SUMMARY:

Andrei Korenevskii's article follows up on the article by Marshall Poe “The Invention of ‘Moscow The Third Rome’ Theory”. While agreeing with Poe on the problem of the perception of the doctrine, Korenevskii takes up the question of authorship of the so called “cycle of Filofei”. Arguing that the authorship problem is essential in establishing the contextual conditions for the emergence of the theory, Korenevskii proposes his own interpretations of the problem of texts attribution. Having argued that authorship is established (of Filofei), Korenevskii suggests that the misionary vision that unites different ouevres of the “cycle of Filofei” tends to undermine the interpretation of the doctrine as a responce or a side effect of the polemics against astrologers or latinists.Wide distribution of the references to the doctrine itself signifies the degree of preparedness of the early Muscovite society to embrace it. The unity of the cycle helps to establish the audience (church public) and to explain the reluctance of the Ivan the Terrible's state to embrace the doctrine since it stressed certain limits to the autocratic powers. Finally, the unity of the cycle and the established authorship opens up the field of research to elaborate on the portrait of one of the most distinguished medieval ideologists of Russia.