About the concept of "absolutism"

Yu.A. Sorokin

Historical science, like any other, accumulates a certain number of concepts and categories, the content of which must be strictly defined. A researcher operating with a key concept must put generally accepted content into it. Logically, if the content of a certain concept is not defined in science, then it should be abandoned.

To date, a common opinion has not yet been developed regarding the cardinal problem: what was the nature of the state in Russia in the 17th-18th centuries; what criteria should be used to more accurately define it, what terms should be used to describe its essence, what are the prerequisites and driving forces of such state development?

Terminological problems are grouped around concepts that are used to characterize the state form and organization of state power (1). To this day there is no satisfying, logically consistent definition of the term “absolutism”. In scientific research practice, the concepts of “autocracy”, “unlimited monarchy”, “absolutism”, “absolute monarchy” are widely used. Quite outlandish terms such as “autocratic absolutism” or “military-feudal absolutist regimes” are not so rare.

A natural question arises: do all these terms have the same content? Researchers have answered this question in different ways. Let's consider the main definitions used in the literature.

Let us first note that in Russian written sources, primarily in legislation, the term “absolutism” was not actually deposited. Russian monarchs in the 18th century. continued to call themselves autocrats.

Thus, in the interpretation of Article 20 of the Military Regulations of 1716 it was said: “His Majesty is an autocratic monarch who should not give an answer to anyone in the world in his affairs; but he has the power and authority of his own states and lands, like a Christian sovereign, according to his own will and splendor to govern" (2).

The Spiritual Regulations, prepared by Feofan Prokopovich and received the force of law on January 25, 1721, emphasized: “The power of monarchs is autocratic power, which God himself commands for conscience to obey” (3).

The term “autocratic” itself in this context is understood simply as “unlimited”. Many Russian legal historians paid attention to this (4).

In the program documents of Russian autocrats compiled in the second half of the 18th century. (“Order” by Catherine II, “Order” by Pavel Petrovich), we are again talking about the autocratic power of Russian sovereigns, and the term “absolutism” is not actually mentioned. It seems that a similar situation occurred in the 19th century.

So, neither the Russian sovereigns nor the Russian laws, in fact, operated with the term “absolutism” or “absolute monarchy.”

A priori, we are ready to assert that Russian historians of the 18th - first half of the 19th centuries. tried to refrain from using these terms in relation to Russian history.

Noble historians, primarily V.N. Tatishchev and N.M. Karamzin, substantiated the thesis about the originality of autocracy in Rus', so they found it almost in the ancient Russian state, and in Muscovite Rus' - in any case. Public School Russian historians, denying the existence of an estate-representative monarchy in Russia, talked about Russian autocracy starting with Ivan the Terrible. IN. Klyuchevsky, with certain reservations, recognized the autocracy of Ivan III.

Of course, all these historians did not attribute absolutist forms of government to such early periods of Russian history; they just didn't seem interested in the difference in terms. Otherwise the situation would have been turn of XIX-XX centuries

Russian historians and jurists, who took mainly liberal positions, late XIX- early 20th century identified the following stages in the evolution of the European state, successively replacing each other:

Feudal State;

Military-national state;

Industrial rule of law(5).

The military-national state was understood as an absolute monarchy.

It is easy to see that with this approach, absolutism occupied an intermediate position between the feudal and bourgeois state, being neither one nor the other. The mentioned authors already differentiate the concepts of “autocracy” and “absolutism”, believing, firstly, that autocracy established itself in Russia much earlier than absolutism (the latter only since Peter I), and secondly, they found the fundamental difference between them in European theories , explaining the power of the monarch not by Divine providence, but by the theory of the common good and the theory of natural law. M.A. Reisner directly pointed out: “The baptism (of Russia - Yu.S.) into a pan-European state form was the official justification of the principle of autocracy as the beginning of the common good” (6).

Thus, this group of researchers (M.A. Reisner, P.G. Vinogradov, P.N. Milyukov, M.M. Kovalevsky, etc.) understood absolutism as a certain historically specific stage in the evolution of the European state, ending either in a revolutionary the overthrow of an absolute monarch, or “reasonable reforms.” Both of these paths led to the establishment of industrial-legal, i.e. bourgeois state; and since in every European country this happened in different time, then, in their opinion, it is very difficult to single out the period of existence of absolutism in Europe as a whole. They recognized the very fact of the existence of an absolute monarchy in its European form in Russia and began it with Peter I.

