In theory, the aristocracy is very different from the descriptions in history. Two famous Greek philosophers, Aristotle and Plato, actually developed the idea of ​​aristocracy. According to their concept, an aristocrat is a representative of the most capable part of the population, who is responsible for all his actions and must be included in, but this was contrary to the Greek democracy of that time. In practice, some difficulties arose in the implementation of the aristocratic form of government. Basically, due to the inability to determine who is most suitable for these purposes.

History of occurrence

The idea of ​​aristocracy has spread widely throughout the world. Most governments have decided that the only way to tell if a person is capable of governing is to look at their pedigree. An aristocrat is one whose parents were successful, rich and famous. It was thought to be more privileged and excellent. This went on for generations, regardless of the effectiveness of such an idea. This eventually led to the emergence of royal families, and the term "aristocracy" became directly associated with the idea of ​​monarchy.

There were other aristocrats who did not have deep genealogical roots. In some countries, status was directly based on things like wealth, regardless of origin. In others, it may have been due to religious factors. Sometimes a number of such components allowed a person to become an aristocrat in some countries.

What is aristocratic style?

The aristocracy is as old as mankind. Ancient Greek philosophers recognized the importance of certain individuals, their superiority and set a standard of behavior. They had to keep a certain distance from other people so as not to be influenced by anyone in their pursuit of the ideal.

The aristocratic style is basically the desire to be physically perfect, but this is rarely achieved. Sometimes it is a military, political, cultural career, but always impeccable.

Humanity needs ideals. To create them is the work of an aristocrat who is a civilized man, an elegant man, a brave personality. An aristocrat is one who does not feel bound by universal human norms of behavior and is often eccentric, but in fact his life is significantly different.

Elements of aristocracy:

  • education;
  • a responsibility;
  • wealth;
  • taste;
  • style;
  • idleness.

Wealth, idleness and responsibility of the upper class

In a discussion of upper-class idleness, one inevitably turns to the question of work in the conventional sense.

The truth is that the real aristocracy was never an idle class. Its responsible task was to educate citizens, to ensure law and order. This distinguishes the aristocrats from the bourgeois. The former take pleasure and pride in their activities, while the bourgeois work in order to simply make money that can be spent in their free time. An aristocrat is a person who evaluates his life as a benefit to society, so it becomes not so much work as a ritual.

Idleness was in vogue during the Renaissance among the merchants and the lesser nobility, who wanted to consolidate their power and show that they did not need to earn a living. This has been practiced to this day.

Money seems to create an elite. There are stories of people who wanted to be part of the elite and used material wealth as a ticket to high society.

Money is indeed a means to an end. They provide access to certain benefits, such as education and quality goods and services. But you can become an elite without having huge funds.

The perfection of an aristocrat consists of good manners, education and style of dress. Money helps to acquire these things, but it does not guarantee aristocracy.

aristocratic education

Education really defines an aristocrat in society. For high society, education is an essential element and affects the right of entry into this society even more than money. The aristocrat of the spirit is that unique person who became part of the elite thanks to knowledge and talents.

Discussions on history, literature, and politics replace discussions of sports news and TV shows for aristocrats. Knowledge of the subtle aspects of the development of many civilizations in a conversation replaces complaints about corrupt politicians and taxes. The aristocrat knows that the world is not perfect and does not get upset when problems arise. They are in pursuit of something completely different - absolute knowledge. Aristocrat - who is it? In any form of training, extensive knowledge is required from him:

  • Mastering the teachings of the great Greek philosophers, knowledge of key movements, philosophical schools. In addition, an understanding of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and a basic understanding of Buddhist teachings. This is combined with knowledge of Satanism, paganism, the occult.
  • Thorough knowledge of the native language, knowledge of spoken French, German, Italian and Spanish (this is at least), as well as Latin and a little Greek.
  • Sufficient study of mathematics, basics of algebra and geometry.
  • An absolute knowledge of the history of the ancient and medieval periods, the Renaissance and Enlightenment, the Victorian and modern eras and their characteristics.
  • Knowledge of the literature of each historical period. Language is a more worthy carrier of culture than film.

Aristocrats must be trained in music, singing, playing a musical instrument, understand classical and other areas of music, including jazz and big band, have basic knowledge in the field of rock and roll.

Refined taste or snobbery

The word "snobbery" has always been associated with the upper class having good taste, which is an element of education. Good taste is often confused with snobbery. In fact, this word means "without nobility."

A real aristocrat - what is it? A representative of the upper class is primarily characterized by the fact that he, faced with the poor quality of an object of culture, food, drink, as well as with an unpleasant question or conversation, will never show his attitude and express his standards. What makes a person refined is the ability to set an example, to show patience and

aristocratic fashion

Fashion is the only strong form of non-verbal communication.

It is a means of showing respect for others. To be well dressed, you need to appreciate the society in which you live. Aristocrats know the importance of appearance in the world. Standards are their bread and butter, so they enforce them - that's what fashion is.

Today, the dress standards for men are the same as they were set in the 20th century. There are many styles so you can choose. An aristocrat is a person who will not abandon the canons of style so that he is not called eccentric. He knows how to dress for every occasion so that it is pleasant and appropriate, and this is combined with dignity and manners.

"Bad" aristocracy

In many countries, the idea of ​​an aristocracy did end up becoming unpopular. This was mainly because there was no fair way at all to choose worthy leaders or to make sure that the best people were in charge. Development is a kind of aristocracy only if the most capable leaders are chosen.

Theoretically, an aristocracy with unlimited power could work for a while. The only condition for this is that the elected had to act in the interests of the masses.

