with the nation state. In Byzantium, merged with state
bureaucratic governmental machinery. As the mechanism of this system has been very
slender (relatively). But the negative side of the state-bureaucratic
system were enormous.
Byzantine officials were selected and worked out badly, they were even

loyal to their state, in the sense of loyalty to his ruling Association, its
bureaucratic organization. But the interests of the country, the fatherland, for them there
is very
few.
Officials Byzantine state were hard, but do not rob people
contrary to their patriotism. Their theft, disruption across the country, produced
them, and the former reason that province were glad foreign conquest - all
it is well known, it is known, and the emperor himself. Emperors, which lived
feeling "servant of God", they were full of confidence to their officials. Exactly this
the consciousness of their unreliability produce such phenomena as instructed bishops
management control. But the significance of the supreme authority of the Management
irresistibly
Emperor sank into the world of bureaucracy, makes it not the head of the people, and the
head of the bureaucracy.
The value of the bureaucracy grew to the extent that it is united with the concept of
State. The Emperor was an unlimited ruler over the bureaucracy, had him executed,
He gouged out eyes and cut his ears. But when there is an idea that the emperor is
inconvenient and that
"the people" who gave him all their rights, can take them back to peredelegirovat
to another person, that "people", this state was the only real expression
bureaucracy. Bureaucracy decide the fate of emperors, as once their fate decided
Praetorians, interception on the "army" of the concept of "nation". In Byzantine times,
and the army
It revolutionizes, but relatively rare. For the most part they are produced
ruling bureaucratic layer. Generally, in the beginning of the Byzantine bureaucratic
reached
the greatest development, and in relation to the supreme power produced his usual
effect: cut its dense "mediastinum" from the people and captured it with his
Page 127

the influence to the extent that the bureaucracy and emperors erected on the throne, and
overthrows.
Only the Church has preserved for autocrat connection with "the people" as the Church
can it
do.
In the same article, Granovsky said:
"What is the force gathered together and constrained heterogeneous, partly hostile
elements among themselves, replacing nationality or other blood relationship pure
population
spiritual connection? This force was to religion and to inherit from the classical world
education. "That's true. But the state of these relationships is not enough. You can
do without nationality in the sense of tribe, but without the people in the sense of social
order

the state can not do, and the weakness of the Byzantine social order and the rule of
bureaucracy, and educated at the Christian, made a number of distortions in the
instructive
the whole structure of the state.
The fragility of heredity.
The lack of legitimacy
The whole set of conditions under which the developed Byzantine state, not
made it impossible to establish the necessary properties of the monarchy: heredity
Supreme power, and a sense of legitimacy in the subjects.
For the monarch as the supreme authority, the necessary quality of the spiritual
unity with the subjects in which he can express the people's ideal, and his consciousness
the obligation to the management of this particular expression of an ideal. Quiet
execution
this obligation requires the moral heights and confidence in the strength of his power,
and
This is possible only when the country becomes almost impossible struggle for power
(supreme). All this is achieved by a solid inheritance of the throne, and entrenched
a sense of legitimacy. Departure supreme duty is not required by
carrier power, no special outstanding business skills. Well, if they
It is there, but there is an indispensable need for them, because in the country there is
always enough
capable people who will perform all the work of management under the supervision of
the Supreme power,
whose business is actually in control of the activity of the minister.
The idea of the emperor as head of the executive power, in contrast, requires a person
extraordinary abilities, most capable in the country. That was the Roman idea. But this
absolutely incompatible with heredity, since it is impossible to think that in one way
miraculously repeated in every generation by all means a man of genius.
The Christian idea of the King as the "servant of God", is very well combined with
hereditary power, because God requires first and foremost a servant of duty,
the moral qualities that are the best education in the family from generation to generation
who devoted themselves to the service of God's Will in the state case. However, the idea
of God
the minister does not imply an indispensable heredity. God, who Saul may at
and choose his place of David. Stronger than all the idea of heredity derives from habits
rigid social system, which itself is based on nepotism, and the resulting
family heredity influences and traditions. Where highly developed social structure there
certainly is the idea of heredity family mission. Even in the country tradition
Brutus, as a defender of freedom, lies on a remote his successor, suggesting his heroism
Page 128

beyond his personal capacity.


The idea of heredity derives from the social system itself. Social order,

all organic phenomena is some continuity process in which


elements of each category come from the preceding and they are generated. The idea
heredity is a generalization of the social fact of continuity. Therefore,
the monarchical principle comes naturally hereditary acquires
dinastichnost. On the part of citizens is such an order the transfer of power confesses how
law on the nature of the phenomena, why develops - the legitimacy of which makes
almost impossible struggle for supremacy since the coup, even successful, does not
usurper of national recognition, and it promises only death due to this ambition
drawn to the struggle for power of the Management for the place of ministers, that is, it
becomes
a region where the fight is even useful side, pushing the ablest
workers, without the order of the current turmoil of the country.
The Roman idea of the emperor as the sole executive, established in
Byzantium most durable way and the idea of Byzantium never changed for 1000 years
his life, never passing neither the republic nor democracy nor aristocracy.
The only case of its kind presented idea Stavrasiya Emperor in 811 year [Lebo,
volume XII, p. 453]. After ascending the throne mortally wounded, Stavrasy wanted to
leave
throne, his wife, and in case of failure of this project was absolutely destroy the
monarchy, and
replace it with democracy. But nothing came of it. With rare unanimity, and the Senate
ecclesiastical authority proclaimed emperor Michael Rangabe and dying Stavrasy,
in order to avoid reprisals, he hastened to take the veil.
In general, the bitter experience of the last days of the republic of Rome forever left in
Byzantium
deep distrust of crowd control. This crowd, the mob, as the ruling force of Byzantium
deeply despised. On the mass of the people and the "crowd", Byzantine could speak only
with contempt.
"Belial - says Bryennios - Michael Dooku driven from the throne. All
as people without thinking followed their request, because evil is usually between people
is stronger than good "." The crowd likes to make fun of these coups "
["Historical Notes Nikifor Bryennios - 976-1087, the" St. Petersburg, 1858
Preface].
Choniates with contemptuous indignation of the population of the capital said that the
"usual
leader of the people - the wine. "" If these people - he said about some disorders pre-load of wine and had already seized on their awls and knives, then
no sirens could not return them to the world "[Nikita Choniates," History ", Volume II, p.
51].
Emperor Andronicus Palaeologus (senior), speaking about the historical and lampoonist
blaming them, he notes that "they are referring to the rumor black, which is more
pleasure in condemning other than praise, "at least reprimand was woven of lies,
and praise - the truth itself [Nikifor Grigoriev, "Roman History", Chapter I] ...

In general, a deep pessimism about this "crowd" of whatever composition,


It was the main feature of the Byzantines. Therefore Byzantium believed only personal
power. But
other fatal Byzantium never managed to create the conditions for lasting
conversion of one-man rule in supreme.
Despising the "crowd", in Byzantium were unaware of the need and did not see the
possibility of
organize the crowd into a "people" related social hierarchy of authority that
are able to enter into the mind of disorderly crowd. As everywhere in the world, in the
areas of Byzantine
Page 129

elaborated and aristocratic, and democratic elements. But combine them into
slender social order did not know how power, imbued with the idea that it alone
We concentrated all the power of the people. She could not conceive to prevent any
power in some sections of the people, but without the power - of course, they could not
organized.
The mob despised the Byzantine Empire, and the aristocracy aroused the fear of
officialdom.
Domestic policy is always directed to the undermining of the aristocracy by
protection mass of the people, by the curb weight by privileges of the aristocracy.
Meanwhile in Byzantium we, if we see some of the manifestations and dinastichnosti
legitimacy, it is in those parts and layers, which somehow had time to germinate social
relationship of the people and the King. Different Dynasty had the most support in the
provinces,
where they came from and especially where to hold still any aristocracy. Such
strong social system with a strong aristocracy was led in Macedonia, which
I put forward one of the most enduring dynasties - Macedonian. In the days of Justin and
Justinian, the Slavic region of the empire gave tremendous support of this dynasty
Slavic race. Isauria was also strong support for their emperors. Nicaea
Region (Bithynia) supported the deposed Lascaris open rebellion, even
when it was already hopeless. Same Nicaea previously supported against the Angels
Lascaris, who had not yet saviors values of national identity. Generally in
areas of stronger social and legitimacy dinastichnosti idea originated, but
This little emperors valued and are not cultivated at all. Slavic
area, so close to the Empire under Justinian (he was a Slav) were admitted
subsequently to the point that it became bitter enemies. It is true Byzantine region Nicaea, devotion to blame only legitimate kings Paleologos destroyed true
predatory measures, with the obvious intention to undermine the "dangerous" province.
The Empire did not understand the nation. She knew only the bureaucratic
state. Meanwhile,
most "drunkards" of Constantinople, which is so despised by officials, some still
a few were drawn to dinastichnosti. Above them, some had some influence word

"porfirorodny." "I do not want to have Skleros - shouted" rebellion "in the days of the
crowd
Constantine Monomakh - do not let die our matushkas, Zoe and porfirorodnyh
Theodore. "This sense of the crowd and kept only as long Zoya personally nothing
earned the love of the people. But, to his dismay, that a lot of people, which could
be mighty pillar of the dynasty - a policy of Byzantium held in a deliberate
disorganization and helplessness.
Aristocratic families and genera, but also undermines the time, but of course
grows as breaks fresh sod on the field is also etched carried with them
dinastichnosta idea. In the first half of the Byzantine origin of life did not have to
Emperor almost irrelevant. Leo I was a simple stands. Zenon - Isaurian
humble family. Anastasios - official not important. Justin and Justinian happened right
of the "men" of the Slavs. Theodosius was a tax collector. But over time,
aristocratic families, some how to strengthen the service produces some change in the
concepts. For the Macedonian dynasty has found it necessary to compose a magnificent
genealogy,
although in reality Basil the Macedonian was just a servant of noble lords.
After 200 years after the famous leader Katakalon which conspirators offered
crown, has replied that it is inconvenient for him humble.
"Nobility without any kind of talent is not worthy of the throne - he said - but she talents
Page 130

necessary. To rule the noble, you have to be noble. Personal valor


impressed enough people. In order to keep the people in piety, it is necessary that
seen in a long line of master of his ancestors [Lebeau, "Histonre du Bas-Empire", that
XVI, p. 408].
Therefore Katakalon stead nominated Isaac Comnenus.
It was a point of view elaborated Byzantines only after many centuries, for this
the idea of fighting the strongest foundations of its political system. And then we see that
it is very
far from dinastichnosta and gives only some sprouts of it. These shoots were expressed
that
in the last century, life in the Byzantine Empire ruled by representatives of only a few
noble families, overthrows one another: it all had to take turns Comneni, Dookie,
Angels, Lascaris, Paleologos who moreover are all related, so to
a certain extent, each king was in a relationship with any previous
reigned individuals.
These more durable layers even when the desire to create upheavals seen
though the legitimacy of the fiction. So Wren hard proves the legitimacy of the coup,
produced by Alexius Comnenus, "He has reached the imperial power by law, as it was
a relative of the house and was Comneni kinship with Dukami ... His uncle (Isaac
Trebizond) voluntarily gave their heritage Constantine Duque and Nikifor Votaniat

(which overthrew Comnenus Alex) none passed the throne. "Therefore, he says,
Trebizond
only exercised their right of inheritance ... Moreover, he married Irina Duque, and
annexed to the throne of a minor child of Duk. As for the Duc, they say,
originate from the Constantine the Great ... All of this, of course, twists, but they
It shows that in the noblest layer is the need and consciousness and dinastichnosti
legitimacy. Likewise Akropolig assures his readers that Michael Palaeologus in
nature, had more right to the throne than he deposed and blinded by a minor
Lascaris.
But all these sprouts dynastic rights inherent in social system, are only
evidence of possible evolution of the monarchist right, if the idea of it was
more conscious representatives of the Byzantine state. But ruling
forces gave a different direction the history of the Byzantine monarchy.
The idea of personal merit
Constantine the Great had the intention to concentrate right to the throne only in
his last name. He not only shared between the provincial administration and his sons
nephews, but he passed a law that gave the right to the throne only "porfirorodnym", ie
born in particular, so-called porphyry room of the palace.
This law was subsequently renewed Basil the Macedonian.
But the legislative intent is very poorly executed, because ideas
the state did not have respect for heredity. Even Constantine did not have a will
executed, despite a quite exceptional respect for his personality. The army, the senate
and the people did not want to recognize the nephews of Constantine among heirs, and
these
accidents were brutally slaughtered rebels. The will was enforced only to the
extent that wanted Senatus populusque Romanus.
The characteristic of public opinion and talk about the legacy of Constantine.
Page 131

"The more Constantine gained fame - says Lebeau - the more was
I fear that it is not able to support his sons. Politicians have noticed that of all
August successor Commodus was born one from the father, already a former
emperor. This
example, only to the sons of Constantine, seemed quite a bad omen.
Moreover policy noticed that nature generally poorly served the Empire of the receiving
sons, who ascended the throne, many were worthy of it. But blood sons
Only emperors Titus and Constantine himself did not have any geeks of their fathers'
[Lebo, including
I, p. 393].
All these arguments clearly show the lack of consciousness innate rights
throne, without regard to ability. Roman, and then the Byzantines, it seemed
certain that the throne should take only the person most capable, strong,
brave, and so on. n. This view, of course, quite natural in view of the emperor, not

as the supreme authority, only the Management as a dictator or the First Minister.
Although Christianity, in general, favored the idea of a monarch, the authorities
supreme, but the first centuries of the Byzantine Empire was the era of heresy. The
struggle between the heretics and
Orthodox reached exasperation. Emperors could only be the same or
Orthodox or heretics, and in both cases, some of the subjects was inclined
denying them "the divine delegation." Thus, the inviolability of the right to the throne
further undermines the long era of heresy. Roman imperial concept
the freer government continued to live in the minds and feeling and entrenched
forever. Even
accession to the throne has always observed the formality of the election of the emperor
by the Senate,
the army and the people.
But the idea of the emperor, the first minister or dictator, inevitably connected
the requirement of outstanding personal qualities.
By virtue of such a statement of duties of the emperor on the throne of the Byzantine
man
not particularly outstanding ability was hard to sit still. In the Byzantine
state developed a real cult of personal abilities of the emperor, where
several customs - the ability to bring these to the throne through adoption or
through the so-called accession. So at the same time was a few
Emperors. Dinastichnost legitimacy and it is completely fogged.
Cult powers to the detriment of the legitimacy evident even among themselves
Emperors. For example, one of the best Byzantine kings of the dynasty has,
rather, it has strengthened - John Comnenus - appointed as his successor his
the youngest son of Manuel. He explained this to the solemn assembly
military leaders and dignitaries in a speech in praise of his contemporaries.
"Many of the previous kings, - said John - was pleased to pass on to their
children power as a paternal legacy. I myself received the kingdom from his
father. therefore
you certainly think that, leaving two sons, I, as a general human
rule, the authorities and the throne of the elder. "However, no such decision of the king."
IJohn says - so much care of you (subjects) that if any of my sons
One of its qualities was not able to take on the burden of government, I would have
chosen
someone else, someone would come by my and your thoughts ... "
His sons, in the opinion of the king, both were good. However, they seemed to be the
best
younger, not older. Hence, the king takes the following conclusion:
"Because the best should be the best vozdavaemo and better kingdom nothing
can not be, it drew my eye on the younger son, and awards him the lot

Page 132

reign "[Kinnan (John)," A brief review of the reign of John and Manuel
Comino ", p. 28].
By this reasoning quite characteristic and joined Emperor
this consideration:
"Providence itself pointed my heir. The appointment of people to positions
It belongs to God. The quality of one who is worthy of the position, are the voice of God,
who gave these
quality. I just declare that God decided to "[Lebeau, that XVI, p. 59].
Of course, such points of view, just a very capable person could think that he
and God has chosen and therefore has the right to be king.
Anna Comnena, trying to observe impartiality in its description of the usurpers
time, it shows their extraordinary abilities.
"Nikifor Bryennios, - she says - was a great warrior, descended from the famous
house decorated tall and comeliness face, surpassed all his contemporaries
height of mind and muscle strength. He was a man worthy of the kingdom, and had such
a gift to convince
and bring all to yourself at first sight and conversation, that all military and private
people
We gave him the championship and considered it worthy to reign over the whole East
West. "
The same praise showered rebel Vasilaki.
"This Vasilaki was one of the people on the amazing courage, fortitude,
courage and strength. Besides, and his soul was power-hungry ... It was remarkable
height
growth, strength of muscles of facial pleasantness ... He also had a soul and courageous
undaunted. Generally, in view of his aspirations and it could be seen something
sovereign "
[Anna Comnena, "Short tale", Part I, pp. 20-34] ...
And all this wonderful people, rather than collectively serve the motherland,
cut 1000 years between them. Votaniat overthrows Dooku, Alexius Comnenus for
Votaniat
Bryennios Vasilaki and destroys, and then for himself, and so overthrows Votaniat. d.
They
cut, blind to each other, and these feuds self-proclaimed "chosen"
It passes half life of Byzantium, and systematically overstrains its strength.
The fight for the reign
At the very ambiguity of the right to the imperial power, is deeply bureaucratic
the state does not allow any social organization, as it excluded the people from
the number of active forces capable of supporting the rule of law and reject the
usurper. The Voice
the nation was powerless. The organized forces of the Party were not afraid of her, and
easily allowed themselves

riots and conspiracies.


Such active political forces were officials with the Senate headed,
and the troops. They own almost all revolutions, sometimes amazingly arrogance
usurpation. So certainly insignificant lawless riot squad predvodimogo dissolute,
rude soldier Fok, cast almost immediately one of the best emperors,
Mauritius, were killed and he himself, and seven of his sons.
The army at Byzantium, too, was not a national. It is made up of
diverse hired foreigners, and partly was a special class,
endowed lands and obliged to return to military service. This class replenished
not only foreigners, but even prisoners. Some emperor took away thousands
Page 133

prisoners "Scythians", and then settled on the lands of the military class and enrolled in
the troops.
It is understood as such had little to do with the troops of the Byzantine nation. They
money
supported the emperors. But the actual legality, legitimacy was for these
people completely alien.
The only part of a national army, but in the battle against non-shiny,
were so-called "immortal", recruited from a purely civilian.
It is curious that they were more developed and legitimate feeling. When
for example, rebellious Alex Comnenus came to Constantinople, he decided
attack on the part of the city walls, where the Germans were set, not the one where there
were
"immortal." "Because" immortal "- says Anna Comnena - as native
the subjects of the king, you must have been more inclined to it, and the best would give
him
life than agree to do anything evil against him ... "[Anna Comnena, Part 1,
p. 116].
But the "immortal" were insignificant detachment even when incurred. But in general
Byzantine army was totally national.
However, in the Byzantine army was much stronger subordinated bureaucracy than
ancient Rome. On this side of the Byzantine bureaucracy was skilfully and ably hold
the army under his command. Most of the Byzantine have had their revolutions driving
the power of different categories of ruling the world.
Conspiracies and coup attempts were in Byzantium nearly constant rate
politicians. There is no reign, free of plagues, from this eternal nightmare.
Except failed attempts, yet for 1123 of the empire it
there were 25 changes of dynasties. Of the 25 entities that produced these revolutions,
not 10 people
They managed to establish sufficient grounds for his dynasty. All of them ran long:
from 6 months to 8 years. But if the usurper enough time to establish itself, then put the
beginning

his dynasty. It should be noted that in the first 512 years of the empire, to the triumph of
Orthodoxy
power was still less strong. With the final triumph of Orthodoxy it is somewhat
strengthened. In turn, the first period on the strength of the power of Byzantium still
He surpassed the old Roman Empire.
Byzantium has significantly improved the situation. However, in the first period of her
on the throne
It has visited 17 dynasties with 43 emperors. The second era (842-1453 gg.) Is more
resistant
politically. She had only 8 to 43 emperors of the dynasty. In the first epoch of the mean
reign was 11 years old, for the second - 14.
But all these changes for the better have not changed radically pitch
political life, constantly full of conspiracies and coups, massacres. Hardly
half (41 people) reigned parties gained power by inheritance, 29 people
seized power through rebellion and conspiracy emperor was overthrown 34, and 12
were killed, 3 are poisoned, blinded 5, remaining imprisoned in monasteries, or in prison
... When
Thus at each revolution and the suppression of all attempts to dazzle him
kills many relatives reigning persons or applicants, the defenders of the king
or supporters of the applicant ...
This constant struggle for power, conspiracies, assassination - of course forced
authorities to be vigilant and suspicious. Total mutual distrust, justified by
at every step of the facts that give rise to intrigue, deceit, falsehood, finally, cruelty.
Anyone struggled to seize power or fought for her confinement - all equally developed
these
qualities in yourself and others. At first, when the Byzantine Empire was almost no
thoughts about
Page 134

hereditary power in coups seen cruelty in most of the passion


fight. But when heredity began to give some extra chances to the throne
is cruelty on the calculation, sometimes even necessary. I have been to ruin
another not to die himself. We had to destroy suspected no clear enemy and
... It is only possible endangered itself, perhaps, and not dare to
conspiracy been forced to resort to this in order to save himself. Such was the history and
Alexis Comnenus, who dared to revolt, because he was threatened with blindness
the suspect of his king.
Initially, there were attempts to eliminate a competitor without killing, but by,
for example, the monastery or discredited. So it was with the Heraclides (610-711
gg.). Heracleon
cut only the nose, in the hope that someone with such a label certainly does not fall into
the emperor. Yet
5o years through such means is not operated. Justinian II, also subjected

cutting off the nose, he showed what it means to insult the person, not depriving him of
physical
the ability to take revenge. Escaping after 10 years of exile, he seized power taken from
him and
brutal tyranny paid for the offense. Thus the killing and blinding at
constant revolutions imposed themselves. The system brought to the throne
capable and energetic people has borne fruit, and the Byzantine political world shine
such extraordinary talent, and especially energy as perhaps in any other country
world. At low morals, with the terrible prevalence of tricks and even
perfidy, Byzantine politicians hit energy and some indomitable
Organic force. Their nothing was impossible to subdue. They escaped from prison, left
and of monasticism. Even blinded still dreaming of the kingdom and the kingdom
achieved without
to mention the fact that the state played a major role in the ministerial posts, as
for example, Philanthropy. Cult abilities Byzantium was able to attract people to the
politics
extraordinary forces that believe in themselves with unconditional "supermen" and,
indeed, are quite unheard swatches forces, such as
Andronicus Comnenus (Thira) or Michael Palaeologus, not to mention the number of
people like
Tzimiskes.
But eternal fierce struggle, accustomed to the promiscuity of funds and the weakening
and
Silencing the voice of public opinion, terribly corrupting their constant dilemma:
own all or die miserable, blinded or disfigured servant.
Sometimes even people high soul, full of moral dignity, forced
We had to walk paths of dirt and crime as Tiberius and Basil the Macedonian.
The prevalence of the personal element of the public constantly has ruined Byzantine
state. In most recent times, Byzantine forces in the country, threatened by the Turks,
were
finally undermined uprising Katankuzena based purely personal, but it was
a man of rare spiritual heights and combines all the qualities of morality and talents.
This struggle for power had corrupted the Byzantine statehood and killed
state. The beginning of the wings of power in the Roman tradition, and the reason is lush
development - that the bureaucratic system has not given the opportunity to develop the
ranks
social, whereby a true monarchy, which floated before the eyes
Constantine and Christianity, which opens the possibility - could not be realized in
Byzantium.
The disappearance of patriotism
Page 135

Each Byzantine monarch, having no solid support in a disorganized society,

I had to protect himself with his mind, his cunning, guards, police and held
loosely. Ease of conspiracies and coups demoralized the bureaucratic ruling class,
service and aristocratic, and gave him a lot of ways to keep the autocrat in
their hands. With this power, a bureaucratic layer in his hands and
disorganized nation, so that he could allow himself to all sorts of theft and violence.
Cut off from the people autocrat could not even keep track of his bureaucrats, because
they do not have
of the greatest means of controlling the Management of his car, which is
Managed observation.
About Byzantine officialdom can not think of worse than on any other. In this
bureaucracy gathered people of great ability. Many can specify it even
a high sense of duty. But the abnormal situation the only rulers of the state,
corrupts and virtuous people. Robberies Byzantine officials sometimes
unexampled. They complained of the emperors from the outset, but could never
fix their servants.
They are sometimes inspired by the emperor and some incredible things. So
known bribes Kohden gave Michael Palaeologus idea, instead of taxing
large landowners of Asia Minor to take all the proceeds to the treasury with their names
and
owners to pay pensions in 40 gold (600 francs) a year. This unheard
robbery, enriched Kodena more than the emperor, he was stopped only brother
Paleologos [Lebo, t. XVIII, p. 151].
If such facts were possible, it is needless to mention bribery. AT
by states representing in the end only in the form of the bureaucratic
the organization loses sympathy subjects.
But the citizens themselves, unaccustomed own efforts and oversight maintained
between
a proper justice corrupts. Everyone began to think that the case
Justice - for some strange thing, do not touch. The constant sight
abuse and excess undermined people's faith in the government, with its severed
State and morally. All this and gradually brewing in Byzantium. There was still alive
Only an ideal king, because he was associated with religious beliefs. Also in
the autocrat religious feeling, consciousness mission "servant of God" supported
willingness to protect justice. But the possibility of this, he had very little. Each
minute tests, which from Byzantium were so many of the nation and the general
disorganization
its dissociation from the state affected the most serious way.
This disruption has fully matured in the era of the first collapse of the Byzantine Empire,
when
conquest by the Crusaders. The bureaucratic layer showed itself for what it was: through
rotten. He always mixed state with itself and served the state, serving
currently. When the state collapsed, officials found themselves in quite a renegade
against the nation. The nation was the same, first, devoid of the slightest centers

organization, and therefore unable to support the government, and secondly, it emerged
complete indifference even to maintain such a state.
Not talking about the amazing ease of the conquest of Constantinople
Crusaders, who did not even imagine it possible to take the city. Only
cowardly demoralization of the population showed an extreme ease of seemingly
impossible
Page 136

case. It is, for example, has explained insanely criminal behavior of both emperors.
"Drowsiness and carelessness when Rome ruled the state - says
contemporary and witness - petty thieves made by our judges and executioners "
[Nikita Choniates, "History", Volume II, p. 318. Ibid, pp. 348-349].
But the attitude of many people to the high accident occurred
the characteristic. When the unhappy crowd robbed and exhausted residents fled
a city already in nearby areas - says Choniates - "farmers and villagers
instead repent disasters of their neighbors, on the other hand, brutally tortured
above us, the Byzantines, unreasonable considering our affliction in poverty and
nakedness equation
with a civil position. Many of them, unlawfully buying for nothing
sold their compatriots things were delighted with this, and said, "Thank
God, here we are enriched ... "In general," people of the lower class and market traders
quietly going about their business. "To reason with them, took ill
robbery by the Crusaders. The same Choniates bitterly complains about the meeting in
his
Nike, where he took refuge after fleeing from Constantinople.
"From the very pores, we settled at Askaniyskoy lake Nicaea, the main city
Bithynia, we like some prisoners have nothing to do with these people,
except the land on which we walk, and the temples of God, staying in everything else
beyond
contact. "" Do not order - says Choniates - not that I expected at first, otherwise I would
and moved to the East ... the way they describe the loss of Constantinople us
members of the Senate, "observes unfortunate fugitive.
"This senseless people - he adds - not only does not want to return
Constantinople, but blames the contrary, God why He had, for some reason he has not
cruel
struck Constantinople, and with it we have, but defer punishment, hitherto spared, he
suffered
humanely ... "So instead of expressing sympathy for the grief," they have showered us
ridicule ... "
Must remember that the population of Bithynia was, however, some inveterate,
but it proved to be the most patriotic, and this is the Imperial Remnant Lascaris
We managed to recreate the Greek state (Empire of Nicaea). But, as we see it
most decent public order and Byzantine figures seemed right

criminals that deserve the most severe punishment of God.


The conquest of other areas of the empire, after the fall of Constantinople,
It is done with amazing speed and ease. Everywhere one can see the picture.
Servitors layer showed himself venal mercenaries, and, immediately after the fall of the
fatherland,
everywhere offering their services to new masters, raising their total contempt.
Emperor Baldwin, going to conquer the western part of the empire, immediately
found a "Roman military and civilian ranks, offered his services" which
but he spurned. When the marquis Boniface, for easier gripping
Byzantine areas falsely proclaimed Emperor Manuel, the son of his wife,
first was married to Isaac Angel and had him this Manuel, his
accompanied by "a few people the Romans (t. e. the Byzantines), mainly the noble
names, deceptive and insidious of visibility, attracting the location of areas like
to this young man, clothed in royal purple, and in fact serving
conductors and directors in the actions of the Marquis and the Latins, and thus being
traitors to the fatherland. "
Under the influence of this cheating Thracians, Macedonians and residents of Greece
with joy
Page 137

admitted to his enemies, thinking that the Emperor accept his Greek. "So
fashion
Marquis
mastered
without
Resistance
valorous
Peoples
and
powerful city. "
In general, people of the ruling class, of all ranks of the Byzantine bureaucracy,
competed in
vile meanness.
Emperor Alexei III, brother of Isaac Angelus, fled. And that "the Romans accompanied
King - those were mostly people of high birth, known military
art - also went to the Marquis Boniface and offered his services. "The Marquis
He rejected the offer. Then they filed a petition for the adoption of the service of the
Emperor
Baldwin, and when he did not want to buy them, these valiant "Romans" appealed to
John Moesian starts at this time, the war against Baldwin "[These details
Look at Choniates].
These shameful scenes were not anything exceptional. The same rampant cheating

It is seen in Asia during the progress of the Turks. Constantinople, the center and the
representative of the
down, stir in the end, even distrust in people, sincerely devoted to the monarchy.
When Stratagopul when Michael Palaeologus, the Crusaders took Constantinople, and
Emperor yard with all the Nicene Empire rejoiced Theodore Tornik wept. This was
the wise old man, a famous native and merits in restoring the empire of Nicaea ... From
he said sadly prophetic words: "the Empire was lost!"
On amazed issues surrounding an obscure his words in such a joyful moment
celebration, Tornik replied that now the Greeks again all comes to corruption.
"The ill-fated destiny of states - he said - all that is good comes from the village and at
first gives
glitter capital, but the capital of all the spoils and returned only vices and calamities "
[Lebo, t. XVIII, p. 94].
Here are some pessimism in the best people excited against Byzantium
Byzantine statehood. Meanwhile, to the end they did not notice that it's not
"Country" and "capital", and that in the Nicene times autocrat, fleeing into the
wilderness,
necessarily lived with the people and their management to build on the social forces. He
could
do and in Constantinople, if only "absolyustskaya" the idea is not pushing him, on the
contrary, in
extreme bureaucratic regime.
The reasons for the fall of Byzantium
The Byzantine state has lived more than 1,000 years. Some consider this period
long enough, and even see it as an indication of the perfection of the state. FROM
This, however, can not agree.
That nationality, which were concerned with Byzantine state, that is, the Greeks
medieval period, he did not die and did not destroy the violent termination
Byzantine state. On the contrary, this nationality has found great vitality
and even if she could keep the Turkish domination almost a dominant role
space of his former empire. There is no reason to think that this
Nationality could not maintain their state of existence at least until
present. Nor can we say that the Byzantine state was
It destroyed invincible strong foreign nationality. Turks posed no
Page 138

special material strength of their small numbers. Byzantium had before the advent
Turks for many hundreds of years, during which would translate into their national and
draw in their state a lot of fresh and powerful tribes. She could have it
do if it had the inner strength of assimilation, and if this is not done, then
some internal impotence, not because of external irresistible
opposing forces.
In the history of Byzantium is also of interest is very passive in relation to the outside

expanding their areas and their cultural-public type. All the dreams of Byzantium
have been directed to ensure that deter looting that she had, and if possible,
return back to the Roman heritage ... The shadow of ancient Rome gravitated over
collapsing
it from the beginning to the end.
The reasons for this conservatism were obviously not of a religious nature.
Christianity - the religion of the most versatile and therefore most full of spirit
proselytism. As European countries, and Russia are the living example to
extent to which Christianity promotes the expansion of peoples and national
the formation of complex ethnic tribe is not even related.
The Christian idea of the King, "servant of God", gave to this mighty Byzantium
the unifying principle, devoid of tribal or caste party narrows
trends. And both of these factors, religion and the royal principle, indeed, concelebrated
Byzantium great service. They have it and they stayed and found vitality.
But the fact that the Byzantine statehood only in a very small degree
He built on the idea of the King - God's servant. This idea was only consecrated
absolutist
power, which, however, did not receive restructuring in accordance with it, kept legally
old-roman sense.
The emperor remained what it was in Rome: the absolute authority of the Management,
as a result does not concentrate in one direction of affairs, and all their production.
The difference between a mediocre and a direct function of the supreme power in
Byzantium remained unknown. Hence it was the development of bureaucracy.
The state here was not built from the nation, and formed a special Governing Body
officials, politicians, who acted on behalf of the emperor, but at the same time for
yourself
created emperors.
Hence it was a series of evils:
Imperial power, as a comprehensive, was not independent and could not
get the supreme nature. She could not have a proper management controls. It
cut off from the people. As a result, the moral nature of power could only be saved
in so far as it is time to do church. But the constant upheavals advanced
people of a type that is not easy to moral and religious
impact. Thus, even from the standpoint of moral arbitrariness in Byzantium
securely curbs.
The bureaucracy itself is also extremely corrupts by his omnipotence is, by being absent
social control by the society of not having any of that can help
Supreme power to control and curb bureaucracy. All this political
situation acted finally demoralizing and society itself, alienated from
state.
Thus, a fatal circumstance in the Byzantine state was
absence or excessive weakness of the social order. From this port the whole machine

Page 139

State action, and from the same Byzantium lost the ability to assimilating
impact on peoples belonging to the Empire, or others. Byzantine
Statehood does not attract these people, by contrast, is for them
antipathetic as power is only operating, but do not let almost nothing and, moreover,
promising only to the enslavement of peoples of the empire bureaucracy. Social forces
every province, every nation, with the inclusion of the empire, were doomed to
zahirenie and destruction. But with such a condition, with the desire to be independent
Byzantium, to join the group, did not have and could occur anywhere. And as a result of
the general scheme of life of the Empire was that the empire gradually declined, losing
the area behind the area for a moment something widened, but then again was on the
wane.
Quantitative strength of the empire decreased continuously. And the weaker it
quantitatively
became, the harder it was done to contain the population overweight bureaucracy
administrative machine Byzantium. This course of evolution inevitably predicted
fatal denouement. The strength of the Turks could develop only because it enabled them
growing zahirenie Byzantium.
The political death of the Byzantine Empire, thus fully determine its shortcomings
state system, not only to develop the social order, but even with all
forces would not let him develop. Religious start several paralyzed
the unfortunate tendency of the bureaucratic system, then choking on what grows force
State: the social system. The Church, as it is peculiar, superseding
shortcoming
social
connection.
Church,
to what extent
this
perhaps
to
moral and religious influence, heals manners, corrupts the political
system. The church finally gave emperors to some extent the value of
Supreme power.
But the old-Roman absolutism inevitably gives birth to centralization and bureaucracy,
prevented the Byzantine autocrat develop into the true supreme power,
guide the management produced it through all social and political
forces of the nation, not a bureaucracy.
This also resulted in the death of the Byzantine state, who could not
use of social forces.
This type of monarchical supreme power that determines the direction
political life, but in the management of building the state in the nation, and live
Organized - this type of state was destined, subsequently, to develop

Muscovite Russia, which has taken thanks to the lessons of Byzantium, monarchical
supremacy in
the foundation of the state, and in his fresh national body which found powerful forces
social system, which, in alliance with the monarch and built their own state.
Section IV
CHURCH IDEA The European monarchs
Common Ground European monarchs
The Christian idea of the state that came into the world Constantine, reflected in
Page 140

Western European countries as well as in Byzantium and Moscow Russia. AT


Western European statehood monarchical principle also received by far
predominant importance. Small pockets of the republican system not only made
minor exception, the development of the European state system, but moreover
they were not ideologically influential, so the story of European government matches
the evolution of the monarchical principle.
But the monarchy in Europe was at a particular combination of conditions of origin and
development,
which differs from the Byzantine and Russian from Moscow-conditions.
The principal conditions underlying the development of the European monarchies, are
reduced to
as follows:
1) a powerful social system of the German tribes, who changed their states
destroyed the Roman Empire. 2) the influence of the Christian idea of the King - the
servant of God,
custodian of the supreme truth. 3) a huge impact Roman imperial doctrine,
systematically instills new young educated all the states of Europe
their
elements.
4)
Roman Catholic
illumination
attitude
church-state.
Roman doctrine of the state was founded on the principle of absolute power
state. The bearer of this power in the imperial period was Caesar, but actually in
As a delegate of the Senate and the people. It was the power of the Republic, handed
over
personal power. When the occurrence of European monarchies, all educated
the organizers they were transferred the same concept and re-present themselves
emperors and kings
Europe. But these emperors and kings were actually created by other forces, under the
whose influence and are. These princes were created Germanic tribal system

tribes and how their rulers, were different. Absolute power they did not have, but
but were certain elements of the supreme power. With the nominating folk
social forces kings (and emperors) were to be considered in all its
management of which has been forced to rely on internal forces of social order.
European nations at the beginning of its statehood were imbued with a powerful
government. It could be more aristocratic and more democratic
character. By coarseness of manners, according to the different interests of different parts
of the nation, at random
the conditions of conquest, power and subjugation - the variety of organized cell
state not only fought among themselves but could even develop a whole
the enslavement of some other system. But for all that, the new nation had been through
imbued with the elements of internal organization, which united even enslaved
peasants. Externally, the enslaved, they even kept the internal organization often
joined with the feudal lords into contractual relations, and so on. d. In general, all of the
new
European nations were full of inner strength, live, acting collectively,
self-governing.
Insignificant was the king's power in this ebullient, self-imposed order. But the idea of it
as
Higher tribal ruler, the leader of the war, was the protection of customary law, ordinary
notions of justice. He was with the functions of the supreme power, exponent of
people's ideals. The administration of the duties necessarily had to rely on force,
acting in the social system.
The Christian concept of the king - God's servant, supplementing the tribal monarchy
content higher duty to impose on King bake about maintaining the highest
truth, indicated with Christian doctrine. Thus, these social and
Page 141

moral and religious conditions of the monarchy sought to develop it in the sense of
supreme power, all the guide, which controls the terms of a higher truth.
Sample of these major trends, the natural forces of social order and the spirit
Christianity is the monarchy of Charlemagne, remained for centuries the ideal
Western European statehood.
What is the power of Charlemagne? He was the supreme authority, and
West is in the state against the heir Konstantinova ideas.
Like him can not be found anywhere else in the East, but Moscow Russia, which Carl
preceded by several centuries (his time - 768-814 years.). Charlemagne came to the
the throne by hereditary right. It is titled "I, Charles, and the grace of God
mercy, the king and ruler of the kingdom of the Franks, a zealous defender and humble
Assistant to the Holy Church ... "When the Pope invited him to the rank of Roman
Emperor
gratitude for his invaluable assistance did the Roman throne, then this is not
vassal relations was the character from Charles.

