“...So, having stopped speaking about all this, let’s say a few words about the present glorious reign of our most luminous and most high-throne sovereign, who in all the heavens alone is for Christians the king and ruler of the holy thrones of God, the holy universal apostolic church, which arose instead of the Roman and Constantinople and existing in the God-saved city of Moscow, the Church of the holy and glorious Dormition of the Most Pure Mother of God, which alone in the universe shines more beautifully than the sun. So know, lover of God and lover of Christ, that all Christian kingdoms have come to an end and converged in the single kingdom of our sovereign, according to the prophetic books, this is the Roman kingdom: for two Romes have fallen, and the third stands, and there will not be a fourth. Many times the Apostle Paul mentions Rome in his epistles; the interpretations say: “Rome is the whole world.” After all, the word of blessed David has already been fulfilled in the Christian church: “This is my rest forever and ever, here I will dwell, as I desired.” According to the great Theologian: “A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and a child in her arms, and immediately a serpent came out of the abyss, having seven heads and seven crowns on his heads, and wanted to devour the child of this woman. And the wings of a great eagle were given to the woman so that she would run into the desert, and then the serpent poured out water from his mouth like a river, so that he could drown her in the river.” Unbelief is called water; you see, chosen one of God, how all the Christian kingdoms are flooded by infidels, and only our sovereign kingdom stands alone by the grace of Christ. The king should rule it with great care and turn to God, not rely on gold and temporary wealth, but trust in God, who gives everything. And the stars, as I said before, will not help in anything, they will not add or subtract. For the Supreme Apostle Peter says in his conciliar Epistle: “One day before the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like one day - the Lord will not delay the reward that He promised, and endures for a long time, never wanting to destroy, wanting to bring everyone to repentance.” " You see, lover of God, that in his hands is the breath of all things, for he says: “Once again I will shake not only the earth, but also the sky.” And since the apostles were not yet ready, he did not order them to delve into it beyond their strength: The theological confidant in his “Revelation” says: “In the last times, being saved, save your soul, so that we do not die a second death, in fiery hell,” but let us turn to the Lord Almighty for salvation, with sincere prayers and zealous tears, let us cry before him, so that he may have mercy, turn away his wrath from us, and have mercy on us, and make us worthy to hear his sweet, blessed and longed-for voice: “Come, blessed ones, inherit the kingdom of the Father prepared for you mine before the creation of the world."
Live, saved and healthy, in Christ.”
CONTEXT. In 1472, Ivan III entered into a second marriage with the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, Sophia Paleologus. Having become the husband of Sophia, Ivan of Moscow began to lay claim to the role of successor to the glorious Byzantine emperors. Byzantine royal vestments, symbols and lavish rituals spread to the Moscow court. Subsequently, under Vasily III, the ideology of the Moscow autocracy took shape in the idea of “Moscow - the third Rome.”
The Byzantine capital of Constantinople was considered the second Rome in Rus'. The Pskov monk Philotheus called Moscow the successor of Byzantium. In his messages, Philotheus saw Muscovite Rus' as the patroness of all Orthodox peoples, especially since, according to the Union of Florence in 1439, the Byzantine emperor and part of the Byzantine clergy recognized the supremacy of the Pope in church affairs. In Rus', the Union of Florence was not immediately recognized. It was since 1439 that the Russian Orthodox Church itself elected metropolitans at its councils. In fact, the Russian metropolitanate became autocephalous, i.e. independent from Constantinople. However, “de jure” it was part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In 1453, Constantinople was captured by the Turks. The Empire has fallen.
Philotheus believed that Orthodoxy contained the strength of Muscovite Rus'. The elder wrote that the first Rome fell, destroyed by heresies; the second Rome - Constantinople (personifying Byzantium) fell from a union with the Catholic Church; “The third is standing, but the fourth will not exist.”
Composed at the beginning of the 16th century. “The Legend of the Princes of Vladimir” traced the genealogy of the Rurikovichs to the Roman Emperor Augustus. The power of the Grand Duke of Moscow was thought of as power from God. It is no coincidence that when Ivan III received foreigners in the Kremlin in 1488, he proudly declared: “We are sovereigns by the grace of God, from our first ancestors.”
Full test of Philofey's messages (introduction, original, parallel, translation) on the website of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) RAS http://lib.pushkinskijdom.ru/Default.aspx?tabid=5105
The messages of Elder Philotheus were sent from the Spaso-Eliazarovsky Monastery.
“MOSCOW - THE THIRD ROME” - a theory that outlines the co-dimensionality of the relocation of a political and religious center of the right-to-glory of the world into the Russian state.
