Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Genesis: Historical research
Reference:

The religious and ideological aspect of the monarchical idea in the works of the main representatives of the Russian socio – political thought of the monarchical bias of the second half of the XIX – early XX century .

Shemchenok Nikolai Anatol'evich

Master's Degree, Department of Theory and History of Humanities, RSUH

124498, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Tsentral'nyi Prospekt, 445

kolja-shemchenok@mail.ru

DOI:

10.25136/2409-868X.2023.7.38510

EDN:

SZNAEY

Received:

25-07-2022


Published:

08-08-2023


Abstract: The subject of the study is the views of the main representatives of the Russian socio –political thought of the pro–monarchist wing of the second half of the XIX - early XX century regarding the religious and ideological aspects of the monarchical idea. The comparative method is used to analyze the concepts of the selected authors. Also, the Cambridge School method was used in the analysis of texts, mainly the approach of J. Pocock to the reconstruction of political discourses. The analysis of the religious basis of the monarchical system allocated by thinkers is carried out, the conclusion is made about its significance as a basis and as the main marker of differentiation between different types of monarchy. Special attention is paid to various concepts concerning the monarchical ideology and monarchical statehood of the main representatives of the monarchical wing of Russian socio – political thought of the second half of the XIX – early XX century . The novelty and relevance of the work is determined by the consideration of certain aspects of the monarchy as a separate, independent system outside the context of conservative discourse, which makes it possible to interpret the monarchist ideology as an independent direction of political thought; this question has not yet been raised in this way directly in modern historiography. It is concluded that the idea of the greatest correspondence of the monarchical system to the natural political aspirations of the human community prevails in the works of the thinkers under consideration. Also, the author believes it possible, based on the representation of Russian monarchists of the era under study, to speak about the exceptional role of religious and moral categories as the basis of the monarchical system, which also serves as the basis for distinguishing the monarchical system from the standard opposition of liberalism and conservatism.


Keywords:

monarchy, religion, christianity, paganism, church, supra - partisanship, naturalness, absolutism, autocracy, despotism

This article is automatically translated.

 

 

Introduction. The question of the monarchical system and its nature was partially touched upon mainly among researchers of the conservative field of intellectual culture of the Russian Empire, who considered this phenomenon in fragments and only insofar as it was necessary to solve their own research tasks.

Russian Russian Russian Russian Conservatism and its critics: A Study of Political culture"), among the main researchers of this problem can be named R. Pipes, who investigated the main ideological components of Russian conservative thought, inevitably touching on the problems of the Russian monarchical ideological field (Pipes R. "Russian conservatism and its critics: A study of political culture"); In the same row can be named V.A. Gusev (Gusev V.A. "Russian conservatism: the main directions and stages of development"). B.A. Uspensky in his writings examines in sufficient detail the question of the sacralization of the figure of the monarch, the sacralization of his power functions. In our opinion, I.A. Isaev gives the most complete vision of the phenomenon of the monarchical system, its reflection in the works of Russian thinkers. Otherwise, research practices, as a rule, are built around studying specifically the works of a particular thinker related to the context of Russian monarchical and conservative thought, and therefore do not allow you to see the overall picture (see the works of A.E. Kotov, A.V. Repnikov, A.A. Tesli, etc.).

The subject of this article will be the reflection of the Russian monarchical thought of the second half of the XIX – early XX century on the essential aspect of the monarchical system, as well as the role of the religious component of the monarchical idea as one of the most important elements of this ideology.

The monarchical system will be considered outside the field of conservative political thought, but as an independent political and ideological phenomenon, which, together with the absence in modern historiography of a direct statement of the question of monarchical ideology as an independent system in the context of comparing it with the conservative field of political thought, will determine the relevance of this study.

The reconstruction of the views of the Russian monarchists of the period under study will be carried out through the use of the comparative method, as well as the analysis of the texts of the selected authors through the use of the methods of the Cambridge school, mainly J. According to the author, it is this area of methodology that allows the most complete analysis of the material, which simultaneously includes a large range of historical, philosophical, religious and ideological issues.

