Sovereign Karl also considered his huge power as a fiefdom and regulated its life using the same methods and means that he applied to domain estates. Inspired by the ideal of peace, order and balance, he pursued a purposeful policy here that

400 years ago, the Romanov dynasty ascended to the Russian throne. Against the backdrop of this memorable date, discussions are heating up about how royal power influenced our past and whether it has a place in our future. But in order for these discussions to make sense, it is necessary to understand how the rulers of Russia acquired the royal title and what role the Church played in this.

The royal title is not only a verbal expression of a very high degree of power, but also a complex philosophy. For Russia, this philosophy was created mainly by the Russian Church. She, in turn, inherited the rich heritage of Greek churches, whose fate took place on the lands of the Byzantine Empire. The royal title was officially assigned to Moscow rulers in the 16th century. But no one, not a single person, thought at that time: “We created royal power.” No, no, our sovereigns themselves, and their nobles, and church hierarchs adhered to a completely different way of thinking: “The royal power passed to us from Constantinople. We are the heirs."

Symbols of royal power: Monomakh's cap and orb

Ancient prophecies

In the second half of the 15th century, events occurred that were stunning both for the Russian Church, and for all the “bookish” people of our fatherland, and for the political elite of Rus'.

Firstly, the pious Greeks were “offended”! They agreed with the papal throne on a union in exchange for military assistance against the Turks. Metropolitan Isidore, a Greek who came to the Moscow See and an active supporter of the union, tried to change the religious life of Rus', found himself under arrest, and then barely left the country.

Secondly, the Russian Church became autocephalous, that is, independent from Byzantium. Greek metropolitans were no longer invited here; they began to appoint heads of the Russian Church collectively, from among their bishops.

Thirdly, in 1453, Constantinople, which seemed to be the unshakable center of the Orthodox civilization, fell.

And all this over the course of just a decade and a half. And then, until the beginning of the 16th century, Tsar Ivan III turned the crumbling appanage of Rus' into the Moscow state - huge, strong, unprecedented in its structure. In 1480, the country was finally freed from the Horde's claims to power over it.

After the fall of Constantinople in Moscow, although not immediately, they remembered the mysterious predictions that had long been attributed to two great men - Methodius, Bishop of Patara, and also the Byzantine Emperor Leo VI the Wise, philosopher and legislator. The first died a martyr's death in the 4th century, the second reigned at the end of the 9th - beginning of the 10th century. Tradition put gloomy prophecies into their mouths. Christianity, “pious Israel,” shortly before the coming of the Antichrist, will be defeated in the fight against the “family of Ishmael.” The Ishmaelite tribes will prevail and take over the land of the Christians. Then lawlessness will reign. However, then a certain pious king will appear who will defeat the Ishmaelites, and the faith of Christ will shine again.
Our scribes looked with special attention at the words where the future triumph was attributed not to someone, but to the “Russian clan.”

After 1453, Moscow church intellectuals gradually came to the conclusion: Constantinople fell - part of the ancient prophecies came true; but the second part will also be accomplished: “The Russian family with its allies (participants) ... will defeat all of Ishmael and the seventh-hill [city] will accept it with its former laws and reign in it.” This means that someday Moscow will come with its Orthodox regiments against the Turks, defeat them, and liberate Constantinople from the “Ishmaelites.”

From the slow but inevitable awareness of some high role of Moscow in the crippled, bleeding world of Eastern Christianity, from the fascination with the exciting revelations of a thousand years ago, a whole “fan” of ideas was born that explain the meaning of the existence of the newborn power and its capital city. It was not in vain - they thought at that time - that dear forest savage Moscow found herself in the role of the sovereign mistress! It was not in vain that she emerged from under the yoke of other faiths just at the moment when other Orthodox nations fell into it!

Legends about the familyMoscow sovereigns

When Moscow turned out to be the capital of united Rus', its rulers began to look at both the main city of their state and themselves completely differently. Ivan III styled himself “the sovereign of all Rus',” which had never before been seen in the fragmented Russian lands. Under him, magnificent Byzantine rituals were introduced into palace life: together with Sophia Palaeologus, noble people came to the Moscow state who remembered the sunset Roman splendor and taught it to the subjects of Ivan III. The Grand Duke started a seal with a crowned double-headed eagle and a horseman slaying a serpent.