Pope at that time were still weak and have not developed their claims to the fetus
followed after the extremes. Schlosser quite rightly draws attention to the
fact that Charlemagne took the title of Emperor, "from the people of Rome." Dad
laid on him the signs of the imperial dignity, and a countless crowd of the Roman people,
by
the suggestion of the Pope, the Frankish King proclaimed Roman Emperor ["The World
history "Schlosser, Volume II, p. 452].
In his reign Charles was guided by the ideals of the king - God's servant. how
he himself and its people looked on him as a general, almost universal protector
truth. It monitors the observance of it everywhere, including on the part of the Church
itself. Him
"chapter house" [67] uniformly apply to all departments, including the bishops, and
priests. In "chapter house of church order," says Carl example of Israel
Hosea king that God had given him the rounds of government, correcting it and building
up and
trying to turn to the worship of the true God. "Therefore, - says Carl - all reasons
spiritual piety and secular authorities the power, we have caused to inscribe a few
paragraphs you to take care of to keep in mind ... "In these paragraphs Carl reminds
the duties of bishops, priests and responsibilities with respect to their power and internal
discipline, respect and worship, and with respect to various issues
morality, in all based on the rules and statutes of the Church Councils. There is not
nowhere hint of execution by the emperor as the papal minister: it is based on
its duty of God minister, receiving awareness of the rules of church
Councils.
Around the visible point of view of the Orthodox king - God's servant. In his secular
Carl discovers civil cases concern the Supreme power of the creation of law, but also
here is a representative of the spirit of the people, as it is possible to meet
Divine truth. "Seeing the great shortcomings in the legislation of his people Egingard tells his biographer - t. To. Franks has dual law (and Salic
Ripuarian) [68], very different in many points. Karl planned to attach something
lacking, contrary to reconcile and correct the unfair and outdated. "Moreover,
He "ordered to collect and present oral law written all peoples under
his authority. "
This legislative activity of Charlemagne was accomplished by means of People
cathedrals or diets. During the 43 years of the reign of these churches met 35 times. Be
Page 142

maybe they were more often because, according to contemporaries, "the custom of
time to do each year two meetings. "Here and subjected to discussion
King proposed laws. According to Guizot, themselves members of the congregation
could do
proposals as they seemed useful.
Here is a picture of the art of the cathedrals, described by Archbishop Ginkmara (882)

Made for learning Carloman.


"After receiving a message from Karl, they (the members of the Council) argued the day,
two or three,
even more, depending on the importance of the case. Palace messengers, walking back
and forth, were
King of inquiries and brought them answers. No stranger was not allowed in their
environment
Meeting, until the results of the meetings could not be submitted
the great emperor, and he with the wisdom that God gave him, gave his decision,
whom all obey. "
Thus, the meeting was widely consultative and decisive voice
Karl belonged.
Ginkmar says that although these discussions were held without a king, he
I was among those who have come together for a meeting, talked to them, people of all
ages
and rank. If someone wanted to express their views in person to the King - Carl listened
to him and
allowed even controversy. It happened, and a lot of unauthorized persons. Carl is very
carefully
I asked all the works in their provinces. Making sovereign posts and denunciations about
the state of affairs is not only allowed, but even those present were required
collect all information that may be needed on the status of the monarch of the kingdom
[M.
Stasyulevich, "History of the Middle Ages", ie. II. 195].
So we see a continuous dialogue with the authorities of the Verkhovna subjects, with
their
information needs and considerations. This picture has nothing to do with
later than the time of absolutism and the bureaucracy, stifle the monarchy.
In the administration of the state, Karl was also closely linked to the popular forces.
His administration has been twofold. Part of the Management faces were local: here
treated dukes, counts, captains, jury, who were appointed or himself
Emperor or his proxies. Similarly, the vassals of the emperor to give
land, received the rights and duties of the local jurisdiction. Besides these include
individuals with
Charles was still sovereign messengers - they were already officials, inspectors, all
We examine and report to the Emperor. Thus, there was formed a purely monarchical
system based on a close approximation of the supreme power with the national forces,
build,
imbued with self-government, serving as a basis for management.
But these "natural" framework put forward by the spirit of the national system, with all
its
jewelry is not strong, the spirit is not fixed in the mind, it does not create a conscious
Doctrine policy.

To order in a state common enough sentiment and inspiration. Need


system, which gives only consciously thought slender doctrine.
And it is clear that the emperors and kings immediately felt the need for it,
even more than that: they could not disobey her.
Yet
political
Doctrine
they
had
before
yourself
only
doctrine
Roman imperial state, which, couching their huge human, wing
however, a denial of the supremacy of the power of the monarch.
The need to carry out the Christian idea of truth - the need for that
kings felt in his conscience and in the conscience of their people - seek to prescribe
Page 143

relations between the state of the Church, guardian of Christian ideals. But here is the
Roman Catholic doctrine of the primacy of the state of the Church, and this doctrine
played
in the evolution of a great European monarchies and, generally speaking, very sad role.
In the following, we will not follow the historical development of painting
church-state relations in Europe: the immense, complex picture
would require more space than can be given on the immediate main objective of my
operation. I confine myself to the depiction of the two types of state-church
Relations reached by the European nations, according to the order in which the forms
have
they understand the Church.
In this understanding of the essence of the Church, and hence the emerging power
relationships
state and church - is the main difference in Western and Eastern Europe.
The Roman idea of the Church.
The struggle of Church and State
Naturally, in Rome and neighboring countries, most Latinized,
the idea of imperial power as the national delegations of the autocracy, live hardest,
and because in the Christian period it is in Western Europe, the first Roman Catholic, and
then Protestant, most clearly expressed idea how Papocaesarism and back caesaropapism.
Not featuring the "nation" of the "church", it was natural to consider the imperial power
the delegation of the "church" that is, the Church authorities. The value of this church
authorities decided to

Popes themselves. Hence - the imperial power has been regarded as a delegation
Pope. The Pope himself was replaced by the Roman senate and the people.
All of this can be clearly seen in the first few moments of the manifestation of this
idea. Pepin the Short
asked the Pope, who should be sovereign, he or old, tribal king, and
Pope appoints King Pepin. So in 751 year to address the issue that is not popular,
but the papal election gives the right to the throne. At the same time, taking away from
the land of the Lombards
Pope's favor, Pepin immaterial uses the expression, which gives the land of St.
Petra, or the Roman throne, or the Roman Republic: the concept is already merged.
So the Pope, as supreme authority of the Church, by the Supreme power of the
state. FROM
Roman Empire spread this concept in general on all states that recognize
ecclesiastical authority of the Pope, and then even all the world that the Pope shared how
he
anything between different sovereigns.
This idea Papocaesarism well outlined by Professor Suvorov.
Submissions of Western Christianity, he says [N. Suvorov, "The course of church
right ", Volume I, pp. 91-92], the Church was conceived as a single spiritual monarchy,
in which all
spiritual dominion over all secular, according to the rule omnia spiritualia digniora sunt
temporalibus [70]. Clear is the highest class of the Church, uchaschee, sanctifying and
control.
Lay people are inferior, obey the clergy. Therefore, the Church is a society of unequal
(Societas inegalis). Persons crowned, kings and emperors, are lay people, and as such are
not
They can have no government authority in the Church. Even in secular affairs they
We must submit to the supreme spiritual direction of ecclesiastical authority, because as
he said
Innocent III, - The Lord gave Peter to control not only the whole Church, but also
Page 144

world - Dominus Petro non solum universam Ecclesiam, sed totum reliquit seculum
gubemandum. According to the famous bull Unam Sanctam [71], Pope Boniface VIII, in
1302, in
the hands of the Pope two swords are referred to in the Gospels, and under which it is
necessary
understand the spiritual and the secular (In hac ejisque potestate duos esse gladios,
spiritualem scilicet et
temporalem, evangelicis dictis instruimur) [72] is carried out directly by Pope power
spiritual sword. The material is the sword and the secular power must be subordinated
spiritual power. The subordination of all human creation Pope a dogma of faith.
From these premises made the following conclusions:

1) The Pope has supreme power over the whole world and from the emperors and kings
receive their territory lennom law, as vassals of the Holy See, so that
they are subject to the Pope in secular affairs.
2) in front of temporal power has no right to interfere in religious affairs,
eg to convene councils and so on. n.
3) the power of the state is justified and only served the spiritual sanctification.
4) laws issued by the secular power in conflict with the requirements of the church,
They may annul the pope.
5) the secular authorities, in the event that the requirements of the Pope, they can be
displaceable,
with the transfer to another person [N. Suvorov, "The course of church law", Volume II,
pp. 469-470].
Thus, in this view, the monarchical power completely deprived
supreme power values. Therefore, the monarchy in Europe and could not develop if
it depended only on papisticheskoy state theory.
But the monarchy was put forward by the tribal system, to create some higher
Representative uniting the government, even if only with character
"first among equals". This prince tribal anyway bore the duty
guardian of customary law, that is. e. in the bud was the protector and the ideal
spokesman
truth. This influence is already ready to join the Roman imperial doctrine,
that is, without giving importance to the emperor supreme power, he gave him most
extensive
powers which the Christian faith gave the sacred character of responsibility
before God. All this helps to keep the royal power of the West mark authorities
supreme.
The heirs of Charlemagne, even with the passage of the imperial ideas in Germany at all
It was not arranged to give its value. Still, they pleaded only
defender and protector of the Church. And the local Church in general were not located
support papal pretensions. During the dispute over the investiture [73], the emperors
found the support of the local episcopate, and in France the case of Charles Restorer
Great reducing the royal forces, undermined by several development time
the feudal aristocracy, was in the enthusiastic support of the local clergy of their rights
Supreme power. When Louis Tolstoy began the suppression of the feudal lords and
called conceited
Melyune in Parliament to take action against the owner of the castle Puisaye, who
gathered the prelates
on his knees begging the king to deliver them from oppression. When they spoke to him,
"as the vicar of God, as a living image of the Divine."
In general, the local Church and the episcopate of course stood for kings, and our own
the interests of helping them not to forget the meaning of the Christian attitude to public
power.

But if all these circumstances prevented the papal idea to achieve the complete triumph,
it
in terms of impact on the minds of the people of this doctrine in any case undermine the
development of the idea of
Page 145

Supreme power of monarchs. Its impact on the European concept of the state was
antimonarhichno. Moreover, it has led to a struggle between Church and State,
a phenomenon that has had a profound impact on the European public.
Persistently carried papal claims threatened complete enslavement
the government, if it did not resist and did not protect their rights. If
assume the supreme state power of the Pope, then logically developing this idea
It would have led to even complete destruction of the monarchy, replacing it
direct papal officials. Prevent this evolution could
Only an energetic struggle of the state against the popes. This struggle and pervades
history
Western European state, until it finally resulted in half of the European
the coup of relations between Church and State in a completely
reverse sense to capture the state of ecclesiastical authority. It made the idea
Protestantism.
The Protestant Church of the idea.
The revival of absolutism
Flip eliminates enslavement popes sovereigns by capturing
the spiritual power of the secular, democratic accomplished by distorting the concept of
Churches. Probably, this greatly contributed to the preparation of a bad Christian
Germanic peoples converted to Christianity under the conditions do not normal,
during the reign of the heretics, then by fire and sword. Extremes and Popery
unheard of demoralization of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, stirred criticism where
all were weaker Christian feeling, and with the denial of the papacy was complete
the denial of the necessity of the Church hierarchy.
According to the teachings of Luther and all of his successors, the Church is the
community of believers
absolutely equal, without any hierarchy. All Christians - priests, and the only "species
feasibility and order, "the implementation of the general rights of teaching and the
sacraments
"transferred to special officials", but no extraordinary gifts of this they do not
receive "[Suvorov, vol. I, pp. 106-107]. In this course the views - the highest
Church power belongs to the Christian community itself.
But the absolutist doctrine of the Roman Empire - the people in general transfers all its
the right and the power to the Emperor. Among their people, ie. E. The Christian
community, giving the emperor,
or even to the prince and power of the bishop. Sovereign becomes the owner of both
political

and ecclesiastical authority. "In Protestant countries, says Professor Suvorov, power
Church, like the power of the state must be for the prince, owner of the territory
(Landesherr), which at the same time there must be a master of religion (Cujus est regio
ejus
religio) "[Suvorov, vol. II, pp. 472-473]. [74] This Christian principle ugly
served, as is well known, a measure of deciding which state should Germany
considered Roman Catholic and some Protestant.
Professor Suvorov on the matter falls into a great confusion, finding, though
Protestant princes would thus "be guided by the Byzantine model" (p. 473).
Protestants in the argument can refer to relevant examples or cases, but it is
It's just the argument, not the leadership of someone else's example. Byzantine
Page 146

an example has nothing to do with the Protestant solution of the problem, a solution that
certainly it implies for its ability to destroy the priesthood and hierarchy. AT
Indeed Protestant point of view entirely prompted by confusion
the nation and the church, mixing, which was a common occurrence in the era of sin
Christian state, but it is clear in some, more deeply imbued with the true idea
Christianity could not be administered in such an irrevocable error, as in others,
the last generation of the Christian poor schools. Protestants were misleading and
brought to the utmost extreme.
The mixing of the nation and the Church, and still remains very slippery stone in the
development of
Christian societies, and in the history of Christianity has created a lot of evil in national
churches, led Western State to strengthen emergency Roman
absolutist notions.
Hence arose subsequently pseudo-monarchical theory of Hobbes, vosproizvedshego
just a theory of imperial Rome.
As in Western Europe, on the ruins of the empire, and in the chaos created by the
relocation
nations take shape has become a monarchy, it grows only in part on its proper ground.
Charlemagne in the West, as it is written, reminiscent of the eastern Constantine. Yet
monarchical power in Western Europe was experiencing too much pressure traditions
Ancient Rome and the influence of papal Catholicism could not bring him to the
amendments,
which gave Eastern Orthodoxy. The theoretical heritage of Rome - dictatorship
Imperial absolutism developed legists, imposed on European
Monarchy
indelible
imprint
and
gradually
cited

underdeveloped
monarchical idea to an increasing decline.
What is the fallacy of the idea and the weakness of monarchical absolutism?
Monarchy, for the development of their own, it must rely on its inherent, rather than
some other force. Without a doubt, and it needs a powerful organization of management,
but
first of all, the monarchical principle should be the highest expression of moral
ideal, and hence, the maintenance and care of the development conditions under which
saved the nation live moral ideals, and the monarchy itself - their reflection.
European absolutism left in neglect of this foundation of monarchical power, and
developed what for it is secondary, and the abuse of even harmful. He wiped out
the unconditional authority and organization of institutions with which absolute power
could take on the administration of all the vital functions of the nation. The idea is this
pure spirit
democratic and able to lead in the end only to the triumph of democracy.
Monarchy, learning idea of absolutism directly distorts its own principle.
Theory, which she tries to justify himself in this, can only be fantastic
or - explicitly recognize the supreme power of democracy. So "Sun King," said
"L'etat c'est moi" [75]. But it is absolutely clear and evident that the state is the state, and
King has a king. To speak, of course, everything is possible. But what is the real strength
of the Louis
XIV? If he and the state is the same, then what keeps the power of the state? Why
He obeys him, but still certainly millions of citizens? Finally, it is no
no clear answer but the gendarmes. But if it comes down only to the power, of course,
that the strength of the nation in any case is greater.
English School absolutism put forward the basis of monarchical power (also
Roman) the idea that the people supposedly renounced his rights in favor of the King, so
King
It has all the rights and no people. But if the monarch has the power only because "the
people
Page 147

He renounced his faith "as we instructed Feofan Prokopovich, then, first of all, people
can not
renounce the faith for future generations, and secondly, therefore, monarchical power
It is essentially delegated, and are necessary for the small measure Napoleonic plebiscites
[76] that, without waiting for the revolution to find out whether people continue to
"renounce its
He will "or thought up something more popular with him.
All of these theories - pure cotton, made-up. Monarchical principle authorities
Essentially, there is the rule of moral principle. It is an expression of moral
First, the popular conception of the world which assigns the value of the sovereign
power. Only

staying this expression sole authority can obtain the value of the sovereign and
create a monarchy. This moral principle, without knowing it, just kept
Bourbons and the Stuarts, and not the fact that they were the state itself or received
the popular will in the property.
If the Bourbons and Stuarts understood that their power over the nation based solely on
their command a higher power of the moral ideal, and took care of the maintenance of
the nation and
themselves of this belief in the supreme power of the moral ideal, then, perhaps, neither
one nor the
another monarchy would fall. But it turned out the other way around, and it was
inevitable at the absolutist
degeneration of the monarchy.
The same theory is much more logically developed by Rousseau, came to open
It concluded that the national sovereignty of inalienable, and hence should have a clear
conclusion,
that power is the supreme monarch, what belongs only to the people. When he is up
This point of view of development, political thought goes back to the Democratic
soil. Roman absolutism of democracy passed to Caesarism, because of looseness
social order, which did not give the facilities for direct manifestation of the people
management. But the same theory of Roman absolutism in Europe, with the nations that
are capable of
internal organization, political thought has led to the evolution of the reverse - for
transfer to a
the people of his power, but trusted the king, but not alienated, and at any time
be returned to the rightful owner at his request.
Since it came to this - was the end of the monarchy in Europe. This negative evolution
was so inevitable that permeated the ideas of absolutism, the monarchy in Europe
It became bureaucratic. It is eager to Byzantium, where he managed themselves did not
believe
in their ability to live except on bureaucratic grounds. In Europe, nationwide
consciousness, on the contrary, to shout loudly about the ability of the people to govern
themselves. Among
absolute monarchy and the people, on this point, inevitably there is an irreconcilable for
absolutism dispute. Just as is true of the Supreme power of the monarch could stay
at the height of their mission. But this possibility was taken away from her as an oldRoman and
the doctrine of the church authorities and the European monarchs at the end of evolution
moved in
"constitutional", "limited", so that with the decline of the Phasis final
give way to a republican idea.
PART THREE
RUSSIAN STATEHOOD
Foreword

The objective of the following essay "Russian statehood," is to examine


Page 148

its development on a complex background of historical conditions, which cause


the emergence and operation of the Supreme power generated Russian nation.
Therefore, each category in the delineation of particular conditions, I could enter only
those
details of what seemed to me necessary to give them a clear part of the
paintings of historical conditions. Go into details beyond the limits of the task meant
I would only hinder the clarification of the basic idea of the book. That's why I do not
have to remember about
so many figures on the development of Russian self-consciousness, and almost did not
put
into consideration figures brings to us the ideals of European government. From
the first category, I chose only those representatives of national thought that
We have made something original. Many commentators, had meaning only for
dissemination of these ideas, I leave aside, though some of them guess
even mentioned in the fourth part of the book ("The monarchist Policy"), in connection
with questions about
those or other private management measures. With regard to representatives of European
thought, I
Aiming to outline a common spirit of their influence.
Consideration of the present situation of the Russian state, in fact,
not included in the plan of my work. Nevertheless, it seemed to me quite impossible
withdraw from a sketch of it. About inevitable incompleteness of this part of the essay
unnecessarily even stipulated. In the argument about the present time to clear delineation
it would be necessary to talk about the people, living, characterized by their ability, their
plans for their struggle. But apart from the outside it is impossible to make a judgment on
contemporaries, it is impossible not to realize that, even with the greatest possible effort
to be
in good faith, no one can, to his conscience, to vouch to was
quite aware of the plans of the individual and his contemporaries, and, therefore, had
moral right to perform on their any final judgment. Not
Speaking of personalities, and can not be enough to describe the era.
With regard to purely ustroitelnyh measures that I, from a general point of view,
monarchist politicians seem useful or necessary at the present
the position of the Russian nation and state, then on this subject I have to say
only a few words in the fourth part of the book *.
* One of the most important measures already decided in principle "on the most loyal
report St.
Synod on the convocation of the Council of the establishment of diocesan bishops of the
patriarchate and
discuss changes in the church board. His Majesty pleasing

It was March 31. trace of his own "I admit I can not make in
now experienced troubled times such a great cause, and requires tranquility, and
deliberation what convene the Local Council. I give myself when it's
suitable for this time, examples of ancient Orthodox emperors, give to this
the great cause of the movement, and to convene the cathedral church for the canonical
Vserosijsky
discuss subjects of faith and church upryavleniya. "" Church News "on April 2. number
14.
However, a detailed argument about it at all is not included in the plan of the book, the
task
which is to clarify the general principles of the policy. Their application in connection
with
the conditions of time and place, it is the task of the statesman. The same
principle can be applied in various ways, and determine whether any of them
here is the best, there is no longer the case theory and political art and
practical eye estimation.
Section I.
Page 149

GENERATION TYPE supreme power


General facilities
Russia is a country with very favorable conditions for development
monarchical sovereignty. In ancient Russia, among the tribes, formed their own
Russian land and the beginning of statehood in the era of its organization, there
the germs of all forms of power: a democratic, aristocratic and monarchical. Both
first start places tended to rise in the value of supreme power, but the overall
set of conditions gave a decisive victory of the royal idea.
Among these conditions are particularly conducive to the development of the ideal type
monarchy - the conditions of the religious, social and domestic and foreign policy
conditions tribes
connected in the Russian state. On the contrary, all the conditions of political
consciousness
have been in Russia for all 1000 years of its existence are very weak, and in their
confusion and
contradictory, almost worse than anywhere else.
Russian monarchy its original roots associated with the most primitive
generic pagan system, but indirectly the conditions of occurrence - from the Roman
Empire;
powerful and direct impact it relates to Christianity and Byzantine
autocracy; and finally developed in an era of huge external influence on us
Mongolian East, and then in the fight against the Polish aristocratic system. By
completion of the evolution in these difficult circumstances, our monarchy has
undergone full force

the influence of Western ideas as the monarchical and democratic,


at the same time than to get their task dispensation of a vast empire, composed of
very different separate nationalities, going finally in the era of power
industrial development, extraordinarily complicate the task of the state.
Having survived millennia so extraordinarily complex history. Russian monarchy now
stands at the head of the state, on the one hand a number of conditions associated with
Japanese-Chinese states of the East, on the other - not less closely with Member States
and
Mohammedan nations, with the remnants of embryos Orthodox and Greek-Slavic
States with the spirit of the Slavic idea and - even more powerful with all of Europe, and
on
the other side of the ocean - with America.
Under such circumstances. Russian monarchy is an institution representing
of particular interest, both from a scientific point of view and with regard to future fate
World
statehood. Terms of the Russian monarchy, both favorable and in
adverse relationship requires understanding the particular detail.
The Old Prince
In contrast to the Byzantine Empire, Russia from ancient times had a certain
nationality. Russian tribes had about the same life, the same
the tribal system, the same desire to colonization. All of them are religious
pagan ideas were equally poorly developed and furnished. If the position
Page 150

Tribes in Kiev and Novgorod Vyatichi have been differences, all the tribes guarding
trade route, and the people, to deepen in the colonization land grab is
We need each other, as it were mutually complementary common interests. All of them
were so
the need for total power.
The generic structure of these tribes has not yet developed a strong planning aristocracy,
although
I have created a different kind of elders, and in some places was already the concept of
how Prince
* kind of boss. It is interesting to note, was particularly developed in the field of the
future
aristocracy "princes" Drevlyane, according to people considered to have "good" and
"raspasli Derevskoy earth."
* The word "prince" of derivation, says Soloviev, then to sergeant
kind, the founder, the father of the family. From the bride and groom are called "Prince"
and
"Princess", ie. a. founding family. ("History of Russia", vol. I, pp. 49-50).
In such circumstances, it accomplished calling Rurik princes *. When the "rose born on

race "and the collection of the pioneers, these elders and small princes, each associated
with
the narrow interests of some sort, could create a general law of general equal for all close
power, and became subject to Russian domination of foreigners (the Vikings in the north,
on the Khazars
South) - a number of Slavic-Ugric tribes made a great cause: Russian base
state, called in 862 by Prince as the power for all general, higher.
* Do not think it is possible to doubt the accuracy of this historical tradition.
Personal memories chronicler begins 189 years after calling Rurik, and Sineus
Truvor. Is it possible to assume rightly observes Soloviev, princes for 189
s forgotten its true origin? However, whether aimed dukes of Vikings
or not - it does not change the question of princely power.
The meaning of this is not generic, and the government, is very clear explanation
chronicles, in any case, to express ideas and points of view of the people of IX century, t.
e.
the very beginning of our history. When the tribes "have undertaken to hold at" that "rose
born
in the race "and" they had no truth. "Then the tribes together and said:" Let us look for a
prince,
which would be owned and judged us the truth. "It was said Rurik and his brothers' land
Our great and rich, but there is no order. Come to reign and own us ".
So - before themselves in their possession, and then transferred ownership of it to the
princes. This was
denial of democracy from the government and send it to the prince. A people's will
It retained its power within the family, but the power in all the land, the federation births
transferred
He was a prince. This was the transfer of senior government and, moreover, at a time
when the state was not even organized, so that the prince's power was entrusted
Work constituent.
It was it, however, the prince of the power of the sovereign, or just higher hereditary
Magistrate? It is clear that accurate and clear thought and formulas could not be from
tribes
Generic. The idea of the supreme power could not be fully aware. There is no doubt that
such a
Supreme authority over all tribes and clans had not been in a while and the whole
Russian people.
The will of the totality of the inhabitants of the Russian land was not totally required for
any single clan or tribe. This idea is not even seen signs yes
and this will not exist.
The princes was the first glimpse of the idea of sovereignty. It can be seen from
Prince jurisdiction. Reviewing the activities of the prince, Soloviev brings the results of
such
["History of Russia", vol. I, ch. 8; t. III, Sec. 1]:

1) Prince thought about the structure Zemsky,


Page 151

2) He was a judge,
3) it is through his servants to enforce judicial sentences,
4) He came from every new charter
5) Prince collected tribute and to dispose of it,
6) the prince was a leader in the war,
7) Prince communicate with strangers powers
8) Prince declare war and make peace.
It should be added that the prince was a person in the legal consciousness of the people
inviolable. Princes in some cases driven out, but the people are not judged *. The prince
did not
subject to the death penalty. In an agreement reached between the prince, the prince even
for a crime
He could not be deprived of life, and punished (by his own fellow-princes) only taking
away
power. Even in the glare Cornflower David did not suffer any punishment against his
personality. Princes, happened, killed, as a means of struggle, but never in the sense of
punishment. The same should be said about the conclusion of the prison. In general, a
person of Prince
It was inviolable.
* Christian influence came at us so quickly that their values can not be selected here.
But in any case, lack of jurisdiction princes of the people manifests itself in Russia since
ancient times. When
Brother offers Oleg dismantle their displeasure with him "before the bishops,
abbots, to our fathers, husbands, and the people Gradskij "Oleg replied:
"Indecent judge me bishop or abbot, or stinks" (Solovyov, t. III, Sec. 1).
When Galitsky Prince Boyar Vladislav killed, allegedly by the court, and he
voknyazhilsya - it
absolutely exceptional event in question was a crime.
This is clearly manifested in the transfer of Prince ideas generic seniority. Rodovich
They could malice, in a rage, killing rodovladyku or drive him away, but do not judge, do
not
punish.
However, the attributes of supreme power to which were the princes had not yet mean
that the
princely power we had created a monarchy.
An interesting feature of calling the princes of that power was a race.
Generic Life created the Supreme power of his own idea, t. E. Made it available
like specialized for this purpose Rurik. Not for anyone but the members of this house, not
recognized such a right. "You are not the rulers, you are not the princely family," - he
said, according to legend,

Oleg Askold and Dir, and on this basis they overthrows. "Members Riryukova home says
Solovyov - are exclusively the name of princes; it belonged to all of them for
Rules of origin are not taken away, no one in any case. This is the title of prince,
purchase only the origin of the blood Riryukovoy, inalienable, independent of any
on any other terms. "Thus, state power is dinastichnost
by itself. But its single-handedly had no idea. The Management authority of each prince
He was alone. But the supreme power belonged to their totality, the whole family.
Thus, in terms of our social system, state power
It was once dinastichnoy. Then another "in Russia was not a sovereign, - says Mr.
Soloviev - it owned a large princely family. "The social structure of Russia has given
directly, without
labor, without razdumyvaniya, the simple, familiar analogy, such a state
dinastichnost which in Byzantium was only at the end of its existence, and that in less
than
favorable forms.
Indeed, Comneni Angels, Dookie, Lascaris, Paleologos all together
intermarried, thought of a known right to the royal power, and the others
Page 152

citizens - no. But among these various claims of heirs and media rights
it was impossible to understand, but there was no solid leadership and ideas for
determining the pre-emptive rights. In Russia, the idea of pointing a completely generic
clearly and order of precedence of seniority in the family.
This is the origin of our grand and princely power, by itself, does not
It predicted and causes the development of autocracy, and typical of the monarchy as
Supreme power. On the contrary, here the Grand Duke was only primus inter pares [77].
Reproduction of members of the ruling dynasty, the supreme power of the collective,
Naturally, the inner logic had to lead to the development of the ruling system
aristocracy. Generic princely idea then has always been restrictive for
the power of the Grand Duke, and fought against the idea of autocracy, considering it a
usurpation
patrimonial rights of Rurik. Net monarchy on such grounds could not occur if the
there were no other supportive environments.
Nevertheless, the generic reign has contributed to the addition antipathetic to him
Autocracy that firmly established the idea dinastichnosti, so hard to the grafted
national consciousness. In Russia, the idea dinastichnosti supreme power, thanks
Rurikovich, it developed in the process of the birth of the nation, as part of
national development. Although specific principality gave rise to our aristocracy, with
which
Monarchy subsequently had to fight a lot, but the idea is firmly planted
dinastichnosti supreme authority, subsequently transformed into social influences
dinastichnost family, gave the monarchy is one of the essential properties of her firm,

clear heredity, completely eliminates any struggle for supremacy.