The main part. Considering the essential aspect of the monarchist idea, it should be said at once that one of the most prominent and most famous ideologists of the monarchist trend was L.A. Tikhomirov.

This author is distinguished by the most systematic approach to the question of the monarchical system.

Regarding the question of the essence of the monarchy, L.A. Tikhomirov offers the following scheme of reasoning.

The monarchy is based on two pillars: the religious principle and the social system.

It is the combination of these provisions that creates a single basis, which in turn contributes to the formation of three main types of monarchy:

1. Despotic monarchy;

2. Absolute monarchy;

3. The monarchy is pure, it is autocratic.

All three types are certain idealizations and do not exist in their pure form as such. Traits of one type will inevitably be present in others, so there will always be some interweaving [11, pp. 77-78].

At the same time, as the name implies, only an autocratic system can be considered a real monarchy, while absolutism and despotism are only distortions of the true monarchy.

The crucial role in the formation of each of the types is played by the religious and moral basis. It is the divine sanction, the appointment of a monarch from God, that is the main marker of a true monarchy.

At the same time, the existence of a true monarchy without popular sanction is also impossible. The popular sanction, the election of the people, is based again on the moral ideal, the highest expression of which the monarch is. This ideal has an absolute nature, which naturally presupposes the people's faith in the Absolute – God – as the object in favor of which the people renounced power over themselves. The monarch is called to exercise Divine power over people. taking power over oneself given from above the ideal [11, pp. 101-102].

It is interesting, however, that according to I.V. Kireevsky, it is the restriction, the natural restriction, of autocracy by some developed social spirit, when autocracy will be dissolved in the "firmness of the general order" and constitutes the ultimate goal of its development [6, p. 55].

In turn, the despotic type of monarchy is characterized by the unlimited power of the supreme ruler. This limitlessness manifests itself in the form of the absence of "objective guidance".

Here again it is necessary to emphasize the importance of the religious basis of the supreme power.

The emergence of a despotic monarchy, according to L.A. Tikhomirov, is possible only in societies with dominant "false religious concepts", which can be conditionally divided into the following:

1. Religious concepts involving the personal deification of the monarch;

2. Religions that involve the worship of a morally indifferent deity, represented in the image of a certain force that is not complicit with the mental structure of people.

The monarch – god, for natural reasons, is not limited by anything, and also has no possibility of moral unity with the people.

The deity – an unknown force, in turn, which has no opportunity to become the source of the moral ideal of the people, projects the same monarch, to whom, as well as to the deity, whose intentions are not clear, but the power is indisputable, they will bow only out of fear.

Of course, this form of government also does not imply any unity with the people [11, p. 103].

Absolutism, being the most widespread form of the state structure of Europe throughout almost the entire XVIII century, is a distortion of the autocratic idea that occurred as a result of the religious decline of European society.

As a result of this decline, the monarch's power was separated from the divine sanction and turned exclusively to the people's sanction. Thus, the people, as it were, delegated their own powers to the sole ruler, who now had only one source of power – the people themselves, which is why this power was absolute.

L.A. Tikhomirov defines this form of government rather as a dictatorship, while emphasizing that absolutism itself is rather a principle of government, but not its form. By and large, it is difficult to call an absolute monarchy in this case a monarchy in the usual sense, since the Supreme Power does not have a divine sanction as its source and does not belong to the monarch himself, but comes from the people and continues to belong to him [11, pp. 104-105].

All three types of monarchy are not static phenomena, but are subject to a progressive (towards the true, autocratic, monarchy) or regressive development process, which is the rolling of the true monarchy into its distorted versions, and these in turn into other forms of government, aristocratic and democratic types. K.N. Leontiev in turn also he dealt with the issues of the monarchical structure of the state and society. Unlike L.N. Tikhomirov, he did not give such a developed monarchical concept, equalizing the concepts of monarchy and autocracy, without making internal differences in monarchical forms of government.

He saw the highest monarchical principle of the state structure in Byzantium, which in this case is synonymous with autocracy [7, p. 2].