In practice, corruption often seeps into a system where the people have too much power without checks and balances, and this negates many of the potential advantages an aristocrat should have. What is an aristocracy? A relic of the past or the salvation of modern society? Everyone can decide this for themselves, based on facts, and not on speculation and prejudice.

Aristocracy (from the Greek aristokratía, literally - the power of the best, most noble)

1) a form of government in which state power is held by a privileged noble minority. As a form of government, A. opposes monarchy and democracy. “Monarchy - as the power of one, the republic - as the absence of any non-elected power; aristocracy - as the power of a relatively small minority, democracy - as the power of the people ... All these differences arose in the era of slavery. Despite these differences, the state of the times of the slave-owning era was a slave-owning state, it makes no difference whether it was a monarchy or an aristocratic or democratic republic” (V.I. Lenin, Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 74). In the history of political ideas, the appearance of the concept of A. to designate one of the state forms of government is associated with Plato and Aristotle (See Aristotle); in the future, the aristocratic form of government was distinguished by Polybius, Spinoza, Hobbes (See Elite), Montesquieu (See Montesquieu), Kant and others. The justification of A. by adherents of this form of government comes down, as a rule, to the idea of ​​the political inferiority of the majority of people whom the aristocratic Elite is called upon to rule.

The aristocratic republics were in antiquity - Sparta, Rome (6-1 centuries BC), Carthage; in medieval Europe - Venice, the Pskov and Novgorod feudal republics, etc.

The composition and procedure for the formation of the highest organs of state power, the ratio between them varies in different regions. For example, in Sparta, state power was in the hands of two hereditary kings and a gerusia elected by the people's assembly (See Gerusia) (Council of Elders) and ephors (See Ephors). In Rome, the members of the Senate were appointed by the censor from among former senior officials and members of noble families; "elected" magistrates (Consuls, praetors, censors, Ediles) were formed from the nobility. In Carthage, 2 elected Suffets and an elected Council of Elders had real power. In Novgorod and Pskov, the city patriciate formed the Council of Masters.

In Azerbaijan, the powers of the people's assemblies were curtailed and their role was small. The population did not actively participate in public life. Elections were largely fictitious, and officials were proteges of the nobility (Spartiates in Sparta, patricians in Rome, patricians in medieval republics). When the organs of state power in Armenia were formed from a narrow circle of the nobility, there was a very strong tendency towards the principle of heredity.

2) To know, a privileged part of a class (patricians in Rome, eupatrides in Athens, nobility, etc.) or a social group (for example, financial A.), enjoying special rights and advantages. The political influence of A. and the circle of persons ranked among it are determined by the specific historical conditions and characteristics of a particular country. For example, in Junker Prussia in the 19th century. A. included only persons from very ancient noble families who were related to royal, ducal, etc. childbirth. In France and Great Britain, where many members of the great feudal lords perished during internecine wars and bourgeois revolutions, or were exterminated as a result of the policy of absolutism, the aristocracy consisted of the less well-born nobility.

V. S. NERSESYANTS


Great Soviet Encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1969-1978 .

Synonyms:

See what "Aristocracy" is in other dictionaries:

    - (Greek aristokratia, from aristos noble, best, and kratos strength). 1) the upper class in the state. 2) a government in which all supreme power is in the hands of the upper class. 3) a set of persons who have acquired important things in a certain profession ... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

    aristocracy- and, well. aristocracy f. , lat. aristocratia gr. 1. Aristocratic form of government. Sl. 18. Some wanted to establish a republic, others an aristocracy, others anarchy, sweeping aside one monarchical rule. Kheraskov Kadmus 69. Aristocracy or ... ... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

    Know, high society, light (big), beau monde (beau monde), high life (chit: highlife). Tribal aristocracy, monetary aristocracy; aristocracy of mind, talent. . Prot. know. See know monetary aristocracy ... Dictionary of Russian synonyms and similar ... Synonym dictionary

    - (aristocracy is outdated), aristocracy, pl. no, female (Greek aristokratia domination of the best). 1. The state system, in which power belongs to the rich and noble (historical polit.). 2. collected The highest stratum of the nobility, the well-born nobility. ||… … Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov

    Aristocracy- (гр. aristokratia: aristos – жақсы, kratos – билік) – құлдық және феодалдық қоғамдағы ең дәрежелі сословие (жік, топ) немесе ең жоғарғы рулық ақсүйектер, сол сияқты елде барлық билік аристократияға жататын мемлекеттік басқару формасы (түрі).… … Philosophical terminderdin sozdigі

    - (Greek) such a republican form of government in which the supreme power is exclusively in the hands of the highest privileged classes, who rule either alone or with the assistance of representatives of other classes. Her… … Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron

    - (aristocracy) Rule of the best. The criteria by which the best are identified or selected can be very different. For example, the ability to manage can be determined either by technical or estimated indicators, or by historical or ... ... Political science. Dictionary.

    - (from the Greek aristos the best and ... kratia), 1) a form of government in which power belongs to representatives of the tribal nobility. 2) In a pre-capitalist society, hereditary nobility with power and privileges; in a number of countries... ... Modern Encyclopedia

    Female, Greek government, where the supreme power is in the hands of the nobles, a special upper class; nobility, boyars; | the estate itself, the nobles, to know, the highest boyars, roundabouts, the highest estate by birthright, tribal nobility; | nobility ... ... Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary

    - (from Greek, lit. the power of the best, most noble), 1) a form of government in which the state. power belongs to a privileged noble minority. As a form of government, A. opposes monarchy and democracy. “Monarchy as the power of one, ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

    aristocracy- and outdated aristocracy... Dictionary of pronunciation and stress difficulties in modern Russian

Books

  • The aristocracy of Beroi in the Hellenistic era, Yu. N. Kuzmin. The monograph is devoted to the study of family ties between a number of inhabitants of the Macedonian city of Beroya of the Hellenistic era, which are considered mainly on the examples of noble families ...

