(Chapter from the book "Secrets of the" Book of Veles ", Moscow, 2001)
Finally, here's a review of the monograph "What scientists think about the" Book of Veles "(St. Petersburg, 2004), which shows that this review can be honored for indirect recognition of rightness of our criticism, as well as the authenticity of the" Book of Veles "Tvorogova and K0
Described above (in the book "Secrets of …") and the story finds the publication of "Book of Veles", with all the details, with extensive quoting of rare printed and original archival documents, important and interesting not only in itself but also because it is the only way, with documents in hand, we can resist the attempts of falsification of history.
We have already noted that in the Soviet scientific press has had such a school of falsification. The nature of "scientific schools" is that once someone who has the appropriate degree and position, run the false idea of how this idea, this time without checking the facts, will be repeated endlessly. One false teacher creates a whole "galaxy" of his followers who continue his work.
Someone half a century (if not centuries) ago said something, and since then, in scientific publications is referenced, the work of reference on the authority acquire a "scientific view", and so is born preconceived opinions.
For example, in the eyes of the "science" was dishonored the name of A. Sulakadzeva, the first keeper plates "Book of Veles". Already fifty years in dozens of articles, books, pamphlets, defame him, and while no one until now had not bothered to examine its archives and publish what is left of them.
A similar method was chosen, and to combat the "Book of Veles". We can not and desire to understand here each such publication. But to pass by the famous "antivlesoveda" OV Tvorogova we can not. And not only because of his work are already a "classic fraud," but also because they are widely known. He has repeatedly set out its ideas and in the popular press and on television.
So, who is this O. Cottage cheese? Curd Oleg, Corresponding Member of RAS, Doctor of Philology.
He was born October 11, 1928. He graduated from the Philology Department of the Leningrad University. He has worked and held positions in the Department of History and Philology of the USSR, Department of Russian Language and Literature. In the "Encyclopedia" Words and Lay "" (St. Petersburg, 1995), it stated 240 scientific articles and papers. However, I note, among them there is not one on palaeography, epigraphy, or berestovedeniyu, except that which relates to the analysis of the "Book of Veles".
His teachers were Leningrad linguists and source studies and his scientific specialty was and is "the content of the text, its literary form and linguistic embodiment" (see: Alexander Alexeev. On the anniversary of the scientist. "Russian Literature", 1998, № 4). Never his academic specialty was the definition of the authenticity of written from the point of view of the history of language and writing, and he is not a specialist in Old Church Slavonic and Old Slavonic language, it is a separate area of knowledge.
Also, as noted in the article "On the anniversary of the scientist", his work has always been characterized by "strict positivism," in which there has been no "place" jingoism ", was chosen by ancient Russia as a comfortable seat" (by the way, his work is not noticeable tendency to patriotism as such).
Especially in this paper marked "a historic moment" for the management of Pushkin House, when he joined the ranks of the Communist Party. This led to the "pacification" flaming passions there.
On his conscience, and the conscience of his now former "sponsor" of DS Likhachev, the dismissal of the Pushkin House academician, doctor of philology JK Begunova and falsification articles against the "Book of Veles".
His works are collected essentially all the false ideas that have ever occurred in connection with the "Book of Veles", and to them it also added a lot of his.
But if you are the wrong ideas on specific business issues, linguistics, paleography, and can be understood by very few (these issues are resolved by me in the books), the essence of his method of dealing with the falsification of history and find the date of the monument if the documents become obvious to all. We show this by the example of his article, published in the journal "Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian literature" (v. 43, 1990). Its main ideas were repeated by him and in other publications, in a television interview program "Secrets" Veles book '"(TVC, 1998).
This article O. Tvorogova goes beyond not only the usual "scientific" skepticism, but just beyond the scientific ethics. Not having all the materials at hand, for example, published in the "Firebird" (which had, by the way in Social Sciences from the 50's), without making any effort to rescue more then existing materials in Slavic runes, OV Curd grossly manipulated the evidence, and only. And even misled the scientific community.
We give examples of its fraud, quoting and commenting on this work.
Curds, "offers readers an unusual work in their genre and subject to scientific yearbook, which is the" Proceedings of the Department of Old Literature "examined the source, which is how we try to prove forgery of modern times — the middle of this century."
Comment: Here and OV Curd is "trying" to falsify historical data (which he had in a small volume), the first publications, etc. in order to prove the absurdity that the "Veles book" has been created around the 54 to 59 year's YP Mirolyubovo. This is the main idea, it is now widely koyu expounded a blatantly.