Democratic Struggle
and aristocratic start
Generic reign without creating autocracy still was the soil in which
the idea of autocracy, if anything generates could find yourself some
nutritious juices for development. So all the other conditions for the development of the
Russian nation,
each in its own way, brought the monarchy maturing their services, create something, or
otherwise,
necessary for her condition.
Ancient Russia has a strong social systems, with initial delivery,
due to the colonization of people's life requirements, quickly decomposed into
less significant, but more close-knit, patriarchal family. In this regard,
story addition Russian people is quite different from the tribes, colonized Europe. There
tribes, tribal early on, captured a relatively small area, which
I had to settle permanently, without the possibility of such colonization vagrancy,
as in Russia. In Russia, the tribes of the tribal period captured infinitely wide
Space that expanded almost without resistance, in all directions, before each
comers. It was and we fight against the original inhabitants - Finnish tribes.
Yet
it
not
required
large
forces. Somewhere
her
conducted
Princes
(especially
Suzdal Vladimir). But in general the Russian colonists could not go anywhere in the
large forces in a solid calculation to find new ground, Fish, animals and everything they
to life. Onslaught southern predators, partly Western, even encouraged
Page 153

go to new places, and this does not require relocation of entire clans.
One enterprising man with a family could go anywhere. It was. In our
cadastres do not even meet especially large families.
Our birth so easily decomposed and difficult to revive. "Zadruga" [78], so
The characteristic for the Serbs, we have, according to all historical acts, left
undeveloped. We "walked apart", where someone like small families. Although they are
It grows in a new place, but there everyone went apart. Therefore we start
force was the father of the family householder and not a generic patriarch. In turn, these
householder, converging from different places in the new territory, naturally rallied in

a community that is as is characteristic for the Russian nation, as "Zadruga" for


Serbian. The community would be sprawling family, but not a few are not needed, and
how
rule was not a relative.
This
colonization
story
Russian
people
at
where
our
farming and hunting population is constantly relocate crashing
the tribal system, and the towering structure of the family, and at the same time a
community, for
the need for mutual support linked to the whole parish community.
These small republics had an extensive circle of the Management and
administrative functions, and were actually in many cases even
a single government authority, which took over a different inhabitants
abandoned in the wilderness settlements. So it developed extensive local government,
and respect for
the general will.
"The world - a great man", "where the world - and we have to," "we are not of the world
timers" - with these
the principles of the Russian people had their own history, and anciently it "in the world,
and death is red."
Hence the importance of developing "descent", "Chamber". Thus, in this story,
demanding
so many friendly rallying forces in national life everywhere swarmed the principle of
embryos
"People's autocracy," and if they do not receive state prevalence, only
on the influence of other conditions, in the popular mind gave the preponderance of
personal power.
Traditional tribal communities by becoming urban centers, more widely developed their
government, and to grow in the whole state as Novgorod. And next to these
shoots of democracy in Russia the same powerful social process generates and clean
aristocratic elements.
Professor R.-Slavatinsky marks the addition of Russian statehood
three elements: the Prince, and Veche squad. "These elements," he says, "are in constant
swing, then fighting among themselves, then balancing each other. "This picture is not
especially Russian, and all mankind. Every healthy, strong social life
certainly it develops all these three elements of power: the sole, and aristocratic
democratic. The issue is solved by the type of state which of them will

recognized by the national consciousness of the supreme and which recede into
secondary
the Management role. We have the issue resolved in favor of the autocracy. But the
aristocracy and
Democracy, in particular, were able to develop an enormous force.
Veche democratic beginning, as I said, sometimes I almost rose to the Supreme
power. "Princes amongst themselves - says Ilovajskij - and the frequent need to seek
support from
local people contributed to the development and strengthening of veche practices.
"Appeared
custom "row", ie. e. the contract with the princes, the princes sometimes even forced to
take the oath. AT
Novgorod is included in the constant practice [D. Ilovajskij, "History of Russia", vol. I,
p. 300].
This is the recognition of the supreme people's power.
Page 154

In 1218 in Novgorod posadnik Tverdislav very clearly expressed the principle that the
Chamber
the same can dispose of the princes and the mayor. At this time in Novgorod
Troubles occurred, which was involved posadnik Tverdislav. Prince Svyatoslav declared
vechu: "I can not be with Tverdislav and shoot him posadnichestvo." "And what was his
fault?" asked Novgorod. "Guilty" - replied Svyatoslav. Then Tverdislav said: "I rejoice
the fact that I have no guilt, and you, brothers, are free and posadnichestvo and princes. "
The prince thus officially relegates to the category of official authorities, which
autocratic people can dispose of discretion. The same argument was over?
Novgorod was sent to tell the prince: "You swore to us, no one take positions without
guilt, and we will not allow to have Tverdislav taken away without guilt posadnichestvo
... "Svyatoslav
I succumbed to the will of Chambers.
It was obviously already quite Republic. But we had Vyatka, which
Prince did not know, even as an official institution.
Aristocratic beginning with his hand reached places no less power.
Development sovereign princely aristocracy went hand with the development of the
boyars layer
protection guards, settling in estates. And the efforts of wealthy nobles fit
very close to the impoverished and weakened the princes, the more that boyar and
princely
Native layers gradually between them, despite the aversion of the princes of this. From
hand guards have long been seen a trend, without encroaching on the sovereign power to
watch

on the power of the Management as its property. "You, prince, is from him conceived"
(not
consulting with a team), - said servicemen, and for this reason refused
obedience to the will of the prince. Claims boyars in Galicia on the power went so far as
there was one
the case when the lord executed Prince Vladimir himself "voknyazhilsya" in its
place. This truth
attempts to meet a unanimous rebuff princes ...
Claims mixed princely-seigniorial layer is stronger even in Moscow,
and in Western Russia, with the onset of favorable conditions - that the LithuanianRussian
aristocracy above all helped to make Polish gentry-magnate
"Rzeczpospolita", with a shadow of royalty. Generally one can say that if
Ancient Rus, one over its statehood established Muscovite autocracy,
the other over it also created the aristocratic Poland.
This simultaneous strong development, both aristocratic and democratic
elements on set, make a lot of data for a celebration it
autocratic principle. Cash forces able to climb to the highest degree
Development creates a struggle between them, a struggle that requires a conciliator, a
third
judge. Such third referee may allow the struggling parties only
If he looks in terms of higher justice, recognized both
the disputing parties. So naturally the judge is the sole power, as in
the human personality can find the best expression of the voice of the highest moral
beginning. But the possibility of occurrence of such arbitrator must exist
in a nation of strong religious and moral ideal of giving starting points higher
justice. This condition is just as well given the life of ancient Russia.
We really see very early on an appeal to the Grand Duke, as the guardian
higher justice, and intermediary between the higher and lower, between the aristocracy
and
democracy. Meaning Bogolyubsky was extremely elevated such
addressed to him by the quarreling princes cities.
Fighting aristocratic and democratic principles, so she
Page 155

contributed to the rise of autocracy. And at the same time, the transition from the tribal
people
damage to the family was preparing for the growing power of the Supreme is the best
way
conservation and implementation dinastichnosti through inheritance is not generic
"Ladder" [79] and family "downlink". This new idea of inheritance breaks
their way especially in the areas of greatest damage, "Zemsky" and not generic: in
Russia Suzdal, with its peasant communities and parishes, with its nobility, settled in

bailiwick. The idea of inheritance, which developed in the national life, is naturally
reflected in the
policy with the respective type of inheritance of princely power.
The national struggle for existence
Not less favorable to the victory of the monarchy had been in the history of Russia and
Conditions
foreign policy, the terms of the international struggle for survival. Their significance in
Russia
so obvious that even the generally exaggerated. The origin of our monarchy
readily attributed to the need for age-old struggle with the surrounding nations, in part
attackers to Russia, which became the subject of part of its aggressive aspirations.
I can not agree to this in itself led to the monarchy. Fighting and
Kiev and Moscow period of becoming, of course, the need for a strong-man
power, but did not require the erection of one-man rule in the value of the
Supreme. Rome
I spent the whole period of difficult external self-defense and conquests in full bloom
republic. Necessary sole power he found in the official authorities and consuls
dictators, nothing giving them the power of the Supreme. The same could be with us.
It is true that the great reign developed in Kyiv, on sentry post,
hide behind Russia's southern nomadic predators. But the Grand Duke of Kiev it is not
He was an autocrat. The idea of monarchy is developing primarily in Suzdal, sheltered
from
immediate danger of a foreign war.
Usually we have in the development of the monarchy is credited with the most value
the times of the Tartar yoke. They say that if we took the Tatars and the name and the
idea of the king.
They say that the Moscow grand dukes were the only heirs of the Khan's power,
they have taken away, and so, when crushing yoke became autocratic kings. The point,
however, that Tatars do not have the power that was in the form of kings
Russia. In Tatar khan power was generic, from which external successes nominated
Great Khans, with the indeterminate content from ideokraticheskoy. it
were typical examples samovlastitelstva based on pure power. Fast
the destruction of the Mongolian universal monarchy, and it depended on the civil wars,
samovlastitelskim generated nature of the Supreme power that media
We define success. Hence, the fragmentation and strife. In the same sense, the rule of law
power, the idea of Tatar knew only that the specific beginning, from which Russia is
released during the Tatar yoke.
Influence Tatars consisted thus not to Russ learned afford them an idea
power, but rather in the fact that Russia, struck disaster and disgrace, to ponder deeper
into
its potential idea and implemented it. This turned out to be stronger than Russia and the
Tatars.
Hannah set before Russian only the idea of the need for a strong government, but not

They gave absolutely no ideas of power. In fact, Khan was on the same Russian
Page 156

unlimited lord, as an armed robber on the road over


defenseless travelers. But Moscow did not put such ideas as the basis of his
kingdom. Accurately
Russia also had not recognized the moral right to give her khan lords and masters.
It is to obey the law, even for a minute without leaving the hope to lose its
dominance. However,
from khans never been clearly stated, and the right to give sustained Russian
reigning someone wants. Never khans not claim to give Russian regions
Russian rulers of the princely house. Among the Rurik Tatars home for bribes, and
various random reasons, the beginning of the generic support, you undermine it, but
do basically anything we did not put forward.
In the chaos of arbitrariness not learned Russian and could not learn for yourself
any idea of power. The era of enslavement and the fight against the Tatars though made a
huge
influence on the development of Muscovy, but very different ways, do not have
nothing to do with imitation or borrowing power of ideas, the winner.
The conquest of the Tatars of Russia, though a long time has created a de facto rule of
force,
skill, cunning and guile, and that gave rise to many servile vices, cruelty,
mendacity and brutality of manners, but at the same time in all the best Russian people
has given rise
searing the consciousness of sin, desire to repent, to understand the will of God and
its execution. The influence of religious ideas, and next to her, church, and next to it, and
Byzantine ideas of statehood, intensified to the utmost. In the same time
increased awareness of the need to pungency rallying, joining forces. Generally
Slavery has increased awareness of the unity of the Russian people, without distinction of
regional shades ...
This is a series of circumstances that have created all over Russia, a number of centers of
the Grand authorities,
very similar policy in Tver, Moscow, Ryazan, Moscow ... prevailed on the accident more
favorable conditions for the accumulation of forces and became the center of Russian
patriots who
everywhere dreamed of uniting around a solid strong-man rule. Fight
armed as secret diplomacy, equally demanded a single ruling
face.
It has not yet created the sole supreme authority. But the Christian idea,
resurrected in all souls with the need for God's help, prompted investment
the value of one-man rule of God's servant. Perhaps more than the dark deeds
It confers on it a heavy figure liberation mission, where a lack of power so often
covered unscrupulous, the more people are imbued with the idea of repentance,

I wanted to give the king of all the action. Let act as a minister of God knows its
conscience and responsibility. People longed for all his will to give the king, servant of
God, and
without thinking to do whatever he orders, under the one condition that the person does
not
obey, and God himself.
This is the psychological state of the nation grasped the terrible yoke which trampled her
kicked, insulted all dear and holy to the people, a psychological condition
perfectly understandable. It gave rise to a passionate need - to renounce their power and
give it over to God is that the Lord has saved his homeland He also knows ways.
That's the way the Tatar yoke may have contributed to the emergence in Russia
finally matured the idea of the monarchy as the sole authority, the supreme God
subordinate, but unlimited for the people. This power over its content, not
It had nothing to do with Khan's.
Page 157

Impact Church
The entire set of conditions under which the terms and the growing Russian statehood,
It helped create fertile ground on which the sole power could become
supreme. But the monarchy was born from the ideals of the Christian life and of the
Byzantine
the influence that came close to the preaching of Christianity.
Archbishop Nicanor Odessa erred only in shades and degrees when bright
She sketched a picture of public services of the Church in Russia.
"Rurik and his brothers, - he said - brought itself is not a state, and
family and kinship specific beginning, which was likely to divide than unite
Russian people. This is where it started and beneficial mission for the Holy Orthodox
Church
Russian people and state. "
"The Orthodox Church has brought to Russia from the Orthodox Byzantine Empire, the
idea of the great
Prince as God delivered the lord, the governor and chief judge subordinates
people, the idea of the state. The church adopted the unity of national consciousness,
linking
the unity of the peoples of faith. The Church has created first one, then another expensive
for the people
sanctuary in Kiev and Moscow. The church suffered a letter to Russia and culture
state officials and the laws of the Byzantine Empire. The only church was
Russian collector of scattered principalities. The Church fostered, raised
Moscow prince first to grand, and then to the king's majesty. Transplanted and
grown up on Russian soil edinovladychestva idea of the Byzantine Church and St.
entrusted.
Confirmation of the ancient Orthodox Greek kings to king Moscow and All Russia "

["Church and State", preosvyasch. Nicanor, Archbishop of Kherson and Odessa,


1888. Spb., Str.50-52].
Church and Byzantine influence was so powerful that fell on infant
Russia nascent stage right, in the strongest and most mature forms.
Christianity, as a religion, and the influence of Byzantium penetrated to us in an age
when
the teaching of the Orthodox Church had received its full disclosure and Byzantine
monarchy reached the highest consciousness.
The settlement of the Slavs in the future in Russia has not yet started when leaked
the era of Ecumenical Councils (325-786 g). Past and iconoclastic heresy was defeated
and
842 was proclaimed the triumph of Orthodoxy, the papal claims were declared
illegal. Passed 857, the year of the first placing on the patriarchate of Photius. I come
862, when excommunicated Photios at the Council of Constantinople, Pope Nicholas
from the Church ...
This is 862-year chronicle of our notes calling Rurik sineus and truvor.
After 5 years in the era of the Byzantine Empire of the Macedonian dynasty, most
durable iso
All, though, and eventually overthrown, but strongly developed sense of dinastichnosti
and
legitimacy. In the era of the dynasty, when Constantine VII Porfirorodnom occurred in
955 baptism of Princess Olga. At a time when a growing Dinas personality Byzantium
It enabled the king's daughters, Zoe and Theodora to be the guardians of rights
autocracy, in 988, there was a baptism of Russia at St. Vladimir. With children
Vladimir Katakalon Byzantium speech that personal valor
insufficient for the title of emperor, and it should also be the origin. Following
Macedonian
Dynasty Dynasty went Duc, Comneni, Angels, Lascaris, Palaeologus, t. e. is the second
Byzantine era, when the law of succession to the throne has reached the greatest
development. K
Page 158

Komnenian is our rule of Vladimir Monomakh (in hereditary


King John Comnenus) and Bogolyubsky (with Manuel Comnenus). These two princes
I had before my eyes one of the glorious era of Byzantium.
Our Tatar rout began almost simultaneously with the first fall
Constantinople. Constantinople was taken by the Crusaders in 1203 [80]. And when it
was
fatal for Russia Kalka (1224) [81] and started the Mongol yoke (1238) at this time
Lascaris Nicaea * has given us an example of "gathering" land under a single
monarchical power. Our first shook Dmitry Donskoy in the Tatar yoke
Kulikovo field in 1380, when the hereditary Manuel Paleologos, when 120 years
Continuous dinastichnosti already erased the memory of the Byzantium in lawless

coup Michael Palaeologus, who, however, in its opinion, also had


hereditary right to the Byzantine autocracy.
* Theodore Laskaris died in 1222, John Duka-Lascaris and his son Theodore Lascaris
II reigned from 1222 by 1255
All the influence of the Byzantine doctrine of how they reached us, brought us
the idea of the absolute monarchy. Just as now the whole doctrine of the "advanced
countries"
representing the ideal of modern Russian civilization brings to us the idea of the national
autocracy, so the emergence of Russia in the era of the doctrine of "progressive" doctrine
is the most
"civilized country", carried the theory of the tsarist autocracy. Clergy, yavivsheesya
of Greece, and in the dissemination of Christianity works on princely power, not
could not bring the ideas of the Byzantine power. All the book learning carried them
away.
The influence of religious ideas
But the influence of the Byzantine state, we had most mightily
because it went hand with the spread of Christianity, that is, at the same time
the elaboration of a general outlook of the people in the Orthodox church soil.
Actually, as a political doctrine, autocracy and Byzantium far
It was worked out neatly, and could never get rid of duality bequeathed
mixing Roman and Christian ideas. In Russia, the influence of the Roman idea of the
original
not much and it is only later, with the influence of Western Europe.
The original is the addition of our monarchical ideas assimilated autocratic Russia
power as a general conclusion from a religious worldview of the people's concepts of
order
life. From this perspective, we do not have much imitated real Byzantium as
idealize it, and created a total of monarchical power in a much more
cleaner and more thoroughly consistent form than in Byzantium.
The Christian conception of the power of the Church in Russia was developing cleaner
and
more consistently than anywhere else, precisely because Orthodoxy was to us
during the expansion, and is already well understood. His influence on the minds of the
people was imposed
harmoniously, without any hesitation, without a shadow of controversy and
comprehensively, so that one and the same
Russian Christian idea illuminated all his relationships: personal, family, community
and political.
Light ideal that hovered over the country in the form of an autocrat, was not only
the withdrawal of the political doctrine of the Byzantine Empire. He came out of the
deeper sources: from
Page 159

the Christian understanding of the common goals of life. It is not consistent with the
objectives of one
the concentration of foreign forces in the country to fight, or to maintain internal order,
but in general the objectives of life as they knew the Russian people, imbued with
Christian
worldview.
From the first appearance of our Christianity, the prince and the people heard
the mission statement of princely power. "You, - said Vladimir church teachers
saint - God put to death the evil and on the good Milovanov. "The prince appointed by
God.
It is not the power of the crowd, not the wealth and influence of the "best" people: it is
the power specified above.
Daniel Exile is characteristic distinguishes bright and beneficent beginning princely
government and self-serving power start of his servants:
"Better to let my feet go down in lyke in your yard - he says - rather than in dark red
boot into the courtyard Boyar; better for me to serve you in sackcloth than the purple
robe in boyar
yard; I'd rather drink the water in your home, rather than wine boyar. "What prince?"
How
mounted oak root, - says Daniel - so we hail your power. Pilot - Head
ship, and you, the prince - his people ... The husband - the head of the wife, and the
prince - to the men, and Prince - God. "He
poetically compares the mercy of the prince with spring flowers adorning the earth, the
sun,
a heating ground. But the storm Knyazhaya terrible, "my lord prince, an eagle - a king
over
birds oseter - over the fish, the lion - over beasts, and you, prince over Pereyaslavets
[Message
list of addresses in the quoted Yaroslav Vsevolodovich]. Leo ryknet: who will not fear?
You, Prince, a word you say - who will not fear? "" The body is attached wires, and we,
prince, thy
power. "The prince united not only by their subjects, but also other countries, resorting to
it ...
"Prince of yours, teaches gilded chain of the XIV century, to conquer, not to harm him
rechite
your heart, into his head on his sword, and his own, and the whole idea of their own, and
not
vozmogut strangers resist your prince; well served if the prince obogateet land
yours and gather good fruit. "And at the time when the squad was still full of spirit
stateless liberties "departure" Zlata chain already teaches: "If someone from your
Prince disappear to another, without being offended by them, there is like a Judas. "
This mood, we can trace through the history of Russia.
The growth of the royal ideas

The desire to exalt the power of the grand significance of the king is with us
too early. From the appearance of the church, she said Vladimir, that he has the power
set by God. The consciousness of his God-given power manifested in Vladimir
Baptism of the people, to do with the holy prince acted very authoritarian, and even
Novgorod
forcibly. During that Vladimir won praise church leaders, and among his people
popularity grew with each generation.
One of our oldest literary works - a "Praise our Kagan
Vladimir "- Metropolitan Hilarion, who was a native Russian," the husband of benefits
and knizhen and
Faster. "Calling the Grand Duke Kagan [82] Metropolitan praises him as a" glorious
from the glorious "," noble of noble, "" glorious in the earth lord "and" edinoderzhtsa
their land, "who" commanded their land to be baptized. "Thus says the Metropolitan,
"there was no resisting his command piously," "Inasmuch as it blagoverie
Page 160

associated with power "[AI Ponomarev." Monuments of the ancient Russian didactic
Literature ", St. Petersburg. I, p. 69].
Marriage Vladimir Equal to the Apostles in the Byzantine princess created us
the idea of the royal right to sovereignty. Of all the children of Vladimir Boris and Gleb
were younger, but they were the sons of the princess Anne, and it is obvious that the
Christian part
population gave it the value of their pre-emptive right to rule. Very likely
It is that Vladimir expected to appoint his successor, Boris. Otherwise it is difficult
to explain to myself why Boris squad immediately offered to sit on the great reign ...
Sviatopolk hurried to get rid of the alleged murder of an opponent, despite the
Boris refusal of the throne. But it is quite the same aura of royalty surrounded by several
After Vladimir Monomakh, who was also the son of a Greek princess.
This is obviously attached great importance. According to his own explanation,
grandfather
(ie, Yaroslav the Wise) called him Basil (in Russian Vladimir), and the father and mother
Monomakh called it, in honor of his grandfather (maternal), the Greek king. "*
* And M. Ivakin, "Prince Vladimir Monomakh and his teaching", Moscow, 1901. (p.
37-57). We can not say that the word "learning" are quite clear, but generally suggest
Vladimir that it was named in honor of St. Vladimir, and in honor of Monomakh
Emperor Constantine IX Monomakh].
Preserved the news that Alex Comnenus sent in 1116 to Vladimir
Monomakh peace proposals Neophytos, Metropolitan of Ephesus and other nobles
people who offered him rich gifts: the cross of life-giving tree, the royal crown,
carnelian cup that belonged to Emperor Augustus, the golden chain of t. e. At the same
Neophyte put the crown on the head of Vladimir and called him king. King called
Vladimir

and our writers ["Have mercy on me, son of the great king, Vladimir," wrote Daniel
Exile].
It is significant that the people of Kiev immediately wanted to Vladimir Monomakh, in
addition to
Direct clan heirs took the throne of his father. Metropolitan Nikifor
(Greek) Monomakh says: "It is God izdaleche prorazume and predpovele, it is out of the
womb
sanctify the anointing, and the prince of the royal blood mixture "[Soloviev, t. II. p. 317].
However,
Vladimir did not go against the senior in-kind, Svjatopolka Izyaslavich.
The children were Yaroslav:
1) Izyaslav (of Svyatopolk's father).
2) Svyatoslav.
3) Vsevolod (father of Vladimir Monomakh).
4) Vyacheslav.
5) Igor.
In 1113 Svyatopolk died, and his direct descendants were Svyatoslavichy. Yet
Kiev once again demanded that Vladimir. Veche sent to him, saying:
"Go, Prince, on the table, his father and grandfather," and to calm the unrest Monomakh
I had to agree with and do not contradict themselves Svyatoslavichy.
Since then we have Monomachus tribe begins to overshadow all of Rurik, and
the popular mind receives some special right to the great reign and is surrounded
special reverence. During subsequent Monomakh troubles, said the people of Kiev
Izyaslav "Vladimirov On hand to lift the tribe can not." The same they repeated Mstislav:
"We are glad to fight for you against Olegoviches, but the tribe Vladimirova on Yurevich
(it was
Bogolyubsky brother, Gleb), can not raise your hands. "
Monomakh And, indeed, overshadowed all the older generations. Of the 18 grand dukes,
Page 161

of Monomakh to John Kalita, only three, and short duration, it was not
Monomakh. The remaining 15 belonged to the "Vladimirov tribe." In the XIII century
history
Russian state has a history of Monomakh. The oldest kind of Rurik,
t. e. the tribe Vyacheslav of Polotsk [83], was almost completely expelled from the
Russian land, resist
only part of Belarus. Next followed the elder line (from Yaroslav), t. E.
Svyatoslavichy displaced from Volyn, kept in their hands, and only the Chernihiv
Ryazan region. The rest of Russia - Galitsky, Kiev, Tver, Suzdal accumulated in the hands of Monomakh, among whom continued to live even though the
old generic
beginning, * which prevented unification of the land and the state, but also developed

the opposite of the monarchical principle, which is of Monomakh, through Suzdal


princes
(especially Andrew Bogolyubskii), Alexander Nevsky, and the princes of Moscow to
dovilo
solid awareness of the tsarist autocracy, in the same spirit, though without the same
success,
exhibit and Galician descendants of Monomakh.
* An interesting phenomenon is the fact that both the earlier and the environment
descendants of Monomakh, tribal elders began supporting tench and sole younger.
Andrew Bogolyubskii
as the bearer of the idea of autocracy
The idea of the sole autocracy in Russia pre-Mongol matured so quickly,
that even when the grandson of Monomakh could have such a representative, as the
famous Andrew
Bogolyubskii.
Andrew Bogolyubskii son of Yuri Dolgoruky, the second son of Vladimir Monomakh,
I was born about 1110. With the death of his grandfather, he was already about 16 years,
so that the glory
Monomakh, during the life of the famous Greek prince of the royal blood, could not
talk sense impressionable boy. He grew up in his father's inheritance, in Suzdal
the land where Prince Yuri Vladimirovich (Dolgoruky) played the role of the colonizer
and the organizer
land inhabited almost re skhodtsami from all over Russia.
Prince Yuri Dolgoruky was powerful, energetic and economic value ...
strong power in the hands of one firm, it was evident at every turn Andrew his works
homeland. Book scientists could only develop in him the idea of the Byzantine
autocracy. AND
Here we see life in all its undeniable and hard work for the implementation of this
* idea.
* A good summary of the facts to prove it makes VT St George in his book
"Holy Grand Prince Andrei Bogolyubskii" Vladimir, 1894. The author, be
may exaggerate the degree of awareness of the monarchist idea in Andrew Bogoliubsky,
but one can not doubt that Prince lifetime supervised it is this idea that he
I understood, of course, with greater clarity than the first Moscow princes, collectors
Russian land, till the John III.
Personal qualities Bogolyubsky circumstances of his life and eliminate any
the opportunity to explain his turbulent history of personal ambition. Gifted with
enormous
abilities, he at the same time have excellent moral character. Him
Page 162

memory is not tainted with any defects, any low-deeds, no even

random crimes. His piety, his sincere faith, prayer and fasting, his
wide charity - no doubt. With rare courage and military talents, he
I gained a lot of military glory, but not value it and did not like the war. Similarly, when
huge work for the benefit of his land, he is not valued popular. The whole
his life, he is a man the idea that just cherishes it, ready for her
make any sacrifice, and all risk.
Initially, the people of Suzdal loved it. When Yuri Dolgoruky died
Kiev, then, according to the chronicler, "the Rostov and Suzdal, thought better of it all,
took Andrew
the eldest son of George, and put in Rostov and Suzdal, Zane is baa love for all
premnoguyu his virtue. "Meanwhile, Andrew has never seen any of the features
flattery of the people and - for the sake of his idea - he did not hesitate to arm against all
forces that had significance in Russia, princes, squad, boyars, and even the people!
Children Yuri Dolgoruky got the best of the then education. Oh brother
Andrew Michael, we know that it is "with the Greeks and Latins said their Russian
language Thou."
Andrei himself, according to his "lives" from an early age about what does not care,
except
"book learning" and "church music". But what went Andrei could carry him
Byzantium only an ideal autocracy power "autocrat," "Basileus." Century was Andrew
Comneni century, and among his friends and advisers for all the scarcity of biographical
news, we find the Greeks, as a priest and a deacon Nikulin Nestor. It is understood that
all
these effects could only develop in him the idea of autocracy, which was in front of him
the great object of life especially when he saw firsthand the specific disaster
polyarchy.
Andrew Bogolyubskii spent life before the age of 40 in his Suzdal,
in actual autocracy of his father, in the works of rural and military, with a total love
throughout his homeland. But Yuri Dolgoruky, became the Grand Prince of Kiev, called
his son
to the south, in Vyshgorod. This is where Andrew and I had to see another unfamiliar
manners specific
promiscuity and strife. This proved unbearable for him. "Prince Andrew - said
chronicle - he was embarrassed about the unrest and his brethren bratanikov and
relatives, and the entire tribe
her, Thou always in rebellion and sedition have all byahu and harbored many liyashe
blood. "Andrew" on skorbyashe
Sem and his own will to go to Suzdal and Rostov, Thou there reche calmer there. "So he
did not vzljubili
specific orders, and at first withdrew from them, and then when the opportunity came, he
began
break all the old order with consistency and passion of Peter the Great.
The time for this has come after the death of Yuri Dolgoruky when Andrew made

Grand Prince of Suzdal, and in front of it already is a close candidate for


Kiev throne. From 1187 he begins to cool to concentrate power in their Suzdal
hands, and even casts his brothers. "Behold also created, wanting to be in samovladtsem
Suzdal and Rostov land, "says the chronicle. But the desire to Andrew
"autocracy" went much further.
For ten years he became strong in its Suzdal, and in Kievan Rus were feuds. In 1168
curious moment came certain rights in the first place. On older lines - already
Nobody thought. Parses to some degree only between Monomakh, and although
Kiev reigned favorite people Mstislav II, but dissatisfied with their princes coalition
(10 or 12), picking upon an empty case, declared a senior in-kind Andrew
Bogolyubsky [Soloviev, vol. II, p. 476. Actually Monomahovskoy a yardstick - was then
three candidates with the most right: Vladimir, Mstislav and Andrew]. This was done
Page 163

obvious participation of Andrew.