The main principles of the forms of the Fi-lo-fe-em, mo-na-hom of the Spa-so-Elea-za-rov-skogo monastery, in its -sla-nii (around 1523 - no later than 1524) clerk of the Grand Duke of Moscow Va-sily III Ivan-no-vi-cha in Pskov M.G . Mu-ne-hi-nu. Po-sla-nie with-der-sting-lo, in part-st-no-sti, op-ro-ver-same fore-telling of the new All-world somehow in February 1524. A number of studies show the results of the theory “Moscow is the third Rome” in “Iz-lo-zhe-nii pas-kha-lia” (1492) by Metropolitan Mo -from-cov-sko-go and all Ru-si Zo-si-we, but in it the author does not go beyond the ut-ver-expectation of the pre-em- st-ven-no-sti Mo-sk-you from-no-she-niy to Kon-stan-ti-no-po-lyu.
The theory of Philo-fey arose in the conditions of revitalization of diplomatic contacts between the Russian state and the Holy Roman Empire -ri-ey, the Holy Pre-table in Rome, Kon-stan-ti-no-Polish pat-ri-ar-ha-tom, in the background of a wide-spread le-mi-ki of the right-glorious churches-acts against la-tin-st-va and the pre-speaking European as-t-ro-lo -talk about the imminent end of the world, the continuation of the struggle of the Russian Church for full auto-ke-fa-lia and the debate about the Tsar Ti-tu-le of the Russian mo-nar-kha, who was called to represent his non-vi-si-si-most from the right -ley of states - after the Golden Horde and a special role in the right-glorious world. The latter was connected with the fact that after the pas-de-nya of Byzantium (1453), the Russian state by the beginning of the 16th century was a unified state by the not-behind-the-right-glorious state. At this time, a number of major literary works arose, similar in ideological content (Russian chronograph, “ The story of the white clo-bu-ke").
In accordance with the theory of the “Third Rome”, the Russian state and its capitals became after them (“the fourth wouldn’t be”) earthly incarnation “not-ru-shi-mo” of the Roman-tsar-st-va (su-s-st- in-va-lo from the time of the coming of Jesus Christ and his appearance after-the-va-te-lei), i.e. that is, according to the thought of Philo-fey, incarnating the spirits of the Christian “kingdom”, under some -an unspecified function that has no spatial location and no transfer moving from one of its own no-si-te-la to another in conjunction with the theory of “per-re-no-sa im-pe” -rii" (“translatio imperii”; goes back, in part, to the Book of the Pro-ro-ka of Da-nii-la).
Fi-lo-fey marked the stages and ve-hi of the world is-to-rii, op-re-de-lil the place of the Russian state and the Russian Church in it. In his opinion, the first stage was completed by pas-de-ni-em of Ancient Rome because of the “Apol-li-na-rie-voy heresy” (Apol- li-na-ri-an-st-va) and from-pa-de-ni-em la-ti-nyan from the right faith, which Fi-lo-fey connected with the era of Charles I Ve-li-ko-go (em-pe-ra-tor in 800-814 years) and Pope of Rome For-mo-za (891-896 years).
The second stage was completed by the Ferraro-Flo-ren-Tiy council (1439), the decisions of which Fi-lo-fey considered from my right-to-glory, which led to the fall of the “Second Rome” - Kon-stan-ti-no-po-la (1453), not us-yav-she-go under uda-ra-mi aga-ryan (os-ma-nov).
The third, current, stage (“Third Rome”) ha-rak-te-ri-zu-et-sya per-re-me-sche-ni-em “Ro-mei-sko-go king” -st-va" into the Russian state (with a capital in Moscow and the main throne - the Dormition Council of the Moscow Kremlin) la), which is perceived as a guarantor of “standing”, and subsequently the embodiment of Christianity tsar-st-va and op-lot of the true faith, and the Grand Duke of Moscow - as “the king of all Christians.” After-the-li-tical non-za-vi-si-mo-sti of the Byzantine im-per-ri-ee and all the previously su-s-st-vo-vav -shi-mi right-of-glorious-tsar-st-va-mi their fate would not have united at the meta-historical level (“dream-to-sha- Xia") in the "Third Rome" (Russian state).
On this basis, the Russian Church appears as the successor to the one Christian Church of the first 8 centuries of its existence -st-vo-va-niya, under-black-ki-va-et-its special status in conjunction with the Byzantine concept “sim” -fo-nii" authorities. Fi-lo-fey dek-la-ri-ro-val loyalty to the all-len-right-to-glory in the form in which it exists wa-lo before the division of the church, and in the form in which it was accepted in Eastern Christianity.
