Scientific life. Congresses, conferences, and symposia

On October 10, 2005, a meeting of the sector of theoretical problems of the history of the East was held, at which L. B. Alaev, A. A. Bokshchanin, Yu.I. Drobyshev, D. E. Mishin and I. M. Smilyanskaya made presentations on "The Sacred in the East". At this seminar, the speakers continued to discuss the issue of sacralization of power in various Asian cultures. The previous seminar on the same topic was held on June 6, 2005 at the Institute of Religious Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. A. L. Ryabinin (Institute of Religious Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences) reminded the audience that in studies on the history of religions, the problem of the sacredness of power is regularly addressed: for example, M. Eliade, investigating this problem, looked for the origins of sacredness in archaic culture (for example, " The Myth of the Eternal return: archetype and repeatability").

At the seminar in October, a presentation was made by AND . M. Smilyanskaya (IB RAS), having defined the subject of her report as "Sacralization of power as a research problem". She made an attempt to systematize the main questions facing a scientist who turned to the study of this new object of research for Russian historical science. Despite the fact that the works that marked the beginning of the study of the sacralization of power belong to 1924 and 1957 (M. Blok "Miracle Kings" and E. Kantorovich " Two Bodies of the King. An essay on the political theology of the Middle Ages"), its development in Western science began to be carried out only in recent decades, and in domestic science not earlier than the 1990s. The study of this phenomenon is carried out within the framework of historical anthropology.

I. M. Smilyanskaya said that the concept of "sacralization" as an object of study was introduced into science by E. Durkheim at the beginning of the last century. The term itself comes from the Latin sacer - "sacred, holy", but has another meaning - "forbidden, tabooed". This ambivalence of meaning, which is characteristic of traditional consciousness, may have been reflected in some cultures in the prohibition to pronounce the real name of the ruler (for example, van in medieval Korea).-

page 166

ree), as well as in a number of other behavioral prohibitions - for example, in rituals that had to be observed. The speaker noted that in the literature the concepts of "sacred" and "divine" are identified, but sacralization does not mean giving reality the features of the divine (although it may include this meaning). The concept of "sacralization" means endowing reality with special qualities that can affect it and turn it into an object of worship. Sacred qualities can be possessed by people, institutions (the church), time (holidays, days of fasting), objects (stones, trees), images, space, i.e. everything that is mediated in a person's consciousness by a connection with the transcendent principle. Such features of consciousness are characteristic of a person of traditional culture; in science, they are explained by the fact that a person of this culture was inclined to see behind everyday life that higher-order reality, which determined for him the "essence of things".

I. M. Smilyanskaya emphasized that the sacralization of power is one of the ways to legitimize it, although at the early stages of society's development, other ways of giving "legitimacy" to the ruler's power were revealed, for example, seniority in the clan (which in some cultures was preserved in the form of inheritance of power not by a direct descendant of the ruler, but by the eldest in the alienness of the pretender to power (this phenomenon is known as the vocation to rule of strangers - natural intermediaries for warring parties), as well as charisma, which generates the cult of an exceptional personality, endowing it with extraordinary abilities often of a mystical nature ("gift of God"), giving it the right to rule. (In the Turkic-Mongolian culture, the idea of having the charisma of the descendants of Genghis Khan was preserved: on this basis, even in the XVIII century, the Genghisids claimed power in the Turkic-Mongolian political formations.)

According to the speaker, we can talk about different forms (and, perhaps, more precisely, about the internal content) of the sacralization of power and about different degrees of this sacralization in different cultures and at different times. In anthropocentric religious systems, the supreme ruler was given such sacred duties as protecting the faith and cult, protecting holy places (the Ottoman Sultan was revered as a servant of the two holy cities for Muslims-Mecca and Medina), declaring a holy war, etc., as well as an eschatological mission - creating conditions for believers to be Saved in the future life. Often, he was the first to appear at prayer or had the right to decide theological issues (in turn, submission to the authorities was imputed to believers as a religious duty). The duty of the ruler in cosmocratic religions was considered to harmonize and maintain the existence of nature and society: the ruler could be the supreme performer of the cult of heavenly and earthly deities, possess supernatural knowledge that allowed him to follow the calendar, determine favorable and unfavorable days, name the eras of government, which was necessary to prevent political and natural disasters, etc.