Russian Russian Byzantism (monarchism), according to K.N. Leontiev, came to pure Russian soil and became the main exponent of the "ancestral feeling" of the Russian nation, which allowed building a state much deeper and stronger than the aristocracy and even the family. Again, one of the basic foundations of monarchical statehood is religion – Christianity – which gave the first monarchies an additional organizational structure, in the form of a church hierarchy, which contributed to the strengthening of monarchical regimes[7, p. 12]. Here there is a similarity with the ideas of L.N. Tikhomirov, who also considered the Church as the main tool for transmitting the idea of grand ducal power in Russia and strengthening the state as such [11, p. 216].

It was the monarchical principle that played the main unifying role in Russian history, allowing not only to build a single undivided state, but also to resist all external threats.

M.O. Menshikov's thoughts on the essence of the monarchy, which he equated with the concept of empire, are interesting.

Thus, monarchical societies, according to the thinker's concept, are more natural, natural, and are much better able than societies with other forms of government to carry out socio-economic regulation of society [9, p. 299].  Religion is also the most natural component of human communities, the main expression of the height of the spirit of the people and the source of the formation of the basic ideological postulates of public-state constructs (as an example, the idea of the "Third Rome" as the main ideologeme of the Russian imperial monarchy) [9, p. 97].

However, it should be noted that for the Russian monarchist idea, it was alien to consider religion from a materialistic standpoint – only as a means to implement the necessary transformations. It was characteristic to emphasize the organic connection of the tsar and the Church, the inseparability of monarchy and religion. The Church (which in this case is synonymous with religion) is the main binding link between the monarch and the Fatherland, the monarch and the people. The power of the tsar is sacred only because it has an ecclesiastical foundation, and the people only follow and obey the tsar because they see in him a "brother" in faith and a fellow in the Church

Thus, through the religious principle, a certain special system of inseparable relationships is formed: monarch – Church – people – Fatherland. In this case, the people are protected from various kinds of revolutionary movements, since love for the Church automatically leads them to love for the tsar and their country, which keeps the monarchical system inviolable [6, pp. 34-38].

V.V. Rozanov spoke about the naturalness of the monarchy for European civilization, claiming that it was the monarchy that replaced the ancient republics and Christianity that replaced pagan beliefs that created the world of Modern Times. In societies that are not frozen in their cultural, religious and philosophical development, it is the monarchy that appears. Thus, the essence of the monarchy lies in its moral and religious beginning.

The main idea of V.V. Rozanov, justifying the naturalness of the monarchy for the civilization of Modern times, is the idea of the correlation of form and content. Christianity, as a religion of human conscience, and the birth of an independent human personality – this is the content of a new civilization. However, it is known that every content needs a form for its existence. Monarchy is the only suitable form for Christian and personal content. Moreover, the Christian religion has changed the very essence of the monarchical principle, turning it from a sole, almost usurping power, into the power of one person, who now shares all the sorrows, pain and suffering of his people, having the Evangelical basis of his power[10]. That is why, for example, the Roman Empire, which was pagan for a long time – the monarchy – was a distorted state: the content and form were in complete disharmony[10].

Such a representative of Russian socio–political thought as M.N. Katkov considered the idea of monarchism more from the political side. He proposed the monarchy as a kind of alternative, lying in principle beyond liberalism, reaction, progress or regression, and was inclined to consider absolute tsarist power as the most effective instrument of governance and the guarantee of popular self-government, due to its supra-partisanship. Also, according to the thinker, the monarchy is the personification of the state existence of the people[5].

Conclusion. Thus, the monarchy as an idea and as a political system is presented to the main figures of Russian socio-political thought of the monarchical bias as a form of power and the structure of society, which rests primarily on the moral and religious principle. The advantage of the monarchy is its naturalness, from a historical point of view, and its non-partisanship, which ensures a high degree of impartiality of the government. In addition, it is the monarchy in combination with Christianity that is the main feature of Modern societies.

The most important role in the monarchical system is played by the religious factor, which is the foundation and at the same time the main source of monarchical statehood, in view of ensuring the moral ideal. Also, it is the Church (in the context of Christian history) that ensures the inseparable connection of the monarchy, the people and the country.