With the Po-sla-ni-em of Fi-lo-fairy, 2 more anonymous so-chi-ne-nies were inter-re-cli-ka. The first co-chi-non-nie “The message to the Tsar and the great prince Va-si-liy Iva-no-vi-chu” (“The message about the sign of the cross") (no later than 1526) was on-pi-sa-but with the aim of awakening church and secular authorities (pre-all-great-prince-zya) to the designation of the new-city-ar-hi-episco-pa (established in 1526) , however, soon the memory of the practical purpose of the co-chi-non-niya was in the morning. At the same time, his author’s idea about the destruction of the world’s mo-narchy as a consequence of the departure from the use of teen faith (goes back to the Word of Bishop Ip-po-li-ta of Rome at the end of the 2nd - beginning of the 3rd centuries about the anti-Christ). The author of the second work “On the grievances of the Church” (1530-1540s) questioned the strength of the “standing of the Third Ri-ma" because of the cleverness of living in the Russian state without-law and untruth; omitted the conclusion of Fi-lo-fey that “the fourth Ri-mu would not exist.”
After the establishment of the pat-ri-ar-she-st-va (1589) and the final establishment of the Russian av-to-ke-fa-lia the church was os-lab-le-na an-ti-gree-che-skaya on-rightness of the idea of the “Third Rome”. Officially, but she was found in the Ulo-zhen-noy gram-mo-te of 1589, in which she was represented mainly according to “According to the Tsar…”, one-on-one in the gram-mo-te from-sut-st-vo-va-li-ver-expectations about “pa-de-nii” Kon-stan-ti-no-Polish church and that the Russian church exists instead of the Roman and Kon-stan-ti-no-Polish . The idea of moving a meta-historical center to the Russian state for all those who have lost out-of-vi-si-si the majority of the right-glorious states, the unity of the Russian and Greek kingdoms was confirmed, embodied in a joint action.
In the middle - second half of the 17th century, the theory of “Moscow is the third Rome” (including the idea of “transla-tio imperii”) was developed by Ar-se-ni-em Su -ha-new, who developed the idea that “everything good” came to Russia from the Greeks, and completed the theory “Moscow is the third Rome confirms that Rus' has received Baptism from St. Apostle An-d-ray First-called. At the same time, Ig-na-tiy (Kor-sa-kov) adopted the concept of “Rome-kingdom” and “Greek-kingdom” -in" as si-no-nyms, and the meaning, the original contribution to the theory, was lost. The ideas of “Moscow - the third Rome” found wide distribution in the old ritual es-ha-to-logia.
Along with the theory “Moscow is the third Rome” in the 17th century, ideas appeared that were not external to it, but from in essence. They are mainly external in nature: substantiating the strengthening of the role of the Russian state and Moscow in the right -in-the-glorious-world, ut-ver-expectation-of-the-spirit-of-the-succession-of-the-Christian-of-the-Vos-ka and pe -re-but-si-myh in Moscow Christian shrines, preserving the purity of Greek right-of-glory.
The theory “Moscow is the third Rome” found its basis in the works of Russian philosophers of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, especially in V.S. . So-lov-yo-va and N.A. Ber-dyae-va.
Historical sources:
Dya-ko-nov M. A. The power of Moscow's go-su-da-rays: An essay from the history of the political ideas of ancient Russia to the end -tsa XVI century St. Petersburg, 1889;
Ma-li-nin V.N. Elder Elea-za-ro-va mo-na-sta-rya Fi-lo-fey and his words. K., 1901;
Ki-ril-lov I. The Third Rome: An Essay on the Is-to-ri-che-development of the idea of the Russian Mes-sia-nis-ma. M., 1914;
Cap-te-rev N. F. Harak-ter from Russia to the right-glorious East in the 16th and 17th centuries . 2nd ed. Ser-gi-ev Po-sad, 1914;
Additional literature:
Medlin W. K. Moscow and East Rome. Gen., 1952. Westport, 1992;
Schaeder H. Moskau das Dritte Rom. Darmstadt, 1957;
Lurie Y. S. About the emergence of the theory “Moscow - Third Rome” // Works from the ancient Russian -te-ra-tu-ry. M.; L., 1960. T. 16;
Mas-len-ni-ko-va N. N. On the history of the creation of the theory “Moscow - Third Rome” // Ibid. M.; L., 1962. T. 18;
Hösch E. Zur Re-zeption der Rom-Idee im Rußland des 16. Jahr-hunderts // Forschungen zur osteuro-päischen Geschichte. Wiesbaden, 1978. Bd 25;
Goldberg A.L. The idea of “Moscow - the Third Rome” in the cycle of the first century in the 16th century. // Works from the ancient Russian li-te-ra-tu-ry. L., 1983. T. 37;
Atte del I-V Seminario… “Da Roma alla terza Roma.” Napoli; Roma, 1983-1998. Vol. 1-5;
Nit-sche P. Translatio imperii? Beobachtungen zum historischen Selbstver-ständ-nis im Moskauer Zartum um die Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts // Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas. 1987. Bd 35. H. 3;
Rendiconti dell’ X-XIII Se-mi-na-rio “Da Roma alla terza Roma.” Roma, 1991-2002. Vol. 1-4;
The idea of Rome in Moscow in the 15th-16th centuries: research on the history of Russian social thought. Roma, 1993;
Raba J. Moscow - the Third Rome or the New Jerusalem? // Forschungen zur osteu-rop ̈ais-chen Geschichte. Wiesbaden, 1995. Bd 50;
Uspensky B.A. Selected works. 2nd ed. M., 1996. T. 1.
