The political map of Europe in the Middle Ages was a mosaic of large and small feudal estates, often scattered in separate parts over a large territory. These possessions, or more precisely, their rulers, played a major role in the international relations of that era. As lords and vassals, they were bound together by special bonds of dependence. Therefore, the relations between them were obviously unequal and hierarchical in nature. The Holy Roman Emperor of the German people was considered the highest ranking feudal ruler.
This state entity, often simply referred to as the Empire, arose in imitation of the ancient Roman Empire, where the imperial title first appeared. After the conquest of the Western Roman Empire by the barbarians, it was preserved in the Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantium, and in the West it was revived only in 800, when the Pope crowned the Frankish king Charlemagne as emperor. In 962, this title was taken by the German king from the Saxon dynasty, who became Emperor Otto I. Following the example of Charlemagne, he set the task of reviving a universal, pan-Christian empire. Otgon I and his successors managed to create a powerful state that united in the 13th century. the German lands proper, Northern Igalia, Burgundy, Provence, the lands of the Polabian Slavs, the Czech Republic.
At the end of the Middle Ages, the power of the emperors gradually declined. From hereditary-elective, as in the X-XI centuries, it becomes elective. Zago grew in authority and influence of the rulers of the individual territorial principalities that made up the Empire. The Reichstag, or Imperial Diet, which was originally the council of nobles under the emperor, becomes an instrument for limiting his power. In 1356, the Reichstag adopted the “Golden Bull” - a special resolution that consolidated the emperor’s refusal to interfere in the internal affairs of the princes and established the procedure for electing the emperor. The right to choose the emperor was given to the largest princes. They were called electors (prince-electors). Initially, the College of Electors consisted of the archbishop's
new of Mainz, Cologne and Trier, 1st Count Palatine of the Rhine, Duke of Saxony, 2nd Margrave of Brandenburg and King of the Czech Republic. The emperor had at his disposal neither an administrative apparatus, nor national finances or an army. His power was essentially based on hereditary possessions, in which he felt as independent a ruler as other imperial princes. The “Golden Bull” legally formalized the so-called “original German freedom,” or broad independence” of the German princes in relation to the imperial power.
The emperor presided over international conferences and negotiations, acted as an arbiter in internecine conflicts, and appointed rulers of secular or ecclesiastical estates, giving them the corresponding titles of duke or even king. Outward expression The broad powers of the emperor included special honors that were given to him and his ambassadors by other rulers. The kings were inferior in importance to the emperor, but just like him, they were considered independent rulers who independently pursued domestic and foreign policy. Even lower in the feudal hierarchy were princes, dukes, counts, etc. They were not regarded as independent rulers and were, at least nominally, vassals of the emperor or kings. Vassals were considered natural allies of lords and were supposed to support them in conflicts with other sovereigns. The international status of the small republics of the Middle Ages, such as the Italian city-states, was even lower than that of vassal fiefs.
The dynastic principle of relations between states in the Middle Ages played a dominant role. The wars that were fought in Europe at that time, such as the Wars of the Roses, the Hundred Years' War of the English and French
1 Palatine Count - literally: palace count. In the Frankish state of the 9th-10th centuries. this was the name of the position of one of the royal court officials who presided over the palace court. Over time, the counts palatine turned into sovereign princes. A particularly high position was occupied by the Count Palatine of the Rhine, who became in the 14th century. one of the 7 Electors. The Palatinate is a fief in the southwest of Germany (otherwise known as the Palatinate).
2 Margrave - literally: count of marks. In the Frankish state - an official. The position of margraves was established by Charlemagne to govern the marks (large border administrative districts) with broader powers than the counts, who were originally also officials who managed administrative districts. Over time, the position of margrave and count was transformed into a feudal title.
roles, the wars of the German emperors for the conquest of Italy, etc., pursued the goals of the rise of one or another dynasty. Dynastic interest clearly predominated in them. The Hundred Years' War of 1337-1453 is especially characteristic in this regard. The immediate cause of the war was the claims of the English kings to the French royal throne after the death of Charles IV in 1328 ended the Capetian dynasty in France. French barons (direct vassals of the king) and church prelates achieved the election of a representative of the Valois dynasty, a side branch of the Capetians, as King Philip VI. The English king Edward III, who considered himself a direct descendant of the French kings through his mother (daughter of Charles Gu), did not agree with this decision and tried to challenge it by resorting to force. On October 7, 1338, he officially declared his claims to the French throne.
But in fact, the dispute between the English and French kings had long history. It arose after the Duke of Normandy and Count of Anjou, Henry Plantagenet, who was a vassal of the French king, became king of England in 1154. Having taken the throne of one of the largest kingdoms of medieval Europe, Henry remained a vassal of the French king in his possessions on the continent. This dual status - at the same time as independent kings and vassals of the French king - was also retained by his heirs. This inevitably created friction between English and French royal courts, jealous of issues of honor and dignity. There were also frequent territorial conflicts. The French kings did not want to lose even that illusory power that they enjoyed in the continental possessions of the English kings, as their feudal lords. Whenever possible, they did not miss the opportunity to round out their domain at the expense of the possessions of the English kings.
The war started by the English king in the 14th century lasted more than a hundred years. After decisive military victories won by the French in 1453, hostilities ceased. However, a peace treaty was never signed between both kingdoms. The British did not admit their defeat; their attention and strength were simply diverted by the War of the Scarlet and White Roses of 1455-1485, which broke out at home in the British Isles. In 1475, the English king Edward IV tried to take revenge for past defeats by landing his troops on the continent. Almost immediately, however, he was forced to conclude the peace treaty of Piquigny with the French king Charles VII, which is generally regarded as a formal end to the Hundred Years' War.
Marriage diplomacy
The predominance of the dynastic principle of international relations led to the flourishing of the so-called “marriage diplomacy”. In the Middle Ages, huge state formations arose through dynastic marriages, for example, the so-called Angevin state of the 12th century. Eleanor (Llenor), heir to the vast Duchy of Aquitaine, having married in 1137 the heir to the French throne, the future King Louis VII of the Capetian dynasty, brought him her hereditary possessions as a dowry. Louis VII led the Second Crusade of 1147-1149. to the Holy Land, in which Eleanor accompanied him. During the hike, a disagreement occurred between the spouses, and soon after returning home they divorced. After the divorce, Eleanor took the dukedom back. Having remarried, this time to the Count of Anjou, Henry Plantagenet, the future king of England, she made her new husband one of the most powerful monarchs in Europe at that time. His possessions covered a vast territory from Scotland to the Pyrenees Mountains - the British Isles, Normandy, Anjou, as well as the Duchy of Aquitaine, which included the regions of Marche, Auvergne, Limousin, Poitou, Angoumois, Saintonge, Périgord and Gascony. The totality of these possessions of the kings of the Planghagenet dynasty, who ruled in England from the middle of the 12th century to the end
XIV century, sometimes called the Angevin Power.
And subsequently, French kings often resorted to marriage alliances to round off their possessions. At the end
XV- early XVI V. they annexed Brittany, which went to France as the dowry of the heiress of the duchy, Anne of Brittany. Two monarchs claimed her hand and heart (and provinces) at once - the French king and the German emperor. In 1490, Anna was married in absentia to the son of the Holy Roman Emperor. The purpose of this marriage was to, through a dynastic union with the Empire, defend the independence of the Duchy of Breton, which the French kings had long sought to seize. In response to this step, French troops invaded the territory of the duchy. As a result, the French king Charles VIII ensured that Anna's marriage to the German prince was annulled, and he himself married her. Moreover, according to the marriage contract, after the death of her husband, if he had no direct heirs, Anna was obliged to marry the new French king. Charles VIII died in 1498, leaving no male issue (all four of his sons died even earlier). King Louis XII became his cousin
UDC 930.85
P. A. Sapronov *
THE DYNASTIC PRINCIPLE IN ITS SACRED DIMENSION
The article makes an attempt to consider the principle of dynasty as a reality, formalized, firstly, pos factum and, secondly, in secular culture. For centuries and even thousands of years, sovereigns were seen as representatives of one clan, destined from time immemorial to reign as a sacred authority. Therefore, each new dynasty, in order to gain a foothold on the throne, had to indicate its belonging to the previous dynasty.
Key words: dynasty, first ancestor, sacred, myth.
The dynastic principle in its sacred dimension
The article attempts to examine the principle of a dynasty as a formalizing reality in the first place, post factum and secondly in a secular culture. Over the centuries and millenniums, sovereigns saw members of one genus destined to rule from everlasting the sacral authority. Therefore, each new dynasty, must denote their affiliation with the previous dynasty to establish themselves on the throne.
Keywords: dynasty, the first ancestor, sacral, myth.
