Three Romes in Russian political and cultural tradition: threat discourse and cultural transfer Текст научной статьи по специальности «История и археология»

РОССИЙСКАЯ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОСТЬ Russian Statehood

V.I. Ukolova and P.P. Shkarenkov

THREE ROMES

IN RUSSIAN POLITICAL AND CULTURAL TRADITION: THREAT DISCOURSE AND CULTURAL TRANSFER*

В.И. Уколова, П.П. Шкаренков

Три Рима в российской политико-культурной традиции: Дискурс угрозы и культурный трансфер

Перевод М.А. Царевой**

The Russian political tradition is not limited to the political sphere per se. It always permeates into the polyphonic space of culture, into the spheres of the artistic word's existence - poetry, literature, architecture, art, and mentality of the masses. Their interaction generates my-thologemes, forms systems of images, semiotic series and concepts, reveals the deeper meanings of the phenomena that ensure the stability of the state and society, and, at the same time, enshrines stereotypes of behaviour and response to situations that have a political connotation. The political and cultural aspects conjoin, forming a single political and cultural tradition. It is characterized by iterative semantic orientations, and one of the most persistent of them is continuous recurrence to the "Russia and Europe" range of issues that are of key importance for historical and present-day Russian self-identification. Instead, European civilization, in all its historical modifications, drew on the experience of Ancient Rome as its foundation. This was pointed out by Immanuel Kant: ".. .if we pursue down to our own times its influence upon the formation and malformation of the Roman People as a political body that swallowed up the Grecian state, and the influence of Rome upon the Barbarians by whom Rome itself was destroyed; ... we shall then discover a regular gradation of improvement in civil polity as it has grown up in our quarter of the

* Исследование выполнено за счет гранта Российского научного фонда (проект №17-78-30029). = The research was financed with a grant from the Russian Science Foundation (Project No. 17-78-30029).

** Translated by Marina A. Tsareva (Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow). 6

globe [Europe. - Authors.], which quarter is in all probability destined to give laws to all the rest.. Z'1

For European consciousness the Roman Empire was an example of civilized universalism, of opposition to barbarism and social chaos. In the Christian world, which grew from the Pax Romana, the image of Rome, the Eternal City, was also vested with special sacrality as the centre of establishment of the throne of St. Peter. To this day the Roman Empire, "resurrected" by Charlemagne, is at times perceived as the prototype of the European Union. Walter Schwimmer, former Secretary General of the Council of Europe, wrote: "This has parallels in the criteria governing European enlargement, in both the Council of Europe and the EU, i.e. 'acceptance' of certain basic values, including pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Above all, belonging to the Empire brought

security, enshrined in the Pax Romana."2

* * *

The Old Russian state emerged in a territory where there was no Roman presence, unlike Western Europe aforetime. The Primary Chronicle, however, uses Rome as an important spatial reference point when describing the settlement of the Slavs. And the legend of St. Andrew the First-Called, who visited the would-be centres of the future Old Russian state, mentions that his visit and apostolic prediction of Russia's glorious future happened when St. Andrew the First-Called was on his way to Rome, the centre of the emerging Christendom. Moreover, the apostle's recital of the Slavic lands was announced in Rome and astonished those who listened to it.3 Only after that St. Andrew the First-Called continued his travel eastward to Sinop. In the Chronicle Rome is used as a certain historical reference point and as confirmation that the described events really happened.

Old Russian statehood began to take shape in the 9th century. The landmarks are the year 862, when the Varangians were called to govern North Slavic lands, and the year 882, when Prince Oleg together with Rurik's little son Igor came from Novgorod to the banks of the Dnieper and established his authority in Kiev. This created a vast communication space stretching from Novgorod to Kiev, where a new political entity, the Old Russian state, started to take shape. It was the result of the state-forming processes that had evolved during the preceding centuries in the East Slavs' territories. The emergence of the Old Russian state fairly feeds into the general process of polytogenesis which took place in Europe in the early medieval period. In this process, three stages can be identified. The first stage, between the 5th and 7th centuries, was associated with the establishment of Roman barbarian kingdoms after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The second stage was marked by the political ambitions of the Carolingians. Charlemagne undertook the first "German unification of Europe". In 2000, Western Europe celebrated the

1200th anniversary of the coronation of Charlemagne as emperor, who was later proclaimed "the father of Europe". However, Europe's new imperial entirety was not preserved.

In 843, Charlemagne's grandchildren gathered in Verdun to partition the empire among them. On its debris there appeared the Kingdom of the West Francs and the Kingdom of the East Francs. The extensive strip of lands from the Netherlands to northern Italy went to the eldest grandson, Lothar, who inherited the title of Holy Roman Emperor. This laid the foundation of three future states - France, Germany and Italy. The fall of the Carolingian Empire signaled the transition to the third stage of early medieval polytogenesis pertaining to the emergence of a new generation of European states proper. In 835, the first Croatian state came into being; the year 842 saw the appearance of the Kingdom of Poland and the year 894, the Czech Kingdom. In the first third of the 9th century the AngloSaxon kingdoms united under the rule of the King of Wessex. In the 9th century, during the Reconquista, the Kingdom of Asturias, which had emerged back in the 8th century, became firmly established in the north of the Iberian Peninsula. On the eve of the 10th century there appeared the Hungarian state. The second half of the 9th century also saw the birth of the Old Russian state. A synchronous process of active polytogenesis is obvious, and the formation of the Old Russian state was an integral part of the process.

According to French historian Lucien Musset, "...Europe today still bears the imprint of that great creative period: it undoubtedly spawned as many states as the 19th and 20th centuries. In the very flexible framework that the then Christian world offered them, they could very quickly acquire the status of complete equality with the old kingdoms... And it was actually these young states, born in that period, that took on themselves and mitigated the shock from the next invasion, the Mongolian."4

Of great importance for the formation of Old Russian statehood was the fact that it evolved in the area of the powerful influence of the Eastern Roman Empire. This empire was the only immediate successor of Ancient Rome's historical experience which possessed indisputable rights of state, political, legal and cultural inheritance. It is no mere accident that Roman law was codified in the Eastern Roman Empire after the Western Roman Empire had fallen. Incidentally, beginning from the reign of Charlemagne, Europe had an increasing aspiration to catch up the right of "translatio imperii" from the Eastern Roman Empire. Charlemagne called the establishment of his state "renovatio imperii romanorum". And in 962, German King Otto I, supported by the Pope, proclaimed the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire. From the mid-l6th century, European scholars tried to bury in oblivion the name "Eastern Roman Empire", replacing it with the bookish construct "Byzantium".

So, from its very inception Old Russia inevitably had to come into contact and interact with the Roman civilization in its orientalized version. Some Western philosophers, political analysts and historians still

fault Russia for its "Byzantine heritage". For instance, the well-known British philosopher Arnold Toynbee wrote, "The Russians have incurred the hostility of the West through being obstinate adherents of an alien civilization, and... this Russian 'mark of the beast' was the Byzantine civilization of Eastern Orthodox Christendom."5

The fact that the rulers of the emerging Old Russian state were allured to Constantinople is quite understandable. At that time the Eastern Roman Empire was the best developed state, a country of very high culture. The magnificence of Eastern Rome was astounding and very attractive. The Primary Chronicle tells that the envoys of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich who attended a divine service in the Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople were utterly delighted: "We do not know whether we were in heaven or on the earth." The original desire of the Kiev princes was to enrich themselves by military campaigns on Constantinople. Princess Olga made an attempt to establish diplomatic relations with Constantinople at the state level. The choice of religion by Prince Vladimir determined Russia's historical path and civilizational peculiarity.

In the 10th century Christendom was not formally divided yet, though differences between the Western Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Constantinopolitan Church had a centuries-long prehistory. Nevertheless, "the Christian world" was conceived as a community of Christian nations. The Eastern Roman Empire positioned itself as the only preserver of true Orthodoxy, as the spiritual guide possessing the right to led the "Christian world", contraposing itself to papal Rome. Russia adopted Orthodox Christianity from Byzantium. Christianity of the Byzantine pattern was more in line with the Slavs' mentality and their psycho-emotional makeup. The adoption of Christianity stabilized Old Russian statehood and, in the long term, facilitated the unification of the nation. During the reign of Prince Vladimir it became obvious that Russia made an attempt to join in some way the Roman imperial tradition in its Eastern version. He entered a matrimonial alliance with Byzantine Porphyrogenitus Princess Anna. It was a great honour. For instance, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire Otto I failed to marry his son to a porphyrogenitus princess. He had to agree to a marriage of his son with a girl from a noble family who had only indirect relation to the imperial house. Having become a son-in-law of the Byzantine emperor, Vladimir dared to mint the gold solid, whereas none of the European sovereigns at that time minted gold coins. It was the Byzantine emperor's exclusive right. On the head side of the solid Vladimir was depicted wearing the Byzantine crown.

While for Prince Vladimir the priority was the union with Byzantium, his son, Yaroslav the Wise, successfully developed relations with many European states. He expanded Russia's contacts with the ruling houses of Europe. They were consolidated with dynastic marriages and marital unions with members of the most important European families. Take, for example, Yaroslav the Wise's daughters: Anna became a French queen,

Elizaveta married Norwegian King Harald Hardrade, and Anastasia was given in marriage to the Hungarian King. The Kiev Prince married his sister Maria to the Polish King, while his granddaughter Eupraxia (Adelgeida) married the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. The Kiev court constantly received ambassadors from different countries of the West and East. Actually, in those remote times Russia, having joined the "Christian world", defined its limits in the east of Europe, thus hereafter mapping its eastern geographic boundary.

At the same time, Yaroslav sought to strengthen his independence from Constantinople. He managed to secure that in 1051, for the first time in history, a Russian, not a Greek, became the Metropolitan of Kiev. Metropolitan Hilarion was the author of Sermon on Law and Grace, which was actually the beginning of the history Russian literature. This work can be defined as the first attempt to present Russia in the context of world history in Christian interpretation. Hilarion divides the entire history of the world into three periods: heathen (pagan darkness), Judaic (the Law of Moses) and Christian (attainment of truth according to the New Testament). Hilarion insisted after the appearance of Christ all peoples on the earth had become equal and therefore no nation could dominate another. However, the Judaic Law declined, "the Romans came and captured Jerusalem and destroyed it to its foundations."6 It was the punishment for Jerusalem refusing to receive Christ. The Romans in this case were the ministers of God's chastisement, though they worshiped idols. Hilarion denounced the "pagan" Rome.

However, his attitude to the Rome that had adopted Christianity was quite different. The author of Sermon on Law and Grace referred to that Rome, intending to give praise to Prince Vladimir: "Rome, with the voices of praise, praises Peter and Paul... We too, therefore, let us praise to the best of our strength, with our humble praises, him whose deeds were wondrous and great, the kagan of our land, Volodimer, the grandson of Igor of old and the son of the glorious Svyatoslav. When these reigned in their time, their renown spread abroad for their courage and valor, and still they are remembered, renowned even now for their victories and might. For they ruled not some feeble, obscure, unknown land, but in the land of Rus, which is known and renowned to the ends of the earth."7 Hilarion believed that the land of Russia was equal to Rome.

In the late 9th century the political picture of Europe became particularly varied. This affected Old Russia, too, as its centre moved from Kiev to the North-East. In the 13 th century, the geopolitical situation in the world underwent a radical transformation. The gains of Genghis-khan, the creator of the Mongolian Empire, and of his successors put an end to the existence of many eastern states from China to the Middle East. In 1237, the Mongolian invasion radically changed the fate of the fragmented Russia.

In 1241, the Mongols, having ruined the Principalities of Galich and Volynia in Russia, rushed to Europe. They moved in two avalanches

- through Poland and Hungary. The Mongols reached the suburbs of Vienna and the Adriatic coast, leaving behind devastated lands and carrying death to the local people. However, in the deep rear of the Mongols there were vast Russian lands, ready to resist. The Mongols turned back and left Central Europe. Russia became the shield for the West, protecting it from those whom the Europeans took for the "forerunners of the Apocalypse". Yet, German Emperor Frederick II, French King Louis IX, and the Roman popes began to seek ways to negotiated with the Mongols.8 Their attempts failed.

The See of Rome saw the Russian lands as a shield from the Mongols. Promising the Russian princes support in their fight with the Mongols, the Roman popes, however, demanded an exorbitant price - conversion to Catholicism. This is confirmed by the papal message to Prince Alexander Nevsky which read that if the Russian prince gave up Orthodoxy and entered the Roman Catholic Church, he would be held in special reverence among the other Catholic kings, i.e. he was promised an authoritative footing in the political space of medieval Catholic Europe. At the same time, the promise of support from the papal throne went in parallel with the fact that the popes blessed the onslaught of German knights to the East. North-East Russia found itself crucified between the West and the East. Alexander Nevsky strongly rejected the very possibility of renouncing Orthodoxy.

After the Schism of 1054, in the Russian lands there was an increasing antagonism against "Latinism" which was identified with the Catholic West and Rome. The antagonism was primarily of religious nature, behind which there was also an actual political content. This is clearly evident, for instance, in Life of Alexander Nevsky, where the West is called "a country of Roman faith" and the immediate enemies in the Battle of the Neva are called "Romans". Alexander's categorical response to the Pope's envoys from great Rome [Our underlining.]: "We do not accept your teaching."9 Is not only a statement of rejection of the alien teaching but also a political rebuff.

* * *

The 14th century saw the beginning of the Gathering of the Lands with the lead of Moscow, which strengthened its position in the alliance with the Horde. At the same time, in Slavic countries such as Serbia and Bulgaria there emerged ideas about a Slavic empire and even the Slavic "Third Rome", which name was sometimes used for the city of Turnovo. It is not exceptional that echoes of these ideas could have been brought to the Russian lands by wandering monks. But it was not until the 15th century, when the prospect of getting out of submission to the Horde became realistic and that finally happened under Ivan III, that the need arose to comprehend and justify the growing independence of the new statehood and to choose ways for the development of the Moscow state. The idea

of Russia being God's chosen, excusive land was gaining strength and, what is more, not only in Moscow. Russian merchant Afanasy Nikitin of Tver wrote in his narrative A Journey Beyond Three Seas: "May God keep the Russian land safe! Oh God, save it!.. There is no other country in the world like it."10 Orthodox Russia took heavily the conclusion of the Florentine Union in 1439, which placed the Orthodox Church in submission to the papal throne. Grand Prince Vasily II and the Russian clergy did not recognize the union, and Metropolitan Isidor who had signed it was deposed. After Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453, Moscow felt itself to the last stronghold and defender of Orthodoxy, the successor of Constantinople as head of the truly Christian world. Moscow's acceptance of the universal religious mission inherited from Constantinople, the Second Rome, coincided with Russia's liberation from the Horde dependence and the process of state centralization, which evolved synchronously with the emergence of national states in Western Europe.

In the last third of the 15th century, Europe was surprised to discover in its east a new vast and powerful state - the Moscow Principality, or Muscovy. Prominent Russian historian Vasily Klyuchevsky wrote: "The completion of the gathering of northeastern Russian lands by Moscow transformed the Moscow Principality into a great national state and thus assigned the Grand Prince of Moscow the status of the national Grand Russian Sovereign."11

The formation of the unified Moscow state took place synchronously with the emergence of centralized states in Western Europe. Thus, for instance, in 1477, French King Louis XI after the victory at Nancy annexed the Duchy of Burgundy, the last major stronghold of resistance to the national unification of France. In 1477, Ivan III marched forth against the rebellious Veliky Novgorod. In January 1478, Veliky Novgorod surrendered, and its independence was crushed. Its symbol, the veche bell, was taken down form the bell tower and transported to Moscow. This was followed by the "great stand" on the Ugra River and the final liberation from the Horde dependence, and also by the siege of Tver in 1485 and its transfer to the power of the Grand Prince of Moscow. In the same year of 1485, the War of the Roses ended in England. Henry VII Tudor ascended the royal throne, and his rule signaled the transition of England to a new form of state government - absolutism.

In the state-building process Ivan III relied not only on the church and religious experience of the Second Rome, but also on its state and political knowhow, supporting it with his marriage to a member of the Byzantine imperial family. Ivan III started the "return" of the Moscow state to Europe. This is confirmed by diplomatic correspondence with the Habsburgs, treaties with the Baltic states, the steads, Poland and Moldavia. The international recognition of the Moscow state is evidenced by the fact that "...the Grand Prince of Moscow - even before the formal ceremony of coronation is introduced in Russia! - can be called emperor: from the late 15th century Grand Prince Ivan III is called so in the treaties with

the Swedish ruler ..., with the Danish king ..., with the Livonian Grand Master, the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, and with the steads."12 Being called the "emperor", Grand Prince Ivan III of Moscow became part of not only the Byzantine, but also the European tradition of power coming from the First Rome. This substantiation would be embraced and carried on by his successors on the Moscow throne. The double-headed eagle on the coat of arms of Ivan III served as a reminder of the emblem of the Palaeologus and challenged the double-headed eagle of the Habsburgs. Let us note an interesting coincidence: modern Russia and modern America embarked on their historical path in the same year. In 1492, America was discovered by Christopher Columbus, and the news spread rapidly across Europe. In September 1492, Muscovy was expecting Judgement Day to come, since according to the Orthodox calendar it was the year 7000 since the beginning of time. Having lived through that alarming year, Moscow became established in its future. It is significant that by that time the construction of the renovated Kremlin, the symbol of Russian statehood, had almost been completed.

Since Judgement Day did not happen, it was necessary to draw up new paschal tables for the eighth millennium. In the preface to them Metropolitan Zosimus of Moscow lined up a historical vertical: Emperor Constantine was the creator of the New Rome; Prince Vladimir introduced Christianity into Russia; Grand Prince Ivan III of Moscow was to be new Constantine in the New Constantinople - Moscow. Probably, the name of the Third Rome cropped up approximately at that time. It occurs in the Legend of the White Cowl, which allegedly was found by Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod 13 and became one of the sources of the concept proposed by monk Philotheus.

Monk Philotheus of the Yelizarov Monastery outside Pskov was the man who put together ideas about the new historic mission of Moscow which were ripening in the Russian Church and society. In his letters to Pskov scribe Misiur Munekhin, Grand Prince Vasyli III and Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible he substantiated his concept of the Third Rome. This concept naturally fits in the All-European notions of the "transition of the empire" (translatio imperii), which date back to the Old Testament prophecy of Daniel about the four kingdoms, which was implemented in history during the transition from the world's Roman Empire to Christendom. For many centuries Europe demonstrated its "kinship" to the Roman Empire. The Empire of the First Rome "remained as a policy-forming and statebuilding idea, as the meaning of the historical space, both its developed part and what was to be developed in the centuries-old expansion of the West as a promise of the possibility of a new unification of countries and people in the world 'pax' ".14

The substance of the "Moscow the Third Rome" conception was formulated in Philotheus's letter to Vasyli III: "Watch and listen, righteous tsar, how all the Christian kingdoms congregate in your unified kingdom. The two former Romes fell, while the Third is there, and there will never

be a fourth Rome. And according to the great Theologian, your Christian kingdom will never be different, and for the Christian Church St. David's words will come true: "This is my resting place forever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it."15 The First Rome perished because it was pagan. The Second Rome fell because it strayed from Orthodoxy, having come to agreement with the Pope, but the Orthodox world is eternal. The mission of preserving and consolidating Orthodoxy passed on to Moscow, the capital city of the only Orthodox kingdom preserved in the world. Philotheus also gives a warning: the fate of the First and Second Romes, which perished for their sins, should be an admonition for the Moscow authorities and the Orthodox community, because if the covenant of protection of Orthodoxy, of preservation of the Orthodox world is not filled, it will be the end of time, the end of the world. The theological focus of Philotheus's concept is quite obvious. However, while some researchers consider it to be "bookish" and theological in nature, in reality Russia's opponents make from it a conclusion about the expansionist character of Russia's foreign policies and find a justification of its opposition to the West.

The idea of the unity of clergy and tsardom gained by Philotheus from the Holy Writ and of the example of concordance of imperial power and Orthodox Church in Byzantium brought forth a conviction that after the fall of the Second Rome only the Orthodox ruler of Moscow could be the tsar by the law of God. However, to justify the legitimacy of his coronation, Ivan IV, not satisfied with the idea of the Third Rome alone, found the legal basis for it in his kinship with Augustus, the first emperor of pagan Rome, through his mythical brother Prus, from whom Rurik, the founder of the Russian dynasty, derived his origin. This legend was reflected in The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir which also contained the story that Monomakh's Cap, the Moscow coronation regalia, was presented to Vladimir Monomakh by Byzantine Emperor Constantine Monomakh. The Tale represented not the theological but political interlinking of the three Romes and legitimized the secular power succession. In the 17th century the Third Rome conception became the "subtext" for strengthening the autocratic power but ceased to the "tuning-fork" of the public mindset.

After the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia, Moscow began to be associated with New Jerusalem. The Church put emphasis on the theocratic nature of the future united Orthodox power. The landmark in the implementation of that plan was the construction of New Jerusalem outside Moscow by Patriarch Nikon. The image of Rome in the course of the Schism was associated with papacy. During two centuries Russia's accession to Europe proceeded slowly, as if "reluctantly" (according to Nikolay Karamzin). That period saw the beginning of an economic advance in West European countries. Europeans penetrated to the most remote parts of the world and expanded world trade. There significant changes in technological, military and scientific development. It was a

period of efflorescence in arts; improvements appeared in everyday life of different segments of the public. Europe rose to a new level of civilization. Contacts with Europe brought about "a profound change in the minds: in the Moscow government officials there appeared people who had doubts about whether olden times had bequeathed all the means sufficient for a further prosperous existence; they lost their former national complacency and began to look around, seeking instructions and lessons from other people in the West, being increasingly convinced of its superiority and of their own backwardness."16 The first Romanovs on the throne started to carry out European-style reforms, which progressed slowly

and, on the whole, did not change the condition of Russia radically.

* * *

The situation changed dramatically under Peter I.

The young Tsar went to study in Europe, which virtually rested on the First Rome's principles. Later, imposing his outstanding energy and spending money head over fist, he began to introduce European styles and principles into Russian life, tearing it apart. The existing system of values was destroyed. The goal of Peter I was to place Russia among the leaders of Europe rather than just turn it into another European country. Being a brilliant visionary, Peter I realized that the way to Europe was going through an empire. An empire had been a "primary idea of Europe" since the Roman times. Russia, which had been forcedly closed off Europe for three centuries, was to reenter global history which was viewed then primarily as European history. Russia needed the "Roman apparel" for that purpose.

Acting against the superficial rationale, Peter I founded the new capital in the far west of the country on the Baltic Sea, wishing to make it geographically close to Europe. St. Petersburg was sometimes referred to as northern Amsterdam, as the experience of Stockholm, London and other European cities was used for its construction. However, St. Petersburg's semiotic composition makes a direct indication to Rome as a major historical, state, political and religious touchstone.

The Third Rome's echoes are found somewhere far underneath;17 Peter was by association called a new Constantine. But the name of Saint Petersburg (it can be translated as "Peter's saint city" or "Saint Peter's city") indicates to Rome, the first city of Saint Peter, the Eternal City, the origin of European civilization. The emblem of St. Petersburg allows interpretation like this - an anchor junction like the crosskeys on Saint Peter's emblem.18 Thus, Rome, Great City, mainstay of civilization, law and enforcement, which was of great importance to the emerging empire - that is what St. Petersburg was supposed to become. Nonetheless important, especially for Russia, was that the capital was to be the center of holiness. That was the idea of the Third Rome - Moscow. St. Petersburg expanded the halo of holiness by appealing to the figure of Saint Peter

as mentioned by Jesus Christ: "And I tell you that you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church." (Matt. 16:18). ). Peter I solidified the holiness of the new capital by erecting the Peter and Paul Cathedral, one of the first buildings of St. Petersburg. It is revealing that after the victory in the Poltava battle Peter compared it with the stone in the new capital foundation. St. Petersburg was positioned as new Rome and the center of Europeanized Orthodoxy integrating by right into "pax christiana" that had become Europe. St. Petersburg began to symbolize a new unity of Russia and Europe; it stepped up as a legal heir of Rome - the ruler of the Empire and center of Christianity assertion, the Eternal City that transformed the world.

After the victory in the Great Northern War and conclusion of the Nistad Treaty on 22 October 1721, Peter I assumed the following titles: Emperor of Russia, Great, Father of his country with the wording "as per normal, such titles are brought publicly by the Roman Senate for noble deeds and are signed into noble kin for evermore". Conspicuous is that the acceptance of the Emperor's title was not accompanied by a new coronation; "it was, in fact, an act of renaming, an organic part of the general tradition of Peter's reforms, which, in that way or another, boiled down - literally or metaphorically - to dressing Russia up for Europe".19 Russia was proclaimed as an Empire, a European empire, to carry on the traditions of Ancient Rome, not Byzantium. Making a speech upon the Emperor title acceptance, Peter I ascertained: "We should thank God in every way, but, hoping for peace, should not weaken in the military art so as not to follow the fate of the Greek Monarchy; we should care for the common good manifested by God - from inside and outside - and bringing relief to the people".20

Transformation into an empire was of great importance to Russia inhabited by many peoples. The Empire claimed to overcome the ethnic provinciality of the Tsardom of Moscow and promote civilization into the most remote corners. Some decades later Alexander Pushkin's perception of this idea was very deep - the image of Peter I occupied a very important place in his work. Peter's ideas of enlightenment and cultural reforming in Russia were very dear to the poet. They were reflected in his poem Exegi Monumentum:

Tidings of me shall spread through all the realm of Rus, And every tribe in Her shall name me as they speak. The haughty western Pole, the east's untamed Tungus, North Finns and the south steppe's Kalmyk.

Having proclaimed Russia an empire, Peter I, in fact, defined new borders of European civilization. Russia learned from Europe as Rome had used to learn from Greece. Jointly with Europe of the 18th century, the new empire learned from antiquity, especially from Rome. The Russian Empire's entrance to Europe expanded not only the European but also

the global horizon of civilizational and cultural communication. The extraversión of the supranational empire enabled Russia to overcome the centuries-long isolation and open to the world. The Roman empire had united the "circle of lands", while Peter's empire shaped the Russian world, not isolated but integrated into the global and European space, thus, legitimizing Russia in the system of international relations.

Changes initiated by Peter I had a revolutionary influence on the transformation of Russian public conscience, especially that of its political and cultural elite. The world landscape was changing drastically under the influence of the ideas and perceptions imported from Europe. The changed world view was conceptualized in a new language and image structure. The 18th century witnessed an intensive process of the modern Russian language's formation. Mikhail Lomonosov, one of the process leaders, compared the grandeur of the native language with the merits of "Greek and Roman", which engendered other European languages. The same idea was elaborated on by poet Alexander Sumarokov, the first director of the Russian professional theatre: "We need a language like the

one the Greeks had as well as the Romans".21

* * *

The image of Rome proves to be an expressive element of political thought that was codified in the art of poetry. Praising the constructive policy of Empress Elizabeth, Mikhail Lomonosov associated it with Rome's historical experience growing with the "conquered nations". Addressing the sovereign, the poet exclaimed: "You are building Rome in Russia without destroying other kingdoms"; and further Lomonosov foresaw an even more ambitious future: "And Rome will soon bow its head down to us".22 The poet referred to Elizabeth as Minerva, but this image failed to set in. It, however, unfolded fully in relation to Catherine II.

The image of Catherine II as the Roman Goddess of Reason, patroness of sciences, arts and trades as well as of righteous war, was glorified in poems and rhetoric passages; she was depicted in painting, sculpture and the medallic art. She symbolized State Power idealized in the spirit of Enlightenment. The figure of Minerva was supplemented with that of Thesis, Goddess of Justice.

This "romanticized" presentation of power was quite in the spirit of that time. The era of Enlightenment was fascinated by antiquity, its political and civil ideals, philosophy, rhetoric, and art. Yet, that was not real antiquity, although the 18th century saw the first excavation and exploration of antique monuments. The perception of antiquity in the epoch of Enlightenment was in many ways mythologized and ideologized.

Antiquity - seen through the prism of enlightening ideas - induced the development of a new trend in European culture - classicism. Russia kept abreast with the times in this respect. A specific feature of Russian

classicism was that antique and especially Roman tradition was perceived in Russia indirectly, through the mastering of common European interpretations.

It was evident in urban construction and architecture. St. Petersburg's main squares - Dvortsovaya (Palace), Senatskaya (Senate), and Marsovo Pole (Mars Field) - where people had flocked since Peter I's times -evoked Roman associations even by name. Catherine II expanded St. Petersburg in keeping with the principles laid down under Peter I and originating from the architectural doctrine of Palladio, a great Roman architect of the 1st century B.C.

The highest authority for Palladio was Vitruvius, a prominent Roman architect of the 1st century B.C., who wrote 10 books on architecture. The Palladian style spread through Europe and was enthusiastically adopted in Russia where it acquired some specific features: "idealistic Russian Palladianism is the architecture of dreams of Rome, Empire, Europe, grandeur and repose, legitimacy and freedom".

St. Petersburg's harmony of urban space and architectural splendor under Catherine II surpassed those in many European countries. Apart from St. Petersburg, the Empress extended the regular order of building to other large Russian cities. Now they had straight wide streets with Palladian style houses. Russian provinces also looked more and more European. Country manors in the Palladian style with a mezzanine and columned porticoes were popular at that time. Under Catherine II, Enlightenment perceptions of a civilized life style were visualized through architecture.

The time-tested experience of Rome - erection of columns and arches - was used to glorify and commemorate Russian victories. St. Petersburg's most famous monument is the equestrian statue of Peter I. The inscription on its pedestal says: "Catherine the Second to Peter the First Summer 1782". When creating the monument, French sculptor E.-M. Falconet chose Roman Emperor Mark Aurelius's equestrian statue as an example. Yet, he transformed the Roman sample significantly by making the statue of Peter I more dynamic and vigorous. Following the Roman tradition, Falconet crystallized the meaning in sync with the Catherine epoch - depicting the legislator and architect of the new civilization rather than the ruling emperor and victor.

It came to Catherine II that the importance of Moscow as the second capital should be strengthened. It is not accidental that the Legislative Commission was convened in Moscow to develop the new state legislation of the Empire. Here Catherine II for the first time proclaimed her founding Legatum in the spirit of Enlightenment. There were plans for the architectural transformation of the capital. Architect Vasily Bazhenov was entrusted with the construction of the Grand Kremlin Palace.

The architect defined the importance of his project as follows: the new palace will be erected "for the glory of the great Empire, as a tribute to this century and eternal memory of future times, for the decoration of the capital city, for the joy and pleasure of its people". In fact, the architect

thought about "transferring the projection of the Roman St. Peter's plan to the territory of the Kremlin"; that could allow Bazhenov to express the concept "Moscow is the Third Rome".23 Some of the Kremlin walls were demolished to execute this huge project (later they were restored). The layout of the central part of Moscow was changed giving way to three radial prospects. Bazhenov's project was never implemented. The problem was not only the lack of funds: rationally-minded Catherine iI was worried by the evident manifestation of rivalry between Moscow and St. Petersburg. Saint Petersburg was to remain the symbol of European absolutism.

Under the reign of Paul, I architect Carlo Rossi suggested reorganizing part of St. Petersburg's space to make it resemble Rome. He decided to turn the space between the English Quay to the Admiralty shipyards into something like the Roman forum. Rossi wrote: "The dimensions of my project exceed those accepted by the Romans - shall we not venture to equal them in splendor?"

One of the most original phenomena of the Roman idea's implementation on the Russian soil was a project to revive the Second Rome -Byzantium, the so-called "Greek project" envisaged by Catherine II.24 In 1782, the Russian Empress sent a letter to Josef II, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, where she expressed her intention to solve the "Osman Problem" root and branch, restore Greek sovereignty, and carry out an appropriate geopolitical transformation of South-Eastern Europe. Part of this intent was to restore the Byzantine Empire with the capital in Constantinople. Her grandson Constantine was to become the ruler of the restored empire. It should be noted that the idea of the Greek project had arisen in Catherine's mind several years earlier - therefore she named her grandsons Alexander and Constantine. The name of Constantine was associated with Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, Equal of the Apostles, and the founder of the Second Rome - Constantinople. A proposal to revive Byzantium ideologically returned the images of the Second and Third Romes redefined in the spirit of Enlightenment. The "Greek Project" anticipating further reinforcement of Russia that had moved forward to join the ranks of the world's leading powers, was opposed by France, England, Austria and their allies, which hindered its implementation.

During the last few decades of the 18th century and the first third of the 19th century antiquity aroused vivid interest among the educated circles of the Russian society. Sergey Glinka, founder of the "Russian Journal", recalled: "The voice of Ancient Rome virtues, the voice of Cato and Cincinnatus re-echoed in cadets' young and passionate souls... Ancient Rome became my hero. I did not know under what rule I lived but I knew that freedom was the soul of the Romans. I did not understand differences between Russian estates and classes but I knew that a Roman citizen's name stood in the row of semi-Gods. The gigantic image of Ancient Rome shadowed our own country."25

"Infatuation" with Rome on the Russian soil was fed by a strong influence of the Enlightenment to reflect on, live through in a particular way and use the historical experience of Ancient Rome. Rome was regarded as the foundation and horizon for the European civilization of the new time. The history of Rome provided examples of nationhood, heroism, and personal fulfillment. The experience of Ancient Rome gave rise to models of national identity and social order based on law. The French revolution was inspired by Roman republican ideals while post-revolutionary France often used the Principate as an example in creating an empire. Analogies with Ancient Rome, often emotionally coloured, seemed absolutely natural for understanding contemporary events and processes.

* * *

In 1803, Nikolay Karamzin began to write "History of the Russian State". This undertaking was supported and funded by Alexander I. Karamzin saw his task in presenting to the Russian public a work where native history would be highlighted with documentary precision and the development of the Russian state would be depicted in the objective context of European historical experience. Even the preamble to Karamzin's fundamental work contains comparisons with Ancient Rome: "Let Greeks and Romans fascinate us: they belong to the human race and are not foreign to us in their virtues and weaknesses, glory and hardship; but the Russian name is especially dear to us."26 It is quite remarkable that Karamzin saw not only Roman historians Tacitus or Livius as examples but also British historian Eduard Gibbon with his "History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire".27 Like Gibbon who compared the historical scale of Rome with contemporary Europe, Karamzin made similar comparisons: "Let us look at the space of this unique Power [Russia. - Authors.]: thought stands still, Rome in its magnitude could never be equal to it."28 The author of the "History of the Russian State" turned to Rome's historical experience to add some "excellence" to the idea of autocratic power. He wrote: "While Rome survived through dictatorship in case of great dangers, Russia, a huge corpse after Batu's invasion, -could it rise and recover in grandeur by any other way?"29

Mikhail Speransky, who served as Alexander I's right-hand man in all policy reforms and transformations, was an brilliant expert in Roman law. When he was reproached for borrowing too much from Roman Law in his papers, Speransky answered: "Its origin, i.e. Roman law, has all regulations similar at all times, but using common sense and knowledge of sources... one can draw from them directly without imitating anyone or studying in German or French universities." In addition, Speransky referred to the independence of Russian law used in the formation of "different interpretations of Roman laws under the name of Greek ones", very likely meaning the Code of Justinian.

The Decembrists, too, were infatuated with the civil, republican and tyrant-fighting ideas and images of Rome. Kondraty Ryleyev, one of the leaders of the "Northern Society", wrote emphatically in his ode Civic Courage:

Only Rome, the worldwide ruler, That land of freedom and of laws, She alone managed to give birth To both two Brutuses, and two Catos.

Decembrist Alexander Shishkov dreamt of overthrow of tyranny:

No, no! There'll come a day free of fetters...

The Roman will rise, a sword in his bloody hand

To wash off his shame and the shame of his fathers!

Giving reasons for the necessity of establishing a republican regime in Russia, Pavel Pestel, the leader of the "Southern Society", leaned on historical examples and compared antique republican and Ancient Russian forms. He stressed that "initial states were open-minded; they were based on civic law and natural equity of all people. Those were Greek republics and Republican Rome in Europe, and Pskov and Novgorod in Russia."

The first few decades of the 19th century are described as the "Golden Age" of Russian poetry. The work of Alexander Pushkin and his talented contemporaries unclothed the beauty of the Russian poetic word with all the possible might and harmony. That gave rise to an exclusive role of poetry in the formation of Russian civil values, in the establishment of particular relationships between an individual and the state. Poets did a good grace to the political and public events, raising them sometimes to the level of eternal Greek and Roman antique examples. Poetry was becoming a natural part of political culture - "A poet in Russia is more than a poet" (Evgeny Evtushenko).

An important role in the development of the language and figurative space of Russian poetry was played by a repeated reference to Roman poet Horace's poem "Ad Melpomenae" ("Monument"), the first being Lomonosov's loose translation. Horace links a poet's immortal fame with the eternity of Rome; the latter is "praised as long as the flamen is escorting a silent maiden along the Capitol". Horace's line was supported by Gavriil Derzhavin and Alexander Pushkin who expressed poetically an inseparable bond between the new Russian mindset and Roman civilized universalism underlying European culture. For Pushkin, Russia was rooted in eternity as well as Rome was for Horace. Pushkin's symbol of Russian self-identity is Alexander Column (note that column is a Roman type of monument) put up in the center of Peter's capital. Pushkin's poetry clearly shows the duplicity of two imperial sovereign cities - St. Petersburg and Rome. Pushkin unites Rome, Russia, and Europe in their

global historical destination. The image of Rome helps disclose the meanings of Russian statehood and power, national identity, confrontation of civilization and barbarism. This image - vivid and in some ways mobilizing for public conscience - was reflected in Pyotr Vyazemsky's work.

Rome! An almighty, mysterious word!

You're everlasting and always new!..

And today you still call on us in a loud voice.

A different view of Russia's place in history and its correlation with Rome and Europe is found in works by Pyotr Chaadaev, whom Pushkin compared to Brutus, a defender of the Roman Republic. It should be noted that the use of images from Ancient history made it possible to reason about the links between politics and morality and bring to notice the civil aspects of public life. For pro-Westerner Chaadaev, Rome was the embodiment of universality, both public and religious. In Rome "the world religion succeeded the world power". The earthly foundation of Rome provided the basis for establishment of the Church that was destined to unite all nations into a great community - Christendom. Europe, which grew out of the Christian world, implemented "the meaning of Rome", ontological, public and political. However, "the new destinies of the human race" were not done for Russia, Chaadaev concluded bitterly. While the history of any nation is not only a string of successive facts but also a chain of interrelated ideas,30 Russia needs to overcome the rejection of the West, which has grown on Roman soil, to learn its lessons and to show a free initiative in its social development.

Summing up his thoughts on Rome, Chaadaev addressed his contemporaries: "You should understand once and for all that this is not an ordinary city, not just a cluster of stones and people, but an immense idea, an enormous fact. It should be viewed not from the Capitol Tower, not from St. Peter's Lantern, but from the spiritual height that is so easy to climb trampling on its sacred soil."

A kind of apotheosis of the passion for Rome was the erection in 1834 of the Alexander Column to commemorate Alexander I's victory over Napoleon. The architect August de Monteferrand modelled its design after the Roman columns in honour of Emperors Trajan and Antoninus Pius. The Alexander Column was, so to speak, an exclamation point to mark the end of the brilliant epoch in Russian politics and culture.

The late 1830s saw the beginning of a decline of the public interest in antiquity and, in particular, in the poetics and figurative system oriented towards Ancient Rome. One of the founders of Slavophilism, Pyotr Kireevsky, who was in his youth a friend of Alexander Pushkin, described the emerging trend in his "European" magazine as follows: "The nature of enlightenment in Europe was infallibly poetic, historical and philosophical, and it is only in our time that it took a purely practical form. The man of today does not view life as a simple condition of

spiritual development any more, but sees in it the means and purpose of being, the apex and root of all the branches of intellectual and spiritual education."31 A propos, because of this article the magazine was closed. The image of Rome was losing its historical content and was increasingly interpreted as a civilizational, cultural, political and religious analogue of the West. Kireevsky considered the difference between Latin-German Europe and the Russian world to be undeniable, giving this fact primarily a religious justification. He believed that "the fall of Rome deprived the West of the purity of Christian education in the East". In his interpretation Rome looked like a renegade from the true faith and as the force that divided the Christian world and hindered the development of its eastern part.

The idea of Eastern Europe, "the legitimate sister of Christian West" was elaborated on by the great Russian poet, thinker and diplomat Fyodor Tyutchev. He believed that the Russian Empire was the centre of Eastern Europe:

Moscow and Peter's city, the city of Constantine, These are the cherished capitals of the Russian monarchy... This is the Russian empire and it will never pass away, Just as the Spirit foretold and Daniel prophesied.

The mention of "Peter's city" reads the figurative duplicity of St. Petersburg and Rome, just like in Pushkin's works. Rome is also pointed at in the reference to the Old Testament prophecy of Daniel about the four world kingdoms, the succession of which is crowned by Rome. And that Ancient Rome was succeeded by Byzantium. From this it follows that Russia is the bearer of the great historical succession, the direct heir of the two Romes and that it is the last and eternal empire in world history.

In the West Tyutchev saw the budding collapse of the contemporary world, primarily stemming from the endless struggle of the elements that had fostered it: "The long struggle between the schismatic Roman papacy and the empire usurped by the West, which ended in the Reformation for the former and a revolution for the latter, i.e. negation of the empire."32 This tragic prediction was poetically expressed in his poem Cicero:

So be it! But making your farewells, you saw In grandeur and with awe, Rome's bloody star go down.

Nikolay Danilevsky was a pioneer in providing a rationale for the comparative cultural and historical study of civilizations. He singled out the Roman civilization as a special cultural and historical type, emphasizing that "fidelity to the fundamentals of the national state system made Rome the most powerful political body form all that ever existed. The rules of civil relations between Roman citizens, which passed from cus-

tom to law and were arranged in an articulate system, laid the foundation for science and provided a model of the civil code which surprises lawyers of all countries."33 Rome's goal was to spread its civilization, which was being implemented throughout its history, eventually engendering the German-Roman civilization of Europe and being its nutritious soil.

We should point out the statement that Rome's state, imperial experience and law provided the basis for the formation and development of Europe proper, while the rational type of thinking and orientation towards self-organization are common for both the Slavophils and pro-Westerners. The difference lies in the assessments of the Roman civilization, the Roman way of development and the history of the West that carries on this experience.

Nikolay Danilevsky supported the idea of Pan-Slavic unity, which was strongly criticized by Fyodor Dostoevsky, as it did not emphasize the exclusiveness of Russia. Dostoevsky gave a very negative assessment to Ancient Rome and Catholic Rome as the "kingdom of the Earth". In the chapter on the Grand Inquisitor in his novel The Brothers Karamazov he said, putting the words into the mouth of the Inquisitor, who to Dostoevsky symbolized the Catholic, Western world: "Just eight centuries ago, we took from him [The one who tempted Christ. - Authors.] what Thou didst reject with scorn, that last gift he offered Thee, showing Thee all the kingdoms of the earth. We took from him Rome and the sword of Caesar, and proclaimed ourselves sole rulers of the earth."

An original attempt to reconcile the ideas of the Slavophils and those of the pro-Westerners was made by Vladimir Solovyov. Returning to the image of the Third Rome, he developed the idea of a universal theocracy which would unite the East and the West. He believed that the empire Europeanized by Peter I should enter into an alliance with Rome, sharing its priesthood and thereby gaining spiritual leadership. This would be the messianic role of Russia actualized as a "third force" to reconcile the First and the Second Rome and implementing the Third Rome in the form of a universal theocracy. In this he saw the purpose of history and

the embodiment of spiritual Sophia in its corporeality.

* * *

The last few years of the 19th century and the early 20th century were imbued with anticipation of radical changes in the world and in Russia; there appeared prophecies about the death of European civilization. Leo Tolstoy wrote prophetically: "The Russian people are today confronted by the dreadful choice of either, like the Eastern nations, continuing to submit to their unreasonable and depraved governments in spite of all the misery they have inflicted upon them; or, as all the Western nations have done, realizing the evil of the existing governments, upsetting it by force and establishing a new one."34 He referred to the experience of people's struggle against government which began even in Rome and then contin-

ued in all the Western states that succeeded Rome. However, in the end, Tolstoy concluded that the way of resistance to government proved to be useless for Europe and that the Western nations anticipated their decline.

In the early 20th century the image of Rome in the Russian political thought was pushed off to the periphery of public consciousness, but again, like in the 1830s and 1840s, it rose to prominence in poetry. "It was only in the 20th century that the 'Roman text' in Russian poetry attained its full growth. In the work of some poets the name of Rome plays a very important role in constructing the level of great (perhaps eternal) ideas."35

Poets in every way made play with the "Rome - the world" duality, the universality and power of Rome, the eternal return of the Eternal City. The image of a traveler with a staff, irresistibly striving for Rome, the only city as the meaning of being is seen in the verse by Vyacheslav Ivanov and Osip Mandelshtam: "My staff, my freedom, center of my being... I smiled, took my staff and went all the way to Rome." Mandelshtam's lines: "Not Rome the city lives amid the ages, but the human place in the universe" are the quintessence of the poetic and historiosophical experience of the image of Rome. The human place in the universe is determined and justified through the image of Rome, as are correlated microcosm and macrocosm.

In their time Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels - the classics of Marxism-Leninism - repeatedly drew on examples from the history of Rome. This tradition was followed by Vladimir Lenin. He used Rome's historical experience in defining imperialism, in discussing property issues, in describing the slavery mode of production, and in interpreting legal problems. But before the October (Bolshevik) revolution of 1917, all those Roman reminiscences, interpreted in a very simplistic and purposeful way, remained just on the pages of publications. After the October of 1917 events Lenin began to use Roman examples to enhance the propaganda effect of his speeches.

It is noteworthy that Lenin made the two Latin words "dictatorship of the proletariat" the formula of the main content of the Bolsheviks' political programme and, moreover, the main slogan of the world's revolutionary transformation. It may be argued that these words were borrowed from Karl Marx's theory; they also sounded among the European Social Democrats. Indeed, it was, in part, a linguistic borrowing through the "amalgam" of the European political thought. It was Lenin and Leninism that made this political slogan of two Latin words became the property of the masses both in Russia and worldwide.

On 23 August 1918, Lenin spoke at a meeting at the Polytechnic Museum. Workers and soldiers gave an ovation to his speech, as recorded in the transcript. The young Soviet republic was at that time in a very difficult situation. The foreign intervention was increasing. The Civil War had seized over two-thirds of the country's territory. The centre of the country was cut off from the regions that were to supply food and fuel.

The speech of the leader of the revolution was aimed at mobilization. He urged to canalize all energies to winning socialism, as "There is no way out of the world war at this moment except by the victory of socialism." Seeking to justify the winning of socialism, Lenin further used an example from Roman history: "Spartacus set off a war in defence of the enslaved class Wars of this nature were waged in the period of colonial oppression continuing to this day, in the period of slavery, etc. These wars were just wars and must not be condemned."

Lenin accorded great importance to the training of party cadres. He supervised the work of the Sverdlov Communist University in Moscow. There he delivered two lectures on the state (the recording of one of them has not been preserved). Addressing the audience, who for the most part had low levels of education, Lenin used Ancient history examples to make the topic more intelligible for the audience. He said: "When classes appeared, everywhere and always, as the division grew and took firmer hold, there also appeared a special institution - the state... As early as the period of slavery we find diverse forms of the state in the countries that were the most advanced, cultured and civilized according to the standards of the time - for example, in Ancient Greece and Rome which were based entirely on slavery. At that time there was already a difference between monarchy and republic, between aristocracy and democracy."

Lenin's plan or revolutionary propaganda, which began to be put into practice in 1918, was a programme for the development of monumental art geared to serve the revolution and Soviet Power, to propagandize Communist ideology among the masses. The plan included an extensive list of revolutionaries, public figures, philosophers, scientists, poets, writers, artists and actors whose monuments were to be installed in Moscow, Petrograd, Kiev, etc. The list began with the names of the Ancient Roman heroes Spartacus, Tiberius Gracchus, Brutus.

Leo Trotsky's interest in the history of Rome was quite unexpected. In 1926, shortly before he was removed from all his posts and expelled from the party, Trotsky posed the painful question: what if capitalism was not ripe for a revolution but had become overripe for it. In other words, capitalism with its accelerated technological development could change the state of society in such a way that it did not need a revolution; "we moved to a passenger train, while capitalism may be speeding along in an express train." In reply to this question Trotsky extrapolated to the current situation the example of Rome "as absolutely deadlocked and incapable of change and revolution". In that case, he wrote, "the pressure from outside increases and the civilization collapses."

An opposite assessment of the Roman historical experience was given by Josef Stalin in his speech at the First All-Union Congress of Collective Farm Shock Brigadiers on February 19, 1933. It is significant that the delegates to the Congress addressed by the speaker hardly had an idea about Ancient Rome. Stalin asked them a question that did not seem to have anything to do with Ancient Rome: "Is the path which the

collective-farm peasantry has taken the right path, is the path of collective farming the right one?" It was followed with his answer: "It was with the October Revolution that the transition to the new path, to the collective-farm path, started." He went on to explain that the history of nations knew not a few revolutions, while "the revolution of the slaves eliminated the slave owners and abolished the form of exploitation of the toilers as slaves."

It is not known if the peasants understood what the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party was talking about, but for historians it was a warning shot. Later, at the Seventeenth Party Congress Stalin elaborated on his idea "the non-Romans, i.e., all the 'barbarians,' united against the common enemy and brought Rome down with a crash." These words, uttered almost in passing, had a detrimental effect on the development of Soviet antiquity studies in the 1940s and the mid-1950s. Scientific research was pushed in the Procrustean bed of Stalin's formulations. This gave rise to essentially unscientific interpretations of the Ancient world's collapse and the emergence of the Middle Ages as a feudal system. The theory of the "revolution of slaves and coloni" became popular in Soviet antiquity studies, and its traces could be found in the 1960s and even in the 1970s in the concept of "revolutionary transition" from slavery to feudalism, from antiquity to the Middle Ages.

Stalin attached immense importance to creating a new architectural image of the capital city and major urban centre of the Soviet country. Architecture was to capture the grandeur of the victories and achievements of the workers and peasants' state, to demonstrate the might of socialist creativity and the triumph of communist ideas. The new architectural style was formed under the direct guidance of the leader, and it is not accidentally called "Stalinist Empire" style. In the 1930s the Bolsheviks denounced avant-garde and turned to the classics, claiming the right to acquire the cultural heritage of "all nations, all epochs', intending to take from it everything that could "inspire the workers of the first country of socialism for new achievements in production, science and culture." "Stalinist Empire" eclectically combined the traditions of classicism, constructivism and art deco, but its basis was the Roman imperial architecture with its order system, rigid lines, rationally planned space, sculptural decor and the use of expensive facing materials. "Stalinist Empire" became a style of self-presentation of unlimited authority and state power, which ideologically echoed the message of the Roman architecture of the imperial period.

In 1935, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR adopted a resolution on the General Plan for the Reconstruction of Moscow. According to this plan, Moscow was to become "the capital of the socialist homeland for the fighters for the revolution from all over the world" and in the long run - the capital of the world. The Roman myth was reincarnated

in the socialist utopia. It is reflected in Mikhail Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita. At the end of the novel, Woland, before leaving Moscow and staring at its panorama from a high roof, remarks to Azazello: "An interesting city, Moscow, don't you think?" Azazello answers respectfully: "I prefer Rome, messire" Then a black cloud enveloped the vast city, "bridges, buildings were all swallowed up. Everything vanished as though it had never been."

In the second half of the 20th century, Roman reminiscences disappeared from political vocabulary. Ancient Rome remained just a subject of scientific discussions. The poets of the Thaw era, fascinated by the suddenly gained freedom and the possibility to read their poems in the squares and bring them to the masses, confined themselves to a description of their impressions associated with visits to Rome. Robert Rozhdestvensky mentioned later that in those impressions there was something bookish and strained: "As if we were taking an exam in the history of Ancient Rome." Evgeny Yevtushenko made quite a banal conclusion from contemplating Coliseum:

Only on the surface there are no Neros

In this world, which is Coliseum all over again.

The theme of the three Romes is covered in secret semantic code in Boris Pasternak's novel Doctor Zhivago. This is revealed through comparing the plot lines and the imagery structure of the novel with Virgil's Aeneid,36 in the reflections of the characters on Christianity, its history related to Rome, to the image of the dying Moscow, the former centre of the Orthodox empire. In the city's space, behind the destruction caused by the October revolution and the Civil War, as if accidentally appear the surviving buildings of the previous era, the ghosts of the prosperous life. This reminds of the dying Rome destroyed by the barbarians. The external sign of the end of the old world generates a sense of personal and historical doom: "This has happened several times in the course of history. A thing which had been in a lofty, ideal manner became coarse and material. This is how Greece became Rome and how Russian Enlightenment became the October Revolution." The lyrical character's poem Hamlet reads: "But the plan of action is determined, and the end irrevocably sealed." Ancient Rome perished physically, but it allowed Christianity to grow from within it, which was its salvation. The novel does not show the possibility of such a way for Russia surviving the revolution. The exhaustion of the Third Rome leaves a possibility of only personal asceticism, which is the case with Yuri Zhivago.