So, before the generic idea sank exhausted and that the controversial issue of
seniority was a decisive election. It was a moment when the glimpses monarchical
the start was clearly beginning to threaten sovereign princely aristocracy. Andrei
Bogolyubskii took advantage of his election, but only to start
a radical break with the old order on the basis of autocracy.
Mstislav could not resist the coalition rati predvodimoy son Andrew. AT
1169 Kiev, stubbornly defended the prince, was taken "on board", and the army of
winners
subjected him to a two-day looting. This act with a capital Kiev Andrei, both from
hail conquered, was obviously intentional lesson and Andrew completed the
humiliation of specific capital that left the Grand Duke, and did not go to Kiev, and even
I did not take it himself, but he gave his youngest son Gleb.
"This act of Andrew - said Solovyov, - was a great event
importance, turning the event, which begins in Russia, a new order of things "
[Soloviev, vol. II, Sec. VI]. It was an act of the greatest tyranny against the Grand Duke
Like the rest of the princes and the Russian land. Andrew own will, contrary to the
general
According to the princes and the land, said the fact that the authorities - in itself, not in
the ground and not in the
Princes. With Andrei Solovyov says, "for the first time expressed the possibility of
transition
tribal relations to the state. "
Generally, since the migration from Upper Town to the north, all of Andrew's behavior
was not
only intentionally, but even as it defiantly "samovlastitelskim." He seemed
Try not to miss any opportunity to show all the "estates" that there is no other power,
in addition to his Grand Duke. The principle had seen in all actions, and it is clear that for
the sake of

Andrew Bogolyubskii principle willing to put everything at stake: their popularity, their
strength,
your peace of mind and rewards your life itself.
Just appearing in Suzdal and proclaimed Grand Duke, he
willfully makes the capital, Vladimir, to the general dismay of older cities, Suzdal
and Rostov, where they were so powerful nobles and townsmen "veche
people." Vladimir was of
nothing is created and populated by Andrew "Mizin," the most humble, small
"skhodtsami" from all places. General dissatisfaction with the boyars, princes and the
Chamber did not stop him.
He sent out his brothers drove discontented boyars of old, and increasingly surrounded
himself
new people. In 1160 he was using the title of senior prince, laid claim to
Novgorod.
"Let it be knows, he announced vechu free city, I want to conquer Novgorod
good or evil against you I kissed the cross, I have the Grand Duke and me to you
want of good. "*
* So this place reads VT St. George, and it seems to be the only true
reading, since it does not appear that Novgorod ever before kissed the cross Andrew.
Having power in Novgorod, Andrew uses it with the breadth of the present king,
acting solely on his own, in the interests of justice only. He changed
its Posazhennikov - Prince of Novgorod, sometimes as if deliberately not giving those
We want Novgorod. Once he changed the prince, because the mayor found right at their
collision. When in favor of Andrew Novgorod expelled from him Svyatoslav
Rostislavich
Andrew gave them his nephew, but then made peace with Rostislav, again gave Andrei
Novgorod recently ousted Sviatoslav Novgorod and, moreover, had to take it "on
all his will, "without a number. When Svyatoslav went to Novgorod quarrel, and he had
Page 164

run, then Andrew, at the request of the city to appoint another answer:
"No you another prince but Svyatoslav". His claims brought Andrew
Novgorod to desperate resistance, the army has suffered a severe Suzdal
defeat. But after that, Novgorod was still subject to Andrew, who
nor less did not give up their rights supreme power to nearly jus utendi et abutendi [84].
Declaring such rights over vechem Andrew equally arbitrarily started to dispose and
princes. He ordered them as Novgorod:
"Do not walk on my own, he said to Roman, so go out of Kiev, from David
Vyshgorod, Mstislav from Belgorod, go all in Smolensk and share it as you wish. "The
new manifestations of disobedience, he declared: "Do not go to my will, so do you go,
Rurik in Smolensk to his brother, in his patrimony. David say you go in Berlad in
Russian

land that is not commanding you to be, and Mstislav said: you are the instigator of the
whole; I do not charge you to be
Russian land. "
It prednamechennoe accentuated despotism caused violent revolt all the princes,
How to cause a riot Novgorod as Suzdal boyars led conspiracy. Princes declared: "You
He sent to us with such speeches not as a prince, but how to improvised and the common
man. "
Let announced princes "God will judge us." Andrew sent a huge army, and she
He suffered a severe defeat.
The strike did not break Andrew. He continued his policy, and plotting new wars
in the south when it suffered death.
Suzdal Boyars hated Andrew for impairing their power and exaltation
"Mizin" people. But also commoners surrounding Andrew experienced a thunderstorm
with it
side. Apparently Andrew for taking part in a conspiracy against him, executed nobleman
Peter
Sons of Kuchka, but among the approximate prince had other sons of Kuchka (his wife
snail was
also from the sons of Kuchka). So they decided to do to kill Andrew, strongly involved in
the plot and commoners,
perhaps sensing that the boyars would be advantageous to get together. The fact that
Andrei
Bogolyubsky one by one all the sons died, his successors be able to
Affairs. In 1164 Izyaslav died, in 1172 no less talented Mstislav, who took Kiev in
1174 - his beloved son Gleb. All this severely depressed and makes for Andrew
others doubtful that after the death of him, found his successor
politicians. Whatever it was, 30 June 1174 Andrew was murdered
conspirators.
The Chronicle says bluntly: "Prince Andrew heard before that enemies threaten him
murder, but blazed a divine spirit and nothing less than no attention. "He,
was probably in the depressed state of the grave of family grief, destroys and
political hopes ... Maybe he was tired in a fight that had to fight with
the whole world: the princes, nobles, vechami, Rus, Novgorod, and with older cities
own land.
Andrew Bogolyubskii dead, and even his very young son could not hold on to
subsequent unrest. But the memory Bogolyubsky remained closest to offspring
ideal in the odor of sanctity, and his opponents were condemned as people who do not
know
political truth. The chronicler, referring to the murder of his rebellion and mob for
izbivshey
extortion and harassment of his henchmen, says:
"They did not know glagolemaya where the law is, there is a lot of resentment. Paul
writes: Every

the soul of the authorities but obeys power of God to inflict Bo essence. Bo King earthly
nature
similar to every man, as the power of rank - the highest, like God. Rece great Zlatoustets
Who
Page 165

resists power - opposes the law of God. Prince bo not bear the sword in vain: God bo
the servant is "[Ilovajskij," History of Russia ", vol. I, p. 292].
Development of succession
Andrew Bogolyubskii is a prince, far ahead of its time, but
idea, he developed a very cool and consistently, was already at the Monomakh and Yury
Dolgoruky, and likewise continued to grow, just more cautious, have successors
Bogolyubsky *. It was a policy of integration of land and state power
the hands of the Grand Duke and his family, contrary to the requirements of specific
tribal system.
* Andrei was very young, 18-year-old son George, who could not hold on to
Cruel hesitate arising on the death of this great "edinoderzhtsa." Banished from
Suzdal Yuri known then his strange adventures in Georgia at the Queen
Tamara. In the land of Suzdal, the great reign, still resist the genus Jury
Dolgoruky, represented by Vsevolod, the so-called Great Braga Bogolyubsky.
Vsevolod Great Bogolyubsky successor at death, divided the land between
his sons, not thinking about generic requirements. Grand duke it
He appointed himself. At first he wanted to appoint the eldest son, Constantine, but it
gave
he is only the city of Vladimir. Constantine said: "Father, if you want me to do
senior, then give me and Vladimir and Rostov. "Here, as if the idea is visible, then
which formed the basis of the Moscow policy: that the right of the person who is
declared the senior must
talent to support him more power. Somehow Vsevolod did not accept this request, but
his autocracy showed even more: he appointed Grand Duke Constantine did not, and
her younger son, Yuri. It is true that Constantine raised a rebellion against his brother, in
the name of
their seniority, and, with the help of the South of Russia, overthrew him. But the idea of
the right of the Grand Duke
bequeath his power was still declared already, and it was in 1212, t. e. for 23 years before
the conquest of Russia Tatars.
The power to determine the merits of his father's sons joined us from the Byzantine
custom
appointment of the king of his heirs. This idea is not generic and is not married, but
purely
Byzantine, and in the end, we could not resist, and only served briefly
a useful tool for the development of the idea of autocratic king.
As far as this family autocratic idea was developed, showed uncertain times

Basil Dark.
Vasily (son of Dmitry Donskoy) bequeathed to the great reign of his son
(Vasily the Blind) in addition to his brother and his uncle - George. Under the pretext
that,
played out the last tribal unrest in Russia. But they have already shown that the time of
delivery
bills passed. Yuri himself seized power, wanted him to inherit his own
Children (Oblique Vasily and Dmitry Shemyaka), showing that the new idea of
succession
and I held him, and he, for the sake of rebelling against the idea of a generic Basil acted
usurper of personal interests. Moreover, of this attempt did not work out.
We must remember that Vasily (the future Dark) after his father left powerless
child. His dignity and authority of the Grand Duke defended not himself, and associates,
and the boyars
population. Under their protection ADULT Basil. Then, in 1433, using only Yuri
Page 166

accident, sudden raid captures Moscow, and then takes a prisoner Vasily.
In this extreme Basil agreed to give Moscow Yuri and myself take Kolomna.
But as soon as he was free to Kolomna, to him from all sides flocked princes,
boyars, nobles, servants, laying from Yuri and Yuri, abandoned by all, conceded
nephew of the grand duchy, and went to his inheritance, followed by a total of 5
satellites.
Then, even more treacherously, Yuri recaptured Moscow, during absence
Basil; but purely voknyazhilsya usurper. Hardly had he remained sitting, but death saved
him
from further testing. He bequeathed the great reign of his son, Vasily Diagon but
Squint your own brothers, Shemyaka and Dmitry Krasny, did not want to serve him, and
They called Basil. "They knew Solovyov says that Vasily Diagon not stay in
Moscow and hurried voluntary recognition Basil (Dark) to get it
location and increase destinies "[Soloviev, t. IV, p. 1058]. Oblique vainly struggled, was
captured and blinded.
In 1445 Vasily The Dark was taken prisoner by the Tartars (the war) and ransomed for
incredible for that time amount (200,000 p.), and, moreover, it was rumored that he
Russia undertook to subjugate the Tatars, and even put in place governors Tartar
feudal princes. This is his compromised in Russia and Shemyaka, together with Moscow
dissatisfied, purely on the conspiratorial grabbed unsuspecting Basil in
time pilgrimage from the Trinity. Basil was immediately blinded, became "dark", and his
children,
run was, too, were caught Shemyaka * and imprisoned. Here's how it
voknyazhilsya. But despite the fact that there were enemies on Basil Moscow itself,
despite the fact

he was captured and blinded, and his children were sitting at Shemyaka in prison, began
everywhere
the movement in favor of Basil against Shemyaka.
* Actually fraud Shemyaka asked Bishop Iona of Ryazan to take them out of their
Asylum "on his stole," t. e. for their sacred guarantee, promising to do
them no harm. But he deceived the bishop and threw children into prison.
Many people thought his release. They gathered troops were armed
Shemyaka clashes with troops. Shemyaka concessions nationwide sense. He
let the children Basil and gave him an inheritance, and Vasiliy gave the "damned of
ratification" But ...
as Basil was released, his supporters rushed to him in droves, abbot
Trifon Belozersky took the "accursed letters." Meanwhile, the rescue Vasily
already passed, not knowing of his release, the Moscow emigrants from
Lithuania. Shemyaka made
against them, and in his absence there was a revolution (Boyar Pleshcheeva) and
Moscow
I swore to Vasily the Dark.
Basil came to Moscow. Shemyaka sue for peace. But after that he long
She rebelled, until in 1453 was not poisoned.
In this struggle, the clergy were for Basil. Exhortation written by a Shemyaka
Cathedral: Bishop of Rostov, Suzdal, Ryazan, Kolomna, Perm. Solovyov
He said: "This unity of the Russian clergy: Jonah, Bishop of Ryazan, zealously
It supports public desire Prince of Moscow and the Moscow prince
hesitates to give its consent for the construction of the Metropolitan bishop, knowing that
Ryazan lord will bring to Moscow, Ryazan regional aspirations "(p. 1076).
This council wrote Shemyaka. Clergy "compares the sins of the father Shemyakin, Yuri,
thoughts of iniquity on the great reign, with the sin of Adam, whom Satan
I put into the heart ravnobozhestva desire: how much work your father suffered much
languor
Christianity has suffered from it, but it's not the Grand Buffet was what his God
Page 167

not given any Zemsky duties from the beginning "[Soloviev, t. VI, p. 1077].
So "Zemsky duties from the beginning," declared here on succession
downlink!
This strife is only strengthened the power of the hereditary Grand Dukes, and make them
more
wary of the older tribal lines at home Kalita. John III held on
Prisons all a little bit suspicious older relatives. When asked about the
the release of his brother Andrew, John answered:
"I feel sorry for his brother, but I can not release it because many times he was planning
on me

evil. Yes, it would have nothing, but when I die, it will look great under the reign of his
grandson
my [then not considered the heir Vasily Ivanovich, and the grandson of the great prince,
the son of
older his son Demetrius, prematurely deceased], and if he does not will produce, it will
confuse
my children, and they will fight each other, and the Tatars are Russian land to destroy,
burn
and capture, and again impose tribute, and Christian blood will flow again, and all my
works
will remain in vain, and you will be the slaves of Tatars "[Soloviev, t. V, p. 1400].
Moscow Tsar
Along with the right of succession on the downlink, with the right of the great
Prince to appoint a successor from among the downlink of the growing importance of the
tsarist
house Kalita, who is regarded as the carrier with the power of Vladimir. Crowning on
the kingdom of his grandson, Dimitri, John III said:
"Father of the Metropolitan! Divine Providence, from our grandparents grand dukes
thence our old and still places: our fathers, grand dukes, his elder sons
We give great reign; I was his first son, Ivan herewith great blessing
reign, but the will of God, my son Ivan died, he was the first son of Demetrius, and I
I bless it now herewith, and behind the great reign of Vladimir,
Moscow and Novgorod "[Soloviev, t. V, p. 1408].
This celebration of the Metropolitan and John called "the king and autocrat."
But it was not yet walking the title of grand princes of Moscow. They still
I approached him.
John III wrote:
"John, the grace of God emperor of all Russia and the Grand Duke Vladimir and
Moscow and Novgorod and Pskov, Tver and Ugra, and Perm and other. "
Germans and Livonians John III calls himself "King of All Russia."
Vasily Ivanovich wrote a title: "The Great Tsar Vasily, the grace of God,
Tsar of All Russia and the Grand Duke (about 20 should transfer land). "But he just
catches and the title of "king" [Soloviev, t. V, pp. 1502-1672].
Crucial era of John III, in the sense of celebration of royal power, was only
the final link in the development of this idea with specific times. Sole
unlimited power, and even the grace of God, God "predizbraniem"
heredity of power in descending family line: all Russia has long been known.
The liberation of Russia from the Tatars and the marriage with Sophia Palaeologus, with
the assimilation of Russian tsars
inheritance of the Byzantine Empire - all this has long been a simmering process has
concluded
development of royal power.
Ancient Russia was given to the idea of monarchy is relatively easy. Much harder

Page 168

It was given to the idea of national unity, so clear to the Byzantine Empire.
In the Byzantine autocrat could transmit their power almost arbitrary heir.
But the power of the king was inseparable from the unity of the state. The break-up of the
state was
absurd for the Byzantines. When, after the crusader Western influences, the queen Irina,
wife of Andronicus Palaeologus (itself originally from Western Europe), wanted to give
their children
inheritances in Byzantium, it was greeted as something extraordinary. "Unheard,
exclaims Nicephorus Grigor she wanted them to control not monarchist, by
of old-established custom of the Romans, but modeled on Latin, t. e. to,
was divided between the Roman city and the region, each of her sons ran a special
part of which falls to his share, and go into his own possession, and so on
established the law of property and property of ordinary people, each part
passed from parents to children, from children to grandchildren, and so on. d. This queen,
says Gregory,
I was originally Latinyanka, and from Latins took the news that thought enter between
Romans "[Nicephorus Grigor," Roman History ", book VII, ch. 5, p. 225].
This Latin "news" was in Russia, like the Europeans, like all the nations
tribal period, old, deeply rooted in the social order and undermines
beginning of statehood. Fighting with her and was with us the progress of statehood in
where autocracy, monarchy beginning to be going in hand with the unity government.
Both began in Monomakh by the gathering of land in the hands of one
families; the division of land and power between the members of the family undermined
the process launched
monarchical addition. And at the same time with the increasing investment of the Grand
Duke
royal powers begins from the great princes care about that
collected land and power in the inheritance battered predominantly in one hand, and the
proportion
specific increasingly reduced. Then, the power itself of feudal princes increasingly
reduced
and they are increasingly subject to the Grand Duke. In the end, with so
committed disappear.
For swatches, you can specify the distribution of the inheritance of John III.
He left a great reign of Vasily (son of Sophia Palaeologus) and gave him 66 major
cities. The other four sons, all together, he gave only 30 cities, less significant.
But beyond that, and their power to inherit, have been very limited to a number of
conditions.
John ordered all the feudal princes considered Basil his father and obey in all things.
An inheritance coinage belonged to Vasily. He also owned the right to repurchase and
trade taxes; Criminal Court was also given to given to Basil; his own clerks must

We had to write "complete" and "memoranda" of ratification. Destinies left without


direct heirs
the males go to Vasili. Brothers, in addition, by special contract, are required
considered his master.
Thus, when Ivan III The sovereign rights of feudal princes almost
destroyed, and behind them is a property right, the seat of the court and "make peace."
It has long pursued the right departure from all sides too limited and prohibited
except with the consent of the Grand Duke. All of this is linked to the ancient rights of
the great
Princes, John III destroys Novgorod independence, based on their
"eternal" rights. Vasily Ivanovich, dying, says the boyars:
"You know yourself that our state is conducted by Grand Prince Vladimir of Kiev,
we will monarchs born and you are our eternal boyars "[Soloviev, t. V, p. 1658].
This view was not incorrect. She expressed the continuity of consciousness
monarchy, by Vladimir Monomakh, through the Prince of Suzdal, Andrei
Page 169

Bogolyubsky, Alexander Nevsky and Prince Daniel hails from Kalita. The characteristic
that
Bogolyubskii and Andrew, and Alexander Nevsky, Daniil of Moscow Church and folk
consciousness canonized.
The church blessing at all, from St. Vladimir to Moscow Tsars,
hallowed princely power and external rites. "The first sign of recognition of the Prince
possession of a certain parish was (of old) planted on the table. This ritual was
considered
necessary. Planted happened in the town's main church. The recognition of the Prince
accompanied by a sworn, veneration of the cross [Soloviev, t. III, pp. 672-673]. John III
was crowned king of his son Demetrius has a likeness of the Byzantine rite, John IV,
17-year-old wanted to "look grandparent ranks"; "as ours, he says, grandparents,
kings and great princes, and our kinsman Vladimir II Monomakh, in the kingdom on
great reigning sat down, and I also want to fulfill that office, and to the kingdom, and the
great
reigning sit. "January 16, 1547 made a royal wedding, like wedding
Dimitri under John III, with the anointing [Soloviev, t. V, p. 40]. But John IV
finally accepted and adopted the title of king, as a formal and customary name
his rank.
So was the formalization of the royal ideas have lived for centuries on
Russia and build its statehood.
Having grown up in the same process with the Russian nation, the imperial power is two
bright
Typical features:
1) complete unity in the ideals of a nation as the supreme authority,
2) unity government with its national forces.

Section II
UNITY AND NATION supreme power
The unity of the ideals of the king and the people.
The doctrine of Ivan the Terrible
Solovyov says about the Terrible, "John IV was the first king, not because
Only that first took the royal title, but because it is the first soznal all
the value of royal power, he was the first, so to speak, her theory, while his father and
grandfather
it strengthened its power only virtually "[Soloviev, t. V, p. 35].
It would be better to say that Ivan the Terrible first formulated value
royal power and in its formulation, due to personal abilities, was more precise and
deep than others *. But the ideal, they are pronounced - absolutely the same, which was
We express our church people and learned by all the people.
* Ivan the Terrible is characterized by his contemporaries as "the husband of a wonderful
understanding in
science book reverence pleased and winded, exceedingly in the militia, and for his
insolence
stoyatel fatherland "(Chronograph Kubasova see. Buslaeva," East. Chr. ").
How to understand John IV state idea?
Government, on the Terrible [The following presentation is made
mainly by correspondence with John Kurbski: N. Ustrialov "Tales Prince
Page 170

Kurbsky ", ed. 3rd, St. Petersburg. 1868] should be a harmonious system.
The representative of the beginning of the aristocratic, Prince Kurbsky, rests mainly on
the
personal valor "best people" and "strong in Israel." John refers to this as a
manifestation of political immaturity, and tries to explain to the Prince that no personal
valor
help if there is no right "structure", if the State authorities and institutions are not
located in a proper manner. "As the tree may not blossom, if the roots dry out,
and this: If ye not before the structure of the good will in the realm of "the courage and
will not be shown on the
war. You said the king, ignoring the structure of glorifying only
Valor.
On what, on what the general idea, erected a necessary "building"
"constitution" of the Christian kingdom? John, in the explanation recalls heresy
Manichean: "They taught dissolute, if Christ has only the sky and the earth
independently manage people and the underworld - the devil. "I said the king, I believe
that
Christ has everything: heaven and on earth and under the earth, and "all in heaven and on
earth
underworld nature of his volition, advice stepfather and favor of the Holy Spirit. "This

Higher power imposes its will on the state "structure", and sets
kingship.
Rules of the Supreme power, in terms of Grozny, defined Christian idea
subordination of subjects. This is given the breadth of power, in the same and its limits
(for limits
there for the Terrible). But these boundaries unconditional obedience to the king, as the
duties prescribed faith, enters the circle of Christian piety. If the king
goes badly or unfairly - is it a sin. But that does not dismiss the subjects of
duty of obedience. Even if Kurbsky and rights, condemning John as a person, then by
It has not received the right to disobey the divine law ["Do not imaginary, upright on
Human vozyarivsya God prirazitsya: ino a human is, If ye and purple worn ino
the divine "[85]]. Therefore Kurbski his act a" soul destroyed. "" If you
righteous and pious - said the king - then why do not you want me, crooked
lord, to suffer and to inherit the crown of life? "Why" is not hast porevnovat piety "
thy servant Vaska Shibanov, who preferred to die in agony for his master?
From this point of view, the actions of John censured on the basis of people's rights
other countries (indicate Kurbski) has no objection on the king's matter. "ABOUT
godless chelovetseh that glogolati! Inasmuch TII all the kingdoms of their own is not
how
they commanded subjects ("workhouses"), and arrive. A Russian tsars from the
beginning
themselves possess all the kingdoms (ie all parts of the imperial power), not the boyars
and
nobles. "
The antithesis of our principle of supreme power and all European
often much John and apart from the controversy Kurbsky. As rightly says
Slavatinsky Romanovich, "the consciousness of the international value of the autocracy
reaches
formidable king high. "He clearly understands that is a different and higher
principle. "If you, - he said the Swedish king - was a perfect kingdom,
the Archbishop of thy father and advisers and all the comrades in the land would not be
"[Soloviev, that is.
II, p. 279]. He acidly remarked that the Swedish king, "just old age in the parish"
showing a full understanding of what this "not perfect," the king is in effect
democratic beginning. So we said the king, "the governors of Novgorod - people
great, but all the same "slave emperor is not a brother," but because the King of Sweden
shall be
not to communicate with the sovereign, and with the governors. The same compliments
and makes the Terrible
Page 171

Stephen Bathory, seen after "Sovereign your Stefan in equal brotherhood with us
be of use to. "In the very steep, even for a minute, John himself proudly exposes Stefan

the superiority of its principles: "We, the humble John King and Grand Duke of All
Russia on
God's own purpose and not for mnogomyatezhnomu human volition. "As we have seen
higher officials of the European neighbors to the essence of Representatives John ideas
"godless", t. e. led no divine command, and those human
considerations that encourage farmers to choose the elder in the parish.
The whole essence of the imperial power, on the contrary, that it is not elected, does not
represent
People's power, but something higher, are recognized over the people if he did not
"godless"
John reminds Kurbsky that "God kings reign, and strong writing the truth." In
reproached Kurbsky that he "destroyed the strengths of Israel," John explains that the
strong
in Israel - not where they believed a representative aristocratic start
"the best people". "Earth, John says, the rule of God, charity, and Immaculate
Virgin grace and the prayers of all the saints and blessed of our parents, and
posledinami, its sovereigns, not by judges and governors and hedgehog Hypatia and
strategies. "
Not the people, but from God's mercy to the people is, therefore, the tsarist autocracy,
John and explains.
"The victorious banner and the cross honest", he says, given by the Lord Jesus
Christ first Constantine, "the first in piety," that is the first Christian
Emperor. And then sequentially transmitted to others. When "the spark of piety
Reaching up to Russian kingdom ", the same power of" grace of God "is given to us."
Autocracy
By the will of God, "explains the Terrible, started by St. Vladimir, Vladimir
Monomakh, and so on. D., And through a series of rulers, he says, "and even reaching
down to us lowly
skiptroderzhavie Russian kingdom. "
Consistent with such an origin power, the king must be in the hands of real
force. Objecting to Kurbsky, John says, "Or UBO light these things - to pregordym crafty
to own slaves and the king only be venerable chief seats and the royal honor, the power
be no better than a slave? How he would call an autocrat if not the building land? "
"Russian autocrats themselves from the beginning possess all the kingdoms, not the
boyars and nobles."
Imperial power is given to the promotion of good and evil retribution. Therefore, the king
can not
differ by only one meekness. "Ovyh miluyte rassuzhdayusche, ovyh save with fear"
says Grozny. "Always be kings befitting obozritelnymi: ovogda shortest, ovogda
the ardent; slaughter for good grace and gentleness, to the fury of evil and anguish; Does
this not ashche
has - to bring the king! "The duties of the king can not measure the yardstick of the
private man." Other business

save your soul, the other of the many souls and bodies peschisya. "It is necessary to
distinguish between the terms.
Life for personal salvation - is "postnicheskoe habitation", when a man nothing
the material does not care and can be gentle as a lamb. But in public life is
It is impossible. Even the saints, for the monastic order of personally renounced the
world for
others are required to have a "structure, care and punishment." But svjatitelskogo ban on
par - moral. "The king's control (requires) the fear, and the prohibition
curb, end prohibition, "meaning" madness evil wicked men. "The king himself
punished by God if his "nesmotreniem" be evil.
In this he is certainly looking independent. "A grant esmi their serfs
free, but also free to execute them well esmya. "
"When Thou who obryaschem all these evil (Interior and inclinations) exemption, and to
us
sodevayushim direct their service, and not to forget the service entrusted to him, and we
like it
Page 172

WE award to all sorts of great salary; and ye shall find his ilk in the opposite, a hedgehog
above rehom,
fault of their own and accept the penalty. "
Power as an important one and should be unlimited. Spoken like many
Women's madness. If you are not controlled by a single authority, but at least they
separately were brave and intelligent general rule would be "like women
madness. "The Tsar's power can not be ogranichivaema even the saint." It is not right
tvoriti royal priests. "Ivan the Terrible refers to the Bible, and gives examples of
history, concluding: "Inasmuch slaughter Tamo things were made kings and obey Aetiju
sigklitam - and
What is death priidosha. And this do we advise? "
Even more harmful restriction of the royal power of the aristocracy. King from personal
experience
It describes the disaster, unrest and riots generated knights despotism.
Plundered the royal treasury, samovlastniki, he said, and attacked the people, "bitterest
torment manor living in villages looted. "Who can calculate the scourge,
produced by them to the neighboring residents? "The residents are currently sotvorisha
Thou slaves, their
the slaves staged like nobles. "They called themselves the rulers and military leaders, and
instead of creating only untruth everywhere and disorganization, "the wages of the same
immeasurable
Many gathering and all of mzde tvoryasche and saying. "
Put an end to this predation can only autocracy. Yet this
unlimited political power has, as we have seen above, beyond. It

limited to its own principles.


"All divine Scripture confess Thou commanded not children of a father and resists
rabem Lord ": however, adds John," but faith. "At this point, Grozny, since
say, would have recognized from the right Kurbsky disobedience why hard
argues that the only legitimate reason that disobedience is not Kurbski
a. "Against the faith," the King demanded nothing, and did not, "of not only you, but all
your
soglasniki and demonic servants can not in us to acquire these things, "he says, and,
therefore,
These excuses are not disobedient. Terrible several times returns to the confidence that
if he executed people, nothing had violated the rights of the Church and its holy sites, as,
on the contrary,
a staunch defender of piety. Right or wrong, John actually saying this, but in
Anyway his words show what he is permitted and recognized borders
ill for the king.
Responsibility king - before God, the moral, but it is for the believer
real, because God's power is stronger and punishment of the king. On the ground, in front
of his subjects
King is not the answer. "Hitherto Russian rulers were not doprashivaemy (" not practiced
")
from anyone, but were free to complain and their subordinates to execute, rather than
suing them any
to anyone. "But before God's judgment upon all available." Sue is the Christ of God
between privodishi
you and me, and this slaughter al councils are not brushed aside. "On the contrary, the
trial of the king gravitates
more than on anyone else. "I believe, John says, Thou of all their sins, voluntary and
involuntary, the court acceptance of Thou servant, and of not only of its own, but also
about subordinates to give me an answer,
If ye my nesmotreniem have offended. "
The unity of the national ideal of the tsarist
So I imagine the king supreme power and attitude of the people. The same
Page 173

relationships were drawn and the people.


In its age-old wisdom, saved popular sayings and proverbs
proverbs [The following summary is made up mainly Dahl], our people,
totally un-Christian, it finds a significant share of skepticism to the possibility of
perfection in earthly affairs. "Where good morals of the people, there are stored and
regulations," says
he said, but added: "From west to east is not a man without blemish." With the same "in
the cold and
King is not free, "and yet" one fool throws a stone, and ten smart not pull out. "This

effect of human imperfection, moral and intellectual, excludes


the ability to get quite well, especially if making a lot of stupid harm the
clever, sometimes more. "Silly erred once, but smart offend many." In total
Difficulty has to confess: "God, who does not sin - king is not to blame!" More than that
Life is complicated and interests are opposed, "no sun at all not ugret or king on
All is not cater to "the Bole that" to God is high, to the king away "...
Social and political life thus becomes a cult Russian
people. His ideals - moral-religious. Religious and moral life is
the best center of his thoughts. He dreams about their country is, as the "Holy Russia"
guided to achieve holiness mother teaching of the Church. "This church is not
mother, that God is not the father, "he says.
Such submission of relative peace (political and social) world
absolute (religious) leads to the search for the Russian people are not political ideals
otherwise than under the cover of God. He looks for them in the will of God, and just as
the king
It takes its power only from God, and only the people of God wants it on himself
get. This attitude naturally leads people to the search for the individual vehicle
power, and, moreover, subordinate to the will of God, that is. e. it is the autocratic
monarch.
It is psychologically inevitable. However, confidence in the impossibility of perfection
political relations does not lead people to humiliate them, but rather to a desire
the greatest extent possible to increase them, by subordinating them to the absolute ideal
truth. To do this, you need to obey moral political relations, and for
This, in turn, the supreme authority shall be one person, determined
cases of conscience.
The opportunity to make a fair social and political life through
legal norms people do not believe. It requires the political life of more than
able to give law established once and for all, without consideration to the personality
personality and occasion. It is an eternal feeling of the Russian people expressed
Pushkin, saying "the law
- Tree can not please the truth, and therefore it is necessary that one person above all,
above the law. "The people have long expressed the same view on the failure of the law
to be
the ultimate expression of the truth, sought them in public relations. "The law for the rich
which turns, back and left, "" The law that the web: bumblebee slip and fly bogged
down. "
On the one hand, "in vain to write the laws, when they do not perform," but at the same
time the law
sometimes unnecessarily restrict "Not every whip bend the law", and, if necessary
"I need his law says." If the law is put above all other considerations, it
even harm "strict laws guilty creates a reasonable time and inevitably makes a fool." Act
on

There are conditions: "What is the city, the donors, the village, the custom", and yet
"under any
podplyasheshsya song not under any morals do not placate. "This means a relative
of the truth can not be delivered as a senior
"ideokraticheskogo" element, not to mention the abuse, and they are also inevitable.
Page 174

Sometimes "the law is holy, so performers adversaries." It happens that the "strength of
the law ache", and
"Who wrote the law, and that it breaks." Often, the guilty can safely say, "What am I
laws when the judge know? "
The only way to deliver truth to the highest standards of public life is
to look for it in person and at the bottom and at the top, because the law is good only
because it
It is used, and the application depends on whether a person is under the authority of the
supreme
truth. "Where good morals of the people, there are stored and statutes." "Who's to itself
strict order
stores and the king and God. "" He who can not obey the order and be unable to. "" Who
is not
council, and the other to guide the mind is not. "But the severity of subjects to
themselves while
and it provides a basis for the action of the Supreme power, but does not create it. If the
supreme power
can not make an impersonal law, it can not give it, and "human mnogomyatezhnoe
wanting. "The people of repeats," Woe to the house, owned by the wife whom, mountain
kingdom, whom own
many. "
Strictly speaking, the ruling class recognizes the people widely, but only as
auxiliary instrument of government. "King without servants, as without hands" and
"King of the well-magistrates
adversity humbles world. "But the ruling class of the people idealizes as little as
impersonal law. People say, "Do not keep the court yard near Knyazheva" and says:
"Captive captivity Boyarsky Dvor: casually eat standing sleep enough." Although "the
boyars
Know - gather intelligence, "but also" sin is not robbed. "" In Boyarsky Dvor gates
wide, but there are narrow: zakabalivaet! "can not live without the serving man, but
nevertheless:
"God has clouded people - fed governor" and "People quarrel, and the magistrates are
fed." Exactly
also "The clerk at the place of the cat at the test," and people know that quite often "be as
marked
deacon. "In general, in a moment of pessimism folk philosophy ability to ask difficult

question: "In the land of the worms in the water devils in the forest knots, hooks in the
court: where to go?".
And the people decide the issue, going to install the supreme power in the form of sole
moral principle.
In politics, the king of the people are not separated from God. It does not have the
deification
political start, but its submission to the Divine. The fact that "the court Tsar and
the righteousness of God. "" No one against God but against the king, "but this is
because" the king of God
bailiff. "" All the power of God. "It is not morally arbitrary power. On the contrary:
"All power is of God will answer." "King of the Earth goes under the Heavenly King"
and folk
Wisdom even pointedly adds: "King of kings have a lot of kings ..." But putting
the king in such complete dependence on God, the people in the king calls for God's will
High ordering of earthly affairs, giving him for this entire boundless power.
It is not a transfer of national sovereign autocracy, as happens at the idea
Caesarism and dictatorship, as a rejection of his own autocracy in favor of God's will,
which puts the king, not as a representative of the people's, and the divine power.
The king, therefore, is the conductor in the political life of the will of God.
"The king commanded, and God guides to the right path." "The heart of the Tsar in the
hand of God."
Similarly, the "king's wrath and mercy in God's hands." "What does God do not happen,
and that the king did not
if you please. "But getting the power of God, the king, on the other hand, so completely
accepted
people, which is quite inseparably fused with him. For representing the people in the
political power of God, the king represents the people before God. "The people of the
body, and the king's head"
and this unity is so inseparable that people are even punished for the sins of the
king. "For the royal
Sin God punishes the whole earth, have accepted for the shows mercy, "and in this
mutual responsibility
even the king is in the first place. "The people of sin - king begging and the king sin people
Page 175

not detract. "The idea essentially is characteristic. It is easy to understand what an


immense
high degree of moral responsibility of the king with such sincerity, vsepredannom
merging with it the people, when the people will certainly obey him, while still agree
responsible for his sins before God.
It is impossible to imagine a more absolute monarchic feelings more
subordination, greater unity. But this is not the sense of a slave, only to obey, but because

irresponsible. The people, on the other hand, is responsible for the sins of the king. It is,
therefore, transferred to
Christian sentiment policy when a person prays, "Thy will be done," and at the same
while never for a moment renounces its own responsibility. The king puts people
the same prayers, the same search for God's will, without evading responsibility, and
why
He wants to complete moral unity with the king, to answer to God.
For the non-Christian political principle difficult to understand. For the Christian, it is
shining and warm as the sun. Submitting to the king to such a degree of absolute
goodness, our
people do not feel this anxiety, but rather calms down. His faith in the real
exist in the reality of God's will is beyond doubt, but because doing with his
all parties to subject himself to the will of God, he is quite sure that his God would not
leave, and
therefore, it gives the greatest security of the state.
Pondering this mentality, we will understand why the people of his king says in such
touching, loving expression: "Sir, sir, reliable, Orthodox king ..." In
this formula everything: power and kinship, and hope, and the source of his
consciousness
political principle. Unity with the king to the people is not an empty word. He believes
that "the people
thinks, and the king knows "people's thought, for" Tsar's eye sees far "," the king's eye
away
syagaet ", and" like all the people vozdohnet - come to the king. "With such a unity of
responsibility
for the king is quite logical. And it is clear that it carries no fear, and hope people know
that
"benefit of the people in the hand of the Tsar", but remember also that "to the king and
merciful Lord
Merciful. "With such a conception of the world it is clear that" no kingdom without a
king
stand. "" Without God's light is not necessary, without the king's land is not right "."
Without the land of the king's widow. "This
mysterious union understood without faith, but faith - and gives hope and love.
The unlimited power of the king. "No sovereign decree Moscow and Moscow
Tsar." "Will
tsar - the law "," royal condemnation of extrajudicial. "The king and the people, both
Christian
doctrine does not bear the sword for nothing. He is representative of a formidable
force. "Kara da mercy - God yes
the king. "" Where is the king, there is a storm. "" Before the king to go - head to bear. ""
The king's wrath - the ambassador of death. "

"Near the king - Near death." King - a source of strength, but it is the source of Fame
"near the king bliz honor. "He is the source of all good," Where is the king there and the truth. "" God is
rich in mercy,
Sovereign and pity. "" Without the king of the people of the orphan. "It shines like the
sun:" When the sun heat
at the sovereign good. "If sometimes" threatens the king, but God is merciful. "With such
views, in
firm in the hope that "the king commanded, and the Lord sends the right path," the
people
wall surrounds his "Father" and "reliable" and "faithfully" to serve him. "For God
a prayer service for the king is not lost, "he says, and is ready to go to their historic
harvest season anywhere, repeating: "Where neither live, one to serve the king," and in
all trials
consoling himself with the thought: "All the holy will of the royal."
This close relationship with the people of the king, which characterizes our monarchical
idea
not to develop its own aristocratic or democratic - Novgorod-Cossack
Russia, but the Russian Zemstvo, which has grown along with the autocracy. This idea
became
the characteristic Russian deep seeding in the national instinct. Neither the Democratic
nor
aristocratic idea is not gone, but all the critical, decisive moments
Page 176