Moscow - The Third Rome - the idea of God's chosenness of the Russian people and the Russian state, their central place in the history of Western civilization, the leading role of Orthodoxy in the preservation of moral, universal Christian values against the background of Catholic, Protestant Europe, which has lost or is losing these values, mired in sin and unbeliefAfter the fall of the “second Rome” - Constantinople, the “third Rome” - Moscow imagined itself as the only refuge in the world of right faith and true piety. At that time, Orthodox Rus' considered itself the only owner of Christ and Christianity; She despised the Greeks, and put heterodox religions on the same level as paganism. In the words of V. O. Klyuchevsky, the organic vice of the ancient Russian church society was that “it considered itself the only true believer in the world, its understanding of the Divine was exclusively correct, it represented the Creator of the universe as its own Russian God, who belonged to no one else and was unknown” ( E. N. Trubetskoy “On the Christian attitude to modern events”)
The history of the proclamation of Moscow as the third Rome
The theory that proclaimed Rus', Muscovy, and its capital Moscow as the political and religious center of Europe arose in the 16th century during the reign of Russia by the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan the Third (1440-1505), when Russian society finally got rid of, expanded its borders, and organized itself into a strong, extensive , a centralized, confidently governed state. The subjective fact of the proclamation of Moscow as the third Rome was the marriage of Ivan III to the Byzantine princess, niece of the last Byzantine emperor Sophia Paleologus.
Feeling himself in a new position and still next to such a noble wife, the heiress of the Byzantine emperors, Ivan found the previous Kremlin environment in which his undemanding ancestors lived cramped and ugly. ... Craftsmen were sent from Italy who built the new Assumption Cathedral, the Chamber of Facets, and a new stone palace on the site of the former wooden mansion. A complex and strict ceremony began to take place at court. Since then, in Moscow government, especially diplomatic, papers, a new, more solemn language has appeared, and a magnificent terminology has developed, unfamiliar to the Moscow clerks of the appanage centuries. A whole political program (has appeared), characterizing not so much the actual as the desired situation. It is based on two ideas extracted by Moscow government minds from the events that took place: the idea of the Moscow sovereign as the national ruler of the entire Russian land and the idea of him as the political and church successor of the Byzantine emperors
The work of Moscow “political scientists” was then reduced to preparing evidence that Rus' really has the historical right to replace the Byzantine Empire, which fell under the blows of the Ottoman Turks in 1453, with authority, strength, and spirituality.
Moscow politicians of the early 16th century. Marital kinship with Byzantium was not enough: I wanted to become related by blood. A new genealogy of Russian princes appears in the Moscow chronicle, tracing their family directly from the Roman Emperor. Apparently, at the beginning of the 16th century, a legend was written that Augustus, the Caesar of Rome, the owner of the entire universe, when he began to become exhausted, divided the universe between his brothers, and planted his brother Prus on the banks of the Vistula River along the river called the Neman, which is still the case to this day. The land of Prussia is called after him, “and from Prus the fourteenth generation is the great sovereign Rurik.” Moscow diplomacy made practical use of this legend: in 1563, the boyars of Tsar Ivan (the Terrible) cited in the words of the chronicle this very genealogy of the Moscow Rurikovichs
(There was another fraud). Vladimir Monomakh was the son of the daughter of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Monomakh, who died more than 50 years before his grandson’s accession to the Kiev table. In the Moscow chronicle, compiled under Grozny, it is narrated that Vladimir Monomakh, having become a prince in Kyiv, sent his governor to Constantinople to fight this same Greek king Constantine Monomakh, who, in order to stop the war, sent a cross from the life-giving tree and a royal crown to Kyiv with the Greek metropolitan from his head, i.e. Monomakh's cap. The Metropolitan, in the name of his Tsar, asked the Prince of Kyiv for peace and love, so that all Orthodoxy would remain in peace “under the common authority of our kingdom and your great autocracy of the Great Rus.” The main idea of the legend: the significance of the Moscow sovereigns as church-political successors of the Byzantine kings is based on the joint rule of the Greek and Russian autocratic kings over the entire Orthodox world established under Vladimir Monomakh
And further. (There was) Byzantine news of the 14th century that the Russian Grand Duke held the rank of steward at the court of the Greek king, and Vasily the Dark in one letter to the Byzantine emperor called himself “the matchmaker of his holy kingdom.” Now, according to the Moscow theory of the 15th - 16th centuries. this steward and matchmaker of the universal king turned into his comrade, and then his successor
These ideas, on which Moscow political thought tried its hand for three generations, penetrated into thinking Russian society. The monk of one of the Pskov monasteries, Philotheus, hardly expressed only his personal thoughts when he wrote to the father of the Terrible (Vasily the Third, son of Ivan the Third) that all the Christian kingdoms came together in his one kingdom, that in the whole of heaven he was the only Orthodox sovereign, that Moscow was the third and the last Rome (Klyuchevsky “Course of Russian History”)
Authors of the concept “Moscow - the Third Rome”
-
Moscow Metropolitan Zosimus, in his 1492 charter “Exposition of Paschal,” gave a brief version of the events of Christian history: Constantine the Great founded New Rome, Vladimir the Holy baptized Rus', and now Ivan III is “the new Tsar Constantine to the new city of Constantine-Moscow.”
-
In the monument of ancient Russian literature of the 15th-16th centuries, “The Tale of the Novgorod White Cowl,” which was obtained in Rome by the Russian scientist and theologian Dmitry Gerasimov and sent its translation to the Novgorod archbishop, Rus' is described as the “Third Rome”
-
The monk, and possibly the abbot of the Pskov Eleazar Monastery, Philotheus, in a letter addressed to the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily III and written at the end of 1523 - beginning of 1524, declares Muscovite Rus' to be the true Rome as the only independent and impeccable Christian state and provides a political justification for the succession of imperial power from Rome to the new Rome - Constantinople - and further to Moscow: “Our Catholic Church in your sovereign kingdom alone now shines with piety in all the heavens more than the sun; all Orthodox kingdoms have gathered in one kingdom of yours; in all the earth you are the only Christian king” (E. N. Trubetskoy “On the Christian attitude to modern events”)
According to the Russian historian Professor N. S. Chaev (1897-1942), the theory of the Third Rome ideologically substantiated and justified the government's actions to create a strong centralized state; it was called upon to shape the ideological image of Moscow. In the sphere of domestic politics, the centralization of power in the hands of the autocratic tsar had an impact on social development as a whole. In the sphere of foreign policy, the creation of the Muscovite kingdom entailed the support of Eastern Christians, the colonization and Christianization of lands in the East and, finally, it gave greater weight to Moscow diplomats in their relations with Western countries
Criticism of the idea “Moscow is the Third Rome”
-
Thinker Vl. Soloviev drew attention to the fact that for Philotheus, Roman statehood retains its existence (“the Roman kingdom is indestructible”), and this prevents the consideration of the concept of “transfer of empire” ((translatio imperii), which in medieval Europe provided justification for the construction of new European monarchies as legally entitled heirs of the Roman Empire.
-
In our time, it has been established that in the most authoritative list of Philotheus’s message to Ivan the Third, it is not about the “Russian” or “Russian”, but about the “Roman” kingdom
-
According to N. Ulyanov (“The Philotheus Complex.” Journal “Questions of History.” 1994. No. 4. P. 152-162), the idea of Moscow - the third Rome is rooted not in the 16th century, but in the ideological and political climate of the reign of Alexander II , i.e. connected with the “Eastern question” and the development of Russian imperialism.
Further adventures of the “Moscow - Third Rome” doctrine
Moscow is the third Rome
The concept of “Moscow - the Third Rome” since the time of Ivan the Third and his immediate descendants has faded into oblivion and was resurrected only in the middle of the 19th century. For part of the Russian elite, it has become a “lifeline” in supporting national identity in the context of Russia’s clearly visible lag behind Europe in socio-economic and public relations. Capitalism was actively being built in the West, liberal ideas were gaining popularity, and science and technology were rapidly developing. Russia is frozen in feudalism. “So what,” they proclaimed, “let them have roads, warm closets, more order. But we, the Russians, are the Messiah people, the only people in the world, called to show salvation to the whole world, to establish the Kingdom of God on earth.”The authorities, the autocracy, were also not averse to using the formula “Moscow is the Third Rome.” She allowed those in power to assert that Russia has its own path in history, different from the European one, the values preached by the West, the ideas of freedom, equality, brotherhood of peoples, revolutionary actions in their defense and for the sake of their conquest, are not for her.
Nowadays, the “Moscow - Third Rome” doctrine is not used openly, but its ideas are alive and well. There is even an Orthodox portal of the same name
The then capital of the Bulgarian state.
