Prince in medieval Russia: main approaches of developing Russian unique governing model

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Institute of State and Law Tyumen State University (Tyumen, Russian Federation)

Prince in medieval Russia: main approaches of developing Russian unique governing model

Larionov A.S.

Master's student “Master of Law” program

Abstract

sovereign power monarchical autocratic

The article is devoted to understanding Russian model of sovereign's powers. The author proposes to consider six main types of rulers and considers each of them in relation to the Russian history of the Middle Ages. The author analyzes a wide socio-cultural context in order to establish the essential foundations of state power in Russia. The author concludes that the monarchical autocratic ideal is the most suitable for Russian society.

Key words: history of state & law, Russian history, autocracy, prince, Middle Ages.

The purpose of this study is to find out which models of power existed in medieval Russia in different periods of history. In the first part we will talk about the Middle Ages and models of powers in general. Then we will examine manifestation of different models in Russia through the centuries. In the last part we will make some conclusions about nature of Prince's power in Medieval Russia.

It should be noted that the research is conducted within the framework of the socio-cultural anthropology of law. This means that not only the text of the law is considered, but also other factors, such as: social structure, economic situation and spiritual and ideological factors. It is not secret, that spiritual factors and Christian ideology had a huge impact on the Russian medieval society. That is why this side of the question should be also taken into account [5, p. 43].

It is necessary to say here, that the Middle Ages covers a long period from the 6 to the 16 centuries. That's why we can distinguish a hatful of models:

The power of the Strongest;

The power of the King;

The power of the Pope;

The power of the Emperor;

The Duke's Power.

Let's describe each of them. For that purpose, we will apply two main criteria. The first: who ruled after the death of the previous ruler? The second: who or what was the source of the power? In this case, the source is understood not as a legal act or event, but as an authority or force legitimizing the ruler both in the eyes of elites and in the eyes of ordinary citizens. The order of succession to the throne in this case is important, because it allows you to determine the logic of empowering specific people.

Now let's look at the Power of the strongest model. The next ruler was the strongest person, or the one who could lead an army and protect the nation. This model is close to the traditional authoritarian, tribal model, when those who was able to protect their fellow citizens and tribesmen are given authority. This model was applicable to Russian rulers at the early stages of the development of the Russian state. For example, the princely throne in the 10th century was occupied not so much by an heir as by someone who could seize it by force [1, p. 173].

The next model shows the power of the King. In the 12th century in England, the concept of the two bodies of the king appeared. Here the heir became the next king by joining the metaphysical political body of the “transpersonal king”. And this is a completely different approach. It is not enough to seize power by force, now it is required to prove that this person is the embodiment of the abstract king [3, p. 212].

On this side we can see the concept of Pope's power. The person became the next Pope in case when he was elected by the cardinals. In this concept the Pope and the cardinals represented God, who was the source of power. In this case, it was also necessary to prove belonging to a certain abstraction (in this case, God). However, the legislation also provided for the procedure. The cardinals were represented as authorized messengers of God. Moreover, their number was so great that only providence could help them choose one person.

The next concept is the power of the emperor. This power was inherited from father to son, but with the consent of God. Therefore, it was like the power of the Pope since God is the key source of it. However, this kind is different from both the power of the king and the power of the Pope. The key difference is that the emperor is often the head of secular and religious authorities, he receives power from both the people and God. For example, in the Russian concept, the emperor received power from God, and he, in turn, represented the needs of the people [5, p. 312].

Now let's turn to the last model. The power of the duke was the power of an elected magistrate. In this case, the ruler became the one who had been elected by the people. The power was "stored" in the people, nation, politically active citizens. In this case, there is no divine component, only people decide. Power is not a kind of sacred abstraction but represents only the powers that a specific official is endowed with [3, p. 32].

After examining this point let's turn to the historical context of Medieval Russia. We will look through 4 periods: ancient Russia before the Tatar invasion, the heyday of the Novgorod Republic, the period of Tatar-Mongol ruling and the tsarist Russia.

In each of them we will describe models existed those times.

The first period - ancient Russia. During the reign of Rurik and the first Ruriks, we faced the first model of power - the power of capable to protect the people. This time characterized by uncertain and confusing order of succession. It is interesting to note that here we could deal with some cases when power was bequeathed from father to son.

Let's move on to the Novgorod and Pskov. They were republics: these territories independently elected and invited their magistrate. At the same time citizens remained real rulers on the land. That is why they could replace a bad magistrate.

Talking about the next period, Mongol invasion, we may mark that the power was “stored” in the capital of the Mongol Empire. The ruler became the one who got from the Mongol Khan the Label (in Russian - Yarlik). The same time, pervious orders also existed. In some territories the strongest heirs became the rulers of the appanage principalities, and the republics continued to maintain independence. Interesting detail: in some individual principalities heir received the land by will only under the condition of God's blessing, like in the model of the power of emperor.

Now let's examine the period after the Mongols, also named the period of tsarist Russia. That time Russian's own concept of power started to develop. That was not like the Power of the King or the Power of the Pope models. This concept was closer to emperor's power. A striking example: Ivan the Terrible was called "God's mercy sovereign', and the ritual of his coronation strongly copied Byzantine traditions. Historical narrative shown that whoever handled the power in Russia, they (at least formally) obeyed the "Will of God". It means that Russian rulers of the tsarist period have seen God as the source of their power.

It brings us to the end of our historical journey. To summarize we can say that in Medieval Russia several models of power existed. They had changed one by one, but in 15th century unique Russian model started to develop. This model was like emperor's power approach and copied Byzantium traditions. But considering Russian historical experience it was not absolutely like in Byzantium. A little bit later this model will get name “samoderjavie” and will become the basis of Russian national idea.

This model will serve as a solid foundation for the Russian state for centuries. In this sense, the authoritarian autocratic model, built on a mixture of the power of the king and the emperor and closely connected with divine providence and religious doctrines, is thus a unique semantic link of Russian statehood. We trace the natural development of this concept at the subsequent stages of the development of the state and law.

References

1. Feldbrugge F. A history of Russian law: from ancient times to the Council Code (Ulozhenie) of Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich of 1649. - Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2017. - 1117 p.

2. Keenan E.L. The Kurbskii-Grozny Apocrypha: The Seventeenth Century Genesis of the Correspondence, Attributed to Prince A.M. Kurbskii and Tsar Ivan IV. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971. - 244 p.

3. Es Publica: Русский республиканизм от Средневековья до конца XX веKiа(ln^C(^lЛIl^и(в)t^яMfflDнCJІIkinфИS^, / БПщДіеред. SK.AntCiOaOBanBla. ExtMnaHLiaiw oИ^MedуvнbRuбsiзр еНИер (2Ю 21om SEhecCurrent West // Russian Law Journal. 2014. Volume 2. № 3. P. 141-150;

4. The Structure of Russian History. Interpretive Essays / Edited by Michael.

Размещено на Allbest.ru