Chapter 12.
Western Europe of the XIV-XVI century as part of the Great = "Mongolian" Empire.
9. Moscow as Third Rome.
9.1. The moniker “Third Rome” as used for referring to Moscow finally explained.
As we have pointed out above, this book of ours isn’t so much concerned with the search of new proof for our conception as with providing a new explanation of various “blank spots” inherent in Scaligerian history based on our theory. One of such blank spots is the famous mediaeval formula: “Moscow is the Third Rome”, which is hardly fathomable if we’re to follow the Romanovian version of Russian history.
The popular opinion is that it had simply embodied the hopes of the Muscovite Great Princes for the ascension of Moscow. However, the word Rome was understood quite explicitly in the Middle Ages, referring to the capital of the Global Empire. From the point of view suggested by the Romanovian version of Russian history, the very concept of Moscow as the Third Rome is blatant and even ridiculous bragging.
However, our conception of Russian history provides a simple explanation. Moscow really became the new capital of the Great = “Mongolian” Empire, or the Third Rome, when this formula was introduced.
Let us remind the reader that, according to the New Chronology, before the epoch of Ivan III the capital of the Great Russian Empire was still in Vladimir, or the city that “ruled the world”, judging by the translation of the name (alternatively – in Yaroslavl, or Novgorod the Great).
It is known that the formula in question was introduced at the end of the XV century. For instance, it is used in the rendition of the Paschalia compiled by Metropolitan Zosima in 1492 ([637], page 132). It is presumed to have been formulated with the greatest precision in the epistle of Elder Filofey. “In the missive to Vassily III Ivanovich, written around 1514-1521, we see the first formulation . . . of the formula ‘Moscow is the Third Rome’, without any literary or philosophical developments” ([637], page 732).
Modern historians associate the introduction of this claim with the events of 1453 and 1480. The Ottomans took Constantinople in 1453. As we realise today, this must have been the conquest of New Rome, or the Byzantine capital, by the joined forces of Russia and the Ottomans, or Atamans.
It is believed that in 1480 the Muscovite Great Prince became the autocrat. Today it is believed to have marked the end of the “Tartar yoke”. However, it was really the end of a relatively short period in Russian history of some 30 years, more or less, when Russia was symbolically acknowledging the superiority of the Ottoman Ataman Mohammed II the Conqueror, an ally of Russia. As soon as the great Mohammed died in 1481, his Muscovite allies refused to so much as acknowledge the “superiority rights” of his heirs. We shall cover this in more detail in the section on Egypt. We must simply mark that initially the name Moscow, or the Biblical Meshech, was used for referring to the entire Horde, or Russia. The city of Moscow only became the capital of the Empire in the XVI century, a hundred years later. Namely, this happened in the reign of Ivan IV “The Terrible”, whose phantom reflection was cast a century backward in time, becoming Ivan III (see CHRON6 for more details).
Ever since that time, Moscow was proclaimed capital, having become the residence of Ivan III, the autocrat (also known as Ivan IV). This is how Moscow became the Third Rome – quite literally and with no need for any “philosophical developments”.
R. G. Skrynnikov reports: “People in the Middle Ages were regarding the political system of the world as a strict hierarchy . . . The centre of the universe was in Byzantium, the heir of the Roman Empire . . . The theory of Russia as the Third Rome, according to which the Muscovite princes acted as the direct heirs of the rulers of the ‘Second Rome’ – the Byzantine Empire” ([776], pages 22-23).
The famous “Hat of Monomakh” is believed to have appeared in Russia in the epoch of Ivan III. According to R. G. Skrynnikov, “there was a legend about the progeny of Monomakh’s Hat [bear in mind that all the “embarrassing” mediaeval reports are usually called legends nowadays – Auth.]. When Monomakh accomplished his victorious Czar-Grad Campaign, his grandfather, Emperor Constantine, long dead in reality, gave his grandson the royal diadem from his head . . . Muscovite rulers inherited the imperial regalia from Monomakh” ([776], page 24).
