Old page wikitext, before the edit (old_wikitext ) | '{{short description|Form of autocracy specific to Russian monarchies}}
{{basic forms of government}}
{{monarchism}}
'''Tsarist autocracy'''{{Ref_label|a|a|none}} ({{lang-ru|царское самодержавие}}, [[Transcription (linguistics)|transcr.]] ''tsarskoye samoderzhaviye''), also called '''Tsarism''', is a form of [[autocracy]] (later [[absolute monarchy]]) specific to the [[Grand Duchy of Moscow]], which later became [[Tsardom of Russia]] and the [[Russian Empire]].{{Ref_label|b|b|none}} In it, all power and wealth is controlled (and distributed) by the [[Tsar]]. They had more power than [[constitutional monarch]]s, who are usually vested by law and counterbalanced by a legislative authority; and more authority on religious issues compared to Western monarchs. In Russia, it originated during the time of [[Ivan III of Russia|Ivan III]] (1462−1505), and was abolished after the [[Russian Revolution of 1905]].
== Alternative names ==
This system has also been described by the following terms: Imperial autocracy,{{Ref_label|c|c|none}} Russian autocracy,{{Ref_label|d|d|none}} Muscovite autocracy,{{Ref_label|e|e|none}} tsarist absolutism,{{Ref_label|f|f|none}} imperial absolutism,{{Ref_label|g|g|none}} Russian absolutism,{{Ref_label|h|h|none}} Muscovite absolutism,{{Ref_label|i|i|none}} Muscovite despotism,{{Ref_label|j|j|none}}{{Ref_label|k|k|none}} Russian despotism,{{Ref_label|l|l|none}} tsarist despotism{{Ref_label|m|m|none}} or imperial despotism.{{Ref_label|n|n|none}}
== History ==
noob
== Features ==
<section begin=tsarist autocracy />
The person of the [[tsar]] himself, a [[sovereign]] with absolute authority, stood at the center of the tsarist autocracy.<ref name=lee>Stephen J. Lee ''Russia and the USSR, 1855–1991: Autocracy and Dictatorship'', Routledge, 2006. {{ISBN|0-415-33577-9}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=LQJa17k46zYC&pg=PA1&dq=%22Tsarist+autocracy%22#PPA1,M1 Google Print, p.1-3]</ref> The rights of state power in their entire extent belonged to the tsar. The autocrat further entrusted power to persons and institutions, acting in his name, by his orders, and within the limits laid down for them by law. The purpose of the system was to supposedly benefit the entire country of Russia.<ref name=lee/> A metaphor existed likening the tsar to a father, and all of the subjects of the Empire, to his children; this metaphor even appeared in Orthodox [[Primer (textbook)|primers]].<ref>Robert D. Crews, ''For Prophet and Tsar: Islam and Empire in Russia and Central Asia'', Harvard University Press, 2006, {{ISBN|0-674-02164-9}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=R40_QY77IPUC&pg=PA77&dq=tsar+subjects+children&as_brr=3 Google Print, p.77]</ref> This metaphor is present in the common Russian expression "царь-батюшка", literally "tsar-dear father".
Furthermore, unlike the future theoretical separation of church and state in West European monarchies, the Russian Empire combined monarchy with the supreme authority on religious issues (see [[Church reform of Peter I]] and [[caesaropapism]] for details).
Another key feature related to [[patrimonialism]]. In Russia the tsar owned a much higher proportion of the state (lands, enterprises, etc.) than did Western monarchs.<ref>Deborah Goodwin, Matthew Midlane, ''Negotiation in International Conflict: Understanding Persuasion'', Taylor & Francis, 2002, {{ISBN|0-7146-8193-8}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=G_qKJtFHAXgC&pg=PA158&dq=patrimonialism+Russia+tsar&lr=&ei=yFleSbbJLKKIyATos8XoDw Google Print, p.158]</ref><ref>Nicolas Spulber, ''Russia's Economic Transitions: From Late Tsarism to the New Millennium'', Cambridge University Press, 2003, {{ISBN|0-521-81699-8}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=glCWNiTuJaQC&pg=PA27&vq=patrimonialism&dq=patrimonialism+Russia+tsar&lr=&source=gbs_search_s&cad=0 Google Print, p.27-28]</ref><ref>Reinhard Bendix, ''Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait'', University of California Press, 1977, {{ISBN|0-520-03194-6}}, [https://archive.org/details/maxweberintellec0000bend/page/356 <!-- quote=patrimonialism Russia tsar. --> Google Print, p.356-358]</ref><ref>Richard Pipes, ''Russian Conservatism and Its Critics: A Study in Political Culture'', Yale University Press, 2007, {{ISBN|0-300-12269-1}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=I1yCrMAfg_IC&pg=PA181&dq=Pipes+patrimonialism+Russia+tsar&lr=&ei=JlteScj7E5WyyQS-u-ku#PPA181,M1 Google Print, p.181]</ref><ref>Catherine J. Danks, ''Russian Politics and Society: An Introduction'', Pearson Education, 2001, {{ISBN|0-582-47300-4}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=QnYBluKOV7cC&pg=PA21&dq=Pipes+patrimonialism+Russia+tsar&lr=&ei=JlteScj7E5WyyQS-u-ku Google Print, p.21]</ref><ref>Stefan Hedlund, ''Russian Path Dependence: A People with a Troubled History'', Routledge, 2005, {{ISBN|0-415-35400-5}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=51gmGvYBZ9EC&pg=PA161&dq=Pipes+patrimonialism+Russia+tsar&lr=&ei=JlteScj7E5WyyQS-u-ku Google Print, p.161]</ref>
The tsarist autocracy had many supporters within Russia. Major Russian advocates and theorists of the autocracy included writer [[Fyodor Dostoyevsky]],<ref name=Viereck>Peter Viereck, ''Conservative Thinkers: From John Adams to Winston Churchill'', Transaction Publishers, 2005, {{ISBN|1-4128-0526-0}}, [https://archive.org/details/conservativethin00pete/page/85 <!-- quote=Dostoyevsky autocracy. --> Google Print, pp. 84–86]</ref><ref name=Scanlan>James Patrick Scanlan, ''Dostoevsky the Thinker: A Philosophical Study'', Cornell University Press, 2002, {{ISBN|0-8014-3994-9}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=lbMYxaFTMZAC&pg=PA171&dq=Dostoyevsky+autocracy&as_brr=3&as_pt=ALLTYPES Google Print, p.171-172]</ref> [[Mikhail Katkov]],<ref>Richard Pipes, ''Russian Conservatism and Its Critics: A Study in Political Culture'', Yale University Press, 2007, {{ISBN|0-300-12269-1}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=I1yCrMAfg_IC&pg=PA123&dq=Dostoyevsky+supported+absolutism&lr=&as_brr=3#PPA124,M1 Google Print, p.124]</ref> [[Konstantin Aksakov]],<ref>Nicolai N. Petro, ''The Rebirth of Russian Democracy: An Interpretation of Political Culture'', Harvard University Press, 1995, {{ISBN|0-674-75001-2}}, [https://archive.org/details/rebirthofrussian00petr/page/90 <!-- quote=konstantin Aksakov absolutism. --> Google Print, p.90]</ref> [[Nikolay Karamzin]],<ref name=Scanlan/> [[Konstantin Pobedonostsev]]<ref name=Viereck/><ref name=lee/> and [[Pyotr Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky|Pyotr Semyonov]]. They all argued that a strong and prosperous Russia needed a strong tsar, and that philosophies of [[republicanism]] and [[liberal democracy]] did not fit Russia.<ref name=Viereck/><section end=tsarist autocracy />
== Influences ==
Some historians see the traditions of tsarist autocracy as partially responsible for laying groundworks for the [[totalitarianism]] in the [[Soviet Union]].<ref name=pt/><ref name=Viereck/><ref name=mal>David Lloyd Hoffmann, ''Stalinism: The Essential Readings'', Blackwell Publishing, 2003, {{ISBN|0-631-22891-8}}, .[https://books.google.com/books?id=54ZJypH-7xcC&pg=PA66&dq=%22Tsarist+autocracy%22#PPA67,M1 Google Print, p.67-68]</ref><ref>Dennis J. Dunn, ''The Catholic Church and Russia: Popes, Patriarchs, Tsars, and Commissars'', Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2004, {{ISBN|0-7546-3610-0}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=lmFEjKYlQfcC&pg=RA1-PA72&dq=%22tsarist+absolutism%22&lr=&as_brr=3 Google Print, p.72]</ref> They see the traditions of autocracy and patrimonialism as dominating Russia's political culture for centuries; for example, [[Stephen White (political scientist)|Stephen White]] is described as "the most consistent" defender of the position that the uniqueness of Russian political heritage is inseparable from its ethnic identity. In White's opinion, autocracy is the defining factor in the history of Russian politics.<ref name=nnp29>Nicolai N. Petro, [https://archive.org/details/rebirthofrussian00petr/page/29 p. 29]</ref> He wrote that Russian political culture is "rooted in the historical experience of centuries of absolutism."<ref>Nicolai N. Petro, ''The Rebirth of Russian Democracy: An Interpretation of Political Culture'', Harvard University Press, 1995, {{ISBN|0-674-75001-2}}, [https://archive.org/details/rebirthofrussian00petr/page/15 <!-- quote="tsarist absolutism". --> Google Print, p.15]</ref> Those views had been challenged by other historians, for example, [[Nicolai N. Petro]] and [[Martin Malia]] (as cited by Hoffmann).<ref name=mal/> [[Richard Pipes]] is another influential historian among non-specialists who holds the position about the distinctness of Russian history and political system, describing the absolutism of the Muscovite political system as "patrimonial", and saw the stability of the [[Soviet Union]] in the fact that Russians accepted the legitimacy of this patrimonial organization.<ref name=nnp29/>
Some historians have pointed to a [[racism|racial element]] in the concept. For example, American [[Cold War]] analysts, including [[George F. Kennan|George Kennan]], linked the Soviet government's autocratic rule to [[Tatars|Tatar]] influences during its history, and biographies of Russian leaders often stressed their possible Asiatic ancestries. They maintained that Asiatic influences rendered the Russians, along with the [[China|Chinese]], untrustworthy.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yHh6gwshyKIC&q=despot+russian&pg=RA2-PA229|title=Dominance by design: technological imperatives and America's civilizing mission|author=Michael Adas|publisher=[[Harvard University Press]]|year=2006|isbn=0-674-01867-2|pages=230–231}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Modernization from the other shore|author=David C. Engerman|year=2003|publisher=[[Harvard University Press]]|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UkFlO7hoxOMC&q=russian+despotism+racial+asiatic&pg=PA260|page=260|isbn=0-674-01151-1}}</ref>
== Criticism of the concept ==
Historians of different backgrounds have criticised the concept of tsarist autocracy in its various forms. Their complaints range from the different names of the model being too vague,<ref>C.J. Halperin, 'Muscovy as a Hypertrophic State: A Critique', ''Kritika'' 3 3 (2002) 501.</ref> to its chronological implications (it is impossible to consider Russia in different centuries the same) as well as to its content (the question how Russian or "tsarist" autocracy differs from "regular" autocracy or from European absolutism for that matter).