At the same time, works by scientists appeared in European science, distinguishing not only the concepts of “absolutism” and “autocracy,” but also the concepts of “unlimited monarchy” and “absolutism.” Thus, according to Coser’s theory (1903), an unlimited monarchy gives three forms of absolutism: 1) practical, 2) principled, 3) enlightened. According to the theory of Heinrich von Treitschke (1900), European absolutism is divided into: 1) legitimate, 2) theocratic, 3) enlightened (7).

However, these and similar theories did not take root in Russian historiography, and by absolute monarchy, scientists who took liberal positions most often understood, as we have already indicated, an intermediate link between the old feudalism and the legal constitutional state.

But already the first Russian revolution moved the question of the essence and historical fate of the Russian monarchy from the region scientific theory into the field of practice. For example, the preparation of the “Basic Laws” Russian Empire“demanded the definition of the essence of the state system in Russia, and it was designated as “autocracy.” Many prominent Russian historians and lawyers were involved in defining this concept; later a whole series of works appeared on this subject (8).

It is very significant that in these works the scientists, in fact, refused to give a formal-logical, legal, or even specific historical definition of autocracy. According to the general opinion, it was necessary to leave aside the idea that the power of the Russian emperors could have been given a purely legal structure, like, say, a bill or a check. It was necessary to comprehend clearly and separately, as N.I. once pointed out. Chernyaev, "... religious foundations, mysticism, ideals, world historical knowledge, cultural vocation, political necessity, historical truth, moral principles, psychology, poetry and the beneficial influence of Russian monarchism" (9).

This position was close to S.A. Kotlyarovsky, who emphasized: “The position of the monarch often has a deeper historical than legal justification. The legal definitions of this power, the formulas of legislative monuments and constituent charters are only the surface layer... Russian history was exceptionally poor in stable legal relations, and this is especially acceptable to her10.

The same thesis became the property of Russian journalism. V.V. Rozanov believed that to understand the power of the Russian monarch, “to define it, to formulate it, means to reduce it, impoverish it, limit it”11. These theoretical guidelines made it possible to draw specific political conclusions and disseminate them in mass media. Here is the opinion of A. Sigaev, as expressed by him in the brochure “The Monarchical Idea and Modern Reality”: “The word monarchism does not express an accurate and clear concept; this idea is understood as a certain mood ... based on devotion and love for the Tsar,” and further “ The task of monarchists is to understand the idea of ​​autocratic monarchism in connection with the unity of the king with the people on the principles expressed by the will of the monarch, and to help him with reasonable obedience and conscious moral attitude to this work, which he entrusted to the monarchists" (12). P.E. Kazansky devoted chapter XXII of his capital work to the study of the principle of monarchical supremacy, enshrined in Article 4 of the Basic Laws. The main properties of imperial power in Russia are as follows:

Supremacy;

Majesty, which refers to the power of major decisions in the affairs of the state;

Extreme power, which can and should be exercised in emergency conditions, in times of extreme danger, including for making decisions above the law;

Power is last;

The highest power, the decisions of which are subject to everyone without exception;

Universal power, the decisions of which extend, firstly, to the territory of the entire country, and secondly, to all possible manifestations of state power (13).

On this basis, P.E. Kazansky was ready to recognize the power of the Russian sovereign as unlimited, but he strongly objected to Russian autocracy considered absolutism. In his opinion, absolutism presupposes detachment from the people, which the Russian autocracy never knew. According to the scientist, “the Russian legal language does not know either concepts or expressions that would correspond to Western absolutism and Eastern despotism, and forces us not to use words of a foreign root. In any case, neither “supremacy” nor “autocracy” can be brought closer to absolutism. The latter should be translated into Russian as autocracy" (14).

Introduction

In this work we will talk about absolutism in France and, in general, about the features of absolutism. We will look at the establishment, rise and fall of absolutism in France using the example of the reigns of Louis XIV, Louis XI and Henry IV and their successors. Let's see which sections of the population were the social support of absolutism and supported it, and with whom it fought during the process of its formation. We will also look at several dynastic wars in which France participated and religious wars in France. During this period, the culture and art of France developed well, France gave the world many wonderful writers, such as Moliere, Racine, La Fontaine, Boileau, Madame de Sevigne, so this side of the era of absolutism cannot be ignored.

The relevance of this work, in my opinion, lies in the fact that during this period France turned into one of the most powerful, strong European powers of the 16th - 18th centuries.

The purpose of this work is to consider successively three stages of absolutism in France: formation, heyday, decline and, based on the analysis of these periods, to conclude what role the era of absolutism played in the history of France. In order to get a more complete picture of what is happening, we will consider the institutions of absolute monarchy such as: regular army, bureaucracy, constant taxes, etc.

