And who was interested in the kidnapping of the scientific library of Mikhail Lomonosov and cover-up, and, most of all, the destruction of his many manuscripts on which he worked throughout his life?
MV Lomonosov fell out of favor because of its differences with the German scientists, who formed in the XVIII century, the backbone of the Academy of Sciences. Under Empress Anna Ivanovna in Russia flooded foreigners.
Beginning in 1725, when was the Russian Academy until 1841, the foundation of Russian history altered arrived from Europe badly speaking in Russian, but quickly becomes a connoisseur of Russian history should be "benefactors" of the Russian people, flooded the historical department of the Russian Academy:
Peter Kohl (1725), Johann Eberhard Fischer (1732), Adolf Bernhard Kramer (1732), Johann Georg Lotter (1733), Leroy Pierre-Louis (1735), George Merling (1736), the burden of Johann Friedrich (1737), Johann Tauber Gaspar (1738), Kruzius Christian Gottfried (1740), mod Carl Friedrich (1749), Johan Stritter Gotgilf (1779), Gakman Johann Friedrich (1782), Johann Heinrich Busse (1795), Vovile Jean-Francois (1798), Heinrich Klaproth Julius (1804), Herman Carl Gottlob Melchior (1805), Circle of Johann Philipp (1805), Lerberg August Christian (1807), Karl Ernst Heinrich Köhler (1817), Fran Christian Martin (1818), Christian Friedrich Graefe (1820), Schmidt Isaac, Jacob (1829), Shengren Johann Andreas (1829), France Charmoi Bernard (1832), Heinrich Leberecht Fleischer (1835), Robert Lentz Khristianovich (1835), Marie-Felicite Brosse (1837), Johann Albrecht Bernhard Dorn (1839) . In brackets the year of entry titled alien to the Russian Academy.
Vatican ideologues have turned their attention to Russia. Quietly in the early XVIII century in St. Petersburg sent one after the other creators of the future Russian "history", which later became academics, GF Miller, AL Schletzer, GZ Bayer and many others. etc. as Roman "blanks" in the pockets they were: the "Norman theory" and the myth of the feudal "Old Russia" and the emergence of Russian culture within 988 BC and other rubbish. In fact, foreign scientists for his research proved that "the Eastern Slavs in IX-X centuries, the savages bring into being rescued from the darkness of ignorance Varangian princes." That Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer advanced Norman theory of formation of the Russian state. According to his theory, "arrived to Russia bunch Norman a few years turned" dark country "into a powerful state."
Uncompromising struggle against distortions of Russian history led Lomonosov and he was in the thick of the struggle. In 1749 — 1750 years he spoke out against the historical views of Miller and Bayer, as well as against the Germans imposed "Norman theory" of becoming Russia. He criticized Miller's thesis "On the origin of the name and the Russian people" as well as works of Bayer in Russian history.
Lomonosov often quarreled with foreign colleagues in the Academy of Sciences. In some places, it cited the phrase: "What kind of nefarious mischief not nakolobrodit in Russian antiquities such assumptions in their brute!" Argue that the phrase is intended Schlozer who "created" Russian "history."
Lomonosov was supported by many Russian scientists. Member of the Academy of Sciences, a prominent Russian machinist A.K.Martov filed a complaint with the Senate on the dominance of foreigners in Russian academic science. The complaint Martov joined Russian students, interpreters and clerks, as well as astronomer Delisle. It was signed by J. Gorlitskiy, Grekov, M. Kovrin, Nosov, Polyakov, P. Shishkarev.
The meaning and purpose of their complaints are clear — the transformation into the Russian Academy of Sciences not only in name. At the head of the commission set up by the Senate to investigate the allegations, was Prince Yusupov. The Commission saw in the speech A.K.Martova, I.V.Gorlitskogo, D.Grekova, P.Shishkareva, V.Nosova, A.Polyakova, M.Kovrina, Lebedev and other "riot mob" that rose against the authorities' [ 215], p.82.
Russian scientists complainant wrote to the Senate: "We proved the charges for the first eight points, and prove to the rest of the 30, if we get access to the affairs" , p.82. "But … for the" persistence "and" insulting the commission "had been arrested. A number of them (I.V.Gorlitsky, A.Polyakov etc.) were shackled and "to put on the chain." For about two years they stayed in that position, but they could not get to give the evidence. The commission's decision was a truly monstrous: Schumacher and Taubert award, Gorlitskiy penalty, Grekov Polyakova, noses severely punished with lashes and exiled to Siberia, priests, and others left Shishkareva under arrest till DECISION makes the future president of the Academy.
