Mv Lomonosov fell into disgrace because of his disagreements with the German scientists who formed the backbone of the Academy of Sciences in the 18th century. Under Empress Anna Ioannovna, a flood of foreigners poured into Russia.
Beginning with the 1725 year, when the Russian Academy was established, and until 1841, the foundation of the Russian stories The following “benefactors” of the Russian people, who flooded the historical department of the Russian Academy of Sciences who arrived from Europe who spoke badly in Russian, but quickly became experts in Russian history, reworked:
Kohl Peter (1725), Fischer Johann Ebergard (1732), Kramer Adolf Bernhard (1732), Lotter Johann Georg (1733), Leroy Pierre-Louis (1735), Merling Georg (1736), Brem Johann Friedrich (1737), Merge George (1738), Brem Johann Friedrich (1740) Gaspard (1749), Crusius Christian Gottfried (1779), Moderah Karl Friedrich (1782), Stritter Johann Gotgilf (1795), Gakman Johann Friedrich (1798), Busse Johann Heinrich (1804), in a non-rescuer, in a non-secured, non-financial, non-financial, non-financial, and Johann Heinrich X. Julius (1805), Carl Herman Gottlob Melchior (1805), Johan Philippe circle (1807), Lerberg August Christian (1817), Heinrich Karl Ernst Keller (1818), Fresnes Christian Martin (1820), Graefe Christian Friedrich (1829) , Schmidt Issac Jakob (1829), Shengren, Johann Andreas (1832), Finnish Bernard (1835), Fleischer Heinrich Leberecht (1835), Lenz Robert Hristianovich (1837), Brosay Marie-Felisite (NNXX), HE Lense Robert Xris (1839), Brosse Marie-Felisite (NNXX), the LNC Robert Hristianovic (XNUMX), Brosse Marie-Felisite (LN) XNUMX). The brackets indicate the year of entry of the named foreigner into the Russian Academy.
The ideologists of the Vatican turned their attention to Russia. Without fanfare at the beginning of the 18th century, the future creators of the Russian “history”, who later became academicians, G.F. Miller, A.L. Schlozer, GZ Bayer and more etc. In the form of Roman "blanks" in their pockets lay: both the "Norman theory", and the myth of the feudal fragmentation of "Ancient Russia" and the emergence of Russian culture no later than XNX AD. and other rubbish. In fact, foreign scholars argued with their research that “in the 9th-10th centuries, the Eastern Slavs were real savages, saved from the darkness of ignorance by the Varangian princes.” It was Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer who advanced the Norman theory of the formation of the Russian state. According to his theory, "a handful of Normans who arrived in Russia in a few years turned the" dark country "into a powerful state."
Lomonosov led an irreconcilable struggle against the distortions of Russian history, and he found himself in the thick of this struggle. In 1749 - 1750, he spoke out against the historical views of Miller and Bayer, as well as against the German-imposed "Norman theory" of the emergence of Russia. He criticized Miller’s thesis “On the Origin of the Name and the Russian People,” as well as Bayer’s works on Russian history.
Lomonosov often quarreled with foreign colleagues who worked in the Academy of Sciences. His phrase is quoted here and there: “What vile dirty tricks such beasts allowed in them in Russian antiquities!” The phrase is said to be addressed to Schlozer, who “created” Russian “history”.
M. Lomonosov was supported by many Russian scientists. A member of the Academy of Sciences, an outstanding Russian machine builder AK Martov filed a complaint with the Senate against the dominance of foreigners in Russian academic science. Martov’s complaint was joined by Russian students, translators and clerks, as well as the astronomer Delille. It was signed by I. Gorlitsky, D. Grekov, M. Kovrin, V. Nosov, A. Polyakov, P. Shishkarev.
The meaning and purpose of their complaint is absolutely clear - the transformation of the Academy of Sciences into Russian is NOT ONLY ON THE NAME. At the head of the commission established by the Senate to investigate the charges, was Prince Yusupov. The commission saw in the speech of A.K. Martov, I.V. Gorlitsky, D.Grekov, P.Shishkarev, V.Nosov, A.Polyakov, M.Kovrin, Lebedev, and others, “a revolt of mob”, which rose against the authorities ”[ 215], p.82.
The Russian scientists who filed the complaint wrote to the Senate: “We proved the charges on the first 8 points and we will prove the rest of the 30 if we get access to the cases” , p.82. “But ... for“ stubbornness ”and“ insulting the commission ”were arrested. A number of them (I.V. Gorlitsky, A.Polyakov, etc.) WERE CONSTRAINED IN KANDALS AND “PLATED ON A CHAIN”. They spent about two years in this position, but they could not be forced to give up testimony. The decision of the commission was truly monstrous: to award Schumacher and Taubert, GORLITSKY'S EXECUTIVE, COOKOVA, POLYAKOVA, NOSOV HARDLY PUNISH BY THE PLAINS AND SALT TO SIBERIA, POPOVA, SHISHKAREV AND OTHERS, TO LEAVE THE PERSON OF THE PERSON, TO PERSON, TO SHIRKHAREV AND OTHERS, TO LEAVE TO THE PERSON OF THE PERSON, TO PERSON, SHISHKAREV AND OTHERS, TO LEAVE THE PERSON TO THE PERSON, TO THE PERSON IN SIBERIA, POPOV, SHISHKAREV AND OTHERS, TO LEAVE THE PERSON TO THE PERSON, TO THE PERSON IN SIBERIA, POPOV, SHISHKAREV AND OTHERS
Formally, Lomonosov was not among those who filed a complaint against Schumacher, but his entire behavior during the investigation shows that Miller was hardly mistaken when he stated: “Mr. Adjunct Lomonosov was one of those who filed a complaint against Mr. Schumacher’s adviser and called the appointment commission of inquiry. " Probably not far from the truth was Lamansky, who asserted that Martov’s statement was written mostly by Lomonosov. During the work of the commission, Lomonosov actively supported Martov ... It was precisely this that caused his stormy clashes with Schumacher’s most zealous minions — Vinzheim, Truskot, Miller.
The Synod of the Orthodox Christian Church also accused the great Russian scientist of spreading anti-clerical works in accordance with Art. 18 and 149 Military Article of Peter I, which provided for the death penalty. Representatives of the clergy demanded the burning of Lomonosov. Such severity, apparently, was caused by the too great success of the free-thinking, anti-church writings of Lomonosov, which indicated a marked weakening of the authority of the church among the people. Archimandrite D. Sechenov - Empress Elizabeth Petrovna's confessor - was seriously alarmed by the decline of faith, the weakening of interest in the church and religion in Russian society. It is characteristic that Archimandrite D. Sechenov, in his libel at Lomonosov, demanded the burning of the scientist.
The commission stated that Lomonosov “for repeated disrespectful, dishonorable and nasty actions both in relation to the academy and to the commission, and to the German Earth” is subject to a death penalty, or, as a last resort, to punishment and deprivation of rights and conditions. By decree of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, Mikhail Lomonosov was found guilty, however, he was released from punishment. He only had his salary reduced by half, and he had to “for the inactivity committed by him” to ask the professors for forgiveness.
Gerard Friedrich Miller personally composed a mocking “repentance”, which Lomonosov was obliged to publicly pronounce and sign. Mikhail Vasilyevich, in order to be able to continue research, was forced to abandon his views. But the German professors did not calm down on this. They continued to seek the removal of Lomonosov and his supporters from the Academy.
Around 1751, Lomonosov began work on Ancient Russian History. He sought to refute the theses of Bayer and Miller on the "great darkness of ignorance," allegedly reigned in Ancient Russia. Of particular interest in this work is the first part - “About Russia, before Rurik,” where the doctrine of the ethnogenesis of the peoples of Eastern Europe and, above all, of the Slavic Rus was set forth. Lomonosov pointed to the constant movement of the Slavs from the east to the west.
German professors and historians decided to achieve the removal of Lomonosov and his supporters from the Academy. This “scientific activity” has developed not only in Russia. Lomonosov was a world-famous scientist. He was well known abroad. Every effort was made to defame Lomonosov before the world scientific community. In this case, all means were put into circulation. They made every effort to downplay the significance of Lomonosov’s works not only in history, but also in the natural sciences, where his authority was very high. In particular, Lomonosov was a member of several foreign Academies - the Swedish Academy from 1756, the Bologna Academy from 1764, , s.94.
“In Germany, Miller inspired speeches against the discoveries of Lomonosov and demanded his removal from the Academy” , s.61. This was not possible at the time. However, Lomonosov’s opponents managed to achieve the appointment of Schletzer , page 64, ACADEMICIAN OF RUSSIAN HISTORY. “Schlozer ... called Lomonosov“ a rude ignoramus who knew nothing but his chronicles ”” , p. XXUMX. So, as we see, Lomonosov was blamed for the knowledge of RUSSIAN CHRISTIANS.
“Contrary to the protests of Lomonosov, Catherine II appointed Schlozer Academician. AT THIS, IT DOES NOT ONLY GET INTO UNCONTROLLED USE OF ALL THE DOCUMENTS IN THE ACADEMY, BUT AND THE RIGHT TO REQUEST EVERYTHING THAT IS NECESSARY, FROM THE IMPERIAL LIBRARY AND ORGANIOLOGICAL ORGANIOLOGY IN THEIR TOURNAMENT TOURNAMENT TOURNAMENT TOURNAME Schlozer received the right to submit his works directly to Catherine ... The draft note, compiled by Lomonosov “for memory” and accidentally avoided confiscation, clearly expressed feelings of anger and bitterness caused by this decision: “There is no need to save. Everything is open to Schloser madcap. There are no more secrets in the Russian library »» , p.65.
Miller and his associates had full power not only at the university in St. Petersburg, but also at the gymnasium, which was preparing future students. The high school was run by Miller, Bayer and Fisher , p.77. In the gymnasium "TEACHERS DIDN'T KNOW THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE ... THE PUPILS DIDN'T KNOW THE GERMAN. ALL TEACHING SHOWS EXCLUSIVELY IN THE LATIN LANGUAGE ... For thirty years (1726-1755) the gymnasium has not prepared a single person for entering the university ”, p. XXUMX. From this the following conclusion was made. It was stated that “the only way out is to discharge the students from Germany, since it is impossible to prepare them from the Russians anyway” , p.215.
This struggle continued throughout Lomonosov’s life. “Thanks to Lomonosov’s efforts, several Russian academics and adjuncts appeared in the Academy” , p. XXUMX. However, "in 90, according to the denunciation of Taubert, Miller, Shtelin, Epinuss, and others, another Empress of Russia, Catherine II," EVEN WAS FIRING LOMONOSOV FROM ACADEMY ", p. 215.
But soon the decree about his resignation was canceled. The reason was the popularity of Lomonosov in Russia and the recognition of his services by foreign academies , s.94. However, Lomonosov was removed from the leadership of the geographical department, and Miller was appointed instead. An attempt was made to “TRANSLATE THE MATERIALS OF LOMONOSOV IN LANGUAGE AND HISTORY TO THE ORDER OF SLETS” , p.94.
The last fact is very significant. If even during the lifetime of Lomonosov, attempts were made to get to his archive in Russian history, then what can we say about the fate of this unique archive after the death of Lomonosov. As was to be expected, the LOMONOSOV ARCHIVE WAS IMMEDIATELY CONFISCED IMMEDIATELY AFTER HIS DEATH AND ITS FAILED. We quote: “FOREVER DAMAGED BY CATHERINE II THE LOMONOSOV ARCHIVE. The day after his death LIBRARY AND ALL PAPER LOMONOSOV were sealed orders CATHERINE GR.ORLOVYM, moved to his palace and disappeared without a trace », s.20. Preserved letter Taubert to Miller. In this letter “without concealing his joy, Taubert reports on the death of Lomonosov and adds:“ ON ANOTHER DAY AFTER HIS DEATH, Count Orlov ordered that the seal be attached to his office. Without a doubt, it should contain papers that do not wish to be released into the wrong hands ”, p. 20.
The death of Mikhail Lomonosov was also sudden and mysterious, and rumors circulated about his deliberate poisoning. Obviously, what could not be done in public, his numerous enemies completed it secretly and secretly.
Thus, the "creators of Russian history" - Miller and Schlozer - got to the Lomonosov archive. After that, these archives naturally disappeared. But then, after the seven-year-old wire was finally published — and it is absolutely clear that under the full control of Miller and Schlozer — Lomonosov's work on Russian history. And then only the first volume. Most likely, rewritten by Miller in the right way. And the rest of the volume simply "disappeared." So it turned out that the “Lomonosov's work on history” that we have at our disposal today is strangely and surprisingly consistent with Miller's point of view on history. It is even incomprehensible - why then did Lomonosov argue so furiously and for so many years with Miller? Why blamed Miller for falsifying Russian history, , s.62, when he himself, in his published History, was obediently AGREING with Miller on all counts? Comfortably assures him in each of his lines.
The history of Russia, published by Miller on “Lomonosov drafts”, can be said to be written as a carbon copy, and practically does not differ from the Milerovsky variant of Russian history. The same applies to another Russian historian - Tatishchev, again published by Miller only after the death of Tatishchev! Karamzin, almost literally rewrote Miller, although the texts of Karamzin after his death were repeatedly edited and altered. One of the last such alterations occurred after 1917, when all information about the Varangian yoke was removed from its texts. Obviously, in this way, the new political power tried to smooth out the discontent of the people, from the dominance of foreigners in the Bolshevik government.
Consequently, under the name of Lomonosov it was imprinted entirely not what Lomonos really wrote. Presumably, Miller with great pleasure copied the first part of Lomonosov's work after his death. So to say, "carefully prepared for printing." The rest is destroyed. Almost certainly there was a lot of interesting and important information about the ancient past of our people. Such a thing that neither Miller, nor Schlozer, nor the other “Russian historians” could ever publish.
Norman theory still adheres to Western scientists. And if you remember that for criticizing Miller, Lomonosov was sentenced to death by hanging and spent a year in prison waiting for a sentence until the royal pardon came, then it is clear that the leadership of the Russian state was interested in falsifying Russian history. The Russian history was written by foreigners, specially written for this purpose by Emperor Peter I from Europe. And already in the time of Elizabeth, Miller became the most important “chronicler”, who became famous for the fact that under the guise of the imperial charter, he traveled around Russian monasteries and destroyed all the ancient historical documents that remained.
The German historian Miller - the author of the “masterpiece” of Russian history tells us that Ivan IV was of the Rurik dynasty. Having made such an uncomplicated operation, Miller was already easily cut short the family of Rurikovich with their non-existent history to engrave on the history of Russia. Rather, cross out the history of the Russian kingdom and replace it with the history of the Kiev principality, then to make a statement that Kiev is the mother of Russian cities (although Kiev, according to the laws of the Russian language, had to be the father). Ruriks have never been kings in Russia, because such a royal family never existed. There was a rootless conqueror Rurik, who tried to sit on the Russian throne, but was killed by Svyatopolk Yaropolkovich. The fake Russian history is striking immediately when reading the “Russian” “chronicles”. It affects the abundance of names of princes who ruled in different places of Russia, which are given to us as centers of Russia. If, for example, a prince of Chernigov or Novgorod, was on the Russian throne, then there must have been some continuity in the dynasty. And this is not, i.e. we deal either with a hoax, or with a conqueror reigning on the Russian throne.
Our mutilated and perverted history of Russia, even through the depth of multiple Miller's hoaxes, shouts about the dominance of foreigners. The history of Russia, like the history of all Humanity, was invented by the aforementioned “historians”. They were not only specialists in falsifying stories, they were also experts in fabrication and falsification of annals.
As one of our members of the community, Lyudmila Shikanova, correctly noted in her commentary: More and more facts appear that the history of Russia was deliberately distorted. Many find evidence of the high culture and literacy of our ancestors in ancient times. Found bark letters written in the verb (our native alphabet, not the Cyrillic alphabet imposed on us) and letters written by ordinary peasants. But for some reason it is hidden. We know the detailed history of our country only from the reign of Rurik, and that before that we knew almost nothing. Why it is done and to whom it is beneficial, that is the question.
And now in our schools and higher educational institutions, pupils and students study the history of Russia from textbooks, largely written with money from overseas philanthropist George Soros. And as you know, "who pays for the banquet, he orders the music!"