I. M. Smilyanskaya noted that the degree of sacralization of power could range from the recognition of the mediating role of the supreme ruler between God, the Cosmos and the earth's inhabitants to the belief in a divine or cosmocratic source of his power. (The Tibetan Dalai Lama was recognized as a living god; the rulers of Burma and Siam were cosmocrats.) V. V. Barthold, who denied the immutability of theocratic rule in Islam, drew attention to this fact in Islam at the beginning of the century (see: Theocratic idea and secular power in a Muslim state. Works, vol. VI, pp. 303-309).

The sources of sacralization of power are quite diverse - E. Kantorovich considered them on the materials of medieval Europe. These could be myths that go back to ancient times (for example, the idea of the origin of the Japanese imperial dynasty from the Sun goddess Amaterasu). However, mythology was created before the eyes of historians: it is enough to recall the message of the elder Philotheus, which contained the recognition of Moscow as the Third Rome, and the sacred duties of the Grand Duke of Moscow that followed from this postulate, as well as the mythical genealogy that arose at the same time, which traced the genealogy of the Rurikids to the Roman Emperor Augustus.

E. Kantorovich, analyzing the political ideas of medieval theologians who justified the sacral nature of royal power in Europe, analyzed the teaching of English jurists of the XVI century about the presence of two bodies in the king - "natural" and "political", the latter, according to their ideas, " cannot be seen or touched, exists for the instruction of the people and for the implementation of the public good: this body is completely free from the childish state

page 167

and other shortcomings and weaknesses to which the natural body is subject. For this reason, what the King does by virtue of having a political body cannot be considered invalid" (see abstract). Luchitskaya in: Istoriya mentalnosti [History of Mentalities]. Historical Anthropology, Moscow, 1996, p. 143). When analyzing "political theology" (the term was introduced by E. Kantorovich), the question of the extent to which contemporaries believed in the sacredness of power is not removed. In addition, studies by Russian historians (V. V. Orlov) have shown that in the popular perception, the sacralization of power took on different features than in theological dogmas.

In the opinion of I. M. Smilyanskaya, a special range of issues arises around the problem of the manifestation of the sacred nature of power. Apparently, this should include rhetorical formulas that accompanied the cult of the monarch and were often included in its titulature: "By the Grace of God", "Shadow of God on earth", "Son of Heaven", "Possessor of Heavenly Command", as well as verbal comparisons of the power of the monarch on earth to the dominion of Christ in heaven, etc. the most volatile part of the manifestation of the sacred nature of the monarch's power: often, the rulers themselves participated in its development (in particular, Catherine II attached considerable importance to this occupation, and the American researcher R. Wortman in the book "Scenarios of Power. Myths and ceremonies of the Russian monarchy from Peter the Great to the death of Nicholas I " noted that, unlike the German states, in Russia the court ritual was much more developed). Finally, not the least role in the manifestation of the sacred nature of power could be played by the norms of etiquette (in particular, the forms of addressing the monarch and monarchs among themselves). In the process of secularization of public life, the role of sacralization in legitimizing power decreases, but nevertheless it is not completely lost. Certain difficulties in analyzing the forms and degree of sacralization of power in societies undergoing secularization processes arise when it comes to cultures in which there is no or declared absence of the separation of religious and secular, sacred and secular. At the same time, the rudiments of sacralization (symbolism, rituals, insignia, etc.) are also used in political systems to raise power and give it special authority.

In conclusion, I. M. Smilyanskaya raised the question of the relevance of the topic under consideration: why did such abstract categories as mentality, sacralization, and the phenomenon of power appear and attract attention in the scientific and political lexicon of the turn of the last centuries, along with other specific concepts (for example, image maker, PR, etc.)? Does this not mean that there is a growing awareness of the fact that in the process of mass involvement in political life, manipulation of mass consciousness is becoming increasingly important in political practice? Meanwhile, the study of the sacralization of power opens the way to understanding the mechanism of early political influence on mass consciousness.

A. A. Bokshchanin (Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences) made a report on the topic: "The sacredness of power as a way of manipulating consciousness in various epochs of Chinese history." The Chinese ruler - Wang-was designated by a hieroglyph consisting of three horizontal lines crossed out by a vertical line in the middle. In this way, Wang's cosmic role as a ruler was expressed, transmitting the will of Heaven to earth (tianming - "the will of Heaven" - is sometimes translated as "the Heavenly Mandate" given to the ruler). Under Qin Shi Huang, the ruler raised his title to a higher level, calling himself not Wang , but adi-emperor. The subtext of this change also carries a sacred meaning, because the term di comes from tiendi, i.e. "Heavenly Lord".