In the work of Joseph Brodsky Russian poetry seriously returns to Rome again. Brodsky experiences the mythologeme of Rome metaphysically. The space and time of Rome is the counterpoint of eternity. It makes it possible to organically combine all the epochs in the semantics of Rome and go "beyond the limits of our time". At the same time, the

image of Rome serves as an indicator of the poet's homeland - "a wild power", "the Soviet empire", a failed and distorted incarnation of the Third Rome:

I, the stepson of a wild power, with a broken snout, of another, no less great am the proud adopted son.

The poet asks the question: "What is the fate of a person born in a totalitarian state?" And he replies:

An empire, if you happened to be born to, Better live in distant province, by the sea.

Brodsky managed to leave the USSR for the USA. Then he was able to visit at liberty his favourite cities of Venice and Florence and enjoy eternal Rome:

Before me are not the cupolas, nor the tiles with the Holy Fathers.

It's the she-wolf that nursed the world dozes off with her teats upward.

Brodsky remarked: "The Roman panorama possesses historical hypnosis." For the poet it was the hypnosis of the great civilization and freedom, particularly as at the time when these words were written, his home country "was going in the opposite direction".

Interest in Ancient Rome, particularly in its fall, flared up after the collapse of the Soviet Union and has been on the rise since. Analogies, reasonable and unreasonable, can be found in the media and in social networks, where here are quite a few websites of the "Roman orientation". Roman reminiscences "embellish" TV speeches by politicians, MPs, public figures, and business people. To mention Rome is now on trend. The "Third Rome" seems to have revived in Russian public consciousness. These processes are yet to be objectively studied.

* * *

Russian statehood is characterized by its longstanding historical existence and sustainable historical continuity, even though there were fundamental changes in the forms of government. Of great importance for preserving Russia's historical steadiness has been the political and cultural tradition connecting generations and epochs.

One of its constants is the image of Rome, which is primarily identified with the universal experience of world power and civilization. The sign system of the Russian political and cultural tradition did not tie Rome to a particular location; it could semantically be transferred to

29

other strong centers of power and transposed in time and space. The integral definition of the "Rome" concept also included a certain religious component and was supplemented with cultural value elements.

The image of Rome was experienced aesthetically, was imparted in the form of art and contained a political sentiment which was not always clearly defined. Each epoch presented and used Rome in both positive and negative discourses. At times, "different Romes" could consolidate to produce a complex figurative construct. Transforming along with the political and cultural tradition, Rome was one of the constants essential to the self-identification of the Russian civilization.

Примечания Notes

1 Кант И. Идея всеобщей истории во всемирно-гражданском плане // Кант И. Сочинения. Т. 1. Москва, 1994. С. 115.

2 Швиммер В. Мечты о Европе: Европа с XIX века до рубежа третьего тысячелетия. Москва, 2003. С. 16.

3 Повесть временных лет // Памятники литературы Древней Руси: XI -начало XII века. Москва, 1978. С. 27.

4Мюссе Л. Варварские нашествия на Западную Европу: Вторая волна. Санкт-Петербург, 2001. С. 287.

5 Тойнби А. Византийское наследие России // Тойнби А. Цивилизация перед судом истории. Москва, 2003. С. 372.

6 Илларион, митр. Слово о Законе и Благодати. Москва, 2011. С. 81.

7 Там же.

8 Уколова В.И. Мир в зените Средневековья // Александр Невский. Государь, дипломат, воин. Москва, 2010. С. 26-39.

9 Житие Александра Невского // Александр Невский: Государь, дипломат, воин. С. 456.

10 Успенский Б.А. Дуалистический характер русской средневековой культуры (на материале «Хождения за три моря» Афанасия Никитина) // Успенский Б.А. Избранные труды. Т. 1. Москва, 1994. С. 263.

11 Ключевский В.О. Курс русской истории: Часть 2 // Ключевский В.О. Сочинения. В 9 т. Т. 2. Москва, 1988. С. 107.

12 Успенский Б.А. Царь и император: Помазание на царство и семантика монарших титулов. Москва, 2000. С. 44.

13 Дэвис Н. История Европы. Москва, 2005. С. 338, 339.

14 Уколова В.И. Исторический опыт Рима // Вестник МГИМО-Университета. 2008. № 2. С. 3-10.

15 Синицына Н.В. Третий Рим: Истоки и эволюция русской средневековой концепции. Москва, 1998. С. 363.

16 Черникова Т.В. Европеизация России во второй половине XV - XVII веках. Москва, 2012.

17 Лотман Ю.М., Успенский Б.А. Отзвуки концепции «Москва - Третий Рим» в идеологии Петра Первого (К проблеме средневековой традиции в

культуре барокко) // Художественный язык Средневековья. Москва, 1982. С.236-249.

18 Лотман Ю.М. Символика Петербурга и проблемы семиотики города // Лотман Ю.М. Избранные статьи. В 3 т. Т. 2. Таллин, 1992. С. 12-13.

19 УспенскийБ.А. Царь и император: Помазание на царство и семантика монарших титулов. Москва, 2000. С. 48.

20 Петр Великий в его изречениях. Москва, 1991. С. 88.

21 Сумароков А.П. Наставление хотящим быти писателями // Сумароков А.П. Избранные произведения. Ленинград, 1957. С. 134.

22 Ломоносов М.В. Надпись на новое строение Сарского села // Ломоносов М.В. Избранные произведения. Ленинград, 1986. С. 231.

23 Бархин Д.Б. О религиозных основах и прообразе архитектурной композиции Большого Кремлевского дворца архитектора В.И. Баженова (1737 (1738) - 1799 гг.): К 250-летию со дня рождения архитектора и 830-летию Москвы. Москва, 1997. С. 13.

24 Черникова Т.В. «Греческий проект» в контексте государственной идеологии России второй половины XVIII в. // История дипломатических связей между Россией и Греческим миром на протяжении веков. Москва, 2017. С.26-43.

25 Глинка Н.С. Записки Сергея Николаевича Глинки. Санкт-Петербург, 1895. С. 61, 63.

26 Карамзин Н.М. История государства Российского. В 12 т. Т. 1. Москва, 1989. С. 14.

27 Рудковская И.Е. Пространство государства как политический и религиозный миры в интерпретации Э. Гиббона и Н.М. Карамзина // Вестник Томского государственного университета. 2012. № 364. С. 72-79.

28 Карамзин Н.М. История государства Российского. В 12 т. Т. 1. Москва, 1989. С. 15.

29 Карамзин Н.М. История государства Российского. В 12 т. Т. 5. Москва, 1994. С. 205.

30 Чаадаев П.Я. Избранные сочинения и письма. Москва, 1991. С. 238.

31 Киреевский И.В. Девятнадцатый век // Киреевский И.В. Полное собрание сочинений. Т. 1. Москва, 1911. С. 95.

32 Тютчев Ф.И. Россия и Запад // Литературное наследство. Т. 97. Федор Иванович Тютчев. Кн. 1. Москва, 1988. С. 224.

33 Данилевский Н.Я. Россия и Европа. Москва, 2003. С. 120.

34 Толстой Л.Н. О значении русской революции // Толстой Л.Н. Полное собрание сочинений. В 90 т. Т. 36. Москва; Ленинград, 1936. С. 133.

35 Топоров В.Н. Вергилианская тема Рима // Исследования по структуре текста. Москва, 1987. С. 209.

36 Яуре М.В. Рим в «Докторе Живаго» // Новый филологический вестник. 2014. № 3 (30). С. 105-111; Гриффитс Ф., Рабинович С. Третий Рим: Классический эпос и русский роман (от Гоголя до Пастернака). Санкт-Петербург, 2005.

Authors, Abstract, Key words

Viktoriya I. Ukolova - Doctor of History, Professor, Moscow State Institute of International Affairs (University) (Moscow, Russia)

grand_mgimo@mail.ru

Pavel P. Shkarenkov - Doctor of History, Professor, Vice-rector, Russian State University for the Humanities (Moscow, Russia)

chkarenkov@mail.ru

Russian statehood is characterized by its longstanding historical existence and sustainable historical continuity, even though there were fundamental changes in the forms of government. Of great importance for preserving Russia's historical steadiness has been the political and cultural tradition connecting generations and epochs. One of its constants is the image of Rome, which is primarily identified with the universal experience of world power and civilization. This article studies the evolution of this image throughout the entire history of Russia - from the Old Russian state to the present time. The sign system of the Russian political and cultural tradition did not tie Rome to a particular location; it could semantically be transferred to other strong centers of power and transposed in time and space. The integral definition of the "Rome" concept also included a certain religious component and was supplemented with cultural value elements. The image of Rome was experienced aesthetically and imparted in the form of art, and it contained a political sentiment which was not always clearly defined. At times "different Romes" could consolidate to produce a complex figurative construct. Transforming along with the political and cultural tradition, Rome was one of the constants essential to the self-identification of the Russian civilization.

