Читаем A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution, 1891-1924 полностью

The last two tsars had obvious motives for holding on so firmly to this archaic vision. Indeed, in so far as they believed that their power and prestige were being undermined by 'modernity' in all its forms — secular beliefs, Western constitutional ideologies and the new urban classes — it was only logical for them to seek to put the clock back to some distant golden age. It was in the eighteenth century and the reign of Peter the Great — 'Your Peter' as Nicholas called him speaking with officials — that the rot, in their view, had begun to set in. There were two opposing models of autocracy in Russia: the Petrine and the Muscovite. Emulating Western absolutism, the Petrine model sought to systematize the power of the crown through legal norms and bureaucratic institutions. This was deemed a limitation on the Tsar's powers in that even he would henceforth be obliged to obey his own laws. The Tsar who did not was a despot. The Petrine tradition also implied a shift in the focus of power from the divine person of the Tsar to the abstract concept of the autocratic state. Nicholas disliked this, above all. Like his father, Alexander III, he had been taught to uphold the principles of personal rule, keeping power at the court, and to distrust the bureaucracy as a sort of 'wall' that broke the natural bond between the Tsar and his people. This distrust may be explained by the fact that during the nineteenth century the imperial bureaucracy had begun to emerge as a force for modernization and reform. It became increasingly independent of the court and closer to public opinion, which, in the view of conservatives, was bound to lead to revolutionary demands for a constitution. Alexander ITs assassination in 1881 (after two decades of cautious reform) seemed to confirm their view that the time had come to stop the rot. Alexander III (who once claimed that he 'despised the bureaucracy and drank champagne to its obliteration')3 instituted a return to personal forms of autocratic rule, both in

* Bertrand Russell used a similar idea when, in an attempt to explain the Russian Revolution to Lady Ottoline Morrell, he remarked that, terrible though Bolshevik despotism was, it seemed the right sort of government for Russia: 'If you ask yourself how Dostoevsky's characters should be governed, you will understand.'


central and local government. And where the father led the son was bound to follow.

Перейти на страницу:

Похожие книги

1917–1920. Огненные годы Русского Севера
1917–1920. Огненные годы Русского Севера

Книга «1917–1920. Огненные годы Русского Севера» посвящена истории революции и Гражданской войны на Русском Севере, исследованной советскими и большинством современных российских историков несколько односторонне. Автор излагает хронику событий, военных действий, изучает роль английских, американских и французских войск, поведение разных слоев населения: рабочих, крестьян, буржуазии и интеллигенции в период Гражданской войны на Севере; а также весь комплекс российско-финляндских противоречий, имевших большое значение в Гражданской войне на Севере России. В книге используются многочисленные архивные источники, в том числе никогда ранее не изученные материалы архива Министерства иностранных дел Франции. Автор предлагает ответы на вопрос, почему демократические правительства Северной области не смогли осуществить третий путь в Гражданской войне.Эта работа является продолжением книги «Третий путь в Гражданской войне. Демократическая революция 1918 года на Волге» (Санкт-Петербург, 2015).В формате PDF A4 сохранён издательский дизайн.

Леонид Григорьевич Прайсман

История / Учебная и научная литература / Образование и наука