Let us remind the reader that Monomakh was the name of Constantine, the Byzantine Emperor, as well as that of his grandson Vladimir. Therefore, according to the official Russian point of view of the XVI century, the royal diadem of Byzantine emperors was brought to Russia in the epoch of Vladimir Monomakh, who was the alleged ancestor of the Muscovite Czars according to the very same official viewpoint. And so, the famous Byzantine Monomakh’s Hat ended up in Russia, or the Third Rome.
It is most noteworthy that, according to the evidence of the contemporaries, this hat of the Byzantine emperor was “crafted in the Tartar fashion” ([776], page 24). This is perfectly in order from the point of view suggested by our reconstruction. The so-called “Tartar style” was the “ancient” Byzantine style in reality. This was eventually forgotten, and the “ancient” Byzantine style is imagined differently today, without the participation of any Tartars.
It would be interesting to turn to the original source and see how the “philosophically undeveloped” idea of Moscow as the Third Rome was actually formulated.
It turns out that philosophy has nothing to do with the subject. The missive of Filofei was concerned with nothing but practical issues. As he discusses them, he makes the following matter-of-fact statement, pointing it out as a matter of common knowledge: “Pious Czar, it is known that your domain is one to include every Christian kingdom; you are thus the suzerain of all the Christians upon the face of the Earth” ([637], page 436).
Also: “O pious Czar, see how all the Christian kingdoms converged under your power, since the two Romes have fallen and the Third stands proud; there shall be no fourth” ([637], page 440).
Filofey makes a perfectly clear reference to the unification of all Christian kingdoms under the rule of Great Prince Vassily, or simply “Czar”, considering the translation of the name (which has transformed into a regular name somewhat later).
It must be noted that Filofey mentions the unification of all Christian kingdoms under the rule of Moscow as a fait accompli, something completely obvious and self-implied. It is perfectly obvious from our reconstruction’s viewpoint – we are considering the real global supremacy of Russia, or the Horde, with its newly established capital in Moscow (already after the divide of lands with the Ottoman = Ataman Empire in the XV century).
Countries controlled by the Ottoman Empire eventually became Muslim, whereas the ones that comprised the Russian Empire, or the Horde, chose Christianity.
Modern commentators are obviously irritated by this tone of Filofey’s letter. Upon consideration, they have found a “fitting” pretext for the statement made by Filofey. They remark that indeed, “the city of Pskov was made part of the Muscovite Principality about twelve years earlier” ([637], page 732). This is how “all the Christian lands converged under the power of Great Prince Vassily”.
This would all be fine and well – however, it turns out that there are many sources featuring “Moscow as the Third Rome”; not as a “popular theory” of any sort, as we see from the epistle of Filofey, but a real fact, despite the allegations of the modern commentators (see [637], page 732).
Could everyone have really been impressed so much by the successful annexation of Pskov to start considering Moscow the Third Rome, and not merely the Third Rome, but the Eternal Rome, a permanent successor to the two Great Romes of the ancient days. According to the report made by Reverend Makariy Veretennikov, there was a certain “Chronograph” compiled in the Iosifo-Volokolamskiy Monastery, based on the concept that the whole world history could be rendered to the history of the Muscovite Russia ([856]).
Later on, the concept of Moscow as the Third Rome was suppressed by the Romanovs in the XVII century – in particular, during the schism of the Russian Church under Czar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon. It is believed that “the old-believers were the only ones to have preserved and developed the teaching about a special historical role of the Russian nation, ‘Russia the Holy’ and the ‘Orthodox Third Rome’; it is due to their efforts primarily that these ideas were revived, in this century and in the previous one” ([298], page 14). It is known that the first and largest stronghold of opposition to the reforms of Nikon and the Romanovs was located in the Volga region, the former territory of the Golden Horde. This is easy to understand – the old centre of “Mongolia”, or the mediaeval Russian Empire, was right here on the Volga.
9.2. Moscow as the “New Jerusalem”.
We have mentioned it many times that the Evangelical city of Jerusalem is most likely to be identified as Czar-Grad = New Rome = Constantinople. It is most likely that Jesus Christ was crucified here in the XII century (1185). Therefore, the names of Rome and Jerusalem are strongly liked to each other, and occasionally would even refer to the same city, according to our reconstruction. This was remembered well in the Middle Ages. Indeed, according to G. V. Popov, “the concept of Constantinople being the ‘Second Rome’, or ‘New Jerusalem’ became popular . . . in the XV century” ([305], page 86).
Czar-Grad, or Jerusalem, was firmly associated with such Christian halidoms as the Hagia Sophia, which stands in Istanbul until this day, and the Holy Sepulchre.
The Russian “Talk of Jerusalem” considered apocryphal and therefore presumably “erroneous” today, reports the following: “The city of Jerusalem is the mother of all cities; the Church of Sophia, the Lord’s Wisdom, is the Church of All Churches. It houses the Holy Sepulchre” ([305], page 12). Since the Church of Hagia Sophia still exists in Istanbul, we can clearly see that the author of the texts unequivocally identifies Jerusalem as Czar-Grad.
Therefore, Moscow, which really became Third Rome in the XV-XVI century, must have naturally inherited the image of Jerusalem. This idea is formulated in the same “Talk of Jerusalem” as follows: “There shall be the City of Jerusalem in Russia, its holy capital, and in that city there shall be the Ecumenical Apostolic Church of Sophia, the Lord’s Wisdom, of seventy domes, also known as the Holiest of the Holy” ([305], page 12).
We must also point out that certain English texts transcribe the name of Yaroslavl as Jeroslowd ([186], pages 235 and 244). The fact that “Jeroslowd” stands for “Yaroslavl” was discovered by academic historians ([235], page 244). It is likely that Jeroslowd is merely a corruption of the name Jerusalem, which is in perfect correspondence with our reconstruction, seeing as how Yaroslavl remained the capital of the Great = “Mongolian” Empire for a long time. Ancient transcriptions, especially those made in the Gothic script, which make the letter M look like W inverted, are sometimes difficult to distinguish from the sequence of OD, which is how Jerusalem, or Yaroslavl, transformed into Jeroslowd. As for Jerusalem becoming Yaroslavl or Jeroslavl, we must recollect that in the old texts the letter M often changed into W, its inverted version. Hence the transformation of Jerusalem into Yaroslavl and vice versa.
During the reign of Czar (or Khan) Boris “Godunov”, the transformation of Moscow into the New Jerusalem was in full swing. By that time Moscow had already been the Third Rome, according to the official point of view shared by the Muscovites.
A. L. Batalov writes the following: “The Muscovite Czar was likened to the Byzantine Emperor . . . the parallel with Emperor Constantine isn’t merely a historical analogy. It corresponds . . . to the ideas of the Muscovite Czar’s universal power. He is no longer . . . a mere Muscovite Czar, but also the ruler of all the Orthodox Christians . . . In the letter . . . of the Patriarch, the Czar is directly referred to as the only Orthodox king . . . The Muscovite autocrat . . . is likened to Emperor Constantine . . .
This was in accordance with how the official Moscow regarded itself. The idea of replacing the Byzantine Emperor by the Muscovite Czar and a reinvention of the Russian Kingdom as the Global Orthodox Empire . . . stops being a literary invention . . . and becomes formulated in an official document, the Patriarchal Decree . . . The image of a universal monarch reaches its canonical completion in September 1598. The model constructed in the official decree becomes implemented in the reign of Boris Godunov . . .
Immediately upon the inauguration of Czar Boris, the programme related in the coronation title was developed as the plan to build the ‘Holiest of Holy Churches’ inside the Kremlin . . . The very concept of ‘Holiest of Holy’ was simultaneously associated with . . . the sanctum sanctorum . . . of the Temple of King Solomon from the Old Testament, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. A number of sources . . . compares this concept to the construction of Solomon’s Temple” ([305], page 156).
The “Holiest Church” was never built in Moscow due to the beginning of the Great Strife. However, the Holy Sepulchre to be installed in this church was actually made – of pure solid gold, with more than ten cast golden statues depicting the apostles and the angels ([305], page 157).
The famous “Lobnoye Mesto” on the Red Square in Moscow (literally, the “Frontal Site”) was apparently designed to be a holy place for all the Christians ([305], page 159; see figs. 12.6, 12.7 and 12.8). It was supposed to commemorate the Golgotha, with a skull (or “Adam’s forehead”) located underneath, as it was drawn by numerous mediaeval artists. A famous ancient drawing of the “Lobnoye Mesto” in a plan of 1600 can be seen in fig. 12.9. A view over the site in question as well as the Church of St. Basil painted in 1820-1830 can be seen in fig. 12.10.
According to A. L. Batalov, “the fact that the site in question, which was inside the Jerusalem Temple, was chosen by Godunov as one that lay outside the Resurrection Cathedral and the very Kremlin itself . . . testifies to a new level of replicating the halidom, one that differed from the mid-XVII century concept of Patriarch Nikon’s New Jerusalem” ([305], page 159).
A most noteworthy fact, remembered by very few today, is that the famous Cathedral of St. Basil on the Red Square in Moscow “was often . . . simply referred to as Jerusalem in the XVI and XVII century” ([305], page 190). See CHRON6, Chapter 10:3.1 for more details. See also fig. 12.11.
Let us remind the reader of the unique architectural features of the Cathedral of St. Basil. It looks as though it were collated of several independent churches, each of which with a distinct dome of its very own. Above them we see the tall dome of the central church that they appear to huddle around. The shape of certain domes very closely resembles a turban, the old headdress of the Cossacks still preserved in the Muslim world (see figs. 12.12 and 12.13).
It is therefore possible that this temple, built in the XVI century, was designed to symbolise the whole Great = “Mongolian” Empire, whose exaltation was planned in Moscow around that time, and not merely the victories of the Horde (the conquest of Czar-Grad, Kazan et al). The necessity of founding a Third Rome in Moscow accompanied the budding religious schism between the Orthodox Russia and the domain of the Turkish Atamans, which was turning Muslim.
The XV century conquest of Constantinople was implemented by the two allied forces. However, closer to the end of the XVI century the religious schism became pronounced, and later insurmountable. In order to evade a struggle for Jerusalem, or Czar-Grad, Russia, or the Horde, decided to found a new holy city in Moscow. Hence the parallel with Constantine the Great, qv above. Constantine left the old Rome (Novgorod – Horde) and founded the New Rome in Constantinople; the Muscovite Czars, or Khans, of the XV-XVI century were similarly founding the Third Rome, or Jerusalem, in Moscow.
The first steps were made by Ivan III (or Ivan IV a century later). The full Jerusalem outlook was to be reached in the reign of Czar (Khan) Boris “Godunov”. Many of the preparations were already made, including those for the construction by a new Hagia Sophia, or the Temple of Solomon. However, the Great Strife broke out in Russia. The memory of the great design remains as the “Jerusalem” Temple, or the Church of St. Basil and the “Lobnoye Mesto” on the Red Square.
Several decades later, Patriarch Nikon decided to revive the concept and to build a new Jerusalem – albeit near Moscow and outside city limits this time. It exists until the present day. This place was also projected with a great deal of pathos – Bethlehem and other Evangelical halidoms were among the planned features.
It is most remarkable that this endeavour of Nikon’s was immediately interpreted as a wish to become the Patriarch of Jerusalem ([305], page 175). An ancient portrait of Nikon can be seen in fig. 12.14.
The implication is that “Jerusalem” had still very much been a symbol in that epoch, which could be moved across the map freely and ascribed to one geographic location or the other. “Jerusalem” was a synonym of the centre of Orthodox Christianity, an ecclesiastical capital of sorts which was also mobile, just like the secular capitals.
It is common knowledge that Nikon’s title of Patriarch was revoked, one of the reasons being his construction of the New Jerusalem ([305], page 175). No other attempts of this kind were made for obvious reasons.
After the Reformation mutiny and the Romanovian coup in Russia, which date to the XVII-XVIII century, it was agreed to locate Jerusalem in the modern Palestine, on the site of a small settlement known as Al-Quds. The construction of other Jerusalems was ruled out – now they would already “challenge the historical truth”.
As a matter of fact, the tradition of building Orthodox churches with domes looking like the Cossack, or the Ottoman = Ataman turban existed until the XVII century at least. For example, let us consider one of the XVII century churches in Nizhniy Novgorod. It is the famous Stroganov Church of Nativity close to the bank of the Volga. The entrance to the church is via a staircase that leads to the second floor. The domes of the church are decorated with spiral ornaments and closely resemble the domes of the Muscovite St. Basil, qv in figs. 12.14a and 12.14b. Bright spiral stripes on the domes are made of small multicolour tiles, therefore the black and white illustration that we reproduce does not convey the whole splendour of this sight, which one can see upon a colour photograph. Many Russian churches of the Horde must have possessed similar turban-like domes; however, ever since the reform of the architectural style by the Romanovs, the few surviving churches of this kind have been perceived as rarities and oddities.
9.3. “Russia and Jerusalem are wherever one finds the true faith”.
We must reiterate that before the XVII century the term “Jerusalem” must have had a different meaning. Nowadays we are accustomed to associating it with a certain spot on the geographical map. However, it appears that in the Middle Ages there was a different concept of the very term “Jerusalem”, which must have stood for the centre of Ecumenical Church. A new centre would bring about the foundation of a new Jerusalem.
Mediaeval sources have preserved the religious perception of geography that strikes us as uncanny today. According to this perception, geography was associated with faith, and not any particular location. Many famous Christian names were linked to the importance of a given place to the Church and not its actual geography. We have already cited Jerusalem as an example. Incidentally, the name Russia must have also been used as a religious name of this kind at some point in history.
“The symbolic image of the Holy Land, or Russia the Holy, is well familiar from ecclesiastic works where ‘the names of secular political geography merge with religious geography, according to which Russia is wherever true faith can be found’” ([305], page 13).
It is not to be ruled out that the words “Jerusalem” and “Russia” share a common root of “RUS”, which could have had a religious meaning in the Middle Ages - as a synonym of “Orthodox”, for instance. After all, the name of Russia used by the authors of the Scandinavian geographical tractates is the Great Svitjof; the latter might be derived from the Russian word “Svyatoi”, or “holy” (see Part 6 of the present book).
Indeed, mediaeval geographical names could have possessed meanings that have nothing in common with the ones that we’re accustomed to today. In particular, they could be a great deal more mobile on the maps. For the mediaeval people, such mobility and duplication of names was understandable and had a meaning of its own, which has become forgotten by now. And so, when we sort through the old sources, we subconsciously try to make them fit our modern conception of geography, occasionally in error.
9.4. The source of the decree about the foundation of the New Inquisition in the Western Europe.
Let us return to the epistle that Elder Filofey sent to Great Prince Vassily. What was Vassily actually writing about, and wherefore the reference to Moscow as the Third Rome?
Filofey mentions Moscow being the Third Rome (not on the “Pskov Scale”, of course – actually, there isn’t a single mention of Pskov anywhere in the document), when he explicitly recommends it to the Great Czar to instigate a series of ecclesiastical reforms in his kingdom, which comprises all the Christian kingdoms, as the Elder points out as an obvious and self-implied fact.
Let us quote the actual name of the Epistle. “An Epistle to Great Prince Vassily on the Rectification of the Sign of the Cross and a Report of Sodomite Fornication” ([637], page 437). Filofey gives three recommendations to the Czar.
The first one is as follows: “Fear the Lord, who has given you all that you have”.
The second concerns the necessity to fill the Church with bishops. There must have been a sudden shortage – understandable within our reconstruction due to the great expansion of the Great Russian Empire, lots of new converts, a change of ecclesiastical hierarchy in the conquered lands and so on. All of the above must have taken a great number of bishops, who actually implement the power of the church.
The third one is of the greatest interest. Filofey demands to eradicate the sin of sodomy: “Not merely among the secular populace, but others as well, whom I shall not mention directly, but the reader shall know them” ([637], page 439). It is an obvious enough reference to the sin of sodomy in the rants of the church officials or in monasteries. The Great Prince must have heeded to the strict demands of the Russian Orthodox Church as represented by Filofey.
However, one might well enquire about the exact places where they started to persecute “the sin of sodomy” after this missive. Did they do it in the recently joined Pskov, perchance? We haven’t heard of any such thing, for some reason.
