kingdom faithful to Orthodoxy had begun in times immemorial, that its first Christian ruler Vladimir was a model of
monarch, and Russia was led by God through actions of pious princes of the dynasty of Vladimir.
Other topic important for Moscow ideology of the XVI
th
c. was the theme of Kiev heritage. It was first dealt with in
the will of Dmitrij Don-skoj. Later texts written after Moscow had got its sovereignty, and after the coronation of
Ivan IV, developed the idea that Russia had been baptized by the Apostle Andrew. It was claimed that Moscow and
Roman traditions were of same value. In the XVI
th
c. Russia accepted the saint patron of Byzantium — St Andrew.
Moscow was viewed as the second Constantinople, and at the same time — as the second Kiev. As for Prince
Vladimir, in the XIV
th
c. he was called 'saint' and 'Baptist'; in the early XV
1
c. — 'equal to Apostles'. In the mid-
XVI
1
'
1
c. Muscovite scholars claimed that rights of St Vladimir were inherited — through dynastic succession — by
the tsar Ivan IV.
Political preeminence of Russia was based on sovereignty (Moscow had it unlike Kiev). St Vladimir was thought of
as the ancestor of the princes of Moscow. Political power of Moscow was explained by its piety, and the Church of
Kiev was presented as loosing its sanctity, which it had gotten at the times of the baptism. Some developed concepts
of translation of grace from Kiev to Moscow (a variant oflranslatio Imperil).
In the mid-XVl"
1
c. the theme of Kiev heritage was closely connected with Russian foreign policy. The task of
liberating all territories of former Kiev Rus' served as ideological justification for the Livonian war.
One could see how the conversion theme was developed through the use of a Ukrainian text of the XVII
th
c.
('Palinodia' by Zacharia Kopys-tensij, 1617-1624). Zacharia's story of conversion is based on the Primary Chronicle
as well as on Greek, Latin and Polish historical writings. The author used the baptism of Russia by St Vladimir to
show the importance of the Russian Church in universal Christendom. Zacharia treated the schism as the apostasy of
the Catholic Church from the true faith. But at the same time when Christendom lost Rome it got newly converted
Russia. Thus through baptism Russia got not only the Christian faith but also the sanctity of the Roman see.
However Kopystenskij did not speak
Memory, Images of the Past...
763
of the translation of grace from Kiev to Moscow. His ideas presented canonic arguments for creation of the new
Patriarchate in Kiev.
In 1632-1643 an anonymous Ukrainian author made a pro-Moscow adaptation of 'Palinodia' — 'The Book of faith'.
In this version the legend on St Andrew's coming into Russia proved that Moscow could be called the apostolic see
(as Constantinople). In the late XVI
th
c. the weightiest argument for creating a new Patriarchal see in Moscow was
the purity of its faith. Texts intended for Russians operated by the complex of ideas known as 'Moscow is the third
Rome'. Apart from concepts of dynastic succession and of the translation of grace new arguments were used:
Moscow had Holy relics of St. Andrew and St. Vladimir. Moscow was seen as new Kiev and Kiev should be
subjected to the see of Moscow.
'The Book of Faith' (the adaptation of 'Palinodia') was used as a source for the introductory part of 'Kormchaya' by
the Patriarch Nikon (1650-1653). As in the source the beginning of Russian Christian history was connected with
the apostasy of Rome. But in this text the general history of Christendom and the Roman apostasy was viewed as
prelude for the history of the Church of Moscow, and Kiev period was included into the latter part. Thus in the
initial Ukrainian version Kiev was the focus of attention while in Moscow versions Kiev period ended with St
Vladimir. All the rest was the history of Moscow.
Both Ukrainian and Moscow Churches turned to the images of St Andrew and St. Vladimir at the periods of
changes: in Russia it was the establishing of sovereign state, autocephalia, the coronation of Ivan IV, the
Patriarchate, the Church reform of the XVIl
(h
c., the war for Ukraine; for Ukraine it was the Union.
Historical legends of Russian diplomacy (Posol'skij Prikaz) also shaped Russian identity and at the same time
expressed it. They consolidated an 'imaginary community' by the stories of God's grace shown to Russian Princes,
Orthodox virtues, glorious victories etc. In diplomatic registers one could find historical justifications of accepting
the title of tsar, genealogical legends, claims to power over 'all Russia'. Russian imperial schemes often came into
conflict with analogous cultural constricts of other countries.
Russian diplomacy adopted the tradition of Byzantine chronographs. Particular legends were put into groups
according to certain rules. Such example as a narrative structure was extremely short and simplified so it presented
minimum of details together with formula. Forms had being changed according to the needs of time but they also
could be viewed as logical stages in development of imperial myth making. Imperial symbols and rhetoric
dominated the text but particular historical details were under constant revision, and it influenced the Russian
historiography.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION The Culture of History as a Subject of Research (L, P. Repina).......... 5
I. Memory and the Writing of History (i. P. Repina)...,.................... 19
II. The Culture of Remembrance and the History of Memory
(Yu. A. Arnautova)........................................................ 47
ANTJQUITY
CHAPTER 1
Paradoxes of Historical Memory in Ancient Greece