Russian concept of the third Rome
The theory of “Moscow - the Third Rome” served as the semantic basis for messianic ideas about the role and significance of Russia, which developed during the rise of the Principality of Moscow. The Moscow Grand Dukes (who, starting with John III, claimed the royal title) were considered to be the successors of the Roman and Byzantine emperors.
The most authoritative and popular in historical science is the theory first substantiatedly stated in 1869 in the doctoral dissertation of V. S. Ikonnikov. According to this point of view, the concept of “Moscow - the third Rome” was first formulated in two messages at the end of 1523 - the beginning of the elder of the Pskov Eleazar Monastery Philotheus (the first, addressed to clerk Mikhail Grigorievich Misyur-Munekhin, is devoted to the problems of chronology and astrology; the second, addressed Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily III Ivanovich, - the correct performance of the sign of the cross and the problem of the spread of sodomy):
Elder Philotheus put the Moscow prince on a par with Emperor Constantine the Great, calling the latter the prince’s ancestor: “ Do not transgress, O Tsar, the commandments laid down by your ancestors - the great Constantine, and the blessed Saint Vladimir, and the great God-chosen Yaroslav and other blessed saints, whose roots are before you» .
The actual formulation of the idea of the third Rome is contained in the words:
« Yes, more Christ-loving and God-loving, as the entire Christian kingdom has come to an end and descended into a single kingdom of our sovereign, according to the prophetic books, that is, the Roman kingdom: two of Rome fell, and the third stands, and the fourth will not exist.<…>Yes, the news of your power, pious king, is that the entire kingdom of the Orthodox Christian faith has descended into your one kingdom: you are the only Christian king in all the heavenly realms<…>As above the writings, I say even now: watch and listen, O pious king, for the entire Christian kingdom has descended into yours as one, as two Romes have fallen, and a third stands, and there will not be a fourth. Your Christian kingdom will no longer remain, according to the great Theologian .»
Monomakh's hat
Along with this, there are other points of view about the time of genesis and authorship of the idea “Moscow - the third Rome”. In particular, the opinion that in fact the concept was first put forward somewhat earlier by Metropolitan Zosima in the preface to his work “Exposition of the Paschal” (1492), while Philotheus only “justified” it in accordance with the then prevailing worldview and the spiritual needs of society.
The political theory “Moscow - the Third Rome” is also substantiated by the legend of the late - early 16th centuries. about the Byzantine origin of the Monomakh cap, barma and many others (for example, “an ivory box that allegedly belonged to the Roman Caesars) sent by Emperor Constantine Monomakh to the Grand Duke of Kyiv Vladimir II Monomakh and a number of other texts. It is characteristic that in the Kyiv texts about these “gifts” there is no mention. Similarly, the “hat” is a product of a much later period, most likely Tatar work, on which the “apple and cross” appeared no earlier than the 16th century.
A radical criticism of the concept of the medieval origin of the theory “Moscow is the third Rome” was given by N. I. Ulyanov. According to his point of view, the political idea of Moscow as the third Rome in reality goes back to the socio-political discourse of the reign of Alexander II, that is, it is associated with the “eastern question” and the development of Russian imperialism of the New Age.
Article by E. Shmurlo from ESBE
The idea of Moscow as the Third Rome developed among the Russian people of the 16th century on the basis of political and religious views in connection with the phenomena of pan-European history.
Succession
His main idea is the succession of the Moscow sovereigns' inheritance of the Christian-Orthodox empire from the Byzantine emperors, who in turn inherited it from the Roman ones. The development of this idea can be presented as follows. The greatness of ancient Rome, the powerful growth and vast size of its territory, which included almost all the countries and peoples known to the world at that time, the high degree of culture and the successes of Romanization gave rise to among contemporaries the belief in the perfection and inviolability of the created order (Rome is the eternal city, urbs aeterna). Christianity, having adopted the idea of a single eternal empire from pagan Rome, gave it further development: in addition to political tasks, the new Christian empire, as a reflection of the kingdom of heaven on earth, set itself religious tasks; instead of one sovereign, two appeared - secular and spiritual. Both are connected by organically inextricable bonds; they do not exclude, but mutually complement each other, being both two halves of one indivisible whole. Yes, in an updated form sacred the Roman Empire revived the idea of the ancient world in the Middle Ages; pagan orbis terrarum turned into tota christianitas. On the question of who has the right to be the bearer of secular and spiritual power, disagreement arose: in Zap. Europe recognized the Roman (German) emperor and pope as such; in the Greek East - the Byzantine emperor and patriarch (more precisely: a council of clergy). Titles western And eastern empires are only a designation of real facts, but not ideological ones, because both empires considered only themselves to be united, universal, excluding the possibility of the existence of another. Hence the political and church split, the opposition of the Orthodox East to the Latin West. The Byzantine emperors saw in Charlemagne a rebel, a daring usurper; They did not recognize the rights to the imperial crown either for the Ottons or for the Hohenstaufens; the German-Roman world paid them in the same coin; parallel to this, representatives of the churches sent curses to one another. Both sides were sincerely convinced of their own justice and in this sense they educated people in their circle. Thus, the Catholic peoples accepted the idea that the Holy Roman Empire, with the pope and emperor at its head, is the real legitimate representative of the true kingdom on earth; The Orthodox peoples, on the contrary, saw in the Byzantine emperor their supreme head, and in the Patriarch of Constantinople, together with others, the true representative of the universal church.