The word “dynasty” is clearly one of those that is widely used and understandable to everyone. Therefore, any attempt to clarify its meaning, to define it at the conceptual level can give the impression of unnecessary, abstract and empty speculation. Indeed, it is easy to slip into such speculation, which, however, does not mean that there is no need to address the concept of dynasty at the conceptual level. And least of all to derive the final definition. Usually, this kind of exercise convinces few people or obliges them to take them into account when working with historical material. The same can no longer be said if we focus not on a definition, but at least on fixing the fact that the so-called everyday usage of words blurs the concept of dynasty, makes it loose, and not correlated with a well-defined objective reality.
* Sapronov Petr Aleksandrovich - Doctor of Cultural Studies, Director of the Institute of Theology and Philosophy of the Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy.
198 Bulletin of the Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy. 2015. Volume 16. Issue 2
For example, it is very common to use the word “dynasty” in relation to any fixed relationship taken over time. Then dynasties of artists, military men, etc. appear, right up to worker dynasties. However, it is very easy to get rid of this situation, noting that a dynasty is formed only by sovereign persons, sovereigns. The situation with reflection on the dynastic principle is more complicated. With the fact that, in particular, the dynasties themselves, as a rule, did not advertise their dynasticity and did not even assert it; in a number of cases, they completely denied it. We will talk about how and why this happened, but now we can note a trend that needs to be paid special attention to - very often and not at all by chance, a dynasty was formed post factum. After its representatives occupied the throne for a long time or it ceased altogether. Cases when dynasties arose under the pen of historians and became a qualification on the part of family succession in governing the state are not so rare. All this forces us to treat the concept of dynasty with caution, in the assumption that behind it there is something that is not self-evident, but requires, at a minimum, clarification, and, at the limit, a consistent understanding of its actual status both in historical reality and in historical research .
You need to start with a statement and a statement, which will be very easy to take for a too deliberate paradox related to the poetics of effects. This statement consists of the following: initially, at some depth, where the myth lives and sleeps to this day, no dynasties exist. There is only one dynasty within a given state or pre-state entity. It has been established for centuries and will last until the end of time, or at least until the end of the dynastic form of government of sovereigns. A dynasty, naturally, is a clan that necessarily has a fixed ancestor. Directly affirmative or in a hint, it is connected with the sacred authority. If we are dealing with a culture based on paganism, then the ancestor, who is also the founder of the dynasty, directly descends from the deity. Limiting ourselves to the borders of Europe, so as not to get bogged down in the historical jungle, we can note that the founder of a dynasty is usually a “half-breed”. He is a man because he is mortal, and yet because of his kinship he is divine, a sacred person. Sanctification and, accordingly, the patronage of the deity also extends to the descendants of the founder of the dynasty, so its change in favor of another clan becomes impossible, nothing more than intra-clan rivalry is permissible. The indicated status of the dynasty is incompatible with Christianity as such, that is, its creed and theology, this is too obvious. But in the same way, one must take into account that in the cultural and historical reality of the peoples who adopted Christianity, it is layered on top of previous paganism, as a result of which, in principle, the alien and irreducible form bizarre combinations. This has to do with the dynastic principle direct relation. As well as how it existed within Rus'-Russia and the rest of the West. To verify this, we will first turn to the dynastic experience of the “classical” country of the West - France, in order to subsequently reveal the originality of this experience on domestic soil.
The idea that France, originally the kingdom of the Franks, was ruled in turn by five dynasties: the Merovingians, Carolingians, Capetians, Valois and Bourbons, is very suitable for the 19th century. And of course, it has nothing to do with the dynastic ideas of the Merovingian times. Meanwhile, they contain evidence of the origin of the first of the royal dynasties, which at that time alone could be perceived as the only one. There is no doubt that under the Merovingians there was no coherent and perfectly consistent idea of how the dynasty came into being. It was enough that Merovey was listed as the first king of the Franks. Chronic historians have already looked into the depths of time. And they compiled their texts in accordance with heterogeneous information and not without the participation of their own imagination. Despite this, it is possible to draw some historical vector, leading directly to Merovei from some originality of the Frankish world. It was, in particular, recorded by someone who lived in the 12th century. in Burgundy, author of the Chronicle of Fredegar.
According to his Chronicle, the first king of the Franks was Priam. Of course, according to the author, Priam was many centuries distant from Merovey, but he, too, came from somewhere, someone preceded him, albeit not as a king. And who was it then? This question in the present case is asked on behalf of the modern reader, assuming its irrelevance for the author and readers of the Chronicle of Fredegar. They were satisfied that Priam and his Troy existed in primeval time, which is also the original state of the Franks. Where they came from is not that important. The more important thing is that before Priam there were no Franks. And not only them, but the whole world. Of course, in this case, their enlightened clerics adopted the Roman, also common Western, myth about the origin of the Pax Romano from Aeneas and his warriors who fled from under the walls of the burning Troy. To be originally Trojans meant to find the ultimate basis for so many Western peoples after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Only by this could one assert one’s dignity not at the level of the local pagan world, but on the scale of the entire West. Naturally, the Frankish chronicler followed exactly this path.
After Priam, according to the “Chronicle of Fredegar” and not only it, yesterday’s Trojans will have, however, not Aeneas, but the king of the Franks, from whom they began to be called Franks. Then, not immediately, but through a chain of generations, Clovis appeared after Frank. Having recorded his appearance and his seizure of the territory of real, and not mythical settlement of the Franks, the author of the “Chronicles of Fredegar” makes a significant clarification: “At that time, paganism was in use...” Why exactly this clarification is needed becomes clear after reading the following lines:
They say that when Clovis stopped at the seashore in the summer, at noon his wife, who went to the sea to swim, was possessed by Neptune’s beast, similar to the Quitotaur. Subsequently, having become pregnant either from an animal or from a man, she gave birth to a son named Merovey and after him the Frankish kings then began to be called Merovingians [cit. from: 3, p. 33].
The above story is notable for the fact that the Christian and cleric in his chronicle could not resist and quoted purely pagan myth about the first ancestor and founder of the dynasty, descending directly from the deity. No matter how the author of the chronicle distanced himself from this myth with references to paganism and the problematic nature of Merovey’s conception by a deity, it lived even in his soul, not to mention the Franks, who were far from learning. Moreover, the pagan myth complemented the myth of Troy and Priam due to the need to sit on two chairs at once, establishing itself both in ancient time and in a completely sacred reality. Here, clearly without realizing it, the author of the Chronicle follows the Roman myth, in which the origin of the Romans from Aeneas was reconciled with their origin from Saturn. Both of these seemed quite useful to both the Romans and the Franks. And this despite the fact that the latter were already Christians. And what, in the person of the chronicler, did they fall into the deepest paganism? Not really. Rather, in this case, the logic of dynasty, according to which there is one dynasty once and for all, came to the fore, while Christianity in the chronicler fell silent for a while.
Meanwhile, the attitude to the dynasty as one and only, established once and for all, in fact, denied the dynastic principle in the sense that is familiar to us. Indeed, in our view, dynasty is obviously plural, when one dynasty rules in one country, another in another, and, moreover, a change of dynasties on the same throne is completely allowed and even assumed. This is what happened, in particular, in France and the country of the Franks that preceded its appearance. No one doubts that the Merovingians, Carolingians, Capetians, Valois and Bourbons ruled here in turn. Let us only clarify that each of the dynasties that ruled after the Merovingians was least inclined to emphasize its dynasty in its difference from the previous dynasty. This line began already with the Carolingians. This, however, can be doubted, and to confirm your doubts, cite fragments from such a widely known work, which, undoubtedly, is “The Life of Charlemagne” by Einhard:
It is believed that the Merovingian family, from which the Frankish kings usually descended, existed until the reign of Childeric, who, by order of Pope Stephen, was deposed, tonsured and transferred to a monastery. It may seem that the [Merovingian] family came to an end during the reign of Childeric, but for a long time there was no vitality in that family and nothing remarkable except empty royal rank. The fact is that both the wealth and power of the king were in the hands of palace managers, who were called majordomos; all the highest power belonged to them... The people used to show the honor [appointment of mayordomo] not to everyone, but only to those who differed from others in both the glory of their family and the power of greatness.
What is most striking in this fragment is the courage and carelessness with which the author regards the dignity of the royal rank and the family to which he belongs. One would think that in Einhard's eyes they are worthless in themselves, and only wealth and power have real meaning. This, however, is prevented by the author's reference to the deposition of King Childeric III by the Pope. It testifies to the need for sacred sanction when
the change of dynasty, as well as the lack of wealth and power in themselves. And yet Einhard has no reverence for the dynastic principle. The explanation for this circumstance, apparently, must be sought in the fact that Einhard created his biography with an orientation towards the “Life of the Twelve Caesars” by Suetonius Tranquillus, i.e., towards the ancient Roman model. For the Romans and their historians, the dynastic principle did not play a significant role. But this cannot be said about post-antique times (until the present). On this point, the anti-kick Einhard greatly diverged from his era. This is confirmed by the fact that the Carolingians, unlike their historiographer Einhard, were concerned with establishing their kinship with the Merovingians overthrown by their ancestor Pepin. According to the Carolingian officialdom, the ancestor of the Carolingians Anebert was married to the daughter of the king of the Franks Chlothar (it is clear that the Merovingian), and from their marriage four children were born, one of whom continued the line leading to Charles Martel, Pepin the Short and Charlemagne.