Based on this, we will have several research tasks:

define what absolutism is and consider the features of its development in different countries, especially in France;

Consider:

the formation of absolutist institutions in France;

consider the establishment of absolutism in France;

consider French foreign policy before Louis XIV;

analyze the period of the reign of Louis XIV in France, the foreign policy of the state under him;

And finally

consider the decline of absolutism in France.

When writing this work, historical-comparative, historical-genetic and historical-descriptive methods were used.

My personal interest in this work is that I am interested in France, and I believe that the era of absolutism is one of the most important pages in its history.

absolutism france louis

The concept and features of absolutism

What is absolutism and what are its features?

What is absolutism? Absolutism in the political sense is a form of government in which the constitution cannot limit the top of the government. Absolutism existed in European states throughout the 17th and XVIII centuries the dominant state form of government, which was supported by theologians, who attributed divine origin to the supreme power, and by Roman jurists, who recognized the absolute power of the ancient Roman emperors for the sovereigns. This state form reached the apogee of its development under the French king Louis XIV; he is credited with the phrase “L"Etat c"est moi" (the state is me) Deschodt E., Louis XIV p. 49. .

Now the question arises, what then is an absolute monarchy? The answer can be found in the very definition of absolutism. What is an absolute monarchy? government system, in which the head of state enjoys unlimited power. More precisely, we can say that an absolute monarchy is a type of monarchy in which the entirety of state (legislative, executive, judicial), and sometimes spiritual (religious) power is legally and actually in the hands of the monarch.

What features does absolutism have? With absolutism, the state achieves highest degree centralization, a strong bureaucratic apparatus, a standing army and police are created. Also, the peculiarities of absolutism include the fact that under it the activities of class representative bodies, as a rule, cease.

Let's consider the national characteristics of French absolutism:

1) the high role of the state bureaucracy, which emerged from the nobility;

2) active protectionist policies, especially during the reigns of Louis XI, Francis I, Henry IV, Louis XIII and his Cardinal Richelieu;

3) active expansionist foreign policy as a sphere of national interests (participation in the Italian Wars, the Thirty Years' War);

4) departure from confessional oriented policy as the religious-civil conflict smoothes out.

TO national characteristics It should also be added that in France there was one language, one faith - Catholicism, one tax system, one law, one army - the royal one, not the feudal lords. We wrote this based on the opinions of Brockhaus and Efron.

To emphasize the features of absolutism in France, one can carry out comparative analysis with some other countries. For example, let’s compare absolutism in France and absolutism in another famous European state- England. In England, absolute monarchy was established, as in many other countries, during the period of the decline of feudalism. During the reign of the Tudor dynasty (1485-1603), royal power in England strengthened significantly and became absolute. Already the first king of this dynasty, Henry II (1485-1590), waged a merciless fight against the remnants of the feudal nobility. The founder of English absolutism was Henry II.

The absolute monarchy in England had features that were not characteristic of France. Thanks to these features, absolutism in England is often called “unfinished.” The incompleteness lies in the fact that although England had a strong royal power, parliament continued to exist. The inconsistency of this phenomenon is evident from the fact that parliament had the right to distribute taxes, but at the same time, the king’s decrees were in no way inferior to parliamentary laws in terms of power. Also in England, a new nobility was formed, making their farms capitalist. Vast fields were used as pastures; hundreds of sheep were raised on one property, wool was processed, and later trade was carried out, even for export. The split in the feudal classes led to civil wars (the Scarlet and White Roses). Representatives of the new capitalist society were interested in a strong central government, which allowed them to develop production, and therefore the country’s economy. Thanks to its powerful economy, England builds powerful fleets and becomes the largest colonialist. Monarchs in England were able to seize church lands and make them the property of the state, and the highest church body, the High Commission, was formed under the control of the king.

As a result, we can briefly formulate the features of absolutism in England:

along with a strong monarchy, parliament continued to exist in England;

local self-government is preserved;

lack of a permanent large army.

The political system of England during the period of absolutism:

1) king - real power was concentrated in his hands;

2) central authorities and management:

The Privy Council - the Star Chamber - served as a censor and oversight of the correctness of verdicts by the jury and the Chamber of Petitions;

parliament - approved the amount of taxes and fees;

The High Commission fought against opponents of the reformed church, investigated cases related to violations of laws and the supremacy of royal power in church affairs.

