Рассматривается проблема пересмотра в отечественной гуманитарии взглядов и трактовок «горячих» тем российской истории, основанного на вненаучных политических и эмоциональных факторах, как одно из проявлений кризиса исторического сознания общества. Особое внимание уделяется снижению уровня критического отношения к исторической информации, связанному в том числе с распространением интернета. На примере фигуры Ивана Грозного показывается необходимость и возможность верификации выводов в ситуации недостаточной источниковой базы с помощью последовательного применения историко-сравнительного метода. Указываются основные методологические критерии выбора объектов и источников информации для историко-компаративного исследования. ; The article deals with the problem of revision of the views and interpretations of the Russian history "hot" topics, based on non-scientific political and emotional factors, which is one of the manifestations of the society historical consciousness crisis. Particular attention is given to reduction of the level of critical attitude towards historical information caused by the spread of the Internet. On the example of the character of Ivan the Terrible it shows the necessity and possibility of findings' verification in a situation of insufficient source base by successive application of historical-comparative method. Identifies the main methodological criteria to select objects and data sources for historical-comparative study.
Рассматривается проблема типологии политических режимов Нового времени. В рамках сравнительноисторического подхода подчеркивается специфика российского самодержавия в отличие как от абсолютизма, так и от восточной деспотии. ; In the article the problem of the typology of political regimes in modern times is considered. With the comparative historical approach we single out the specifics of the Russian autocracy as opposed to absolutism, and from oriental despotism.
В сравнительно-историческом ключе с привлечением архивных источников рассматривается отношение подданных к таким особенностям личной жизни Петра I, как развод с первой женой Евдокией, брак с женщиной низкого происхождения Екатериной, наличие внебрачных связей и т.п. ; Peter I is known for his deviant behaviour in his private life. Condemnation of the contemporaries and descendants was caused by his divorce with his first wife Eudocia, by marrying a woman of a very low origin, the future Empress Catherine I, by his numerous extra-marital sexual relations. Cross-cultural analysis allows us to better understand the extent of the typical or non-standard behaviour of Peter. Marriages of European monarchs were generally concluded for political reasons and did not anticipate the availability of emotional intimacy between spouses (although in some cases they may have occurred). Russian tsars chose their wives from a fairly large number of candidates, not always aristocratic; that is the emotional factor here could play a greater role than in Europe. This difference is reflected, in particular, in the private life of Peter I. Firstly, the lack of the principle of equal marriage facilitates the possibility of divorce for the Russian monarch (any European queen had support of her ruling clan), and, second, the second marriage of Peter is not so surprising, based on sincere love and affection. Of course, the social status of the new queen a captive and a laundress in Russia was out of the ordinary, too. It can be explained on the basis of understanding of the specific identity of the tsar-reformer; being neurotic, Peter literally took Catherine from rags to riches, so to assert himself in his status as the demiurge of the new Russia (after all, for his family nieces and son he chose spouses of the European princely houses). The abundance of mistresses in Peter's life was not uncommon in the Russian tradition (of course, this does not apply to the tsar family) and in European courts (where the presence of a mistress was almost a mandatory attribute of the royal status, indicating, in understanding of the subjects, health and welfare of the ruler). There are suspicions about homosexual contacts of the tsar-reformer, reflected in a variety of sources, though not conclusive. As the analysis of archival sources shows, people's condemnation of "obscene" behaviour of Peter I does not appear so often (much less frequently than the rejection of his political and cultural innovations). Attempts can be found even to justify the tsar with reference to the negative influence of foreigners, or, as in European countries, the need to maintain the function of prosperity and fertility. In general, we can say that the concept of "normal" and "abnormal" in the private sphere in Peter's epoch reflected the transitional nature of the period. Unlike Western countries, where standards of morality experienced the greatest period of loosening at the Renaissance and early modern times, while in the 18th century they gradually entered a more civilized (in the sense of N. Elias) framework, Russia at this time entered the space of liberation and experimentation, repeating the whole Western way with some delay. Hence are a few stronger reactions of subjects and descendants to the behaviour of the first emperor.
Рассматриваются проявления так называемой «игры в царя» (ситуаций, характеризующихся временным присвоением царского титула «рядовому» лицу), бытовавшей в политической культуре России во второй половине XVI первой четверти XVIII в., и делается попытка объяснения ее психосоциального смысла ; The czar game, a term, introduced by I.I. Polosin, denotes situations, characterized by temporary assignment of the czar title to an "ordinary" person. Manifestations of the czar game recorded in the second half of 16th first quarter of 17th century. In the 17th century peasants and the aristocracy are known to have played it, but the greatest interest are those cases, when Ivan the Terrible and Peter I, Russian monarchs, became actors playing this game. Biographies of these two monarchs are different in frequency of czar game manifestations. In the life of Ivan IV there were only two single incidents (the murder of boyar Ivan Petrovich Fedorov (1567), disguised as czar before it, and 1575 enthroning of Kasimovsky Tsarevich Simeon Bekbulatovich). Peter had passion for the game throughout his life, playing the role of an ordinary servant, subordinated to Prince-Caesar F.Yu. Romodanovsky (and after his death to his son). The analysis of czar game manifestations suggests compensatory function for the psyche of the playing monarchs. Both Ivan IV and Peter I, being neurotic because of the tragic circumstances of childhood and socio-cultural environment of the transition time, with the help of inverted relations tried to reduce, transfer to a non-serious plan the source of their basal anxiety, which was the cargo of their traditions violated. However, the differences in the style of this game of the two monarchs are very indicative. If for Ivan it is separate bursts of unreflected fear, which did not play a special role in correcting his psyche; Peter, who made the czar game a permanent part of his life, could cope with his fears and complexes. Supplementing the czar game with a sort of a service game, Peter got possibility to overcome the basic mistrust to himself and the outside world with real achievements. At the same time Peter reduced the image of the old moskovit embodied by F.Yu. Romodanovsky to parody. He overcame and altered this image in his reform efforts. Self-humiliation, accompanying the czar game, also helped to self-assert on an unconscious level, because it demonstrated independence of the real status of the autocrat from its exterior design only a confident, strong ruler could afford to arbitrarily change the mask and tolerate his pseudodouble next to him. In addition, the deputy of the monarch could serve as a lightning-rod of fate, taking on the risk of retaliation for the negative features of his reign (in case with Simeon Bekbulatovich it was introduction of a new stage of oprichnina, whereas in the situation with Romodanovsky it was punitive functions of government). Due to the mentioned psychological differences Peter left a powerful (albeit mostly politically and militarily strong) empire after him, while the results of the reign of Ivan IV, who could not cope with his psychological problems, were many years of Smuta.
В данной статье делается попытка сравнительного анализа стилистики властных мифологем и установок сознания русского и западно-европейского историко-культурного ряда на примере проблемы сакрализации власти средневековых правителей Руси, Франции и Англии. Рассматривая соответствующие политические и религиозно-культурные традиции в свете концепции методологического синтеза (фокусом рассмотрения выступает сфера бессознательного), авторы приходят к выводу о большей степени сакрализации образов властителей в так называемой бессинтезной зоне и, напротив, способности к ускоренной десакрализации властных отношений во Франции, получившей античную подпитку. ; In given article the attempt of the comparative analysis of authority mithologems stylistics and determinants of consciousness of Russian and West-European historical-cultural line is done. As a basis the problem of authority sacralization of the Russian, English and French medieval governors is taken. Examining the appropriate political and religious cultural traditions in light of the methodological synthesis concept (in focus of consideration the unconscious sphere is acts), the authors come to a conclusion about the greater degree of sovereigns's images sacralization in socalled nonsynthesis zone and, on the contrary, ability to accelerated of desacralization of the authority relations in France, which has received antique infusion.