The speaker emphasized that the first emperor of the Ming Dynasty, Zhu Yuanzhang, called his dynasty "Light", which can be interpreted as "Heavenly Light", i.e. the sacred principle transmitted to the ruler. (Perhaps this is a Buddhist borrowing-from the concept of "light deity".) Zhu Yuanzhang had usurped power, but the traditional accession manifesto declared that his ascension to the throne had been ordered by Heaven. It is also characteristic that in the "Testaments" written on behalf of the first Minsk emperor, there is absolutely no mention of Heaven, whose will allowed him to take the throne, and everywhere only their own successes and exploits are mentioned in the first person, i.e. from "I".

Signs of the sacralization of power were revealed in the creation and improvement of the official state ceremonial with many symbolic rites and sacrifices. The "Covenants" emphasized that the main thing is that the sacrifices should be made sincerely, so that all spirits receive the prescribed offerings. Before this, all the sacrificers were ordered to perform a rite of purification. The ritual of worshipping the spirits of the ancestors, and above all the ancestors of the emperor, was strictly observed. According to A. A. Bokshchanin, in the "Testaments" of voe-

page 168

superstitions have been created, which can also be considered to some extent a reflection of the sacral consciousness. Thus, it was prescribed to strictly observe the safety of the emperor's movement, and soothsayers were charged with the duty to check whether something special had happened before that, in which it was possible to see a "sign from above": for example, whether the horse was ill, whether the chopsticks were missing, etc. In this case, the trip should have been canceled. In general, the sacredness of the emperor's power at the beginning of the Ming Dynasty was manifested in his administrative and organizational function in the ritualized sphere - maintaining proper ceremonials.

Yu . K.Drobyshev (Institute of Internal Affairs of the Russian Academy of Sciences) spoke on "Sacralization of supreme power in Central Asia". According to him, the performance of ritual functions by the supreme ruler ensured the stability of society. In this role, he acted as high priest and as such was sacral. To have the legal right to lead the state and perform the appropriate rituals, the ruler had to have a special power - charisma. Since the 13th century, the Mongols referred to charisma by the word sulde , and in the Turkic languages it is called kut . Its Chinese counterpart is de . A non-charismatic monarch was denied the right to the throne. The sign of charisma is light, and its symbolic image is a flying bird.

Yu. I. Drobyshev noted that the discussion on whether to consider the Central Asian idea of the supreme ruler as a protégé of the Sky as autochthonous or borrowed from the Chinese continues. Peoples such as the Xianbi, Ruanzhuan, ancient Turks, Uyghurs, Khitan, and finally the Mongols, who left a significant mark on the history of Central Asia, honored their rulers as sons of Heaven. Ethnogenetic myths of these peoples tell about the "immaculate conception" of the ancestors of the ruling dynasties. Atmospheric phenomena (related to the Sky) often act as a fertilizing principle: for example, a hailstone falling into the mother's mouth, a ray of light entering the womb, etc.

According to people's ideas, the speaker stressed, without a legitimate ruler, neither society nor the environment can exist normally. Everything that exists on Earth exists because of the protection of Heaven, because of its good power. But the Sky itself has no connection with the Earth, there must be some kind of intermediary, a guide. In the traditional Central Asian picture of the world (and not only in it), it is three-membered and divided into the Upper, Middle and Lower Worlds. They are connected by the World axis, which usually serves as the ancestral mountain, where the first ancestors descended from the Sky in time immemorial. The world axis can also be represented as a Tree. Another of its symbols is the figure of the supreme ruler, who is also able to unite the worlds and serve as a guarantor of harmony in nature and society. The ruler is chosen by the Sky itself, it protects him, however, as in China, charisma could not simply be obtained from the Sky, since it only reacted to the presence of charisma in a person and blessed him to rule, sending military luck, protecting him from the treachery of enemies, etc. The charismatic leader had constant contact with the Sky, perceiving the heavenly power and extending it to the subject society (and ideally-to the whole earth, to all peoples). It was believed that the ruler of a nomadic empire played a civilizing role in relation to the whole world in the same way as the Chinese emperor, but he did so relying more on force of arms than on diplomacy.