Obviously, contempt for the Merovingians as a whole did not benefit the next dynasty, no matter what Einhard wrote about them. Without a continuity that was little different or not at all distinguishable from the continuation of its predecessors, the Carolingian rule could not look unconditionally legitimate. Church sanction alone was not enough for legitimation. Special attention It should be noted that, like the Romanovs later, the Carolingians began to be perceived as a dynasty and were called accordingly not immediately. And this despite the enormous impression that the reign of Charlemagne made on the entire Western world. Here there is a direct correspondence with what happened with Charlemagne and Peter the Great: both of them, being sovereigns who were completely legitimate in the minds of their subjects, were not specifically designated as belonging to the corresponding dynasty. Dynasties will be clearly identified in one case and in another much later. With the difference, however, that one of them will be directly established as coming from Charles, while the other, with all the awareness of the grandeur of the figure of Peter, will not become the “Petrov” dynasty.
By the time of its fall in 987, the Carolingian dynasty had become so established in its legitimacy that it was perceived as having existed for centuries without any special emphasis on its connection with the Merovingians. The position of the Capetians in this regard turned out to be more complex and difficult. This dynasty actually began with usurpation, as was the case with the Carolingians. But her rights to the throne had to be asserted for a long time, this time without bringing the dynastic principle itself to the fore. None of the Capetians found sufficient grounds for this. Another thing is the perception and affirmation of oneself as God’s anointed. Anointing really distinguished each of the kings from the ranks of mere mortals, not excluding the highest nobility of the kingdom, that is, the direct royal vassals. The problem, however, was how to ensure a line of succession from one anointed Capetian to another, if before the anointing the next Capetian did not have unconditional and indisputable rights to the throne. A way out of this situation was found immediately, by the first of the kings of this dynasty - Hugo Capet, who, already three months after his election as king, organized
coronation of his son Robert, making him co-emperor. Hugh's example was followed by subsequent kings for more than two centuries. Only Philip Augustus interrupted the established tradition and did not crown his son Louis during his lifetime. But even this king retained the tradition of the king being elected by his vassals, which reinforced the anointing and coronation. Of course, such a method of inheriting the throne could only arise in a situation where the dynastic principle could not prevail for a long time and at the same time at some level remained unshakable, which the Capetian kings could not help but take into account.
This, in particular, is evidenced by their persistent desire to become related to the descendants of the Carolingians who lost the royal throne long ago. Ultimately, the twinning could be considered accomplished after the marriage of Louis VII to Adele Champagne, in whose veins Carolingian blood flowed. The dynastic status of the Capetians was finally strengthened by the marriage of the son of Louis VII, Philip Augustus, to Isabella de Uno, who also came from the Carolingians. Now the heir of this king, Louis VII, was related by family ties to the Carolingians on both the maternal and paternal lines [see: 2, p. 78]. When in one historical chronicle its compiler called Philip Augustus “Carolingian”, and in another it was stated that in the person of Louis XIII “the descendants of Charlemagne returned”, of course, this was official eloquence and rhetorical beauty, but not only. Another vital task for the Capetians was being solved, such as the final legitimation of their dynasty. And it could happen no other way than by expanding the dynastic principle to the point where it became obvious that there must be one dynasty, it is given once and for all. Its real strength lies in its irremovability. Changing a dynasty is always problematic and risky, as the Capetian kings experienced for themselves over the course of two centuries.
IN in a certain sense This problem also made itself felt during the reign of the Valois dynasty in France. The problem here was the not entirely unfounded claims to the royal throne of France by the English kings. They were descendants of the Capetians, albeit in a female, but still direct line. The same cannot be said about Valois. Claims on the part of the British eventually resulted in the endlessly long and ruinous Hundred Years' War. And yet they could not truly shake the legitimacy of the Valois dynasty. Its representatives, despite the controversy of their accession, were not pure usurpers, as was the case with the first Capetian Hugo Capet. The kinship with the Capetians and Valois was obvious and obvious to everyone. Moreover, in in a broad sense The Valois can be classified as Capetian, and this will not be a rhetorical figure. Still, Hugo Capet was their ancestor, just like the Capetians themselves. In addition, the blood of the Carolingians flowed in the veins of the Valois no less than that of their predecessors, which, however, in the 14th century. did not matter much, so strengthened the dynastic status of the descendants of Hugh Capet.
It would be possible to specifically examine the uniqueness of the situation with the transition of the royal throne of France from the suppressed Valois dynasty to the Bourbons in 1589. This also had its own dynastic problems, which made it possible to put forward claims to the throne by the rivals of Henry IV. However, the most significant thing in terms of dynasticity among the Bourbons and Valois was the same: both of them
the dynasties directly went back to the Capetians and were their continuation. The Bourbons, just like the Valois, did not so much form a new dynasty as renew the previous one, i.e., in the broad sense of the word, they remained the same Capetians. In its dark and even monstrous way, this circumstance made itself felt in the execution of Louis XVI. For his judges, essentially executioners and murderers, King Louis XVI was none other than “Citizen Capet.” In their eyes, he represented a dynasty that had ruled France for centuries. Its kings personified the old regime, which was now over. He always existed, right up to the moment when he was overthrown as a result of the revolution. Obviously in my own way French revolutionaries accepted and reproduced the myth of a single dynasty.
A brief examination of the implementation of the dynastic principle in France is important for us not only to clarify the moments that are stable and certainly associated with dynasticism as such. It will also help us understand the uniqueness historical situation within Russian borders. This originality strikes the eye when turning to history. Kievan Rus. Only at first and superficial glance it was ruled by the Rurik dynasty. The Rurikovichs - yes, but, firstly, they were spoken of as “grandsons of the Yaroslavs and Vseslavs,” and secondly, by the time the Horde pogrom began, many dozens of princes were sitting on the princely tables in Kievan Rus, which does not fit well with the principle of dynasticity.
When trying to understand the first of these two points, you need to pay attention to the fact that in the above formula, it is not so much the dynastic, but the generic principle that reveals itself. The latter presupposes the presence of a founding ancestor of the clan. The situation with its head is less clear - he may not exist. But the elders in the clan are obligatory, as well as their life and existence in harmony, in any case, striving towards it as a clan principle. Among the princes of Kievan Rus, neither one nor the other was observed. The formula “We are all grandchildren of Yaroslav and Vseslav” did not appeal at all to the founder of the clan, which Rurik should have become, but to family kinship. It emphasized nepotism, and therefore the equality and fairness of the princes. The question of which of them was first, and therefore the head of the clan, was not discussed in its pure form, but was decided on the battlefield. However, it still remained unresolved, and the princes of Kievan Rus, it seems, in the end, completely gave up on primacy as the head of the clan. The topic of elders hung in the same way. The further, the more the princes settled down in their reigning lands according to their own understanding. The living feeling of kinship never completely left them, but in the same way it was not formalized doctrinally.
If we are talking about dynasticity, then a movement in this direction seemed to be outlined in individual principalities. Let's say, in the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, several generations of descendants of Vladimir Monomakh replaced each other on the princely table. Among them are Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrey Bogolyubsky, Vsevolod Big Nest, Yuri Vsevolodovich. These four princes and, accordingly, generations would be enough to form a dynasty. And yet there is no need to talk about this in the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality. This is prevented by the progressive fragmentation of the principality after
death of Prince Vsevolod the Big Nest. After himself, he left five sons, each of whom received his own inheritance: Rostov, Vladimir, Pereyaslavsky, Starodubsky and Yuryevsky. The Vladimir inheritance, of course, was the eldest, and its prince took precedence over the other princes. However, this was a championship in honor. Essentially, the princes of Rostov, Pereyaslavsky, Starodubsky and Yuryevsky were completely independent. Accordingly, the family of Vsevolod the Big Nest was born to a very limited extent. Moreover, it cannot be considered a dynasty. A dynasty still correlates with one state entity, but it just didn’t exist. And not only because of the independence of the principalities. All of them, except Vladimirsky, were steadily fragmented, being divided between the sons of the next prince. For example, from Rostov Principality Initially, Yaroslavl and Uglich were distinguished. Then the Principality of Belozersk separated from the greatly reduced Rostov Principality. And this is not the limit of specific crushing. Suffice it to say that the Belozersk principality alone split into nine appanages and it was no exception to the rule. Now let’s imagine the family of Rostov princes alone by the middle of the 14th century. It included dozens of princes, each with their own inheritance. And of course, they did not form any dynasty.