Formally Lomonosov was not among the complainants to Schumacher, but his behavior during the investigation shows that Miller is hardly wrong when he claimed: "Mr Associate Lomonosov was one of those who filed a complaint against Mr. advisor Schumacher and caused by the appointment of Commission of Inquiry. " Far off was probably the truth and Lamansky stating that Martov's statement was written mostly Lomonosov. During the commission Lomonosov actively supported Martov … That this was caused by his violent collision with the most zealous minions Schumacher — Vintsgeymom, Truskotom, Miller.
Synod of the Orthodox Christian Church also accused the great Russian scientist in the dissemination of the manuscript anticlerical works under articles 18 and 149 of the Martial SKU Peter I, the death penalty. Clergy demanded the burning of Lomonosov. Such severity, apparently was caused by too much success freethinking, anti-clerical writings University, indicating a marked weakening of the authority of the church in the nation. Archimandrite J. sections — the spiritual father of Empress Elizabeth — was alarmed at the fall of the faith, the weakening of interest in the church and religion in Russian society. It is significant that Fr D. Sechenov in his libel on the University, demanded the burning of a scientist.
The Commission stated that the Lomonosov "for repeated discourteous, dishonest and nasty behavior with respect to both the Academy and to the Commission, and to the German lands" is subject to the death penalty, or, in extreme cases, flogging and disenfranchisement, and status. Decree of Empress Elizabeth Mikhail Lomonosov was convicted, but freed from punishment. He just halved the salary, and he had "committed against them for prederzosti" apologize to the professors.
Gerard Friedrich Miller was personally humiliating "repentance" that Lomonosov was obliged to publicly speak and sign. Mikhail, to be able to continue the research, had to give up their beliefs. But this German professors were not satisfied. They continued to press for removal of Governors and his supporters from the Academy.
Around 1751 Lomonosov set to work on "Ancient Russian history." He sought to refute the thesis Bayer and Miller about the "great darkness of ignorance," supposedly prevailed in ancient Russia. Of particular interest in this work it is the first part — "On Russia before Rurik", which set out the doctrine of the ethnogenesis of the peoples of Eastern Europe, and primarily Slavic Rus. Lomonosov have a constant movement of the Slavs from the east to the west.
German professors, historians have decided to achieve removal of Governors and his supporters from the Academy. This "scientific work" was waged not only in Russia. Lomonosov was a scientist of world renown. His well-known abroad. Every effort was made to discredit the University to the international scientific community. In the course of all funds were launched. Did their best to downplay the significance of works of Lomonosov not only 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 in 1756, the Bologna Academy in 1764 , p.94.
"In Germany, Miller inspired performances against discoveries University and demanded his removal from the Academy" , p.61. To do so at that time was not possible. But opponents of the University succeeded to appoint academicians on RUSSIAN HISTORY Schlozer , p.64. "… Schletzer called Lomonosov" gross ignoramus who knew nothing except his chronicles "" , p.64. So, as we see, Lomonosov was accused KNOWLEDGE RUSSIAN Chronicle.
"Despite protests University, Catherine II appointed Schlozer academician. However, he not only gets the uncontrolled USE ALL DOCUMENTS ARE IN THE ACADEMY, BUT RIGHT TO EVERYTHING is deemed necessary, from the imperial libraries and other institutions. Schletzer had the right to present their works directly to Catherine … The draft memo written by Lomonosov "Memory" and accidentally missed the confiscation pronounced feelings of anger and bitterness caused by this decision: "Keep nechevo. Everything is open Schlozer madcap. In Russian libraries carry more secrets' ", p.65.
Miller and his associates had full power not only at the University of St. Petersburg, but in high school, prepare future students. Gymnasium led Miller, Bayer and Fisher , p.77. In high school, "TEACHER DID NOT KNOW OF RUSSIAN STUDENTS … did not know German. ALL were taught exclusively in Latin … for thirty years (1726-1755) High School did not make a single person for admission to the university, ", p.77. From this it was concluded that. It was stated that "the only way out is the writing of students from Germany as a Russian train them as if it is still impossible," , p.77.
This struggle lasted a lifetime University. "Thanks to the University in the academy, several Russian academicians and associate" , p.90. However, "in 1763 after being denounced by Taubert, Miller, Staehelin, Epinussa and others, is another Russian Empress Catherine II« Quite the LOMONOSOV axed from the Academy ", p.94.