At the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries, “The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir” appeared - praise and justification for the autocratic rule of the Grand Dukes of Moscow. The “Legend” entered Russian chronicles and gained great popularity in the Moscow state. In it, the history of the Moscow princely house is connected with the Roman emperor Augustus: a certain legendary relative of Augustus, Prus, was sent to rule the northern lands of the Empire - on the banks of the Vistula. Later, a descendant of Prus, Rurik, was invited by the Novgorodians to reign, and from him he already went ruling family princes of the Russian land. Consequently, the Moscow Rurikovichs, the same Ivan III and his son Vasily III, are distant descendants of the Roman emperors, and their power is sanctified by the ancient tradition of succession to the throne.

Is it pure simplicity? Yes. Implausible? Yes. But exactly the same simplicity, exactly the same improbability, to which many dynasties of Europe bowed. The Scandinavians derived their royal lineage from the pagan gods! Compared to them, our Russian Prus is an example of modesty and common sense. At that time, kinship from Augustus was an ideologically strong construct. Albeit brazenly, defiantly fabulous.

Further, as the Legend states, the Byzantine Emperor Constantine IX sent the Grand Duke of Kiev Vladimir Monomakh royal regalia: a diadem, a crown, a gold chain, a carnelian box (cup?) of Emperor Augustus himself, the “cross of the Life-giving Tree” and the “royal frame” (barma ). From here the conclusion was drawn: “Such a gift is not from man, but from God’s ineffable destinies, transforming and transferring the glory of the Greek kingdom to the Russian Tsar. Then he was crowned in Kyiv with that royal crown in the holy great cathedral and apostolic church from His Holiness Neophytos, Metropolitan of Ephesus... And from there the divinely crowned king was named in the Russian kingdom.” During the years when Kievan Rus was under the hand of Prince Vladimir, Byzantium was ruled by Alexei I Komnenos, and Constantine Monomakh died in the middle of the 11th century. And our princes did not bear the royal title in pre-Mongol times. Therefore, the entire legend about the Byzantine gift is now being called into question.

Now, of course, it is impossible to determine with accuracy exactly what regalia Vladimir Monomakh received, and whether this actually happened. And it's not that important.

Another thing is more important: the Moscow historiosophist of the 16th century threw the “bridge of royalty” from the 12th century to the present. Then the ruler of Rus' already had the royal title? Perfect! Therefore, it is appropriate for the current sovereigns of Russia to renew the royal title. Idea kingdom, royal power, slowly but surely took root in Russian soil. Moscow began to try on the crown of the royal city long before it became “Porphyry-bearing” in reality.

(On the picture - Ivan III. Engraving by A. Teve from the book “Cosmography”. 1575 Seal of Ivan III. 1504)

Mirrors of Moscow

The grand ducal games with genealogy were much inferior in boldness, scale and depth to what was expressed by church intellectuals. The sovereigns acquired an official historical legend about their own dynasty. That was enough for them.

The learned Josephite monks (followers of St. Joseph of Volotsky) were the first to understand: Muscovite Rus' is no longer a backyard Christendom. From now on, she should perceive herself differently.

The ideas of the wise scribes who lived under Ivan the Great and his son Vasily resemble mirrors. Young Moscow, not yet fully realizing its beauty, its greatness, capriciously looked first in one place, then in another, and still could not decide where it looked better. In the first it looked like the “Third Rome”, in the second like the “House of the Most Pure One”, marked by the special patronage of the Mother of God, in the third - like the “new Jerusalem”.

The most famous “mirror” in which Moscow looked then was born from several lines.

In 1492, Paschal was recalculated for the new, eighth thousand years of the Orthodox calendar from the Creation of the world. Metropolitan Zosima's explanation of this important matter spoke of Grand Duke Ivan III as the new Tsar Constantine, ruling in the new city of Constantine - Moscow...

Here is the first spark.

A great flame flared up in the correspondence of the elder of the Pskov Eleazar Monastery Philotheus with Emperor Vasily III and clerk Misyur Munekhin. Philotheus expressed the concept of Moscow as the “Third Rome”.

Philotheus viewed Moscow as the center of world Christianity, the only place where it was preserved in a pure, uncomplicated form. Its two former centers - Rome and Constantinople ("Second Rome") fell due to apostasy. Philotheus wrote: “...all Christian kingdoms came to an end and converged in a single kingdom of our sovereign according to the prophetic books, that is, the Roman kingdom, since two Romes fell, and the third stands, and there will not be a fourth.”

