This article analyzes the reception by Russian intellectuals of the first Russian translation of Edward Said’s “Orientalism” (St. Petersburg, 2006). The author first suggests reasons why “Orientalism” was never particularly popular with Russian scholars and was never discussed within any local academic discourse. He then turns his attention toward the Russian version of “Orientalism” that appeared fifteen years after the original English-language publication. The article deals with many mistakes in the translation which are explained by the absence of scholarly editing, as well as the tendentiousness of the translator and especially of the author of the extensive Postsciptum accompanying the Russian text. This Postcriptum contains some information on Said, yet its main purpose is to explain the meaning of his major book for Russia and Russians. The article offers a critical interpretation of this text by K. A. Krylov, leader of the moderate Russian patriots and editor-in-chief of such media publications as “Russia’s Special Force” and “Russian March.” Using “Orientalism” as a source of inspiration, Krylov expresses his anti-western views, his irritation with westernized Russian intellectuals and with the post-modernist tradition of thought (without placing Said within this tradition). He recommends reading “Orientalism” as a model of action for “us” who live in the “huge and scary European East.” The article also analyzes the ideological presumptions and rhetorical tools of Krylov, who frames “Orientalism” as the manifesto of anti-globalism, anti-Americanism and a declaration of the superiority of non-western civilization. The bulk of Krylov’s commentary on “Orientalism” is dedicated to Said’s views on Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Then the article turns to other reviews of “Orientalism” in the Russian press pointing to the similarity of reactions of local “statist” and nationalists who support Said, and the unanimous rejection of Said by local “westernizers.” All parties involved see in “Orientalism” a political manifesto of a Westernized Arab. The article compares this reaction to the reception of the original “Orientalism” in the West and stresses the essentialism of Russian commentators, be they Marxists, western-style liberals or nationalists. The author concludes that the essentialism of the Russian critics is incompatible with Said’s relativism. The pathos of “Orientalism,” which the author defines as the rejection of essentialism of positivist science of the 19th and 20th centuries, remains unnoticed by the majority of Russian commentators of Said.