With the Moscow princes, however, the situation was significantly different. Initially, the Moscow principality was an inheritance allocated from his Pereyaslav principality by Alexander Nevsky to his son Daniil Alexandrovich. Further, he was predetermined by further progressive fragmentation, if the descendants of Daniil Alexandrovich turned out to be as prolific as the Rostov, Yaroslavl or Belozersky princes. However, this did not happen, but something else happened: the Moscow princes early, even under Prince Yuri Danilovich, began to expand into their principality. They also allocated inheritances to their closest relatives, but they were few in number and did not multiply in the form of their descendants. In addition, the inclusion of more and more new principality lands in the Moscow Principality more than covered the allocation of the corresponding inheritance to one or another relative of the Moscow Prince. Thus, a dynasty was gradually formed in Moscow, or rather, there was a movement towards the dynasticity of the family of Moscow princes. For a long time it was a movement and nothing more, since princely family all the hallmarks of a dynasty were not present. First of all, the question of the ancestor remained unanswered (and perhaps not even raised). For the Moscow princes it was complex and insoluble, because delving into their own genealogy was fraught with bringing to the fore their widest and most extensive kinship with other princely families. And this, in turn, led to the dissolution of the Moscow princes into an immensely broad whole. And the stable affiliation of the rank of Grand Dukes of Vladimir to the Moscow princes did not change anything for a long time - it, of course, greatly increased the prestige of the Moscow princes and yet did not allow them to establish their dynastic status.
The situation changed radically as the relationship of the ruling princes with a single princely family weakened, even disappearing. Gradually, the “grandsons of Yaroslav and Vseslav” ceased to be such in their minds. “Grandchildren” addressed to each other are
"brothers". The reality of Muscovite Rus' became different over time. The “Brothers” more and more clearly became the “children” of the Grand Duke, no longer of Vladimir, but of Moscow. The same sovereign was not inclined to delve into the real genealogical connections of the pre-Moscow period. The exception here was Alexander Nevsky. He was the Grand Duke of Kyiv and Vladimir and at the same time the father of the first Moscow prince. As soon as we focused on the fact that Alexander Nevsky himself was the son of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, it would become obvious that he belonged to the younger line of descendants of Vsevolod the Big Nest. And what then was the primacy of the Grand Dukes of Moscow? It turns out that behind him stood a lucky chance, naked force, a special relationship with the Horde khans-kings, etc.
It seems that in this case, the Moscow sovereigns could rely on the experience of the Byzantine emperors, who were, after all, the “prototypes” of royalty in the Orthodox world, and who, moreover, possessed royalty in all its fullness. After all, the dynastic principle in Byzantium was never stable; no one managed to consolidate it for a long time. But the point was precisely that the whole life of Rus', both Kyiv and Moscow, was built on the principles, if not of clan, then of kinship and nepotism. They were an indispensable component of the “Russian myth”, if by this we mean the unshakable characteristics of the self-awareness and self-perception of the Russian person. Without kinship and nepotism, the “Russian myth” was unthinkable. In particular, he intended to bring to the fore the fact that any Russian person is related to someone, is not just connected by family relationships, but also builds his relationships with other people in the dimension of kinship and nepotism. The Moscow sovereigns could not be an exception here. They were such not least because of their kinship with their predecessors. Therefore, the question of their belonging to the dynasty arose with all urgency. It was closed, however, only in the 16th century, when the state officialdom “The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir” appeared.
This text represents to us special interest not only because in it the Moscow sovereigns appear as a dynasty in its full accordance with the dynastic myth, that is, as the only one, the original and final one. Dynasty in The Lay is also stated at its very maximum. This maximum is expressed not only in the fact that the great princes of Moscow (and for the second edition of the Lay, already the kings) descend directly from Octavian Augustus. Something similar took place in the corresponding Western texts, where, say, the genealogy of French kings was built. The authors of the “Tale of the Princes of Vladimir” went even further and rooted the Moscow sovereigns in incomparably more ancient times, essentially making them the successors of the first of the tsars, “who possessed the entire universe.” The grandson of this king, according to the “Word,” was the second “universal” king Alexander the Great. But further “Slovo” does not extend a direct line to the Moscow sovereigns. To somewhat straighten out what was said in the Lay, we can say this: Octavian Augustus became the successor to the heirs of Alexander the Great by right of conquest. And besides, unlike them, he “began to collect tribute from the entire universe,” that is, he became the third universal king.
Only after fixing the bloody succession of Augustus to the Ptolemies, who in turn succeeded Alexander the Great, does the Lay turn to realities directly affecting the Moscow sovereigns. Let me remind you that a relative of Augustus, according to the Lay, was Prus, from whom Rurik descended. Well, then everything is clear: “And the fourth generation is his great-grandson Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh.” The last in the chain of generations of great princes was especially important for the Moscow sovereigns, since, if we accept what is written in the Lay, he was equated with byzantine emperor Constantine Monomakh in his royal status. In the Orthodox world, two kingdoms of equal honor and two divinely crowned kings were thereby established.
Of course, the authors of “The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir” firmly kept in mind that Constantinople had fallen for many decades, the Orthodox kingdom was now one and the Moscow sovereign ruled the entire Orthodox ecumene. What more could one wish for in the establishment and exaltation of the ruling dynasty! But here is what attracts attention when reading our dynastic text: there is not a word in it about times and “kings” Great Rus' in the interval between the reign of Vladimir Monomakh and the reign of Moscow Tsar Yuri Danilovich. About the latter, by the way, it is said that “Prince of Moscow Yuri Danilovich and Prince of Tver Mikhail Yaroslavich went to the Horde to sort out the dispute about the great reign of Vladimir. And Prince Tverskoy Mikhail Yaroslavich was killed in the Horde. Prince Yuri Danilovich came from the Horde, having received a great reign." This time “The Lay” does not mythologize at all, dryly presenting what really happened, though carefully keeping silent about what is well known. Firstly, that the Tver prince was killed in the Horde, including at the instigation of the Moscow prince. And secondly, he himself received a great reign from the hands of the Horde khan - Tsar Uzbek. Silence here was absolutely necessary. Otherwise, what about the royal succession within Russian borders, the structure of the family tree, the line from Vladimir Monomakh to Vasily Ivanovich (the first edition of the Lay) or Ivan Vasilyevich (the second edition)? Of course, unlike in ancient times, the connection between the Moscow sovereigns and their predecessors in relation to Russian history of recent centuries could no longer be presented as pure fiction and fantasy. We had to reckon with historical realities. But the result was genealogical and dynastic confusion and reticence. However, they did not interfere with the recognition of the great princes and kings of Moscow as representatives of the only dynasty that ruled and reigned in Rus' in the eyes of their subjects. The dynastic myth was a completely viable reality that was not questioned by anyone.
LITERATURE
1. A Word about the Princes of Vladimir // Library of Literature of Ancient Rus'. - T. 9. End of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century. - St. Petersburg, 2000.
2. Favtier R. Capetians and France. - St. Petersburg, 2001.
3. Chronicles of long-haired kings. - St. Petersburg, 2004.
4. Einhard. Life of Charlemagne // Historians of the Carolingian era. - M., 1959.
Russian Federation in Education in International
relations as a teaching aid for university students,
students in areas of training and specialties
"International Relations" and "Regional Studies"
The publication was supported by the National Personnel Training Foundation
Editorial Board:
A.V.Torkunov (chairman), M.V.Ilyin, Yu.M.Kolosov,
N.N.Liventsev, A.Yu.Melville, A.K.Sorokin, I.G.Tyulin,
O.G. Ultsiferov
Reviewers:
Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor V.V. Degoev", Doctor of Historical Sciences V.V. Roginsky
Revyakin A.V.
R 32 History of international relations in modern times: Study guide. - M.: “Russian Political Encyclopedia” (ROSSPEN), 2004. - 264 p.
The textbook covers the main events and problems of the history of international relations from the formation of the Westphalian system to the First World War. The book characterizes the main trends, principles and customs of international relations at this time, the role and significance of international congresses, conferences and agreements.
The book belongs to a series of new generation textbooks on history and modern international relations, prepared by the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The textbook is designed for students of higher educational institutions.
© A.V.Revyakin, 2004.
© Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University), 2004.
© Russian Political Encyclopedia
15YOU 5 - 8243 - 0442 - 4 lopedia", 2004.
Preface
In this textbook, we did not set out to fully cover the events and problems of the history of international relations of modern times, much less systematically cover the foreign policies of individual states. Therefore, we apologize in advance to the reader if he does not find here the information he is interested in on certain specific issues of history. When selecting material for the textbook, we were guided primarily by didactic considerations, the advisability of its use in educational process.
The main thing we strived for was to present the international relations of the New Age as a special political reality, closely connected with other parties public life, and at the same time completely autonomous, developing according to its own laws, on its own basis. First of all, we proceeded from the idea of international relations of the New Age as relations predominantly between states, since this period of world history was characterized by the emergence and flourishing of sovereign states, which largely determined the appearance of Europe and other parts of the world. We tried to show that interstate relations bore the stamp of the influence of various social factors- ideological, economic, internal political, etc. They developed and acquired new qualities as civilization progressed and became more complex, in particular, the rise of world trade, the development of means of transport and communication, the formation and dissemination of concepts of state interest, natural borders, national sovereignty, the rights of nationalities etc.