But soon a decree on his resignation was canceled. The reason was the popularity of Lomonosov in Russia and the recognition of his services by foreign academies , p.94. However, Lomonosov was removed from the leadership of the Geographic Department, but instead there was named Miller. Attempt was made to "put at the disposal Schlozer MATERIALS University on language and history" , p.94.
The latter fact is very mnogoznachitelen. Even if during the life of University attempts were made to get to his archive on Russian history, what can we say about the fate of this unique archive after Lomonosov's death. As might be expected, the archive LOMONOSOV was immediately confiscate immediately after his death and disappeared without a trace. Quote: "lost forever confiscate Ekaterina II ARCHIVE University. THE NEXT DAY AFTER DEATH OF LIBRARY AND ALL PAPER LOMONOSOV were orders CATHERINE mistype GR.ORLOVYM transported to his palace and disappeared without a trace, ", p.20. Taubert A letter to Miller. In this letter, "do not hide their joy Taubert reports Lomonosov's death and added:" The next day after his death, Count Orlov told the press attach to his office. No doubt there have to be securities that are not willing to release the wrong hands' ", p.20.
Death of Mikhail Lomonosov was also a sudden and mysterious, and there were rumors about his deliberate poisoning. Obviously, what could be done in public, his numerous enemies completed the hidden and secret.
Thus, "the creators of Russian history" — Miller and Schletzer — got to the University Archives. After that, the archives, of course, disappeared. But, after seven years of delays was finally released — and it is clear that under the full control of Miller and Schlozer — University work on Russian history. And it is only the first volume. Rather, rewritten Miller in the right way. And the rest of the volume is simply "disappeared." So it happened that the available today at our disposal, "labor Lomonosov history" strange and surprising manner consistent with Miller view of history. Even understand — why would Lomonosov so hard and for so many years arguing with Miller? Why Miller accused of fraud in Russian history, , p.62, when he, in his published "History" so obedient AGREES with Miller on all counts? Obsequiously assents to it in every line.
Miller published on the "Lomonosov draft" Russian history, one might say, is written as a blueprint, and practically does not differ from milerovsogo version of Russian history. The same applies to another Russian historian — Tatischev again Miller published only after his death Tatishcheva! Karamzin, almost literally rewrote Miller, though texts Karamzin after his death, was frequently amended and alteration. One of the last of these alterations occurred after 1917, when out of his texts have been removed all the information about the Varangian Riga. Clearly, therefore, the new political power, tried to smooth the discontent of the people, from the dominance of foreigners in the Bolshevik government.
Consequently, under the Lomonosov was printed is not something that the Lomonosov actually wrote. Presumably, Miller was a great pleasure to rewrite the first part of the Labour University after his death. So to say, "carefully prepared for the press." The rest is destroyed. Almost certainly there were a lot of interesting and important information about the ancient past of our people. This, whatever Miller nor Schletzer or other "Russian historians' could not be released in print.
Norman theory still adhere to Western scholars. And if we remember that for criticizing Miller, Lomonosov was sentenced to death by poveshivanie and year spent in prison awaiting sentence, until it's royal pardon, it is clear that in the falsification of Russian history were interested leadership of Russia. Russian history written by foreigners, especially for the purpose prescribed by Emperor Peter I of Europe. And in the time of Elizabeth, the most important "chronicler" became Miller, famous for the fact that the cover of the imperial diploma, went to Russian monasteries and destroyed all the surviving ancient historical documents.
German historian Miller — author of "masterpiece" of Russian history tells us that Ivan IV was of the Rurik. Making it a uncomplicated operation, Miller was not difficult to cut short the kind of Rurik their defunct prizhivit history to the history of Russia. Rather cross out the history of the Russian empire and replace it with the history of the principality of Kiev, then to make a statement that Kiev — the mother of Russian cities (although Kiev under the laws of the Russian language was to be a father.) Rurik never been kings in Russia because of the royal family had never existed. Rurik was rootless conqueror, who was trying to sit on the Russian throne, but was killed Svyatopolk Yaropolkovichem. Forgery of Russian history is evident immediately when reading "Russian" "Chronicles." Affects the abundance of names of princes who ruled in various parts of Russia that we are given for centers of Russia. If, for example, or any prince of Chernigov, Novgorod, found himself on the Russian throne, it was supposed to be some kind of continuity in the dynasty. And this is not, that is, we are dealing with, or a hoax, or a conqueror, reigned on the Russian throne.
Our mutilated and distorted the history of Russia, even through the thick of multiple Miller hoaxes screams about the dominance of foreigners. History of Russia, as well as the history of mankind has invented the above "expert historians." They were not only experts in the falsification of history, they were also professionals, fabrication and falsification of the chronicles.