We were able to write this based on Ryzhov’s opinion. You can see what absolutism was like in Russia. The period when in Russia the form government there was an absolute monarchy different sources dated differently. A more common option is the beginning of the 18th - beginning of the 20th century. Either from the reforms of Peter I, when the Boyar Duma was abolished and power was concentrated in the hands of the autocrat, from the release of the “Manifesto on the Improvement public order"October 17, 1905, and the convening of parliament that followed. Or, that period of the country that was between an estate-representative monarchy (classic sign - the Boyar Duma) and a parliamentary monarchy (sign - convening of parliament). The head of the state was the tsar. The monarch had unlimited power, and was the only source of law. The system of power that was created under Peter 1 is often called absolutism in Russia, which differs from absolutism in Europe in that in Russia there is no bourgeoisie and capitalism. were formed. Absolutism in Russia had support in the nobility. It can be said that absolutism in social terms represented the dictatorship of the feudal nobility. In this regard, one can conclude that one of the main tasks of the autocracy was the protection of the feudal-serf system. However, absolutism also solved vital ones. national tasks, first of all, overcoming backwardness and creating guarantees of the country's security. In order to accomplish this task, it was necessary to include all the material and spiritual resources of the state and establish complete control over its subjects. Therefore, one of the main differences between Russian absolutism and European absolutism, and therefore absolutism in France, which was considered classical absolutism. Therefore, if European absolutism provided for the autonomy of society from power, then in Russia the absolutist regime seemed to stand on society and forced all classes to serve itself.

As a result, we can say that, as in many European countries Ah absolutism existed in France throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. But in France it had its own characteristics and it makes sense to emphasize that absolutism reached the apogee of its development precisely in France during the reign of King Louis XIV, to whom the words “the state is me” belong. Also Deschodt E., Louis XIV p. 49 it should be added that absolutism in France is considered classical.

Absolutism Absolutism is a form of state in some countries Western Europe and the East in the 16th-18th centuries, in which the monarch has unlimited supreme power. In strictly centralized state an extensive bureaucratic apparatus, a standing army, police, tax service, and courts were created. The most typical example of absolutism is France during the reign of King Louis XIV, who considered himself God's viceroy on Earth.

Historical Dictionary. 2000 .

See what “Absolutism” is in other dictionaries:

- (absolutism) Originally (1733) the theological concept that salvation is entirely dependent on the will of God. Subsequently, this term extended to a political regime in which the ruler has the legal right to accept any... ... Political science. Dictionary.

In polit. sense, there is a form of government in which the supreme power is not limited by the constitution. Absolutism was the dominant state form in European continental states during the 17th and 18th centuries... ... Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron

- (from Latin absolvere to untie, resolve, release). 1) in philosophy: the desire for direct contemplation and perception of the unconditional. 2) in politics: a system of unlimited power. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

This term has other meanings, see Absolutism (meanings). Absolutism (from Latin absolutus unconditional) is a period in the history of Europe when there was an absolute monarchy. Absolute monarchy government structure,... ... Wikipedia

- (unlimited, absolute) monarchy, autocracy, autocracy, autocracy, tsarism Dictionary of Russian synonyms. absolutism see autocracy Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. Practical guide. M.: Russian language... Synonym dictionary

absolutism- a, m. absolutisme m. 1797. Ray 1998. A form of government in which supreme power belongs entirely to an autocratic monarch, an unlimited monarchy. Ozh. 1986. When I noticed in the people with whom I spoke a desire political freedom without… … Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

- (absolute monarchy) a form of feudal state in which the monarch has unlimited supreme power. Under absolutism, the state reaches the highest degree of centralization, an extensive bureaucratic apparatus is created,... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

ABSOLUTISM, a form of unlimited monarchy (absolute monarchy), characteristic of the era of late feudalism. Under absolutism, the state reaches the highest degree of centralization, an extensive bureaucratic apparatus, a standing army and... Modern encyclopedia

ABSOLUTISM, absolutism, many. no, husband (from Latin absolutus independent) (polit.). A state system with unlimited personal supreme power, autocracy. Dictionary Ushakova. D.N. Ushakov. 1935 1940 … Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

ABSOLUTISM, ah, husband. A form of government in which supreme power belongs entirely to an autocratic monarch, an unlimited monarchy. | adj. absolutist, oh, oh. Ozhegov's explanatory dictionary. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

Books

• , Aleksandrov M.S.. Aleksandrov Mikhail Stepanovich (1863-1933) - leader of the Russian revolutionary movement, Marxist historian and publicist. The study is devoted to the problem of the state and criticism of bourgeois theories...
• State, bureaucracy and absolutism in the history of Russia, Aleksandrov M.S.. This book will be produced in accordance with your order using Print-on-Demand technology. Alexandrov Mikhail Stepanovich (1863-1933) - leader of the Russian revolutionary movement, Marxist...