We tried to supplement the historical approach to the presentation of the very evolution of international relations in modern times with elements of political science analysis. The development of international relations is presented in the textbook not only as a successive chain of events and trends, but also as a transition from one qualitative state to another. The manual analyzes various systems of international relations that changed during the 17th-19th centuries. until the First World War. We call systems not only a set of stable features of the foreign policy of a particular state (“Northern Accord” in the politics of Russia in the 18th century, Napoleon’s “family system”, “system
Bismarck”, etc.), but also certain stable states of interstate relations themselves on a broad international, primarily European scale (Westphalian, Vienna systems). The manual examines the essential features of these systems, including the social values, legal and political principles that underlie them (national sovereignty, legitimism, national interest, etc.). The differences and evolution of the systems of international relations themselves from relatively simple in their internal structure to more complex ones are also shown. The combination of a historical approach with a political science one, in our opinion, helps students acquire the skills of an interdisciplinary, multidimensional approach to the analysis and assessment of events in international life.
The tutorial takes into account latest research domestic and foreign historians(see bibliography), as well as teaching experience in higher educational institutions. It is based on a course of lectures on the history of international relations of modern times, which the author read for a number of years - and continues to read at the present time - to students of the Moscow state institute international relations (University).
Chapter I
International relations in the early modern era: basic principles and conflicts
/. Dynastic principle of international relations
The political map of Europe in the Middle Ages was a mosaic of large and small feudal estates, often scattered in separate parts over a large territory. These possessions, or more precisely, their rulers, played a major role in the international relations of that era. As lords and vassals, they were bound together by special bonds of dependence. Therefore, the relations between them were obviously unequal and hierarchical in nature. The Holy Roman Emperor of the German people was considered the highest ranking feudal ruler.
This state entity, often simply referred to as the Empire, arose in imitation of the ancient Roman Empire, where the imperial title first appeared. After the conquest of the Western Roman Empire by the barbarians, it was preserved in the Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantium, and in the West it was revived only in 800, when the Pope crowned the Frankish king Charlemagne as emperor. In 962, this title was taken by the German king from the Saxon dynasty, who became Emperor Otto I. Following the example of Charlemagne, he set the task of reviving a universal, pan-Christian empire. Otgon I and his successors managed to create a powerful state that united in the 13th century. the German lands proper, Northern Igalia, Burgundy, Provence, the lands of the Polabian Slavs, the Czech Republic.
At the end of the Middle Ages, the power of the emperors gradually declined. From hereditary-elective, as in the X-XI centuries, it becomes elective. Zago grew in authority and influence of the rulers of the individual territorial principalities that made up the Empire. The Reichstag, or Imperial Diet, which was originally the council of nobles under the emperor, becomes an instrument for limiting his power. In 1356, the Reichstag adopted the “Golden Bull” - a special resolution that consolidated the emperor’s refusal to interfere in the internal affairs of the princes and established the procedure for electing the emperor. The right to choose the emperor was given to the largest princes. They were called electors (prince-electors). Initially, the College of Electors consisted of the archbishop's
new of Mainz, Cologne and Trier, 1st Count Palatine of the Rhine, Duke of Saxony, 2nd Margrave of Brandenburg and King of the Czech Republic. The emperor had at his disposal neither an administrative apparatus, nor national finances or an army. His power was essentially based on hereditary possessions, in which he felt as independent a ruler as other imperial princes. The “Golden Bull” legally formalized the so-called “original German freedom,” or broad independence” of the German princes in relation to the imperial power.
The emperor presided over international conferences and negotiations, acted as an arbiter in internecine conflicts, and appointed rulers of secular or ecclesiastical estates, giving them the corresponding titles of duke or even king. The outward expression of the emperor's broad powers was the special honors that other rulers bestowed on him and his ambassadors. The kings were inferior in importance to the emperor, but just like him, they were considered independent rulers who independently pursued domestic and foreign policy. Even lower in the feudal hierarchy were princes, dukes, counts, etc. They were not regarded as independent rulers and were, at least nominally, vassals of the emperor or kings. Vassals were considered natural allies of lords and were supposed to support them in conflicts with other sovereigns. The international status of the small republics of the Middle Ages, such as the Italian city-states, was even lower than that of vassal fiefs.
The dynastic principle of relations between states in the Middle Ages played a dominant role. The wars that were fought in Europe at that time, such as the Wars of the Roses, the Hundred Years' War of the English and French
1 Palatine Count - literally: palace count. In the Frankish state of the 9th-10th centuries. this was the name of the position of one of the royal court officials who presided over the palace court. Over time, the counts palatine turned into sovereign princes. A particularly high position was occupied by the Count Palatine of the Rhine, who became in the 14th century. one of the 7 Electors. The Palatinate is a fief in the southwest of Germany (otherwise known as the Palatinate).
2 Margrave - literally: count of marks. In the Frankish state - an official. The position of margraves was established by Charlemagne to govern the marks (large border administrative districts) with broader powers than the counts, who were originally also officials who governed the administrative districts. Over time, the position of margrave and count was transformed into a feudal title.
roles, the wars of the German emperors for the conquest of Italy, etc., pursued the goals of the rise of one or another dynasty. Dynastic interest clearly predominated in them. The Hundred Years' War of 1337-1453 is especially characteristic in this regard. The immediate cause of the war was the claims of the English kings to the French royal throne after the death of Charles IV in 1328 ended the Capetian dynasty in France. French barons (direct vassals of the king) and church prelates achieved the election of a representative of the Valois dynasty, a side branch of the Capetians, as King Philip VI. The English king Edward III, who considered himself a direct descendant of the French kings through his mother (daughter of Charles Gu), did not agree with this decision and tried to challenge it by resorting to force. On October 7, 1338, he officially declared his claims to the French throne.
But in fact, the dispute between the English and French kings had a long history. It arose after the Duke of Normandy and Count of Anjou, Henry Plantagenet, who was a vassal of the French king, became king of England in 1154. Having taken the throne of one of the largest kingdoms of medieval Europe, Henry remained a vassal of the French king in his possessions on the continent. This dual status - at the same time as independent kings and vassals of the French king - was also retained by his heirs. This inevitably gave rise to friction between the English and French royal courts, which were jealous of issues of honor and dignity. Territorial conflicts were also frequent. The French kings did not want to lose even that illusory power that they enjoyed in the continental possessions of the English kings, as their feudal lords. Whenever possible, they did not miss the opportunity to round out their domain at the expense of the possessions of the English kings.
The war started by the English king in the 14th century lasted more than a hundred years. After decisive military victories won by the French in 1453, hostilities ceased. However, a peace treaty was never signed between both kingdoms. The British did not admit their defeat; their attention and strength were simply diverted by the War of the Scarlet and White Roses of 1455-1485, which broke out at home in the British Isles. In 1475, the English king Edward IV tried to take revenge for past defeats by landing his troops on the continent. Almost immediately, however, he was forced to conclude the peace treaty of Piquigny with the French king Charles VII, which is generally regarded as a formal end to the Hundred Years' War.
Marriage diplomacy
The predominance of the dynastic principle of international relations led to the flourishing of the so-called “marriage diplomacy”. In the Middle Ages, huge state formations arose through dynastic marriages, for example, the so-called Angevin state of the 12th century. Eleanor (Llenor), heir to the vast Duchy of Aquitaine, having married in 1137 the heir to the French throne, the future King Louis VII of the Capetian dynasty, brought him her hereditary possessions as a dowry. Louis VII led the Second Crusade of 1147-1149. to the Holy Land, in which Eleanor accompanied him. During the hike, a disagreement occurred between the spouses, and soon after returning home they divorced. After the divorce, Eleanor took the dukedom back. Having remarried, this time to the Count of Anjou, Henry Plantagenet, the future king of England, she made her new husband one of the most powerful monarchs in Europe at that time. His possessions covered a vast territory from Scotland to the Pyrenees Mountains - the British Isles, Normandy, Anjou, as well as the Duchy of Aquitaine, which included the regions of Marche, Auvergne, Limousin, Poitou, Angoumois, Saintonge, Périgord and Gascony. The totality of these possessions of the kings of the Planghagenet dynasty, who ruled in England from the middle of the 12th century to the end
XIV century, sometimes called the Angevin Power.