Aristocracy is one of the forms of government in which the nobility holds power in their hands. It differs from the monarchical form and tyranny. Democracy also has a completely different concept.

The concept of the privileged class

This type of power was first discussed by the ancient idealist philosophers Plato and Aristotle. Representatives of the aristocracy were present in some ancient Greek cities and states. They were in Ancient Rome and Sparta.

This form of government is also characteristic of the republics of the Middle Ages that were in Europe. The opposite is democracy. The aristocracy, in contrast, does not assign sovereign power to all people or their majority. On the contrary, there is a community of those chosen according to the principle of blood. Aristocracy is the idea of ​​governing the state by the upper class of people, they were assigned the best talents and brilliant minds.

The main factor in the choice of rulers was how noble the origin of the applicants, and sometimes their valor as warriors was valued. Sometimes they relied on the level of development in mental terms.

Religion and morality were also taken as a measure. Another type that can be personified by the aristocracy is the oligarchy. In this case, the dominant positions are given to those who have the most property values. As a rule, one factor is not enough. It was believed that only a person worthy of ruling was really standing several steps above the average statistical stratum of society.

Ways of enrollment in the ranks of the aristocrats

In addition to the fact that the aristocracy is a state form, this term also denotes the highest class of society. You can get into it if you were born in the appropriate family and inherited a large fortune. The tribal upper stratum of society is precisely characterized by property that is much higher than the average indicators of an ordinary citizen.

The highest aristocracy is identified with special conditions or achievements, thanks to which a person falls into the ranks of the dominant representatives of his community. In ancient Rome, the elevation above the main mass could be tribal or land. These people reached high positions when it came to the feudal system in European society, which replaced ancient civilization. In the struggle against this system, the monarchy, representing the rule of one person, grew and strengthened.

The monetary aristocracy is precisely the institution of power that began to exist as a result of the French Revolution. Since then, all European states have been controlled by the richest citizens.

Destiny of the best

The aristocratic principle is that only the best people can have dominance. Several important factors emerged from this. Even non-republican states that were monarchies included elements of the aristocracy in their model of government. It could not be a direct possession of power in the country, but only individual manifestations.

This was facilitated everywhere by the state and legal powers of representative monarchies. In this case, the aristocracy is the upper ruling chambers, as well as the lower ones, which receive orders from above. The presence of organizations with representatives at different levels is typical. A single principle united these rungs of the ladder of power.

The aristocracy is everywhere

Even in a democracy there are some elements of inequality. The idea of ​​an extended aristocracy is applied. Since power is built differently in different types of society, the understanding of the forms of domination is very relative. We can only get acquainted with the various degrees of metamorphosis of any form of government.

All public, social, political and ecclesiastical unions that are formed in the state carry the principle of electivity of the aristocracy. The same can be attributed to the international level.

In Russia

The Russian aristocracy consisted of nobles, whose position was much higher than that of the common class. One of the first roles in the state fell on their shoulders. They had a lot of privileges, but they had to answer for their part for this service.

The nobleman was a man who put himself above those around him, who was a couple of steps ahead, but at the same time responsible, who felt his important role. He served the society of his native state, participated in hostilities, was completely selfless in relation to the state. The nobles took an oath and followed it. In addition to military service, they also had responsibility for the peasants living on their lands, as well as their own estate.

High moral code

The most important value was faithful service, it was encouraged by noble honor. This was embedded in their psychology at the level of ethics and morality. The nobleman had to listen and follow the orders of higher-ranking persons, not be greedy for affection, not beg for service, but also not shy away from his duties. The most important thing is honor and courage.

As we can see, the society of noble Russia created a portrait for its citizen, painted with the most beautiful tones of morality. After all, if not from the elite, then from whom else to take an example from other people?

How to become true nobles

The nobles were not brought up with the help of a certain pedagogical system or methodology, they did not impose rules. It can be called a way of life or a style of behavior, a conscious choice.

But to some extent, the nobles showed the best character traits by inertia, adopting the habits of their families and imitating relatives. Traditions were not discussed or changed, but simply observed as a given. From theoretical prescriptions, for sure, there would not have been such an effect as from the principles that were manifested in everyday life, acting in one way or another, communicating live. The norms of behavior were practically absorbed with mother's milk.

Model for the rest of society

The Russian nobleman had a range of character traits most characteristic of him. He must be independent and brave, show nobility and honor. It was believed that nature endowed Russian aristocrats with these qualities, although they can be enhanced or stifled by the environment.

The noble environment developed and improved. The qualities of a Russian citizen that I wanted to see in the environment prevailed. The nobles had a belief that the future would smooth out the unequal position between the strata in Russian society, that the culture of these people, starting with literary works, painting and exquisite treatment, would descend to the peasants, penetrate into their characters. Every person in society will soon be free and enlightened.

To create a quality society, it is necessary that only the highest ideals reign in each of its circles, and honesty, intelligence and good education are characteristic of people. It was through education that a striking and positive transformation of the population was to be achieved.