Absolutism is a form of government in which supreme power belongs entirely to one person, autocracy, unlimited monarchy.

in a number of countries, in a modified form, absolutism as a relic of feudalism survived until the 20th century. From a formal legal point of view, absolutism is characterized by the fact that the head of state (king, czar, emperor) is considered as the only source of legislative and executive power, the latter being exercised by officials dependent only on him; the head of state sets taxes and spends the collected money uncontrollably. Absolute monarchy - the most complete form of political centralization in feudal states - creates a powerful and extensive bureaucratic apparatus and the most effective (compared to previous forms of state) means of coercion in the form of a standing army, police, court, and fiscal system. An absolute monarchy, like any other form of feudal state, is an organ of subordination and suppression of the working people, primarily the peasantry. A specific feature of absolutism is that under absolutism the coercive apparatus (that is, the state in the proper sense of the word) acquires apparent independence from the ruling class of the nobility, whose organ it is. The conditions creating such an opportunity appear with the development in the depths of feudal society of elements of capitalist production relations and the emergence of a bourgeoisie, not yet strong enough to lay claim to seizing power, but economically already powerful enough to oppose its interests to the interests of the ruling class of feudal lords. It was during this transition period that an absolute monarchy emerged. Despite the fact that absolutism and its executive bodies played on the contradictions between the nobility and the bourgeoisie, relying first on the first and then on the second, it remained a form of dictatorship of the nobility, which, in the changed historical conditions of the decomposition of feudalism and the sharp aggravation of the class struggle, was forced to put up with in the interests of preserving their own. privileges and their position as the ruling class with the need for independence (within certain limits) of the apparatus of state power.

The problem of absolutism attracts great attention historians and government scientists; however, bourgeois historians and lawyers usually focus their main attention on the formal legal features of absolutism (many of them find absolute monarchy wherever there was unlimited monarchical power - in Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome during the imperial period, etc.). In accordance with bourgeois views on the state, there are widespread ideas about the supra-class nature of the absolute monarchy, statements that the absolute monarchy is essentially a bourgeois state, and not a feudal one (in accordance with the bourgeois concepts of feudalism as a period feudal fragmentation). Absolute monarchy first received scientific theoretical consideration in the works and statements of K. Marx, F. Engels, V. I. Lenin (see literature for the article). In the Soviet historical science The problem of absolutism has long been one of the controversial issues. In the 1920s, the concept of M. N. Pokrovsky, who considered absolute monarchy a form of domination of commercial capital, was widely spread. Modern Soviet historians unanimously define the class essence of an absolute monarchy (this is the last form of a feudal state), although there are differences in the approach to the problems of an absolute monarchy in the works of Soviet historians (see the works of S. D. Skazkin and B. F. Porshnev, indicated in the literature to Article). Until recently, absolute monarchy was studied almost exclusively on European material. However, this form of state arose in certain historical conditions and far beyond the borders of Europe, although the development of absolutism in European countries and in the countries of the East has its own characteristics, as well as its development in a particular country. The features of absolute monarchy in the countries of the East have not yet been sufficiently studied in historical science.

The countries where absolutism took the most complete “classical” forms were: in Europe - France, in Asia - Japan. In France, the appearance of some elements of absolutism dates back to the time of Louis XI (1461-1483), the flowering - to the time of Richelieu and especially Louis XIV (1643-1715). Absolute monarchy came here, as in other European countries, to replace class monarchy; estate-representative institutions (the French Estates General, the Spanish Cortes) in the era of absolutism, as a rule, cease to be convened.

The absolute monarchy in the initial period of its existence played a historically progressive role. She put an end to the separatism of the feudal nobility, destroying the remnants of political fragmentation, contributed to the unity of large territories, establishing uniform governance in them, which contributed to the economic unity of the country and successful development new, capitalist relations. The absolute monarchy subsidized the development of manufactures, introduced a system of protective duties, pursued a policy of mercantilism, and waged trade wars. Therefore, during this period it was supported by the bourgeoisie, which, in addition, needed an apparatus of violence in the era of the so-called primitive accumulation of capital. However, the absolute monarchy acted to the benefit of the bourgeoisie only insofar as it was in the interests of the ruling class of the nobility, which received from the successful economic development of the country, which at that stage could only be capitalist, additional income from the development of trade and industry, both in the form of taxes (centralized feudal rent ), which increased enormously under absolutism, and directly from the revival of economic life. The absolute monarchy used economic development also to strengthen the military power of the feudal state and carry out military expansion. These features of absolutism, characteristic (with various modifications) of most European countries that have gone through the stage of absolutism, found their most vivid expression in France. Features of English absolutism ( classical period- under Elizabeth Tudor, 1558-1603) were the preservation of parliament, which was used by the royal authorities as a tool to strengthen their power, the weakness of the bureaucratic apparatus in the localities, where local government continued to play a major role, and the absence of a standing army. The main feature of absolutism in Spain (classical period - under Philip II, 1556-1598) was that it did not support the country's industry and trade (did not pursue a policy of protectionism, encouraging the development of manufactories, etc.), thus not , a progressive role and actually degenerated into despotism. In fragmented Germany, absolutism developed belatedly (in the 2nd half of the 17th and 18th centuries) and only within certain territories (princely absolutism). Absolutism in Russia also had distinctive features (see below - section Absolutism in Russia). In some countries (Poland) absolutism did not develop at all. In the 18th century, the characteristic form of absolutism in a number of European countries with a relatively slow development of capitalist relations (Austria, Prussia, Russia, Scandinavian countries) was the so-called enlightened absolutism.