In other words, the “Roman Kingdom” is indestructible, it simply moved to the east and now Russia is the new Roman Empire. Philotheus calls Basil III the king of “the Christians of all under heaven.” In this new purity, Russia will have to rise when its rulers “order” the country, establishing a just, merciful government based on Christian commandments.

But most of all, Philotheus is not concerned about the rights of the Moscow rulers to political primacy in the universe of Christianity, but about preserving the faith in an unspoiled form, in preserving the last focus of true Christianity. His “indestructible Roman kingdom” is more of a spiritual entity than a state in the usual sense of the word. The role of the Moscow sovereign in this context is primarily that of the keeper of the faith. Will they cope with such a difficult task? Filofey, therefore, does not sing solemn hymns to the young power at all, he is full of anxiety: such responsibility has fallen on Moscow!

The idea of ​​Moscow as the Third Rome did not immediately gain widespread recognition. Only from the middle of the 16th century did they begin to perceive it as something deeply related to the Moscow state system.

Royal wedding

In January 1547, Ivan Vasilyevich was crowned king.

Since the 14th century, Moscow sovereigns bore the title of “Grand Dukes of Moscow.” However, in diplomatic correspondence, even under Ivan III, the title “tsar” began to be used, equating it with the imperial title. Thus, in all of Europe, in the opinion of our monarchs, only the German emperor, and perhaps the Turkish Sultan, could equal them. But it's one thing to use such high title in diplomatic etiquette and quite another to officially accept it. This step was a serious reform, as it elevated the Moscow sovereign above all his Western neighbors.

The ritual of showering Tsar Ivan IV with gold coins after his coronation. Miniature. XVI century

Ivan groznyj. Illustration from the Great State Book. 1672

Moreover, the “book people” of that time understood: before their eyes, the Byzantine political heritage was being transferred to Rus'. A new “holding agent” appears in Moscow, whose place has been empty for a century, after the fall of Constantinople. Politics was combined with Christian mysticism - the “restrainer”, or “katechon”, prevents the final fall of the world into the abyss, to complete corruption and departure from the Commandments. If it does not exist, it means that either a new one must appear, or the Last Judgment is approaching, and with it the end of the old world. Thus, a heavy burden fell on the young man’s shoulders.

Behind this transformation one can see both the wisdom of Metropolitan Macarius, who crowned the young monarch, and the sharp mind of the Glinsky princes, Ivan IV’s maternal relatives.

The wedding ceremony took place with great pomp in the Kremlin Assumption Cathedral. A few days later, the sovereign went on a pilgrimage to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery.

European countries did not immediately recognize the royal status. And confirmation of it from the Patriarch of Constantinople Joasaph came only in 1561.

Mysticism and politics

In addition to Christian mysticism, in addition to the historiosophical ideas generated by the environment of learned monasticism, there were much more prosaic circumstances that made it necessary to accept the royal title.

First of all, the country had great difficulty in emerging from the turmoil caused by the youth of the ruler. The largest aristocratic “parties” reigned supreme for many years, fighting each other, staging bloody internecine clashes. Law and order have fallen into disarray. Ivan IV was allowed very little access to state affairs. And he himself was distinguished by a dissolute character: cruel entertainment interested him more than issues of big politics. The Church and those of the aristocrats who would like to end the era of lawlessness have chosen the ideal way for this. First, they raised the young ruler high above the level of the nobility, placing him at the pinnacle of the king's rank. Secondly, they married him to Anastasia, a representative of the ancient boyar family of the Zakharyins-Yuryevs: here are the tsar’s loyal allies, and a cure for dissipation!

It cannot be said that the wedding and coronation instantly corrected the character of Ivan IV. But they contributed to this. Until then, the sovereign was a young man living close to power, without a firm understanding of who he was in relation to his own aristocracy, what models should his life be built on, what would play the role of immutable laws in it, and what was destined for the fate of the marginalized in the fields biographies. The adoption of the royal title and marriage led to the fact that he was built into the social mechanism of Russian civilization. Ivan Vasilyevich actually acquired a real full-fledged role for the rest of his life - the role of the head of his own family, and in the future - the secular head of the entire Orthodox world.

Icon "Moscow - Third Rome". 2011

seal of Ivan the Terrible. 1583

Such an elevation imposes significant restrictions on the monarch - on his way of life and even on his way of thinking. For several years, the young sovereign brought repentance to the Church for his previous sins and “grew” into his great role. In the mid-1550s, Ivan Vasilyevich looked like a man who ideally suited her.