Russian history the voice of the mighty instinct won all vacillation and political doctrines
It rose to a brilliant insight.
Wonderful memory of the halo that surrounded the Russian people "opalchivogo" fighter
of autocracy, so often lowers his arm and a heavy weight, it is certainly
faithful. In the struggle with the aristocracy John IV people watched on the "removal of
treason"
although, strictly speaking, traitors to Russia in the proper sense, John had little in front
of him.
But the people sensed that his opponents were cheating the people's idea of supreme
power is
which had not imagined his "Holy Russia."
Time of Troubles made seemed best to undermine the power of the idea, which is not
He managed nor prevent or quell unrest and was later overshadowed by the infamous
usurpation
vagabond impostor and alien adventuress. With the shakiness of royal power,
aristocracy again raised its head: the kings began to take a "record." On the other hand,
democratic principle Cossack freemen undermine monarchical state
the ideal of total social equality protected Cossack "circle." But nothing could

to separate the people with the idea stemming from its outlook. He humiliated the royal
power saw their sin and God's punishment. He did not give up, and just cried and
He prayed:
You, God, God, the merciful Savior,
What early on us angry,
He sent down to us. God prelestnika,
Evil defrocked, Grishka Otrepiev
Shall he defrocked, sat on the throne? .. [86]
Defrocked died, and as they desecrated shrines, the people came to the conclusion not to
any reform, and the need for full restoration of autocracy. The main
the reason for the unpopularity of Basil Shuisky boyars were concessions. "Recording
and Shumsky
veneration of the cross in the execution of it, says R.-Slavatinsky, stirred up the people,
replying to him that he did not give the recording and did not kiss the cross, in order that
from time immemorial in
Muscovy vazhivalos not. "Meanwhile" restriction "consisted only of all
the duties are not executed without trial and in the recognition of a deliberative vote
nobility. Every now and then
different every king and without records kept, but the monarchical sense of outraged
people
not the content of the commitments and the fact of the transformation of moral obligation
in
legally.
Tushino-Bolotnikovskaya bait Cossack liberties, too, did not get the triumph.
Tushinites and Bolotnikovtsy be understood as thieves, as dangerous as enemies of the
countries,
as the enemies of the whole social order. Universal rebellion against Prince least
characteristic. The candidacy of Wladyslaw promised to restore order on the basis of
"constitutional" in which the rights of the Russian nation were well protected. He
accepted
the obligation to limit its power, not only aristocratic Boyar Duma, but
also Zemsky Sobor. Under the control of the Zemsky Sobor it put its commitment not to
change Russian laws and not arbitrarily impose taxes. With modern liberal
point of view of the accession of a foreign prince on such conditions did not violate
anything
interests of the country. But Russia Moscow knew their interests anyway. Exactly
Vladislav candidacy and was the last straw that broke.
It is instructive to recall the content of proclamations Prince Pozharsky and other
Patriots to excite the people to revolt.
Proclamation calling for the restoration of the authority of the king. "You, gentlemen,
pozhalovati,
Page 177

remembering God and his Orthodox faith, suggest, with all sorts of people the general
council as
to us in the current final ruin be bezgosudarnymi. "Constitutional
King's son, obviously did not tell the heart of the people. "Sami, gentlemen in charge
continues
proclamation, we are not sovereign against external enemies, the Polish and Lithuanian,
and
the German people and the Russian thieves stand? As we no sovereign of the great public
and
Zemsky affairs with the neighboring rulers invoked? As our state continue to be
hard and still? "
National-monarchist movement restrictions erased all the plans of the autocracy
to such an extent that our historians can not recover even with an accuracy that
it managed to temporarily snatch boyars Mikhail. Anyway restrictive
conditions were thrown out very soon, during the period of continuous session of the
Zemsky Sobor
(between the years 1620-1625). People looked at the experiences a disaster, as God's
punishment,
solemnly promised to the king, "poispravitsya" and stating Michael that "no sovereign
Muscovy are not possible "-" paying "his" throughout his will "
[R.-Slavatinsky].
It is the triumph of autocracy is characteristic in that it was produced by the County
Russia against Russian aristocratic beginning and the Russian
democratic. Russian Zemstvo, t. E. It is a national, expressing typical
particular nationality, rejected in turmoil all the other basics but autocratic and
recreate it in the same form in which it was drawn Ivan the Terrible, and that the County
Russia, which is a cultural and public life is built on an orthodox
world outlook.
Restoration of the autocracy, shocked turmoil, and it was entirely a matter of the County
Russia [S. F. Platonov, "Essays on the history of the Troubles in the Muscovite state
XVI-HUII
Century ", St. Petersburg. 1899].
Outlined above ideological and moral unity of the people of the king Us
accompanied by the same union of the king and the people in the area of governance.
Proper growth of state institutions
The Management of the Moscow offices of the monarchy were composed in close
connection with
national social systems. According to the type of his supreme authority has taken a
his patronage of all citizens, no one fundamentally refuse to trust, and
All was ready to accept more or less fit for the service of their "sovereign
Affairs "effect. This direct voice autocratic feelings and did what development
Tsarist authorities did not stifled the national government, but encourage and develop
it. From

it was that the general type of the Management of the Moscow State institutions, in spite
of the
a lot of private deficiencies stemming from childishly ignorant state
proper legal knowledge, formed into something very vital in every sense
perfect, unfortunately, not only remains undeveloped, but later on
unfavorable circumstances, even stunted.
Total system power in Muscovy developed in such a way.
It is necessary to state all towered "great sovereign" autocrat. His competence
Management was boundless. All that only living people, their needs
Page 178

political, moral, family, economic, legal - all subject to jurisdiction


Supreme power. There was no question that was considered not related to the king, and
the king himself
recognized that for each citizen, he will answer to God, "If ye my nesmotreniem
have offended. "
King - not only guide of all the current government affairs, in the form of protection
external security, internal order, justice, and related issues
legislative and judicial. The king has a guide of all historical life of the nation. it
power that cares about the development of national culture and about the distant future
the fate of the nation.
The royal power developed along with Russia, together with Russia to settle disputes
between
aristocracy and democracy, between Orthodoxy and other confessions, along with Russia
was
humiliated by the Tartar yoke, along with Russia has been shattered destinies, together
with Russia
united the old days, reached the national independence and then began to conquer and
outlandish realm, along with Russia is aware that Moscow - the Third Rome, and the last
ultimate world state. Imperial power - it is like an embodied soul
nation, cast their fate to God's will. King manages this, on the basis of past and
referring to the future.
Hence, theoretically, arguing the need to fully communicate with the king of the nation,
both in
as regards their total submission to the will of God, and in that regard the body itself
nation, its internal social structure by which crowd turns into
a public body.
The Russian imperial power, this connection virtually been achieved by its
the origin of 1) the idea of the church, and 2) descent, and then 3) the patrimonial
system. In the
its development process was part of the imperial power and the connection with the
church and with the social
systems.

In all this, there was little awareness. She had nowhere to take. Byzantine doctrine
most can be called a tradition than doctrine, and the idea of a Church made
the religious guide of the political system, but did not examine the objective laws
social life. The theoretical structure of the conscious state power
could be. But it was very strong organic composition of the country, which gave
the possibility of the idea of the Supreme authorities implemented a very proper social
foundations.
Imperial
power, abolishing since
times
Andrew
Bogolyubsky like
aristocratic, and democratic government as supreme are
intermediary between them. It is in the name of religious principles, he supported justice
between all the forces existing in the country, t. e. moderating excessive
each claim, each gave just satisfaction.
The kings were autocrats guardians of the rights of the people. "Terrible sovereigns
Moscow, Ivan III and John IV, Belyaev said, were the most diligent affirmative
ancestral peasant rights, especially the Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich constantly sought to ensure
to farmers in public relations were independent and had the same rights as
other classes of Russian society "[Belyaev," The peasants in Russia "]. If, in respect
peasant policies Godunov broke royal tradition, the social forces and it does not
feared, did not rule out their participation in the management, but on the contrary have
attracted them. Since our
monarchical power did not create out of nothing the Russian people, and she has
emerged from
ready-made social forces of the tribal system, then these forces, it is natural to use and
Page 179

for the tasks of the Management.


For this supreme authority had no need to theoretical considerations,
For social forces actually exist and truncated their encroachments on
rule - from them themselves were members of the Management. Thus from
aristocratic elements of all kinds, sovereign princely birth, nobility and lower
squads evolved service class in which the aristocracy held important
places as the top public administration, the Boyar Duma and orders, and in
lower. Numerous organizations of democratic power - Chamber - the state,
urban and rural, just go to the category of local government powers. A
All together the Management forces were to help the supreme power in the form of
Zemsky Sobor.
Thus, with the approval of the monarchy as the supreme authority, the aristocracy and
Democrats won a wide place in the power system of the Management.
Communication of the king and the people in the administration.

Boyar Duma. Zemsky Sobor


Government agencies through which acted Sovereignty
Moscow state, submitted in the following form. Higher institution
is constantly at the emperor, was Boyar Duma, whose members were 1)
boyars, 2) courtier, 3) duma nobles and 4) the clerk of the council.
The aristocratic element has in this institution dominant position. In John
III Duma consisted of 13 boyars, courtiers 6, 1 and 1 butler treasurer. In John IV - 10
boyars
1 courtier, kravchy 1, 1 treasurer, 8 duma nobles [Ilovajskij, t. III, p. 445]. There were
course and deacons, whose importance in the ability and confidence of the sovereign,
sometimes increased
to a great extent (Shchelkalov etc.). The aristocracy had special benefits
admission to the Duma. The most noble families (formerly The sovereign and old
knights)
have the right, bypassing the lower ranks, come straight into the boyars. Less noble and
princely
boyar families were appointed first to the courtier. To lower the serving and
bureaucratic elements opened in the course of the duma duma nobles and clerks.
The Emperor took a daily boyars as the duma and heads of orders. With
the need for a meeting called for the emperor himself, or not at all boyars and courtiers,
or out in the general meeting of City Council. The verdict in the case was written clerk
by the formula:
"The Emperor and the boyars have been sentenced." It happened that the Emperor
instructed the Duma to solve the case
without it, and if the Duma were to sentence him for approval and adoption.
Boyar Duma in emergency, but the way it happens sometimes intensified by new
members and turned into a Zemsky Sobor. Councils have arisen in the form of increased
staff
Duma in the first days of unification of Russia, but especially solemn and correct
the form of expression of all the land they gave Ivan the Terrible.
At the Cathedral of Ivan the Terrible in 1550, entering the real rights of the board, as
Troubles in his childhood, publicly repented of past missteps and promised for the future
rule as befits a monarch. Cathedral of 1566 was convoked by John over the war with
Poland. It was attended by the clergy, nobles, clerks, nobles, knights, west
Page 180

landowners, visitors, merchants of Moscow and Smolensk. Here we see all the "ranks" of
Moscow
State, with a special representation of the most interested on
War with Poland.
In general, as part of its cathedrals include all the Boyar Duma, and the higher clergy
different "sovetnyh people." Here involved local elected authorities - from the nobility,
merchants, from

settlements, towns, planted, and there were "county people", ie voluntary peasants. Not
It is only serfs and landlords' peasants. The electoral council in 1611
Cossacks participated.
To participate in the council deputies were called part of the power positions of
occupied part of choice. Regarding the number of them, it was not determined. The
challenge
It was to hear the voice of the solution "of all the earth," and is not considered a
significant number of
individuals, and the degree of representation of the views of the people. However the
number of deputies are sometimes
very much.
Since the Cathedral in 1598, elected to the kings of Boris Godunov, only 476 participated
man, including:
Clergy 99
The boyars, nobles, clerks 277
Elected by 33 cities
Streletsky head 7
Guests 22
Warden of living of hundreds of 5
Hundreds of black centurion 16
At the Council in 1613 with the election of Mikhail Romanov was attended by
assumption
S. Platonov, at least 700 people. Of those known, however, only 277 signatures. This
The cathedral was decorated with special efforts to express the voice of "the whole
earth." He continued
more than a month. Elected although they had powers, but their decisions still sent out on
Poll cities. Thus the Council was essentially a national *.
* SF Platonov. "Essays on the history of the Troubles in the Muscovite state." St.
Petersburg 1899
pp. 561 et seq. See. Also Soloviev, "History of Russia", Vol. 8, pp. 1039 (Edition
heirs)].
The competence of the cathedral was just as vague and limitless. They talked and
a relatively small business, and the greatest. Cathedral in 1566 was the subject of a war
with
Poland. Cathedral in 1584 convened the Duma for the application to Theodore Ivanovich
quickly crowned. Councils in 1593 and 1613. elected kings. Cathedral in 1621 (which
attended all classes, including the Cossacks), the subject also had a war with Poland.
1632 Cathedral was intended to provide funds for the war with Poland. Cathedral 1634
the city - also raising money for military affairs. Cathedral in 1642 had decided that the
adoption of
Azov, the Cossacks conquered illegally. This cathedral is interesting in the sense that,
although
and agreed to the war with Turkey, with the imminent adoption of Azov, but applied for

Destruction of bureaucratic abuse. In general, during the reign of Michael from 1613
till 1642 (Michael died in 1645) was five Councils, ie almost
one to five years, sometimes churches can be very long.
In the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, all the important things are happening with cathedral
meetings. In 1649 the cathedral was convened on the drawing up of a judicial law
code. AT
1650 in Pskov occurred stubborn rebellion, and the question of what to do with the
rebels,
King pointed to "be at the Cathedral Pskov factory thieves" ... At the council be given the
boyars,
Page 181

courtier, urban nobles, knights children, guests from Moscow, the trade people
Living room, hundreds of black cloth and old age of five, and of the hundreds of black
constables. Nomination described in detail the whole thing and was offered a question:
"If
Pskov Bishop Raphael and elected people do not listen, then what to do with them? "
Response of the cathedral has been preserved, but the measure of restraint was taken as a
result of the meek,
It was decided not to require the issuance of the ringleaders, and try just to somehow
reassured,
Riot [Soloviev, "History of Russia", ie. X, p. 1547]. Cathedral in 1653 was subject to the
issue of
admission to the citizenship of the Ukraine. When Theodore Alekseevich in 1681 the
cathedral reasoned
financial business, in 1682 - the destruction of localism. Cathedrals acted more in
youth of Peter I. In 1682, at the election of John, and in 1689 Peter gathered Cathedral
for the trial of Sophia.
Thus, the competence of the cathedrals was, you might say, universal. But their decision
had
only consultative value, except, of course, cases of interregnum when
churches became the supreme authority.
Another important means of union with the supreme power the nation were
established relationship of the kings and the Church.
Communication state and nation
in church management
A close relationship with the nation of royal power in Muscovy further enhanced
her relationship with the Church and the church administration. In this regard, sometimes
complain
that in the Moscow state church administration was still at large
Depending on the secular authorities. Such complaints are strange. It is impossible to
imagine any or
even allow state and church administration, living together, do not engage in

vzaimoobyazannosti known. The correct relationship between the state of the Church is
not
They consist of subordination of the state of ecclesiastical authority. The state has its
own law,
Church administration which, in turn, obliged to obey.
Likewise, it is impossible to imagine that, at the very right of the State Union
with the Church, never experienced any illegal encroachment of government
authorities on the rights of the Church authorities, and vice versa. It - like any violation
of rules inevitable in human affairs. Position is correct, we must recognize this,
which is based on correct principle and actually manages, in total,
achieve compliance with it, though with some deviations in both directions from the
norm. AT
Moscow is Russia, and this has been achieved correctly.
Generally the church life in Muscovy was put on the right
base. The clergy was not a caste, later. The lower parish clergy
elected laity and replenished largely by people directly from
people. Monasticism was chosen from all social classes, and among its prominent
members
occupied by people of the layers of princely and boyar. The Church hierarchy initially
which had not at all exotic (Greek) part, soon became quite national.
She shines equally aristocratic names and people from the mass of people. Therefore
, the composition of his priesthood and hierarchy were completely part of the nation.
Page 182

Actions church authorities were imbued with the spirit of catholicity. The Management
authority of the Church - metropolitans, patriarchs and then had a great importance and
individual
Bishops were strong in their submission. In this respect, the power of the metropolitans
hardly inferior to the Patriarchal. But the powerful central authority of the Church
It acts in all important cases in council.
Cathedrals small and large occur frequently, for all requests of church life. Have already
in 1274 took place in Vladimir Cathedral "corrective church" (under Metropolitan
Cyril). From the XIII century there is a statute of the method of election of
bishops. According to the statute, for
this goal Metropolitan shall summon all the bishops, and did not present themselves to
receive from the recording
agreement with the decision of the Council. Whereupon Cathedral elect three candidates,
from among whom already
Metropolitan decides one who finds the best [Soloviev, "History of Russia", the book I,
pp. 258]. Collegiality committed all the important things. So when Basil's Cathedral was
to
the expulsion of Metropolitan Isidore, who took the Union of Florence. Council agreed

independent Russian election of metropolitans. In 1401, Metropolitan Cyprian assembled


Cathedral in Moscow for the removal of the two bishops. In 1498 and 1504
years. convened by churches
over the counter "jew heresy" [87].
In 1561 there was a famous Stoglavy Cathedral. In 1554g. Cathedral over heresy
Bashkina [88]. Generally about heresies they arose often (as in 1582 and 1698.), But
We are going on and on about all the other church affairs. So it was in 1580 and 1573.
And Whereupon
Cathedral of the correction of the books, in 1621 the baptism of Latins in 1656 of the
cross, in
1660 and 1666. in the case of Patriarch Nikon. Cathedrals place until the end of the XVII
century
(1684-1698) and was even one in the XVIII.
Great importance cathedrals as church authority, can be seen from their collisions with
the highest authorities of the state hierarchy. For example, in its Judaic heresy
time seemed invincible. She learned even the Metropolitan Zosima, she had prominent
members of the court, and has managed to surround the Grand Duke network of
influences that he was
fight against all heretics. But the cathedral in 1498 and 1504's handled all
countermeasures. Metropolitan Zosima was forced to renounce his dignity and
court supporters of heresy suffered a severe penalty. Certainly Orthodox spirit
It may approve these executions, but I only indicate the enormous power of the
cathedrals. She is very
and clearly proved in 1621 when Mikhail Fedorovich. Cathedral in 1621 convened
It was the question of whether you have to cross the bride princess Irene
Mihajlovny, Prince Valdemar? King Michael Theodorovich extremely wanted this
marriage
and for reasons personal and political. The king Valdemar also did not want to take
intersections, which demanded the Orthodox. When the yard was a party, make sure to
the king that there is no need baptism, because "it really is quite the Latins."
But council decided otherwise, and the king thought it necessary to obey, no matter how
hard it was to him
refuse to Valdemar.
Contemporary chronicler hints that even premature death of Michael
Feodorovicha stemmed from grief in any case [Reading at the Imperial Society
Russian History and Antiquities. A. Golubtsov, "Monuments debate about faith," 1892
book ..
2nd].
Generally cathedral is quite real supreme ecclesiastical authority, and
government sincerely admit it, she referring to councils at all
misunderstandings.
The Management Authority, metropolitans and patriarchs, using great force,

Page 183

We were in close union with the royal power.


It is difficult to sum up the benefits that it gave the supreme power.
Metropolitans since ancient times tried to stop the specific strife. In 1270, Metropolitan
Cyril wrote squabbling princes, "I instructed God Archdiocese in the Russian land, and
you must listen to God and me. Do not spill blood. "And the feud was really
discontinued. When Boris took Nizhny Novgorod from Dimitri Suzdal, Metropolitan
Alex sent to the Lower St. Sergius persuade the prince to return stolen and
Boris resigned. Metropolitans, as is well known, especially the Prince of Moscow and
supported
We are trying to pull all Russian region to Moscow; They were encouraged to Moscow
Grand Dukes to the overthrow of the Tatar yoke. "Where it metropolitans were
advisers and assistants of the Grand Duke, was much, says prof.
Dobroklonsky. Metropolitan Alexei, who was entrusted with the dying prince
Simeon rukovoditelstvo young his brothers, was the principal leader John
Ivanovich, and then Dmitri Ivanovich, in his early childhood as he stood at the head of
Boyar
thought. "" Metropolitan Daniel under Basil Ioannovich enjoyed it unchanged
location. "
Metropolitan Macarius when Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible had a great influence on
public life and the king himself. To him the king resorted when it was necessary to
protect
Vorontsov from Shuiskis. Makar, the king asked for advice on your entry
marriage. Before him vow to mend after a fire in 1547. Going to a campaign against the
Kazan, John asked for the blessing of Macarius, and the march maintained a
correspondence with him.
At the time of removal from the Moscow government and the king left in the care of
family
Metropolitan. Knowing the power of the king's Metropolitan - Lithuanian ambassadors
appealed repeatedly to
his mediation and so on. d. *
* A. Dobroklonsky, "Guide to the history of the Russian Church", part 2, I, p. 107.
The author himself is not quite satisfied with the state-church relations of ancient Russia,
but
it depends on what it is overly broad understanding of "right" church management
civil cases. It is also impossible not to reproach prof. Dobroklonsky in excessively
identification of "church" and "hierarchical authority". Do not forget that the king and his
boyars were also members of the Church.
Without a doubt - for its part, the king had a huge impact on the affairs of the Church, but
this can not be considered as an abnormal phenomenon. On the contrary, the idea of an
alliance between
State and Church naturally requires not any one-sided but mutual
effect. This particularly applies to the imperial power as the king is the representative

laity in the Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority, in which the laity have their own brand
legally required share. True, we have had cases of enforced details
metropolitans and their imprisonment. But it is quite clear in the fight against parties if
metropolitans, if necessary, or by negligence and ambitious, it
intervene.
With regard to the cases, such as the collision of Ivan the Terrible with Metropolitan
Philip, it is the part of the king was not a manifestation of the normal position, and act
despotism. But the hardness of a metropolitan in denouncing the king shows how deep
aware of the right of ecclesiastical authority in the conviction of the government and in
the intercession
the needy and resentful.
Patriarchate, increasing the brilliance of the Church, not only changed the
relationship. First established
the relationship between church and state is not interrupted during the entire patriarchal
period.
Page 184

They express the mutual influence; Public life is reflected in the church,
civil authorities involved in the affairs of the Church, in a similar way and church
power was important in the life of the state. Areas of action have not been demarcated by
all precision. From this at the same time the state power more at another time
less intervened in the affairs of the Church; likewise was not the same at different times
activities, which
Church authorities are in the political arena
[Dobroklonsky, part of the 3rd, p. 124].
Sometimes the role of ecclesiastical authority grew extraordinarily. So it was when
Hermogen,
when the patriarch was the sole representative of the nation. So it was when Filaret
Nikitich. This was a time when Nikon. These individual cases were caused
circumstances and personal qualities of the representatives of the state and church
power. But in total very close relations were imbued with consciousness
mutual need and internal complementarity. Moreover, the relationship with the king
metropolitans and patriarchs were direct, without any "dividing walls". The Voice
The Church and its hierarchy was also an indispensable accessory of the king's meeting
with
boyars and the Zemsky Sobor, and the right of ecclesiastical authority to "intercession"
on all
wronged and oppressed gave new relationships with all the people of the sovereign.
Imperial Court
One of the manifestations and instruments of moral close ties with the people of the
sovereign was
old Russia the right people in the royal court. Like all relationships of that period, this
right is not

was comprehended in principle, but has lived in the hearts, the feelings of the prince and
the people.
Princely power in Russia was inseparable from the right and duty of the court. Even
is the vocation of the princes was motivated by strife and lack of truth, why
Slavic tribes "decisive in themselves: look for a prince, his ilk Be owned and judged
rightly."
"Prince, - says Mr. Khartulari - was the first judge in the nation and the supreme source
truth, the right to trial and punishment was both his personal rights and personal
duty, and one of the oldest prerogatives of the prince's power. "[KF
Khartulari, "The right to trial and pardon, as the prerogative of the Russian statehood", 2
volumes,
Spb. 1899].
Princely court was the place of the court, and the expression "lead to the prince court"
meant
"conduct on the court." The view at the prince is like the judge was so deep that even
Novgorod Republic, which had in other areas such broad democratic
the board considers it necessary to hold the prince as a military leader and judge.
It goes without saying that the appearance of Christianity could only reinforce this
idea. G.
Khartulari leave without proper attention Byzantine state law and therefore
He said something specifically Russian, the conception of royal power, which is at the
really it was not at all Christian, and worked out most clearly from our teacher of the era
Byzantium. Meanwhile, it is the influence of Christianity and the Byzantine Empire
increased the importance of
Prince in the judgment. More Saint Vladimir Greek bishops taught that he "put on
God's punishment on the evil and on the good Milovan ".
In general, the influence of Christianity and Byzantium our state relations
consisted, of course, that the prince recognized the divinely instituted authority, the
Page 185

most of the national magistrates increasingly become carriers of the supreme


power. Power
as supreme in itself includes the right and the duty of the court. This right and duty of the
prince
and confessed the same people, and the princes themselves.
The agreement with the Prince, says Mr. Khartulari population pronounces itself
primarily
his personal and direct the court: "If any one of us who will be hurt, you're right", says
Kiev Prince Igor. The supreme example of disorder during the illness of Prince
Vsevolod,
chronicler seemed that "people do not reach Princely truth."
Similarly, Vladimir Galitsky said of himself that he "put God to death

evil and good to Milovan. "In turn, the same clergy taught and how,
for example, St. Cyril Mozhaisk Prince Andrew, "and the peasants, sir, do not be lazy
give the council itself; gentleman, from God you reckoned up prayer and fasting. "
As the supreme judge, prince, of course, could not all be judged constantly himself, in
he appointed himself a replacement, so, "to their husbands." They first called the mayor,
volostelyami and later governors. These, in turn, not being able to total
decide personally appointed by himself tiuns. But the whole hierarchy of "judicial
authorities"
converge in the heart of the prince, as the highest judicial authority. At the same time
there were also demarcation
the competence of the judicial authorities, by the very nature of court cases. For example,
"disputes
arose in mutual collisions of the same kind or the same
communities providing direct Prince petty domestic proceedings
and chiefs of kind. "Among the cases, on the contrary, were due to personal court of
Prince, Russian
True include cases catch the thief red-handed and all disputes about the inheritance.
But in any case, the highest court stayed the prince himself, who, "in
If you have any complaints about the abuse of power, demanding all sorts of things to her
own justice "[K. Khartulari, p. 12].
This fundamental conception of the prince was transferred later to the Kings. Brow beat
the great emperor about the vessel and its other affairs is, in the opinion of the people and
their legitimate
and inalienable right. Otherwise, of course, could not be.
The reason for this is not about who "the best judge", as suggested by Mr. Khartulari and
is
where the last instance court. It has always, in theory, is in the supreme power. AT
Every democratic country has the right to appeal to public opinion, that is,
the people's conscience, to justice and support of the people, although it is quite often the
citizen
He recognizes that "public opinion" is not the "best" judge. But he also knows that it is a last resort, the only court which can not be an appeal. So
exactly the monarchy, until the people believe in it, everyone is aware that only the king
is no appeal,
Only the king is the last resort, and therefore hurt and does not calm down and not
It submits to fate, until it reaches the king himself.
It is natural that Moscow kings kept their judicial functions.
But as the country grew and the difficulties of origin of these functions. On the one
side - Acting High power in general became more complicated and increases
quantitatively absorbing time and energy at the rulers. On the other hand - direct
the violence of the sovereign could not cause passive resistance from the "subordinate"
authorities, who wanted to remain self-sufficient as possible.
In the first part of this book have been given the usual desire

the Management of the authorities to seize the office of supreme power is actually
assign it to the autocracy. This view is completely penetrated and contemporary
historian, "the Royal Court" of Khartulari.
Page 186

"The newly organized institution, acting in the name of the Emperor, he says, for
for administrative and judicial, were not allowed (?) has the possibility of simultaneous
and the existence of parallel activities with them, on the same court cases, a separate
and an independent court of the Emperor "(p. 77). In this author's opinion is expressed
usual trend of the bureaucracy, now so filled the minds of all. It is not difficult to see that
in
the idea, in principle, on the other hand, institutions acting in the name of supreme
power, this
itself, of course, be subject to its actual control and their solutions appeal and cassation. But the Management authorities always claim if their authority
undermines the right of citizens to appeal directly to the Supreme power. it
occurs as indicated in the first part of the book is not in the same monarch, and even
more in
democracies. With regard to the citizens and subjects, they, on the contrary, never agree
be on the point of view of lawyers who themselves will take place in the actual number
of managers
"secondary institutions" naturally inclined too zealously "protect the prestige of" them,
that is, in fact, its own, while the citizens and subjects equally
naturally wish above all things, and above all to protect the authority of the supreme
power (at
any form of government), because only it protects themselves from the usurpation by
"subordinate institutions".
However, apart from this common struggle between "mamistratami" and the Supreme
power was, of course, and quite thorough embarrassment for immediate trial
King - in the physical impossibility of such a court, for a variety of cases. It would seem
that this
difficulty eliminated by the device under the control and supreme emperor
the appellate court on the most important cases. But this task is not easy, and instead
that first appeared in Russia some compromise.
G. Khartulari describes it this way.
"Moscow sovereigns, in the minds of the political significance of what is in
the interests of the authorities, their personal judgment on the petition of the people, do
not dare to abolish it
perfect, but reserve for themselves, in the sense of the latter type of sovereign violence,
and give this exceptional method of administration of justice no value
Acting, as it was before, but only the personal prerogative, which is located at
own discretion, using it in a well-defined cases, such as, for example,
for individuals and institutions, to whom grant charters delivered privilege law before

Grand Duke, or for localism "and so on. d., and" keep his personal judgment, as
the grace of persons having more rights in the State. "
One can not agree with this explanation, Mr. Khartulari. In fact
it was something else.
Sovereign Court of the requirements of the people, could not be abolished in principle,
and in
Due to imperfection of institutions could be organized correctly, it is precisely "in
precisely defined cases. "As a result, the court was random. People were generally
forbidden contact with a petition directly to the Emperor, but "no prohibition,
no administrative influence, aimed to induce the people to submit their
petitions are not the Emperor himself, and in the existing institutions, have had no
success "
(p. 78).
And Ivan the Terrible in a difficult era of riots had first to establish its
Commission on the kind of petitions brought by his Majesty.
In 1550, people gathered on Red Square, Ivan the Terrible gave a speech
outlining where everything, in his words, great men "stole my name," he announced
Page 187

that from now on, "I myself will you, as far as possible, the judge and the defense, will
iniquity and ruin
return stolen "(pp. 87-88).
In these species, Adasheva Alexey was instructed to "take from the poor and petitions
disassemble them carefully. "When Adasheva was appointed several judges. On matters
It reported to the king, who, in a way, "he began to judge the many courts and seek
righteousness. "G. Khartulari results in applications curious specimens of the judiciary
Sovereign operations, and rightly sees Alexis Adasheva first
State Secretary at the adoption petitions (p. 273).
The institution itself, by removing Adasheva, got even a special name Pleas
hut, or orders. The activities outlined his well note of the royal court: "As
Sovereign where to go, brow beat all sorts of people, and before the sovereign lord and
clerk of
Order (petition) accept petitions and other violence mend, and which are not
can - so to make the Emperor. "
Pleas Order served as the king's authority supervision of all kinds of clerks
people and generally represented the personal office of the sovereign, as a "prototype of
all
subsequent homogeneous with it institutions since reketmeysterskoy portion and ending
Petition Committee and a special presence of the State Council "[Khartulari, p.
275].
With this wonderful institution in Moscow, Russia experienced the entire period up to
of Peter I, despite the fact that after Grozny again were the usual interference
directly to the court of the king. Even Alexei Mikhailovich, who threatened penalties for

treatment in addition to his legal authorities, yet often "he judged himself and his son in
his chambers "(p. 89).
Unity of the king and the people
in the Management area. Self-management
Thus, the king was with the nation in direct contact throughout the region
the law and the court. But the same unity was conducted throughout the administration.
As the Management of central agencies about the emperor had
"Orders," a semblance of ministries. They were different times, different names, their
Competence was not, in our view, properly specialized. They appeared out
that sovereigns ordered to one of the boyars be in charge of the case known categories
and the chief of course, to give staff and there is a whole institution "order". Orders in charge of a number of cases, sometimes it was separated into several
separate,
sometimes several orders merge into one. Each order had its own funds; his
content attributed to the accountant of the city and the people with whom he derives
income.
The chiefs of orders there were also members of the Boyar Duma, and the special
purpose entity, but
they have dealt with the reports of the emperor and his instructions.
In many offices there were many orders clerks, sometimes
They were headed by the orders, and clerks of three "articles": senior, middle and
junior. it
was a purely bureaucratic element, plays an important role not only in fact ("to be
as marked clerk, "the saying goes), but sometimes occupied an authoritative position
Page 188

and in the very Boyar Duma.


Such was the control center. At the regional, local, sent to the governors, but
besides them there were numerous public elected authorities.
The competence of the governor was complex and extensive. Voivod, as the
representative of the king, should
I was looking decidedly everything, "that all sovereign was intact, that everywhere was
watchman; cherish firmly to the city and the county was not robbery, theft, murder,
fighting,
robbery, korchemstva, debauchery; who declared in these crimes, in order to take, and,
investigation, punish. Voivod judged and in all civil matters "[Soloviev, t. XIII, p. 700
seq.].
Voivod general in charge of all branches of the conduct of the Emperor, but his power is
not
Absolutely, and he practiced it together with representatives of the public
government.
A second person after magistrates labial headman * is in charge of the criminal case.
He chose the nobles and knights children. Sometimes he was appointed again.