In Asian countries, absolutism developed from state forms different from those in European countries (there was no class monarchy). Due to the slower development of elements of capitalist relations in most Asian countries, the existence of absolutism here dragged on (in a number of countries it existed until the 20th century, in some it has survived, albeit in a modified form, to this day). The greater stability of feudal relations in Asian countries led to the fact that centralization was carried out here less fully, and the emerging local capitalist. elements had less influence on the policies of the absolutist state than in many European countries; at the same time, foreign intervention and the colonial policy of European capitalist powers had a significant influence on the policies of feudal absolutist states in a number of Asian countries. For example, in China, where elements of absolutism arose during the Ming dynasty (especially in the 16th century), the Manchu Qing dynasty (1644-1911), which preserved the feudal system for some time, relied not only on Chinese feudal lords, but also on foreign imperialists. Conservation of the feudal system, reliance not only on large Turkish feudal lords, but also on foreign imperialism were also characteristic of the reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid II (1876-1909) in Ottoman Empire. Certain features of absolutism (encouragement of manufactures, introduction of protective customs duties, state monopolies) were found in Egypt in the 1st half of the 19th century, especially under Muhammad Ali (1805-1849), but they did not develop due to the penetration of foreign capital into Egypt. In Japan, where absolutism was most clearly expressed (established at the beginning of the 17th century during the Tokugawa era), it was characterized by: the placement of the possessions of feudal lords so that between the lands of large feudal lords there were located the possessions of feudal lords, either directly belonging to the ruling Tokugawa house, or completely dependent on him; the hostage system - the obligation of feudal lords to keep their families in the capital, and to live alternately for a year in their principality, a year in the capital; creating one’s own economic power by concentrating almost a quarter of the country’s entire land fund in the hands of the ruling house; removal of all large trade and craft cities and trade routes from the jurisdiction of the feudal lords and their subordination to the central government; isolation of the country from the outside world.

With the development of the bourgeoisie, the absolute monarchy gradually lost its progressive character and became an institution that delayed the further development of capitalism and society as a whole. In developed capitalist countries where early bourgeois revolutions took place, absolutism was destroyed during these revolutions (in England - during the bourgeois revolution of the 17th century, in France - the bourgeois revolution of the late 18th century). In countries of slower capitalist development, the bourgeoisie, in the face of a growing proletariat, made a deal with the feudal-absolutist monarchy (in the revolutions of 1848-1849 in Germany and Austria, in the revolution of 1905-1907 in Russia, etc.) - here a gradual evolution of the feudal-absolutist monarchy took place. an absolutist monarchy into a bourgeois-landowner monarchy; The so-called Meiji Revolution (1867-1868) in Japan, which ended Tokugawa absolutism, but did not eliminate the monarchy and the dominance of feudal elements in the state apparatus, was also incomplete. In Russia, the absolute monarchy was abolished by the February bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1917; The semi-absolutist monarchy in Germany lasted until the bourgeois-democratic November Revolution of 1918. In China, where the struggle against the feudal-absolutist regime of the Qing dynasty was closely intertwined with the struggle for liberation from foreign oppression, the absolute monarchy was destroyed as a result of the Xinhai Revolution of 1911. In Turkey, absolutism was eliminated in 1922, as a result of the national liberation struggle of the Turkish people (the so-called Kemalist Revolution).

ABSOLUTISM (from the Latin absolutus - unconditional, unlimited), the state system in the countries of Western Europe at the late stage of the pre-industrial era, characterized by the rejection of class-representative institutions and the utmost concentration of power in the hands of the monarch. Along with the concept of absolutism in literature, there is a primary concept in relation to it, “absolute monarchy,” used in a broad sense (unlimited power of the sovereign), as well as in a narrow, strictly scientific sense, coinciding with the concept of absolutism.