Bearing a duty to the Fatherland and being faithful to it meant the same thing for a nobleman as being honest with yourself and following your principles. Only those who respect themselves can respect others and vice versa. It was in such a sublime and persistent ideology that the top of Russian society was brought up.

primitive societies. Both the oldest aristocracy known from historical records and the privileged groups among modern primitive peoples exhibit most of the features found in a more developed form in the aristocracy of civilized countries. Tribal elders or tribal leaders exercise power based on age, wealth, military exploits, tribal law, history and tradition, magical and medical skill, knowledge of religious rites and mysteries, supposed blood ties with the gods, or real kinship with the king or supreme leader. In tribes dominated by a military way of life, access to the group of nobility usually passes through the battlefield or the priesthood.

ruling castes. When a conquered population or captives captured in war are turned into slaves, the whole group of victorious slave-owners can constitute an aristocratic ruling caste and at the same time - as in Sparta - allow considerable inequality among the free citizens themselves. The Germanic tribes, prior to the takeover of the Roman Empire, seem to have had a similar kind of social structure, at least in peacetime. Many other examples could be cited, including from the history of the American Indians before Columbus. In ancient Sparta, ruled by the descendants of the Dorian conquerors, the strictly aristocratic nature of the state was determined by the fact that the large local population of enslaved but potentially rebellious helots posed a constant threat to the life and safety of the minority free citizens, who could maintain their own superiority only by maintaining the strictest discipline in their ranks. Therefore, the Spartan upbringing paid special attention to a sense of duty, asceticism, self-discipline and subjection of the individual to the state - virtues that are appropriate for other ruling minorities in similar circumstances (for example, the Junkers of East Prussia) (see SPARTA).

Art and philosophy were regarded with suspicion by the Spartans, believing that they were capable of creating effeminacy or unwanted doubts about the ethical basis of Spartan society. Instead, athletics and military training were encouraged, since the educational ideal was interpreted in terms of character development, and not mental achievement. In this Sparta subsequent aristocracies were imitated, and with such uniformity that the question arises whether the privileged minorities did not seek to compensate for their mediocrity by intensively cultivating those traits of character that most effectively serve to uphold the domination of the minority. In other words, the aristocrat did not need to have an original intelligence of the highest order, he only needed to be perfectly accurate in his role. If this conclusion is correct, it may explain why aristocratic rule has always been marked by hostility to innovation and change.

In other Greek city-states, notably Athens, early forms of aristocracy were replaced by (or mixed with) democratic and oligarchic forms, apparently as a result of a shift in the economy from agriculture to commerce, mining, industry, and shipbuilding. These changes reduced the influence of the families of the former landowners and led first to the rise of popularly supported "tyrants" and then to the rule of free citizens.

Ancient Rome. The early history of Rome is marked by the dominance of the tribal aristocracy, the patricians, except for whom no one could sit in the Senate. They were subject to the plebeians, who were possibly the descendants of the defeated people. However, it is possible that by origin the patricians were simply wealthy landowners who organized themselves into clans (curiae), and appropriated the privileges of the highest caste. In any case, the power of the elected king was limited by the Senate and the assembly of clans (comitia curiata), which granted the king after the election of imperium (supreme power). The plebeians were not allowed to carry weapons, their marriages were not recognized as legal - these measures were designed to leave them without protection, without the support of the family and tribal organization. Since Rome was the northernmost outpost of the Latin tribes, adjacent to the Etruscan civilization, it is not surprising that the Roman aristocratic education resembled the Spartan one with a special emphasis on patriotism, discipline, courage and military skill.

Servius Tullius, a king whose name refers to his (or his father's) slave origins, is believed to have undertaken a radical transformation. Perhaps in order to break the dominance of the former hereditary clans, he replaced the original tribes, or tribes, based on kinship, with a new system of four clans of townspeople, based on wealth and type of weapons, and subdivided for military purposes into classes and centuries. However, wealthy patricians continued to control the assemblies and presided over the establishment of a republic after the exile of the last king, Tarquinius Superbus (509 BC). The plebeians were still excluded from political life, apart from the fact that they received their own assembly (concilium plebis, or plebs) with their own officials, or tribunes. Shortly after the founding of the republic, seventeen new tribes were formed to include the plebeians in the new assembly of the whole people (comitia tributa). A decree voted only by the plebs was called a plebiscite (plebiscitum) and originally applied only to the plebeians. On the contrary, the law (lex), so that it could be binding on the entire people of Rome, had to be passed by the general assembly. By the end of the republican period, this distinction had virtually disappeared, as the plebeians managed to achieve equal citizenship.

The first step in this process was the empowerment of the tribunes to veto the decisions of the magistrates, and later on the acts of the Senate. Then the plebs began to agitate for the codification of laws in order to curb the arbitrariness of the patrician magistrates. Around 450 BC The Twelve Tables were compiled, which remained the basis of Roman public law until the 2nd century BC. AD Around the same time, the plebs won further concessions, including the right of plebeians to marry patricians, with children inheriting the rank of their father. Having achieved virtual equality in politics, the plebeians began to look for ways to alleviate their economic and social position. Some plebeian families became rich and joined with the patricians to oppress the poor; this was facilitated by the fact that only the wealthiest members of the outlying tribes could afford to attend meetings in Rome. However, the entire legislative initiative was in the hands of the presiding magistrates, elected by the Senate from among the nobility.