Curds, "name" Vlesova Book "given consideration monument one of the enthusiasts to study it published — S. Forest. S. Forest — alias Doctor of Biological Sciences, an expert on the taxonomy of Diptera S. Paramonov. Paramonov fled from Kiev in 1943 and later settled in Australia (see NV Charlemagne. "Sergei Paramonov and" Lay "'(TODRL. Moscow, Leningrad, 1960. T. 16.)"
Comment: This is not the case. In fact, the name was first coined by A. Kur (see journal "Firebird», № 2, 1955), but the OV Curds had publications "Firebird", it was based only on the book by the Forest, which sent the Pushkin House enthusiast studying the "Book of Veles" B. Rehbinder.
Here O. Curd also refers to the legend of S. Forest as accomplices Nazi occupiers, running NV Charlemagne. Because that's science! Enough references and slander acquires visibility solidity.
This false opinion, and then followed the BA Rybakov, V. Buganov and LP Zhukovsky, who wrote the article "imaginary" ancient record '"(" Questions of History »№ 6, 1977) that S. Forest in 1943, fled from Kiev" with the Nazi occupiers. " Whereas S. Forest, a Soviet scientist and anti-fascist, was thrown into a Nazi concentration camp Munden for fighting the occupation regime. By the way, his work on linguistics were widely known with even before the war. Even then he was not only a recognized expert in the field of biology.
Curd: "… under the pseudonym S. Forest, he published several books about the history amateurish Russia and" Lay. " In his essay "Vlesova Book" — pagan pre-record Olegovskaya Russia "the most detailed history of discovery and publication of the monument. This story is …
Comment: Despite the fact that the work of S. Forest casually called amateurish, and they were then in the Soviet Union, no one saw on OV Curd profusely and literally these are the ones quoted. He takes from the book by S. Forest history finds Izenbekom boards and the first publications about them, of course, with no thanks to the author, "nezakavychivaya" his words. One gets the impression that all this information OV Curd myself somewhere "unearthed". This is where the quote from the book by S. Forest in OV Tvorogova omitted.
Curd: "And in November 1953, in the journal" The Firebird ", published by Russian emigres in San Francisco (originally — Rotaprint), published the following notice:" The tremendous historical sensation. '"
Comment: Then again, we omit the page, borrowed OV Tvorogova from "The Firebird" and the book by S. Forest. We note in passing that over 90% of his work, Koya then characterized as "fundamental work", which denies the authenticity of the "Book of Veles", consists of just such passages, to which he adds his only minor quibbles.
Curd: "No less strange other: boards announcing the find in 1953, the editors do not hurry to publish texts. For three years, published an article by a Kur, which played a total of about 100 lines of text from the VC, but the publication of the full text of individual plaques did not begin until March 1957 and continued until 1959., When the magazine "The Firebird" ceased to exist.
Comment: Here we read the repetition of "critics" S. Forest, without reference to him. However, in my opinion, "at least another strange": From 1959 to this day (over 45 years) of the USSR, and now the Russian Academy of Sciences, was limited kutsymi "refutation" of authenticity boards and did not make any effort to study them.
No less strange is also something else: to publish three of his "devastating" Wikipedia OV Tvorogova took so old as YP Miroliubov and AA Kourou for publication of the plates themselves with comments about them. How else it could be done in that situation?
Curd: "In the late 60-ies of the EC mentions in his book" History of the Rus in perverted form "(Paris, Munich, 1953-1960), and materials of the VC — in Vol. 6-10) and "Russia, where are you? The main problems of the history of ancient "(Winnipeg, 1964) S. Forest. Over-time he devotes to her special projects — mentioned publication "Vlesova book." In 1963 S. Forest published theses of the alleged reports of VC at the 5th International Congress of Slavic, but the Congress did not attend and report on the VC did. After the death of the Forest of the VC in the West have forgotten. "
Comment: Wow! How come all of a sudden? And how many days? We can only give a bibliography of major works on the "Book of Veles, published in the years when the" Book of Veles "by OV Tvorogova when someone "forgot".
Last work on S. Forest "Book of Veles" was published in 1966, and he died in 1968. In the same year there was a book of Archpriest S. Lyashevsky dedicated to the "Book of Veles". And the first edition of the translation Skrypnyk and Kachura.
YP Peacefulness and AA Chickens died in 1970 and 1971, and they published material on the VC in the pages of newspapers and magazines to the last days.
In 1970 he published a translation of the "Book of Veles" in Ukrainian Shkavritko in Canada. A new book by S. Forest came in 1972 in Australia.
Next was the first book YP Mirolyubova in 1974 in Spain. Publication Ukrainian translation N. Skrypnyk and A. Brick came out in the years 1972-1975 in London and The Hague. Then he began to publish his "Symphony of Russia," the transfer of PE plates Hawks in the U.S. in the "New Word of Russia".
In 1975 he published a translation of V. Kachur "Book of Veles" in English in the United States. VE Lazarevic was during these years published his translation of the "Book of Veles", referred to by S. Lyashevsky in 1977.
I'm not talking about newspapers and magazines controversy about these editions, and translations of Shayan, PE Kovalevsky, etc. (See bibliography). Where is O. Curd saw "forgetfulness" in the West of the "Book of Veles"? This statement is the essence of fraud.
Curd: "The interest in it has reawakened in the mid 70's, when he published several editions of the series" Vles book. " According to BA Rehbinder the time of his acquaintance with the enthusiastic learning VC NF Skrypnyk, "there were two Russian translation. One made Lazarevic, Sokolov and another in Australia. Translation into Ukrainian made Brick. There have also been translated into English, made Kachur, as well as Ukrainian, bytuyuschy in Canada. "
These publications we could not meet, but the translation into Russian of the VC, carried BA Rebinder (the author kindly sent us two editions of his work, "Vlesova book" published Rotaprint), based on all the previous editions and translations, indicates that serious analysis of the text of the VC and its contents was conducted.
Comment: Maybe so, but the researchers, including leading scientists, analyzed the extent that it was in their power. Is a daunting task! And do not OV Tvorogova criticize them, so if he has published a serious analysis, not "unsubscribe" filled to the same false statements.
Curd: "Posthumous publication of works YP Mirolyubova, carried out in Munich in 1977-1984 years, making significant adjustments to the information presented here, but these works were not likely to be known or Rehbinder or Forest. Therefore, we turn to their analysis in the last part of … "
Comment: Once again, OV Curd gives incorrect information. This time, for publications JP Mirolyubova. The first volume of his works published in 1974 and in Madrid, the second volume was published in 1975. It can be seen that the whole article is written poorly, almost every judgment or deliberately false or erroneous.
And as to what works and Forestry Rehbinder Mirolyubova were not known, OV Curd is mistaken. Were known in the partial lifetime editions, as well as manuscripts.
Curd: "When and why was created" Vlesova book "? In stock at defenders VC is one more argument. "If we consider that" Vlesova book "- fraud, — said S. Forest — we can not find the slightest explanation for its creation in our time, even if it is time to consider very well, at least to the extent of two hundred years." The same was said and I. Kobzev: "For what purpose would someone pursue such painstaking labor and sophisticated fakes of ancient books, if anyone has not achieved for many years, no glory, no income, no other selfish gain?" Even rejected considerations of mercantile character, we still remain the question: why was it created a huge work?
Some of the data to answer this question, we find in the writings of JP Mirolyubova, published in 1975-1984 in Munich after his death (he died in 1970). The first three volumes contain stories, poems, and ethnographic sketches of ceremonies and religious holidays in the Russian countryside. The remaining six volumes devoted to the "prehistory" of the Slavs and the religion of the ancient "Rus". It makes no sense to describe in detail these extremely amateurish Study, but it is worth mentioning the main conclusions of the author.
Comment: In fact, there is no sense to give out of context and therefore falsified quotations from thinking about the history of UP Mirolyubova, especially as presented by OV Tvorogova, a supporter of the "wild" kontsepsii lack of stories from the Slavs to Rurik, "civilizing" mission of the Normans and Byzantines. Moreover, we do not seek to create the appearance of "fundamental work" filled to volume hidden and explicit citations.
Curd: "The ease with which he handles with world history, speaks for itself, no need to explain that no serious evidence in the book we find. Reader has probably noticed the roll of historiographical "kontsepsii" Mirolyubova with some hints contained in the EC (Russ Parish to the east, the mention of Iranians, "Egyptian sun," the Syrian mountains, etc.).
The second, no less "significant" Mirolyubova idea is that the religion of the ancient Slavs — is "spoiled time, circumstances, events and change of residence Vedism." When the ancestors of the Slavs left the ancestral home, their "priests waxed gross, forgotten Vedic language," which "has been changing rapidly," and "soon it was impossible to write in Sanskrit spoken in Slavonic" (T. 4. Pp. 92-93 ). Another conclusion YP Mirolyubova is that the pagan religion of the Slavs was in tune though … Christianity. "It's hard to say what would have Slavic-Russian paganism, if it was not forcibly entered Byzantine Christianity … Moreover, because Christianity and stuck, that was clothed in in the pagan forms and coincided ideologically with them (v. 7. C . 80). Mirolyubov believes
that "the Slavs had to have, at least initially, his writing. There could in fact be that the coming of the Aryan steppe, knowing and even keeping Vedism, Slavs would not know the alphabet, which Veda was to write! "(T. 4. S. 177). Thus, an important conclusion is based only on proven no identification of the ancient Slavs and ancient Indians. All interests and passions Mirolyubova turned into the most distant past.
Comment: Here OV Curd shows "Intense" ignorance in this matter, and in fact the roots of the ancient Vedic religion writing from ancient times until now a hundred authors. Mirolyubov only repeated seemed almost a truism. Maybe he did some superficial and naive, but only just. Why Tvorogova-all this is unknown?
There are whole schools of thought, to develop this area of science. But all this is for OV Tvorogova — news. Apparently, he skipped the corresponding lecture, when I was at the University of Leningrad.
Curd: "We look crave understanding of the sources on which flips Mirolyubov world history and the history of our culture. Reading his writings, we see quite a number of matches with VC: this is the story of the patriarch Oria, and the assertion that the ancient Russians have always thought of himself as a "Dazhdbog grandchildren", and information about the battles with the Goths and kostobokami and much more. "
Comment: "A OV Cottage cheese, and of course against "Dazhdbog grandchildren." He, apparently, "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" rusty.
Curd: "Especially pull together" kontsepsiyu "Mirolyubova and VC information about Old Paganism, and it is worth to emphasize that this similarity is seen not only at the mention of the basic mythological characters (Perun Stribog, Veles, Svarog, etc.), which is quite natural, but the coincidence of names and concepts, which are known to us only from the VC and works Mirolyubova. For example, he repeatedly speaks of "Reveal", "right" and "Navi", immediately emphasizing that "in spite of all efforts, the author of this article could not find even a trace of such beliefs among the people … Then only" Doschkah Izenbeka "unable to find mention of" Reveal, rights, Navi '… "
Comment: "So what? Where the crime? Well found Mirolyubov references, while others have found. Mirolyubov himself took all the information from the boards as I could understand them.
Next is O. Curd bored two pages recounts and other intersection texts VC and thinking about them Mirolyubova. As if could have been different if Mirolyubov copied texts and something they still got it.
Curd: But to our surprise, in most cases, telling the story of the ancient Slavs or reconstructing old Russian (Old Slavic) mythology, peace refers not to the VC, and a completely different sources.
Comment: Just O. Curd led Mirolyubovskuyu reference to "Doschki Izenbeka", but here he is developing yet hit upon the idea of falsification end, though Mirolyubov either hide the fact that many details about the past of the Slavs, he took it from the boards, whether they were not in at the time. Soon O. Curd hit upon this idea and set out.
Curd: Information about the pagan pantheon, he was supposed not only to "the people", but also "the old Prabki Barbara, that is, from the nurse, the teacher's father" (T.6. S. 13). That Prabka (sic — OT). Barbarian by name recalls all the pagan deities.
Comment: Why is "only the people"? What a nit-picking? Mirolyubov read many historical books, both old and modern, he attended the lectures of L. Niederle. His education in this regard is even higher than that of O. Tvorogova. He does not hide it. Why did it represent that kind "peyzanom"?
And regarding the "Prabu" that trouble? This is a normal South-Russian accent. It has been used in the literature, for example, Tolstoy. But OV Curds, I suppose, "only" yes monograph newspaper reads.
Next OV Curds again long and confusing quotes from an essay YP Mirolyubova of southern Russian "tradition."
As we have noted, a part of the information about this tradition as presented Mirolyubova more than doubtful, that is, lies in the field of literary imagination, and for the most part not the Mirolyubova and his informant "narrator" Zaharihi, provincial poet, which had an extensive library.
Although we have met with a very archaic customs and traditions in different parts of Russia, but not what they describe as their peacefulness. Yes, there was such a "popular literature", common in the XIX century, among the "literate" ("Tales Artynov", for example), and then having a following at the beginning of XX century. But even if it has some folk roots, it can not be the subject of scientific debate.
It is an historical source, and "Tales" — those are not already at the lowest bid: writing Zaharihoy and then dosochineny Mirolyubovo that he did not hide. Here O. Curd deliberately makes no distinction between literature and books.
Curd: Thus, the reconstruction of Slavic history and mythology have Mirolyubova based on the stories of two old women but on observations of the customs of the inhabitants of three villages — Yurevka, Antonovka and Annovki. Apparently, he felt Mirolyubov unreliability of these sources for solving the grand scientific challenges to them, felt and tried to "scientifically" prove their authenticity.
Comment: Mirolyubov not put "grand challenges", he always emphasized that he was a chemist by training, his article, "amateur," and he is "far away" from philology (see, for example, his letter to S. Forest). But he saw and falsehood "kontsepsy" scientists like OV Tvorogova, because how could they objected. It never fell to squabbling and fraud.
Curd: Explain how and why pagan traditions preserved in the village Yurevka, peace writes: "I think the fact that the nearest railway station was a hundred miles away, and the Dnieper with its steamers was about fifty miles, if not more. Urban "culture" … Yurievets not affected. They were out of its influence, as if frozen by a thousand years in tradition (T. 4. S. 138).
You should not wonder how can survive thousand-year tradition in the Ukrainian village so remote, however, the railway and the river itself Mirolyubov elsewhere says that the village it was on the Dnieper near Kobelyaki (v.9. S. 22) ten miles from the railway. With the fervor brought against the "scientific" justification is not only ignorant, but also false.
Comment: This is a shameless lie, and that O. Tvorogova. Just look at the map of Ukraine to find and Bakhmut (Donetsk), the birthplace of UP Mirolyubov and Yurevka, which is now very far from rivers and major centers.
And in another place at Mirolyubova spoke of another village, which Kobelyaki near the Vorskla River. And that Mirolyubov wrote like village located somewhere "on the Dnieper," this phrase has a generalized sense (it is normal Russian, whom so bad owns OV cottage cheese), to the Dnieper there fifty miles in a straight line, and on the road, and one hundred percent.
Curd: But, reflecting on the sources on which to build their kontsepsii Mirolubov, we can not but ask the question: Is the VC dedicated to the same problems and often textually something in common with his "folk" sources, it was not used as a source of primary value, more reliable, if only because the author VC over Prabu Zaharihi Barbara and at least 1,100 years old? And here begin the puzzle.
Comment: There are no mysteries. YP Mirolyubov often referred to the "Doschki Izenbeka" and always stressed that he does not "understand the integral." And in the art essays, in stories in poems written "antique", he used the material "doschek", often without referring to them by the laws of the genre.
And on another, he could not do, believing that if he did not understand of texts, the "build on their basis new theory," he has no right, and their suspicions about their content logically inserted into the mouth of a semi-invented characters.
That would find fault and, in fact, there is nothing, he's not impersonating a "specialist of Antiquities." But OV Curd still found a "hook" and everything turned upside down.
Curd: Composing "Rigveda and paganism", completed in October 1952, ends with the following remarkable sentence: "Most of the Slavs, we do not know yet, and we believe our theme over. Maybe the new data and make us to return to it, but until we finish this work, because lack of sources that can serve us in this matter "(T. 4. S. 251). A VC, is not she was such a source?
Comment: The new "exaggerated sensation", but in fact a fake. So what? Of this phrase can be concluded that Mirolyubov admitted his lack of copies of plates? Mirolyubova phrase again taken out of context.
He's here regrets that he, as an exile, are not available sources (chronicles, etc.) that are in Russian libraries! This he often complained in letters and on the pages of their books. And speaking of new data which may appear, it is just meant until decrypted "Doschki Izenbeka" from his archive, about which he wrote a few times earlier in this book. By the way, have now been published and we have the publishing house "Golden Age." This OV Curd, clearly not expecting. He believed that his book will remain no available abroad.
Later in his article, O. Curds again "in the second round," not just repeating Mirolyubova, but even himself, tells the "intersection" of thoughts "Book of Veles" and this works YP Mirolyubova forgotten the references to his "doschki" birch tree with the letters (for example, see "Sacred Russia», 1, book 1. "Rigveda and paganism", M., 1996. S. 161 and more ).
YP Mirolyubov in this book not only mentions the story finds Izenbekom plates. Well, so what? Is this not the same here we are, about this, he wrote other works, letters, and earlier devoted to this issue.
Curd: So, we can conclude that in 1952, the VC did not yet exist, but has been conducted, probably preparing to create it: Come up with its content, but for the type of writing had already been solved — it was to include elements of the "Sanskrit" letters. This task creators VC failed, but after this is to write the letters under the horizontal line on the board number 16.
In the essay "The Russian pagan folklore: Essays on the life and customs", completed, probably before the end of 1953, there is interesting information in the first place it is a reference to the lecture, the Kurenkova.
Comment: Next OV Tvorogov again deals with falsification: mentions lectures AA Kurenkova on Russian Runic supposedly invented writing and AA Kurenkov before the publication of texts plates.
Utter nonsense! Materials about the tablets began publishing the year before, as YP Mirolyubov came to the U.S. and there could listen to the lectures Kurenkova. Consequently, the book "Russian pagan folklore" he wrote later, not earlier than the end of 1954! Next two pages OV Curd quotes YP Mirolyubova and argues that this is a quote first evidence of the tablets, and very late.
Re rough falsification. The first documented evidence YP Mirolyubova of tablets refers to 1942 (as dated and confirm the legal documents from the archives of the Museum of San Francisco, and now they trafficked in the State Archive of the Russian Federation in Moscow, fund 10,143), and there are older (though not proven legally, they refer to 1928 year). YP Mirolyubov has written about the finding tablets in 1928 and published texts from the start of 1947. And there is evidence of the existence of the library Izenbeka in 1919 from his co-workers, there is evidence of suschestvoanie boards in 1921 in Belgrade (this all happened before he met with Mirolyubova Izenbekom). I'm not talking about the evidence of the 19th century!
Curd: So, while writing this book Mirolyubov suddenly remembered he had seen the tablets — the very source, the absence of which he complained about a year before!
But here is what is remarkable. First, history dating planks presented differently: there is no word that Mirolyubov for 15 years meticulously copying a huge and difficult text — here is only the memory of the dropped "happy to see" a vague promise to give a detailed analysis of those boards, "… who could read."
Comment: Is it possible to copy, not seeing? What nonsense and nitpicking? In earlier articles just said about 15 years! Here O. Curds roughly garbles documents and sophisticate.
Curd: "In 1954 Mirolyubov working on a book" The Russian Christian folklore. Orthodox legend ", which went down in the eighth volume of his writings. Here he refers to the VC twice. The first time — in connection with the hypothesis of the establishment of Slavic Literature. As in other cases, it is a valuable source of "popular tradition" … Then we read: "In answer to this question is given in Brussels (a strange definition — OT)" Doschki Izenbeka. " The letter did exist, and it was based on a mixture of Gothic, Greek and Vedic signs "…
Comment: A strange, to say the least, the remark! Maybe OV Tvorogova not like that boards have not been called "San Francisco" on it, so to speak, the "theory"?
Refuse to recognize in OV Tvorogova even normal "scientific skepticism." This is nitpicking, beyond common sense and scientific ethics.
It is important that Mirolyubov here speaks scorched the text, whereas in a letter to S. Forest on November 11, 1957, he said that the text "scrawled awl."
This "crime" OV Curds then said with fervor and television. And in fact, YP Mirolyubov wrote that part of the text "possible" incised, and part of the "burned". This is just a guess, no non-binding.
Next two pages OV Curd again, following the principle of falsification elected unknown reader of books YP Mirolyubova abundantly quoted them on the third and fourth circle repeating the same nitpicking.
Omit it, for such a "landslide" falsification is tiring. Need to look the same every time in the works Mirolyubova, amazed inexhaustible and downright painful falsification heat OV Tvorogova.
Curds, "Now, will offer its explanation of how there was a VC. In 1952, when JP Mirolyubov worked on his writing, "The Rig Veda and paganism", the VC did not exist (it could be known only to a "model" for the future of the book, see below. "
Comment: Here OV Cottage cheese, and so is not an abundance of sparkling your thoughts, repeat the idea of AL Mongait (as usual, not citing) that YP Mirolyubov could see Sulakadzevskie "fake." But more about. Stephen Lyashevsky (one of the first researchers VC) said: why was JP Miroliubov fake plates when they were already present in an amount of 44 pieces in the XIX century?
Curd: But the idea of the desirability of such a "discovery" has arisen. Therefore Mirolubov, on the one hand, complains that he was "deprived of his sources," and on the other — not only claims to be the oldest written language, and that "it will one day be found" in anticipation of shame "critics." In 1954, work is already underway, and peace involuntarily "blurts out" about it in his writings.
Comment: In fact, at that time the first publications are "plates."
Passes a new "pile" petty quibbles and boring nonsense.
Curd: "Criticism of sensational finds Mirolyubova scared. He was important to save the ideas and "facts" that were included in the VC and he needed to support his historiographical and religovedcheskih "kontsepsy." And to save kontsepsii, he betrayed boards. That's why he refers to his informants — Prabu Varvara and Zaharihu and on their own ethnographic observations (their check was impossible), and on the plates of said in passing, consigns them from teaching, and protecting the authenticity AA Kuru and even claims that the value of them only that they "do not contradict the Tradition," which is best stored in the tales and traditions Zaharihi Prabu Barbara.
It gradually fades bright broke out in 1953, even in the writings of the sensation of one of its main creators — Mirolyubova. "
Comment: All of the above indicates only one thing. YP Mirolyubov until the end and did not understand the value of the plates. For him up to the surface and were the work of making sense of passing (this explains the incomplete description of them, the lack of order in the numbering of the texts, etc.). Important for him to Brussels was working at a chemical plant, and then publish their own works (including the themes of modern science).
This is so. But it says only one thing: the attribution to him (patient 60-year-old man!) Create immense historical, philosophical, religious, etc. canvas "Book of Veles", one of the greatest monuments of world culture, is not only falsification, but also a sign of a lack of common sense among prosecutors, if they really believe what they write. But most of all here it is only a version of "order": political, administrative, etc.
And unfortunately, the words of O. Tvorogova listen now many. Hit it and led to the dismissal K0 defender of "Book of Veles" Doctor of Philological Sciences, Academician JK Begunova of Pushkin House. And this is no excuse.
But it is time to turn the page. And I call the future "antivlesovedov" lead an honest fight. Battle of ideas. Do not stoop to defamation and fraud. Why extra sins aggravate your soul?
And is not it better if you read themselves scientists do science in the true sense? Think, and not to follow the inspiration of people prejudiced.
— * —
At the conclusion of this chapter must be said that this story will be continued. Earlier, in monographs and articles from 1994 (see "Science and Religion», № 4) I have already published criticism of this and other articles by OV Tvorogova.
And now, in 2004, that is after 10 years in the book "What scientists think about the" Book of Veles "" Oleg finally answered. This response is and what upsets, and what is pleasing. I understand that to revise their views even in part and in such an advanced age is not easy.
News and Media tone monograph sedition main defenders of the monument — the supposed commercial success of our publications (especially mine). This is not true, we all work and we have the publication of monuments, monographs by personal time. Understand on zarpatu scientist now difficult to survive, but certainly this is something we are not guilty at all. And if we face it — it is hard, we do not pay the state in general, we do not have, and research grants, we only have a responsibility to the country's history and culture, we selflessly serve.
In this article, start connection monograph OV Curds and honestly for the first time admits, "text VC in some academic instances as ideologically dangerous and not subject to widespread use," and further claims credit for publishing a copy of the monument to the scientific collection TODRL and even regrets that it was unable to make this publication as a separate publication.
With gratitude he recalls correspondence with some advocates of authenticity of the monument, which is not at war with him. This alone is even indirectly, but still a surprise on recognition of the importance of the monument on his part. How can you be proud of the publication of a fake?
You need only to go through and accept what comes in that situation to play by the rules. Understand and forgive! Yet Oleg not just fought the boards, but worked.
Several different reaction cause of its employee linguist AA Alexeev. In the collection we find brief and inconsistent attempts to criticize, but at the same time to correct my translation from the scientist. If we got up in the ranks antivlesovedov, then why fix translation? Or is this a veiled offer of cooperation? This is the second attempt to "help translate" shows only one thing: the person has some level of Old Church Slavonic, but unfortunately the "floats" in the history of the language issues. However, perhaps this is the superficial approach to the subject.
Even if we have the opportunity to bring to the analysis of the disputed seats in the translation of this monument new employees, it is unlikely it will be AA Alekseev. And not because of the errors of language, they are fixable. And because of this learned in the analysis of the monument spoke on the philosophical positions with neo-pagan. "The Book of Veles" by AA Alekseev too gracious as "Chorus schoolgirls", ie there is no blood sacrifices, etc. So it is in fact applied for union with the opponents' Book of Veles "camp Neopagans, including, among other things, a lot of frank and Satanists.
But his hopes in vain to find support there. Neopagans generally also poor, and embittered them from doing so. They do not like and own. There's a war of all against all.
In this respect even the positivist and atheistic position O. Tvorogova more sympathetic and understandable.
It is safe to take and what OV Curd could not "digest" the visit "Gamayunova songs" in the publication "Russian Vedas" (1992), where I referred to the hearing bird songs Hamayun (by the way, after V. Vysotsky: "What I hope Gamayun bird feeds"), and that I am at work on the songs feel ancient sorcerer Busom Kresen — then this role I starred in the popular science film "Grandchildren Dazhbog" (Tsentrnauchfilm, 1992). For the publication of poetry, in my opinion, it is quite reasonable (in publishing translations of the monument in 1993 the nickname has not put me, and publishers). But what can you do, Oleg has always been difficult to draw the line between literature (in this case, poetry), and monographs.
Oleg results and my thoughts on what to copy Mirolyubova and his story should be treated critically. Yeah, I was thinking, since not all the archival documents were available to me. In the initial period of the monument is inevitable critical approach. Now I think differently, then raised many questions resolved.
Suddenly Oleg admits that by his eye was published on Veles book AL Mongait, and on it he only learned of my monograph. Yeah … "elephant that I had not noticed," because unlike other editions of articles AL Mongait has exceeded five million. Well, it happens. Recognition of past errors — normally for a scientist, do not mistake the one who does not work. It is possible to put in credit. But then Oleg criticize me for what I supposedly did not respond to criticism of VP Kozlov, IN Danilevsky, AA Alekseev and others, but this is not true.
Lest it be that he has allies in this fight now just something three, and not very reputable scientists Oleg adds another dozen names: students, assistants, and just amateurs, even without proper education! That's really the opponents! And in their attacks, I also have to say?
He mentions the name of the deceased, GA Haburgaeva very credible to me a linguist, whom I do admire a teacher, though not personally know him. But he simply did not work on this topic. Did not, and sorry. Its something to write antivlesovedy hardly be.
He mentions the name as a reputable historian to me academician BA Rybakov, who supported me in a dispute with DS Likhachev. Boris called one of my earlier work, in which I mentioned about the "Book of Veles", "application for a doctoral thesis" ("Science and Religion» № 4-5, 1992). So that his view of the monument was not unambiguous, as it tries to present Oleg curd.
In the book "What do scientists on the" Book of Veles "" is given a very old and a brief review article, Boris A. et al, directed against the monument. I discussed with him the article. And it turned out that he only signed it because of the pressure of the very academic (and not just academic) structures, of whom mention Oleg. It confirms that this is so deliberate absurdity of many statements of the article, such as the fact that "there was no kind Dontsova" and, therefore, of the Grand Burluk, where they found the plank. Since this article begins.
In fact, the position of Academician Boris Alexandrovich Rybakov was difficult. First, he initially did not possess all the information and thought that it is one tablet that linguists and source studies consider fake (he is neither a linguist nor the source studies, and did not rely on the opinion of authorities). Learning is about the position of source studies and linguist JK Begunova and archaeologist who discovered the birch bark, A. Artsikhovsky, Boris Rybakov told me the following: "to conduct an investigation," ie, search boards. And with that he intended to refer the proposal to the relevant authorities, but apparently did not achieve a result.
Concerning the above three allies Tvorogova then note Oleg, in their article I posted, but certainly not in all the editions in a row. These works again passed the eye Oleg.
I do not think it necessary to answer the petty criticism widely and publicly, the more all the time. If only because we have different readers and circulation are not comparable. This is understandable, highly technical disputes of interest to few. It would be ideal to lead them in the pages of academic journals, but the pages of magazines for me so far closed. However, there is now an opportunity to "cross swords" in the same field — the Internet.
Invite! I opened an online magazine for scientific publications, and for disputes velesovedov antivelesovedov. And there I am ready to post any interesting work, to answer any questions the scientists, this is enough to just have a degree in this field. These articles read by tens of thousands of people, including scientists slavyanovedov. This information is open to all. The fight will be fair only if it is conducted in the same field.
I would like to emphasize the main idea of the final OV Tvorogova.
Here it is: "To sum up … In my opinion, the defenders of the VC has failed to prove its authenticity. The main obstacle is not the content of the VC … and above all, its language … Aces right: this (the supposed contradictions and progovorok Mirolyubova YP) is not the conclusion of a "fake" monument … "Thus Oleg took nearly all his previous claim, even prohibited to republish the work in a collection of TODRL. That is, essentially took the criticism, which is more than you would expect.
And so the responsibility for recognition (or recognition) of the monument, he resigned from his shoulder to the linguist AA Alekseev, who continued the work as if dead, LP Zhukovsky.
Parsing brief remarks AA Alekseeva, uninteresting to the general reader and having less scientific value leave academic monographs and publications on the Internet. But the situation with the work of LP Zhukovsky is quite different. (See Article Evidence authenticity VC, which can be derived from the work of paleography and linguist).