There is something we do know of in relation to this epoch, however. This is the very epoch when the famous New Inquisition is founded in the Western Europe, or the countries conquered as a result of the Great = “Mongolian” Conquest. These were the countries where the “ancient” orgiastic Bacchic cult had flourished, as we mentioned above and in CHRON1, which was a distorted version of the original XII century Christianity.
“The New Inquisition was institutionalised in Spain in 1478-1483” ([204], page 231). Apparently, immediately upon reception of orders from Moscow. Let us recollect the reference given by Orbini about the Spanish Royal House being the closest to Moscow ([617], page 4).
A new wave of the inquisition swept over other countries of the Western Europe as well. This resulted in the formation of the “universal, or ecumenical, inquisition, also known as the Roman Inquisition, as a congregation of the Holy Chancellery that has existed ever since 1542” ([204], page 29).
Therefore, the institution of the inquisition was founded in 1542, and it eventually swept over the entire Western Europe. There are two main waves of the inquisition in the history of the Western Europe, the first one likely to be a reflection of the XV-XVI century inquisition. A propos, there has never been any such institution founded inside the Orthodox Church – it wasn’t required.
Apparently, apart from the struggle against heresy, the Western European inquisition was concerned with the eradication of sodomy – one must recollect that the “witches” usually had “sexual perversions” incriminated to them [204].
It is interesting that the first wave of the serious organised inquisition in Western Europe is dated to the very same epoch as the beginning of the “Mongolian” conquest in the XIII century, namely, 1229-1230 ([204], page 30).
The second wave of the inquisition at the end of the XV century coincides with the time of Ivan III, who was known as the “new Constantine” ([305], page 52), and “had the power of the Holy Divine Seat of the Ecumenical Church” ([305], page 52). In other words, he commanded the Ecumenical Church in the secular fashion.
He must have been the one to decide upon the areas where the new inquisition was to be introduced.
Thus, upon comparing all the facts, let us enquire: is it pure coincidence that the Muscovite calls for the eradication of sodomy from the Ecumenical Church and the parallel foundation of the inquisition in the Western Europe date to the same point in time? After all, the institution in question was the ideal candidate for such a task.
Readers who find it difficult to believe the idea that Moscow might have affected Western European affairs so seriously might recollect a much more recent epoch, when a short-term rapid expansion of Russia’s (or, rather, the USSR’s) sphere of authority resulted in the creation of the famous Komintern, a special international organization, in Moscow to facilitate the issue of orders.
10. How veracious is our idea of the mediaeval Western inquisition?
We must linger on the frequently disputed “crimes of the inquisition” for a while. We have been fed the version that the institution of the inquisition in the Western Europe was characterised by horrendous and strangely senseless cruelty – fires whereupon innocent people would be burnt alive are supposed to have blaze all across Europe.
Simultaneously, there is another point of view on the matter, voiced by a number of West Europeans, according to which the inquisition trials weren’t any crueller than the regular courts of that epoch. Moreover – these courts were better organised, and less prone to arbitrary action. For instance, “Celestin Douais, a French poet, was claiming that the creation of the inquisition courts . . . was in the interests of the heretics, saving them from pogroms, indiscriminate massacres and uncontrollable persecution” ([204], page 22).
“The inquisition courts”, according to Celestin Douais, “also contributed to the preservation of the epoch’s civilisation, helping to maintain order and to curb the propagation of major evils, protecting the century’s interests and truly standing guard of social justice and the Christian ideology” ([1107], page 63).
I. R. Grigulevich cites many examples of similar statements in [204]. We can therefore see that opinions concerning the inquisition’s activities differed.
Our reconstruction leads us to the following question. Could the image of the Inquisition as an institute of senseless persecution of regular people that was making fantasy accusations based on delirious pretexts have appeared as an agitprop distortion of the epoch of Russian and Turkic “Mongolian” rule in the Western Europe?
It suffices to recollect the Chronicle of Matthew of Paris, where the vicious Tartars only drink water when they can get no fresh human blood to quench their thirst, roast people on spits etc.