As imperial expansion gave rise to more and more complex systems of government, the Senate became more powerful. In 133 and 123-121 BC Attempts were made to divide vast landholdings (latifundia) and distribute small plots to the poor. But the leaders of the plebeians, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchi (tribunes, although of noble origin), were killed by patricians from the reactionary party of the nobility (optimates), and the Senate executed hundreds of Gracchi followers as enemies of society. Although some redistribution of land appears to have taken place, a series of measures culminating in the agrarian law (lex agraria) in 111 BC closed the reform program and restored the dominance of the senatorial oligarchy. Over the next half century filled with civil wars, dictatorships and proscriptions, the Senate became increasingly corrupt, repressive and ineffective.

Julius Caesar finally destroyed the dominance of the optimates by establishing a popularly supported dictatorship based on an anti-aristocratic program that included the expansion (and therefore dilution) of the Senate and magistracy, the extension of citizenship to the provincials, and the redistribution of land. For his murder in 44 BC. a brief revival of the aristocracy followed, but the military triumph of Octavian, great-nephew and heir of Caesar, the future emperor Augustus, led in 29 BC. to the final replacement of the rule of the aristocracy by a monarchical scheme with a demagogic orientation. Augustus still pretended to share power with the Senate, but under the next emperors this body did not even have the appearance of power. As Rome grew in power and wealth, the aristocracy became a corrupt oligarchy, riven by ambition and greed. Its collapse led to an absolute monarchy, based partly on popular approval (in exchange for the provision of "bread and circuses"), but mainly on bureaucratic and military control.

Feudal Western Europe. The rule of the aristocracy reappeared in the West only after the destruction of centralized power and the capture of the western provinces of Rome by the Germanic tribes. Approximately between the 4th and 10th centuries. in these territories, the so-called. feudal system. The military retinue of the leaders of the Germans, apparently, served as a model for the feudal vassals in their devotion to the lord. The economic and contractual relations of feudalism may have arisen from such Roman institutions as commendation and patronage (according to which, in times of unrest, small landowners transferred their property to a more powerful person in exchange for physical protection and the right to use his property). The theoretical equality within the feudal nobility (expressed, for example, in the idea of ​​a peerage) probably derives from the Germanic idea of ​​warrior solidarity. But the subjugated inhabitants of the former Roman Empire were destined for a purely slave status. The relatively few invaders displaced the last ruling class of the Romans and became a predominantly military aristocracy.

With the virtual disappearance of urban life and the market economy in the Middle Ages, the land became the basis of wealth, power and social status. The estate (often land attached to a village) formed the basic unit of feudal landownership. The possessions (lat. - feudum) of a nobleman could consist of a single estate (which is typical for an equestrian warrior - a knight in England, a chevalier in France) or several estates. The highest nobility had extensive possessions, including many estates. Income from the estates was derived either directly (by the work, products or money of peasants, usually serfs), or indirectly (by a share of the income of a vassal or subordinate nobleman who owned one or more estates). A count or duke, for example, could own a dozen estates, which were managed by noble managers, and also receive income from their vassals - lower nobles who swore allegiance to him and were granted estates for this.

In the feudal system, the king was the supreme master, and all noble landowners were his direct or indirect vassals; by royal power, therefore, they understood nothing more than the possessions of a rich feudal lord, who was the first among equals. His real wealth and power depended, moreover, on the amount of income that came to him directly from his own estates or indirectly from the estates of vassals, since taxes in the modern sense were practically unknown. Most of the settlements were made by barter, because there was little money in circulation. So it was not easy for the feudal kings to accumulate funds for large-scale enterprises. Too poor to afford standing armies, they could at best count on the occasional and limited military service (often fixed at 40 days a year) that their vassals were sworn to provide, and in conflicts between royalty and the most among the most powerful of her subjects, these bonds of personal loyalty proved far from always reliable. Occasionally a monarch of eminent talent could succeed in bringing his barons into temporary obedience, but if he did not have an equal successor, then the period of strong royal power could not be long.

The normal situation was for the king to enjoy the ceremonial and partly religious veneration deriving from the consecration bestowed by the church at his coronation, while most of the real work of government was transferred to the local level. Ownership of land usually gave certain rights to perform certain functions of the supreme power, including the administration of justice and the minting of money. These rights were often considered and called "immunities", i.e. privileges that no one could interfere with. The result was an extreme decentralization of power, accompanied by constant uncertainty and disputes over authority. Accordingly, feudalism has been called "slightly organized chaos", and the degree of exaggeration in this characterization - especially for the early Middle Ages - is not so great.

By the 9th c. nevertheless, a more or less stable scheme of relations was developed and reduced to a contractual form or legal precedent; nobility by that time had certain rights and obligations in relation to the king, and a set of feudal norms arose that included the basic requirements for these relations. There was a tendency to settle disagreements not by violence, but by litigation, and the royal power made attempts, unceasing for centuries, to become the sole arbiter in disputes - i.e. ensure a monopoly on justice. But only after the Norman Conquest (1066) in England and even later in France and other continental countries, the king could noticeably infringe on the power of the aristocracy.

Thus, the centuries immediately preceding the Crusades present a spectacle of a virtually homogeneous aristocratic state system, monarchical in name, but in fact based on the domination of the military class, deriving its main income from forced payments of the unfree peasantry, deprived of access to both weapons and education. and culture. The serf has almost no rights that could be exercised by law against the lord on whose estate he lives; without the consent of the lord, he cannot marry, transfer the leased property to the heirs, or leave the estate. Mixed marriages between the nobility and the common people are rare and, as a rule, mean the loss of nobility for children. The church remained the only means of education and advancement for members of the lower class, and a few people of humble origin did rise to become bishops, abbots, cardinals, and even popes, but such examples are rare and belong to men of exceptional ability. Military and political career was available only to the aristocracy. See also FEODALISM.

