The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Legitimacy problem knya the zhesky power in medieval society



olga of PLOTNIKOVA

The PROBLEM of LEGITIMACY of the PRINCELY POWER IN MEDIEVAL SOCIETY

In the 1980th - the beginning of the 1990th at peak of historiographic interest in problems of ethnic consciousness and an image of "other Middle Ages" attempts to apply the methods developed on material of modern times and to medieval, including Old Russian, literature were made. The modern generation of historians was not satisfied with positivistic methodology any more, new ways of researches by means of methods historical antropologii1 were defined.

PLOTNIKOVA

Olga Anatolyevna

— to. and. N, managing

department world

economies and

international

economic

relations

Moscow

humanitarian

university

>-legged scientists began to study "other Middle Ages" and also "the long Middle Ages" 2 as history of a medieval civilization not only in unity of material, social, political structures and on the basis of narrative, legal, archaeological and linguistic sources, but also based on existence of daily habits, beliefs, features of behavior and mentalnosti3.

This research approach attracted scientists to the analysis of problems, earlier only not studied mentioned by medievalists or at all: time and space, sanctity and memory, family and society, position of the woman and child, social importance of age and many other things. Throughout this approach categories of the Russian medieval culture, such as Pravda and "belief", Vlast, "property", etc. began to be studied. The behavior of the medieval person, his idea of itself, of people and the world around become a source new historical informatsii4. Studying the earliest power institutions of Old Russian society, many scientists began to consider not only objective laws and regularities of historical process, but also their subjective mechanisms are traditions, mentality, ideology, etc.

One of the fundamental principles of a tipologization of resources of the power is the anthropological principle constructed on the basis of studying a human factor. The advantage of the specified principle is search of standard motives of behavior of an object and the subject, identification of a human component in the course of dominion, that is that initial that causes desirable behavior. One of the main problems in all history of the imperious relations was the problem of legitimacy of the power, i.e. recognition of the power by society.

The concept "legitimacy of the government" developed under the influence of political sociology and in many respects thanks to concepts of M. Weber who allocated three stages of development of legitimacy of the power in doburzhuazny society: gerontarchical, patriarchal and patrimonalnuyu5.

>- Yekaterinburg,

1 Cm: A.A. is great. Historical anthropology. — M, 1996.
2 Ge. Le Goff. Other Middle Ages: Time, work and culture of the West.-2000, p. 7-9.
3 In the same place. P. 11.
4 Cm: A.L. Yurganov. Categories of the Russian medieval culture. — M, 1998; I.N. Danilevsky. Russian lands eyes of contemporaries and descendants (XII—XIV centuries). — M, 2000.
5 M. Politik's weber as calling and profession/Weber of M. Chosen works. — M, 1990, p. 645.

It is important to emphasize that the legitimate power is based on recognition of the right of carriers of the power to order standards of behavior to other individuals. But the legitimacy does not mean at all that all citizens accept this power. The legitimacy does not mean also support by all of a conducted political policy. In society there is always an opposition to the existing power. The legitimacy means that the adopted laws and decrees are carried out by the main part of society. The legitimacy is an also sociocultural characteristic of the power in this connection it cannot be formalized completely. Tipologization of legitimacy is made on types of cultures. The feature of legitimacy is that it is result of evolution of society. Therefore an unambiguous assessment of legitimacy can be given only in society with steady standards of behavior. In the society enduring modernization, measurement and assessment of legitimacy can be result enough difficult procedures of a research and multilateral observations.

One more question for a research of the imperious relations is clarification of what it is possible to consider primary criterion of legitimacy.

Today the point of view prevails that a basis of legitimacy is the belief in legitimacy of this system. The conclusion about existence of belief can be made, first of all, on the basis of free expression by citizens of the will. Stability of a system in the concrete country can be also considered as sign of legitimacy of the power.

Historically the power founded on right of succession of a throne was the first type of legitimacy of the power. Such legitimacy met standards of traditional society.