The country at that time was governed in a complex and variegated manner. Each region had its own administrative and legal customs. The “church region,” scattered throughout the state, was governed by special laws and rules. The serving nobility received “feeding” income from cities and regions, where its representatives took turns, relatively short term, held managerial positions. These incomes were distributed unevenly, depending on the strength and weakness of the aristocratic parties capable of promoting their people to feed. The law has been shaken. The central administration could not keep up with the ever-increasing wave of tasks arising across the colossal territory. After all, the size of the country has increased several times compared to the territory that Ivan III received!

The country needed reforms. And after the wedding of the sovereign, a period begins favorable for reformism.

The same aristocratic clans are at the helm of power, but there is no leading party among them. In other words, there was a reconciliation among the most powerful people in Russia; they agreed among themselves on a more or less equal distribution of power. The sovereign was no longer a boy who was easy to push around; now he could play the role of an arbiter and influence the political course in the direction he desired.

Formal reconciliation between the monarch and his ill-wishers took place in 1549: the king publicly absolved them of blame for previous abuses. At the metropolitan see stands a man of statesmanship, great mercy and extensive knowledge - St. Macarius. As you can see, he managed to direct the young king’s frantic energy in a good direction and not let it burst out violently and destructively.

In the 1550s, reforms came one after another, and the country emerged from them transformed.

However, this might not have happened if in 1547 the young ruler of Moscow had not accepted the royal crown. And the wedding could not have happened if our Church had not prepared the spiritual ground for it. The truth is that the Russian “priesthood” nurtured and raised the Russian “kingdom” to its feet.

The supreme power was in Ancient Rus' successively the following titles: prince, grand prince, prince-sovereign and sovereign - tsar and grand prince of all Rus'.

Prince.

I cannot decide whether the word “prince” was borrowed by our language from German, and not preserved in it from the original Indo-European vocabulary common to all Indo-Europeans, like, for example, the word “mother”. Borrowing time is determined differently. Some think that this word could have entered the Slavic languages ​​and the language of the Eastern Slavs back in the 3rd and 4th centuries. from the Gothic language, when the Slavs were in close contact with the Gothic power, which extended across Southern Rus' and further to the west, beyond the Carpathians; this word was then borrowed along with others, such as: penyaz, stklo, bread. Others think that this word is of later origin, entered our language at the time when the Varangian-Scandinavian princes and their squads became part of Russian society. Prince is the Russian, East Slavic form of the German "Konung", or more correctly "Kuning". Prince was the name given to the bearer of supreme power in Rus' in the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries, as this power was understood then.

Grand Duke.

From the middle of the 11th century. the bearer of supreme power, the Prince of Kiev, was called the “Grand Duke”. Great means eldest; With this term, the prince of Kiev differed from his younger brethren - the regional princes.

The prince is the sovereign.

In the appanage centuries, in the 13th and 14th centuries, the term that expressed the essence of state power was “sovereign,” which corresponded, like the territorial term, in the sense of appanage. This word is borrowed from private life; the word "sovereign" has a parallel form in the word "sovereign". It seems that, together with the latter, the first word came from the word “masters” (in the collective sense); Church Slavonic monuments do not know the word “sovereign”, replacing it with the words “lord”, “lord” or “lord”. “Gentlemen” had a double meaning: the first - collective - this is a meeting of gentlemen; hence in the chronicle the expression with which the mayor or someone else addresses the evening: “Lord, brethren” (called fallen); “gentlemen” is a collective term parallel to the word “sergeant major” - a meeting of elders. The second meaning is abstract - this is dominion and, as an object of ownership, the economy; gentlemen are masters, and then economy, domination. Thus, in one manuscript of the Helmsman’s Book we read about people who entered monasticism with certain property, that this property with which the person entering the monastery is “the masters of the monastery,” that is, it should belong to the monastery household. In connection with this last meaning, the word “masters” also had the sole meaning of master, householder, οτκοδεσπο της. In monuments of Russian origin, instead of “gospodar”, “sovereign” is usually found; however, in Ancient Rus', “sovereign” was distinguished from “mister” (a parallel form of “sovereign”). There is a well-known dispute between Ivan III and the Novgorodians over the title; Ivan became angry when the Novgorodians, having called him master, then began to call him master as before. This means that the sovereign was understood to have a higher power than the master. “Master” is only a ruler with the right to control, and not an owner with the right to dispose, alienate, or destroy. “Sovereign” - owner, owner; in this sense, appanage princes were called sovereigns - dominus - this is the owner of the appanage, the owner of its territory on patrimonial right.

The Sovereign is the Tsar and the Great and the Prince of All Rus'.

Sovereign - Tsar and Grand Duke of All Rus' - a title that was adopted piecemeal by the Moscow sovereigns approximately from the middle of the 15th century. As part of this title, a new term is “king”; tsar is a Russian shortened form of the word "cesar". The origin of this shortened form is easily explained by the ancient spelling of the word. In monuments of the 11th and 12th centuries. - in the Ostromir Gospel, in excerpts of the Four Gospels, in the Tale of Princes Boris and Gleb by Jacob - this word is depicted as follows: tssr - Caesar; Subsequently, the title under the title disappeared and came out as: tsr - king. As is known, in the Ostromir Gospel the form “kingdom of the nbs” still dominates, and not “kingdom of the nbs”. In the “Tale of the Mich Jacob” we come across the following expression (in a speech of praise to the holy princes, according to a list of the 12th century): “Truly,” the author addresses the princes, “you are the Caesar (dual number) as the Caesar and the Prince as the Prince”; it is written like this: tsesar, tssrem - “tsar” in Ancient Rus' since the 11th century. sometimes our prince was called, but in the form of a special honorary distinction; this was not the official title of all Kyiv princes. By king was meant a power higher than that of local tribal or national sovereigns; The king, or Caesar, is, in fact, the Roman emperor. When Rus' was subsequently conquered by the Tatar horde, the khan of this horde began to be called king. When the power of the khan over Russia fell, and the Byzantine, Eastern Roman Empire was destroyed by the Turks, the Moscow sovereigns, the great princes of all Rus', considering themselves the successors of the fallen Roman emperors, officially adopted this title. By tsar they meant an independent, independent sovereign, not paying tribute to anyone, not reporting to anyone for anything. The same concept of a sovereign, independent of alien power, was combined with another term “autocrat”; this term is an unsatisfactory translation of the Greek "αυτχρατορ". The title of autocrat was also sometimes given in the form of an honorary distinction or as a sign of special respect for the ancient Russian princes. This is what they call him in the lives and words of praise of Prince Vladimir the Saint; that was the name of Vladimir Monomakh's contemporaries. The same thinker Jacob says at the beginning of his story about Boris and Gleb: “In the summer before this (shortly before this) Volodimer, the son of Svyatoslav, was a small prince of the Russian land.” Along with the title of tsar, the Muscovite sovereigns also adopted the title of autocrat, understanding it in the sense of external independence, and not internal sovereignty. The word "autocrat" in the 15th and 16th centuries. meant that the Moscow sovereign did not pay tribute to anyone, but depended on another sovereign, but then this did not mean the fullness of political power, state powers that did not allow the sovereign to share power with any other internal political forces. This means that the autocrat was contrasted with a sovereign dependent on another sovereign, and not with a sovereign limited in his internal political relations, i.e. constitutional. That is why Tsar Vasily Shuisky, whose power was limited by a formal act, continued to title himself autocrat in his charters.

These are the terms by which the supreme state power was designated in Ancient Rus': these are “prince”, “grand prince”, “prince-sovereign” and “sovereign-tsar and great prince of all Rus'”. All these terms expressed Various types supreme power, successive in the history of our state law until Peter the Great. You can stop at these types.

Scheme of the development of supreme power in Ancient Rus'.

Finishing the presentation of the foundations of the methodology, I noticed that, while studying the terms of one order or another, we will try to draw up diagrams that would represent the process of development of phenomena of this order, thus applying one of the requirements of the historical method to the study of our history. For the sake of memory, I will try to bring you a diagram of the development of supreme power in Rus'. This scheme will incorporate only the terms of supreme power explained by me. We have not explained the last title that has been adopted by our supreme power: emperor; but this title is not a question of political archeology, but a phenomenon of our present reality, and our scheme will not be extended to this last type, known to us in the history of Russian law. To derive this scheme, it is necessary to accurately characterize all the types of supreme power that have changed in our ancient history.
The prince is the leader of an armed squad, a military company, guarding the Russian land and for this receiving from it a certain reward - food. The exact formula of this type is given to us by the Pskov chronicler of the 15th century, calling one Pskov prince “a commander, a well-fed prince,” about whom they (the Pskovites) were told to “stand and fight.” So, the prince is a stern, that is, hired, guardian of the borders of the land. The elements of supreme power are not disclosed, everything is contained in his significance as the leader of the armed force defending the country, supporting one of the foundations of state order - external security.

The Grand Duke is the head of the princely family that owns the Russian land that he protects. He matters not in himself, not as a lonely person, but as the senior representative of a ruling princely family, jointly owning, that is, ruling the Russian land as his fatherland and grandfather.

The prince is the sovereign of the appanage centuries - the land owner of the appanage on patrimonial, i.e., hereditary, right. He owns the territory of the appanage with slaves, serfs, and servants attached to it, but his ownership rights do not extend to the free population of the appanage, who can leave this territory and move to the territory of another appanage.

Finally, the Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke of All Rus' is the hereditary ruler of the Russian land not only as a territory, but also as a national union. Just as the title that denoted this last type of supreme power is a collection of previous titles, so the political content of this type combines the features of the preceding types of the same power. He is both the territorial master of the Russian land and the senior representative of all the current sovereigns of Rus', but he is also the supreme ruler of the Russian land as a national whole.
In order to indicate the course of these types, successively replaced historical development supreme power in Ancient Rus', it is necessary to recall the main features that characterize the concept of supreme power in state law. The content of this concept includes three elements: 1) the space of action of the supreme power, i.e. territory; 2) the tasks of the supreme power, i.e., protecting the general interests of the population occupying the territory; 3) means of action of power, i.e., supreme rights over the subjects who make up this population. The first element gives the supreme power territorial significance, the third - political significance, and the second serves as the basis of both and at the same time the connection between them: the territory is determined by the limits within which these common interests operate; the rights of the supreme power are determined by the properties of the tasks that are assigned to it. Taking these three elements as a basis, we will restore the course of development of the supreme power in Ancient Rus'.

In the first type, neither the territorial nor the political significance is clear. The property of the relationship of the bearer of supreme power - the prince - to the territory is not defined; for example, it is not precisely determined what the difference is in the attitude of the prince himself and the local rulers subordinate to him: mayors, governors or local princes - sons and other relatives of the prince - to this territory. Only one of the tasks of the supreme power is clear - protecting the borders of the earth from external enemies, but the political content of power is unclear, what the prince should do in relation to the internal order itself, how much he should only maintain this order and how much he can change it. In short, the prince of the 9th, 10th centuries. - guardian of the borders of the Russian land with uncertain territorial and political significance.

In the second type - the Grand Duke - both meanings are already designated - both territorial and political, but this meaning does not belong to a person, but to an entire princely family, the head of which is the Grand Duke. The entire princely family owns the entire Russian land and rules it as their patrimony and grandfather; but each individual prince, a member of this family, has neither permanent territorial nor specific political significance: he owns a certain volost only temporarily, he rules it only by agreement with his relatives. In a word, the supreme power receives a certain and permanent territorial and political significance, but it is not individual, but collective.

The prince-sovereign has sole power, but it has only territorial significance. The prince-sovereign of the appanage centuries is the land owner of the appanage, but his circle of power does not include permanent rights over the free inhabitants of the appanage, because these inhabitants are not attached to the territory and can come and go. All their relations with the prince are land-based, that is, they stem from a private, civil agreement with him: a free inhabitant of the estate recognizes the power of the prince over himself as long as he serves him or uses his land, urban or rural. The prince therefore has no political significance, is not a sovereign with definite, permanent rights over his subjects; he practices certain supreme rights - he judges, legislates, rules, but these rights are only the consequences of his civil contract with free inhabitants: he legislates among them, judges them, generally rules them while they are in contractual relations with him - they serve him or use him his land; therefore, the political rights of the prince are only the consequences of his civil relations towards free inhabitants. So, in the prince-sovereign there is sole power, but only with territorial significance without political significance.

In the sovereign-tsar and grand prince of all Rus', there is sole power with territorial and political significance; he is the hereditary owner of the entire territory, he is the ruler, the ruler of the population living on it; his power is determined by the goals of the common good, and not by civil transactions, not by contractual service or land relations of his subjects to him. The common basis of both meanings, territorial and political, is nationality: the Tsar-Tsar and Grand Duke of All Rus' is the owner and ruler of the territory on which the Great Russian population lives; This is of national significance and is indicated in the title by the term “All Rus'”. The term is broader than reality, it also contains a political program, a political claim to parts of the Russian land that were still outside the power of the “All-Russian” sovereign, but the real meaning of this term indicates the dominant part of the Russian people - the Great Russian tribe.