References
1. Gusev V.A. Russian conservatism: the main directions and stages of development /[Text] : V. A. Gusev; The Ministry of Education grew. Federation. Tver State University-Tver : Tver State University, 2001.-235 p.
2. Ermashov D.V. [Text] : Theory of power and statehood by L.A. Tikhomirov / POLITBOOK 2012, No. 4, pp. 96-103
3. Isaev I. A. [Text] : Political and legal utopia in Russia (late XIX-early XX century).— M.: Nauka, 1991.— 272 p.
4. Isaev I.A. [Text] : MASKS OF THE SOVEREIGN: "REPUBLIC" — "MONARCHY"/ LEX RUSSICA, volume 109, No. 12, pp. 7-24.
5. Katkov M. N. Ideology of protection / Compilation, preface and comments: Klimakov Yu. V. / Ed. O. Platonov. — M.: Institute of Russian Civilization, 2009. — 800s. Russian Russian life
6. Kireevsky I. V. Spiritual foundations of Russian life. – M.: Institute of Russian Civilization, 2007. – 448 p.
7. Leontiev, K. N. Byzantium and Slavism : collection of articles / Konstantin Leontiev.-Moscow : AST : Guardian, 2007
8. Leontiev, K. N. East, Russia and Slavs: Philos. and polit. journalism. Spirits. prose (1872-1891) / K. Leontiev; [Introduction by V. I. Kosika; Commentary by G. B. Kremneva, V. I. Kosika].-Moscow : Republic, 1996.-798 p.
9. Menshikov M.O. Letters to the Russian nation / M. O. Menshikov, introductory article and note by M. B. Smolin.-2nd ed., reworked. and additional.-M. : Publishing house of the journal Moscow, 2000.-555, with
10. Rozanov V.V. [Electronic resource]: About the Monarchy – Electronic data. – Access mode : http://dugward.ru /, free. – Title from the screen (accessed : 11.05. 2022 ).
11. Tikhomirov L.A. Monarchical statehood. – M.:SUE "Oblizdat", LLP "Alir", 1998, 672s.
12. Tushkanov I.V. Monarchism as a direction of political and legal thought / Philosophy of Law, No. 6(37), 2009, pp.14-17.

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The title corresponds to the content of the article materials. The title of the article looks at the scientific problem that the research is aimed at solving. The reviewed article is of scientific interest. The author explained the choice of the research topic. In the article, the author outlined the purpose of the study ("The article will present a reflection of Russian monarchical thought regarding the essential aspect of the monarchical system, as well as the role of the religious component of the monarchical idea as one of the most important elements of this ideology. Also, the monarchical system will be considered outside the field of conservative political thought, but as an independent political phenomenon"). The subject of the study was not identified. The author showed the results of the analysis of the historiography of the problem, revealed which issues researchers have not yet fully studied. Unfortunately, the research methodology is not presented in the article. The relevance of the study is not indicated by the author. The reviewer believes that the relevance is determined by the fact that in recent years there has been great interest in the Russian society in choosing the path of development of Russia, what it should be, which way to go, which system is most appropriate for it. Does Russia have a special path, or should we follow the path that other countries follow. The article presents the vision of the monarchical idea in the works of L.A. Tikhomirov, K.N. Leontiev, M.O. Menshikov, V.V. Rozanov, M.N. Katkov. The author identifies them as the main ideologists of the Russian monarchist idea and clearly shows the peculiarities of each of them and the differences. Special attention is paid to the views of L.A. Tikhomirov, the most prominent, active figure of that time, who tried to influence the situation in the Russian Empire in practice and tried to give a theory that could be applied to the socio-economic and political life of the country of that period. . The appeal to the opponents is presented at the level of the collected information received by the author during the work on the topic of the article. The structure of the work is characterized by a certain logic and consistency. The author highlights the introduction, the main part and the conclusion. The reference apparatus is generally correct. Russian Russian bibliography consists of 12 works, it presents the works of ideologists of monarchism and works devoted to the study of the monarchical views of the main representatives of Russian socio–political thought of the monarchical bias of the second half of the XIX – early XX century. In general, we can agree with the conclusions made in the article that the monarchy as an idea and as a political system is presented to the main representatives of the Russian the socio – political thought of the monarchical bias of the second half of the XIX – early XX century is such a "form of power and the structure of society, which rests primarily on the moral and religious principle." And the advantage of the monarchy is its naturalness from a historical point of view and its non-partisanship. From the point of view of the author of the article, which he draws from the analysis of the views of representatives of Russian socio-political thought is that "The most important role in the monarchical system is played by the religious factor, which is the foundation and at the same time the main source of monarchical statehood, in view of ensuring the moral ideal. Also, it is the Church (in the context of Christian history) that provides an inextricable link between the monarchy, the people and the country," probably many people in Russia will agree with this point of view in the modern period. The article is interesting, has signs of novelty, relevant, and is of interest to specialists and a wide range of readers. The article needs to be finalized and its relevance should be indicated, the research methodology should be disclosed and the subject of the study should be highlighted.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

