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

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.