* The term "lip" we had a double meaning: the authorities were lip, t. E. Regional (from
word lip), and government and business in the sense of criminal labial (from the word
kill, kill).
This is followed by the head clerk mayor - the power of elected city and county
population. If it consisted of the elected county councilors peasants. They were
Zemstvo hut. Case Zemsky headman and his men sovetnyh layout consisted of taxes,
choosing a salaried worker and barmen (kiss the cross). In the case of salary distribution
Governor could not intervene, just as in the elections could not replace elected officials,
and
I do not have the right to enter into a "worldly affairs". In addition to the election, a
district in charge of the hut
urban management, requisitioning land and could discuss all townspeople all needs
county people's argument as they see fit, governor or in Moscow.
Zemsky head warden was a representative of "the world" to the government, should
It was to protect the world from the governor.
The peasants county except the city with a total of Zemstvo hut had its own power.
Farmers chose their community elders, "posylschikov" (for relations with the governor
and
his clerks people) chose Zemsky police officer "for the sovereign and financial affairs
fees. "parish were, chose Zemsky judges barmen (police authorities), and
constables. We have to choose as priests and church deacons who had
the value of rural clerks. By reading and writing of Grozny, the monastery peasants chose
at
clerks, stewards, barmen, constables, pyatidesyatskih, desyatskih and for "labial Affairs"
(criminal) - labial stewards, barmen labial and deacons. Monasteries determined
their relationship to the peasants' charters "[Soloviev, including VII, p. 661].
By imperial rulers Sudebnik any appointed in the town and the parish, could not
judge cases without public representatives "on the court have to be - Dvorsky and old
age, and
best people "[Belyaev," The peasants in Russia "]. Belyaev observes that the law in this
respect
I did not consider the differences between the free and possessory peasants.
Finally, in all cases at all - all the people had the right to appeal to a wide
Sovereign. "The government, says Soloviev, was not deaf to the petition. He asked
some elected officials the world instead of the corona - the government willingly
I agree. Bute petition to the clerk of a policeman (in our commandant) aside
and choose a new world: the Emperor orders to choose, "and so. d. [Soloviev, including
the XIII, p. 715]
In total, the system the Management Authorities of the Moscow State
It characterized by many technical imperfections, accidental folding
Page 189

facilities and lack of specialization t. d. However, in this control was one

precious quality: widespread assumption of aristocratic and democratic


elements, using their combined forces, under the rule of the imperial power, with the
universal
right of petition to the king. This gave the authorities the Supreme widespread awareness,
brings it
the life of all classes, and all Russian instilled a deep belief in the reality
Supreme power, rail and all are satisfied.
Section III
RUSSIAN STATE WEAKNESSES
Lack of awareness
Judging by the purity and correctness of public foundations laid with us
history, the Russian should be recognized as the most typical in the world of monarchical
country.
One would expect to see in our institutions remarkable examples
monarchical state. In fact, nothing of the sort seen. Reason
for this is that in relation to the political consciousness of Russia has always been and
It remains extremely weak. From this to the Russian statehood very much
vague, tangled, contradictory and weak.
This lack of awareness, self-understanding is evident in the
"spontaneity" of our history, which is celebrated by all historians, and even other
It considered something very strong. In fact, this is a very sad side of our
political existence.
Without a doubt, the strength of the instinct of the Russian people is very high, and this
in itself is valuable,
For the instinct is the voice of the inner sense. The strength of feeling that creates ideals
moral life as the basis of political existence, the quality of the precious. Yet
one they can not arrange public relations. For a strong, lasting and
systematic action political idea must realize themselves as political. It
It must have its political philosophy and system of law. That we never
It was.
In ancient Russian policy has developed a general idea of the autocratic king. Consistent
it has all the power of the king, can not be limited by anything other than religion, the
king
sacred, inviolable in his person, the royal dynasty has exclusive
right to the throne, the king are all equal, the king of all the same care and so on. d. These
and the
Such a representation was limited to our political philosophy. But this
is not enough, you need to know what kind of power is retained, what a convenient way
to her
action, what should be the unit of the Management institutions, what is convenient
relations subjects to the supreme power and the citizens to the government, what are the
rights of citizens

and personality, and so on. d. None of this we do not understand, is not determined by
consciousness.
During the autocratic power of the people he stood firm as a rock. Without the king, he
had no idea
Statement of the country. The people of Grozny ordered all executions not only without
protest, but could even
feel the king of what, and now you do not understand the many scientists, historians and
lawyers:
really great organizer of the Russian Land.
Page 190

Tsar's idea of supreme power people have not changed since then until now never.
Attempts to explicitly limit the autocracy we have hitherto never worked. But if
This belief gives people a very strong state support, yet does not create
ustroitelnoy for public activities are no clear paths. The king can do
all. But there is a practical and impractical steps to conform with the nature of this form
nesoobrazovannye and power, and even undermine it ... On all these issues Russian
political consciousness did not give the supreme power no clear indications, no
assistance.
This lack of political consciousness, political education thought,
He suffered from the harmful effects already in Moscow and Russia, mainly in the form
discordant actions of institutions imbued with the character of opportunism in everything
that is not
With specific regard to the rights of sovereignty. It is one we guarded systematically. AT
against the Management System was not. From this in Muscovy administration
Management at different tune. With regard to the judicial authority of the Supreme
casual reasons of convenience just did not undermine its basic ideas. Beneath
It covers the same opportunism - invariable consequences of the lack of a clear system already
in Muscovy widely developed the struggle against bureaucracy zemstvos, and it
fact, the devil certainly would threaten the very dangerous consequences, if they do not
temporarily eliminated the reform of Peter I. However, in the new period, Petersburg,
lack
political consciousness, not only has not decreased, and threatened, even a great evil:
transformation of autocratic rule in the absolutist. There is already before the Russian
statehood was the principal danger of degeneration, entailing
the shock of the monarchy.
This will be discussed below. First, you must still cast a glance at
political practices of Moscow Russia.
The precarious political structure
Peter the Great said that his task is "the restoration of damaged
edifice. "It was not an empty word. Indeed, in Moscow Russia after
restoration of autocracy, with the end of the Time of Troubles, the state structure,

so happily delivered in the grounds, it was far from smooth. The same can be
said about the previous times. But in Russia, since the complexity of the Romanovs
state functions became to declare itself more strongly, and therefore the lack of
thought-out political system suffered from soreness.
In general, Russia Moscow period represents only the first sketches
state, which clearly defined the character of a supreme power, but
Community life of the people. All intermediate, the entire system were composed of the
Management
somehow, by inspiration, by accidental circumstances of the current day.
A sample of this up even then "the Ministry", ie orders.
Specialty of the Management of higher institutions occurred or randomly
historical circumstances, or even random order of the king. There was no
even the branch of the military from the civilian administration, the nature of the then
system
defense of the state. Orders were divided not discharge cases, and for persons who
Page 191

the emperor ordered manage its sovereign affairs. Sometimes entirely different industry
Management focused in one Order of a certain nobleman, sometimes a single industry
He gave the same broke in different orders. For example, when an order of secret affairs
Alexis, was in charge of: 1) the sovereign secret intercourse, 2) his correspondence, 3)
falconry, 4) manufacture of diplomas. But the treatment of the king belongs to another
orders, pharmaceutical. The matter of justice was shattered, but several orders:
Rogue was in charge of criminal cases and in civil cases there are two special
order - the judgment of the Moscow and Vladimir vessel. Military was divided by
a plurality of orders, but the order bit at the same time was in charge of appointments of
persons
military and civil service. The financial case has been broken, it can be said for all
orders, each of which had to earn their own money. For this order
given the specific city or area or special revenues. Beyond this
total "order" on financial matters, there are four particular order:
official courtyard, a large treasury, a large parish, the count order. Finally, special orders
It existed to control some areas.
This unsystematic, confused management had the occasional increase of
personnel management functions of grand dukes, the addition of new areas or just
random orders of the great princes and kings, instructs a variety of business entities,
whom they trusted. It is clear that in the end control of 60 or more orders, as
random nature makes it almost inaccessible to control and give a wide field
all kinds of abuse. Yes special control did not exist. Post
Let's trust the sovereign. No one is forbidden to complain, and violators of the king
Confidence is sometimes severely punished. But the whole system of public
administration
least of all think about the prevention of crimes, had no means to prevent them,

diligently practiced only punishment. The punishments were terrible, way of curbing the
weak and
ways to prevent completely absent. Under such circumstances, for any
crime has always lived with the hope that the matter before the sentence comes not soon
or not at all
reach.
Imperfection of the Management institutions in Moscow is very well aware of
government, and it is constantly reworked them. But for that there was no guidance
administrative and legal principles. Groping operated by eye, by
accidental conditions.
The Supreme power, thanks to its purely autocratic character, was one
precious feature: the willingness and even a special tendency to use in
management of existing social forces, because they seemed to fit
this in its properties. But to assess the properties of these social strata and forces not
There was no principle, no clear system. Your relationship with him so it was
very uneven, inconstant. And it could not undermine the ability of social
layers of state business.
Without a doubt, the best state for business management layer was princely and
Boyarsky. But no doubt also that this layer were strong trends that in
neighboring Poland undermined the royal power and created a kind of nobility
republic. Our rulers fair held on the lookout against these trends
nobility. But the struggle against the aristocracy of Grozny, for all its benefits on the
merits
undoubtedly came beyond what is necessary. He designed not only to humble
aristocracy, but to tear it up by the roots of the people. That was the meaning of his
oprichnina as
Page 192

well learned Professor Platonov [S. F. Platonov, "Essays on the history of the Troubles in
Muscovy ", St. Petersburg. 1899].
King systematically took in oprichnina precisely those areas where a specific
times was deeply rooted aristocracy firmly fused with the people, These eternal
the owners of their lands and "subjects" Ivan the Terrible ejected from their familiar and
nests
endowed other estates, but as your wages, and, moreover, in the places where these
Aristocrats had nothing to do with the people and even fell on his neck like
unusual and unwanted burden. Especially hard they were transferred to the outskirts,
where
people consisted mainly of fugitive, freemen who hated "gentlemen" and gone
away just to get rid of them. There is already Grozny could not be afraid
the impact of new owners who hated them among the population could only
help to keep the king. On the same place the old king planted new people, their pets,

for the most part not well-born alien population. Moreover, Ivan the Terrible in every
way
He encouraged the national government.
This system is terrible, really deep conceived and executed with an iron
energy, broke the princely-boyar aristocracy irrevocably. But this revolution is not
could not give rise to terrible social disorder. Emergency underdevelopment
the masses was the reason that people are not able to put their wellgovernment is on the side, which is always particularly important for the state.
People - democracy - is not able to reasonably negotiate with their local interests
statewide needs. This art can be said to specifically
It belonged to the aristocracy, which so radically undermined Terrible king.
With regard to democratic self-government, its small capacity agreed
their interests with national at the same time showed the Cossacks, which is excellent
rallied for their deeds and purposes, but in relation to the state and very often zemshchina
It was a purely destructive force, almost anarchic.
Russian Zemstvo, in principle, a deep state is actually not out of ignorance
He was able to conduct "affairs of the sovereign." Many disturbances that shook Russia
in different
places are permanently linked with the wild, fantastic motives and aspirations. AT
people were too few people who are in their development and outlook could
successfully serve the cause of the sovereign.
Thus undermining the aristocracy, the imperial power could not find in zemshchina
enough power to fulfill the social role of aristocracy.
It is true that the place of a large aristocracy Moscow authorities willingly
It maintains an average service class, which became the main bulk of our
nobility. It landed gentry was then an important part of zemshchina. But it
rarely stood at a height sufficient for reliable local service. Lyapunovs were still
a rare phenomenon, and only after Peter's reforms deployed all its nobility
force.
In Moscow Rus supreme authority had enough reasons for
to understand the complex issue of the best combination of aristocratic,
Democratic and bureaucratic principles in the formulation of management. And they
themselves,
naturally, they fought among themselves and were ready for all sorts of grabs each time
not
notice checks and regulation of the supreme power.
In this struggle the classes in the XVII century, and began to make outstanding
achievements writ
bureaucracy.
Page 193

The emergence of the bureaucracy


When zemshchina backwardness and distrust of authority to the bureaucratic aristocracy

item orders received wide ground for development. In the XVII century bureaucracy has
become
displace the aristocracy in the top management, and in the lowest zemshchina. Clerks
started playing
a huge role, even in the Boyar Duma, but at the same time, the feeble-born families,
We began to absorb bureaucratic. This bureaucracy is already
habits become the sole management body.
From the Time of Troubles bureaucracy, on the one hand, tends to equate
servitors right noble and humble, destroying localism, and at the same time
destroy and local government. No aristocracy compromised in vague
time nor zemshchina, while Russia and saved the monarchy, did not concede their rights
without
fight, but in total the advantage remained with the bureaucracy. Gradually, each
decade, the rise of the bureaucratic element clerk about the rest
It characterizes our seventeenth century.
Politics Supreme power was not the same. Support government from the time of
Terrible was the tradition at Theodora, and even Boris impostor. Tsar Boris
supported at the expense of the boyars and the masses average service class, but it was
non-bureaucratic and Zemsky estate. When Vasily Shuya began the rise
nobility and instead labial chiefs began to put the governor. Perhaps the need to reckon
with
boyars and forced Mikhail Fedorovich, the king delivered Zemstvo people
continue for the first time policy Basil Shuisky. According to Soloviev, known to 33
cities in which under Mikhail magistrates were appointed instead of labial elders,
elected judges and policemen clerks. There are also numerous complaints to the king
This new order, and Michael to the satisfaction of the complainants regained selfgovernment.
So, in 1614, complained that "Ustyuzhna Zheleznopolskoy townspeople,
elders and tselovalniks, constables and desyatskie and all the peasants best, average and
younger
people from the parish court of its duty-and the people left. "On the complaint was
ordered to "be they judges in their own townsmen people who choose all their
Posad "[Soloviev, t. IX, p. 1327].
In 1622 Ustyansky parish complained newly minted they clerks, people
and asked for the government. The request was also honored. "In 1627, the Emperor
pointed to
all cities arrange labial chiefs, nobles good ... "Sometimes the city requested that
magistrates they did not have to be one and labial elders. Sovereign commonly agreed
and this, and then received a mandate labial elder equally with the Provincial. Sometimes
the city,
on the contrary, themselves asked for the appointment of the governor, but pointed to a
person who wishes to
to have a warlord ... So did Dmitrov in 1641, Uglich in 1641, Cashin in 1644

year.
But despite this, the king's attention to the wishes of the people, the process of oppression
zemshchina
He is walking steadily, and served as bureaucratic elements caused loud complaints
Cathedral
1642. At the Council Nikita Beklemishev and Timothy Zhelyabuzhsky talked to
collection
Money is not done by fiat.
"In order to collect money to pay people to let Ratna emperor orders to choose from
Page 194

all ranks of the good people of two or three, so that the emperor granted - made the
collection
money the difference between rich and poor: have to take with great places with
monasteries and
granted by a people for whom many estates and estates, while other salaries for many
excess land, but they also drive on the province, and the poor with such Inappropriate
people do not steal. "The city nobles - Suzdal, Yuryevets, Pereyaslavets, Kostroma,
smolnyane, Galicians, arzamaztsy, Novgorod, rzhevtsy, zubtsovtsy, toropchane, the
Rostov,
numskulls, novotorzhtsy, Gorokhovets - asked to take people to "obogatevshih and
burdened"
and said:
"Your sovereign clerks and your cash salary and estates
fiefdoms granted, and being constantly at your affairs and enrich a lot of wealth
unrighteous, from their bribes and bought many fiefdoms, and built their home many,
stone chamber such that Rough predicates. When blessed memory, with the former
sovereigns at the aristocratic homes of the people was not. "Then the nobles asked to do
the exact painting fiefdoms and estates from all ranks of people, including among clerks
and
clerks and make ulozhenie, how many farmers to serve without pay, and who
will be superfluous against the peasants, then take the money for it in the treasury to pay
Ratna. It should also, they said, to make accounting clerks, deacons, clerks,
customs, "to execute without the knowledge is not lost." "And that his sovereign's coffers
were
collect their sovereign's guests and rural people. "" And the people who are now in your
cities Province and orders - led them to be at your service against Basurmanov. "
The same was said southern nobles, he added: "And we ruined forest and Tours
Crimean Basurmanov - Moscow red tape, by falsehoods and unjust courts "against ...
the same bureaucracy in favor of the government spoke at the council and merchants:
"But of the cities all sorts of people are impoverished, I languish till the end of your
sovereign

... When the former governor of sovereigns in the cities were in charge of labial elders
and townspeople
They sued among themselves. The governor was not there magistrates sent to PATH
Only people in the Ukrainian city of Tours SAVINGS, the Crimean and Nogai
Tatars ". The same is said and complained about the devastation and" black hundreds and
settlements and constables
starostishki all taxes and little people "... zemshchina from nobles to mob all complained
bureaucracy.
But curiously, and then there is the bureaucracy was able to bring in the highest
conception
only what she wanted to let her censorship: "The write out, from the speeches made,
probably the day
Sovereign - said Solovyov, - complaints of abuse is not "[Soloviev, t. IX,
pp. 1256-1259].
These complaints zemshchina and desire to restore self-government in its former
dimensions
apply by the end of the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich. He died in 1645. Yet
great results no complaints noticeable when "quietest king." The Code Alexey
Mikhailovich, composed in 1649, generally "hostile self-government" ["History
Russia ", including the XIII, p. 659], in the words of SM Solovyov, and it provides the
Court
magistrates and clerks people, but to produce Ulozhenie convened a special clerk
Cathedral. When Alexis it was forbidden to apply again to the king with
Pleas in addition to the established institutions, but despite this, the emperor sometimes
produced and personal judgment "[Khartulari, p. 89].
Under Tsar Feodor Alekseevich bureaucracy has made new progress. In 1679 canceled
were all gorodeltsy, detectives, labial elder, yamskih clerks, class heads,
All their works Vedeno pass magistrates. What happened here is the destruction of
localism at
Page 195

all reasonableness and benefits of strengthened the bureaucracy about the aristocracy.
However, when Theodore Alekseevich, know for his part, made an attempt
to strengthen its position by establishing a tottering hereditary satraps. Attempt
almost failed, but monarchy was bailed out by the Church. .Voznik Project is
establish areas of governors of the aristocratic boyars, and, moreover, "forever", giving it
lieutenants "titlos of those kings," that is, for example. Kazan, Astrakhan, and so on. N.
Know
It has already managed to obtain the consent of the sovereign on his project, but the
cause of it prevented the patriarch
Joachim, who made a presentation about the dangers of the sovereign idea.
How would the patriarch said, "after a few years, enrich and despising
Moscow Tsars autocracy, did not retreat and autocracy is not ruined "[Soloviev,

volume XIII, p. 880-881].


As a result of this venture did not work out as nothing came out in the XVII century
the supreme ideas. Know the missed time, yes indeed, the time for it and never
It was not in Russia. In this same era grew most of all bureaucracy.
The rule of the governor and orders, as we know, is not going for the future management
of that
with Alexis and Theodore Alexeyevich was very unsatisfactory and
Troubles caused the most dangerous in the country. The reign of Alexei Mikhailovich
literally
filled with riots - in Moscow, Novgorod, in the Volga region (Stenka Razin), and all
these riots
everywhere are in connection with the popular protests against the governor and
clerks. Distrust and
even hatred of the bureaucratic elements manifest everywhere, and yet these
bureaucratic institutions, forthwith after the death of Tsar Feodor at any
Smoot was below any criticism of cowardice bureaucracy, its ineptitude and
selfish neglect of public interests.
Thus an era of unprecedented dual power in Russia, John and Peter, and even
troevlastiya, if you count the Princess Sophia, the time when a handful of rebel
musketeers could
keep in the hands of the supreme power. There is no doubt that the control mechanism
Peter inherited was almost unfit for consumption, and demanded a radical break-up.
But the Moscow State in the same time maturing and deeper phenomenon,
Supreme power staked the most serious and difficult questions.
The crisis in Moscow outlook.
Church split
Time of full establishment of the autocratic principle were in Russia in the XVI and XVII
c. era also very complex internal spiritual needs.
Russia, razed to the ground by the Tatars, rose to extraordinary force, and almost
miraculous
who knew no equal. The basis of this greatness, Russia turned out to be the basis of
salvation
Orthodox faith and the sole power of the king. These two forces Russian sacred honored
as its
Palladium, as the source of their existence, as the basis of its debt, and even some of its
World Mission. Russia of those times, summing himself up, conscious of itself the Third
Rome,
heir to the mission of Rome and Byzantium ...
But what is the mission, what is the meaning of existence of the country chose him
rukovoditelstvo God for the supreme law of the sublime and wonderful from the dust of
the unusual,
unexpected heights? The Russian people would not be worthy of any present or future, if

Page 196

would be at a time in front of him did not raise the issue of identity: what we are, how we
live,
where to go? Indeed, with the liberation and rise of Russia raises questions
partly on the basis of faith as heretical, in part motivated by disputes Orthodox people
with respect to the ideals of faith, their relationship to the life of this world, and the
attitude of the Church
state and so on. d. It was Strigolniki century [89], Bashkina, Nil of Sora and saints
Joseph of Volokolamsk, century, church council, the mission among foreigners,
institutions
patriarchate, the exaltation of the patriarchate, disputes the boyars with the patriarchs, it
was the century
Philip, Metropolitan and Patriarch Nikon began a rapprochement with Europe and,
finally,
vechnopamyatnogo deplorable split the Russian Church.
Many questions of national identity could not be in the era
National resurrection as they emerged in the era of national ruin. But the era
Tatarism require solutions more simple: require repentance, strong togetherness
about faith and the king and the fight against infidels. Upon release, it was necessary to
understand how
live worthy of the great mercy of God. This issue has been before the Russian XVI and
XVII centuries
with passionate insistence. Moreover - the liberation from the Tatars led Russia and the
will and
nilly in immediate contact with Europe. We are looking in Europe, but she herself to us
was, and before Russian civilization arose mapping and points of view their own and
others
- A comparison that could not initiate the work of thought and criticism.
This latter circumstance, it is a criticism of their own, could not come soon.
In Russia, it was obvious striking contradiction: she deeply believed in their
foundations, with clear evidence of their saving power. She considered herself above all
nations, Third Rome, after which there will be no fourth. And yet, the slightest
Observations show the Russian people a complete mismatch of its cash culture
force this ideal greatness. For all collisions not only with Western Europe, but
and Poland, and even Turkey, the Russian could not see that they ignoramus,
savages who have no technical or philosophical knowledge, do not know how to do,
Even worse are the organizers and do not understand the deep, even those basic
truths, the possession of which gave the Russian claim to the value of the third Rome.
Russian were very backward, but they were unable to, and willingness to
self-criticism and self-judgment is even trait of the Russian character. And we
is the pursuit of education. That was when we desire to
improve their lives through education of faith and accurate knowledge shows

the whole internal history of Russia of the XVII century. This is especially evident when
desire
Time of Troubles, suddenly nizvergshego Russia into such an abyss of disaster and
disgrace, with
which could hardly be compared to their former Tatarism.
Time of Troubles ended with the determination to recover in the fullness of our bases,
that is, the autocracy and the church, and beyond that to develop the Russian education,
why should we
We gave some new tools Kiev Russian, in this era with Moscow more
converge. However, a total commitment to a conscious and enlightened
given the existence of Russia is very tight. At its core ideals it came to
grave bifurcation.
Orthodox but the purity of dogma, in the deepest essence is
correct understanding of church life. This is different from the Orthodox Church
Roman Catholic and Protestant. Ozhivotaoryayuscha Orthodox and the Church that
It is organized by the unity of the hierarchy and the laity, and lay people make a living
part of the church, but at the same time inseparable from the moral hierarchy [On this,
see. My
Page 197

book "of individuals, society and the Church."]


But the Russian Church in its existence could not understand the question about these
ratios. In the hierarchy were the tendencies of domination over the laity. It came even
the question of what kind of power over - the secular or spiritual? On the other hand, the
laity,
certainly they failed to respect the authority of pastors and honoring robe so blessings are
not honored
enough of the words to teach. This gave rise to an unprecedented split in Christianity
soil: the question of the correction of books and rites, seemingly so simple, and in any
case
not such that because it costs caused by violent schism and mutual curse
m. n. The Russian people, like the Orthodox and Old Believer hand, manifested here
very rough understanding of faith. In the first place we put no dogma, faith, love,
togetherness, and a particular formula, a sign, a material element at all. Addition fingers
or the number of prosphoras considered more important than faith and love. This, of
course,
terrible manifestation of religious backwardness. Forced same change that
would have to endure until the illumined minds - is, of course, meant forgetting that
Hierarchy is not "bosses", like the Roman Catholics, and may not require
obedience lay unconscious.
If the lay out of ignorance are over appearance with persistence fetishists, the case
pastoral - to develop them, to teach, rather than ordering and insult albeit imaginary
shrine. Yes indeed, Patriarch Nikon found the same exaggerated reverence

before "the Greek rite." Generally era split the two sides in dispute showed no
Ideally, the light.
The apologists of both parties are now trying to justify some novoobryadnyh others
Old Rite, on charges of religious backwardness. They are trying to put in a quarrel
the time a sensible idea. Paul Curious (Old Believer) floated
idea that the hierarchy of the matter - the dogma and ritual - it is the laity. Of course, it is
quite
not true at all. And the dogma and ritual exactly the same amount to the entire property
Churches. Academic split defenders speak of his nationality, and Nikon
accused of imitation. All this shows a poor understanding of the faith and
ecclesiology. Yes, moreover, no such ideas and it was not in those days. Such were
religious concepts of that time: "When Thou Nikon is in the Novgorod archdiocese has
approved,
Old Believer tells ["History of Old Believers Vygovskaya desert," Manuscript of Ivan
Filippov. Spb. 1862] - The first image of the commanded napisati Annunciation
unusual innovation ... the beginning sign of the cross on himself furiously three fingers
izobrazhati ... and the people of the five fingers blagoslovlyati ... these things because he
saw his actions, Deacon
Pimen all fear and terror enveloped byst "and so on.. All such accusations were Old
Believers
kind of "Nikon statutes and customs of variables: trisostavny cross postponed
unprecedented
pyatiperstnoe addition to the All-Russia People vozdvizhe brow, ministry
pyatiprosfornoe
stout Charter, presltadkoe name of Jesus Christ the Saviour - Jesus pereimenova "and so
on. d.
Next come the bows of the earth in the post, the Jesus Prayer, and so forth.
The ministers of the Church and the Orthodox laymen often found the same
underdevelopment, as well as dissenters. Meanwhile split in pieces the power of the
Orthodox people
just at the most difficult time when Russia came face to face with European
effects so close, so intimate as ever.
In such a moment, we split its found that they themselves do not know what we believe,
and revering the same saints, the same Apostolic Church, believe each other
dead, cast out, anathema, or the Antichrist ... It was fatal
Page 198

fact for the era of Peter the Great's reforms. Maybe it was and gave her so
imitative, almost slavish character.
However lamentable schism in the Church could not affect very harmful
consequences and the nature of state power.
Autocratic power has its source in faith; its moral regulator
It is the only faith that draws its voice in the church. And here it is in Russian faith

We saw a hatred that is lost undisputed, absolute measure of truth.


But as a measure of religious truth is fogged for Russia
the extent and power of the royal became no longer headed by him, and it gave her
character
no exponent of the national ideal, not a servant of God, just absolute power.
The power of the king in ecclesiastical affairs could not grow to excess, when the Church
split itself, could not find a single power, and when the position for some time
It had even looked as if the church split into a hierarchy and the people. The new,
Nikon, the rite had on its side the royal power, and the upper hierarchy of servicemen
layers, and the old rite - the masses. During musketeer riots at Sofia
Alekseevne was not svyatitelstva support of royal power, as has happened before, and the
royal
power - support arhipastyrstva. Naturally, the royal power could take the value
very exaggerated.
Bankruptcy consciousness.
The emergence of absolutism
This is a critical moment very strongly expressed Vladimir Solovyov [V.
Solovyov. "The history and future of the theocracy," Collected Works, Volume IV, p.
215 et seq.].
"The main question that had now to work and religious thinkers
Russia, - he says - was made here for more than two centuries ago. Great in this
respect the importance of the church schism, which emerged in Moscow in half XVII
century, there is no doubt ... "
"In our home it was not a split of those particular items that
We exposed (though quite sincerely) the disputing parties, and one general
the question is very significant. What determines religious truth: decisions
whether the authorities of the church or the loyalty of the people to the ancient
piety? That's the question the greatest
the importance, because of which actually happened a brutal and hitherto unreconciled
quarrel
between "nikonianami" and conservatives. Both sides recognize the truth only in the
Church but
I ask: where is the Church itself, which is its vultures, where her center of gravity - in
the authorities or the people? Old Believers, accusing the hierarchy of apostasy from the
true
piety of the Orthodox Church, thus recognized that the whole Church in them - in
pious and devout people. Greek-Russian hierarchy, in addition to the national
consent, and even against the will of a people's changing the old way of piety and cruel
in pursuit of rebels to this change, thus stated that the whole force of the Church
it is concentrated in one that surely belong to the church authorities, and
all the rights exclusively, and only the duty of obedience to the people. "The complaint
Believers answered persecuted for "not obeying the Church." "Obviously -

Page 199

said Vladimir Solovyov, - here under the holy church went without saying only local
ecclesiastical authority. "
"Our church dispute, he continues, irresolvable on a narrow national basis,
It occurred just before the advent of Peter the Great and justified in advance (?) him
transformation. "Both sides were wrong. Both were punished consequences:
Believers come to a complete bestserkovnosti, with the recognition of only the invisible
Church
or a way of getting the most false priesthood. Similarly, "the righteousness of God
It was found in the destiny of the exceptional and ruthless defenders of the hierarchical
principle.
In the power of his thought, they all the power of the Church: their power was taken from
them "..." No sooner had
Stefan Jaworski in his theological treatise with such determination to assign Church
two swords, as we had to give them both into the hands of "secular chief." From
guardians
idle patriarchal throne, he willy-nilly becomes powerless representative
founded by Peter the Great Theological college, in which our church administration
It was as a branch of government, under the supreme authority of the Emperor "Judge this extreme board" and under the direct command of a special
State dignitary elected "officer of a good man, who would have had
courage and could control sinodskogo things to know "...
Doing this brutal response of the church coup Soloviev solved
even defend it.
"Impartial and careful look at the historical circumstances,
preceded the establishment of the Synod and his company - he says - not only
deter us from the unjust reproaches the great shadow of the converter but also make us
admit to the establishment of one of the said evidence providential wisdom,
which never changed to Peter the Great in important cases. Abolition
and the establishment of the Synod of the Patriarchate was a matter not only necessary in
this
minute, but positively beneficial for the future of Russia. It was necessary because
that our hierarchical absolutism found quite clearly the inconsistency and
struggle with the dissenters, and miserable counteracting the reform movement:
patriarchate, after the split deprived inner fortress foundations and remaining at one
excessive claims, was bound to give way to another institution,
more consistent with the true state of affairs ... "(220)
In this "verdict" usually occurs Vladimir Solovyov property - to bring all
to the extreme. Our hierarchy, and he blames the people with exaggerated passion
apologist
Roman pontiff, as he was then. But the main features of both errors
the parties to the understanding of the Church identified them correctly.
Hence, indeed, it went exhausted Church and world turmoil, hence

susceptibility to imitation. Hence passionately imitative Peter's reforms.


With regard to the withdrawal of church government with the subordination of the
Church to the State, it was
the idea of Protestant Europe, which is to imitate Peter. Justify it in any
case impossible. But the fact of history is that, without such a break-up of the church
troubles would
impossible even to Peter. At this very moment, it is made possible, firstly,
psychologically, t. To. The understanding of the Church undermined and Peter
himself; and it has, as in
many other, was the question of where the Church? Breaking became possible, and
secondly, and
material, for partitions in the beliefs of the people lost in concepts, could not
defending vigorously managing the Church, the concept of which was in it so shocked,
For the very same Supreme power breaking church created a terrible danger: evolution
Page 200

in absolutism.
European intellectual yoke
Whatever it was, at the end of the seventeenth century, Russia was a spectacle that
promised
some big coup. On the one hand, she felt a huge
force before having a great purpose. At the same time, it no goals that she would
set before, I did not understand and can not imagine. She was aware of themselves as a
bearer
some ideal, but what the - did not know. Before she knew himself above all as a
the only country free of orthodoxy, but by the end of the seventeenth century, she could
not
define what Orthodoxy.
People revered as the hierarchs and how the color of Russian Orthodox education
cursed passionate defenders of antiquity, as servants of the Antichrist as a living
the embodiment of the apocalyptic dragon. In turn, these people are anathematized
weight
believers, calling them rude and ignorant rebels. What is Orthodoxy? Who
rights - the clergy or the laity? And while there are such questions - how to properly say
B.
Solovyov is even more grave: where is the church? And if this is the question,
Church leadership becomes moot?
So, at the very foundation of his greatness Russian people felt the full reel.
If you are unsure what is Orthodoxy, it can not be considered either deluded "and Luther
Calvin "or" papezhnikov. "You can not consider yourself above them.
Meanwhile, the "Luther and Calvin," but partly also "papezhniki", lived here in the
Moscow and taught us everything that was only cunning and ponuzhnee. They
represented

all the knowledge, all the equipment. We have seen absolutely everything that they are
smarter than us, and there was no
absolutely nothing in what we might consider himself above them. The latter, or rather the first pillar of our identity - faith - and razdraniyu been questioned. Since we
come to this, the coming period of imitative Europeanization became inevitable.
The moment of criticism and samosomneniya could, of course, make us independent and
a thought. We could themselves gradually sort out all matters of faith,
management, knowledge and technology. But in the circumstances it was not possible,
because we were
face to face with Europe. Income people to need them with his mind only when
there is nobody to ask. Among peers you can develop independently. Among the higher
the lowest is only possible apprenticeship.
With regard to science, technology, and even against the faith should ask the Europeans,
he opened a lot of information about the existence of what we do not even guessed.
Trying to find something for yourself, we could only make sure each time that open
things long known to Europe and less perfect than hers. Because borrowing
was quite inevitable, it prompted the most simple and common sense
practicality. If thus we have something that came out originally, it was only a matter of,
for
it is impossible to avoid the influence of his nature.
But borrowing a particular and making sure that in all these particulars foreigners above
We all understand and arrange better than us, is it possible to resist the idea that the
basic concepts on the basis of which foreigners come to such a comprehensive
Page 201

advantages over us, that these basic concepts are also higher than we? If it is higher than
our, then obviously need to learn them too.
"The strongest risk of the Russian people during the transition from ancient history to the
new said Solovyov, - the age of the senses to the thoughts and knowledge of the life of the
home,
closed to the public life of the nations - the main danger in this case was
with regard to foreign nations, ahead of us in knowledge, which is why one must
It had to learn. That's the student's respect other people's status and living peoples
was a danger to the strength and independence of the Russian people, for how to connect
position of the pupil to the freedom and independence in relation to the teacher how to
avoid
with the subordination of imitation? "[S. Soloviev," History of Russia ", that XXI]
But this implies a huge political consequences. Borrow from Europe
education and at the same time to acknowledge their autocracy and his Church above
Europe-it would be contradictory. Meanwhile, Russian end of the XVII and the XVIII
Ages ended up in this conflict. In fact, she could not renounce their
religious and political faith, because both lived firmly in the recesses of people's

psychology. But to develop these fundamentals become impossible. All conscious work
thoughts
they could undermine only gradually and "Europeanize".
So, all the time that Russia was in the student's position at the European challenge
educational stood in complete contradiction with the objectives of the philosophical and
religious and
state and legal identity.
All express this identity, Russian seemed at odds with the exact
knowledge and enlightened mind, t. e. it seemed the banner of ignorance and
backwardness. So
It was, left to our many "educated" people today. it
contemptuous attitude towards "their", "old" was typical of the "intelligentsia"
formed in this historic process. In order to understand what Russian
"type" is much higher, but was on the lower level of "development" rather than
Europe, this would have to be much more advanced than we were
still is.
Thus, in the historical process of our "education" course included
extremely strong jet as denial of Orthodoxy and autocracy. We are in
religious as well as in state-legal relations were looking for principles, "the
West." FROM
the end of the XVII century we began privhodit concept of Protestant and Roman
Catholic - in
religiously and politically first ideas of absolutism, on
which it was built by the monarchy in Western countries, and then
subsequently - the constitutional.
Meanwhile, due to what it was, and not because of what considers himself, Autocracy
It was the driver of the nation, even in this educational endeavor.
The task of familiarizing Russian to European education has been set yet
Terrible, who because of that he fought for the Livonia and gave concessions to the
British. Boris
Godunov, Alexis led the same policy. When striving to reach
European education has matured to the passion, his spokesman was just
autocratic Peter the Great, who became not hesitate to emulate Europe's soil
in everything - in the way of life, in a suit, even in a language that is not stopped before
the transfer to us
institutions, just retired from the Swedish, and even forced prisoners Swedes
organize them for us, and for the other institutions guided recipes Leibnitz
Russia did not have a clue. Peter did not stop even before breaking
Page 202

church
building
and

his
own
power
since
at
his
imitative and educational jealousy could abandon his deep Russian authorities
Nature, in which he, in spite of all the efforts of their own, remained Russian, and
Orthodox
It has especially autocrat.
Thus, an era in which indigenous Russian bases already held
finally only instinct, but what was in his heart. National Consciousness
It renounces all "their" ...
Peter the Great as a Russian
I feel the need to mention that, imagining mistakes of Peter the Great, I
deeply admire his genius, and I find that he is not in the details, but on the merits in its
time exactly what was needed.
Neither the man nor the nation can not live a single instinct. It is not enough to have a
great
inclinations: it is necessary to understand them. And we in the Moscow Russia only had
them, but did not realize. we
they could not realize, do not compare yourself with others. We could not conscious of
anything, as it should,
either in its orthodoxy, nor in his autocracy, reaching mental development,
worthy of them.
Human Development Moscow Russia, asking the question of why it should be
Orthodox, not Catholic or Protestant, why need the autocratic power, and not
republic, could not answer the convincingly. He is confused in terms of truth. Yet
he lost the love of truth, he would not live "their", and with what "the truth", the real
true. He was ready to discard all of their own, if it is not the truth. And in this-and he was
true to his great Russian human dignity, the dignity of which
Russian Orthodoxy is required.
Russian at the time, along with Peter, blasphemed in the comedies "vsepyaneyshego
Cathedral ", he enslaved the management of its temporal power of the Church, he
nasilstvoval over
people, causing schismatic self-immolation, and so on.. But he did it all because he
wanted to
respect for the truth, and if you did not notice it at least, and in the holy place, he would
not
hypocrisy and bow down before, that even deeply mistaken stopped counting
true. And in all this was a pledge of the future resurrection ...
The Scripture tells us that God gives people a sacrifice "Spirit lestcha" spirit
perdition because they "love of truth did not take." That's when all private wrongs,

something that never had Russian. They - on the contrary - "accept the love of the truth,"
I have not seen it, but
We loved, were convinced that it is in the world, and that to live is only the truth. Peter
was
the greatest exponent of the Russian people live in this determination is true, though
she was "lyutorskaya", the Dutch, and what you want. He was ready to renounce
everything, what
I did not see the truth and cling to anything, if it saw the truth.
Peter and the Reform Party, rallied around him, like the truth and were full
confidence, which expressed 200 years later, a descendant of them intelligent, and even
in
Bills verse:
I thought I heard the covenant
God himself:
Knowledge of liberty, knowledge of the world Page 203