And subsequently, French kings often resorted to marriage alliances to round off their possessions. At the end
XV - early XVI centuries. they annexed Brittany, which went to France as the dowry of the heiress of the duchy, Anne of Brittany. Two monarchs claimed her hand and heart (and provinces) at once - the French king and the German emperor. In 1490, Anna was married in absentia to the son of the Holy Roman Emperor. The purpose of this marriage was to, through a dynastic union with the Empire, defend the independence of the Duchy of Breton, which the French kings had long sought to seize. In response to this step, French troops invaded the territory of the duchy. As a result, the French king Charles VIII ensured that Anna's marriage to the German prince was annulled, and he himself married her. Moreover, according to the marriage contract, after the death of her husband, if he had no direct heirs, Anna was obliged to marry the new French king. Charles VIII died in 1498, leaving no male issue (all four of his sons died even earlier). His cousin became King Louis XII
Duke of Orleans, whom Anna married a year later. She gave birth to the king two daughters, the eldest of whom, Claude of France, was married to the presumptive heir to the crown - Francis Duke of Angoulême, a representative of one of the branches of the Valois dynasty, the future king Francis I. Thanks to this marriage, Brittany finally became part of the French kingdom.
Mikhalkovs
In this large family it is almost impossible to find a little-known person. One gets the impression that the Mikhalkovs’ popularity is transmitted by division. Indeed, with each new generation, more and more people known to the general public appear in their family. The ancestors of the modern Mikhalkovs include representatives of a noble family, a state councilor, as well as the artist Vasily Surikov. But the countdown of celebrities is usually started by Sergei Vladimirovich Mikhalkov. He became famous for the fact that he Soviet era wrote poems for children, hymns and successfully made friends with the authorities. Both of his sons decided to raise the family name in the film industry. Andrei Mikhalkov-Konchalovsky made a name for himself in Hollywood, returned to Russia and is now making films here. Nikita Mikhalkov became famous throughout the country after playing the main role in the film “I Walk Around Moscow.” Then he began to direct very successfully himself; dozens of film awards, including an Oscar for the first part of Burnt by the Sun, are evidence of this. Nikita Sergeevich also did not give up acting, having managed to appear in 40 films along the way. The younger Mikhalkovs - Anna, Artem and Nadezhda with with varying success act in films, and Yegor Konchalovsky is considered a quite successful director, by modern standards.
Bondarchuks
Sergei Bondarchuk began his path to fame with film roles. Thanks to the actor’s talent and natural charisma, viewers will forever remember his roles in the films “Soldiers Are Walking,” “The Fate of a Man,” and “Seryozha.” But the elder Bondarchuk’s directorial works brought him worldwide fame. The films “War and Peace” and “Waterloo” received recognition, including in the West, and the director began to be considered a master of grandiose battle scenes. All the children of Sergei Bondarchuk connected their lives with cinema in one way or another. Natalya Bondarchuk successfully played in films (“Solaris”, “Star of Captivating Happiness”), and then, like her father, became interested in directing (“Pushkin. The Last Duel”). Alena Bondarchuk also acted in films, and her son Konstantin Kryukov is a famous young Russian actor (“9th Company”, “Heat”). The youngest Bondarchuk, Fedor, turned out to be the most active. With varying degrees of success, he directs music videos, acts in films, makes movies, does business, and hosts television shows.
Remchukovs
Konstantin Remchukov is a journalist, economist and politician. Owner and editor-in-chief « Independent newspaper" Remchukov’s eldest son Maxim did not continue his father’s business, went into business, and now heads football club"Kuban". But the younger ones, Nikolai and Varvara, became interested in journalism and, by a strange coincidence, are still published in the same Nezavisimaya Gazeta.
Yankovsky
Oleg Yankovsky was the embodiment of the intelligentsia in Soviet cinema. His brilliant film career began with the film “Shield and Sword”, then there were no less outstanding “Two Comrades Served”, “That Same Munchausen”, “Flying in a Dream and in Reality”. Also Oleg Yankovsky in his thirties extra years at Lenkom he took part in almost all significant performances of this famous theater. Philip Yankovsky initially followed in his father’s footsteps, but after unnoticeable roles in films, he chose directing, where he is more successful.
Edita Piekha, Ilona Bronevitskaya, Stas Piekha
“Grandmother is a singer, mother is a singer, son is a singer” - this is how this musical dynasty was once presented in a comedy TV show. Edita Stanislavovna Piekha was the queen and sex symbol of the Soviet stage for many years, and her Polish accent and sophisticated elegance made her almost a foreign star in the eyes of an inexperienced domestic audience. Edita Piekha's daughter Ilona followed in her mother's footsteps, while performing under her father's last name. She did not achieve much success in the musical field, becoming more famous as the host of various music TV shows. Ilona Bronevitskaya’s son Stanislav was “doomed” from birth. In addition to his singing grandmother and mother, his father Petras Gerulis was also a jazz musician. Stas, unlike his mother, did not become modest and took famous surname grandmothers and went to become a star at the Factory. Afterwards he signed a contract with producer Viktor Drobysh and has since been a constant character in the Russian pop scene.
Alla Pugacheva, Kristina Orbakaite
The legend of the national stage Alla Pugacheva forever inscribed her name not only in the annals of Soviet-Russian music, but also in the history of the country, becoming one of the symbols of the 20th century. Now the Diva is once again trying to leave the stage, continues to patronize young talents and runs her own radio station “Alla”. Pugacheva's only daughter Kristina Orbakaite played main role in Rolan Bykov’s film “Scarecrow”, received good reviews. But musical genes outweighed interest in cinema. Today Orbakaite is a completely successful singer who has ensured that her name is no longer associated with her famous mother.
Loshak family
Viktor Loshak was a famous journalist in the USSR. In the 90s he moved to management work. For a long time he was the editor-in-chief of Moscow News; in 2003 he headed the magazine Ogonyok, which he still runs. Viktor Grigorievich’s only daughter Anna, better known by her surname Mongait, also became interested in journalism. The girl began publishing and auditioning for TV from her youth, and since 2005 she has been hosting her own program “About Art” on the “Culture” channel. Viktor Loshak’s nephew Andrei, after graduating from Moscow State University, came to NTV, worked as an assistant to Dmitry Parfenov, and was the editor-in-chief of the scandalous talk show “About This.” He received recognition from television viewers after creating a number of provocative projects as part of the “Profession of Reporter” series. Ironically, Andrey’s greatest fame was brought to him by the film “Now the Office Is Here,” which NTV management did not dare to release on screen at all. The program was posted on the Internet, where it collected millions of views.
Urgant family
In 1970, Nina Nikolaevna Urgant became famous throughout the country great performance Bulat Okudzhava’s song “Birds Don’t Sing Here” in the film “ Belorussky railway station" Her son Andrei from his first marriage to actor Lev Milinder also connected his life with the stage. In addition to performing in the theater, he played in several dozen films and hosts a number of television shows. Ivan, a representative of the modern generation of Urgants, initially had to prove that he owed his success not to his famous grandmother and famous father, but solely to his own talent. This is what the “one-man orchestra” did excellently. Starting with “VJing” on MTV, in a few years Ivan became the most sought-after and highly paid showman in the country.
Efremovs
When the first child was born in the family of the famous Soviet actor Oleg Efremov (“Beware of the Car,” “Three Poplars on Plyushchikha,” “Battalions Ask for Fire,” etc.) and theater actress Alla Pokrovskaya, it became clear that it would be difficult for him to escape his acting fate. He didn't escape. After graduating from the Moscow Art Theater School, which was then headed by his father, Mikhail Efremov became the most famous supporting actor in Russia. The number of his film roles is approaching a hundred, and usually the character of Mikhail is given no more than five minutes of screen time, which, however, does not prevent the charismatic Efremov from being remembered by the public. Nikolai, the son of Mikhail Efremov from his marriage to actress Evgenia Dobrovolskaya, plans to become the successor of the family business. He entered GITIS and already made his debut in big cinema.