Absolutism as a historical concept. The term “absolutism” has become widespread since the mid-19th century, but the fact that this system was a holistic phenomenon that included not only institutions of power, but to a large extent social relations, was realized already on the eve of the Great French Revolution. Then the essence of this phenomenon was expressed by the concept of the “old order” (Ancien regime).

In the 18th century, the terms “despotism” and “feudal order” - rough synonyms for the “old order” - also became widespread. The concept of absolutism was developed to designate a system that was becoming a thing of the past and to fight against it, which lasted throughout the entire 19th century. It contained the idea of ​​historical development - from oppression and ignorance to freedom and enlightenment, from autocracy to a constitutional system. Thanks to A. de Tocqueville (“ Old order and revolution”, 1856), absolutism also began to be viewed in a sociological context, not only as the centralization of power, but also as a way of leveling class (social) differences.

Genesis and formation of political theories of absolutism. The concept of absolute monarchy as a form of organization of power is much older than the concept of absolutism as an era in European history. It goes back to Roman law, to the formula of the 2nd century lawyer Ulpian: princeps legibus solutus (or absolutus) est (the sovereign is not bound by laws). It was used in the Middle Ages and became widespread in the 16th century, becoming in fact the self-name of absolutist regimes. The background for the development of theories of absolute monarchy in the 15th-17th centuries was the formation of the concept of the state. In ancient and medieval political thought, the syncretic model, dating back to Aristotle, was dominant: the social, political, ethical, legal and religious levels of the organization of society were not completely different. The concepts of “separate sovereignty” (F. de Comines, C. Seyssel, etc.) were based on Aristotle’s teaching about the ideal state, which united some features of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy with the priority of strong royal power, opposed to tyranny. In the 15th and 16th centuries, in connection with the liberation of politics from religion and morality, the concept of the state also developed ( special role played N. Machiavelli’s treatise “The Prince”, 1532). By the end of the 16th century, the word “state” (stato, etat, state, Staat) began to designate not the class or “position” of the king, but some abstract entity, the embodiment of public power.

The most important stage in the development of ideas about the state was the creation by the French lawyer J. Bodin of the theory of the indivisibility of sovereignty (“Six Books on the Republic”, 1576), that is, the highest state power that belongs entirely to the monarch, while it was assumed that absolute monarchy is compatible with the rights and the freedoms of his subjects and cannot infringe on their property. Absolute monarchy was opposed to eastern despotism, where the sovereign arbitrarily disposes of the life and property of his subjects. Even its most consistent adherents, not excluding Cardinal Richelieu, believed that the ruler has the right to violate the rights of his subjects only in extreme cases, in the name of saving the state (the theory of “state interest”). Thus, absolutism practically developed as a system of emergency management, associated primarily with wars, which caused the need to increase taxes. At the same time, absolutism also reflected a way of thinking characteristic of the era: people of the 16th and 17th centuries perceived the universe as a hierarchy of ideal entities, in which the king and privileged strata formed a continuum, and human will was limited by the framework of the divinely established order. In the ideology of absolutism, along with rationalist political theories, the idea of ​​the Divine origin of power occupied a large place.

Opposition to absolutism political theories . The theories of absolute monarchy were opposed by the ideas of tyranny and social contract. During the Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries, political conflicts often took a religious form. Opponents of absolutism, primarily in Protestant circles, considered fidelity to true religion (along with the right to property) to be the basis of a social contract, the violation of which by the king gives his subjects the right to revolt. Absolutism did not suit the “ultramontane opposition” either: the idea that the king receives power not directly from God, but from the hands of the people led by wise shepherds is the most important thesis of Cardinal R. Bellarmine. Tragic experience civil wars gave rise to the idea that loyalty to religion is secondary to public order. Hence the idea of ​​the absolute individual (that is, the individual taken before joining social groups, including the church) as the basis of society.

The decisive contribution to its development was made by the English philosopher T. Hobbes (“Leviathan”, 1651). According to Hobbes, absolute individuals are in a state of “war of all against all.” Suppressed by the fear of death, they decide to transfer absolute power to the state. Hobbes provided the most radical justification for absolutism, but at the same time laid the foundation for liberalism as a political and economic theory. The idea of ​​the absolute individual destroyed the image of the universe as a hierarchy of ideal entities, and with it the intellectual foundations of absolutism. At the end of the 17th century, the English philosopher J. Locke used Hobbes's ideas to justify the constitutional system.