Post-feudal Western Europe. Between the crusades and the beginning of the 19th century. - in response to changing political, economic and cultural circumstances - the medieval system of aristocratic rule was gradually modified. The revival of life in the cities and the growth of capitalism gave rise to a middle class (commercial and financial bourgeoisie), which differed both from the serfs and from the aristocracy. Acting, as a rule, with the support of this energetic urban element, the Western European and English kings were able to create powerful centralized states, increasingly strengthened by professional mercenary armies and trained bureaucracies. Justice and other functions of the supreme power were gradually taken over by the royal hands, and the independent military power of the nobility was systematically reduced by the effective prohibition of private armies, the introduction of firearms (especially cannons) too expensive for most nobles, and the destruction of fortified castles. In France, this process was largely completed by the time of Cardinal Richelieu. In England, the nobility became quite obedient after they came close to destroying the Scarlet and White Roses in the war.

Yet even after the loss of military and political independence, the aristocracy of Western Europe remained extremely powerful. She retained land holdings, often allowing (as in England) to convert serfdom into cash rent, and in some areas (England, the Netherlands, Northern Italy) she turned to commercial agriculture or invested in capitalist enterprises. The aristocracy entered into mixed marriages with the urban nobility or the new nobility, which consisted of the highest state and judicial employees (known in France as the noblesse de la robe, the nobility of the mantle, as opposed to the traditional noblesse de l "epee, the nobility of the sword). The landed aristocracy was supported monarchies also retained a virtual monopoly on military service and resisted the entry of commoners into empowered posts or blocked their promotion above a certain rank.Many kings of the continental countries, following King Louis XIV of France, established exquisite courts, the presence of which became almost mandatory for nobles who wished to enjoy favor In Versailles and similar places, secular pleasures attracted and absorbed the energy of the aristocracy, which had previously been squandered in private feuds or intrigues against royal power.The feudal magnates, who once, during the rebellion of the nobility known as the Fronde (1648-1653), threatened the unity and very existence of the monarchy, turned into weak, humble and often ruined courtiers, whose pleasant existence depended entirely on the “generosity” of the king.

Central and Eastern Europe. In other European countries, the existence of significant remnants of the power of the aristocracy was even more protracted. In Central and Eastern Europe, especially in Prussia, Austria and Russia, the aristocracy - in the absence of a vibrant middle class - entered into an exceptionally mutually beneficial relationship with the absolute monarchy. Indeed, in Russia (and other countries, although to a lesser extent), the need for military and civil officials led to the creation of a "service nobility" based entirely on the positions they held. The non-inherited granting of military land (estates) by the great Moscow princes began around 1450, this practice was continued and expanded by the tsars, especially Peter the Great and the empresses Elizabeth and Catherine II. To prevent the peasants from fleeing from military service, they were forcibly attached to the land, but they nevertheless fled to the south and east, threatening to leave the center of the country sparsely populated, and the nobility, trying to counteract this process, treated the peasants more and more cruelly. Subsequently, the nobility achieved hereditary possession of estates, could evade the burden of state duties or lighten it, and greatly expanded their privileges, mainly at the expense of the peasantry. Sacrificing the interests of the peasants for the sake of the nobility was also a characteristic feature of the strengthening of the monarchy in Austria and Prussia in the 17th and 18th centuries, although to a lesser extent than in Russia.

City-states. One cannot fail to note the appeal of the aristocratic model to the ruling groups in the growing urban centers of late medieval and early modern Europe. Some territories (particularly in Flanders and Northern Italy) had, for limited periods of time, successful experiences of democracy, including the right to full citizenship with suffrage, which was enjoyed by all or almost all adult male residents of the city. But with the growth and differentiation of the population, accompanied, as usual, by the concentration of wealth in a few families, most of these republics or communes of the late Middle Ages followed the oligarchic model. As a result, voting and (or) holding office was limited, as a rule, to those families whose citizenship was recognized as inheritable. In addition, political rights were tied to the ownership of property, guild privileges, the payment of special taxes, or the possession of certain land plots. The highly conservative Venetian Republic, finally crushed by Napoleon, is a classic example of such an oligarchy. The free cities of the Holy Roman Empire, the cities of the Hanseatic League, and the privileged cities of England and Western Europe showed the same general tendencies of oligarchic control on the part of comparatively few but proud and highly cultured patricians. Most of these city-states were swept away by the radical political reorganization - emphasizing national uniformity and centralism - in almost all of Europe during the French Revolution and under Napoleon, but a few (for example, Basel, Frankfurt am Main, Hamburg and Luxembourg) continued to exist and flourish in the 19th century and even later.

white minority societies. A completely different type of aristocracy or ruling oligarchy has grown up in other parts of the world in modern times. The plantation owners who formed a dominant minority in the antebellum American South exemplify one variant, and so do European colonists in African or Asian-majority conquered territories. For any of these categories, belonging to the ruling community meant exorbitant privileges in relation to the subordinate population. The economic basis of such a racial aristocracy was usually the plantation system or other system of large-scale commercial agriculture, although mining was of particular importance in South Africa. Labor was organized either under the system of slavery (as in the antebellum American South), or - in almost all other places and in recent times - under the nominal system of free employment. Since leisure is highly valued in many indigenous cultures, colonial rulers introduced "hut" taxes, "rubber" taxes, or their equivalents, to force a worker to remain in the labor market after satisfying his modest needs. The appropriation by the European minority of the most valuable land also forced the native peoples to abandon traditional hunting and pastoral existence. They had no choice but to get hired on the estates of Europeans. The presence of colonists strengthened political order and security, vastly improved public health, and led to phenomenal population growth, which in turn lowered wages and drove up land prices. Over a long period of time, these changes gave rise to a trend of growing interracial contradictions, reflected (primarily in Africa) in the measures of suppression and segregation taken by Europeans. This led to the rise of a liberation movement among the non-European majority, and Europeans had to abandon direct colonial rule and replace it with indirect "neo-colonial" forms of economic control.

management elite. In the 1940s and 1950s, some theorists tended to see the rise of the "administrative elite" in both capitalist and communist industrial societies as the beginnings of a new form of aristocracy. Indeed, the top management class is characterized by special claims to income, disproportionate political influence, and privileged access to educational and cultural opportunities. However, the power of the Stalinist bureaucracy revealed its historical doom, and managers from the West - an open desire for the status of private owners.

