Historical and Modern Meaning of the Political and Legal Terminology

Abstract

Review. The proposed article raises the issue of the need for clear delineation in historical research of historical and contemporary meanings of the concepts. In this case, the terms in question are: autocracy, absolutism and theocracy. The term "autocracy" is of historical and contemporary significance. In XII-XVII centuries it was used to describe only independence and sovereignty of the State; the repository of supreme power, called autocrat, was perceived as a sovereign, independent from any other Lord, not paying tribute, i.e. sovereign Tsar. In that period the term "autocracy" was determined by the independence and sovereignty of the Tsar and his State, both in internal and especially external relations. Absolute monarchy ("absolutism") as a form of Government began to establish only in the second half of the 17th century, and obtaining its legal meaning in the first quarter of the 18th century. During that period the term "autocracy" changed its semantics, going from broad meaning - State sovereignty to a limited one, characterizing the supreme power in its internal functioning, designating it as the unrestricted monarchy ("absolutism"). Since then, the terms "autocracy" and "absolutism" have become synonymous. In such a meaning they are applied now, therefore, it appears that in order to provide adequate characteristics of stages of nation-building in Russia it is necessary to clearly distinguish between historical and contemporary significance of such key terms of medieval legislators and thinkers as the "autocracy" and "absolutism". Soviet and partly modern humanitarian science mainly treats the term "autocracy" only in its modern meaning - absolutism, without matching it with time of occurrence, determining the initial meaning, and subsequent evolution, which often causes researchers to proclaim the occurrence of absolutism in Russia already in the XV-XVI centuries, calling this form as an "autocratic despotism" (D.N. Alshits, Ya.S. Lurie and others), "unlimited autocracy" (in the meaning of "absolutism" - S.A. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev, etc.); "territorial autocracy" (A.Yu. Dvornichenko, Yu.V. Krivosheev); "Orthodox autocracy" (R.T. Muhaev, Yu.V. Puzdrach, I.Ya. Froyanov). Accordingly, the political doctrines of the period are characterized as "doctrines of Russian autocracy", "autocratical absolutism" (N.V. Asonov); "a developed doctrine of autocratic absolute rule" (A.V. Karavashkin, A.L. Yurganov). Such an analysis of medieval categories may only be explained by adherence to the traditions prevailing in the second half of XIX-beginning of XX centuries, amounting to the formula: "autocracy, orthodoxy, and nationality", acquired and copied during the Soviet period. Meanwhile, the view on the form of Government established in the second half of the XVI-XVII centuries, both at class representing monarchy, virtually shared by all historians, lawyers and laid open in all courses on "History of State and Law of Russia" and "History of Political and Legal Doctrines". The root of disagreements between researchers appears to have two main causes: the first is ignoring the historical content of the term "autocracy" and extrapolation onto the Middle Ages of its contemporary meaning of "absolutism"; the second is the substitution of the form States: form of government (the supreme power organization) by political regime (means of implementation techniques of supreme power in the State). In most of the above remarks both elements of the form of a State are combined: the form of government and political regime. The article alleges overdue need to develop a common methodology for the use of terms describing medieval statehood and the accompanying political and legal ideology, applying the terms of key legislators and thinkers of the medieval apparatus in their historical rather than contemporary significance.