When in the late 1980s, against the background of the crisis of the official communist ideology, there was interest in other political ideologies, this could not but lead to a revival of the ideas of monarchism. Already in the 1990s, interest in conservative political thought increased, including in the pre-revolutionary period. Despite various successes in the study of this problem, the reconstruction of Russian monarchical thought is still important today. These circumstances determine the relevance of the article submitted for review, the subject of which is "reflection of Russian monarchical thought in the second half of the XIX – early XX century." The author sets out to analyze the essential aspects of the monarchical system, as well as the role of the religious component of the monarchical idea as one of the most important elements of this ideology. The work is based on the principles of analysis and synthesis, reliability, objectivity, the methodological basis of the research is a systematic approach, which is based on the consideration of the object as an integral complex of interrelated elements. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the very formulation of the topic: the author seeks to characterize the monarchical system as an "independent political and ideological phenomenon." Considering the bibliographic list of the article, as a positive point, we note its versatility: in total, the list of references includes 12 different sources and studies. Among the sources attracted by the author, we note the works of L.A. Tikhomirov, V.V. Rozanov, M.N. Katkov, M.O. Menshikov, etc. From the research used, we point to the work of V.A. Gusev and D.V. Ermakov, whose focus is on various aspects of Russian conservatism. Note that the bibliography is important both from a scientific and educational point of view: after reading the text of the article, readers can turn to other materials on its topic. In general, in our opinion, the integrated use of various sources and research contributed to the solution of the tasks facing the author. The style of writing the article can be attributed to scientific, at the same time accessible to understanding not only to specialists, but also to a wide readership, to anyone interested in both the history of political thought in general and Russian monarchism in particular. The appeal to the opponents is presented at the level of the collected information received by the author during the work on the topic of the article. The structure of the work is characterized by a certain logic and consistency, it can be distinguished by an introduction, the main part, and conclusion. At the beginning, the author determines the relevance of the topic, shows that it is L.A. Tikhomirov who is distinguished by "the most systematic approach to the issue of the monarchical system." It is noteworthy that, on the one hand, Tikhomirov believes that "it is the divine sanction, the appointment of a monarch from God, that is the main marker of a true monarchy," on the other hand, "the existence of a true monarchy is also impossible without popular sanction." Studying the primary sources, the author notes that "the most important role in the monarchical system is played by the religious factor, which is the foundation and at the same time the main source of monarchical statehood, in view of ensuring the moral ideal." It is noteworthy that, as shown in the peer-reviewed article, the authors studied name the naturalness of the monarchy as its main advantage. The main conclusion of the article is that "monarchy as an idea and as a political system is presented to the main figures of Russian socio-political thought of a monarchical bias as a form of power and the structure of society, which rests primarily on the moral and religious principle." The article submitted for review is devoted to an urgent topic, will arouse readers' interest, and its materials can be used both in courses of lectures on political science and in various special courses. In general, in our opinion, the article can be recommended for publication in the journal Genesis: Historical Research.