Roman Empire, Rome, Byzantine Empire, Europe, Russian State, Third Rome, Russian Empire, Peter I, St. Petersburg, Christian World, European civilization, Russian World, Orthodoxy, Slavophilism.

References (Articles from Scientific Journals)

1. Rudkovskaya I.E. Prostranstvo gosudarstva kak politicheskiy i reli-gioznyy miry v interpretatsii E. Gibbona i N.M. Karamzina [The State's Space as Political and Religious Worlds in the Interpretation of Edward Gibbon and Nikolay Karamzin.]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2012, no. 364, pp. 72-79. (In Russian).

2. Ukolova V.I. Istoricheskiy opyt Rima [Historical Experience of Rome.]. VestnikMGIMO-Universiteta, 2008, no. 2, pp. 3-10. (In Russian).

3. Yaure M.V. Rim v "Doktore Zhivago" [Rome in "Doctor Zhivago".]. Novyy filologicheskiy vestnik, 2014, no. 3 (30), pp. 105-111. (In Russian).

(Articles from Proceedings and Collections of Research Papers)

4. Chemikova T.V. "Grecheskiy proyekt" v kontekste gosudarstvennoy ide-ologii Rossii vtoroy poloviny XVIII v. [The "Greek Project" in the Context of Russia's State Ideology in the Latter Half of the 18th Century.]. Istoriya diplo-maticheskikh svyazey mezhdu Rossiyey i Grecheskim mirom na protyazhenii ve-kov [History of Diplomatic Ties Between Russia and the Greek World Through the Ages.]. Moscow, 2017, pp. 26-43. (In Russian).

5. Lotman Yu.M. Simvolika Peterburga i problemy semiotiki goroda [Symbolism of St. Petersburg and Problems of the City's Semiotics.]. Lotman Yu.M. Izbrannye stati [Selected Articles.]. Tallinn, 1992, vol. 2, pp. 9-21 (In Russian).

6. Lotman Yu.M., Uspenskiy B.A. Otzvuki kontseptsii "Moskva - Tretiy Rim" v ideologii Petra Pervogo (K probleme srednevekovoy traditsii v kulture barokko) [Repercussions of the Concept of "Moscow - the Third Rome" in the Ideology of Peter the Great (To the Issue of Medieval Tradition in Baroque Culture).]. Khudozhestvennyy yazyk Srednevekovya [Artistic Language of the Middle Ages.]. Moscow, 1982, pp. 236-249. (In Russian).

7. Toporov V.N. Vergilianskaya tema Rima [The Virgilian Theme of Rome.]. Issledovaniyapo strukture teksta [Studies on Text Structure.]. Moscow, 1987, pp. 196-215. (In Russian).

8. Toynbee, Arnold J. Russia's Byzantine Heritage. Toynbee, Arnold J. Civilization on Trial. Oxford University Press, 1948, pp. 164-183. = Toynbee A.J. Toynbee A.J. Vizantiyskoe nasledie Rossii [Russia's Byzantine Heritage.]. Toynbee A.J. Tsivilizatsiya pered sudom istorii [Civilization on Trial by History.]. Moscow, 2003, pp. 369-381. (In Russian).

9. Ukolova V.I. Mir v zenite Srednevekovya [The World During the Height of the Middle Ages.]. Aleksandr Nevskiy: Gosudar, diplomat, voin [Alexander Nevsky: Sovereign, Diplomat, Warrior.]. Moscow, 2010, pp. 15-50. (In Russian).

10. Uspenskiy B.A. Dualisticheskiy kharakter russkoy srednevekovoy kultury (na materiale "Khozhdeniya za tri moray" Afanasiya Nikitina) [The Dualistic Nature of Russian Medieval Culture (A Case Study of Afanasy Nikitin's "A Journey Beyond Three Seas")]. Uspenskiy B.A. Izbrannye trudy [Selected Works.]. Moscow, 1994, vol. 1, p. 263, pp. 381-432. (In Russian).

(Monographs)

11. Barkhin D.B. O religioznykh osnovakh i proobraze arkhitekturnoy kom-pozitsii Bolshogo Kremlevskogo dvortsa arkhitektora V.I. Bazhenova (1737 (1738) - 1799 gg.): K 250-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya arkhitektora i 830-letiyu Moskvy [On the Religious Underpinnings and Prototype of the Architectural Composition of the Grand Kremlin Palace by Architect Vasily Bazhenov (1737 (1738) - 1799): To the 250th Anniversary of the Architect's Birth and the 830th Anniversary of Moscow.]. Moscow, 1997, p. 13. (In Russian).

12. Chernikova T.V. Evropeizatsiya Rossii vo vtoroy polovine XV - XVII vekakh [The Europeanisation of Russia in the Latter Half of the 15th - 17th

Centuries.]. Moscow, 2012, 689 p. (In Russian).

13. Danilevskiy N.Ya. Rossiya i Evropa [Russia and Europe.]. Moscow, 2003, p. 120. (In Russian).

14. Devies, Norman. Europe: A History. Oxford University Press, 1996, 1365 p. = Devies N. Istoriya Evropy [A History of Europe.]. Moscow, 2005, pp. 338, 339. (In Russian).

15. Griffiths, Fredrick T.; Rabinowitz, Stanley J. Epic and the Russian Novel from Gogol to Pasternak. Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2011, 236 p. = Griffits F., Rabinowitz S. Tretiy Rim: Klassicheskiy epos i russkiy roman (ot Gogolya do Pasternaka) [The Third Rome: Classical Epic and the Russian Novel from Gogol to Pasternak.]. St.-Petersburg, 2005, 336 p. (In Russian).

16. Karamzin N.M. Istoriya gosudarstva Rossiyskogo. V 12 t. [History of the Russian State. In 12 Volumes.]. Moscow, 1989. vol. 1, pp. 14, 15.

17. Karamzin N.M. Istoriya gosudarstva Rossiyskogo. V 12 t. [History of the Russian State. In 12 Volumes.]. Moscow, 1994. vol. 5, p. 205.

18. Klyuchevskiy V.O. Kurs russkoy istorii: Chast 2 [Course in Russian History: Part 2.]. Klyuchevskiy V.O. Sochineniya [Works.]. Moscow, 1988, vol. 2, p. 107. (In Russian).

19. Musset, Lucien. Les invasions: le second assaut contre l'Europe chrétienne (VIIe - XIe siècle). Paris, 1965, 297 p. = Musset L. Varvarskie nash-estviya na Zapadnuyu Evropu: Vtoraya volna [Barbarian Invasion of Western Europe: The Second Wave.]. St. Petersburg, 2001, p. 287. (In Russian).

20. Sinitsyna N.V. Tretiy Rim: Istoki i evolyutsiya russkoy sredneveko-voy kontseptsii [The Third Rome: The Origins and Evolution of the Russian Medieval Concept.]. Moscow, 1998, p. 363. (In Russian).

21. Uspenskiy B.A. Tsar i imperator: Pomazanie na tsarstvo i semantika monarshikh titulov [Tsar and Emperor: Anointing to Reign and the Semantics of Sovereign Titles.]. Moscow, 2000, pp. 44, 48. (In Russian).

Авторы, аннотация, ключевые слова

Уколова Виктория Ивановна - докт. ист. наук, профессор, заведующая кафедрой всемирной и отечественной истории Московского государственного института международных отношений (университета) Министерства иностранных дел Российской Федерации

grand_mgimo@mail.ru

Шкаренков Павел Петрович - докт. ист. наук, профессор, проректор по непрерывному образованию Российского государственного гуманитарного университета (Москва)

chkarenkov@mail.ru

Российская государственность характеризуется длительностью собственного исторического бытия и поддержанием исторической преемственности, хотя формы государственности радикально менялись. Важное значение для сохранения исторической устойчивости России имела по-

литико-культурная традиция, связывающая поколения и эпохи. Одной из констант ее является копцепт Рима, предже всего отождествляющийся с универсальным опытом мировой власти и цивилизации. В статье рассматривается эволюция этого образа на протяжении всей истории России от Древнерусского государства до современности. В знаковой системе российской политико-культурной традиции Рим не был привязан к конкретному местоположению, он мог семантически переноситься на другие могущественные центры власти, перемещаться во времени и пространстве. Целостное определение концепта «Рим» включало также определенную религиозную составляющую, дополнялось ценностно-культурными компонентами. Образ Рима эстетически переживался, получал художественное воплощение, содержа в себе не всегда четко обозначенное политическое чувство. Порой «разные Римы» могли консолидироваться в сложную образную конструкцию. Трансформируясь вместе с политико-культурной традицией, Рим входил в круг констант, важных для самоидентификации российской цивилизации.

Римская империя, Рим, Византийская империя, Европа, Русское государство, Третий Рим, Российская империя, Петр I, Санкт-Петербург, Христианский мир, европейская цивилизация, Русский мир, Православие, славянофильство.