Lomonosov and the fight against forgery in Russian history

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

The writing of the well-known version of Russian history has passed a difficult and not straight path. And this winding road for the birth and understanding of the history of the emergence of the Russian state raises great doubts about the truth of this story.

The German historian G. F. Miller received an order from the authorities to write Russian history. He also received the post of sovereign historiographer. But what does this mean and what is the reason? According to Schlötser, “Miller spoke of state secrets that would have to be mastered if he was engaged in the PROCESSING of Russian history: but these secrets are entrusted only to those who“sign up for the Russian service …”(1). An interesting statement! "Processing of Russian history"! Treatment! Not writing, not studying, but processing. Yes, this is a clear political order for the sake of the power structures! It turns out that for hundreds of years, the Russian people lived with the officially recognized history of their people, taught children in schools according to concepts elevated to the rank of truth, not on the basis of the truth itself, but on "processed" material on the political order of those in power who fear the truth about Russian history !

An interesting quote sounded recently in one of the documentaries: “The historical memory that dominates in society is formed by power, and the power is springing from mystery, a lack of information, and often the distortion of historical facts. The syndrome of secrecy in foreign policy is especially noticeable, where uncomfortable topics are either under archival taboo, or deliberately forgotten, or presented in a form that is beneficial to the country's prestige. It should be noted that profitability is determined from the position of the existing government and its political interests.

According to the views of the Norman Russophobes, the leading and fundamental idea is that Russian history begins with the calling of the Varangian princes, who not only organized the “wild Russians” into a community, but further led them to culture, prosperity and civilization. What is Schlözer's statement about Russia in the 7th century worth? AD: “A terrible emptiness reigns everywhere in central and northern Russia. Not the slightest trace of the cities that now adorn Russia is visible anywhere. Nowhere is there any memorable name that would provide the spirit of the historian with excellent pictures of the past. Where now beautiful fields delight the eye of the astonished traveler, there, before that, there were only dark forests and swamps. Where now enlightened people have united in peaceful societies, there lived, before this, wild animals and semi-wild people”(2). How can you agree with such conclusions of "scientific research"? The original Russian spirit will never accept such conclusions, even if it does not know for certain how to refute these cunning ideas. The genetic memory, the memory of the heart, knows exactly what was wrong at all. The information stored by the subconscious of a person will force a true researcher to find a refutation of false "legitimate" theories in search of truth. And it is not surprising that V. N. Demin in his works gives a refutation of the above fact: “… what Schlözer said refers precisely to the very era of the reign of the Byzantine emperor Justinian, when the Slavs invaded the Balkans and kept in constant fear both Eastern and Western Roman empire. It is to this time that the words of one of the Slavic-Russian leaders, spoken in response to the proposal to become summer residents of the Avar Kaganate, refer: “Was the one who would subdue our power born among people and is warmed by the rays of the sun? For we are accustomed to rule over someone else's land, and not others of ours. And this is unshakable for us as long as there are wars and swords”(2).

We only have to regret that not all historians are really researchers, but follow in the footsteps of generally recognized authorities and stereotypes in cognition. Such spiritual and scientific blindness is costly for everyone. As a result, the truth goes through hardships. But perhaps it should be so - the brighter open stars will shine.

The Russian historian N. M. Karamzin also belongs to the adherents of the Norman theory. It is difficult now to say what guided him in writing his "History of the Russian State", when he defined the ancient history of the Russian people in this way: immersed peoples who did not mark their existence with any of their own historical monuments”(2).

But the essence of this article is a refutation of his opinion. But not all Russian scientists agreed with the redrawing of the truth in those distant times. One of the main opponents of Miller and his associates was M. V. Lomonosov, a true scientist, an outstanding, talented researcher and an honest person. Based on the works of ancient historians, he stated in his “Brief Chronicler”: “At the beginning of the sixth century according to Christ, the Slovenian name became very widespread; and the power of the entire people not only in Thrace, in Macedonia, in Istria and Dalmatia was terrible; but also a lot contributed to the destruction of the Roman Empire”(3).

In the middle of the 18th century. the struggle for Russian history unfolds. MV Lomonosov opposes the false version of Russian history, created before his eyes by the Germans Miller, Bayer and Schlözer. He sharply criticized Miller's dissertation "On the origin of the name and the Russian people." The same befell Bayer's writings on Russian history. Mikhail Vasilyevich began to actively deal with issues of history, realizing the importance and significance of this for the life of society. For the sake of this research, he even gave up his duties as a professor of chemistry. The great battle can be called the opposition to Lomonosov of the German historical school in the scientific world of Russia. German historian professors tried to get Lomonosov removed from the Academy. The discrediting of his name, his scientific discoveries began, with a simultaneous influence on the Empress Elizabeth, and then on Catherine II, and inciting them against Lomonosov. All this had its results, which was facilitated by the dominance of foreigners in the scientific world of Russia. Schlötser was appointed academician in Russian history, who named Lomonosov, as M. T. Belyavsky testifies in his work “M. V. Lomonosov and the founding of Moscow University "," a gross ignoramus who knew nothing but his chronicles. " And what can a historian-scientist rely on in the study of history, if not on the true ancient sources?

For 117 years in the Russian Academy of Sciences, from its foundation in 1724 to 1841, out of 34 academicians-historians there were only three Russian academicians - M. V. Lomonosov, Ya. O. Yartsov, N. G. Ustryalov.

For over a century, foreigners have controlled the entire process of writing Russian history. They were in charge of all documents, archives, chronicles. And as they say: "Master is a master!" On a full basis, they decided the fate of Russia, since it was the uncontrolled access to historical documents (the most valuable) that allowed them to manipulate information about the past at their own discretion. And the fact that the fate and future of the state depends on this manipulation even today, now, after a long time, it is clearly visible. Only after 1841 did domestic academic historians appear at the Russian Academy. And this is also an interesting question: why were they suddenly "allowed" into science? Is it because “the legend of how it was” was firmly entrenched in the scientific world and it was no longer necessary to create anything again, all that remained was to follow generally accepted and legalized concepts?

In addition, Schlözer received the right to uncontrollably use all documents not only in the Academy, but also in the imperial library. To which in the accidentally preserved note of Lomonosov it is written: “There is nothing to save. Everything is open to the extravagant Schlözer. There are more secrets in the Russian library”(132).

All leadership of the scientific process was placed in the hands of the Germans. The gymnasium for the preparation of students was run by the same Miller, Bayer and Fischer. The teaching was in German, which the students did not know, and the teachers did not know Russian. For 30 years, the gymnasium has not prepared a single person for admission to the university. It was even decided to dismiss students from Germany, since it is impossible to prepare Russians. And the question did not arise that it was not Russian students who were guilty, but the preparation process was ugly. The Russian scientific world of that time looked with bitterness at the events taking place in the country. An outstanding Russian machine builder of that time, who worked at the Academy, A. K. Nartov, filed a complaint with the Senate about the state of affairs at the Academy. He was supported by students and other employees of the Academy. During the investigation, some Russian scientists were shackled and chained. They stayed in this position for about two years, but did not renounce their testimony during the investigation. And, nevertheless, the decision of the commission was surprising: to reward the leaders of the Academy Schumacher and Taubert, to execute I. V.

During the work of the commission, MV Lomonosov actively supported LK Nartov, for which he was arrested and after 7 months of imprisonment by the decree of Empress Elizabeth was found guilty, but released from punishment. But the struggle for the truth did not end there.

And the reason for the fight against Lomonosov was the desire to force the great scientist and patriot of his country to abandon independent research in the study of history. During his lifetime, there was even an attempt to transfer his archives on the Russian language and history to Schlözer. Very few materials were printed during his lifetime. The publication of "Ancient Russian History" was slowed down in every possible way. And the first volume of it came out 7 years after his death. The rest were never printed. Immediately after the death of Mikhail Vasilyevich, his entire archive of history disappeared without a trace. By order of Catherine II, all documents were sealed and taken away. Neither the drafts, according to which the first volume of his history was published, nor the subsequent materials of this book, nor numerous other documents, have survived. A strange coincidence with the fate of Tatishchev's works is the same disappearance of drafts and the same partial (after death) publication of the work, not confirmed by drafts.

In Taubert's letter to Miller about Lomonosov's death, there are strange words: “On the day after his death, Count Orlov ordered the seals to be attached to his office. Undoubtedly, it should contain papers that do not want to be released into ANYONE'S HANDS”(ed. Ed.). Someone else's hands! Whose hands are others, and whose are theirs? These words are a clear argument in support of the fact that history is used by people as a screen for veiling one truth and presenting another, that is, its falsification is evident. It turns out that “their” hands are those who want to keep the story in their narrow directional aspect of vision. And "strangers" are those who would like to know the truth, the true course of events. And why do you need to direct people along the wrong path of history? Obviously, in order to hide some cases, phenomena that do not fit into the desired picture. But our task now is not even so much to find out how it was, but why the falsification took place? What did you want to hide from people who are at the helm of the life of society, who are able to use power to hide the truth and direct people's understanding on the wrong path? Why did Mikhail Lomonosov's archive disappear only with documents on history? And documents on natural science have survived. This fact confirms the importance of the significance of history for the future.