In the modern world, there have been obvious changes in the understanding of the term "aristocracy". It has become common that socio-economic doctrines confuse aristocracy with oligarchy. “Aristocracy” means “the rule of the best”, while today aristocracy is simply understood to be very rich people who dress in a certain way or have a special style of communicating with people. But this is not a classical aristocracy in the original sense of the word, not a spiritual aristocracy. It should not be mistakenly identified with bureaucracies where money rules. The vestments of the spiritual aristocracy are not things, but moral principles, beauty and nobility. This is the main sign of the aristocracy in any era.

(from the Greek aristokratía, literally - the power of the best, most noble)

1) a form of government in which state power is held by a privileged noble minority. As a form of government, A. opposes monarchy and democracy. “Monarchy - as the power of one, the republic - as the absence of any non-elected power; aristocracy - as the power of a relatively small minority, democracy - as the power of the people ... All these differences arose in the era of slavery. Despite these differences, the state of the times of the slave-owning era was a slave-owning state, it makes no difference whether it was a monarchy or an aristocratic or democratic republic” (V.I. Lenin, Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 74). In the history of political ideas, the appearance of the concept of A. to designate one of the state forms of government is associated with Plato and Aristotle (See Aristotle); in the future, the aristocratic form of government was distinguished by Polybius, Spinoza, Hobbes (See Elite), Montesquieu (See Montesquieu), Kant and others. The justification of A. by adherents of this form of government is reduced, as a rule, to the idea of ​​the political inferiority of the majority of people whom the aristocratic Elite is called upon to rule.

The aristocratic republics were in antiquity - Sparta, Rome (6-1 centuries BC), Carthage; in medieval Europe - Venice, the Pskov and Novgorod feudal republics, etc.

The composition and procedure for the formation of the highest organs of state power, the ratio between them varies in different regions. For example, in Sparta, state power was in the hands of two hereditary kings and a gerusia elected by the people's assembly (See Gerusia) (Council of Elders) and ephors (See Ephors). In Rome, the members of the Senate were appointed by the censor from among former senior officials and members of noble families; "elected" magistrates (Consuls, praetors, censors, Ediles) were formed from the nobility. In Carthage, 2 elected Suffets and an elected Council of Elders had real power. In Novgorod and Pskov, the city patriciate formed the Council of Masters.

In Azerbaijan, the powers of the people's assemblies were curtailed and their role was small. The population did not actively participate in public life. Elections were largely fictitious, and officials were proteges of the nobility (Spartiates in Sparta, patricians in Rome, patricians in medieval republics). When the organs of state power in Armenia were formed from a narrow circle of the nobility, there was a very strong tendency towards the principle of heredity.

2) To know, a privileged part of a class (patricians in Rome, eupatrides in Athens, nobility, etc.) or a social group (for example, financial A.), enjoying special rights and advantages. The political influence of A. and the circle of persons ranked among it are determined by the specific historical conditions and characteristics of a particular country. For example, in Junker Prussia in the 19th century. A. included only persons from very ancient noble families who were related to royal, ducal, etc. childbirth. In France and Great Britain, where many members of the great feudal lords perished during internecine wars and bourgeois revolutions, or were exterminated as a result of the policy of absolutism, the aristocracy consisted of the less well-born nobility.

V. S. NERSESYANTS

  • - 1. The form of state., with a swarm of government. carried out will present. tribal knowledge. For the first time, the term "A." other Greek was used. philosophers Plato and Aristotle to designate...

    Ancient world. encyclopedic Dictionary

  • - ARISTOCRACY Rule of the best. The criteria by which the best are identified or selected can be very different ...

    Political science. Dictionary.

  • - 1) The form of the state, under which the board is carried out by representatives of the clan nobility ...

    Soviet historical encyclopedia

  • - 1) the highest, privileged stratum of a class or social group, rich or well-born to know ...

    Big Law Dictionary

  • - such a republican form of government in which the supreme power is exclusively in the hands of the highest privileged classes, who rule either alone or with the assistance of representatives ...

    Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

  • - 1) a form of government in which state power is held by a privileged noble minority. As a form of government A. opposes the monarchy and democracy ...

    Great Soviet Encyclopedia

  • - 1) a form of government in which power belongs to representatives of the tribal nobility. 2) In a pre-capitalist society, hereditary nobility with power and privileges ...

    Modern Encyclopedia

  • - ..1) a form of government in which power belongs to representatives of the tribal nobility2)] In a slave-owning and feudal state - the most privileged estate ...

    Big encyclopedic dictionary

  • - female, Greek government, where the supreme power is in the hands of the nobles, a special upper class; nobility, boyars ...

    Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary

  • - aristocrat...

    Russian spelling dictionary

  • - R., D., Pr....

    Spelling Dictionary of the Russian Language

  • - ARISTOCRACY, -and, wives. 1. The highest noble stratum of the nobility. 2. trans. A privileged part of a class or some. public group. Financial a. ...

    Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov

  • - ARISTOCRACY, aristocracy, pl. no, female . 1. A state system in which power belongs to the rich and noble. 2. collected The highest stratum of the nobility, noble nobility...

    Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov

  • - aristocracy I f. A form of government in which power belongs to members of the nobility. II well. one...

    Explanatory Dictionary of Efremova

  • - aristocracy since Pufendorf's translation; see Smirnov 44. Judging by the place of stress, probably through Pol. arystokracja. Smirnov believes that this word came from him. Aristocracy...

    Vasmer's etymological dictionary

  • - ARISTOCRACY and, f. aristocracy f. , lat. aristocratia gr. 1. Aristocratic form of government. Sl. 18. Some wanted to establish a republic, others an aristocracy, others anarchy, sweeping aside one Monarchist rule ...

    Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

"Aristocracy" in books

Aristocracy

From the book Everyday Life in Florence in the Time of Dante by Antonetti Pierre

Aristocracy Was Dante's Florence, at its height of demographic growth, more clearly delineated social classes than under his great-grandfather Cacchagvid? According to the poet, Florence in the time of his great-grandfather was distinguished by an exceptional ethnic

Aristocracy

From the book Jewelry Treasures of the Russian Imperial Court author Zimin Igor Viktorovich

The aristocracy In addition to the imperial family, other members of the expanded Russian imperial family were buyers of things "from Faberge". According to F. Birbaum, “The Grand Dukes and Duchesses willingly personally visited the store, choosing their purchases for a long time. Daily 4 to 5 hours

Landed aristocracy

From the book Byzantines [Heirs of Rome (litres)] author Rice David Talbot

The landed aristocracy Although the cultural educated elite of Byzantine society continued to flourish until the very end of the empire, after the 11th century they succumbed to the influence of the landed aristocracy. The history of this class has undergone a number of changes. He played

Aristocracy

From the book England. One-way ticket author Volsky Anton Alexandrovich

Aristocracy British society is still considered to be divided into classes. And although this is not officially spelled out anywhere, nevertheless, as under Queen Victoria, the upper classes retained money, influence, respect and a certain arrogance that does not allow

Possessing aristocracy

From the book The Ascent of Money author Ferguson Niall

The Possessing Aristocracy Today, only in the most impoverished areas of Great Britain and the United States, such as working-class neighborhoods in the east of Glasgow or Detroit, the owner is considered a rare bird. In fact, it has always been like this everywhere: the propertied class existed in the form of the thinnest layer inside

[Aristocracy and Freedom]

From the book American Enlightenment. Selected works in two volumes. Volume 2 author Jefferson Thomas

[Aristocracy and Freedom] T. JEFFERSON - J. ADAMSU Monticello, October 28, 1813 Dear sir... The passage you quote from Theognis(1) is, I think, more about ethics than politics. The whole work is a moral sermon, parainesis, and the passage quoted

SCIENTIFIC ARISTOCRACY

From the book The History of Human Stupidity author Rath-Veg Istvan

SCIENTIFIC ARISTOCRACY In the 16th and 17th centuries, German universities churned out thousands of masters and doctors of sciences, and they formed a new estate - the learned aristocracy. Pundits were highly respected; the princes valued them, the people broke their hats before them. And they are strong

Aristocracy

From the book Philosophical Dictionary author Comte Sponville André

Aristocracy (Aristocratie) The power of the best (aristoi) or those who are considered the best. The etymology of the word explains why it is necessary to distinguish between aristocracy and oligarchy - the power of individuals, distinguished regardless of their personal merits. In practice, however, both concepts

5. Aristocracy

From the book Russia in the Middle Ages author Vernadsky Georgy Vladimirovich

5. Aristocracy It should be remembered that the aristocracy of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania consisted of princes and untitled nobility.375

2. Aristocracy

From the book History of Ancient Greece author Hammond Nicholas

2. Aristocracy As a rule, the collapse of royal power did not occur by force, but as a result of the concentration of power in the hands of the next layer - the aristocracy in the person of tribal leaders, who for a long time constituted the royal council and the royal court. The title of king was usually retained;

4. Local aristocracy

From the book History of France. Volume II. Carolingian heritage author Thays Laurent

4. Local aristocracy The inaction in many parts of the royal power, the redistribution and fragmentation of government functions more clearly revealed the presence of the local aristocracy, which was in the shadows in the Carolingian era, best seen is its noble

Kingship and aristocracy

From the book Celtic Civilization and Its Legacy [edited] by Philip Yang

Kingship and aristocracy It can be assumed that even in the La Tène period, many Celtic tribes had the usual kingship as an ancient institution, the origin of which we can observe in the late-Hallstatt environment of princely settlements. But in some tribes

Aristocracy

From the book Encyclopedic Dictionary (A) author Brockhaus F. A.

Aristocracy Aristocracy (Greek) is such a republican form of government in which the supreme power is exclusively in the hands of the upper privileged classes, who rule either alone or with the assistance of representatives of other classes. Her

Aristocracy

From the book Great Soviet Encyclopedia (AR) of the author TSB

Aristocracy

From the book The Decline of Humanity author Valtsev Sergey Vitalievich

Aristocracy There is another form of rhodocracy - aristocracy, the essence of which is that representatives of noble families choose the head of state or govern collectively. Of course, as in the case of a monarchy, the people are embittered by the fact that their opinion is not taken into account, but when