M. V. Lomonosov fell into disgrace because of his disagreements with German scientists, who formed the backbone of the Academy of Sciences in the 18th century. Under the Empress Anna Ioannovna, a stream of foreigners poured into Russia.
Beginning in 1725, when the Russian Academy was created, and until 1841, the foundation of Russian history was altered by the following “benefactors” of the Russian people who came from Europe who spoke Russian poorly, but who quickly became connoisseurs of Russian history, flooded the historical department of the Russian Academy:
Kohl Peter (1725), Fischer Johann Eberhard (1732), Kramer Adolph Bernhard (1732), Lotter Johann Georg (1733), Leroy Pierre-Louis (1735), Merling Georg (1736), Brehm Johann Friedrich (1737), Tauber Johann Gaspard (1738), Crusius Christian Gottfried (1740), Moderach Karl Friedrich (1749), Stritter Johann Gotgilf (1779), Hackmann Johann Friedrich (1782), Busse Johann Heinrich (1795), Vauville Jean-François (1798), Claproth Julius (1804), Hermann Karl Gottlob Melchior (1805), Circle Johann Philip (1805), Lerberg August Christian (1807), Kohler Heinrich Karl Ernst (1817), Fren Christian Martin (1818), Graefe Christian Friedrich (1820), Schmidt Issac Jakob (1829), Schengren Johann Andreas (1829), Charmua France-Bernard (1832), Fleischer Heinrich Leberecht (1835), Lenz Robert Christianovich (1835), Brosse Marie-Felicite (1837), Dorn Johann Albrecht Bernhard (1839) …The year in which the named foreigner entered the Russian Academy is indicated in brackets.
Vatican ideologists turned their attention to Russia. Without unnecessary noise, at the beginning of the 18th century, the future creators of Russian "history", who later became academicians, G. F. Miller, A. L. Schlözer, G. Z. Bayer and many others. others. In the form of Roman "blanks" in their pockets they had: both the "Norman theory" and the myth of the feudal fragmentation of "Ancient Rus" and the emergence of Russian culture no later than 988 AD. and other rubbish. In fact, foreign scientists by their research proved that "the Eastern Slavs in the 9th-10th centuries were real savages, rescued from the darkness of ignorance by the Varangian princes." It was Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer who put forward the Norman theory of the formation of the Russian state. According to his theory, "a handful of Normans who arrived in Russia have turned the" dark country "into a mighty state in a few years."
Lomonosov waged an irreconcilable struggle against 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 "Norman theory" imposed by the Germans of the formation of Russia. He criticized Miller's dissertation "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 at the Academy of Sciences. Here and there his phrase is quoted: "What vile dirty tricks such a beast admitted to them will not bend in Russian antiquities!" The phrase is said to be addressed to Schlözer, who “created” Russian “history”.
M. Lomonosov was supported by many Russian scientists. A member of the Academy of Sciences, an outstanding Russian mechanical engineer A. K. Nartov filed a complaint with the Senate about the dominance of foreigners in Russian academic science. Russian students, translators and clerks, as well as the astronomer Delisle, joined Nartov's complaint. It was signed by I. Gorlitsky, D. Grekov, M. Kovrin, V. Nosov, A. Polyakov, P. Shishkarev.
The meaning and purpose of their complaint are quite clear - the transformation of the Academy of Sciences into Russian, NOT ONLY IN TITLE. Prince Yusupov was at the head of the commission set up by the Senate to investigate the charges. The commission saw in the speech of A. K. Nartov, I. V. Gorlitsky, D. Grekov, P. Shishkarev, V. Nosov, A. Polyakov, M. Kovrin, Lebedev and others. 215], p.82.
Promotional video:
Russian scientists who filed a complaint wrote to the Senate: “We have proved the charges on the first 8 points and will prove on the remaining 30, if we get access to the cases” [215], p.82. “But … they were arrested for 'persistence' and 'insulting the commission'. A number of them (IV Gorlitskiy, A. Polyakov and others) WERE FORCED INTO SHAUGHTERS AND “PLANTED ON A CHAIN”. They stayed in this position for about two years, but they could not be forced to withdraw their testimony. The commission's decision was truly monstrous: to award Schumacher and Taubert, to exterminate GORLITSKY, GREKOV, POLYAKOV, NOSOV CRUELY LABELING AND SILVER, POPOV, SHISHKAREV AND OTHERS TO LEAVE AFREST BETZDEEN BEFORE RESHESH.
Formally, Lomonosov was not among those who filed a complaint against Schumacher, but all of his behavior during the investigation period shows that Miller was hardly mistaken when he stated: “Mr. Lomonosov was one of those who filed a complaint against Mr. Schumacher's advisor and caused the appointment Commission of Inquiry . Probably not far from the truth was Lamansky, who asserts that Nartov's statement was written mostly by Lomonosov. During the work of the commission, Lomonosov actively supported Nartov … This was precisely what caused his violent clashes with Schumacher's most zealous clerks - Vintsheim, Truskot, Miller.
The Synod of the Orthodox Christian Church also accused the great Russian scientist of distributing anticlerical works in manuscript under Art. 18 and 149 of the Military Article of Peter I, which provided for the death penalty. The clergy demanded the burning of Lomonosov. Such harshness, apparently, was caused by the too great success of the free-thinking, anti-church writings of Lomonosov, which testified to a noticeable weakening of the authority of the church among the people. Archimandrite D. Sechenov, the confessor of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, was seriously alarmed by the fall of faith and the weakening of interest in the church and religion in Russian society. It is characteristic that it was Archimandrite D. Sechenov, in his libel against Lomonosov, who demanded the burning of the scientist.
The commission stated that Lomonosov "for repeated disrespectful, dishonorable and disgusting actions both in relation to the academy and to the commission, and to the GERMAN LAND" IS SUBJECT TO THE DEATH PENALTY, or, in extreme cases, PUNISHMENT WITH WHICH AND DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS AND STATUS. By the decree of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, Mikhail Lomonosov was found guilty, but released from punishment. His salary was only halved, and he had to apologize to the professors for the prejudices he had committed.
Gerard Friedrich Miller compiled a mocking "repentance" with his own hand, which Lomonosov was obliged to publicly pronounce and sign. Mikhail Vasilievich, in order to be able to continue scientific research, was forced to abandon his views. But the German professors did not rest 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 about the "great darkness of ignorance" that allegedly reigned in Ancient Russia. Particular interest in this work of his is the first part - "About Russia before Rurik", which sets out the doctrine of the ethnogenesis of the peoples of Eastern Europe and, above all, the Slavs-Rus. Lomonosov pointed to the constant movement of the Slavs from east to west.
German historian professors decided to get Lomonosov and his supporters removed 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 discredit Lomonosov in front of the world scientific community. At the same time, all means were used. They tried in every possible way to belittle 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 [215], p.94.
"In Germany, Miller instigated protests against Lomonosov's discoveries and demanded that he be removed from the Academy" [215], p.61. This was not done at that time. However, opponents of Lomonosov managed to achieve the appointment of Schletser as ACADEMICIAN ON RUSSIAN HISTORY [215], p.64. "Schletser … called Lomonosov" a gross ignoramus who knew nothing but his chronicles " [215], p.64. So, as we can see, Lomonosov was accused of KNOWING THE RUSSIAN CHRONICLES.
“Contrary to Lomonosov's protests, Catherine II appointed Schletser an academician. WITH THIS HE HAS NOT ONLY RECEIVED UNCONTROLLED USE OF ALL THE DOCUMENTS IN THE ACADEMY, BUT AND THE RIGHT TO DEMAND EVERYTHING THAT DID THINK NECESSARY FROM THE IMPERIAL LIBRARY AND OTHER PERSONS. Schletser received the right to present his works directly to Catherine … In the rough note, drawn up by Lomonosov "for memory" and accidentally avoided confiscation, the feelings of anger and bitterness caused by this decision are clearly expressed: "There is nothing to be cherished. Everything is open to the extravagant Schlezer. There are more secrets in the Russian library”” [215], p.65.
Miller and his associates had complete power not only at the university itself in St. Petersburg, but also in the gymnasium that trained future students. The gymnasium was run by Miller, Bayer and Fischer [215], p.77. In the gymnasium “THE TEACHERS DIDN'T KNOW RUSSIAN … THE STUDENTS DID NOT KNOW GERMAN. ALL THE TEACHING WAS EXCLUSIVELY IN THE LATIN LANGUAGE … For thirty years (1726-1755) the gymnasium did not prepare a single person for entering the university”[215], p.77. The following conclusion was drawn from this. It was stated that “the only way out is to dismiss students from Germany, since it’s impossible to prepare them from Russians anyway” [215], p.77.
This struggle continued throughout Lomonosov's life. “Thanks to the efforts of Lomonosov, several Russian academicians and associates appeared in the academy” [215], p.90. However, “in 1763, according to the denunciation of Taubert, Miller, Shtelin, Epinuss and others, another Empress of Russia Catherine II“EVEN ALL FIRED LOMONOSOV FROM THE ACADEMY”[215], p.94.
But soon the decree on his resignation was canceled. The reason was the popularity of Lomonosov in Russia and the recognition of his merits by foreign academies [215], p.94. Nevertheless, Lomonosov was removed from the leadership of the geographical department, and Miller was appointed there instead. An attempt was made “TO TRANSFER LOMONOSOV'S MATERIALS IN LANGUAGE AND HISTORY TO THE DISPOSAL OF SLETSER” [215], p.94.
The last fact is very significant. Even if, even during Lomonosov's lifetime, attempts were made to get to his archive on Russian history, then what can we say about the fate of this unique archive after Lomonosov's death. As you might expect, LOMONOSOV'S ARCHIVE WAS IMMEDIATELY CONFISCED IMMEDIATELY AFTER HIS DEATH, AND PASSED INSANELY. We quote: “THE ARCHIVE OF LOMONOSOV, CONFISCED BY CATHERINE II, IS FOREVER LOST. ON ANOTHER DAY AFTER HIS DEATH THE LIBRARY AND ALL PAPERS OF LOMONOSOV WERE SEALED BY GR. ORLOV ON THE ORDER OF CATHERINE, TRANSPORTED TO HIS PALACE AND DISAPPEARED INSANE "[215], p.20. A letter from Taubert to Miller has survived. In this letter “not hiding his joy, Taubert informs about the death of Lomonosov and adds:“ON THE OTHER DAY AFTER HIS DEATH, Count Orlov ordered the seals to be attached to his office. No doubt it should contain papers,who do not want to let loose into the wrong hands " [215], p.20.
The death of Mikhail Lomonosov was also sudden and mysterious, and there were rumors of his deliberate poisoning. Obviously, what could not be done publicly, his many enemies completed secretly and secretly.
Thus, the "creators of Russian history" - Miller and Schletser - got to the Lomonosov archive. After that, these archives naturally disappeared. On the other hand, AFTER A SEVEN YEARS WIRE, Lomonosov's work on Russian history was finally published - and it is quite clear that under the complete control of Miller and Schletzer - Lomonosov's work on Russian history. And that is only the first volume. Most likely rewritten by Miller in the right way. And the rest of the volumes simply “disappeared”. And so it happened that the “Lomonosov's work on history” at our disposal today in a strange and surprising way agrees with Miller's point of view on history. It’s even incomprehensible - why then did Lomonosov argue with Miller so fiercely and for so many years? Why accused Miller of falsifying Russian history, [215], p.62, when he himself,in his published "History" so obediently agrees with Miller on all points? Pleasingly assent to him in every line.
The history of Russia, published by Miller on the basis of the Lomonosov Drafts, can be said to be a carbon copy, and practically does not differ from Miller's version of Russian history. The same applies to another Russian historian - Tatishchev, again published by Miller only after Tatishchev's death! Karamzin, on the other hand, rewrote Miller almost word for word, although Karamzin's texts after his death were repeatedly edited and altered. One of the last such alterations took place after 1917, when all information about the Varangian yoke was removed from his 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.
Therefore, UNDER THE NAME OF LOMONOSOV WAS NOT PRINTED AT ALL THAT LOMONOSOV WAS REALLY WRITTEN. Presumably, Miller rewrote the first part of Lomonosov's work after his death with great pleasure. So to speak, "carefully prepared for printing." He destroyed the rest. Almost certainly there was a lot of interesting and important information about the ancient past of our people. This is something that neither Miller, nor Schletzer, nor other "Russian historians" could in any way publish in print.
The Norman theory is still held by Western scholars. And if you remember that for criticizing Miller, Lomonosov was sentenced to death by hanging and spent a year in prison awaiting the verdict, until the tsar's pardon came, then it is clear that the leadership of the Russian state was interested in falsifying Russian history. Russian history was written by foreigners specially ordered by Emperor Peter I from Europe for this purpose. And already in the time of Elizabeth, Miller became the most important "chronicler", who became famous also for the fact that, under the guise of an imperial letter, he traveled to Russian monasteries and destroyed all the preserved ancient historical documents.
The German historian Miller, the author of the "masterpiece" of Russian history, tells us that Ivan IV was from the Rurik family. Having made such an uncomplicated operation, it was already easy for Miller to adapt the aborted Rurik family with their nonexistent history to the history of Russia. Rather, cross out the history of the Russian kingdom and replace it with the history of the Kiev principality, in order to later make a statement that Kiev is the mother of Russian cities (although Kiev, according to the laws of the Russian language, should have been the father). Ruriks have never been tsars 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 forgery of Russian history is striking immediately when reading the "Russian" "chronicles". The abundance of the names of the princes who ruled in different parts of Russia is striking,which are given to us as the centers of Russia. If, for example, some prince of Chernigov or Novgorod found himself on the Russian throne, then there must have been some kind of continuity in the dynasty. And this is not the case, i.e. we are dealing either with a hoax, or with a conqueror who reigned on the Russian throne.
Our disfigured and perverted history of Russia, even through the thickness of repeated Miller's hoaxes, screams about the dominance of foreigners. The history of Russia, like the history of all Mankind, was invented by the above-mentioned "historians". They were not only specialists in falsifying stories, they were also specialists in fabricating and forging chronicles.
As one of our community members Lyudmila Shikanova rightly noted in her comment: More and more facts appear that the history of Russia was deliberately distorted. There are many evidences of the high culture and literacy of our ancestors in ancient times. Birch bark letters were found written in Glagolitic (our native alphabet, and not in the Cyrillic alphabet imposed on us) and the letters were written by ordinary peasants. But for some reason it is hidden. We know the detailed history of our country only from the reign of the Ruriks, and what was before that we know almost nothing. Why this is being done and who benefits from it, 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 the money of overseas philanthropist George Soros. And as you know, “whoever pays for the banquet calls the tune!”