So, the prince of the 9th - 10th centuries, a hired border guard, is replaced by a princely family descended from him, who jointly own the Russian land, which in the 13th - 14th centuries. breaks up into many appanage princes, civil owners of their appanage territories, but not political rulers of appanage societies, and one of these appanage owners with territorial significance, but without a political one, turns into a territorial and political ruler, as soon as the boundaries of his appanage coincide with the borders of the Great Russian nation.

This is a diagram that can indicate the course of development of supreme power in Ancient Rus'. From the way we derived it, you can see why such circuits are needed. They reduce known homogeneous phenomena into a formula that indicates the internal connection of these phenomena, separating in them the necessary from the accidental, that is, eliminating phenomena caused only by a sufficient cause, and leaving necessary phenomena. A historical diagram, or formula expressing a known process, is necessary to understand the meaning of this process, to find its causes and indicate its consequences. A fact that is not included in a diagram is a vague idea from which scientific use cannot be made.

LORD NICOLOS MACHIAVELLI

Machiavelli saw his calling in political activity. Machiavelli created one of his most important works, “The Prince,” in 1513. It was published only in 1532, after the death of the author. The time of writing the Sovereign - when Italy ceased to be a state, the republic fell, turned into a disorderly mixture of independent states, within which, by chance, monarchical, aristocratic or democratic rule was established, Italy became an area for wars.

The research is constructed strictly logically and objectively. Machiavelli starts from real life experience and tries to build his theoretical constructions on the foundation of this experience. "The Prince" is a living picture of that time. All persons mentioned in the work are real. The author's contemporaries or historical figures are introduced in The Prince in order to prove or disprove something

Summary of the Treatise

The sovereign is the main subject of Machiavelli's reasoning and the central political image created by him in the treatise. Having previously considered what types of states there are(“republics or governed by autocracy”, Chapter I), giving historical examples their various options, Machiavelli moves on to the problem of political power and, above all, those conditions that allow her conquer, and having conquered, hold.

Further it is entirely focused on the personality of the ruler. Machiavelli justifies a politician who acts according to circumstances, remains faithful to his word, shows mercy, but in his soul is always ready to “change direction if events take a different turn or the wind of fortune blows in the other direction...”. Talking about Time, which allows or hinders achieving success, namely success is a measure of valor. Machiavelli does not see in his contemporary history a person worthy of seizing power. Therefore, he is ready to agree even to have it carried out by an unworthy , which served as the prototype for his G., - Cesare Borgia, Duke Valentino. The son of Pope Alexander VI, he was an example of the most cruel, assertive and, for the time being, successful political adventurer. After the death of the pope, fate, however, turned away from Cesare, dooming him to death (1507), and the state, which he created with such skill and such blood, to collapse.Machiavelli was a direct Witness to how this state was born during the war X, for on behalf of the Florentine Republic 1502-1504. more than once accompanied the troops of Duke Valentin, in his reports he repeatedly warned how dangerous and insidious he was. During his lifetime, a political opponent for Machiavelli, Cesare, after his death, will become the original from which the portrait of the ideal modern G. will be copied.

He paints a picture of the realistic qualities that real rulers possessed and possess. And he gives well-reasoned advice on what a new sovereign should be like in real life, referring to actual events in world history. Machiavelli thoroughly examines such categories and concepts as generosity and frugality, cruelty and mercy, love and hatred.

Considering generosity and frugality, Machiavelli notes that those princes who sought to be generous spent all their money in a short time. wealth. Machiavelli advises the sovereign don't be afraid to be considered stingy. Talking about qualities such as cruelty and mercy, Machiavelli immediately writes that “every prince would like to be known as merciful and not cruel.”

To retain power, the ruler has to show cruelty. If the country is threatened with disorder, then the sovereign is simply obliged to prevent this, even if he has to inflict several reprisals. But in relation to numerous subjects, these executions will be an act of mercy, since disorder would bring grief and suffering to them. Because of this part of the work, Machiavelli was accused of calling for cruelty and being unscrupulous in the choice of means.

As a true ideologist of the bourgeoisie, Machiavelli declares the inviolability of private property, home and family of citizens. Everything else depends on the sovereign himself.

Machiavelli advises the sovereign not to be a romantic in politics. You need to be realistic. This also applies to whether the ruler needs to keep his word. It is necessary, but only if it does not run counter to the interests of his state. The sovereign must act as circumstances dictate to him.

The predominance of general state interests over private ones.