Slavery without him ... [90]


And they went to the knowledge went, as they could go poluvarvary, taking the
diamonds
penny slides, but wanting to find a "costly pearls", and ready to sell all of its
estate, to acquire funds for the purchase of the title of "costly beads."
In Petra - the greatness of the Russian spirit - Petra miserable backwardness of Russia, its
poverty
mental resources. But the funds are cashing in if saved greatness of spirit. Subsequently,
We began to appear we have a spark of enlightened consciousness and an enlightened
faith. Unless
Present and future of Russia will retain its best features "love of truth", determination
live only true, it was Peter, that the Petrine reforms and become the starting point
that said converter itself in the words: "And know about Peter that his life is not
Road: Russia would have lived only in honor and glory ... "
And if we go away the love of truth, it is not Peter will be to blame for this ...
But for all its grandeur attracts genius who gave our new monarchy
time autocratic leadership people in their greatest time of the tasks we are
respect of political consciousness at the moment of the reform entered into
dangerous crisis - the mixing of autocracy and absolutism.
Contrary to the principles of Peter's era
State the principles of every nation is closely linked with its national
self-awareness, with its understanding of the purpose of its existence. In Russia, these
objectives
national existence is not sufficiently clear in the outlines, though
shrouded the minds of some of the great purpose of the "third Rome". Near the Peter

the desire for reform emerged in childhood under the influence of dreams gather strength
for the Crusades
hiking and release St. Sepulchre. Our general autocracy prednosilis some
religious and libertarian goals, some fight for Christianity, and the walls of Kazan,
first destroyed Mohammedan kingdom fell when reading the words: "There will be one
flock and
one shepherd. "But these vague outlines of the value of our Supreme Authority we
little distinguished consciously before Peter, and after him.
Even to date, despite the emergence of a number of Slavophiles and close to
These minds as Danilevsky, Dostoevsky, Katkov, Leontiev, Vladimir Solovyov, despite
official recognition formula "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality", in our
philosophy of state law monarchy and autocracy are no more
clear than in Western Europe. So it was before.
We strongly do not have any era in which we were not crippled insufficient
awareness of our political principles. Not to mention the first centuries, when
monarchical principle darkened powerful aristocracy, sometimes gives way to
democracy - even in the age of national restoration, after 1612, we see the inability
to understand not only the Management system, but even in such a basic question as
the relationship of church and state.
In such a great statesman as Patriarch Filaret
Nikitich, state-church policy consists, apparently, only under the influence
random conditions personal situation. The era of Nikon or from the church or from the
by civil authorities found no great skill to understand the issue as
Page 204

important for autocracy. Even such astute theorist, how was John
Terrible occasional bad conditions differ from the principle.
The well-known board Vassian "If you want to be an autocrat not hold advisers
smarter itself "was adopted by the Terrible as a revelation, although it is not even a
shadow
autocratic consciousness. This technique works Makkiavelevskogo "Prince" [91], clever
tyrant, not a king. Likewise completely conformed with the autocracy measures
John to separate the state from "zemshchina" such as special-purpose "Zemsky king"
Simeon Bekbulatovich ... Solovyov, meanwhile, leads the curious certificate
wedding king Simeon and petition him of "Ivanets Vasilyevich with the kids,
with IVANTSOV with Feodortsom yes ... "(" History of Russia ", Vol. II, p. 130). If the
petition was
let's joke, the wedding is already with nothing consistent.
The era of Peter the Great introduced a particularly vivid example of unconsciousness
main
our principle of statehood.
Peter autocratic instinct is truly great, but wherever required
autocratic mind, he does sometimes startling explosions of their own

principle. Instinct rarely deceives Peter in a purely personal question: how it should be
act as a monarch? But when he had to block out all the action of the monarch, t. E.
a permanent constituent measures, Peter is almost always able to resolve the issue only
by means of perpetuating their temporary private steps ...
The principle of distraction have in common that unites private action and that,
therefore apply to all cases of diverse practices. This is a principle,
Peter and not visible. He is a brilliant monarchical instincts knew what he must do, and
He found himself powerless in determining what should be done at all. That's why he
their personal example, we strengthened the monarchical idea as perhaps no one, and at
the
However, all actions, worn fundamental nature, undermine its
mercilessly.
Needless to repeat that the main task of his Peter the Great was undoubtedly right, and
Russian was a great man. He realized that, as a monarch, as the bearer of the king's debt
I had a duty to fearlessly take on their shoulders a heavy task: to bring Russia
possible as quickly as possible to the full possession of all the means of European
culture.
It was for the Russian question "to be or not to be." It is terrible even to think that it was
would, if we had not caught up with Europe before the end of the XVIII century. We at
Peter's reforms
We hit the hitherto lasting bondage to foreigners, but without this reform, of course, lost
to national existence, they had lived in barbaric times before its powerlessness
Frederick the Great, the French Revolution and the era of economic conquest of Europe
all over the world. Peter, the iron hand of force Russia to learn and work, was, of course,
the savior of the whole nation's future.
Peter was right, and his violent actions. Russia has long sought to do
science, but not hot. Moreover, she was so backward, it was set before
such terrible trouble to any catch-up that voluntarily whole nation
I could not do it. Peter was certainly right and deserved the eternal gratitude
Fatherland for having to use all my royal authority and power to ensure that create
a brutal dictatorship, and the power to move the country forward, and the weakness of its
resources
enslave the entire nation in the service of the objectives of the state. Other outcomes were
not for salvation
Russia.
But Peter was right only for himself, for his moment, and for his work. When this
Page 205

enslaving the people of the state system is being built in principle, it becomes
suicidal for the nation, it destroys all life springs independent nation. Peter
He did not indicate any limits set by their general enslavement States
has taken no action to ensure that the interim system does not become permanent, not
taking measures

even to ensure that the enslavement of Russia does not fall into the hands of foreigners,
as it happened
immediately after his death.
Peter tried to organize self-government to the Swedish way and with full
contempt for all the relatives, do not take advantage of our community life, representing
all of the data to self-government.
Peter's Church policy as is characteristic, and even more than national.
It repeats the same trait: it is a temporary measure necessary turns into
Permanent perverse principle.
A large proportion of the hierarchy, without a doubt, was hostile to the reforms of Peter
and prevented
her their influence on the people. Peter had the right, as an autocrat, to take measures to
curb
any resistance. But he passed all bounds in this. Not to mention that
Last Patriarch was quieter water below the grass, and have formed a huge hierarchy
Reform Party, not to mention the fact that the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne
could not
Peter earned from any reproach, if not blame the hierarchy in Orthodoxy,
leaving in the side all of these circumstances that, in terms of
captious ruler, provided by any opposition, Peter anyway
exceeded their rights. He is the king, he could not help but listen to the bishop or to
execute them. Yet
rebuilding the church for its subordination to the state had no right.
He instead protect its independence, encroach on the independence of the Church,
moreover, at the end of his reign, when held closer to Europe through and where no
one as a shrewd man could not even imagine that Russia
I turned off the set path of enlightenment.
In a letter to the Eastern patriarchs Peter explains the institution of the Synod of the fact
that he
afraid of the wrath of God for the unrest in the Church, and if for some reason decided to
bring it in
order ['Royal and Patriarchal letters on the establishment of St. Synod ", Moscow, 1848
Synodal Printing House]. However, if this is true in the case of Peter of his understanding
tsarist principle could remember that the organization of the Church, it provides
the order of the Church established more than 1,000 years before the birth of himself, and
that if
should arrange a Russian church is really quite shattered by Peter
and his reluctance to as much as 20 years to prevent the election of a new patriarch, then
this
dispensation there was no need to invent "Spiritual Regulation" [92], and should only
elect the patriarch and collect ordinary Council, which, of course, and he would set
everything

there separately in the "Regulation". However, too hypocrite 200 years after
Peter. Needless
is that it is not on the order of the Church, he thought, and its subordinated royal power.
Our well-known canonist AS Pavlov, with all caution in terms says:
"Looking at the Church of Peter the Great, as an official power of the state, was formed
under the influence of the Protestant canonical system, the so-called territorial,
the basic principle of which is expressed in the position cujus regio jus religio [93]. Peter
I acquainted with this theory during his stay in the Netherlands for the works
known lawyer Puffendorfa, some of which are then transferred by order
king of the Russian language. The principles of this theory lurking in all major
reforms of Peter the Great in the church administration. Let's start with the destruction of
Page 206

patriarchate and the establishment of St.. Synod "[Alexander Pavlov," The course of
church law ", 1892
p. 507].
Suffice it to recall the principle of "Spiritual Rules", as if the monarch is a "last resort
judge "senior church management *.
* The formula of the oath members of the Synod on the "Regulations", says: "I confess
the same with an oath
kraynyago Judge spiritual sowing board vserossiyskago be alone most of the monarch,
the sovereign
our vsemilostiveyshago "... By this" confession "juror added:" I swear
and the All-Seeing God, that all I have now And this promise is not inactivated interpret
in my mind,
Thou utterance of my mouth. "(Rules, 1883, pp. B). One can only wonder what
the bishops of the Orthodox Church took such an oath, at which Synod did not
Church can be controlled. Subsequently, the famous Metropolitan of Rostov
Arseny Matsievich caused by the Synod, agreed to take the oath only to change it,
Judge is putting extreme Synod of Jesus Christ. Empress
Elizabeth, in which it happened, left the "deal" without consequences, but later, when
Metropolitan Arseny already under Catherine II trial for protest against the confiscation
of church
Property, he put the blame and it is still a "crime" ...
Peter, however, he determined the ratio of the Synod to the imperial power:
"Synod in spiritual matters has the same power as Senate secular." "So
way, - says Alexander Pavlov, - the head of the Church, under the law of Peter, is the
same
autocratic power as the head of state "(p. 508).
One hundred years after Peter in compiling the basic laws of the Orthodox faith is
recognized
dominant, and from the monarch requires it obligatory confession. On the main
laws, "the emperor, like a Christian sovereign, is the supreme defender and the keeper

prevailing dogmas of faith and the guardian of orthodoxy, and all the Church of St.
decorum "( 42). only in this sense, the explanatory notes of this section, the emperor
act on the legacy of the throne is called the "head of the Church," although this
expression is, of course, very
poorly chosen and can be explained only by the fact that the act was compiled during the
reign of
Paul in 1797 [the "Code of Laws", Vol. 1, Part 1, I, ed. 1892]. But if we remaining
Orthodox could not clearly and consistently carry out the principle of the Protestant
caesaropapism, the contradiction of faith and practice, made by church reform of Peter,
not
could not act demoralizing for our religious life.
Here the question is not about personal religiosity of Peter the Great. Despite
blasphemous parody of the church hierarchy with the "prince of the Pope" in the lead, he
will no doubt
He believed in God and in Christ the Saviour. But he did have a strong Protestant
inclinations. Luther put it in general is very high. In 1712, before the statue of Luther
Wartburg he praised it for being "on the pope and all his army so bravely
come for the greatest benefit of his (?) the Emperor and many princes "[A.
Dobroklonsky,
"Guide to the History of the Russian Church", Issue IV, p. 69] ... Praise for religious
reformer is not particularly flattering, but well draws the eyes of Peter in the Church.
Status of the Russian Church of those times could explain the loss of church and spirit
intuition in such a large Russian man, Peter the Great. But the fact remains.
Understanding the Church he was not, and with that it was impossible to understand and
own
power as Russian monarch. In his relation to the Church it undermines the very
essential basis of its power - its moral and religious character.
The same point of view, which allowed Peter to make a break with the church
management, manifested in his relationship to the religious life of the Russian people in
general.
Page 207

Without going into the details of anecdotes, recall some traits of despotism in religion
It keeps our complete collection of laws. Pobedonostsev notes in his "Statement"
dozens of legislative measures, which clearly manifested the spirit of faith
caesaropapism characterizing Peter.
For example, number 3910 - not allowed to go out of the church with images of
home. Number 3912 archimandrites affidavit undertake not to keep the hermits. Number 4022 - is prohibited
inviting priests to the house to serve Vespers and Matins: "This bezchinny
custom - written in the law - quite aside, and preslushnikov impose fines. "In 1723,
of January 28 th, stated "continue no haircut." In 1725, forbidden to go
priests with holy water home (except Christmas) ...

Is it any wonder that the Old Believers sincerely felt Peter the Antichrist? And what's the
point
It could be in the interests of the monarchy like the persecution of the religious needs of
the people?
It is clear - no idea. This is not the essence of the action of the monarch, at least
personally, the unbeliever, and
action fascinated Protestantism innovator. Meanwhile, the spirit of the event Peter
naturally I stayed and after him, especially when he prepared the reign of the Germans.
However, the personal faith of the Orthodox Empress, who, like Elizabeth, themselves
went on a pilgrimage to the holy places Neuvazliayev Peter, destroyed such outrageous
measures such as prohibition of domestic worship (all the more so because all these
prohibitions
violated), but the general spirit of the unauthorized disposal of state power
church administration stayed, we can say forever or at least until now.
"How strange - says Pobedonostsev over a reprimand,
Empress Elisabeth Synod declared in 1752, - a woman and a woman
concentrates the highest ecclesiastical authority ... "[Pobedonostsev," Extract from the
Complete
Collection of Laws "(The church and the clergy), 1895].
It should be noted that such an abnormal attitude to state power
the church could only be maintained with regard to the true terror of the
episcopate. Behind
the first decade after the establishment of the Synod of Bishops of most of the Russian
visited
Prisons were rasstrigaemy, bits of carrot and so on. n. I've tested it on the list of bishops
said composition Dobroklonsky [Dobroklonsky, "Synodal Period"]. In history
Church of Constantinople after the Turkish conquest we do not find a single period
the defeat of the bishops and such arrogance against church property [A.
Lebedev. "The history of the Greco-Eastern Church under the rule of the Turks", 1896].
Without a doubt, an extraordinary misunderstanding of the idea only of his power could
move
Peter the path of such an attitude to the people's faith and put the Church has repeatedly
expressed in the "Babylonian captivity". But the same can be seen in the lack of
understanding of some actions
Peter and purely public domain. So, he destroyed the right
succession. Here we see again in common activities of Peter: random,
purely personal difficulties in respect of Tsarevich Alexei, forcing Peter to build in
the principle of what could still be somehow understood except as an inevitable violation
of the principle.
Peter Charter of succession, moreover, published after the death of his wretched
son calls, the legacy of the throne the eldest son of "the bad custom" and sets,
"so things have been always will pravitelstvuyuschago sovereign - who aforesaid wants
to and

determine the inheritance "[Soloviev," History of Russia "book IV, 839-840]. As you
know,
Russia paid for such rules Petra half a century of coups in
where the monarchy survived only because people continue to believe that the law does
not,
that ordered Peter, and what was in the minds and consciousness of the people of
conscience monarchical.
Page 208

Peter, our Code of Laws obliged several definitions of the monarchy.


Sometimes they are very good, but in these cases, only Peter repeats folk aphorisms, not
revealing at the same time no deeper motivation.
The Military Marking says:
"His Majesty has absolute monarch that anyone in the world about their affairs are not
to give an answer, but the power and authority of the state and have their land, like a
Christian
Sire, on their own and blagomneniyu manage. "
The Spiritual Rules expressed:
"Monarch has autocratic power, which God Himself to obey for conscience
commands ".
These definitions have been very useful is the fact that some hesitate later
the thoughts of the statesmen of our constitutional school. But really
a remarkable monument of Peter must recognize the oath formula set them.
Here Peter formulated what he's always great - his private monarchical
a sense of connection with his subjects. This formula, I believe, in any legislation does
not
It has nothing higher depth monarchical consciousness.
It citizen, regardless of their rank and class, promises: "It is true
hypocrisy serve and obey in everything, not sparing the stomach to the last drop
blood and all to a high of His Imperial Majesty autocracy, power and authority
owned the rights and benefits of legalized continue uzakonyaemyya at
understanding, strength and the possibility to warn and defend, and, moreover, at least
spospeshestvovat try everything to His Imperial Majesty's faithful service and
State benefits in any case, can relate. About the damage is His Majesty
interest, harm and loss as soon uvedayu that not only are blagovremenno declare and
all sorts of measures and avert dopuschat endeavoring to, and all entrusted tight secrecy
keep going, and attorney and put on me the rank is still (general) and on
especial particular, and from time to time by His Imperial Majesty, the name
by predustavlennyh over me chiefs determined, instructions and regulations, and
decrees, duly corrected by their own conscience, and for their own profit, and property
friendship and enmity, and contrary to the position of his oath not to do, and thus
themselves
message and to act as a faithful vassal of His Imperial Majesty decently

there should be "[Written off on sworn sheet" Oath "1894 October


Oath current Emperor. (Mainly. Zach. Ap. V)].
In this remarkable document of unconditional submission citizen
turns to his moral power of the sacrament of the Emperor. And Katkov later
rightly said that in the oath - our "constitution" by which we are "more than
political rights, we have political responsibilities "...
But when Peter begins to explain his rights, it sometimes says something completely
incongruous with the feeling that told him the formula of the oath. He turns himself in
absolute monarch and his subjects in some voiceless slaves, even worse - into something
politically non-existent.
In the famous "truth will monarch", compiled on behalf of Peter Pheophan
Prokopovich, the theoretical foundations of the monarchy set out by Hugo Greece and
Hobbes. AND
approved at the contractual origin of the state. This "truth" claims that
to Russian citizens were beginning to conclude an agreement among themselves, and
then
people "will deny her and gave it to the monarch." Immediately explained that the
sovereign can
Page 209

law to command his people not only all that relates to its use, but also all that
Only he likes. This interpretation of the Russian monarchy entered - alas - how
official act in the complete collection of laws, and where listed under N 4888 in the VII
volume [A.
Alekseev, "Russian State law", 190-191].
The emergence of the absolutist point of view is confirmed in Peter, so do not
Only his actions, but also the legislative wording, t. e. put in
Obligatory subjects guide. But all this is only unconsciousness. When Peter
also, in the greatest act of absolutist tyranny - the Spiritual Rules - explained
that "the rule of the conciliar perfected and better than sole
Government ", since, on the one hand," the truth is known delights cathedral
estate than a single face ", on the other hand, even the" vyasche (m. e. strong) to
confidence and obedience bows cathedral sentence, rather than the sole decree "...
Of course, all this makes Theophane Peter speak proper subject for motivation
the destruction of the patriarch, but the position put forward as a general
principle. Believing this
Statement by High power, people could only ask myself: why did he "renounce
his will, "if the" conciliar government better Sole "and if" the cathedral
sentence "excites more confidence and more urges to obey than
Sole decree?
Obviously, none of it would be impossible to write even the slightest clarity
monarchical consciousness. Time of Peter in this regard is a huge setback
in comparison with the Moscow monarchy.

Section IV
CONSCIOUSNESS Petersburg period
The complexity of the work of self-consciousness
Started by Peter the period of enlightenment has been going on for over 200 years, and
when
it is necessary to sum up, in the sense of political consciousness, it turns out something
very pale.
This period was complicated by one very important factor. Over the years into 200
Empire included many non-Russian tribes, ethnic groups and even whole states.
Including them in your limits and the number of its nationals, Russia introduced all these
millions
people among their fellow citizens. They either blended with the indigenous population,
or jointly
cohabited, in both cases, could not bring their influences on
Russian nationality.
And among these nations were much more than we Germans cultural,
Poles, many other European tribes, like the French, and so on. A great number of Jews,
no matter how they were initially separated, could not bring and their influence. Equally
the number of Asian and semi-Asiatic peoples of the Caucasus and Central Asia have
also poured in
Russian part of the tribe, or were part of the fellow members of his government.
Thus, during the student's education when he had to produce
their identity, Russia poured a lot of new, non-Russian elements, each
which he was to change the very nature of her nationality. Work identity
Page 210

It took place, so to speak, in the subject constantly changing.


When we consider that the number of inhabitants of the Empire in the 90 million Russian
(undergoing a continuous influx of foreigners have), we have now the 40 million already
doubtless foreigners, even in part hostile to Russia and Russian, it is involuntarily
the question whether those same yes Russian now have been with Alexis? That there is
now their
soul, their psychology? I do not educated for 200 years in the space of the new Empire,
or
almost new people?
In reality, however, a common type of modern Russian nationalities,
psychological sense, of course, remained the same as was in Muscovy.
Comparison of historically known personalities and figures, a comparison of songs,
proverbs and so on. D.,
certainly assures that in general the Russian people of the XX century is highly similar to
the
the people of the XVII century. Hardly French or English for the same 200 years
represent more

similarities between ancestors and descendants, than Russian, despite the fact that these
nations
ethnographic hardly changed, and Russian continually absorbed huge inflows
alien elements. This phenomenon can be explained, perhaps because Russian
nationality and earlier developed as a mixed type. New impurities - particularly as
variety - so do not interfere with the preservation of the old type and maybe even
contributed to its brighter expression.
But if the type of Russian remained the same, then its characteristic "universality"
It manifested even more, and the key to his conscious all observers recognized
very difficult.
And also the problem of self-determination was to cover all aspects of
nationality in its historical existence. Thus, Russian, during his
student education, coming in the sense of self is a huge job.
In political terms, it seems to be especially difficult because
in this respect it is easier to live just like some other forms borrowed
people, somehow putting them in his spirit, that is, in essence, the port and then, and
more. FROM
Russia and it was during these 200 years, and she even became famous throughout the
world for its
"aping" of Europe. Moreover, although we have glimpses of self-evident
very early, but the overwhelming influence of European culture has created an educated
class - especially since calling itself the "intelligentsia" of the last period - completely
slavery and the assimilation of the forms and the spirit of "human culture", bright
cosmopolitanism and
even the denial of all his.
This impersonal part of the educated class gradually became numerically
predominant, and if she had not hitherto completely abolish Russian
originality, it is only by the difficulty of such a task. The fact that she
theoretically, impersonal and, in her opinion, Europeanized part of the Russian educated
Class psychology remained Russian and was like no one people who would like
emulate. Many of these "Westerners" such as Herzen, Granovsky, Belinsky,
They gave in his life and works fine specimens of a purely Russian spirit and willy-nilly
did not work out to become like Europe, Russia, and the fact that it matures in its
originality.
Nevertheless, the existence of this principle "Westerners" who worked for the
Russian self-consciousness only reluctantly, but by nature, extremely
complicated the job, confuse it, it led to the fact that self-consciousness grew only
samoprotivorechii uninterrupted. These conditions significantly due to insufficient
Page 211

Our successes in the political consciousness for 200 years.


Be that as it may, with respect to political creativity Russia during this period
I did the least.

The first rudiments of self-determination, we began very soon after Peter's


reform. Feeling a some discrepancy with the European world, began to ask themselves
Question: What is Russia? It began collecting Russian folk art, even at
Catherine II is very noticeable, and Kirsch Danilov was even under Peter I. Attention
curiosity about the nation was the first sign of the beginning of self-determination.
The work of Russian thought of self-discovery in total was enormous. It required
investigate all: history in its manifold manifestations, language, life, art,
the psychology of the people, and so on. d. And in all of these departments made a lot of
self-exploration.
It is enough to look through Koyalovicha [M O. Koyalovich, "History of Russian selfconsciousness", St. Petersburg.
1893], remember Mountain spotted and published historical materials, folk
songs, stories and so on. e., to recall the enormous and brilliant "feat" of Russia on
creation
his literary language and literature, which opened such multiple caches
national psychology. Much has been achieved. Russian history made science ...
Language
developed. The literature is rich enough to quantify, the quality has already made
creation
truly great in the global sense.
Russia has realized himself and by the arts - music, painting. Much
extent it has become in this respect is provided by simple imitation.
But in the field of mental consciousness - all this work hitherto remained in the first
rudiments. And that's why we can not develop the hitherto independent political
creativity.
We deliberately made rather more progress in the field of religion.
The requirement of conscious faith is reflected in the theological thought at first
Top
powerful
imitation, and
"consciousness" was gathered
at
source
Roman Catholic and Protestant in particular.
At the same time we have proved to be much more attraction to Protestantism.
Our theological thought developed long in a very dangerous direction, so
There is even the view that a great idea to teach Filaret of Moscow saved
we Orthodoxy. If that is exaggerated, yet the exact delimitation of Orthodoxy
Roman Catholicism and Protestantism have accomplished only in the middle of the XIX
century
a result of the great works, mostly Metropolitan Filaret and Khomyakov.
However, also in this field - let me say - we have not reached full consciousness,
capable of formulating a solid and clear plan of action. For the Orthodox consciousness

Our only it was firmly in the dogma, but not in the area of church life,
the contents of which we have not hitherto recognized.
All these aspects of self-awareness - that is purely national and religious - are not
come directly to my present argument. I mention them only because
Russian statehood emerged in the monarchical principle, which is understanding,
consequently, the action associated with the state of the national moral and religious
ideal monarchical principle we have developed so as Folk
moral and religious ideal without reaching consciousness, was in fact alive and strong
in the soul of the people. When the European enlightenment, we put our whole life on the
court and
assessment of consciousness, neither Orthodox nor the nation could not give a clear
answer to that
we are and we are above or below the other, should, therefore, develop their truth or
Page 212

take it from the people because the real truth is not with us, and they have.
While standing in front of Russia and as long as there is this question of monarchy could
not start
develop, for it is the conclusion from the question of truth and ideals.
Instinct and Consciousness
Therefore, it is natural that our political clarification of the principle of going
understanding the principles behind the nation and faith. While our moral and religious
ideal
is in some fog or is, in our opinion, untenable,
until the monarchy may seem to consciousness only as absolutism, t. e. as a power
unrestricted. The monarchy, as explained above, its content is limited
ideal if the ideal is not clear, and therefore of no effect or if it disappeared altogether, the
government has
really no limits and is absolutist.
Thus, the development of the monarchical principle, his identity during this period
should be
It was right to drop. He stayed with us is still the voice of instinct, but do not mind
I explained. Therefore, from all sides of scientific work at the state-legal for us
a whole new period remained the least developed, most imitative, most
imbued with European ideas of simple copying and therefore - according to the stroke
European public thought - took the character of a constitutional.
In Europe Legist [94] at the time were the conductors of monarchical ideas. We have
Legal thought was conductor anti-monarchist ideas, democratic.
When I was rising the question of limiting the autocracy or even external
manifestations of the power of the monarch in international relations, we are voting,
indicate some close relationship of the king and Russia, communication is limited to
monarch. This absolutism denied, denied the doctrine, if the emperor could
to command all, "what he likes." Political thought of Russian public-law as

I have stood up to consciousness.


So, in a moment when the Emperor Alexander I, who brought up in the republican ideas
and
considers the Republic above the monarchy thought to restrict their autocratic power,
he heard an eloquent protest Karamzin.
"If Alexander - wrote Karamzin, - inspired by the generous hatred
abuses of autocracy, took up his pen to instruct themselves new laws but
God and conscience, then a true citizen of the Russian dared to stop his hand and
said: Sir, do you transgress the boundaries of their authority. Taught long-term
Russia disasters before the Holy Altar handed autocracy your ancestors and demanded,
but it manages it supremely, inseparably. This covenant is the foundation of your power not a
have. Can everything, but can not legally restrict it. "
In his note, "The opinion of Russian citizens", filed in 1819, over plans
Polish Karamzin recovery proves once again that this emperor has no right:
"You - wrote Karamzin, - think to restore the ancient Kingdom of Poland, but these
things
recovery in accordance with the law of any state benefits Russia? According to Do
Your sacred duties, with your love for Russia and for the most
justice? .. Do not swear to observe the integrity of their rulers powers? These are land (ie.
E.
Belarus, Lithuania, Volhynia and Podolia) were Russia, when Metropolitan Platon
handed
Page 213

You crown of Monomakh, Peter and Catherine. They will say whether she wickedly
divided
Poland? But you would have done even lawlessness if it heads to make amends
unjust partition of Russia itself. We took Poland by the sword: this is our right, to whom
All States have an obligation to their existence, because all are made up of
conquests. Catherine
corresponds to God, it corresponds to the history of the business, but it has been done for
you - holy
already: for you have a legitimate Poland Russian possession. There is an old fortress in
the policy:
otherwise we would be sure to restore the kingdom of Kazan and Astrakhan.
Novgorod Republic, Principality of Ryazan, and so on. D. Besides, the age
fortresses Belarus, Volyn, Podolia, together with Galicia were once indigenous
Russian heritage ... "
"Hitherto our rule - he continues - was: not an inch of any enemy or friend.
Napoleon could conquer Russia, but you, although autocrat could not give him any gift
One hut Russian. That is our character and spirit of the Sovereign State ... I
You will head is responsible for the inevitable effect of a restoration of Poland we have

They lost not only a beautiful area, but also the love of the king, cooled down to soul and
Fatherland, seeing signified plaything autocratic tyranny "[bibliophile," Russian-Polish
relationship ", Wilna, 1897, pp. 3-4] ...
In these interesting discussions we well grasp the voice of feeling that
Karamzin had wanted to touch the heart and in the heart of the sovereign. But in
principle
side of all this is very unclear and even controversial: Karamzin even refers to some kind
of agreement
the king and the people in the election of a dynasty, but of course, if it was only this, that
contract with the consent of the parties can always be reviewed and changed. The
arguments about the
Poland Karamzin all founded on the obligation to comply with tradition ... This, of
course, easy to
refutable. But in this sense, however, some truth, the denial of absolute power
and an indication of the relationship of the king and the nation, communication, which is
the source of the king's duties.
Feeling instinct manifested itself in Russia is enough, but deliberately,
theory of royal power and the relationship of the king to the people - very little.
Meanwhile, the conscious becomes more necessary that bureaucratic
Practice irresistibly introduced to us the idea of absolutism and European influence,
Affirming that the kingship is none other than the absolutism denied it. In the XIX
century.
Russian sharply split on the idea of "Westerners" and "Slavophiles" and the whole
"Western"
part of the propaganda waged against the autocracy. In the XVIII century it was already
said by the mouth
"Vadim":
Autocracy all these evils sodetel:
Harms and the purest virtue,
Freedom giving King a tyrant to be ... [95]
During the XIX century all over the educated Westernizing ideas that created the socalled
"intellectuals", led propaganda against the autocracy as censorship opportunities
Russia and in all honesty in his foreign press. National part
educated society could not try to defend its historic Russian
establishment of the monarchy. The split in the educated part of Russia, between the
"Westerners" (under
different names) and the national part of the educated class is growing more
more after 1861, and in the "Western" direction the terrible
rejection of everything typically Russian, but his ideas get great strength in all secondary
educated classes and cover even the people. This struggle, embracing all parties
life became particularly strongly about autocracy as a principle and institution.