Absolutism as a political system. Absolute monarchies replaced estate-representative monarchies. In the 13th and 14th centuries, a system of bodies of class representation developed in Europe (parliament in England, general and provincial states in France, Cortes in Spain, Reichstags and Landtags in Germany). This system allowed the royal power to receive the support of the nobility, the church and the cities in pursuing policies for which its own strength was not sufficient. The principle of the class monarchy was the formula: what concerns everyone must be approved by everyone (quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus debet approbari).

A sharp increase in royal power began in the 2nd half of the 15th and early 16th centuries, primarily in Spain, France and England. In Italy and Germany, where national states were formed only in the 19th century, the tendency to strengthen state power was realized mainly in individual principalities (“regional absolutism”). Peculiar absolute monarchies also developed in Scandinavia (with the preservation of some class-representative institutions) and in Eastern Europe(with the underdevelopment of class rights and serfdom). The development of absolutism consisted of the formation of a state apparatus, an increase in taxes and the formation of a permanent mercenary army, while the simultaneous decline of the medieval estates. In England, however, the standing army was hardly developed, and Parliament retained control over taxes. At the same time, the strengthening of absolutist tendencies in this country was facilitated by the assignment by the monarch of the functions of the head of his church.

The reasons for the emergence of absolutism. Absolutism and society. In Soviet historiography, the emergence of absolutism was explained by the class struggle of the peasantry and nobility (B.F. Porshnev) or the nobility and the bourgeoisie (S.D. Skazkin). Now historians increasingly prefer to see in absolutism the result of social and cultural transformations of the era of the genesis of capitalism, which cannot be reduced to a single formula. Thus, the development of trade gave rise to the need for protectionist policies, which found their justification in the ideas of mercantilism, and the growth of the urban economy - in the redistribution of income from it in favor of the nobility. Both, as well as the huge costs of war, which caused increased taxation, all required strong state power. The nobility became more dependent on royal service, the collapse of the social unity of the urban community encouraged the new urban elites to move closer to the nobility and to abandon urban liberties in favor of the monarchy, and the emergence of nation states brought the church under the control of the monarchy. Absolutism, born from the collapse of the medieval estates, remained to the end a noble state, partially modernized, but associated with a “society of privileges” that was archaic for the 16th century.

Absolutism and culture. Absolute monarchs encouraged the development of culture and science and at the same time sought to control them. The state institutionalization of culture and science dates back to the era of absolutism (the creation of royal academies, scientific societies). Cultural policy was an important means of strengthening royal power and "domesticating" the nobility, who were "disciplined" through court etiquette. Together with the church, absolutism sought to strengthen control over the mass of the population, suppressing traditional folk culture and instilling in the people elements of the culture of the educated elites. Between the development of absolutism and the folding modern type an individual who rationally controls his own behavior, as well as the modern penitentiary system, there was an undeniable connection. Absolutism participated in the formation of mentality and value orientations man of the New Age (idea of ​​duty and responsibility to the state, etc.).

The crisis of absolutism. Enlightened absolutism. Although in the 2nd half of the 17th century absolutism continued to strengthen its position in a number of European countries (Scandinavian states, Brandenburg-Prussia), from the mid-17th century the first signs of its crisis appeared. Its most visible symptom was the English Revolution, and in the 18th century it became evident almost everywhere. Absolute monarchs tried to adapt to the development of the economy and secular culture through the policy of the so-called enlightened absolutism- flirting with the “philosophers”, the abolition of the most economically harmful privileges (Turgot’s reforms in France in 1774-76), and sometimes the abolition of serfdom (by Joseph II of Habsburg in Bohemia, and then in other provinces of Austria). This policy had only a short-term effect. Bourgeois revolutions and the constitutional reforms of the late 18th and 19th centuries led to the replacement of absolutism by constitutional monarchies and bourgeois republics. For the form of power in Russia, akin to European absolutism, see Autocracy.

Lit.: Kareev N.I. Western European absolute monarchy of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. St. Petersburg, 1908; Porshnev B.F. Popular uprisings in France before the Fronde (1623-1648). M.; L., 1948; Mousnier R. La venalite des offices sous Henri IV et Louis XIII. 2 ed. R., 1971; Skazkin S. D. Selected works on history. M., 1973. S. 341-356; Anderson R. Lineages of the absolutist state. L., 1974; Duchhardt N. Das Zeitalter des Absolutismus. Munch., 1989; Konocoe N.E. Higher bureaucracy in France in the 17th century. L., 1990; Malov V. N. Zh.-B. Colbert: Absolutist bureaucracy and French society. M., 1991.