As rightly noted in his commentary on one of our member community Lyudmila Shikanova: There is increasing evidence that Russia's history has been deliberately distorted. Many find evidence of high culture and literacy of our ancestors in ancient times. Found the letter written on birch bark Glagolitic (our own alphabet, not the imposed Cyrillic) and letters written by ordinary peasants. But somehow it is hidden. We know the detailed history of our country only from the reign of Rurik, and that was before we know almost nothing. Why it is done and who benefits from it, that is the question.
And now, in our schools and institutions of higher education students and students studying Russian history from textbooks, largely written on the money overseas philanthropist George Soros. And as you know, "who pays for dinner, calls the tune!"
On the subject:
"The list of academician and historian from 1724 to 1841"
"Now go to enumerate all of academician and historian rosiyskoy Academy, both foreigners and domestic, from its inception in the summer of 1724 (reference book" The Russian Academy of Sciences. Composition. In three books. — Moscow, Nauka, 1999, "Book 1 ), where for each listed his academic specialties and summer election.
1) Peter Kohl and Johann Peter (Kohl Johann Peter), 1725;
2) Miller, Fedor (Gerard Muller Fri-edrich), 1725;
3) or Bayer Gottlieb Theophil Siegfried (Bayer Gottlieb), 1725;
4) Eberhard Fischer, Johann (Johann Fisyer Eerhard), 1732;
5) Adolf Bernhard Kramer (Sramer Ado1Vemhard), 1732;
6) Lotger Johann Georg (Letter Johann Georg), 1733;
7) Leroy Louis or Pierre-Louis (Lt Roy Pierre-Louis), 1735;
Merling Georg (Moeriing or Morling Georg), 1736;
9) or Bram Bram Johann Friedrich (Vrehme Friedrich), 1737;
10) Taubert Ivan (Taubert Johann Caspar), 1738;
11) Kruzius Christian Gottfried (Srusius Shristian Gottfried), 1740;
* 12) Mikhail Lomonosov, 1742;
13) Posts Karl Friedrich (Moderach Kfrl Friedrich), 1749;
14) Schletzer August Ludwig (S.Auguste Ludwig), 1762;
15) Stritter (Shritter) Ivan (Stritter Gotthuf), 1779;
16) Gakman Johann Friedrich (Nackmann Johann Friedrich), 1782;
17) Busse Fomich or Johann Heinrich (Vusse Johnn Neinrich), 1795;
18) Vovile Jean-Francois (Vauvilliers Jean-Francois), 1798;
19) Julius Heinrich Klaproth or Julius (K1aproth Julius), 1804;
20) Herman Charles F. (Nermann Kar1 Gottlob Melchor), 1805;
21) Circle of Philip I. (Krug Johnn Rhilipp), 1805;
22) Lerberg August (Lehrderg Shristian August), 1807;
23) Kohler Yegor Yegorovich or (Ko1er Neinrich Karl Emst), 1817;
24) Fran Christian Danilovich (Rrahn Shristian Martin), 1817;
* 25) Yartsov Januarius Osipovich, 1818;
26) Graefe Fedor Bogdanovich (Grate Shristian Friedrich), 1820;
27) Jacob Schmidt and I. Isaac, Jacob (Schmidt Jacob), 1829;
28) Andrew M. Shengren (Sjorgen Johann Andreas), 1829;
29) Franz Charmoi Frantsevich (Sharmoy Francois-Vernard), 1832;
30) Heinrich Leberecht Fleischer (Fleischer Heinrich Lebrecht), 1835;
31) Robert Lentz Khristianovich (Lens Robert Shristian), 1835;
32) Brosse Marius Ivanovich (Vrosset Marie-Felicite), 1836;
* 33) Ustrialov Nikolai Gerasimov, 1837;
34) Boris A. Dorn (Dom Johann Albrecht Vemhard), 1839.
Next come the crucial elections of summer 1841, from which finally began to appear in significant number of local academics, "historians" (but it was too late) …
Over 117 years (more than a century!) In rosiyskoy Academy, from its foundation in 1724 until the summer of 1841 left-one of the thirty-four academicians "historians" were only three Rusko academicians. This — Mikhail Lomonosov, and Ya.O.Yartsov N.G.Ustryalov. They are marked in the spin-sk asterisks. Everything else — Thirty-one academicians were foreigners. Thus, up to the middle of the XIX century, foreigners historians exceeded in rosiyskoy Academy Ninety percent! '