Page 214

In this long historical disputes monarchical idea to some extent still


Understand. Our great writers - Pushkin, Gogol, A. Maikov, and others. excellent response across monarchical consciousness [In this respect, a lot
material collected from Mr. I. Chernyaev in his writings about the autocracy]. But all this
- echoes
feelings, manifestations of instinct, which is so strong in the general Russian identity that
often unexpectedly affected even in the most extreme negative, such as M.
Bakunin.
In terms of the consciousness, the monarchical idea clarifies predominantly
journalistic way, the dispute with the opponents, but not strictly scientific
analysis. Proceedings
scientific, staying most imitative, do almost nothing to give
clarification of the autocracy and often only serves to his hopeless confusion with
absolutism.
In general, our scientists statesmen, when moving on the ground explanations
autocracy, in the best case repeated judgments journalism. If the idea
monarchical power and clarifies a few here, not in science, not in the office or
professor and academician of the audience, and in the pages of newspapers and
magazines, in a verbal battle
representatives of political parties and trends. Russian political thought, as she did
success in the national spirit, all is not obliged to state science, which instilled
European ideas and concepts, and journalism.
Among its representatives in particular have done a lot Slavophiles in general, and I.
Aksakov in particular, and especially by their standing Katkov.
The greatest merit of the Slavophiles was not so much the development of the political
doctrine, as the installation of social and psychological foundations of social life. In that
the latter respect, they performed a great job, which moved minds
rare strength: Kireevskii, A. Khomyakov, N. Danilevsky. These three figures should be
classified as brilliant representatives of our scientific thought, and they are more likely
We prepared the ground for a possible Russian political science. But it is only
soil. So, indirectly, it has a policy of great importance for the idea Kireevskii
with respect to the nature of a possible Russian philosophy (convergence method
thinking with the combination of intellectual abilities, which is indicated and Orthodox
doctrine). Subsequently, this idea has received new development in Astafieva ... [96] The
Slavophiles
also pointed out the idea of organic development of social and political life,
respect of which it went very far N. Danilevsky ["Russia and Europe", St. Petersburg,
1889
(The first time was, the v1869)], and still later Leontiev, which, however, is difficult and
ranked among the Slavophiles.
In total, hardly anyone adopted the more reason for the development of Russian
thought, as A. Khomyakov, especially in the "Notes on World History") [A. Hamsters,

"Works" is the fifth, 1900 The first edition of this work refers to 1872], in
which sets the beginning of the organic development in the history of the most difficult
background, with
involving huge psychological element in connection with the religious feeling. it
a remarkable work, unfinished work life Khomyakov, published many years
after his death, could not exert any influence on the minds, but remains still source
rich reflections for every interested person. More than happy to works of Khomyakov
clarification of the meaning of Orthodoxy, in what its merits it is recognized, and the idea
is firmly entered
Russian consciousness.
Among other Slavophiles Samarin worked a lot on Russia's attitude towards it
Page 215

margins. In general, various work very comprehensively prepared the Slavophiles


the ground for a political doctrine, even though still not created it.
Most came to this task Aksakov in his eternal battle publicist
activities in the reform period, in the heat of the political struggle. On the same basis of
the struggle
He developed his political ideas Katkov. These are two of the writer, who usually
often looking for the doctrine of the Russian state authorities.
Journalistic consciousness.
Katkov
Katkov is not expounded systematically nowhere, so to speak, of the doctrine of
autocracy, but
in the fight against political opponents and even monarchists Slavophile shade
repeatedly stayed on different sides of the spirit and actions of the Russian
monarchy, and to say that it is against the monarchy in his entire journalistic
activities free from accusations of heteroglossia that the case against him
national representation and government. If we collect together all that
expressed Katkov of Russian state power, we get a picture of a completely
slim.
What is the king of Katkov? King - is embodied in a single person of unity
and the power of Russia. The ball is alive has affected the unity of the Fatherland, that
with equal vividness and power
impact the idea of the king and everyone felt that both have the same
comprehensive strength of ...
"In Russia, many tribes, but all these disparate tribes of the great Russian world
make it live and feel part of their unity with him in the unity of the state,
Supreme unity government - in the king, in the living personification of the unity "("
Mosk. Vedas. "
9, 1863). This unity of Russia and the king, the king and supreme authority of the king
and the state

Katkov expounded many times. "Where could be the rights and interests of the
sovereign, if not in
his state? Russia is strong precisely because the people it does not separate itself from its
sovereign. Is this not only is the sacred value that Russian
King has for the Russian people? "(1867, 88).
Why, however, state unity and supreme power certainly connected with
one person? Katkov points to Russian history and in touch with the Byzantine.
"Monarchical principle, - he says - grew simultaneously with the Russian people. It
collected land it is going to power, which in a primitive state is poured
everywhere, wherever there is a difference between the weak and strong; larger and
smaller. AT
confiscation of power at all over all, in the extermination of polyarchy was all the work
and all
the struggle of Russian history. This struggle, which in various forms and under various
conditions
committed in the history of all the great nations, we had trouble, but successful, thanks
especially characteristic of the Orthodox Church, which renounced the earthly power and
have never
I did not enter into competition with the state. A heavy process is accomplished, all
things
High top one, and the Russian people should not be any power,
independent from the monarch. His Russian autocracy saw the covenant people
throughout their lives,
It considers all of their aspirations "(" Mosk. Vedas. ", number 12, 1884). Because of this
origin
monarchy, "the monarch could not detract from the fullness of their rights. It is not free
them
Page 216

use, the danger of exposing himself and the state, but he could not cancel them,
if I wanted to. Yes, the people would not understand it "( 12, 1884).
The value of the Russian tsar strengthened its position in the global problems of
Christianity.
"All power is from God - our Church teaches. But the Russian Tsar is given particular
importance,
distinguishes it from other rulers of the world. He is not only the sovereign of the country
and leader
his people - he delivered God guardian and protector of the Orthodox Church,
who does not know of an earthly Vicar of Christ and renounced any action,
in addition to spiritual, providing all the care of his earthly well-being and order
consecrated to her the great leader of the Orthodox people. Russian king is over
heir to his ancestors: he is the successor of Caesar east of Rome, the Church and its
organizers

Councils have established very symbol of the Christian faith. With the fall of Byzantium
rose
Moscow began the greatness of Russia. That's where the mystery of the deep features
which Russia
It is different from other nations. "Hence Katkov output has the duty of the King:
"High calling sovereign Russia and the duties it more than any other
power on earth. Wear this dignity requires not only with dignity but with reverence.
His duties are higher than all of his rights. "
Combining sovereign and the people, Katkov constantly insisted on the fact that all
Russian
citizens are obliged to help the king, and the king and government agents are not the
same. He is not
defines the concepts of "supreme authority" and "government" even mix them directly.
"The supreme power and, therefore, the government and the beginning ..." - such
expressions he
there constantly. "The government's beginning, that is, the supreme power protected
as a shrine to the whole nation "(1863, 271). But the participation of all citizens in the
affairs of
approved by the state Katkov very firmly. "The use of state and public
the benefit shall be the road to everyone, and to protect them, and they are not intended
to promote
only official figures, in the service of various administrative
departments, and all honest citizens, on the debt of conscience and common to all the
swearing. "
"Every honest citizen must conscientiously in their social activities,
see a servant of the Emperor and oblige was said to our ancestors, his sovereign's
business "(1866
, 138).
"In terms of the people and a sense of supreme power is the beginning of the sacred. The
sublime and sacred is the beginning in terms of the people and feeling, the
inconsistencies,
false and monstrous than the view which wants to see in different administrative
to share power as the supreme authority. No matter how highly delivered
administrative officer, whatever authority it may use it, it can not
claim or on any semblance of the principle of supreme power. Power, which invested
Administrator, endlessly, toto genere, different from the supreme power. The
administrator does not
may consider himself an autocrat in a small form ... Service emperor can also
considered the exclusive property of the bureaucratic administration ... All of the
young and old, can and should see themselves in any degree, and it was as servants
sovereign. What we call the public service, it is, in fact, have the same
Service emperor, like any other, and in this respect the difference between the state
and so-called public service is not essential. Magistrate (guardian

public peace) also serves as a sovereign, as well as bureaucratic figure "(1866 number
154).
Because of its activities and Katkov says:
"The right to public discussion of public issues, we realized as a service
Page 217

state full force of the word "(1866, 151).


And it does not look "first period" of life. He Katkov will never change.
"Just a misunderstanding - continues Katkov - think the monarchy and
Autocracy exclude "people's freedom", but in fact it provides its more
than any template constitutionalism. Only an autocratic king could without
revolution one of its manifesto to release 20 million slaves "(1881, 115).
"They say that - he repeats even later - that Russia lacks political freedom,
said that although the Russian subjects and provided a legitimate civil liberty, but
that they have no political rights. Russian citizens have something more than
political rights: they have political responsibilities. Each of Russian nationals
obliged to stand guard over the rights of the supreme power and take care of the
state. Each
It is not something that has only the right to participate in public life and to take care of
her
I favor, but is called to duty loyal. Here is our constitution. She was,
without paragraphs, contained in a brief formula of our state on oath
loyalty ... What the government does not lose its meaning may deprive people of the right
fulfill that duty tells him the oath? "(1886, 341).
So wrote Katkov, almost on the eve of his death. But beyond such general comments
prudence of the government - what, by what means, can perform the sacrament
Russian to the "political duty" of its own? On it Katkov no answer.
Representation of the people, he denied categorically.
"No matter what the size, strength and shape of any plotting his (representation), it
always
would be artificial and fake product and will always be a close,
rather than opening the people with his needs. It is not an expression of the people, and
alien to him
parties and will inevitably become an instrument of their game. "The government needs
to rapprochement with
people, but it is required in order to address him directly, not through
any representation whatsoever (?), to recognize the needs of the country directly from
those who have them
experiences and who shows them on the procuration and personally. Arrange so
the voice of the people's needs, not fictitious, but real, reached the throne
without any outside contaminants - that's a task worthy of the autocratic government
monarch, that's the right step on the way of true progress "(1881 119).
But how to arrange it? Katkov not explain a single word. A task - not an easy task.

Katkov also admits it "necessary", at least in 1881. It was a year of danger,


year, when after the unprecedented crime of regicide heard voices to convene
People's Representatives, according to the desires of one who had to limit the royal
authorities, at the request of others - were to help the king in what I could do
administration ... Katkov indicates that convene national representatives should not be,
but
He admits that some other, direct communication of the king and the people you need.
However, it is not, and does not Katkov says how to create it. Yet this is no
direct communication, as long, therefore, deprived of Russian Sovereignty
a "necessary", according to Katkov controls.
Similarly, Katkov does not say in what ways can fulfill their citizen
jury duty to take care of the state. Personally he was having the paper could
to fulfill this duty and thus enjoyed the Russian "constitution" for the
his expression. But the rest of tens of millions of Russian citizens had no such or
other instruments of service for his oath. It is obvious that this fact
service should exist for all any form, tools, means of action.
Page 218

While this is not indicating "constitution" is a dead letter for the citizens.
As a result, the teaching of Katkov, would have to admit that we have something very
defective position and the Supreme power and subjects. Clarity and elaboration
modes of action, it turns out, is only equipped with the bureaucracy, and Sovereignty and
citizens do not have this benefit. Katkov did not make such a sad conclusion, but must be
was his to do if reasoned as a thinker, not as a journalist, a man of the party.
It is possible that he fully understood the monarchical our incompleteness
"Constitution" and the inevitable with the omnipotence of the bureaucracy, which is still
under Emperor
Nikolai Pavlovich Island that "autocrats themselves holding" ... But Katkov was not all
his life
thinker, not even a propagandist, and eternal fighter ultraprakticheskim lawyer and
prosecutor. He said not to reveal the objective truth, and to
in order to achieve the victory of the day. In such a situation objectively true
any development whatsoever and principles can not be *.
* Outline of political views MN Katkov composed of "assembly of advanced
articles Moscow News "edition SP Katkova from the compilation of ideas Katkov
It should be noted a number of issues: Katkov, "The Autocracy and the constitution," and
so on. 1905.
Type. Snigireva].
Journalistic consciousness.
Aksakov
The old Slavophiles, it would seem, could have left anything more elaborate
relative autocracy. In fact it was not. There was also fighting
"Westernism" and all the power went to the most exaggerated study Russian

"identity" in the sense of the national, and the least developed doctrine of
autocracy. Subsequently, this issue had to tell the whole life Ivan
Sergeyevich Aksakov, and it is the same battle of lawyer-prosecutor soil, as well as
Katkov, the burning question of the time - on the constitution and parliamentarianism,
the People
representation of self-government, freedom of speech and thought, that's what took
Aksakov
as Katkov and, referring to the autocracy, not only understood the principle itself
on its own, as it is related to the representation, self-government and freedom.
In consideration of the autocracy Aksakov hurt still evident unfamiliarity with it
state law, so that its legal definitions often cut ear
their inaccuracy and even unbelievable.
Thus, referring to protect an unlimited royal power, Aksakov says:
"What is the autocracy, unlimited power? This is the identity,
necessary property of all (?) the authorities in her peculiar items "(op. t. V,
p. 13). This, of course, a blunder. Autocratic and limitlessness not
property of all authority, and solely supreme power. All others
power - "delegated" always and necessarily limited to that power that gave them
their powers. But Aksakov did not know the difference between the government and the
Verkhovna
delegate gear. His argument on this extremely weakened.
"The Emperor demos (people) continues to Aksakov, Sovereign Council of Ten, Sire
convention
(?), A sovereign parliament (?), The sovereign king - all the same to the supreme
autocratic power
Page 219

except that in the latter case, it is concentrated in a single person, as in the first
the case is transferred to the masses or on an educated minority "... All this
Again it is confusing to impossible. Neither the convention nor Parliament are the
"princes" and the Supreme power
I do not have, and therefore do not have unlimited power, and if it is captured, it is only
as
usurpers, while the king is the supreme authority and therefore unrestricted - at most
rightfully his. The king was not only concentrated power. Here Aksakov, that not
knowing it is completely in the grip of absolutism, who wants to subvert.
But I leave the criticism, which hardly deserves Aksakov in
state-legal concepts. Let's see how he imagines the king's power, not
touching the ambiguities and errors of terminology and wording.
Aksakov very well aware that the relationship of the king and the people moral. "The
question of whether,
Which is better: crowned whether public opinion or the crowned man nothing
Fenced, except the right of him nationally recognized, powerless as personal lonely

power, but powerful idea that he is a representative, and sanctified this idea - the question
It is decided in each country according to its local needs (?) and historical
peculiarities of development. "In Russia, he settled in the form of a one-man government.
Here true feeling
and, almost always, confusion of thought. The point, of course, not "need" and the
spiritual
condition of the people, whatever it was created.
But then again, Aksakov are errors that depend on a misunderstanding of what is
Supreme power. He delineates the field of conducting the king and the people, and it
completely
arbitrarily limits the power of the king. "The Russian people, - he says - forming Russian
State admitted the last in the face of the king of a free government
action, unlimited freedom of state power, and himself, to abandon all
power-hungry ambitions (?) ... freely subdued in the external, formal
actions will his blind ... the will of one elected them (his successor) human ...
To make up for the lack of one-man unlimited power in intelligence
People's needs and requirements - he (the people) recognizes the land, in its ideal complete
freedom of household and spiritual life, unlimited (?) freedom of opinion or criticism,
there are thoughts and words. "
"The mind of the sole, supreme invested with absolute power, promotes,
Thus, the mind of millions, does not displeased him at liberty, without doing violence to
his will "
(op. t. V, p. 16). Despite this "renunciation" of the people of the "ambition", the local
government, for
Aksakov, still
included
at
area
reference
people.
"The self-government local land with the autocratic king at the head - that is Russian
political ideal "(op. t. V, p. 57, it was written in 1881).
Everything is inaccurate, excites all questions: why local government is not a business
"ambition", and the general public - it "ambition"? What is local
Management? Is it true that the king belongs only to the external and formal action?
Is kingship is not involved in the action of the moral? Never in the history of Russian
kings so do not limit yourself, and people have always expected from them and one
external
formal action. The state law in exactly the same supreme power is not
condemned to a soulless existence ... And even Aksakov says in his
famous speech in 1881 at the St. Petersburg Slavic Noble Society:
"Do not soulless projectile handed power to the people, and a man with a live human

soul, heart, and Russian with Christian conscience "...


That's right, but because some are false, and all partitions that Aksakov
Page 220

It arranges between the alleged conduct of the king's provinces and the people, because it
does not have a monarchy
their. The monarchy and the people did not refuse from any government, and the king is
not limited to any
a separate scope, but as the supreme power - nowhere is not eliminated.
In turn, the people, as rightly argues Katkov, not removed from
conscious participation in any kind of industry was state interests, and even
I obliged to this oath. It's not a "local" control, which is not exactly the same
can remain without affecting the power of the Supreme, in turn, of national
Management can not remain without influence people. However, Aksakov and
Slavophils
Zemsky Sobor considered themselves indispensable accessory of our monarchy.
Therefore, not one local government manifests the unity of the king and the people in
care
about people's public business. Moreover, it does not refer to the unity area audio
politicians and some only "external" action and everything lives than just people.
Supreme power expresses the element that is above everything and everyone in
charge. Imperial
Supreme power is the rule of the moral ideal in public life, and
therefore, the king can not be divorced from the life of the people of this ideal. It is true
that
this ideal king of the area is no longer lord. He's here already have a subordinate
power. Yet
he is subordinate only to the ideal attitude and everything that deviates from this ideal or
rises
this ideal of the king, as supreme authority of the state, forced to guard this ideal
in the life of the whole people, is the power in the life of the Church, and of the moral
"consumer" which Aksakov highlights the exclusive jurisdiction of the people.
Imperial power is not arbitrary, it is limited by the content of the ideal, it is obliged
It represents an ideal, to act according to its content. But the remaining subordinate
Ideally, it acts powerfully for its maintenance and implementation.
In understanding the content of supreme power and the relationship of the king and the
people Katkov
Aksakov certainly right, but only in theory. In practice, it turned out Aksakov
part of the rules.
Aksakov demanded a real dialogue with the people of the king, he demanded
government, he demanded the restoration of the rights of the Church, that is required is
that,
when the cash that kingship can only be sovereign, to express not

arbitrary motives of the king as a person, but the demands of the moral ideal of the
people.
Katkov as opposed to all of this, though he acknowledged that some immediate
communication tsar and the people need to have. He even against the church actually
He supported the position of the king as the head actually helped caesaropapism. He
never
He supported a single case of moral influence on the nation's supreme authority for
except its own influence. Of course, he admitted the pressure of public
opinion, for example, during the Polish uprising, or at rapprochement with France. Yet
I allowed him only because he believed in these cases, and public sentiment
view correct. Thus, he acted as a purely practical figure. Unless
Had he ever became convinced that the Zemsky Sobor will support what he thinks he
Katkov, he said,
probably it would require and the Zemsky Sobor. His sermon led publicist
Practice.
Aksakov is ready to give Russia the opportunity to express itself, that it considers
best for himself. It is the difference of temperaments, and therefore Aksakov, at worst
sincerely express wording of the requirements of the ideal of the tsar and the people's
relations.
But if the sum by the political doctrine of Aksakov, the outcome will still
small. Positive and true it is that, firstly, the relationship of the king to the people,
Page 221

essentially moral, but what? - It is not defined; secondly, that there are institutions
that imperial power, without turning into absolutism, can not be destroyed, namely,
that protects the independence of the Church - the Patriarchate, churches, then "local"
government and Zemsky Sobor, expressing the right subjects to express their opinions
and
criticism. In all this, the Slavophiles and Aksakov were on track to complete
the development policy of the autocracy, but this development is still not done, and his
teaching
zapestrili many theoretical arbitrary.
A. Kireev, Yuzefovich M. et al.
Among the other writers who tried to unravel and identify Russian
autocracy, most belong anyway to school Slavophiles all
It did so in the general formulas, do not give way to the construction of a legal political
system. An excellent formula of the king as a delegation of divine power has given VS
Solovyov.
The inner meaning of the sole autocracy considered Khomyakov D. * exactly
and without any attempt to build a political system based on this principle.
A lot of writing about autocracy N. Chernyaev, whose writings give very valuable
Materials for the study of the monarchical idea, but finished processing the material and
hitherto he has not received. AA Kireev enjoys great fame as the most

prominent representatives of the modern clean Slavophilism, but it is little developed


its political system.
* D. Khomyakov, "Autocracy, the experience of the schematic construction of this
concept." 1903
This treatise is very interesting, but published, unfortunately, "a manuscript", t. E., In
essentially unavailable for public use [97].
General AA Kireev views are reduced to the formula "the King belongs to the will and
action, people - opinion. "The basis of political relations in Russia purely ethical and
therefore, between the king and the people there, to be exact - there should be full
unity, so that in practice the political "will" of the king and the "opinion" of the people
must both
to be in a constant flow. Therefore, strongly rebelling against the Parliament, AA
Kireev considered indispensable complement system Russian Zemsky Sobor and the
local
government. Recently AA Kireev also wrote about some purely
practical measures to improve the operations of our modern political machine, but
about them I will not be distributed [Kireev, "Russia in the early XX century", St.
Petersburg. 1903 (on
manuscript)]. Anyway, AA Kireev "exercises" in the sense of
state law did not give. His works are of importance in the scientific sense,
refer to the religious field, where it can be read by a successor of Alexander Khomyakov,
but not in the sense of a popularizer, but in the sense of a completely independent
additional
Khomyakov works to clarify the meaning of orthodoxy. In this respect, the works of AA
Kireyev deservedly gave him an honorary member of the Moscow Theological
Academy.
A cross between Slavophiles and M. M. Katkov is Yuzefovich,
which resulted in the views of a coherent system, although subject to criticism.
MV Yuzefovich considering the fate of Russia in connection with the mission of
Christianity.
The historic mission of Christianity demanded two periods: the first had to be
"conquer the human material world and its power to subordinate all physical forces
Page 222

external nature. "The second period should be to" the Establishment of Christian
principles in
life itself. "The general's views M. Yuzefovich have affinity with the Slavophiles,
especially A.
Khomyakov, and with the ideas of Vladimir Solovyov, although in the latter case, some
similarities ideas generated only course of development of the national idea in Russia *.
* "A few words about the historical task of Russia." Kyiv, 1895. This book has already
been published
at his death BM Yuzefovich who found the manuscript of his father, including securities

deceased.
So, the first part of the problem, says M. Yuzefovich, I got to share in Europe. The
second
Russia should be executed. All this is expressed in simple aphorisms and is not,
Strictly speaking, "teaching." But in the details of the author's thoughts quite curious
peculiar relationship to Peter the Great and its institutions, what has M. Yuzefovich
sharply at odds with the Slavophiles.
He sees it in Petra purely Russian genius, nothing less is not imitative, and
Institutions considers not only independent, but exemplary, so that now wishes
restore them. Home emulate Europe M. Yuzefovich is we only Heh
century, and is a fierce opponent of the ministries. As for
Petrovsky Senate. Synod and colleagues, he sees in them the full enjoyment of a truly
Russian in spirit institutions.
"Peter - he says - has established the Senate, this excellent organ in the cathedral
First, it combines all the functions of the Supreme government: legislative,
executive and judicial control and, in the presidency of the king, with the decisive
voice, and to serve, in the face of the best people in the country, the national real bond
mind to the will of the individual leader, where he found help and advice, and could
verify how
actions of executive power, and himself. In this body expressed the wisest
conciliar formula of the legal order. "
Similarly, instead of Moscow's orders, "Peter put under the direct
the control of the executive board of the Senate, are excluded by their very nature
former personal tyranny. "
"In the church, he also replaced the personal Patriarchate Synod cathedral, this
better protection of the apostolic tradition. "
Story was so perfect; according to M. Yuzefovich abolished only reforms
Alexander I, he severely criticized. This criticism is very much true. Of course,
bureaucratic started to get from that time the most extensive development. Yet
regards Peter's institutions, there is no doubt that M. Yuzefovich impossibly
idealizes their action, and so in theory can not agree to at least one of
Peter's institutions expresses the idea of "catholicity."
Collegiality and collegiality - are two entirely different concepts.
A Council is beginning its holistic sense of the action of any organic
collectivity. So, in the beginning of the conciliar Church seeks to give integral expression
the opinions and actions of the whole Church, that is, all the millions of its members,
both spiritual and
laity. At the beginning of the Zemsky Sobor is intended to express the opinion of the
whole nation. Sobornoye
beginning thus seeks universal association.
Collegiate has no idea this is absolutely nothing in common, but expresses simple
cooperation. Conciliar beginning suggests that moral unity is possible and
really exists. And in all cases where there is a moral unity,

the Management bodies may well be alone. It is assumed itself that


Page 223

general moral unity expressed by the cathedral, will be expressed in individual persons
and in extreme cases even to put pressure on them. That is why it is the idea of
catholicity
Moscow Russia has established a system of "government credibility." This trust is very
abused by magistrates and clerks of lack of control, but as a principle it is, of course,
absolutely necessary.
At Peter in his "colleagues", on the contrary, manifested, as they express (and
rightly so), the system of distrust. This system is the presumption that all people
bad faith, everything - the enemies of goodness and truth. Because something needs a
"board" to members
its mutually follow each other, not abused. If Peter believed in
Russian conscience and mind, he would have believed in collegiality and did not have
recourse to the establishment of
boards, which the Management sense, obviously uncomfortable, slow, difficult
the responsibility of the individual, and so on. d.
The fact that the start of the Synod did not express catholicity of the Church does not cost
spread. Wrote about this a lot, and I refer in this respect to its
Brochure "Request time and our church administration." M. Yuzefovich, moreover,
completely overlooks the fact that the patriarchal office was also "catholic", since when
Cathedrals patriarchs convened to define a common line of church government.
As for the Senate, it is sufficient to recall that it was a meeting of military men,
and not a collection of "sovetnyh people" of the nation. As the body association
authorities in
sovereign senate certainly had its value, but remained a purely bureaucratic authority.
Unification of the sovereign and the people he did not give and could not give. On the
contrary, he finally
He brought up in the lap of the king extremely bureaucratic elements and thus undermine
Us
Supreme power and the nation.
Meanwhile the monarchy without this communication is not possible. Sole supreme
power to
the correctness of its functions, not be limited to one communication
bureaucratic institutions, but certainly requires some supreme power
attending the national voice of folk sovetnyh people. In this sense Zemsky Sobor
and make up for the establishment of royal authority, without which it we become, little
by little
switch to pure absolutism.
By Peter I, unfortunately, it and moved us to this path, and if Alexander I
bureaucracy rose to dominion on many levels, that the Emperor Nicholas I
He confessed that "Russia is controlled by the head clerk," the first impetus to this

domination of the bureaucracy was given institutions of Peter the Great.


KN Leontiev
We had in journalism has a brilliant mind, is not recognized during his lifetime, almost
forgotten after death, and yet possessing far more philosophical fold,
other than for the most practical minds concerning the monarchical idea. I
I am talking about Konstantin Nikolayevich Leontiev. A brilliant and paradoxical, he left
some very insightful sketch of the king's our principle in his work
"Byzantium and the Slavs".
Battling Slavophilism, Leontiev argued uncertainty and
maloplodovitost Slavic genius and insisted that Russia through its development
Page 224

obliged not Slavs, and Byzantinism who learned somewhat extended.


Leontiev domestic laws seeking statehood. "The government - he said is, on the one hand, as a tree, which reaches its full height, color and
fruiting, obeying some mysterious, beyond our control, despotic
the command of internal ideas embedded in it. On the other hand, it is a machine,
made people subconsciously and keep people as part of the wheels, levers,
screws atoms, and, finally, the machine produces some people. "" State in form
Every nation, every society has its own: it is the main basis remains unchanged until
death
historic, but changes in the details from start to finish. "This form of state depends
from its internal ideas. "The form is the expression of general ideas contained in matter,
Content ... Form is despotism internal ideas, not giving the matter a running start.
Breaking the bonds of despotism of this natural phenomenon is dying. "
"It is produced (the state form) is not suddenly and deliberately at first. She
it turns out well only in the middle era of the greatest complexity and higher unity, for
which should be constantly sooner or later - private corruption of this form and then the
decomposition
and death. "
What is the Russian state? What is the form and what enters into the idea?
The idea is given, says Leontiev, Byzantium. What vizanizm - is a highly
determined. "Byzantium - the state means autocracy. In religion, it means
Christianity with certain features that distinguish it from the Western church from heresy
and
schisms. The moral ideal of the Byzantine world does not have the high and, in many
cases extremely exaggerated notion of the Earth's human personality, which is entered in
history of German feudalism. We know the moral tendency of the Byzantine
ideal to disappointment throughout the earth, in happiness, in the stability of our own
cleanliness in our ability to complete moral perfection here dale ...
Byzantium (as well as Christianity) rejects any hope for everyone
welfare of the people. "Vizantazm" is the strongest antithesis to the idea
vsechelovechestva

vseravenstva earthly sense, vsesvobody earth, and the earth vsesovershenstva


vsedovolstva ... "Byzantium also gives a very clear understanding in the field of
art.
And that's it Byzantinism spawned Russian statehood. "Coming into contact with Russia
in the XV century and later Byzantinism was still colorless and simplicity, poverty and
unpreparedness. Therefore, he could not be reborn with us deeply, as in the West. He
we sucked similarities with their cleaner and freer. "
In the proper sense of the state Byzantinism found in our soil more
favorable to the royal idea than in Byzantium. "Byzantium had kesarizm
diktatorialnoe origin, municipal electoral dictatorship in character ...
Pagan Rome had a legitimate value, but an interim measure, the omnipotence of your
gifts
a holy city to one person. Then he (has become) as a legitimate legal fiction:
holy city suffered their plenipotentiaries the right to life of the dictator's head ... Christian Emperor used this power ready ... and anointed her
Orthodox in the new kingdom. "
"New Roman state, even before Constantine has lost almost all significant
party of former aristocratic nature of its constitutional, contact
State bureaucratic, centralized, autocratic and democratic (not
the sense of democracy, but in the sense of equality, rather - egalitarian) ... Go to
bureaucratic
Page 225

authorities increased (in a Christian state) new means of public


Discipline - the power of the Church, the power and privileges of the bishops ...
Byzantine had Kesarizm
a lot of vitality. He relied on two forces: the new religion and ancient
state law ... This happy combination is very ancient, familiar with the
new and fun and made it possible to resist the Christian state for so long
It shattered on the ground, half-rotten, among the most adverse circumstances. Caesarea
expelled, me, were killed, but no shrine kesarizma concerned. People have changed, but
change the organization at its core, no one thought. "
"Conditions of the Russian Orthodox tsarist been even more favorable." The idea
Byzantine emperor, we found a "wild country, a new, simple people, fresh,
simple, direct in their beliefs. "" As one reigned Byzantinism abstract idea.
In Russia, this idea has found itself in the flesh and blood of the king's birth. Generic
monarchical feeling
It was first drawn to the house of Rurik, and then at the house of Romanov. Generic
feeling so
strong in the west in the aristocratic element we found its main expression in
monarchism. The government we have always been stronger, deeper, worked out not
only

aristocracy, but also the family ... We have a hereditary tribal tsarist government was so
strong that
and aristocratic started taking under the influence of his office, polurodovoy character. "
"Having a first patrimonial (ancestral) the nature of our state this most developed
subsequently, so that the generic sense of the Company to take our state
direction. "
The conditions under which we moved to Byzantinism were said Leontiev, like no
in the Byzantine nor European. Specific system was not feudal, and the approach to
the aristocracy, which represented, for example, primitive patricians. The weight
the mobility of people was the place and attaches people to a place, and to the
genus. Generic beginning
and prevailed over the personal and on the municipal. Therefore, our Constitution veche
were egalitarian, had strong centralizing element (which gives
aristocracy). Therefore, the beginning of the veche could not oppose the king's
top. Beneath
the influence of external enemies outside and inside the specific idea of the Byzantine
aristocracy
He enters the Utility, nation-wide class.
In total, we have always been strong only three elements: Byzantine
Orthodoxy, Autocracy and unlimited maybe rural "world".
Our tsarist government, arising from tribal, fully grown and developed under the
influence
Byzantine ideas. "Monarchical principle we have is the only organizing
the beginning. "It penetrates the most intimate depth and beliefs in Russia as
whole, as a state and nation.
Such, in general views KN Leontiev. They, too, there is no detailed analysis of the
"constitution" of the monarchy, the analysis of its relations with the people and ways of
acting. Because
Byzantine centralization and bureaucracy can not be considered as an indispensable
membership in the Russian state, which Leontiev himself does not indicate
diktorialnoe and ancestral roots in the appearance of the monarchy.
What to do? How to edit? What are the objectives of the authorities to adapt? On those
questions Leontiev did not give a general answer. As a writer, he touches many private
issues. But as for the overall objectives, lying to the authorities, that he did not touch.
It seems to me that the definition of these goals, he was also a Byzantine point
view. As in Byzantium thought about was possible to "save" the remains
Roman heritage, and if possible, add to them something from the lost, so
Page 226

I think for Russia Leontiev saw the possibility of a strictly conservative


politicians. He expressed strong doubts in his youth in Russia, strongly I believed that
she had

He reached the limit of development, beginning to lean toward decrepitude, when you
have to think not
on the development of the forces, but only about how to spend their smaller, slower to go
inevitable end. With these misgivings, of course, can not be hunting for the development
"constitution" hireyuschey country and the monarchy, and if it survives to this day (1905)
then, of course, I would have recognized in Russia all signs of decay rather than
development. Perhaps he
It would have been right. But - the task of science is not linked with the fate, life and
death in Russia. Area
science - reason and truth. The question of which country has the power to be in the mind
and the truth is not
It changes the duty of science to indicate the true laws of sound policy.
Unclear scientific consciousness
While acknowledging the merits of Russian journalism to clarify the meaning of
monarchical
principle, we can not see that it could clear the way for him political creativity
only in the details, but the system and the program did not give. For the overall program
of action
any political principle must be as clear definition of his being and
Properties that here was running strong and clear attitude to all requirements of life:
the requirements of the individual, social needs, all parties rights and governance.
It is the task of science. But, unfortunately, our science of state law remains very
lack of independence and shallow, even to this day.
The reason for this phenomenon is partly lies in the fact that the state law on
necessary due to the state practice and positive law,
that for the entire period of Petersburg were under perpetual pressure of practice and
the legislation of the European countries. Whatever it was, our state law
It remains against European science extremely non-self and may still
nominate its own doctrine of sovereignty. In this sense no one
imitation, and even weakness (relative to the complexity of the subject) own research
forces.
In such a reputable scientist, as A. Gradovsky in "Principia Russian
state law ", scientific thought can not even find sources of knowledge of Russian
state law. A. Gradovsky all their notions of our state law
It had drawn exclusively from the fundamental laws. He seemed to be unable to
understand that the right
There is not only time when it is recorded. Meanwhile, when the entire depth
monarchical ideas in the content of Russian national life, legislative
definitions of monarchy did not exist before Peter. This does not mean,
that the State was not the principle itself. People knew what the king. Terrible very
aware of the essence of his power. But the law that no one wrote. Only when Peter
something written in the law, and then only in passing, and exactly correctly. These few
determining by legislation, together with Peter Paul later when the succession

codification have been made to the basic laws with the addition of the Khoi-what most
obvious
signs of autocracy. That's the whole material for the judgment of such a large Gradovsky
historical fact, as the Russian autocracy.
Of course, with scientific methods of determination can get only the most
Page 227

unclear, vague and arbitrary.


For Gradovsky points as if differences Russian Supreme power is
that we have the will power of the Supreme is not bound by legal rules and not restricted
no established.
But this does not have anything distinctly Russian, and is a sign of any
Supreme power. Democratic sovereign power, ie the power of the autocratic
People, too, is not limited.
Next A. Gradovsky indicates that the constitutional power exists for all
generally binding start, and in Russia they are supposedly not. Here is the same error.
Every constitution is required for nationals and for all delegated authorities, but
to the very source of power, t. e. for the autocratic people, no beginning Constitution
optional. He can remake it as he pleases, and no one can say that he has no right to
do. "The supreme power, -