Relations between the sovereign and the people. Warns that the ruler should not commit actions that could cause hatred or contempt of his subjects (inconstancy, frivolity, effeminacy, cowardice). Machiavelli is clear formulates the inviolability of private property. The sovereign should under no circumstances violate these sacred rights, as this will lead, faster than anything, to hatred of the ruler on the part of the people.

The ruler can face only two dangers: from without and from within. You can defend yourself against outside danger with weapons and valor. And against conspiracies from within there is one most important remedy - “not to be hated by the people.”

Machiavelli considers achieving balance between the nobility and the people to be one of the most important tasks of a wise ruler. The people are a much greater force than noble subjects.

On the issue of maintaining power after its conquest, Machiavelli considers honor and respect the sovereign by his subjects - one of the main conditions for his maintaining power in the country.

The author does not ignore such an important question as ruler's advisors- it is precisely what kind of people the ruler brings closer to his person that speaks of his wisdom. Machiavelli believes that the first mistake or, conversely, the first success of a ruler is the choice of advisers. (the sovereign must try to retain their loyalty with the help of wealth and honors.). Machiavelli tries to warn the sovereign against flatterers.

By endowing the new sovereign with unlimited power, Machiavelli, in strict accordance with this, entrusts all responsibility for the state of the state, for the preservation and strengthening of power. The sovereign must rely primarily on his ability to govern the state and on the created army, and not on fate. Although Machiavelli admits that fate is “to blame” for half current events, however he gives the other half into the hands of a person.

More than once Machiavelli returns to question about the army sovereign. Any army can be classified, in his opinion, into one of four groups: own, mercenary, allied and mixed. Comes to the conclusion that Mercenary and allied troops are dangerous for the ruler. The author considers his own army “as the true basis of any military enterprise, because you cannot have better soldiers than your own.”

One of Machiavelli's most important achievements is isolating politics into an independent science.

Based on the requirements of his time, Machiavelli formulates an important historical task - creation of a single unitary Italian state. In the course of his thought, Machiavelli comes to the conclusion that Only the sovereign can lead the people to build a new state. Not a concrete historical personality, but something abstract, symbolic, possessing qualities that are inaccessible in their totality

In the computer game Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, talking with the new mentor of the assassins, Ezio Auditore, Machiavelli says: “Someday I will write a book about you,” in response to which he receives the answer: “Let it be short.” It is also interesting to note that the antagonist in Brotherhood is the historically real prototype of Machiavelli's Sovereign - Cesare Borgia.

Sovereign (Italian Il Principe; a translation that is closer to the original, but less accurate in meaning, is also often found "Prince") - treatise of the great Florentine thinker and statesman Niccolo Machiavelli, which describes the methodology for seizing power, the methods of government and the skills required for an ideal ruler. The book was originally titled: De Principatibus (About the principalities).

Introduction

Chapter I. How many types of states are there and how they are acquired.

Chapter II. About hereditary autocracy.

Chapter III. About mixed states.

Chapter IV. Why did the kingdom of Darius, conquered by Alexander, not rebel against Alexander's successors after his death.

Chapter V. How to govern cities or states that, before they were conquered, lived according to their own laws.

Chapter VI. About new states acquired by their own weapons or valor.

Chapter VII. About new states acquired by someone else's weapons or by the grace of fate.

Chapter VIII. About those who gain power through atrocities.

Chapter IX. On civil autocracy.

Chapter X. How the strength of all states should be measured.

Chapter XI. About church states.

Chapter XII. About how many types of troops there are, and about hired soldiers.

Chapter XIII. About the allied, mixed and own troops.

Chapter XIV. How a sovereign should act regarding military affairs.

Chapter XV. About why people, especially sovereigns, are praised or blamed.

Chapter XVI. About generosity and frugality.

Chapter XVII. About cruelty and mercy and what is better: to inspire love or fear.

Chapter XVIII. About how sovereigns should keep their word.

Chapter XIX. About how to avoid hatred and contempt.

Chapter XX. About whether fortresses are useful, and much more that sovereigns constantly use.

Chapter XXI. What should a sovereign do to be respected?

Chapter XXII. About advisers to sovereigns.

Chapter XXIII. How to avoid flatterers.

Chapter XXIV. Why did the rulers of Italy lose their states?

Chapter XXV. What is the power of fate over people’s affairs and how can you resist it.

Chapter XXVI. A call to take possession of Italy and free it from the hands of the barbarians.