ABSTRACT
COMMENTARY 39 Moscow as the Third Rome (ref. Chap. 6, p. 209, n. I) By the end of the sixteenth century the view that Moscow had succeeded Constantinople as the centre of Orthodoxy, thus becoming 'the Third Rome', and that the Tsars were the rightful heirs of the Byzantine Emperors, was widely held in Russia (cf. N. F. Kapterev, Khara1cter otnosheniy Rossii le Pravoslavnomu Vosto1cu v XVI i XVII stol.:J 2nd ed., Sergiyev Posad, 1914, pp. 349 ff. Fora more recent discussion, see Vernadsky,RDMA, pp. 169-70 ). The theory of Moscow as the Third Rome was first formulated by Abbot Filofei in his letter to Vasili III in 1510. In Vernadsky's view 'Filofei's theory has been grossly misunderstood'. It has been interpreted in the sense of Moscow's desire to dominate the world, whereas Filofei wrote in an eschatological connotation. As the first two Romes had been destroyed, Moscow remained the sanctuary of Orthodox Christianity, and the Grand Duke of Moscow was the only remaining Orthodox Christian ruler in the world. It fell to him to guard the last abode of the Orthodox Christian Church and to make Russia a truly Christian power. Our text indicates that by the final quarter of the century, the theory of the Third Rome had already attained political and, indeed, wide imperial significance, in the mind of an Orthodox Christian prince like Alexander of Kakheti. For a modern Russian interpretation, omitted from V ernadsky' s bibliographical note, see Dmitri Obolensky, 'Russia's Byzantine heritage' in OSP, Vol. I, 1950, pp. 36--61. Again, B. H. Sumner (OSP, Vol. 11, 195 I, 'Russia and Europe', p. 7), who considers that Muscovy was 'a state imbued with powerful national feelings, but little influenced in politics or diplomacy by the messianic mirage of