Principles of inheritance of power Depending on the principle of inheritance of power, a monarchy can be dynastic, tribal and elective. 1) Dynastic monarchy. In such a monarchy, a strictly dynastic principle operates, according to which the throne is passed from father to son, but it can also be passed, for example, from brother to brother, as was the case in Rus' in the Early and High Middle Ages, when we had the right of the ladder, the ladder principle of the transition of the throne (in Slavic, “ladder” - “ladder”). However, the dynastic principle did not always exist. It was invented by Western European feudalism and then spread to other parts of the world, although it may have developed independently in Islamic countries. We - Eastern Europe - do not have a dynastic principle; it is late and borrowed. 2) Tribal monarchy. Much more often than strict succession to the throne, the principle of belonging to the royal family operated in monarchies. Those. the king had to come from a royal family, but this did not mean that he automatically inherited the throne (many people belong to the royal family). 3) Elective monarchy. It is not uncommon. In Equatorial Africa, the monarchical principles of electing tribal kings for a year by a council of elders are still preserved, and after a year this council again confirms or does not confirm the powers of the elected king. Let us note that these institutions, which interestingly combine the monarchical element with a completely democratic tradition, work superbly, while Western democracy at the national level gives rise to such monstrous corruption in Equatorial Africa that even our domestic one pales in comparison to it! There was also an elective monarchy in Byzantium. Moreover, an Orthodox monarch, in principle, is legitimized (made legal) only by Orthodox people, i.e. Church, for the Church is a community of people. At the same time, legitimation institutions can be different (a national referendum is not at all necessary). Where is the line between the monarchy proper and presidential power in a republic? With strong presidential power, this line is blurred, although it still exists. Strong presidential power is actually a republican modification of the monarchical principle. Let's say the President of the United States is, in a sense, a republican monarch (his powers are extremely broad). However, in elective monarchies the monarch is still usually elected for life. And even where annual confirmation of the monarch’s powers is required, as was the case in Babylon or Equatorial Africa, the monarch (unlike the president of the republic) can continue to reign for as long as he likes, unless he is rejected by his own community. All three correct forms of power - monarchy, aristocracy and democracy - are extraordinarily ancient. In any case they ancient state, which is another argument in favor of the primacy of society, its priority over the state. There is also some reason to believe that monarchy is the most ancient of these three forms, for the prototype of monarchy, monarchical rule, patriarchal royal power is the family (of course, not the “Swedish” and not the 20th century family in general, but a normal family, which can only be structured patriarchally). Virtues of the Monarchy There are quite a few of them, and they are cited in classical literature (in particular, by the outstanding Russian lawyer of the last century B.N. Chicherin and by the greatest monarchist thinker of our century L.A. Tikhomirov). Let's focus on the main ones. In all likelihood, the exceptional merit of the monarchy lies in its ability to maintain the informality of the relationship between monarch and subject, even in large states. In general, an element of informality, an element of personal connections is inherent in all regular forms state power, but not their distortions. If informal ties in a representative democracy or in an aristocratic system are completely destroyed, representative democracy degenerates into ochlocracy, and aristocracy into oligarchy. However, the monarchy has the greatest stability in this regard - it retains the element of informality in relations for the longest time. It is no coincidence that even when the Russian peasant was taught to address the landowner as you (the French form), which took a lot of time, he continued to address the Tsar as you - this was the custom. Perhaps because of this, the monarchy is an important tool of unification and an even more effective symbol of unity, and a universal one. A properly structured monarchy can be a symbol of the unity of the state, incl. multinational, incl. empires (note that all empires are multinational, so they all adopted a monarchical system). The monarchy can also be a symbol of the unity of the nation, a symbol of social stability (due to its supra-class status). And finally, in Christian states the monarch is, in a sense, a symbol of the unity of the Church. Even formally constitutional, but actually decorative monarchies (like modern monarchy in Great Britain) continue to fulfill this mission - a symbol and instrument of unity. Monarchy introduces into the outline social relations extremely noble principles. This, for example, is fidelity - one of the noblest criteria in relations between people and, moreover, the main Christian virtue (hardly anyone will argue with this, given that the first name for Christians, when the word “Christians” did not yet exist, was precisely “faithful”). Think also about the meaning of the word “loyal subject”, the emphasis in which is clearly on the first word “faithful”. I.A. Ilyin, the most famous thinker and lawyer of our century, drew the following line: “The limit of obedience of a republican is the right of disobedience, the limit of obedience of a monarchist is the duty of disobedience.” The advantage of the monarchy, which, however, fully extends to strong presidential power, is the ability to make prompt decisions in cases where there is simply no time for discussion. By the way, it is not common for proper monarchies, even in complex political systems, to quickly make decisions on their own, if you can wait and consult. Another important advantage of the monarchy is the ability to effectively promote the most talented people to leadership positions. In monarchical systems this ability is much higher than in republican ones, which is easily explained. Any most decent and well-mannered head of a republican state - a prime minister or president - will inevitably (at least at the subconscious level, no matter how much he pushes this thought away from himself) will see a competitor in a talented minister or talented general, and therefore, at least involuntarily, hold him. And the monarch is socially removed from competition and, thanks to this, is not constrained in similar decisions. Moreover, he himself is interested in promoting talented people, because for the monarch and the dynasty, the defeat of the country is a possible threat of abdication, and the death of the country is the death of the dynasty and, most likely, the personal death of the monarch. Disadvantages of Monarchy The main disadvantage of a dynastic monarchy, as well as an aristocracy, is the accident of birth. On the monarchy since generic system This does not apply to inheritance and elective monarchies, but with strictly dynastic inheritance there is no guarantee that a mentally disabled heir will not be born. Therefore, in dynastic monarchies it is highly desirable to divide monarchical power with some other form of power - with an aristocracy or with democracy. Another widespread flaw of the monarchy is favoritism, the tendency to favor favorites. This deficiency is again eliminated by composite polities (or composite political systems), in which monarchy is not the only form, but acts in combination with other forms. By the way, not only democracy, and even more so aristocracy, but also monarchy is more often found in history in composite polities than in its pure form. We more often see monarchies with aristocracies, and even monarchies with democracies, than monarchies that rule the state inseparably. Three-component polities, combining elements of all three forms of power, are not so rare in world history. Historical varieties of monarchies Unfortunately, the idea that monarchies can be absolute or constitutional has been ingrained in us. But, by the way, absolute monarchy was invented in the 16th century and implemented in the 17th century; The constitutional one was invented in the 17th century and implemented in the 18th century. This - latest forms monarchy, and before that the monarchical history spanned thousands of years. Let's begin our consideration with the most ancient varieties of monarchy. 1. Patriarchal or traditional monarchies They are characteristic of traditional societies and can develop into sacred monarchies or despotic monarchies. In addition, the features of the patriarchal monarchy, thanks to the historical memory of many generations, are preserved to one degree or another in other monarchical varieties. Patriarchal monarchy, in all likelihood, is not only based on paternal authority, but also directly stems from the development of the family principle (the traditional monarch is perceived as the father of his subjects). The patriarchal monarchy has little opportunity to influence society in a reformatory way, because traditional society almost does not allow this, which does not exclude the exercise of the sovereignty of the patriarchal monarch in extreme situations(for example, in case of war or foreign invasion). The patriarchal monarchy merges with the sacred monarchy in one extremely ancient custom - the custom of the royal sacrifice. The custom of the king voluntarily sacrificing himself in the name of saving his people existed among many nations. A mythological heritage of this kind is set out in the classic work of R. Graves " Greek mythology", which was written almost half a century ago, but has not lost any of its merits. Graves notes that the memory of the sacrifice of the king reached the times of the Greek and Roman civilizations, but in a replaced form (i.e., symbolic rituals associated with the one that existed in a much deeper ancient times by a royal sacrifice). Apparently, we observe the same thing in the annual dedication of the Babylonian king to perform his priestly powers at the wedding of the god Bel-Marduk. It happened like this: every year the king appeared at the main temple, where he was met by the high priest and greeted properly. , and then struck with a whip. If the king cried, the coming year was considered guaranteed to be fertile and successful. It is possible that the priests specially trained to hit without hurting, and the kings trained to shed tears (this. social technologies). The seriousness of the royal sacrifice, the memory of which was preserved in the minds of people for thousands of years, is best confirmed by royal sacrifice, brought by Jesus Christ - this is how it is perceived in Christian theology. This is how Pontius Pilate, the heir to a completely different mythological tradition, perceived it. 2. Sacred monarchies Sacred monarchies are monarchies where the primary functions of the monarch are priestly. Sometimes such monarchies are usually called “theocracies” (this term is common, although it is not correct, because “theocracy” literally means “divine power”, but rather the term “hierocracy” - “the power of the priests”) should be used. The sacred priestly monarchy is often associated with the patriarchal one. From biblical and Roman material it is clear that the head of the patriarchal family was also the family priest. Sacred monarchies are often associated with traditional societies. This is the sacred monarchy of Egypt, at least in the Ancient and Middle Kingdoms, where the functions of the priest are the main functions of the pharaoh. Examples of sacred monarchies, but of others (often class-based), are also those in which the monarch does not directly perform priestly functions, but is the highest spiritual authority. A similar monarchy was implemented by classical Sunni Islam, although it was not implemented for long - throughout the history of the Caliphate (until the caliphs lost the functions of secular rulers, but they retained the function of spiritual authority longer). Centuries old, maybe even thousand-year history sacred monarchies led to the relative sacralization of any monarchical power: the formation of the principle of the sacredness of the person of the king and even the royal blood. The French brought this principle to its greatest absurdity in the Middle Ages - royal blood was considered so sacred that, no matter who their kings fornicated with, the royal descendants were recognized as princes of the blood. And they gave birth to these princes of blood, apparently and invisibly. However, there were also very worthy people among them. Thus, the famous French military leader, at one time a comrade-in-arms of Joan of Arc, Count Dunois, was a collateral descendant of the royal family, and they addressed him quite officially: “Monseigneur le batard.” I don’t even know how this could be decently translated into Russian - you can’t say: “Your Highness is a bastard”?! However, our monarchical tradition This is not typical. 3. Despotic monarchies This is not a derogatory term - despotic monarchies have nothing in common with tyranny. In Greek, the word "despot" means "lord", "master". Despotic monarchy develops in militarized societies, although it can persist even after they cease to be militarized. From the despotic principle it does not at all follow that the power of a despotic monarch is absolute or that he rules more in cruel ways. It’s just that if a sacred monarch is a priest by origin, then a despotic monarch is a general by origin. It is precisely in despotic monarchies that we usually see really strong monarchical power combined with the protection of self-esteem and the rights of subjects. As already mentioned, subjects in such monarchies are a people-army. The classic despotic monarchs were the Assyrian king (he is a military leader, not of priestly, but of secular origin), Armenian king Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, as well as the Khan of the Turkic or Mongol horde(elected despotic ruler). 4. Estate and estate-representative monarchies We see them in history most often, perhaps because much less information has been preserved about patriarchal monarchies (they still existed for too long). Estate and estate-representative monarchies operate in estate societies, therefore they are most characteristic of the descendants of the Aryans - peoples who, at least to some extent, preserved the Aryan (Indo-European) tradition, and they founded most of the states known to us. Eastern Aryan societies are characterized by the inclusion of the king in the class, and, of course, not in the highest class, but in the second class - in the military. It is worth mentioning that one of the oldest Persian names for a king is “kshatra”, and in Sanskrit “kshatra” means “warrior” (Indians and Iranians were close related peoples 3500 - 4000 years ago). Indian kings - rajas (usually rulers of very small states) belonged both in the Vedic and Hindu periods to the second varna - the Kshatriya varna. Proximity to the military class can be seen among all Iranian kings (Persian, Median, etc.). However, when the Persian Shah became the Iranian Shahanshah (“king of kings”), his power was sacralized, but nevertheless the class was not destroyed. In Iran (Eranshahr) there was some synthesis of the sacred monarchy and the class monarchy. Under all the Shahanshahs of the pre-Muslim period (and in Iran not only dynasties changed, but the dominant imperial ethnic groups changed), a council of representatives of the three Aryan classes invariably operated, i.e. The monarchy was truly class-based. On the contrary, in Western tradition class societies, the monarch was supra-class, apparently, from very ancient times. Already among the Achaeans, the king was separated from the very developed and influential Achaean aristocracy. One can even assume that in Achaean societies the aristocracy was stronger than the monarchy, and yet the royal family (there was a tribal principle) stood out and became isolated. In the same way, in the tradition of Pre-Mongol Rus', princes are a peculiarly separate class, removed from the aristocracy proper - the boyars. In the entire history of Ancient Rus', there is one known attempt (at the beginning of the 13th century) by a boyar to become a prince - an unsuccessful attempt: neither the princes nor the boyars recognized it - which confirms the validity of the rule. It must be said that monarchy is certainly suitable for class societies; it is useful for them, because the monarchical principle allows the head of state, within the framework of a cultural tradition, to be made supra-class, and therefore to be made an arbiter in the event of inter-class conflicts. As for class-representative monarchies, they arise as states grow. After all, direct democracy is possible only in very small state, where at least full-fledged citizens can be gathered in one public assembly square. Apparently, 30,000 full-fledged Athenians is already close to the limit of the number of persons participating in direct democracy. With the increase in the size and population of the state, representative democracy appears. It is included in the system of estate-representative monarchies, which, of course, are not monarchies in their pure form, for they are a monarchy with democracy or, as is often the case, a monarchy with an aristocracy and democracy. During the best times national history we can observe a class monarchy. In Pre-Mongol Rus' IX-XIII centuries. there was a monarchical element (princely power) and a democratic veche (i.e. direct democracy in each principality). With the creation of a united Russia, we moved to an estate-representative monarchy (in the 16th-17th centuries, the tsar ruled with the aristocratic Boyar Duma and estate representation - the Zemsky Sobor). I will not argue with the widespread opinion of historians that class representation and thereby class-representative monarchies take shape in the process of the struggle for the unification of states against feudal fragmentation. There are often references (this is typical for Western Europe) that kings fought against large feudal lords, relying on the parliament of the petty nobility and townspeople (burghers). I can only ironically note that it is still unknown whose party was the initiator in this case. Perhaps it was the small nobles and burghers who relied on royal power in the fight against large feudal lords? But except for this caveat, I agree with this opinion. It is interesting that parliaments appeared in the process of the struggle for the unity of the state. The first dating parliament in Western Europe is the Cortes of Castile (1185). The first dated experience of parliamentarism in Russian history is the Zemsky Sobor of the book. Vsevolod III Big Nest (1211), i.e. our parliament is 54 years older than the English one, convened for the first time in 1265. Estate-representative monarchies predominate in Western Europe in the 13th-16th centuries. In Russian history, this form of government has been maintained since mid-16th century and until the end of the 17th century. However, strictly speaking, an estate-representative monarchy is already a composite political system. In an effort to unite the state, the authorities - both republican and monarchical - willingly rush into the arms of parliamentarism. Otherwise she fails. In the process of unifying the state and developing their parliamentarism, the Americans broke the necks of opponents of unity by winning the Civil War (and our schoolchildren still think that it was fought because of blacks). Even at the beginning of 1991, it was obvious: if the dismemberment of the USSR becomes a fait accompli, we cannot dream of any triumph of parliamentary principles. What follows is known - execution Supreme Council Russian Federation in 1993. And the roots of the October events of 1993 go back to 1991, when our country was dismembered. 5. Absolute monarchies The principle of absolutism is genetically connected with three noticeable historical phenomena: bureaucratization, departure from Christian foundations and statism. Firstly, a large state is characterized by either a monarchy with an aristocracy, or a monarchy with democracy. If there are no aristocratic and democratic institutions, a monarchy with a bureaucracy is inevitable, because in the absence of operational communication with all huge territory The king of the state cannot effectively resolve all issues without bureaucracy. Monarchy, deprived of representative forms, falls ill with the most dangerous disease - bureaucracy. France, as a bureaucratic state, was the leader of Western Europe, and in the High Middle Ages - the whole world. Already in the 14th century, Philip IV the Handsome largely crushed the aristocracy, creating a powerful bureaucratic system. It is not surprising that France, however, already in the 17th century became a country of classical absolutism. Secondly, absolute monarchy is associated with the anti-Christian tendencies of the Renaissance and that is why it was so glorified by the Enlightenment. A Christian could never agree with absolutism in conscience, because for him only one monarch in heaven is absolute. However, the first blow to the Christian principles of ethics and, consequently, politics was dealt in the Renaissance (remember the famous works of N. Macchiaavelli), and the Enlightenment era was entirely devoted to these blows - the de-Christianization of Western European culture. As a tool for this, the enlighteners gladly accepted “enlightened absolutism”, which means only one thing: an absolute monarch sits on the throne, into whose ear one of the company of enlighteners whispers smart advice. Thirdly, absolute monarchy is associated with the principle that prevailed during the Enlightenment social contract in the version of T. Hobbes (the Leviathan principle). Its essence is that in the interests of the nobility or other classes, powers are once and for all delegated to the state, and subjects can only obey. It was this principle that was implemented in absolutism. Absolutism is one of the most naked forms of statism, i.e. statism. And it doesn’t matter whether Louis XIV (personally a very nice king) said: “I am the state,” or this phrase of his was later invented. It is much more important that he could say so; it fits perfectly into the period of his reign and into the social structure France XVII centuries. However, an absolute monarchy should not be confused with a despotic monarchy (the despotic principle of military obedience does not exclude the limitation of royal power), nor with an autocratic (Christian) monarchy, nor with tyranny. No matter how unattractive an absolute monarchy may be, it is not tyranny, because, firstly, all absolute monarchs accepted the principle of inviolability private property. Another thing is that property could be confiscated by an inspired court verdict, but this is an exception to the rule. None of the absolute monarchs decided on mass confiscations, which tyrants easily did. Secondly, even absolute monarchs are not inclined to completely destroy traditions. Thus, under French absolutism, representative bodies (Estates General) disappeared, but city councils remained, although their capabilities were truncated. There were bodies of city government even after the strengthening of absolutism in Russia in the 18th century. In addition, in France, under absolutism, independent judicial chambers (so-called parliaments) were also preserved. This tendency to observe certain principles of one’s own culture, without breaking with it at its roots, is, of course, a dignity preserved by an absolute monarchy. 6. Constitutional monarchies A constitutional monarchy is ideologically related to an absolute monarchy and also represents the implementation of the principle of a social contract in its various variants. Only now the power of the king is not limited in the same way as it was limited in estate and estate-representative monarchies - it is now limited by the constitution. The principle of separation of powers, characteristic of constitutional monarchies, owes its appearance to absolute monarchy- absolutism had to be established for some time, so that later society would begin to defend itself from the state! The unconditional statism of absolutism caused some anti-statism. But class society did not defend itself from the state - it commanded the state.