Yu. I. Drobyshev drew attention to the fact that in the era of the Mongol conquests, it was believed that the only legitimate representative of Heaven on earth was the Mongol Khan, so only the territory over which his power extends can enjoy the patronage of Heaven itself. The rest of space is outlawed, so to speak, and any means can be used to achieve their goals, ranging from banal plunder to the establishment of order throughout the earth, sanctioned by Heaven - as the Mongols understood it. The hordes of Genghis Khan and his successors were neither the first nor the last in this respect. Charisma needed to be activated, for which the ruler went up the mountain and performed the prescribed rites. From the time of Ogedei (1229-1241), newly elected khans were raised on white felt. So did other nomadic peoples, such as the Kazakhs.

According to the speaker, despite a certain similarity of views on the figure of the ruler in the Far Eastern and Central Asian concepts of power, it ends when it comes to his remains. In the Far East, the "mandate of Heaven" and, consequently, the good power of heaven were passed on to its heir (or the founder of the next dynasty, if the previous one was mired in vices), and the body of the former ruler was deprived of sacred properties. In Mongolia, the body of the monarch contained charisma even after death, so the deceased ruler continued to serve as a guide of this heavenly power. This leads to two important consequences: the remains of their ruler.-

page 169

lo must be carefully protected from destruction or desecration by enemies; the remains of hostile rulers must be desecrated and destroyed. The practical implementation of both these principles can be seen in the Mongols. (A. L. Ryabinin noted that in Vietnam there was a similar situation: the bones of the rulers of previous dynasties were dug up and destroyed.)

Dr. Mishin (Institute of Religious Legitimation of the Russian Academy of Sciences) made a report on "The problem of correlation between religious legitimation and politics". He considered some aspects of the relationship between power and religion in medieval North Africa (on the example of the history of the Fatimid and Almohad states). According to the speaker, the history of this region knows cases when people were in power whose legitimacy was more in the sphere of religion than in the sphere of politics -such as the Fatimid state, ruled by people who traced their origin to the righteous Caliph Ali Ibn Abi Talib (656-661), and the Almohad state, founded by a man who called himself Mahdi, the holy Imam of the Ismailis. The founders of these states bore the title of al-Mahdi, thus claiming a special role, based on religious traditions, as imams with a mission to unite the Muslim Ummah , put an end to the abuses of the then rulers and ensure strict compliance with Sharia law throughout the Islamic world.

Dmitry Mishin stressed that at the same time, in the political environment of the early medieval Maghreb, the leader of any movement needed to enlist the support of the local Berber tribal elite. The Berbers 'support for Qutam and Masmud became the foundation of the Fatimid and Almohad states' strength, respectively. So, in both cases, the death of the first ruler, Imam al-Mahdi, was initially hidden: the ruling circles sought to maintain consensus with the tribes, and feared a repeat of the ridda . Over time, as the activities of imams - the founders of states - became more and more a thing of the past, the role of legitimizing power in the name of al-Mahdi weakened. According to the speaker, the available materials suggest that political power in both States rested not only on religious legitimation, but also - to a large extent - on consensus, which allowed the rulers of the states to lead the local North African elite.

At the end of the seminar, L made a speech . B. Alaev (IB RAS). In his report "The problem of the sacredness of royal power in ancient and medieval India", he spoke about the specifics of Indian thought and the Indian understanding of sciences, noting that unlike a number of other civilizations, primarily Chinese, it was not personalized. According to L. B. Alaev, as a rule, thinkers built their own systems of reasoning, without contrasting them with others. Thus, in the most" author's "text, the Arthashastra, attributed to the minister of the Maurya dynasty ruler Chandragupta named Chanakya Kautilya (or Vasudeva), there are elements of polemics with his predecessors, but they serve only as a stylistic device for presenting certain traditional views, i.e. Kautilya's opponents are fictional. Other texts that can be used as a basis for studying ancient Indian thought (dharmashastras) are attributed to mythical sages who claimed that they were not expressing their own thoughts, but were presenting the absolute truth.

The speaker stressed that the ancient Indian treatises describe the ideal of society and state structure, which is obviously unattainable, because we live in the "black age", Kali-yuga, when humanity has deteriorated. It did not coincide with the utopian ideas of European thinkers and was not a proposal for a rational structure of the state. In this sense, the ancient Indian treatises on artha and dharma cannot be considered political literature , but rather a supertheory. The "historical examples" sometimes given in treatises were always taken from legends and epics, from mythology, but never from real history. Despite the considerable variety of formulations of the ancient Indians concerning society and the state, it cannot be said that two or more "schools" were formed - analyzing different statements in the same treatise, one can distinguish "mystical" and "rationalistic" tendencies, one can also find a certain evolution in views. There is a noticeable difference in the approaches of the Brahmin, Buddhist and Jain sages, but at the same time they were not opposed to each other. For the Indians themselves, these contradictions and this evolution were insignificant: different approaches seemed to complement each other, applied situationally, depending on the specific issue under consideration. As a result, studying ancient sources to find out the degree of sacredness of royal power as it was understood in real life, it is very difficult to clarify this issue.

