Who destroyed the Russian manuscripts? Where did the church archives go?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

… If there are no documents, you can see the frescoes of churches. But … Under Peter I, a tavern was placed on the territory of the Kremlin, and prisons were located in its basements.

In the sacred walls for Ruriks, weddings and performances were staged. In the Archangel and Assumption Cathedrals of the Moscow Kremlin, the Romanovs in the 17th century completely knocked down (!) All the plaster frescoes from the walls and re-painted the walls with new frescoes.

Destruction continued until our time - at the subbotnik of the 1960s in the Simonov Monastery in Moscow (where Peresvet and Oslyabya, the warrior monks of the Kulikovo battle are buried) priceless slabs with genuine ancient inscriptions were barbarously crushed with jackhammers and taken out of the church.

In Crimea, there was an Orthodox Assumption Monastery, which had its own archive and close ties with Russia BEFORE the Romanovs came to power. The monastery is often mentioned in the sources of the XVI-XVII centuries.

In 1778, as soon as the Russian troops occupied Crimea, "by order of Catherine II, the commander of the Russian troops in the Crimea, Count Rumyantsev, proposed to the head of the Crimean Christians, Metropolitan Ignatius, with all Christians to move to Russia on the shores of the Sea of Azov … The resettlement organization was led by AV Suvorov … Escorted by the troops of A. V. Suvorov, 31,386 people set off. Russia allocated 230 thousand rubles for this action."

This was five years before Crimea became part of the Russian Romanov Empire in 1783! The Assumption Monastery was closed (!) And remained closed until 1850.

Those. for no less than 80 years. It is just such a period after which any person who could remember something about the history of the hidden archives will die.

History books…

For many centuries, the complete history of the Slavs has not been written or destroyed at all! The book of Mavro Orbini ("Slavic Kingdom", see part 2 Sources) was preserved miraculously.

All there is is thousands of falsifications about "wild Slavs … forest animals … born for slavery … herd animals".

Even the very first Russian "Chronograph on the Great Exposition" of 1512 was compiled on the basis of Western data (Byzantine chronographs). Further - lies on lies of the 17th century.

At first, the falsifications were led by persons appointed by the tsar - Archpriest Stefan Vonifatyevich (tsarist confessor), F. M. Rtishchev (royal boyar), invited " West Russianteachers "from Kiev (Epiphany Slavinetskiy, Arseniy Satanovskiy, Daskin Ptitskiy), verse-alander Simeon Polotskiy.

In 1617 and 1620 the Chronograph was heavily edited (the so-called second and third editions) - the history of Russia was inscribed in the western framework of general history and Scaliger's chronology.

To create an official lie in 1657, a "Note Order" was even created (headed by clerk Timofey Kudryavtsev).

But the amount of falsification and correction of old books in the middle of the 17th century was still modest. For example: in "Kormchai" (church thematic collection) of 1649-1650, the 51st chapter is replaced by a text of Western origin from the Tomb book; created the literary work "Correspondence between Grozny and Prince Kurbsky" (written by S. Shakhovsky) and the fake speech of I. Grozny in 1550 at the Execution Ground (archivist V. N. Autocrats proved her fabrication).

They created a panegyric "The History of the Tsars and Grand Dukes of the Russian Land" (aka "The Book of Degrees of the Noble and Pious House of the Romanovs", at the end of the 60s), the author is the clerk of the Kazan Palace order Fyodor Griboyedov.

But … a small amount of history falsifications did not satisfy the royal court. With the advent of the Romanovs to the throneorders are given to monasteries to collect documents and books with the aim of correcting and destroying them. Active work is underway to revise libraries, book depositories, archives.

Even on Athos at this time old Russian books are being burned (see the book by LI Bocharov "Conspiracy against Russian history", 1998). The wave of "scribes of history" was growing. And the Germans become the founders of the new version of Russian history (modern).

The task of the Germans is to prove that the Eastern Slavs were real savages, saved from the darkness of ignorance by the West; there was no Tartary and the Eurasian empire. In 1674, the "Synopsis" of the German Innokentii Gisel was published, the first official pro-Western textbook on the history of Russia, which was reprinted many times (including 1676, 1680, 1718 and 1810) and survived until the middle of the 19th century. Don't underestimate Gisel's creation! The Russophobic basis of the "wild Slavs" is beautifully packaged in heroism and unequal battles, in the latest editions even the origin of the name of the Slavs from the Latin "slave" was changed to "glory" ("Slavs" - "glorious").

At the same time, the German G. Z. Bayer came up with a Norman theory: a handful of Normans who arrived in Russia in a few years turned the "wild country" into a mighty state. G. F. Miller not only destroyed the Russian chronicles, but defended his thesis "On the origin of the name and the Russian people." And off we go …

On the history of Russia until the twentieth century, there were books by V. Tatishchev, I. Gizel, M. Lomonosov, M. Shcherbatov, the Westernizer N. Karamzin (see "Help: people"), liberals S. M. Solovyov (1820-1879) and V. O. Klyuchevsky (1841-1911 gzh).

By the famous surnames - there were also Mikhail Pogodin (1800-1875 gzh, a follower of Karamzin), N. G. Ustryalov (1805-1870 Gzh, the era of Nicholas I), Konstantin Aksakov (1817-1860 Gzh., There is not a single integral historical work), Nikolai Kostomarov (1817-1885 Gzh, biographies of the rebels, German basis), K. D. Kavelin (1818-1885 gzh, attempts to combine Westernism and Slavophilism), B. N. Chicherin (1828-1904 Gzh, an ardent Westerner), A. P. Shchapov (1831-1876 Gzh, history of individual regions).

But the bottom line is the original seven books, and in fact - only three stories! By the way, there were three directions even in officialdom: conservative, liberal, radical.

All modern history in school-TV is an inverted pyramid, at the base of which is the fantasies of the Germans G. Miller-G. Bayer-A. Schlötser and "Synopsis" by I. Gizel, populized by Karamzin.

Differences between S. Solovyov and N. Karamzin are his attitude to monarchy and autocracy, the role of the state, ideas of development, and other periods of division. But the basis for M. Shcherbatov or S. Solovyov-V. O. Klyuchevsky - the same - German Russophobic … Those. the choice of Karamzin-Solovyov is a choice between the pro-Western monarchist and pro-Western liberal views.

The Russian historian Vasily Tatishchev (1686-1750) wrote the book "Russian history from the most ancient times", but did not manage to publish it (only the manuscript). GermansAugust Ludwig Schletzer and Gerard Friedrich Miller (18th century) published the works of Tatishchevand so they were "edited" that after that nothing remained of the original in his works.

V. Tatishchev himself wrote about the huge distortions of history by the Romanovs, his students used the term "Romano-Germanic yoke." The original manuscript of Tatishchev's "Russian History" after Miller disappeared without a trace, and some "drafts" (Miller used them according to the official version) are now also unknown.

The great M. Lomonosov (1711-1765) in his letters scared with G. Miller about his false history (especially the lie of the Germans about the "great darkness of ignorance" that allegedly reigned in Ancient Russia) and emphasized the antiquity of the Slavic empires and their constant movement from east to west.

Mikhail Vasilyevich wrote his "Ancient Russian History", but through the efforts of the Germans, the manuscript was never published … Moreover, for the fight against the Germans and their falsification of history, by the decision of the Senate Commission M. Lomonosov "for repeated disrespectful, dishonorable and disgusting acts … in relation to German soil is subject to the death penalty, or … punishment with lashes and deprivation of rights and fortunes."

Lomonosov spent almost seven months in custody awaiting the approval of the verdict! By the decree of Elizabeth he was found guilty, but "released" from punishment. His salary was cut by half, and he had to apologize to the German professors "for the prejudices he had committed". Scum G. Miller made a mocking "repentance", which Lomonosov was forced to publicly pronounce and sign …

After the death of M. V. Lomonosov, the next day (!), The library and all the papers of Mikhail Vasilyevich (including the historical essay) were sealed by Catherine's order by Count Orlov, transported to his palace and disappeared without a trace.

And then … only the first volume of the monumental work of M. V. Lomonosov, prepared for publication by the same German G. Miller. And the contents of the volume, for some reason, strangely completely coincided with the story from Miller himself …

The 12-volume "History of the Russian State" by the writer Nikolai Karamzin (1766-1826) is generally an artistic arrangement of the German "Synopsis" with the addition of slanderous defectors, Western chronicles and fiction (see "Help: People - Karamzin"). Interestingly, it does NOT contain the usual references to sources (extracts are in the notes).

The author of the 29-volume "History of Russia from Ancient Times" Sergei Solovyov (1820-1879), whose work more than one generation of Russian historians studied, "a European man is a typical liberal of the middle of the 19th century" (Soviet academician L. V. Cherepnin).

With what ideology could Soloviev, who studied in Heidelberg at the lectures of Schlosser (the author of the multivolume "World History"), and in Paris at the lectures of Michelet could present Russian history? Conclusion K. S. Aksakov (1817-1860 gzh, Russian publicist, poet, literary critic, historian and linguist, head of the Russian Slavophiles and ideologue of Slavophilism) about Soloviev's "History" recognized by the authorities:

" The author did not notice one thing: the Russian people ".

L. N. Tolstoy spoke about Solovyov's waste paper: “Reading about how they robbed, ruled, fought, ruined (this is the only thing in history), you involuntarily come to the question: WHAT was robbed and ruined? what have you ruined?"

Knowledge of the history of S. M. Solovyov were so miserable that, for example, to object to the targeted criticism of A. S. Khomyakov, in essence, he never could, immediately passing into the plane of direct insults. By the way, S. M. Solovyov, too, there are NO direct links to sources (only Appendices at the end of the work).

In addition to V. Tatishchev and M. V. Lomonosov's pro-Western lies in different years were opposed by such Russian people as the historian and translator A. I. Lyzlov (~ 1655-1697 gzh, author of "Scythian history"), historian I. N. Boltin (1735-1792), historian and poet N. S. Artsybashev (1773-1841 gzh), Polish archaeologist F. Volansky (Fadey / Tadeusz, 1785-1865 gzh, author of "Description of Monuments Explaining Slavic-Russian History"), archaeologist and historian A. D. Chertkov (1789-1858 gzh, author of "On the resettlement of the Thracian tribes beyond the Danube and further north, to the Baltic Sea, and to us in Russia"), state councilor E. I. Klassen (1795-1862 gzh, author of "The Ancient History of the Slavs and Slavic-Russes before Rurik's Time"), the philosopher A. S. Khomyakov (1804-1860), diplomat and historian A. I. Mankiev (x-1723 gzh, ambassador to Sweden, author of seven books "The Core of Russian History"), whose names and works are undeservedly forgotten today.

But if the "pro-Western", official historiography was always given the green light, then the real facts from the patriots were considered dissent and, at best, were hushed up.

The annals are a mournful conclusion …

The old chronicles not only existed in abundance, but were constantly used until the 17th century. For example, in the 16th century, the Orthodox Church used the khan's labels of the Golden Horde to protect their land ownership.

But the seizure of power by the Romanovs and the total extermination of the heirs of the Ruriks, the history of Tartary, the deeds of the Tsars, their influence on Europe and Asia, required new pages of history, and such pages were written by the Germans after the total destruction of the chronicles of the times of the Ruriks (including church ones).

Alas, only M. Bulgakov said that "manuscripts do not burn." They are burning, and how! Especially if you purposefully destroy them, which was, of course, undertaken by the church in relation to ancient written acts in the 17th century.

Among the authors of the book by Mavro Orbini are two Russian historians of antiquity - Eremeya Russian (Jeremia Rusin / Geremia Russo) and Ivan the Great of Gothic. We don't even know their names!Moreover, Eremey wrote the "Moscow Annals" from 1227, apparently - the first history of Russia.

Again - strange fires in the archives churches flashed here and there, and what they managed to save was seized for safety by the people of the Romanovs and destroyed.

Part - faked (see the chapter "Kievan Rus" - a myth! Mention in the annals ") Most of the remains of the archives are from the west of Russia (Volyn, Chernigov, etc.), that is, they left something that did not contradict the new history of the Romanovs. We now know more about ancient Rome and Greece than about the times of the Rurik rule.”Even the icons were removed and burned, and the frescoes of the churches were chipped off by order of the Romanovs.

In fact, today's archives are only three centuries of Russian history under the Romanovs' house. In addition to the documents of all royal persons from the beginning of the reign of Peter I to the abdication of Nicholas II, only materials of well-known noble families, ancestral funds of landowners and industrialists who played a significant role in Russia in the 18th-19th centuries are kept.

Among them are the local estate funds (Elagins, Kashkarovs, Mansyrevs, Protasovs) and family archives (Bolotovs, Bludovs, Buturlins, Verigins, Vtorovs, Vyndomsky, Golenishchevs-Kutuzovs, Gudovichi, Karabanovs, Kornilovs, Nikolaevs, Polynovs). Everything! Does anyone else doubt the falsification of history?

The author believes that after the Troubles of the beginning of the 17th century in Russia and the collapse of Tartary (the Russian-Horde Empire), at first, its old dynasty of Tsars was completely exterminated, and then the memory of her was erased.