This article explores the Russian Revolution, not in a narrow sense (as an event of the early 20th century, mainly covering the period from 1905 to 1921/1922) but in a broad temporal and socio-cultural perspective, as a process that began in the second half of the 1850s and transformed all aspects of social life. The author focuses on the theme of «revolution and power». Assuming that the Russian case is only an element of a larger process of a «triumphant march» of the European revolution, the author offers the analysis of the subject matter through a double lens: from the perspective of a temporal conflict (the clash of autocracy and «Modernity») and the fate of European monarchies in the 19th – early 20th centuries. A whole succession of the revolutions sweeping Europe in the 19th century required a new power formula as traditional monarchies no longer corresponded to the times. The author examines the last three tsardoms as a contradictory, internally conflictual, yet comprehensive story of how «old regimes» come to an end. It is a refrain of European events, and also, to a large extent, an autonomous story. Autocracy, holding a monopoly on both reform and reaction, initiated changes – to modernize («ameliorate») the country, maintain a position among major European powers, and continue shaping the European agenda. However, unexpectedly, it found itself facing a revolution at home and entered the struggle against it. Unleashed was not only political reaction but also ideological innnovations – the notion of constitutionalism was challenged by the concept of «popular autocracy». Refusing to be abolished, the ruling power appealed to national distinctiveness, «inventing» the respective tradition. Renewal through external archaization, demonstration of its non-European traits – all this conforms to the search for a national style in culture and conservative philosophers' reflections on how to restrain the negative consequences of Modernity. Yet, resisting the times, autocrats remained proponents of a course that objectively led to the «cancellation» of autocracy. A new country emerged in the crucible of industrialization, urbanization and cultural transformations, and governing it autocratically became impossible. In 1905, the Tsarist regime was forced to acknowledge this, though internally it never fully accepted it – this is the essence of Nicholas II's personal drama. It turned out that its trajectory was not towards «popular autocracy» but towards the «popular monarchy».
revolution; Europe; Ancient regime; Nicholas II; image; temporality; «invented » tradition; «popular autocracy»; «popular monarchy».