| This article is part ofa series on |
| Conservatism in Russia |
|---|
|
Literature |
Moscow, third Rome (Russian:Москва — третий Рим;Moskva, tretiĭ Rim) is a theological and political concept assertingMoscow as the successor toancient Rome, with theRussian world carrying forward the legacy of theRoman Empire. The term "third Rome" refers to a historical topic of debate inEuropean culture originating in Eastern Orthodox circles: the question of the successor city to the "first Rome" (Rome, within theWestern Roman Empire) and the "second Rome" (Constantinople, within theEastern Roman Empire).
"Moscow,Third Rome" is a theological and a political concept which was formulated in the 15th–16th centuries in theTsardom of Russia.[1][unreliable source?]
In this concept, the following interpenetrating fields of ideas can be found:
After the fall ofTǎrnovo to theOttoman Turks in 1393, a number ofBulgarian clergymen sought shelter in the Russian lands and transferred theidea of the Third Rome there, which eventually resurfaced inTver, during the reign ofBoris of Tver, when the monk Foma (Thomas) of Tver had writtenThe Eulogy of the Pious Grand Prince Boris Alexandrovich in 1453.[2][3]
Within decades after thecapture of Constantinople byMehmed II of theOttoman Empire on 29 May 1453, some Eastern Orthodox people were nominatingMoscow as the "Third Rome", or the "New Rome".[4]
TheTurkscaptured Constantinople in 1453 and the fortress ofMangup – the last fragment of theEmpire of Trebizond and thus the Byzantine Empire – fell at the end of 1475. Even before the fall of Constantinople, theEastern OrthodoxSlavic states in theBalkans had fallen under Turkish rule. The fall of Constantinople caused tremendous fears, many considered the fall of Constantinople as a sign theEnd time was near (in 1492 it was 7000Anno Mundi); others believed that the emperor of theHoly Roman Empire (although he was aRoman Catholic) now took the place of the emperors of Constantinople. There were also hopes that Constantinople would be liberated soon. Moreover, theEastern Orthodox Church was left without its Eastern OrthodoxBasileus. Therefore, the question arose of who would become the newbasileus. At the end of the various"Tales" about the fall of Constantinople, which gained great popularity inMoscow, it was directly stated that theRus' people would defeat theIshmaelites (Muslims) and their king would become thebasileus in theCity of Seven Hills (Constantinople). TheGrand Prince of Moscow remained the strongest of the Eastern Orthodox rulers;Ivan III marriedSophia Paleologue,broke his formal subordination to theGolden Horde (already divided into severalTatar kingdoms) in 1480. All of this strengthened Moscow's claims to primacy in the Eastern Orthodox world. However, the liberation of Constantinople was still far away — theMoscow State had no opportunity to fight theOttoman Empire.[5]
At the end of the 15th century, the emergence of the idea that Moscow is truly a new Rome can be found;[5] the whole idea of Moscow as third Rome could be traced as early as 1492, whenMetropolitan of MoscowZosimus expressed it.Metropolitan Zosima, in a foreword to his work of 1492Presentation of thePaschalion (Russian:"Изложение пасхалии"),[1] quite clearly expressed it, callingIvan III "the new TsarConstantine of the newcity of Constantine — Moscow."[5][6] This idea is best known in the presentation of the monkPhilotheus of the early 16th century:[7][8][9]
So know, pious king, that all the Christian kingdoms came to an end and came together in a single kingdom of yours,two Romes have fallen, the third stands, and there will be no fourth [emphasis added]. No one shall replace your Christian Tsardom according tothe great Theologian [cf.Revelation 17:10] [...].
The Moscow scholars explained the fall of Constantinople as thedivine punishment for thesin of theUnion with the Catholic Church, but they did not want to obey the Patriarch of Constantinople, although there were no unionist patriarchs since the Turkish conquest in 1453 and the first Patriarch since then,Gennadius Scholarius, was the leader of the anti-unionists. At the next synod,held in Constantinople in 1484, the Union was finally declared invalid. Having lost its Christianbasileus after the Turkish conquest, Constantinople as a center of power lost a significant part of its authority. On the contrary, theMoscow rulers soon began to consider themselves realTsars (this title was already used byIvan III), and therefore according to them the center of the Eastern Orthodox Church should have been located in Moscow, and thus the bishop of Moscow should become the head of the Orthodoxy.[5] The text of the bishop's oath in Muscovy, edited in 1505–1511, condemned the ordination of metropolitans in Constantinople, calling it "the ordination in the area of godlessTurks, by the pagan[a]tsar."[10]
Stirrings of this sentiment began during the reign ofIvan III of Russia, who styled himselfCzar (cf.Caesar), who had marriedSophia Paleologue. Sophia was a niece ofConstantine XI, the lastByzantine emperor. By the rules and laws ofinheritance followed by most Europeanmonarchies of the time, Ivan could claim that he and his offspring were heirs of thefallen empire, but the Roman traditions of the empire had never recognized automatic inheritance of the Imperial office.[11]
It was also Sophia's brother,Andreas Palaiologos, who held the rights of succession to the Byzantine throne. Andreas died in 1502, having sold his titles and royal and imperial rights toFerdinand II of Aragon andIsabella I of Castile, who would not act on them. A stronger claim was based on religious symbolism. TheOrthodox faith was central to Byzantine notions of their identity and what distinguished them from "barbarians". As the preeminent Orthodox nation following the Byzantine collapse, Moscow would view itself as the empire's logical successor:
"Theliturgical privileges that the Byzantine emperor enjoyed carried over to the Muscovite tsar. In 1547, for instance, whenIvan IV was crowned tsar, not only was heanointed as the Byzantine emperor had been after the late twelfth century, but he was also allowed to communicate in thesanctuary with the clergy."[12]
DuringEcumenical Patriarch Jeremias II's visit to Moscow in 1588-9 "to collect funds to assist the [Eastern] Orthodox communities living in the Ottoman Empire",[13] Jeremias recognized in 1589 the Metropolitan of Moscow aspatriarch.[14] This recognition was "a victory for those who saw Moscow as the Third Rome."[13]
Shortly beforeJoseph II inherited the States of the House of Austria, he traveled to Russia in 1780. In her conversations with him,Catherine II made it clear that she would renew the Byzantine empire and to use her one-year-old grandsonKonstantin asEmperor of Constantinople. The guest tried to suggest to the host that he could be held harmless in thePapal States.[15]
TheRussian world isecclesiastical in its form, butgeopolitical in its essence; it is a concept that was put forward in a keynote speech on November 3, 2009, byPatriarch Kirill (Gundyayev) of Moscow which he described as a "common civilisational space" of countries sharingEastern Orthodoxy,Russian culture andlanguage, and a commonhistorical memory.[16][17] The "Russian world" under the Patriarch Kirill focused only on the EasternSlavic countries ofEastern Europe; that is, onUkraine andBelarus, while leading theRussian Orthodox Church to isolate itself.[18]
В «Изложении пасхалии» митрополит провозглашает Москву новым К-полем, Московского вел. князя именует «государем и самодержцем всея Руси, новым царем Константином новому граду Константинову Москве, и всей Русской земле, и иным многим землям государем».
That is why we consider the theory definitively formulated by Philotheus to occupy a central place in Muscovite ideology: it forms the core of the opinions developed by the Muscovites about their fatherland and erects them into a doctrine.