Second Rome
Russia was also brought up under these latter views. Until the 15th century, she considered herself the obedient daughter of the Patriarch of Constantinople (Ecumenical), and in the Byzantine emperor she saw the supreme guardian of social truth. Constantinople became, in the eyes of the Russians, like a second Rome. Since the second half of the 15th century, a significant change has occurred in the views of Russian society. The Union of Florence (1439) fundamentally shook the authority of the Greek Church; the charm of Byzantium as the keeper of the covenants of Orthodoxy disappeared, and with it the right to political supremacy.
The theory of “Moscow - the Third Rome” served as the semantic basis for messianic ideas about the role and significance of Russia, which developed during the formation of the Russian centralized state. At the instigation of the Ukrainian historian Ikonnikov (who outlined it in 1869 in his doctoral dissertation), there has long been a firmly rooted version that this concept was explicitly formulated for the first time in the letters of the elder of the Pskov Elizarov Monastery Philotheus to the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily III Ivanovich. This version has firmly established itself in the mass consciousness and is reflected in works of art.
1. The essence of the concept “Moscow – the Third Rome”
The author of the theory, which went down in the history of political thought under the name “Moscow - the Third Rome,” was a Josephite in its ideological orientation. His teaching developed and clarified the main Josephite ideas about the nature of royal power, its purpose, relationships with subjects and the church organization.
Little is known about the author himself, the monk (or perhaps abbot) of the Pskov Elizarov Monastery Philotheos. He writes about himself, using the traditional self-deprecating formula: “a rural man, he studied letters, but he didn’t read Hellenic greyhounds, he didn’t read rhetorical astronomies, he didn’t have conversations with wise philosophers.” A note from a contemporary that has been preserved about him reports that Philotheus constantly lived in the monastery (“that old man never left the monastery”) and was an educated man (“we know the wisdom of words”). An unknown biographer also notes Philotheus’s courage and impartiality, thanks to which he “showed much boldness towards the sovereign... boyars and governors,” fearlessly denouncing their abuses. He formulated his political theory in letters to the Pskov governor M.G. Munekhin and Grand Dukes Vasily Ivanovich and Ivan Vasilyevich.
Filofey developed in most detail the question of the significance of legitimate royal power for the entire Russian land. In the Message to Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich, he traces the dynastic genealogy of the Russian princes to the Byzantine emperors, indicating to Vasily III that he should rule according to the commandments, the beginning of which was laid by the great great-grandfathers, among whom are called “the great Constantine... Blessed Saint Vladimir and the great and God’s chosen Yaroslav and others... their root is before you.”
Philotheus repeatedly refers to the description of the image of the holder of supreme power, resolving it traditionally. The king is strict towards everyone who deviates from the “truth”, but is caring and fair towards all his subjects; his duties include comforting “those who cry and cry out... to deliver the offended from the hand of those who offend.”
The high concept of royal power is confirmed by the demands of unconditional submission to it on the part of the subjects. According to Philotheus, all subjects make a vow to the sovereign to “do and keep the commandments in everything,” and if someone has to endure the “royal great punishment” in vain, then perhaps they can only express their sadness with “bitter groaning and true repentance.” . The duties of the sovereign include caring not only for his subjects, but also for churches and monasteries. Spiritual power is subordinated to secular power, however, with the right of spiritual shepherds to “speak the truth” to persons vested with high power. He, like his predecessors, insists on the need for legal forms of exercising power. So, he advises Ivan Vasilyevich to live righteously and make sure that his subjects live according to the laws.
Having remained faithful to Orthodoxy, Russia is invincible, it threw off the Tatar yoke, now successfully defends its borders and rises in the eyes of its contemporaries thanks to its successes in the diplomatic field. Philotheus compares the greatness and glory of Russia with the greatness and glory of Rome, and especially Byzantium, which in the eyes of all Russians was considered a great state. Its splendor, glory and power did not disappear, but transferred to the country led by the great Russian prince.