page 170

L. B. Alaev drew attention to the fact that the idea of the divinity of the royal power and the personality of the ruler is present in writings since ancient times and in a later period, but the final deification did not occur. The king, having ascended the throne, became "one of the gods" or absorbed the qualities of several gods: his "approach" to the world of gods, identification with them took place through a series of rituals. So, the rite of passage (rajasuya, literally, "birth of the king") lasted more than a year and consisted of a series of sacrifices that made the king "look like" one of the gods. He was identified with Indra, Prajapati; He took three steps on the skin of a tiger, just as Vishnu covered the entire visible and invisible world with three steps. The chief priest said to the gods:"The one who is initiated has great power; he is now one of you; you must protect him." In the Middle Ages, rajasuya was replaced by abhisheka, i.e. "anointing", but retained its original magical meaning. For example, the Kushans who ruled in Northern India (1st century BC - 3rd century AD) adopted the title "son of the gods" (devaputra).

The complete sacralization of royal power was hindered by the fact that the concept of divinity was very widespread: brahman was also declared a god on earth; ascetics were equated with the gods. Even in the Middle Ages, Buddhist thought was still alive, rejecting the divinity of the king. Bana, a Buddhist poet at the court of Harsha (seventh century), declared that the divinity of royal power is a concoction of flatterers, designed for weak and stupid monarchs, but unable to deceive the strong and wise. The king was not considered a lawgiver - his duties included protecting his subjects from invasions, maintaining law and order and the structure of society-varnasramadharma . He was also ordered to protect the family, punish adultery, and ensure a fair distribution of inheritance. Also, the king's first duty was to maintain the brahmanas and temples.

According to the speaker, despite the constant political fragmentation, this did not prevent the emergence of the idea that an ecumenical sovereign is possible, who will unite the entire earth under his power. This idea originated originally in Buddhist literature: from time to time, great rulers could be born who were destined to conquer all of Jambudvila (the sacred name of India, which in this context is understood as the whole world), to become chakravartins , rulers of the four cardinal directions. If the king fulfilled his duties, took care of everyone, he received a magic wheel (chakra), which rolls in all directions of the world, and all sovereigns obey not power, but righteousness. This wheel is not inherited, as each king must earn it himself. The medieval work Lekhapaddhati mentions six chakravartins in the past. Flatterers in the courts sometimes referred to their master as the"seventh chakravartin."

In the Middle Ages, the theme of sacralization of the ruler is further developed. L. B. Alaev noted that this can be learned not so much from theoretical texts, but from inscriptions that contain panegyrics of the dynasty and specific sovereigns. True, the sacralization of power also developed in the opposite direction-the deliberate removal of the tsar to the ground. A number of dynasties declared this or that god to be the real ruler and at the same time explained that they themselves simply rule on his behalf, fulfill his will. The symbolic center of power was the temple, where the ruler received "instructions". An example is the Eastern Ganges in Orissa.

According to L. B. Alaev, the deification of the king was also hindered by the fact that from the first centuries AD in Hinduism the main ritual is puja, i.e. courting the statue of the god. For example, certain rituals were performed - they woke him up in the morning, performed morning hygiene procedures on him, fed him, put him to bed. Since God was present on earth, the king could not be taken to heaven. In real life, the increase in the role of rulers was expressed in the multiplication and devaluation of titles that are assigned to certain sovereigns. Raja was already understood as a dependent ruler, a vassal prince, and maharaja-as the same ruler, subordinate to someone else. Only maharajadhiraja ("the great king of kings") could claim independence. And if the ruler won several victories and expanded the boundaries of his state, then he was perceived as maharajadhiraja paramabhattaraka paramesvara ("great king over kings, supreme sage, supreme ruler"). Due to the enlargement of states , the concept of chakravartin also gained popularity, as a result, many rulers appeared who claimed this title.

A. L. Ryabinin, concluding the seminar, expressed the opinion that the reports read helped not only to highlight the topic of sacralization in a number of Asian cultures, but also allowed us to take a fresh look at the issue of power in the East.

Permanent link to this publication: