The Origins of Autocracy

chy. In the face of this dilemma, insoluble at first glance (at least, as we shall see below, for Soviet historians), Krizhanich does what a scholar must do: he differentiates among privileges. There are three kinds of political structures, he reflects. In some, "immoder­ate privileges" lead to anarchy (Poland); in others, the absence of privileges leads to "tormenting of people," which is what Krizhanich calls despotism (Turkey). The op­timum, from his point of view, is a state which permits "moderate privileges" to the aristocracy, which serve as a guarantee against despotism, defending the people against arbitrary action by the authorities, and the king himself against arbitrary action by his own servants. "Among the French and the Spanish," he says,

the rulers have decent hereditary advantages and privileges, and for this reason neither the plain people nor the military cause the kings any dishonor. And among the Turks, where there are no privileges for people of noble birth, the kings are dependent on the brazen impudence of their simple soldiers. For what the janissaries want, that the king must do (ibid., p. 599).

In other words, what we now call social limitations on power were, in Krizhanich's eyes, "the only method of maintaining justice in the kingdom," and "the only means by which subjects can be defended against the abuse of the king's servants" (ibid., p. 593).

Montesquieu, pp. 31-32.

Ibid., p. 64.