Regarding the substance of the autocracy model, its equation with despotism, its supposed origins in Mongol rule, as well as its supposed rise in medieval Muscovy have been heavily debated.<ref>D. Ostrowski, ''Muscovy and the Mongols: Cross-Cultural Influence on the Steppe Frontier, 1304-1589'' (Cambridge 1998) 91-95; M. Poe, 'The Consequences of the Military Revolution in Muscovy: A Comparative Perspective', ''Comparative Studies in Society and History'' 38 4 (1996) 603-604; R.O. Crummey, 'Russian Absolutism and the Nobility', ''Journal of Modern History'' 49 3 (1977) 456-459.</ref> For one, Marxist Soviet scholars were concerned with prerevolutionary absolutism and identified the boyar elites and the bureaucracy as its pillars. For example, Sergey M. Troitskii claimed that the Russian monarchs held sway of the nobility which was reduced to state service. According to Troitskii, absolutism in Russia was the same as everywhere else. This led to a difficult position within Marxism, because absolutism revolves around institutions and laws, which were fundamentally less important than the socioeconomic base of society.<ref>A. Gerschenkron, 'Soviet Marxism and Absolutism', ''Slavic Review'' 30 4 (1971) 855.</ref> This raises the question how absolutism could be the same when socioeconomic circumstances in Russia were not the same as elsewhere.
In order to reconcile the non-socioeconomic nature of absolutism with Marxist theory, Soviet scholar Alexander N. Chistozvonov proposed to group the Russian monarchy with the Prussian and Austrian ones, forming a distinct mix of Western European absolutism and "oriental despotism".<ref>Crummey, 'Russian Absolutism', 458-459.</ref> In the eyes of Chistozvonov, whatever absolutist or autocratic elements were indeed present in Russia, they were not unique and do not warrant Russia’s exclusive categorization.
Similarly struggling with Marxist conceptions, Soviet historians Petr A. Zaionchkovskii and his student Larisa G. Zakharova focused on the importance of political convictions of Russian officials and bureaucrats to explain nineteenth-century political decision-making. By showing that the state was not a unified and powerful whole (commanded by the economically dominant class), they likewise tackled common (Marxist) conceptions of Russian autocracy.<ref>P.A. Zaionchkovskii, ''Otmena krepostnogo prava v Rossii'' (Moscow 1968); P.A. Zaionchkovski, ''Pravitel'stvennyi apparat samoderzhavnoi Rossii v XIX v.'' (Moscow 1978); L.G. Zakharova, ''Aleksandr II i otmena krepostnogo prava v Rossii'' (Moscow 2011).</ref> While like Troitskii, they studied the nobility and bureaucracy (in a later period), Zaionchkovskii and Zakharova painted a different picture of the tsar's position. Coinciding with Western scholars like Robert Crummey, they lay bare the interdependence of monarch and nobility in the practice of rule.<ref>Crummey, 'Russian Absolutism', 466-467.</ref>
Outside Russia and the Soviet Union, Hans-Joachim Torke among others tried to counter the notion of an all-powerful autocratic state by pointing at the mutual dependency of service elites and the state (coining the term "state-conditioned society").<ref>Crummey, ‘Russian Absolutism’, 466; R.O. Crummey, 'Hans-Joachim Torke, 1938-2000', ''Kritika'' 2 3 (2001) 702</ref> Torke acknowledges that the tsars were not reined in by any form of constitution, but he emphasizes for example the limitations of Christian morality and court customs. The so-called "American school" of the 1980s and 1990s argued for the important role of elite networks and their power at court. Edward Keenan went even further in his well-known piece on Muscovite political culture, claiming that the tsar was merely a puppet in the hands of boyars who wielded the actual power behind the scenes.<ref>P. Bushkovitch, ''Peter the Great: The Struggle for Power, 1671-1725'' (Cambridge 2004) 4; E.L. Keenan, 'Muscovite Political Folkways', ''Russian Review'' 45 2 (1986) 115-181.</ref>
For others, like David Ransel and Paul Bushkovitch, it goes too far to portray relations between tsar and nobility like Keenan does, because it does not appreciate their complexity. Bushkovitch argues that the theoretic lack of limitations on the power of the tsar is irrelevant and instead claims that the "crucial question" is where real power lay. In his view, this can only be shown by the political narrative of events.<ref>D.L. Ransel, ''The Politics of Catherinian Russia: The Panin Party'' (New Haven 1975); Bushkovitch, ''Peter the Great: The Struggle for Power'', 29.</ref> Bushkovitch placed the balance of power between the tsar, the individual boyars and the tsar’s favourites at the centre of political decision-making. In so doing, Bushkovitch found that on the one hand, the tsar's relative power fluctuated per monarch, and on the other hand, that the nobility was all but unified; the balance of power changed with each tsar as well as the rise of boyars and in the case of Peter I even shifted multiple times.
Charles J. Halperin cautioned against views that too easily claim tsar and state dominance in politics or society.<ref>Halperin, 'Muscovy as a Hypertrophic State', 501-507.</ref> While acknowledging the institutional differences between Muscovy and Western European monarchies, Halperin nevertheless stresses that these differences should not be considered absolute. In his view, the practice of rule, a matter of human interactions, is more important than theory and abstractions.
== See also ==
* [[Byzantinism]]
* [[Queen-in-Parliament]]
* [[Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality]]
* [[Royal assent]]
* [[Royal prerogative]]
== Notes ==
'''a''' {{note_label|a|a|none}} As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22Tsarist+autocracy%22&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
'''b''' {{note_label|b|b|none}} The existing literature pairs the words ''Russian, tsarist, Muscovite'' and ''imperial'' with ''despotism, absolutism'' and ''autocracy'' in all possible combinations, rarely giving clear definitions. ''Tsarist'' can be indeed applicable to the entire period (see also [[Tsar#Russia|historical usage of the term "tsar"]]), but ''Muscovite'' is applicable only to the period of the [[Grand Duchy of Moscow]], which was replaced by [[tsardom of Russia]], a period for which the words ''imperial'' and ''Russian'' are applicable. Further, we can look at ''Muscovite despotism'' as a precursor for the ''tsarist absolutism'', however, the very use of the word despotism has problems (see following note). Finally, care should be taken with the term [[autocracy]]: today, autocrat is usually seen as synonymous with despot, tyrant and/or dictator, though each of these terms originally had a separate and distinct meaning. Overall, out of the available terms, "tsarist autocracy" is the one which seems most correct for the entire period discussed, but it is worth keeping in mind that there are no [[ideal type]]s, and that the Russian political system evolved through time.
'''c''' {{note_label|c|c|none}}
As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22imperial+autocracy%22+Russia&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
'''d''' {{note_label|d|d|none}}
As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22Russian+autocracy%22&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
'''e''' {{note_label|e|e|none}}
As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22Muscovite+autocracy%22&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
'''f''' {{note_label|f|f|none}}
As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22tsarist+absolutism%22+Russia&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
'''g''' {{note_label|g|g|none}}
As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22imperial+absolutism%22+Russia&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
'''h''' {{note_label|h|h|none}}
As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22Russian+absolutism%22&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
'''i''' {{note_label|i|i|none}}
As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22Muscovite+absolutism%22&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
'''j''' {{note_label|j|j|none}}
As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22Muscovite+despotism%22&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
'''k''' {{note_label|k|k|none}}
The terms ''oriental despotism'' and its development, the ''[[Grand Duchy of Moscow|Muscovite]]'' or ''Russian despotism'', have been criticized as misleading, since Muscovy, and Russia, never had characteristics of pure [[despotism]], such as the ruler being identified with a [[deity|god]]).<ref name=Viereck/><ref>Donald Ostrowski, ''Muscovy and the Mongols: Cross-Cultural Influences on the Steppe Frontier, 1304–1589'', Cambridge University Press, 2002, {{ISBN|0-521-89410-7}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=6st6ZUFvfdYC&pg=PA85&dq=%22Oriental+despotism%22+%22Russia&lr=&ei=NFdeSZz9CaDkzQTLs4TXBA Google Print, p.85]</ref><ref>[http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/russia/lectures/07tartar.html Tartar Yoke] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930230346/http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/russia/lectures/07tartar.html |date=2007-09-30 }} Professor Gerhard Rempel, [[Western New England College]].</ref>
'''l''' {{note_label|l|l|none}}
As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22Russian+despotism%22&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
'''m''' {{note_label|m|m|none}}
As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22tsarist+despotism%22&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
'''n''' {{note_label|n|n|none}}
As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22imperial+despotism%22+Russia&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
== References ==
{{reflist|30em}}
== Further reading ==
* [[Paul Dukes (historian)|Paul Dukes]], ''The Making of Russian Absolutism, 1613–1801'', Longman, 1986
* [[Marshall T. Poe]], ''"Russian despotism" : the origins and dissemination of an early modern commonplace''. Thesis (Ph.D. in history). [[University of California, Berkeley]], 1993.
* Hugh Ragsdale, ''The Russian Tragedy: The Burden of History'', M.E. Sharpe, 1996, {{ISBN|1-56324-755-0}}
* Richard Pipes, ''Russia under the Old Regime'', (Penguin 1995), {{ISBN|978-0-14-024768-8}}
== External links ==
* [http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/Statesman.html Excerpts from Statesman's Handbook for Russia]. By the Chancery of the Committee of Ministers, St. Petersburg. 1896.
{{authoritarian types of rule}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Tsarist Autocracy}}
[[Category:Monarchy]]
[[Category:Political history of Russia]]
[[Category:Tsardom of Russia]]
[[Category:Politics of the Russian Empire]]
[[Category:Society of the Russian Empire]]' |
New page wikitext, after the edit (new_wikitext ) | '{{short description|Form of autocracy specific to Russian monarchies}}
{{basic forms of government}}
{{monarchism}}
'''Tsarist autocracy'''{{Ref_label|a|a|none}} ({{lang-ru|царское самодержавие}}, [[Transcription (linguistics)|transcr.]] ''tsarskoye samoderzhaviye''), also called '''Tsarism''', is a form of [[autocracy]] (later [[absolute monarchy]]) specific to the [[Grand Duchy of Moscow]], which later became [[Tsardom of Russia]] and the [[Russian Empire]].{{Ref_label|b|b|none}} In it, all power and wealth is controlled (and distributed) by the [[Tsar]]. They had more power than [[constitutional monarch]]s, who are usually vested by law and counterbalanced by a legislative authority; and more authority on religious issues compared to Western monarchs. In Russia, it originated during the time of [[Ivan III of Russia|Ivan III]] (1462−1505), and was abolished after the [[Russian Revolution of 1905]].
== Alternative names ==
dont change my stuff
== History ==
noob
== Features ==
<section begin=tsarist autocracy />
The person of the [[tsar]] himself, a [[sovereign]] with absolute authority, stood at the center of the tsarist autocracy.<ref name=lee>Stephen J. Lee ''Russia and the USSR, 1855–1991: Autocracy and Dictatorship'', Routledge, 2006. {{ISBN|0-415-33577-9}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=LQJa17k46zYC&pg=PA1&dq=%22Tsarist+autocracy%22#PPA1,M1 Google Print, p.1-3]</ref> The rights of state power in their entire extent belonged to the tsar. The autocrat further entrusted power to persons and institutions, acting in his name, by his orders, and within the limits laid down for them by law. The purpose of the system was to supposedly benefit the entire country of Russia.<ref name=lee/> A metaphor existed likening the tsar to a father, and all of the subjects of the Empire, to his children; this metaphor even appeared in Orthodox [[Primer (textbook)|primers]].<ref>Robert D. Crews, ''For Prophet and Tsar: Islam and Empire in Russia and Central Asia'', Harvard University Press, 2006, {{ISBN|0-674-02164-9}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=R40_QY77IPUC&pg=PA77&dq=tsar+subjects+children&as_brr=3 Google Print, p.77]</ref> This metaphor is present in the common Russian expression "царь-батюшка", literally "tsar-dear father".
Furthermore, unlike the future theoretical separation of church and state in West European monarchies, the Russian Empire combined monarchy with the supreme authority on religious issues (see [[Church reform of Peter I]] and [[caesaropapism]] for details).
Another key feature related to [[patrimonialism]]. In Russia the tsar owned a much higher proportion of the state (lands, enterprises, etc.) than did Western monarchs.<ref>Deborah Goodwin, Matthew Midlane, ''Negotiation in International Conflict: Understanding Persuasion'', Taylor & Francis, 2002, {{ISBN|0-7146-8193-8}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=G_qKJtFHAXgC&pg=PA158&dq=patrimonialism+Russia+tsar&lr=&ei=yFleSbbJLKKIyATos8XoDw Google Print, p.158]</ref><ref>Nicolas Spulber, ''Russia's Economic Transitions: From Late Tsarism to the New Millennium'', Cambridge University Press, 2003, {{ISBN|0-521-81699-8}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=glCWNiTuJaQC&pg=PA27&vq=patrimonialism&dq=patrimonialism+Russia+tsar&lr=&source=gbs_search_s&cad=0 Google Print, p.27-28]</ref><ref>Reinhard Bendix, ''Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait'', University of California Press, 1977, {{ISBN|0-520-03194-6}}, [https://archive.org/details/maxweberintellec0000bend/page/356 <!-- quote=patrimonialism Russia tsar. --> Google Print, p.356-358]</ref><ref>Richard Pipes, ''Russian Conservatism and Its Critics: A Study in Political Culture'', Yale University Press, 2007, {{ISBN|0-300-12269-1}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=I1yCrMAfg_IC&pg=PA181&dq=Pipes+patrimonialism+Russia+tsar&lr=&ei=JlteScj7E5WyyQS-u-ku#PPA181,M1 Google Print, p.181]</ref><ref>Catherine J. Danks, ''Russian Politics and Society: An Introduction'', Pearson Education, 2001, {{ISBN|0-582-47300-4}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=QnYBluKOV7cC&pg=PA21&dq=Pipes+patrimonialism+Russia+tsar&lr=&ei=JlteScj7E5WyyQS-u-ku Google Print, p.21]</ref><ref>Stefan Hedlund, ''Russian Path Dependence: A People with a Troubled History'', Routledge, 2005, {{ISBN|0-415-35400-5}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=51gmGvYBZ9EC&pg=PA161&dq=Pipes+patrimonialism+Russia+tsar&lr=&ei=JlteScj7E5WyyQS-u-ku Google Print, p.161]</ref>
The tsarist autocracy had many supporters within Russia. Major Russian advocates and theorists of the autocracy included writer [[Fyodor Dostoyevsky]],<ref name=Viereck>Peter Viereck, ''Conservative Thinkers: From John Adams to Winston Churchill'', Transaction Publishers, 2005, {{ISBN|1-4128-0526-0}}, [https://archive.org/details/conservativethin00pete/page/85 <!-- quote=Dostoyevsky autocracy. --> Google Print, pp. 84–86]</ref><ref name=Scanlan>James Patrick Scanlan, ''Dostoevsky the Thinker: A Philosophical Study'', Cornell University Press, 2002, {{ISBN|0-8014-3994-9}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=lbMYxaFTMZAC&pg=PA171&dq=Dostoyevsky+autocracy&as_brr=3&as_pt=ALLTYPES Google Print, p.171-172]</ref> [[Mikhail Katkov]],<ref>Richard Pipes, ''Russian Conservatism and Its Critics: A Study in Political Culture'', Yale University Press, 2007, {{ISBN|0-300-12269-1}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=I1yCrMAfg_IC&pg=PA123&dq=Dostoyevsky+supported+absolutism&lr=&as_brr=3#PPA124,M1 Google Print, p.124]</ref> [[Konstantin Aksakov]],<ref>Nicolai N. Petro, ''The Rebirth of Russian Democracy: An Interpretation of Political Culture'', Harvard University Press, 1995, {{ISBN|0-674-75001-2}}, [https://archive.org/details/rebirthofrussian00petr/page/90 <!-- quote=konstantin Aksakov absolutism. --> Google Print, p.90]</ref> [[Nikolay Karamzin]],<ref name=Scanlan/> [[Konstantin Pobedonostsev]]<ref name=Viereck/><ref name=lee/> and [[Pyotr Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky|Pyotr Semyonov]]. They all argued that a strong and prosperous Russia needed a strong tsar, and that philosophies of [[republicanism]] and [[liberal democracy]] did not fit Russia.<ref name=Viereck/><section end=tsarist autocracy />
== Influences ==
Some historians see the traditions of tsarist autocracy as partially responsible for laying groundworks for the [[totalitarianism]] in the [[Soviet Union]].<ref name=pt/><ref name=Viereck/><ref name=mal>David Lloyd Hoffmann, ''Stalinism: The Essential Readings'', Blackwell Publishing, 2003, {{ISBN|0-631-22891-8}}, .[https://books.google.com/books?id=54ZJypH-7xcC&pg=PA66&dq=%22Tsarist+autocracy%22#PPA67,M1 Google Print, p.67-68]</ref><ref>Dennis J. Dunn, ''The Catholic Church and Russia: Popes, Patriarchs, Tsars, and Commissars'', Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2004, {{ISBN|0-7546-3610-0}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=lmFEjKYlQfcC&pg=RA1-PA72&dq=%22tsarist+absolutism%22&lr=&as_brr=3 Google Print, p.72]</ref> They see the traditions of autocracy and patrimonialism as dominating Russia's political culture for centuries; for example, [[Stephen White (political scientist)|Stephen White]] is described as "the most consistent" defender of the position that the uniqueness of Russian political heritage is inseparable from its ethnic identity. In White's opinion, autocracy is the defining factor in the history of Russian politics.<ref name=nnp29>Nicolai N. Petro, [https://archive.org/details/rebirthofrussian00petr/page/29 p. 29]</ref> He wrote that Russian political culture is "rooted in the historical experience of centuries of absolutism."<ref>Nicolai N. Petro, ''The Rebirth of Russian Democracy: An Interpretation of Political Culture'', Harvard University Press, 1995, {{ISBN|0-674-75001-2}}, [https://archive.org/details/rebirthofrussian00petr/page/15 <!-- quote="tsarist absolutism". --> Google Print, p.15]</ref> Those views had been challenged by other historians, for example, [[Nicolai N. Petro]] and [[Martin Malia]] (as cited by Hoffmann).<ref name=mal/> [[Richard Pipes]] is another influential historian among non-specialists who holds the position about the distinctness of Russian history and political system, describing the absolutism of the Muscovite political system as "patrimonial", and saw the stability of the [[Soviet Union]] in the fact that Russians accepted the legitimacy of this patrimonial organization.<ref name=nnp29/>
Some historians have pointed to a [[racism|racial element]] in the concept. For example, American [[Cold War]] analysts, including [[George F. Kennan|George Kennan]], linked the Soviet government's autocratic rule to [[Tatars|Tatar]] influences during its history, and biographies of Russian leaders often stressed their possible Asiatic ancestries. They maintained that Asiatic influences rendered the Russians, along with the [[China|Chinese]], untrustworthy.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yHh6gwshyKIC&q=despot+russian&pg=RA2-PA229|title=Dominance by design: technological imperatives and America's civilizing mission|author=Michael Adas|publisher=[[Harvard University Press]]|year=2006|isbn=0-674-01867-2|pages=230–231}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Modernization from the other shore|author=David C. Engerman|year=2003|publisher=[[Harvard University Press]]|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UkFlO7hoxOMC&q=russian+despotism+racial+asiatic&pg=PA260|page=260|isbn=0-674-01151-1}}</ref>
== Criticism of the concept ==
Historians of different backgrounds have criticised the concept of tsarist autocracy in its various forms. Their complaints range from the different names of the model being too vague,<ref>C.J. Halperin, 'Muscovy as a Hypertrophic State: A Critique', ''Kritika'' 3 3 (2002) 501.</ref> to its chronological implications (it is impossible to consider Russia in different centuries the same) as well as to its content (the question how Russian or "tsarist" autocracy differs from "regular" autocracy or from European absolutism for that matter).
Regarding the substance of the autocracy model, its equation with despotism, its supposed origins in Mongol rule, as well as its supposed rise in medieval Muscovy have been heavily debated.<ref>D. Ostrowski, ''Muscovy and the Mongols: Cross-Cultural Influence on the Steppe Frontier, 1304-1589'' (Cambridge 1998) 91-95; M. Poe, 'The Consequences of the Military Revolution in Muscovy: A Comparative Perspective', ''Comparative Studies in Society and History'' 38 4 (1996) 603-604; R.O. Crummey, 'Russian Absolutism and the Nobility', ''Journal of Modern History'' 49 3 (1977) 456-459.</ref> For one, Marxist Soviet scholars were concerned with prerevolutionary absolutism and identified the boyar elites and the bureaucracy as its pillars. For example, Sergey M. Troitskii claimed that the Russian monarchs held sway of the nobility which was reduced to state service. According to Troitskii, absolutism in Russia was the same as everywhere else. This led to a difficult position within Marxism, because absolutism revolves around institutions and laws, which were fundamentally less important than the socioeconomic base of society.<ref>A. Gerschenkron, 'Soviet Marxism and Absolutism', ''Slavic Review'' 30 4 (1971) 855.</ref> This raises the question how absolutism could be the same when socioeconomic circumstances in Russia were not the same as elsewhere.
In order to reconcile the non-socioeconomic nature of absolutism with Marxist theory, Soviet scholar Alexander N. Chistozvonov proposed to group the Russian monarchy with the Prussian and Austrian ones, forming a distinct mix of Western European absolutism and "oriental despotism".<ref>Crummey, 'Russian Absolutism', 458-459.</ref> In the eyes of Chistozvonov, whatever absolutist or autocratic elements were indeed present in Russia, they were not unique and do not warrant Russia’s exclusive categorization.
Similarly struggling with Marxist conceptions, Soviet historians Petr A. Zaionchkovskii and his student Larisa G. Zakharova focused on the importance of political convictions of Russian officials and bureaucrats to explain nineteenth-century political decision-making. By showing that the state was not a unified and powerful whole (commanded by the economically dominant class), they likewise tackled common (Marxist) conceptions of Russian autocracy.<ref>P.A. Zaionchkovskii, ''Otmena krepostnogo prava v Rossii'' (Moscow 1968); P.A. Zaionchkovski, ''Pravitel'stvennyi apparat samoderzhavnoi Rossii v XIX v.'' (Moscow 1978); L.G. Zakharova, ''Aleksandr II i otmena krepostnogo prava v Rossii'' (Moscow 2011).</ref> While like Troitskii, they studied the nobility and bureaucracy (in a later period), Zaionchkovskii and Zakharova painted a different picture of the tsar's position. Coinciding with Western scholars like Robert Crummey, they lay bare the interdependence of monarch and nobility in the practice of rule.<ref>Crummey, 'Russian Absolutism', 466-467.</ref>
Outside Russia and the Soviet Union, Hans-Joachim Torke among others tried to counter the notion of an all-powerful autocratic state by pointing at the mutual dependency of service elites and the state (coining the term "state-conditioned society").<ref>Crummey, ‘Russian Absolutism’, 466; R.O. Crummey, 'Hans-Joachim Torke, 1938-2000', ''Kritika'' 2 3 (2001) 702</ref> Torke acknowledges that the tsars were not reined in by any form of constitution, but he emphasizes for example the limitations of Christian morality and court customs. The so-called "American school" of the 1980s and 1990s argued for the important role of elite networks and their power at court. Edward Keenan went even further in his well-known piece on Muscovite political culture, claiming that the tsar was merely a puppet in the hands of boyars who wielded the actual power behind the scenes.<ref>P. Bushkovitch, ''Peter the Great: The Struggle for Power, 1671-1725'' (Cambridge 2004) 4; E.L. Keenan, 'Muscovite Political Folkways', ''Russian Review'' 45 2 (1986) 115-181.</ref>
For others, like David Ransel and Paul Bushkovitch, it goes too far to portray relations between tsar and nobility like Keenan does, because it does not appreciate their complexity. Bushkovitch argues that the theoretic lack of limitations on the power of the tsar is irrelevant and instead claims that the "crucial question" is where real power lay. In his view, this can only be shown by the political narrative of events.<ref>D.L. Ransel, ''The Politics of Catherinian Russia: The Panin Party'' (New Haven 1975); Bushkovitch, ''Peter the Great: The Struggle for Power'', 29.</ref> Bushkovitch placed the balance of power between the tsar, the individual boyars and the tsar’s favourites at the centre of political decision-making. In so doing, Bushkovitch found that on the one hand, the tsar's relative power fluctuated per monarch, and on the other hand, that the nobility was all but unified; the balance of power changed with each tsar as well as the rise of boyars and in the case of Peter I even shifted multiple times.
Charles J. Halperin cautioned against views that too easily claim tsar and state dominance in politics or society.<ref>Halperin, 'Muscovy as a Hypertrophic State', 501-507.</ref> While acknowledging the institutional differences between Muscovy and Western European monarchies, Halperin nevertheless stresses that these differences should not be considered absolute. In his view, the practice of rule, a matter of human interactions, is more important than theory and abstractions.
== See also ==
* [[Byzantinism]]
* [[Queen-in-Parliament]]
* [[Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality]]
* [[Royal assent]]
* [[Royal prerogative]]
== Notes ==
'''a''' {{note_label|a|a|none}} As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22Tsarist+autocracy%22&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
'''b''' {{note_label|b|b|none}} The existing literature pairs the words ''Russian, tsarist, Muscovite'' and ''imperial'' with ''despotism, absolutism'' and ''autocracy'' in all possible combinations, rarely giving clear definitions. ''Tsarist'' can be indeed applicable to the entire period (see also [[Tsar#Russia|historical usage of the term "tsar"]]), but ''Muscovite'' is applicable only to the period of the [[Grand Duchy of Moscow]], which was replaced by [[tsardom of Russia]], a period for which the words ''imperial'' and ''Russian'' are applicable. Further, we can look at ''Muscovite despotism'' as a precursor for the ''tsarist absolutism'', however, the very use of the word despotism has problems (see following note). Finally, care should be taken with the term [[autocracy]]: today, autocrat is usually seen as synonymous with despot, tyrant and/or dictator, though each of these terms originally had a separate and distinct meaning. Overall, out of the available terms, "tsarist autocracy" is the one which seems most correct for the entire period discussed, but it is worth keeping in mind that there are no [[ideal type]]s, and that the Russian political system evolved through time.
'''c''' {{note_label|c|c|none}}
As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22imperial+autocracy%22+Russia&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
'''d''' {{note_label|d|d|none}}
As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22Russian+autocracy%22&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
'''e''' {{note_label|e|e|none}}
As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22Muscovite+autocracy%22&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
'''f''' {{note_label|f|f|none}}
As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22tsarist+absolutism%22+Russia&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
'''g''' {{note_label|g|g|none}}
As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22imperial+absolutism%22+Russia&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
'''h''' {{note_label|h|h|none}}
As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22Russian+absolutism%22&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
'''i''' {{note_label|i|i|none}}
As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22Muscovite+absolutism%22&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
'''j''' {{note_label|j|j|none}}
As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22Muscovite+despotism%22&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
'''k''' {{note_label|k|k|none}}
The terms ''oriental despotism'' and its development, the ''[[Grand Duchy of Moscow|Muscovite]]'' or ''Russian despotism'', have been criticized as misleading, since Muscovy, and Russia, never had characteristics of pure [[despotism]], such as the ruler being identified with a [[deity|god]]).<ref name=Viereck/><ref>Donald Ostrowski, ''Muscovy and the Mongols: Cross-Cultural Influences on the Steppe Frontier, 1304–1589'', Cambridge University Press, 2002, {{ISBN|0-521-89410-7}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=6st6ZUFvfdYC&pg=PA85&dq=%22Oriental+despotism%22+%22Russia&lr=&ei=NFdeSZz9CaDkzQTLs4TXBA Google Print, p.85]</ref><ref>[http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/russia/lectures/07tartar.html Tartar Yoke] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930230346/http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/russia/lectures/07tartar.html |date=2007-09-30 }} Professor Gerhard Rempel, [[Western New England College]].</ref>
'''l''' {{note_label|l|l|none}}
As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22Russian+despotism%22&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
'''m''' {{note_label|m|m|none}}
As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22tsarist+despotism%22&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
'''n''' {{note_label|n|n|none}}
As used in [https://books.google.com/books?q=%22imperial+despotism%22+Russia&btnG=Search+Books those publications].
== References ==
{{reflist|30em}}
== Further reading ==
* [[Paul Dukes (historian)|Paul Dukes]], ''The Making of Russian Absolutism, 1613–1801'', Longman, 1986
* [[Marshall T. Poe]], ''"Russian despotism" : the origins and dissemination of an early modern commonplace''. Thesis (Ph.D. in history). [[University of California, Berkeley]], 1993.
* Hugh Ragsdale, ''The Russian Tragedy: The Burden of History'', M.E. Sharpe, 1996, {{ISBN|1-56324-755-0}}
* Richard Pipes, ''Russia under the Old Regime'', (Penguin 1995), {{ISBN|978-0-14-024768-8}}
== External links ==
* [http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/Statesman.html Excerpts from Statesman's Handbook for Russia]. By the Chancery of the Committee of Ministers, St. Petersburg. 1896.
{{authoritarian types of rule}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Tsarist Autocracy}}
[[Category:Monarchy]]
[[Category:Political history of Russia]]
[[Category:Tsardom of Russia]]
[[Category:Politics of the Russian Empire]]
[[Category:Society of the Russian Empire]]' |