The main idea of the concept is the succession of the Moscow sovereigns' inheritance of the Christian-Orthodox empire from the Byzantine emperors, who in turn inherited it from the Roman ones. The development of this idea can be presented as follows. The greatness of ancient Rome, the powerful growth and vast size of its territory, which included almost all the countries and peoples known to the world at that time, the high degree of culture and the successes of Romanization gave rise to among contemporaries the conviction of the perfection and inviolability of the created order (Rome is the eternal city, urbs aeterna). Christianity, having adopted the idea of a single eternal empire from pagan Rome, gave it further development: in addition to political tasks, the new Christian empire, as a reflection of the kingdom of heaven on earth, set itself religious tasks; instead of one sovereign, two appeared - secular and spiritual. Both are connected by organically inextricable bonds; they do not exclude, but mutually complement each other, being both two halves of one indivisible whole. Thus, in the renewed form of the Holy Roman Empire, the idea of the ancient world was revived in the Middle Ages; the pagan orbis terrarum became tota christianitas. On the question of who has the right to be the bearer of secular and spiritual power, disagreement arose: in Western Europe the Roman (German) emperor and pope were recognized as such; in the Greek East - the Byzantine emperor and patriarch (more precisely: a council of clergy). The names of the Western and Eastern empires are only a designation of real facts, but not ideological ones, because both empires considered only themselves to be united, universal, excluding the possibility of the existence of another. Hence the political and church split, the opposition of the Orthodox East to the Latin West. The Byzantine emperors saw in Charlemagne a rebel, a daring usurper; They did not recognize the rights to the imperial crown either for the Ottons or for the Hohenstaufens; the German-Roman world paid them in the same coin; parallel to this, representatives of the churches sent curses to one another. Both sides were sincerely convinced of their own justice and in this sense they educated people in their circle. Thus, the Catholic peoples accepted the idea that the “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation,” with the Pope and Emperor at its head, was the real legitimate representative of the true kingdom on earth; The Orthodox peoples, on the contrary, saw in the Byzantine emperor their supreme head, and in the Patriarch of Constantinople, together with others, the true representative of the universal church.
Russia was also brought up under these latter views. Until the 15th century she considered herself the obedient daughter of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and in the Byzantine emperor she saw the supreme guardian of social truth. Constantinople became, in the eyes of the Russians, like a second Rome. Since the second half of the 15th century, a significant change has occurred in the views of Russian society. The Union of Florence (1439) fundamentally shook the authority of the Greek Church; the charm of Byzantium as the custodian of the covenants of Orthodoxy disappeared, and with it the right to political supremacy.
The subsequent fall of Constantinople (1453), understood as God's punishment for falling away from the faith, further strengthened the new view. But if the “Second Rome” perished, like the first, then the Orthodox kingdom did not perish with it, because it can never perish. Just because the vessel is broken, it does not follow that its contents also dry up: the truth stored in the vessel is immortal. God could allow the infidels to conquer the Greeks, but He would never allow the true faith to be wiped off the face of the earth and let the Latins or Ishmaelites triumph over it. Right faith is eternal, undying; If it runs out, then the world will end. But the world still exists, and therefore the broken vessel must be replaced with a new one in order to embody the eternal truth and again give it external forms of existence.
Moscow is such a new vessel, a new Third Rome - liberation from the Tatar yoke, the unification of scattered small fiefs into a large Moscow state; the marriage of Grand Duke John III to Sophia Palaeologus, the niece (and, as it were, heiress) of the last Byzantine emperor; successes in the East (the conquest of the kingdoms of Kazan and Astrakhan) - all this justified in the eyes of contemporaries the idea of Moscow’s right to such a role. On this basis, the custom of coronation of Moscow sovereigns, the adoption of the royal title and the Byzantine coat of arms, the establishment of the patriarchate, and the emergence of three legends arose:
a) about the barmas and the royal crown received by Vladimir Monomakh from the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Monomakh (official link in 1547);
b) about the origin of Rurik from Pruss, the brother of the Roman Caesar Augustus;
c) about the white hood: this hood, as a symbol of church independence, was presented by Emperor Constantine the Great to Pope Sylvester, and the latter’s successors, in the consciousness of their unworthiness, handed it over to the Patriarch of Constantinople; from him it passed to the Novgorod rulers, and then to the Moscow metropolitans.
The new position brought new obligations. Autocratic-tsarist, autocephalous-Orthodox Rus' must preserve the right faith and fight its enemies. In this direction, at one time it was supported by the Latin West itself: the popes tried to rouse the Moscow sovereigns against the Turks, promoting the idea that the Russian tsars were the legitimate heirs of Byzantium; Venice acted in the same spirit. The theory of the Third Rome until the end of the 17th century, namely before the wars with Turkey, did not leave the sphere of abstract issues: but even later it never received the character of a definite political program, although some reflection of it can be heard: a weaker one - in government statements during liberation wars between Russia and Turkey on the Balkan Peninsula, stronger in the views of the Slavophiles.