In traditional society M. Weber allocates two types of legitimacy: patriarchal, based on the direct, unilateral connections which are paternalism basis, and class, based on relative autonomy and unconditional submission to the code of honor (the oath, a word, custom, etc.). In turn, in political science three levels of legitimacy of the power are allocated: ideological, structural, personalistic.

However scientists did not find definition, also authentically characterizing concept "legitimacy" is full. Many researchers claim that within classical civilizations between legality and legitimacy there was no essential distinction: the legitimate authority was legitimnoy1. Others assume allocation of special types of legitimacy and, respectively, special forms of legitimation of the power for different stages of history of the state, since the most ancient times. Also there is an opinion that in the medieval states the legitimacy of the royalty could not be based only on dynastic rules or a title, it had to be confirmed constantly by effective execution of functions of management and suda2.

according to K.A. Solovyyov, a subject of historical science not so much. The designation of the power can be one of ways of transfer of power, in our opinion.

M.Yu. Braychevsky pointed that all set of lines of the legitimate power in society could be designated as "a potestarny image of the power" in which two parts are distinctly allocated. The first part is a way of finding of the power. The second part of "a potestarny image of the power" — need for legitimation of those decisions which are made by the power in governance process, or a way of the legitimate action recognized as the people not only as action lawful, but also action pravilnoye3.

The traditional character of the imperious relations so important for stability of the government and presently, was much more important during formation of statehood when the custom still took that place,

1 N. Aberkombi, Stephen X., S.T. Bryan. Sociological dictionary. — Kazan, 1997, building 152.
2 McCarthy Thomas. The Critical Theory of Yurgen Habermas. — London, 1978, river 256.
3 Braychevsky M.Yu. Diarkhicheskaya a party system in the Old Russian city in XII — the beginning of the 13th centuries//Ancient Slavs and Kievan Rus'. — Kiev, 1989, building 136.

which will belong further to the law. Respectively, all operating and all appearing forms of manifestation of trust of the population of the power have to fit into a certain set of the principles which K.A. Solovyov designated by the term "legitimacy kernel". These principles created during the pre-state period in East Slavic communities set some kind of "grid of coordinates" into which the power in the Old Russian state 1X — X of centuries passing the formation period 1 had to fit

Formation of these basic principles or "a kernel of legitimacy" falls on & UT — УШ of centuries, i.e. on the pre-state period where the authority of the senior men who during decomposition of egalitarian society goes through an institutionalization stage acts as a form of the previous legitimacy. At this particular time there are status differences of members obshchiny2. At the same time there are ceremonies and speech formulas which are making out primary relations of "authority" (protopower) and the population. The pronounced status of leaders and elders is fixed in the stratified society & UN — УШ of centuries, there is a so-called patronage — the control system which is based on control of the leader over a certain territory in exchange for a part of an additional product. Such control is noted in the earliest descriptions of the power at east Slavs.

So, already Ibn-Ruste's data contain the description of the leader of the Slavic proto-state, its duties and rights. From this description it is possible to reconstruct forms of protolegitimacy of one of breeding associations of east Slavs. Its basic elements were: a certain ceremony of construction on a throne ("the head them is crowned"); a residence ("in the middle of the country of Slavs"); a title (they call it "sviyet-malik" — the head of heads); features of appearance and behavior ("this tsar has saddle horses and has no other food, except mare's milk. Is at it prekras-

1 Ya.N. Shchapov. About functions of community in Ancient Russia//Society and the state of feudal Russia.

— M, 1975, p. 18.

2 O.Yu. Artyomova. Primitive egalitarianism and early forms of social differentiation//Early forms of social stratification. — M, 1993, p. 48.

ny, strong and precious chain armors") 3.

The external economic danger and also need of expansion of trade relations pushed communities to self-organization and the choice of such forms of government at which the local interests of community would be most protected and did not eliminate a possibility of broad contacts with trade partners on the formed way "from the Varangian in Greeks". However the equality of princes of certain Slavic tribes became an obstacle in a way of development of foreign economic relations as constant internal conflicts weakened positions of Slavic tribes. It is possible to conclude that the equal legitimacy of breeding "light princes" obviously interfered with awareness of common interests.

Thus if to speak about legitimacy of the government, becomes obvious that it could arise only at association of separate breeding communities under the power of one prince that, in turn, naturally, would have to lead to elimination of a double tribute, the termination of internal fight, strengthening of safety of external borders and development of trade.

H. Lovmyansky claimed that in Slavic lands the state arose as druzhinny with considerable participation in management of free citizens and practical lack of bureaucratic structures. It, according to the researcher, was promoted by the fact that the imperious relations at stages of the proto-state were divided by elders and representatives of team (prince). The same imperious beginnings were peculiar also to the closest neighbors of east Slavs — baltam4.

We find rather interesting information on a question of legitimacy of the power in the chronicle, namely in "The legend about calling of Varangians". In spite of the fact that the Legend has the nature of a legend, in it the main motive of legitimacy of the power which had the right for existence in medieval consciousness is imprinted — recognition of the power by all earth, and,

3 A.P. Novoseltsev, V.T. Pashuto, L.V. Cherepnin, V.P. Shusharin, Ya.N. Shchapov. Old Russian state and its international value. — M, 1965, p. 388.
4 PSRL. — the 2nd prod. T. 1: Lavrentyevsky chronicle. Stb.23. — M, 2001.

first of all, recognition of legality and justice of the power — "let's look to ourselves for the prince that owned us and judged by the right".

It should be noted that in a similar way the legitimacy of the power is confirmed also at some other people, in particular at the same Scandinavians.

It is known that in the chronicle there is also a mention that Varangians were "overseas". It is possible to assume, as the saga about Hrolva Peshekhoda and "The story of temporary years" describe the same events, and in this case for us it is unimportant whether real it events or invented — anyway they give some information on a legitimacy problem. Certain scientists see in the calling of Varangians described by the chronicler, the contract.

In our opinion, this point of view is wrong. First, any contract it is not mentioned in "The story of temporary years", secondly, at all in the text of the chronicle where information on calling is located, it is impossible to find even a hint that the parties agreed as any contract provides conditions which have to be stipulated what we do not find in "Calling".

In the chronicle a bit different motive on which it is possible to comment so sounds: after the Slavs tired with conflicts solved: "let's look to ourselves for the prince who would own us and judged by the right", they went at once "for the sea to Varangians to Russia" where search, and without having begun, were crowned with success — elected brothers who, having arrived to Russia, and occupied the main cities.

From this small fragment obviously, first, that search was obviously uncontested as anywhere, except as among Varangians Russia, they and not

were conducted; secondly, Varangians and without doubts agreed at once to reigning as though long ago waited for it; and thirdly, no conditions were shown to newly elected princes how to govern how to own how to bring order, etc. Thus, it is possible to assume, even when accounting fabulosity of the text that Slavs and Varangians Russia knew each other, perhaps long ago and well, they were brought together the general traditions and laws, these can prove such concrete choice and lack of conditions.

Thus, the prince during the state period became the most important part of the mechanism of management not only because it had military force, how many because it was the first "aloof" public institute. The prince from a dynasty of Ryurik dynasty was not implanted in community in _kh — the X centuries when he was an inoplemennik, in H_ — X ІІ vv when princes "wandered on tables" 1.

If Rurik's invitation still can be considered as a legendary episode, then already Oleg's reigning proves the statement of the power — legitimization. So, in 970 g Svyatoslav puts the sons — Yaropolk and Oleg, respectively, in Kiev and the earth of Drevlyans, and this fact does not encounter any resistance of "earth". Besides, Novgorodians send ambassadors to Svyatoslav with the requirement and to give them the prince, threatening that otherwise they to themselves will find the prince — all this eloquently demonstrates that the power of Ryurik dynasty was already recognized by this time by "earth", i.e. the new princely power completed the first stage of the legitimization.

1 Krivosheyev of Yu.V. Knyaz, boyars and city communities of Northeast Russia in the XII—XIII centuries//Genesis and development of feudalism in Russia. — L., 1988, p. 111-123.
Jonathan Hudson
Other scientific works: